1

From: Grossman, Andrea <Andrea_L_Grossman@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 10:44 AM

To: Ward, Hillary

Subject: Re: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO 12866 and 13563 for EPA's MSW Landfill 

Rules (RINs 2060-AM08 and 2060-AS23)

Hillary, 

I think it's safe to assume at this point that nothing more will be coming, so the package I sent over is complete. 

Thanks for checking, 

Andrea

 

From: Ward, Hillary [mailto:Ward.Hillary@epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 10:23 AM 

To: Grossman, Andrea 

Subject: RE: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO 12866 and 13563 for EPA's MSW Landfill Rules (RINs 2060-

AM08 and 2060-AS23) 

 

Morning Andrea, 

Karen T. is out today. Just wanted to check in to see if we should expect any additional interagency comments on both 

packages. 

Regards, 

Hillary Ward 

US EPA, Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Fuels and Incineration Group 

(919)541-3154 

 

From: Grossman, Andrea 

Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 05:33 PM 

To: Thundiyil, Karen <Thundiyil.Karen@epa.gov> 

Cc: Szabo, Aaron; Laity, Jim 

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO 12866 and 13563 for EPA's MSW Landfill Rules (RINs 2060-AM08 

and 2060-AS23) 
2

Attached please find a summary of interagency comments under EOs 12866 and 13563 on the EPA supplemental 

proposal and proposed rule, titles “Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” and “Emissions 

Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills”, as well as the accompanying RIA covering both. 

These compiled comments are being sent at this point in light of ongoing discussions about this rule’s schedule. 

Additional interagency comments will be sent as they become available. 

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Andrea Grossman 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

202-395-4756 
1

From: Thundiyil, Karen <Thundiyil.Karen@epa.gov>

Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 11:44 AM

To: Grossman, Andrea

Cc: Ward, Hillary; Marsh, Karen; Cozzie, David

Subject: Landfills - response to interagency comments

Attachments: EO 12866 Landfills EG 2060 AS23 NPRM 20150717.docx; DRAFT Screening Analysis EG 

NSPS Proposals 042915.xlsx; DRAFT Landfills EG Cost and Emission Impacts 

071815.docx; Summary of Interagency Comments Under EO12866 13563 20150718.docx

Hi Andrea, 

Attached you’ll find EPA’s responses to the general comments, technical comments and typographical comments 

provided last week. This email also provides the draft small business screening analysis, the draft EG Impacts memo, and 

the revised EG preamble that reflects interagency comments. 

At the beginning of next week, we’ll provide the RIA comments and a revised RIA. 

Please let us know if you have any questions. 

Karen. 
1

From: Thundiyil, Karen <Thundiyil.Karen@epa.gov>

Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 2:13 PM

To: Grossman, Andrea

Cc: Ward, Hillary; Cozzie, David; Marsh, Karen

Subject: Landfills - response to remaining interagency comments

Attachments: Summary of Interagency Comments Under EO12866 13563 20150720.docx; Copy of EG 

Cost and Emission Impacts Appendix B 20150720.xlsx; EO12866_LandfillsEG 2060 AS23 

RIA 20150720.docx

Hi Andrea, 

Attached you’ll find full response to the interagency comments, including the RIA comments. You’ll also find the revised RIA with 

tracked changes and the EG Costs and Emissions Impacts Appendix B. 

Please let us know if you have questions, otherwise, I’ll check in with you later this week. 

Thanks, 

Karen. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

 

E.O. 12866 Landfills EG 2060 AS23 NPRM 20150617 

6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451; FRL- ] 

RIN 2060-AS23 

Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 

proposing a new subpart, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf that updates 

the Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc) (Emission 

Guidelines). The EPA determined that it was appropriate to 

review the landfills Emission Guidelines based on changes in the 

landfills industry since the Emission Guidelines were 

promulgated in 1996. The EPA’s review of the Emission Guidelines 

for municipal solid waste landfills applies to landfills that 

accepted waste after November 8, 1987 and commenced 

construction, reconstruction, or modification on or before July 

17, 2014. Based on its initial review, the EPA has determined 

that it is appropriate to propose revisions to the Emission 

Guidelines that reflect changes to the population of landfills 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 2 of 321 

and the results of an analysis of the timing and methods for 

reducing emissions. This action proposes to achieve additional 

reductions of landfill gas and its components, including 

methane, by lowering the emissions threshold at which a landfill 

must install controls. This action also incorporates new data 

and information received in response to an advanced notice of 

proposed rulemaking and addresses other regulatory issues 

including surface emissions monitoring, wellhead monitoring, and 

the definition of landfill gas treatment system. 

In addition to considering information received in response 

to this proposed rule in evaluating potential changes to the 

Emission Guidelines, the EPA intends to consider the information 

in evaluating whether changes to the requirements for new 

sources beyond those in the July 17, 2014 proposed rule (79 FR 

41796) for new sources are warranted. 

The proposed revisions to the Emission Guidelines, once 

implemented through revised state plans or a revised federal 

plan, would reduce emissions of landfill gas, which contains 

both nonmethane organic compounds and methane. Landfills are a 

significant source of methane and methane is a potent greenhouse 

gas pollutant. These avoided emissions will improve air quality 

and reduce public health and welfare effects associated with 

exposure to landfill gas emissions. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 3 of 321 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before [insert 

date 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a 

public hearing by [insert date 5 days after date of publication 

in the Federal Register], the EPA will hold a public hearing on 

[insert date 15 days after date of publication in the Federal 

Register] from 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) to 5:00 pm 

(Eastern Standard Time) at the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency building located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711. Information regarding whether or not a 

hearing will be held will be posted on the rule’s website 

located at http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/landflpg.htm.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

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 the message. 

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

2014-0451. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center 

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

OAR–2014-0451, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 

20460. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 4 of 321 

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: OAQPS 

Document Control Officer (Room C404-02), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 5 of 321 

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. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a 

public hearing by [insert date 5 days after date of publication 

in the Federal Register], the EPA will hold a public hearing on 

[insert date 15 days after date of publication in the Federal 

Register] from 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) to 5:00 p.m. 

(Eastern Standard Time) at the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency building located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711. If no one contacts the EPA requesting a 

public hearing to be held concerning this proposed rule by 

[insert date 5 days after date of publication in the Federal 

Register], a public hearing will not take place. Information 

regarding whether or not a hearing will be held will be posted 

on the rule’s website located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/landflpg.htm. 

Please contact Ms. Aimee St. Clair at (919) 541-1063 or at 

stclair.aimee@epa.gov to register to speak at the hearing. The 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 6 of 321 

last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be [insert

date 12 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]. 

Requests to speak will be taken the day of the hearing at the 

hearing registration desk, although preferences on speaking 

times may not be able to be fulfilled. If you require the 

service of a translator or special accommodations such as audio 

description, please let us know at the time of registration. 

If a hearing is held, it will provide interested parties 

the opportunity to present data, views or arguments concerning 

the proposed action. The EPA will make every effort to 

accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. Because this 

hearing, if held, will be at U.S. government facilities, 

individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to 

show valid picture identification to the security staff in order 

to gain access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID 

Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements 

for entering federal facilities. If your driver’s license is 

issued by Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oklahoma or 

the state of Washington, you must present an additional form of 

identification to enter the federal building. Acceptable 

alternative forms of identification include: Federal employee 

badges, passports, enhanced driver’s licenses and military 

identification cards. In addition, you will need to obtain a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 7 of 321 

property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. 

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

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

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

building and demonstrations will not be allowed on federal 

property for security reasons. 

The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral 

presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting information submitted 

during the comment period will be considered with the same 

weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. Commenters should notify Ms. St. Clair if 

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

needs related to providing comments at the hearings. Verbatim 

transcripts of the hearing and written statements will be 

included in the docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will make 

every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on 

the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearing to 

run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. A public 

hearing will not be held unless requested. Please contact Ms. 

Aimee St. Clair at (919) 541-1063 or at stclair.aimee@epa.gov to 

request or register to speak at the hearing or to inquire as to 

whether a hearing will be held. Again further information on the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 8 of 321 

public hearing will be provided on the rule’s website located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/landflpg.html.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 

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

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

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 

other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials 

are available either electronically in 

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

Center, EPA/DC, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 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 

proposal, contact Ms. Hillary Ward, Fuels and Incineration 

Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards (E143-05), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone 

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

address: ward.hillary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 9 of 321 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 

abbreviations are used in this document. 

ACUS Administrative Conference of the United States 

ANPRM Advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

ARB Air Resources Board 

BMP Best management practice 

BSER Best system of emission reduction 

Btu British thermal unit 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CA LMR California Landfill Methane Rule 

CBI Confidential business information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEA Council of Economic Advisers 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent 

DOC Degradable organic carbon 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

GCCS Gas collection and control system 

GHG Greenhouse gas 

GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

GWP Global warming potential 

HAP Hazardous air pollutant 

HOV Higher operating value 

IAMS Integrated assessment models 

ICR Information collection request 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

IRFA Initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

IWG Interagency working group 

lb/MMBtu Pounds per million British thermal unit 

LCRS Leachate collection and removal system 

LFG Landfill gas 

LFGCost Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model 

LMOP Landfill Methane Outreach Program 

m3 Cubic meters 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 10 of 321 

Mg Megagram 

Mg/yr Megagram per year 

mph Miles per hour 

MSW Municipal solid waste 

mtCO2e Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 

MW Megawatt 

MWh Megawatt hour 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

NMOC Nonmethane organic compound 

NRC National Research Council 

NSPS New source performance standards 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

OMB Office of Management & Budget 

PM Particulate matter 

PM2.5 Fine particulate matter

ppm Parts per million 

ppmvd Parts per million by dry volume 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RFS Renewable Fuel Standard 

RIA Regulatory Impacts Analysis 

SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review 

SC-CH4 Social cost of methane 

SC-CO2 Social cost of carbon dioxide 

SEM Surface emissions monitoring 

SER Small entity representative 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

SSM Startup, shutdown and malfunction 

Tg Teragram 

TIP Tribal implementation plan 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

U.S. United States 

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

VCS Voluntary consensus standard 

VOC Volatile organic compound 

WWW World Wide Web 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 11 of 321 

Organization of This Document. The following outline is 

provided to aid in locating information in this preamble. 

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action

B. Summary of Major Provisions

C. Costs and Benefits

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 

information?

III. Background

A. Landfill Gas Emissions and Climate Change

B. What are the health and welfare effects of landfill gas 

emissions?

C. What is EPA’s authority for reviewing the Emission 

Guidelines?

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

E. How would the proposed changes in applicability affect 

sources currently subject to subparts Cc and WWW?

F. Where in the CFR will these changes appear?

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

Guidelines

A. Control Technology Review

B. Proposed changes to Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

C. Emission Threshold Determinations

D. Proposed Changes to Address Closed or Non-Producing Areas

E. Other Proposed Changes

V. Rationale for the Proposed Changes Based on GCCS Technology 

Review

A. Control Technology Review

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

evaluating potential changes to the timing of installing, 

expanding, and removing the GCCS?

C. What emissions and emission reduction programs are associated 

with existing MSW landfills?

D. What control options did the EPA consider?
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 12 of 321 

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Changes to Monitoring, 

Recordkeeping, and Reporting

A. Surface Emissions Monitoring Requirements

B. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements

C. Requirements for Updating the Design Plan

D. Submitting Corrective Action Timeline Requests

E. Electronic Reporting

VII. Rationale for Proposed Alternative Emission Threshold 

Determination Techniques

VIII. Proposed Changes to Address Closed or Non-Producing Areas

A. Subcategory for Closed Landfills

B. Criteria for Capping or Removing a GCCS

C. Non-producing Areas and Wellhead Standards

IX. Rationale for the Other Proposed Changes

A. Landfill Gas Treatment

B. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

C. Definitions and Other Rule Changes.

X. Request for Comment on Specific Provisions

A. Defining Closed Areas of Open Landfills.

B. Enhanced Surface Emissions Monitoring

C. Wet Landfills

D. Monitoring Wellhead Flowrate

E. Third Party Design Plan Certification Program

F. Use of Portable Analyzers for Monitoring Oxygen

XI. Impacts of Proposed Revisions

A. What are the air quality impacts?

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

C. What are the secondary air impacts?

D. What are the energy impacts?

E. What are the cost impacts?

F. What are the economic impacts?

G. What are the benefits?

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 13 of 321 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

This action proposes changes to the MSW landfills Emission 

Guidelines resulting from the EPA’s review of the Emission 

Guidelines under Clean Air Act section 111. The EPA’s review 

identified a number of advances in technology and operating 

practices and the proposed changes are based on our evaluation 

of those advances and our understanding of landfill gas (LFG) 

emissions. The resulting changes to the Emission Guidelines, if 

adopted, will achieve additional reductions in emissions of 

landfill gas and its components, including methane. This 

proposed rule is consistent with the President’s 2013 Climate 

Action Plan1, which directs federal agencies to focus on 

“assessing current emissions data, addressing data gaps, 

 

1 Executive Office of the President, “The President’s Climate Action Plan” 

June 2013. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactio

nplan.pdf 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 14 of 321 

identifying technologies and best practices for reducing 

emissions, and identifying existing authorities and incentivebased opportunities to reduce methane emissions.” The proposed 

changes are also consistent with the President’s Methane 

Strategy2, which directs EPA’s regulatory and voluntary programs 

to continue to pursue emission reductions through regulatory 

updates and to encourage LFG energy recovery through voluntary 

programs. These directives are discussed in detail in section 

III.A of this preamble. This regulatory action also proposes to 

either resolve or clarify implementation issues that were 

previously addressed in amendments proposed on May 23, 2002 (67 

FR 36475) and September 8, 2006 (71 FR 53271). 

1. Need for Regulatory Action 

The EPA reviewed the Emission Guidelines to determine the 

potential for achieving 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. Based on 

the EPA’s initial review, we are proposing changes to the 

 

2 Executive Office of the President, “Climate Action Plan Strategy to Reduce 

Methane, March 2014. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/strategy_to_reduce_methane_emi

ssions_2014-03-28_final.pdf 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 15 of 321 

Emission Guidelines. The proposed changes, if adopted, will 

achieve additional emission reductions of LFG and its components 

(including methane), provide more effective options for 

demonstrating compliance, and provide clarification of 

implementation issues raised during the amendments proposed in 

2002 and 2006. 

2. Legal Authority 

The EPA is not statutorily obligated to conduct a review of 

the Emission Guidelines, but has the discretion to do so when 

circumstances indicate that it is appropriate. The EPA has 

determined that it is appropriate to review and propose changes 

to the Emission Guidelines at this time based on changes in the 

landfill industry and changes in the size, ownership, and age of 

landfills since the Emission Guidelines were promulgated in 

1996. The EPA compiled new information on landfills through data 

collection efforts for a statutorily mandated review of the 

existing new source performance standards (NSPS) (40 CFR part 

60, subpart WWW), public comments received on the NSPS proposal 

(79 FR 41796, July 17, 2014), and public comments received on 

the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (79 FR 41772, 

July 17, 2014) for a review of the Emission Guidelines. This 

information is allowing the EPA to assess current practices, 

emissions, and the potential for additional emission reductions. 

B. Summary of Major Provisions 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 16 of 321 

The proposed revised Emission Guidelines will ultimately 

apply to landfills that accepted waste after November 8, 19873, 

and that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification 

on or before July 17, 2014 (the date of publication of proposed 

revisions to the landfills NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX). 

The proposed rule provisions are described below. 

Thresholds for installing or removing controls. The 

proposed revised Emission Guidelines retain the current design 

capacity threshold of 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) and 2.5 million 

cubic meters (m3), but reduce the nonmethane organic compounds 

(NMOC) emission threshold for the installation and removal of a 

gas collection and control system (GCCS) from 50 Mg/yr to 34 

Mg/yr for landfills that are not closed. As proposed, a 

municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill that exceeds the design 

capacity threshold must install and start up a GCCS within 30 

months after landfill gas (LFG) emissions reach or exceed an 

NMOC level of 34 Mg/yr NMOC. (A megagram is also known as a 

metric ton, which is equal to 1.1 U.S. short tons or about 2,205 

pounds.) Consistent with the existing Emission Guidelines, the 

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

 

3 This date in 1987 is the date on which permit programs were established 

under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of the Resource, Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) which amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), 42 

U.S.C. §§ 6901 – 6992k. This date was also selected as the regulatory cutoff 

in the EG for landfills no longer receiving wastes because the EPA judged 

States would be able to identify active facilities as of this date. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 17 of 321 

it to a non-enclosed flare, an enclosed combustion device, or a 

treatment system that processes the collected gas for subsequent 

sale or beneficial use. 

Landfill Gas Treatment. The EPA is proposing to address two 

issues related to LFG treatment. First, the EPA is proposing to 

clarify that the use of treated LFG is not limited to use as a 

fuel for a stationary combustion device but also allows other 

beneficial uses such as vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas 

for pipeline injection, and use as a raw material in a chemical 

manufacturing process. Second, the EPA is proposing to define 

Treated landfill gas as landfill gas processed in a treatment 

system meeting the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf 

and to define Treatment system as a system that filters, dewaters, and compresses landfill gas for sale or beneficial use. 

The proposed definition allows the level of treatment to be 

tailored to the type and design of the specific combustion 

equipment or other equipment for other beneficial uses such as 

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

or use as a raw material in a chemical manufacturing process in 

which the landfill gas is used. Owners and operators would 

develop a site-specific treatment system monitoring plan that 

would include monitoring parameters addressing all three 

elements of treatment (filtration, de-watering, and compression) 

to ensure the treatment system is operating properly for the 

Commented [A1]: OMB General Comment 7. 

Reviewer recommends including broader language 

(beyond combustion and chemical manufacturing) 

in the below sentence on page 17 of the 

emission guidelines to clarify that treated 

landfill gas can be used in a variety of ways 

including vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu 

gas for pipeline injection, and other 

beneficial uses. 

Response: Additional text has been added here 

to broaden the language. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 18 of 321 

intended end use of the treated LFG. They would also keep 

records that demonstrate that such parameters effectively 

monitor filtration, de-watering, and compression system 

performance necessary for the end use of the treated landfill 

gas. 

Surface Monitoring. The EPA proposes monitoring of all 

surface penetrations for existing landfills. In proposed 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cf, landfills must conduct surface emissions 

monitoring (SEM) at all cover penetrations and openings within 

the area of the landfill where waste has been placed and a gas 

collection system is required to be in place and operating 

according to the operational standards in proposed 40 CFR part 

60, subpart Cf. Specifically, landfill owners/operators must 

conduct surface monitoring on a quarterly basis at the specified 

intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated 

concentrations of landfill gas, such as distressed vegetation 

and cracks or seeps in the cover and all cover penetrations. 

Emission Threshold Determination. The EPA is proposing an 

alternative site-specific emission threshold determination for 

when a landfill must install and operate a GCCS. This 

alternative emission threshold determination, referred to as 

“Tier 4,” is based on surface emission monitoring and 

demonstrates that surface emissions are below a specific 

threshold. The Tier 4 SEM demonstration would allow landfills 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 19 of 321 

that exceed modeled NMOC emission rates using Tiers 1, 2, or 3 

to demonstrate that site-specific surface methane emissions are 

low. A landfill that can demonstrate that surface emissions are 

below 500 parts per million (ppm) for 4 consecutive quarters 

would not trigger the requirement to install a GCCS even if Tier 

1, 2, or 3 calculations indicate that the 34 Mg/yr threshold has 

been exceeded. 

Wellhead Operational Standards. The EPA proposes to remove 

the operational standards (i.e., the requirement to meet 

operating limits) for temperature and nitrogen/oxygen at the 

wellheads. Landfill owners and operators would not be required 

to take corrective action based on exceedances of specified 

operational standards, but they would continue to monitor 

temperature and oxygen/nitrogen levels at wellheads in order to 

inform any necessary adjustments to the GCCS and would maintain 

records of monthly readings. The operational standard, 

corrective action, and corresponding recordkeeping and reporting 

remain for maintaining negative pressure at the wellhead. 

Closed Landfills. Because many landfills are closed and do 

not produce as much LFG, the EPA is proposing a separate 

subcategory for landfills that closed on or before [insert date 

of publication in the Federal Register]. Landfills in this 

subcategory will continue to be subject to an NMOC emission 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 20 of 321 

threshold of 50 Mg/yr for determining when controls must be 

installed or can be removed. 

Low LFG Producing Areas. The EPA is also proposing 

alternative criteria for determining when it is appropriate to 

cap or remove a portion of the GCCS at such landfills. The 

proposed alternative criteria for capping or removing the GCCS 

are: 1) the landfill is closed or an area of an active landfill 

is closed, 2) the GCCS has operated for at least 15 years or the 

landfill owner/operator can demonstrate that the GCCS will be 

unable to operate for 15 years due to declining gas flows, and 

3) the landfill owner/operator demonstrates that there are no 

surface methane emissions of 500 ppm or greater in the landfill 

or closed area for 4 consecutive quarters. 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. The EPA is proposing 

that standards in the Emission Guidelines apply at all times, 

including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. In 

addition, to enable the EPA to determine the severity of any 

emissions exceedance that might occur during periods when the 

gas collection system or a control device is not operating, the 

EPA is proposing to add a recordkeeping and reporting 

requirement for landfill owners or operators to estimate 

emissions during such periods. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 21 of 321 

Requests for Comment. The EPA welcomes comments on all 

aspects of this proposal and is specifically requesting comments 

on the following topics: 

• Defining closed areas of open landfills. 

• Changing the walking pattern for surface emissions 

monitoring from 30 meters (98 ft) to 25 ft and adding a 

methane concentration limit of 25 ppm as determined by an 

integrated reading. 

• Addressing wet landfills. 

• Monitoring wellhead flow rate. 

• Establishing a program for third party design plan 

certification. 

• Using a portable gas composition analyzer as acceptable 

alternative to Method 3A or 3C. 

Other Clarifications. The EPA is proposing other 

clarifications to address issues that have been raised by 

landfill owners or operators during implementation of the 

current NSPS and Emission Guidelines. These other clarifications 

include adding criteria for when an affected source must update 

its design plan and clarifying when landfill owners or operators 

must submit corrective action timeline requests. The EPA is also 

proposing to update several definitions in the Emission 

Guidelines. In addition, while the EPA is not proposing to 

mandate organics diversion we are proposing two specific 

compliance flexibilities in the Emission Guidelines to encourage 

wider adoption of organics diversion and GCCS Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) for emission reductions at landfills. These 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 22 of 321 

compliance flexibilities are discussed in sections VI.B 

(wellhead monitoring) and VII.A (Tier 4 emission threshold 

determination) of this preamble. 

C. Costs and Benefits 

The proposed revised Emission Guidelines are expected to 

significantly reduce emissions of landfill gas and its 

components, which include methane, volatile organic compounds 

(VOC), and hazardous air pollutants (HAP). Landfills are a 

significant source of methane emissions, and in 2013, landfills 

represented the third largest source of human-related methane 

emissions in the U.S. 

To comply with the emissions limits in the proposed rule, 

MSW landfill owners or operators are expected to install the 

least-cost control for collecting and combusting landfill gas. 

The annualized net cost for the proposed Emission Guidelines is 

estimated to be $46.8 million (2012$) in 2025, when using a 7 

percent discount rate. The annualized costs represent the costs 

compared to no changes to the current Emission Guidelines (i.e., 

baseline) and include $101 million to install and operate a 

GCCS, as well as $0.64 million to complete the corresponding 

testing and monitoring. These control costs are offset by $55.3 

million in revenue from electricity sales, which is incorporated 

into the net control costs for certain landfills that are 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 23 of 321 

expected to generate revenue by using the landfill gas to 

produce electricity. 

Installation of a gas collection and control system to 

comply with the 34 Mg/yr NMOC emissions threshold at open 

landfills would achieve reductions of 2,770 Mg/yr NMOC and 

436,100 Mg/yr methane (about 10.9 million metric tons of carbon 

dioxide equivalent per year (mtCO2e/yr)) beyond the baseline in 

year 2025. In addition, the proposal is expected to result in 

the net reduction of 238,000 Mg CO2, due to reduced demand for 

electricity from the grid as landfills generate electricity from 

landfill gas. The NMOC portion of landfill gas 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. These pollutants, along with 

methane, are associated with substantial health effects, welfare 

effects, and climate effects. The EPA expects that the reduced 

emissions will result in improvements in air quality and lessen 

health effects associated with exposure to air pollution related 

emissions, and result in climate benefits due to reductions of 

the methane component of landfill gas. 

The EPA estimates that the proposal’s estimated methane 

emission reductions and secondary CO2 emission reductions in the 

year 2025 would yield global monetized climate benefits of $310 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 24 of 321 

million to approximately $1.7 billion, depending on the discount 

rate. Using the mean social cost of methane (SC-CH4) and social 

cost of CO2 (SC- CO2), at a 3-percent discount rate, results in 

an estimate of about $670 million in 2025. 

The SC-CH4 and SC-CO2 are the monetary values of impacts 

associated with marginal changes in methane and CO2 emissions, 

respectively, in a given year. It includes a wide range of 

anticipated climate impacts, such as net changes in agricultural 

productivity, property damage from increased flood risk, and 

changes in energy system costs, such as reduced costs for 

heating and increased costs for air conditioning. 

With the data available, we are not able to provide health 

benefit estimates for the reduction in exposure to HAP, ozone, 

and PM2.5 for this rule. This is not to imply that there are no 

such benefits of the rule; rather, it is a reflection of the 

difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the 

reductions in emissions for this sector with the data currently 

available. 

Based on the monetized benefits and costs, the estimated 

net benefits of the rule are estimated to be $620 million 

($2012) in 2025. 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 25 of 321 

This proposed rule addresses existing MSW landfills and 

associated solid waste management programs. Potentially affected 

categories include those listed in Table 1 of this preamble. 

Table 1. Regulated Entities 

Category NAICSa Examples of affected facilities 

Industry: Air and 

water resource 

and solid waste 

management 

924110 Solid waste landfills 

Industry: Refuse 

systems--solid 

waste landfills 

562212 Solid waste landfills 

State, local, and 

tribal government 

agencies

924110 

Administration of air and water 

resource and solid waste 

management programs

a North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by the new subpart. To determine whether your facility 

would be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine 

the applicability criteria in proposed 40 CFR 60.32f of subpart 

Cf. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the 

proposed subpart to a particular entity, contact the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

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

1. Submitting CBI 

Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 

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

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 26 of 321 

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: 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. 

2. Docket 

The docket number for the Emission Guidelines and 

Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (proposed 

40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-

0451. Docket ID No. A-88-09 for related 40 CFR part 60, subparts 

WWW and Cc contains supporting information. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 27 of 321 

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 the proposed Emission Guidelines 

is available on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site. 

Following signature, the EPA will post a copy of proposed 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cf on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/landflpg.html. The TTN 

provides information and technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. 

III. Background 

The Emission Guidelines for MSW landfills were promulgated 

on March 12, 1996 and subsequently amended on June 16, 1998, 

February 24, 1999, and April 10, 2000 to make technical 

corrections and clarifications. Amendments were proposed on May 

23, 2002 and September 8, 2006 to address implementation issues, 

but those amendments were never finalized. On July 17, 2014 the 

EPA issued an ANPRM for the MSW landfills Emission Guidelines 

(79 FR 41772). The purpose of that action was to request public 

input on controls and practices that could further reduce 

emissions from existing MSW landfills and to evaluate that input 

to determine if changes to the Emission Guidelines were 

appropriate. On July 17, 2014 the EPA issued a concurrent 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 28 of 321 

proposal for revised NSPS for new MSW landfills (79 FR 41796). 

In this action, the EPA is proposing a review of and certain 

changes to the Emission Guidelines to build on progress to date 

to (1) achieve additional reductions in emissions of LFG and its 

components, (2) account for changes in size, ownership and age 

of landfills and trends in GCCS installations, as reflected in 

new data, (3) provide new options for demonstrating compliance, 

and (4) to complete efforts regarding unresolved implementation 

issues. The proposed approaches are consistent with the Methane 

Strategy developed as part of the President’s Climate Action 

Plan. 

A. Landfill Gas Emissions and Climate Change 

In June 2013, President Obama issued a Climate Action Plan 

that directed federal agencies 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.”4 Methane is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) 

that is 28-36 times greater than carbon dioxide (CO2) and has an 

atmospheric life of about 12 years5. Because of methane’s potency 

 

4 Executive Office of the President, “The President’s Climate Action Plan” 

June 2013. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactio

nplan.pdf 

5 The IPCC updates GWP estimates with each new assessment report, and in the 

latest assessment report, AR5, the latest estimate of the methane GWP ranged 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 29 of 321 

as a GHG and its atmospheric life, reducing methane emissions is 

one of the best ways to achieve near-term beneficial impact in 

mitigating global climate change. 

The “Climate Action Plan: Strategy to Reduce Methane 

Emissions”6 (the Methane Strategy) was released in March 2014. 

The strategy recognized the methane reductions achieved through 

the EPA’s regulatory and voluntary programs to date. It also 

directed the EPA to continue to pursue emission reductions 

through regulatory updates and to encourage LFG energy recovery 

through voluntary programs. 

The EPA recognized the climate benefits associated with 

reducing methane emissions from landfills nearly 25 years ago. 

The 1991 NSPS Background Information Document7 asserted that the 

reduction of methane emissions from MSW landfills was one of 

many options available to reduce global warming. The NSPS for 

MSW landfills, promulgated in 1996, also recognized the climate 

co-benefits of controlling methane (61 FR 9917, March 12, 1996). 

The review and proposed revision of the MSW landfills Emission 

Guidelines explores additional opportunities to achieve methane 

 

from 28-36, compared to a GWP of 25 in AR4. The impacts analysis in this 

proposal is based on AR4 instead of AR5 (i.e., a GWP of 25). 

6 Executive Office of the President, “Climate Action Plan Strategy to Reduce 

Methane, March 2014. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/strategy_to_reduce_methane_emi

ssions_2014-03-28_final.pdf 

7 Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills-Background Information 

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

91–197061) page 2–15. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 30 of 321 

reductions while acknowledging historical agency perspectives 

and research on climate, a charge from the President’s Climate 

Action Plan, the Methane Strategy, and improvements in the 

science surrounding GHG emissions. 

Landfill gas is a collection of air pollutants, including 

methane and NMOC. Landfill gas is typically composed of 50-

percent methane, 50-percent CO2, and less than 1-percent NMOC by 

volume. The NMOC portion of landfill gas can contain various 

organic HAP and VOC. When the Emission Guidelines and NSPS were 

promulgated in 1996, NMOC was selected as a surrogate for MSW 

landfill gas emissions because NMOC contains the air pollutants 

that at that time were of most pose more concern due to their 

adverse effects on health and welfare. Today, methane’s effects 

on climate change are also considered importantthere is a 

greater emphasis on methane emissions because of methane’s 

effects on climate change. In 2012, methane emissions from MSW 

landfills represented 15.3 percent of total U.S. methane 

emissions and 1.5 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions 8. In 2013, 

landfills continued to be the third largest source of humanrelated methane emissions among stationary source categories in 

the U.S., representing 18.0 percent of total methane emissions9

 

8 Total U.S. methane emissions were 636Tg CO2e in 2013. U.S. EPA “Inventory of 

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2013.” Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html. 

9 Ibid, Page ES-14. 

Commented [A2]: OMB General Comment #11: 

Reviewer recommends editing the sentence on 

page 29 EG about NMOC containing air 

pollutants that pose more concern due to 

adverse effects on health and welfare. Since 

this rule focuses on greenhouse gas and aligns 

with the Climate Action Plan, it seems odd to 

call methane less concerning. 

EPA Response: See redline edits 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 31 of 321 

and 1.7 percent of all GHG emissions (in CO2e) in the U.S.10 For 

these reasons and because additional emissions reductions can be 

achieved at a reasonable cost, the EPA is proposing changes to 

the Emission Guidelines that are based on reducing the NMOC and 

methane components of LFG. 

B. What are the health and welfare effects of landfill gas 

emissions? 

1. Health Impacts of VOC and Various Organic HAP 

VOC emissions are precursors to both PM2.5 and ozone 

formation. As documented in previous analyses (U.S. EPA, 200611, 

201012, and 201413), exposure to PM2.5 and ozone is associated 

with significant public health effects. 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 bronchitis, 

hospital admissions and emergency room visits, work loss days, 

 

10 Ibid, Table ES-2. 

11 U.S. EPA. RIA. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate 

Matter, Chapter 5. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research 

Triangle Park, NC. October 2006. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/Chapter%205--Benefits.pdf. 

12 U.S. EPA. RIA. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. January 2010. 

Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/s1-

supplemental_analysis_full.pdf. 

13 U.S. EPA. RIA. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. December 

2014. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/20141125ria.pdf. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 32 of 321 

restricted activity days and respiratory symptoms, as well as 

welfare impacts such as visibility impairment.14 Ozone is 

associated with health effects, including hospital and emergency 

department visits, school loss days and premature mortality, as 

well as ecological effects (e.g., injury to vegetation and 

climate change).15 Nearly 30 organic HAP have been identified in 

uncontrolled LFG, including benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and 

vinyl chloride.16 Benzene is a known human carcinogen. 

2. Climate Impacts of Methane Emissions 

In addition to the improvements in air quality and 

resulting benefits to human health and the 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 

global warming potential (GWP) 28-36 times greater than CO2, 

which accounts for methane’s stronger absorption of infrared 

radiation per ton in the atmosphere, but also its shorter 

 

14 U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final 

Report). EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment—RTP 

Division. December 2009. Available at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546. 

15 U.S. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants 

(Final). EPA/600/R-05/004aF-cF. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. February 2006. 

Available on the Internet at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=149923. 

16 U.S. EPA. 1998. Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Fifth Edition, 

Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Chapter 2: Solid Waste Disposal, 

Section 2.4: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills”. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/final/c02s04.pdf. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 33 of 321 

lifetime (on the order of 12 years compared to centuries or 

millennia for CO2).17,18 According to the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report, methane is the 

second leading long-lived climate forcer after CO2 globally.19 

In 2009, based on a large body of robust and compelling 

scientific evidence, the EPA Administrator issued the 

Endangerment Finding under CAA section 202(a)(1).20 In the 

Endangerment Finding, the Administrator found that the current, 

elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere—already at 

levels unprecedented in human history—may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health and welfare of current and 

future generations in the U.S. We summarize these adverse 

effects on public health and welfare briefly here. 

3. Public Health Impacts Detailed in the 2009 Endangerment 

Finding 

 

17 IPCC, 2013: 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. 

18 Note that this proposal uses a GWP value for methane of 25 for CO2

equivalency calculations, consistent with the GHG emissions inventories and 

the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. 

19 IPCC, 2013: 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. 

19 “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under 

20 “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under 

Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009) 

(“Endangerment Finding”). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 34 of 321 

The 2009 Endangerment Finding documented that climate 

change caused by human emissions of GHGs threatens the health of 

AmericansClimate change caused by human emissions of GHGs 

threatens the health of Americans 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. 

Climate change is also expected to cause more intense hurricanes 

and more frequent and intense storms and heavy precipitation, 

with impacts on other areas of public health, such as the 

potential for increased deaths, injuries, infectious and 

waterborne diseases, and stress-related disorders. Children, the 

elderly, and the poor are among the most vulnerable to these 

climate-related health effects. 

4. Public Welfare Impacts Detailed in the 2009 Endangerment 

Finding 

Commented [A3]: Response to OMB Comments 

(Typographical comments #1, 2, 5). EPA notes 

that pages 33-35 are a summary of the 2009 

Endangerment Finding (which itself summarizes 

the assessment literature), and therefore 

inserting citations in the middle of the 

summary would not be appropriate. The 

statements from pages 35-50 reference in text 

the assessments (NCA3, NRC, or IPCC) from 

which they were taken.

EPA has updated the first sentence of this 

section to make clear the information comes 

from the Endangerment Finding.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 35 of 321 

The 2009 Endangerment Finding documented that climate 

change impacts touch nearly every aspect of public 

welfareClimate change impacts touch nearly every aspect of 

public welfare. Among the multiple threats caused by human 

emissions of GHGs, 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 a multitude of increased risks, particularly from rising 

sea level and increases in the severity of storms. These 

communities face storm and flooding damage to property, or even 

loss of land due to inundation, erosion, wetland submergence and 

habitat loss. 

Impacts of climate change on public welfare also include 

threats to social and ecosystem services. Climate change is 

expected to result in an increase in peak electricity demand, 

Extreme weather from climate change threatens energy, 

transportation, and water resource infrastructure. Climate 

change may also exacerbate ongoing environmental pressures in 

certain settlements, particularly in Alaskan indigenous 

communities, and 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 

Commented [A4]: Response to OMB Comments 

(Typographical comments #1, 2, 5). EPA notes 

that pages 33-35 are a summary of the 2009 

Endangerment Finding (which itself summarizes 

the assessment literature), and therefore 

inserting citations in the middle of the 

summary would not be appropriate. The 

statements from pages 35-50 reference in text 

the assessments (NCA3, NRC, or IPCC) from 

which they were taken.

EPA has updated the first sentence of this 

section to make clear the information comes 

from the Endangerment Finding.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 36 of 321 

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. 

5. New Scientific Assessments 

Since the 2009 administrative record concerning the 

Endangerment Finding closed following the EPA’s 2010 

Reconsideration Denial, the climate has continued to change, 

with new records being set for a number of climate indicators 

such as global average surface temperatures, Arctic sea ice 

retreat, CO2 concentrations, and sea level rise. Additionally, a 

number of major, scientific assessments have been released that 

improve understanding of the climate system and strengthen the 

case that GHGs endanger public health and welfare both for 

current and future generations. These assessments, from the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), and the National 

Research Council of the National Academies (NRC), include: 

IPCC’s 2012 Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme 

Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) 

and the 2013-2014 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), USGCRP’s 2014 

National Climate Assessment, Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States (NCA3), and the NRC’s 2010 Ocean Acidification: A 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 37 of 321 

National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean 

(Ocean Acidification), 2011 Report on Climate Stabilization 

Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to 

Millennia (Climate Stabilization Targets), 2011 National 

Security Implications for U.S. Naval Forces (National Security 

Implications), 2011 Understanding Earth’s Deep Past: Lessons for 

Our Climate Future (Understanding Earth’s Deep Past), 2012 Sea 

Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: 

Past, Present, and Future, 2012 Climate and Social Stress: 

Implications for Security Analysis (Climate and Social Stress), 

and 2013 Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change (Abrupt Impacts) 

assessments. 

The EPA has carefully reviewed these recent assessments in 

keeping with the same approach outlined in Section VIII.A of the 

2009 Endangerment Finding, which was to rely primarily upon the 

major assessments by the USGCRP, IPCC, and the NRC to provide 

the technical and scientific information to inform the 

Administrator’s judgment regarding the question of whether GHGs 

endanger public health and welfare. These assessments addressed 

the scientific issues that the EPA was required to examine were 

comprehensive in their coverage of the GHG and climate change 

issues, and underwent rigorous and exacting peer review by the 

expert community, as well as rigorous levels of U.S. government 

review. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 38 of 321 

The findings of the recent scientific assessments confirm 

and strengthen the conclusion that GHGs endanger public health, 

now and in the future. The NCA3 indicates that human health in 

the United States will be impacted by “increased extreme weather 

events, wildfire, decreased air quality, threats to mental 

health, and illnesses transmitted by food, water, and diseasecarriers such as mosquitoes and ticks.” The most recent 

assessments now have greater confidence that climate change will 

influence production of pollen that exacerbates asthma and other 

allergic respiratory diseases such as allergic rhinitis, as well 

as effects on conjunctivitis and dermatitis. Both the NCA3 and 

the IPCC AR5 found that increasing temperature has lengthened 

the allergenic pollen season for ragweed, and that increased CO2

by itself can elevate production of plant-based allergens. 

The NCA3 also finds that climate change, in addition to 

chronic stresses such as extreme poverty, is negatively 

affecting indigenous peoples’ health in the United States 

through impacts such as reduced access to traditional foods, 

decreased water quality, and increasing exposure to health and 

safety hazards. The IPCC AR5 finds that climate change-induced 

warming in the Arctic and resultant changes in environment 

(e.g., permafrost thaw, effects on traditional food sources) 

have significant impacts, observed now and projected, on the 

health and well-being of Arctic residents, especially indigenous 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 39 of 321 

peoples. Small, remote, predominantly-indigenous communities are 

especially vulnerable given their “strong dependence on the 

environment for food, culture, and way of life; their political 

and economic marginalization; existing social, health, and 

poverty disparities; as well as their frequent close proximity 

to exposed locations along ocean, lake, or river shorelines.”21

In addition, increasing temperatures and loss of Arctic sea ice 

increases the risk of drowning for those engaged in traditional 

hunting and fishing. 

The NCA3 concludes that children’s unique physiology and 

developing bodies contribute to making them particularly 

vulnerable to climate change. Impacts on children are expected 

from heat waves, air pollution, infectious and waterborne 

illnesses, and mental health effects resulting from extreme 

weather events. The IPCC AR5 indicates that children are among 

those especially susceptible to most allergic diseases, as well 

as health effects associated with heat waves, storms, and 

floods. The IPCC finds that additional health concerns may arise 

in low income households, especially those with children, if 

 

21 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. 

Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Barros, 

V.R., C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. 

Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. 

Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, p. 1581. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 40 of 321 

climate change reduces food availability and increases prices, 

leading to food insecurity within households. 

Both the NCA3 and IPCC AR5 conclude that climate change 

will increase health risks facing the elderly. Older people are 

at much higher risk of mortality during extreme heat events. 

Pre-existing health conditions also make older adults 

susceptible to cardiac and respiratory impacts of air pollution 

and to more severe consequences from infectious and waterborne 

diseases. Limited mobility among older adults can also increase 

health risks associated with extreme weather and floods. 

The new assessments also confirm and strengthen the 

conclusion that GHGs endanger public welfare, and emphasize the 

urgency of reducing GHG emissions due to their projections that 

show GHG concentrations climbing to ever-increasing levels in 

the absence of mitigation. The NRC assessment Understanding 

Earth’s Deep Past projected that, without a reduction in 

emissions, CO2 concentrations by the end of the century would 

increase to levels that the Earth has not experienced for more 

than 30 million years.22 In fact, that assessment stated that 

“the magnitude and rate of the present greenhouse gas increase 

place the climate system in what could be one of the most severe 

increases in radiative forcing of the global climate system in 

 

22 National Research Council, Understanding Earth’s Deep Past, p. 1. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 41 of 321 

Earth history.”23 Because of these unprecedented changes, several 

assessments state that we may be approaching critical, poorly 

understood thresholds: as stated in the NRC assessment 

Understanding Earth’s Deep Past, “As Earth continues to warm, it 

may be approaching a critical climate threshold beyond which 

rapid and potentially permanent—at least on a human timescale—

changes not anticipated by climate models tuned to modern 

conditions may occur.” Moreover, due to the time lags inherent 

in the Earth’s climate, the NRC Climate Stabilization Targets 

assessment notes that the full warming from increased GHG 

concentrations will not be fully realized for several centuries, 

underscoring that emission activities today carry with them 

climate commitments far into the future. 

Future temperature changes will depend on what emission 

path the world follows. In its high emission scenario, the IPCC 

AR5 projects that global temperatures by the end of the century 

will likely be 2.6 °C to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) warmer than 

today. Temperatures on land and in northern latitudes will 

likely warm even faster than the global average. However, 

according to the NCA3, significant reductions in emissions would 

lead to noticeably less future warming beyond mid-century, and 

therefore less impact to public health and welfare. 

 

23 Id., p.138. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 42 of 321 

While rainfall may see only small globally and annually 

averaged changes, there are expected to be substantial shifts in 

where and when that precipitation falls. According to the NCA3, 

regions closer to the poles will see more precipitation, while 

the dry subtropics are expected to expand (colloquially, this 

has been summarized as wet areas getting wetter and dry regions 

getting drier). In particular, the NCA3 notes that the western 

U.S., and especially the Southwest, is expected to become drier. 

This projection is consistent with the recent observed drought 

trend in the West. At the time of publication of the NCA, even 

before the last 2 years of extreme drought in California, tree 

ring data was already indicating that the region might be 

experiencing its driest period in 800 years. Similarly, the NCA3 

projects that heavy downpours are expected to increase in many 

regions, with precipitation events in general becoming less 

frequent but more intense. This trend has already been observed 

in regions such as the Midwest, Northeast, and upper Great 

Plains. Meanwhile, the NRC Climate Stabilization Targets 

assessment found that the area burned by wildfire is expected to 

grow by 2 to 4 times for 1 °C (1.8 °F) of warming. For 3 °C of 

warming, the assessment found that nine out of 10 summers would 

be warmer than all but the 5 percent of warmest summers today, 

leading to increased frequency, duration, and intensity of heat 

waves. Extrapolations by the NCA also indicate that Arctic sea 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 43 of 321 

ice in summer may essentially disappear by mid-century. 

Retreating snow and ice, and emissions of carbon dioxide and 

methane released from thawing permafrost, will also amplify 

future warming. 

Since the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the USGCRP NCA3 and 

multiple NRC assessments have projected future rates of sea 

level rise that are 40 percent larger to more than twice as 

large as the previous estimates from the 2007 IPCC 4th Assessment 

Report due in part to improved understanding of the future rate 

of melt of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. The NRC Sea 

Level Rise assessment projects a global sea level rise of 0.5 to 

1.4 meters (1.6 to 4.6 feet) by 2100, the NRC National Security 

Implications assessment suggests that “the Department of the 

Navy should expect roughly 0.4 to 2 meters (1.3 to 6.6 feet) 

global average sea-level rise by 2100,”24 and the NRC Climate 

Stabilization Targets assessment states that an increase of 3°C 

will lead to a sea level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter (1.6 to 3.3 

feet) by 2100. These assessments continue to recognize that 

there is uncertainty inherent in accounting for ice sheet 

processes. Additionally, local sea level rise can differ from 

the global total depending on various factors: the east coast of 

the U.S. in particular is expected to see higher rates of sea 

 

24 NRC, 2011: National Security Implications of Climate Change for U.S. Naval 

Forces. The National Academies Press, p. 28. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 44 of 321 

level rise than the global average. For comparison, the NCA3 

states that “five million Americans and hundreds of billions of 

dollars of property are located in areas that are less than four 

feet above the local high-tide level,” and the NCA3 finds that 

“[c]oastal infrastructure, including roads, rail lines, energy 

infrastructure, airports, port facilities, and military bases, 

are increasingly at risk from sea level rise and damaging storm 

surges.”25 Also, because of the inertia of the oceans, sea level 

rise will continue for centuries after GHG concentrations have 

stabilized (though more slowly than it would have otherwise). 

Additionally, there is a threshold temperature above which the 

Greenland ice sheet will be committed to inevitable melting: 

according to the NCA, some recent research has suggested that 

even present day carbon dioxide levels could be sufficient to 

exceed that threshold. 

In general, climate change impacts are expected to be 

unevenly distributed across different regions of the United 

States and have a greater impact on certain populations, such as 

indigenous peoples and the poor. The NCA3 finds climate change 

impacts such as the rapid pace of temperature rise, coastal 

erosion and inundation related to sea level rise and storms, ice 

 

25 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: 

Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate 

Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, p. 9. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 45 of 321 

and snow melt, and permafrost thaw are affecting indigenous 

people in the United States. Particularly in Alaska, critical 

infrastructure and traditional livelihoods are threatened by 

climate change and, “[i]n parts of Alaska, Louisiana, the 

Pacific Islands, and other coastal locations, climate change 

impacts (through erosion and inundation) are so severe that some 

communities are already relocating from historical homelands to 

which their traditions and cultural identities are tied.”26 The 

IPCC AR5 notes, “Climate-related hazards exacerbate other 

stressors, often with negative outcomes for livelihoods, 

especially for people living in poverty (high confidence). 

Climate-related hazards affect poor people’s lives directly 

through impacts on livelihoods, reductions in crop yields, or 

destruction of homes and indirectly through, for example, 

increased food prices and food insecurity.”27 

Events outside the United States, as also pointed out in 

the 2009 Endangerment Finding, will also have relevant 

consequences. The NRC Climate and Social Stress assessment 

concluded that it is prudent to expect that some climate events 

 

26 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: 

Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate 

Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, p. 17. 

27 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. 

Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the 

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

[Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. 

Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. 

Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, p. 796. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 46 of 321 

“will produce consequences that exceed the capacity of the 

affected societies or global systems to manage and that have 

global security implications serious enough to compel 

international response.” The NRC National Security Implications 

assessment recommends preparing for increased needs for 

humanitarian aid; responding to the effects of climate change in 

geopolitical hotspots, including possible mass migrations; and 

addressing changing security needs in the Arctic as sea ice 

retreats. 

In addition to future impacts, the NCA3 emphasizes that 

climate change driven by human emissions of GHGs is already 

happening now and it is happening in the United States. 

According to the IPCC AR5 and the NCA3, there are a number of 

climate-related changes that have been observed recently, and 

these changes are projected to accelerate in the future. The 

planet warmed about 0.85 °C (1.5 °F) from 1880 to 2012. It is 

extremely likely (>95 percent probability) that human influence 

was the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th

century, and likely (>66 percent probability) that human 

influence has more than doubled the probability of occurrence of 

heat waves in some locations. In the Northern Hemisphere, the 

last 30 years were likely the warmest 30 year period of the last 

1,400 years. U.S. average temperatures have similarly increased 

by 1.3 to 1.9 degrees F since 1895, with most of that increase 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 47 of 321 

occurring since 1970. Global sea levels rose 0.19 m (7.5 inches) 

from 1901 to 2010. Contributing to this rise was the warming of 

the oceans and melting of land ice. It is likely that 275 

gigatons per year of ice melted from land glaciers (not 

including ice sheets) since 1993, and that the rate of loss of 

ice from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets increased 

substantially in recent years, to 215 gigatons per year and 147 

gigatons per year respectively since 2002. For context, 360 

gigatons of ice melt is sufficient to cause global sea levels to 

rise 1 millimeter (mm). Annual mean Arctic sea ice has been 

declining at 3.5 to 4.1 percent per decade, and Northern 

Hemisphere snow cover extent has decreased at about 1.6 percent 

per decade for March and 11.7 percent per decade for June. 

Permafrost temperatures have increased in most regions since the 

1980s, by up to 3 °C (5.4 °F) in parts of Northern Alaska. 

Winter storm frequency and intensity have both increased in the 

Northern Hemisphere. The NCA3 states that the increases in the 

severity or frequency of some types of extreme weather and 

climate events in recent decades can affect energy production 

and delivery, causing supply disruptions, and compromise other 

essential infrastructure such as water and transportation 

systems. 

In addition to the changes documented in the assessment 

literature, there have been other climate milestones of note. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 48 of 321 

According to the IPCC, methane concentrations in 2011 were about 

1,803 parts per billion, 150 percent higher than concentrations 

were in 1750. After a few years of nearly stable concentrations 

from 1999 to 2006, methane concentrations have resumed 

increasing at about 5 parts per billion per year. Concentrations 

today are likely higher than they have been for at least the 

past 800,000 years. Arctic sea ice has continued to decline, 

with September of 2012 marking a new record low in terms of 

Arctic sea ice extent, 40 percent below the 1979-2000 median. 

Sea level has continued to rise at a rate of 3.2 mm per year 

(1.3 inches/decade) since satellite observations started in 

1993, more than twice the average rate of rise in the 20th

century prior to 1993.28 And 2014 was the warmest year globally 

in the modern global surface temperature record, going back to 

1880; this now means 19 of the 20 warmest years have occurred in 

the past 20 years, and except for 1998, the 10 warmest years on 

record have occurred since 2002.29 The first months of 2015 have 

also been some of the warmest on record. 

These assessments and observed changes make it clear that 

reducing emissions of GHGs across the globe is necessary in 

order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, and 

 

28 Blunden, J., and D. S. Arndt, Eds., 2014: State of the Climate in 2013. 

Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 95 (7), S1-S238. 

29 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 49 of 321 

underscore the urgency of reducing emissions now. The NRC 

Committee on America’s Climate Choices listed a number of 

reasons “why it is imprudent to delay actions that at least 

begin the process of substantially reducing emissions.”30 For 

example: 

• The faster emissions are reduced, the lower the risks 

posed by climate change. Delays in reducing emissions 

could commit the planet to a wide range of adverse 

impacts, especially if the sensitivity of the climate 

to GHGs is on the higher end of the estimated range. 

• Waiting for unacceptable impacts to occur before 

taking action is imprudent because the effects of GHG 

emissions do not fully manifest themselves for decades 

and, once manifest, many of these changes will persist 

for hundreds or even thousands of years. 

In the committee’s judgment, the risks associated with 

doing business as usual are a much greater concern than the 

risks associated with engaging in strong response efforts. 

Methane is a precursor to ground-level ozone, a healthharmful 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 

 

30 NRC, 2011: America’s Climate Choices, The National Academies Press. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 50 of 321 

formation.31 Approximately 50 percent of the global annual mean 

ozone increase since preindustrial times is believed to be due 

to anthropogenic methane.32 Projections of future emissions also 

indicate that methane is likely to be a key contributor to ozone 

concentrations in the future.33 Unlike nitrogen oxide (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.34 Reducing methane emissions, therefore, may 

contribute to efforts to reduce global background ozone 

concentrations that contribute to the incidence of ozone-related 

health effects.35,36 These benefits are global and occur in both 

urban and rural areas. 

 

31 U.S. EPA. 2013. “Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related 

Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report).” EPA-600-R-10-076F. National Center 

for Environmental Assessment—RTP Division. Available at 

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

32 Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, 

D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. 

Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative 

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. 

33 Ibid. 

34 Ibid. 

35 West, J.J., Fiore, A.M. 2005. “Management of tropospheric ozone by reducing 

methane emissions.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:4685-4691. 

36 Anenberg, S.C., et al. 2009. “Intercontinental impacts of ozone pollution 

on human mortality,” Environ. Sci. & Technol. 43: 6482-6487. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 51 of 321 

C. What is 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 indicate that it is appropriate. The 

EPA has determined that it is appropriate to conduct a review of 

and propose certain changes to the Emission Guidelines due to 

changes in the size, ownership and age of landfills and the 

types of MSW landfills with gas collection systems installed 

since the Emission Guidelines were promulgated in 1996 and the 

opportunities for significant reductions in methane and other 

pollutants at reasonable cost. The EPA compiled new information 

on MSW landfills through data collection efforts for a 

statutorily mandated review of the NSPS, public comments 

received on the NSPS proposal, and public comments received on 

an ANPRM for a review of the Emission Guidelines. This 

information allowed the EPA to conduct an assessment of current 

practices, emissions and potential for additional emission 

reductions. Information received in response to this proposed 

rule will allow EPA to further refine that assessment. 

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

The purpose of this action is to (1) present the results of 

EPA’s initial review of the Emission Guidelines, (2) propose and 

take comment on revisions to the Emission Guidelines based on 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 52 of 321 

that review, and (3) propose a resolution or provide 

clarification regarding implementation issues that were 

addressed in prior proposed amendments published on May 23, 2002 

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

to existing sources. The proposed revisions appear in the 

proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf.37 Although the EPA is not 

required to respond to comments received on the July 17, 2014 

ANPRM (79 FR 41772) for the MSW landfills Emission Guidelines or 

comments it received on the concurrent proposal for revised NSPS 

for new MSW landfills in this notice, the EPA is summarizing 

several comments it received to provide a framework and support 

the rationale for today’s proposed revisions to the Emission 

Guidelines. 

E. How would the proposed changes in applicability affect 

sources currently subject to subparts Cc and WWW? 

Landfills currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc 

and WWW would be considered “existing” and would ultimately be 

affected by any changes to the Emission Guidelines resulting 

from this review. Any source for which construction, 

modification, or reconstruction commenced on or before July 17, 

2014, the date of proposal of new subpart XXX, is an existing 

 

37 Rather than merely updating 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc, the existing 

emissions guidelines, the EPA has determined that the most appropriate way to 

proceed is to establish a new subpart that includes both the verbatim 

restatement of certain provisions in the existing emission guidelines and 

proposed revisions to, or the addition of, other provisions. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 53 of 321 

source. Under section 111, a source is either new, i.e., 

construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced after a 

proposed NSPS is published in the Federal Register (CAA section 

111(a)(1)) or existing, i.e., any source other than a new source 

(CAA section 111(a)(6)). Since the revised Emission Guidelines 

apply to existing sources, any source that is not subject to new 

subpart XXX will be subject to the revised Emission Guidelines. 

Consistent with the general approach evinced by section 111, 

sources currently subject to subpart WWW would need to continue 

to comply with the requirements in that rule unless and until 

they become subject to more stringent requirements in the 

revised Emission Guidelines as implemented through a revised 

state or federal plan. The current Emission Guidelines, subpart 

Cc, refer to subpart WWW for their substantive requirements. 

That is, the requirements regarding the installation and 

operation of a well-designed and well-operated GCCS and 

compliance with the specified emission limits are the same in 

both rules. Thus, if the EPA were to finalize its proposal to 

revise the Emission Guidelines to increase their stringency, a 

landfill currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW would 

need to comply with the more stringent requirements in a revised 

state plan or federal plan implementing the revised Emission 

Guidelines (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf). States with designated 

facilities would be required to develop (or revise) and submit a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 54 of 321 

state plan to the EPA within 9 months of promulgation of any 

revisions to the Emission Guidelines unless the EPA specifies a 

longer timeframe in promulgating those revisions (40 CFR 60.23). 

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 (40 CFR 60.20 – 29). Those requirements 

include making the state plan publically available and providing 

the 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. The EPA will 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 40 CFR 

60.27(b). The EPA will publish state plan approvals or 

disapprovals in the Federal Register and will include an 

explanation of its decision. The EPA also intends to revise the 

existing federal plan (40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG) to 

incorporate any changes and other requirements that result from 

the EPA’s review of the Emission Guidelines. The revised federal 

plan will apply in states that have either never submitted a 

state plan or not received approval of any necessary revised 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 55 of 321 

state plan until such time as an initial state plan or revised 

state plan is approved.38 

Because many of the landfills currently subject to 40 CFR 

part 60, subparts Cc and WWW are closed, the EPA is proposing 

several items to minimize the burden ofon these closed 

landfills, as discussed in section VIII.A of this preamble. 

F. Where in the CFR will these changes appear? 

The EPA is proposing to add a new subpart Cf to 40 CFR part 

60, beginning at 40 CFR 60.30f. Subpart Cf would apply to 

landfills that have accepted waste after November 8, 1987 and 

were constructed, reconstructed, or modified on or before July 

17, 2014. Proposed subpart Cf in 40 CFR part 60 contains a 

revision to the NMOC emission threshold for landfills that are 

not closed and addresses technical and implementation issues for 

all landfills subject to this subpart. 

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

Guidelines 

The EPA is proposing several changes to the Emission 

Guidelines following its review of the Emission Guidelines and 

the NSPS for MSW landfills. The EPA reviewed both landfills 

 

38 Indian tribes may, but are not required to, seek approval for treatment in 

a manner similar to a state for purposes of developing a tribal 

implementation plan (TIP) implementing the emission guidelines. If a tribe 

obtains such approval and submits a proposed TIP, the EPA will use the same 

criteria and follow the same procedure in approving that plan as it does with 

state plans. The federal plan will apply to all affected facilities located 

in Indian country unless and until EPA approves an applicable TIP. 

Commented [A5]: OMB Typographical Comment 6: 

Reviewer recommends replacing the word “of” 

with “on” on page 54 EG in the sentence 

including “...several items to minimize the 

burden...” 

Response: Text has been edited. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 56 of 321 

regulations and considered the current technology, practices, 

and associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. The rationale for the following proposed changes 

is presented in sections V through VIII of this preamble. 

A. Control Technology Review 

1. Best System of Emission Reduction 

The EPA has determined that a well-designed and well 

operated landfill GCCS with a control device capable of reducing 

NMOC by 98 percent by weight continues to be the best system of 

emission reduction (BSER) for controlling LFG emissions. Thus, 

there is no change to the fundamental means of controlling LFG: 

proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf requires landfill owners and 

operators to install a system to collect the LFG from the 

landfill and to route the collected gas to a combustion device 

or treatment system. Landfill owners and operators must submit 

for approval a site-specific GCCS design plan prepared by a 

professional engineer. The EPA is proposing 98 percent reduction 

of NMOC, expressed as a performance level (i.e., a rate-based 

standard or percent control), as the appropriate BSER-based 

standard. Thus, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf requires combustion 

control devices to demonstrate 98 percent reduction by weight of 

NMOC or an outlet concentration of 20 parts per million dry 

volume (ppmvd) of NMOC, as hexane. Enclosed combustion devices 

have the option of reducing emissions to 20 ppmvd. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 57 of 321 

The EPA carefully considered whether various emission 

reduction techniques and BMPs that could improve collection and 

control of LFG emissions should be considered a component of 

BSER. As explained in section V.A. of this document, the EPA has 

concluded that the various emission reduction techniques and 

BMPs should not be considered to be components of BSER and, 

therefore, is not proposing to require their use. The EPA 

believes that the techniques and BMPs can, however, be useful in 

minimizing emissions in appropriate circumstances. 

2. Criteria for Installing and Expanding GCCS 

The EPA undertook an analysis of existing landfills to 

determine whether applying the existing 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Cc and WWW size, emissions, and timing criteria for installing 

and operating a landfill GCCS to the population of existing MSW 

landfills remains the preferred approach to implementing BSER. 

Based on the analysis of the threshold and timing parameters, 

the EPA is proposing to reduce the NMOC emission rate threshold 

for installing the GCCS from 50 Mg/yr to 34 Mg/yr. There are no 

proposed changes regarding the size of landfill covered by the 

Emission Guidelines or the timing of installation and expansion: 

the requirements would continue to apply to landfills with a 

design capacity greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million 

cubic meters, landfill owners and operators would continue to 

have 30 months to install and begin operating the GCCS upon the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 58 of 321 

landfill exceeding the emission threshold and owners, and 

operators would be required to expand the GCCS into new areas of 

the landfill within 5 years for active areas and within 2 years 

for areas that are closed or at final grade. However, a landfill 

could potentially delay the requirement to install a GCCS 

through the use of emission reduction techniques and BMPs in 

conjunction with Tier 4 monitoring. The rationale for the change 

to the NMOC emissions threshold is provided in section V.B of 

this preamble and the rationale for Tier 4 is presented in 

section VII.A of this preamble. 

B. Proposed changes to Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 

1. Proposed Changes to Monitoring 

Surface Monitoring. The EPA proposes that all surface 

penetrations at existing landfills must be monitored. In 

proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, landfills must monitor all 

cover penetrations and openings within the area of the landfill 

where waste has been placed and a gas collection system is 

required to be in place and operating according to the 

operational standards in proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. 

Specifically, landfill owners/operators must conduct surface 

monitoring on a quarterly basis at 30-meter intervals and where 

visual observations indicate elevated concentrations of landfill 

gas, such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the 

cover and all cover penetrations. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 59 of 321 

The EPA is also considering alternative surface monitoring 

provisions for 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. The alternative 

provisions would reduce the walking pattern for conducting 

surface monitoring from 30-meter (98 feet (ft)) intervals to 25-

ft intervals. The alternative would also add a methane 

concentration limit of 25 ppm as determined by integrated 

surface emissions monitoring, in addition to the instantaneous 

methane concentration limit of 500 ppm. This alternative would 

also limit surface monitoring during windy conditions. Under the 

alternative, the landfill would have to take corrective action 

if either the integrated or instantaneous limits were exceeded. 

More information about this approach is provided in sections 

VI.A and X.B of this preamble. 

The EPA is also proposing an alternative site-specific 

emission threshold determination based on surface emission 

monitoring for when a landfill must install and operate a GCCS, 

as described in sections IV.C and VII.A, and when to cap or 

remove a GCCS, as described in section VIII of this preamble. 

Wellhead Monitoring. The EPA proposes to remove the 

operational standards (i.e., the requirement to meet operating 

limits) for temperature and nitrogen/oxygen at the wellheads and 

is thus removing the corresponding requirement to take 

corrective action for exceedances of these two parameters as 

discussed in section VI.B of this preamble. These adjustments to 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 60 of 321 

the wellhead monitoring parameters would apply to all landfills. 

Monthly monitoring of oxygen/nitrogen and temperature would 

still be required; however, fluctuations/variations in these 

parameters would no longer be required to be identified as 

exceedances in the annual reports. Instead, the landfill would 

maintain the records of this monthly monitoring on site and use 

the monitoring to inform any necessary adjustments to the GCCS 

and make them available to the Administrator (EPA Administrator 

or administrator of a state air pollution control agency or his 

or her designee) upon request. Landfill owners and operators 

would continue to be required to operate their GCCS with 

negative pressure and in a manner that collects the most LFG and 

minimizes losses of LFG through the surface of the landfill. 

Landfills would also continue to be required to prepare and 

submit to the regulating authority for approval a gas collection 

design plan, prepared by a professional engineer. 

2. Proposed Changes to Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Update and Approval of Design Plan. We propose two criteria 

for when an affected source must update its design plan and 

submit it to the Administrator for approval. A revised design 

plan would be submitted on the following timeline: (1) Within 90 

days of expanding operations to an area not covered by the 

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

expanding the gas collection system in a manner other than one 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 61 of 321 

described in a previously approved design plan. The EPA is also 

taking comment on potentially establishing a third-party design 

plan certification program, which could reduce the burden 

associated with EPA or state review and approval of sitespecific design plans and plan revisions, as discussed in 

section X.E of this preamble. 

Submitting Corrective Action Timeline Requests. The EPA 

expects that eliminating the operational standards for 

oxygen/nitrogen and temperature will drastically reduce the 

number of requests for alternative timelines for making 

necessary corrections. However, landfills would still be 

required to maintain negative pressure at the wellhead to 

demonstrate a sufficient extraction rate and would be required 

to take corrective action in the event that a negative pressure 

is not maintained. Therefore, proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Cf outlines the timeline for correcting positive pressure. A 

landfill must submit an alternative corrective action timeline 

request to the Administrator if the landfill cannot restore 

negative pressure within 15 calendar days of the initial failure 

to maintain negative pressure and the landfill is unable to (or 

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

the initial exceedance. 

Electronic Reporting. The EPA is proposing electronic 

reporting of required performance test reports, NMOC emission 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 62 of 321 

rate reports, and annual reports. We also propose that industry 

should be required to maintain only electronic copies of the 

records to satisfy federal recordkeeping requirements. The 

proposed electronic submission and storage procedures are 

discussed in detail in section VI.E of this preamble. 

The proposal to submit performance test data electronically 

to the EPA applies only to those performance tests conducted 

using test methods that are supported by the Electronic 

Reporting Tool (ERT). A listing of the pollutants and test 

methods supported by the ERT is available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. When the EPA adds 

new methods to the ERT, a notice will be sent out through the 

Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions Factors (CHIEF) 

Listserv (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/listserv.html#chief) and 

a notice of availability will be added to the ERT Web site. You 

are encouraged to check the ERT Web site regularly for up-todate information on methods supported by the ERT. 

C. Emission Threshold Determinations 

The EPA is proposing an alternative site-specific emission 

threshold determination for when a landfill must install and 

operate a GCCS based on surface emission monitoring using EPA 

Method 21. This alternative emission threshold determination is 

referred to as “Tier 4.” The Tier 4 SEM demonstration would 

allow landfills that have modeled NMOC emission rates (using 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 63 of 321 

Tiers 1, 2, or 3) at or above the threshold to demonstrate that 

site-specific methane emissions are actually below the 

threshold. A landfill that can demonstrate that surface 

emissions are below 500 ppm for 4 consecutive quarters does not 

trigger the requirement to install a GCCS. Tier 4 would be based 

on the results of quarterly site-specific methane emissions 

monitoring of the entire surface of the landfill along a 30-

meter (98-ft) path, in addition to monitoring areas where visual 

observations indicate elevated concentrations of landfill gas, 

such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover 

and all cover penetrations. If the landfill opts to use Tier 4 

for its emission threshold determination and there is any 

measured concentration of methane of 500 parts per million or 

greater from the surface of the landfill, the owner or operator 

must install a GCCS, and the landfill cannot go back to using 

Tiers 1, 2, or 3. Because Tier 4 is based on site-specific 

actual surface data whereas Tiers 1-3 are based on modeled 

emission rates, the EPA is requiring a GCCS to be installed and 

operated within 30 months of a Tier 4 exceedance of 500 ppm or 

higher. 

D. Proposed Changes to Address Closed or Non-Producing Areas 

1. Subcategory for Closed Landfills. 

The EPA recognizes that many landfills subject to proposed 

subpart Cf are closed. Therefore, the EPA is proposing a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 64 of 321 

separate subcategory for landfills that closed on or before 

[insert date of publication in the Federal Register]. These 

landfills would be subject to a 50 Mg/yr NMOC emission rate 

threshold, consistent with the NMOC thresholds in subparts Cc 

and WWW of 40 CFR part 60. These landfills would also be exempt 

from initial reporting requirements, provided that the landfill 

already met these requirements under subparts Cc or WWW of 40 

CFR part 60. The EPA also solicits comments on an alternative 

approach which would expand the closed landfill subcategory to 

include those landfills that close within 13 months after 

publication of the final emission guidelines.

2. Alternative Criteria for Removing GCCS. 

The EPA also recognizes that many open landfills subject to 

proposed subpart Cf contain inactive areas that do not produce 

as much landfill gas. Therefore, the EPA is also proposing an 

alternative set of criteria for determining when it is 

appropriate to cap or remove a portion of the GCCS. The proposed 

alternative criteria for capping or removing the GCCS are: (1) 

the landfill is closed or an area of an active landfill is 

closed, (2) the GCCS has operated for at least 15 years or the 

landfill owner/operator can demonstrate that the GCCS will be 

unable to operate for 15 years due to declining gas flows, and 

(3) the landfill owner or operator demonstrates that there are 

no surface emissions of 500 ppm methane or greater for 4 

Commented [A6]: OMB General Comment 6: 

Reviewer recommends providing for more time 

for existing facilities to close to be 

included in the closed facility subcategory. 

The reasoning behind this subcategory would 

apply equally well to facilities close to the 

end of their useful life. Because of the time 

it will take to implement changes to the 

emissions guidelines, reviewer recommends that 

EPA propose included facilities that within 13 

months after the publication of the final 

emission guidelines (a period of time likely 

before the first SIPs would be approved) for 

facilities to close and be included in the 

closed subcategory. 

Response: Additional text has been added to 

specifically request comment on the closed 

landfill subcategory to include those 

landfills that close within 13 months after 

publication of the final emission guidelines. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 65 of 321 

consecutive quarters. With these provisions, the landfill can 

employ various technologies or practices to minimize surface 

emissions and have the flexibility to decommission or 

permanently cap and remove the GCCS based on site-specific 

surface emission readings. Note that the EPA is requesting 

comment on defining closed areas of open landfills as discussed 

in section X.A of this preamble. 

E. Other Proposed Changes 

1. Treated Landfill Gas. 

The EPA is proposing a definition of treated landfill gas 

and treatment systems. Specifically, the EPA proposes to define 

Treated landfill gas as landfill gas processed in a treatment 

system meeting the criteria in proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Cf and to define Treatment system as a system that filters, dewaters, and compresses landfill gas. The proposed definition 

allows the level of treatment to be tailored to the type and 

design of the specific combustion equipment, chemical process, 

or other purpose for which the landfill gas is used. These 

definitions would be available for all MSW landfill 

owners/operators. Owners/operators would identify monitoring 

parameters, develop a site-specific treatment system monitoring 

plan, and keep records that demonstrate that such parameters 

effectively monitor filtration, de-watering, and compression 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 66 of 321 

system performance necessary for the end use of the treated 

landfill gas. 

Uses of Treated LFG. In addition, the EPA is proposing that 

the use of treated landfill gas not be limited to use as a fuel 

for a stationary combustion device but also for other beneficial 

uses such as vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas for 

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

manufacturing process. 

2. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions. 

The general provisions in 40 CFR part 60 provide that 

emissions in excess of the level of the applicable emissions 

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

shall not be considered a violation of the applicable emission 

limit unless otherwise specified in the applicable standard (see 

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

language, an individual subpart can supersede this provision. In 

this action, the EPA is proposing standards in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf that apply at all times, including periods of startup 

or shutdown, and periods of malfunction. In addition, the EPA is 

proposing to add a recordkeeping and reporting requirement for 

landfill owners or operators to estimate emissions during 

periods when the gas collection system or control device is not 

operating, to determine the severity of any emissions exceedance 

during such periods. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 67 of 321 

3. Other Proposed Changes 

We are proposing to revise the definition of “Modification” 

and “Household waste” “Solid waste,” and “Sludge” and to add a 

definition of “Segregated yard waste” to make clear the 

applicability of proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. 

Method 25A. Method 25A is being included in proposed 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cf. After reviewing the comments received on 

the NSPS for new landfills proposed on July 17, 2014, the EPA 

recognizes that the use of Method 25A is necessary for measuring 

outlet concentrations less than 50 ppm NMOC. Per Emission 

Measurement Center Guidance Document 033 (EMC GD-033-available 

at http://www.epa.gov//ttn/emc/guidlnd/gd-033.pfd), Method 25A 

should be used only in cases where the outlet concentration is 

less than 50 ppm NMOC as carbon (8 ppm NMOC as hexane). 

Method 18. Method 18 is not included in proposed 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cf. While Method 18 may be used in conjunction 

with Method 25A for methane or specific compounds of interest, 

there are limitations on the number of analytes that can be 

reasonably quantified in measuring the sum of all NMOCs. With 

the possibility of 40 target analytes listed in the current 

landfill section of AP-42 (160 analytes in the draft landfill 

AP-42), Method 18 is not an appropriate or cost effective method 

to test all NMOCs found in landfill samples. The extensive 

quality assurance required by the method makes the method 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 68 of 321 

technically and economically prohibitive for all the potential 

target analytes. 

Surface monitoring intervals. The EPA is clarifying that 

surface emissions monitoring can be conducted at an interval 

less than specified in the rule text. Thus, the EPA is adding 

“no more than” in front of the specified interval in proposed 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Cf (i.e., at no more than 30-meter 

intervals). 

V. Rationale for the Proposed Changes Based on GCCS Technology 

Review 

A. Control Technology Review 

1. Gas Collection and Control Systems 

The EPA has determined that a well-designed and well 

operated GCCS that collects the LFG from the landfill and routes 

the collected gas to a combustion device that reduces NMOC by 98 

percent by weight or an outlet concentration of 20 ppmvd of 

NMOC, as hexane, or to a treatment system that processes the gas 

for subsequent beneficial use in a process that ensures that 

such reductions are achieved continues to be BSER for 

controlling LFG emissions for both new and existing MSW 

landfills. As discussed in section IX.A of this preamble, 

landfill gas energy recovery has environmental benefits in 

controlling emissions and offsetting conventional energy 

sources. The BSER determination is based on the EPA’s review of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 69 of 321 

the NSPS for new landfills as described in the landfills NSPS 

proposal at 79 FR 41800-41805, as well as public comments and 

information received on the proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796) and 

public input received on both the proposed NSPS and the ANPRM 

(79 FR 41772) for existing landfills. 

The majority of comments on this topic, received in 

response to the proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796), including those 

from industry owners and operators, landfill engineering 

consultants, and trade organizations, as well as input received 

in response to the ANPRM (79 FR 41772), agreed that a GCCS and 

98 percent NMOC destruction represent BSER for MSW landfills. 

2. Open Flares and Destruction Efficiencies 

98 Percent Reduction. The EPA is proposing 98 percent 

reduction of NMOC, expressed as a performance level (i.e., a 

rate-based standard or percent control), as the appropriate 

BSER-based standard. The EPA previously determined that this 

level was reasonable considering costs, nonair quality health 

and environmental impacts, and energy requirements39. That 

determination still stands today and the EPA proposes 98 percent 

NMOC reduction for proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. The 

following combustion controls can achieve at least 98 percent 

 

39 Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills—Background Information 

for Final Standards and Guidelines, EPA–453/R–94–021. EPA Office of Air and 

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

Division, December 1995, page 2–79. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 70 of 321 

destruction of NMOCs and we propose that they continue to 

represent BSER: enclosed flares and incinerators, and devices 

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

turbines, and internal combustion engines. The EPA solicits 

comment on whether these devices can in fact achieve at least 98 

percent destruction of NMOCs and whether uses of the landfill 

gas other than for combustion achieve equivalent reductions.

Note that although the landfills rules measure NMOC, similar 

reductions are expected for methane.40

The EPA continues to believe that 98 percent reduction is 

appropriate because this continues to be the level achievable by 

demonstrated technologies. Current data are consistent with 98 

percent destruction. Nonetheless, in the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed NSPS (79 FR 41803), we requested comment and 

additional data on the NMOC destruction efficiency of 

incinerators and devices that burn landfill gas to recover 

 

40 Methane is more readily combustible than other organic compounds, thus 

methane generally has higher destruction (or control) efficiencies than other 

organic compounds such as NMOC and VOC. Therefore, although compliance with 

the landfills regulations is expressed as a percent reduction (or reduction 

to a level of 20 ppmv) of NMOC, landfills that reduce NMOC by 98 percent 

reduce methane by a similar percentage. Two EPA programs use a 99 percent 

destruction efficiency for methane: the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks: 1990-2013 and the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. In addition, the 

EPA’s AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Chapter 2.4 

(1998), contains typical NMOC control efficiencies of 94-99+ for various 

devices used at landfills, including flares, internal combustion engines, 

boiler/steam turbines, and gas turbines. Draft updates (2008) to AP-42 

contain typical NMOC control efficiencies for flares of 97.7 percent. Because 

methane is more readily combustible than NMOC, methane destruction 

efficiencies would be at least at this level.

Commented [A7]: OMB General Comment 3: 

Reviewer recommends clarifying in the rules 

whether the cited 98% effectiveness of GCCS at 

destroying NMOCs (referenced throughout the 

rules) is also 98% effective at destroying 

methane. 

Response: Additional text and footnote added 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 71 of 321 

energy, such as boilers, turbines, and internal combustion 

engines. The EPA did not receive new data on the NMOC 

destruction of energy recovery devices. 

Open/Non-enclosed Flares. Both enclosed and non-enclosed 

(open) flares have been determined to be BSER combustion devices 

and these technologies continue to be used today. Commenters on 

the proposed landfills NSPS noted the prevalence of non-enclosed 

flares as both a primary and secondary control device. 

Commenters contend that non-enclosed flares used at landfills 

meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 60.18(b) have been demonstrated 

to have destruction efficiencies similar to enclosed flares and 

incinerators, and devices that burn landfill gas to recover 

energy, such as boilers, turbines, and internal combustion 

engines. 

Commenters on the NSPS did not submit new data on flare 

performance. However, one commenter included a statement of a 

guaranteed 98 percent destruction efficiency from a commonly 

used flare technology provider at landfills.41 Commenters on the 

proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796) and information submitted in 

response to the ANPRM (79 FR 41772) indicate that hundreds of 

open/non-enclosed flares are currently in use and that these 

 

41 Comment submitted by Republic Waste Services (EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0100). 

Attachment 15 includes statement from John Zink Company on standard emissions 

for elevated flares. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 72 of 321 

flares are fully capable of achieving a performance standard of 

98 percent reduction of NMOC. The use of open/non-enclosed 

flares is supported because of their inherent flexibility in 

addressing multiple operational components including flow rate, 

Btu content, other gas constituents, proximity to neighbors, and 

cost. The information provided also indicates that open/nonenclosed flares are simpler and therefore easier and less 

expensive to operate when compared with enclosed combustion 

devices; in addition, their simplicity makes them less 

susceptible to malfunctions or shutdowns. A better turndown 

ratio for open/non-enclosed flares was cited as an important 

consideration in addressing variable operating flow rates over 

the life of the landfill. The ability to use flares as a back up 

to LFG energy recovery projects is also an important 

consideration. 

One commenter on the proposed landfills NSPS did, however, 

state that EPA should not consider open flares to be part of the 

BSER for landfills, given issues with their performance in 

reducing emissions. The commenter provided several references 

that identified the difficulty in measuring the performance of 

flares and poor or questionable flare performance when 

measurements were made, especially in windy conditions. 

Based on the operational flexibilities open flares offer 

landfill operators, and the flare design and operational 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 73 of 321 

requirements in the general provisions, the EPA is retaining the 

option for landfills to comply with proposed 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf using an open flare operated in accordance with 40 

CFR 60.18(b) of the general provisions. The EPA maintains that 

the design and operational requirements set forth in 40 CFR 

60.18(b) ensure that open flares are operated to adequately 

destroy NMOC to a level consistent with NMOC destruction 

requirements for other control devices. The general provisions 

require a minimum heating value to ensure combustion efficiency. 

Specifically, 40 CFR 60.18(c)(3)(ii) requires the net heating 

value of the gas being combusted to be 7.45 megajoules per 

standard cubic meter (MJ/scm)(200 Btu/standard cubic foot) or 

greater if the flare is nonassisted or 11.2 MJ/scm (300 Btu/scf) 

or greater if the flare is steam-assisted or air-assisted. 

Landfill gas typically contains 50 percent methane, but methane 

content generally ranges from 45 to 60 percent, depending on 

several factors including waste characteristics and landfill 

design and operation activities. This range of methane contents 

is equivalent to landfill gas heating values of approximately 

450 to 600 Btu/scf, which are above the minimum net heating 

values outlined in 40 CFR 60.18(c)(3)(ii). Regardless of the 

specific methane content of landfill gas, the landfill owner or 

operator must calculate the net heating value of the landfill 

gas for comparison to the appropriate minimum net heating value 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 74 of 321 

defined in 40 CFR 60.18. Proposed subpart Cf (40 CFR 60.35f(d)) 

complements the general provision requirements by requiring 

three 30-minute samples obtained by Method 3C. These rule 

provisions ensure that the landfill gas burned in the flare has 

adequate heating value to ensure complete combustion, which in 

turn, ensures adequate NMOC destruction. 

Note that flares at landfills are typically non-assisted 

and generally have low variability in the flow of landfill gas. 

A non-assisted, relatively constant flow of gas means there is 

nothing to dilute or interrupt the mixture of gas in the 

combustion zone. Thus, landfill gas and its components are 

destroyed more efficiently. In addition, with respect to 

concerns about operating flares in windy conditions, the EPA has 

found extremely limited data exists to indicate that wind 

conditions adversely affect destruction efficiencies of flares. 

Studies cited regarding wind conditions are based on experiments 

conducted in laboratory environments using very small diameter 

flares (4.5 to 6 inches) that are more susceptible to wind than 

larger diameter flares used at MSW landfills. 

Although flaring remains one compliance option for 

collecting and controlling emissions of landfill gas, the EPA 

believes that the use of landfill gas to produce energy 

represents a higher value use and requests comments on whether 

there are opportunities to incentivize the use of landfill gas 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 75 of 321 

for energy production rather than flaring. Thus, the EPA 

solicits comments on incentive approaches to encourage landfill 

owner/operators to productively use landfill gas for energy. 

3. Emission Reduction Techniques and GCCS Best Management 

Practices 

In the ANPRM for existing landfills (79 FR 41784), the EPA 

presented several alternative technologies, including oxidative 

technologies, that could potentially serve as a component of 

BSER. The principle of oxidative technologies is the use of 

methanotrophic bacteria, commonly found in most soils and 

compost, to oxidize methane into water, carbon dioxide, and 

biomass. The EPA also presented information on various BMPs that 

could improve the operation and performance of GCCS and thus 

achieve additional emission reductions. Such BMPs included 

installing final cover early to increase gas collection 

efficiency, connecting the leachate collection and removal 

system (LCRS) to a GCCS, providing redundant seals on wellheads, 

installing horizontal collectors to facilitate earlier gas 

collection (i.e., shorter lag times), and preventing flooded 

wells via the use of pumps and surface collectors. The EPA 

received comments both supporting and objecting to considering 

BMPs and oxidative control technologies as BSER. 

Commenters generally pointed out the site-specific nature 

of the various GCCS BMPs. Several commenters disagreed that the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 76 of 321 

EPA should prescribe enhanced wellhead seals in the rule and 

indicated that landfill operators are already employing sitespecific approaches to ensure that wells are properly sealed in 

order to avoid exceedances of wellhead standards and maintain 

good gas quality. Regarding connecting to a LCRS, two commenters 

raised several technical site-specific issues associated with 

connecting an LCRS to a GCCS. Several commenters indicated that 

LCRS connections are typically shallow and can introduce ambient 

air into the GCCS, which could increase the risk of subsurface 

fire. According to these commenters, to reduce these risks, each 

individual connection point of an LCRS would need to be 

evaluated to determine if it was suitable for connection to a 

GCCS. For cover, several commenters stated that landfill cover 

materials must meet multiple objectives, including controlling 

odors, vectors, fires, and litter, shedding moisture to reduce 

infiltration, and supporting vegetation and compaction. One of 

the commenters added that Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) and state and local regulations govern many of these 

cover criteria and expressed concerns that cover requirements in 

the Emission Guidelines could be contradictory to other 

requirements. These commenters indicated that as landfill owners 

and operators select cover materials and designs intended to 

promote methane oxidation, such as biocovers or cover soils, 

these performance objectives should be taken into consideration. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 77 of 321 

Other commenters advocated for requiring BMPs including 

enhanced or duplicate seals on wellheads, connections to LCRS to 

collect LFG, early final covers, horizontal collectors, and BMPs 

for dewatering gas collection wells. 

With respect to oxidative covers, several commenters 

mentioned or provided information on articles and other 

literature that discuss selecting appropriate biocover 

materials.42 Some of these commenters noted that the rate of 

oxidation depends on both material properties and site-specific 

operations, including moisture, temperature, material particle 

size, depth, and compaction. One state agency agreed that 

methane oxidation is well demonstrated for cover materials such 

as compost or yard waste, but expressed concern that methane 

oxidation performance in extreme climate conditions is not well 

known, in particular as related to daily and intermediate cover 

thicknesses. One commenter expressed concerns that the use of an 

oxidizing cover can reduce gas collection efficiency and should 

not be required by the Emission Guidelines. 

Several commenters expressed concern with whether the longterm performance of oxidative control technologies in real-world 

conditions has been established for controlling landfill methane 

and NMOC emissions. Several commenters appreciated the EPA’s 

 

42 Refer to pages 55-56 of the original comment letter at DCN EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-

0215-0100 for references. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 78 of 321 

willingness to recognize the role of oxidation in mitigating 

methane and NMOC emissions and agreed that the use of biocovers 

or biofilters for landfill methane oxidation is promising but 

did not recommend requiring oxidative controls in the Emission 

Guidelines. A couple of these commenters indicated that these 

technologies are not BSER, one of which specifically noted that 

biocover technology has not been sufficiently demonstrated to 

support a regulatory requirement under CAA section 111, as that 

requires the EPA to determine performance standards based on 

adequately demonstrated technology. 

The EPA recognizes the site-specific nature of GCCS design 

and operation and that the effectiveness of any particular BMP, 

therefore, depends on the site-specific circumstances of a 

particular MSW landfill. Therefore, while EPA strongly 

encourages the use of appropriate BMP to ensure the best 

possible design and operation of each GCCS, EPA does not 

consider any particular BMPs to constitute BSER and, thus, is 

not proposing to prescribe the use of GCCS BMPs in proposed 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Cf. The EPA continues to believe that BSER 

remains a well-designed and well-operated GCCS and that while 

all such systems have certain characteristics in common, what 

constitutes a well-designed and well-operated GCCS will vary 

somewhat from landfill to landfill. While we agree with 

commenters that these alternative technologies and BMPs can 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 79 of 321 

achieve additional reductions in some circumstances, the 

performance, cost, and technical feasibility of these BMPs can 

vary greatly from site to site as well as from cell to cell even 

within the same site. Further, designing specific components of 

a GCCS (e.g., biofiltration cells, prescribed wellhead seals, 

horizontal collectors, LCRS connection to GCCS, and surface 

collectors) depends on climate-specific and site-specific 

conditions that must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and 

requires engineering judgment, which is best exercised by the 

professional engineer that reviews the GCCS design plan for 

approval and the staff at each delegated authority responsible 

for approving the GCCS design plan. 

The EPA recognizes that the effectiveness of cover 

practices, both early installation of final cover and the use of 

oxidative covers in reducing emissions is also site-specific. 

Therefore, the EPA does not consider these to constitute BSER 

and is not proposing to prescribe specific cover practices in 

proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. The timing of final cover 

installation depends on the filling sequence and cell design of 

the particular landfill. For biocovers, the applicability is 

dependent on whether the area is closed or open. The materials 

allowed to be used for oxidative covers could also vary from 

site to site depending on state or local yard waste or compost 

bans, materials most favorable to the local climate, or 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 80 of 321 

materials that are best suited to meet multiple site-specific 

performance objectives in addition to reducing landfill gas 

emissions. The EPA also agrees with commenters who noted that 

long-term performance of oxidative covers has not yet been 

adequately demonstrated in a full-scale industrial setting at a 

landfill. 

Based on the information and public input it received on 

emission reduction techniques and various BMPs that could 

improve collection and control of LFG emissions, the EPA 

proposes to conclude that BSER does not include specific GCCS 

BMPs, cover practices, or oxidative controls and, therefore, is 

not proposing to require landfills to adopt those practices in 

the Emission Guidelines. The EPA does not consider oxidative 

technologies (biocovers and biofilters) or BMPs to be part of 

BSER. 

Although the EPA is not prescribing BMPs for GCCS or 

advanced cover practices in proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, 

the EPA expects that two proposed rule flexibilities will 

encourage and promote more widespread adoption of BMPs and 

alternative cover technologies. First, the proposed Tier 4 

surface monitoring demonstration allows a landfill 

owner/operator to use site-specific surface methane emissions 

measurements prior to determining when the installation of a 

regulatory compliant GCCS is required. (The Tier 4 surface 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 81 of 321 

emissions threshold is discussed in section VII.A of this 

preamble. Tier 4 may also be used to determine when the GCCS can 

be removed, as discussed in section VIII of this preamble.) 

Thus, the EPA expects that at least some landfill owners or 

operators will utilize oxidative cover practices or BMPs such as 

early gas collection or LCRS connection to minimize surface 

emissions. 

Second, the EPA is proposing to remove the wellhead 

temperature and oxygen/nitrogen performance requirements and the 

corresponding requirement to take corrective action upon 

exceeding one of these parameters, thereby providing flexibility 

with regard to wellhead operating parameters. (The wellhead 

operating parameters are discussed in section VI.B of this 

preamble.) With the proposed wellhead operating parameter 

flexibility, landfill owners and operators may employ cover 

practices or GCCS BMPs that are suitable for their sites and 

GCCS designs, thereby allowing them to collect more LFG and 

reduce emissions without the risk of exceeding a wellhead 

operating parameter. 

In addition to these two flexibilities, the EPA is 

requesting comment on other compliance flexibilities to better 

promote the use of GCCS BMPs that could be used in the final 

Emission Guidelines. To complement the compliance flexibilities 

proposed in these Emission Guidelines, the EPA intends to 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 82 of 321 

explore the creation of technical assistance documents and other 

tools or resources for educating the owners/ operators of 

affected landfills and delegated authorities about how GCCS BMPs 

and oxidative controls can be implemented effectively to achieve 

additional methane and NMOC emission reductions from landfills. 

4. Organics Diversion and Source Separation 

Landfill gas 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. Food waste, yard 

debris, and other organic materials continue to be the largest 

component of MSW discarded, with food waste comprising the 

largest portion. Decreasing the amount of organics disposed in 

landfills would reduce the amount of LFG generated. 

As previously discussed in this section V.A, we are 

proposing to define BSER as a well-designed, installed and 

operated GCCS. We are proposing to conclude that organics 

diversion and source separation are not part of a well-designed, 

installed and operated GCCS and, therefore, not part of BSER. 

The EPA does, however, consider organics diversion and source 

separation advantageous because such practices reduce the amount 

of LFG generated and thus may serve as a useful compliance tool 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 83 of 321 

as it may allow landfill owners and operators to postpone the 

need to install a GCCS. 

In the ANPRM for existing landfills (79 FR 41787, July 17, 

2014), the EPA solicited input on methods to encourage organics 

diversion in any proposed revised Emission Guidelines. The EPA 

received a variety of ideas on how best to encourage diversion. 

Many commenters generally recognized that organics 

diversion could achieve emission reductions from landfills. 

Although the ANPRM (79 FR 41772) specifically stated EPA was not 

soliciting comments on mandating organics diversion, many 

commenters cautioned against an organics diversion mandate in 

the Emission Guidelines, given the complexity and local nature 

of waste management. Specific examples of how a Tier 4 emission 

threshold determination and flexible wellhead operating 

parameters could encourage more landfills to adopt organics 

diversion programs were provided, as discussed in sections VI, 

VII, and VIII of this preamble. Several commenters suggested 

that the EPA encourage partial organics diversion programs 

instead of focusing on rule exemptions for landfills with 100 

percent diversion rates, which commenters said is impractical at 

this point given current infrastructure and technology 

limitations. One commenter touted the economic and job creation 

benefits of increased organic diversion rates. A state agency 

suggested that a separate subcategory with a higher design 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 84 of 321 

capacity threshold could be developed for landfills diverting 

organics. Another commenter suggested that the EPA should 

provide states the flexibility to incorporate both source 

control requirements and landfill diversion programs into their 

state plans.

States and municipalities in the U.S. are increasingly 

moving toward the diversion of organic wastes from landfills to 

composting and anaerobic digesters. At least 21 states have 

mandated organics diversion and/or banned disposal of at least 

some organics (primarily yard waste) from landfills. Five of 

these states (California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont) have enacted legislation governing organics 

disposal specific to food waste.43 In addition, state initiatives 

to recycle organic wastes have contributed to the growth of 

local residential organics collection, with 198 communities in 

19 states reporting curbside collection of food scraps.44 Between 

2009 and 2014, the number of municipalities with source 

separated food waste collection more than doubled (from 90 to 

198) and the number of affected households grew by nearly 50 

percent.45 Separate collection and treatment of organics in the 

commercial and institutional sectors has also risen. The nature 

 

43 U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for Proposed Emission Guidelines and 

Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Section 2.7, 2015. 

44 Ibid. 

45 Ibid. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 85 of 321 

of organics management initiatives and programs at the state and 

local levels varies across the country by several factors, 

including type of organics targeted (e.g., food waste, yard 

waste), source of organics generation (e.g., commercial, 

residential, institutional), implementation phase (e.g., pilot 

projects, mandatory with fines for violations), and pricing 

formats (e.g., “pay-as-you-throw,” property tax, fixed fee). 

The EPA recognizes the emission reduction benefit of 

organics diversion from landfills. A recent study indicated that 

modest organics diversion programs could achieve a 9 percent 

reduction in LFG generation rates, while more aggressive 

diversion programs could yield up to 18.5 percent reduction.46

Nevertheless, while the EPA has proposed several pathways to 

encourage voluntary organics diversion in this proposal, the EPA 

is not proposing a federal mandate of organics diversion under 

this proposal. There are significant barriers to issuing a 

federal mandate for diversion under the Emission Guidelines, 

including: lack of regulations and incentives at the state and 

local level; limited processing and transfer capacity for 

organic wastes; low cost to dispose of waste in landfills 

relative to other waste treatment technologies; multifaceted and 

 

46 Stege, Alex. The Effects of Organic Waste Diversion on LFG Generation and 

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

2014. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 86 of 321 

regional nature of the solid waste management industry; and 

behavioral changes needed among waste generators (individuals, 

businesses, and industries) to divert their organic wastes from 

landfills.47 

In the 1996 Landfills NSPS Background Information 

Document48, 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 wide-ranging issues associated with solid 

waste management for landfills.” The EPA continues to believe 

that this is the case. The EPA has, however, proposed three 

compliance flexibilities as discussed in sections VI.B (wellhead 

monitoring), VII.A (Tier 4 emission threshold determination), 

and VIII.B (Criteria for Capping or Removing a GCCS) of this 

preamble that may aid landfills in increasing organics 

diversion. The proposed adjustments to wellhead operating 

standards provide some GCCS operational flexibility to 

accommodate declining LFG quantity or quality resulting from 

modified waste composition at landfills employing an organic 

diversion program. The formats of the Tier 4 option and 

alternative set of surface emission-based GCCS removal criteria 

 

47 Ibid. 

48 Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills-Background Information 

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

91-197061). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 87 of 321 

serve as built-in incentives for the landfill owner/operator to 

implement a variety of surface emission reduction techniques, 

including organics diversion. 

In addition to the three compliance flexibilities discussed 

in sections VI.B (wellhead monitoring), VII.A (Tier 4 emission 

threshold determination), and VIII.B (criteria for capping or 

removing a GCCS), the EPA is seeking comment on other compliance 

flexibilities it should consider when issuing the final Emission 

Guidelines to encourage more organics diversion. The EPA is also 

requesting comment on other ways we could structure the 

guidelines to credit organics diversion. 

In response to public input, the EPA is also seeking 

comment on what, if any, role organics diversion policies or 

measures could play in an approvable state plan. The EPA must 

ensure that each state plan establishes requirements for LFG 

emission controls that are at least as stringent as the Emission 

Guidelines. We are, therefore, interested in how states might 

demonstrate that a state plan that contains organics diversion 

policies and measures is at least as stringent as the Emission 

Guidelines. The EPA is interested in supporting state organics 

diversion initiatives and one way of doing this may be to 

provide flexibility to include such initiatives as a component 

of an approvable state plan. As previously stated, however, to 

be approvable, a state plan must be at least as stringent in its 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 88 of 321 

effect on LFG as the Emission Guidelines, i.e., it must ensure 

emission reductions equivalent to those achieved with a welldesigned, installed, and well-operated GCCS with a NMOC 

destruction efficiency of 98 percent and we are not surerequest 

comments on how a state that relies on organics diversion could

do this. The EPA, through its various voluntary programs intends 

to explore the creation of outreach materials, technical 

assistance documents, trainings, and other tools or resources 

for educating owners and operators of affected landfills and 

implementing authorities about the benefits of organics 

diversion and how organics diversion programs can be implemented 

effectively to achieve additional reductions in methane and NMOC 

emissions from landfills. The EPA is also exploring 

opportunities through its voluntary programs to recognize 

leadership in diverting organics from landfills. 

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

evaluating potential changes to the timing of installing, 

expanding, and removing the GCCS? 

To examine the potential impact of changes to the timing of 

initiating and removing landfill gas collection and control, the 

EPA updated a dataset of information for landfills, as described 

below, and applied a model to assess when controls were needed 

under the baseline control scenario (2.5 million Mg design 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 89 of 321 

capacity threshold and 50 Mg/yr NMOC threshold) as well as 

various regulatory options. 

As discussed at 79 FR 41805, in determining whether to 

revise the proposed standards of performance for new MSW 

landfills, the EPA developed a dataset of information for 

landfills, which included landfill-specific data such as 

landfill open and closure year, landfill design capacity, 

landfill design area, and landfill depth. For the regulatory 

analysis, we approximated the number of landfills that would 

become subject to the regulation based on size using the 

reported design capacities, which were provided in units of 

megagrams. For purposes of rule applicability, size is based on 

both mass (Mg) and volume (m3). 

The EPA made several significant updates to this original 

dataset to evaluate the impacts of this proposal. Notably, the 

EPA updated the technical attributes of over 1,200 landfills 

based on new detailed data reported to 40 CFR part 98, subpart 

HH of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). In addition, 

the EPA consulted with its regional offices, as well as state 

and local authorities, to identify landfills expected to undergo 

a modification within the next 5 years. According to the 

applicability of the proposed subpart XXX, if a landfill 

commenced construction on its modification after July 2014, it 

would no longer be subject to the state or federal plans 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 90 of 321 

implementing these proposed revisions to the Emission 

Guidelines; therefore, these landfills were excluded from the 

impacts analysis conducted for this proposal, and their impacts 

will be considered as part of the final revisions to the 

standards of performance for new (and modified) landfills issued 

under 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX. After incorporating all of 

the updates to the inventory and taking out the landfills 

expected to modify, the revised dataset now has 1,839 existing 

landfills that accepted waste after 198749 and opened prior to 

201450 that are analyzed in this regulatory options analysis. A 

detailed discussion of updates made to the landfill dataset is 

in the docketed memorandum, “Summary of Updated Landfill Dataset 

Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfills 

Regulations. 2015.” 

The EPA programmed a Microsoft® Access database 

(hereinafter referred to as the “model”) to calculate the costs 

and emission reductions associated with the regulatory options 

 

49 November 8, 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 emission guidelines for landfills no 

longer receiving wastes because the EPA judged states would be able to 

identify active facilities as of this date. The data available to EPA 

includes an open year without the month and so the analysis uses a cutoff 

year of 1988 for landfill closure year. 

50 July 17, 2014 is the proposed date of the revised NSPS for MSW landfills in 

40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX. A landfill opening or commencing construction on 

its modification after this date would become subject to this new subpart and 

would not be subject to the revised emission guidelines. The EPA cannot 

predict the exact month a model landfill will open so the analysis uses a 

cutoff year of 2014. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 91 of 321 

for each of the landfills in the revised dataset. The default 

parameters for methane generation potential (L0), the methane 

generation rate (k), and the NMOC concentration used to estimate 

when the landfills exceeded regulatory emission thresholds and 

estimate emission reductions are the same as those discussed at 

79 FR 41805. Similarly, the default parameters for methane 

generation potential (L0), the methane generation rate (k), and 

the NMOC concentration used to estimate when landfills could cap 

or remove controls are the same as those discussed at 79 FR 

41805. 

When modeled landfill gas emissions for a particular 

landfill exceeded the emission rate threshold, the EPA assumed 

that collection equipment was installed and started operating at 

the landfill 30 months after first exceeding the threshold (as 

discussed in the docketed memorandum “Methodology for Estimating 

Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills Regulations. 2014”). 

The EPA also assumed that as the landfill was filled over time, 

the landfill would expand the GCCS into new areas of waste 

placement according to an expansion lag time of 5 years for 

active areas and 2 years for areas that are closed or at final 

grade. Based on input received during public outreach to small 

entity representatives (SERs) as well as comments received on 

the proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796), most modern large landfills do 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 92 of 321 

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

are complying with the 5 year provision. 

Although we are proposing a new Tier 4 option as a sitespecific alternative for determining if a landfill has exceeded 

the regulatory emission threshold (and must install controls) or 

if a landfill has fallen below the regulatory emission threshold 

(and can remove or cap controls), the number and types of 

landfills that could opt to use a Tier 4 option are unknown and 

could not be incorporated into the impacts calculated in the 

model. As a result, the number of landfills expected to control 

under each regulatory option, as well as the estimated emission 

reductions and costs associated with each regulatory option are 

based on modeled estimates of landfill gas emissions.

To estimate the costs of each regulatory option, the EPA 

made minor changes to the cost methodology discussed in the 

landfills NSPS proposal at 79 FR 41805. In this analysis, cost 

equations were obtained from a recent update to EPA’s Landfill 

Gas Energy Cost Model (LFGcost-Web), version 3.0, which was 

updated by EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) in 

August 2014. The EPA also updated estimates for surface emission 

monitoring costs based on revised estimates made available to 

the EPA since proposal of the NSPS in July 2014. 

The capital costs continue to be presented in year 2012 

dollars and annualized using an interest rate of 7 percent over 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 93 of 321 

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

case of drill mobilization costs, the length of time between 

each wellfield expansion. These annualized capital costs were 

added to the annual operating and maintenance costs estimated by 

LFGcost-Web. The annualized cost includes capital related to the 

purchase, installation, operation and maintenance of GCCS, and 

costs related to testing and monitoring. 

For certain landfills that were expected to generate 

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

energy recovery rates and associated costs to install and 

operate the energy recovery equipment as well as the revenue 

streams from the recovered energy. These revenues were 

subtracted from the annualized capital and operating and 

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

estimate for each option in each year. The emission reduction 

and cost and revenue equations and assumptions are detailed in 

the docketed memoranda, “Updated Methodology for Estimating Cost 

and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills Regulations. 2015” and 

“Updated Methodology for Estimating Testing and Monitoring Costs 

for the MSW Landfill Regulations. 2015.”

C. What emissions and emission reduction programs are associated 

with existing MSW landfills? 

The EPA estimates that the potential uncontrolled emissions 

from the approximately 1,800 landfills in its regulatory 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 94 of 321 

analysis dataset (as explained in section V.B of this preamble) 

are approximately 69,700 Mg NMOC and 11.0 million Mg methane 

(275 million mtCO2e) in year 2014. In year 2025, the EPA 

estimates that the potential uncontrolled emissions from the 

approximately 1,800 landfills in the dataset are approximately 

71,400 Mg NMOC and 11.2 million Mg methane (281 million mtCO2e). 

The majority of landfills in the dataset are expected to remain 

open through 2025, thus uncontrolled emissions are higher in 

2025. 

Looking beyond the modeled dataset, the Inventory of U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013 shows a growth in 

uncontrolled emissions from MSW landfills, from 205.4 teragrams 

(Tg) CO2e in 1990 to 332.6 Tg CO2e in 2013.51 If controls are 

considered, emissions from landfills have decreased from 173.8 

Tg CO2e in 1990 to 97.5 Tg CO2e in 2013 from both regulatory and 

voluntary programs as discussed below.52

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, 

 

51 U.S. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013. 

April 2015. Table 7-3. 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html 

52 Ibid, Annex 3.14, Table A-265. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 95 of 321 

expanding and removing the GCCS to the modeled emission 

estimates discussed in section V.B of this preamble. 

Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the reductions 

anticipated to be achieved in 2025 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 m3 must install a 

GCCS when NMOC emissions reach or exceed 50 Mg/yr. The table 

includes emission reductions for NMOC and methane. 

Table 2. Baseline Emission Reductions in 2025 at Existing 

Landfills 

No. of 

landfi

lls 

affect

ed 

No. of 

landfil

ls 

control

ling 

No. of 

landfi

lls 

report

ing 

but 

not 

contro

llinga 

Annual 

Net 

Cost 

(milli

on 

$2012)

b

Annual 

NMOC 

Reduct

ions 

(Mg/yr

) 

Annua

l 

Metha

ne 

Reduc

tions 

(mill

ion 

Mg/yr

) 

Annual 

CO2e 

Reduct

ions 

(milli

on 

mt/yr) 

NMOC 

cost 

effecti

veness 

($/Mg) 

Methan

e cost 

effect

ivenes

s 

($/Mg) 

CO2e 

cost 

effecti

veness 

($/mt) 

989 574 211 299 57,300 9.0 226 5,090 32.3 1.3

a Excludes closed landfills from reporting count, because the closed 

landfills are not expected to have to submit reports in 2025. They would have 

already submitted their one-time reports under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW or 

the state or federal plan implementing 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc, and 

because they are closed, they would also be expected to be done with NMOC 

reporting by 2025 because they are on the tail end of their gas curve and gas 

rates are declining. 

b The annualized net cost ($299 million) is the difference between the 

average annualized revenue ($1,408 million) and the sum of annualized control 

cost ($1,700 million) and the average annualized testing and monitoring costs 

($7.3 million). 

The Emission Guidelines in the baseline are estimated to 

require control at 574 of the 989 affected landfills in 2025 and 

achieve reductions of 57,300 Mg/yr NMOC and 9.0 million Mg/yr 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 96 of 321 

methane (226 million mt/yr CO2e). In the baseline we estimate 

that 31 percent (574/1,839) of existing landfills will operate 

emission controls in 2025.

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 proposed action 

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. 

a. State and Local Ordinances 

The EPA is aware that some state or local ordinances 

require LFG combustion. The number of landfills controlling 

under these ordinances is unknown and is not factored into the 

incremental impacts analysis for this rule. The EPA is also 

aware that other states have rules regulating LFG combustion for 

odor control or safety reasons, which may be less comprehensive 

than the requirements of a GCCS operated in accordance with the 

NSPS and emission guideline requirements. 

b. Market-based Mechanisms 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 97 of 321 

Many of these systems may have been installed to recover 

energy and generate revenue through the sale of electricity or 

LFG. 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 115 LFG 

capture projects in 36 states have been issued credits known as 

Climate Reserve Tonnes (CRTs).53 

To estimate the number of landfills that may be controlling 

LFG emissions voluntarily, the EPA evaluated the most current 

data available and 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 or subpart HH GHGRP databases. 

While the NSPS/Emission Guidelines dataset estimates that 

approximately 620 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 and GHGRP 

databases show approximately 330 additional landfills as having 

installed controls, resulting in approximately 950 landfills 

estimated to have a GCCS installed in 2014.54 Approximately 55 

 

53 Climate Action Reserve. Issued List of CRTs as of January 7, 2015. 

https://thereserve2.apx.com/myModule/rpt/myrpt.asp?r=112. 

54 See sections V.B and V.C of this action for a detailed discussion of the 

modeling database and estimated reductions under the current federal 

regulatory framework. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 98 of 321 

percent of these 330 landfills exceed the design capacity of 2.5 

million Mg55, but as of 2014, are not modeled to exceed the NMOC 

emission threshold that dictates when a GCCS must be installed. 

In some cases these GCCS may have been installed earlier than 

required by the time frames currently specified in the NSPS and 

Emission Guidelines. The LMOP database estimates that nearly 120 

of the 330 landfills with voluntary systems have an energy 

recovery component. Among landfills with design capacities of 

2.5 million Mg or greater, approximately 80 of the 180 landfills 

with a voluntary GCCS have an energy recovery component. These 

330 landfills are estimated to reduce approximately 12 million 

Mg CO2e in 2014. This is in addition to the 231 million Mg CO2e 

reduction achieved by the current regulatory baseline. This 

represents an additional 5 percent reduction in year 2014 coming 

from systems installed for reasons other than compliance with 

the NSPS or state and federal plans implementing the Emission 

Guidelines. 

D. What control options did the EPA consider? 

The EPA considered several factors when determining which 

control options would represent BSER. This section of the 

preamble describes those control options, which include varying 

 

55 For the regulatory analysis, we approximated the number of landfills that 

would become subject to the regulation based on size using the reported 

design capacities, which were provided in units of megagrams. For purposes of 

rule applicability size is based on both mass (Mg) and volume (m3). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 99 of 321 

the design capacity threshold, varying the NMOC emission rate 

threshold, and varying the time allowed to install and then 

expand the gas collection and control system. To examine these 

options, the EPA ran several permutations of various control 

options on the original dataset developed for the July 2014 NSPS 

proposal. Each regulatory option assessed variations in the 

design capacity and/or emission rate thresholds, as well as 

changes to the initial lag time and expansion lag time. The 

“initial lag time” is the time period between when the landfill 

exceeds the emission rate threshold and when controls are 

required to be installed and started up (30 months in 40 CFR 

part 60, subparts Cc and WWW). The “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 in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart WWW). 

Some options adjusted a single threshold in isolation; for 

example, reducing the NMOC emission threshold to between 34 and 

40 Mg/yr while keeping the design capacity threshold constant at 

2.5 million Mg. Other options adjusted multiple control 

parameters simultaneously, taking into account the relationship 

between the parameters. For example, recognizing that NMOC 

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

significantly reduced the NMOC emission threshold also reduced 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 100 of 321 

the design capacity thresholds to 2.0 million Mg to avoid 

situations where the NMOC emission threshold would be exceeded 

long before the design capacity threshold. 

In addition to adjusting design capacity and emission 

control thresholds, other preliminary model runs varied the 

initial and/or expansion lag times. These variations estimated 

the impacts of requiring landfill owners or operators to install 

or expand gas collection systems more quickly after crossing 

each modeled NMOC emission threshold. 

In 2013, the EPA presented different model runs during 

Federalism consultations and small entity outreach that 

represented the range of variation in both the threshold and lag 

time parameters. For the options presented, small entity 

representatives (SERs) and Federalism consultation participants 

provided feedback to the EPA, which included implementation 

concerns with varying certain parameters as part of the Emission 

Guidelines review, as discussed in the following sections. The 

EPA also received comments on varying certain parameters in 

response to its July 2014 NSPS proposal and ANPRM for Emission 

Guidelines at MSW landfills (79 FR 41772) and conducted a 

subsequent round of Federalism consultations and small entity 

outreach in 2015. The EPA considered these concerns and comments 

received on the July 2014 NSPS proposal and ANRPM when 

developing a revised set of regulatory options in this proposal. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 101 of 321 

1. What are the implementation considerations with changing the 

design capacity criteria? 

For this proposal, the EPA considered two different design 

capacity thresholds: no change from the current regulatory 

baseline of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3, and an option 

that reduced the design capacity to 2.0 million Mg and 2.0 

million m3. This section of the preamble describes the resulting 

potential burden to regulated entities, including small 

entities. Potential burden includes obtaining a title V permit 

and calculating an annual NMOC emission rate. This discussion 

also considers the size threshold associated with existing state 

regulations, as well as collection systems that are in place on 

a voluntary basis. 

The EPA did not consider an option to remove the design 

capacity criteria for this proposal so that all landfills would 

be affected sources no matter their size, because of the burdens 

of permitting and reporting at small landfills as discussed 

below and at 79 FR 41782. If the EPA were to remove the design 

capacity threshold, a significant number of additional landfills 

would be subject to the rule. Out of the approximately 1,800 

existing landfills in the revised dataset, approximately 850 

have a design capacity of less than 2.5 million Mg. Without a 

design capacity threshold, the NMOC emission rate would be the 

only criterion for installing controls. Thus, these 850 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 102 of 321 

landfills would be required to begin calculating and reporting 

their NMOC emission rate. They would also be required to obtain 

a Title V permit. This would present a significant burden on 

both regulated landfills and delegated permitting authorities, 

which must be evaluated in light of potential emissions 

reductions. 

The EPA did not analyze control options for landfills with 

landfill design capacities less than 2.0 million Mg in the 

model. Based on the revised dataset, 571 of the 623 closed 

landfills (91.6 percent) have a design capacity less than 2.0 

million Mg. Lowering the design capacity below 2.0 million Mg 

would cause a large number of closed landfills to become subject 

to regulatory requirements including annual NMOC reporting 

requirements and Title V permitting requirements. Additionally 

depending on NMOC emission rates, a number of these landfills 

may also be required to install GCCS despite the fact that many 

of these landfills have been closed for many years and are on 

the downside of their gas production curve. The EPA concludes 

lowering the design capacity threshold below 2.0 million Mg 

would add regulatory requirements with minimal environmental 

benefit. The EPA also notes that closed landfills may have 

limited access to additional revenue because they are no longer 

collecting tipping fees and the cost for GCCS and regulatory 

compliance were not factored into their closure plans, they may 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 103 of 321 

have poor or incomplete records for estimating landfill gas 

emissions, and they are less likely to be permitted. 

Several commenters from state agencies expressed concerns 

with the permitting and reporting burdens on smaller landfills 

and advised the EPA to retain the current design capacity 

threshold. Another state agency noted that MSW landfills with a 

design capacity greater than 0.38 million m3 (roughly 15 percent 

of the current design capacity threshold in the Emission 

Guidelines) are required to install gas collection and control 

systems under the state’s HAP rule. In practice, the smallest 

landfills controlling under the state regulation have design 

capacities as low as 0.6 million Mg and 0.4 million m3. The 

commenter noted that the state rule has control requirements 

similar to those in the Emission Guidelines, but does relax some 

of the monitoring requirements given the lower gas quality and 

smaller emission potential at older and smaller landfills. 

Two commenters advocated for reducing or eliminating the 

design capacity criteria, referencing the state of California 

Landfill Methane Rule56 (CA LMR), which requires all landfills 

with at least 450,000 tons of waste-in-place to assess whether 

or not GCCS is required based on other criteria, including 

 

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

6, sections 95460 to 95476, Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 104 of 321 

estimated heat input capacity from the landfill gas and surface 

emissions monitoring data. 

Based on a review of GCCS data reported in its dataset, the 

EPA estimates that over 900 landfills in its revised dataset 

have installed a GCCS for either voluntary or regulatory 

reasons. Of these, 17 percent of landfills with a capacity less 

than 2.0 Million Mg report having a GCCS installed; 47 percent 

of landfills with a capacity between 2.0 million Mg and 2.5 

million Mg have a GCCS installed; and 76 percent of landfills 

with a capacity of 2.5 Million Mg or greater have a GCCS 

installed.57 Thus, it appears that a significant number of 

landfills have installed GCCS even in the absence of federal 

regulation of these smaller sources, based on site-specific 

circumstances such as gas quality and age of waste in the 

landfill or areas of the landfill, access to capital, and energy 

recovery opportunities. 

When the EPA promulgated the 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million 

m3 design capacity threshold in 1996, we considered the impact 

on small entities based on public comment (61 FR 9918, March 12, 

1996). Today, small private entities and municipalities still 

tend to own smaller sized landfills, whereas larger private 

entities tend to own larger regional landfills. One commenter 

 

57 See Docket Item “Modeling Database Containing Inputs and Impacts for 

Proposed Review of the MSW Emission Guidelines. 2015.” 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 105 of 321 

noted that reducing the design capacity may disproportionately 

affect local governments and small entities. Based on the 

ownership data reported in the revised dataset, 78 percent of 

landfills with a design capacity less than 2.0 million Mg are 

publicly owned and a similarly strong majority (71 percent) of 

landfills between 2.0 million Mg and 2.5 million Mg are publicly 

owned. For landfills with a design capacity of 2.5 million Mg or 

greater, the share of public ownership drops to 48 percent of 

landfills. Further, small entity ownership represents only 

approximately 8.7 percent of the landfills required to control 

under a state or federal plan implementing subpart Cc. If the 

EPA were to reduce the design capacity to 2.0 million Mg and 2.0 

million m3, approximately 730 landfills would be subject to 

control requirements and 70 (9.8 percent) of those are 

classified as small entities. If the EPA were to eliminate the 

design capacity criteria, approximately 749 additional existing 

landfills with a design capacity below 2.0 million Mg (50 

percent) would become subject to the rule, of which 379 are 

classified as small entities, with many of these being required 

to install controls depending on the NMOC level selected. 

Further, the cost burden for installing a collection and control 

system is more significant for small landfills, which are more 

often owned by small entities, compared to larger landfills. 

Because certain costs to construct the gas collection system 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 106 of 321 

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

construction costs) remain relatively constant regardless of the 

size of the landfill, the per-acre costs to control a small 

landfill are more expensive than the per-acre costs to control a 

large landfill. 

Assuming an NMOC emission threshold level of 34 Mg/yr, 

reducing the design capacity from 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million 

m3 to 2.0 million Mg and 2.0 million m3 would require controls 

at an additional 20 landfills that have a design capacity 

between 2.0 million and 2.5 million Mg, as shown in Table 3 of 

this preamble. Requiring controls at landfills in the 2.0 

million to 2.5 million Mg size range would be less cost 

effective because these landfills have a smaller emission 

reduction potential in later years. This is apparent when 

considering the percent changes in net control costs and 

corresponding emission reductions: net control costs increase by 

approximately 1.5 percent, while emission reductions increase by 

only 0.5 percent in year 2025. 

The EPA does not believe that the additional burden on 

small entities and the disproportionate impact on publicly-owned 

landfills can be justified in light of the limited additional 

reduction in overall emissions and is, therefore, not proposing 

any changes to the current design capacity threshold of 2.5 

million Mg and 2.5 million m3. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 107 of 321 

2. What are the implementation considerations with reducing the 

NMOC threshold? 

For this proposal, the EPA considered two alternative NMOC 

emission thresholds: 40 Mg/yr and 34 Mg/yr. The EPA recognizes 

that NMOC emissions are site specific, varying widely from 

landfill to landfill and understands that a majority of 

landfills currently affected by the federal and state plans 

implementing the Emission Guidelines conduct Tier 2 testing in 

order to refine their NMOC emission estimates before installing 

a GCCS. This proposal also allows a new site-specific Tier 4 

alternative to determine when a landfill must install a GCCS, as 

discussed in sections IV.C and VII.A of this preamble. 

Despite these variations in NMOC emissions, results from 

the model show that a lower NMOC emissions threshold could 

accelerate the schedule for installing GCCS at existing 

landfills and also increase the number of existing landfills 

required to install controls, thereby achieving additional 

reductions of NMOC emissions. 

The EPA proposed on July 17, 2014 a lower NMOC emission 

threshold in the NSPS (40 Mg/yr) and discussed this alternative 

in the ANPRM (79 FR 41772) and several nongovernmental 

organizations (NGOs) and a local government entity commented in 

support of a reduction in the NMOC emission threshold. One state 

agency also provided examples of existing landfills controlling 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 108 of 321 

emissions in its state with estimated NMOC emission rates as low 

as 8.1 Mg/yr. 

Two commenters expressed concern about whether landfills 

planning to install controls based on the current threshold of 

50 Mg/yr would be financially ready to install controls at an 

earlier time. Other commenters expressed concern about whether 

landfills that have closed and decommissioned their GCCS should 

be pulled back into control requirements if their emissions fall 

between the current 50 Mg/yr threshold and a more stringent NMOC 

emission threshold. These commenters recommended that EPA exempt 

these landfills from more stringent control requirements. One of 

the commenters added that it would be costly to re-install or 

refurbish a previously shutdown system and noted that the system 

would likely operate for only a few more years before it once 

again fell below the more stringent NMOC emission threshold. 

Other commenters expressed concerns that lowering the NMOC 

threshold would jeopardize carbon credit revenues expected from 

landfills emitting between 40 and 50 Mg/yr NMOC that were 

planning on voluntarily installing a GCCS. A state agency also 

expressed concern about the additional burden to delegated 

authorities of managing a larger group of landfills. Another 

state agency expressed concerns that landfills in arid areas 

will have difficulty continuously operating a flare at landfills 

with lower quality gas that emit between 40 and 50 Mg/yr. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 109 of 321 

Another commenter indicated that older and closed landfills will 

struggle to maintain continuous operation of their flare at a 

lower NMOC emission threshold and will need to operate the flare 

with a supplemental fossil fuel. 

Because of concerns with GCCS operations at landfills that 

have closed, the EPA evaluated whether the lower NMOC thresholds 

of 34 and 40 Mg/yr should apply to this subset of landfills, as 

discussed in section VIII.A of this preamble and presented in 

Table 3 of this preamble. Because of concerns about areas with 

low gas quality, the EPA is proposing changes to address closed 

or low-gas-quality areas, including changes to the criteria for 

capping or removing a GCCS, and providing for the use of sitespecific surface emissions monitoring measurements to indicate 

area-specific LFG emissions, as discussed in section VIII.B of 

this preamble. 

As shown in Table 3 of this preamble, the incremental cost 

to control NMOC at open landfills at a threshold of 34 Mg/yr 

NMOC is $17,000/Mg NMOC and $4.3/mtCO2e, compared with 

$19,300/Mg NMOC and $4.9/mtCO2e to control at both open and 

closed landfills. As discussed in section V.H of this preamble, 

an NMOC threshold of 34 Mg/yr at open landfills would achieve 

reductions of 2,770 Mg/year NMOC, and 436,100 Mg/year methane 

(10.9 million mtCO2e) compared to the baseline in year 2025. 

Commented [A8]: OMB Typographical Comment 3: 

Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 108 EG 

that the proposed rule would “reduce” methane. 

As written, it says “achieve” methane. Could 

also say “achieve methane reductions of...” 

Response: Text has been edited. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 110 of 321 

Based on these considerations, the EPA is proposing to reduce 

the NMOC emission threshold from 50 Mg/yr to 34 Mg/yr at open 

landfills. The EPA is proposing a separate subcategory for 

landfills that closed on or before [insert date of publication 

in the Federal Register], as discussed in section VIII.A of this 

preamble.

3. What are the implementation concerns with shortening the 

initial or expansion lag times? 

In its revised regulatory options analysis for this 

proposal, the EPA did not model the impacts from any regulatory 

options that reduced the initial or expansion lag times. To a 

great extent, this decision was based on our consideration of 

the numerous implementation and cost concerns raised by SERs and 

Federalism consultation participants as discussed at 79 FR 

4180758, as well as in comments received on the 2014 MSW 

landfills NSPS proposal and ANPRM for Emission Guidelines (79 FR 

41772). Those concerns are summarized below. The initial lag 

time is the time period between when the landfill exceeds the 

emission rate threshold and when controls are required to be 

installed and started up and the expansion lag time is the 

 

58 See also the docketed report “Summary of Small Entity Outreach. 2014.”(Docket 

Item: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0051) [and the Final Report of the Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel on EPA’s Planned Proposed Rule Emission Guidelines and 

Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, June 2015]. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 111 of 321 

amount of time allotted for the landfill to expand the GCCS into 

new areas of the landfill. 

One state agency commented that shortening the current 

initial lag time would not allow sufficient time to develop and 

approve the GCCS design plan, obtain the necessary permit, and 

construct the GCCS. The commenter added that one unintended 

consequence of shortening the initial lag time could be the 

inhibition of the beneficial reuse of landfill gas, since a 

shorter lag time may not allow time to design and approve a more 

complex landfill gas energy recovery system. Commenters 

representing affected landfills also expressed concerns that 

current administrative and construction lead times would make 

shorter lag times difficult. 

Several landfill owners/operators and a state authority 

agreed with costs and operational and safety concerns described 

at 79 FR 41807 associated with increasing the number of wells in 

active areas as a result of shorter initial or expansion lag 

times. One commenter provided detailed information on costs to 

install and repair wells in active areas, which the commenter 

estimated to be between two and three times more expensive than 

wells installed in areas at final grade. This commenter added 

that 43 percent of the wells installed during 2014 were 

replacement wells that had to be installed as a result of damage 

to existing wells resulting from ongoing activities in active 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 112 of 321 

areas and noted that shortened lag times would only increase the 

number of replacement wells required. In addition to the damage 

to wells from filling operations, one commenter added that 

vertical wells in active areas require additional lateral 

collection pipes to be installed on rather flat slopes that are 

susceptible to condensate blockage and must also be replaced 

more frequently. Similarly, two commenters were concerned 

whether horizontal collectors could universally meet the need 

for shorter lag times in light of the susceptibility of flooding 

of the horizontal designs and the inability to dewater these 

wells with pumps. 

Several commenters recognized the benefit of earlier GCCS 

installation, but these commenters also discussed aerobic 

conditions in active areas and other factors affecting gas 

quality that in turn create exceedances of wellhead monitoring 

requirements for pressure, temperature, and oxygen/nitrogen. 

They noted that few states have accommodated flexible monitoring 

alternatives for early collection systems. One state authority 

believed that site-specific factors other than the regulatorydriven lag times, such as safety or odor control, are already 

achieving earlier installation of GCCS. Three other commenters 

urged EPA to include early collection requirements in the 

proposed Emission Guidelines. One of these commenters indicated 

that the requirement to promote early collection could be 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 113 of 321 

flexible instead of a rigid adjustment to the lag times. For the 

reasons presented in this section as well as those detailed at 

79 FR 41807, the EPA is not proposing to shorten the initial or 

expansion lag times in the revised Emission Guidelines. However, 

the EPA is requesting comment on whether the regulation should 

require that the GCCS design plan contain a description of early 

gas collection measures or best management practices, in order 

for the reviewing professional engineer or the Administrator to 

ensure that emissions are minimized. The EPA is also taking 

comment on whether the monitoring in the rule should be 

strengthened to require GCCS to be expanded in a site-specific 

manner as long as surface emission monitoring limits in all 

areas of the landfill were maintained at all times, similar to 

the approach taken in the California Landfill Methane Rule 

(LMR).

E. How did we select the proposed options? 

When determining which control options would represent 

BSER, the EPA considered several factors: the implementation 

considerations identified earlier in this section of this 

preamble; and the incremental emission reductions, cost, and cobenefits that would be achieved beyond the baseline. 

The EPA compared the annualized net cost and emission 

impacts in 2025 of three different regulatory options to the 

annualized net costs and emission impacts in 2025 of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 114 of 321 

baseline. The EPA analyzed numerous iterations of alternate 

control and reporting thresholds and presented potential control 

options to SERs and Federalism consultation participants, as 

described in section V.D of this preamble. After considering 

feedback from the SERs and Federalism consultation participants, 

as well as comments received on the July 2014 NSPS proposal and 

ANPRM (79 FR 41772), the EPA selected for consideration three 

regulatory alternatives as presented in Table 3 of this 

preamble. Table 3 summarizes the incremental impacts of each 

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

the NMOC and methane emission reductions and corresponding 

annualized net costs, when using a 7 percent discount rate, in 

2025. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 115 of 321 

Table 3. Emission Reductions and Costs for Control Options in 

Year 2025 at Existing Landfills (2012$) 

Option

Lan

dfi

lls 

aff

ect

ed 

by 

pro

pos

ed 

opt

ion

a

No. 

of 

lan

dfi

lls 

aff

ect

edb 

No. 

of 

landf

ills 

contr

ollin

g 

No. 

of 

land

fill

s 

repo

rtin

g 

but 

not 

cont

roll

ing 

Ann

ual 

Net 

Cos

t 

(mi

lli

on 

$20

12) 

Annu

al 

NMOC 

Redu

ctio

ns 

(Mg/

yr) 

Annual 

Methan

e 

Reduct

ions 

(milli

on 

Mg/yr) 

Annu

al 

CO2e 

Redu

ctio

ns 

(mil

lion 

mt/y

r)c 

NMOC 

cost 

effect

ivenes

s 

($/Mg) 

Metha

ne 

cost 

effec

tiven

ess 

($/Mg

) 

CO2e 

cost 

effect

ivenes

s 

($/mt)

c 

Baseline 

Baseli

ne 

(2.5 

millio

n Mg 

design 

capaci

ty/50 

Mg/yr 

NMOC) 

All 989 574 211 299 57,3

00 9.0 226 5,100 32.3 1.3 

Incremental values vs. the Baseline 

Option 

(2.5 

millio

n Mg 

design 

capaci

ty/40 

Mg/yr 

NMOC) 

Ope

n 

0 62 -62 27.

0 

1,72

0 0.27 6.8 15,800 100 4.0 

All 0 84 120 48.

1 

2,50

0 0.39 9.9 19,200 122 4.9 

Option 

(2.5 

millio

n Mg 

design 

capaci

ty/34 

Mg/yr 

NMOC) 

Ope

n 

0 106 -106 46.

8 

2,77

0 0.44 10.9 17,000 108 4.3 

All 0 142 62 77.

6 

4,03

0 0.64 15.9 19,300 122 4.9 

Option 

(2.0 

millio

n Mg 

design 

capaci

ty/34 

Mg/yr 

NMOC) 

Ope

n 

101 122 -75 51.

0 

3,04

0 0.48 12.0 16,800 107 4.3 

All 101 162 143 83.

5 

4,36

0 0.69 17.2 19,200 122 4.9 

a Options in this table show the impacts of reducing the design capacity 

and/or NMOC emission threshold below baseline levels on open landfills only, 

and retaining the NMOC threshold of 50 Mg/yr for the closed landfill 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 116 of 321 

subcategory as well as reducing the design capacity and/or NMOC emission 

thresholds for all landfills (open and closed). 

b Landfills are affected by the landfills Emission Guidelines based on design 

capacity. Once affected, they calculate and report emissions until they 

exceed the NMOC threshold, which triggers control requirements. 

c Results do not include secondary CO2 impacts. 

Regulatory options. The EPA considered three regulatory 

options more stringent than the baseline, as presented in Table 

3 of this preamble. The first option reduces the NMOC emission 

threshold to 40 Mg/yr. The second option further reduces the 

NMOC threshold to 34 Mg/yr. The third option reduces both the 

NMOC emission threshold to 34 Mg/yr and the design capacity 

threshold to 2.0 million Mg and 2.0 million m3. We analyzed the 

impacts of applying each of these three more stringent 

thresholds to only open landfills as well as all (open and 

closed) landfills. 

Based on the characteristics of the landfills, between 

approximately 60 and 160 additional landfills would be required 

to install controls in 2025. In addition to increasing the total 

number of landfills that would control their emissions, the 

schedule for installing controls would be accelerated for many 

landfills in years prior to 2025 because the landfill would 

exceed the lower thresholds of 34 or 40 Mg/yr NMOC earlier than 

the baseline, and in turn begin collecting and destroying 

landfill gas emissions earlier. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 117 of 321 

Emission reductions. If the EPA were to reduce the NMOC 

emission threshold to 34 Mg/yr at open landfills while retaining 

the 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3 design capacity threshold 

(option 2.5/34) as proposed in this rule, the corresponding 

emission reductions in 2025 would be 2,770 Mg/year NMOC and 

436,100 Mg/year methane (10.9 million mtCO2e) compared to the 

baseline, which represents a 4.8 percent reduction in emissions 

beyond the baseline. If EPA were to apply this threshold to all 

landfills (open and closed), the corresponding emission 

reductions in 2025 would be 4,030 Mg/year NMOC and 635,100 

Mg/year methane (15.9 million mtCO2e) compared to the baseline. 

Additional reductions could be achieved if the EPA combined the 

NMOC emission threshold of 34 Mg/yr with a lower design capacity 

threshold of 2.0 million Mg and 2.0 million m3 (option 2.0/34). 

The corresponding emission reductions for open landfills in 2025 

would be 3,040 Mg/yr NMOC and 479,100 Mg/yr methane (12 million 

mtCO2e) compared to the baseline for open landfills, 

representing a 5.3 percent reduction in emissions beyond the 

baseline. If the EPA were to apply this lower threshold for both 

design capacity and NMOC to all landfills (open and closed), the 

corresponding emission reductions in 2025 would be 4,360 Mg/year 

NMOC and 687,100 Mg/year methane (17.2 million mtCO2e) when 

compared to the baseline. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 118 of 321 

If the EPA were to reduce the NMOC threshold to 40 Mg/yr at 

open landfills while retaining a 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million 

m3 design capacity threshold (option 2.5/40), the emission 

reductions in 2025 would be 1,720 Mg/year NMOC and 270,700 

Mg/year methane (6.8 million mtCO2e) compared to the baseline. 

An emission threshold of 40 Mg/yr NMOC with a 2.5 million Mg and 

2.5 million m3 design capacity threshold represents 

approximately a 3 percent reduction in emissions beyond the 

baseline. If the EPA were to apply the 40 Mg/yr NMOC threshold 

to all landfills (open and closed), the corresponding emission 

reductions in 2025 would be 2,500 Mg/year NMOC, 270,000 Mg/year 

methane (6.8 million mtCO2e) compared to the baseline. 

The wide range in the magnitude of emission reductions 

among pollutants is due to the composition of landfill gas: NMOC 

represents less than 1 percent of landfill gas, while methane 

represents approximately 50 percent. CO2e is an expression of 

methane in terms of the CO2 equivalents, given the methane GWP 

of 2559. 

Cost. In terms of control costs in 2025, option 2.5/34 

represents an approximately 16 percent increase in control costs 

 

59 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 119 of 321 

compared to the baseline if the threshold were reduced for open 

landfills only, and a 26 percent increase in control costs 

compared to the baseline if the threshold were reduced for all 

landfills (open and closed). If the EPA adopted a lower NMOC 

threshold of 34 Mg/yr NMOC along with a reduction in design 

capacity to 2.0 million Mg and 2.5 million m3, the net cost 

would increase by 17 percent above the baseline if applying more 

stringent controls only at for open landfills, and 28 percent 

for more stringent control of all landfills (open and closed). 

If the EPA adopted an NMOC threshold of 40 Mg/yr NMOC but 

retained a design capacity of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3, 

the net cost would be 9 percent above the baseline for open 

landfills and a 16 percent increase for all landfills. 

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

cost for NMOC reductions under the baseline is $5,100 per Mg 

NMOC and $32.3 per Mg methane as presented in Table 3 of this 

preamble. Under option 2.5/34, the cost effectiveness is $17,000 

for controlling open landfills and $19,300 for all landfills. If 

the EPA adopted a lower NMOC threshold of 34 Mg/yr NMOC along 

with a reduction in design capacity to 2.0 million Mg and 2.0 

million m3 (option 2.0/34), the cost effectiveness is $16,800 

for open landfills and $19,200 for all landfills, although the 

EPA recognizes that this lower cost effectiveness does not 

Commented [A9]: OMB Technical Comment 6: 

Reviewer recommends clarifying the cost 

language on pages 117 and 118 EG. As written, 

it sounds like a fraction of the costs will be 

borne by “open landfills” and a larger cost 

for all landfills. Does this mean that 

“closed” landfills will bear a greater 

proportion of the costs? Why? 

Response: See edits here. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 120 of 321 

incorporate costs related to additional permitting needs for 

sources between 2.0 and 2.5 million Mg and m3. Under option 

2.5/40, the incremental dollar-per-Mg control cost for NMOC 

reductions is approximately $15,800 per Mg NMOC for open 

landfills and $19,200 for all landfills. The EPA welcomes 

additional data and comment on the issue of costs. 

Proposed Option 2.5/34. Based on the emission reduction and 

cost discussions above and consistent with the President’s 

Methane Strategy and the potential to achieve a near-term 

beneficial impact in mitigating global climate change as 

discussed in section III of this preamble, the EPA is proposing 

to reduce the NMOC threshold to 34 Mg/yr at open landfills but 

retain the current design capacity threshold of 2.5 million Mg 

and 2.5 million m3. Lowering the NMOC threshold would result in 

earlier GCCS installations at landfills already subject to the 

rule based on their design capacity, thereby achieving 

additional reductions of NMOC and methane. This lowered 

threshold achieves reductions without adjusting the initial and 

expansion lag times and incurring the associated costs and 

implementation concerns. 

Reducing the NMOC threshold from the baseline-level of 50 

Mg/yr to 34 Mg/yr at open landfills would affect 106 more 

landfills in 2025 and would achieve an estimated 4.8 percent 

additional reduction in emissions of NMOC and methane compared 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 121 of 321 

to the baseline. These additional reductions can be achieved at 

very similar cost effectiveness to an NMOC threshold of 40 

Mg/yr, but a level of 34 Mg/yr would achieve almost 60 percent 

more reductions than a level of 40 Mg/yr. In addition, the 

proposal is expected to result in the net reduction of 238,000 

Mg CO2, due to reduced demand for electricity from the grid as 

landfills generate electricity from landfill gas. Reducing the 

NMOC threshold to 34 Mg/yr results in an incremental reduction 

of methane that is equivalent to approximately 10.9 million 

mtCO2e per year, which compares to 19 to 33 million mtCO2e 

reductions from the April 16, 2012 regulations for the oil and 

gas industry (77 FR 49490). In addition, as discussed in section 

XI.G of this preamble, a level of 34 Mg/yr NMOC also results in 

climate-related benefits associated with methane reductions. The 

2025 methane benefits vary by discount rate and range from about 

$310 million to approximately $1.7 billion; the mean SC-CH4 at 

the 3-percent discount rate results in an estimate of about $660 

million in 2025. 

Further, this proposal would tighten the control device 

removal criteria, requiring that the controls would have to stay 

on until three successive tests for NMOC emissions were below 

the NMOC emission threshold of 34 Mg/yr instead of 50 Mg/yr, 

unless the landfill can demonstrate that its surface emissions 

Commented [A10]: OMB General Comment 15: 

Reviewer recommends clarifying why EPA is 

proposing to choose option 2.5/34, which based 

on the cost comparison tables seems to have 

the highest cost per Mg NMOC and methane of 

the options considered. 

Response: Additional text has been added. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 122 of 321 

are low, as discussed in section VIII.B of this preamble. 

Depending on the waste-in-place of the landfill at closure and 

other site-specific factors (e.g., waste composition, climate), 

it may take 15 to 45 years after closure for a large modern 

landfill to emit less than the NMOC emission threshold, and in 

turn qualify for capping or removing the GCCS. Although the 

emission reductions associated with these later years in the 

landfills’ lifetimes are not incorporated in the environmental 

and economic impacts of the baseline and options under 

consideration in year 2025, the lower threshold associated with 

this proposal would require controls to be installed for a 

longer period than the baseline. 

Reducing the NMOC threshold also recognizes the opportunity 

to build upon progress to date and achieve even more reductions 

of landfill gas and its components, consistent with the 

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

preamble. Landfill gas generated from established waste (waste 

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. Because the components of 

landfill gas are associated with substantial health, welfare, 

and climate effects, additional reductions of landfill gas would 

improve air quality and reduce health and welfare effects 

associated with exposure to landfill gas emissions. Note that in 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 123 of 321 

2013, landfills continued to be the third largest source of 

human-related methane emissions in the U.S., representing 15.3 

percent of total methane emissions.60 Methane emissions represent 

9.5 percent of all GHG emissions (in CO2e) in the U.S.61 

The EPA is not proposing to reduce the design capacity in 

conjunction with a reduction in the NMOC emission threshold. As 

discussed in section VI.E of this preamble, this option achieves 

only modest additional reductions (less than one percent more 

than the proposed option 2.5/34), but has a disproportionate 

impact on small entity- and municipally-owned sites, and closed 

landfills that are on the downward trend of generating landfill 

gas. Reducing the design capacity would also pose substantial 

burden on delegated authorities because these small entity- and 

municipally- owned landfills are not affected by the currently 

promulgated NSPS or Emission Guidelines. 

Alternative Option 2.5/40. The EPA recognizes that the 

ownership, operating status, and other technical characteristics 

of individual landfills can affect the site-specific cost 

effectiveness of achieving additional reductions of NMOC and 

methane and ability to sustain the operation of GCCS that may 

not be readily apparent when selecting a control option based on 

 

60 U.S. EPA. 2013. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 

1990–2013. Executive Summary, ES-8.” Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html. 

61 Ibid. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 124 of 321 

the national aggregate values shown in Table 3 of this preamble. 

The EPA is soliciting comment on whether an NMOC threshold 

higher than 34 Mg/yr may be appropriate for all, or a subset of 

the existing landfills affected by this proposal, in addition to 

retaining the current threshold of 50 Mg/yr for the closed 

landfill subcategory, as proposed and discussed in section 

VIII.A of this preamble. 

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Changes to Monitoring, 

Recordkeeping, and Reporting 

A. Surface Emissions Monitoring Requirements 

The intent of the surface monitoring provision in the 

existing Emission Guidelines is to maintain a tight cover that 

minimizes the migration of emissions through the landfill 

surface. Quarterly surface emissions monitoring indicates 

whether the cover and gas collection system are working 

properly. In addition to the proposed surface emission 

provisions discussed here, the EPA is also seeking comment on 

additional enhancements to surface emissions monitoring in 

section X.B of this preamble. 

Every Cover Penetration. The EPA proposes that all surface 

penetrations must be monitored for existing landfills. Proposed 

40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf specifies that the landfill must 

“operate the collection system so that the methane concentration 

is less than 500 parts per million above background at the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 125 of 321 

surface of the landfill. To determine if this level is exceeded, 

the owner or operator must conduct surface monitoring around the 

perimeter of the collection area along a pattern that traverses 

the landfill at 30 meter intervals and where visual observations 

indicate elevated concentrations of landfill gas, such as 

distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover and all 

cover penetrations.” 

Commenters both supported and opposed monitoring every 

cover penetration. Several commenters, including two state/local 

agencies and one environmental organization supported monitoring 

every cover penetration. The state agency noted that seals 

around penetrations can be compromised as a result of 

settlement, separation from the barrier layers or boot 

materials, and cracking of cover soils tied into penetrations, 

thus, leading to detections of landfill gas during surface 

monitoring as reported by field staff. Several commenters 

opposed the requirement to monitor every cover penetration, 

citing significant additional cost with no or limited 

environmental benefit. In proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, 

we are reiterating the position in the current regulation that 

landfills must monitor all cover penetrations and openings 

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

a gas collection system is required. Specifically, landfill 

owners/operators must conduct surface monitoring at 30-meter 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 126 of 321 

intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated 

concentrations of landfill gas. The EPA maintains that cover 

penetrations can be observed visually and are clearly a place 

where gas would be escaping from the cover, so monitoring of 

them is required by the regulatory language. The regulatory 

language gives distressed vegetation and cracks as an example of 

a visual indication that gas may be escaping, but this example 

does not limit the places that should be monitored by landfill 

staff or by enforcement agency inspectors. Thus, consistent with 

the EPA’s historical intent and interpretation, the landfill 

owner or operator must monitor any openings that are within an 

area of the landfill where waste has been placed and a gas 

collection system is required. 

More Precise Location Data. The EPA is proposing more 

specific requirements for reporting the locations where measured 

methane surface emissions are 500 parts per million above 

background. Since the Emission Guidelines were originally 

promulgated in 1996, EPA is aware of new, relatively inexpensive 

monitoring technologies that incorporate GPS technologies to 

more precisely identify the location of exceedances. The EPA is 

aware of several landfills that have been using GPS to more 

accurately track the location of measurements and store these 

data in databases. The EPA is proposing to require landfills to 

report the latitude and longitude coordinates of each exceedance 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 127 of 321 

using an instrument with an accuracy of at least 3 meters. 

Coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at least five 

decimal places. This level of accuracy and precision is 

consistent with the requirements proposed in Petroleum Refinery 

Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance 

Standards (79 FR 36880). This precision will also provide more 

transparency to inspectors reviewing site records on the 

location of surface emission leaks, and confirming areas of the 

landfill where surface monitoring activities were skipped, which 

may assist with targeting inspections to problem areas of the 

landfill. In addition, this precision will allow the landfill to 

overlay the coordinates of surface exceedances against maps of 

the GCCS to determine spatial and temporal patterns of 

exceedances relative to GCCS components. This specificity for 

location data is also being required for landfills using the 

Tier 4 site-specific measurement approach, as discussed in 

section VII.A of this preamble. 

B. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements 

The operational standards of the current Emission 

Guidelines are to operate each interior wellhead in the 

collection system with a negative pressure (vacuum), a landfill 

gas temperature less than 55 °C and with either a nitrogen level 

less than 20 percent or an oxygen level less than 5 percent. 

Since 1996, when the rules were originally promulgated, the EPA 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 128 of 321 

has heard concerns from both regulated entities and implementing 

authorities regarding the implementation of the operational 

standards for temperature and oxygen/nitrogen at wellheads. The 

EPA received feedback during 2013 and 2014 from SERs and 

Federalism consultation participants expressing concern that the 

wellhead standards were overly prescriptive. In the July 17, 

2014 proposed NSPS (79 FR 41821) and the ANPRM for the Emission 

Guidelines (79 FR 41788), the EPA discussed whether these 

parameters should be adjusted in order to provide monitoring 

flexibility for landfills while also ensuring that the GCCS were 

well operated. The EPA also requested comment on what types of 

landfills may be eligible for adjustments to these wellhead 

standards; for example, the EPA asked whether only small 

entities, or landfills with energy recovery projects should 

benefit from this flexible monitoring. 

In response to the July 2014 proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796) 

and ANPRM (79 FR 41772), many commenters questioned the need for 

the current wellhead operating standards for monitoring 

pressure, temperature, and oxygen or nitrogen to assess whether 

the GCCS was operating effectively. 

Fire. Industry commenters recognized that the wellhead 

operational standards were intended to ensure the landfill gas 

collection system is operating properly and to avoid propagation 

of a subsurface fire or inhibit anaerobic decomposition, but 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 129 of 321 

they asserted that the standards achieve neither of the latter 

objectives. 

Commenters asserted that the wellhead monitoring parameters 

are poor indicators of landfill fires or inhibited decomposition 

and impede proper operation of the collection system without 

providing any of the expected benefits. They also explained that 

landfill operators typically respond to high temperature and 

oxygen/nitrogen readings by reducing flow from the well or 

expanding the gas collection system. They explained that both 

approaches can have unintended and harmful consequences, 

including exacerbating a fire, and reducing the collection 

efficiency of the GCCS. In addition, they asserted that 

expanding a GCCS in an area with poor gas quality or quantity 

does not assist with achieving additional reductions. Commenters 

emphasized the difficulty of meeting the wellhead standards in 

areas of the landfill with declining gas flowrates or gas 

quality, which is more common in older or closed areas of the 

landfill. Several commenters stated that landfill owners already 

have inherent incentives to minimize fire risks in order to 

protect significant investments in GCCS and energy recovery 

infrastructure. 

Flooding. Commenters both agreed and disagreed that surface 

emission monitoring and monthly monitoring of pressure at the 

wellhead are sufficient to determine if the well is inoperable 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 130 of 321 

or functioning below expected capacity as a result of flooding. 

Commenters suggested that landfill gas flowrate measurement is 

an established technology to assess well performance and can be 

measured without removing the wellhead (unlike measurement of 

liquid levels) and added that flow rate measurement is required 

for landfills affected by the Wisconsin landfills regulations. 

The EPA recognizes that this parameter can be measured using the 

same equipment used to monitor other wellhead parameters and it 

is taking comment on whether to monitor this parameter in 

section X of this preamble. 

Wellhead Monitoring and BMPs. In response to the July 17, 

2014 ANPRM (79 FR 41772) and NSPS proposal, the EPA received 

input indicating that the currently required wellhead operating 

parameters (particularly oxygen/nitrogen and temperature), are 

barriers to, rather than a part of, a “well operated” GCCS and 

prevent proactive LFG collection practices such as connecting 

the GCCS to the leachate collection system and installing 

horizontal or other early gas collectors. Specifically, the EPA 

received information explaining that leachate systems are not 

designed to be air tight and are not constructed in refuse. The 

information also indicated that when leachate collection systems 

contain liquids, the piping that conveys the leachate may be 

unable to collect enough gas until the liquid is removed and 

that as a result, when a vacuum is applied, ambient air can be 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 131 of 321 

pulled in as well, leading to elevated oxygen concentrations. 

Accordingly, an alternative operating procedure would be needed 

to accommodate these higher oxygen levels. The information 

received indicates that regulatory agencies have been reluctant 

to grant these alternatives. 

It was also pointed out that gas quality and quantity can 

vary widely from different systems and at different times within 

the same system, which is why horizontal collectors and leachate 

system components are not designed to meet the 40 CR part 60, 

subpart Cc and WWW operating parameters for pressure, 

temperature, and nitrogen/oxygen concentration. Information from 

a state agency indicated that some intake of ambient air is 

likely with leachate collectors and suggested that operators 

should have flexibility to decide the balance between gas flow 

and oxygen intake and on whether to cease extracting landfill 

gas or use another method. The information provided further 

indicated that the time delay associated with modifying a GCCS 

design plan or getting approval for higher operating values 

(HOVs) is problematic when applied to collector pipes used for 

seep and odor control, since operators must make these changes 

more quickly for safety reasons. 

The EPA also received input explaining the benefits of 

early gas collection, such as fewer emissions and reduced odors. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 132 of 321 

Corrective Action Concerns. Under the current rules, 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, subparts WWW and Cc 

for correcting the exceedance. If the exceedance cannot be 

corrected within the specified timeframe, the landfill 

owner/operator should prepare to expand the GCCS. As commenters 

note above, exceedances involving elevated temperature and 

oxygen/nitrogen concentration are often not solved by expanding 

the GCCS, especially in older areas. Several industry 

commenters, as well as a state regulatory agency, noted that 

wellhead corrective action often requires very site-specific and 

technical solutions other than expanding a GCCS and it is not 

reasonable to develop these actions and have them approved 

within the narrow timeframes allowed in the current rules. A 

trade association noted that most landfills have occasional 

exceedances of wellhead standards and that requests for HOVs are 

among the top five paperwork items submitted for landfill GCCS 

operations. Given the numerous landfills subject to control 

requirements as well as the fact that many landfills could have 

more than 100 wells installed, the trade association also noted 

that the prescriptive review and approval processes for HOV of 

wellhead operating standards present a significant burden for 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 133 of 321 

both the landfill and the delegated authority without an 

environmental benefit. 

Commenters representing industry, state government, the SBA 

Office of Advocacy, and a trade organization called on the EPA 

to remove temperature and oxygen/nitrogen wellhead operating 

parameters from Emission Guidelines for all landfills. These 

commenters were all in agreement that negative pressure and 

surface monitoring can assure proper GCCS operation. One 

commenter noted that landfills with energy recovery projects 

will continue to monitor wellhead parameters to ensure proper 

equipment operation and maximize revenue from energy sales, 

without requiring the monitoring and reporting of these 

parameters under the Emission Guidelines. Another commenter 

noted that the regulations should provide some flexibility to 

accommodate declining gas generation that facilities will 

experience as a result of local diversion initiatives.

Two state agencies requested that the wellhead operating 

parameters of temperature and oxygen/nitrogen merely serve as 

guidance to provide flexibility, particularly to small entities. 

One of the commenters provided an example of monitoring 

requirements in its state regulation, which exempts supplemental 

and/or temporary odor and gas control system components (e.g., 

leachate cleanouts, leachate recirculation, early collectors) 

from pressure, temperature, and oxygen/nitrogen limits. In this 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 134 of 321 

case, the state does not impose limits for these parameters, but 

it does require the landfill to monitor those parameters. 

Two commenters requested that temperature and 

oxygen/nitrogen monitoring requirements be continued while 

maintaining current surface methane monitoring methods. A state 

agency noted that wellhead monitoring can identify subsurface 

biological and chemical reactions that can present a safety 

hazard and cannot be detected by surface emission monitoring 

only. An environmental organization explained that wellhead 

monitoring provides indicators of conditions that could lead to 

subsurface fires, release massive volumes of HAP, and cause 

terrible odors and was concerned that removing these 

requirements prevents the landfill and the implementing 

authorities from identifying early indicators of potential 

problems. The commenter explained that landfill owners may have 

difficulty meeting the requirements due to improper site 

management and failure to maintain tight seals, leading to too 

much air intake. One city also advocated for more stringent 

monitoring in order to more proactively identify odors or other 

operational concerns with a GCCS. 

Based on public comments, input from small entities, and 

our own analysis of available information, the EPA is proposing 

to remove the requirement to meet operational standards for 

temperature and nitrogen/oxygen at wellheads and is thus also 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 135 of 321 

proposing to remove the corresponding requirement for corrective 

action for exceedances of these parameters. To ensure a welldesigned and well-operated GCCS that minimizes surface 

emissions, the EPA is proposing to use a combination of GCCS 

design and approval requirements as discussed in section VI.C of 

this preamble, landfill surface emission monitoring requirements 

as discussed in section VI.A of this preamble, and continued 

maintenance of negative pressure at wellheads. Based on the 

feedback provided by commenters and our analysis of available 

information, the EPA believes these adjustments provide more 

flexibility to landfills, can result in additional reductions of 

LFG emissions from other GCCS components, and will reduce the 

burden of corrective action on both the landfill owner/operator 

and the implementing authority. Based on public input, the EPA 

expects that eliminating the operational standards for 

oxygen/nitrogen and temperature will drastically reduce the 

number of requests for HOVs and alternative timelines for making 

corrections while ensuring that the gas collection and control 

system continues to operate properly. The procedures for 

approving HOVs for wellheads not demonstrating compliance with 

the negative pressure standard are discussed in section VI.D of 

this preamble. 

While the EPA is proposing to remove the requirement to 

meet operational standards for temperature and nitrogen/oxygen, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 136 of 321 

the EPA is proposing that landfill owners/operators continue 

monthly monitoring and recordkeeping of the wellhead temperature 

and oxygen/nitrogen values, consistent with operational guidance 

documents and best practices for operating a GCCS in a safe and 

efficient manner.62,63 Based on our evaluation of commenters’ 

concern that the oxygen/nitrogen and temperature operational 

standards can be a limiting factor in promoting earlier and more 

robust collection of LFG, the EPA is proposing to no longer 

require the landfill to take corrective action if the monitoring 

of these parameters demonstrates that a particular value or 

values is/are exceeded. The EPA is proposing that landfill 

owners and operators continue monitoring these parameters 

because, as several industry commenters and regulatory agencies 

stated, the measurement of these parameters can still serve as 

useful guidance for landfill operators and landfill gas energy 

project operators because they assess GCCS performance and thus 

help to periodically adjust or “tune” the GCCS to minimize LFG 

emissions and maintain safe operating conditions at the 

landfill. The equipment used to monitor wellheads commonly 

includes these parameters, so these parameters can be measured 

at the same time the technician monitors wellhead pressure 

without imposing additional burden. The results of this monthly 

 

62 http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/27/engineer/eguides/guide78.pdf 

63 http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy97/23070.pdf 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 137 of 321 

wellhead monitoring will now be kept as records on site because 

the EPA continues to believe these data will be useful for 

implementing authorities when approving modifications to the 

original GCCS design plan, or when conducting inspections of the 

site. 

The requirement to maintain negative pressure at each 

wellhead ensures that gas is being routed to a GCCS that was 

designed and built in accordance with a GCCS design plan that 

has been approved by a professional engineer. The EPA believes 

these wellhead standards, together with the surface emission 

monitoring requirements, are effective and limit the possibility 

of surface emissions of LFG. This approach also allows landfills 

and state regulators the time and flexibility to determine the 

appropriate response for adjusting wellfield operations, as 

needed, without imposing overly prescriptive requirements. This 

approach also provides increased flexibility for landfills to 

install supplemental and temporary gas collection components to 

achieve additional reductions of LFG without the risk of 

exceeding oxygen/nitrogen or temperature operational standards. 

C. Requirements for Updating the Design Plan 

The EPA is proposing criteria for when an affected source 

must update its design plan and submit it to the implementing 

authority for approval. We are proposing that a revised design 

plan must be submitted as follows: (1) Within 90 days of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 138 of 321 

expanding operations to an area not covered by the previously 

approved design plan, and (2) prior to installing or expanding 

the gas collection system in a manner other than as described in 

a previously approved design plan. 

The EPA is proposing site-specific design plan review and 

approval procedures that recognize the unique site-specific 

topography, climate, and other factors affecting the design of 

the GCCS. However, the EPA solicits comment on ways to 

streamline the design plan submission and approval procedures as 

part of its review of the Emission 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. 

D. Submitting Corrective Action Timeline Requests 

We have included provisions in proposed 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf (40 CFR 60.36f(a)(3)) to clarify our intent that 

agency approval of corrective action timelines is required only 

if a landfill does not fix an exceedance in 15 days and is 

unable to or does not plan to expand the gas collection system 

within 120 days. The EPA is clarifying that “expansion” of the 

GCCS means a permanent change that increases the capacity of the 

GCCS, such as increasing the size of header pipes, increasing 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 139 of 321 

the blower sizes and capacity, and increasing the number of 

wells. Excluding system expansion, all other types of corrective 

actions expected to exceed 15 calendar days should be submitted 

to the agency for approval of an alternate timeline. In 

addition, if a landfill owner or operator expects the system 

expansion to exceed the 120-day allowance period, it should 

submit a request and justification for an alternative timeline. 

We have not proposed a specific schedule for submitting these 

requests for alternative corrective action timelines because 

investigating and determining the appropriate corrective action, 

as well as the schedule for implementing the corrective action, 

will be site specific and depend on the reason for the 

exceedance. We clarify that a landfill should submit an 

alternative timeline request as soon as possible (i.e., as soon 

as the owner or operator knows that it would not be able to 

correct the exceedance in 15 days or expand the system in 120 

days) to avoid being in violation of the rule. If the landfill 

were to wait until 120 days after the exceedance to submit an 

alternative timeline, then by the time the regulatory agency has 

the chance to review the timeline and determine if it is 

approvable, the landfill will already be in violation of the 

requirement to expand the system within 120 days. After 

submitting the alternative timeline request, the landfill should 

work with its permitting authority to communicate the reasons 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 140 of 321 

for the exceedances, status of the investigation, and schedule 

for corrective action. 

To address implementation concerns associated with the time 

allowed for corrective action, the EPA requests comment on an 

alternative that extends the requirement for notification from 

15 days to as soon as practicable, but no later than 60 days 

from when an exceedance is identified. 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 associated with the approval of an alternative 

timeline and ensure sufficient time for correction without 

significant environmental detriment. If the EPA were to extend 

the time period to as soon as practicable, but no later than 60 

days, then the EPA is also considering the removal of the 

provision to submit an alternative timeline for correcting the 

exceedance. Thus, by no later than day 60, the landfill would 

have to either have completed the adjustments and repairs 

necessary to correct the exceedance, or be prepared to have the 

system expansion completed by day 120. The EPA is also 

requesting input on whether 60 days is the appropriate amount of 

time to allow owners or operators to make the necessary repairs. 

E. Electronic Reporting 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 141 of 321 

In this proposal, the EPA is describing a process to 

increase the ease and efficiency of performance test data 

submittal while improving data accessibility. Specifically, the 

EPA is proposing that owners and operators of MSW landfills 

submit electronic copies of required performance test and 

performance evaluation reports by direct computer-to-computer 

electronic transfer using the EPA-provided software. The direct 

computer-to-computer electronic transfer is accomplished through 

the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and 

Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The CDX is the EPA’s 

portal for submittal of electronic data. The EPA-provided 

software is called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT), which is 

used to generate electronic reports of performance tests and 

evaluations. The ERT generates an electronic report package that 

will be submitted using the CEDRI. The submitted report package 

will be stored in the CDX archive (the official copy of record) 

and the EPA’s public database called WebFIRE. All stakeholders 

will have access to all reports and data in WebFIRE and 

accessing these reports and data will be very straightforward 

and easy (see the WebFIRE Report Search and Retrieval link at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/index.cfm?action=fire.searchERTSubm

ission). A description and instructions for use of the ERT can 

be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html, and 

CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site at 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 142 of 321 

www.epa.gov/cdx. A description of the WebFIRE database is 

available at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. 

The proposal to submit performance test data electronically 

to the EPA applies only to those performance tests conducted 

using test methods that are supported by the ERT. The ERT 

supports most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. A 

listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT 

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

We believe that industry would benefit from this proposed 

approach to electronic data submittal. Specifically, by using 

this approach, industry will save time in the performance test 

submittal process. Additionally, the standardized format that 

the ERT uses allows sources to create a more complete test 

report resulting in less time spent on data backfilling if a 

source failed to include all data elements required to be 

submitted. Also through this proposal, industry may only need to 

submit a report once to meet the requirements of the applicable 

subpart because stakeholders can readily access these reports 

from the WebFIRE database. This also benefits industry by 

cutting back on recordkeeping costs as the performance test 

reports that are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer 

required to be retained in hard copy, thereby, reducing staff 

time needed to coordinate these records. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 143 of 321 

Since the EPA will already have performance test data in 

hand, another benefit to industry is that fewer or less 

substantial data collection requests in conjunction with 

prospective required residual risk assessments or technology 

reviews will be needed. This would result in a decrease in staff 

time needed to respond to data collection requests. 

State, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies 

will also benefit from having electronic versions of the reports 

they are now receiving because they will be able to conduct a 

more streamlined and accurate review of electronic data 

submitted to them. For example, the ERT would allow for an 

electronic review process, rather than a manual data assessment, 

making review and evaluation of the source provided data and 

calculations easier and more efficient. In addition, the public 

will also benefit from electronic reporting of emissions data 

because the electronic data will be easier for the public to 

access. How the air emissions data are collected, accessed, and 

reviewed will be more transparent for all stakeholders. 

One major advantage of the proposed submittal of 

performance test data through the ERT is a standardized method 

to compile and store much of the documentation required to be 

reported by this rule. The ERT clearly states what testing 

information would be required by the test method and has the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 144 of 321 

ability to house additional data elements that might be required 

by a delegated authority. 

In addition, the EPA must have performance test data to 

conduct effective reviews of Clean Air Act section 111 

standards, as well as for many other purposes, including 

compliance determinations, emission factor development, and 

annual emission rate determinations. In conducting these 

required reviews, the EPA has found it ineffective and time 

consuming, not only for us, but also for regulatory agencies and 

source owners and operators, to locate, collect, and submit 

performance test data. In recent years, stack testing firms have 

typically collected performance test data in electronic format, 

making it possible to move to an electronic data submittal 

system that would increase the ease and efficiency of data 

submittal and improve data accessibility. 

A common complaint heard from industry and regulators is 

that emission factors are outdated or not representative of a 

particular source category. With timely receipt and 

incorporation of data from most performance tests, the EPA would 

be able to ensure that emission factors, when updated, represent 

the most current range of operational practices. Finally, 

another benefit of the proposed data submittal to WebFIRE 

electronically is that these data would greatly improve the 

overall quality of existing and new emissions factors by 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 145 of 321 

supplementing the pool of emissions test data for establishing 

emissions factors 

In summary, in addition to supporting regulation 

development, control strategy development, and other air 

pollution control activities, having an electronic database 

populated with performance test data would save industry, 

state/local/tribal agencies, and the EPA significant time, 

money, and effort while also improving the quality of emission 

inventories, air quality regulations, and enhancing the public’s 

access to this important information. 

VII. Rationale for Proposed Alternative Emission Threshold 

Determination Techniques 

The EPA is proposing an emission threshold determination 

based on site-specific surface emissions monitoring (SEM) that 

provides flexibility for when a landfill must install and 

operate a GCCS. If the owner or operator limits landfill surface 

methane emissions and can demonstrate that those emissions are 

below 500 ppm methane for 4 consecutive quarters, then the 

requirement to install a GCCS is not triggered even though 

estimates using Tiers 1, 2, and/or 3 may show that the 

landfill’s annual NMOC emissions have exceeded the regulatory 

threshold. In addition, the Tier 4 surface emission approach 

could also be used as one of the criteria for determining when a 

GCCS can be removed or partially removed or decommissioned at 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 146 of 321 

closed landfills or closed areas of active landfills, as 

discussed in sections IV.D and VIII.C of this preamble. 

The idea to measure site-specific surface emissions to help 

determine the timing of GCCS installation was presented while 

the EPA was conducting outreach with small entities during its 

review of the landfills regulations in 2014. Small entities 

recommended a new Tier 4 surface emission demonstration to allow 

increased flexibility for landfills that exceed modeled NMOC 

emission rates to demonstrate that site-specific methane 

emissions are actually low prior to being required to install a 

GCCS. In addition, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) 

presented the idea of a surface concentration threshold as one 

of many potential alternatives to increase emission reductions 

from landfills in its January 2013 whitepaper.64 The EPA 

presented and solicited comments on potential Tier 4 procedures 

in both the NSPS proposal for new landfills and the ANPRM for 

existing landfills (79 FR 41772). 

Many commenters, representing both industry and 

environmental interests, supported the Tier 4 SEM approach for 

determining when a GCCS must be installed. These commenters 

stated that the option to conduct site-specific measurements 

 

64 Environmental Defense Fund. Recommendations and Considerations for EPA’s 

Forthcoming Revisions to Section 111 Standards for MSW Landfills. January 2, 

2013. See EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0050. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 147 of 321 

using SEM is a more accurate indication of when gas collection 

is necessary to reduce emissions, compared to modeled emission 

rates. However, one commenter on the NSPS proposed rule opposed 

the inclusion of a Tier 4 option for new landfills, stating that 

it allows a subset of new landfills to delay methane capture 

requirements when these landfills will be required to install a 

GCCS in the future and should have a GCCS designed and installed 

during landfill construction. Other commenters expressed concern 

about state agencies lack of experience and time to determine 

whether Tier 4 monitoring requires a GCCS to be installed and 

requested guidance for Tier 4 implementation procedures. 

Many commenters identified the potential benefits of a Tier 

4 option. Commenters representing both industry and 

environmental interests noted that the SEM option will encourage 

landfill owners and operators to implement methane reduction 

practices, such as the use of oxidative landfill covers, organic 

waste diversion, and interim gas control measures (horizontal 

gas collectors, connecting a leachate collection recovery system 

into a GCCS), noting that such practices can be implemented more 

quickly and more cost-effectively than a GCCS installed in 

accordance with the design plan requirements of the current 

Emission Guidelines. Commenters indicated that a SEM method 

reflects actual site-specific emissions data that account for 

gas generation differentials attributed to climate variations, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 148 of 321 

waste acceptance rates, and cover soil materials that vary 

between landfills in different regions of the U.S. One commenter 

indicated that the use of SEM in determining the need to install 

a GCCS would reduce costs and energy consumption for landfills 

otherwise required to install controls, that would not generate 

a sufficient amount of gas to support a collection system but 

would remain below surface emission thresholds based on sitespecific measurements. Another commenter added that a Tier 4 

approach grants additional flexibility and a potential cost 

savings compared to the Tier 2 method, but cautioned that a 

surface monitoring methodology needs to be developed that is 

functional during windy conditions. 

Commenters also considered how to implement a Tier 4 

approach, including the hierarchy of the new tier relative to 

the existing tiers, procedures for conducting the SEM, the level 

of the appropriate exceedance, and what to do upon an 

exceedance. Several commenters suggested that Tier 4 could be 

employed at any point following a Tier 1 or Tier 2 test where 

the calculated NMOC emission rate is greater than the NMOC 

threshold for installing a GCCS. These same commenters suggested 

that landfill owners and operators have the option to perform 

Tier 4 SEM testing in the same areas and using the same methods 

currently established in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. These 

commenters recommended that if an exceedance occurs during Tier 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 149 of 321 

4 SEM testing, then landfill owners and operators should follow 

the same procedures and timelines for remediation and remonitoring as outlined in subpart WWW. These commenters further 

suggested that if an exceedance cannot be remediated under the 

existing subpart WWW procedures, then the landfill would be 

required to prepare a GCCS design plan within 1 year of the 

initial exceedance and install a GCCS within the monitored area 

within 30 months of the initial exceedance. These commenters 

further suggested that if during the initial monitoring event 

methane surface emissions do not exceed 500 ppm over background, 

then the installation of a GCCS is not required and routine SEM 

should be performed until the landfill or area of the landfill 

is closed. One commenter requested that the EPA propose a 

surface concentration level of 200 ppm and indicated that this 

level provides empirical confirmation that the landfill is ready 

to install a GCCS. 

After considering public comments and input from small 

entity outreach, the EPA is proposing Tier 4 SEM procedures for 

determining when a landfill must install a GCCS. Tier 4 allows 

landfill owners and operators to demonstrate that site-specific 

surface methane emissions are low. Under Tier 4, as proposed in 

this proposed rule, if the site-specific surface methane 

emissions are below 500 ppm for 4 consecutive quarters, then the 

requirement to install and operate a GCCS has not been triggered 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 150 of 321 

even in circumstances where emission estimates using Tiers 1, 2, 

and/or 3 are above the regulatory threshold. However, any 

quarterly surface emissions value over 500 ppm would trigger the 

requirement to install and begin operating a GCCS. If the 

landfill opts to use Tier 4 for its emission threshold 

determination and there is any measured concentration of methane 

of 500 parts per million or greater from the surface of the 

landfill, the owner or operator must install a GCCS, and it 

cannot go back to using Tiers 1, 2 or 3. The landfill owner or 

operator would be required to submit a design plan within 1 year 

of reporting the surface emissions value over 500 ppm to the 

implementing authority in an annual report and would be required 

to install and start up a GCCS within 30 months of reporting the 

surface emissions value over 500 ppm. 

The SEM demonstration would be conducted using the SEM 

procedures described in sections IV.B and VI.A of this preamble. 

SEM would be conducted around the perimeter of the landfill and 

the required traverse every 30 meters for the entire landfill. 

Note that the EPA is requesting comment on enhanced surface 

monitoring, including the 30 meter traverse pattern, in section 

X.B of this preamble. The Tier 4 provisions can be utilized by 

any landfill that has exceeded the design capacity threshold. 

The Tier 4 provisions provide an incentive for a landfill 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 151 of 321 

owner/operator to keep surface emissions low as described later 

in this section. 

Under this proposal, if a landfill exceeds the modeled NMOC 

emission rate under Tier 1, then the landfill may choose to 

estimate the NMOC emission rate by using the Tier 2 or 3 

procedures or measure actual surface emissions using Tier 4. If 

a landfill failed a Tier 4 test, the landfill would trigger the 

requirement to submit a design plan and to install and operate a 

GCCS. However, if a landfill failed a Tier 2 or 3 test, proposed 

40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf allows the landfill to test using a 

“higher” tier, including Tier 4. For example, if a landfill 

exceeds the proposed NMOC emission rate of 34 Mg/yr using Tier 

2, then the landfill may choose to calculate the NMOC emission 

rate using Tier 3, or the landfill may choose to demonstrate 

that site-specific surface methane emissions are below 500 ppm 

using Tier 4. Tier 1 is the most conservative method for 

estimating NMOC emissions and models NMOC emissions based on 

default values for methane generation rate (k), methane 

generation potential (Lo), and NMOC concentration (CNMOC). Tier 1 

takes the least effort and expense to conduct, but tends to 

overestimate NMOC emissions given the conservative default 

parameters. A landfill would likely use Tier 1 for its initial 

estimate of NMOC emissions. Tier 2 models NMOC emissions based 

on the same default values for methane generation rate and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 152 of 321 

methane generation potential, which are in turn based on waste 

composition and climate data, but allows the landfill 

owner/operator to determine a site-specific NMOC concentration. 

Under Tier 2, landfills would incur a more substantial cost to 

determine the site-specific NMOC concentration. Tier 3 also 

models NMOC emissions, but adds another site-specific 

measurement for a methane generation rate using Method 2E. Under 

Tier 3, landfills would incur a substantial cost to determine 

the site-specific methane generation rate. Industry experience 

and public comments indicate that sites do not frequently use 

Tier 3 because of the expense. Commenters stated that the Tier 3 

test is extremely rare because of the high cost and the fact 

that in many geographical areas the “k” factor (methane 

generation rate constant) is not reduced via testing. There are 

a significant number of landfills reporting under the Tier 2 

method, which allows the site to measure a site-specific NMOC 

concentration instead of using the higher default NMOC 

concentrations required under the Tier 1 calculations, however, 

Tier 3 is not widely used. Thus, we are proposing to allow 

landfills to conduct Tier 4 testing after a failed Tier 1, Tier 

2, or Tier 3 test. 

A landfill owner or operator may undertake Tier 4 SEM 

testing upon submitting an annual NMOC emission rate report that 

shows an NMOC emission rate greater than 34 Mg/yr using Tier 1, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 153 of 321 

2, or 3 procedures. If the landfill owner or operator chooses to 

undertake Tier 4 SEM instead of submitting a design plan and 

installing and operating a GCCS or estimating the NMOC emission 

rate using the next higher tier, then the landfill owner or 

operator would begin keeping records of all Tier 4 SEM readings 

and submit a “Tier 4 SEM report” as its next annual report. The 

report would include and identify the number of SEM readings 

above 500 ppm. If the report shows any SEM readings above 500 

ppm methane, then the landfill would be required to submit a 

GCCS design plan within one year and install and begin operating 

a GCCS within 30 months. (The landfill could not take corrective 

action to correct the Tier 4 exceedance and could not estimate 

the annual NMOC emission rate using Tiers 1, 2, or 3.) 

If the Tier 4 SEM report shows no SEM readings above 500 

ppm for 4 consecutive quarters, then the landfill may continue 

Tier 4 monitoring at a reduced semi-annual frequency or return 

to Tier 1, 2, or 3. This approach allows owners and operators 

some flexibility to select the tier that is most applicable to 

their landfill, based on the point each landfill is in its 

lifecycle, and other site-specific factors. Note that a landfill 

can recalculate NMOC using Tiers 1, 2, or 3 only if it has 4 

consecutive quarters with no SEM readings above 500 ppm. 

The EPA selected a 500 ppm threshold for Tier 4 because it 

is consistent with the level the EPA determined to be 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 154 of 321 

appropriate to demonstrate that a GCCS is well-designed and well 

operated. In other words, when conducted properly, SEM is a good 

indicator of how well a GCCS is operating overall. For landfills 

without a GCCS (including those that may be using other LFG 

mitigation strategies), the level of 500 will demonstrate that 

site-specific surface methane emissions are as low as those 

allowed at a landfill with a well-operated and well-designed 

GCCS in place. See the docketed memorandum “Establishing a SiteSpecific Emission Threshold Alternative for MSW Landfills, 

2015.” Therefore the EPA believes this alternative site-specific 

concentration threshold will achieve the goal of minimizing 

methane emissions to the atmosphere. The EPA is aware that the 

surface emission threshold for installing a GCCS under the CA 

LMR is 200 ppm. However, the EPA also notes that CA LMR retains 

the 500 ppm level as an appropriate level for instantaneous SEM 

readings for areas already controlled by a GCCS. California ARB 

initially proposed a 200 ppm SEM threshold for both GCCS 

installation and for GCCS operation in its regulation, but 

finalized 500 ppm for GCCS operation because a lower threshold 

could cause an operator to overdraw the vacuum on the GCCS (to 

avoid a surface exceedance), which in turn could draw in too 

much oxygen and possibly cause fires. The EPA recognizes the 

concerns with setting the threshold too low, which may cause 

operators of voluntary GCCS to overdraw the vacuum on the GCCS, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 155 of 321 

and has proposed a level of 500 ppm. The EPA requests comment on 

whether a level between 200 and 500 ppm is appropriate for the 

Tier 4 provisions, and whether setting the level below a 

specific point in this range poses fire or other safety concerns 

for operating a GCCS. The EPA also requests data that might 

support a different surface emissions threshold. 

The EPA requests comments on whether landfill owners and 

operators should provide notification to EPA when conducting 

Tier 4 surface emissions monitoring. Such notification would be 

similar to the performance test notification required by 40 CFR 

60.8(d), wherein the owner or operator of an affected facility 

provides the Administrator at least 30 days prior notice of any 

performance test to afford the Administrator the opportunity to 

have an observer present. 

As noted earlier in this section, commenters representing 

both industry and environmental interests noted that the Tier 4 

SEM option would encourage landfill owners and operators to 

implement alternative methane reduction practices, such as the 

use of oxidative landfill covers, interim gas control measures, 

and organic waste diversion. The EPA agrees. Such measures can 

directly affect surface emissions and when employed would help a 

landfill ensure that surface emissions are low, enabling a 

landfill to delay the regulatory requirement to install a GCCS 

without a significant negative impact on public health or the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 156 of 321 

environment. Section V.A of this preamble discusses alternative 

methane reduction practices, such as the use of oxidative 

landfill covers, interim gas control measures, and organic waste 

diversion. 

VIII. Proposed Changes to Address Closed or Non-Producing Areas 

The EPA recognizes that many landfills or landfill areas 

are closed or have inactive areas that do not produce as much 

landfill gas. The production of landfill gas naturally declines 

over time as an area stops accepting waste and the amount of 

degradable organic content declines. In the ANPRM for the 

Emission Guidelines (79 FR 41772), the EPA requested input on 

ways to ensure emissions are minimized in the later stages of a 

landfill’s lifecycle (79 FR 41783). Specifically, the EPA sought 

input on whether the current criteria for capping or removing a 

GCCS are appropriate: (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. 

We also sought input on alternative approaches to determining 

when it is appropriate to cap or remove a GCCS, such as 

consecutive quarterly measurements that would demonstrate that 

surface emissions are low. 

A. Subcategory for Closed Landfills 

The EPA notes that many existing landfills in our dataset 

closed at various points since 1987, including landfills that 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 157 of 321 

closed as many as 18 years prior to today’s proposed action. In 

the ANPRM, the EPA presented the distribution of existing 

landfills by closure date (see Table 3, 79 FR 41792). These data 

showed that nearly 80 percent of the existing landfills with a 

design capacity of at least 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3

were active landfills as of 2014. Similarly, 77 percent of the 

cumulative waste disposed in these existing landfills were at 

active landfills. The EPA recognizes that these active landfills 

are the most significant sources of landfill gas emissions at 

existing landfills. 

The EPA evaluated the costs and benefits of controlling 

emissions at a level between 34 Mg/yr and 40 Mg/yr at both open 

and closed landfills. Table 3 of section V.E of this preamble 

presents the number of landfills affected and the corresponding 

emission reductions and costs. The EPA also considered how 

closed landfills would be affected by this proposal. We are 

considering “closed” landfills to be those that closed after 

1987 but on or before the date of this proposal. 

At the baseline NMOC emission threshold of 50 Mg/yr, the 

EPA estimates that 29 of the 233 closed landfills with a design 

capacity of at least 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3 would be 

required to install controls. At an NMOC emission threshold of 

40 Mg/yr, the EPA estimates that an additional 22 landfills 

beyond the baseline would be required to install controls, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 158 of 321 

resulting in controls at approximately 5165 closed landfills in 

2025. The landfill gas controlled at these 51 closed landfills 

represents approximately 6 percent of the total emission 

reductions achieved from all active and closed landfills 

expected to control emissions at a level of 40 Mg/yr NMOC in 

year 2025. At the proposed NMOC emission threshold of 34 Mg/yr, 

the EPA estimates that an additional 36 landfills beyond the 

baseline would be required to install controls, resulting in 

controls at approximately 6566 closed landfills in 2025. The 

landfill gas controlled at these 65 closed landfills represents 

less than 7 percent of the total emission reductions achieved 

from all active and closed landfills expected to control 

emissions at a level of 34 Mg/yr NMOC in year 2025. 

An NMOC emission rate threshold of 34 Mg/yr NMOC at closed 

landfills would achieve an additional 1,260 Mg NMOC and 5 

million mtCO2e as compared to retaining the threshold of 50 

Mg/yr NMOC for these closed sites. These reductions would be 

achieved at an incremental control cost effectiveness of $23,700 

per Mg NMOC and $6 per mtCO2e for closed landfills in 2025 

(excluding additional testing and monitoring costs). 

See the docketed memorandum “Revised Cost and Emission 

Impacts Resulting from the Landfill EG Review (2015)” for 

 

65 22 closed landfills plus 29 closed landfills

66 36 closed landfills plus 29 closed landfills

Commented [A11]: OMB Technical Comment 7: 

Reviewer recommends clarifying that the 

additional 22 and additional 36 landfills 

referred to on page 156 EG are all closed 

landfills. 

Response: Clarifying text has been added as a 

footnote. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 159 of 321 

additional detail on the impacts on closed landfills. In 

addition to these control costs, the EPA estimates that 160 

closed landfills that are not controlling in 2025 would be 

required to estimate and report NMOC emissions under the 

proposed option because they have a design capacity of at least 

2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3. 

After closure, the gas flows at landfills decline and the 

ability to achieve additional reductions also declines. The EPA 

received input from SERs that many closed landfills supplement 

their flare with pilot (fossil) fuels in order to maintain flare 

operation despite declining gas quantities and quality. These 

SERs were concerned that a lower threshold at these closed 

landfills would extend the amount of pilot fuel necessary for 

flame stability. The EPA notes that closed landfills may have 

limited access to additional revenue because they are no longer 

collecting tipping fees and the cost for GCCS and regulatory 

compliance were not factored into their closure plans. Further, 

many SERs expressed concerns that many compliance costs are 

fixed cost items, regardless of the operating status of the 

landfill, such as permitting fees, drill rig mobilization fees, 

and others, as discussed in section V.D.1 of this preamble. Many 

SERs also expressed concerns about staffing limitations at 

closed landfills, who may have limited staff to oversee extended 

GCCS design, operations, maintenance, and compliance. For 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 160 of 321 

landfills that closed after [insert date of publication in the 

Federal Register], the EPA understands that gas quality will 

remain a concern and it has provided an alternative set of GCCS 

removal criteria based on site-specific emissions, as discussed 

in section VIII.B of this preamble. 

Commenters expressed concern about whether landfills that 

have closed and decommissioned their GCCS should be pulled back 

into control requirements if their emissions fall between the 

current 50 Mg/yr threshold and a more stringent NMOC emission 

threshold. These commenters recommended that the EPA exempt 

these landfills from more stringent control requirements. One 

commenter added that it would be costly to re-install or 

refurbish a previously shutdown system and noted that the system 

would likely operate for only a few more years before the 

landfill fell below the more stringent NMOC emission threshold. 

For example, the proposed reduction of the NMOC emission rate 

threshold to 34 Mg/yr NMOC could affect landfills that installed 

a GCCS to comply with the 50 Mg/yr NMOC emissions threshold in 

40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW (or the state plans or federal plan 

implementing 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc), but whose emissions 

are still above the EPA’s proposed 34 Mg/yr NMOC threshold. 

These landfills could have declining gas flows, could be closed, 

or could have met the 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW criteria for 

capping or removing the GCCS. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 161 of 321 

To address concerns about closed landfills, the EPA is 

proposing to create a subcategory of closed landfills, to which 

an NMOC emission rate threshold of 50 Mg/yr would apply, instead 

of an NMOC emission rate of 34 Mg/yr. The subcategory of closed 

landfills is proposed to be defined as a landfill that has 

submitted a closure report as specified in 40 CFR 60.38f(f) on 

or before [insert date the proposed rule is published in the 

Federal Register]. As noted above, the emissions associated with 

the 65 closed landfills represents less than 7 percent of the 

total emission reductions achieved from all active and closed 

landfills expected to control emissions at a level of 34 Mg/yr 

NMOC in year 2025. The EPA believes today’s proposed subcategory 

for closed landfills alleviates concerns with lowering the 

threshold for closed landfills, while focusing the proposed 

changes to the regulatory framework on emission reductions from 

the existing landfills contributing most significantly to 

methane emissions from MSW landfills. 

The EPA is requesting input on whether the proposed 

subcategory for closed landfills is the most appropriate method 

for controlling emissions and addressing concerns with closed 

landfills, or whether the EPA should consider exempting closed 

landfills from the proposed subpart Cf entirely. The EPA is also 

requesting comments on whether additional provisions should be 

considered for closed landfills when establishing the revised 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 162 of 321 

Emission Guidelines, including whether the closed landfill 

subcategory should be expanded to include landfills that closed 

within 13 months after publication of the Emission Guidelines in 

the Federal Register. 

B. Criteria for Capping or Removing a GCCS 

Several commenters requested that the EPA reconsider the 

15-year criteria for capping or removing a GCCS and one 

commenter stated that the 15-year period should be longer, 

rather than shorter. Commenters supported the use of Tier 4 SEM 

procedures to help determine the removal or decommissioning of 

existing GCCS. Commenters supported the use of SEM to allow the 

flexibility to confirm when a closed landfill or closed area of 

a landfill no longer producing gas in significant quantities can 

remove or decommission all or a portion of the GCCS. Several of 

these commenters referenced a rationale similar to the one they 

provided for supporting the use of Tier 4 SEM for determining 

GCCS installation as discussed in section VII.A of this 

preamble. Several commenters requested that the EPA provide a 

“step-down” procedure for scaling down GCCS operations in nonproducing areas and allowing a GCCS to be removed from rule 

applicability. 

The EPA is proposing two sets of criteria for capping and 

removing the GCCS. The first set of criteria is similar to the 

criteria in subpart Cc, but has been adjusted to reflect the new 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 163 of 321 

NMOC emission threshold proposed in this proposal: (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 proposed NMOC emission threshold of 34 Mg/yr for open 

landfills and 50 Mg/yr NMOC for closed landfills. The EPA is 

also proposing an alternative set of criteria for capping or 

removing the GCCS that employs a SEM demonstration: (1) the 

landfill, or an area of an active landfill, is closed, (2) the 

GCCS has operated for at least 15 years or the landfill 

owner/operator can demonstrate that the GCCS will be unable to 

operate for 15 years due to declining gas flows, and (3) the 

owner or operator demonstrates for 4 consecutive quarters that 

there are no surface emissions of 500 ppm or greater from the 

landfill or closed area. The EPA selected a level of 500 ppm to 

be consistent with the operational standard for operating a 

GCCS. The operational standard is the surface emissions level 

that cannot be exceeded once a GCCS has been installed. 

The EPA proposes the use of SEM procedures in section VI.A 

of this preamble for determining when to decommission wells and 

for when the landfill can cap or remove a GCCS. If a landfill 

owner or operator can demonstrate that surface emissions in the 

closed area of an open landfill or a closed landfill are below 

500 ppm for 4 consecutive quarters, then they would be able to 

stop collecting gas from that area or the landfill as a whole. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 164 of 321 

After 4 consecutive quarters of no exceedances, the landfill 

continues to monitor the closed area annually for surface 

emission exceedances of 500 ppm or greater. If exceedances are 

found, the landfill must restart the GCCS in the closed area and 

the GCCS would be required to operate according to proposed 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Cf. 

As discussed in section VII.A of this preamble, surface 

emissions monitoring more closely reflects the site’s actual 

emissions and accounts for differences in gas generation due to 

waste composition and local conditions. As discussed in section 

VII.A of this preamble, sites will have the incentive to employ 

various technologies or practices to minimize surface emissions, 

thus giving the owner or operator flexibility at both the 

installation and removal stages of LFG collection and control. 

With these rule provisions, the EPA can ensure environmental 

protection is demonstrated through low surface emissions and 

landfill owners and operators will have the flexibility to cap 

or remove the GCCS based on site-specific surface emission 

readings. 

C. Non-producing Areas and Wellhead Standards 

Commenters have identified the difficulty of operating a 

GCCS in “non-producing” areas and meeting the wellhead 

operational standards for the GCCS. They have also contended 

that the corrective action—expanding the GCCS, is counter to a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 165 of 321 

“well-operated” GCCS. Several commenters requested that the EPA 

provide flexibility to meet the wellhead and other requirements 

in “non-producing” areas. Commenters generally consider a “nonproducing” area as one with declining LFG generation and gas 

flow, which in turn make it difficult to continuously meet the 

operational standards for a GCCS. One commenter stated that when 

landfill gas production decreases significantly, even small 

amounts of vacuum can draw air into the waste mass causing 

exceedances of the wellhead oxygen parameter. The commenter 

added that the landfill owner or operator may address the oxygen 

exceedance by reducing the vacuum to a very low level, but then 

may not be able to maintain negative pressure. Another commenter 

stated that LFG wells in old waste can be very sensitive to 

vacuum adjustments, easily exceeding the 5 percent oxygen 

standard not due to excessive air infiltration, but rather due 

to low LFG volume. Other commenters noted that the difficulty of 

meeting the wellhead oxygen/nitrogen operational standards could 

be exacerbated if the EPA were to reduce the NMOC emissions 

threshold below 50 Mg/yr. 

As discussed in section VI.B of this preamble, the EPA 

proposes to remove the requirement to meet wellhead operating 

standards for temperature and nitrogen/oxygen. Removing these 

two standards will not only promote earlier and more robust 

collection of LFG as discussed in section VI.B of this preamble, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 166 of 321 

but will also give owners and operators flexibility to operate 

the GCCS in non-producing or closed areas without the risk of 

exceeding the oxygen/nitrogen operating standards. Removing the 

requirement to meet the oxygen/nitrogen operating standards and 

the need for corrective action, including expanding the GCCS, 

will reduce the burden on both the landfill owner/operator and 

the implementing authority. As discussed in section VIII.B of 

this preamble, the EPA is also providing flexibility for 

temporary decommissioning of wells in closed landfills or closed 

areas of active landfills to provide flexibility for meeting 

negative pressure in areas that can demonstrate low surface 

emissions. 

IX. Rationale for the Other Proposed Changes 

A. Landfill Gas Treatment 

The EPA is proposing a definition of treated landfill gas 

and treatment system. A Treatment system would be defined as a 

system that filters, de-waters, and compresses landfill gas to 

levels determined by the landfill owner or operator based on the 

beneficial end use of the gas. The EPA is proposing this 

definition to provide compliance flexibility and to promote the 

beneficial use of LFG. The approach works in conjunction with 

the EPA’s proposed expansion of the use of treated landfill gas 

beyond use as a fuel for a stationary combustion device to 

include other beneficial uses such as vehicle fuel, production 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 167 of 321 

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

material in a chemical manufacturing process. This definition 

would be available for all MSW landfill owners/operators. 

The approach is consistent with public comments received on 

previous landfills documents (67 FR 36475, May 23, 2002; 71 FR 

53271, September 8, 2006; 79 FR 41796, July 17, 2014; 79 FR 

41772, July 17, 2014), as well as input from participants in 

small entity outreach, who stated that the extent of filtration, 

de-watering, and compression can be site- and equipmentdependent, 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. 

Commenters on the proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796) and ANPRM (79 

FR 41772) supported the expanded use of treated LFG. Commenters 

including state/local agencies, a large landfill owner/operator, 

and an industry trade association supported the expanded 

beneficial use of LFG to include uses beyond subsequent sale or 

use and agreed that a broader definition is appropriate. No 

commenters opposed the expanded use. 

Many commenters on the July 17, 2014 proposed NSPS (79 FR 

41796) and ANPRM (79 FR 41772) opposed a definition of LFG 

treatment based on specific numerical values for filtration and 

de-watering. Numerous commenters disagreed with a requirement to 

meet specific absolute filtration and dew point suppression 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 168 of 321 

values and contended that a “one-size-fits-all” approach was not 

appropriate, and would not reduce emissions. One commenter 

specifically noted the impact that the costs of these 

requirements would have on small entities. 

Commenters estimated costs to comply with the dew point 

reduction. Based on experience, commenters estimated that 

chillers alone would cost $500,000 each. Commenters estimated 

that instrumentation, monitoring, and controls would cost an 

additional $150,000 per chiller, plus up to $60,000 for annual 

maintenance, monitoring, and operation. These commenters also 

expressed concerns about the timeframe for installing chillers. 

Plus, many commenters also expressed concern that the numerical 

requirements would be detrimental to existing and potential 

beneficial use projects, including potentially shutting down 

existing beneficial use projects and preventing future ones. 

On the other hand, many commenters supported the more 

flexible definition of treatment system that allows the level of 

treatment to be tailored to the type and design of the specific 

project equipment. Commenters pointed out that owners and 

operators of combustion equipment are already motivated to treat 

landfill gas to manufacturer specifications to protect equipment 

and maintain warranties. Commenters added that compliance with a 

site-specific definition of treatment can be tracked using a 

preventative maintenance plan. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 169 of 321 

The EPA recognizes that the landfill industry continues to 

develop new LFG beneficial use projects and the EPA continues to 

support the recovery and use of LFG as an energy source. Thus, 

the EPA is proposing a simplified definition of treatment as 

filtering, de-watering, and compressing landfill gas, but is 

retaining as alternative a definition of LFG treatment based on 

specific numerical values for filtration and de-watering. 

The simplified definition of treatment, combined with siteand equipment-specific monitoring, is expected to provide 

compliance flexibility, ensure environmental protection, and 

promote the beneficial use of LFG. The proposed definition would 

allow the level of filtration, dewatering, and compression to be 

tailored to the type and design of the specific equipment in 

which the LFG is used. Owners and operators would need to 

identify monitoring parameters, be able to demonstrate that such 

parameters effectively monitor filtration, de-watering or 

compression system performance necessary for the end use of the 

treated LFG and keep records to demonstrate that the parameters 

are being met. 

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. A well-operated system with a level of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 170 of 321 

treatment specific to the site and end-use equipment would 

prevent equipment disruptions and limit emissions resulting 

during shutdowns or malfunctions. A treatment approach that can 

be tailored to the end use of the gas would also promote wider 

use of LFG energy recovery, by limiting the compliance burden 

for those landfills opting to include an energy recovery 

component. Landfill gas energy recovery protects the environment 

by not only controlling LFG and its components, but also by 

offsetting conventional sources of energy with a renewable 

resource for heating, electricity, vehicle fuel, or other 

innovative end uses. The EPA also notes that landfills complying 

with a treatment compliance option are also subject to the 

surface emissions monitoring requirements discussed in section 

VI.A of this preamble to ensure that the GCCS is well operated 

and surface emissions are minimized. 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 and provide verifiable records of proper 

operation to the EPA or other implementing authorities. 

The plan would be required to include monitoring parameters 

addressing all three elements of treatment (filtration, dewatering, and compression) to ensure the treatment system is 

operating properly for the intended end use of the treated LFG. 

The plan would be required to include monitoring methods, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 171 of 321 

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. 

Promote the Beneficial Use of LFG. Technical assistance is 

available to landfill owners and operators who want to 

beneficially use LFG. The EPA LMOP is a voluntary assistance 

program that encourages recovery and beneficial use of landfill 

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

landfills. LMOP has developed many publications and tools to 

assist stakeholders interested in developing LFG energy projects 

or promote landfill gas energy recovery to various audiences. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 172 of 321 

LMOP also provides customized, direct assistance to individual 

Partners to address their needs, such as preliminary analyses to 

estimate landfill gas energy project feasibility or responses to 

technical questions about particular issues or barriers involved 

with project development. LMOP’s Web site has become one of the 

main modes of providing LMOP Partners, others in the industry, 

and the public with basic information and keeping them abreast 

of the latest LFG energy–related advances and opportunities 

(http://www.epa.gov/lmop/). Many LMOP resources and tools are 

available on the Web site including a Project Development 

Handbook, a preliminary economic assessment model, and a 

database of LFG energy recovery projects. 

B. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP 

during periods of SSM. Specifically, the court vacated the SSM 

exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), 

holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions 

standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that 

the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some 

section 112 standards apply continuously. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 173 of 321 

Periods of Startup or Shutdown. Consistent with Sierra Club 

v. EPA, the EPA is proposing standards in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf that apply at all times. In proposing the standards 

in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and 

shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not 

proposed alternate standards for those periods. 

The part 60 general provisions, which define startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction, were written for typical industrial 

or manufacturing sources and associated processes. Many of these 

sources and processes may, at times, be shut down entirely for 

clean-out, maintenance, or repairs, and then restarted. Applying 

the standards at all times, including periods of startup and 

shutdown, is intended to minimize excess emissions when the 

source or process ceases operation or commences operation, or 

during malfunctions. Landfill emissions, however, are produced 

by a continuous biological process that cannot be stopped or 

restarted. For landfills, the primary SSM concern is with 

malfunction of the landfill GCCS and associated monitoring 

equipment, not with the startup or shutdown of the entire 

source. Thus, SSM provisions in the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf 

focus primarily on malfunction of the gas collection system, gas 

control system, and gas treatment system, which is part of the 

gas control system. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 174 of 321 

Periods of Malfunction. Periods of startup, normal 

operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects 

of a source’s operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither 

predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by definition sudden, 

infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions 

control, process or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 60.2). The EPA 

interprets CAA section 111 as not requiring emissions that occur 

during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of 

CAA section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case 

law requires that the EPA consider malfunctions when determining 

what standards of performance reflect the degree of emission 

limitation achievable through “the application of the best 

system of emission reduction” that the EPA determines is 

adequately demonstrated. While the EPA accounts for variability 

in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 111 

requires the agency to consider malfunctions as part of that 

analysis. A malfunction should not be treated in the same manner 

as the type of variation in performance that occurs during 

routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of 

the source to perform in a “normal or usual manner” and no 

statutory language compels EPA to consider such events in 

setting CAA section 111 standards of performance. 

Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission 

standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 175 of 321 

myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all 

sources in the category and given the difficulties associated 

with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and 

duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the 

performance of units that are malfunctioning is not “reasonably” 

foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 

(D.C. Cir. 1999) (“The EPA typically has wide latitude in 

determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a 

problem. We generally defer to an agency’s decision to proceed 

on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to 

‘invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.’”) See also, 

Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) 

(“In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, 

or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. 

After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits 

caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as 

strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a 

variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the 

administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, 

not for specification in advance by regulation.”). In addition, 

emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly higher 

than emissions at any other time of source operation. For 

example, if an air pollution control device with 99 percent 

removal goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 176 of 321 

happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and 

the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take 

days to shut down, the source would go from 99 percent control 

to zero control until the control device was repaired. The 

source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times 

higher than during normal operations. As such, the emissions 

over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual 

emissions of the source during normal operations. As this 

example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to 

standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less 

stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well-performing 

non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret section 

111 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions 

is consistent with section 111 and is a reasonable 

interpretation of the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to comply with the 

applicable CAA section 111 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate 

response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of 

the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root 

cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The 

EPA would also consider whether the source’s failure to comply 

with the CAA section 111 standard was, in fact, sudden, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 177 of 321 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable and was not instead 

caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation (40 CFR 

§ 60.2 (definition of malfunction)). 

If the EPA determines in a particular case that an 

enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission 

standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses 

in that enforcement action and the federal district court will 

determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true 

for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding 

officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense 

raised and determine whether administrative penalties are 

appropriate. 

In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in 

particular, CAA section 111 is reasonable and encourages 

practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and 

judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards 

fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith 

efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. 

In several prior rules, the EPA had included an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for violations caused by malfunctions 

in an effort to create a system that incorporates some 

flexibility, recognizing that there is a tension, inherent in 

many types of air regulation, to ensure adequate compliance 

while simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 178 of 321 

of efforts, emission standards may be violated under 

circumstances entirely beyond the control of the source. 

Although the EPA recognized that its case-by-case enforcement 

discretion provides sufficient flexibility in these 

circumstances, it included the affirmative defense to provide a 

more formalized approach and more regulatory clarity. See 

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 

1978) (holding that an informal case-by-case enforcement 

discretion approach is adequate); but see Marathon Oil Co. v. 

EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more 

formalized approach to consideration of “upsets beyond the 

control of the permit holder”). Under the EPA’s regulatory 

affirmative defense provisions, if a source could demonstrate in 

a judicial or administrative proceeding that it had met the 

requirements of the affirmative defense in the regulation, civil 

penalties would not be assessed. Recently, the U. S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated an 

affirmative defense in one of the EPA’s CAA section 112 

regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir., 2014) 

(vacating affirmative defense provisions in the CAA section 112 

rule establishing emission standards for Portland cement kilns). 

The court found that the EPA lacked authority to establish an 

affirmative defense for private civil suits and held that under 

the CAA, the authority to determine civil penalty amounts in 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 179 of 321 

such cases lies exclusively with the courts, not the EPA. 

Specifically, the court found: “As the language of the statute 

makes clear, the courts determine, on a case-by-case basis, 

whether civil penalties are ‘appropriate.’” See NRDC at 1063 

(“[U]nder this statute, deciding whether penalties are 

‘appropriate’ in a given private civil suit is a job for the 

courts, not EPA.”). In light of NRDC, the EPA is not including a 

regulatory affirmative defense provision in this rulemaking. As 

explained above, if a source is unable to comply with emissions 

standards as a result of a malfunction, the EPA may use its 

case-by-case enforcement discretion to provide flexibility, as 

appropriate. Further, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit recognized, in an EPA or citizen 

enforcement action, the court has the discretion to consider any 

defense raised and determine whether penalties are appropriate. 

Cf. NRDC, at 1064 (arguments that violation were caused by 

unavoidable technology failure can be made to the courts in 

future civil cases when the issue arises). The same is true for 

the presiding officer in EPA administrative enforcement 

actions.67 

 

67 Although the NRDC case does not address the EPA’s authority to establish an 

affirmative defense to penalties that is available in administrative 

enforcement actions, EPA is not including such an affirmative defense in the 

proposed rule. As explained above, such an affirmative defense is not 

necessary. Moreover, assessment of penalties for violations caused by 

malfunctions in administrative proceedings and judicial proceedings should be 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 180 of 321 

Limit on SSM duration. Subpart WWW of 40 CFR part 60 limits 

the duration of SSM events for MSW landfills to 5 days for the 

landfill gas collection system and 1 hour for treatment or 

control devices. Proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf does not 

include the 5-day and 1-hour time limitations because some 

malfunctions cannot be corrected within these timeframes. 

Excluding these provisions is consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 

(551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008)), which concluded that that 

emission standards apply at all times, including periods of SSM, 

and 40 CFR 60.11(d), which states that at all times, including 

periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction, owners or 

operators shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and operate 

any affected facility including associated air pollution control 

equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control 

practice for minimizing emissions. The proposed revisions 

clarify that the NSPS standards continue to apply during periods 

of SSM. 

To prevent free venting of landfill gas to the atmosphere 

during control device malfunctions, we propose to include a 

requirement in subpart Cf (40 CFR 60.34f(e)) that states that in 

the event the collection or control system is not operating, the 

gas mover system must be shut down and all valves in the 

 

consistent. Cf. CAA section 113(e) (requiring both the Administrator and the 

court to take specified criteria into account when assessing penalties). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 181 of 321 

collection and control system contributing to venting of gas to 

the atmosphere must be closed within 1 hour. The EPA proposes to 

use the term “not operating,” which includes periods when the 

gas collection or control system is not operating for whatever 

reason, including when the gas collection or control system is 

inoperable. 

Shutting down the gas mover equipment and all valves 

contributing to venting of gas to the atmosphere minimizes 

emissions from the landfill while the control system is not 

operating and is being repaired. Compliance with proposed 40 CFR 

60.34f(e) does not constitute compliance with the applicable 

standards in proposed 40 CFR 60.36f. Compliance with proposed 40 

CFR 60.34f(e) is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the 

general duty to minimize emissions in 40 CFR 60.11(d) during 

control or collection system malfunctions. 

Under proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, landfill 

owners/operators must keep records of combustion temperature, 

bypass flow, and periods when the flare flame or the flare pilot 

flame is out. However, without additional provisions, the EPA 

would have no way to gauge the severity of an emissions 

exceedance that may occur when these operating parameters are 

not being met or when the control device is not operating. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to include provisions for 

landfill owners/operators to estimate NMOC emissions when the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 182 of 321 

control device or collection system is not operating. The 

landfill owners/operators may use whatever information is 

available to estimate NMOC emissions during the period, 

including but not limited to, landfill gas flow to or bypass of 

the control device, the concentration of NMOC (from the most 

recent performance test or from AP-42), and the amount of time 

the control device is not operating. Landfill owners/operators 

would keep records of the estimated emissions and would report 

the information in the annual compliance report. 

C. Definitions and Other Rule Changes. 

We propose to include definitions of “household waste” and 

“segregated yard waste” in proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf 

to clarify our intent regarding the applicability of proposed 

subpart Cf to landfills that do not accept household waste, but 

accept segregated yard waste. We also proposed to exclude 

construction and demolition waste from the definition of 

household waste. We intend for subpart Cf to apply to municipal 

solid waste landfills that accept general household waste 

(including garbage, trash, sanitary waste), as indicated in the 

definitions. We do not intend the landfills rules to apply to 

landfills that accept only segregated yard waste or a 

combination of segregated yard waste and non-household waste 

such as construction and demolition waste. 

X. Request for Comment on Specific Provisions 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 183 of 321 

A. Defining Closed Areas of Open Landfills. 

In the ANPRM for the Emission Guidelines (79 FR 41772), the 

EPA requested input on how non-producing areas of the landfill, 

i.e., areas that are no longer generating landfill gas, could be 

excluded from gas collection requirements when designing a GCCS 

(79 FR 41792). The EPA also sought input on whether the current 

criteria for capping or removing a GCCS are appropriate, one of 

which requires that the landfill be closed (79 FR 41783). As 

discussed in section VIII.B of this preamble, we are proposing a 

second set of alternative criteria for capping or removing the 

GCCS at closed landfills or closed areas of active landfills, 

based on surface emissions monitoring. 

Commenters expressed concern with the requirement for 

closed areas to be physically separated in order to be excluded 

from GCCS requirements, noting that many closed areas of active 

landfills are non-producing but remain physically connected to 

other areas of the landfill. 

To help address the difficulty of controlling landfill gas 

in low-producing areas, the EPA is proposing an alternative set 

of criteria for capping or removing the GCCS that employs a SEM 

demonstration: 1) the landfill is closed or an area of an active 

landfill is closed, 2) the GCCS has operated for at least 15 

years or the landfill owner/operator can demonstrate that the 

GCCS will be unable to operate for 15 years due to declining gas 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 184 of 321 

flows, and 3) the landfill or closed area demonstrates for 4 

consecutive quarters that there are no surface emissions of 500 

ppm or greater. The EPA is also requesting comment on whether 

owners or operators of physically separated, closed areas of 

landfills may model NMOC emission rates, or may determine the 

flow rate of landfill gas using actual measurements, to 

determine NMOC emissions in order to identify areas that can be 

excluded from gas collection. The EPA considers areas to be 

physically separated if they have separate liners and gas cannot 

migrate between the separate areas. 

To further address non-producing areas, proposed 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cf contains procedures for excluding areas from 

gas collection and control. Owners or operators of landfills 

with physically separated, closed areas may demonstrate that the 

quantity of NMOC emissions from the area is less than 1 percent 

of the total NMOC emissions from the entire landfill, and thus 

exclude the area from control. Under proposed 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf, owners or operators of landfills with physically 

separated, closed areas may model NMOC emission rates, or may 

determine the flow rate of landfill gas using actual 

measurements, to determine NMOC emissions. Using actual flow 

measurements would yield a more precise measurement of NMOC 

emissions for purposes of demonstrating the closed area 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 185 of 321 

represents less than 1 percent of the landfills total NMOC 

emissions. 

Because both of these topics rely on defining a closed area 

of a landfill, the EPA requests comment on how to define closed 

areas of open landfills. 

B. Enhanced Surface Emissions Monitoring 

The proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf collection and 

control requirements are intended to ensure that landfills 

maintain a tight cover that minimizes any emissions of landfill 

gas through the surface. The surface emissions monitoring 

procedures in proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf are consistent 

with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW and require quarterly surface 

emissions monitoring to demonstrate that the cover and gas 

collection system are working properly. However, we are also 

considering and requesting additional public input on a 

potential alternative approach to surface emissions monitoring. 

The alternative surface monitoring approach includes 

changing the walking pattern that traverses the landfill from 30 

meters (98 ft) to 25 ft and adding a methane concentration limit 

of 25 ppm as determined by integrated surface emissions 

monitoring. This would be in addition to the 500 ppm emission 

concentration as determined by instantaneous surface emissions 

monitoring. Integrated surface emissions monitoring provides an 

average surface emission concentration across a specified area. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 186 of 321 

For integrated surface emissions monitoring, the specified area 

would be individually identified 50,000 square ft grids. A 

tighter walking pattern and the addition of an integrated 

methane concentration limit 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 in all types 

of climates. As part of these potential changes, the EPA is also 

considering not allowing surface monitoring when the average 

wind speed exceeds 5 miles per hour (mph) or the instantaneous 

wind speed exceeds 10 mph because air movement can affect 

whether the monitor is accurately reading the methane 

concentration during surface monitoring. We are considering this 

change because conducting surface emissions monitoring during 

windy periods may not yield readings that are representative of 

the emissions. The EPA requested public comment on this same 

enhanced approach in the landfills NSPS (79 FR 41822) and ANPRM 

(79 FR 41789). 

Many commenters supported the enhanced surface monitoring 

provisions for detecting surface emissions. A state agency 

supported reducing the traverse pattern to 25 feet, stating that 

the tighter traverse pattern would increase the chance of 

detecting exceedances. An environmental organization supported 

all elements of the enhanced surface monitoring and contended 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 187 of 321 

that the current monitoring at 30 meter intervals leaves most 

areas of the landfill unmonitored. Both these commenters 

suggested that the walking pattern be varied each quarter (i.e., 

offset by 10 meters) to monitor additional areas over time. The 

environmental organization supported an integrated reading 

because it would be a better indicator of GCCS performance and 

they contended that the additional costs were not unreasonable. 

Many commenters opposed the enhanced surface monitoring 

provisions. Commenters that opposed the enhanced surface 

monitoring provisions primarily cited the additional costs and 

contended that the additional expense was not warranted because 

of limited environmental benefits. Two commenters commissioned a 

study to compare the level of effort and monitoring results of 

the CA LMR to the SEM requirements under the current NSPS (40 

CFR part 60, subpart WWW). The CA LMR utilizes a 25 ft traverse 

pattern, an instantaneous as well as integrated reading, and 

prevents sampling during windy conditions (greater than 5 mph 

average and greater than 10 mph instantaneous). 

The study examined monitoring results for eight quarters of 

NSPS surface monitoring at 42 California landfills, encompassing 

27,140 acres. Those results were compared to CA LMR surface 

monitoring for 10 quarters at 72 California landfills, including 

the 42 landfills conducting NSPS surface monitoring, 

encompassing a total of 57,151 acres. Among other observations, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 188 of 321 

the study concludes that although the CA LMR surface emission 

monitoring requirements detected 2.1 percent more exceedances 

than NSPS surface emission monitoring requirements, detecting 

these additional exceedances is not cost effective. The study 

also concluded that under the NSPS monitoring, only one landfill 

was required to expand its GCCS, while under the CA LMR 

monitoring, only three landfills were required to expand the 

GCCS. The two commenters that commissioned the study contended 

that the additional cost to conduct enhanced surface monitoring, 

estimated by the EPA to be seven times more expensive than NSPS 

monitoring, was an extraordinary amount of money to spend 

detecting exceedances at merely an additional 2.8 percent of 

acres monitored, while increasing gas collection at only one 

landfill. 

The EPA examined the data supporting the study as provided 

by one of the commenters. The data allowed for direct comparison 

of exceedance data from 29 landfills, although for different 

time periods. The study and supporting data provide evidence of 

greater exceedances under the California approach than the 

current approach. However, the EPA was unable to determine the 

magnitude of emission reductions that might result from the 

greater exceedances under the California approach. See the 

docketed memorandum entitled “Analysis of Surface Exceedances 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 189 of 321 

from California Landfills under the New Source Performance 

Standards and the California Landfill Methane Rule.” 

Many commenters, including many state agencies, opposed 

limiting surface monitoring during windy conditions, stating 

that the wind restrictions would be a significant inhibitor to 

completing the required monitoring in many regions of the 

country due to typical windy conditions. Commenters also stated 

that it would be difficult to schedule and reschedule dedicated 

sampling crews and conditions could change quickly during 

sampling events, causing crews to stop monitoring. 

For proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, the EPA estimated 

the costs associated with both the proposed subpart Cf surface 

monitoring requirements (which are the same as the surface 

monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW) and 

potential changes to the surface monitoring provisions under the 

proposed 2.5/34 option and the proposed 2.5/40 option and 

applied them to the set of existing landfills that would be 

subject to control requirements under the respective option. To 

determine the costs, the EPA used the following assumptions: 

most landfills will hire a contractor to conduct the quarterly 

monitoring. The landfill will incur labor costs based on the 

time it takes to walk the traverse (hours per acre), the size of 

the landfill (acres), and a labor rate (dollars per hour). The 

landfill will also incur an equipment rental rate (dollars per 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 190 of 321 

hour) as well as a flat fee for purchasing calibration gases and 

hydrogen to fuel the equipment. Equipment rental rates are 

dollar per day/week/month, depending on the size of the landfill 

and time to traverse the acreage during each quarterly period. 

See the docketed memo, “Updated Methodology for Estimating 

Testing and Monitoring Costs for the MSW Landfill Regulations. 

2015,” which contains the details for determining the costs that 

a landfill would incur to conduct enhanced surface monitoring. 

Using the techniques discussed in section V.B of this 

preamble, the EPA estimated the number of landfills that are 

expected to install controls under the baseline, as well as the 

proposed option 2.5/34 and option 2.5/40. Then, the EPA applied 

surface monitoring costs to the respective set of landfills 

because landfills that must install controls must also conduct 

surface monitoring. Table 4 of this preamble compares the 

enhanced surface monitoring costs that would be incurred for new 

landfills under the baseline and proposed option 2.5/34 and 

proposed option 2.5/40. 

Table 4. Comparison of Baseline Surface Monitoring Versus 

Enhanced Surface Monitoring in 2025 

Control 

option 

Surface 

monitoring 

type 

Number of 

landfills 

controllin

g 

Annual 

Cost 

Incrementa

l Cost 

Total Cost 

per 

controlled 

landfill 

Incremental 

cost per 

controlled 

landfill 

Baselin

e 

2.5/50 

No change (30 

meter 

traverse) 

574 6,327,000 NA 11,000 NA 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 191 of 321 

Control 

option 

Surface 

monitoring 

type 

Number of 

landfills 

controllin

g 

Annual 

Cost 

Incrementa

l Cost 

Total Cost 

per 

controlled 

landfill 

Incremental 

cost per 

controlled 

landfill 

(2.5 

million 

Mg 

design 

capacit

y/50 

Mg/yr 

NMOC) 

Enhanced (25-

foot 

traverse, 

integrated 

sample) 

43,831,000 37,504,000 76,400 65,300 

Option 

2.5/40 

(2.5 

million 

Mg 

design 

capacit

y/40 

Mg/yr 

NMOC) 

No change (30 

meter 

traverse) 

636 

 6,741,000 414,000 10,600 700 

Enhanced (25-

foot 

traverse, 

integrated 

sample) 

46,746,000 40,419,000 73,500 63,600 

Propose

d 

Option 

2.5/34 

(2.5 

million 

Mg 

design 

capacit

y/34 

Mg/yr 

NMOC) 

No change (30 

meter 

traverse) 

680 

 7,062,000 735,000 10,400 1,100 

Enhanced (25-

foot 

traverse, 

integrated 

sample) 

49,037,000 42,710,000 72,100 62,800 

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 4 times as long, because the distance is 

approximately 4 times greater. For a landfill to conduct the 

integrated surface emissions monitoring, the EPA assumed the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 192 of 321 

landfill would rent a handheld portable vapor analyzer with a 

data logger. The data logger is necessary to obtain an 

integrated reading over a single 50,000 square foot grid. 

However, the EPA does not expect that requiring an integrated 

methane concentration would add significant cost because 

landfills could use the same instrument that they currently use 

for the instantaneous readings and these instruments can be 

programmed to provide an integrated value as well as an 

instantaneous value. 

The EPA recognizes that these provisions could reduce 

surface emissions and that these emissions reductions are 

difficult to quantify. The EPA also understands that there are 

potential implementation concerns with these enhanced 

procedures. Surface monitoring is a labor intensive process and 

tightening the grid pattern would increase costs. Of the 574 

landfills expected to be controlling in 2025 under the baseline, 

it would take these landfills over 42 hours, on average, to 

complete each quarterly traverse pattern. Tightening the 

traverse pattern to 25 ft instead of 30 meters would require 

over 165 hours per quarter, or nearly 500 additional hours per 

year, per landfill, compared to the current 30-meter traverse 

pattern. 

At this time, the EPA is not proposing surface monitoring 

provisions that differ from those outlined in 40 CFR part 60, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 193 of 321 

subpart WWW, but we are soliciting comment on the various 

elements of enhanced surface emissions monitoring (the width of 

the traverse pattern, offsetting the walking pattern each 

quarter (i.e., offset by 10 meters), an integrated reading of 25 

ppm, and restrictions during windy conditions), as well as 

techniques and data to estimate the emission reductions 

associated with enhanced surface monitoring. 

C. Wet Landfills 

In the ANPRM (79 FR 41784), we solicited input on separate 

thresholds for wet landfills and how wet landfills might be 

defined. Among other concerns, we received feedback from 

commenters expressing concern on potential overlap between wet 

landfills handled under the Emission Guidelines and bioreactor 

landfills handled under 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA (National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills). A landfill is defined as a bioreactor under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart AAAA if it has added liquids other than 

leachate into the waste mass in a controlled fashion68; such 

bioreactor landfills are required to install and operate a GCCS 

on an accelerated schedule compared to non-bioreactor landfills. 

 

68 Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA, bioreactor means a MSW landfill or 

portion of a MSW landfill where any liquid other than leachate (leachate 

includes landfill gas condensate) is added in a controlled fashion into the 

waste mass (often in combination with recirculating leachate) to reach a 

minimum average moisture content of at least 40 percent by weight to 

accelerate or enhance the anaerobic (without oxygen) biodegradation of the 

waste. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 194 of 321 

Once a landfill is required to install and operate a GCCS under 

either 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA, or 40 CFR part 60, subparts 

WWW and Cc, the GCCS requirements are the same. In addition to 

bioreactors as defined under 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA, the 

EPA is aware of 31 bioreactor projects permitted under the 

research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) rule in 11 

states and one project on tribal lands69. These bioreactor 

landfills generally do not meet the 40 percent by weight 

moisture component of the bioreactor definition in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart AAAA. Based on the options analyzed and presented in 

Table 3 of this preamble, proposed option 2.5/34 is estimated to 

achieve reductions of NMOC and methane emissions at 651 existing 

open landfills in year 2025. Of these 651 landfills, 18 are 

identified as having RD&D permits, which permit liquids 

addition; 343 are located in areas receiving greater than 40 

inches of precipitation each year; and an additional 16 

landfills report leachate recirculation activities and a k value 

of 0.057 year-1 or greater to subpart HH of the GHGRP, but are 

not located in areas receiving 40 inches of precipitation or 

more, for a total of 377 “wet” landfills out of those required 

to control emissions. 

 

69 EPA/600/R-14/335. Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations: Ten Years 

after the RD&D Rule. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 195 of 321 

Collectively, reductions from these 377 wet landfills 

constitute approximately 50 percent of the incremental 

reductions achieved by the proposed option 2.5/34. Nearly all of 

these incremental reductions are coming from the 343 landfills 

that are located in areas receiving 40 inches of precipitation 

or more. Based on this analysis, the NMOC threshold of 34 Mg/yr 

in this proposal achieves significant reduction in emissions 

from wet landfills. 

The EPA conducted a preliminary analysis to determine the 

additional reductions that could be achieved if the initial lag 

time was shortened by 1 year and the expansion lag time was 

shortened by 2 years and applied to open wet landfills in 

addition to the lower NMOC emission threshold of 34 Mg/yr. The 

results of this analysis show that an additional approximately 

220 Mg/yr of reductions in NMOC emissions and 35,200 Mg/yr of 

reductions in methane (879,000 mtCO2e/yr) could be achieved from 

these 377 wet landfills in 2025. 

It is important to note that the impacts of the options in 

Table 3 as well as this preliminary analysis of wet landfills 

were conducted using a k value of 0.04 for any landfill that is 

located in an area with at least 25 inches of rainfall, 

consistent with the analysis discussed at 79 FR 41805. This 

modeling parameter was used for all but nine of the 377 wet 

landfills discussed above. Those nine landfills, which are 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 196 of 321 

either RD&D landfills or reported significant leachate 

recirculation to subpart HH of the GHGRP were modeled using a k 

value of 0.02 because they were located in arid areas. 

The results of the impacts analyses presented in Table 3 of 

this preamble and above could differ significantly if 

alternative modeling parameters (k and/or Lo) were used to model 

emissions from this group of wet landfills. For example, subpart 

HH of the GHGRP uses a k value of 0.057 for landfills that 

exceed 40 inches per year when considering both leachate 

recirculation and precipitation. The EPA also identified a study 

containing alternative k values for five different bioreactor 

landfills70. One commenter urged the EPA to consider more 

representative k values when calculating emission reductions 

from wet landfills, and cited several studies for EPA 

review71,72,73. This commenter also requested that the EPA adopt 

shorter lag times for these wet landfills. Another commenter 

urged the EPA to finalize the changes proposed in 2009 to AP-42 

 

70 Barlaz, Morton et al., Performance of North American Bioreactor Landfills 

II: Chemical and Biological Characteristics. Journal of Environmental 

Engineering. Volume 136, No. 8. August 2010. 

71 Xiaoming Wang et al., Using Observed Data to Improve Estimated Methane 

Collection From Select U.S. Landfills, Environ. Sci. Technol. 3251, 3256 

(2013). 

72 Hamid R. Amini et al., Comparison of First-Order Decay Modeled and Actual 

Field Measured Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Methane Data, 33 Waste 

Management 2720, 2725 (2013). 

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

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

1402-03 (Dec. 2009)
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 197 of 321 

emission factors for MSW landfills, which included a much higher 

k value of 0.3 for wet landfills, among other changes74. Another 

commenter provided input that leachate recirculation will have 

negligible impact on the total precipitation value that 

ultimately dictates which k value to use. This commenter also 

referenced its prior comments expressing concerns that the draft 

AP-42 k value for wet landfills was too high, and provided 

several studies containing alternative k values for wet 

landfills75,76,77.

Given the additional emission reductions that could be 

achieved from shortening the lag times at wet landfills and in 

consideration of the President’s Methane Strategy, the EPA is 

soliciting input on whether the wet landfills not subject to the 

requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA should be subject 

to different schedules for installing and expanding their GCCS 

under the Emission Guidelines. Additionally, the EPA requests 

comment on how these wet landfills that are not bioreactors (as 

 

74 U.S. EPA AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 2, Draft Section 

2.4: Solid Waste Disposal 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/draft/d02s04.pdf 

75 Staley, B.F. and M.A. Barlaz, 2009, "Composition of Municipal Solid Waste 

in the U.S. and Implications for Carbon Sequestration and Methane Yield," 

Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 10, October 1, 2009.

76 U.S. EPA, Landfill Bioreactor Performance, Second Interim Report; 

EPN600/R-07/060, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management 

Laboratory: Cincinnati, OH, 2006.

77 Tolaymat, T.M., Green, R.B., Hater, G.R., Barlaz, M.A., Black, P., 

Bronston, D., and J. Powell, "Evaluation of Landfill Gas Decay Constant for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Operated as Bioreactors." Submitted to the 

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. 2009. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 198 of 321 

defined in subpart AAAA) might be defined. Finally, recognizing 

the wide range of k values used to model emissions at wet 

landfills (0.057 to 0.3), the EPA requests comment and data to 

support revising the k value used for assessing the impacts on 

wet landfills, as well as the k value landfills should use in 

Tier 1 and Tier 2 emission threshold determinations. The EPA 

also requests comment on whether revisions to the k value for 

wet landfills would require changes to the Lo modeling parameter 

for wet landfills. 

D. Monitoring Wellhead Flowrate 

Based on comments received and discussed in section VI.B of 

this preamble, as well as the proposal to eliminate the 

operating standards for oxygen/nitrogen and temperature, the EPA 

is requesting input on whether it should add a requirement to 

monitor wellhead flowrate to help ensure a well-operated GCCS. 

Monitoring wellhead flow rate would allow the landfill owner or 

operator to detect low gas flow and whether a well is 

waterlogged, clogged, or pinched. 

E. Third Party Design Plan Certification Program 

In the ANPRM for existing landfills (79 FR 41784, July 17, 

2014), the EPA solicited input on the possibility of 

establishing a third-party design plan certification program and 

provided examples of several rules and programs with third-party 

verification components. The third-party program would 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 199 of 321 

supplement or replace the current approach of requiring EPA or 

state review and approval of site-specific design plans and plan 

revisions with a program whereby 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 process of approving site-specific design plans 

and plan revisions can be extremely resource-intensive for 

regulators and regulated entities alike. The EPA believes 

modifying the regulations to provide for the review and approval 

of the plans by competent and independent third-parties could 

reduce these burdens. Such an independent program would need to 

be designed to ensure that, among other things, the third 

parties are competent, accurate, independent, and appropriately 

accredited. The program would also need to ensure that the 

reviews are thorough, independent, and conducted pursuant to 

clear and objective design plan review criteria. Finally, the 

program would need to ensure that the system is transparent, 

including requiring appropriate public disclosures, and that 

there is regular and effective oversight of the third-party 

system. Some criteria for auditor competence, independence, 

reporting, and oversight requirements provisions might include 

the following: 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 200 of 321 

• Engaging a third-party inspection team (team) and 

submitting the members’ resumes and qualifications to EPA; 

• Requiring the team to have at least one person with 

landfill industry expertise acceptable to the EPA, one 

expert in environmental compliance auditing, and one expert 

in chemical process safety management; 

• Restricting team members to those who have not previously 

performed work for the respondents; 

• Restricting team members from working for the respondents 

or any of the respondents’ officers for 5 years after 

completion of inspections ; 

• After giving the respondents notice of the first upcoming 

inspection, restricting the team from communicating with 

its respondents unless EPA is copied on the communication 

(communications during on-site inspections are excepted); 

• Unannounced follow-up inspections with no notice to 

respondents but advance notice to the EPA; 

• Restricting respondents from having control over the timing 

of any of the follow-up inspections; 

• Having the EPA or the delegated authority retain the right 

to accompany the team on any inspection; 

• Within 15 days of each inspection, requiring the team to 

simultaneously submit to the EPA and the respondents an 

inspection report, photographs, and digital video of the 

inspection; 

• Denying the opportunity to review any draft or final 

inspection report before its submittal. 

The EPA developed the above provisions based on the 

theoretical and empirical research for best practices for 

independent third party audits. 

Commenters on the ANPRM generally did not support a third 

party design plan certification program and cited several 

reasons. Commenters noted that the ANPRM (79 FR 41772) 

discussion of the program was overly general and that the EPA 

did not adequately describe the possible design features. One 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 201 of 321 

commenter expressed concerns that the examples of third-party 

certification presented in the ANPRM are neither comparable nor 

relevant to the review of MSW landfill GCCS design plans. One 

commenter acknowledged that a third-party reviewer system could 

reduce the burden and backlog experienced by reviewing agencies, 

but expressed concern that the costs of verification would be 

significant. Another commenter indicated the EPA did not present 

any economic and implementation impacts concerning such a 

program in the ANPRM and requested that EPA provide more 

details. Commenters also expressed concern about finding 

consultants that would be free of conflicts of interest given 

the consolidated nature of the MSW landfill industry. One 

commenter noted that cost and potential conflicts of interest 

were cited as reasons that the EPA did not adopt a third-party 

certification program for the GHGRP. Another commenter agreed 

that there was the potential for conflicts of interest and 

stated that design plan review is an essential government 

oversight and should not be delegated. Commenters also urged the 

EPA to thoroughly review the many issues that could arise with a 

third-party certification program and urged the EPA to take 

further notice and comment before promulgating such a program. 

Several commenters on the ANPRM (79 FR 41772) solicited 

additional details on components of a proposed third-party 

certification program, and the EPA is providing further details 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 202 of 321 

in this proposal. In this notice, the EPA is also seeking 

additional input on the possibility of establishing a thirdparty design certification program. This preamble discussion 

provides notice of the key features the EPA is considering in 

such a program to ensure the integrity of such a program, 

including the use of effective auditors and audits. See 

[DOCUMENT], Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451, in the public 

record for this rulemaking for additional specificity regarding 

such third-party design features with supporting studies, 

articles, and reports. 

1. Definition and Characteristics of Independent Third-Party 

Compliance Verification 

Third-party compliance verification occurs when an 

independent third party verifies to a regulator that a regulated 

entity is meeting or conforming to one or more compliance 

obligations (in the literature and other regulations, the terms 

“certifier,” “auditor,” or “inspector” are also used to describe 

such verifiers). Independent third-party programs are distinct 

from programs whereby regulated sources employ contractors or 

consultants, even if they are separate legal entities from the 

regulated facilities and are highly qualified. When contractors 

or consultants report to facilities directly, have other nonaudit business or relationships with the facilities, and/or the 

facilities are able to control or influence the audit reports’ 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 203 of 321 

form and/or content, this is not independent third-party 

verification but rather enhanced self-auditing 

2. Third-Party Audit Program Considerations and Characteristics 

Based on careful review of the literature78, the EPA 

believes independent third-party programs can be effective, but 

only if properly designed and overseen. The most critical 

considerations in designing successful third-party auditing 

programs are building in provisions and procedures for ensuring 

auditors are competent and independent. The EPA seeks comment on 

the suitability of an independent third-party verification 

program for landfills that includes the following design 

elements to ensure its effectiveness and integrity: the use of 

competent and independent auditors; accurate audits; public 

transparency; and effective regulatory oversight. See also 

Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451 for a review of additional 

design features the EPA is considering and more detailed 

information on the features listed below: 

a. A requirement that the auditing (verifying) firm, 

including any corporate parent and/or subsidiaries and the 

actual persons responsible for the audit, neither have had any 

prior business or family relationship with the firm being 

audited in the past five years, nor have worked on the 

 

78 Lesley K. McAllister, Regulation by Third-Party Verification, 53 Boston C. 

L Rev. 1, 21-26 (Jan. 2012). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 204 of 321 

development or implementation of the project/process subject to 

the audit. 

b. A requirement that the auditing firm (including its 

corporate parent and/or subsidiaries, if any) is prohibited from 

engaging in any business transactions with the firm it is 

auditing for at least five years after the audit is completed. 

c. A requirement that the verifying entity and the specific 

auditors hold appropriate professional and educational 

credentials issued by either the government entity that would 

otherwise review the plan or an independent professional 

organization (accreditation board) neither funded nor associated 

with the regulated sector. 

d. A requirement that the auditing firm share all drafts 

and the final version of its audits with the government entity 

before, or at the same time, as it shares them with the 

regulated entity. 

e. A requirement that appropriate auditing standards and 

protocols be spelled out, including, if possible, by reference 

to identified standards established by outside entities, e.g., 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO), American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI), ASTM International (ASTM), 

etc. 

f. A requirement that audit reports, including names of key 

persons involved in the audits, be made accessible to the public 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 205 of 321 

subject to protecting confidential business information (CBI) 

and national security information 

g. Requirements to ensure that the verifying firms operate 

with integrity, competence, and independence and that the 

regulator audit, i.e., review or “backcheck,” including some 

number of on-site inspections, a significant percentage (e.g., 

10 percent) of the auditing firms and their audit reports. 

The EPA is requesting comments regarding the appropriate 

professional and educational credentials requirements for 

auditors. For example, should auditors be licensed professional 

engineers? In addition based upon comments received, the EPA 

also requests information concerning the costs associated with 

third party certification design plans. 

The EPA is also considering defining more specifically what 

it means for an auditor to be independent, i.e., what potential 

conflicts of interest such as being employees of parent company, 

affiliates, or vendors/contractors that are currently working in 

the landfill industry, could exclude an auditor from qualifying 

as independent. Criteria for, and research on, competence and 

independence are discussed further below. 

The EPA is also considering allowing a person at the 

facility who is a registered professional engineer to conduct 

the audit at the facility, i.e., first party/self auditing, 

instead of requiring independent third party audits.. If self-
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 206 of 321 

auditing is authorized, the EPA seeks comment on how best to 

structure it to maximize auditor independence and accurate 

auditing outcomes. Under the U.S. CARB v. Hyundai Motor Company, 

et al. consent decree, for example, until the consent decrees 

corrective measures are fully implemented, the defendants must 

audit their fleets to ensure that vehicles sold to the public 

conform to the vehicles’ certification. The consent decree 

provides that the audit team will be in the United States, will 

be independent from the group that performed the original 

certification work, and must perform their audits without access 

to or knowledge of the defendants’ original certification test 

data, which the consent decree-required audits are intended to 

backcheck.79 The EPA seeks comment as to whether similar 

restrictions should be placed on any self-auditing conducted 

under the MSW landfills Emission Guidelines. 

As another alternative approach, the EPA could require 

auditors to have accreditation by a recognized accrediting body.

Several of the examples that have already been provided of 

existing or proposed federal or state independent third party 

auditing programs in rules use this approach. The EPA thus seeks 

 

79 Press Release: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OPA/ADMPRESS.NSF/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/155

19081fbf4002285257d8500477615!OpenDocument; Detailed settlement 

info.: http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/hyundai-and-kia-clean-air-actsettlement; Consent Decree: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-

11/documents/hyundai-kia-cd.pdf 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 207 of 321 

comment on whether third party auditors should be required to 

receive accreditation by a recognized accrediting body. The EPA 

also seeks comment on the standards such accrediting bodies 

should be required to meet, e.g., International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO)/IEC 17011:2004(E), Conformity Assessments—

General Requirements for Accreditation Bodies Accrediting 

Conformity Assessments Bodies (First Edition). 

There are advantages to third-party auditing, particularly 

with strong auditor competence and independence criteria. 

According to the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), 

“Third-party auditors (typically, consulting companies who can 

provide experienced auditors) potentially provide the highest 

degree of objectivity.”80 The Administrative Conference of the 

United States (ACUS), in its Recommendation on Agency Use of 

Third-Party Programs to Assess Regulatory Compliance (December 

6, 2012), found that, when well-designed and implemented per the 

Recommendation, “[s]everal broad reasons support the growing use 

of third-party programs in federal regulation.” Specifically, 

ACUS found that “...federal regulatory agencies are faced with 

assuring the compliance of an increasing number of entities and 

products without a corresponding growth in agency resources. 

 

80 Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety, March 2007. CCPS. 

http://www.aiche.org/ccps/resources/publications/books/guidelines-risk-basedprocess-safety 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 208 of 321 

Third-party programs may leverage private resources and 

expertise in ways that make regulation more effective and less 

costly. In comparison with other regulatory approaches, thirdparty programs may also enable more frequent compliance 

assessment and more complete and reliable compliance data”81 A 

leading scholar on regulatory third-party programs likewise 

found that, when well-designed and implemented, “third-party 

verification could furnish more and better data about regulatory 

compliance” while providing additional compliance and resource 

savings benefits.82

All independent third-party compliance verification 

programs establish criteria and standards for auditor 

competence. Typically, such criteria and standards combine 

specified minimum levels of education, knowledge, experience, 

and training. Auditors should be knowledgeable and experienced 

with the facility type and processes being audited. The 

applicable recognized and generally accepted good engineering 

practices, trained or certified in proper third-party auditing 

techniques, and licensed professional engineers should be 

 

81 Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS); Administrative 

Conference Recommendation 2012-7; Agency Use of Third-Party Programs to 

Assess Regulatory Compliance (Adopted December 6, 2012) at 3-4. 

https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/agency-use-third-party-programs-assessregulatory-compliance 

82 Lesley K. McAllister, Regulation by Third-Party Verification, 53 Boston C. 

L Rev. 1, 21-26 (Jan. 2012). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 209 of 321 

employed where appropriate. The EPA seeks comment on whether 

these criteria are appropriate and sufficient to ensure that 

auditors are competent to perform high-quality auditing. 

3. Public Disclosure/Transparency 

It is EPA policy that both the government and the public 

have appropriate access to information about regulated entities 

and their compliance status. This includes relevant information 

on the operation of any independent third-party programs. The 

EPA seeks comment on what information associated with such a 

program for landfills should be publicly disclosed and how to 

disclose it. 

4. E-Reporting of Audit Reports and Certifications 

Pursuant to EPA’s Policy Statement on E-Reporting in EPA 

Regulations (September 30, 2013), “[t]he Policy of the [EPA] is 

to [b]egin the regulatory development process with the 

assumption that all reporting will be electronic, unless there 

is a compelling reason to use paper reporting. Consistent with 

that policy, the EPA is requesting comment on requiring 

independent third-party auditors to provide their audit reports 

and associated certification statements (see discussion below) 

to EPA electronically and seeks comment on how to best design 

the e-reporting system to facilitate its use by the regulated 

facilities and third-party auditors. 

5. Facility and Third-Party Auditor Certification Statements 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 210 of 321 

EPA’s experience shows that requiring a responsible 

corporate or third-party official to attest to self-monitoring, 

reporting, and third-party auditing can help ensure that 

appropriate officials are personally familiar with the reported 

information and reminds them of the penalties associated with 

knowingly submitting false information. The EPA intends to 

require such language for any third-party audit reports under 

these emission guidelines and requests comment on its wording. 

The EPA also requests comment on whether the Agency should, for 

this rule, require regulated facilities and/or third-party 

auditors to publicly post their certifications to their 

qualifications to conduct the audit and/or the accuracy and 

completeness of the audit reports. 

6. Examples of Independent Third Party Programs in Other Rules 

Third party audits or other forms of compliance 

verification are also required by a variety of final or proposed 

EPA programs to promote compliance with regulatory standards. 

Examples of proposed or final federal environmental regulatory 

programs with built-in third-party verification include the 

following rules and rulemakings: 

• EPA CAA Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program: The RFS 

regulations include requirements for obligated parties to: 

1) meet annual attest engagement requirements using 

independent certified public accountants (the purpose of 

attest engagements is to provide regulated parties an 

independent review of their compliance with both the fuels 

requirements themselves as well as the regulated party's 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 211 of 321 

internal systems to monitor and document compliance); 2) 

submit independent third-party engineering reviews to the 

EPA before generating Renewable Identification Numbers.83

• EPA CAA wood stoves rule: Residential wood heaters (which 

include stoves) contribute significantly to particulate air 

pollution. Wood stove model lines that are in compliance 

with the wood stoves rule are referred to as EPA-certified 

wood stoves. The EPA's certification process requires 

manufacturers to verify that each of their wood stove model 

lines meet a specific particulate emission limit by 

undergoing emission testing at an EPA-accredited 

laboratory.84

F. Use of Portable Analyzers for Monitoring Oxygen 

In the proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796), as well as 40 CFR 

60.37f(a)(2) of the proposed Emission Guidelines, landfill 

owners or operators must use Method 3A or Method 3C when 

monitoring the oxygen and nitrogen levels at the wellhead, 

unless an alternative test method is established. Several 

commenters on the proposed NSPS requested that the EPA specify 

that portable gas composition analyzers are an acceptable 

alternative to Methods 3A or 3C, and noted that these devices 

are commonly used in practice to measure wellhead parameters and 

calibrated according to the manufacturer’s specifications. 

Currently, approval of these analyzers are done on a case-bycase basis. In proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, the EPA has 

 

83 EPA, Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS), 

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

 

84 EPA, Wood Heater Compliance Monitoring Program, 

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/03/16/2015-03733/standards-ofperformance-for-new-residential-wood-heaters-new-residential-hydronicheaters-and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 212 of 321 

not listed portable gas composition analyzers for determining 

oxygen or nitrogen levels. The EPA did not receive any data 

supporting these comments as to why the analyzers could not be 

calibrated according to Method 3A and maintains that proper 

calibration of portable gas composition analyzers is important 

for generating accurate results. The EPA is requesting data or 

information on the use of a portable gas composition analyzer 

according to Method 3A. The EPA is also requesting data on other 

reference methods used for calibrating these analyzers. 

XI. Impacts of Proposed Revisions 

For most Emission Guidelines, the EPA analyzes the impacts 

in the year the standard is implemented. As discussed in Section 

III.E, the EPA is proposing to extend the review period for 

state plans. Assuming the Emission Guidelines are promulgated in 

the summer of 2016, states have 9 months to prepare a state plan 

implementing the guidelines (March 2017) and the EPA has one 

year to review the plan (March 2018). If necessary, the state 

has an additional 2 months to revise and submit a corrected plan 

based on any comments from the EPA (May 2018). Concurrently, the 

EPA must promulgate a federal plan within 6 months after the 

state plan is due, consistent with 60.27(d), or May 2018. So, 

the EPA-approved state plan and updated federal plan 

implementing the Emission Guidelines are expected to become 

effective in May 2018. While 2018 is the estimated 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 213 of 321 

implementation year, the proposed reporting and control 

timeframe allows 3 months to submit the first NMOC emission 

report and then 30 months after exceeding the NMOC emission 

threshold before the GCCS is required to be installed. So, the 

first year of controls under the proposed revisions would be 

2021. 

The EPA is assessing impacts in year 2025 as a 

representative year for the landfills Emission Guidelines. While 

the year 2025 differs somewhat from the expected first year of 

implementation for the Emission Guidelines (year 2020), the 

number of existing landfills required to install controls under 

the proposed 2.5/34 option in year 2025 is comparable (within 2 

percent of those required to control in the estimated first year 

of implementation. Further, year 2025 represents a year in which 

several of the landfills subject to control requirements have 

had to expand their GCCS according the expansion lag times set 

forth in proposed subpart Cf. The methodology for estimating the 

impacts of the Emission Guidelines is discussed in section V.B 

of this preamble and in the docketed memorandum “Revised 

Methodology for Cost and Emission Impacts of Landfill 

Regulations (2015).” The results of applying this methodology to 

the population of existing landfills potentially subject to each 

of the regulatory options are in the docketed memorandum 

“Revised Cost and Emission Impacts Resulting from the Landfill 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 214 of 321 

EG Review (2015).” Table 3 of this preamble summarizes the 

emission reductions and costs associated with the control 

options considered. 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

This proposal would achieve nearly an additional 5 percent 

reduction in NMOC from existing landfills, or 2,770 Mg/yr, when 

compared to the baseline, as shown in Table 5 of this preamble. 

The proposal would also achieve substantial reductions in 

methane emissions. These reductions are achieved by reducing the 

NMOC threshold from 50 Mg/yr to 34 Mg/yr as proposed at open 

landfills. 

Table 5. Emission Reductions in 2025 for Existing Landfills 

Subject to Additional Controls Under Proposed Option 2.5/34

Parameter Quantity 

Baseline NMOC Emission Reductions(Mg)a 57,300 

Proposed Incremental NMOC Emission 

Reductions (Mg) 2,770

Baseline Methane Emission Reductions (Mg)a 9,035,000

Proposed Incremental Methane Emission 

Reductions (Mg) 436,100

Baseline Methane Emission Reductions 

(million mtCO2e)a

226

Proposed Incremental Methane Emission 

Reductions (million mtCO2e) 10.9

% Emission Reduction from Proposal 5% below baseline

a These are the reductions that would be achieved from existing landfills if 

40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf retained the same gas collection and control 

requirements that are in 40 CFR part 60, subparts WWW and Cc. 

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

Leachate is the liquid that passes through the landfilled 

waste and strips contaminants from the waste as the leachate 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 215 of 321 

percolates. Precipitation generates the vast majority of 

leachate volume. Installation of a gas collection system will 

generate additional liquid, in the form of gas condensate, and 

it will be routed to the same leachate treatment mechanisms in 

place for controlling precipitation-based leachate. Collected 

leachate can be treated on site or transported off site to 

wastewater treatment facilities. Some landfills have received 

permits allowing for recirculation of leachate in the landfill, 

which may further reduce the volume of leachate requiring 

treatment. Additional liquid generated from gas condensate is 

not expected to be significant and insufficient data are 

available to estimate the increases in leachate resulting from 

expanded gas collection and control requirements. 

The additional gas collection and control components 

required by this proposal have finite lifetimes (approximately 

15 years) and these pipes and wells will be capped or disposed 

of at the end of their useful life. There are insufficient data 

to quantify the solid waste resulting from disposal of this 

control infrastructure. 

Further, the incremental costs of control for the proposal 

are not expected to have an appreciable market effect on the 

waste disposal costs, tipping fees, or the amount of solid waste 

disposed in landfills because the costs for gas collection 

represent a small portion of the overall costs to design, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 216 of 321 

construct, and operate a landfill. There is insufficient 

information to quantify the effect increased gas control costs 

might have on the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills 

versus other disposal mechanisms such as recycling, waste-toenergy, or composting. Note that elements of this proposed rule—

notably lowering the NMOC threshold to 34 Mg/yr—provide 

additional incentives to separate waste. 

C. What are the secondary air impacts? 

Secondary air impacts may include grid emissions from 

purchasing electricity to operate the GCCS components, byproduct emissions from combustion of landfill gas in flares or 

energy recovery devices, and offsets to conventional grid 

emissions from new landfill gas energy supply. 

The secondary air impacts are presented as net impacts, 

considering both the energy demand and energy supply resulting 

from the proposal. The methodology used to prepare the estimated 

secondary impacts for this preamble is discussed in the docketed 

memorandum “Estimating Secondary Impacts of the Landfills 

Emission Guidelines Review. 2015.” 

While we do expect NOx and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission 

changes as a result of these guidelines, we expect these changes 

to be small and these changes have not been estimated. The net 

impacts were computed for CO2e. After considering the offsets 

from LFG electricity, the impacts of the proposal are expected 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 217 of 321 

to reduce CO2 emissions by 238,000 metric tons per year. These 

CO2 emission reductions are in addition to the methane emission 

reductions achieved from the direct destruction of methane in 

flares or engines presented in Table 3 of this preamble. 

D. What are the energy impacts? 

The proposal is expected to have a very minimal impact on 

energy supply and consumption. Active gas collection systems 

require energy to operate the blowers and pumps and the proposal 

will increase the volume of landfill gas collected. When the 

least cost control is a flare, energy may be purchased from the 

grid to operate the blowers of the landfill gas collection 

system. However, when the least cost control option is an 

engine, the engine may provide this energy to the gas control 

system and then sell the excess to the grid. Considering the 

balance of energy generated and demanded from the estimated 

least cost controls, the proposal is estimated to supply 0.4 

million megawatt hours (MWh) of additional energy per year. 

E. What are the cost impacts? 

To meet the proposed emission limits, a landfill is 

expected to install the least cost control for combusting the 

landfill gas. The cost estimates (described in sections V of 

this preamble) evaluated each landfill to determine whether a 

gas collection and flare or a gas collection with flare and 

engine equipment would be least cost, after considering local 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 218 of 321 

power buyback rates and whether the quantity of landfill gas was 

sufficient to generate electricity. The control costs include 

the costs to install and operate gas collection infrastructure 

such as wells, header pipes, blowers, and an enclosed flare. For 

landfills where the least cost control option was an engine, the 

costs also include the cost to install and operate one or more 

reciprocating internal combustion engines to convert the 

landfill gas into electricity. Revenue from electricity sales 

was incorporated into the net control costs using state-specific 

data on wholesale purchase prices, where engines were deemed to 

be the least cost control option. Testing and monitoring costs 

at controlled landfills include the cost to conduct initial 

performance tests on the enclosed flare or engine control 

equipment, quarterly surface monitoring, continuous combustion 

monitoring, and monthly wellhead monitoring. At uncontrolled 

landfills, the testing and monitoring costs include calculation 

and reporting of NMOC emission rates. 

The nationwide incremental annualized net cost for the 

proposal is $46.8 million, when using a 7 percent discount rate, 

of which $0.7 million is testing and monitoring costs. Table 6 

of this preamble presents the costs. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 219 of 321 

Table 6. Incremental Cost Impacts in 2025 for Existing Landfills 

Subject to Additional Controls under the Proposal 

Option 

Total No. 

of 

Landfills 

Incurring 

Costa

Annualized 

Control 

Cost 

Average 

Annualized 

Revenue 

Average 

Annualized 

Testing 

and 

Monitoring

Cost 

Average 

Net Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

Total Costs of Baseline ($2012) 

Baseline 2.5/50 

(2.5 million Mg 

design 

capacity/50 Mg/yr 

NMOC) 

785 1,700 1,408 7.3 299 

Incremental Costs Above Baseline ($2012) 

Proposed Option 

2.5/34 (2.5 

million Mg design 

capacity/34 Mg/yr 

NMOC) 

0 101 55.3 0.7 46.8 

a At the baseline, 574 of the landfills are controlling in 2025 and an 

additional 211 landfills are expected to submit NMOC emission reports, but 

are not yet controlling for a total of 785. In the proposed option, the total 

landfills incurring cost are also 785, but the proposal is estimated to 

require controls at 680 landfills and the remaining 105 landfills are 

expected to submit NMOC emission reports, but are not yet controlling. 

F. What are the economic impacts? 

Because of the relatively low net cost of the proposed 

option compared to the overall size of the MSW industry, as well 

as the lack of appropriate economic parameters or model, the EPA 

is unable to estimate the impacts of the options on the supply 

and demand for MSW landfill services. However, because of the 

relatively low incremental costs of the proposal, the EPA does 

not believe the proposal would lead to substantial changes in 

supply and demand for landfill services or waste disposal costs, 

tipping fees, or the amount of waste disposed in landfills. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 220 of 321 

Hence, the overall economic impact of the proposal should be 

minimal on the affected industries and their consumers. 

G. What are the benefits? 

The proposal is expected to result in significant emissions 

reductions from existing MSW landfills. By lowering the NMOC 

emissions threshold to 34 Mg/yr, the proposal would achieve 

reductions of 2,770 Mg/yr NMOC and 436,100 Mg/yr methane (10.9 

million mtCO2e/yr). In addition, the proposal is expected to 

result in the net reduction of 238,000 Mg CO2, due to reduced 

demand for electricity from the grid as landfills generate 

electricity from landfill gas. 

This rule is expected to result in significant health and 

welfare benefits resulting from the climate benefits due to 

anticipated methane and CO2 reductions. Methane is a potent GHG 

that, once emitted into the atmosphere, absorbs terrestrial 

infrared radiation that contributes to increased global warming 

and continuing climate change. Methane reacts in the atmosphere 

to form tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor, both 

of which also contribute to global warming. When accounting for 

the impacts of changing methane, tropospheric ozone, and 

stratospheric water vapor concentrations, the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (2013) 

found that historical emissions of methane accounted for about 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 221 of 321 

30 percent of the total current warming influence (radiative 

forcing) due to historical emissions of greenhouse gases. 

Methane is therefore a major contributor to the climate change 

impacts described in section III.B of this preamble. The 

remainder of this section discusses the methane reductions 

expected from this proposed rule and the associated monetized 

benefits. 

As discussed in section IV of this preamble, this 

rulemaking proposes several changes to the Emission Guidelines 

for MSW landfills that would decrease methane emissions from 

this sector. Specifically, the proposed changes are expected to 

reduce methane emissions from all landfills annually by about 

436,100 metric tons of methane. 

We estimate the global social benefits of these methane 

emission reductions using estimates of the social cost of 

methane (SC-CH4), a metric that estimates the monetary value of 

impacts associated with marginal changes in methane emissions in 

a given year. The SC-CH4 estimates applied in this analysis were 

developed by Marten et al. (2014) and are discussed in greater 

detail below. 

A similar metric, the social cost of CO2 (SC-CO2), provides 

important context for understanding the Marten et al. SC-CH4
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 222 of 321 

estimates.85 The SC-CO2 is a metric that estimates the monetary 

value of impacts associated with marginal changes in CO2

emissions in a given year. It includes a wide range of 

anticipated climate impacts, such as net changes in agricultural 

productivity and human health, property damage from increased 

flood risk, and changes in energy system costs, such as reduced 

costs for heating and increased costs for air conditioning. 

Estimates of the SC-CO2 have been used by the EPA and other 

federal agencies to value the impacts of CO2 emissions changes 

in benefit cost analysis for GHG-related rulemakings since 2008. 

The SC-CO2 estimates were developed over many years, using 

the best science available, and with input from the public. 

Specifically, an interagency working group (IWG) that included 

the EPA and other executive branch agencies and offices used 

three integrated assessment models (IAMs) to develop the SC-CO2

estimates and recommended four global values for use in 

regulatory analyses. The SC-CO2 estimates were first released in 

February 2010 and updated in 2013 using new versions of each 

IAM. 

 

85 Previous analyses have commonly referred to the social cost of carbon 

dioxide emissions as the social cost of carbon or SCC. To more easily 

facilitate the inclusion of non-CO2 GHGs in the discussion and analysis the 

more specific SC-CO2 nomenclature is used to refer to the social cost of CO2

emissions. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 223 of 321 

The 2010 SC-CO2 Technical Support Document (TSD) provides a 

complete discussion of the methods used to develop these 

estimates and the current SC-CO2 TSD presents and discusses the 

2013 update (including recent minor technical corrections to the 

estimates).86

The SC-CO2 TSDs discuss a number of limitations to the SCCO2 analysis, including the incomplete way in which the IAMs 

capture catastrophic and non-catastrophic impacts, their 

incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change, 

uncertainty in the extrapolation of damages to high 

temperatures, and assumptions regarding risk aversion. Current 

IAMs do not assign value to all of the important physical, 

ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized in 

the climate change literature due to a lack of precise 

information on the nature of damages and because the science 

incorporated into these models understandably lags behind the 

most recent research. Nonetheless, these estimates and the 

discussion of their limitations represent the best available 

information about the social benefits of CO2 reductions to 

inform benefit-cost analysis. The EPA and other agencies 

continue to engage in research on modeling and valuation of 

 

86 Both the 2010 SC-CO2

 TSD and the current TSD are available at: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_regpol_agency_review 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/social-cost-of-carbon. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 224 of 321 

climate impacts with the goal to improve these estimates, and 

continue to consider feedback on the SC-CO2 estimates from 

stakeholders through a range of channels, including public 

comments received on Agency rulemakings, a separate recent OMB 

public comment solicitation, and through regular interactions 

with stakeholders and research analysts implementing the SC-CO2

methodology. See the docketed Regulatory Impacts Analysis (RIA) 

for additional details. 

A challenge particularly relevant to this proposal is that 

the IWG did not estimate the social costs of non-CO2 GHG 

emissions at the time the SC-CO2 estimates were developed. In 

addition, the directly modeled estimates of the social costs of 

non-CO2 GHG emissions previously found in the published 

literature were few in number and varied considerably in terms 

of the models and input assumptions they employed87 (EPA 2012). 

As a result, benefit-cost analyses informing U.S. federal 

rulemakings to date have not fully considered the monetized 

benefits associated with CH4 emissions mitigation. To understand 

the potential importance of monetizing non-CO2 GHG emissions 

 

87 U.S. EPA. 2012. Regulatory Impact Analysis Final New Source Performance 

Standards and Amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. April. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/oil_natural_gas_final_neshap_nsps_ri

a.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2015. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 225 of 321 

changes, the EPA has conducted sensitivity analysis in some of 

its past regulatory analyses using an estimate of the GWP of CH4

to convert emission impacts to CO2 equivalents, which can then 

be valued using the SC-CO2 estimates. This approach approximates 

the social cost of methane (SC-CH4) using estimates of the SCCO2 and the GWP of CH4. 

The published literature documents a variety of reasons 

that directly modeled estimates of SC-CH4 are an analytical 

improvement over the estimates from the GWP approximation 

approach. Specifically, several recent studies found that GWPweighted benefit estimates for CH4 are likely to be lower than 

the estimates derived using directly modeled social cost 

estimates for these gases.88 The GWP reflects only the relative 

integrated radiative forcing of a gas over 100 years in 

comparison to CO2. The directly modeled social cost estimates 

differ from the GWP-scaled SC-CO2 because the relative 

differences in timing and magnitude of the warming between gases 

are explicitly modeled, the non-linear effects of temperature 

change on economic damages are included, and rather than 

treating all impacts over a hundred years equally, the modeled 

damages over the time horizon considered (2300 in this case) are 

 

88 See Waldhoff et al (2011); Marten and Newbold (2012); and Marten et al. 

(2014). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 226 of 321 

discounted to present value terms. A detailed discussion of the 

limitations of the GWP approach can be found in the RIA. 

In general, the commenters on previous rulemakings strongly 

encouraged the EPA to incorporate the monetized value of non-CO2

GHG impacts into the benefit cost analysis. However they noted 

the challenges associated with the GWP approach, as discussed 

above, and encouraged the use of directly modeled estimates of 

the SC-CH4 to overcome those challenges. 

Since these previous rulemakings, a paper by Marten et al. 

(2014) has provided the first set of published SC-CH4 and social 

cost of nitrous oxide (SC-N2O) estimates in the peer-reviewed 

literature that are consistent with the modeling assumptions 

underlying the SC-CO2 estimates.89 Specifically, the estimation 

approach of Marten et al. used the same set of three IAMs, five 

socioeconomic-emissions scenarios, equilibrium climate 

sensitivity distribution, three constant discount rates, and 

aggregation approach used to develop the SC-CO2 estimates. 

The SC-CH4 estimates from Marten, et al. (2014) are 

presented in Table 7 of this preamble. More detailed discussion 

 

89 Marten, A. L., E. A. Kopits, C. W. Griffiths, S. C. Newbold & A. Wolverton 

(2014). Incremental CH4 and N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the U.S. 

Government's SC-CO2 estimates, Climate Policy, DOI: 

10.1080/14693062.2014.912981. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 227 of 321 

of the methodology, results, and a comparison to other published 

estimates can be found in the RIA and in Marten, et al. 

Table 7. Social Cost of CH4, 2012 – 2050a [in 2012$ per metric 

ton] (Source: Marten et al., 2014b) 

Year 

SC-CH4

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th

percentile 

2012 $430 $1000 $1400 $2800

2015 490 1100 1500 3000 

2020 580 1300 1700 3500 

2025 700 1500 1900 4000 

2030 820 1700 2200 4500 

2035 970 1900 2500 5300 

2040 1100 2200 2800 5900 

2045 1300 2500 3000 6600 

2050 1400 2700 3300 7200

a The values are emissions-year specific. Estimates using several discount 

rates are included because the literature shows that estimates of the SC-CO2

(and SC-CH4) are sensitive to assumptions about the discount rate, and 

because no consensus exists on the appropriate rate to use in an 

intergenerational context (where costs and benefits are incurred by different 

generations). The fourth value is the 95th percentile of the SC-CH4 estimates 

across three models using a 3 percent discount rate. It is included to 

represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature change further out in 

the tails of the SC-CH4 distribution.

b The estimates in this table have been adjusted to reflect the recent minor 

technical corrections to the SC-CO2 estimates described above. See the RIA 

for more details. 

The application of these directly modeled SC-CH4 estimates 

from Marten et al. (2014) in a benefit-cost analysis of a 

regulatory action is analogous to the use of the SC-CO2

estimates. In addition, the limitations for the SC-CO2 estimates 

discussed above likewise apply to the SC-CH4 estimates, given 

the consistency in the methodology. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 228 of 321 

The EPA recently conducted a peer review of the application 

of the Marten, et al. (2014) non-CO2 social cost estimates in 

regulatory analysis and received responses that supported this 

application. See the RIA for a detailed discussion. 

In light of the favorable peer review and past comments 

urging the EPA to value non-CO2 GHG impacts in its rulemakings, 

the agency has used the Marten et al. (2014) SC-CH4 estimates to 

value methane impacts expected from this proposed rulemaking and 

has included those benefits in the main benefits analysis. The 

EPA seeks comments on the use of these directly modeled 

estimates, from the peer-reviewed literature, for the social 

cost of non-CO2 GHGs in this rulemaking. 

The CH4 benefits based on Marten et al. (2014) are 

presented for the year 2025. Applying this approach to the 

methane reductions estimated for this proposal, the 2025 methane 

benefits vary by discount rate and range from about $310 million 

to approximately $1.7 billion; the mean SC-CH4 at the 3-percent 

discount rate results in an estimate of about $660 million in 

2025, as presented in Table 8 of this preamble. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 229 of 321 

Table 8. Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2025 [in 

millions, 2012$] 

Million metric 

tons CH4

Discount rate and Statistic 

5% 

Average

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th

percentile 

0.44 $310 $660 $850 $1,700 

The vast majority of this proposal’s climate-related 

benefits are associated with methane reductions. Additional 

climate-related benefits are expected from the proposal’s 

secondary air impacts, specifically, a net reduction in CO2

emissions. Monetizing the net CO2 reductions with the SC-CO2

estimates described in this section yields benefits of $12 

million in the year 2025 (average SC-CO2, 3 percent discount 

rate). See the RIA for more details. 

In addition to the limitation discussed above, and the 

referenced documents, there are additional impacts of individual 

GHGs that are not currently captured in the IAMs used in the 

directly modeled approach of Marten et al. (2014), and therefore 

not quantified for the rule. For example, the NMOC portion of 

LFG can contain a variety of air pollutants, including VOC and 

various organic HAP. VOC emissions are precursors to both PM2.5

and ozone formation, while methane is a GHG and a precursor to 

global ozone formation. These pollutants are associated with 

substantial health effects, welfare effects, and climate 

effects, which are discussed in section III.B of this preamble. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 230 of 321 

The ozone generated by methane, has important non-climate 

impacts on agriculture, ecosystems, and human health. The RIA 

describes the specific impacts of methane as an ozone precursor 

in more detail and discusses studies that have estimated 

monetized benefits of these methane generated ozone effects. The 

EPA continues to monitor developments in this area of research 

and seeks comment on the potential inclusion of health impacts 

of ozone generated by methane in future regulatory analysis. 

Finally, this proposal is also expected to result in 

improvements in air quality and resulting benefits to human 

health. With the data available, we are not able to provide 

health benefit estimates for the reduction in exposure to HAP, 

ozone, and PM2.5 for this rule. This is not to imply that there 

are no benefits of the rules; rather, it is a reflection of the 

difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the 

reductions in emissions for this sector with the data currently 

available.90 In addition to health improvements, there will be 

 

90 Previous studies have estimated the monetized benefits-per-ton of reducing 

VOC emissions associated with the effect that those emissions have on ambient 

PM2.5 levels and the health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure (Fann, 

Fulcher, and Hubbell, 2009). While these ranges of benefit-per-ton estimates 

can provide useful context, the geographic distribution of VOC emissions from 

the MSW landfills sector are not consistent with emissions modeled in Fann, 

Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009). In addition, the benefit-per-ton estimates for 

VOC emission reductions in that study are derived from total VOC emissions 

across all sectors. Coupled with the larger uncertainties about the 

relationship between VOC emissions and PM2.5 and the highly localized nature 

of air quality responses associated with HAP and VOC reductions, these 

factors lead us to conclude that the available VOC benefit-per-ton estimates 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 231 of 321 

improvements in visibility effects, ecosystem effects, and 

climate effects. 

Although we do not have sufficient information or modeling 

available to provide quantitative estimates of the health 

benefits associated with HAP, ozone, and PM2.5 reductions, we 

include a qualitative assessment of the health effects 

associated with exposure to HAP, ozone, and PM2.5 in the RIA for 

this rule. These qualitative impact assessments are briefly 

summarized in section III.B of this preamble, but for more 

detailed information, please refer to the RIA, which is 

available in the docket. 

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Additional information about these statues and Executive 

Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review 

This action is an economically significant regulatory 

action that was submitted to OMB for review. Any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the 

docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential 

 

are not appropriate to calculate monetized benefits of these rules, even as a 

bounding exercise. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 232 of 321 

costs and benefits associated with the proposed Emission 

Guidelines. The analysis is documented in the RIA, which is 

available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451 and is briefly 

summarized in section V.E of this preamble. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection requirements in the proposed 

Emission Guidelines have been submitted for approval to OMB 

under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document 

that the EPA prepared for the proposed Emission Guidelines has 

been assigned EPA ICR number [2522.01]. You can find a copy of 

the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 

summarized here. 

The information required to be collected is necessary to 

identify the regulated entities subject to the proposed rule and 

to ensure their compliance with the proposed Emission 

Guidelines. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 

mandatory and are being established under authority of CAA 

section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than 

emissions data submitted as part of a report to the agency for 

which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded 

according to CAA section 114(c) and the EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

Respondents/affected entities: Municipal solid waste 

landfills that accepted waste after November 8, 1987 and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 233 of 321 

commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification on or 

before July 17, 2014. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 

60, subpart Cf). 

Estimated number of respondents: 988 municipal solid waste 

landfills. 

Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and 

annually. 

Total estimated burden: 621,947 hours (per year) for the 

responding facilities and 16,054 hours (per year) for the 

agency. These are estimates for the average annual burden for 

the first 3 years after the rule is final. Burden is defined at 

5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $41,755,793 (per year), which 

includes annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs, 

for the responding facilities and $1,029,658 (per year) for the 

agency. These are estimates for the average annual cost for the 

first 3 years after the rule is final. 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 234 of 321 

Submit your comments on the agency’s need for this 

information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and 

any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the 

EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. 

You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB’s Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to 

oria_submissions@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for the 

EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 

between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments 

no later than [insert date 30 days after publication in the 

Federal Register]. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 

comments in the final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under 

the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small 

entities. Specifically, Emission Guidelines established under 

CAA section 111(d) do not impose any requirements on regulated 

entities and, thus, will not have a significant economic impact 

upon a substantial number of small entities. After Emission 

Guidelines are promulgated, states and U.S. territories 

establish standards on existing sources, and it is those state 

requirements that could potentially impact small entities. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 235 of 321 

Our analysis here is consistent with the analysis of the 

analogous situation arising when the EPA establishes National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which do not impose any 

requirements on regulated entities. As here, any impact of a 

NAAQS on small entities would only arise when states take 

subsequent action to maintain and/or achieve the NAAQS through 

their state implementation plans. See American Trucking Assoc. 

v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1029, 1043-45 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (NAAQS do not 

have significant impacts upon small entities because NAAQS 

themselves impose no regulations upon small entities). 

Nevertheless, the EPA is aware that there is substantial 

interest in the rule among small entities. The EPA has conducted 

stakeholder outreach as detailed in section XI.C and XI.E of the 

preamble to the proposed Standards of Performance for MSW 

Landfills (79 FR 41828-41829; July 17, 2014) and in sections 

XII.D and XII.E of this preamble. The EPA convened a Small 

Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel in 2013 for the landfills 

rulemaking. The EPA originally planned a review of the Emission 

Guidelines and NSPS in one action, but the actions were 

subsequently divided into separate rulemakings. The SBAR Panel 

evaluated the assembled materials and small-entity comments on 

issues related to the rule’s potential effects and significant 

alternative regulatory approaches. A copy of the Summary of 

Small Entity Outreach is available in the rulemaking docket EPA-
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 236 of 321 

HQ-OAR-2014-0451. While formulating the provisions of the rule, 

the EPA considered the input provided over the course of the 

stakeholder outreach as well as the input provided in the many 

public comments, and we have incorporated many of the 

suggestions in this proposal.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 

million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538. The 

proposed Emission Guidelines apply to landfills that were 

constructed, modified, or reconstructed after November 8, 1987, 

and that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification 

on or before July 17, 2014. Impacts resulting from the proposed 

Emission Guidelines are below the applicable threshold. 

We note however, that the proposed Emission Guidelines may 

significantly or uniquely affect small governments because small 

governments operate landfills. The EPA consulted with small 

governments concerning the regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect them. In developing this rule, 

the EPA consulted with small governments pursuant to a plan 

established under section 203 of the UMRA to address impacts of 

regulatory requirements in the rule that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The EPA also held meetings as 

discussed in section XII.E of this preamble under Federalism 

consultations. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 237 of 321 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

The EPA has concluded that the proposed Emission Guidelines 

have federalism implications, because the rule imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on state or local 

governments, and the federal government will not provide the 

funds necessary to pay those costs. 

The EPA conducted a Federalism Consultation Outreach 

Meeting on September 10, 2013. Due to interest in that meeting, 

additional outreach meetings were held on November 7, 2013 and 

November 14, 2013. With the pending proposal of these Emission 

Guidelines, an additional Federalism outreach meeting was 

conducted on April 15, 2015. Participants included the National 

Governors’ Association, the National Conference of State 

Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National 

League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National 

Association of Counties, the International City/County 

Management Association, the National Association of Towns and 

Townships, the County Executives of America, the Environmental 

Council of States, National Association of Clean Air Agencies, 

Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 

Officials, environmental agency representatives from 43 states, 

and approximately 60 representatives from city and county 

governments. Concerns raised during the consultations include: 

implementation concerns associated with shortening of gas 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 238 of 321 

collection system installation and/or expansion timeframes, 

concerns regarding significant lowering of the design capacity 

or emission thresholds, the need for clarifications associated 

with wellhead operating parameters and the need for consistent, 

clear and rigorous surface monitoring requirements. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This action has tribal implications. However, it will 

neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally 

recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The 

database used to estimate impacts of the proposed 40 CFR part 

60, subpart Cf identified one tribe, the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community, which owns three landfills 

potentially subject to the proposed Emission Guidelines. One of 

these landfills is open, the Salt River Landfill, and is already 

controlling emissions under the current NSPS/EG framework, so 

while subject to this subpart, the costs of this proposal are 

not substantial. The two other landfills are closed and 

anticipated to meet the definition of the closed landfill 

subcategory. One of the closed landfills, the Tri Cities 

Landfill, is already controlling emissions under the current 

NSPS/EG framework and will not incur substantial additional 

compliance costs under Cf. The other landfill, North Center 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 239 of 321 

Street Landfill, is not estimated to install controls under the 

current NSPS/EG framework. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or 

safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per the definition of 

“covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive 

Order. The proposed Emission Guidelines are not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because they do not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. We also note that the 

methane and NMOC reductions expected from the proposed Emission 

Guidelines will have positive health effects including for 

children as previously discussed in section XII.G of this 

preamble. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a “significant energy action” because it 

is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have 

concluded that the proposed Emission Guidelines are not likely 

to have any adverse energy effects because the energy demanded 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 240 of 321 

to operate these control systems will be offset by additional 

energy supply from landfill gas energy projects. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

The proposed Emission Guidelines involve technical 

standards. For the proposed Emission Guidelines, the EPA has 

decided to use EPA Methods 2, 2E, 3, 3A, 3C, 21, 25, 25A, and 

25C of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. While the EPA identified 10 

VCS as being potentially applicable (ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 

Part 10, ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 

12039:2001, ASTM D5835-95 (2013), ASTM D6522-11, CAN/CSA Z223.2-

M86 (1999), ASTM D6060-96 (2009), ISO 14965:2000(E), EN 

12619(1999)), the agency decided not to use these methods. The 

EPA determined that the 10 candidate VCS identified for 

measuring emissions of pollutants or their surrogates subject to 

emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to 

lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, and other 

important technical and policy considerations. The agency 

identified no such standards for Methods 2E, 21, and 25C. The 

EPA’s review, including review of comments for these 10 methods, 

is documented in the memorandum, “Voluntary Consensus Standard 

Results for Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” in the docket for this 

rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 241 of 321 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk 

addressed by the proposed Emission Guidelines will not have 

potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous 

populations because the proposed subpart would reduce emissions 

of landfill gas, which contains both nonmethane organic 

compounds and methane. These avoided emissions will improve air 

quality and reduce public health and welfare effects associated 

with exposure to landfill gas emissions. The results of the 

proximity analysis conducted for the proposed Emission 

Guidelines are located in the April 22, 2015 document entitled, 

“2015 Environmental Justice Screening Report for Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills,” a copy of which is available in the docket 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0215).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times and Supplemental Standards of 

Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

Page 242 of 321 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: 

 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 243 of 321 

Subpart Cf—Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

Contents 

§ 60.30f Scope and delegated authorities.

§ 60.31f Designated facilities.

§ 60.32f Compliance times.

§ 60.33f Emission Guidelines for municipal solid waste landfill 

emissions.

§ 60.34f Operational standards.

§ 60.35f Test methods and procedures.

§ 60.36f Compliance provisions.

§ 60.37f Monitoring of operations.

§ 60.38f Reporting guidelines.

§ 60.39f Recordkeeping guidelines.

§ 60.40f Specifications for active collection systems.

§ 60.41f Definitions.

§ 60.30f Scope and delegated authorities. 

This subpart establishes Emission Guidelines and compliance 

times for the control of designated pollutants from certain 

designated municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills in accordance 

with section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act and subpart B. 

(a) If you are the Administrator of an air quality program 

in a State or United States protectorate with one or more 

existing MSW landfills that commenced construction, 

modification, or reconstruction on or before July 17, 2014, you 

must submit a State plan to the U.S. Environmental Protection 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 244 of 321 

Agency (EPA) that implements the Emission Guidelines contained 

in this subpart. The requirements for State plans are specified 

in subpart B of this part. 

(b) You must submit a State plan to EPA by [insert date 9 

months after the final rule is published in the Federal 

Register]. 

(c) The following authorities will not be delegated to 

state, local, or tribal agencies: 

(1) Approval of alternative methods to determine the NMOC 

concentration or a site-specific methane generation rate 

constant (k). 

(2) [Reserved] 

§ 60.31f Designated facilities. 

(a) The designated facility to which these Emission 

Guidelines apply is each existing MSW landfill for which 

construction, reconstruction, or modification was commenced on 

or before July 17, 2014. 

(b) Physical or operational changes made to an existing MSW 

landfill solely to comply with an emission guideline are not 

considered a modification or reconstruction and would not 

subject an existing MSW landfill to the requirements of a 

standard of performance for new MSW landfills. 

(c) For purposes of obtaining an operating permit under 

title V of the Clean Air Act, the owner or operator of an MSW 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 245 of 321 

landfill subject to this subpart with a design capacity less 

than 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters is not 

subject to the requirement to obtain an operating permit for the 

landfill under part 70 or 71 of this chapter, unless the 

landfill is otherwise subject to either part 70 or 71. For 

purposes of submitting a timely application for an operating 

permit under part 70 or 71, the owner or operator of an MSW 

landfill subject to this subpart with a design capacity greater 

than or equal to 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic 

meters on the effective date of EPA approval of the State's 

program under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, and not 

otherwise subject to either part 70 or 71, becomes subject to 

the requirements of §§ 70.5(a)(1)(i) or 71.5(a)(1)(i) of this 

chapter 90 days after the effective date of such section 111(d) 

program approval, even if the design capacity report is 

submitted earlier. 

(d) When an MSW landfill subject to this subpart is closed 

as defined in this subpart, the owner or operator is no longer 

subject to the requirement to maintain an operating permit under 

part 70 or 71 of this chapter for the landfill if the landfill 

is not otherwise subject to the requirements of either part 70 

or 71 and if either of the following conditions are met: 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 246 of 321 

(1) The landfill was never subject to the requirement to 

install and operate a gas collection and control system under § 

60.33f; or 

(2) The landfill meets the conditions for control system 

removal specified in § 60.33f(f). 

(e) When an MSW landfill subject to this subpart is in the 

closed landfill subcategory, the owner or operator is not 

subject to the following reports of this subpart, provided the 

owner or operator submitted these reports under the provisions 

of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW; 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG; or 

a state plan implementing 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc on or 

before [insert date of publication in the Federal Register]: 

(1) Initial design capacity report specified in §§ 

60.33f(d) and 60.38f(a) 

(2) Initial or subsequent NMOC emission rate report 

specified in §§ 60.33f(e) and 60.38f(c), provided that the most 

recent NMOC emission rate report indicated the NMOC emissions 

were below 50 Mg/yr. 

(3) Collection and control system design plan specified in 

§ 60.38f(d). 

(4) Closure report specified in § 60.38f(f). 

(5) Equipment removal specified in § 60.38f(g). 

(6) Initial annual report specified in § 60.38f(h). 

(7) Initial performance test report in § 60.38f(i). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 247 of 321 

§ 60.32f Compliance times. 

Planning, awarding of contracts, installing, and starting 

up MSW landfill air emission collection and control equipment 

that is capable of meeting the Emission Guidelines under § 

60.33f must be completed within 30 months after the date an NMOC 

emission rate report shows NMOC emissions equal or exceed 34 

megagrams per year (50 megagrams per year for the closed 

landfill subcategory) or within 30 months after the date Tier 4 

surface emissions monitoring shows a surface emission 

concentration of 500 parts per million methane or greater. 

§ 60.33f Emission Guidelines for municipal solid waste landfill 

emissions. 

(a) Landfills. For approval, a State plan must require each 

owner or operator of an MSW landfill having a design capacity 

greater than or equal to 2.5 million megagrams by mass and 2.5 

million cubic meters by volume to collect and control MSW 

landfill emissions at each MSW landfill that meets the following 

conditions: 

(1) The landfill has accepted waste at any time since 

November 8, 1987, or has additional design capacity available 

for future waste deposition. 

(2) The landfill commenced construction, reconstruction, or 

modification on or before July 17, 2014. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 248 of 321 

(3) The landfill has an NMOC emission rate greater than or 

equal to 34 megagrams per year or the Tier 4 surface emissions 

report shows a surface emission concentration of 500 parts per 

million methane or greater. 

(4) A landfill in the closed landfill subcategory that has 

an NMOC emission rate greater than or equal to 50 megagrams per 

year or the Tier 4 surface emissions report shows a surface 

emission concentration of 500 parts per million methane or 

greater. 

(b) Collection system. For approval, a State plan must 

include provisions for the installation of a collection and 

control system meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (b)(3) and (c) of this section at each MSW landfill 

meeting the conditions in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(1) Install and start up a collection and control system 

that captures the gas generated within the landfill within 30 

months after: 

(i) The first annual report in which the emission rate 

equals or exceeds 34 megagrams per year, unless Tier 2 or Tier 3 

sampling demonstrates that the emission rate is less than 34 

megagrams per year, as specified in § 60.38f(c)(5)(i) or (ii), 

(ii) The emission rate at a landfill in the closed landfill 

subcategory equals or exceeds 50 megagrams per year, unless Tier 

2 or Tier 3 sampling demonstrates that the emission rate is less 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 249 of 321 

than 50 megagrams per year, as specified in § 

60.38f(c)(5)(iv)(A) or (B), or 

(iii) The Tier 4 surface emissions report shows that 

surface methane emissions are below 500 parts per million 

methane for four consecutive quarters, as specified in § 

60.38f(c)(5)(iii). 

(2) An active collection system must: 

(i) Be designed to handle the maximum expected gas flow 

rate from the entire area of the landfill that warrants control 

over the intended use period of the gas control system 

equipment. 

(ii) Collect gas from each area, cell, or group of cells in 

the landfill in which the initial solid waste has been placed 

for a period of 5 years or more if active; or 2 years or more if 

closed or at final grade. 

(iii) Collect gas at a sufficient extraction rate. 

(iv) Be designed to minimize offsite migration of 

subsurface gas. 

(3) A passive collection system must: 

(i) Comply with the provisions specified in paragraphs 

(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iv) of this section. 

(ii) Be installed with liners on the bottom and all sides 

in all areas in which gas is to be collected. The liners must be 

installed as required under § 258.40. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 250 of 321 

(c) Control system. For approval, a State plan must include 

provisions for the control of the gas collected from within the 

landfill through the use of control devices meeting the 

following requirements, except as provided in § 60.24. 

(1) A non-enclosed flare designed and operated in 

accordance with the parameters established in § 60.18 except as 

noted in § 60.37f(c); or 

(2) A control system designed and operated to reduce NMOC 

by 98 weight percent; or when an enclosed combustion device is 

used for control, to either reduce NMOC by 98 weight percent or 

reduce the outlet NMOC concentration to less than 20 parts per 

million by volume, dry basis as hexane at 3 percent oxygen or 

less. The reduction efficiency or concentration in parts per 

million by volume must be established by an initial performance 

test to be completed no later than 180 days after the initial 

startup of the approved control system using the test methods 

specified in § 60.35f(d). The performance test is not required 

for boilers and process heaters with design heat input 

capacities equal to or greater than 44 megawatts that burn 

landfill gas for compliance with this subpart. 

(i) If a boiler or process heater is used as the control 

device, the landfill gas stream must be introduced into the 

flame zone. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 251 of 321 

(ii) The control device must be operated within the 

parameter ranges established during the initial or most recent 

performance test. The operating parameters to be monitored are 

specified in § 60.37f. 

(iii) For the closed landfill subcategory, the initial or 

most recent performance test conducted to comply with 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart WWW; 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG; or a state 

plan implementing 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc on or before 

[insert date of publication in the Federal Register] is 

sufficient for compliance with this subpart. 

(3) Route the collected gas to a treatment system that 

processes the collected gas for subsequent sale or beneficial 

use such as fuel for combustion, production of vehicle fuel, 

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

raw material in a chemical manufacturing process. Venting of 

treated landfill gas to the ambient air or combustion in a flare 

is not allowed under this option. (If flares are used, they must 

meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this 

section.) 

(4) All emissions from any atmospheric vent from the gas 

treatment system are subject to the requirements of paragraph 

(b) or (c) of this section. For purposes of this subpart, 

atmospheric vents located on the condensate storage tank are not 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 252 of 321 

part of the treatment system and are exempt from the 

requirements of paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. 

(d) Design capacity. For approval, a State plan must 

require each owner or operator of an MSW landfill having a 

design capacity less than 2.5 million megagrams by mass or 2.5 

million cubic meters by volume to submit an initial design 

capacity report to the Administrator as provided in § 60.38f(a). 

The landfill may calculate design capacity in either megagrams 

or cubic meters for comparison with the exemption values. Any 

density conversions must be documented and submitted with the 

report. Submittal of the initial design capacity report fulfills 

the requirements of this subpart except as provided in 

paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section. 

(1) The owner or operator must submit an amended design 

capacity report as provided in § 60.38f(b). [Guidance: Note that 

if the design capacity increase is the result of a modification, 

as defined in this subpart, that was commenced after July 17, 

2014, the landfill will become subject to subpart XXX of this 

part instead of this subpart. If the design capacity increase is 

the result of a change in operating practices, density, or some 

other change that is not a modification as defined in this 

subpart, then the landfill remains subject to this subpart.] 

(2) When an increase in the maximum design capacity of a 

landfill with an initial design capacity less than 2.5 million 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 253 of 321 

megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters results in a revised 

maximum design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million 

megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters, the owner or operator 

must comply with paragraph (e) of this section. 

(e) Emissions. For approval, a State plan must require each 

owner or operator of an MSW landfill having a design capacity 

equal to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million 

cubic meters to either install a collection and control system 

as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section or 

calculate an initial NMOC emission rate for the landfill using 

the procedures specified in § 60.35f(a). The NMOC emission rate 

must be recalculated annually, except as provided in § 

60.38f(c)(3). 

(1) If the calculated NMOC emission rate is less than 34 

megagrams per year, the owner or operator must: 

(i) Submit an annual NMOC emission rate report according to 

§ 60.38f(c); and 

(ii) Recalculate the NMOC emission rate annually using the 

procedures specified in § 60.35f(a) until such time as the 

calculated NMOC emission rate is equal to or greater than 34 

megagrams per year, or the landfill is closed. 

(A) If the NMOC emission rate, upon initial calculation or 

annual recalculation, is equal to or greater than 34 megagrams 

per year, the owner or operator must either: submit a gas 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 254 of 321 

collection and control system design plan as specified in § 

60.38f(d) and install a collection and control system as 

provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section; calculate 

NMOC emissions using the next higher tier in § 60.35f; or 

conduct a surface emission monitoring demonstration using the 

procedures specified in § 60.35f(a)(6). 

(B) If the landfill is permanently closed, a closure report 

must be submitted to the Administrator as provided in § 

60.38f(f), except for exemptions allowed under 60.31f(e)(4). 

(C) For the closed landfill subcategory, if the most 

recently calculated NMOC emission rate is equal to or greater 

than 50 megagrams per year, the owner or operator must either: 

submit a gas collection and control system design plan as 

specified in § 60.38f(d), except for exemptions allowed under 

60.31f(e)(3), and install a collection and control system as 

provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section; calculate 

NMOC emissions using the next higher tier in § 60.35f; or 

conduct a surface emission monitoring demonstration using the 

procedures specified in § 60.35f(a)(6). 

(2) If the calculated NMOC emission rate is equal to or 

greater than 34 megagrams per year using Tier 1, 2, or 3 

procedures, the owner or operator must either: submit a 

collection and control system design plan prepared by a 

professional engineer to the Administrator within 1 year as 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 255 of 321 

specified in § 60.38f(d); calculate NMOC emissions using a 

higher tier in § 60.35f; or conduct a surface emission 

monitoring demonstration using the procedures specified in § 

60.35f(a)(6). 

(3) For the closed landfill subcategory, if the calculated 

NMOC emission rate is equal to or greater than 50 megagrams per 

year using Tier 1, 2, or 3 procedures, the owner or operator 

must either: submit a collection and control system design plan 

prepared by a professional engineer to the Administrator within 

1 year as specified in § 60.38f(d), except for exemptions 

allowed under 60.31f(e)(3); calculate NMOC emissions using a 

higher tier in § 60.35f; or conduct a surface emission 

monitoring demonstration using the procedures specified in § 

60.35f(a)(6). 

(f) Removal criteria. The collection and control system may 

be capped or removed if the criteria in paragraph (f)(1), 

(f)(2), and either (f)(3), (f)(4), or (f)(5) of this section are 

met: 

(1) The landfill is closed or an area of an open landfill 

is closed as defined in § 60.41f. A closure report must be 

submitted to the Administrator as provided in § 60.38f(f); 

(2) The collection and control system must have been in 

operation a minimum of 15 years or the landfill owner or 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 256 of 321 

operator must demonstrate that the GCCS will be unable to 

operate for 15 years due to declining gas flow; and 

(3) The landfill or closed area demonstrates for four 

consecutive quarters that there are no surface emissions of 500 

parts per million or greater as determined using procedures 

specified in § 60.36f(d); 

(4) Following the procedures specified in § 60.35f(b), the 

calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill must be less than 

34 megagrams per year on three successive test dates. The test 

dates must be no less than 90 days apart, and no more than 180 

days apart; or 

(5) For the closed landfill subcategory, following the 

procedures specified in § 60.35f(b), the calculated NMOC 

emission rate at the landfill must be less than 50 megagrams per 

year on three successive test dates. The test dates must be no 

less than 90 days apart, and no more than 180 days apart. 

§ 60.34f Operational standards. 

For approval, a State plan must include provisions for the 

operational standards in this section for an MSW landfill with a 

gas collection and control system used to comply with the 

provisions of § 60.33f(b) and (c). Each owner or operator of an 

MSW landfill with a gas collection and control system used to 

comply with the provisions of § 60.33f(b) must: 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 257 of 321 

(a) Operate the collection system such that gas is 

collected from each area, cell, or group of cells in the MSW 

landfill in which solid waste has been in place for: 

(1) 5 years or more if active; or 

(2) 2 years or more if closed or at final grade; 

(b) Operate the collection system with negative pressure at 

each wellhead except under the following conditions: 

(1) A fire or increased well temperature. The owner or 

operator must record instances when positive pressure occurs in 

efforts to avoid a fire. These records must be submitted with 

the annual reports as provided in § 60.38f(h)(1); 

(2) Use of a geomembrane or synthetic cover. The owner or 

operator must develop acceptable pressure limits in the design 

plan; 

(3) A decommissioned well. A well may experience a static 

positive pressure after shut down to accommodate for declining 

flows. All design changes must be approved by the Administrator 

as specified in § 60.38f(d); 

(c) [Reserved] 

(d) Operate the collection system so that the methane 

concentration is less than 500 parts per million above 

background at the surface of the landfill. To determine if this 

level is exceeded, the owner or operator must conduct surface 

testing around the perimeter of the collection area and along a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 258 of 321 

pattern that traverses the landfill at no more than 30-meter 

intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated 

concentrations of landfill gas, such as distressed vegetation 

and cracks or seeps in the cover and all cover penetrations. 

Thus, the owner or operator must monitor any openings that are 

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

gas collection system is required. The owner or operator may 

establish an alternative traversing pattern that ensures 

equivalent coverage. A surface monitoring design plan must be 

developed that includes a topographical map with the monitoring 

route and the rationale for any site-specific deviations from 

the 30-meter intervals. Areas with steep slopes or other 

dangerous areas may be excluded from the surface testing. 

(e) Operate the system such that all collected gases are 

vented to a control system designed and operated in compliance 

with § 60.33f(c). In the event the collection or control system 

is not operating, the gas mover system must be shut down and all 

valves in the collection and control system contributing to 

venting of the gas to the atmosphere must be closed within 1 

hour; and 

(f) Operate the control system at all times when the 

collected gas is routed to the system. 

(g) If monitoring demonstrates that the operational 

requirements in paragraphs (b) or (d) of this section are not 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 259 of 321 

met, corrective action must be taken as specified in § 

60.36f(a)(3) through (4) or § 60.36f(c). If corrective actions 

are taken as specified in § 60.36f, the monitored exceedance is 

not a violation of the operational requirements in this section. 

§ 60.35f Test methods and procedures. 

For approval, a State plan must include provisions in this 

section to calculate the landfill NMOC emission rate or to 

conduct a surface emission monitoring demonstration. 

(a)(1) The landfill owner or operator must calculate the 

NMOC emission rate using either the equation provided in 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section or the equation provided in 

paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section. Both equations may be used 

if the actual year-to-year solid waste acceptance rate is known, 

as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, for part of 

the life of the landfill and the actual year-to-year solid waste 

acceptance rate is unknown, as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) 

of this section, for part of the life of the landfill. The 

values to be used in both equations are 0.05 per year for k, 170 

cubic meters per megagram for Lo, and 4,000 parts per million by 

volume as hexane for the CNMOC. For landfills located in 

geographical areas with a 30-year annual average precipitation 

of less than 25 inches, as measured at the nearest 

representative official meteorologic site, the k value to be 

used is 0.02 per year. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 260 of 321 

(i) The following equation must be used if the actual yearto-year solid waste acceptance rate is known. 

 = 	 ∑ 2	
	
( )()(3.6		10)	 




Where: 

MNMOC = Total NMOC emission rate from the landfill, 

megagrams per year. 

k = Methane generation rate constant, year−1. 

Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic meters per 

megagram solid waste. 

Mi = Mass of solid waste in the ith section, megagrams. 

ti = Age of the ith section, years. 

CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, parts per million by volume 

as hexane. 

3.6 × 10−9 = Conversion factor. 

The mass of nondegradable solid waste may be subtracted 

from the total mass of solid waste in a particular section of 

the landfill when calculating the value for Mi if documentation 

of the nature and amount of such wastes is maintained. 

(ii) The following equation must be used if the actual 

year-to-year solid waste acceptance rate is unknown. 

 MNMOC = 2LoR (e−kc−e−kt) CNMOC(3.6 × 10−9) 

Where: 

MNMOC = Mass emission rate of NMOC, megagrams per year. 

Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic meters per 

megagram solid waste. 

R = Average annual acceptance rate, megagrams per year. 

k = Methane generation rate constant, year−1.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 261 of 321 

t = Age of landfill, years. 

CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, parts per million by volume 

as hexane. 

c = Time since closure, years; for an active landfill c 

= 0 and e−kc = 1.

3.6 × 10−9 = Conversion factor. 

The mass of nondegradable solid waste may be subtracted 

from the total mass of solid waste in a particular section of 

the landfill when calculating the value of R, if documentation 

of the nature and amount of such wastes is maintained. 

(2) Tier 1. The owner or operator must compare the 

calculated NMOC mass emission rate to the standard of 34 

megagrams per year. 

(i) If the NMOC emission rate calculated in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section is less than 34 megagrams per year, then 

the owner or operator must submit an NMOC emission rate report 

according to § 60.38f(c), and must recalculate the NMOC mass 

emission rate annually as required under § 60.33f(e). 

(ii) If the NMOC emission rate calculated in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section is equal to or greater than 34 megagrams 

per year, then the landfill owner or operator must either: 

(A) Submit a gas collection and control system design plan 

as specified in § 60.38f(d) within 1 year and install and 

operate a gas collection and control system according to § 

60.33f(b) and (c) within 30 months; 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 262 of 321 

(B) Determine a site-specific NMOC concentration and 

recalculate the NMOC emission rate using the Tier 2 procedures 

provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section; 

(C) Determine a site-specific methane generation rate 

constant and recalculate the NMOC emission rate using the Tier 3 

procedures provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section; or 

(D) Conduct a surface emission monitoring demonstration 

using the Tier 4 procedures specified in paragraph (a)(6) of 

this section. 

(3) Tier 2. The landfill owner or operator must determine 

the site-specific NMOC concentration using the following 

sampling procedure. The landfill owner or operator must install 

at least two sample probes per hectare of landfill surface that 

has retained waste for at least 2 years. If the landfill is 

larger than 25 hectares in area, only 50 samples are required. 

The sample probes should be located to avoid known areas of 

nondegradable solid waste. The owner or operator must collect 

and analyze one sample of landfill gas from each probe to 

determine the NMOC concentration using Method 25 or 25C of 

appendix A of this part. Taking composite samples from different 

probes into a single cylinder is allowed; however, equal sample 

volumes must be taken from each probe. For each composite, the 

sampling rate, collection times, beginning and ending cylinder 

vacuums, or alternative volume measurements must be recorded to 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 263 of 321 

verify that composite volumes are equal. Composite sample 

volumes should not be less than one liter unless evidence can be 

provided to substantiate the accuracy of smaller volumes. 

Terminate compositing before the cylinder approaches ambient 

pressure where measurement accuracy diminishes. If more than the 

required number of samples is taken, all samples must be used in 

the analysis. The landfill owner or operator must divide the 

NMOC concentration from Method 25 or 25C of appendix A of this 

part by six to convert from CNMOC as carbon to CNMOC as hexane. 

If the landfill has an active or passive gas removal system in 

place, Method 25 or 25C samples may be collected from these 

systems instead of surface probes provided the removal system 

can be shown to provide sampling as representative as the two 

sampling probe per hectare requirement. For active collection 

systems, samples may be collected from the common header pipe. 

The sample location on the common header pipe must be before any 

gas moving, condensate removal, or treatment system equipment. 

For active collection systems, a minimum of three samples must 

be collected from the header pipe. 

(i) Within 60 days after the date of determining the NMOC 

concentration and corresponding NMOC emission rate, the owner or 

operator must submit the results according to § 60.38f(j). 

(ii) The landfill owner or operator must recalculate the 

NMOC mass emission rate using the equations provided in 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 264 of 321 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this section using the 

average site-specific NMOC concentration from the collected 

samples instead of the default value provided in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. 

(iii) If the NMOC mass emission rate is less than 34 

megagrams per year, then the owner or operator must submit an 

NMOC emission rate report according to § 60.38f(c), and must 

recalculate the NMOC mass emission rate annually as required 

under § 60.33f(e). The site-specific NMOC concentration must be 

retested every 5 years using the methods specified in this 

section. 

(iv) If the NMOC mass emission rate as calculated using the 

Tier 2 site-specific NMOC concentration is equal to or greater 

than 34 megagrams per year, the owner or operator must either: 

(A) Submit a gas collection and control system design plan 

as specified in § 60.38f(d) within 1 year and install and 

operate a gas collection and control system according to § 

60.33f(b) and (c) within 30 months; 

(B) Determine a site-specific methane generation rate 

constant and recalculate the NMOC emission rate using the sitespecific methane generation rate using the Tier 3 procedures 

specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section; or 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 265 of 321 

(C) Conduct a surface emission monitoring demonstration 

using the Tier 4 procedures specified in paragraph (a)(6) of 

this section. 

(4) Tier 3. The site-specific methane generation rate 

constant must be determined using the procedures provided in 

Method 2E of appendix A of this part. The landfill owner or 

operator must estimate the NMOC mass emission rate using the 

equations in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this section 

and using a site-specific methane generation rate constant, and 

the site-specific NMOC concentration as determined in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section instead of the default values provided in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The landfill owner or operator 

must compare the resulting NMOC mass emission rate to the 

standard of 34 megagrams per year. 

(i) If the NMOC mass emission rate as calculated using the 

Tier 2 site-specific NMOC concentration and Tier 3 site-specific 

methane generation rate is equal to or greater than 34 megagrams 

per year, the owner or operator must either: 

(A) Submit a gas collection and control system design plan 

as specified in § 60.38f(d) within 1 year and install and 

operate a gas collection and control system according to § 

60.33f(b) and (c) within 30 months; or 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 266 of 321 

(B) Conduct a surface emission monitoring demonstration 

using the Tier 4 procedures specified in paragraph (a)(6) of 

this section. 

(ii) If the NMOC mass emission rate is less than 34 

megagrams per year, then the owner or operator must recalculate 

the NMOC mass emission rate annually using the equations in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section and using the site-specific 

Tier 2 NMOC concentration and Tier 3 methane generation rate 

constant and submit a periodic emission rate report as provided 

in § 60.38f(c). The calculation of the methane generation rate 

constant is performed only once, and the value obtained from 

this test must be used in all subsequent annual NMOC emission 

rate calculations. 

(5) The owner or operator may use other methods to 

determine the NMOC concentration or a site-specific methane 

generation rate constant as an alternative to the methods 

required in paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this section if the 

method has been approved by the Administrator. 

(6) Tier 4. The landfill owner or operator may demonstrate 

that surface methane emissions are below 500 parts per million 

by conducting surface emission monitoring on a quarterly basis 

using the following procedures. 

(i) The owner or operator must measure surface 

concentrations of methane along the entire perimeter of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 267 of 321 

landfill and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at no 

more than 30-meter intervals using an organic vapor analyzer, 

flame ionization detector, or other portable monitor meeting the 

specifications provided in paragraph (a)(6)(iv) of this section. 

(ii) The background concentration must be determined by 

moving the probe inlet upwind and downwind at least 30 meters 

from the waste mass boundary of the landfill. 

(iii) Surface emission monitoring must be performed in 

accordance with section 8.3.1 of Method 21 of appendix A of this 

part, except that the probe inlet must be placed within 5 to 10 

centimeters of the landfill surface. Monitoring must be 

performed during typical meteorological conditions. 

(A) Surface emission monitoring must be terminated when the 

average wind speed exceeds 5 miles per hour or the instantaneous 

wind speed exceeds 10 miles per hour. The Administrator may 

approve alternatives to this wind speed surface monitoring 

termination for landfills consistently having measured winds in 

excess of these specified limits. Average wind speed must be 

determined on a 15-minute average using an onsite anemometer 

with a continuous recorder for the entire duration of the 

monitoring event. 

(B) Landfill surface areas where visual observations 

indicate elevated concentrations of landfill gas, such as 

distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover, and all 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 268 of 321 

cover penetrations must also be monitored using a device meeting 

the specifications provided in paragraph (a)(6)(iv) of this 

section. 

(iv) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the 

provisions in paragraph (a)(6) of this section must comply with 

the following instrumentation specifications and procedures for 

surface emission monitoring devices. 

(A) The portable analyzer must meet the instrument 

specifications provided in section 3 of Method 21 of appendix A 

of this part, except that “methane” replaces all references to 

“VOC”. 

(B) The calibration gas is methane, diluted to a nominal 

concentration of 500 parts per million in air. 

(C) To meet the performance evaluation requirements in 

section 3.1.3 of Method 21 of appendix A of this part, the 

instrument evaluation procedures of section 4.4 of Method 21 of 

appendix A of this part must be used. 

(D) The calibration procedures provided in section 4.2 of 

Method 21 of appendix A of this part must be followed 

immediately before commencing a surface monitoring survey. 

(v) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the Tier 

4 provisions in paragraph (a)(6) of this section must maintain 

records of surface emission monitoring as provided in § 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 269 of 321 

60.39f(g) and submit a Tier 4 surface emissions report as 

provided in § 60.38f(c)(5)(iii). 

(vi) If there is any measured concentration of methane of 

500 parts per million or greater from the surface of the 

landfill, the owner or operator must submit a gas collection and 

control system design plan within 1 year of the first measured 

concentration of methane of 500 parts per million or greater 

from the surface of the landfill according to § 60.38f(d) and 

install and operate a gas collection and control system 

according to § 60.33f(b) and (c) within 30 months of the first 

measured concentration of methane of 500 parts per million or 

greater from the surface of the landfill. 

(vii) If after four consecutive quarterly monitoring 

periods there is no measured concentration of methane of 500 

parts per million or greater from the surface of the landfill, 

the owner or operator must either conduct semi-annual surface 

emission monitoring using the methods specified in this section 

or recalculate the NMOC mass emission rate annually as provided 

in § 60.33f(e). 

(A) If conducting semi-annual surface emissions monitoring 

and there is any measured concentration of methane of 500 parts 

per million or greater from the surface of the landfill, the 

owner or operator must submit a gas collection and control 

system design plan within 1 year of the first measured 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 270 of 321 

concentration of methane of 500 parts per million or greater 

from the surface of the landfill according to § 60.38f(d) and 

install and operate a gas collection and control system 

according to § 60.33f(b) and (c) within 30 months of the first 

measured concentration of methane of 500 parts per million or 

greater from the surface of the landfill. 

(B) [Reserved] 

(b) After the installation and startup of a collection and 

control system in compliance with this subpart, the owner or 

operator must calculate the NMOC emission rate for purposes of 

determining when the system can be capped or removed as provided 

in § 60.33f(f), using the following equation: 

MNMOC = 1.89 × 10−3QLFGCNMOC

Where: 

MNMOC = Mass emission rate of NMOC, megagrams per year. 

QLFG = Flow rate of landfill gas, cubic meters per minute. 

CNMOC = NMOC concentration, parts per million by volume as 

hexane. 

(1) The flow rate of landfill gas, QLFG, must be determined 

by measuring the total landfill gas flow rate at the common 

header pipe that leads to the control system using a gas flow 

measuring device calibrated according to the provisions of 

section 4 of Method 2E of appendix A of this part. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 271 of 321 

(2) The average NMOC concentration, CNMOC, must be 

determined by collecting and analyzing landfill gas sampled from 

the common header pipe before the gas moving or condensate 

removal equipment using the procedures in Method 25 or Method 

25C of appendix A of this part. The sample location on the 

common header pipe must be before any condensate removal or 

other gas refining units. The landfill owner or operator must 

divide the NMOC concentration from Method 25 or Method 25C of 

appendix A of this part by six to convert from CNMOC as carbon 

to CNMOC as hexane. 

(3) The owner or operator may use another method to 

determine landfill gas flow rate and NMOC concentration if the 

method has been approved by the Administrator. 

(i) Within 60 days after the date of calculating the NMOC 

emission rate for purposes of determining when the system can be 

capped or removed, the owner operator must submit the results 

according to § 60.38f(j). 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(c) When calculating emissions for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) purposes, the owner or operator 

of each MSW landfill subject to the provisions of this subpart 

must estimate the NMOC emission rate for comparison to the PSD 

major source and significance levels in §§51.166 or 52.21 of 

this chapter using Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 272 of 321 

Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources (AP–42) or 

other approved measurement procedures. 

(d) For the performance test required in § 60.33f(c)(1), 

the net heating value of the combusted landfill gas as 

determined in § 60.18(f)(3) is calculated from the concentration 

of methane in the landfill gas as measured by Method 3C. A 

minimum of three 30-minute Method 3C samples are determined. The 

measurement of other organic components, hydrogen, and carbon 

monoxide is not applicable. Method 3C may be used to determine 

the landfill gas molecular weight for calculating the flare gas 

exit velocity under § 60.18(f)(4). 

(1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in § 60.8), the owner or operator 

must submit the results of the performance tests required by § 

60.35f(b) or (d), including any associated fuel analyses, 

according to § 60.38f(j). 

(2) [Reserved] 

(e) For the performance test required in § 60.33f(c)(2), 

Method 25 or 25C (Method 25C may be used at the inlet only) of 

appendix A of this part must be used to determine compliance 

with the 98 weight-percent efficiency or the 20 parts per 

million by volume outlet NMOC concentration level, unless 

another method to demonstrate compliance has been approved by 

the Administrator as provided by § 60.38f(d). Method 3 or 3A 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 273 of 321 

must be used to determine oxygen for correcting the NMOC 

concentration as hexane to 3 percent. In cases where the outlet 

concentration is less than 50 ppm NMOC as carbon (8 ppm NMOC as 

hexane), Method 25A should be used in place of Method 25. The 

following equation must be used to calculate efficiency: 

 Control Efficiency = (NMOCin− NMOCout)/(NMOCin)

Where: 

NMOCin = Mass of NMOC entering control device. 

NMOCout = Mass of NMOC exiting control device. 

(1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in § 60.8), the owner or operator 

must submit the results of the performance tests, including any 

associated fuel analyses, according to § 60.38f(j). 

(2) [Reserved] 

§ 60.36f Compliance provisions. 

For approval, a State plan must include the compliance 

provisions in this section. 

(a) Except as provided in § 60.38f(d)(2), the specified 

methods in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section must be 

used to determine whether the gas collection system is in 

compliance with § 60.33f(b)(2). 

(1) For the purposes of calculating the maximum expected 

gas generation flow rate from the landfill to determine 

compliance with § 60.33f(b)(2)(i), one of the following 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 274 of 321 

equations must be used. The k and Lo kinetic factors should be 

those published in the most recent AP–42 or other site-specific 

values demonstrated to be appropriate and approved by the 

Administrator. If k has been determined as specified in § 

60.35f(a)(4), the value of k determined from the test must be 

used. A value of no more than 15 years must be used for the 

intended use period of the gas mover equipment. The active life 

of the landfill is the age of the landfill plus the estimated 

number of years until closure. 

(i) For sites with unknown year-to-year solid waste 

acceptance rate: 

Qm = 2LoR (e−kc−e−kt) 

Where: 

Qm = Maximum expected gas generation flow rate, cubic 

meters per year. 

Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic meters per 

megagram solid waste. 

R = Average annual acceptance rate, megagrams per year. 

k = Methane generation rate constant, year−1.

t = Age of the landfill at equipment installation plus 

the time the owner or operator intends to use the 

gas mover equipment or active life of the landfill, 

whichever is less. If the equipment is installed 

after closure, t is the age of the landfill at 

installation, years. 

c = Time since closure, years (for an active landfill c 

= 0 and e−kc = 1).

(ii) For sites with known year-to-year solid waste 

acceptance rate: 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 275 of 321 

 	 ∑ 2



(

)




Where: 

QM = Maximum expected gas generation flow rate, cubic 

meters per year. 

k = Methane generation rate constant, year−1. 

Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic meters per 

megagram solid waste. 

Mi = Mass of solid waste in the ith section, megagrams. 

ti = Age of the ith section, years. 

(iii) If a collection and control system has been 

installed, actual flow data may be used to project the maximum 

expected gas generation flow rate instead of, or in conjunction 

with, the equations in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. If the landfill is still accepting waste, the actual 

measured flow data will not equal the maximum expected gas 

generation rate, so calculations using the equations in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section or other methods 

must be used to predict the maximum expected gas generation rate 

over the intended period of use of the gas control system 

equipment. 

(2) For the purposes of determining sufficient density of 

gas collectors for compliance with § 60.33f(b)(2)(ii), the owner 

or operator must design a system of vertical wells, horizontal 

collectors, or other collection devices, satisfactory to the 

Administrator, capable of controlling and extracting gas from 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 276 of 321 

all portions of the landfill sufficient to meet all operational 

and performance standards. 

(3) For the purpose of demonstrating whether the gas 

collection system flow rate is sufficient to determine 

compliance with § 60.33f(b)(2)(iii), the owner or operator must 

measure gauge pressure in the gas collection header applied to 

each individual well monthly. If a positive pressure exists, 

action must be initiated to correct the exceedance within 5 

calendar days, except for the three conditions allowed under § 

60.34f(b). If negative pressure cannot be achieved without 

excess air infiltration within 15 calendar days of the first 

measurement, the gas collection system must be expanded to 

correct the exceedance within 120 days of the initial 

measurement of positive pressure. Any attempted corrective 

measure must not cause exceedances of other operational or 

performance standards. An alternative timeline for correcting 

the exceedance may be submitted to the Administrator for 

approval. 

(4) Owners or operators are not required to expand the 

system as required in paragraph (a)(3) of this section during 

the first 180 days after gas collection system startup. 

(5) [Reserved] 

(6) An owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance 

with § 60.33f(b)(2)(iv) through the use of a collection system 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 277 of 321 

not conforming to the specifications provided in § 60.40f must 

provide information satisfactory to the Administrator as 

specified in § 60.38f(d)(3) demonstrating that offsite migration 

is being controlled. 

(b) For purposes of compliance with § 60.34f(a), each owner 

or operator of a controlled landfill must place each well or 

design component as specified in the approved design plan as 

provided in § 60.38f(d). Each well must be installed no later 

than 60 days after the date on which the initial solid waste has 

been in place for a period of: 

(1) 5 years or more if active; or 

(2) 2 years or more if closed or at final grade. 

(c) The following procedures must be used for compliance 

with the surface methane operational standard as provided in § 

60.34f(d): 

(1) After installation and startup of the gas collection 

system, the owner or operator must monitor surface 

concentrations of methane along the entire perimeter of the 

collection area and along a pattern that traverses the landfill 

at no more than 30-meter intervals (or a site-specific 

established spacing) for each collection area on a quarterly 

basis using an organic vapor analyzer, flame ionization 

detector, or other portable monitor meeting the specifications 

provided in § 60.36f(d). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 278 of 321 

(2) The background concentration must be determined by 

moving the probe inlet upwind and downwind outside the boundary 

of the landfill at a distance of at least 30 meters from the 

perimeter wells. 

(3) Surface emission monitoring must be performed in 

accordance with section 8.3.1 of Method 21 of appendix A of this 

part, except that the probe inlet must be placed within 5 to 10 

centimeters of the ground. Monitoring must be performed during 

typical meteorological conditions. 

(4) Any reading of 500 parts per million or more above 

background at any location must be recorded as a monitored 

exceedance and the actions specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) 

through (v) of this section must be taken. As long as the 

specified actions are taken, the exceedance is not a violation 

of the operational requirements of § 60.34f(d). 

(i) The location of each monitored exceedance must be 

marked and the location and concentration recorded. For 

location, you must determine the latitude and longitude 

coordinates using an instrument with an accuracy of at least 3 

meters. Your coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at 

least five decimal places. 

(ii) Cover maintenance or adjustments to the vacuum of the 

adjacent wells to increase the gas collection in the vicinity of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 279 of 321 

each exceedance must be made and the location must be remonitored within 10 calendar days of detecting the exceedance. 

(iii) If the re-monitoring of the location shows a second 

exceedance, additional corrective action must be taken and the 

location must be monitored again within 10 days of the second 

exceedance. If the re-monitoring shows a third exceedance for 

the same location, the action specified in paragraph (c)(4)(v) 

of this section must be taken, and no further monitoring of that 

location is required until the action specified in paragraph 

(c)(4)(v) of this section has been taken. 

(iv) Any location that initially showed an exceedance but 

has a methane concentration less than 500 parts per million 

methane above background at the 10-day re-monitoring specified 

in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) or (iii) of this section must be remonitored 1 month from the initial exceedance. If the 1-month 

re-monitoring shows a concentration less than 500 parts per 

million above background, no further monitoring of that location 

is required until the next quarterly monitoring period. If the 

1-month re-monitoring shows an exceedance, the actions specified 

in paragraph (c)(4) (iii) or (v) of this section must be taken. 

(v) For any location where monitored methane concentration 

equals or exceeds 500 parts per million above background three 

times within a quarterly period, a new well or other collection 

device must be installed within 120 calendar days of the initial 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 280 of 321 

exceedance. An alternative remedy to the exceedance, such as 

upgrading the blower, header pipes or control device, and a 

corresponding timeline for installation may be submitted to the 

Administrator for approval. 

(5) The owner or operator must implement a program to 

monitor for cover integrity and implement cover repairs as 

necessary on a monthly basis. 

(d) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the 

provisions in paragraph (c) of this section must comply with the 

following instrumentation specifications and procedures for 

surface emission monitoring devices: 

(1) The portable analyzer must meet the instrument 

specifications provided in section 3 of Method 21 of appendix A 

of this part, except that “methane” must replace all references 

to “VOC”. 

(2) The calibration gas must be methane, diluted to a 

nominal concentration of 500 parts per million in air. 

(3) To meet the performance evaluation requirements in 

section 3.1.3 of Method 21 of appendix A of this part, the 

instrument evaluation procedures of section 4.4 of Method 21 of 

appendix A of this part must be used. 

(4) The calibration procedures provided in section 4.2 of 

Method 21 of appendix A of this part must be followed 

immediately before commencing a surface monitoring survey. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 281 of 321 

(e) The provisions of this subpart apply at all times, 

including periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction. 

§ 60.37f Monitoring of operations. 

For approval, a State plan must include the monitoring 

provisions in this section, except as provided in § 

60.38f(d)(2). 

(a) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with § 

60.33f(b)(2) for an active gas collection system must install a 

sampling port and a thermometer, other temperature measuring 

device, or an access port for temperature measurements at each 

wellhead and: 

(1) Measure the gauge pressure in the gas collection header 

on a monthly basis as provided in § 60.36f(a)(3); and 

(2) Monitor nitrogen or oxygen concentration in the 

landfill gas on a monthly basis as follows: 

(i) The nitrogen level must be determined using Method 3C, 

unless an alternative test method is established as allowed by § 

60.38f(d)(2). 

(ii) Unless an alternative test method is established as 

allowed by § 60.38f(d)(2), the oxygen must be determined by an 

oxygen meter using Method 3A or 3C except that: 

(A) The span must be set between 10 and 12 percent oxygen; 

(B) A data recorder is not required; 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 282 of 321 

(C) Only two calibration gases are required, a zero and 

span; 

(D) A calibration error check is not required; 

(E) The allowable sample bias, zero drift, and calibration 

drift are ±10 percent. 

(3) Monitor temperature of the landfill gas on a monthly 

basis. The temperature measuring device must be calibrated 

annually using the procedure in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-1, 

Method 2, Section 10.3. 

(b) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with § 

60.33f(c) using an enclosed combustor must calibrate, maintain, 

and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications, the 

following equipment: 

(1) A temperature monitoring device equipped with a 

continuous recorder and having a minimum accuracy of ±1 percent 

of the temperature being measured expressed in degrees Celsius 

or ±0.5 degrees Celsius, whichever is greater. A temperature 

monitoring device is not required for boilers or process heaters 

with design heat input capacity equal to or greater than 44 

megawatts. 

(2) A device that records flow to or bypass of the control 

device. The owner or operator must: 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 283 of 321 

(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate 

measuring device that must record the flow to the control device 

at least every 15 minutes; and 

(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position 

with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual 

inspection of the seal or closure mechanism must be performed at 

least once every month to ensure that the valve is maintained in 

the closed position and that the gas flow is not diverted 

through the bypass line. 

(c) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with § 

60.33f(c) using a non-enclosed flare must install, calibrate, 

maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's 

specifications the following equipment: 

(1) A heat sensing device, such as an ultraviolet beam 

sensor or thermocouple, at the pilot light or the flame itself 

to indicate the continuous presence of a flame. 

(2) A device that records flow to or bypass of the flare. 

The owner or operator must: 

(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate 

measuring device that must record the flow to the control device 

at least every 15 minutes; and 

(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position 

with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual 

inspection of the seal or closure mechanism must be performed at 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 284 of 321 

least once every month to ensure that the valve is maintained in 

the closed position and that the gas flow is not diverted 

through the bypass line. 

(d) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate 

compliance with § 60.33f(c) using a device other than a nonenclosed flare or an enclosed combustor or a treatment system 

must provide information satisfactory to the Administrator as 

provided in § 60.38f(d)(2) describing the operation of the 

control device, the operating parameters that would indicate 

proper performance, and appropriate monitoring procedures. The 

Administrator must review the information and either approve it, 

or request that additional information be submitted. The 

Administrator may specify additional appropriate monitoring 

procedures. 

(e) Each owner or operator seeking to install a collection 

system that does not meet the specifications in § 60.40f or 

seeking to monitor alternative parameters to those required by § 

60.34f through § 60.37f must provide information satisfactory to 

the Administrator as provided in § 60.38f(d)(2) and (3) 

describing the design and operation of the collection system, 

the operating parameters that would indicate proper performance, 

and appropriate monitoring procedures. The Administrator may 

specify additional appropriate monitoring procedures. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 285 of 321 

(f) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate 

compliance with the 500 parts per million surface methane 

operational standard in § 60.34f(d) must monitor surface 

concentrations of methane according to the procedures provided 

in § 60.36f(c) and the instrument specifications in § 60.36f(d). 

Any closed landfill that has no monitored exceedances of the 

operational standard in three consecutive quarterly monitoring 

periods may skip to annual monitoring. Any methane reading of 

500 parts per million or more above background detected during 

the annual monitoring returns the frequency for that landfill to 

quarterly monitoring. 

(g) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate 

compliance with the control system requirements in § 60.33f(c) 

using a landfill gas treatment system must calibrate, maintain, 

and operate according to the manufacturer’s specifications a 

device that records flow to or bypass of the treatment system. 

The owner or operator must: 

(1) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate 

measuring device that records the flow to the treatment system 

at least every 15 minutes; and 

(2) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position 

with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual 

inspection of the seal or closure mechanism must be performed at 

least once every month to ensure that the valve is maintained in 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 286 of 321 

the closed position and that the gas flow is not diverted 

through the bypass line. 

§ 60.38f Reporting guidelines. 

For approval, a State plan must include the reporting 

provisions listed in this section, as applicable, except as 

provided under §§ 60.24 and 60.38f(d)(2). 

(a) Design capacity report. For existing MSW landfills 

subject to this subpart, the initial design capacity report must 

be submitted no later than 90 days after the effective date of 

EPA approval of the State’s plan under section 111(d) of the 

Clean Air Act. The initial design capacity report must contain 

the following information: 

(1) A map or plot of the landfill, providing the size and 

location of the landfill, and identifying all areas where solid 

waste may be landfilled according to the permit issued by the 

state, local, or tribal agency responsible for regulating the 

landfill. 

(2) The maximum design capacity of the landfill. Where the 

maximum design capacity is specified in the permit issued by the 

state, local, or tribal agency responsible for regulating the 

landfill, a copy of the permit specifying the maximum design 

capacity may be submitted as part of the report. If the maximum 

design capacity of the landfill is not specified in the permit, 

the maximum design capacity must be calculated using good 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 287 of 321 

engineering practices. The calculations must be provided, along 

with the relevant parameters as part of the report. The landfill 

may calculate design capacity in either megagrams or cubic 

meters for comparison with the exemption values. If the owner or 

operator chooses to convert the design capacity from volume to 

mass or from mass to volume to demonstrate its design capacity 

is less than 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters, 

the calculation must include a site-specific density, which must 

be recalculated annually. Any density conversions must be 

documented and submitted with the design capacity report. The 

state, local, or tribal agency or the Administrator may request 

other reasonable information as may be necessary to verify the 

maximum design capacity of the landfill. 

(b) Amended design capacity report. An amended design 

capacity report must be submitted providing notification of an 

increase in the design capacity of the landfill, within 90 days 

of an increase in the maximum design capacity of the landfill to 

or above 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters. 

This increase in design capacity may result from an increase in 

the permitted volume of the landfill or an increase in the 

density as documented in the annual recalculation required in § 

60.39f(f). 

(c) NMOC emission rate report. For existing MSW landfills 

covered by this subpart with a design capacity equal to or 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 288 of 321 

greater than 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters, 

the NMOC emission rate report must be submitted following the 

procedure specified in paragraph (j) of this section no later 

than 90 days after the effective date of EPA approval of the 

State’s plan under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The NMOC 

emission rate report must be submitted annually following the 

procedure specified in paragraph (j) of this section, except as 

provided for in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. The 

Administrator may request such additional information as may be 

necessary to verify the reported NMOC emission rate. 

(1) The NMOC emission rate report must contain an annual or 

5-year estimate of the NMOC emission rate calculated using the 

formula and procedures provided in § 60.35f(a). 

(2) The NMOC emission rate report must include all the 

data, calculations, sample reports and measurements used to 

estimate the annual or 5-year emissions. 

(3) If the estimated NMOC emission rate as reported in the 

annual report to the Administrator is less than 34 megagrams per 

year in each of the next 5 consecutive years, the owner or 

operator may elect to submit, following the procedure specified 

in paragraph (j) of this section, an estimate of the NMOC 

emission rate for the next 5-year period in lieu of the annual 

report. This estimate must include the current amount of solid 

waste-in-place and the estimated waste acceptance rate for each 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 289 of 321 

year of the 5 years for which an NMOC emission rate is 

estimated. All data and calculations upon which this estimate is 

based must be provided to the Administrator. This estimate must 

be revised at least once every 5 years. If the actual waste 

acceptance rate exceeds the estimated waste acceptance rate in 

any year reported in the 5-year estimate, a revised 5-year 

estimate must be submitted to the Administrator. The revised 

estimate must cover the 5-year period beginning with the year in 

which the actual waste acceptance rate exceeded the estimated 

waste acceptance rate. 

(4) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of 

this subpart is exempted from the requirements to submit an NMOC 

emission rate report, after installing a collection and control 

system that complies with § 60.33f(b) and (c), during such time 

as the collection and control system is in operation and in 

compliance with §§ 60.34f and 60.36f. 

(5) Each owner or operator of an MSW landfill having a 

design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams 

and 2.5 million cubic meters must submit a collection and 

control system design plan to the Administrator within 1 year of 

the first NMOC emission rate report in which the NMOC emission 

rate equals or exceeds 34 megagrams per year, except as follows: 

(i) If the owner or operator elects to recalculate the NMOC 

emission rate after Tier 2 NMOC sampling and analysis as 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 290 of 321 

provided in § 60.35f(a)(3) and the resulting rate is less than 

34 megagrams per year, annual periodic reporting must be 

resumed, using the Tier 2 determined site-specific NMOC 

concentration, until the calculated emission rate is equal to or 

greater than 34 megagrams per year or the landfill is closed. 

The revised NMOC emission rate report, with the recalculated 

emission rate based on NMOC sampling and analysis, must be 

submitted, following the procedure specified in paragraph (j) of 

this section, within 180 days of the first calculated exceedance 

of 34 megagrams per year. 

(ii) If the owner or operator elects to recalculate the 

NMOC emission rate after determining a site-specific methane 

generation rate constant k, as provided in Tier 3 in § 

60.35f(a)(4), and the resulting NMOC emission rate is less than 

34 megagrams per year, annual periodic reporting must be 

resumed. The resulting site-specific methane generation rate 

constant k must be used in the emission rate calculation until 

such time as the emissions rate calculation results in an 

exceedance. The revised NMOC emission rate report based on the 

provisions of § 60.35f(a)(4) and the resulting site-specific 

methane generation rate constant k must be submitted, following 

the procedure specified in paragraph (j) of this section, to the 

Administrator within 1 year of the first calculated NMOC 

emission rate equaling or exceeding 34 megagrams per year. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 291 of 321 

(iii) If the owner or operator elects to demonstrate that 

site-specific surface methane emissions are below 500 parts per 

million methane, then the owner or operator must submit annually 

a Tier 4 surface emissions report as specified in this paragraph 

following the procedure specified in paragraph (j) of this 

section. If the Tier 4 surface emissions report shows no surface 

emissions readings of 500 parts per million methane or greater 

for four consecutive quarters, then the landfill may continue 

Tier 4 monitoring at a reduced semi-annual frequency or return 

to Tier 1, 2, or 3. An owner or operator may elect to 

recalculate NMOC using Tier 1, 2, or 3 only if it has four 

consecutive quarters with no surface emissions monitoring 

readings of 500 parts per million or greater. The NMOC emission 

rate report must be submitted annually, following the procedure 

specified in paragraph (j) of this section, except as provided 

for in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. The Administrator may 

request such additional information as may be necessary to 

verify the reported instantaneous surface emission readings. The 

Tier 4 surface emissions report must clearly identify the 

location, date, and reading (in parts per million) of any value 

500 parts per million methane or greater, other than nonrepeatable, momentary readings. For location, you must determine 

the latitude and longitude coordinates using an instrument with 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 292 of 321 

an accuracy of at least 3 meters. Your coordinates must be in 

decimal degrees with at least five decimal places. 

(iv) If the landfill is in the closed landfill subcategory, 

the owner or operator must submit a collection and control 

system design plan to the Administrator within 1 year of the 

first NMOC emission rate report in which the NMOC emission rate 

equals or exceeds 50 megagrams per year, except as follows: 

(A) If the owner or operator elects to recalculate the NMOC 

emission rate after Tier 2 NMOC sampling and analysis as 

provided in § 60.35f(a)(3) and the resulting rate is less than 

50 megagrams per year, annual periodic reporting must be 

resumed, using the Tier 2 determined site-specific NMOC 

concentration, until the calculated emission rate is equal to or 

greater than 50 megagrams per year or the landfill is closed. 

The revised NMOC emission rate report, with the recalculated 

emission rate based on NMOC sampling and analysis, must be 

submitted, following the procedure specified in paragraph (j) of 

this section, within 180 days of the first calculated exceedance 

of 50 megagrams per year. 

(B) If the owner or operator elects to recalculate the NMOC 

emission rate after determining a site-specific methane 

generation rate constant k, as provided in Tier 3 in § 

60.35f(a)(4), and the resulting NMOC emission rate is less than 

50 megagrams per year, annual periodic reporting must be 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 293 of 321 

resumed. The resulting site-specific methane generation rate 

constant k must be used in the emission rate calculation until 

such time as the emissions rate calculation results in an 

exceedance. The revised NMOC emission rate report based on the 

provisions of § 60.35f(a)(4) and the resulting site-specific 

methane generation rate constant k must be submitted, following 

the procedure specified in paragraph (j) of this section, to the 

Administrator within 1 year of the first calculated NMOC 

emission rate equaling or exceeding 50 megagrams per year. 

(C) The landfill owner or operator elects to demonstrate 

surface emissions are low, consistent with the provisions in § 

60.38(c)(5)(iii). 

(D) The landfill has already submitted a gas collection and 

control system design plan consistent with the provisions of 40 

CFR part 60, subpart WWW; 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG; or a 

state plan implementing 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc. 

(d) Collection and control system design plan. The State 

plan must include a process for state review and approval of the 

site-specific design plan for each gas collection and control 

system. The collection and control system design plan must meet 

the following requirements: 

(1) The collection and control system as described in the 

design plan must meet the design requirements in § 60.33f(b) and 

(c). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 294 of 321 

(2) The collection and control system design plan must 

include any alternatives to the operational standards, test 

methods, procedures, compliance measures, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, or reporting provisions of §§ 60.34f through 

60.39f proposed by the owner or operator. 

(3) The collection and control system design plan must 

either conform to specifications for active collection systems 

in § 60.40f or include a demonstration to the Administrator's 

satisfaction of the sufficiency of the alternative provisions to 

§ 60.40f. 

(4) If the owner or operator chooses to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission control requirements of this 

subpart using a treatment system as defined in this subpart, 

then the owner or operator must prepare a site-specific 

treatment system monitoring plan as specified in § 

60.39f(b)(5)(ii). 

(5) The Administrator must review the information submitted 

under paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section and either 

approve it, disapprove it, or request that additional 

information be submitted. Because of the many site-specific 

factors involved with landfill gas system design, alternative 

systems may be necessary. A wide variety of system designs are 

possible, such as vertical wells, combination horizontal and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 295 of 321 

vertical collection systems, or horizontal trenches only, 

leachate collection components, and passive systems. 

(e) Revised design plan. The owner or operator who has 

already been required to submit a design plan under paragraph 

(d) of this section, or under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW; 40 

CFR part 62, subpart GGG; or a state plan implementing 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cc, must submit a revised design plan to the 

Administrator for approval as follows: 

(1) Within 90 days of expanding operations to an area not 

covered by the previously approved design plan. 

(2) Prior to installing or expanding the gas collection 

system in a way that is not consistent with the design plan that 

was submitted to the Administrator according to paragraph (d) of 

this section. 

(f) Closure report. Each owner or operator of a controlled 

landfill must submit a closure report to the Administrator 

within 30 days of ceasing waste acceptance. The Administrator 

may request additional information as may be necessary to verify 

that permanent closure has taken place in accordance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 258.60. If a closure report has been 

submitted to the Administrator, no additional wastes may be 

placed into the landfill without filing a notification of 

modification as described under § 60.7(a)(4). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 296 of 321 

(g) Equipment removal report. Each owner or operator of a 

controlled landfill must submit an equipment removal report to 

the Administrator 30 days prior to removal or cessation of 

operation of the control equipment. 

(1) The equipment removal report must contain the following 

items: 

(i) A copy of the closure report submitted in accordance 

with paragraph (f) of this section; and 

(ii) A copy of the initial performance test report 

demonstrating that the 15-year minimum control period has 

expired, unless the report of the results of the performance 

test has been submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX, or 

information that demonstrates that the GCCS will be unable to 

operate for 15 years due to declining gas flows. In the 

equipment removal report, the process unit(s) tested, the 

pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such performance test was 

conducted may be submitted in lieu of the performance test 

report if the report has been previously submitted to the EPA’s 

CDX; and 

(iii) Dated records of surface emissions monitoring data of 

the landfill or closed area that demonstrates that there are no 

surface emissions of 500 parts per million or greater for four 

consecutive quarters, unless the reports have been submitted to 

the EPA via the EPA’s CDX. If the surface emissions monitoring 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 297 of 321 

reports have been previously submitted to the EPA’s CDX, a 

statement that the reports have been submitted electronically 

and the dates that the reports were submitted to the EPA’s CDX 

may be submitted in the equipment removal report in lieu of the 

surface emissions monitoring reports; or 

(iv) Dated copies of three successive NMOC emission rate 

reports demonstrating that the landfill is no longer producing 

34 megagrams or greater of NMOC per year; or 

(v) For the closed landfill subcategory, dated copies of 

three successive NMOC emission rate reports demonstrating that 

the landfill is no longer producing 50 megagrams or greater of 

NMOC per year. 

(2) The Administrator may request such additional 

information as may be necessary to verify that all of the 

conditions for removal in § 60.33f(f) have been met. 

(h) Annual report. The owner or operator of a landfill 

seeking to comply with § 60.33f(e)(2) using an active collection 

system designed in accordance with § 60.33f(b) must submit to 

the Administrator, following the procedures specified in 

paragraph (j) of this section, an annual report of the recorded 

information in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(6) of this section. 

The initial annual report must be submitted within 180 days of 

installation and startup of the collection and control system. 

The initial annual report must include the following information 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 298 of 321 

pertaining to the initial performance test report required under 

§ 60.8: The process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and 

the date that such performance test was conducted. The initial 

performance test report must be submitted, following the 

procedure specified in § 60.8(j), no later than the date that 

the initial annual report is submitted. For enclosed combustion 

devices, flares, and treatment systems reportable exceedances 

are defined under § 60.39f(c)(1). 

(1) Value and length of time for exceedance of applicable 

parameters monitored under § 60.37f(a)(1), (b), (c), (d), and 

(g). 

(2) Description and duration of all periods when the gas 

stream is diverted from the control device or treatment system 

through a bypass line or the indication of bypass flow as 

specified under § 60.37f. 

(3) Description and duration of all periods when the 

control device or treatment system was not operating and length 

of time the control device or treatment system was not 

operating. 

(4) All periods when the collection system was not 

operating. 

(5) The location of each exceedance of the 500 parts per 

million methane concentration as provided in § 60.34f(d) and the 

concentration recorded at each location for which an exceedance 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 299 of 321 

was recorded in the previous month. For location, you must 

determine the latitude and longitude coordinates using an 

instrument with an accuracy of at least 3 meters. Your 

coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at least five 

decimal places. 

(6) The date of installation and the location of each well 

or collection system expansion added pursuant to § 60.36f(a)(3), 

(b), and (c)(4). 

(i) Initial performance test report. Each owner or operator 

seeking to comply with § 60.33f(c) must include the following 

information with the initial performance test report required 

under § 60.8: 

(1) A diagram of the collection system showing collection 

system positioning including all wells, horizontal collectors, 

surface collectors, or other gas extraction devices, including 

the locations of any areas excluded from collection and the 

proposed sites for the future collection system expansion; 

(2) The data upon which the sufficient density of wells, 

horizontal collectors, surface collectors, or other gas 

extraction devices and the gas mover equipment sizing are based; 

(3) The documentation of the presence of asbestos or 

nondegradable material for each area from which collection wells 

have been excluded based on the presence of asbestos or 

nondegradable material; 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 300 of 321 

(4) The sum of the gas generation flow rates for all areas 

from which collection wells have been excluded based on 

nonproductivity and the calculations of gas generation flow rate 

for each excluded area; 

(5) The provisions for increasing gas mover equipment 

capacity with increased gas generation flow rate, if the present 

gas mover equipment is inadequate to move the maximum flow rate 

expected over the life of the landfill; and 

(6) The provisions for the control of offsite migration. 

(j) Electronic reporting. The owner or operator must submit 

the results of each performance test according to the following 

procedures: 

(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the 

EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html), you must 

submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the 

Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI 

can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) 

(http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp). Performance test data must be 

submitted in a file format generated through the use of the 

EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit performance test data 

in an electronic file format consistent with the extensible 

markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, 

once the XML schema is available. If you claim that some of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 301 of 321 

performance test information being submitted is confidential 

business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file 

generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate 

electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the 

EPA’s ERT Web site, including information claimed to be CBI, on 

a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic 

storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly 

marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, 

Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 

4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate 

file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the 

EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. 

(2) For data collected using test methods that are not 

supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, 

you must submit the results of the performance test to the 

Administrator at the appropriate address listed in §60.4. 

§ 60.39f Recordkeeping guidelines. 

For approval, a State plan must include the recordkeeping 

provisions in this section. 

(a) Except as provided in § 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or 

operator of an MSW landfill subject to the provisions of § 

60.33f(e) must keep for at least 5 years up-to-date, readily 

accessible, onsite records of the design capacity report that 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 302 of 321 

triggered § 60.33f(e), the current amount of solid waste inplace, and the year-by-year waste acceptance rate. Offsite 

records may be maintained if they are retrievable within 4 

hours. Either paper copy or electronic formats are acceptable. 

(b) Except as provided in § 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or 

operator of a controlled landfill must keep up-to-date, readily 

accessible records for the life of the control system equipment 

of the data listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this 

section as measured during the initial performance test or 

compliance determination. Records of subsequent tests or 

monitoring must be maintained for a minimum of 5 years. Records 

of the control device vendor specifications must be maintained 

until removal. 

(1) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of 

this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with § 60.33f(b): 

(i) The maximum expected gas generation flow rate as 

calculated in § 60.36f(a)(1). The owner or operator may use 

another method to determine the maximum gas generation flow 

rate, if the method has been approved by the Administrator. 

(ii) The density of wells, horizontal collectors, surface 

collectors, or other gas extraction devices determined using the 

procedures specified in § 60.40f(a)(1). 

(2) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of 

this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with § 60.33f(c) 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 303 of 321 

through use of an enclosed combustion device other than a boiler 

or process heater with a design heat input capacity equal to or 

greater than 44 megawatts: 

(i) The average temperature measured at least every 15 

minutes and averaged over the same time period of the 

performance test. 

(ii) The percent reduction of NMOC determined as specified 

in § 60.33f(c)(2) achieved by the control device. 

(3) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of 

this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with § 

60.33f(c)(2)(i) through use of a boiler or process heater of any 

size: a description of the location at which the collected gas 

vent stream is introduced into the boiler or process heater over 

the same time period of the performance testing. 

(4) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of 

this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with § 60.33f(c)(1) 

through use of a non-enclosed flare, the flare type (i.e., 

steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted), all visible 

emission readings, heat content determination, flow rate or 

bypass flow rate measurements, and exit velocity determinations 

made during the performance test as specified in § 60.18; and 

continuous records of the flare pilot flame or flare flame 

monitoring and records of all periods of operations during which 

the pilot flame or the flare flame is absent. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 304 of 321 

(5) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of 

this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with § 60.33f(c)(3) 

through use of a landfill gas treatment system: 

(i) Bypass records. Records of the flow of landfill gas to, 

and bypass of, the treatment system. 

(ii) Site-specific treatment monitoring plan, to include: 

(A) Records of filtration, de-watering, and compression 

parameters that ensure the treatment system is operating 

properly for the intended end use of the treated landfill gas. 

(B) Monitoring methods, frequencies, and operating ranges 

for each monitored operating parameter based on manufacturer’s 

recommendations or engineering analysis for the intended end use 

of the treated landfill gas. 

(C) Documentation of the monitoring methods and ranges, 

along with justification for their use. 

(D) Identify who is responsible (by job title) for data 

collection. 

(E) Processes and methods used to collect the necessary 

data. 

(F) Description of the procedures and methods that are used 

for quality assurance, maintenance, and repair of all continuous 

monitoring systems. 

(c) Except as provided in § 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or 

operator of a controlled landfill subject to the provisions of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 305 of 321 

this subpart must keep for 5 years up-to-date, readily 

accessible continuous records of the equipment operating 

parameters specified to be monitored in § 60.37f as well as upto-date, readily accessible records for periods of operation 

during which the parameter boundaries established during the 

most recent performance test are exceeded. 

(1) The following constitute exceedances that must be 

recorded and reported under § 60.38f: 

(i) For enclosed combustors except for boilers and process 

heaters with design heat input capacity of 44 megawatts (150 

million British thermal unit per hour) or greater, all 3-hour 

periods of operation during which the average temperature was 

more than 28oC below the average combustion temperature during 

the most recent performance test at which compliance with § 

60.33f(c) was determined. 

(ii) For boilers or process heaters, whenever there is a 

change in the location at which the vent stream is introduced 

into the flame zone as required under paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section. 

(2) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of 

this subpart must keep up-to-date, readily accessible continuous 

records of the indication of flow to the control system and the 

indication of bypass flow or records of monthly inspections of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 306 of 321 

car-seals or lock-and-key configurations used to seal bypass 

lines, specified under § 60.37f. 

(3) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of 

this subpart who uses a boiler or process heater with a design 

heat input capacity of 44 megawatts or greater to comply with § 

60.33f(c) must keep an up-to-date, readily accessible record of 

all periods of operation of the boiler or process heater. 

(Examples of such records could include records of steam use, 

fuel use, or monitoring data collected pursuant to other state, 

local, tribal, or federal regulatory requirements.) 

(4) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the 

provisions of this subpart by use of a non-enclosed flare must 

keep up-to-date, readily accessible continuous records of the 

flame or flare pilot flame monitoring specified under § 

60.37f(c), and up-to-date, readily accessible records of all 

periods of operation in which the flame or flare pilot flame is 

absent. 

(5) Each owner or operator of a landfill seeking to comply 

with § 60.33f(e) using an active collection system designed in 

accordance with § 60.33f(b) must keep records of estimates of 

NMOC emissions for periods when the collection system or control 

device is not operating. 

(d) Except as provided in § 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or 

operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must keep for 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 307 of 321 

the life of the collection system an up-to-date, readily 

accessible plot map showing each existing and planned collector 

in the system and providing a unique identification location 

label on each collector that matches the labeling on the plot 

map. 

(1) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of 

this subpart must keep up-to-date, readily accessible records of 

the installation date and location of all newly installed 

collectors as specified under § 60.36f(b). 

(2) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of 

this subpart must keep readily accessible documentation of the 

nature, date of deposition, amount, and location of asbestoscontaining or nondegradable waste excluded from collection as 

provided in § 60.40f(a)(3)(i) as well as any nonproductive areas 

excluded from collection as provided in § 60.40f(a)(3)(ii). 

(e) Except as provided in § 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or 

operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must keep for 

at least 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible records of all 

collection and control system exceedances of the operational 

standards in § 60.34f, the reading in the subsequent month 

whether or not the second reading is an exceedance, and the 

location of each exceedance. 

(f) Landfill owners or operators who convert design 

capacity from volume to mass or mass to volume to demonstrate 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 308 of 321 

that landfill design capacity is less than 2.5 million megagrams 

or 2.5 million cubic meters, as provided in the definition of 

“design capacity”, must keep readily accessible, onsite records 

of the annual recalculation of site-specific density, design 

capacity, and the supporting documentation. Offsite records may 

be maintained if they are retrievable within 4 hours. Either 

paper copy or electronic formats are acceptable. 

(g) Landfill owners or operators seeking to demonstrate 

that site-specific surface methane emissions are below 500 parts 

per million by conducting surface emission monitoring under the 

Tier 4 procedures specified in § 60.35f(a)(6) must keep for at 

least 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible records of all 

surface emissions monitoring and information related to 

monitoring instrument calibrations conducted according to 

sections 8.1.2 and 10 of Method 21 of Appendix A of this part. 

including all of the following items: 

(1) Calibration records. 

(i) Date of calibration and initials of operator performing 

the calibration. 

(ii) Calibration gas cylinder identification, certification 

date, and certified concentration. 

(iii) Instrument scale(s) used. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 309 of 321 

(iv) A description of any corrective action taken if the 

meter readout could not be adjusted to correspond to the 

calibration gas value. 

(v) If an owner or operator makes their own calibration 

gas, a description of the procedure used. 

(2) Timestamp of each surface scan reading, to the nearest 

minute. 

(3) Location of each surface scan reading. The owner or 

operator must determine the coordinates using an instrument with 

an accuracy of at least 3 meters. Coordinates must be in decimal 

degrees with at least five decimal places. 

(4) Monitored methane concentration (parts per million) of 

each reading. 

(5) Background methane concentration (parts per million) 

after each instrument calibration test. 

(6) Adjusted methane concentration using most recent 

calibration (parts per million). 

(7) For readings taken at each surface penetration, the 

unique identification location label matching the label 

specified in § 60.39f(d). 

(h) Except as provided in § 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or 

operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must keep for 

at least 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible records of all 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 310 of 321 

collection and control system monitoring data for parameters 

measured in § 60.37f(a)(2) and (3). 

(i) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart 

that are submitted electronically via the EPA’s CDX may be 

maintained in electronic format. 

§ 60.40f Specifications for active collection systems. 

For approval, a State plan must include the specifications 

for active collection systems in this section. 

(a) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with § 

60.33f(b) must site active collection wells, horizontal 

collectors, surface collectors, or other extraction devices at a 

sufficient density throughout all gas producing areas using the 

following procedures unless alternative procedures have been 

approved by the Administrator. 

(1) The collection devices within the interior must be 

certified to achieve comprehensive control of surface gas 

emissions by a professional engineer. The following issues must 

be addressed in the design: depths of refuse, refuse gas 

generation rates and flow characteristics, cover properties, gas 

system expandability, leachate and condensate management, 

accessibility, compatibility with filling operations, 

integration with closure end use, air intrusion control, 

corrosion resistance, fill settlement, resistance to the refuse 

decomposition heat, and ability to isolate individual components 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 311 of 321 

or sections for repair or troubleshooting without shutting down 

entire collection system. 

(2) The sufficient density of gas collection devices 

determined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must address 

landfill gas migration issues and augmentation of the collection 

system through the use of active or passive systems at the 

landfill perimeter or exterior. 

(3) The placement of gas collection devices determined in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section must control all gas producing 

areas, except as provided by paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii) 

of this section. 

(i) Any segregated area of asbestos or nondegradable 

material may be excluded from collection if documented as 

provided under § 60.39f(d). The documentation must provide the 

nature, date of deposition, location and amount of asbestos or 

nondegradable material deposited in the area, and must be 

provided to the Administrator upon request. 

(ii) Any nonproductive area of the landfill may be excluded 

from control, provided that the total of all excluded areas can 

be shown to contribute less than 1 percent of the total amount 

of NMOC emissions from the landfill. The amount, location, and 

age of the material must be documented and provided to the 

Administrator upon request. A separate NMOC emissions estimate 

must be made for each section proposed for exclusion, and the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 312 of 321 

sum of all such sections must be compared to the NMOC emissions 

estimate for the entire landfill. 

(A) The NMOC emissions from each section proposed for 

exclusion must be computed using the following equation: 

 
 = 2



(

 )( )(3.6		10)

Where: 

Qi = NMOC emission rate from the ith section, megagrams 

per year. 

k = Methane generation rate constant, year−1. 

Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic meters per 

megagram solid waste. 

Mi = Mass of the degradable solid waste in the ith 

section, megagram. 

ti = Age of the solid waste in the ith section, years. 

CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, parts per million by volume. 

3.6×10−9 = Conversion factor. 

(B) If the owner/operator is proposing to exclude, or cease 

gas collection and control from, nonproductive physically 

separated (e.g., separately lined) closed areas that already 

have gas collection systems, NMOC emissions from each physically 

separated closed area must be computed using either the equation 

in § 60.35f or the equation in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A) of this 

section. 

(iii) The values for k and CNMOC determined in field 

testing must be used if field testing has been performed in 

determining the NMOC emission rate or the radii of influence 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 313 of 321 

(the distance from the well center to a point in the landfill 

where the pressure gradient applied by the blower or compressor 

approaches zero). If field testing has not been performed, the 

default values for k, Lo, and CNMOC provided in § 60.35f or the 

alternative values from § 60.35f must be used. The mass of 

nondegradable solid waste contained within the given section may 

be subtracted from the total mass of the section when estimating 

emissions provided the nature, location, age, and amount of the 

nondegradable material is documented as provided in paragraph 

(a)(3)(i) of this section. 

(b) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with § 

60.33f(b) must construct the gas collection devices using the 

following equipment or procedures: 

(1) The landfill gas extraction components must be 

constructed of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high density 

polyethylene (HDPE) pipe, fiberglass, stainless steel, or other 

nonporous corrosion resistant material of suitable dimensions 

to: convey projected amounts of gases; withstand installation, 

static, and settlement forces; and withstand planned overburden 

or traffic loads. The collection system must extend as necessary 

to comply with emission and migration standards. Collection 

devices such as wells and horizontal collectors must be 

perforated to allow gas entry without head loss sufficient to 

impair performance across the intended extent of control. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 314 of 321 

Perforations must be situated with regard to the need to prevent 

excessive air infiltration. 

(2) Vertical wells must be placed so as not to endanger 

underlying liners and must address the occurrence of water 

within the landfill. Holes and trenches constructed for piped 

wells and horizontal collectors must be of sufficient crosssection so as to allow for their proper construction and 

completion including, for example, centering of pipes and 

placement of gravel backfill. Collection devices must be 

designed so as not to allow indirect short circuiting of air 

into the cover or refuse into the collection system or gas into 

the air. Any gravel used around pipe perforations should be of a 

dimension so as not to penetrate or block perforations. 

(3) Collection devices may be connected to the collection 

header pipes below or above the landfill surface. The connector 

assembly must include a positive closing throttle valve, any 

necessary seals and couplings, access couplings and at least one 

sampling port. The collection devices must be constructed of 

PVC, HDPE, fiberglass, stainless steel, or other nonporous 

material of suitable thickness. 

(c) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with § 

60.33f(c) must convey the landfill gas to a control system in 

compliance with § 60.33f(c) through the collection header 

pipe(s). The gas mover equipment must be sized to handle the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 315 of 321 

maximum gas generation flow rate expected over the intended use 

period of the gas moving equipment using the following 

procedures: 

(1) For existing collection systems, the flow data must be 

used to project the maximum flow rate. If no flow data exist, 

the procedures in paragraph (c)(2) of this section must be used. 

(2) For new collection systems, the maximum flow rate must 

be in accordance with § 60.36f(a)(1). 

§ 60.41f Definitions. 

Terms used but not defined in this subpart have the meaning 

given them in the Clean Air Act and in subparts A and B of this 

part. 

Active collection system means a gas collection system that 

uses gas mover equipment. 

Active landfill means a landfill in which solid waste is 

being placed or a landfill that is planned to accept waste in 

the future. 

Administrator means the Administrator of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency or his/her authorized 

representative or the Administrator of a State Air Pollution 

Control Agency. 

Closed landfill means a landfill in which solid waste is no 

longer being placed, and in which no additional solid wastes 

will be placed without first filing a notification of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 316 of 321 

modification as prescribed under § 60.7(a)(4). Once a 

notification of modification has been filed, and additional 

solid waste is placed in the landfill, the landfill is no longer 

closed. 

Closed landfill subcategory means a closed landfill that 

has submitted a closure report as specified in § 60.38f(f) on or 

before [insert date of publication in the Federal Register]. 

Closure means that point in time when a landfill becomes a 

closed landfill. 

Commercial solid waste means all types of solid waste 

generated by stores, offices, restaurants, warehouses, and other 

nonmanufacturing activities, excluding residential and 

industrial wastes. 

Controlled landfill means any landfill at which collection 

and control systems are required under this subpart as a result 

of the NMOC emission rate. The landfill is considered controlled 

at the time a collection and control system design plan is 

submitted in compliance with § 60.33f(e)(2). 

Design capacity means the maximum amount of solid waste a 

landfill can accept, as indicated in terms of volume or mass in 

the most recent permit issued by the state, local, or tribal 

agency responsible for regulating the landfill, plus any inplace waste not accounted for in the most recent permit. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 317 of 321 

Disposal facility means all contiguous land and structures, 

other appurtenances, and improvements on the land used for the 

disposal of solid waste. 

Emission rate cutoff means the threshold annual emission 

rate to which a landfill compares its estimated emission rate to 

determine if control under the regulation is required. 

Enclosed combustor means an enclosed firebox which 

maintains a relatively constant limited peak temperature 

generally using a limited supply of combustion air. An enclosed 

flare is considered an enclosed combustor. 

Flare means an open combustor without enclosure or shroud. 

Gas mover equipment means the equipment (i.e., fan, blower, 

compressor) used to transport landfill gas through the header 

system. 

Household waste means any solid waste (including garbage, 

trash, and sanitary waste in septic tanks) derived from 

households (including, but not limited to, single and multiple 

residences, hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew 

quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, and day-use recreation 

areas). Household waste does not include fully segregated yard 

waste. Segregated yard waste means vegetative matter resulting 

exclusively from the cutting of grass, the pruning and/or 

removal of bushes, shrubs, and trees, the weeding of gardens, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 318 of 321 

and other landscaping maintenance activities. Household waste 

does not include construction, renovation, or demolition wastes. 

Industrial solid waste means solid waste generated by 

manufacturing or industrial processes that is not a hazardous 

waste regulated under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act, parts 264 and 265 of this title. Such waste 

may include, but is not limited to, waste resulting from the 

following manufacturing processes: electric power generation; 

fertilizer/agricultural chemicals; food and related products/byproducts; inorganic chemicals; iron and steel manufacturing; 

leather and leather products; nonferrous metals 

manufacturing/foundries; organic chemicals; plastics and resins 

manufacturing; pulp and paper industry; rubber and miscellaneous 

plastic products; stone, glass, clay, and concrete products; 

textile manufacturing; transportation equipment; and water 

treatment. This term does not include mining waste or oil and 

gas waste. 

Interior well means any well or similar collection 

component located inside the perimeter of the landfill waste. A 

perimeter well located outside the landfilled waste is not an 

interior well. 

Landfill means an area of land or an excavation in which 

wastes are placed for permanent disposal, and that is not a land 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 319 of 321 

application unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or waste 

pile as those terms are defined under §257.2 of this title. 

Lateral expansion means a horizontal expansion of the waste 

boundaries of an existing MSW landfill. A lateral expansion is 

not a modification unless it results in an increase in the 

design capacity of the landfill. 

Modification means an increase in the permitted volume 

design capacity of the landfill by either lateral or vertical 

expansion based on its permitted design capacity as of July 17, 

2014. Modification does not occur until the owner or operator 

commences construction on the lateral or vertical expansion. 

Municipal solid waste landfill or MSW landfill means an 

entire disposal facility in a contiguous geographical space 

where household waste is placed in or on land. An MSW landfill 

may also receive other types of RCRA Subtitle D wastes (§257.2 

of this title) such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous 

sludge, conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste, and 

industrial solid waste. Portions of an MSW landfill may be 

separated by access roads. An MSW landfill may be publicly or 

privately owned. An MSW landfill may be a new MSW landfill, an 

existing MSW landfill, or a lateral expansion. 

Municipal solid waste landfill emissions or MSW landfill 

emissions means gas generated by the decomposition of organic 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 320 of 321 

waste deposited in an MSW landfill or derived from the evolution 

of organic compounds in the waste. 

NMOC means nonmethane organic compounds, as measured 

according to the provisions of § 60.35f. 

Nondegradable waste means any waste that does not decompose 

through chemical breakdown or microbiological activity. Examples 

are, but are not limited to, concrete, municipal waste combustor 

ash, and metals. 

Passive collection system means a gas collection system 

that solely uses positive pressure within the landfill to move 

the gas rather than using gas mover equipment. 

Protectorate means American Samoa, the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern 

Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. 

Sludge means the term sludge as defined in 40 CFR 258.2. 

Solid waste means the term solid waste as defined in 40 CFR 

258.2. 

State means any of the 50 United States and the 

protectorates of the United States. 

State plan means a plan submitted pursuant to section 

111(d) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR part 60, subpart B that 

implements and enforces 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. 

Sufficient density means any number, spacing, and 

combination of collection system components, including vertical 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 321 of 321 

wells, horizontal collectors, and surface collectors, necessary 

to maintain emission and migration control as determined by 

measures of performance set forth in this part. 

Sufficient extraction rate means a rate sufficient to 

maintain a negative pressure at all wellheads in the collection 

system without causing air infiltration, including any wellheads 

connected to the system as a result of expansion or excess 

surface emissions, for the life of the blower. 

Treated landfill gas means landfill gas processed in a 

treatment system as defined in this subpart. 

Treatment system means a system that filters, de-waters, 

and compresses landfill gas for sale or beneficial use. 

Untreated landfill gas means any landfill gas that is not 

treated landfill gas. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

1 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA): Proposed Rule and Supplemental 

Proposal 

Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and Emission Guidelines 

and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and Accompanying RIA 

RINs 2060-AM08 and 2060-AS23 

General Comments 

1) Reviewer recommends that EPA provide estimates of costs and benefits for additional 

years. Given the nature of this rule, presenting only 2025 is likely to miss a significant 

portion of GCCS costs shifted forward, and doesn’t give a complete picture of the 

increase in costs due to extending GCCS maintenance. Reviewer recommends presenting 

2020, 2030, and 2040 as well to show how costs and benefits of the rule will evolve as 

existing landfills move to end of useful life. 

Response: We have provided a gas curve example to show how reductions change over 

time for a given landfill—see Appendix C to the memo “Revised Cost and Emissions 

Impacts Resulting from the Landfill EG Review.” We have also summarized the control 

cost and revenue from LFG energy recovery, emission reductions (NMOC, methane), and 

cost effectiveness for years 2020, 2030, and 2040. These results are all similar to the 

results presented for snapshot year 2025. These alternative years have been added to the 

RIA for the NSPS and Emission Guidelines. The RIA has been amended to include 

impacts for 2020, 2030, and 2040. 

2) Reviewer recommends clarifying in the rules why both standards are written in terms of 

non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs), however it aims to regulate both NMOCs 

and methane. Most of the language focuses on controlling for NMOCs but most of the 

benefits come from controlling methane. Reviewer recommends explaining in both rules 

why an NMOC standard regulating NMOCs is also an appropriate proxy for methane and 

how controlling for NMOCs also controls for methane. 

Response: Discussion appears in Section III.A of the EG preamble, as well as p.41800 of 

the 2014 NSPS supplemental proposal. Current NSPS is a supplement to the 2014 

proposal and therefore no changes are being made to the NSPS supplemental proposal. 

MSW landfill emissions are the designated pollutant for the EG and the regulated 

pollutant for the NSPS. MSW landfill emissions are commonly referred to as landfill gas 

and NMOC is measured as the surrogate for landfill gas in both the NSPS and EG. 

3) Reviewer recommends clarifying in the rules whether the cited 98% effectiveness of 

GCCS at destroying NMOCs (referenced throughout the rules) is also 98% effective at 

destroying methane. 

Response: See new statement on page ~69-70 (Section V.A.2) of preamble and the 

accompanying footnote that contains the following text. Note that the current NSPS 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

2 

supplements the 2014 NSPS proposal and does not contain this much detail on pollutants 

or destruction efficiency, therefore, no changes are being made to the current NSPS 

supplemental proposal. 

New footnote in preamble: Methane is more readily combustible than other organic 

compounds, thus methane generally has higher destruction (or control) efficiencies than 

other organic compounds such as NMOC and VOC. Therefore, although compliance with 

the landfills regulations is expressed as a percent reduction (or reduction to a level of 20 

ppmv) of NMOC, landfills that reduce NMOC by 98 percent reduce methane by a similar 

percentage. Two EPA programs use a 99 percent destruction efficiency for methane: the 

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013 and the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Program. In addition, the EPA’s AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors, Chapter 2.4 (1998), contains typical NMOC control efficiencies of 94-99+ for 

various devices used at landfills, including flares, internal combustion engines, 

boiler/steam turbines, and gas turbines. Draft updates (2008) to AP-42 contain typical 

NMOC control efficiencies for flares of 97.7 percent. Because methane is more readily 

combustible than NMOC, methane destruction efficiencies would be at least at this level. 

4) Reviewer requests additional information about the source of the projected emissions 

reductions. It would be useful to have access to model data used, including the inventory 

of existing sources and their projected emissions curves. Access to the modelling 

showing the emissions and cost lifecycles over time and the effect of changing the 

emissions threshold from 50 to 34, as well as the effect of the tier 4 alternative would be 

helpful. 

Response: A copy of the models with detailed landfill-specific estimates for 2014-2039 

were provided for various regulatory options under consideration. Impacts are based on 

modeled NMOC emission rate thresholds and not Tier 4 site-specific surface 

concentration thresholds. 

See 7/9/15 (9:20 AM) EPA to OMB email. Additional tier 4 info included in that 

communication. 

See 7/8/15 (12:10 PM) EPA to OMB email with memos entitled: “Updated Methodology 

for Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfill Regulations” and “Summary 

of Updated Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Impacts Analysis of Landfill 

Regulations”

5) Reviewer recommends clarification about why the small business screening analysis for 

the NSPS has been revised. If the screening analysis has been revised, reviewer requests 

the modelling or data that supports this new screening analysis. 

Response: The screening analysis was revised to incorporate additional landfills that are 

projected to modify and become subject to the NSPS. The screening analysis is in 

DRAFT Screening Analysis EG NSPS Proposals 042915.xlsx 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

3 

6) Reviewer recommends providing for more time for existing facilities to close to be 

included in the closed facility subcategory. The reasoning behind this subcategory would 

apply equally well to facilities close to the end of their useful life. Because of the time it 

will take to implement changes to the emissions guidelines, reviewer recommends that 

EPA propose included facilities that within 13 months after the publication of the final 

emission guidelines (a period of time likely before the first SIPs would be approved) for 

facilities to close and be included in the closed subcategory. 

Response: The EPA believes that the closed landfill subcategory is appropriately defined. 

The last paragraph of Section VIII.A of Emission Guidelines preamble, however broadly 

covers this issue. “The EPA is requesting input on whether the proposed subcategory for 

closed landfills is the most appropriate method for controlling emissions and addressing 

concerns with closed landfills, or whether the EPA should consider exempting closed 

landfills from the proposed subpart Cf entirely. The EPA is also requesting comments on 

whether additional provisions should be considered for closed landfills when establishing 

the revised Emission Guidelines.” Nevertheless, language has been added to the preamble 

(page ~63, Section IV.D.1) to specifically request comment on expanding the closed 

landfills subcategory to include those landfills that closed within 13 months after 

publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. 

7) Reviewer recommends including broader language (beyond combustion and chemical 

manufacturing) in the below sentence on page 17 of the emission guidelines to clarify 

that treated landfill gas can be used in a variety of ways including vehicle fuel, 

production of high-Btu gas for pipeline injection, and other beneficial uses. 

“The proposed definition allows the level of treatment to be tailored to the type and 

design of the specific combustion equipment or chemical manufacturing process in 

which the landfill gas is used.” 

Response: See edit on page 17 of the Emission Guidelines preamble. 

8) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether, in practice, treated landfill gas was limited to 

use as a fuel for stationary construction devices in advance of this rule’s proposed 

changes. 

Response: No, there was no limitation. Subpart WWW simply says treat “for subsequent 

sale or use.” Commenters on the 2006 proposed amendments requested this change to 

expand the use of treated LFG. According to the EPA LMOP database (another data 

source used for our analysis as outlined in the memo: “Summary of Updated Landfill 

Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Impacts Analysis of Landfill Regulations”), in 

practice, other beneficial uses of landfill gas such as for direct use at manufacturing or 

other facilities have been occurring for many years. 

9) Reviewer recommends providing additional information on whether EPA anticipates that 

these rulemakings will change long-term landfill behavior. Does EPA project that any 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

4 

landfills will install GCCS that would not have done so in the absence of the emissions 

guidelines or engage in beneficial use of LFG or change their anticipated beneficial use? 

Response: Including additional information on how we anticipate the rule would affect 

long-term landfill behavior would be speculation. According to the regulatory model, in 

2025, option 2.5/34 requires control at an additional 106 active landfills (142 total 

landfills, including closed). Across the period of 2025-2063, the 2.5/34 threshold is 

expected to require controls at 72 landfills that are open as of July 2015 that would not 

require controls under the baseline 2.5/50. 

Section V.C.2 of the EG preamble also highlights other programs that achieve emissions 

reductions from landfills for various reasons. 

10) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether an owner or operator who must maintain a sitespecific treatment system monitoring plan must revise the plan if the intended end use of 

the treated LFG changes. See page 17 of the emissions guidelines. 

Response: Yes. See page ~168 of EG preamble Section IX.A. Because the site-specific 

treatment plan is closely tied to the end use of the treated LFG, the owner or operator 

would revise the plan if the intended use of LFG changes. 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. 

a. Reviewer also recommends clarifying what happens if the actual end use of 

the LFG differs from the “intended” end use detailed in the plan. 

Response: Because the site-specific treatment plan is closely tied to the end 

use of the treated LFG, the owner or operator would revise the plan if the 

intended use of LFG changes. 

11) Reviewer recommends editing the sentence on page 29 EG about NMOC containing air 

pollutants that pose more concern due to adverse effects on health and welfare. Since this 

rule focuses on greenhouse gas and aligns with the Climate Action Plan, it seems odd to 

call methane less concerning. 

Response: See edit on p. ~30 in Section III.A of EG preamble. 

12) Reviewer recommends clarifying how, if EPA did not receive new data on the NMOC 

destruction of energy recovery devices, do the cost/benefit estimates assume earnings 

from energy recovery from these devices? 

Response: EPA requested but did not receive any new data. See the memo Revised 

Methodology for Cost and Emission Impacts of Landfill Regulations, 2015. A 98 percent 

destruction efficiency is applied to any landfill expected to control emissions, regardless 

of the combustion equipment used in analysis (i.e., flare or reciprocating engine). 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

5 

13) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 92 EG why emissions will be higher in 2025 

just because the “majority of landfills in the dataset are expected to remain open”. An 

estimate of the number of new landfills expected from 2014-2025 would be helpful here. 

Or are the emissions cumulative rather than annual? 

Response: Landfills opening after 2014 are NSPS sources and not Emission Guidelines 

sources and emissions from those NSPS sources are not included in the EG notice. The 

potential uncontrolled emissions from EG sources in 2025 are higher because waste 

disposal rates are projected to increase and emissions from landfills are based on 

cumulative waste disposed over time. Generally the emissions profile of each landfill 

does not peak until the landfill stops accepting waste. 

14) Reviewer recommends clarifying throughout the rules which cost/benefit discussions are 

for the status quo and which are for the proposed rule. Recommend deleting any 

estimates for other scenarios or options or at least clarifying that they are not currently in 

place or proposed. 

Response: Baseline is status quo. Standard practice is to present options as alternatives to 

the baseline. Each option in Table 3 of EG preamble (Table 1 of NSPS preamble) and 

preamble narrative surrounding those tables and in the impacts section of the EG is 

clearly labeled. 

15) Reviewer recommends clarifying why EPA is proposing to choose option 2.5/34, which 

based on the cost comparison tables seems to have the highest cost per Mg NMOC and 

methane of the options considered. 

Response: NSPS – See text in preamble just before Table 1. 

We have added additional text to page ~122 of the EG preamble to include the benefits of 

this threshold and referenced section XI.G of the preamble. 

16) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 20 of the EG how EPA would maintain a 

recordkeeping and reporting requirement for landfills owners or operators to estimate 

emissions during periods of SSM. 

Response: Page 20 of the EG preamble contains a short summary of SSM. The expanded 

discussion appears in Sections IV.E and IX.B of the EG preamble. Further, a discussion 

on p.181 highlights methods to estimate emissions and clarifies that landfill 

owner/operators would maintain records and report information in the annual compliance 

report. 

The requirement to estimate emissions during periods of SSM is a new standard 

requirement based on court decisions and subsequent EPA guidance. See EG 

60.39f(c)(5): Each owner or operator of a landfill seeking to comply with § 60.33f(e) 

using an active collection system designed in accordance with § 60.33f(b) must keep 

records of estimates of NMOC emissions for periods when the collection system or 

control device is not operating. LF owners/operators must maintain records on site. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

6 

Technical Comments 

1) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 15 of the NSPS EPA’s response to public 

comments received about whether landfills subject to the lower NMOC threshold may 

lose potential carbon credit revenue from voluntary projects and about difficulty with 

maintaining a flare in arid areas. As written, these are identified as concerns but are not 

addressed. 

Response: EPA’s approach in developing the preamble to the proposals was to 

summarize some of the relevant comments. We will respond formally as part of the final 

rules. 

Carbon Credits: The objective of section 111 of the CAA is to establish performance 

standards representing the best system of emission reductions for the designated pollutant 

of each subcategory. Carbon credit markets are complementary to regulatory programs, 

but do not replace EPA’s obligation to implement and periodically update, as necessary 

the NSPS and Emission Guidelines. Carbon credits seek to promote additional reductions 

based on market-pricing of GHG emission reductions from projects that are occurring 

beyond those required by regulation or those needing funding sources in addition to 

energy recovery credits (electricity sales, renewable energy credits (RECs)). These 

credits would still be available to landfills below the thresholds in today’s proposal. 

Further, the Climate Action Reserve (CAR) updated its landfill protocol to introduce a 

performance standard size threshold (PSST) of 2.17 million metric tons in arid areas and 

0.72 million metric tons for landfills in non-air areas that are recovering energy. When 

the protocol was updated, CAR recognized that landfills below the current size threshold 

of 2.5 million Mg were installing voluntary LFG energy systems in the absence of carbon 

credits.1 Thus, it is already the case the many landfills below NSPS/EG thresholds cannot 

quality for carbon credits. 

Difficulty of maintaining flare in arid areas: See page ~107-108 of preamble and section 

VIII.B of preamble, which propose a site-specific surface emissions alternative for 

determining when to require controls, thus providing some operational flexibility. 

2) Reviewer recommends clarifying why, if operational standards for temperature and 

nitrogen/oxygen no longer apply at the wellheads in order to trigger corrective action, are 

owners/operators still required to monitor for these. See page 19 of the emissions 

guidelines and elsewhere in the rule. 

a. Reviewer recommends eliminating the monitoring/recordkeeping requirements for 

these standards, and instead framing their use instead as a way to ensure effective use 

of the GCCS, and a preferable component of a site-specific operating plan. 

Response: See page ~19 of preamble. Landfill owners/operators already monitor 

GCCS parameters in order “to inform any necessary adjustments to the GCCS.” 

Industry already collects this information under the current NSPS and EG. Also, 

 

1

 http://www.climateactionreserve.org/wpcontent/uploads/2009/03/U.S._LFPP_Performance_Standard_Analysis_Update_2013.pdf 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

7 

requiring these records for inspectors could help target areas with underperforming 

GCCS. 

3) Reviewer recommends clarifying how the third requirement for removing GCCS (page 

19 EG) would work. That is, does an owner/operator have to show that there would be no 

surface methane emissions of 500 ppm or greater without the GCCS or only that there are 

no such SEMs with the GCSS operating? 

Response: The requirement is to keep surface emissions below 500 ppm. If the owner or 

operator has surface emissions above 500 ppm, whether they are preparing to install or 

preparing to remove a GCCS for the purposes of the NSPS/Emission Guidelines, then the 

owner or operator must either install or simply cannot remove the GCCS. So, the 

requirement to keep surface emissions below 500 ppm is with or without the GCCS 

operating. 

4) Reviewer recommends clarifying the section on page 41 EG, where the sentence about 

“wet areas getting wetter and dry regions getting drier” is immediately preceded by a 

sentence anticipating “substantial shifts in where precipitation falls”. These seem to be in 

conflict. 

Response: EPA does not see a conflict between the two sentences. Rain moving from 

already dry regions to wet regions is consistent with “substantial shifts in where 

precipitation falls.” The point of these two sentences is that annual global averages do not 

tell the full story, and the language used is very similar to that used in the NCA. 

The exact NCA3 quote is: “Projections of future changes in precipitation show small 

increases in the global average but substantial shifts in where and how precipitation falls. 

Generally, areas closest to the poles are projected to receive more precipitation, while the 

dry subtropics (the region just outside the tropics, between 23° and 35° on either side of 

the equator) expand toward the poles and receive less rain.” 

5) Reviewer recommends clarifying table 2 on page 94 EG. Does the “baseline” refer to the 

existing emissions guidelines threshold or the one proposed in this rule? It is unclear what 

threshold/controls the anticipated reductions are tied to. 

Response: This is a review of an existing action. Thus, the baseline represents reductions 

that are achieved under the current rules (i.e., the state plans and federal plan currently 

implementing the EG (40 CFR part 60 subpart Cc)). This is standard practice. 

6) Reviewer recommends clarifying the cost language on pages 117 and 118 EG. As 

written, it sounds like a fraction of the costs will be borne by “open landfills” and a larger 

cost for all landfills. Does this mean that “closed” landfills will bear a greater proportion 

of the costs? Why? 

Response: See edits at page ~118 of the EG preamble Section V.E. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

8 

7) Reviewer recommends clarifying that the additional 22 and additional 36 landfills 

referred to on page 156 EG are all closed landfills. 

Response: Yes, these are closed landfills. 22+29 = 51 closed LFs for 2.5/40; 36 + 29 = 65 

closed landfills. See new footnotes on page ~159 of preamble. 

8) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 180 EG any potential hazards of closing vents 

during an uncontrolled gas event. 

Response: Landfills have a general duty under the General Provisions to minimize 

emissions p. 180: “Compliance with proposed 40 CFR 60.34f(e) is necessary to 

demonstrate compliance with the general duty to minimize emissions in 40 CFR 60.11(d) 

during control or collection system malfunctions.” Operators of GCCS have the ability to 

shut down the gas mover systems and the main header valves to prevent passive “free” 

venting of LFG. LFG control devices (flares, engines, treatment systems, etc.) are 

designed to protect the integrity of the equipment and to prevent free venting of raw LFG 

during a malfunction. Landfill owners/operators that beneficially use LFG are motivated 

to keep the GCCS operating to continue the beneficial use or sale, thus they will 

minimize downtime. When the GCCS is not operating and valves are closed off, LFG has 

the potential to build up in the landfill over time. Thus, landfill owners/operators are 

motivated to repair and restart the GCCS to prevent uncontrolled emissions of LFG. 

9) Reviewer recommends clarifying why one of the potential requirements on page 198 EG 

is to restrict team members to those who have not previously performed work for the 

respondents, including how this might affect affected landfills in more remote or rural 

areas. 

Response: The reason for this provision generally is to avoid conflicts of interest in third 

party verifiers. While the issue of rural/remote facilities is not specifically addressed, we 

have raised some alternative approaches for comment where having strict independence 

criteria could result in an insufficient number of verifiers to implement the rule. 

10) Reviewer recommends adding “of control devices” after “periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction” on page 20 and 65 of the EG. 

Response: The next sentence on pages 20 and 65 includes gas collection system or 

control device, thus no changes were made to preamble. 

Typographical Comments 

1) Reviewer recommends adding a citation for the sentence including the phrase “evidence 

indicates that the increases in heat mortality...” (see page 33 EG) 

Response: EPA notes that pages 33-35 are a summary of the 2009 Endangerment Finding 

(which itself summarizes the assessment literature), and therefore inserting citations in 

the middle of the summary would not be appropriate. The statements from pages 35-50 

reference in text the assessments (NCA3, NRC, or IPCC) from which they were taken. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

9 

EPA has updated the first sentence of this section to make clear the information comes 

from the Endangerment Finding. 

2) Reviewer recommends increased reliance on citations in the climate change section 

(pages from approximately 20-50 EG). 

Response: EPA notes that pages 33-35 are a summary of the 2009 Endangerment Finding 

(which itself summarizes the assessment literature), and therefore inserting citations in 

the middle of the summary would not be appropriate. The statements from pages 35-50 

reference in text the assessments (NCA3, NRC, or IPCC) from which they were taken. 

EPA has updated the first sentence of this section to make clear the information comes 

from the Endangerment Finding. 

3) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 108 EG that the proposed rule would “reduce” 

methane. As written, it says “achieve” methane. Could also say “achieve methane 

reductions of...” 

Response: See edit on page ~110 of preamble. 

4) Reviewer notes that the email address for OIRA on page 232 EG is incorrect. 

Response: We have the email address from the PRA template. If there is a different 

address please send us that information. Also address includes an underscore which 

cannot be seen in the preamble text due to underlining. 

5) Reviewer recommends citing the assertion on page 34 of the emissions guidelines (and 

NSPS where appropriate) that climate change is “very likely to fundamentally rearrange 

U.S. ecosystems over the 21st century.” 

Response: EPA notes that pages 33-35 are a summary of the 2009 Endangerment Finding 

(which itself summarizes the assessment literature), and therefore inserting citations in 

the middle of the summary would not be appropriate. The statements from pages 35-50 

reference in text the assessments (NCA3, NRC, or IPCC) from which they were taken. 

EPA has updated the first sentence of this section to make clear the information comes 

from the Endangerment Finding. 

6) Reviewer recommends replacing the word “of” with “on” on page 54 EG in the sentence 

including “...several items to minimize the burden...” 

Response: See edit on page ~54 of EG preamble.

RIA Comments to follow. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

1 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA): Proposed Rule and Supplemental 

Proposal 

Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and Emission Guidelines 

and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and Accompanying RIA 

RINs 2060-AM08 and 2060-AS23 

General Comments 

1) Reviewer recommends that EPA provide estimates of costs and benefits for additional 

years. Given the nature of this rule, presenting only 2025 is likely to miss a significant 

portion of GCCS costs shifted forward, and doesn’t give a complete picture of the 

increase in costs due to extending GCCS maintenance. Reviewer recommends presenting 

2020, 2030, and 2040 as well to show how costs and benefits of the rule will evolve as 

existing landfills move to end of useful life. 

Response: We have provided a gas curve example to show how reductions change over 

time for a given landfill—see Appendix C to the memo “Revised Cost and Emissions 

Impacts Resulting from the Landfill EG Review.” We have also summarized the control 

cost and revenue from LFG energy recovery, emission reductions (NMOC, methane), and 

cost effectiveness for years 2020, 2030, and 2040. These results are all similar to the 

results presented for snapshot year 2025. Results from alternative snapshot years 2020, 

2030, and 2040 are now included in Sections 3.6, 4.6, and 7.8 of the RIA. 

2) Reviewer recommends clarifying in the rules why both standards are written in terms of 

non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs), however it aims to regulate both NMOCs 

and methane. Most of the language focuses on controlling for NMOCs but most of the 

benefits come from controlling methane. Reviewer recommends explaining in both rules 

why an NMOC standard regulating NMOCs is also an appropriate proxy for methane and 

how controlling for NMOCs also controls for methane. 

Response: Discussion appears in Section III.A of the EG preamble, as well as p.41800 of 

the 2014 NSPS supplemental proposal. Current NSPS is a supplement to the 2014 

proposal and therefore no changes are being made to the NSPS supplemental proposal. 

MSW landfill emissions are the designated pollutant for the EG and the regulated 

pollutant for the NSPS. MSW landfill emissions are commonly referred to as landfill gas 

and NMOC is measured as the surrogate for landfill gas in both the NSPS and EG. 

3) Reviewer recommends clarifying in the rules whether the cited 98% effectiveness of 

GCCS at destroying NMOCs (referenced throughout the rules) is also 98% effective at 

destroying methane. 

Response: See new statement on page ~69-70 (Section V.A.2) of preamble and the 

accompanying footnote that contains the following text. Note that the current NSPS 

supplements the 2014 NSPS proposal and does not contain this much detail on pollutants 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

2 

or destruction efficiency, therefore, no changes are being made to the current NSPS 

supplemental proposal. 

New footnote in preamble: Methane is more readily combustible than other organic 

compounds, thus methane generally has higher destruction (or control) efficiencies than 

other organic compounds such as NMOC and VOC. Therefore, although compliance with 

the landfills regulations is expressed as a percent reduction (or reduction to a level of 20 

ppmv) of NMOC, landfills that reduce NMOC by 98 percent reduce methane by a similar 

percentage. Two EPA programs use a 99 percent destruction efficiency for methane: the 

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013 and the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Program. In addition, the EPA’s AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors, Chapter 2.4 (1998), contains typical NMOC control efficiencies of 94-99+ for 

various devices used at landfills, including flares, internal combustion engines, 

boiler/steam turbines, and gas turbines. Draft updates (2008) to AP-42 contain typical 

NMOC control efficiencies for flares of 97.7 percent. Because methane is more readily 

combustible than NMOC, methane destruction efficiencies would be at least at this level. 

4) Reviewer requests additional information about the source of the projected emissions 

reductions. It would be useful to have access to model data used, including the inventory 

of existing sources and their projected emissions curves. Access to the modelling 

showing the emissions and cost lifecycles over time and the effect of changing the 

emissions threshold from 50 to 34, as well as the effect of the tier 4 alternative would be 

helpful. 

Response: A copy of the models with detailed landfill-specific estimates for 2014-2039 

were provided for various regulatory options under consideration. Impacts are based on 

modeled NMOC emission rate thresholds and not Tier 4 site-specific surface 

concentration thresholds. 

See 7/9/15 (9:20 AM) EPA to OMB email. Additional tier 4 info included in that 

communication. 

See 7/8/15 (12:10 PM) EPA to OMB email with memos entitled: “Updated Methodology 

for Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfill Regulations” and “Summary 

of Updated Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Impacts Analysis of Landfill 

Regulations”

5) Reviewer recommends clarification about why the small business screening analysis for 

the NSPS has been revised. If the screening analysis has been revised, reviewer requests 

the modelling or data that supports this new screening analysis. 

Response: The screening analysis was revised to incorporate additional landfills that are 

projected to modify and become subject to the NSPS. The screening analysis is in 

DRAFT Screening Analysis EG NSPS Proposals 042915.xlsx 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

3 

6) Reviewer recommends providing for more time for existing facilities to close to be 

included in the closed facility subcategory. The reasoning behind this subcategory would 

apply equally well to facilities close to the end of their useful life. Because of the time it 

will take to implement changes to the emissions guidelines, reviewer recommends that 

EPA propose included facilities that within 13 months after the publication of the final 

emission guidelines (a period of time likely before the first SIPs would be approved) for 

facilities to close and be included in the closed subcategory. 

Response: The EPA believes that the closed landfill subcategory is appropriately defined. 

The last paragraph of Section VIII.A of Emission Guidelines preamble, however broadly 

covers this issue. “The EPA is requesting input on whether the proposed subcategory for 

closed landfills is the most appropriate method for controlling emissions and addressing 

concerns with closed landfills, or whether the EPA should consider exempting closed 

landfills from the proposed subpart Cf entirely. The EPA is also requesting comments on 

whether additional provisions should be considered for closed landfills when establishing 

the revised Emission Guidelines.” Nevertheless, language has been added to the preamble 

(page ~63, Section IV.D.1) to specifically request comment on expanding the closed 

landfills subcategory to include those landfills that closed within 13 months after 

publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. 

7) Reviewer recommends including broader language (beyond combustion and chemical 

manufacturing) in the below sentence on page 17 of the emission guidelines to clarify 

that treated landfill gas can be used in a variety of ways including vehicle fuel, 

production of high-Btu gas for pipeline injection, and other beneficial uses. 

“The proposed definition allows the level of treatment to be tailored to the type and 

design of the specific combustion equipment or chemical manufacturing process in 

which the landfill gas is used.” 

Response: See edit on page 17 of the Emission Guidelines preamble. 

8) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether, in practice, treated landfill gas was limited to 

use as a fuel for stationary construction devices in advance of this rule’s proposed 

changes. 

Response: No, there was no limitation. Subpart WWW simply says treat “for subsequent 

sale or use.” Commenters on the 2006 proposed amendments requested this change to 

expand the use of treated LFG. According to the EPA LMOP database (another data 

source used for our analysis as outlined in the memo: “Summary of Updated Landfill 

Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Impacts Analysis of Landfill Regulations”), in 

practice, other beneficial uses of landfill gas such as for direct use at manufacturing or 

other facilities have been occurring for many years. 

9) Reviewer recommends providing additional information on whether EPA anticipates that 

these rulemakings will change long-term landfill behavior. Does EPA project that any 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

4 

landfills will install GCCS that would not have done so in the absence of the emissions 

guidelines or engage in beneficial use of LFG or change their anticipated beneficial use? 

Response: Including additional information on how we anticipate the rule would affect 

long-term landfill behavior would be speculation. According to the regulatory model, in 

2025, option 2.5/34 requires control at an additional 106 active landfills (142 total 

landfills, including closed). Across the period of 2025-2063, the 2.5/34 threshold is 

expected to require controls at 72 landfills that are open as of July 2015 that would not 

require controls under the baseline 2.5/50. 

Section V.C.2 of the EG preamble also highlights other programs that achieve emissions 

reductions from landfills for various reasons. 

10) Reviewer recommends clarifying whether an owner or operator who must maintain a sitespecific treatment system monitoring plan must revise the plan if the intended end use of 

the treated LFG changes. See page 17 of the emissions guidelines. 

Response: Yes. See page ~168 of EG preamble Section IX.A. Because the site-specific 

treatment plan is closely tied to the end use of the treated LFG, the owner or operator 

would revise the plan if the intended use of LFG changes. 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. 

a. Reviewer also recommends clarifying what happens if the actual end use of 

the LFG differs from the “intended” end use detailed in the plan. 

Response: Because the site-specific treatment plan is closely tied to the end 

use of the treated LFG, the owner or operator would revise the plan if the 

intended use of LFG changes. 

11) Reviewer recommends editing the sentence on page 29 EG about NMOC containing air 

pollutants that pose more concern due to adverse effects on health and welfare. Since this 

rule focuses on greenhouse gas and aligns with the Climate Action Plan, it seems odd to 

call methane less concerning. 

Response: See edit on p. ~30 in Section III.A of EG preamble. 

12) Reviewer recommends clarifying how, if EPA did not receive new data on the NMOC 

destruction of energy recovery devices, do the cost/benefit estimates assume earnings 

from energy recovery from these devices? 

Response: EPA requested but did not receive any new data. See the memo Revised 

Methodology for Cost and Emission Impacts of Landfill Regulations, 2015. A 98 percent 

destruction efficiency is applied to any landfill expected to control emissions, regardless 

of the combustion equipment used in analysis (i.e., flare or reciprocating engine). 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

5 

13) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 92 EG why emissions will be higher in 2025 

just because the “majority of landfills in the dataset are expected to remain open”. An 

estimate of the number of new landfills expected from 2014-2025 would be helpful here. 

Or are the emissions cumulative rather than annual? 

Response: Landfills opening after 2014 are NSPS sources and not Emission Guidelines 

sources and emissions from those NSPS sources are not included in the EG notice. The 

potential uncontrolled emissions from EG sources in 2025 are higher because waste 

disposal rates are projected to increase and emissions from landfills are based on 

cumulative waste disposed over time. Generally the emissions profile of each landfill 

does not peak until the landfill stops accepting waste. 

14) Reviewer recommends clarifying throughout the rules which cost/benefit discussions are 

for the status quo and which are for the proposed rule. Recommend deleting any 

estimates for other scenarios or options or at least clarifying that they are not currently in 

place or proposed. 

Response: Baseline is status quo. Standard practice is to present options as alternatives to 

the baseline. Each option in Table 3 of EG preamble (Table 1 of NSPS preamble) and 

preamble narrative surrounding those tables and in the impacts section of the EG is 

clearly labeled. 

15) Reviewer recommends clarifying why EPA is proposing to choose option 2.5/34, which 

based on the cost comparison tables seems to have the highest cost per Mg NMOC and 

methane of the options considered. 

Response: NSPS – See text in preamble just before Table 1. 

We have added additional text to page ~122 of the EG preamble to include the benefits of 

this threshold and referenced section XI.G of the preamble. 

16) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 20 of the EG how EPA would maintain a 

recordkeeping and reporting requirement for landfills owners or operators to estimate 

emissions during periods of SSM. 

Response: Page 20 of the EG preamble contains a short summary of SSM. The expanded 

discussion appears in Sections IV.E and IX.B of the EG preamble. Further, a discussion 

on p.181 highlights methods to estimate emissions and clarifies that landfill 

owner/operators would maintain records and report information in the annual compliance 

report. 

The requirement to estimate emissions during periods of SSM is a new standard 

requirement based on court decisions and subsequent EPA guidance. See EG 

60.39f(c)(5): Each owner or operator of a landfill seeking to comply with § 60.33f(e) 

using an active collection system designed in accordance with § 60.33f(b) must keep 

records of estimates of NMOC emissions for periods when the collection system or 

control device is not operating. LF owners/operators must maintain records on site. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

6 

Technical Comments 

1) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 15 of the NSPS EPA’s response to public 

comments received about whether landfills subject to the lower NMOC threshold may 

lose potential carbon credit revenue from voluntary projects and about difficulty with 

maintaining a flare in arid areas. As written, these are identified as concerns but are not 

addressed. 

Response: EPA’s approach in developing the preamble to the proposals was to 

summarize some of the relevant comments. We will respond formally as part of the final 

rules. 

Carbon Credits: The objective of section 111 of the CAA is to establish performance 

standards representing the best system of emission reductions for the designated pollutant 

of each subcategory. Carbon credit markets are complementary to regulatory programs, 

but do not replace EPA’s obligation to implement and periodically update, as necessary 

the NSPS and Emission Guidelines. Carbon credits seek to promote additional reductions 

based on market-pricing of GHG emission reductions from projects that are occurring 

beyond those required by regulation or those needing funding sources in addition to 

energy recovery credits (electricity sales, renewable energy credits (RECs)). These 

credits would still be available to landfills below the thresholds in today’s proposal. 

Further, the Climate Action Reserve (CAR) updated its landfill protocol to introduce a 

performance standard size threshold (PSST) of 2.17 million metric tons in arid areas and 

0.72 million metric tons for landfills in non-air areas that are recovering energy. When 

the protocol was updated, CAR recognized that landfills below the current size threshold 

of 2.5 million Mg were installing voluntary LFG energy systems in the absence of carbon 

credits.1 Thus, it is already the case the many landfills below NSPS/EG thresholds cannot 

quality for carbon credits. 

Difficulty of maintaining flare in arid areas: See page ~107-108 of preamble and section 

VIII.B of preamble, which propose a site-specific surface emissions alternative for 

determining when to require controls, thus providing some operational flexibility. 

2) Reviewer recommends clarifying why, if operational standards for temperature and 

nitrogen/oxygen no longer apply at the wellheads in order to trigger corrective action, are 

owners/operators still required to monitor for these. See page 19 of the emissions 

guidelines and elsewhere in the rule. 

a. Reviewer recommends eliminating the monitoring/recordkeeping requirements for 

these standards, and instead framing their use instead as a way to ensure effective use 

of the GCCS, and a preferable component of a site-specific operating plan. 

Response: See page ~19 of preamble. Landfill owners/operators already monitor 

GCCS parameters in order “to inform any necessary adjustments to the GCCS.” 

Industry already collects this information under the current NSPS and EG. Also, 

 

1

 http://www.climateactionreserve.org/wpcontent/uploads/2009/03/U.S._LFPP_Performance_Standard_Analysis_Update_2013.pdf 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

7 

requiring these records for inspectors could help target areas with underperforming 

GCCS. 

3) Reviewer recommends clarifying how the third requirement for removing GCCS (page 

19 EG) would work. That is, does an owner/operator have to show that there would be no 

surface methane emissions of 500 ppm or greater without the GCCS or only that there are 

no such SEMs with the GCSS operating? 

Response: The requirement is to keep surface emissions below 500 ppm. If the owner or 

operator has surface emissions above 500 ppm, whether they are preparing to install or 

preparing to remove a GCCS for the purposes of the NSPS/Emission Guidelines, then the 

owner or operator must either install or simply cannot remove the GCCS. So, the 

requirement to keep surface emissions below 500 ppm is with or without the GCCS 

operating. 

4) Reviewer recommends clarifying the section on page 41 EG, where the sentence about 

“wet areas getting wetter and dry regions getting drier” is immediately preceded by a 

sentence anticipating “substantial shifts in where precipitation falls”. These seem to be in 

conflict. 

Response: EPA does not see a conflict between the two sentences. Rain moving from 

already dry regions to wet regions is consistent with “substantial shifts in where 

precipitation falls.” The point of these two sentences is that annual global averages do not 

tell the full story, and the language used is very similar to that used in the NCA. 

The exact NCA3 quote is: “Projections of future changes in precipitation show small 

increases in the global average but substantial shifts in where and how precipitation falls. 

Generally, areas closest to the poles are projected to receive more precipitation, while the 

dry subtropics (the region just outside the tropics, between 23° and 35° on either side of 

the equator) expand toward the poles and receive less rain.” 

5) Reviewer recommends clarifying table 2 on page 94 EG. Does the “baseline” refer to the 

existing emissions guidelines threshold or the one proposed in this rule? It is unclear what 

threshold/controls the anticipated reductions are tied to. 

Response: This is a review of an existing action. Thus, the baseline represents reductions 

that are achieved under the current rules (i.e., the state plans and federal plan currently 

implementing the EG (40 CFR part 60 subpart Cc)). This is standard practice. 

6) Reviewer recommends clarifying the cost language on pages 117 and 118 EG. As 

written, it sounds like a fraction of the costs will be borne by “open landfills” and a larger 

cost for all landfills. Does this mean that “closed” landfills will bear a greater proportion 

of the costs? Why? 

Response: See edits at page ~118 of the EG preamble Section V.E. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

8 

7) Reviewer recommends clarifying that the additional 22 and additional 36 landfills 

referred to on page 156 EG are all closed landfills. 

Response: Yes, these are closed landfills. 22+29 = 51 closed LFs for 2.5/40; 36 + 29 = 65 

closed landfills. See new footnotes on page ~159 of preamble. 

8) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 180 EG any potential hazards of closing vents 

during an uncontrolled gas event. 

Response: Landfills have a general duty under the General Provisions to minimize 

emissions p. 180: “Compliance with proposed 40 CFR 60.34f(e) is necessary to 

demonstrate compliance with the general duty to minimize emissions in 40 CFR 60.11(d) 

during control or collection system malfunctions.” Operators of GCCS have the ability to 

shut down the gas mover systems and the main header valves to prevent passive “free” 

venting of LFG. LFG control devices (flares, engines, treatment systems, etc.) are 

designed to protect the integrity of the equipment and to prevent free venting of raw LFG 

during a malfunction. Landfill owners/operators that beneficially use LFG are motivated 

to keep the GCCS operating to continue the beneficial use or sale, thus they will 

minimize downtime. When the GCCS is not operating and valves are closed off, LFG has 

the potential to build up in the landfill over time. Thus, landfill owners/operators are 

motivated to repair and restart the GCCS to prevent uncontrolled emissions of LFG. 

9) Reviewer recommends clarifying why one of the potential requirements on page 198 EG 

is to restrict team members to those who have not previously performed work for the 

respondents, including how this might affect affected landfills in more remote or rural 

areas. 

Response: The reason for this provision generally is to avoid conflicts of interest in third 

party verifiers. While the issue of rural/remote facilities is not specifically addressed, we 

have raised some alternative approaches for comment where having strict independence 

criteria could result in an insufficient number of verifiers to implement the rule. 

10) Reviewer recommends adding “of control devices” after “periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction” on page 20 and 65 of the EG. 

Response: The next sentence on pages 20 and 65 includes gas collection system or 

control device, thus no changes were made to preamble. 

Typographical Comments 

1) Reviewer recommends adding a citation for the sentence including the phrase “evidence 

indicates that the increases in heat mortality...” (see page 33 EG) 

Response: EPA notes that pages 33-35 are a summary of the 2009 Endangerment Finding 

(which itself summarizes the assessment literature), and therefore inserting citations in 

the middle of the summary would not be appropriate. The statements from pages 35-50 

reference in text the assessments (NCA3, NRC, or IPCC) from which they were taken. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

9 

EPA has updated the first sentence of this section to make clear the information comes 

from the Endangerment Finding. 

2) Reviewer recommends increased reliance on citations in the climate change section 

(pages from approximately 20-50 EG). 

Response: EPA notes that pages 33-35 are a summary of the 2009 Endangerment Finding 

(which itself summarizes the assessment literature), and therefore inserting citations in 

the middle of the summary would not be appropriate. The statements from pages 35-50 

reference in text the assessments (NCA3, NRC, or IPCC) from which they were taken. 

EPA has updated the first sentence of this section to make clear the information comes 

from the Endangerment Finding. 

3) Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 108 EG that the proposed rule would “reduce” 

methane. As written, it says “achieve” methane. Could also say “achieve methane 

reductions of...” 

Response: See edit on page ~110 of preamble. 

4) Reviewer notes that the email address for OIRA on page 232 EG is incorrect. 

Response: We have the email address from the PRA template. If there is a different 

address please send us that information. Also address includes an underscore which 

cannot be seen in the preamble text due to underlining. 

5) Reviewer recommends citing the assertion on page 34 of the emissions guidelines (and 

NSPS where appropriate) that climate change is “very likely to fundamentally rearrange 

U.S. ecosystems over the 21st century.” 

Response: EPA notes that pages 33-35 are a summary of the 2009 Endangerment Finding 

(which itself summarizes the assessment literature), and therefore inserting citations in 

the middle of the summary would not be appropriate. The statements from pages 35-50 

reference in text the assessments (NCA3, NRC, or IPCC) from which they were taken. 

EPA has updated the first sentence of this section to make clear the information comes 

from the Endangerment Finding. 

6) Reviewer recommends replacing the word “of” with “on” on page 54 EG in the sentence 

including “...several items to minimize the burden...” 

Response: See edit on page ~54 of EG preamble.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

10 

RIA Comments 

1) Reviewer recommends deleting the discussion in the RIA (starting on page 4-25) because 

acrolein and acetaldehyde are HAPS but not key landfills gases. Further, the discussion 

of acrolein being “more toxic” is uncertain because there is no information about doseresponse. Without dose response, all that can be said is that adverse health effects can 

start to manifest at lower concentrations for acrolein than acetaldehyde.

EPA Response: Text has been deleted on 4-26 – 4-27.

2) Reviewer recommends clarifying in the RIA that EPA cannot estimate how much HAPs 

would be reduced because of this rule, and therefore cannot estimate benefits. 

Response: This has been clarified in Section 4.5.3 on 4-32 .

3) Reviewer recommends clarifying the first paragraph of the RIA on toluene. It currently 

says “toluene was not carcinogenic in adequate inhalation cancer bioassays of rats and 

mice exposed for life, and increased evidence of mammary cancer and leukemia were 

reported in a lifetime rat oral bioassay.” Were the increased incidences of mammary 

cancer and leukemia observed in inadequate oral cancel bioassays? 

The cancer classification is just hazard identification, so there should be discussion on 

why the evidence is inadequate despite a positive oral cancer bioassay. 

Response: This has been clarified in Section 4.5 on 4-29 

4) Reviewer recommends presenting the revenue for electricity generated in the benefit 

section. 

Response: As is standard practice in OAQPS rules, benefits are limited to monetized 

health and welfare benefits. Electricity generation is treated as a cost offset to the 

engineering costs, as is discussed in Section 3.4. 

5) Reviewer recommends clarifying the gross cost in the cost discussion. 

Response: The discussion Sections 3.5 and 7.2 have been edited to discuss the control 

cost, revenue from beneficial-use projects, and the resulting net cost. 

6) Reviewer recommends presenting the baseline emissions of methane and NMOC in 

tabular format. 

Response: Requested information appears in Table 3-2. 

7) Reviewer recommends providing additional details on EPA’s methods for estimating 

costs and emissions reductions, and recommends drawing additional language citing to 

the two summary TSDs referenced. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

11 

Response: We feel that the RIA provides an appropriate level of detail about the models, 

as the memos are essentially the description of a series of equations from the models. The 

memos are referenced in the RIA and will be available in the docket. 

8) Reviewer recommends incorporating relevant memos such as “methodology for 

estimating cost and emission impacts of proposed MSW landfill regulations” as 

appendices of the RIA. 

Response: It is standard practice in OAQPS rules to include memos relevant to the rule in 

the docket, but not to add them as appendices. 

9) Reviewer recommends clearly articulating the analytic timeline since EPA only presents 

results in the RIA for a snapshot of 2025. 

Response: The discussion on Page 1-2 has been edited to explain the choice of 2025 as a 

representative year. In addition, some results from alternative snapshot years 2020, 2030, 

and 2040 are being included in Sections 3.6, 4.6, and 7.8. 

10) Reviewer recommends that the ES.1 background should more clearly articulate that the 

document represents the analysis for both emissions guidelines for existing landfills and 

NSPS for new landfills. 

Response: ES.1 now also includes a brief discussion of the supplemental NSPS proposal. 

11) Reviewer recommends clarifying throughout the document the distinction between 

existing landfills and new landfills. Reviewer suggests using phrases such as “emissions 

guidelines for existing landfills” and “NSPS for new landfills”. 

Response: The RIA uses standard EPA nomenclature for referring to rules, but in 

response to this comment an effort has been made to add text to the RIA to distinguish 

between the EG for existing MSW landfills and NSPS for new and modified MSW 

landfills where there is the possibility for confusion. 

12) Reviewer requests providing a citation for 50% of landfill gas being composed of 

methane. 

Response: Reference added in footnote on Page 1-2. 

13) Reviewer recommends additional information on the basis for the assumed efficacy of the 

collection systems, including citations. 

Response: A clarification and reference is provided in a footnote. 

14) Reviewer requests that EPA provide the peer review report for the Marten et al social 

cost paper. 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

12 

Response: Peer reviewer responses have been submitted to the landfill docket. 

15) Reviewer notes that the basis for no SISNOSE finding isn’t stated and requests the 

analysis to support this conclusion. 

Response: Justification has now been added to Page 7-13 and added to Section 8.3 on 

Page 8-5. 

16) Reviewer recommends stating in 1.2.1 the requirements relevant to methane. Otherwise, 

it’s not clear why methane isn’t included in the co-benefit category. 

Response: This discussion has been edited to indicate that NMOC is a surrogate for 

MSW landfill emissions, which is the regulated pollutant. MSW landfill emissions are 

composed of methane, CO2, and NMOC. In the 1996 NSPS/EG, it was noted that “The 

emissions of concern are non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) and methane.” 

Therefore, while NMOC has always been the emission measured to determine if a control 

system must be in place, methane has always been a targeted emission as well. 

17) Reviewer recommends deleting the discussion in 1.2.2 of market power and 

inadequate/asymmetric information since they are not relevant to this rulemaking. 

Response: Sections 1.2.2.2 and 1.2.2.3 have been deleted. 

18) Reviewer recommends that EPA use PPI data from BLS instead of the 2% inflation rate 

for capital and 2.5% inflation rate for O&M on 3-5. 

Response: As noted in footnote 14, the rates used for this analysis are consistent with the 

default rates in the LFGcost-Web model. EPA will edit its analysis of impacts in the final 

rule to use the PPI data from BLS, but this request is not feasible for the proposal. 

19) Reviewer recommends clarifying on 3-8 what “baseline” means in Table 3-2 

Response: Requested clarification appears on 3-7 and is relevant for all tables and 

discussion in this section. 

20) Reviewer recommends presenting revenue projections in the benefit section on 3-10. Is 

“beneficial projects” a term of art? 

Response: See response to RIA comment #4. Also, “beneficial projects” has been 

changed to “beneficial-use projects” in the tables. 

21) Reviewer recommends presenting cost-effectiveness both with and without the added 

revenue on 3-12. 

Response: Table 3-5 has been modified to include cost-effectiveness with and without 

added revenue (change is not tracked due to Word issues) and surrounding discussion has 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

13 

been modified. Similar change made to Table 7-5 and surrounding text for supplemental 

NSPS proposal. 

22) Reviewer recommends clearly articulating which reductions are primary benefits and 

which are co-benefits on 4.1. 

Response: Section has been edited to make this clearer. 

23) Reviewer recommends on 4-9 footnoting that the bias is unknown for other GHG. 

Response: Both the text and footnote are written to be specific to methane rather than 

non-GHGs more broadly. Given that this text is precise and does not make any 

suggestions about other non-CO2 GHGs and that the rulemaking has no implications for 

other non-CO2 GHGs, we recommend leaving the text unchanged. Other GHGs are not 

relevant to this section. 

24) Reviewer recommends providing a citation for Marten and Newbold 2012, which is not 

in the reference list. See 4-10. 

Response: Reference list has been updated. 

25) Reviewer recommends more specificity in the HAP benefits discussion on 4.5. If there 

are known HAP emissions please focus the discussion to those emissions. The current 

discussion doesn’t seem very relevant to these rulemakings. 

Response: Section 4.5 only includes a qualitative discussion of four HAP that are known 

to be part of landfill gas: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and vinyl chloride. Even 

though we cannot quantify the emission reductions of these HAP, we anticipate reduced 

exposure to them as a result of this rulemaking. The NATA discussion provides context 

for evaluating these qualitative HAP benefits. 

26) Reviewer recommends that given the current unemployment rate of 5.3%, the compelling 

need for an extensive discussion on employment on 5.3 isn’t clear. For the final rule, 

reviewer recommends abbreviating this discussion. 

EPA Response: Discussion will be revised for final rule. 

27) Reviewer recommends adding discussion in the RIA of the impacts (or lack thereof) of 

the proposed Tier 4 option on the emissions reductions assumed by the 34 threshold. 

Response: Neither our testing and monitoring costs, control costs, nor emission 

reductions factor in the Tier 4 approach. All of these items are estimated using modeled 

LFG rates and NMOC concentrations to determine the timing of GCCS installation and 

removal. None of them factor in site-specific surface concentrations. Testing and 

monitoring would be a small part of the overall costs. Although Tier 4 is a proposed 

option for the emission guidelines, given the site-specific nature of this tier, it is unknown 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

14 

how many landfills would use this option. Because of this unknown and the fact that the 

Tier 4 approach is a voluntary compliance alternative (not a requirement), there was no 

need to include Tier 4 costs in our analyses. 

28) Reviewer notes that the RIA currently does not discuss the climate impacts of the 

oxidization of CH4 into CO2 into the atmosphere. While it is likely that these impacts are 

small when offset by other considerations, a discussion that these impacts were 

considered would be appropriate. For example, such a discussion occurs in section 4.7 of 

the Oil and Gas rule RIA. 

Response: We don’t account for the CO2 because it is deemed biogenic and would have 

been generated anyway as a result of natural decomposition of the organic waste 

materials if they had not been deposited in the landfill. In other words, the increase in 

atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration associated with the decomposition of organic 

waste materials would have occurred in the baseline and is not affected by the proposed 

rule. The new text in the RIA, pgs 2-22 and 2-23, clarifies this point. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

EO12866_LandfillsEG 2060 AS23 RIA 20150720

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed 

Revisions to the Emission Guidelines for Existing 

Sources and Supplemental Proposed New Source 

Performance Standards in the Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills Sector 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air and Radiation 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

June July 2015
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

ii 

CONTACT INFORMATION 

This document has been prepared by staff from the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Questions related to this document should be addressed to 

Charles Fulcher, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, C439-02, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

(email: fulcher.charles@epa.gov). 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

In addition to EPA staff from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and the 

Office of Atmospheric Programs with the U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, Eastern 

Research Group, Inc. (ERG) contributed data and analysis to this document. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... III

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. VI

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................... VIIIVII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1

ES.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 1

ES.2 RESULTS FOR PROPOSED REVISIONS TO EMISSION GUIDELINES ................................................................... 1

ES.3 RESULTS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................... 3

ES.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT ................................................................................................................ 5

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 STATEMENT OF NEED FOR POLICY ACTION .............................................................................................. 1-2

1.2.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment ......................................................................... 1-2

1.2.2 Need for Regulatory Intervention Because of Market Failure ......................................................... 1-3

1.2.2.1 Air Pollution as an Externality ............................................................................................. 1-4

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT ........................................................................................................ 1-51-4

1.4 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 1-5

2 INDUSTRY PROFILE .................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 WASTE STREAM BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 2-3

2.2.1 Municipal Waste........................................................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.1.1 Generation of MSW............................................................................................................. 2-3

2.2.1.2 Landfills Covered Under the EG .......................................................................................... 2-4

2.2.1.3 Trends in Per Capita Waste Sent to Landfills ........................................................................ 2-4

2.2.1.4 Composition of MSW Sent to Landfills ................................................................................ 2-5

2.2.2 Consolidation of Waste Streams .................................................................................................... 2-7

2.3 DISPOSAL FACILITY BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 2-8

2.3.1 Technical Background on Landfills as a Source Category .............................................................. 2-8

2.3.1.1 Landfill Siting and Permitting .............................................................................................. 2-8

2.3.1.2 Landfill Operations .............................................................................................................. 2-9

2.3.1.3 Landfill Closure................................................................................................................. 2-10

2.3.1.4 Management of Liquids ..................................................................................................... 2-10

2.3.2 Ownership and Characteristics of Landfills ................................................................................. 2-11

2.4 COSTS AND REVENUE STREAMS FOR LANDFILLS ................................................................................... 2-15

2.4.1 Major Cost Components for Landfills ......................................................................................... 2-15

2.4.2 Landfill Revenue Sources ........................................................................................................... 2-18

2.5 AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM LANDFILLS....................................................................................... 2-21

2.5.1 NMOC in LFG ........................................................................................................................... 2-21

2.5.2 Methane in LFG ......................................................................................................................... 2-22

2.5.3 Criteria Pollutants from Combustion of LFG ........................................................................ 2-242-23

2.6 TECHNIQUES FOR CONTROLLING EMISSIONS FROM LANDFILLS .............................................................. 2-24

2.6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2-24

2.6.2 Gas Collection Systems .............................................................................................................. 2-24

2.6.3 Destruction .......................................................................................................................... 2-272-26

2.6.4 Utilization .................................................................................................................................. 2-28

2.6.4.1 Technologies ..................................................................................................................... 2-28

2.6.4.2 Revenues and Incentives .................................................................................................... 2-33

2.7 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES .................................................................................. 2-36

2.7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2-36
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

iv 

2.7.2 Organics Management ................................................................................................................ 2-37

2.7.2.1 Trends ............................................................................................................................... 2-38

2.7.2.2 Benefits ...................................................................................................................... 2-412-40

2.7.2.3 Barriers ...................................................................................................................... 2-412-40

2.8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 2-432-42

3 REGULATORY PROGRAM COSTS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ......................................... 3-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND PROCEDURES ............................................................................................ 3-1

3.3 EMISSIONS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 3-3

3.4 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE COST ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 3-4

3.5 REGULATORY BASELINE AND OPTIONS ................................................................................................... 3-7

3.6 ALTERNATIVE YEARS OF ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 3-143-12

4 BENEFITS OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS .................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 METHANE (CH4) .................................................................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.1 Methane climate effects and valuation ........................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.2 Methane as an ozone precursor ................................................................................................... 4-16

4.2.3 Combined climate and ozone effects of methane ......................................................................... 4-17

4.3 VOC AS A PM2.5PRECURSOR .......................................................................................................... 4-194-18

4.3.1 PM2.5 health effects and valuation ................................................................................................ 4-19

4.3.2 Visibility Effects......................................................................................................................... 4-23

4.4 VOC AS AN OZONE PRECURSOR ........................................................................................................... 4-23

4.4.1 Ozone health effects and valuation .............................................................................................. 4-24

4.4.2 Ozone vegetation effects ............................................................................................................. 4-25

4.4.3 Ozone climate effects.................................................................................................................. 4-25

4.5 HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (HAP)BENEFITS ..................................................................................... 4-26

4.5.1 Benzene...................................................................................................................................... 4-31

4.5.2 Ethylbenzene .............................................................................................................................. 4-32

4.5.3 Toluene ...................................................................................................................................... 4-33

4.5.4 Vinyl Chloride ............................................................................................................................ 4-34

4.5.5 Other Air Toxics ......................................................................................................................... 4-35

4.6 ALTERNATIVE YEARS OF ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 4-35

4.7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 4-36

5 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND DISTRIBUTIONAL ASSESSMENTS ................................ 5-1

5.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.3 EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS .......................................................................................................................... 5-2

5.3.1 Background on the Regulated Industry .......................................................................................... 5-3

5.3.2 Employment Impacts of Environmental Regulation ....................................................................... 5-6

5.3.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 5-11

5.4 SMALL BUSINESS IMPACTS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 5-12

5.5 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 5-13

6 COMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND COST .................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED STANDARDS ........................................................................................ 6-1

6.3 NET BENEFITS OF THE ALTERNATE STANDARDS ...................................................................................... 6-2

7 SUPPLEMENTAL NSPS PROPOSAL ......................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 REGULATORY BASELINE AND OPTIONS ................................................................................................... 7-2

7.3 BENEFITS ........................................................................................................................................ 7-107-8
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

v 

7.4 ECONOMIC IMPACTS ...................................................................................................................... 7-147-11

7.4.1 Economic Impact Analysis................................................................................................... 7-147-11

7.4.2 Employment Impacts ........................................................................................................... 7-147-11

7.4.3 Small Business Impacts Analysis ......................................................................................... 7-147-11

7.5 COMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND COSTS .......................................................................................... 7-167-13

7.6 NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED STANDARDS ............................................................................... 7-177-14

7.7 NET BENEFITS OF THE ALTERNATE STANDARDS ............................................................................. 7-187-15

7.8 ALTERNATIVE YEARS OF ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 7-217-17

8 STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER REVIEWS ................................................................... 8-1

8.1 EXECUTIVE ORDER 12866, REGULATORY PLANNING AND REVIEW AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 13563,

IMPROVING REGULATION AND REGULATORY REVIEW ...................................................................................... 8-1

8.2 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT ................................................................................................................ 8-2

8.3 REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT.............................................................................................................. 8-4

8.4 UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT ..................................................................................................... 8-5

8.5 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13132: FEDERALISM ................................................................................................ 8-7

8.6 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13175: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS ... 8-8

8.7 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13045: PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RISKS AND SAFETY 

RISKS .............................................................................................................................................................. 8-9

8.8 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13211: ACTIONS CONCERNING REGULATIONS THAT SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT ENERGY 

SUPPLY, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE ..................................................................................................................... 8-10

8.9 NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND ADVANCEMENT ACT ............................................................. 8-10

8.10 EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE .......................................................................... 8-11
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

vi 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table ES-1 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Proposed Emission Guidelines for 

Existing MSW Landfills in 2025 (2012$) ................................................................................................................ 3

Table ES-2 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Supplemental Proposed New 

Source Performance Standards for MSW Landfills in 2025 (2012$) ........................................................................ 5

Table 2-1 Generation and Discards of MSW, 1960 to 2012 (in pounds per person per day) ................................ 2-5

Table 2-2 Materials Discardeda In the MSW Stream, 1960 to 2012 (in thousands of tons) ................................... 2-7

Table 2-3 Top 5 Waste Management Companies That Owned or Operated MSW Landfills in the United States in 

2013a ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-14

Table 2-4 Typical Costs Per Acre for Components of Landfill Construction (Duffy, 2005a) .............................. 2-16

Table 2-5 Average Regional and National Per-Ton Tip Fees (Rounded): 1995-2011 ......................................... 2-19

Table 2-6 Average LFG Power Production Technology Costs ................................................................... 2-302-29

Table 2-7 Average LFG Direct-use Project Components Costs .................................................................. 2-322-31

Table 2-8 Waste Management of Organics in the United States ................................................................. 2-402-39

Table 3-1 Number of Affected Landfills in 2025 under the Baseline and Alternative Options .............................. 3-8

Table 3-2 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2025 for the Baseline and Alternative Options .... 3-9

Table 3-3 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2025 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount 

Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-113-10

Table 3-4 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2025 for Baseline and Alternative Options (3% Discount 

Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-133-11

Table 3-5 Estimated Cost-effectiveness in 2025 for the Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount Rate) ...... 3-

143-12

Table 3-6 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2020 for the Baseline and Alternative Options ...... 3-

163-13

Table 3-7 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2020 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount 

Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-163-13

Table 3-8 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2030 for the Baseline and Alternative Options ...... 3-

173-14

Table 3-9 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2030 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount 

Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-173-14

Table 3-10 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2040 for the Baseline and Alternative Options .... 3-

183-15

Table 3-11 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2040 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount 

Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-183-15

Table 4-1 Climate and Human Health Effects of Emission Reductions in this Rule ............................................. 4-2

Table 4-2 Social Cost of CH4, 2012 – 2050a [in 2012$ per metric ton] (Source: Marten et al., 2014b) ................ 4-12

Table 4-3 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) ..................................... 4-14

Table 4-4 Estimated Global Benefits of Net CO2 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) .............................. 4-15

Table 4-5 Monetized Benefits-per-Ton Estimates for VOC based on Previous Modeling in 2015 (2012$) ......... 4-22

Table 4-6 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2020* (in millions, 2012$) ..................................... 4-35

Table 4-7 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2030* (in millions, 2012$) ..................................... 4-36

Table 4-8 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2040* (in millions, 2012$) ..................................... 4-36

Table 6-1 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Proposed Emission Guidelines 

Option 2.5/34 in 2025 (2012$) ............................................................................................................................. 6-2

Table 6-2 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Alternative Emission Guidelines 

Option 2.5/40 in 2025 (2012$) ............................................................................................................................. 6-3

Table 6-3 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Alternative Emission Guidelines 

Option 2.0/34 in 2025 (2012$) ............................................................................................................................. 6-4

Table 7-1 Number of Affected Landfills in 2025 under the Baseline and Alternative Options .............................. 7-4

Table 7-2 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2025 for the Baseline and Alternative Options .... 7-5

Table 7-3 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2025 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount 

Rate) .............................................................................................................................................................. 7-77-6

Table 7-4 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2025 for Baseline and Alternative Options (3% Discount 

Rate) .............................................................................................................................................................. 7-97-7
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

vii 

Table 7-5 Estimated Cost-effectiveness in 2025 for the Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount Rate) ...... 7-

107-8

Table 7-6 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) .............................. 7-137-10

Table 7-7 Estimated Global Disbenefits of Net CO2 Increases in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) ...................... 7-137-10

Table 7-8 Small Business Impact Screening Assessment Results (Reporters and Controllers) .................... 7-167-13

Table 7-9 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Proposed NSPS Option 2.5/34 in 

2025 (2012$) .............................................................................................................................................. 7-177-14

Table 7-10 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Alternative NSPS Option 2.5/40 in 

2025 (2012$) .............................................................................................................................................. 7-207-16

Table 7-11 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Alternative NSPS Option 2.0/34 in 

2025 (2012$) .............................................................................................................................................. 7-217-17

Table 7-12 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2020 for the Baseline and Alternative Options .... 7-

227-18

Table 7-13 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2020 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount 

Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 7-227-18

Table 7-14 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2030 for the Baseline and Alternative Options .... 7-

237-19

Table 7-15 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2030 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount 

Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 7-237-19

Table 7-16 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2040 for the Baseline and Alternative Options .... 7-

247-20

Table 7-17 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2040 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount 

Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 7-247-20

Table 7-18 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2020* (in millions, 2012$) ............................ 7-257-21

Table 7-19 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2030* (in millions, 2012$) ............................ 7-257-21

Table 7-20 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2040* (in millions, 2012$) ............................ 7-257-21

 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

viii 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2-1 Material Composition of the MSW Discard Stream, 2012 2-6

Figure 2-2 Landfill Cost Life Cycle 2-18

Figure 2-3 Typical LFG Generation Curve 2-23

Figure 2-4 Vertical Well LFG Collection 2-25

Figure 2-5 Horizontal Well LFG Collection 2-262-25

Figure 4-1 Path from GHG Emissions to Monetized Damages (Source: Marten et al., 2014) 4-9

Figure 4-2 2005 NATA Model Estimated Census Tract Carcinogenic Risk from HAP Exposure from Emissions of 

All Outdoor Sources (inclusive of Residental Wood Heaters) based on the 2005 National Toxic Inventory. 4-28

Figure 4-3 2005 NATA Model Estimated Census Tract Noncancer Risk from HAP Exposure from Emissions of 

All Outdoor Sources (inclusive of Residental Wood Heaters) based on the 2005 National Toxic Inventory 4-29
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

ES-1 

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

ES.1 Background 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing revisions to the Emission 

Guidelines for existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. The EPA is not statutorily obligated to 

conduct a review of the Emission Guidelines, but has the discretionary authority to do so when 

circumstances 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. Based on our review, we are proposing to lower the annual NMOC emissions 

threshold from 50 Mg/year to 34 Mg/year.

In addition, the EPA is proposing Supplemental New Source Performance Standards for 

new or modified Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. On July 17, 2014, the EPA proposed a new 

NSPS subpart that retained the same design capacity size threshold of 2.5 million m3 or 2.5 

million Mg, but presented several options for revising the NMOC emission rate at which a MSW 

landfill must install controls. Since presenting these options, the EPA has updated its model that 

estimates the emission reduction and cost impacts based on public comments and new data. As a 

result of these data and model improvements, we are now proposing to lower the annual NMOC 

emissions threshold from 50 Mg/year to 34 Mg/year.

ES.2 Results for Proposed Revisions to Emission Guidelines 

For the proposed revisions to the Emission Guidelines for existing MSW landfills, the 

key results of the RIA follow and are summarized in Table ES-1: 

Engineering Cost Analysis: To meet the proposed emission limits, a MSW landfill is expected 

to install the least cost control for combusting the landfill gas. The control costs include the costs 

to install and operate gas collection. For landfills where the least cost control option was an 

engine, the costs also include installing and operate one or more reciprocating internal 

combustion engines to convert the landfill gas into electricity. Revenue from electricity sales was 

incorporated into the net control costs using state-specific data on wholesale purchase prices. The 

annualized costs also include testing and monitoring costs. For this proposal, which tightens the 

emissions threshold, the EPA estimated the nationwide incremental annualized compliance cost 

in 2025 to be $46.8 million (2012$) using a 7% discount rate. Using a 3% discount rate, the 

Commented [A1]: OMB RIA Comment 10: Reviewer 

recommends that the ES.1 background should more clearly articulate 

that the document represents the analysis for both emissions 

guidelines for existing landfills and NSPS for new landfills. 

EPA Response: This section now discusses the supplemental NSPS 

proposal. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

ES-2 

nationwide incremental annualized compliance cost in 2025 is estimated to be $35 million 

(2012$). 

Emissions Analysis: In 2025, this proposal would achieve reductions of 2,770 Mg NMOC and 

436,100 Mg methane (10.9 million Mg CO2-equivalents1) compared to the baseline. In addition, 

the proposal is expected to result in the net reduction of 238,000 Mg CO2, due to reduced 

demand for electricity from the grid as landfills generate electricity from landfill gas.2 These 

pollutants are associated with substantial health, welfare and climate effects. 

Benefits: The monetized benefits in this RIA include those from reducing 436,100 Mg methane, 

which are valued using the social cost of methane (SC-CH4), and the reductions in CO2, which 

are valued using the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2). The EPA estimates that, in 2025, the 

proposal will yield monetized climate benefits of $310 million (2012$) to approximately $1.7 

billion (2012$)3; the mean SC-CH4 at the 3% discount rate results in an estimate of about $660 

million (2012$) in 2025. The climate benefits associated with the reduction of 238,000 Mg CO2

are estimated to be $12 million (2012$) in 2025. The benefits from reducing some air pollutants 

have not been monetized in this analysis due to data, resource, and methodological limitations, 

including reducing 2,770 Mg NMOC (including undetermined amounts of HAPs). We assessed 

the benefits of these emission reductions qualitatively in this RIA. 

Small Entity Analysis: The EPA certifies that the proposed Emission Guidelines will not have a 

Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE) because the proposed 

rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Specifically, Emission Guidelines 

established under CAA section 111(d) do not impose any requirements on regulated entities and, 

thus, will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. 

Economic Impacts: Because of the relatively low net compliance cost of this proposal 

compared to the overall size of the MSW landfill industry, as well as the lack of appropriate 

economic parameters or models, the EPA is unable to estimate the impacts of the proposal on the 

supply and demand for MSW landfill services. However, the EPA does not believe the proposal 

will lead to changes in supply and demand for landfill services or waste disposal costs, tipping 

fees, or the amount of waste disposed in landfills. Hence, the overall economic impact of the 

proposal should be minimal on the affected industries and their consumers.

 

1

 A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. 

2

 The reduced demand for electricity from the grid more than offsets the additional energy demand required to 

operate the control system and the by-product emissions from the combustion of LFG. 

3

 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

ES-3 

Table ES-1 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Proposed 

Emission Guidelines for Existing MSW Landfills in 2025 (2012$) 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Total Monetized Benefits1 $670 million 

Total Costs2 $35 million $47 million 

Net Benefits $640 million $620 million 

Non-monetized Benefits3 Health effects of PM2.5 and ozone exposure from 2,770 Mg 

NMOC/yr reduced 

Health effects of HAP exposure from 2,770 Mg NMOC/yr 

reduced 

 Visibility impairment 

 Vegetation effects 

1 Monetized benefits include the climate-related benefits associated with the reduction of 436,100 

Mg/yr methane ($660 million, valued using the social cost of methane) and the net reduction of 238,000 

Mg/yr of CO2 ($12 million, valued using the social cost of carbon). The social cost of methane and 

social cost of carbon estimates are calculated with four different values of a one ton reduction (model 

average at 2.5 percent discount rate, 3 percent, and 5 percent; 95th percentile at 3 percent). For the 

purposes of this table, we show the benefits associated with the model average at 3% discount rate; 

however we emphasize the importance and value of considering the full range of values, which is $310 

million - $1.8 billion for the proposed option. We provide climate benefit estimates based on additional 

discount rates in Section 4.2.

2 The engineering compliance costs are annualized and include estimated revenue from electricity sales 

for landfills that are expected to generate revenue by using landfill gas for energy. 

3 While we expect that these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reductions 

in health effects associated with HAP, ozone, and particulate matter (PM), we have determined that 

quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to 

imply that there are no benefits or co-benefits of the rulesthese benefits do not exist; rather, it is a 

reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the reductions in emissions 

for this industrial sector with the data currently available. 

ES.3 Results for Supplemental Proposed New Source Performance Standards 

For the Supplemental Proposed New Source Performance Standards for new or modified 

MSW landfills, the key results of the RIA follow and are summarized in Table ES-2: 

Engineering Cost Analysis: To meet the proposed emission limits, a MSW landfill is expected 

to install the least cost control for combusting the landfill gas. The control costs include the costs 

to install and operate gas collection. For landfills where the least cost control option was an 

engine, the costs also include installing and operate one or more reciprocating internal 

combustion engines to convert the landfill gas into electricity. Revenue from electricity sales was 

incorporated into the net control costs using state-specific data on wholesale purchase prices. The 

annualized costs also include testing and monitoring costs. For this proposal, which tightens the 

emissions threshold, the EPA estimated the nationwide incremental annualized compliance cost 

in 2025 to be $8.5 million (2012$) using a 7% discount rate. Using a 3% discount rate, the 

nationwide incremental annualized compliance cost in 2025 is estimated to be $7.1 million 

(2012$). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

ES-4 

Emissions Analysis: In 2025, this proposal would achieve reductions of 300 Mg NMOC and 

51,400 Mg methane (1.3 million Mg CO2-equivalents4) compared to the baseline. The proposal is 

also expected to result in minor secondary air impacts, specifically an increase of 670 Mg CO2, 

because more energy is required to operate the GCCS at some landfills than is produced by these 

landfills through the burning of LFG in engines. These pollutants are associated with substantial 

health, welfare and climate effects. 

Benefits: The monetized benefits in this RIA include those from reducing 51,400 Mg methane, 

which are valued using the social cost of methane (SC-CH4), offset by the small increases in 

CO2, which are valued using the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2). The EPA estimates that, in 

2025, the proposal will yield monetized climate benefits of $36 million (2012$) to approximately 

$210 million (2012$)5; the mean SC-CH4 at the 3% discount rate results in an estimate of about 

$78 million (2012$) in 2025. The climate disbenefits associated with the increase of 670 Mg CO2

are estimated to be $0.03 million (2012$) in 2025. The benefits from reducing some air 

pollutants have not been monetized in this analysis due to data, resource, and methodological 

limitations, including reducing 300 Mg NMOC (including undetermined amounts of HAPs). We 

assessed the benefits of these emission reductions qualitatively in this RIA. 

Small Entity Analysis: The EPA performed a small business impacts analysis on the 

Supplemental Proposed New Source Performance Standards for new or modified MSW landfills, 

and as with the July 2014 proposed NSPS subpart certifies that the proposed rule will not have a 

Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE). The proposed revision 

does not impact a substantial number of small entities, and the impact to these entities are not 

significant. This is discussed in greater detail in Section 7.4.

Economic Impacts: Because of the relatively low net compliance cost of this proposal 

compared to the overall size of the MSW landfill industry, as well as the lack of appropriate 

economic parameters or models, the EPA is unable to estimate the impacts of the proposal on the 

supply and demand for MSW landfill services. However, the EPA does not believe the proposal 

will lead to changes in supply and demand for landfill services or waste disposal costs, tipping 

fees, or the amount of waste disposed in landfills. Hence, the overall economic impact of the 

proposal should be minimal on the affected industries and their consumers.

 

4

 A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. 

5

 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

ES-5 

Table ES-2 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the 

Supplemental Proposed New Source Performance Standards for MSW Landfills in 2025 

(2012$) 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Monetized Methane-related Benefits1 $78 million 

Monetized CO2 disbenefits1 $0.03 million 

Total Costs2 $7.1 million $8.5 million 

Net Benefits $71 million $70 million 

Non-monetized Benefits3 Health effects of PM2.5 and ozone exposure from 300 Mg 

NMOC/yr reduced 

Health effects of HAP exposure from 300 Mg NMOC/yr 

reduced 

 Visibility impairment 

 Vegetation effects 

1 Monetized benefits include the climate-related benefits associated with the reduction of 51,400 Mg/yr 

methane, valued using the social cost of methane, and the net increase of 670 Mg/yr of CO2, valued 

using the social cost of carbon. The social cost of methane and social cost of carbon estimates are 

calculated with four different values of a one ton reduction (model average at 2.5 percent discount rate, 

3 percent, and 5 percent; 95th percentile at 3 percent). For the purposes of this table, we show the 

benefits associated with the model average at 3% discount rate; however we emphasize the importance 

and value of considering the full range of values, which is $36 million - $210 million for the proposed 

option. We provide climate benefit estimates based on additional discount rates in Section 4.2.

2 The engineering compliance costs are annualized and include estimated revenue from electricity sales 

for landfills that are expected to generate revenue by using landfill gas for energy. 

3 While we expect that these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reductions 

in health effects associated with HAP, ozone, and particulate matter (PM), we have determined that 

quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to 

imply that there are no benefits or co-benefits of the rulesthese benefits do not exist; rather, it is a 

reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the reductions in emissions 

for this industrial sector with the data currently available. 

ES.3 Organization of this Report 

The remainder of this report details the methodology and the results of the EIARIA. 

Chapter 1 provides an introduction. Chapter 2 presents the industry profile for the municipal 

solid waste landfill industry. Chapter 3 describes emissions, emissions control options, and 

engineering costs of the Emission Guidelines for existing landfills. Chapter 4 presents estimates 

of the benefits of emissions reductions from the Emission Guidelines for existing landfills. 

Chapter 5 present the economic impacts, employment impacts, and small entity screening 

analysis for the Emission Guidelines for existing landfills. Chapter 6 presents the comparison of 

the benefits and costs of the Emission Guidelines for existing landfills, Chapter 7 presents an 

analysis of the supplemental New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new or modified 

MSW landfills proposal, and Chapter 8 concludes with the statutory and executive order reviews. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

1-1 

1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background 

The EPA is proposing revisions to the Emission Guidelines for existing Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills. The EPA is not statutorily obligated to conduct a review of the Emission 

Guidelines, but has the discretionary authority to do so when circumstances 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. Based on our 

review, we are proposing to lower the annual NMOC emissions threshold from 50 Mg/year to 34 

Mg/year. 

In addition, the EPA is proposing Supplemental New Source Performance Standards for 

new or modified Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. On July 17, 2014, the EPA proposed a new 

NSPS subpart that retained the same design capacity size threshold of 2.5 million m3 or 2.5 

million Mg, but presented several options for revising the NMOC emission rate at which a MSW 

landfill must install controls. Since presenting these options, the EPA has updated its model that 

estimates the emission reduction and cost impacts based on public comments and new data. As a 

result of these data and model improvements, we are now proposing to lower the annual NMOC 

emissions threshold from 50 Mg/year to 34 Mg/year.

In this RIA, the EPA presents a profile of the municipal solid waste industry in the 

United States and an analysis of the costs and emissions reductions associated with a range of 

regulatory options, including the option chosen for proposal. The EPA drew upon a 

comprehensive database of existing landfills for this analysis. However, this dataset was missing 

some landfill data for recent years (2010-2014) and included incomplete data for many landfills. 

Thus, model landfills were created to represent the recent landfill data that were not included in 

the dataset. The model landfills were developed by evaluating the most recently opened existing 

landfills and assuming that the sizes and locations of landfills opening during 2010-2014 would 

be similar to the sizes and locations of landfills that opened in the most recent complete 5 years 

of data (2005-2010). The impacts of the proposed Emission Guidelines for existing MSW

landfills shown in this RIA are expressed as the incremental difference between facilities 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

1-2 

complying with the current Emission Guidelines for existing MSW landfills (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cc) and facilities that would be required to comply with proposed subpart Cf. Likewise, 

the impacts of the proposed NSPS for new or modified MSW landfills shown in this RIA are 

expressed as the incremental difference between facilities complying with the current NSPS for 

new or modified MSW landfills (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW) and facilities that would be 

required to comply with proposed subpart XXX. All impacts are shown for the year 2025. The 

EPA is assessing impacts in year 2025 as a representative year for the both the landfills Emission 

Guidelines and NSPS. While the year 2025 differs somewhat from the expected first year of 

implementation for the Emission Guidelines (year 2020), the number of existing landfills 

required to install controls under the proposed 2.5/34 option in year 2025 is comparable (within 2 

percent of those required to control in the estimated first year of implementation. Further, year 

2025 represents a year in which several of the landfills subject to control requirements have had 

to expand their GCCS according the expansion lag times set forth in proposed subpart Cf. While 

the analysis focuses on impacts in 2025, results for alternative years are also presented. 

The EPA certifies that the proposed Emission Guidelines for existing landfills will not 

have a Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE) because the 

proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Specifically, Emission 

Guidelines established under CAA section 111(d) do not impose any requirements on regulated 

entities and, thus, will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of 

small entities. The EPA also certifies that the supplemental proposed NSPS for new or modified 

MSW landfills also will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities 

(SISNOSE). The proposed revision does not impact a substantial number of small entities, and 

the impact to these entities are not significant. This is discussed in greater detail in Section 7.4.

1.2 Statement of Need for Policy Action 

1.2.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 

The EPA has concluded, after reviewing data on MSW landfills, that a review of the 

Emission Guidelines for existing MSW landfills is appropriate at this time. In addition, the EPA 

is proposing Supplemental New Source Performance Standards for new or modified Municipal 

Commented [A2]: OMB RIA Comment 9: Reviewer 

recommends clearly articulating the analytic timeline since EPA 

only presents results in the RIA for a snapshot of 2025. 

EPA Response: The discussion has been edited to explain the 

choice of 2025 as a representative year. This discussion also added 

to Sections 3.2 and 7.2. In addition, some results from alternative 

snapshot years are now being included in Chapters 3, 4, and 7.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

1-3 

Solid Waste Landfills. To ensure that public health, safety, and the environment are protected, 

the EPA must ensure that emissions of methane, VOC, and HAP from MSW landfills are 

limited. The pollutant regulated under rules affecting landfills is “MSW landfill emissions”. 

Municipal solid waste landfill emissions, also commonly referred to as landfill gas (LFG), are a 

collection of air pollutants, including methane and NMOC, some of which are toxic.

6 The 1996 

NSPS/EG regulated nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) as a surrogate for MSW landfill 

emissions but also considered significant methane reductions that could be achieved. In this EG 

and supplemental NSPS proposal, weWe are proposing to lower the annual NMOC emissions 

threshold from 50 Mg/year to 34 Mg/year. The proposed Emission Guidelines are expected to 

result in significant emissions reductions from existing MSW landfills. For the proposed 

Emission Guidelines, there will be climate benefits and HAP, ozone and PM2.5 health “cobenefits”. These co-benefits occur because the control techniques to meet the standards 

simultaneously reduce methane, VOC, and HAP emissions. 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, while methane is a 

greenhouse gas and a precursor to global ozone formation. As described in Chapter 4, these 

pollutants are associated with substantial health effects, climate effects, and other welfare effects. 

Thus, the proposed rule is expected to reduce human morbidity and premature mortality due to 

exposure to PM2.5, in addition to providing human health and ecosystem benefits due to reduced 

emissions of methane and HAP, and improved visibility due to reduced PM levels.

1.2.2 Need for Regulatory Intervention Because of Market Failure 

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directs regulatory agencies to 

demonstrate the need for a major rule. If the rule is intended to correct a market failure, the 

regulatory impact analysis must show that a market failure exists and that it cannot be resolved 

 

6 LFG is composed of approximately 50 percent methane, 50 percent CO2, and less than 1 percent NMOC. (Source: 

EPA. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Publication AP-42, Draft Section 2.4 Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills. October 2008. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/draft/d02s04.pdf.) While 

this composition is typical of LFG generated from established waste (waste that has typically been in place for at 

least a year), the quantity and composition of LFG does vary over the lifetime of the landfill. See Section 2.5 for 

more discussion. 

Commented [A3]: OMB RIA Comment 12: Reviewer requests 

providing a citation for 50% of landfill gas being composed of 

methane. 

EPA Response: Reference added in footnote. 

Commented [A4]: OMB RIA Comment 16: Reviewer 

recommends stating in 1.2.1 the requirements relevant to methane. 

Otherwise, it’s not clear why methane isn’t included in the cobenefit category. 

EPA Response: This discussion has been edited to indicate that 

NMOC is a surrogate for MSW landfill emissions, which is the 

regulated pollutant. MSW landfill emissions are composed of 

methane, CO2, and NMOC. In the 1996 NSPS/EG, it was noted that 

“The emissions of concern are non-methane organic compounds 

(NMOC) and methane.” Therefore, while NMOC has always been 

the emission measured to determine if a control system must be in 

place, methane has always been a targeted emission as well. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

1-4 

by measures other than Federal regulation. Market failures are categorized by OMB as 

externalities, market power, or inadequate or asymmetric information. The following paragraphs 

address each of the three categories of market failure as they apply to MSW landfills. The only 

of these three categories that applies to MSW landfills is air pollution as an externality, which is 

discussed in the following section.

1.2.2.1 Air Pollution as an Externality 

Air pollution is an example of a negative externality. This means that, in the absence of 

government regulation, the decisions of generators of air pollution do not fully reflect the costs 

associated with that pollution. For an MSW landfill operator, pollution from landfill gas is a byproduct that can be ignored or disposed of cheaply by venting it to the atmosphere. Left to their 

own devices, many MSW landfill operators may choose to treat air as a free good and not 

internalize the damage cause by emissions. NMOC and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions 

impose costs on society, such as negative health and welfare impacts that are not reflected in the 

market price of the MSW landfill services being provided. This damage is borne by society, and 

the people who are adversely affected by the pollution are not able to collect compensation to 

offset their costs. They cannot collect compensation because the adverse effects, like odor and 

increased risks of morbidity and mortality, are by and large non-market goods. That is, they are 

goods that are not explicitly and routinely traded in organized free markets. 

1.2.2.2 Market Power 

In some respects, local disposal markets are natural monopolies. There are large 

economies of scale in disposal operations, there are barriers to entry through the large up-front 

capital costs necessary to construct a landfill, and in some situations transportation costs are too 

high to ship MSW between regions for disposal (though this is less the case in recent years). 

Unfortunately, the monopolistic (or oligopolistic) local markets that result from these natural 

conditions do not have the competitive market checks and balances that are needed to ensure the 

best utilization of societal resources. While the proposed Emission Guidelines are not designed 

to address the problem of market power, they are intended to ensure that MSW landfills operate 

in a more socially optimal manner. 

Commented [A5]: OMB RIA Comment 17: Reviewer 

recommends deleting the discussion in 1.2.2 of market power and 

inadequate/asymmetric information since they are not relevant to 

this rulemaking. 

EPA Response: Sections have been deleted. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

1-5 

1.2.2.3 Inadequate or Asymmetric Information 

The third category of potential market failure that is sometimes used to justify 

government regulation is inadequate or asymmetric information. Some MSW landfills can 

reduce costs by installing gas collection systems, recovering energy from the gas, and selling 

purified gas or electricity. Due to the costs associated with obtaining information about the 

potential costs and benefits of control, some landfills do not install such systems. The Emission 

Guidelines would specify the collection of information that may reduce the cost of obtaining data 

to make an informed decision on whether energy recovery is a good option.

1.3 Organization of this Report 

The remainder of this report details the methodology and the results of the RIA. Chapter 

2 presents the industry profile for the municipal solid waste landfill industry. Chapter 3 describes 

emissions, emissions control options, and engineering costs of the Emission Guidelines for 

existing landfills. Chapter 4 presents estimates of the benefits of emissions reductions from the 

Emission Guidelines for existing landfills. Chapter 5 present the economic impacts, employment

impacts, and small entity screening analysis for the Emission Guidelines for existing landfills. 

Chapter 6 presents the comparison of the benefits and costs of the Emission Guidelines for 

existing landfills, Chapter 7 presents an analysis of the supplemental New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) for new and modified MSW landfills proposal, and Chapter 8 concludes with 

the statutory and executive order reviews. 

1.4 References 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission 

Factors, Publication AP-42, Draft Section 2.4 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. October 

2008. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/draft/d02s04.pdf.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-1

2 INDUSTRY PROFILE 

2.1 Introduction 

Municipal solid waste (MSW) is the stream of garbage collected by sanitation services 

from homes, businesses, and institutions. MSW typically consists of metals, glass, plastics, 

paper, wood, organics, mixed categories, and composite products. The majority of collected 

MSW that is not recycled is typically sent to landfills—engineered areas of land where waste is 

deposited, compacted, and covered. The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and the 

state and federal plans implementing the emission guidelines (EG) for MSW landfills regulate air 

emissions from landfills that receive household waste as defined in 40 CFR 60.751. These MSW 

landfills can also receive other types of waste, such as construction and demolition debris, 

industrial wastes, or nonhazardous sludge. MSW landfills are designed to protect the 

environment from contaminants which may be present in the solid waste stream and as such are 

required to comply with federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations 

or equivalent state regulations, which include standards related to location restrictions, composite 

liners requirements, leachate collection and removal systems, operating practices, groundwater 

monitoring requirements, closure and post-closure care requirements, corrective action 

provisions, and financial assurance (EPA, 2012b). 

EPA estimates the total amount of MSW generated in the United States in 2012 was 

approximately 251 million tons, a 20 percent increase from 1990. Despite increased waste 

generation, the amount of MSW deposited in landfills decreased from about 145 million tons in 

1990 to 135 million tons in 2012. This decline is due to a significant increase in the amount of 

waste recovered for recycling and composting as well as that combusted for energy recovery 

(EPA, 2014a). The number of active MSW landfills in the United States has decreased from 

approximately 7,900 in 1988 to approximately 1,800 in 2014 (EPA, 2010; WBJ, 2014). 

Landfills are different than many other traditionally regulated emissions source 

categories. Typically, entities regulated for air emissions are involved in manufacturing or 

production and their emissions are directly related to processes involved in creating products 

(e.g., vehicles, bricks) or commodities (e.g., natural gas, oil). When manufacturing or production 

facilities cease to operate, their emissions typically cease. Landfills are a service industry—a 

repository for waste that needs to be properly disposed—and their emissions are a by-product of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-2

the deposition of that waste. Landfills continue to emit air pollution for many years after the last 

waste is deposited. 

Landfill gas (LFG) is a by-product of the decomposition of organic material in MSW in 

anaerobic conditions in landfills. LFG contains roughly 50 percent methane and 50 percent 

carbon dioxide, with less than 1 percent non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) and trace 

amounts of inorganic compounds. 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. LFG can be collected and combusted in flares or energy recovery devices to 

reduce emissions. MSW landfills receive approximately 69 percent of the total waste generated 

in the United States and produce 95 percent of landfill emissions. The remainder of the emissions 

is generated by industrial waste landfills (EPA, 2015h).

Entities potentially regulated under Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills include owners of MSW landfills and owners of combustion devices that burn 

untreated LFG. Firms engaged in the collection and disposal of refuse in a landfill operation are 

classified under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes Solid Waste 

Landfill (562212) and Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management 

Programs (924110). 

Landfills are owned by private companies, government (local, state, or federal), or 

individuals. In 2014, 58 percent of active MSW landfills were owned by public entities while 

42 percent were privately owned (EPA, 2014c). Affected entities comprise establishments 

primarily engaged in operating landfills for the disposal of non-hazardous solid waste; or the 

combined activity of collecting and/or hauling non-hazardous waste materials within a local area 

and operating landfills for the disposal of non-hazardous solid waste. This industry also includes 

government establishments primarily engaged in the administration and regulation of solid waste 

management programs. 

Private companies that own landfills range in size from very small businesses to large 

businesses with billions of dollars in annual revenue. Public landfill owners include cities, 

counties/parishes, regional authorities, state governments, and the federal government (including 

military branches, Bureau of Land Management, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and 

Department of the Interior - National Park Service). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-3

2.2 Waste Stream Background 

2.2.1 Municipal Waste 

2.2.1.1 Generation of MSW 

MSW is generally defined as nonhazardous waste from household, commercial, and 

institutional sources. These three broad categories of primary MSW generators are described as: 

• Household – solid waste from single-and multiple-family homes, hotels and motels, 

bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, and dayuse recreation areas. 

• Commercial – solid waste from stores, offices, restaurants, warehouses, and other 

nonmanufacturing activities. 

• Institutional – solid waste from public works (such as street sweepings and tree and 

brush trimmings), schools and colleges, hospitals, prisons, and similar public or 

quasi-public buildings. Infectious and hazardous waste from these generators are 

managed separately from MSW. 

Households are the primary source of MSW, accounting for 55 to 65 percent of total 

MSW generated, followed by the commercial sector (EPA, 2011). Waste from commercial and 

institutional locations amounts to 35 to 45 percent of total MSW (EPA, 2011). The industrial 

sector manages most of its own solid residuals by recycling, reuse, or self-disposal in industrial 

waste landfills. For this reason industry directly contributes a very small share of the MSW flow, 

although some industrial waste does end up in MSW landfills. 

Various underlying factors influence the trends in the quantity of MSW generated over 

time. These factors include changes in population, individual purchasing power and disposal 

patterns, trends in product packaging, and technological changes that affect disposal habits and 

the nature of materials disposed. Generators of MSW provide most of the demand for services 

that collect, treat, or dispose of MSW. Fluctuations in the quantity of MSW generated and 

changes in the cost and pricing structure of disposal services result in varying demand for landfill 

services. 

Most MSW generators are charged a flat fee for disposal services, which can be paid 

through taxes for household garbage collection. This structure may provide little economic 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-4

incentive to lower waste disposal or to divert waste through recycling because generators are 

charged the same price regardless of the quantity of waste disposed. Less common are unit price 

programs, such as “pay-as-you-throw” (PAYT). In PAYT programs, each unit of waste disposed 

has an explicit price, such that the total fee paid for MSW services increases with the quantity of 

waste discarded. Hence, the unit price can act as a disincentive to dispose of excess waste and 

also encourages recycling (Callan, 2006; Shin, 2014). 

2.2.1.2 Landfills Covered Under the EG 

The Landfills EG applies only to landfills that accept “household waste” as defined in 40 

CFR 60.751, which states “household waste means any solid waste (including garbage, trash, 

and sanitary waste in septic tanks) derived from households (including, but not limited to, single 

and multiple residences, hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, 

campgrounds, picnic grounds, and day-use recreation areas).” Some of the MSW landfills 

subject to the Landfills EG may also receive other types of wastes, such as commercial, 

industrial, and institutional solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, and construction and demolition 

debris. 

2.2.1.3 Trends in Per Capita Waste Sent to Landfills 

In 2012, Americans generated about 251 million tons of trash. More than 65 million tons 

of this material was recycled and more than 21 million tons was composted, equivalent to a 34.5 

percent recycling rate (EPA, 2014a). In addition, about 29 million tons of waste was combusted 

for energy recovery (~12 percent) (EPA, 2014a). After recycling, composting, and combustion 

with energy recovery, the net per capita discard rate to landfills was 2.36 pounds per person per 

day in 2012 (EPA, 2014a). This is a 6 percent decrease from the 2.51 per capita discard rate in 

1960, when minimal recycling occurred in the United States (see Table 2-1). 

Since 1990, the total amount of MSW going to landfills has dropped by about 10 million 

tons, from 145 million to 135 million tons in 2012 (EPA, 2014a). While the number of U.S. 

MSW landfills has steadily declined over the years, the average landfill size has increased. At the 

national level, landfill capacity appears to be sufficient, although it is limited in some areas 

(EPA, 2014a). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-5

Table 2-1 Generation and Discards of MSW, 1960 to 2012 (in pounds per person per day) 7

Activity 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2008 2010 2011 2012

Generation 

 2.68 3.25 3.66 4.57 4.74 4.69 4.55 4.44 4.40 4.38 

Discards to landfill a

2.51 3.02 3.24 3.19 2.73 2.63 2.46 2.41 2.36 2.36 

Discards to landfill 

(% of total generation) 94% 93% 89% 70% 58% 56% 54% 54% 54% 54% 

a Discards after recovery minus combustion with energy recovery. Discards include combustion without energy 

recovery. 

2.2.1.4 Composition of MSW Sent to Landfills 

In 2012, organic materials continued to be the largest component of discarded MSW. 

Yard trimmings and food scraps account for 29.8 percent and paper and paperboard account for 

another 14.8 percent. Plastics comprise 17.6 percent while metals and wood make up 9.0 percent 

and 8.2 percent, respectively. Rubber, leather, and textiles combined account for 11.2 percent 

and glass accounts for 5.1 percent. Other miscellaneous materials account for the remaining 

4.3 percent of the MSW discarded in 2012 (EPA, 2014a). Figure 2-1 displays material 

composition percentages of the MSW discard stream in 2012, and Table 2-2 shows the amounts 

of different materials discarded in the MSW stream from 1960 to 2012. 

 

7

 Table adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, 

and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2012.” Table 4. EPA-530-F-14-001. Washington, DC: 

U.S. EPA. <http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_fs.pdf>. Accessed January 6, 2015. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-6

 

Figure 2-1 Material Composition of the MSW Discard Stream, 20128

 

 

8

 Figure adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, 

Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2012.” Figure 7. EPA-530-F-14-001. 

Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. <http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_fs.pdf>. Accessed 

January 6, 2015.

21.1%

8.2%

17.6%

5.1%

9.0%

8.7%

14.8%

4.3%

11.2%

Food waste

Wood

Plastics

Glass

Metals

Yard trimmings

Paper & paperboard

Other

Rubber, leather & textiles
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-7

Table 2-2 Materials Discardeda In the MSW Stream, 1960 to 2012 (in thousands of tons)9

Wastes 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2012 

Paper and Paperboard 24,910 37,540 43,420 52,500 50,180 42,880 26,740 24,260 

Glass 6,620 12,580 14,380 10,470 9,890 9,950 8,400 8,370 

Metals 10,770 13,350 14,290 12,580 12,340 13,410 14,500 14,760 

Plastics 390 2,900 6,810 16,760 24,070 27,600 28,790 28,950 

Rubber and Leather 1,510 2,720 4,070 5,420 5,850 6,240 6,120 6,180 

Textiles 1,710 1,980 2,370 5,150 8,160 9,680 11,100 12,080 

Wood 3,030 3,720 7,010 12,080 12,200 12,960 13,430 13,410 

Other Materialsb

70 470 2,020 2,510 3,020 3,080 3,370 3,300 

Food Waste 12,200 12,800 13,000 23,860 30,020 32,240 34,770 34,690 

Yard Trimmings 20,000 23,200 27,500 30,800 14,760 12,210 14,200 14,370 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 1,300 1,780 2,250 2,900 3,500 3,690 3,840 3,900 

Total MSW Discarded 82,510 113,040 137,120 175,030 173,990 173,940 165,260 164,270

a Discards after materials and compost recovery. In this table, discards include combustion with energy recovery. 

Does not include construction and demolition debris, industrial process wastes, or certain other wastes. 

b

Includes electrolytes in batteries and fluff pulp, feces, and urine in disposable diapers. 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 

2.2.2 Consolidation of Waste Streams 

Collection and transportation are necessary components of all MSW management 

systems regardless of the specific disposal options. Collections of MSW vary by service 

arrangements between local governments and collectors and by level of service provided to 

households. Depending on the arrangement type and other considerations for particular 

jurisdictions, MSW being sent to landfills may be deposited in a local landfill or routed to a 

regional landfill through a transfer process. Local landfills are generally located in the 

communities in which they serve whereas regional landfills are often located outside of the 

communities they serve and receive waste from several cities and towns. 

Solid waste transfer is the process in which collection vehicles unload their waste at 

centrally located transfer stations. Transfer stations can minimize hauling costs by decreasing the 

number of drivers and vehicles hauling waste to disposal sites and reducing the turn-around time 

 

9

 Table adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, 

and Disposal in the United States Tables and Figures for 2012.” Table 3. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_dat_tbls.pdf>. Accessed January 15, 2015. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-8

of vehicles because they do not have to haul waste to distant regional landfills. Smaller loads are 

consolidated into larger vehicles, usually tractor-trailer trucks, trains, or barges, which are better 

suited for the long-distance hauls often required to reach the final disposal site, often a regional 

landfill. As public opposition to local MSW disposal facilities increases and the cost of disposal 

at locations near generators rise, long-distance hauls to regional landfills are becoming more 

common. 

2.3 Disposal Facility Background 

2.3.1 Technical Background on Landfills as a Source Category 

An MSW landfill refers to an area of land or an excavation where MSW is placed for 

permanent disposal. MSW landfills do not include land application units, surface impoundments, 

injection wells, or waste piles. Modern MSW landfills are well-engineered disposal facilities that 

are sited, designed, operated, and monitored to protect human health and the environment from 

pollutants that may be present in the solid waste stream (EPA, 2012b). 

2.3.1.1 Landfill Siting and Permitting 

MSW landfills are required to comply with federal regulations contained in Subtitle D of 

RCRA [40 CFR part 258], or equivalent state regulations. RCRA requirements include location 

restrictions that ensure landfills are constructed away from environmentally-sensitive areas, 

including fault zones, wetlands, flood plains, or other restricted areas (EPA, 2012b). Site 

selection for landfills is an integral part of the design process. 

Construction and operating permit applications for new landfills must be submitted to and 

approved by state and local regulatory agencies as part of the siting and design process. Often, 

states require a registered professional engineer to design the landfill (Guyer, 2009). Additional 

permits must be issued for each expansion of the landfill from its originally permitted waste 

design capacity and footprint area. New or modified landfills may also require air permits under 

the New Source Review (NSR) permitting program, which includes Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) requirements for landfills sited in attainment areas, or areas where the air 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-9

quality meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and more stringent NSR 

requirements for landfills located in non-attainment areas. 

Developing a new landfill or expanding an existing landfill has become increasingly 

difficult, especially in metropolitan areas, due to the urbanization of suitable sites, permitting 

barriers, elevated land costs, and other factors. If a new landfill is proposed or when expansion 

plans for existing landfills are announced, adjacent communities may mount opposition that can 

hinder issuance of required permits and thus development of the landfill (Alva, 2010). 

2.3.1.2 Landfill Operations 

The two most common methods for active disposal of waste into landfills are the area fill 

method and the trench method. The area fill method involves waste placement in a large open 

section of a lined landfill and then spreading and compacting waste in uniform layers using 

heavy equipment. The trench method of filling waste in a modern landfill involves placing and 

compacting waste into a trench and then using soil and other materials from the trench 

excavation as daily cover. Local conditions often determine the most appropriate method for a 

particular landfill, and a combination of the two methods can be utilized. The trench method is 

generally less desirable than the area fill method, mostly due to the expense of lining side slopes 

to protect groundwater from leachate leakage and restrict gas migration (Guyer, 2009). 

As required by Subtitle D of RCRA, cover material is applied on top of the waste mass at 

the end of each day to prevent odors and fires and reduce litter, insects, and rodents. Materials 

used as daily cover include soil, compost, incinerator ash, foam, and tarps (NW&RA, 2008). 

Similarly, intermediate cover is used when an area of the landfill is not expected to receive waste 

or a cap for an extended period of time. Intermediate covers have traditionally consisted of layers 

of soil, geotextiles, or other materials. The reasons for using intermediate cover are similar to 

those for using daily cover and may also include erosion control. 

It is important to maintain anaerobic conditions within the landfill waste mass to avoid 

excess air infiltration that can cause fires. Landfill fires can be avoided by closely monitoring 

landfill conditions and maintaining the landfill as a controlled facility. If an active LFG 

collection system is installed, then gas wells are monitored to ensure oxygen is not being pulled 

into the landfill due to excessive vacuum levels. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-10

2.3.1.3 Landfill Closure 

Once an area of the landfill, or cell, has reached its permitted height, that cell is closed 

and a low permeability cap made of compacted clay or synthetic material is installed to prevent 

infiltration of precipitation. To divert water off of the top of the landfill, a granular drainage layer 

is placed on top of the low-permeability barrier layer. A protective cover is placed on top of the 

filter blanket and topsoil is placed as the final layer to support vegetation. The final cap and 

cover inhibit soil erosion and provide odor and LFG control (NW&RA, 2008). If an LFG 

collection system is in place, then expansion of the collection system into filled cells or areas of 

the landfill may require additional gas wells to be installed soon after these cells are closed and 

capped. Gas collection system design is discussed further in Section 2.6. 

RCRA Subtitle D regulations contain closure and post-closure care requirements, 

including written closure and post-closure care plans and maintaining the final cover, leachate 

collection system, and groundwater and LFG monitoring systems. The required post-closure care 

period is 30 years from site closure, but this can be shortened or extended if approved by state 

regulatory agencies (EPA, 2012c). 

2.3.1.4 Management of Liquids 

Leachate is the liquid that passes through the landfilled waste and strips contaminants 

from the waste as it percolates. Precipitation is the primary source of this liquid. To prevent 

water pollution and protect soil beneath, RCRA Subtitle D requires liners for landfills as well as 

leachate collection and removal and groundwater monitoring systems. Composite liner systems 

are used along the bottom and sides of landfills as impermeable barriers and are typically 

constructed with layers of natural materials with low permeability (e.g., compacted clay) and/or 

synthetic materials (e.g., high-density polyethylene) (NW&RA, 2008). Landfill liner systems 

also help prevent offsite migration of LFG. 

Leachate collection systems remove leachate from the landfill as it collects on the liner 

using a perforated collection pipe placed in a drainage layer (e.g., gravel). Waste is placed 

directly above the leachate collection system in layers. Collected leachate can be treated on site 

or transported off site to treatment facilities. For landfills with LFG collection systems, LFG 

condensate can be combined with leachate prior to treatment. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-11

Although traditional landfills tend to minimize the infiltration of liquids into a landfill 

using liners, covers, and caps (sometimes referred to as “dry tombs”), some landfills recirculate 

all or a portion of leachate collected to increase the amount of moisture within the waste mass. 

This practice of leachate recirculation results in a faster anaerobic biodegradation process and 

increased rate of LFG generation. Similarly, landfills may introduce liquids other than leachate, 

such as sludge and industrial wastewater. Conventional landfills typically have in-situ moisture 

contents of approximately 20 percent, whereas landfills recirculating leachate or other liquids 

may maintain moisture contents ranging from 35 to 65 percent (EPA, 2012d). Often, landfills 

injecting or recirculating liquids are termed bioreactors, but bioreactor landfills are defined 

differently amongst industry and regulatory agencies. In addition, bioreactor landfills may have 

air injected in a controlled manner to further accelerate biodegradation of the waste, which 

occurs for aerobic and hybrid bioreactor configurations. 

2.3.2 Ownership and Characteristics of Landfills 

Since the 1980s, the number of active MSW landfills in the United States has decreased 

by approximately 75 percent (from ~7,900 in 1988 to ~1,800 in 2014) and the share of sites that 

are publicly owned has also decreased—from 83 percent in 1984 to 58 percent in 2014 (EPA, 

2010; WBJ, 2014; O’Brien, 2006; EPA, 2014c). However, the overall volume of disposal 

capacity has remained fairly constant, indicating a trend of growing individual landfill capacity 

(SWANA, 2007). Based on landfills reporting to the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

(GHGRP) that they were actively accepting waste in 2013, privately owned sites represented 73 

percent of the overall permitted MSW landfill capacity and 73 percent of the MSW landfilled in 

that year, an indication that private landfills are likely to be significantly larger than public ones 

(GHGRP, 2013). Among these reporting sites, the average annual amount of MSW disposed at 

public sites was just under 175,000 short tons, whereas the average private site landfilled about 

427,000 short tons of MSW per year—further evidence that publicly owned landfills are 

generally much smaller than their private counterparts (GHGRP, 2013). 

EPA recognized as early as 2002 that a nationwide trend in solid waste disposal is toward 

the construction of larger, more remote, regional landfills. Economic considerations, influenced 

by regulatory and social forces, are compelling factors that likely led to the closure of many 

existing sites and to the idea of regional landfills (EPA, 2002b). The passage of federal 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-12

environmental regulations that affected landfills (e.g., RCRA in 1976, Subtitle D of RCRA in 

1991), established requirements which made it more expensive to properly construct, operate, 

maintain, and close landfills (O’Brien, 2006; EPA 2012e; EPA, 2002b). Large, private 

companies are better able to accommodate the increased costs of owning a landfill, since owning 

multiple sites, many of which have large capacities, provides an economy of scale for cost 

expenditures (O’Brien, 2006). To offset the high cost of constructing and maintaining a modern 

landfill, facility owners construct large facilities that attract high volumes of waste from a large 

geographic area, often using shipments from rail or truck (BioCycle, 2014a). By maintaining a 

high volume of incoming waste, landfill owners can keep tipping fees relatively low, which 

subsequently attracts more business (EPA, 2002b). 

As older, public landfills near their capacities, communities must decide whether to 

construct new landfills or seek other options. Many find the cost of upgrading existing facilities 

or constructing new landfills to be prohibitively high, and opt to close existing facilities. Also, 

public opposition often makes siting new landfills near population centers difficult and adequate 

land may not be available near densely populated or urban areas. Many communities are finding 

that the most economically viable solution to their waste disposal needs is shipping their waste to 

regional landfills. In these circumstances, a transfer station serves as the critical link in making 

the shipment of waste to distant facilities cost-effective (EPA, 2002b). 

Waste transfer stations are facilities where MSW is unloaded from collection vehicles 

and reloaded into long-distance transport vehicles for delivery to landfills or other 

treatment/disposal facilities. By combining the loads of several waste collection trucks into a 

single shipment, communities and waste management companies can save money on the labor 

and operating costs of transporting waste to a distant disposal site. They can also reduce the total 

number of vehicular miles traveled to and from the disposal site(s) (EPA, 2012f). Given the 

dramatic decrease in the number of active landfills in the past 25 years, transfer stations play an 

important part in facilitating the movement of solid waste from the areas in which it originates to 

its end location, often a large, centrally located landfill. The role of transfer stations in waste 

management has become even more prominent with the increase in the number of “regional” 

landfills—sites with very large capacities, often located in remote areas, and usually privately 

owned. As more and more publicly owned landfills reach capacity and close, the waste must go 

somewhere, and often that is to a regional landfill by way of a transfer station. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-13

There are more than 100 private companies that own and/or operate currently active 

MSW landfills, ranging from large companies with numerous landfills throughout the country to 

local businesses that own a single landfill (EPA, 2014c). The handling of MSW in the United 

States generated $55 billion of revenue in 2011, of which landfilling contributed $13 billion 

(WBJ, 2012a). In terms of their overall 2013 revenue, the top two companies that own and/or 

operate MSW landfills in the United States were Waste Management ($13.98 billion) and 

Republic Services ($8.42 billion), which together accounted for approximately 40 percent of the 

solid waste management revenue share in 2013 (Bloomberg, 2014WM; Bloomberg, 2014RSG). 

The next tier of companies involved in landfill management includes Clean Harbors ($3.51 

billion), Progressive Waste Solutions ($2.03 billion), and Waste Connections ($1.93 billion) 

(Bloomberg, 2014CLH; Bloomberg, 2014BIN; Bloomberg, 2014WCN). Table 2-3 contains a 

summary of the 2013 revenue for the top five companies, as well as information about their 

MSW landfills and transfer stations. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-14

Table 2-3 Top 5 Waste Management Companies That Owned or Operated MSW 

Landfills in the United States in 2013a

Company 

2013 

Revenue 

(billion $) 

No. of MSW 

Landfills Owned 

and/or Operated 

MSW 

Received at 

Landfills 

(million tons) 

No. of Transfer 

Stations Owned 

and/or 

Operated 

Waste Management 

(Bloomberg, 

2014WM)

13.98 267 93.8 300 

Republic Services 

(Bloomberg, 

2014RSG)

8.42 

190 active/ 

124 closed 

N/A 199 

Clean Harbors 

(Bloomberg, 

2014CLH)

3.51 2 N/A N/A 

Progressive Waste 

Solutions 

(Bloomberg, 

2014BIN)

2.03 N/A N/A N/A 

Waste Connections 

(Bloomberg, 

2014WCN)

1.93 42 active 19.5 61 

a Ranking of top five companies adapted from “The 2013 Waste Age 100”. <http://waste360.com/%5Bprimaryterm%5D/2013-waste-age-100-premium>. Accessed January 16, 2015. 

N/A = Not available. 

The industry that deposits MSW in landfills encompasses a wide range of job types, 

including garbage collectors, truck drivers, heavy equipment operators, engineers of various 

disciplines, specialized technicians, executives, MSW department directors, administrative staff, 

weigh scale operators, salespersons, and landfill operations managers. In 2012, 1,290 private 

establishments had 15,426 employees in the continental United States under NAICS 562212 

(Solid Waste Landfill) (Census, 2012). In 2013, solid waste management departments of local 

governments reported 95,674 full-time employees and 14,638 part-time employees (Census, 

2013); however, statistics are not readily available solely for landfill-related aspects of these 

departments. As the population continues to grow in the United States the amount of waste 

generated will continue to increase, but the amount of waste landfilled may remain the same or 

decrease (EPA, 2015h). Employment within the waste management industry overall will likely 

remain strong, perhaps with an increased shift of employees from the public sector to the private 

sector. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-15

2.4 Costs and Revenue Streams for Landfills 

2.4.1 Major Cost Components for Landfills 

EPA promulgated Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR part 258) under 

the RCRA on October 9, 1991 (EPA, 2012g). The law requires that non-hazardous MSW be 

disposed of in specially designed sanitary landfills. The criteria include location restrictions, 

design and operating standards, groundwater monitoring requirements, corrective actions, 

financial assurance requirements, LFG migration controls, closure requirements, and postclosure requirements (EPA, 2012g). It can cost more than $1 million per acre to construct, 

operate, and close a landfill in compliance with these regulations (Fitzwater, 2012). 

Landfill costs are site specific and vary based on factors such as terrain, soil type, 

climate, site restrictions, regulatory issues, type and amount of waste disposed, preprocessing, 

and potential for groundwater contamination. Landfill costs fall into the following categories: 

site development, construction, equipment purchases, operation, closure, and post-closure. 

Site development includes site surveys, engineering and design studies, and permit 

package fees. Surveys are necessary to determine if a potential site is feasible. Permits are 

required from local, state, and federal governments. As an example, engineering design and a 

permit application for an MSW landfill in Kentucky can cost approximately $750,000 to 

$1.2 million (KY SWB, 2012). 

Construction costs encompass building the landfill cells as well as development of 

permanent onsite structures needed to operate the landfill. Cortland County, New York estimated 

that the cost for site development and cell construction (not including onsite building 

construction) for a 224.5-acre site would be approximately $500,000 per acre (EnSol, 2010). In 

2005, a series of articles was written that estimated costs for a hypothetical landfill based on 

known market conditions and cost data. The theoretical landfill had a design capacity of 

4 million cubic yards and a footprint of 33 acres. The study determined that the cost of 

constructing a landfill of this size would be between $300,000 and $800,000 per acre. Table 2-4 

summarizes typical construction costs per acre by individual task for this example site (Duffy, 

2005a). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-16

Table 2-4 Typical Costs Per Acre for Components of Landfill Construction (Duffy, 2005a) 

Task Low End High End 

Clear and Grub $1,000 $3,000

Site Survey $5,000 $8,000

Excavation $100,000 $330,000

Perimeter Berm $10,000 $16,000

Clay Liner $32,000 $162,000

Geomembrane $24,000 $35,000

Geocomposite $33,000 $44,000

Granular Soil $48,000 $64,000

Leachate System $8,000 $12,000

QA/QC $75,000 $100,000

TOTAL $336,000 $774,000

Excavation of the landfill site comprises a notable portion of the construction costs. 

Installation of a landfill liner can vary greatly in cost depending on the site’s geology. Most 

states require only a single liner and leachate collection system for MSW, but requirements vary 

for the minimum thickness of clay liners. Landfill sites may have good quality clay located on 

site that would significantly lower the cost of a clay liner. The QA/QC task in Table 2-4 refers to 

management and quality oversight which is usually performed by independent third-party 

consultants. 

For the hypothetical landfill in the study, total building and additional structure costs 

could total between $1.165 million and $1.77 million. Operation of the landfill requires a truck 

scale, scale house, wheel wash facility, and buildings to accommodate an office and provide 

space for maintenance. The cost of each building structure varies depending on its functions and 

could range from $10 to $100 per square foot. Office buildings cost more while maintenance 

buildings and tool sheds cost less. In addition, fencing around the facility and roadways are 

required and add to the costs (Duffy, 2005a). 

Operating costs of the example landfill include staffing, equipment (payments and 

maintenance), leachate treatment, and facilities and general maintenance. Landfill operations and 

maintenance activities are performed using a variety of heavy construction equipment with 

operating costs dependent on fuel, repairs, and maintenance. Operating costs are relatively small 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-17

when compared to the capital costs; estimated annual operating costs from this study are (Duffy, 

2005a): 

• Operations (equipment, staff, facilities and general maintenance): $500,000. 

• Leachate collection and treatment (assumes sewer connection and discharge cost of 

$0.02/gallon): $10,000. 

• Environmental sampling and monitoring (groundwater, surface water, air gas, 

leachate): $30,000. 

• Engineering services (consulting firms and in-house staff): $60,000. 

Once a landfill no longer accepts waste, the closure process includes the installation of a 

final cover and cap. Capital costs for installation of a cap can run between $80,000 and $500,000 

per acre. For example, at a Maryland sanitary landfill costs were $150,000 per acre (MDE, 

2012). The capping costs for a 249.4-acre site in Cortland County, New York were estimated to 

be approximately $134,000 per acre. Factors influencing these costs include the materials used 

for the cap, site topography, and the availability of clay or soil suitable for use as the cover. 

Similar to the costs of the clay liner during the construction of the landfill, availability of nearby 

clay would significantly reduce this cost (EnSol, 2010). 

The closure process can include the installation of an LFG collection system which is 

necessary to collect and destroy or beneficially use the methane gas that is generated. (However, 

many landfills install gas collection and control systems as the landfill is being filled, or as areas 

within the landfill reach final grade, rather than waiting until closure to begin gas collection 

system installation.) The costs associated with an LFG collection and flare system are minimal as 

compared to the capital costs for landfill construction, annual landfill operating costs, and other 

closure costs. Section 2.6 discusses average installation costs for gas collection systems and 

flares. 

Post-closure care requires maintenance to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the 

final cover system, leachate collection system, groundwater monitoring system, and methane gas 

monitoring system. These activities prevent water and air pollution from escaping into the 

surrounding environment. The required post-closure care period is 30 years from site closure, 

and can be shortened or extended by the director of an approved state program as necessary to 

ensure protection of human health and the environment. Over a 30-year period, post-closure care 

and maintenance can cost from $64,000 to $88,000 per acre (Duffy, 2005b). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-18

Figure 2-2 shows that landfill costs peak prior to the landfill opening and again following 

the landfill closing (EPA, 1997). 

Figure 2-2 Landfill Cost Life Cycle 

2.4.2 Landfill Revenue Sources 

The cost to dispose of MSW at a landfill is commonly known as a “tip fee” or “gate fee”. 

Typically, reported tip fees represent the “spot market” price for MSW disposal, i.e., the drive-up 

cost to dispose of a ton of waste (NW&RA, 2011). Other tip fees exist at MSW facilities (e.g., 

waste accepted under a long-term contract, volume discounts, and special wastes); these fees 

may be higher or lower than the spot market price (Repa, 2005). In 2012, the average national 

spot market price to dispose of one ton of waste in a U.S. landfill was roughly $45, up 3.5 

percent over 2011 (WBJ, 2012b), while the national average for only the largest public and 

private landfills was about $49 per ton (KleanIndustries, 2012). This compares to average 

national tip fees of approximately $32 in 1998 (Repa, 2005) and $8 in 1985 (NW&RA, 2011). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-19

Average tip fees also vary by region of the country, as shown in Table 2-5. Tip fees in 

northeastern states have historically been and continue to be higher than those in other regions. 

The next most expensive areas, on average, are the Mid-Atlantic and western states. Tip fees 

tend to be higher near large population centers (Wright, 2012); this is likely influenced by the 

fact that metropolitan areas have less land area for waste disposal and therefore, fewer landfills. 

There is variation in tip fees within states as well, depending on landfill ownership (public or 

private) and proximity of other landfills. 

Table 2-5 Average Regional and National Per-Ton Tip Fees (Rounded): 1995-2011 

U.S. Region 1995a 1998a 2000a 2002a 2004a 2008b 2010c 2011d

Northeast $73 $67 $70 $69 $71 $67 NA $78 

Mid-Atlantic $46 $44 $46 $45 $46 $56 NA $65 

South $29 $31 $31 $30 $31 $32 NA $39 

Midwest $31 $31 $33 $34 $35 $39 NA $43 

South Central $20 $21 $22 $23 $24 $34 NA $33 

West Central $23 $23 $22 $23 $24 $39 NA $35 

West $38 $36 $35 $39 $38 $44 NA $55 

National $32 $32 $32 $34 $34 $42 $44 $50 

Northeast: CT, ME, MA, NH, NY, RI, VT 

Mid-Atlantic: DE, MD, NJ, PA, VA, WV 

South: AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN 

Midwest: IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, OH, WI

South Central: AZ, AR, LA, NM, OK, TX 

West Central: CO, KS, MT, NE, ND, SD, UT, WY 

West: AK, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, WA

a Source: Repa, 2005. 

b

 Source: Data from BioCycle, 2010. Data were not available for all states. For nine states, 2006 or 2009 data 

were substituted for missing year 2008 data. 

c

 Source: WBJ, 2010. 

d

 Source: Shin, 2014 (data reported from Waste & Recycling News).

Publicly owned landfills set tip fees based on the need to cover landfill and other waste 

management-related costs, while privately owned landfills’ tip fees are set based on competition 

or the lack thereof (Wright, 2012). For municipalities that depend on landfill tip fees to fund 

programs and services, more waste disposed in the local community-owned landfill means more 

money generated to fund their solid waste systems, including non-disposal services like 

recycling. Conversely, if more waste starts going to private landfills instead, less revenue is 

generated for community programs. An increasing presence of private facilities that can set 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-20

competitive tip fees has caused some communities to reduce their own tip fees in an effort to 

attract enough disposal volume to keep revenues at a sufficient level (Burgiel, 2003). 

Historically, the construction and operating costs of public MSW landfills have been 

funded by tip fees, tax revenues (e.g., county/city property tax revenue that goes into a general 

fund), or a combination of these. Factors influencing tip fee values have included population and 

economic growth, recycling rates, operating and transportation costs, land values, and legislation. 

Traditionally, 30 percent of landfills receive all revenue from tip fees, 35 percent receive all 

revenue from taxes, and 35 percent cover the costs of waste disposal through a combination of 

tip fees and taxes. The use of taxes as a revenue source rather than tip fees has implications on 

waste disposal services. When disposal costs are included in taxes, most people are not aware of 

the actual costs involved and there is little incentive to reduce waste generation rates. Also, 

tax-supported facilities are typically underfunded relative to actual disposal costs, resulting in 

poorer operation than fully funded landfills supported by tip fees. Factors that influence the 

choice of revenue sources include landfill size and ownership. Landfills receiving small 

quantities of waste are likely to rely heavily on taxes for their revenue while larger landfills rely 

on both taxes and tip fees (EPA, 2002a). 

Private owners of landfills rely heavily on tip fees relative to other landfill owners. It 

remains unclear whether private landfills rely on tip fees because they are larger, or larger 

landfills rely heavily on tip fees because they are private (EPA, 2002a). 

As shown in Table 2-5, average tip fees by region remained fairly steady between 1995 

and 2004, with minor declines in some years but with a gradual upward trend. The greatest 

increases in average tip fees occurred between 1985 and 1995, with the national average tip fee 

increasing by $24 (300 percent) or an average of $2.40 per year. From 1985 to 2008, tipping fees 

for private landfills increased an average of $1.25 per year but these private fees increased by 

about $1.95 per year between 2004 and 2008 (KleanIndustries, 2012). Tip fees are expected to 

continue to increase gradually, based on recent data and given rising fuel costs, insurance costs, 

and other operating costs (Wright, 2012). 

A landfill can also generate revenue by entering an agreement to sell carbon credits for 

voluntary destruction of methane, entering a gas sales agreement to sell LFG for beneficial use, 

or entering a power purchase agreement to sell electricity generated from LFG and/or renewable 

energy credits from the generation of that electricity. These types of revenue are small relative to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-21

tip fees and total landfill revenues, but can help offset some landfill expenses, for example, the 

cost of installing a gas collection system or energy recovery equipment. More information about 

these potential revenue sources is available in Section 2.6. 

2.5 Air Pollutant Emissions from Landfills 

MSW landfills are a source of NMOC which include volatile organic compounds (VOC), 

methane, a potent greenhouse gas (GHG), and hazardous air pollutants. LFG is formed during 

the decomposition of landfilled waste and, if not controlled, can emit numerous pollutants into 

the air. Several factors affect the amount of LFG generated and its components, including the age 

and composition of the waste, the amount of organic compounds in the waste, and the moisture 

content and temperature of the waste (EPA, 2012h). 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 carbon dioxide by volume, with trace amounts of NMOC and inorganic 

compounds (e.g., hydrogen sulfide) (EPA, 2015a; EPA, 2012h). 

2.5.1 NMOC in LFG 

The NMOC portion of LFG, while a small amount of LFG by volume, can contain a 

variety of significant air pollutants. NMOC include various organic hazardous air pollutants 

(HAPs) and VOC. If left uncontrolled, VOC can contribute to the formation of ground-level 

ozone, a common pollutant with adverse health impacts. Nearly 30 organic hazardous air 

pollutants have been identified in uncontrolled LFG, including benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, 

and vinyl chloride (EPA, 2012h). 

NMOC in LFG results mainly from the volatilization of organic compounds contained in 

the landfilled waste, while some NMOC may be formed by biological processes and chemical 

reactions within the waste (EPA, 1998). Waste materials that contribute to the formation of 

NMOC include items such as household cleaning products and materials coated with or 

containing paints and adhesives; during decomposition, NMOC can be stripped from these 

materials by other gases (e.g., methane or carbon dioxide) and become part of the LFG (EPA, 

2012h). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-22

The concentration of NMOC in uncontrolled LFG depends on several factors, including 

waste types in the landfill and the local climate. EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors (AP-42) provides a default NMOC concentration of 595 parts per million by volume 

(ppmv), of which 110 ppmv are considered HAP compounds. The total uncontrolled organic 

HAPs volume in LFG from MSW landfills is typically less than 0.02 percent of the total LFG 

(EPA, 2012h). 

2.5.2 Methane in LFG 

Methane is 28-3625 times more effective at retaining heat in the earth’s atmosphere than 

carbon dioxide, over a 100 year time horizon, and therefore is considered a potent GHG (IPCC, 

20072013).10 In 2012, landfills were the third-largest anthropogenic source of methane emissions 

in the United States, with MSW landfills accounting for approximately 15 percent of the total 

methane emissions from all sources (EPA, 2015h).The carbon dioxide generated from MSW 

landfills is deemed biogenic because the carbon dioxide would have been generated anyway as a 

result of natural decomposition of the organic waste materials if they had not been deposited in 

the landfill (EPA, 2015a). 

When waste is first placed in a landfill, it enters an aerobic decomposition stage. The 

availability of oxygen at this stage means that carbon released from the decomposition of organic 

waste materials is in the form of carbon dioxide, and little methane is produced. during which 

little methane is produced. However, within a year or less, the waste environment becomes 

anaerobic, methane generation increases, and the amount of carbon dioxide produced begins to 

level out (EPA, 2015a). Figure 2-3 presents a sample LFG generation curve over time for a 

typical MSW landfill. Significant methane generation can continue for 10 to 60 years after initial 

waste placement (EPA, 2012h). 

 

10 Note that this proposal uses a GWP value for methane of 25 for CO2 equivalency calculations, consistent with the 

GHG emissions inventories and the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Commented [A6]: OMB RIA comment 28: Reviewer notes 

that the RIA currently does not discuss the climate impacts of the 

oxidization of CH4 into CO2 into the atmosphere. While it is likely 

that these impacts are small when offset by other considerations, a 

discussion that these impacts were considered would be appropriate. 

For example, such a discussion occurs in section 4.7 of the Oil and 

Gas rule RIA. 

EPA response: We don’t account for the CO2 because it is deemed 

biogenic and would have been generated anyway as a result of 

natural decomposition of the organic waste materials if they had not 

been deposited in the landfill. In other words, the increase in 

atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration associated with the 

decomposition of organic waste materials would have occurred in 

the baseline and is not affected by the proposed rule. The new text in 

the RIA, pgs 2-22 and 2-23, clarifies this point. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-23

Figure 2-3 Typical LFG Generation Curve 

In 2012, landfills were the third-largest anthropogenic source of methane emissions in the 

United States, with MSW landfills accounting for approximately 15 percent of the total methane 

emissions from all sources (EPA, 2015h). Increasing attention is being given to mitigation of

methane, given its global warming potential 25 times greater than carbon dioxide and its 

relatively short atmospheric lifetime of about 12 years (as compared to 50-200 years for carbon 

dioxide) (EPA, 2015h). 

As methane oxides in the atmosphere, the carbon in methane is converted to carbon 

dioxide. Both the carbon dioxide generated directly from aerobic decomposition in MSW 

landfills and created as a result of methane oxidation in the atmosphere is deemed biogenic 

because the carbon dioxide would have been generated anyway as a result of natural 

decomposition of the organic waste materials if they had not been deposited in the landfill (EPA, 

2015a). In other words, the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration associated with 

the decomposition of organic waste materials would have occurred in the baseline and is not 

affected by the proposed rule.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-24

2.5.3 Criteria Pollutants from Combustion of LFG 

While collection and combustion of LFG in a flare or energy project equipment (e.g., 

reciprocating engine, boiler, turbine) greatly reduces emissions of methane and NMOC 

(including VOC and organic HAP), the combustion process generates criteria pollutants 

including carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate 

matter (PM) (EPA, 1998). NOX formation is strongly tied to the combustion temperature in the 

equipment, while CO and PM emissions are primarily the result of incomplete combustion of the 

gas. SO2 production depends upon the amount of sulfur in the LFG (EPA, 2000). More 

information about LFG combustion devices is available in Section 2.6. 

2.6 Techniques for Controlling Emissions from Landfills 

2.6.1 Introduction 

Emissions from landfills can be controlled by installing gas collection systems and either 

flaring the LFG or utilizing it as an energy source. Large landfills with emissions exceeding 50 

megagrams per year (Mg/yr) of NMOC are required by the MSW landfills EG to control and/or 

treat LFG to significantly reduce the amount of toxic air pollutants released. However, many 

landfills voluntarily choose to control emissions, in part because of the economic benefits of 

LFG energy projects. 

This section describes the equipment and costs associated with LFG emission controls. 

The control technologies are divided into three categories: gas collection systems, destruction, 

and utilization. Much of the information in this section was obtained from the U.S. EPA’s 

Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) LFG Energy Project Development Handbook 

(EPA, 2015a). 

2.6.2 Gas Collection Systems 

LFG collection typically begins after a portion of the landfill (known as a “cell”) is 

closed to additional waste placement. Gas vents are installed to collect LFG from the closed cell. 

The gas vents may be configured as vertical or horizontal wells, and some collection systems 

involve a combination of the two. Vertical wells (Figure 2-4) are the most common method of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-25

LFG collection and involve drilling wells vertically in the waste to collect gas. Horizontal wells 

(Figure 2-5) use piping laid horizontally in trenches in the waste; these systems are useful in 

deeper landfills and in areas of active filling. Both types of collection systems connect the 

wellheads to lateral piping that transports the gas to a collection header. 

Source: EPA, 2015a 

Figure 2-4 Vertical Well LFG Collection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-26

Source: EPA, 2015a 

Figure 2-5 Horizontal Well LFG Collection 

Collection from the gas vents may be either passive or active. Passive systems rely on the 

natural pressure gradient between the waste mass and the atmosphere to move gas to collection 

systems. Most passive systems intercept LFG migration and the collected gas is vented to the 

atmosphere. Active systems use mechanical blowers or compressors to create a vacuum that 

optimizes LFG collection (EPA, 1998). 

Collection efficiency is a measure of the ability of a gas collection system to capture 

generated LFG. Although rates of LFG capture can be measured, rates of actual generation in a 

landfill cannot be measured; therefore, considerable uncertainty exists regarding actual collection 

efficiencies achieved at landfills. Collection efficiencies at landfills with comprehensive gas 

collection systems typically range from 50 to 95 percent, with an average of 75 percent most 

commonly assumed (EPA, 1998; Sullivan, 2010; EPA, 2015a). In the current GHGRP 

requirements for MSW landfills (40 CFR part 98, subpart HH), LFG collection efficiencies vary 

for active gas collection systems depending upon cover material type, with daily soil cover 

assigned 60 percent, intermediate/final soil cover assigned 75 percent (also the default value), 

and final soil cover of three feet or thicker of clay and/or geomembrane cover system assigned 

95 percent. 

Total collection system costs vary widely, based on a number of site-specific factors. For 

example, if the landfill is deep, collection costs tend to be higher because well depths will need 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-27

to be increased. Collection costs also increase with the number of wells installed. Based on data 

from LMOP’s Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model (LFGcost-Web), the estimated capital cost (in 

2012 $’s) required for a 40-acre collection system is $897,000, assuming one well is installed per 

acre. Typical annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs (in 2012 $’s) for collection 

systems are approximately $2,500 per well, or $100,000 for a 40-acre system (EPA, 2014b). If 

an LFG energy project generates electricity, a landfill will often use a portion of the electricity 

generated to operate the system and sell the rest to the grid in order to offset these operational 

costs.

2.6.3 Destruction 

Collected LFG is typically combusted in flares or combustion devices that recover 

energy, such as boilers, internal combustion engines, and gas turbines. Properly designed and 

operated combustion equipment generally reduces NMOC by 98 percent or to a 20 ppmv outlet 

concentration, as specified in the current MSW landfills EG (40 CFR 60.752). Combustion also 

destroys over 98 percent of the methane. 

Flares are the most common control device used at landfills. Flares are also a component 

of each energy recovery option because they may be needed to control LFG emissions during 

energy recovery system startup and downtime and to control any gas that exceeds the capacity of 

the energy conversion equipment. In addition, a flare is a cost-effective way to gradually increase 

the size of the energy recovery system at an active landfill. As more waste is placed in the 

landfill and the gas collection system is expanded, the flare is used to control excess gas between 

energy conversion system upgrades (e.g., before addition of another engine). 

Flare designs include open (or candlestick) flares and enclosed flares. Open flares employ 

simple technology where the collected gas is combusted in an elevated open burner. A 

continuous or intermittent pilot light is generally used to maintain the combustion. Open flares 

used at landfills meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 60.18(b) have been demonstrated to have 

destruction efficiencies similar to enclosed flares. Enclosed flares typically employ multiple 

burners within fire-resistant walls, which allow them to maintain a relatively constant and limited 

peak temperature by regulating the supply of combustion air (ATSDR, 2001). Enclosed flares are 

more expensive but may be preferable (or required by state regulations) because they provide 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-28

greater control of combustion conditions and allow for stack testing. They can also reduce noise 

and light nuisances. 

Flare costs vary based on the gas flow of the system. LFGcost-Web estimates for flares 

include condensate collection and blowers. Condensate collection (also called knockout devices) 

is necessary because condensate forms when warm gas from the landfill cools as it travels 

through the collection system. If condensate is not removed, it can block the collection system. 

Blowers are needed to ensure a steady flow of gas to the flare. The size, type, and number of 

blowers needed depend on the gas flow rate and distance to downstream processes. 

Based on data from LFGcost-Web (in 2012$), a flare for a system designed for 600 cubic 

feet per minute (cfm) of LFG will cost $223,000 (including condensate collection and blowers). 

Typical annual O&M costs (in 2012$) are approximately $5,000 per flare. Electricity costs to 

operate the blower for a 600-cfm active gas collection system would be $53,000 per year, 

assuming an electricity price of $0.085 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) (EPA, 2014b). 

2.6.4 Utilization 

After collection, LFG may be used in an energy recovery system to combust the methane 

and other trace contaminants. LMOP’s Landfill and LFG Energy Project Database, which tracks 

the development of U.S. LFG energy projects and landfills with project development potential, 

indicates that approximately 640 LFG energy projects are currently operating in 48 states and 

Puerto Rico. Roughly three-fourths of these projects generate electricity, while one-fourth are 

direct-use projects in which LFG is used for its thermal capacity (EPA, 2015b). 

This section summarizes LFG utilization technologies in four general categories: power 

production, cogeneration, direct use, and alternative fuel. This section also provides a discussion 

of the economic benefits of LFG utilization projects. 

2.6.4.1 Technologies 

It is important to note that all of the technologies discussed below typically require 

treatment of LFG prior to entering the control device to remove moisture, particulates, and other 

impurities. (While “treatment” has a specific meaning within the MSW landfills EG, the term is 

used more generally in common usage and as discussed here.) The level of treatment can vary 

depending on the type of control and the types and amounts of contaminants in the gas. LFG is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-29

typically dehumidified, filtered, and compressed before being sent to energy recovery devices. 

For most boilers and internal combustion engines, no additional treatment is used. Some internal 

combustion engines and many gas turbine and microturbine projects apply siloxane removal 

using adsorption beds after the dehumidification step. 

2.6.4.1.1 Power Production 

Producing electricity from LFG continues to be the most common beneficial-use 

application, accounting for about three-fourths of all U.S. LFG energy projects (EPA, 2015b). 

Electricity can be produced by burning LFG in an internal combustion engine, a gas turbine, or a 

microturbine. 

The majority (more than 70 percent) of LFG energy projects that generate electricity do 

so by combusting LFG in internal combustion engines. Advantages of this technology include: 

low capital cost, high efficiency, and adaptability to variations in the gas output of landfills. 

Internal combustion engines are well-suited for 800-kilowatt (kW) to 3-megawatt (MW) 

projects, but multiple units can be used together for projects larger than 3 MW. Internal 

combustion engines are relatively efficient at converting LFG into electricity, achieving 

efficiencies in the range of 25 to 35 percent. 

Gas turbines are more likely to be used for large projects, where LFG volumes are 

sufficient to generate a minimum of 3 MW and typically more than 5 MW. Unlike most internal 

combustion engine systems, gas turbine systems have significant economies of scale. The cost 

per kW of generating capacity drops as gas turbine size increases, and the electric generation 

efficiency generally improves as well. 

Microturbines, as their name suggests, are much smaller than turbines, with a single unit 

having between 30 and 250 kW in capacity, and thus are generally used for projects smaller than 

1 MW. Small internal combustion engines are also available for projects in this size range and 

are generally less costly. Microturbines may be selected for certain projects (rather than internal 

combustion engines) because they can operate with as little as 35 percent methane and less than 

300 cfm, and also produce low nitrogen oxide emissions. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-30

An LFG energy project may use multiple units to accommodate a landfill’s specific gas 

flow over time. For example, a project might have three internal combustion engines, two gas 

turbines, or an array of 10 microturbines, depending on gas flow and energy needs. 

The costs of energy generation using LFG vary greatly; they depend on many factors 

including the type and size of electricity generation equipment, the necessary compression and 

treatment system, and the interconnect equipment. Table 2-6 presents examples of typical costs 

for several technologies, including costs for a basic gas treatment system typically used with 

each technology as well as interconnection costs. 

Table 2-6 Average LFG Power Production Technology Costs 

Technology 

Typical Size Used 

to Estimate Costs 

Typical Capital 

Costs ($/kW)a

Typical Annual O&M 

Costs ($/kW)a

Internal combustion engine 3,000 kW $1,700 $200 

Small internal combustion engine 500 kW $2,500 $220 

Gas turbine 10,000 kW $1,400 $130 

Microturbine 200 kW $2,900 $220 

Source: EPA, 2014b 

a

 2012$ 

2.6.4.1.2 Cogeneration 

LFG energy cogeneration applications, also known as combined heat and power (CHP) 

projects, provide greater overall energy efficiency and are growing in number. In addition to 

producing electricity, these projects recover and beneficially use the heat from the unit 

combusting LFG. LFG cogeneration projects can use internal combustion engine, gas turbine, or 

microturbine technologies. 

Less common LFG electricity generation technologies include a few boiler/steam turbine 

applications in which LFG is combusted in a large boiler to generate steam which is then used by 

a steam turbine to create electricity. A few combined cycle applications have also been 

implemented. These combine a gas turbine that combusts LFG with a steam turbine that uses 

steam generated from the gas turbine’s exhaust to create electricity. Boiler/steam turbine and 

combined cycle applications tend to be larger in scale than the majority of LFG electricity 

projects that use internal combustion engines. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-31

2.6.4.1.3 Direct Use 

The simplest and often most cost-effective use of LFG is direct use as a fuel for boilers 

and other direct thermal applications to produce useful heat or steam. However, this is only an 

option if there is an end user located near the landfill who is willing and able to use the LFG. An 

end user’s energy requirements are an important consideration when evaluating the sale of LFG 

for direct use. Because no economical way to store LFG exists, all gas that is recovered must be 

used as available; gas that cannot be immediately used in energy recovery equipment is flared 

and the associated revenue opportunities are lost. The ideal gas customer, therefore, will have a 

steady annual gas demand compatible with the landfill’s gas flow. When a landfill does not have 

adequate gas flow to support the entire needs of a facility, LFG can still be used to supply a 

portion of the needs. The number and diversity of direct-use LFG applications is continuing to 

grow. 

Boilers are the most common type of direct use, and LFG is used in boilers at a wide 

variety of industrial manufacturing facilities as well as commercial and institutional buildings. 

Boilers can often be easily converted to use LFG alone or in combination with fossil fuels. 

Equipment modifications or adjustments may be necessary to accommodate the lower Btu value 

of LFG, and the costs of modifications will vary. If retuning the boiler burner is the only 

modification required, costs will be minimal. However, retrofitting an existing natural gas boiler 

to include LFG may cost between $100,000 and $400,000, depending on the extent of the retrofit 

(EPA, 2014b). 

Direct thermal applications include kilns (e.g., cement, pottery, and brick), tunnel 

furnaces, process heaters, and blacksmithing forges. In addition, infrared heaters can use LFG to 

fulfill space heating needs. Greenhouses can combust LFG in boilers to provide heat for the 

greenhouse and to heat water used in hydroponic plant culture. LFG can be used to heat the 

boilers in plants that produce biofuels including biodiesel and ethanol. 

Table 2-7 presents typical cost ranges for the components of a direct-use project. The 

costs shown below for the gas compression and treatment system include compression, moisture 

removal, and filtration equipment typically required to prepare the gas for transport through the 

pipeline and for use in a boiler or process heater. If more extensive treatment is required to 

remove other impurities, costs will be higher. The gas pipeline costs also assume typical 

construction conditions and pipeline design. Pipelines can range from less than a mile to more 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-32

than 30 miles long, although most are shorter than 10 miles because length has a major effect on 

costs. In addition, the costs of direct-use pipelines are often affected by obstacles along the route, 

such as highway, railroad, or water crossings. End users will likely need to modify their 

equipment to make it suitable for combusting LFG, but these costs are usually borne by the end 

user and are site-specific to their combustion device. 

Table 2-7 Average LFG Direct-use Project Components Costs 

Component Typical Capital Costsa

 Typical Annual O&M Costsa,b 

Gas compression and treatment $1,200/cfm $130/cfm 

Gas pipeline and condensate 

management system 

$449,000/mile Negligible 

Source: EPA, 2014b 

a

 2012$, based on a 1,000-cfm system with a 5-mile pipeline 

cfm: cubic feet per minute 

b

 Assuming an electricity price of $0.085 per kWh

2.6.4.1.4 Alternative Fuel 

Production of alternative fuels from LFG, by upgrading the gas using high-Btu 

conversion technologies, is becoming more prevalent. LFG can be used to produce the 

equivalent of pipeline-quality gas (natural gas), compressed natural gas (CNG), or liquefied 

natural gas (LNG). Pipeline-quality gas can be injected into a natural gas pipeline and used by 

residential, commercial, or industrial end users along the pipeline. CNG and LNG can be used to 

fuel vehicles at the landfill (e.g., water trucks, earthmoving equipment, light trucks, autos), fuel 

refuse-hauling tucks (long-haul refuse transfer trailers and route collection trucks), and supply 

the general commercial market. Although only a handful of these projects are currently 

operational, several more are in the construction or planning stages. 

LFG can be converted into a high-Btu gas by increasing its methane content and, 

conversely, reducing its carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen content. In the United States, three 

methods have been commercially employed (i.e., beyond pilot testing) to remove carbon dioxide 

from LFG, including membrane separation, molecular sieve (also known as pressure swing 

adsorption or PSA), and amine scrubbing. 

Capital costs of high-Btu processing equipment (in 2012$) range from $2,500 per cfm 

LFG for a 10,000-cfm processing system to $5,900 per cfm LFG for a 1,000-cfm processing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-33

system. The annual cost to provide electricity to, operate, and maintain these systems (in 2012$) 

is approximately $500 per cfm LFG (EPA, 2014b). Costs will depend on the purity of the highBtu gas required by the receiving pipeline or energy end user as well as the size of the project, 

since some economies of scale can be achieved when producing larger quantities of high-Btu 

gas. 

For alternative fuel projects, the capital costs of converting LFG into CNG also vary, 

depending primarily on the quantity of fuel being converted and the type of fueling station 

equipment. Similar to high-Btu processing equipment, some economies of scale are realized for 

larger volumes of gas. The capital costs for onsite CNG production with a fueling station (in 

2012$) ranges from $7,200 per cfm LFG for a 600-cfm project to $14,800 per cfm LFG for a 

100-cfm project. The annual cost to operate and maintain a CNG project (in 2012$), including 

media and equipment replacement, is approximately $1 per gallon of gasoline equivalent 

produced by the system, or $0.003 per cfm LFG assuming a conversion efficiency of 65 percent 

and a fuel use rate of 111,200 Btu per gallon of gasoline equivalent (EPA, 2014b). 

2.6.4.2 Revenues and Incentives 

Landfill owners can receive revenue from the sale of carbon credits, the sale of electricity 

generated from LFG to the local power grid, or from the sale of LFG to a direct end user or 

pipeline. However, the revenue received represents only a small percentage of the operating 

costs of a landfill. 

2.6.4.2.1 GHG Credits 

Voluntary GHG trading programs purchase credits from landfills that capture LFG to 

destroy or convert methane contained in the gas and obtain credit for the reduction of GHG in 

terms of carbon equivalents. In order to qualify for these programs, the emission reductions must 

be in addition to regulated actions and have recent project installation. Examples of companies 

operating on the voluntary carbon market include Climate Action Reserve, EcoSecurities, 

Evolution Markets, Blue Source, and Chicago Climate Exchange (EPA 2012a). 

Bilateral trading and GHG credit sales are other voluntary sources of revenue. Bilateral 

trades are project-specific and are negotiated directly between a buyer and seller of GHG credits. 

In these cases, corporate entities or public institutions, such as universities, may wish to reduce 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-34

their “carbon footprint” or meet internal sustainability goals, but do not have direct access to 

developing their own project. Therefore, a buyer may help finance a specific project in exchange 

for the credit of offsetting GHG emissions from their organization. 

Many state and regional government entities are establishing their own GHG initiatives to 

cap or minimize GHG emissions within their jurisdictions. Examples include the Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the Washington carbon dioxide offset program, and 

Massachusetts’ carbon dioxide reduction from new plants. Some of these programs establish a 

cap-and-trade program on carbon dioxide emissions, while others require new fossil-fueled 

boilers and power plants to either implement or contribute to funding of offset projects, including 

LFG. 

Certain LFG energy projects may qualify for participation in nitrogen oxides cap-andtrade programs, such as the nitrogen oxides State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revenues for 

these incentives vary by state and will depend on factors such as the allowances allocated to each 

project, the price of allowances on the market, and if the project is a CHP project (typically CHP 

projects receive more revenue due to credit for avoided boiler fuel use). 

2.6.4.2.2 Electricity Project Revenue 

The primary revenue component of the typical electricity project is the sale of electricity 

to the local utility. This revenue stream is affected by the electricity buy-back rates (i.e., the rate 

at which the local utility purchases electricity generated by the LFG energy project). Electricity 

buy-back rates for new projects depend on several factors specific to the local electric utility and 

the type of contract available to the project, but typically range between 2.5 and 11 cents per 

kWh (EPA, 2014b). 

When assessing the economics of an electricity project, it is also important to consider 

the avoided cost of the electricity used on site. Electricity generated by the project that is used in 

other operations at the landfill is, in effect, electricity that the landfill does not have to purchase 

from a utility. This electricity is not valued at the buy-back rate, but at the rate the landfill is 

charged to purchase electricity (i.e., retail rate). The retail rate is often significantly higher than 

the buy-back rate. 

LFG energy projects can potentially use a variety of additional environmental revenue 

streams, which typically take advantage of the fact that LFG is recognized as a renewable, or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-35

“green,” energy resource. These additional revenues can come from premium pricing, tax credits, 

GHG credit trading, or incentive payments. They can be reflected in an economic analysis in 

various ways, but typically, converting to a cents/kWh format is most useful. LFGcost-Web 

accommodates four common types of electricity project credits: a direct cash grant, an electricity 

generation tax credit expressed in dollars per kWh, a direct GHG (carbon) reduction credit 

expressed in dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (discussed in Section 2.6.4.2.1), 

and a direct renewable electricity credit expressed in dollars per kWh. This section includes 

discussion of the available environmental revenue streams that an LFG electricity project could 

possibly use. 

Premium pricing is often available for renewable electricity (including LFG) that is 

included in a green power program, through a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), a Renewable 

Portfolio Goal (RPG), or a voluntary utility green pricing program. These programs could 

provide additional revenue above the standard buy-back rate because LFG electricity is 

generated from a renewable resource. 

Renewable energy certificates (RECs) are sold through voluntary markets to consumers 

seeking to reduce their environmental footprint. They are typically offered in 1 megawatt-hour 

(MWh) units, and are sold by LFG electricity generators to industries, commercial businesses, 

institutions, and even private citizens who wish to achieve a corporate renewable energy 

portfolio goal or to encourage renewable energy. If the electricity produced by an LFG energy 

project is not being sold as part of a utility green power program or green pricing program, the 

project owner may be able to sell RECs through voluntary markets to generate additional 

revenue. 

Tax credits, tax exemptions, and other tax incentives, as well as federal and state grants, 

low-cost bonds, and loan programs are available to potentially provide funding for an LFG 

energy project. For example, Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code provides a per-kWh 

federal tax credit, commonly referred to as the renewable electricity Production Tax Credit 

(PTC), for power generated at privately owned LFG electricity projects. To qualify for the credit, 

which was 1.1 cent per kWh for the 2014 calendar year, all electricity produced must be sold to 

an unrelated person during the taxable year. Under legislation passed in December 2014, the 

placed-in-service date deadline for LFG energy projects to be eligible was extended to December 

31, 2014 (DSIRE, 2015). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-36

2.6.4.2.3 Direct-use Project Revenues 

The primary source of revenue for direct-use projects is the sale of LFG to the end user; 

the price of LFG, therefore, dictates a project’s revenue. Often LFG sales prices are indexed to 

the price of natural gas, but prices will vary depending on site-specific negotiations, the type of 

contract, and other factors. In recent years, typical LFG prices have ranged from $1.50 to $4.00 

per million British thermal units (MMBtu) or 0.14¢ to 0.38¢ per megajoule (EPA, 2013). In 

general, the price paid by the end user must provide an energy cost savings that outweighs the 

cost of required modifications to boilers, process heaters, kilns, and furnaces in order to burn 

LFG. 

Federal and state tax incentives, loans, and grants are available that may provide 

additional revenue for direct-use projects. Specific to vehicle fuel, EPA’s Renewable Fuel 

Standard (RFS) program allows registered renewable fuel producers, including biofuels 

produced from LFG, to generate Renewable Identification Number (RIN) credits for the 

renewable fuel produced which are purchased by parties required to meet specified volumes of 

renewable fuel (EPA, 2014d). In 2014, RIN credits for advanced biofuels (such as LFG-based 

biogas) were between $0.74 and $1.00 per RIN, equivalent to a range of $9 to $13 per million 

Btu (ABC, 2014). GHG emissions trading programs are also potential revenue streams for directuse projects. 

2.7 Integrated Waste Management Strategies 

2.7.1 Introduction 

Landfills are one method of waste disposal, but alternative strategies are available for the 

treatment of MSW, and multiple strategies are often used in combination. EPA has developed a 

non-hazardous waste management hierarchy that ranks the most environmentally sound 

strategies for MSW. Source reduction and reuse (waste prevention) is the most preferred method, 

followed by recycling and composting, energy recovery, and, lastly, treatment and disposal 

(EPA, 2015c). 

Waste prevention is the practice of designing products to reduce the amount of waste that 

will later need to be thrown away, which may result in less toxic waste (EPA, 2015d). Recycling 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-37

involves the recovery of useful materials, such as paper, glass, plastic, and metals from trash and 

using these materials to make new products. Recycling saves resources, including energy, raw 

materials, and landfill space. 

The diversion of organic materials, such as food scraps and yard waste (e.g., lawn 

trimmings, fallen leaves and branches), from landfills allows these materials to be used to create 

compost or generate energy. The management of organic materials is discussed in Section 2.7.2. 

Alternatively, MSW can be directly combusted in waste-to-energy facilities to generate 

electricity. At the power plant, MSW is unloaded from collection trucks and shredded or 

processed to ease handling. Recyclable materials are separated out, and the remaining waste is 

fed into a combustion chamber to be burned. The heat released from burning the MSW is used to 

produce steam, which turns a steam turbine to generate electricity (EPA, 2015e). 

Landfilling is often used as part of an integrated waste management strategy (e.g., where 

the same community has recycling programs, yard waste composting, and landfilling) and LFG 

can often be used for energy recovery as described in Section 2.6.4. LFG energy projects aim to 

recover and beneficially utilize methane generated from waste that has not been successfully 

diverted from landfills. The promotion of LFG energy is not in conflict with the promotion of 

organic waste diversion, nor does it compete with waste prevention or recycling, but allows LFG 

energy projects to utilize methane generated from millions of tons of organic waste already 

disposed in landfills while supporting future diversion of organic waste from landfills to reduce 

the amount of uncontrolled methane generated. In addition, some studies have shown that 

diverting waste from landfills may not always result in a comparative reduction in GHG 

emissions when efficient LFG collection systems and lifecycle emissions (from transportation 

and processing of organic waste) are taken into account (EPA, 2015f). 

2.7.2 Organics Management 

As detailed in Section 2.2.1.4, food waste, yard debris, and other organic materials 

continue to be the largest component of MSW discarded, with food waste comprising the largest 

portion (EPA, 2014a). Decreasing the amount of organics disposed in landfills would reduce the 

amount of LFG generated. If diverted from disposal in landfills, organic wastes can be 

composted or anaerobically digested. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-38

Composting is the controlled biological decomposition of organic material in the 

presence of air to form a humus-like material. Controlled methods of composting include 

mechanical mixing and aerating, ventilating the materials by dropping them through a vertical 

series of aerated chambers, or placing the compost in piles out in the open air and mixing the 

piles periodically (EPA, 2015g). Diverted organic materials can also be used in an anaerobic 

digester, although digesters generally handle relatively small quantities of easily digestible 

waste. BioCycle identified nearly 5,000 composting facilities in the United States, with about 70 

percent composting only yard trimmings and 7 percent composting food scraps (BioCycle, 

2014a). 

Anaerobic digestion involves the conversion of organic matter to energy by 

microbiological organisms in the absence of oxygen. The biogas produced in the digestion 

process is a mixture of methane and carbon dioxide and can be used as a fuel source for heating 

or electricity production. Organic waste can either be digested at facilities specifically designed 

for the organic portion of MSW, or co-digested at wastewater treatment plants and manure 

digesters. The number of anaerobic digesters in the United States that process MSW-based 

wastes is on the rise from the first commercial scale plant coming online by 2010 up to more 

than seven plants operating by 2013, some of them digesting food waste alone and others codigesting food waste with wastewater and other organics (Arsova, 2010; RWI, 2013a; RWI, 

2013b). 

2.7.2.1 Trends 

States and municipalities in the United States are increasingly moving toward the 

diversion of organic wastes from landfills. State initiatives to recycle organic wastes have 

contributed to the growth of curbside organics collection as well as commercial and institutional 

collection and treatment. Table 2-8 lists the 21 states that have mandated organics diversion 

and/or banned disposal of organics from landfills. In particular, five states (California, 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont) have enacted legislation for organics 

disposal specific to food waste (BioCycle, 2014b; MSW Management, 2015). At a local level, 

BioCycle’s Fall 2014 survey identified 198 communities in 19 states with curbside collection of 

food scraps, as shown in Table 2-8. Between 2009 and 2014, the number of municipalities with 

source separated food waste collection more than doubled (from 90 to 198) and the number of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-39

households grew by nearly 50 percent (BioCycle, 2015). The assortment of organics 

management initiatives and programs at state and local levels varies across the country by: 

• Type of organic wastes targeted (e.g., food waste, yard waste); 

• Source of organic waste generation (e.g., commercial, residential, institutional); 

• Phase of implementation (from pilot projects to mandatory requirements with fines 

for violations); and 

• Pricing formats (e.g., “pay-as-you-throw,” property tax, fixed fee) (BioCycle, 2015). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-40

Table 2-8 Waste Management of Organics in the United States 

State State-wide Organics 

Diversion Mandate and/or 

Disposal Ban1,2,3

Local Residential Food 

Waste Collection 

Program4

Arkansas 

California (FW) 

Colorado 

Connecticut (FW) 

Delaware 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa  

Kentucky 

Maryland  

Massachusetts (FW) 

Michigan 

Minnesota  

Nebraska 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey  

New York 

North Carolina 

Ohio  

Oregon 

Rhode Island2 (FW)

Pennsylvania  

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Vermont (FW) 

Washington 

Wisconsin  

Number of States 21 19 

FW = Food waste diversion mandate and/or disposal ban

1

 Source: BioCycle, 2014a. Survey results from 39 states that responded. 

2

 Source: BioCycle, 2014b. Rhode Island legislation goes into effect January 2016. 

3

 Source: MSW Management, 2015. 

4

 Source: BioCycle, 2015. Denotes states that have one or more communities with a residential source separated 

food waste collection program. Programs are not state-wide initiatives.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-41

2.7.2.2 Benefits 

The benefits of diverting organic wastes from landfills include: 

• Reduction of methane, NMOC, and other air pollutants generated by the organic 

fraction of waste disposed in landfills; 

• Production of soil-improving compost material from composting (ILSR, 2014); 

• Generation of biogas from anaerobic digestion used to generate electricity and/or 

heat; and 

• Recovery and recycling of food waste to support food banks for humans or animals 

(MSW Management, 2015). 

2.7.2.3 Barriers 

Some barriers exist that can deter mandating the diversion of organics from landfills, 

especially in the format of a federal mandate, such as: 

• Lack of or variation in regulatory policies, incentives, and drivers to encourage 

organics diversion and make it more affordable (ILSR, 2014). For example, 

Kentucky’s composting permit fees for private entities led to a decline in applicants 

when the fee went from $0 to $3,000 in 2011, with an annual renewal fee of $500 

(BioCycle, 2014b). While New York does not have legislation in place, the state does 

review local materials management plans to provide suggestions on improving 

organics management and offers waste reduction and recycling grants to 

municipalities for education or capital expenditures (BioCycle, 2014b). Lessening 

permit restrictions and fees for organic waste facilities and offering state-level 

assistance to municipalities may spur movement to establish and expand organics 

management programs. 

• Limited capacity for organic material receiving, processing, and treatment facilities 

(e.g., composters, anaerobic digesters) and associated infrastructure (e.g., hauling 

services, transfer stations) (ILSR, 2014). While the United States has no shortage of 

landfill capacity overall, the average amount of organics diverted to composting in 27 

states is 5,155 tons per facility per year, which is far too low to adequately achieve 

higher composting rates (BioCycle, 2014a). Composting of organics can occur at 

several tiers, from home-based and small-scale farm and community sites to onsite 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-42

institutional systems (primarily schools) to large-scale centralized facilities, thus 

encouraging backyard and locally-based composting and developing adequate 

infrastructure for commercial composting (beyond yard waste) would lead to an 

increased capacity for organic wastes in urban, suburban, and rural areas (BioCycle, 

2014a). 

• Low cost to dispose waste in landfills relative to other waste treatment technologies 

(ILSR, 2014). Traditionally, waste disposal in the United States has been based on 

landfill tipping fees, or the fee a waste collector or hauler pays to discard waste in a 

landfill. Tipping fees at landfills vary across the United States, ranging from $5 to 

$142 per ton in 2011, with a national average just below $50 per ton (Shin, 2014). 

When recycling and organics diversion are introduced, the pricing structure shifts 

from a disposal cost to transportation and processing or treatment costs. Anaerobic 

digesters require significant capital investment and rely on tipping fees to recover 

costs to construct and operate the facility. In addition, due to opposition for siting 

these facilities, it is difficult to obtain permits to build digesters in densely populated 

areas, which results in increased costs to transport feedstock to the digester 

(Waste360, 2014). More recently, local solid waste agencies have offered reduced 

fees for source separated loads of organics at composting facilities. For example, 

Charleston County, South Carolina has a $25 per ton fee to drop off food and organic 

waste for composting, compared to $66 per ton for traditional waste sent to the 

landfill (ILSR, 2014). In addition, variable rate fees, or “pay-as-you-throw” pricing, 

incentivize separate collection of organics and recyclables as trash collection is 

typically priced at a higher fee than source separated organics and recyclables (ILSR, 

2014). 

• Multifaceted and regional nature of the solid waste management industry. Waste 

generators include households, institutions, and commercial entities, and these parties 

vary regionally in both density and demographics. Historically, state and local 

government has controlled all aspects of collection, transportation, disposal, and 

treatment of solid waste including the permitting of facilities and infrastructure and 

assessment of fees through taxes and operation of landfills. Private companies also 

play a significant role that ranges from collecting and hauling waste to owning and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-43

operating landfills. While the industry is moving towards more integrated solid waste 

management approaches at a local or regional level, there is not a shift towards a 

national solid waste management system. As a result, the policies, programs, and 

infrastructure to accommodate organics diversion must be tailored to the unique 

situations of each region, state, or municipality to best implement change among 

interlinked entities of generators, collectors, and treatment and disposal facilities. 

• Lack of information and understanding of the environmental and energy benefits of 

separating, recovering, and utilizing organics. Ultimately, effective organics 

diversion from landfills begins at the point of generation. Changing waste disposal 

habits can be challenging for individuals, businesses, and industries in the United 

States, but education and awareness about the benefits of composting and anaerobic 

digestion in a manner that relates directly to individuals and organizations may 

encourage and increase diversion of organics. 

2.8 References 

Alva, 2010. “Successfully Permitting a Solid Waste Landfill in a Metropolitan Area: Sunshine 

Landfill Expansion Project.” Paul Alva. Solid Waste Association of North America 

(SWANA) WASTECON 2010. 

American Biogas Council (ABC). 2014. “A Snapshot of RNG and the Market.” May 12, 2014. 

<https://www.americanbiogascouncil.org/biogasProcessing/rngMarket_snapshot.pdf>. 

Arsova, Ljupka. 2010. “Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste: Current Status, Problems and an 

Alternative Product.” Columbia University. Earth Engineering Center. May 2010. 

<http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/arsova_thesis.pdf>. 

ATSDR. 2001. Landfill Gas Primer – An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals, 

Chapter 5: Landfill Gas Control Measures. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (ATSDR). November 2001. 

<http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/landfill/html/ch5.html>.

BioCycle. 2010. “17th

 Nationwide Survey of MSW Management in the U.S.: The State of 

Garbage in America.” October 2010. <http://www.biocycle.net/2010/10/the-state-ofgarbage-in-america-4/>. 

BioCycle. 2014a. “State of Composting in the U.S.” July 2014. 

<http://www.biocycle.net/2014/07/16/state-of-composting-in-the-u-s/>. 

BioCycle. 2014b. “Taking States’ Pulse On Residential Food Waste Collection.” October 2014. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-44

BioCycle. 2015. “BioCycle Nationwide Survey: Residential Food Waste Collection in the U.S.” 

January 2015. <http://www.biocycle.net/2015/01/15/residential-food-waste-collection-inthe-u-s-2/>. [Table found in print edition only] 

Bloomberg Businessweek. 2014BIN. Financial Statements for Progressive Waste Solutions 

(BIN). Annual Income Statement as of December 31, 2013. 

<http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=BIN:

CN>. 

Bloomberg Businessweek. 2014CLH. 2013 SEC Filings - Clean Harbors Inc (CLH). 10-K, 

Annual Financials, March 3, 2014. 

<http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/secfilings.asp?ticker=CLH

>. 

Bloomberg Businessweek. 2014RSG. 2013 SEC Filings - Republic Services Inc (RSG). 10-K, 

Annual Financials, February 13, 2014. 

<http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/secfilings.asp?ticker=RSG

>. 

Bloomberg Businessweek. 2014WCN. 2013 SEC Filings - Waste Connections Inc (WCN). 10-

K, Annual Financials, February 10, 2014. 

<http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/secfilings.asp?ticker=WC

N>. 

Bloomberg Businessweek. 2014WM. 2013 SEC Filings - Waste Management Inc (WM). 10-K, 

Annual Financials, February 18, 2014. 

<http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/secfilings.asp?ticker=WM

>. 

Burgiel, Jonathan J. 2003. R.W. Beck, Inc. “Making Ends Meet When Revenues Start to 

Disappear”. October 2003. 

Callan, S. J. and J. M. Thomas. 2006. “Analyzing Demand for Disposal and Recycling Services: 

A Systems Approach.” Eastern Economic Journal 32(2): 221-238. 

Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). 2015. North Carolina State 

University. North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center. Web page: Renewable 

Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC). 

<http://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program/detail/734>. Accessed February 5, 2015. 

Duffy, Daniel P. 2005a. MSW Management. “Landfill Economics Part II: Getting Down to 

Business”. June 2005. 

<http://www.mswmanagement.com/MSW/Articles/Landfill_Economics_Part_II_Getting

_Down_to_Busines_1513.aspx>. 

Duffy, Daniel P. 2005b. MSW Management. “Landfill Economics Part III: Closing Up Shop”. 

August 2005. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-45

<http://www.mswmanagement.com/MSW/Editorial/Landfill_Economics_Part_III_Closin

g_Up_Shop_1504.aspx>. 

EnSol, Inc. 2010. “Cortland County Landfill Alternatives Analysis”. October 2010. 

<http://www.cortlandco.org/legislature/Ash%20to%20Trash%20Docs/CORTLAND%20COUNTY%20LAND

FILL%20ALTERNATIVES%20ANALYSIS%20-%20FINAL%20REPORT%2010-15-

10.pdf>. 

Fitzwater, Ryan. 2012. Seeking Alpha. “The Top Three Dividend Paying Waste Management 

Stocks”. May 21, 2012. <http://seekingalpha.com/article/604571-the-top-3-dividendpaying-waste-management-stocks>. 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). 2013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Web page: GHG Reporting Program Data Sets. Download GHGRP Data by Year. 2013 

GHG Data. Envirofacts. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgdata/reportingdatasets.html>. 

Guyer, 2009. “Introduction to Sanitary Landfills.” J. Paul Guyer, CED Engineering. 2009. 

<http://www.cedengineering.com/upload/An%20Introduction%20To%20Sanitary%20La

ndfills.pdf>. 

Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR). 2014. “State of Composting in the U.S.” July 2014. 

<http://www.ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/state-of-composting-in-us.pdf>. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Panel Climate Change, 2007. 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.

Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, Department for Environmental Protection, Division 

of Waste Management, Solid Waste Branch (KY SWB). 2012. “Landfill Permitting 

Overview”. Accessed December 4, 2012. 

<http://waste.ky.gov/SWB/Documents/Landfill%20Permitting%20Overview.pdf>. 

KleanIndustries. 2012. “Tipping fees vary across the U.S.” July 2012. 

<http://www.kleanindustries.com/s/environmental_market_industry_news.asp?ReportID

=538710>. 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2012. “Estimated Costs of Landfill Closure”. 

Accessed December 4, 2012. 

<http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/ResearchCenter/FactSheets/LandFactSheet/Docu

ments/www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/factsheets/landfill_cl.pdf>. 

MSW Management. 2015. “LFGTE Supplement: The Organic Factor.” January/February 2015. 

<http://www.mswmanagement.com/MSW/Articles/LFGTE_Supplement_The_Organic_F

actor_27909.aspx>. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-46

National Waste & Recycling Association (NW&RA) (formerly National Solid Wastes 

Management Association). 2008. “Modern Landfills: A Far Cry from the Past.” August 

2008. <https://wasterecycling.org/images/documents/resources/Research-BulletinModern-Landfill.pdf>. 

NW&RA. 2011. “Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facts.” October 2011. 

<https://wasterecycling.org/images/documents/resources/Municipal-Solid-WasteLandfill-Facts.pdf>. 

O’Brien, Jeremy K. 2006. “Contracting out: Adapting local integrated waste management to 

regional private landfill ownership.” Waste Management World. <http://www.wastemanagement-world.com/index/display/article-display/271246/articles/wastemanagement-world/volume-7/issue-7/features/contracting-out-adapting-local-integratedwaste-management-to-regional-private-landfill-ownership.html>. 

Renewable Waste Intelligence (RWI). 2013a. “Business Analysis of Anaerobic Digestion in the 

U.S.A.” March 2013. <http://www.renewablewaste.com/pdf/AnaerobicDigestionEbrief.pdf>. 

Renewable Waste Intelligence (RWI). 2013b. “Commercial Updates: Municipal Solid Waste 

Conversion on the West Coast U.S.A.” October 2013. 

Repa, Edward W. National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA). 2005. 

“NSWMA’s 2005 Tip Fee Survey.” March 2005. 

<http://freewaterindependence.com/tipping_fee_bulletin_2005.pdf>. 

Shin, Dolly. 2014. “Generation and Disposition of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in the United 

States – A National Survey.” Columbia University. Earth Engineering Center. January 3, 

2014. <http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Dolly_Shin_Thesis.pdf>. 

Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA). 2007. “The Regional Privately-Owned 

Landfill Trend and Its Impact on Integrated Solid Waste Management Systems.” 

February 2007. 

Sullivan, Patrick. 2010. “The Importance of Landfill Gas Capture and Utilization in the U.S.” 

Columbia University. Earth Engineering Center. Council for Sustainable Use of 

Resources. April 6, 2010. 

<http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Importance_of_LFG_Capture_and_Util

ization_in_the_US.pdf>. 

U.S. Census Bureau (Census). 2012. Economic Census and Population Estimates. Economic 

Census: Industry Snapshots. Solid Waste Landfill (NAICS 562212). 2012. 

<http://thedataweb.rm.census.gov/TheDataWeb_HotReport2/econsnapshot/2012/snapsho

t.hrml?NAICS=562212>. 

U.S. Census Bureau (Census). 2013. Annual Survey of Public Employment & Payroll. Local 

Government Employment and Payroll Data. March 2013. 

<http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/>. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-47

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. “Full Cost Accounting for Municipal Solid 

Waste Management: A Handbook, Chapter 4: Allocating Costs.” September 1997. EPA530-R-95-041. <http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/fca/docs/fca-hanb.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (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”. November 1998. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/final/c02s04.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. 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 3: Stationary Internal 

Combustion Sources, Section 3.1: Stationary Gas Turbines”. April 2000. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/index.html>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002a. “Economic Impact Analysis for the 

Supplemental to the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) NESHAP.” December 2002. EPA452-R-03-001. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/EIAs/MSWsupnoticeEIAfinal.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002b. Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

“Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision-Making.” June 2002. EPA-530-R-02-

002. <http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/r02002.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. “Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 2009 Facts and Figures.” December 2010. EPA-530-R-10-012. Washington, DC: 

U.S EPA. <http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2009rpt.pdf>. 

Accessed January 6, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, 

Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2010.” December 

2011. EPA-530-F-11-005. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw_2010_rev_factsheet.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012a. Landfill Gas Energy: A Guide to 

Developing and Implementing Greenhouse Gas Reduction Programs. State and Local 

Climate and Energy Program, U.S. EPA. 2012. EPA-430-R-09-047. 

<http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/documents/pdf/landfill_methane_utilization.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012b. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response (OSWER), Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR). Web 

page: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. 

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill.htm>. Accessed December 4, 2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012c. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: Closure and 

Post-Closure Care Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-48

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/financial/mswclose.htm>. Accessed 

December 4, 2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012d. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfills: Bioreactors. 

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/bioreactors.htm>. Accessed 

December 4, 2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012e. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: History of 

RCRA. <http://www.epa.gov/osw/laws-regs/rcrahistory.htm>. Accessed November 14, 

2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012f. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: Transfer 

Stations. <http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/transfer.htm>. Accessed 

November 14, 2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012g. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: MSW 

Landfill Criteria Technical Manual. 

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/techman/>. Accessed December 4, 

2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012h. Landfill Methane Outreach Program 

(LMOP), Climate Change Division, U.S. EPA. Web page: Frequent Questions: Landfill 

Gas. <http://www.epa.gov/lmop/faq/landfill-gas.html>. Accessed December 3, 2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. An Overview of Landfill Gas Energy in the 

United States. LMOP, Climate Change Division, U.S. EPA. July 2013. 

<http://epa.gov/lmop/documents/pdfs/overview.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014a. “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, 

Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2012.” February 

2014. EPA-530-F-14-001. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_fs.pdf>. Accessed January 

6, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014b. Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model 

(LFGcost-Web), Version 3.0. LMOP, Climate Change Division, U.S. EPA. August 2014. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014c. “Landfill-level data only (all landfills) – 

updated August 2014.” LMOP, Climate Change Division, U.S. EPA. 

<http://www.epa.gov/lmop/projects-candidates/index.html>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014d. “Webinar: Using Landfill Gas as Vehicle 

Fuel.” LMOP, Climate Change Division, U.S. EPA. November 13, 2014. 

<http://epa.gov/lmop/documents/pdfs/lmop-webinar-13Nov2014.pdf>. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-49

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015a. LFG Energy Project Development 

Handbook. LMOP, Climate Change Division, U.S. EPA. February 2015. 

<http://epa.gov/lmop/publications-tools/handbook.html>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015b. “Landfill and LFG Energy Project 

Database.” LMOP, Climate Change Division, U.S. EPA. January 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015c. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: NonHazardous Waste Management Hierarchy.” 

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/hierarchy.htm>. Accessed January 22, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015d. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: Municipal 

Solid Waste. <http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/index.htm>. Accessed 

January 22, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015e. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: Electricity 

from Municipal Solid Waste. <http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-andyou/affect/municipal-sw.html>. Accessed January 22, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015f. LMOP. Web page: Frequent Questions: 

LFG Energy Projects. <http://www.epa.gov/lmop/faq/lfg.html#08>. Accessed January 

22, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015g. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: Types of 

Composting. <http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/composting/types.htm>. Accessed 

January 22, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013. Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, DC. 

EPA 430-R-15-004. Annex 3.14, Tables A-265 and Table ES-2. April 2015. 

<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html>. Accessed 

April 28, 2015.

 Waste 360. 2014. “Navigating the Complexities of Food Waste.” September 25, 2014. 

<http://waste360.com/organics/navigating-complexities-food-waste?NL=WST03&Issue=WST-03_20150128_WST03_312&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_4&YM_RID=CPEQW000001137125&YM_MID=

2476>. 

Waste Business Journal (WBJ). 2010. “Landfill Tipping Fees Reach New Record, Despite Slow 

Times”. August 17, 2010. 

<http://www.wastebusinessjournal.com/news/wbj20100817A.htm>. 

WBJ. 2012a. “Waste Market Overview & Outlook 2012.” 

<http://www.wastebusinessjournal.com/overview.htm>. Accessed January 16, 2015. 

WBJ. 2012b. “US Landfill Tipping Fees Reach $45 per Ton; Slow Volume Growth.” October 2, 

2012. <http://www.wastebusinessjournal.com/news/wbj20121003A.htm>. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-50

WBJ. 2014. “Directory of Waste Processing and Disposal Sites 2014.” 

<http://www.wastebusinessjournal.com/diratlas.htm>. Accessed January 6, 2015. 

Wright, Shawn. 2012. Waste & Recycling News. “Tipping fees vary across the U.S.” July 20, 

2012. Previously accessed at 

<http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com/article/20120720/NEWS01/120729997/tippingfees-vary-across-the-u-s>. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-1 

3 REGULATORY PROGRAM COSTS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS 

3.1 Introduction 

Currently, the Emission Guidelines for existing MSW landfills requires landfills of at 

least 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) capacity and 2.5 million cubic meters in size with estimated 

nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) emissions of at least 50 Mg per year to collect and 

control or treat landfill gas (LFG). Landfills which meet the design size requirements but do not 

emit at least 50 Mg NMOC per year are required to test and monitor. As part of this review, the 

EPA evaluated the emission reductions and costs associated with a series of regulatory options. 

This chapter of the RIA includes three sets of discussions related to the proposed new Emission 

Guidelines: 

• Emissions Analysis 

• Engineering and Administrative Cost Analysis 

• Regulatory Option Analysis 

This discussion of the emissions and cost analyses is meant to assist the reader of the RIA to 

better understand the regulatory impact analysis. However, we provide references to technical 

memoranda for readers interested in a greater level of detail. 

3.2 General Assumptions and Procedures 

The proposed Emission Guidelines will affect existing MSW landfills. 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, 198711, and that commenced construction, 

reconstruction, or modification prior to July 17, 2014 (the date of publication of proposed 

revisions to the landfills NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX). However, the EPA recognizes 

that many landfills subject to the proposed Subpart Cf are closed or contain inactive areas that do 

not produce as much landfill gas. Therefore, the EPA is proposing a separate subcategory for 

 

11 This 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-2 

landfills that closed after 1987 but on or before the date of this Emission Guidelines proposal. 

These landfills would be subject to a 50 Mg/yr NMOC emission rate threshold, consistent with 

the NMOC thresholds in Subparts Cc and WWW of Part 60. These landfills will also be exempt 

from initial reporting requirements, provided that the landfill already met these requirements 

under Subparts Cc or WWW of Part 60. 

To assess the impacts of the proposal, the EPA drew upon a comprehensive database of 

existing landfills, derived from a landfill and LFG energy project database maintained by the 

EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) and data from the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Program (GHGRP). Unfortunately, this dataset was missing some landfill data for 

recent years (2010-2014) and included incomplete data for many landfills. To better represent 

landfills from recent years, model landfills were created. These model future landfills were 

developed by evaluating the most recently opened existing landfills and assuming that the sizes 

and locations of landfills opening in 2010-2014 would be similar to the sizes and locations of 

landfills that opened in the most recent complete 5 years of data (2005-2010). Based on this 

assessment, the EPA created a total of five model landfills to represent landfills opening during 

2010-2014, which combined with the five landfills for which construction was already planned, 

led to ten projected future landfills that would be subject to the Emission Guidelines. In addition, 

11 model landfills were created that would be subject to the NSPS discussed in Chapter 7. 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 Landfill Regulations. 2014.” 

To estimate the cost and emission impacts of each regulatory option, EPA determined 

which landfills in the complete dataset met the design capacity and emission rate thresholds for 

each regulatory option, and then calculated the emission reductions and costs for each landfill 

under each regulatory option in 2025 using the methods described below. The EPA is assessing 

impacts in year 2025 as a representative year for the landfills Emission Guidelines. While the 

year 2025 differs somewhat from the expected first year of implementation for the Emission 

Guidelines (year 2020), the number of existing landfills required to install controls under the 

proposed 2.5/34 option in year 2025 is comparable (within 2 percent of those required to control 

in the estimated first year of implementation. Further, year 2025 represents a year in which 

several of the landfills subject to control requirements have had to expand their GCCS according 

the expansion lag times set forth in proposed subpart Cf. While the analysis focuses on impacts 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-3 

in 2025, results for alternative years are also presented in Section 3.6. The resulting costs and 

emission reductions incurred by each landfill were used to assess the overall impacts of the 

current Emission Guidelines in the baseline and the incremental impacts of the regulatory 

options considered. The emission reduction and cost and revenue equations and assumptions are 

detailed in the docketed memorandum from ERG to EPA, “Updated Methodology for Estimating 

Cost and Emission Impacts of Proposed MSW Landfill Regulations. 20142015.” 

The emissions and cost modeling was based upon the following basic assumptions: 

• The baseline represents the emission reductions and costs associated with the 

requirements of Subpart Cc. Each regulatory option was compared to this baseline. 

• Each landfill would install gas collection and control systems (GCCS) when the landfill 

exceeds the emission rate and design capacity threshold. 

• Each landfill would remove GCCS when the actual emissions are below the emissions 

threshold, the landfill is closed, and the controls have been in place for at least 15 years. 

• Costs were annualized using a 7% interest rate, which is consistent with EPA guidance 

for cost evaluations. Costs are also presented using a 3% interest rate, in accordance with 

OMB guidance. 

Alternative regulatory options varied the emission rate thresholds and design capacity thresholds. 

3.3 Emissions Analysis 

To estimate emission reductions, the amount of LFG and NMOC emitted at each landfill 

was estimated using a model programmed in Microsoft® Access. The model assumes that the 

collection equipment is installed and operational at the landfill 30 months after the emissions 

exceed the NMOC emission threshold in each option12. As the landfill is filled over time, the 

 

12 Note that even though the proposed rule allows a 30-month initial lag time, the model actually assumes the 

collection equipment is installed and operational at 36 months. We modeled as a 36 month (3-year) lag time 

since the first-order decay equation used to model emissions is on an annual, instead of monthly, basis. Further, 

because the current rule requires annual NMOC emission reports to be submitted by 6 months into the following 

calendar year, the landfill would have 30 months after the submittal of its first NMOC emission report showing 

an exceedance to install the GCCS, which is approximately 36 months after the excess emissions occurred. 

Commented [A7]: OMB RIA Comment 9: Reviewer 

recommends clearly articulating the analytic timeline since EPA 

only presents results in the RIA for a snapshot of 2025. 

EPA Response: The discussion has been edited to explain the 

choice of 2025 as a representative year. In addition, some results 

from alternative snapshot years are being included in Chapters 3, 4, 

and 7. 

Commented [A8]: OMB RIA Comment 7: Reviewer 

recommends providing additional details on EPA’s methods for 

estimating costs and emissions reductions, and recommends drawing 

additional language citing to the two summary TSDs referenced. 

EPA Response: We feel that the RIA provides an appropriate level 

of detail about the models, as the memos are essentially the 

description of a series of equations from the models. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-4 

model assumes the landfill expands the GCCS into new areas of waste placement in accordance 

with the expansion lag time of the standard. Once the landfill has reached maximum gas 

production, gas generation will begin to decline once waste is no longer accepted. At this point, 

the analysis assumes that the GCCS no longer needs to be expanded and the GCCS will continue 

to collect all the gas being produced until the gas production falls back below the emission 

threshold of the proposed standard and the GCCS has been installed for at least 15 years. The 

emission reductions are equal to the amount of collected NMOC or methane that is combusted, 

which is estimated by multiplying the amount of collected gas by a destruction efficiency of 98 

percent13. 

In addition to direct emission reductions, the proposed Emission Guidelines are expected 

to have secondary air impacts due to the additional energy demand required to operate the 

control system and the by-product emissions from the combustion of LFG. However, these are 

offset by avoided emissions from the national electrical grid as landfills generate electricity from 

the LFG. The methodology used to estimate secondary impacts of the proposed Emission 

Guidelines are detailed in the docketed memorandum from ERG to EPA, “Estimating Secondary 

Impacts of the Landfills Emission Guidelines Review. 2015” 

3.4 Engineering and Administrative Cost Analysis 

The evaluation will assume that landfills will install and remove LFG controls as required 

by the rule. Landfills are required to install controls when the landfill exceeds the emission rate 

and design capacity thresholds. Landfills are allowed to remove controls when the actual 

emissions are below the emissions threshold, the landfill is closed, and the controls have been in 

place for at least 15 years. 

The EPA derived the cost equations used in the evaluation from the EPA’s Landfill Gas 

Energy Cost Model (LFGcost-Web), version 3.0, which was developed by the EPA’s Landfill 

 

13 The regulatory analysis models collectable gas (see ERG. 2015. Updated Methodology for Estimating Cost and 

Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills Regulations). As per 60.34(f)(b)(2)(i), the GCCS should be designed to 

handle the maximum expected gas flow rate from the entire area of the landfill that warrants control over the 

intended use period of the gas control system equipment.

Commented [A9]: OMB RIA Comment 13: Reviewer 

recommends additional information on the basis for the assumed 

efficacy of the collection systems, including citations. 

EPA Response: A clarification and reference is provided in a 

footnote. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-5 

Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). LFGcost-Web estimates gas collection, flare, and energy 

recovery system costs and was developed based on cost data obtained from equipment vendors 

and consulting firms that have installed and operated numerous gas collection and control 

systems. LFGcost-Web encompasses the types of costs included in the EPA OAQPS control 

cost manual including capital costs, annual costs, and revenue from LFG electricity sales. Total 

capital costs include purchased equipment costs, installation costs, engineering and design costs, 

costs for site preparation and buildings, costs of permits and fees, and working capital. Total 

annual compliance costs include direct costs, indirect costs, and revenue from LFG electricity 

sales. Direct annual costs are those that are proportional to a facility-specific metric such as the 

facility’s productive output or size. Indirect annual costs are independent of facility-specific 

metrics and may include categories such as administrative charges, taxes, or insurance. 

For this evaluation, the EPA assessed costs in 2012$. The costs included in LFGcostWeb are in 2013$ and were adjusted for inflation to 2012$ using a factor of 2 percent for capital 

costs and 2.5 percent for O&M costs.14 For the primary estimate of costs, the EPA used an 

interest rate of 7% to annualize the capital costs in this evaluation to estimate the annual capital 

cost of flares, wells, wellheads (including piping to collect gas), and engines over the lifetime of 

the equipment. Costs were also estimated using an interest rate of 3%. The EPA assumes that the 

equipment will be replaced when its lifetime is over, so the annualized capital costs are incurred 

as long as the landfill still has controls in place. In order to calculate the annualization factors, 

the EPA assumes that flares, wells, well heads, and engines have a 15-year lifetime. In addition, 

there is a mobilization/installation charge to bring well drilling equipment on site each time the 

gas collection system is expanded. Because the landfill will be drilling wells to expand the 

control system during the expansion lag year, EPA assumes that this capital installation cost has 

a lifetime equal to the expansion lag time. 

 

14 The inflation rate for capital equipment is consistent with the default equipment inflation rate in the LFGcost-Web 

model; the inflation rate for O&M costs is consistent with the default general inflation rate in the LFGcost-Web 

model. See further documentation at: http://epa.gov/lmop/publications-tools/lfgcost/LFGcostWebV3_0manual.pdf 

Commented [A10]: OMB RIA Comment 18: Reviewer 

recommends that EPA use PPI data from BLS instead of the 2% 

inflation rate for capital and 2.5% inflation rate for O&M on 3-5 

EPA Response: As noted in footnote 14, the rates used for this 

analysis are consistent with the default rates in the LFGcost-Web 

model. EPA will edit its analysis of impacts in the final rule to use 

the PPI data from BLS, but this request is not feasible for the 

proposal.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-6 

A number of the capital costs equations are dependent upon the number of wells at each 

landfill. In order to estimate the number of wells at each landfill, EPA estimated the number of 

acres that have been filled with waste for each landfill for each year. We assumed that the 

percentage of design area filled (acres) would track the ratio of waste in place/design capacity 

(e.g., is a landfill has a waste-in-place amount equivalent to 40% of design capacity, then 40% of 

the planned acreage is filled). EPA assumed that each landfill would install one well per acre 

and that the number of wells would increase periodically based on expansion lag time. 

Engines are assumed to be installed only at landfills that produce enough LFG to power 

the engine and only when the electricity buyback rates allow the operation of the engine to be 

profitable. Standard engines used at landfills have approximately 1 MW capacity, which equates 

to 195 million ft3 per year of collected LFG (at 50 percent methane). Therefore, engines are 

assumed to be installed at landfills that have at least 195 million ft3 per year of collected LFG for 

at least 15 years. 

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

equations to determine at what electricity buyback rate an engine is profitable. The profitable 

electricity buyback rates are rates that are greater than $0.0457 per kWh at 7% and greater than 

$0.0430 per kWh at 3% interest. Engines were only assumed to be installed in states with 

buyback rates exceeding those values. 

Multiple engines may be present at a landfill when there is sufficient gas flow to support 

additional engines. As noted above, one engine requires 195 million ft3 per year of collected 

LFG, so in order to have two engines on-site, the landfill must have double that amount of LFG 

(390 million ft3 per year) for at least 15 years. 

The capital costs for engines are based on the capital costs for standard reciprocating 

engine-generator sets in LFGcost-Web. These costs include gas compression and treatment to 

remove particulates and moisture (e.g., a chiller), reciprocating engine and generator, electrical 

interconnect equipment, and site work including housings, utilities, and total facility engineering, 

design, and permitting. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-7 

Several of the compliance requirements require labor to complete the activities in 

addition to capital expenses for purchasing the monitoring and control equipment. This analysis 

assumes that a Civil Engineer or Civil Engineer Technician completes compliance requirements 

of the proposed amendments, depending on the complexity of the task. Some landfill owners or 

operators do all or a portion of this work directly while others contract out control installation or 

monitoring requirements. 

3.5 Regulatory Baseline and Options 

As mentioned before, the alternative regulatory options differ from the baseline by 

varying in the design capacity thresholds and emission rate thresholds: 

• Baseline: design capacity retained at 2.5 Mg, emission threshold retained at 50 Mg 

NMOC/year

• Alternative Option 2.5/40: design capacity retained at 2.5 Mg, emission threshold 

reduced to 40 NMOC Mg/yr

• Proposed Option 2.5/34: design capacity retained at 2.5 Mg, emission threshold reduced 

to 34 NMOC Mg/yr 

• Alternative Option 2.0/34: design capacity reduced to 2.0 Mg, emission threshold 

reduced to 34 Mg NMOC/year 

The baseline reflects the parameters of the current Emission Guidelines. In the baseline, 

the Emission Guidelines affect 989 landfills, with 574 landfills controlling emissions, 211 

landfills reporting but not controlling emissions, and 233 landfills in the closed subcategory in 

2025. 

Commented [A11]: OMB RIA Comment 19: Reviewer 

recommends clarifying on 3-8 what “baseline” means in Table 3-2. 

EPA Response: Requested clarification appears on 3-7 and is 

relevant for all tables and discussion in this section. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-8 

Table 3-1 Number of Affected Landfills in 2025 under the Baseline and Alternative 

Options 

Affected 

Landfills 

(Open and 

Closed) 

Affected 

Open 

Landfills 

Affected 

Closed 

Subcategory

Closed 

Landfills 

Controlling 

Emissions 

Open 

Landfills 

Controlling 

Emissions 

Open 

Landfills 

Reporting 

but Not 

Controlling 

Emissions 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC

Baseline 989 756 233 29 545 211 

 

Alternative EG Options

Alternative 

option 2.5/40 989 756 233 29 607 149 

Proposed option 

2.5/34 989 756 233 29 651 105 

Alternative 

option 2.0/34 1090 803 287 29 667 136 

Note: Affected landfills include landfills subject to rule based on size and open as of 2015 as well as landfills in the closed 

subcategory. Affected open landfills are comprised of open landfills controlling emissions and open landfills reporting but 

not controlling emissions. Some closed landfills are still controlling emissions in 2025. 

Based on the characteristics of the landfills, the proposed option presented in Table 3-1 

would require 106 additional landfills to install controls by 2025. The less stringent alternative 

option would require 62 additional landfills to install controls by 2025, while the more stringent 

alternative option would affect 101 additional landfills, with some being required only to report, 

others being required to control, and some being in the closed subcategory. In that option, 122 

additional landfills are required to install controls by 2025. 

 Under the proposed option 2.5/34, the emission reductions would be an additional 2,770 Mg 

NMOC and 436,100 Mg methane (10,900,000 Mg CO2 Eq.) compared to the baseline in 2025. 

The less stringent alternative option 2.5/40 would yield emissions reductions of 1,720 Mg 

NMOC and 270,700 Mg methane (6,800,000 Mg CO2 Eq.) compared to the baseline, while the 

more stringent alternative option 2.0/34 would result in emissions reductions of 3,040 Mg 

NMOC and 479,100 Mg methane (12,000,000 Mg CO2 Eq.) compared to the baseline. The wide 

range in magnitude of emission reductions among pollutants is due to the composition of landfill 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-9 

gas: NMOC represents less than 1 percent of landfill gas, while methane represents 

approximately 50 percent. The emission reductions are summarized in Table 3-2. 

Table 3-2 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2025 for the Baseline and 

Alternative Options 

 Annual Average Reduction (Mg)

NMOC Methane 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 57,300 9,035,000 226,000,000 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 1,720 270,700 6,800,000 

Proposed option 2.5/34 2,770 436,100 10,900,000 

Alternative option 2.0/34 3,040 479,100 12,000,000 

*A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. Secondary CO2 emission 

reductions are not included in this table. 

Under the proposed option 2.5/34, when using a 7% discount rate the additional cost of control 

over the baseline in 2025 would is estimated to be $101 million, $55.3 million of which is 

estimated to be offset by increased revenue from beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is 

estimated to be $46.8 million (

Commented [A12]: OMB RIA Comment 6: Reviewer 

recommends presenting the baseline emissions of methane and 

NMOC in tabular format. 

EPA Response: Requested information appears in this table. 

Commented [A13]: OMB RIA Comment 5: Reviewer 

recommends clarifying the gross cost in the cost discussion. 

EPA Response: This discussion and the discussion in Section 7.2 

have been edited to discuss the control cost, revenue from 

beneficial-use projects, and the resulting net cost. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-10 

Table 3-3Table 3-3). The additional cost of control for the less stringent alternative 

option 2.5/40 would is estimated to be $60.3 million, $33.6 million of which is estimated to be 

offset by increased revenue from beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is estimated to be $27 

million, while. the The cost of control for the more stringent alternative option 2.0/34 would is 

estimated to be $111 million, $60.7 million of which is estimated to be offset by increased 

revenue from beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is estimated to be $51 million. These 

options represent approximately between 9 to 17 percent in additional net costs beyond the 

baseline, with the proposed option 2.5/34 resulting in a 16 percent increase in net costs beyond 

the baseline for the industry as a whole. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-11 

Table 3-3 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2025 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (7% Discount Rate) 

 Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions 2012$) 

Testing and 

Monitoring 

Costs Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use

Projects Net Cost 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 7.3 1,700 1,410 299 

Incremental values versus the current EG

Alternative option 2.5/40 0.40 60.3 33.6 27.0 

Proposed option 2.5/34 0.69 101 55.3 46.8 

Alternative option 2.0/34 0.84 111 60.7 51.0 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. 

When using a 3% discount rate, the model predicts a different timing in the investment behavior 

by the landfills, which affects both the costs and revenue that are predicted in 2025. Under the 

proposed option 2.5/34, the additional cost of control over the baseline in 2025 would is 

estimated to be $117 million, $82.5 million of which is estimated to be offset in increased 

revenue from beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is estimated to be $35 million (
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-12 

Table 3-4Table 3-4). The cost of control for the less stringent alternative option 2.5/40 

would is estimated to be $72.1 million, $52.3 million of which is estimated to be offset by 

increased revenue from beneficial use projects, so the net cost is estimated to be $20.1 million, 

while. the The cost of control for the more stringent alternative option 2.0/34 would is estimated 

to be $126 million, of which $89.1 million is estimated to be offset by increased revenue from 

beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is estimated to be $38.1 million. These options represent 

approximately between 24 to 45 percent in additional net costs beyond the baseline, with the 

proposed option 2.5/34 resulting in a 41 percent increase in net costs beyond the baseline for the 

industry as a whole. However, it is important to note that the baseline value when using a 3% 

discount rate is less than 30 percent of the value when using a 7% discount rate, because the 

increased costs of earlier installation of GCCS and engines are offset by increased revenue from 

energy generation. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-13 

Table 3-4 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2025 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (3% Discount Rate) 

 Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions 2012$) 

Testing and 

Monitoring 

Costs Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use

Projects Net Cost 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 7.1 2,190 2,120 84.5 

Incremental values versus the current EG

Alternative option 2.5/40 0.37 72.1 52.3 20.1 

Proposed option 2.5/34 0.66 117 82.5 35.0 

Alternative option 2.0/34 0.80 126 89.1 38.1 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. 

In terms of cost effectiveness, when considering the estimated net cost of the options, the 

overall average cost effectiveness for NMOC reductions is $5,0905,200 per Mg NMOC under 

the baseline and roughly $17,000 per Mg NMOC under the proposed option 2.5/34 and 

alternative option 2.0/34, and roughly $16,000 per Mg NMOC under the alternative option 

2.5/40 (Table 3-5Table 3-5). The average cost-effectiveness of controlling methane is 

significantly lower than for NMOC because methane constitutes approximately 50 percent of 

landfill gas, while NMOC represents less than 1 percent of landfill gas. The overall average cost 

effectiveness for methane reductions is roughly $32 33 per Mg methane under the baseline and 

approximately $100 - $110 per Mg methane under the proposed option 2.5/34 and the alternative 

options 2.5/40 and 2.0/34. 

When estimating cost effectiveness excluding the estimated revenue from beneficial-use 

projects, the overall average cost effectiveness for NMOC reductions is $29,800 per Mg NMOC 

under the baseline and roughly $37,000 per Mg NMOC under the proposed option 2.5/34 and 

alternative option 2.0/34, and roughly $36,000 per Mg NMOC under the alternative option 

2.5/40 (Table 3-5Table 3-5). The average cost-effectiveness of controlling methane is 

significantly lower than for NMOC because methane constitutes approximately 50 percent of 

landfill gas, while NMOC represents less than 1 percent of landfill gas. The overall average cost 

effectiveness for methane reductions is $189 per Mg methane under the baseline and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-14 

approximately $225 - $235 per Mg methane under the proposed option 2.5/34 and the alternative 

options 2.5/40 and 2.0/34.

Table 3-5 Estimated Cost-effectiveness in 2025 for the Baseline and Alternative Options 

(7% Discount Rate) 

Cost-effectiveness (2012$ per Mg)

NMOC Methane 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Net 

Costb 

/ton 

Total 

Cost 

/ton 

Net 

Costb 

/ton

Total 

Cost

/ton 

Net 

Costb 

/ton

Total 

Cost

/ton 

 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 5,200 29,800 33.1 189 1.3 7.6 

 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 15,800 35,500 100 225 4.0 9.0 

Proposed option 2.5/34 17,000 37,000 108 235 4.3 9.4 

Alternative option 2.0/34 16,800 36,900 107 234 4.3 9.4 

Note: The cost-effectiveness of NMOC and methane are estimated as if all of the control cost were attributed to each 

pollutant separately. 

a A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. The secondary CO2 emission 

reductions are not reflected in these estimates. 

b Net Cost is the total control and testing and monitoring cost minus any project revenue. The control costs for 

landfills with energy projects includes costs to install and operate a reciprocating engine (and associated electrical 

equipment), which is more expensive than a standard flare. Reciprocating engines are not required by the regulation 

but are expected to be used as control devices when it is cost-effective to recovery the LFG energy.

3.6 Alternative Years of Analysis 

While the EPA is assessing impacts in year 2025 as a representative year for the landfills 

Emission Guidelines for existing MSW landfills, the quantity and composition of landfill gas 

does change over the lifetime of a landfill, as discussed in Chapter 2. This section presents a 

more complete picture of the emission reductions and costs of the Emission Guidelines 

alternatives over time by presenting results from the years 2020, 2030, and 2040. Throughout 

this section, costs are presented only at a 7% interest rate, and do not include testing and 

monitoring costs. However, testing and monitoring costs are typically a very small percentage of 

Commented [A14]: OMB RIA Comment 21: Reviewer 

recommends presenting cost-effectiveness both with and without the 

added revenue on 3-12. 

EPA Response: Table 3-5 has been modified to include costeffectiveness with and without added revenue (change is not tracked 

due to Word issues) and surrounding discussion has been modified. 

Similar change made to Table 7-5 and surrounding text for 

supplemental NSPS proposal. 

Commented [A15]: This section added in response to OMB 

General Comment 1. Table additions not tracked as changes for 

clarity. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-15 

the overall costs. Tables 3-6 and 3-7 present the emissions reductions and compliance costs, 

respectively, of the alternatives in the 2020 snapshot year. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-16 

Table 3-6 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2020 for the Baseline and 

Alternative Options 

 Annual Average Reduction (Mg) 

NMOC 

Million 

Methane 

Million 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 56,300 8.9 222 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 1,490 0.24 5.9 

Proposed option 2.5/34 2,270 0.36 9.0 

Alternative option 2.0/34 2,560 0.40 10.1 

*A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. Secondary CO2 emission 

reductions are not included in this table. 

Table 3-7 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2020 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (7% Discount Rate) 

 

Landfills 

Controlling 

Emissions

Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions 

2012$) 

Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use 

Projects Net Cost 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 595 1,660 1,390 262 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 57 53.0 42.9 18.1 

Proposed option 2.5/34 93 88.4 65.8 30.5 

Alternative option 2.0/34 108 96.9 70.0 34.9 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. 

Tables 3-8 and 3-9 present the emissions reductions and compliance costs, respectively, in the 

2030 snapshot year.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-17 

Table 3-8 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2030 for the Baseline and 

Alternative Options 

 Annual Average Reduction (Mg) 

NMOC 

Million 

Methane 

Million 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 55,600 8.8 219 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 1,960 0.31 7.7 

Proposed option 2.5/34 3,150 0.50 12.4 

Alternative option 2.0/34 3,390 0.53 13.4 

*A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. Secondary CO2 emission 

reductions are not included in this table. 

Table 3-9 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2030 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (7% Discount Rate) 

 

Landfills 

Controlling 

Emissions

Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions 

2012$) 

Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use 

Projects Net Cost 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 554 1,680 1,360 325 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 65 69.4 31.5 32.9 

Proposed option 2.5/34 107 112.9 58.5 49.4 

Alternative option 2.0/34 123 122.4 63.9 53.5 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-18 

Tables 3-10 and 3-11 present the emissions reductions and compliance costs, respectively, in the 

2040 snapshot year. 

Table 3-10 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2040 for the Baseline and 

Alternative Options 

 Annual Average Reduction (Mg) 

NMOC 

Million 

Methane 

Million 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC

Baseline 49,500 7.8 195 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 1,340 0.21 5.3 

Proposed option 2.5/34 2,130 0.34 8.4 

Alternative option 2.0/34 2,210 0.35 8.7 

*A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. Secondary CO2 emission 

reductions are not included in this table. 

Table 3-11 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2040 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (7% Discount Rate) 

 

Landfills 

Controlling 

Emissions

Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions 

2012$)

Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use 

Projects Net Cost 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC

Baseline 464 1,500 1,100 398 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 47 51.6 26.7 27.0 

Proposed option 2.5/34 74 89.4 56.4 35.0 

Alternative option 2.0/34 81 93.0 58.2 36.7 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-1 

4 BENEFITS OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS 

4.1 Introduction 

The proposed Emission Guidelines are expected to result in significant emissions 

reductions of landfill gas (LFG) from existing MSW landfills. For the proposed Emission 

Guidelines, there will be climate benefits and HAP, ozone and PM2.5 health “co-benefits”. These 

co-benefits occur because the control techniques to meet the standards simultaneously reduce 

methane, VOC, and HAP emissions. By lowering the NMOC emissions threshold to 34 Mg/yr, 

the proposal is anticipated to achieve reductions of 2,770 Mg/yr NMOC and 436,100 Mg/yr 

methane in 2025. 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, while methane is a GHG and a precursor to global ozone 

formation. As described in the subsequent sections, these pollutants are associated with 

substantial health effects, climate effects, and other welfare effects. The only categories of 

benefits monetized in this RIA are methane-related climate effects and CO2 co-benefits 

associated with reduced electricity demand due to increased generation of electricity by landfills 

through the burning of LFG in engines. The methane-related climate benefits are estimated to 

range from $310 million (2012$) to $1.7 billion (2012$); these benefits are estimated to be $660 

million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. The CO2 co-benefits are estimated to range 

from $3.6 million (2012$) to $36 million (2012$) in 2025; estimated CO2 benefits are $12 

million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. 

While we expect that these avoided emissions will also result in improvements in air 

quality and reduce health and welfare effects associated with exposure to HAP, ozone, and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5), we have determined that quantification of those health benefits cannot 

be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to imply that these benefits do not 

exist; rather, it is a reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the 

reductions in emissions for this industrial sector with the data currently available. With the data 

available, we are not able to provide a credible health co-PM2.5 benefits estimates for this rule, 

due to the differences in the locations of MSW landfill emission points relative to existing 

information and the highly localized nature of air quality responses associated with HAP and 

Commented [A16]: OMB RIA Comment 22: Reviewer 

recommends clearly articulating which reductions are primary 

benefits and which are co-benefits on 4.1 

EPA Response: Section has been edited to make this clearer. 

Formatted: Not Superscript/ Subscript
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-2 

VOC reductions.15 Nearly 30 organic HAPs have been identified in uncontrolled LFG, including 

benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and vinyl chloride, and they will be reduced by this rule. In this 

chapter, we provide a qualitative assessment of the health benefits associated with reducing 

exposure to these pollutants, as well as visibility impairment and ecosystem benefits. Table 4-1 

summarizes the quantified and unquantified benefits in this analysis. 

Table 4-1 Climate and Human Health Effects of Emission Reductions in this Rule 

Category Specific Effect 

Effect Has 

Been 

Quantified 

Effect Has 

Been 

Monetized 

More 

Information 

Improved Environment 

Reduced climate 

effects 

Global climate impacts from methane (CH4) 

and carbon dioxide (CO2) —1 

Marten et al. 

(2014), SC-CO2

TSDs 

Other climate impacts (e.g., ozone, black 

carbon, aerosols, other impacts) — — 

IPCC, Ozone ISA, 

PM ISA2

Improved Human Health 

Reduced incidence of 

premature mortality 

from exposure to 

PM2.5

Adult premature mortality based on cohort 

study estimates and expert elicitation estimates 

(age >25 or age >30)

— — PM ISA3

Infant mortality (age <1) — — PM ISA3

Reduced incidence of 

morbidity from 

exposure to PM2.5

Non-fatal heart attacks (age > 18) — — PM ISA3

Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages) — — PM ISA3

Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (age >20) — — PM ISA3

Emergency room visits for asthma (all ages) — — PM ISA3

Acute bronchitis (age 8-12) — — PM ISA3

Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7-14) — — PM ISA3

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9-

11) — — PM ISA3

Asthma exacerbation (asthmatics age 6-18) — — PM ISA3

Lost work days (age 18-65) — — PM ISA3

Minor restricted-activity days (age 18-65) — — PM ISA3

Chronic Bronchitis (age >26) — — PM ISA3

Emergency room visits for cardiovascular 

effects (all ages) — — PM ISA3

 

15 Previous studies have estimated the monetized benefits-per-ton of reducing VOC emissions associated with the 

effect that those emissions have on ambient PM2.5 levels and the health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure 

(Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell, 2009). While these ranges of benefit-per-ton estimates provide useful context, the 

geographic distribution of VOC emissions from the MSW landfill sector are not consistent with emissions 

modeled in Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009). In addition, the benefit-per-ton estimates for VOC emission 

reductions in that study are derived from total VOC emissions across all sectors. Coupled with the larger 

uncertainties about the relationship between VOC emissions and PM2.5 and the highly localized nature of air 

quality responses associated with VOC reductions, these factors lead us to conclude that the available VOC 

benefit-per-ton estimates are not appropriate to calculate monetized benefits of these rules, even as a bounding 

exercise. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-3 

Category Specific Effect 

Effect Has 

Been 

Quantified 

Effect Has 

Been 

Monetized 

More 

Information 

Strokes and cerebrovascular disease (age 50-

79) — — PM ISA3

Other cardiovascular effects (e.g., other ages) — — PM ISA2

Other respiratory effects (e.g., pulmonary 

function, non-asthma ER visits, non-bronchitis 

chronic diseases, other ages and populations) 

— — PM ISA2

Reproductive and developmental effects (e.g., 

low birth weight, pre-term births, etc) — — PM ISA2,4

Cancer, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity effects — — PM ISA2,4

Reduced incidence of 

mortality from 

exposure to ozone 

Premature mortality based on short-term study 

estimates (all ages) — — Ozone ISA3

Premature mortality based on long-term study 

estimates (age 30–99) — — Ozone ISA3

Reduced incidence of 

morbidity from 

exposure to ozone 

Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (age > 

65) — — Ozone ISA3

Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (age 

<2) — — Ozone ISA3

Emergency department visits for asthma (all 

ages) — — Ozone ISA3

Minor restricted-activity days (age 18–65) — — Ozone ISA3

School absence days (age 5–17) — — Ozone ISA3

Decreased outdoor worker productivity (age 

18–65) — — Ozone ISA3

Other respiratory effects (e.g., premature aging 

of lungs) — — Ozone ISA2

Cardiovascular and nervous system effects — — Ozone ISA2

Reproductive and developmental effects — — Ozone ISA2,4

Reduced incidence of 

morbidity from 

exposure to HAP 

Effects associated with exposure to hazardous 

air pollutants such as benzene — — ATSDR, IRIS2,3

Improved Environment 

Reduced visibility 

impairment 

Visibility in Class 1 areas — — PM ISA3

Visibility in residential areas — — PM ISA3

Reduced effects from 

PM deposition 

(organics) 

Effects on Individual organisms and 

ecosystems 

— — PM ISA2

Reduced vegetation 

and ecosystem effects 

from exposure to 

ozone 

Visible foliar injury on vegetation — — Ozone ISA3

Reduced vegetation growth and reproduction — — Ozone ISA3

Yield and quality of commercial forest 

products and crops — — Ozone ISA3

Damage to urban ornamental plants — — Ozone ISA2

Carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems — — Ozone ISA3

Recreational demand associated with forest 

aesthetics — — Ozone ISA2

Other non-use effects Ozone ISA2

Ecosystem functions (e.g., water cycling, 

biogeochemical cycles, net primary 

productivity, leaf-gas exchange, community 

composition) 

— — Ozone ISA2

1

 The global climate and related impacts of CO2 and CH4 emissions changes, such as sea level rise, are estimated within each 

integrated assessment model as part of the calculation of the SC-CO2 and SC-CH4. The resulting monetized damages, which 

are relevant for conducting the benefit-cost analysis, are used in this RIA to estimate the welfare effects of quantified changes 

in CO2 emissions. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-4 

2

 We assess these benefits qualitatively because we do not have sufficient confidence in available data or methods. 

3

 We assess these benefits qualitatively due to data limitations for this analysis, but we have quantified them in other analyses. 

 4 We assess these benefits qualitatively because current evidence is only suggestive of causality or there are other significant 

concerns over the strength of the association. 

4.2 Methane (CH4) 

4.2.1 Methane climate effects and valuation 

Methane is the one of the principal components of landfill gas. Methane is also a potent 

greenhouse gas (GHG) that once emitted into the atmosphere absorbs terrestrial infrared 

radiation that contributes to increased global warming and continuing climate change. Methane 

reacts in the atmosphere to form ozone and ozone also impacts global temperatures. Methane, in 

addition to other GHG emissions, contributes to warming of the atmosphere, which over time 

leads to increased air and ocean temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, melting and 

thawing of global glaciers and ice, increasingly severe weather events, such as hurricanes of 

greater intensity, and sea level rise, among other impacts. 

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment 

Report (AR5, 2015), changes in methane concentrations since 1750 contributed 0.48 W/m2 of 

forcing, which is about 17% of all global forcing due to increases in anthropogenic GHG 

concentrations, and which makes methane the second leading long-lived climate forcer after 

CO2. However, after accounting for changes in other greenhouse substances such as ozone and 

stratospheric water vapor due to chemical reactions of methane in the atmosphere, historical 

methane emissions were estimated to have contributed to 0.97 W/m2 of forcing today, which is 

about 30% of the contemporaneous forcing due to historical greenhouse gas emissions. 

MSW landfills emit significant amounts of methane. The Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013 (published April 2015) estimates 2013 methane emissions 

from MSW landfills to be 97.5 MMt CO2 Eq. In 2013, total methane emissions from MSW 

landfills represented approximately 15 percent of the total methane emissions from all sources 

and account for about 1.5 percent of all CO2-equivalent (CO2 Eq.) emissions in the U.S., with 

landfills being the third largest contributor to U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions (EPA, 

2015). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-5 

This rulemaking proposes emission control technologies and regulatory alternatives that 

are expected to significantly decrease methane emissions from existing MSW landfills. By 

lowering the NMOC emissions threshold to 34 Mg/yr, the proposal would achieve reductions of 

2,770 Mg/yr NMOC and 436,100 Mg/yr methane in 2025. 

We calculated the global social benefits of methane emissions reductions expected from 

the proposed guidelines for existing MSW landfills using estimates of the social cost of methane 

(SC-CH4), a metric that estimates the monetary value of impacts associated with marginal 

changes in methane emissions in a given year. It includes a wide range of anticipated climate 

impacts, such as net changes in agricultural productivity and human health, property damage 

from increased flood risk, and changes in energy system costs, such as reduced costs for heating 

and increased costs for air conditioning. The SC-CH4 estimates applied in this analysis were 

developed by Marten et al. (2014) and are discussed in greater detail below. 

A similar metric, the social cost of CO2 (SC-CO2), provides important context for 

understanding the Marten et al. SC-CH4 estimates. Estimates of the SC-CO2 have been used by 

EPA and other federal agencies to value the impacts of CO2 emissions changes in benefit cost 

analysis for GHG-related rulemakings since 2008. The SC-CO2 is a metric that estimates the 

monetary value of impacts associated with marginal changes in CO2 emissions in a given year. 

Similar to the SC-CH4, it includes a wide range of anticipated climate impacts, such as net 

changes in agricultural productivity, property damage from increased flood risk, and changes in 

energy system costs, such as reduced costs for heating and increased costs for air conditioning. It 

is used to quantify the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions, or the disbenefit from increasing 

emissions, in regulatory impact analyses. 

The SC-CO2 estimates were developed over many years, using the best science available, 

and with input from the public. Specifically, an interagency working group (IWG) that included 

EPA and other executive branch agencies and offices used three integrated assessment models 

(IAMs) to develop the SC-CO2 estimates and recommended four global values for use in 

regulatory analyses. The SC-CO2 estimates were first released in February 2010 and updated in 

2013 using new versions of each IAM. The 2013 update did not revisit the 2010 modeling 

decisions with regards to the discount rate, reference case socioeconomic and emission scenarios, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-6 

and equilibrium climate sensitivity distribution. Rather, improvements in the way damages are 

modeled are confined to those that have been incorporated into the latest versions of the models 

by the developers themselves and published in the peer-reviewed literature. The 2010 SC-CO2

Technical Support Document (2010 SC-CO2 TSD) provides a complete discussion of the 

methods used to develop these estimates and the current SC-CO2 TSD presents and discusses the 

2013 update (including recent minor technical corrections to the estimates).16 

The 2010 SC-CO2 TSD noted a number of limitations to the SC-CO2 analysis, including 

the incomplete way in which the IAMs capture catastrophic and non-catastrophic impacts, their 

incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change, uncertainty in the extrapolation of 

damages to high temperatures, and assumptions regarding risk aversion. Currently IAMs do not 

assign value to all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change 

recognized in the climate change literature due to a lack of precise information on the nature of 

damages and because the science incorporated into these models understandably lags behind the 

most recent research. Nonetheless, these estimates and the discussion of their limitations 

represent the best available information about the social benefits of CO2 reductions to inform 

benefit-cost analysis; see RIA of this rule and the SC-CO2 TSDs for additional details. The new 

versions of the models offer some improvements in these areas, although further work is 

warranted. 

Accordingly, EPA and other agencies continue to engage in research on modeling and 

valuation of climate impacts with the goal to improve these estimates. The EPA and other 

agencies also continue to consider feedback on the SC-CO2 estimates from stakeholders through 

a range of channels, including public comments on Agency rulemakings that use the SC-CO2 in 

supporting analyses and through regular interactions with stakeholders and research analysts 

implementing the SC-CO2 methodology used by the interagency working group. In addition, 

OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs sought public comment on the approach 

 

16 Both the 2010 SC-CO2 TSD and the current TSD are available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/socialcost-of-carbonhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_regpol_agency_review. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-7 

used to develop the SC-CO2 estimates through a separate comment period that ended on 

February 26, 2014. 

After careful evaluation of the full range of comments, the interagency working group 

continues to recommend the use of the SC-CO2 estimates in regulatory impact analysis. With 

the release of the response to comments, the interagency working group announced plans to 

obtain expert independent advice from the National Academiesy of Sciences, Engineering, and 

Medicine to ensure that the SC-CO2 estimates continue to reflect the best available scientific and 

economic information on climate change. The NRC Academies review will be informed by the 

public comments received and focus on the technical merits and challenges of potential 

approaches to improving the SC-CO2 estimates in future updates. 

Concurrent with OMB’s publication of the response to comments on SC-CO2 and 

announcement of the NRC Academies process, OMB posted a revised TSD that includes two 

minor technical corrections to the current estimates. 17 One technical correction addressed an 

inadvertent omission of climate change damages in the last year of analysis (2300) in one model 

and the second addressed a minor indexing error in another model. On average the revised SCCO2 estimates are one dollar less than the mean SC-CO2 estimates reported in the November 

2013 TSD. The change in the estimates associated with the 95th percentile estimates when using 

a 3% discount rate is slightly larger, as those estimates are heavily influenced by the results from 

the model that was affected by the indexing error. 

The four SC-CO2 estimates are: $15, $50, $73, and $150 per metric ton of CO2 emissions 

in the year 2025 (2012 dollars).18 The first three values are based on the average SC-CO2 from 

the three IAMs, at discount rates of 5, 3, and 2.5 percent, respectively. Estimates of the SC-CO2

for several discount rates are included because the literature shows that the SC-CO2 is sensitive 

 

17 See https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/social-cost-of-carbon for the response to comments, the blog post 

announcing the Academies’ process, and the current TSD. 

18 The current version of the SCC TSD is available at: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_regpol_agency_review. The TSDs present SC-CO2 in $2007. The 

estimates were adjusted to 2012$ using the GDP Implicit Price Deflator. Also available at: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ECONI-2013-02/pdf/ECONI-2013-02-Pg3.pdf. The SC-CO2 values have been 

rounded to two significant digits. Unrounded numbers from the 2013 SCC TSD were adjusted to 2012$ and used 

to calculate the CO2 benefits. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-8 

to assumptions about the discount rate, and because no consensus exists on the appropriate rate 

to use in an intergenerational context (where costs and benefits are incurred by different 

generations). The fourth value is the 95th percentile of the SC-CO2 across all three models at a 

3% discount rate. It is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature 

change further out in the tails of the SC-CO2 distribution. The SC-CO2 increases over time 

because future emissions are expected to produce larger incremental damages as economies grow 

and physical and economic systems become more stressed in response to greater climate change. 

A challenge particularly relevant to this proposal is that the IWG did not estimate the 

social costs of non-CO2 GHG emissions at the time the SC-CO2 estimates were developed. One 

alternative approach to value methane impacts is to use the global warming potential (GWP) to 

convert the emissions to CO2 equivalents which are then valued using the SC-CO2 estimates. 

The GWP measures the cumulative radiative forcing from a perturbation of a non-CO2

GHG relative to a perturbation of CO2 over a fixed time horizon, often 100 years. The GWP 

mainly reflects differences in the radiative efficiency of gases and differences in their 

atmospheric lifetimes. While the GWP is a simple, transparent, and well-established metric for 

assessing the relative impacts of non-CO2 emissions compared to CO2 on a purely physical basis, 

there are several well-documented limitations in using it to value non-CO2 GHG benefits, as 

discussed in the 2010 SCC TSD and previous rulemakings (e.g., EPA 2012b, 2012d).19 In 

particular, several recent studies found that GWP-weighted benefit estimates for methane are 

likely to be lower than the estimates derived using directly modeled social cost estimates for 

these gases. Gas comparison metrics, such as the GWP, are designed to measure the impact of 

non-CO2 GHG emissions relative to CO2 at a specific point along the pathway from emissions to 

monetized damages (depicted in Figure 4-1), and this point may differ across measures. 

 

19 See also Reilly and Richards 1993; Schmalensee 1993; Fankhauser 1994; Marten and Newbold 2012. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-9 

Figure 4-1 Path from GHG Emissions to Monetized Damages (Source: Marten et al., 

2014) 

The GWP is not ideally suited for use in benefit-cost analyses to approximate the social 

cost of non-CO2 GHGs because it ignores important nonlinear relationships beyond radiative 

forcing in the chain between emissions and damages. These can become relevant because gases 

have different lifetimes and the SC-CO2 takes into account the fact that marginal damages from 

an increase in temperature are a function of existing temperature levels. Another limitation of gas 

comparison metrics for this purpose is that some environmental and socioeconomic impacts are 

not linked to all of the gases under consideration, or radiative forcing for that matter, and will 

therefore be incorrectly allocated. For example, the economic impacts associated with increased 

agricultural productivity due to higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations included in the SC-CO2

would be incorrectly allocated to methane emissions with the GWP-based valuation approach. 

Also of concern, is the fact that the assumptions made in estimating the GWP are not 

consistent with the assumptions underlying SC-CO2 estimates in general, and the SC-CO2

estimates developed by the IWG specifically. For example, the 100 year time horizon usually 

used in estimating the GWP is less than the 300 year horizon the IWG used in developing the 

SC-CO2 estimates. The GWP approach also treats all impacts within the time horizon equally, 

independent of the time at which they occur. This is inconsistent with the role of discounting in 

economic analysis, which accounts for a basic preference for earlier over later gains in utility and 

expectations regarding future levels of economic growth. In the case of methane, which has a 

relatively short lifetime compared to CO2, the temporal independence of the GWP could lead the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-10 

GWP approach to underestimate the SC-CH4 with a larger downward bias under higher discount 

rates (Marten and Newbold 2012).20 

EPA sought public comments on the valuation of non-CO2 GHG impacts in previous 

rulemakings (EPA, 2012b; EPA, 2012d). In general, the commenters strongly encouraged EPA 

to incorporate the monetized value of non-CO2 GHG impacts into the benefit cost analysis, 

however they noted the challenges associated with the GWP-approach, as discussed above, and 

encouraged the use of directly-modeled estimates of the SC-CH4 to overcome those challenges. 

EPA had cited several researchers that had directly estimated the social cost of non-CO2

emissions using IAMs but noted that the number of such estimates was small compared to the 

large number of SC-CO2 estimates available in the literature. EPA found considerable variation 

among these published estimates in terms of the models and input assumptions they employ 

(EPA, 2012b; EPA, 2012d). These studies differed in the emissions perturbation year, employed 

a wide range of constant and variable discount rate specifications, and considered a range of 

baseline socioeconomic and emissions scenarios that have been developed over the last 20 years. 

Furthermore, at the time, none of the other published estimates of the social cost of non-CO2

GHG were consistent with the SC-CO2 estimates developed by the IWG, and most were likely 

underestimates due to changes in the underlying science since their publication. 

Therefore, EPA concluded that the GWP approach would serve as an interim method of 

analysis until directly modeled social cost estimates for non-CO2 GHGs, consistent with the SCCO2 estimates developed by the IWG, were developed. EPA presented GWP-weighted estimates 

in sensitivity analyses rather than the main benefit-cost analyses. 

Since then, a paper by Marten et al. (2014) has provided the first set of published SC-CH4

estimates in the peer-reviewed literature that are consistent with the modeling assumptions 

underlying the SC-CO2 estimates.21 Specifically, the estimation approach of Marten et al. used 

 

20 We note that the truncation of the time period in the GWP calculation could lead to an overestimate of SC-CH4 for 

near term perturbation years in cases where the SC-CO2 is based on a sufficiently low or steeply declining 

discount rate. 

21 Marten et al. (2014) also provided the first set of SC-N2O estimates that are consistent with the assumptions 

underlying the SC-CO2 estimates. 

Commented [A17]: OMB RIA comment 24: Reviewer 

recomends providing a citation for Marten and Newbold 2012, 

which is not in the reference list. See 4-10. 

EPA response: Updated the reference list. 

Commented [A18]: OMB RIA Comment 23: Reviewer 

recommends on 4-9 footnoting that the bias is unknown for other 

GHG. 

EPA Response: Both the text and footnote are written to be specific 

to methane rather than non-GHGs more broadly. Given that this text 

is precise and does not make any suggestions about other non-CO2 

GHGs and that the rulemaking has no implications for other nonCO2 GHGs, we recommend leaving the text unchanged. Other 

GHGs are not relevant to this section. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-11 

the same set of three IAMs, five socioeconomic and emissions scenarios, equilibrium climate 

sensitivity distribution, three constant discount rates, and aggregation approach used by the IWG 

to develop the SC-CO2 estimates. The aggregation method involved distilling the 45 distributions 

of the SC-CH4 produced for each emissions year into four estimates: the mean across all models 

and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile 

of the pooled estimates from all models and scenarios using a 3 percent discount rate. The 

atmospheric lifetime radiative efficacy of methane used by Marten et al. is based on the estimates 

reported by the IPCC in their Fourth Assessment Report (AR4, 2007), including an adjustment in 

the radiative efficacy of methane to account for its role as a precursor for tropospheric ozone and 

stratospheric water. These values represent the same ones used by in the IPCC in AR4 for 

calculating GWPs. At the time Marten et al. developed their estimates of the SC-CH4, AR4 was 

the latest assessment report by the IPCC. The IPCC updates GWP estimates with each new 

assessment, and in the latest assessment, AR5, the latest estimate of the methane GWP ranged 

from 28-36, compared to a GWP of 25 in AR4. The updated values reflect a number of changes: 

changes in the lifetime and radiative efficiency estimates for CO2, changes in the lifetime 

estimate for methane, and changes in the correction factor applied to methane’s GWP to reflect 

the effect of methane emissions on other climatically important substances such as tropospheric 

ozone and stratospheric water vapor. In addition, the range presented in the latest IPCC report 

reflects different choices regarding whether to account for how biogenic and fossil methane have 

different carbon cycle effects, and for whether to account for climate feedbacks on the carbon 

cycle for both methane and carbon dioxide (rather than just for carbon dioxide as was done in 

AR4).22,23 

 

22 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. 

23 Note that this proposal uses a GWP value for methane of 25 for CO2 equivalency calculations, consistent with the 

GHG emissions inventories and the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-12 

Marten et al. (2014) discuss these estimates (SC-CH4 estimates presented below in Table 

4-2), and compare them with other recent estimates in the literature.24 The authors noted that a 

direct comparison of their estimates with all of the other published estimates is difficult, given 

the differences in the models and socioeconomic and emissions scenarios, but results from three 

relatively recent studies offer a better basis for comparison (see Hope (2006), Waldhoff et al. 

(20141), Marten and Newbold (2012)). Marten et al. found that in general the SC-CH4 estimates 

from their 2014 paper are higher than previous estimates. The higher SC-CH4 estimates are 

partially driven by the higher effective radiative forcing due to the inclusion of indirect effects 

from methane emissions in their modeling. Marten et al., similar to other recent studies, also find 

that their directly modeled SC-CH4 estimates are higher than the GWP-weighted estimates. 

More detailed discussion of the SC-CH4 estimation methodology, results and a comparison to 

other published estimates can be found in Marten et al. 

Table 4-2 Social Cost of CH4, 2012 – 2050a [in 2012$ per metric ton] (Source: Marten et 

al., 2014b) 

Year 

SC-CH4

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

2012 $430 $1,000 $1,400 $2,800 

2015 $490 $1,100 $1,500 $3,000 

2020 $580 $1,300 $1,700 $3,500 

2025 $700 $1,500 $1,900 $4,000 

2030 $820 $1,700 $2,200 $4,500 

2035 $970 $1,900 $2,500 $5,300 

2040 $1,100 $2,200 $2,800 $5,900 

2045 $1,300 $2,500 $3,000 $6,600 

2050 $1,400 $2,700 $3,300 $7,200 

a

 The values are emissions-year specific and are defined in real terms, i.e., adjusted for inflation using the GDP 

implicit price deflator. 

b

 The estimates in this table have been adjusted to reflect the minor technical corrections to the SC-CO2 estimates 

described above. See erratum for more details. 

 

24 Marten et al. (2014) estimates are presented in 2007 dollars. These estimates were adjusted for inflation using 

National Income and Product Accounts Tables, Table 1.1.9, Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product 

(US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis), http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm 

Accessed 3/3/15. 

Formatted: Not Highlight

Commented [A19]: OP should be able to provide complete 

citation for erratum by the end of the week. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-13 

The application of directly modeled estimates from Marten et al. (2014) to benefit-cost 

analysis of a regulatory action is analogous to the use of the SC-CO2 estimates. Specifically, the 

SC-CH4 estimates in Table 4-2 are used to monetize the benefits of reductions in methane 

emissions expected as a result of the proposed rulemaking. Forecast changes in methane 

emissions in a given year, expected as a result of the proposed regulatory action, are multiplied 

by the SC-CH4 estimate for that year. To obtain a present value estimate, the monetized stream 

of future non-CO2 benefits are discounted back to the analysis year using the same discount rate 

used to estimate the social cost of the non-CO2 GHG emission changes. In addition, the 

limitations for the SC-CO2 estimates discussed above likewise apply to the SC-CH4 estimates, 

given the consistency in the methodology. 

EPA recently conducted a peer review of the application of the Marten et al. (2014) nonCO2 social cost estimates in regulatory analysis and received responses that supported this 

application. Three reviewers considered seven charge questions that covered issues such as the 

EPA’s interpretation of the Marten et al. estimates, the consistency of the estimates with the SCCO2 estimates, EPA’s characterization of the limits of the GWP-approach to value non-CO2

GHG impacts, and the appropriateness of using the Marten et al. estimates in regulatory impact 

analyses. The reviewers agreed with EPA’s interpretation of Marten et al.’s estimates; generally 

found the estimates to be consistent with the SC-CO2 estimates; and concurred with the 

limitations of the GWP approach, finding directly modeled estimates to be more appropriate. 

While outside of the scope of the review, the reviewers briefly considered the limitations in the 

SC-CO2 methodology (e.g., those discussed earlier in this section) and noted that because the 

SC-CO2 and SC-CH4 methodologies are similar, the limitations also apply to the resulting SCCH4 estimates. Two of the reviewers concluded that use in RIAs of the SC-CH4 estimates 

developed by Marten et al. and published in the peer-reviewed literature is appropriate, provided 

that the Agency discuss the limitations, similar to the discussion provided for SC-CO2 and other 

economic analyses. All three reviewers encouraged continued improvements in the SC-CO2

estimates and suggested that as those improvements are realized they should also be reflected in 

the SC-CH4 estimates, with one reviewer suggesting the SC-CH4 estimates lag this process. EPA 

supports continued improvement in the SC-CO2 estimates developed by the U.S. government and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-14 

agrees that improvements in the SC-CO2 estimates should also be reflected in the SC-CH4

estimates. The fact that the reviewers agree that the SC-CH4 estimates are generally consistent 

with the SC-CO2 estimates that are recommended by OMB’s guidance on valuing CO2 emissions 

reductions leads EPA to conclude that use of the SC-CH4 estimates is an analytical improvement 

over excluding methane emissions from the monetized portion of the benefit cost analysis. 

In light of the favorable peer review and past comments urging EPA to value non-CO2

GHG impacts in its rulemakings, the Agency has used the Marten et al. (2014) SC-CH4 estimates 

to value methane impacts expected from this proposed rulemaking and has included those 

benefits in the main benefits analysis. EPA seeks comments on the use of these directly modeled 

estimates, from the peer-reviewed literature, for the social cost of non-CO2 GHG. 

The methane benefits calculated using Marten et al. (2014) are presented below in Table 

4-3 for 2025. Applying this approach to the methane reductions estimated for this proposal, the 

2025 methane benefits vary by discount rate and range from about $310 million to approximately 

$1.7 billion; for the proposed option, the mean SC-CH4 at the 3% discount rate results in an 

estimate of about $660 million in 2025. 

Table 4-3 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CH4

reduced 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CO2-

equivalent 

reduced 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 0.27 6.8 $190 $410 $530 $1,100 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 0.44 11 $310 $660 $850 $1,700 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 0.48 12 $340 $720 $930 $1,900 

*The SC-CH4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH4 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts. 

While the vast majority of this proposal’s climate-related benefits are associated with 

methane reductions, additional climate-related benefits are expected from the proposal’s 

secondary air impacts, specifically, a net reduction in CO2 emissions due to reduced demand for 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-15 

electricity from the grid as landfills generate electricity from landfill gas.25 These benefits are 

presented in Table 4-4 below. Monetizing the net CO2 reductions with the SC-CO2 estimates 

described in this section yields benefits that vary by discount rate and range from about $3.6 

million to approximately $36 million in 2025. For the proposed option, the mean SC-CO2 at the 

3% discount rate results in an estimate of about $12 million in 2025, which is about 2 percent of 

the estimated methane benefits in 2025 (average SC-CH4, 3 percent discount rate). 

Table 4-4 Estimated Global Benefits of Net CO2 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) 

Metric tonnes of net 

CO2 reduced 

Discount rate and statistic

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 102,000 $1.5 $5.0 $7.5 $15 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 238,000 $3.6 $12 $18 $36 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 238,000 $3.6 $12 $18 $36 

*The SC-CO2 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CO2 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts.

Finally, in addition to the CO2 impacts discussed above, there is a small increase in CO2

emissions resulting from flaring of methane in response to this rule. We are not estimating the 

monetized disbenefits of these secondary emissions of CO2 because much of the methane that 

would have been released in the absence of the flare would have eventually oxidized into CO2 in 

the atmosphere. Note that the CO2 produced from the methane oxidizing in the atmosphere is not 

included in the calculation of the SC-CH4. 

However, EPA does recognize that because the growth rate of the SC-CO2 estimates are 

lower than their associated discount rates, the estimated impact of CO2 produced in the future 

from oxidized methane would be less than the estimated impact of CO2 released immediately 

from flaring, which would imply a small disbenefit associated with flaring. Assuming an average 

methane oxidation period of 8.7 years, consistent with the lifetime used in IPCC AR4, the 

 

25 The reduced demand for electricity from the grid more than offsets the additional energy demand required to 

operate the control system and the by-product emissions from the combustion of LFG. 

Commented [A20]: This discussion added in response to 

question during OMB call. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-16 

disbenefits associated with destroying one metric ton of methane and releasing the CO2

emissions in 2020 instead of being released in the future via the methane oxidation process is 

estimated to be $5 to $25 per metric ton CH4 depending on the SC-CO2 value or 0.7 percent to 

0.9 percent of the SC-CH4 estimates per metric ton for 2020. The analogous estimates for 2025 

are $7 to $34 per metric ton CH4 or 0.8 percent to 1.0 percent of the SC-CH4 estimates per metric 

ton for 2025.26 While EPA is not accounting for the CO2 disbenefits at this time, we request 

comment on the appropriateness of the monetization of such impacts using the SC-CO2 and 

aspects of the calculation.

4.2.2 Methane as an ozone precursor 

This rulemaking would reduce emissions of methane, a GHG and also a precursor to 

ozone. In remote areas, methane is a dominant precursor to tropospheric ozone formation (EPA, 

2013). Approximately 40% of the global annual mean ozone increase since preindustrial times is 

believed to be due to anthropogenic methane (HTAP, 2010). Projections of future emissions also 

indicate that methane is likely to be a key contributor to ozone concentrations in the future 

(HTAP, 2010). 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 (HTAP, 2010). Reducing methane 

emissions, therefore, can reduce global background ozone concentrations, human exposure to 

ozone, and the incidence of ozone-related health effects (West et al., 2006, Anenberg et al., 2009, 

Sarofim et al., 2015). These benefits are global and occur in both urban and rural areas. 

Reductions in background ozone concentrations can also have benefits for agriculture and 

ecosystems (UNEP/WMO, 2011). Studies show that controlling methane emissions can reduce 

global ozone concentrations and climate change simultaneously, but controlling other shorterlived ozone precursors such as NOX, carbon monoxide, or non-methane VOC has larger local 

 

26 To calculate the disbenefits associated the complete destruction of a ton of CH4 through flaring, EPA took the 

difference between the SC-CO2 at the time of the flaring and in 8.7 years and discounted that value to the time of 

the flaring using the same discount rate as used to estimate the SC-CO2. This value was then scaled by 44/16 to 

account for the relative mass of carbon contained in a ton of CH4 versus a ton of CO2. The value of the SC-CO2

8.7 years after flaring was estimated by linearly interpolating between the annual SC-CO2 estimates reported in 

the TSD and inflated to 2012 dollars.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-17 

health benefits from greater reductions in local ozone concentrations (West and Fiore, 2005; 

West et al., 2006; Fiore et al. 2008; Dentener et al., 2005; Shindell et al., 2005, 2012; 

UNEP/WMO, 2011). The health, welfare, and climate effects associated with ozone are 

described in the preceding sections. Without air quality modeling, we are unable to estimate the 

effect that reducing methane will have on ozone concentrations at particular locations.Examining 

mortality benefits in isolation, However, the global monetized benefit of ozone reduction due to 

methane mitigation have been estimated to be on the order of $1000 per metric ton of methane 

emissions reducedin several studies (Anenberg et al., 2012; Shindell et al., 2012), an estimate 

similar in magnitude to the climate benefits of methane reductions estimated by the Marten et al. 

(2014) or GWP methods.

Recently, a paper was published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that presented a 

range of estimates of the monetized ozone-related mortality benefits of reducing methane 

emissions (Sarofim et al. 2015). For example, under their base case assumptions using a 3% 

discount rate, Sarofim et al. find global ozone-related mortality benefits of methane emissions 

reductions to be $790 per tonne of methane in 2020, with 10.6%, or $80, of this amount resulting 

from mortality reductions in the United States. The methodology used in this study is consistent 

in some (but not all) aspects with the modeling underlying the SC-CO2 and SC-CH4 estimates 

discussed above, and required a number of additional assumptions such as baseline mortality 

rates and mortality response to ozone concentrations. The Sarofim et al. (2015) study may have 

implications for this benefits analysis as it provides a potential approach to estimating the ozone 

related mortality benefits resulting from the methane reductions expected from this proposed 

rulemaking. The EPA requests comment on Sarofim et al.’s approach to estimating the ozone 

related mortality benefits of methane emissions reductions, including technical considerations in 

applying their methodology to this regulatory impact analysis. 

4.2.3 Combined methane climate and ozone effects of methane

A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) assessment provided a 

comprehensive analysis of the health, climate, and agricultural benefits of measures to reduce 

methane, as well as black carbon, a component of fine particulate matter that absorbs radiation 

Commented [A21]: Updated based on recently published 

research. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-18 

(UNEP/WMO, 2011; Shindell et al., 2012). The UNEP assessment found that while reducing 

longer-lived GHGs such as CO2 is necessary to protect against long-term climate change, 

reducing global methane and black carbon emissions would have global health benefits by 

reducing exposure to ozone and PM2.5 as well as potentially slowing the rate of climate change 

within the first half of this century. Relative to a business as usual reference scenario, 

implementing methane mitigation measures that achieve approximately 40% reductions in global 

methane emissions were estimated to avoid approximately 0.3°C globally averaged warming in 

2050 (including the impacts of both methane itself and subsequently formed ozone) and 47,000 

ozone-related premature deaths and 27 million metric tons of ozone-related crop yield losses 

globally in 2030 (Shindell et al., 2012). These benefits, including global climate impacts of 

methane and resulting ozone changes, and global ozone-related health and agricultural impacts, 

were valued at $700 to $5,000 per metric ton.27 The methane measures examined include 

extended methane recovery/utilization and reduced fugitive emissions from oil and gas 

production, which contributed the greatest climate benefit of all methane mitigation measures in 

North America and Europe (UNEP, 2011). Examining mortality benefits in isolation, the 

monetized benefit of ozone reduction due to methane mitigation have been estimated to be on the 

order of $1000 per metric ton of methane emissions reduced (Anenberg et al., 2012; Shindell et 

al., 2012), an estimate similar in magnitude to the climate benefits of methane reductions 

estimated by the Marten et al. (2014) or GWP methods. While monetized per-ton benefits of the 

climate, health, and agriculture impacts of methane mitigation have been estimated, there has not 

yet been a similar monetization of the parallel impacts on broader ecosystems. EPA continues to 

monitor developments in this area of research, but is not yet utilizing monetized estimates of the 

benefits of methane mitigation on mortality and agriculture due to ozone reductions. 

 

27 Benefit per ton values derived from Shindell et al. (2012) cannot be directly compared to, nor are they additive 

with, the ozone health benefit-per-ton estimates for the U.S. reported in Section 4.4.1, since they include climate 

and agricultural impacts, are calculated for global rather than U.S. impacts, and use different assumptions for the 

value of a statistical life. Similarly, these values cannot be compared to, nor are they additive with, the methane 

climate valuation estimates in Section 4.2.1 since they include health and agricultural benefits and use different 

assumptions for the Social Cost of Carbon. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-19 

4.3 VOC as a PM2.5 precursor 

This rulemaking would reduce emissions of VOC, which are a precursor to PM2.5. Most 

VOC emitted are oxidized to carbon dioxide (CO2) rather than to PM, but a portion of VOC 

emission contributes to ambient PM2.5 levels as organic carbon aerosols (EPA, 2009a). 

Therefore, reducing these emissions would reduce PM2.5 formation, human exposure to PM2.5, 

and the incidence of PM2.5-related health effects. However, we have not quantified the PM2.5-

related benefits in this analysis. Analysis of organic carbon measurements suggest only a 

fraction of secondarily formed organic carbon aerosols are of anthropogenic origin. The current 

state of the science of secondary organic carbon aerosol formation indicates that anthropogenic 

VOC contribution to secondary organic carbon aerosol is often lower than the biogenic (natural) 

contribution. Given that a fraction of secondarily formed organic carbon aerosols is from 

anthropogenic VOC emissions and the extremely small amount of VOC emissions from this 

sector relative to the entire VOC inventory it is unlikely this sector has a large contribution to 

ambient secondary organic carbon aerosols. Photochemical models typically estimate secondary 

organic carbon from anthropogenic VOC emissions to be less than 0.1 μg/m3. 

Data resources and methodological limitations prevented EPA from monetizing the 

benefits of reducing VOCs. We were unable to perform air quality modeling for this rule to 

quantify the PM2.5 benefits associated with reducing VOC emissions. Due to the high degree of 

variability in the responsiveness of PM2.5 formation to VOC emission reductions, we are unable 

to estimate the effect that reducing VOC will have on ambient PM2.5 levels without air quality 

modeling. However, we provide the discussion below for context regarding findings from 

previous modeling. 

4.3.1 PM2.5 health effects and valuation 

Reducing VOC emissions would reduce PM2.5 formation, human exposure, and the 

incidence of PM2.5-related health effects. Reducing exposure to PM2.5 is associated with 

significant human health benefits, including avoiding mortality and respiratory morbidity. 

Researchers have associated PM2.5 exposure with adverse health effects in numerous 

toxicological, clinical and epidemiological studies (EPA, 2009a). When adequate data and 

resources are available, EPA generally quantifies several health effects associated with exposure 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-20 

to PM2.5 (e.g., EPA, 2011d). These health effects include premature mortality for adults and 

infants, cardiovascular morbidity such as heart attacks, hospital admissions, and respiratory 

morbidity such as asthma attacks, acute and chronic bronchitis, hospital and ER visits, work loss 

days, restricted activity days, and respiratory symptoms. Although EPA has not quantified these 

effects in previous benefits analyses, the scientific literature suggests that exposure to PM2.5 is 

also associated with adverse effects on birth weight, pre-term births, pulmonary function, other 

cardiovascular effects, and other respiratory effects (EPA, 2009a). 

When EPA quantifies PM2.5-related benefits, the Agency assumes that all fine particles, 

regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality 

because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates by 

particle type (EPA, 2009a). Based on our review of the current body of scientific literature, EPA 

estimates PM-related mortality without applying an assumed concentration threshold. This 

decision is supported by the data, which are quite consistent in showing effects down to the 

lowest measured levels of PM2.5 in the underlying epidemiology studies. 

Previous studies have estimated the monetized benefits-per-ton of reducing VOC 

emissions associated with the effect that those emissions have on ambient PM2.5 levels and the 

health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure (Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell, 2009), and these 

estimates can provide useful context for this rulemaking. Using the estimates in Fann, Fulcher, 

and Hubbell (2009), the monetized benefit-per-ton of reducing VOC emissions in nine urban 

areas of the U.S. ranges from $560 in Seattle, WA to $5,700 in San Joaquin, CA, with a national 

average of $2,400. These estimates assume a 50 percent reduction in VOC, the Laden et al. 

(2006) mortality function (based on the Harvard Six Cities study, a large cohort epidemiology 

study in the Eastern U.S.), an analysis year of 2015, a 3% discount rate, and 2006$. 

 Additional benefit-per-ton estimates are available from this dataset using alternate 

assumptions regarding the relationship between PM2.5 exposure and premature mortality from 

empirical studies and supplied by experts (e.g., Pope et al., 2002; Laden et al., 2006; Roman et 

al., 2008). EPA generally presents a range of benefits estimates derived from the American 

Cancer Society cohort (e.g., Pope et al., 2002; Krewski et al., 2009) to the Harvard Six Cities 

cohort (e.g., Laden et al., 2006; Lepuele et al., 2012) because the studies are both well-designed 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-21 

and extensively peer reviewed, and EPA provides the benefit estimates derived from expert 

opinions in Roman et al. (2008) as a characterization of uncertainty. As shown in Table 4-5Table 

4-5, the range of VOC benefits that reflects the range of epidemiology studies and the range of 

the urban areas is $300 to $7,500 per ton of VOC reduced (2012$).28 Since these estimates were 

presented in the 2012 Oil and Gas NSPS RIA (EPA, 2012b), we updated our methods to apply 

more recent epidemiological studies for these cohorts (i.e., Krewski et al., 2009; Lepeule et al., 

2012) as well as additional updates to the morbidity studies and population data.29 Because these 

updates would not lead to significant changes in the benefit-per-ton estimates for VOC, we have 

not updated them here. 

While these ranges of benefit-per-ton estimates provide useful context, the geographic 

distribution of VOC emissions from the MSW landfill sector are not consistent with emissions 

modeled in Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009). In addition, the benefit-per-ton estimates for 

VOC emission reductions in that study are derived from total VOC emissions across all sectors. 

Coupled with the larger uncertainties about the relationship between VOC emissions and PM2.5, 

these factors lead the EPA to conclude that the available VOC benefit per ton estimates are not 

appropriate to calculate monetized benefits of this rule, even as a bounding exercise. 

 

28 We also converted the estimates from Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009) to 2012$ and applied EPA’s current 

value of a statistical life (VSL) estimate. For more information regarding EPA’s current VSL estimate, please see 

Section 5.6.5.1 of the RIA for the PM NAAQS RIA (EPA, 2012c). EPA continues to work to update its 

guidance on valuing mortality risk reductions. 

29 For more information regarding these updates, please see Section 5.3 of the RIA for the final PM NAAQS (EPA, 

2012c). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-22 

Table 4-5 Monetized Benefits-per-Ton Estimates for VOC based on Previous Modeling in 2015 (2012$) 

Area Pope et al. (2002) Laden et al. (2006) Expert A Expert B Expert C Expert D Expert E Expert F Expert G Expert H Expert I Expert J Expert K Expert L 

Atlanta $660 $1,600 $1,700 $1,300 $1,300 $920 $2,100 $1,200 $780 $980 $1,300 $1,000 $260 $1,000

Chicago $1,600 $4,000 $4,200 $3,300 $3,200 $2,300 $5,300 $3,000 $1,900 $2,400 $3,200 $2,600 $640 $2,500

Dallas $320 $790 $830 $650 $630 $450 $1,000 $580 $380 $480 $630 $510 $130 $490 

Denver $770 $1,900 $2,000 $1,500 $1,500 $1,100 $2,400 $1,400 $910 $1,100 $1,500 $1,200 $300 $910 

NYC/ Philadelphia $2,300 $5,600 $5,900 $4,600 $4,500 $3,200 $7,300 $4,100 $2,700 $3,400 $4,500 $3,600 $890 $3,300

Phoenix $1,100 $2,700 $2,800 $2,200 $2,100 $1,500 $3,500 $2,000 $1,300 $1,600 $2,100 $1,700 $420 $1,600

Salt Lake $1,400 $3,300 $3,500 $2,700 $2,700 $1,900 $4,400 $2,500 $1,600 $2,000 $2,700 $2,200 $570 $2,100

San Joaquin $3,100 $7,500 $7,900 $6,100 $6,000 $4,300 $9,700 $5,500 $3,600 $4,500 $6,000 $4,900 $1,400 $4,600

Seattle $300 $730 $770 $570 $590 $420 $950 $540 $350 $440 $580 $470 $120 $350 

National average $1,300 $3,200 $3,400 $2,600 $2,600 $1,800 $4,200 $2,300 $1,500 $1,900 $2,500 $2,100 $520 $1,900

* These estimates assumed a 50 percent reduction in VOC emissions, an analysis year of 2015, and a 3 percent discount rate. All estimates are rounded to two 

significant digits. These estimates have been adjusted from Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009) to reflect a more recent currency year and EPA’s current VSL estimate. However, these estimates have not been updated to reflect recent epidemiological studies for mortality studies, morbidity studies, or population data. Using a discount rate of 7 percent, the benefit-per-ton estimates would be approximately 9 percent lower. Assuming a 75 percent reduction in VOC emissions would increase the benefit-per-ton estimates by approximately 4 percent to 52 percent. Assuming a 25 percent reduction in VOC emissions would decrease the benefit-per-ton estimates by 5 percent to 52 percent. EPA generally presents a range of benefits estimates derived from the expert functions from Roman et al. (2008) as a characterization of uncertainty. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-23 

4.3.2 Visibility Effects 

Reducing secondary formation of PM2.5 from VOC emissions would improve visibility 

throughout the U.S. Fine particles with significant light-extinction efficiencies include sulfates, 

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil (Sisler, 1996). Suspended particles and gases 

degrade visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Higher visibility impairment levels in the 

East are due to generally higher concentrations of fine particles, particularly sulfates, and higher 

average relative humidity levels. Visibility has direct significance to people’s enjoyment of daily 

activities and their overall sense of wellbeing. Good visibility increases the quality of life where 

individuals live and work, and where they engage in recreational activities. Previous analyses 

(EPA, 2006b; EPA, 2011d; EPA, 2011a; EPA, 2012c) show that visibility benefits are a 

significant welfare benefit category. Without air quality modeling, we are unable to estimate 

visibility related benefits, nor are we able to determine whether VOC emission reductions would 

be likely to have a significant impact on visibility in urban areas or Class I areas. 

4.4 VOC as an Ozone Precursor 

This rulemaking would reduce emissions of VOC, which are also precursors to secondary 

formation of ozone. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created when its two 

primary components, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), react in 

the presence of sunlight. In urban areas, compounds representing all classes of VOC and CO are 

important compounds for ozone formation, but biogenic VOC emitted from vegetation tend to be 

more important compounds in non-urban vegetated areas (EPA, 2013). Therefore, reducing 

these emissions would reduce ozone formation, human exposure to ozone, and the incidence of 

ozone-related health effects. However, we have not quantified the ozone-related benefits in this 

analysis for several reasons. First, previous rules have shown that the monetized benefits 

associated with reducing ozone exposure are generally smaller than PM-related benefits, even 

when ozone is the pollutant targeted for control (EPA, 2010a; EPA, 2014a). Second, the 

complex non-linear chemistry of ozone formation introduces uncertainty to the development and 

application of a benefit-per-ton estimate, particularly for sectors with substantial new growth. 

Third, the impact of reducing VOC emissions is spatially heterogeneous depending on local air 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-24 

chemistry. Urban areas with a high population concentration are often VOC-limited, which 

means that ozone is most effectively reduced by lowering VOC. Rural areas and downwind 

suburban areas are often NOX-limited, which means that ozone concentrations are most 

effectively reduced by lowering NOX emissions, rather than lowering emissions of VOC. 

Between these areas, ozone is relatively insensitive to marginal changes in both NOX and VOC. 

Due to data limitations, we did not perform air quality modeling for this rule needed to 

quantify the ozone benefits associated with reducing VOC emissions. Due to the high degree of 

variability in the responsiveness of ozone formation to VOC emission reductions and data 

limitations regarding the location of the emissions reductions, we are unable to estimate the 

effect that reducing VOC will have on ambient ozone concentrations without air quality 

modeling. 

4.4.1 Ozone health effects and valuation 

Reducing ambient ozone concentrations is associated with significant human health 

benefits, including mortality and respiratory morbidity (EPA, 2010a). Researchers have 

associated ozone exposure with adverse health effects in numerous toxicological, clinical and 

epidemiological studies (EPA, 2013). When adequate data and resources are available, EPA 

generally quantifies several health effects associated with exposure to ozone (e.g., EPA, 2010a; 

EPA, 2011a). These health effects include respiratory morbidity such as asthma attacks, hospital 

and emergency department visits, school loss days, as well as premature mortality. The scientific 

literature is also suggestive that exposure to ozone is also associated with chronic respiratory 

damage and premature aging of the lungs. 

In a recent EPA analysis, EPA estimated that reducing 15,000 tons of VOC from 

industrial boilers resulted in $3.6 to $15 million (2008$) of monetized benefits from reduced 

ozone exposure (EPA, 2011b).30 After updating the currency year to 2012$, this implies a 

benefit-per-ton for ozone of $260 to $1,070 per ton of VOC reduced. Since EPA conducted the 

 

30 While EPA has estimated the ozone benefits for many scenarios, most of these scenarios also reduce NOX

emissions, which make it difficult to isolate the benefits attributable to VOC reductions. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-25 

analysis of industrial boilers, EPA published the Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone (EPA, 

2013), the Health Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone (EPA, 2014a), and the RIA for the 

proposed Ozone NAAQS (EPA, 2014b). Therefore, the ozone mortality studies applied in the 

boiler analysis, while current at that time, do not reflect the most updated literature available. 

The selection of ozone mortality studies used to estimate benefits in RIAs was revisited in the 

RIA for the proposed Ozone NAAQS. Applying the more recent studies would lead to benefitper-ton estimates for ozone within the range shown here. While these ranges of benefit-per-ton 

estimates provide useful context, the geographic distribution of VOC emissions from the MSW 

landfill sector are not consistent with emissions modeled in the boiler analysis. Therefore, we do 

not believe that those estimates to provide useful estimates of the monetized benefits of this rule, 

even as a bounding exercise. 

4.4.2 Ozone vegetation effects 

Exposure to ozone has been associated with a wide array of vegetation and ecosystem 

effects in the published literature (EPA, 2013a). Sensitivity to ozone is highly variable across 

species, with over 66 vegetation species identified as “ozone-sensitive”, many of which occur in 

state and national parks and forests. These effects include those that damage or impair the 

intended use of the plant or ecosystem. Such effects are considered adverse to the public welfare 

and can include reduced growth and/or biomass production in sensitive trees, reduced yield and 

quality of crops, visible foliar injury, species composition shift, and changes in ecosystems and 

associated ecosystem services. 

4.4.3 Ozone climate effects 

Ozone is a well-known short-lived climate forcing (SLCF) greenhouse gas (GHG) (EPA, 

2006a). Stratospheric ozone (the upper ozone layer) is beneficial because it protects life on Earth 

from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation. In contrast, tropospheric ozone (ozone in the 

lower atmosphere) is a harmful air pollutant that adversely affects human health and the 

environment and contributes significantly to regional and global climate change. Due to its short 

atmospheric lifetime, tropospheric ozone concentrations exhibit large spatial and temporal 

variability (EPA, 2009b). A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) study 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-26 

reports that the threefold increase in ground level ozone during the past 100 years makes it the 

third most important contributor to human contributed climate change behind CO2 and methane. 

This quantifiable influence of ground level ozone on climate leads to increases in global surface 

temperature and changes in hydrological cycles. 

4.5 Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Benefits 

Even though emissions of air toxics from all sources in the U.S. declined by approximately 

42 percent since 1990, the 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) predicts that 

most Americans are exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels that have the 

potential to cause adverse health effects (EPA, 2011c).31 The levels of air toxics to which people 

are exposed vary depending on where they live and work and the kinds of activities in which 

they engage. In order to identify and prioritize air toxics, emission source types and locations 

that are of greatest potential concern, the U.S. EPA conducts the NATA. 32 The most recent 

NATA was conducted for calendar year 2005 and was released in March 2011. NATA includes 

four steps: 

1) Compiling a national emissions inventory of air toxics emissions from outdoor sources 

2) Estimating ambient concentrations of air toxics across the United States utilizing 

dispersion models 

3) Estimating population exposures across the United States utilizing exposure models 

4) Characterizing potential public health risk due to inhalation of air toxics including both 

cancer and noncancer effects 

 

31 The 2005 NATA is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/.

32 The NATA modeling framework has a number of limitations that prevent its use as the sole basis for setting 

regulatory standards. These limitations and uncertainties are discussed on the 2005 NATA website. Even so, 

this modeling framework is very useful in identifying air toxic pollutants and sources of greatest concern, setting 

regulatory priorities, and informing the decision making process. U.S. EPA. (2011) 2005 National-Scale Air 

Toxics Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/

Commented [A22]: OMB RIA Comment 25: Reviewer 

recommends more specificity in the HAP benefits discussion on 4.5. 

If there are known HAP emissions please focus the discussion to 

those emissions. The current discussion doesn’t seem very relevant 

to these rulemakings. 

EPA Response: Section 4.5 only includes a qualitative discussion of 

four HAP that are known to be part of landfill gas: benzene, toluene, 

ethylbenzene, and vinyl chloride. Even though we cannot quantify 

the emission reductions of these HAP, we anticipate reduced 

exposure to them as a result of this rulemaking. The NATA 

discussion provides context for evaluating these qualitative HAP 

benefits. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-27 

Based on the 2005 NATA, EPA estimates that about 5 percent of census tracts 

nationwide have increased cancer risks greater than 100 in a million. The average national 

cancer risk is about 50 in a million. Nationwide, the key pollutants that contribute most to the 

overall cancer risks are formaldehyde and benzene. 33,34 Secondary formation (e.g., formaldehyde 

forming from other emitted pollutants) was the largest contributor to cancer risks, while 

stationary, mobile and background sources contribute almost equal portions of the remaining 

cancer risk. 

Noncancer health effects can result from chronic,35 subchronic,36 or acute37 inhalation 

exposures to air toxics, and include neurological, cardiovascular, liver, kidney, and respiratory 

effects as well as effects on the immune and reproductive systems. According to the 2005 

NATA, about three-fourths of the U.S. population was exposed to an average chronic 

concentration of air toxics that has the potential for adverse noncancer respiratory health effects.

Results from the 2005 NATA indicate that acrolein is the primary driver for noncancer 

respiratory risk. 

Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 depict the estimated census tract-level carcinogenic risk and 

noncancer respiratory hazard from the assessment. It is important to note that large reductions in 

HAP emissions may not necessarily translate into significant reductions in health risk because 

toxicity varies by pollutant, and exposures may or may not exceed levels of concern. For 

 

33 Details on EPA’s approach to characterization of cancer risks and uncertainties associated with the 2005 NATA 

risk estimates can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/riskbg.html#Z2. 

34 Details about the overall confidence of certainty ranking of the individual pieces of NATA assessments including 

both quantitative (e.g., model-to-monitor ratios) and qualitative (e.g., quality of data, review of emission 

inventories) judgments can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/roy/page16.html. 

35 Chronic exposure is defined in the glossary of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database 

(http://www.epa.gov/iris) as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than 

approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than approximately 90 days to 2 years in typically used 

laboratory animal species).

36 Defined in the IRIS database as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than 30 days, 

up to approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than 30 days up to approximately 90 days in typically 

used laboratory animal species).

37 Defined in the IRIS database as exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for 24 hours or less. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-28 

example, acetaldehyde mass emissions were more than double acrolein emissions on a national 

basis in EPA’s 2005 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). However, the Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS) reference concentration (RfC) for acrolein is considerably lower than 

that for acetaldehyde, suggesting that acrolein could be potentially more toxic than 

acetaldehyde.38 Thus, it is important to account for the toxicity and exposure, as well as the mass 

of the targeted emissions. 

Figure 4-2 2005 NATA Model Estimated Census Tract Carcinogenic Risk from HAP 

Exposure from Emissions of All Outdoor Sources (inclusive of Residental Wood Heaters) 

based on the 2005 National Toxic Inventory. 

 

38 Details on the derivation of IRIS values and available supporting documentation for individual chemicals (as well 

as chemical values comparisons) can be found at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/compare.cfm. 

Commented [A23]: OMB RIA Comment 1: Reviewer 

recommends deleting the discussion in the RIA (starting on page 4-

25) because acrolein and acetaldehyde are HAPS but not key 

landfills gases. Further, the discussion of acrolein being “more 

toxic” is uncertain because there is no information about doseresponse. Without dose response, all that can be said is that adverse 

health effects can start to manifest at lower concentrations for 

acrolein than acetaldehyde. 

EPA Response: Text has been deleted. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-29 

Figure 4-3 2005 NATA Model Estimated Census Tract Noncancer Risk from HAP 

Exposure from Emissions of All Outdoor Sources (inclusive of Residental Wood Heaters) 

based on the 2005 National Toxic Inventory 

Due to methodology and data limitations, we were unable to estimate the benefits 

associated with the hazardous air pollutants that would be reduced as a result of this rule. In a 

few previous analyses of the benefits of reductions in HAP, EPA has quantified the benefits of 

potential reductions in the incidences of cancer and noncancer risk (e.g., EPA, 1995). In those 

analyses, EPA relied on unit risk factors (URF) and reference concentrations (RfC) developed 

through risk assessment procedures. The URF is a quantitative estimate of the carcinogenic 

potency of a pollutant, often expressed as the probability of contracting cancer from a 70-year 

lifetime continuous exposure to a concentration of one μg/m3 of a pollutant. These URFs are 

designed to be conservative, and as such, are more likely to represent the high end of the 

distribution of risk rather than a best or most likely estimate of risk. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-30 

An RfC is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a 

continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is 

likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious noncancer health effects during a lifetime. 

As part of the second prospective analysis of the benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act (EPA, 

2011a), EPA conducted a case study analysis of the health effects associated with reducing 

exposure to benzene in Houston from implementation of the Clean Air Act (IEc, 2009). While 

reviewing the draft report, EPA’s Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis 

concluded that “the challenges for assessing progress in health improvement as a result of 

reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) are daunting...due to a lack of 

exposure-response functions, uncertainties in emissions inventories and background levels, the 

difficulty of extrapolating risk estimates to low doses and the challenges of tracking health 

progress for diseases, such as cancer, that have long latency periods” (EPA-SAB, 2008). 

In 2009, EPA convened a workshop to address the inherent complexities, limitations, and 

uncertainties in current methods to quantify the benefits of reducing HAP. Recommendations 

from this workshop included identifying research priorities, focusing on susceptible and 

vulnerable populations, and improving dose-response relationships (Gwinn et al., 2011). 

In summary, monetization of the benefits of reductions in cancer incidences requires 

several important inputs, including central estimates of cancer risks, estimates of exposure to 

carcinogenic HAP, and estimates of the value of an avoided case of cancer (fatal and non-fatal). 

Due to methodology and data limitations, we did not attempt to monetize the health benefits of 

reductions in HAP in this analysis. Instead, we provide a qualitative analysis of the health effects 

associated with the HAP anticipated to be reduced by this rule. EPA remains committed to 

improving methods for estimating HAP benefits by continuing to explore additional concepts of 

benefits, including changes in the distribution of risk. 

In the subsequent sections, we describe the health effects associated with the main HAP 

of concern from the MSW landfill sector: benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and vinyl chloride. 

This rule is anticipated to avoid or reduce 2,770 tons of NMOC per year. With the data 

available, it was not possible to estimate the tons of each individual HAP that would be reduced. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-31 

Therefore, in addition to the reasons identified above, we cannot estimate the monetized benefits 

associated with reducing HAP emissions for this rule.

4.5.1 Benzene 

The EPA’s IRIS database lists benzene as a known human carcinogen (causing leukemia) 

by all routes of exposure, and concludes that exposure is associated with additional health effects, 

including genetic changes in both humans and animals and increased proliferation of bone marrow 

cells in mice.39,40,41 EPA states in its IRIS database that data indicate a causal relationship between 

benzene exposure and acute lymphocytic leukemia and suggest a relationship between benzene 

exposure and chronic non-lymphocytic leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The IARC 

has determined that benzene is a human carcinogen and the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services has characterized benzene as a known human carcinogen.42,43

A number of adverse noncancer health effects including blood disorders, such as 

preleukemia and aplastic anemia, have also been associated with long-term exposure to 

benzene.44,45

 

39 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. Integrated Risk Information System File for Benzene. 

Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is 

available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm. 

40 International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of 

chemicals to humans, Volume 29, Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, International Agency for Research 

on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France, p. 345-389, 1982. 

41 Irons, R.D.; Stillman, W.S.; Colagiovanni, D.B.; Henry, V.A. (1992) Synergistic action of the benzene metabolite 

hydroquinone on myelopoietic stimulating activity of granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor in vitro, 

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 89:3691-3695. 

42 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1987. Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk 

of chemicals to humans, Volume 29, Supplement 7, Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, World Health 

Organization, Lyon, France. 

43 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program 11th Report on Carcinogens 

available at: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/16183 . 

44 Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and carcinogenicity of benzene. Environ. Health Perspect. 82: 193-197. 

45 Goldstein, B.D. (1988). Benzene toxicity. Occupational medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 3: 541-554. 

Commented [A24]: OMB RIA Comment 2: Reviewer 

recommends clarifying in the RIA that EPA cannot estimate how 

much HAPs would be reduced because of this rule, and therefore 

cannot estimate benefits. 

EPA Response: This has been clarified in this section. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-32 

4.5.2 Ethylbenzene 

Ethylbenzene is a major industrial chemical produced by alkylation of benzene. The pure 

chemical is used almost exclusively for styrene production. It is also a constituent of crude 

petroleum and is found in gasoline and diesel fuels. Acute (short-term) exposure to ethylbenzene 

in humans results in respiratory effects such as throat irritation and chest constriction, and 

irritation of the eyes, and neurological effects such as dizziness. Chronic (long-term) exposure 

of humans to ethylbenzene may cause eye and lung irritation, with possible adverse effects on 

the blood. Animal studies have reported effects on the blood, liver, and kidneys and endocrine 

system from chronic inhalation exposure to ethylbenzene. No information is available on the 

developmental or reproductive effects of ethylbenzene in humans, but animal studies have 

reported developmental effects, including birth defects in animals exposed via inhalation. 

Studies in rodents reported increases in the percentage of animals with tumors of the nasal and 

oral cavities in male and female rats exposed to ethylbenzene via the oral route.46,47 The reports of 

these studies lacked detailed information on the incidence of specific tumors, statistical analysis, 

survival data, and information on historical controls, thus the results of these studies were 

considered inconclusive by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 2000) and 

the National Toxicology Program (NTP).48,49 The NTP (1999) carried out a chronic inhalation 

bioassay in mice and rats and found clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in male rats and some 

evidence in female rats, based on increased incidences of renal tubule adenoma or carcinoma in 

male rats and renal tubule adenoma in females. NTP (1999) also noted increases in the incidence 

 

46 Maltoni C, Conti B, Giuliano C and Belpoggi F, 1985. Experimental studies on benzene carcinogenicity at the 

Bologna Institute of Oncology: Current results and ongoing research. Am J Ind Med 7:415-446.

47 Maltoni C, Ciliberti A, Pinto C, Soffritti M, Belpoggi F and Menarini L, 1997. Results of long-term experimental 

carcinogenicity studies of the effects of gasoline, correlated fuels, and major gasoline aromatics on rats. Annals 

NY Acad Sci 837:15-52.

48International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 2000. Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks 

to Humans. Some Industrial Chemicals. Vol. 77, p. 227-266. IARC, Lyon, France.

49 National Toxicology Program (NTP), 1999. Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Ethylbenzene (CAS No. 

100-41-4) in F344/N Rats and in B6C3F1 Mice (Inhalation Studies). Technical Report Series No. 466. NIH 

Publication No. 99-3956. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National 

Institutes of Health. NTP, Research Triangle Park, NC.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-33 

of testicular adenoma in male rats. Increased incidences of lung alveolar/bronchiolar adenoma or 

carcinoma were observed in male mice and liver hepatocellular adenoma or carcinoma in female 

mice, which provided some evidence of carcinogenic activity in male and female mice (NTP, 

1999). IARC (2000) classified ethylbenzene as Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans, 

based on the NTP studies. 

4.5.3 Toluene50

Under the 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, there is inadequate 

information to assess the carcinogenic potential of toluene because studies of humans chronically 

exposed to toluene are inconclusive, and toluene was not carcinogenic in adequate inhalation 

cancer bioassays of rats and mice exposed for life.

51,52,53, and increased Increased incidences of 

mammary cancer and leukemia were reported in a lifetime rat oral bioassay;

54

 however, this 

evidence was considered equivocal since cancers were observed at the low dose tested 

(500mg/kg/day) but not at the higher dose tested (800 mg/kg/day). In support of EPA’s cancer 

classification, IARC has classified toluene as Group 3 (not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity 

in humans) with a supporting statement that there is inadequate evidence in humans and evidence 

suggesting a lack of carcinogenicity of toluene in experimental animals.

55

 

50 All health effects language for this section came from: U.S. EPA. 2005. “Full IRIS Summary for Toluene 

(CASRN 108-88-3)” Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Office of 

Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH. 

Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0118.htm>.

51 CIIT (Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology). (1980) A twenty-four month inhalation toxicology study in 

Fischer-344 rats exposed to atmospheric toluene. Conducted by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., Decatur, 

IL, and Experimental Pathology Laboratories, Inc., Raleigh, NC, for CIIT, Research Triangle Park, NC..

52 NTP (National Toxicology Program), 1990. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of toluene (CAS No. 108-88-

3) in F344/N rats and B5C3F1 mice (inhalation studies). Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services; NTP TR 371. Available from: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research 

Triangle Park, NC.

53 Huff, J., 2003. Absence of carcinogenic activity in Fischer rats and B6C3F1 mice following 103-week inhalation 

exposures to toluene. Int J Occup Environ Health 9:138-146.

54 Maltoni, C; Ciliberti, A; Pinto, C; et al., 1997. Results of long-term experimental carcinogenicity studies of the 

effects of gasoline, correlated fuels, and major gasoline aromatics on rats. Ann NY Acad Sci 837:15-52. 

55 IARC. (International Agency for Research on Cancer), 1999. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic 

risks of chemicals to humans. Vol. 71, Part 2. Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals, hydrazine and hydrogen 

peroxide. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, pp. 829-864.

Commented [A25]: OMB RIA Comment 3: Reviewer 

recommends clarifying the first paragraph of the RIA on toluene. It 

currently says “toluene was not carcinogenic in adequate inhalation 

cancer bioassays of rats and mice exposed for life, and increased 

evidence of mammary cancer and leukemia were reported in a 

lifetime rat oral bioassay.” Were the increased incidences of 

mammary cancer and leukemia observed in inadequate oral cancel 

bioassays? 

The cancer classification is just hazard identification, so there should 

be discussion on why the evidence is inadequate despite a positive 

oral cancer bioassay. 

EPA Response: This discussion has been clarified. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-34 

The central nervous system (CNS) is the primary target for toluene toxicity in both 

humans and animals for acute and chronic exposures. CNS dysfunction (which is often 

reversible) and narcosis have been frequently observed in humans acutely exposed to low or 

moderate levels of toluene by inhalation: symptoms include fatigue, sleepiness, headaches, and 

nausea. Central nervous system depression has been reported to occur in chronic abusers 

exposed to high levels of toluene. Symptoms include ataxia, tremors, cerebral atrophy, 

nystagmus (involuntary eye movements), and impaired speech, hearing, and vision. Chronic 

inhalation exposure of humans to toluene also causes irritation of the upper respiratory tract, eye 

irritation, dizziness, headaches, and difficulty with sleep. 

Human studies have also reported developmental effects, such as CNS dysfunction, 

attention deficits, and minor craniofacial and limb anomalies, in the children of women who 

abused toluene during pregnancy. A substantial database examining the effects of toluene in 

subchronic and chronic occupationally exposed humans exists. The weight of evidence from 

these studies indicates neurological effects (i.e., impaired color vision, impaired hearing, 

decreased performance in neurobehavioral analysis, changes in motor and sensory nerve 

conduction velocity, headache, and dizziness) as the most sensitive endpoint. 

4.5.4 Vinyl Chloride56

Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. 

Acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in air has resulted in central nervous 

system effects (CNS), such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches in humans. Chronic (longterm) exposure to vinyl chloride through inhalation and oral exposure in humans has resulted in 

liver damage. Cancer is a major concern from exposure to vinyl chloride via inhalation, as vinyl 

chloride exposure has been shown to increase the risk of a rare form of liver cancer in humans. 

 

56 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Vinyl Chloride. 2000. 

Available online at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/1001.htm. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-35 

EPA has classified vinyl chloride as a Group A, “human carcinogen”. IARC has classified vinyl 

chloride as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).57

4.5.5 Other Air Toxics 

In addition to the compounds described above, other air toxic compounds might be 

affected by this rule. Information regarding the health effects of those compounds can be found 

in EPA’s IRIS database.58

4.6 Alternative Years of Analysis 

While the EPA is assessing impacts in year 2025 as a representative year for the landfills 

Emission Guidelines for existing MSW landfills, the quantity and composition of landfill gas 

does change over the lifetime of a landfill, as discussed in Chapter 2. This section presents a 

more complete picture of the climate benefits of the Emission Guidelines alternatives over time 

by presenting results from the years 2020, 2030, and 2040. 

Table 4-6 presents the climate benefits of the alternatives in the 2020 snapshot year. 

Table 4-6 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2020* (in millions, 2012$) 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CH4

reduced 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CO2-

equivalent 

reduced 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 0.24 5.9 $140 $310 $410 $810 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 0.36 9.0 $210 $460 $620 $1,200 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 0.40 10.1 $240 $520 $700 $1,400 

*The SC-CH4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH4 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts. 

 

57 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2008. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic 

Risk of Chemicals for Humans. Vol. 97, pp311. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. 

Available online at http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol97/index.php. 

58 U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database is available at: www.epa.gov/iris 

Commented [A26]: This section added in response to OMB 

General Comment 1. Table additions not tracked as changes for 

clarity. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-36 

Table 4-7 presents the climate benefits of the alternatives in the 2030 snapshot year.

Table 4-7 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2030* (in millions, 2012$) 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CH4

reduced 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CO2-

equivalent 

reduced 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 0.31 7.7 $250 $530 $670 $1,400 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 0.50 12 $410 $860 $1,100 $2,300 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 0.53 13 $440 $920 $1,200 $2,400 

*The SC-CH4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH4 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts. 

Table 4-8 presents the climate benefits of the alternatives in the 2040 snapshot year.

Table 4-8 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2040* (in millions, 2012$) 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CH4

reduced 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CO2-

equivalent 

reduced 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 0.21 5.3 $230 $450 $590 $1,300 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 0.34 8.4 $360 $720 $940 $2,000 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 0.35 8.7 $380 $750 $980 $2,100 

*The SC-CH4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH4 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts. 

4.64.7 References 

Anenberg, S.C., et al. 2009. “Intercontinental impacts of ozone pollution on human mortality,” 

Environ. Sci. & Technol., 43, 6482-6487. 

Anenberg SC, Schwartz J, Shindell D, et al. 2012. “Global air quality and health co-benefits of 

mitigating near-term climate change through methane and black carbon emission 

controls.” Environ Health Perspect 120 (6):831. 

Dentener, F., D. Stevenson, J. Cofala, R. Mechler, M. Amann, P. Bergamaschi, F. Raes, and R. 

Derwent. 2005. “The impact of air pollutant and methane emission controls on 

tropospheric ozone and radiative forcing: CTM calculations for the period 1990-2030,” 

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 1731-1755. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-37 

Fankhauser, S. 1994. “The social costs of greenhouse gas emissions: an expected value 

approach.” Energy Journal 15(2):157–184. 

Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. “The influence of location, source, and emission 

type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution.” Air 

Qual Atmos Health 2:169-176. 

Fiore, A.M., J.J. West, L.W. Horowitz, V. Naik, and M.D. Schwarzkopf. 2008. “Characterizing 

the tropospheric ozone response to methane emission controls and the benefits to climate 

and air quality,” J. Geophys. Res., 113, D08307, doi:10.1029/2007JD009162 

Forster, P. et al. 2007. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: 

Climate Change 2007. The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and 

H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New 

York, NY, USA. 

Gwinn, M.R., J. Craig, D.A. Axelrad, R. Cook, C. Dockins, N. Fann, R. Fegley, D.E. Guinnup, 

G. Helfand, B. Hubbell, S.L. Mazur, T. Palma, R.L. Smith, J. Vandenberg, and 

B. Sonawane. 2011. “Meeting report: Estimating the benefits of reducing hazardous air 

pollutants—summary of 2009 workshop and future considerations.” Environ Health 

Perspect. 119(1): p. 125-30. 

Hope, C. 2005. “The climate change benefits of reducing methane emissions.” Climatic Change

68(1):21–39. 

Hope, C. and D. Newbery. 2006. “Calculating the Social Cost of Carbon” Forthcoming in 

Delivering a Low Carbon Electricity System: Technologies, Economics and Policy 

Editors: Michael Grubb, Tooraj Jamasb and Michael G. Pollitt (University of Cambridge) 

Cambridge University Press. <http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/194738> 

Accessed March 30, 2015. 

Industrial Economics, Inc (IEc). 2009. Section 812 Prospective Study of the Benefits and Costs of 

the Clean Air Act: Air Toxics Case Study—Health Benefits of Benzene Reductions in 

Houston, 1990–2020. Final Report, July 14, 2009. 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/dec09/812CAAA_Benzene_Houston_Final_Report_Jul

y_2009.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Social Cost of Carbon (SC-CO2). 2010. Technical 

Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 

Executive Order 12866. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-114577. Participation by 

Council of Economic Advisers, Council on Environmental Quality, Department of 

Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of 

Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Economic Council, Office of 

Energy and Climate Change, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science and 

Technology Policy, and Department of Treasury. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-38 

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-ofCarbon-for-RIA.pdf> Accessed March 31, 2015. 

Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Social Cost of Carbon (SC-CO2). 2013. Technical 

Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 

Executive Order 12866. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495. Participation by Council 

of Economic Advisers, Council on Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture, 

Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, 

Domestic Policy Council, Environmental Protection Agency, National Economic 

Council, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

and Department of Treasury. 

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-updatesocial-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf> Accessed March 31, 2015. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis 

Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR4) [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, 

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

<http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report

_synthesis_report.htm>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: 

Climate Change 2007. Working Group II, Chapter 20 ‘Perspectives on Climate Change 

and Sustainability.’ <http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch20s20-

6-1.html> Accessed March 30, 2011. 

Kandlikar, M. 1995. “The relative role of trace gas emissions in greenhouse abatement policies.” 

Energy Policy 23(10): 879–883. 

Krewski D.; M. Jerrett; R.T. Burnett; R. Ma; E. Hughes; Y. Shi, et al. 2009. Extended Follow-Up 

and Spatial Analysis of the American Cancer Society Study Linking Particulate Air 

Pollution and Mortality. HEI Research Report, 140, Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA. 

4-64. 

Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. Dockery. 2006. “Reduction in Fine Particulate 

Air Pollution and Mortality.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care 

Medicine 173:667-672. 

Landers DH; Simonich SL; Jaffe DA; Geiser LH; Campbell DH; Schwindt AR; Schreck CB; 

Kent ML; Hafner WD; Taylor HE; Hageman KJ; Usenko S; Ackerman LK; Schrlau JE; 

Rose NL; Blett TF; Erway MM. 2008. The Fate, Transport and Ecological Impacts of 

Airborne Contaminants in Western National Parks (USA). EPA/600/R-07/138. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, NHEERL, 

Western Ecology Division. Corvallis, Oregon. 

Lepeule, J.; F. Laden; D. Dockery; J. Schwartz. 2012. “Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and 

Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009.” 

Environmental Health Perspectives, July, 120(7):965-70. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-39 

Marten, A. and S. Newbold. 20112012. “Estimating the Social Cost of Non-CO2 GHG 

Emissions: Methane and Nitrous Oxide.” NCEE Working Paper Series # 11-01. 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/WPNumber/2011-

01?opendocument>. Accessed March 30, 2015. Energy Policy 51:957-972.

Marten AL, Kopits KA, Griffiths CW, Newbold SC, Wolverton A. 2014. “Incremental CH4 and 

N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the US Government's SC-CO2 estimates,” 

Climate Policy 15, 2: 272-298. 

Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 

2002. “Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine 

Particulate Air Pollution.” Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132-1141. 

Roman, H.A., K.D. Walker, T.L. Walsh, L. Conner, H.M. Richmond, .J. Hubbell, and P.L. 

Kinney. 2008. “Expert Judgment Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in 

Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 42(7):2268-2274. 

Sarofim, Marcus C., S. Waldhoff, and S. Anenberg. “Valuing the Ozone-Related Health 

Benefits of Methane Emission Controls.” Environmental and Resource Economics, 2015. 

DOI: 10.1007/s10640-015-9937-6. 

Shindell, D., J.C.I. Kuylenstierna, E. Vignati, R. van Dingenen, M. Amann, Z. Klimont, S.C. 

Anenberg, N. Muller, G. Janssens-Maenhout, F. Raes, J. Schwartz, G. Faluvegi, L. 

Pozzoli, K. Kupiainen, L. Hoglund-Isakson, L. Emberson, D. Streets, V. Ramanathan, K. 

Hicks, K. Oanh, G. Milly, M. Williams, V. Demkine, D. Fowler. 2012. Simultaneously 

mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security, 

Science, 335:183-189. 

Shindell, D.T., G. Faluvegi, N. Bell, and G.A. Schmidt. 2005. “An emissions-based view of 

climate forcing by methane and tropospheric ozone,” Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L04803, 

doi:10.1029/2004GL021900

Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution (HTAP). 2010. Hemispheric Transport of 

Air Pollution 2010. Informal Document No.10. Convention on Long-range 

Transboundary Air Pollution Executive Body 28th Session. ECE/EB.AIR/2010/10 

(Corrected). Chapter 4, pp. 148-149. 

Tol, R. (2006). NEEDS Project 502687 ‘New Energy Externalities Developments for 

Sustainability Integrated Project’ < http://www.needsproject.org/RS1b/NEEDS_RS1B_TP_T5.4_T5.5.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

Tol, R, R.J. Heintz, and P.E.M. Lammers. 2003. “Methane emission reduction: An application of 

FUND.” Climatic Change 57(1):71–98. 

Commented [A27]: Updated citation 

Commented [A28]: Relevant, peer-reviewed paper just 

published online 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-40 

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Meteorological Organization 

(WMO), 2011. Opportunities to Limit Near-Term Climate Change: An Integrated 

Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone, and its Precursors, United 

Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. <http://www.unep.org>. Accessed February 

9, 2012. 

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2011. Near-Term Climate Protection and 

Clean Air Benefits: Actions for Controlling Short-Lived Climate Forcers, United Nations 

Environment Programme, Nairobi. Online at 

<http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/SLCF/>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006b. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2006 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, Chapter 5. Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/Chapter%205--Benefits.pdf>. Accessed 

March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Petroleum Refinery NESHAP. Revised Draft for Promulgation. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. <http://www.regmarkets.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=705>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment—RTP Division. 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>. Accessed March 30, 

2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Technical Support Document for 

Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under 

Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. 

<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Endangerment%20TSD.p

d>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010a. Regulatory Impact Analysis, National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, NC. <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/s1-

supplemental_analysis_full.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010e. 40 CFR Part 98 Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gases: Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems; Final Rule. Federal Register 

Vol. 75, No. 229, November 30, 2010. 74458-74515. 

<http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-28655.pdf> Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010f. Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 106, June 3, 

2010. 31514-31608 <http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-03/pdf/2010-

11974.pdf#page=1> Accessed March 30, 2015. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-41 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011a. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air 

Act from 1990 to 2020. Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. March. 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011b. Regulatory Impact Analysis: National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and 

Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, NC. February. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/boilersriafinal110221_psg.pdf>. Accessed 

March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011c. 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

March. < http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/> Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011d. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter 

and Ozone in 27 States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 22 States. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. July. 

<http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011e. Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Oil and Natural Gas Source Category. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

Office of Air and Radiation. 

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012a. Residual Risk Assessment for the Oil and 

Gas Production and Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Source Categories. Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012b. Regulatory Impact Analysis Final New 

Source Performance Standards and Amendments to the National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. April. < 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/oil_natural_gas_final_neshap_nsps_ria.pdf >. 

Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012c. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final 

Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA452/R-12-003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental 

Impacts Division. December. Available at: 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/oil_natural_gas_final_neshap_nsps_ria.pdf>. 

Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012d. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final 

Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. EPA-420-R-12-016. Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division. August. < 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420r12016.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-42 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. Integrated Science Assessment of Ozone 

and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-10/076F. February. 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=247492#Download>. Accessed 

March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014a. Health Risk and Exposure Assessment for 

Ozone (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 

NC, EPA-452/R-14-004a. August. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/data/20140829healthrea.pdf>. Accessed 

March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014b. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Proposed Ozone NAAQS. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC, EPA-452/P-14-006. December. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/20141125ria.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 

2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013. Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, DC. 

EPA 430-R-15-004. Annex 3.14, Tables A-265 and Table ES-2. April 2015. 

<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html>. Accessed 

April 28, 2015.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB). 2002. Workshop 

on the Benefits of Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants: Developing Best 

Estimates of Dose-Response Functions An SAB Workshop Report of an EPA/SAB 

Workshop (Final Report). EPA-SAB-EC-WKSHP-02-001. January. 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/34355712EC011A358525719A0

05BF6F6/$File/ecwkshp02001%2Bappa-g.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB). 2008. Benefits of 

Reducing Benzene Emissions in Houston, 1990–2020. EPA-COUNCIL-08-001. July. 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/D4D7EC9DAEDA8A548525748600728A8

3/$File/EPA-COUNCIL-08-001-unsigned.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

Waldhoff, S., D. Anthoff, S. Rose, R.S.J. Tol. 2014. “The Marginal Damage Costs of Different 

Greenhouse Gases: An Application of FUND.” The Open-Access, Open Assessment EJournal. 8(31): 1-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2014-31. Accessed 

July 13, 2015. 

West, J.J., A. M. Fiore , L. W. Horowitz, and D. L. Mauzerall. 2006. “Global health benefits of 

mitigating ozone pollution with methane emission controls.” PNAS 103:11:3988-3993. 

West, J.J., A.M. Fiore. 2005. “Management of tropospheric ozone by reducing methane 

emissions.” Environ Sci Technol, 39:4685-4691. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-1 

5 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND DISTRIBUTIONAL ASSESSMENTS 

5.1 Introduction 

This chapter of the RIA includes three sets of discussions related to the proposed 

Emission Guidelines for MSW landfills: 

• Economic Impact Analysis 

• Employment Analysis 

• Small Business Analysis 

These discussions are intended to assist the reader of the RIA to better understand the potential 

economic impacts of the proposal, though data and methodological limitations prevented a 

complete assessment of the economic impacts of the proposed Emission Guidelines. 

5.2 Economic Impact Analysis 

The impacts shown for the proposal reflect the incremental difference between facilities 

in the baseline and for an option that reduces the NMOC emission rate threshold to 34 Mg/yr 

from the current emissions guideline level of 50 Mg/yr (proposed option 2.5/34). The proposal 

retains the design capacity threshold of 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million cubic feet. Because the 

proposed option 2.5/34 tightens the criteria for installing and expanding the gas collection and 

control system, there are incremental costs associated with capturing and/or utilizing the 

additional LFG under this more stringent option. These costs were shown in Chapter 3 of this 

RIA to be about $46.8 million in 2025 for the proposed option. 

Assessing the economic impacts of these costs is difficult due to the nature of the MSW 

industry. As previously discussed in Chapter 2, landfills are owned by private companies, 

government (local, state, or federal), or individuals. In 2014, 58 percent of landfills were owned 

by public entities. Households served by public landfills may not respond to price increases in 

the same way as they would if served by private firms, since these households typically pay their 

collection fees through property taxes or other mandatory payments. In these cases, affected 

landfills may be more readily able to pass through increased costs to customers. Households 

served by private landfills may choose to alter their behavior in response to increased collection 

fees, but research into the price elasticity of demand for waste services has typically found the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-2 

demand for waste services to be price inelastic (Bel and Gradus, 2014; Kinnaman, 2006). As was 

shown in Table 2-5, tipping fees have for the most part increased over time, and industry reports 

indicate that “firms have generally managed to hold the line on pricing and win 2-3 percent 

increases to maintain positive revenue amid slow volume growth” (WBJ, 2012a). This suggests 

that firms will, for the most part, be able to pass along increased costs to their consumers. While 

households faced with higher costs will have less income to spend on other goods and services, 

the large number of households served by any particular landfill suggests that any individual 

household will be only modestly impacted. 

As previously discussed in Chapter 2, the handling of MSW in the United States 

generated $55 billion of revenue in 2011, of which landfilling contributed $13 billion (WBJ, 

2012a). Of the $46.8 million of costs in 2025 for the proposed option, 15 percent are borne by 

the five largest firms in the industry, who together accounted for nearly $30 billion in revenue in 

2013 (see Table 2-3). An additional 79 percent of the costs are expected to be incurred by entities 

that are large by SBA standards. Small public entities are predicted to incur approximately six 

percent of the costs, while small private entities are predicted to incur less than one percent of the 

total cost. 

Because of the relatively low net cost of proposed option 2.5/34 compared to the overall 

size of the MSW industry, as well as the lack of appropriate economic parameters or model, the 

EPA is unable to estimate the impacts of the options on the supply and demand for MSW landfill 

services. However, because of the relatively low incremental costs of the proposed option 2.5/34, 

the EPA does not believe the proposal would lead to changes in supply and demand for landfill 

services or waste disposal costs, tipping fees, or the amount of waste disposed in landfills. 

Hence, the overall economic impact of the proposal should be minimal on the affected industries 

and their consumers. 

5.3 Employment Impacts 

In addition to addressing the costs and benefits of the final rule, EPA has analyzed the 

impacts of this rulemaking on employment, which are presented in this section. While a 

standalone analysis of employment impacts is not included in a standard cost-benefit analysis, 

such an analysis is of particular concern in the current economic climate given continued interest 

Commented [A29]: OMB RIA Comment 26: Reviewer 

recommends that given the current unemployment rate of 5.3%, the 

compelling need for an extensive discussion on employment on 5.3 

isn’t clear. For the final rule, reviewer recommends abbreviating this 

discussion. 

EPA Response: Discussion will be revised for final rule. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-3 

in the employment impact of regulations such as this final rule. Executive Order 13563, states, 

“Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while 

promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.” 59 While 

disaggregated compliance costs are not available for the analyzed options, a brief discussion of 

the labor requirements associated with the installation, operation, and maintenance of control 

requirements, as well as reporting and recordkeeping requirements is included in Section 3.4, on 

engineering and administrative costs, of this RIA. However, due to data and methodology 

limitations, we have not quantified the rule’s effects on employment. What follows is an 

overview of the various ways that environmental regulation can affect employment. EPA 

continues to explore the relevant theoretical and empirical literature and to seek public comments 

in order to ensure that the way EPA characterizes the employment effects of its regulations is 

valid and informative.60

5.3.1 Background on the Regulated Industry 

This regulation is expected to affect domestic employment in the regulated sector – 

municipal solid waste landfills. Municipal solid waste (MSW) is the stream of garbage collected 

by sanitation services from homes, businesses, and institutions. The majority of collected MSW 

that is not recycled is typically sent to landfills—engineered areas of land where waste is 

deposited, compacted, and covered. Landfill gas (LFG) is a by-product of the decomposition of 

organic material in MSW in anaerobic conditions in landfills. LFG contains roughly 50 percent 

methane and 50 percent carbon dioxide, with less than 1 percent non-methane organic 

compounds (NMOC) and trace amounts of inorganic compounds. 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 landfill. LFG can be collected and combusted in 

flares or energy recovery devices to reduce emissions. In this rulemaking EPA is proposing to 

lower the annual NMOC emissions threshold from 50 Mg/year to 34 Mg/year. Because of the 

 

59Executive Order 13563 (January 21, 2011). Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Section 1. General 

Principles of Regulation, Federal Register, Vol. 76, Nr. 14, p. 3821. 

60 The employment analysis in this RIA is part of EPA’s ongoing effort to “conduct continuing evaluations of 

potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration or enforcement of [the Act]” 

pursuant to CAA section 321(a).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-4 

lack of appropriate economic parameters or model, EPA is unable to estimate the impacts of the 

rule options on the supply and demand for MSW landfill services. However, because of the 

relatively low incremental costs of the proposed option, the EPA does not believe the proposal 

would lead to changes in supply and demand for landfill services or waste disposal costs, tipping 

fees, or the amount of waste disposed in landfills. Hence, the overall economic impact of the 

proposal should be minimal on the affected industries and their consumers. 

As described in Chapter 2 of this RIA, EPA estimates the total amount of MSW 

generated in the United States in 2012 was approximately 251 million tons, a 20 percent increase 

from 1990. The number of active MSW landfills in the United States has decreased from 

approximately 7,900 in 1988 to approximately 1,800 in 2014 (EPA, 2010; WBJ, 2014). Firms 

engaged in the collection and disposal of refuse in a landfill operation are classified under the 

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes Solid Waste Landfill (562212) 

and Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs 

(924110). There are more than 200 private companies that own and/or operate landfills, ranging 

from large companies with numerous landfills throughout the country to local businesses that 

own a single landfill (EPA, 2012a). In terms of 2011 revenue, the top two companies that own 

and/or operate MSW landfills in the United States were Waste Management ($13.38 billion) and 

Republic Services ($8.19 billion), which together accounted for 39 percent of the revenue share 

in 2011 (Bloomberg, 2012WM; Bloomberg, 2012RSG). See Chapter 2, Table 2-3, for a 

summary of the 2011 revenue for the top five companies, as well as information about their 

MSW landfills and transfer stations. 

Landfills are owned by private companies, government (local, state, or federal), or 

individuals. In 2014, 58 percent of active MSW landfills were owned by public entities while 

42 percent were privately owned (EPA, 2014). As older local public landfills approach their 

capacities, many communities are finding that the most economically viable solution to their 

waste disposal needs is shipping their waste to large regional landfills. In these circumstances, a 

transfer station serves as the critical link in making the shipment of waste to distant facilities 

cost-effective (EPA, 2002). Waste transfer stations are facilities where MSW is unloaded from 

collection vehicles and reloaded into long-distance transport vehicles for delivery to regional 

landfills or other treatment/disposal facilities. By combining the loads of several waste collection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-5 

trucks into a single shipment, communities and waste management companies can reduce labor 

used and operating costs for transporting waste to a distant disposal site. They can also reduce 

the total number of vehicular miles traveled to and from the disposal site(s) (EPA, 2012b). 

The industry that collects, transfers, deposits and manages MSW in landfills encompasses 

a wide range of job types, including garbage collectors, truck drivers, heavy equipment 

operators, engineers of various disciplines, specialized technicians, executives, MSW department 

directors, administrative staff, weigh scale operators, salespersons, and landfill operations 

managers. For employment estimates related to publicly-owned landfills, solid waste 

management departments of local governments reported, in 2013, 95,674 full-time employees 

and 14,638 part-time employees (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013); however, statistics from the U.S. 

Census Bureau are not readily available solely for landfill-related aspects of these departments. 

An additional government source of employment data by detailed industry is the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, which gathers 

employment data from state unemployment insurance programs, reports employment data for 

publicly-owned solid waste landfills (NAICS 562212) owned by local governments: in March 

2013, they report 22,586 employees (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). For employment 

estimates related to private landfills, both the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics provide employment data. However, because these agencies use different methods to 

gather and classify employment data, their estimates indicate a range of employment within 

NAICS 562212, “solid waste landfills”.61 For March 2012, the most recent estimate from the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns, the Census estimate is 18,208 employees at 

privately-owned solid waste landfills (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). However, for privately-owned 

solid waste landfills, the BLS estimate for March 2012 is 37,628 employees (U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, 2012). When data series differ, it can be instructive to look at more aggregated 

industry categories, and in this case, more aggregated employment estimates are very similar 

 

61 BLS QCEW methodology for “industrial classification”: http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch5_b.htm. Census 

methodology for “industry classification of establishments”: 

https://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/methodology.htm. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-6 

between Census and BLS at the 3-digit level NAICS, 562 Waste Management and Remediation 

Services. Based on observed within NAICS 562, the range in estimates at the 6-digit NAICS 

562212 may be driven by methodological differences in categorizing establishments by their 

“main economic activity”, which for this detailed industry, is likely a combination of waste 

treatment, waste disposal, and waste remediation and recovery services, and therefore difficult to 

classify by a single economic activity.62 

As the population continues to grow in the United States the amount of waste generated 

will continue to increase, but the amount of waste landfilled may remain the same or decrease 

due to recycling and other diversion activities (EPA, 2012c). Employment within the waste 

management industry overall will likely remain strong, perhaps with an increased shift of 

employees from the public sector to the private sector as the trend towards increased use of 

regional landfills and waste transfer stations continues. In addition, employment may be affected 

as landfills add technologies in response to the proposed regulation. Whether the technology 

added will capture and flare landfill gas, or capture and combust it for energy recovery, 

employment will be associated with these activities. 

5.3.2 Employment Impacts of Environmental Regulation 

From an economic perspective labor is an input into producing goods and services; if a 

regulation requires that more labor be used to produce a given amount of output, that additional 

labor is reflected in an increase in the cost of production. Moreover, when the economy is at full 

employment, we would not expect an environmental regulation to have an impact on overall 

employment because labor is being shifted from one sector to another. On the other hand, in 

periods of high unemployment, employment effects (both positive and negative) are possible. 

For example, an increase in labor demand due to regulation may result in a short-term net 

increase in overall employment as workers are hired by the regulated sector to help meet new 

requirements (e.g., to install new equipment) or by the environmental protection sector to 

 

62 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-digit NAICS listings for NAICS 56 “Administrative and Support and Waste Management and 

Remediation Services” < http://www.census.gov/cgibin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?chart_code=56&search=2012%20NAICS%20Search>.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-7 

produce new abatement capital resulting in hiring previously unemployed workers . When 

significant numbers of workers are unemployed, the opportunity costs associated with displacing 

jobs in other sectors are likely to be smaller. And, in general, if a regulation imposes high costs 

and does not increase the demand for labor, it may lead to a decrease in employment. The 

responsiveness of industry labor demand depends on how these forces all interact. Economic 

theory indicates that the responsiveness of industry labor demand depends on a number of 

factors: price elasticity of demand for the product, substitutability of other factors of production, 

elasticity of supply of other factors of production, and labor’s share of total production costs. 

Berman and Bui (2001) put this theory in the context of environmental regulation, and suggest 

that, for example, if all firms in the industry are faced with the same compliance costs of 

regulation and product demand is inelastic, then industry output may not change much at all. 

Regulations set in motion new orders for pollution control equipment and services. New 

categories of employment have been created in the process of implementing environmental 

regulations. When a regulation is promulgated, one typical response of industry is to order 

pollution control equipment and services in order to comply with the regulation when it becomes 

effective. On the other hand, the closure of plants that choose not to comply – and any changes in 

production levels at plants choosing to comply and remain in operation - occur after the 

compliance date, or earlier in anticipation of the compliance obligation. Environmental 

regulation may increase revenue and employment in the environmental technology industry. 

While these increases represent gains for that industry, they translate into costs to the regulated 

industries required to install the equipment. 

Environmental regulations support employment in many basic industries. Regulated firms 

either hire workers to design and build pollution controls directly or purchase pollution control 

devices from a third party for installation. Once the equipment is installed, regulated firms hire 

workers to operate and maintain the pollution control equipment—much like they hire workers 

to produce more output. In addition to the increase in employment in the environmental 

protection industry (via increased orders for pollution control equipment), environmental 

regulations also support employment in industries that provide intermediate goods to the 

environmental protection industry. The equipment manufacturers, in turn, order steel, tanks, 

vessels, blowers, pumps, and chemicals to manufacture and install the equipment. Currently in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-8 

most cases there is no scientifically defensible way to generate sufficiently reliable estimates of 

the employment impacts in these intermediate goods sectors. 

It is sometimes claimed that new or more stringent environmental regulations raise 

production costs thereby reducing production which in turn must lead to lower employment. 

However, the peer-reviewed literature indicates that determining the direction of net employment 

effects in a regulated industry is challenging due to competing effects. Environmental regulations 

are assumed to raise production costs and thereby the cost of output, so we expect the “output” 

effect of environmental regulation to be negative (higher prices lead to lower sales). On the other 

hand, complying with the new or more stringent regulation requires additional inputs, including 

labor, and may alter the relative proportions of labor and capital used by regulated firms in their 

production processes. Two sets of researchers discussed here, Berman and Bui (2001) and 

Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002),63 demonstrate using standard neoclassical microeconomics 

that environmental regulations have an ambiguous effect on employment in the regulated sector. 

These theoretical results imply that the effect of environmental regulation on employment in the 

regulated sector is an empirical question and both sets of authors tested their models empirically 

using different methodologies. Both Berman and Bui and Morgenstern et al. examine the effect 

of environmental regulations on employment and both find that overall they had no significant 

net impact on employment in the sectors they examined. 

Berman and Bui (2001) developed an innovative approach to examine how an increase in 

local air quality regulation that reduces nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions affects manufacturing 

employment in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which 

incorporates Los Angeles and its suburbs. During the time frame of their study, 1979 to 1992, the 

SCAQMD enacted some of the country’s most stringent air quality regulations. Using 

 

63 Berman, E. and L. T. M. Bui (2001). “Environmental Regulation and Labor Demand: Evidence from the South 

Coast Air Basin.” Journal of Public Economics 79(2): 265-295. Morgenstern, R. D., W. A. Pizer, and J. S. Shih. 

2002. Jobs versus the Environment: An Industry-Level Perspective. Journal of Environmental Economics and 

Management 43(3):412-436. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-9 

SCAQMD’s local air quality regulations, Berman and Bui identify the effect of environmental 

regulations on net employment in the regulated industries.64,65 The authors find that “while 

regulations do impose large costs, they have a limited effect on employment” (Berman and Bui, 

2001, p. 269). Their conclusion is that local air quality regulation “probably increased labor 

demand slightly” but that “the employment effects of both compliance and increased stringency 

are fairly precisely estimated zeros, even when exit and dissuaded entry effects are included” 

(Berman and Bui, 2001, p. 269).66

Morgenstern et al. (2002) estimated the effects of pollution abatement expenditures from 

1979 to 1991 at the plant level on net employment in four highly regulated sectors (pulp and 

paper, plastics, steel, and petroleum refining). Thus, in contrast to Berman and Bui (2001), this 

study identifies employment effects by examining differences in abatement expenditures rather 

than geographical differences in stringency. They conclude that increased abatement 

expenditures generally have not caused a significant change in net employment in those sectors. 

While the specific sectors Morgenstern et al. examined are different than the sectors considered 

here, the methodology that Morgenstern et al. developed is still an informative way to 

qualitatively, if not quantitatively, assess the effects of this rulemaking on employment at MSW 

landfills. For example, as firms add new technologies to capture landfill gases for flaring or for 

conversion to energy, there will be a demand for labor to install, monitor, and operate these new 

approaches to waste management and energy production. 

While there is an extensive empirical, peer-reviewed literature analyzing the effect of 

environmental regulations on various economic outcomes including productivity, investment, 

competitiveness as well as environmental performance, there are only a few papers that examine 

the impact of environmental regulation on employment, but this area of the literature has been 

growing. As stated previously in this RIA section, empirical results from Berman and Bui (2001) 

and Morgenstern et al (2002) suggest that new or more stringent environmental regulations do 

 

64 Note, like Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002), this study does not estimate the number of jobs created in the 

environmental protection sector. 

65 Berman and Bui include over 40 4-digit SIC industries in their sample. 

66 Including the employment effect of exiting plants and plants dissuaded from opening will increase the estimated 

impact of regulation on employment. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-10 

not have a substantial impact on net employment (either negative or positive) in the regulated 

sector. Similarly, Ferris, Shadbegian, and Wolverton (2014) also find that regulation-induced net 

employment impacts are close to zero in the regulated sector. Furthermore, Gray et al. (2014) 

find that pulp mills that had to comply with both the air and water regulations in EPA’s 1998 

“Cluster Rule” experienced relatively small and not always statistically significant, decreases in 

employment. Nevertheless, other empirical research suggests that more highly regulated 

counties may generate fewer jobs than less regulated ones (Greenstone 2002, Walker 2011). 

However, the methodology used in these two studies cannot estimate whether aggregate 

employment is lower or higher due to more stringent environmental regulation, it can only imply 

that relative employment growth in some sectors differs between more and less regulated areas. 

List et al. (2003) find some evidence that this type of geographic relocation, from more regulated 

areas to less regulated areas may be occurring. Overall, the peer-reviewed literature does not 

contain evidence that environmental regulation has a large impact on net employment (either 

negative or positive) in the long run across the whole economy. 

While the theoretical framework laid out by Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern et 

al. (2002) still holds for the industries affected under these emission guidelines, important 

differences in the markets and regulatory settings analyzed in their study and the setting 

presented here lead us to conclude that it is inappropriate to utilize their quantitative estimates to 

estimate the employment impacts from this proposed regulation. In particular, the industries used 

in these two studies as well as the timeframe (late 1970’s to early 1990’s) are quite different than 

those in the proposed Emission Guidelines. Furthermore, the control strategies analyzed for this 

RIA include gas collection systems, destruction, and utilization, which are very different than the 

control strategies examined by Berman and Bui and Morgenstern et al.67 For these reasons we 

conclude there are too many uncertainties as to the transferability of the quantitative estimates in 

these two studies to apply their estimates to quantify the employment impacts within the 

regulated sectors for this regulation, though these studies have usefulness for qualitative 

assessment of employment impacts. 

 

67 More detail on how emission reductions expected from compliance with this rule can be obtained can be found in 

Chapter 3 of this RIA. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-11 

The preceding sections have outlined the challenges associated with estimating net 

employment effects in the regulated sector and in the environmental protection sector. These 

challenges make it very difficult to accurately produce net employment estimates for the whole 

economy that would appropriately capture the way in which costs, compliance spending, and 

environmental benefits propagate through the macro-economy. Quantitative estimates are further 

complicated by the fact that macroeconomic models often have very little sectoral detail and 

usually assume that the economy is at full employment. EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) is 

currently in the process of seeking input from an independent expert panel on modeling 

economy-wide impacts, including employment effects. 

5.3.3 Conclusion 

Economic theory predicts that the total effect of an environmental regulation on labor 

demand in regulated sectors is not necessarily positive or negative. Peer-reviewed econometric 

studies that use a structural approach, applicable to in the regulated sectors, converge on the 

finding that such effects, whether positive or negative, have been small. 

Because of the lack of appropriate economic parameters or model, the EPA is unable to 

estimate the impacts of the regulatory options on the supply and demand for MSW landfill 

services. However, because of the relatively low incremental costs of the proposed option, the 

EPA does not believe the proposal would lead to changes in supply and demand for landfill 

services or waste disposal costs, tipping fees, or the amount of waste disposed in landfills. 

Hence, the overall economic impact of the proposal should be minimal on the affected industries 

and their consumers. 

MSW landfill activities encompasses a wide range of job types, including garbage 

collectors, truck drivers, heavy equipment operators, engineers of various disciplines, specialized 

technicians, executives, MSW department directors, administrative staff, weigh scale operators, 

salespersons, and landfill operations managers. As the population continues to grow in the 

United States the amount of waste generated will continue to increase, but the amount of waste 

landfilled may remain the same or decrease due to recycling or other waste diversion (EPA, 

2012c). Employment within the waste management industry overall will likely remain strong, 

perhaps with an increased shift of employees from the public sector to the private sector. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-12 

Employment to design, construct and operate new technologies for managing landfill gases 

either through flaring or conversion to energy may also increase. 

5.4 Small Business Impacts Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small not-for-profit enterprises. 

For the purposes of assessing the impact of the proposed Emission Guidelines on small 

entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is primarily engaged in the 

collections and disposal of refuse in a landfill operation as defined by NAICS code 562212 with 

annual receipts less than $38.5 million; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, school district, or school district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is 

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic impact of the proposed Emission Guidelines on small 

entities, the EPA certifies that the proposed regulation will not have a Significant Impact on a 

Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE). 

The proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Specifically, 

Emission Guidelines established under CAA section 111(d) do not impose any requirements on 

regulated entities and, thus, will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial 

number of small entities. After Emission Guidelines are promulgated, states establish standards 

on existing sources and it is those state requirements that could potentially impact small entities. 

Our analysis here is consistent with the analysis of the analogous situation arising when the EPA 

establishes NAAQS, which do not impose any requirements on regulated entities. As here, any 

impact of a NAAQS on small entities would only arise when states take subsequent action to 

maintain and/or achieve the NAAQS through their state implementation plans. See American 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-13 

Trucking Associations v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1029, 1043-45 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (NAAQS do not have 

significant impacts upon small entities because NAAQS themselves impose no regulations upon 

small entities). 

5.5 References 

Bel, Germà and Raymond Gradus. 2014. “Effects of Unit-based Pricing on the Waste Collection 

Demand: a Meta-regression Analysis.” Working Paper 2014/20. Research Institute of 

Applied Economics. <http://www.ub.edu/irea/working_papers/2014/201420.pdf>. 

Berman, E. and L. T. M. Bui. 2001. “Environmental Regulation and Labor Demand: Evidence 

from the South Coast Air Basin.” Journal of Public Economics 79(2): 265-295, docket nr. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135 at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Bloomberg Businessweek. 2014RSG. 2013 SEC Filings - Republic Services Inc (RSG). 10-K, 

Annual Financials, February 13, 2014. 

<http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/secfilings.asp?ticker=RSG

>. 

Bloomberg Businessweek. 2014WM. 2013 SEC Filings - Waste Management Inc (WM). 10-K, 

Annual Financials, February 18, 2014. 

<http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/secfilings.asp?ticker=WM

>. 

Ferris, Ann, Ronald J. Shadbegian, and Ann Wolverton. 2014. “The Effect of Environmental 

Regulation on Power Sector Employment: Phase I of the Title IV SO2 Trading Program.” 

Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 5, 173-193. 

Gray, Wayne B., Ronald J. Shadbegian, Chunbei Wang, and Merve Meral. 2014. “Do EPA 

Regulations Affect Labor Demand? Evidence from the Pulp and Paper Industry.” Journal 

of Environmental Economics and Management: 68, 188-202. 

Greenstone, M. 2002. “The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Industrial Activity: 

Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Census of 

Manufactures.” Journal of Political Economy 110(6): 1175-1219. 

Kinnaman, Thomas C. 2006. “Examining the Justification for Residential Recycling.” Journal of 

Economic Perspectives 20(4): 219-232. 

List, J. A., D. L. Millimet, P. G. Fredriksson, and W. W. McHone. 2003. “Effects of 

Environmental Regulations on Manufacturing Plant Births: Evidence from a Propensity 

Score Matching Estimator.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 85(4): 944-952. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-14 

Morgenstern, Richard D., William A. Pizer, and Jhih-Shyang Shih. 2002. “Jobs Versus the 

Environment: An Industry-Level Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Economics and 

Management 43: 412-436, docket nr. EPA-HQOAR-2011-0135-0057 at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Private, 

NAICS 562212 Solid waste landfill, All States and U.S. 2012 First Quarter, All 

establishment sizes < 

http://www.bls.gov/cew/apps/table_maker/v3/table_maker.htm#type=0&year=2012&qtr

=1&own=5&ind=562&supp=1>. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Local 

Government, NAICS 562212 Solid waste landfill, All States and U.S. 2013 First Quarter, 

All establishment sizes < 

http://www.bls.gov/cew/apps/table_maker/v3/table_maker.htm#type=0&year=2013&qtr

=1&own=3&ind=562212&supp=1>. 

U.S. Census Bureau (Census). 2012. County Business Patterns. Solid Waste Landfill (NAICS 

562212). < 

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=BP_201

2_00A1&prodType=table>. 

U.S. Census Bureau (Census). 2013. Annual Survey of Public Employment & Payroll. Local 

Government Employment and Payroll Data. March 2013. 

<http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

“Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision-Making.” June 2002. EPA-530-R-02-

002. <http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/r02002.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. “Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 2009 Facts and Figures.” December 2010. EPA-530-R-10-012. Washington, DC: 

U.S EPA. <http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2009rpt.pdf>. 

Accessed January 6, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012a. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response (OSWER), Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR). Web 

page: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. 

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill.htm>. Accessed December 4, 2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012b. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: MSW 

Landfill Criteria Technical Manual. 

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/techman/>. Accessed December 4, 

2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012c. Landfill Methane Outreach Program 

(LMOP), Climate Change Division, U.S. EPA. Web page: Frequent Questions: Landfill 

Gas. <http://www.epa.gov/lmop/faq/landfill-gas.html>. Accessed December 3, 2012. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-15 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. “Landfill-level data only (all landfills) – 

updated August 2014.” LMOP, Climate Change Division, U.S. EPA. 

<http://www.epa.gov/lmop/projects-candidates/index.html>. 

Walker, Reed. 2011. “Environmental Regulation and Labor Reallocation.” American Economic 

Review: Papers and Proceedings, 101(2). 

Waste Business Journal (WBJ). 2012a. “Waste Market Overview & Outlook 2012.” 

<http://www.wastebusinessjournal.com/overview.htm>. Accessed January 16, 2015. 

WBJ. 2014. “Directory of Waste Processing and Disposal Sites 2014.” 

<http://www.wastebusinessjournal.com/diratlas.htm>. Accessed January 6, 2015. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

6-1 

6 COMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND COST 

6.1 Introduction 

The EPA compared the monetized methane-related climate benefits and CO2 co-benefits of 

the proposed Emission Guidelines for existing landfills against the estimated annualized compliance 

costs and found that the benefits of the proposed rule outweigh the costs. The net benefits are likely 

larger since the EPA was not able to monetize the benefits from reducing exposure to 2,770 Mg/yr 

of NMOC. The NMOC portion of LFG can contain a variety of air pollutants, including VOC 

and various organic HAP, and these pollutants are associated with health and welfare effects 

described in Chapter 4.

6.2 Net Benefits of the Proposed Standards 

For the proposed 2.5/34 option, the monetized methane-related climate benefits are 

estimated to range from $310 million to $1.7 billion (2012$)68 in 2025; these benefits are 

estimated to be $660 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. The CO2 co-benefits are 

estimated to range from $3.6 million to $36 million (2012$)69 in 2025; estimated CO2 benefits 

are $12 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. Under the proposed option 2.5/34, 

when using a 7% discount rate the additional cost in 2025 would be $47 million. Using a 3% 

discount rate, the additional cost over the baseline in 2025 would be $35 million. Thus, the net 

benefits, using a 7% discount rate, are expected to be $260 million to $1.7 billion, with a central 

estimate of $620 million. These results are summarized in Table 6-1. 

 

 

68 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 

69 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CO2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

6-2 

Table 6-1 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Proposed 

Emission Guidelines Option 2.5/34 in 2025 (2012$) 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Monetized Methane-related Benefits1 $310 million - $1.7 billion 

Monetized CO2 co-benefits1 $3.6 million - $36 million 

Total Costs2 $35 million $47 million 

Net Benefits $270 million - $1.7 billion $260 million - $1.7 billion 

Non-monetized Benefits3 Health effects of PM2.5 and ozone exposure from 2,770 Mg 

NMOC/yr reduced 

Health effects of HAP exposure from 2,770 Mg NMOC/yr 

reduced 

 Visibility impairment 

 Vegetation effects 

1 Monetized benefits include the climate-related benefits associated with the reduction of 436,100 

Mg/yr methane, valued using the social cost of methane, and the net reduction of 238,000 Mg/yr of 

CO2, valued using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 and four SCCO2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent 

discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models and scenarios using a 3% 

discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion.

2 The engineering compliance costs are annualized and include estimated revenue from electricity sales 

for landfills that are expected to generate revenue by using landfill gas for energy. 

3 While we expect that these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reductions 

in health effects associated with HAP, ozone, and particulate matter (PM), we have determined that 

quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to 

imply that there are no benefits or co-benefits of the rulesthese benefits do not exist; rather, it is a 

reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the reductions in emissions 

for this industrial sector with the data currently available. 

6.3 Net Benefits of the Alternate Standards 

For the less stringent 2.5/40 option, the monetized methane-related climate benefits are 

estimated to range from $190 million to $1.1 billion (2012$)70 in 2025; these benefits are 

estimated to be $410 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. The CO2 co-benefits are 

estimated to range from $1.5 million to $15 million (2012$)71 in 2025; estimated CO2 benefits 

are $5.0 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. Under this option, when using a 7% 

 

70 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 

71 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CO2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

6-3 

discount rate the additional cost in 2025 would be $27 million. Using a 3% discount rate, the 

additional cost over the baseline in 2025 would be $20 million. Thus, the net benefits, when 

using a 7% discount rate, would be expected to be $160 million to $1.1 billion, with a central 

estimate of $390 million. These results are summarized in Table 6-2. 

Table 6-2 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Alternative 

Emission Guidelines Option 2.5/40 in 2025 (2012$) 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Monetized Methane-related Benefits1 $190 million - $1.1 billion 

Monetized CO2 co-benefits1 $1.5 million - $15 million 

Total Costs2 $20 million $27 million 

Net Benefits $170 million - $1.1 billion $160 million - $1.1 billion 

Non-monetized Benefits3 Health effects of PM2.5 and ozone exposure from 1,720 Mg 

NMOC/yr reduced 

Health effects of HAP exposure from 1,720 Mg NMOC/yr 

reduced 

 Visibility impairment 

 Vegetation effects 

1 Monetized benefits include the climate-related benefits associated with the reduction of 270,700 

Mg/yr methane, valued using the social cost of methane, and the net reduction of 102,000 Mg/yr of 

CO2, valued using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 and four SCCO2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent 

discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models and scenarios using a 3% 

discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion.

2 The engineering compliance costs are annualized and include estimated revenue from electricity sales 

for landfills that are expected to generate revenue by using landfill gas for energy. 

3 While we expect that these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reductions 

in health effects associated with HAP, ozone, and particulate matter (PM), we have determined that 

quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to 

imply that there are no benefits or co-benefits of the rulesthese benefits do not exist; rather, it is a 

reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the reductions in emissions 

for this industrial sector with the data currently available. 

For the more stringent 2.0/34 option, the monetized methane-related climate benefits are 

estimated to range from $340 million to $1.9 billion (2012$)72 in 2025; these benefits are 

 

72 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

6-4 

estimated to be $720 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. The CO2 co-benefits are 

estimated to range from $3.6 million to $36 million (2012$)73 in 2025; estimated CO2 benefits 

are $12 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. Under this option, when using a 7% 

discount rate the additional cost in 2025 would be $51 million. Using a 3% discount rate, the 

additional cost over the baseline in 2025 would be $38 million. Thus, the net benefits, when 

using a 7% discount rate, would be expected to be $290 million to $1.9 billion, with a central 

estimate of $690 million. These results are summarized in Table 6-3.

Table 6-3 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Alternative 

Emission Guidelines Option 2.0/34 in 2025 (2012$) 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Monetized Methane-related Benefits1 $340 million - $1.9 billion 

Monetized CO2 co-benefits1 $3.6 million - $36 million 

Total Costs2 $38 million $51 million 

Net Benefits $300 million - $1.9 billion $290 million - $1.9 billion 

Non-monetized Benefits3 Health effects of PM2.5 and ozone exposure from 3,040 Mg 

NMOC/yr reduced 

Health effects of HAP exposure from 3,040 Mg NMOC/yr 

reduced 

 Visibility impairment 

 Vegetation effects 

1 Monetized benefits include the climate-related benefits associated with the reduction of 479,100 

Mg/yr methane, valued using the social cost of methane, and the net reduction of 238,000 Mg/yr of 

CO2, valued using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 and four SCCO2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent 

discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models and scenarios using a 3% 

discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion.

2 The engineering compliance costs are annualized and include estimated revenue from electricity sales 

for landfills that are expected to generate revenue by using landfill gas for energy. 

3 While we expect that these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reductions 

in health effects associated with HAP, ozone, and particulate matter (PM), we have determined that 

quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to 

imply that there are no benefits or co-benefits of the rulesthese benefits do not exist; rather, it is a 

reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the reductions in emissions 

for this industrial sector with the data currently available. 

 

73 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CO2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-1 

7 SUPPLEMENTAL NSPS PROPOSAL 

7.1 Introduction 

On July 17, 2014, the EPA proposed a new NSPS subpart resulting from its ongoing 

review of the landfills NSPS (79 FR 41796). The proposed new subpart retained the same design 

capacity size threshold of 2.5 million m3 or 2.5 million Mg, but presented several options for 

revising the NMOC emission rate at which a MSW landfill must install controls. Since 

presenting these options, the EPA has updated its model that estimates the emission reduction 

and cost impacts based on public comments and new data. 

At proposal, the EPA estimated the emission reductions and costs associated with 17 new 

“greenfield” landfills that the EPA projected to commence construction, reconstruction, or 

modification between 2014 and 2018 and have a design capacity of 2.5 million m3 and 2.5 

million Mg. The basis of the projected number of new landfills and associated emission 

reductions is presented in the landfills NSPS docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215. Multiple 

commenters on the landfills NSPS proposal stated that the EPA underestimated the cost impacts 

of the landfills NSPS because the EPA failed to consider the number of landfills that are 

expected to undergo a modification, and thus become subject to the proposed NSPS. In response 

to these comments, the EPA consulted with its Regional Offices, as well as state and local 

authorities, to identify landfills expected to undergo a modification within the next 5 years. 

Based on this information, the EPA estimated the number of existing landfills likely to modify 

after July 17, 2014 and become subject to subpart XXX. In addition, the EPA has made several 

changes to its underlying dataset and methodology used to analyze the impacts of potential 

control options, as discussed in Chapter 3 of this RIA. Using the revised dataset, the EPA re-ran 

the model and control options similar to the options presented in the proposed NSPS. As a result 

of these changes, the number and characteristics of the model new landfills and modified 

landfills that are expected to become subject to proposed subpart XXX have changed. The 

revised number of affected landfills, as well as revised estimates of the costs and benefits of the 

previously proposed and newly proposed option, are discussed below. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-2 

7.2 Regulatory Baseline and Options 

The July 2014 proposed new subpart to the NSPS for MSW landfills analyzed options 

slightly different from those analyzed for the current proposed revisions to the emissions 

guidelines. The options analyzed in that Economic Impact Analysis were: 

• Baseline: design capacity retained at 2.5 Mg, emission threshold retained at 50 Mg 

NMOC/year

• Alternative Option 3.0/40: design capacity increased to 3.0 Mg, emission threshold 

reduced to 40 NMOC Mg/yr

• Proposed Option 2.5/40: design capacity retained at 2.5 Mg, emission threshold reduced 

to 40 NMOC Mg/yr 

• Alternative Option 2.0/40: design capacity reduced to 2.0 Mg, emission threshold 

reduced to 40 Mg NMOC/year. 

Consistent with the Methane Strategy that was developed as part of the President’s Climate 

Action Plan, when preparing this supplemental NSPS proposal the EPA considered more 

stringent control options that may achieve additional reductions of methane and NMOC for new 

landfills. As a result of the revised analysis, the EPA is proposing no changes to the design 

capacity threshold for new sources, but is proposing to lower the NMOC emission rate threshold 

to 34 Mg/yr for new and modified sources subject to subpart XXX. In addition to responding to 

feedback received during the NSPS proposal comment period, the EPA believes consistency 

between the thresholds in the emission guidelines and the NSPS is important, given that an 

existing landfill can modify and become subject to the proposed subpart XXX by commencing 

construction on an increase in design capacity. Commenters on the July 17, 2014 notices 

weighed in on consistency between the NSPS and emission guidelines. An environmental 

organization recommended adopting consistent applicability standards, such as design capacity 

and NMOC emission thresholds, between subpart XXX for new landfills and subpart Cf for 

existing landfills to maximize beneficial environmental impacts for existing landfills, which are 

more numerous than anticipated new landfills, and to prevent creating incentives for existing 

landfills subject to modification by allowing them to comply with less rigorous requirements. In 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-3 

addition, two regulatory agencies requested harmonizing requirements for existing and new 

landfills between the current regulations in subpart WWW and the new proposed subpart XXX. 

As a result, the options analyzed for this supplemental NSPS proposal for new or 

modified MSW landfills match the options analyzed for the proposed revisions to the emissions 

guidelines for existing MSW landfills, and are: 

• Baseline: design capacity retained at 2.5 Mg, emission threshold retained at 50 Mg 

NMOC/year

• Alternative Option 2.5/40: design capacity retained at 2.5 Mg, emission threshold 

reduced to 40 NMOC Mg/yr

• Proposed Option 2.5/34: design capacity retained at 2.5 Mg, emission threshold reduced 

to 34 NMOC Mg/yr 

• Alternative Option 2.0/34: design capacity reduced to 2.0 Mg, emission threshold 

reduced to 34 Mg NMOC/year 

The baseline and alternative option 2.5/40 correspond to options analyzed in the previous 

NSPS proposal, and can be directly compared to the results in that economic impact analysis to 

better understand the effects of the change in the number of landfills predicted to be affected by 

the NSPS.74 The baseline reflects the parameters of the current NSPS. Specifically, all reported 

results are incremental to the current NSPS (2.5/50) and not the proposed option (2.5/40) from 

the July 2014 proposed new subpart to the NSPS for MSW landfills. In the baseline, the NSPS 

affects 140 landfills, with 28 landfills reporting but not controlling emissions and 112 landfills 

reporting and controlling emissions in 2025. The EPA is assessing impacts in year 2025 as a 

representative year for the both the landfills Emission Guidelines and NSPS. While the analysis 

focuses on impacts in 2025, results for alternative years are also presented in Section 7.8.

 

74 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. “Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed New 

Subpart to the New Source Performance Standards.” June 2014. Available at < 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/EIAs/LandfillsNSPSProposalEIA.pdf>. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-4 

Table 7-1 Number of Affected Landfills in 2025 under the Baseline and Alternative 

Options 

 Affected Landfills (no.) 

Landfills 

Affected 

Landfills 

Reporting but 

Not Controlling 

Emissions 

Landfills 

Reporting and 

 Controlling 

Emissions 

Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 140 28 112 

Incremental values versus the current NSPS

Alternative option 2.5/40 0 -11 11 

Proposed option 2.5/34 0 -15 15 

Alternative option 2.0/34 7 -12 19 

Based on the characteristics of the projected landfills, the proposed option presented in 

Table 7-1Table 7-1 would require 15 additional landfills to install controls by 2025. The less 

stringent alternative option 2.5/40 (which corresponds to the proposed option in the July 2014 

NSPS proposal) would require 11 additional landfills to install controls by 2025, while the more 

stringent alternative option 2.0/34 would affect 22 additional landfills, with some being required 

only to report and others being required to control. In that option, 19 additional landfills are 

required to install controls by 2025. 

Under the proposed option 2.5/34, the emission reductions would be an additional 300 Mg 

NMOC and 51,400 Mg methane (1,300,000 Mg CO2 Eq.) compared to the baseline in 2025. The 

less stringent alternative option 2.5/40 would yield emissions reductions of 300 Mg NMOC and 

44,400 Mg methane (1,100,000 Mg CO2 Eq.) compared to the baseline, while the more stringent 

alternative option 2.0/34 would result in emissions reductions of 400 Mg NMOC and 62,500 Mg 

methane (1,600,000 Mg CO2 Eq.) compared to the baseline. The emission reductions are 

summarized in Table 7-2Table 7-2. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-5 

Table 7-2 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2025 for the Baseline and 

Alternative Options 

 Annual Average Reduction (Mg) 

NMOC Methane 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 11,600 1,834,000 45,900,000 

Incremental values versus the current NSPS 

Alternative option 2.5/40 300 44,400 1,100,000 

Proposed option 2.5/34 300 51,400 1,300,000 

Alternative option 2.0/34 400 62,500 1,600,000 

*A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. Minor secondary air impacts 

are not included in this table. See Section 7.3 for details. 

Costs for the NSPS were estimated in the same manner as the costs for the emissions guidelines. 

This methodology is discussed in Chapter 3. Under the proposed option 2.5/34, when using a 7% 

discount rate the additional cost of control in 2025 would is estimated to be $9.0 million, of 

which approximately $0.6 million is estimated to be offset by increased revenue from beneficialuse projects, so the net cost is estimated to be approximately $8.5 million (
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-6 

Table 7-3Table 7-3). The cost of control for the less stringent alternative option 2.5/40 

would is estimated to be $6.6 million, which is estimated to be supplemented by approximately 

$0.65 million in reduced revenue from beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is estimated to be 

approximately $7.4 million., while the The cost of control for the more stringent alternative 

option 2.0/34 would is estimated to be $10.7 million, of which approximately $0.6 million is 

estimated to be offset by increased revenue from beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is 

estimated to be approximately $10.2 million. These options represent approximately between 12 

to 16 percent in additional net costs beyond the baseline, with the proposed option 2.5/34 

resulting in a 14 percent increase in net costs beyond the baseline for the industry as a whole. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-7 

Table 7-3 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2025 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (7% Discount Rate) 

 Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions $2012) 

Testing and 

Monitoring 

Costs Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use

Projects Net Cost 

Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 1.3 322 262 61 

Incremental values versus the current NSPS 

Alternative option 2.5/40 0.06 6.6 -0.65 7.4 

Proposed option 2.5/34 0.08 9.0 0.60 8.5 

Alternative option 2.0/34 0.11 10.7 0.60 10.2 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. 

When using a 3% discount rate, the model predicts a different timing in the investment behavior 

by the landfills, which affects both the costs and revenue that are predicted in 2025. Under the 

proposed option 2.5/34, the additional cost of control over the baseline in 2025 would is 

estimated to be $12.6 million, of which $5.5 is estimated to be offset by increased revenue from 

beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is estimated to be $7.1 million (
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-8 

Table 7-4Table 7-4). The cost of control for the less stringent alternative option 2.5/40 

would is estimated to be $8.0 million, of which $1.6 million is estimated to be offset by 

increased revenue from beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is estimated to be $6.4 million., 

while the The cost of control for the more stringent alternative option 2.0/34 is estimated to be 

$14.9 million, of which $6.3 million is estimated to be offset by increased revenue from 

beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is estimated to would be $8.6 million. These options 

represent approximately between 28 to 38 percent in additional net costs beyond the baseline, 

with the proposed option 2.5/34 resulting in a 31 percent increase in net costs beyond the 

baseline for the industry as a whole. However, it is important to note that the baseline value 

when using a 3% discount rate is less than 40 percent of the cost when using a 7% discount rate, 

because the increased costs of earlier installation of GCCS and engines are offset by increased 

revenue from energy generation. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-9 

Table 7-4 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2025 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (3% Discount Rate) 

 Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions $2012) 

Testing and 

Monitoring 

Costs Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use

Projects Net Cost 

Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 1.2 404 382 22 

Incremental values versus the current NSPS 

Alternative option 2.5/40 0.06 8 1.6 6.4 

Proposed option 2.5/34 0.07 12.6 5.5 7.1 

Alternative option 2.0/34 0.10 14.9 6.3 8.6 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. 

In terms of cost effectiveness, when considering the estimated net cost of the options, the 

overall average cost effectiveness for NMOC reductions is $5,271 per Mg NMOC under the 

baseline and roughly $26,000 per Mg NMOC under the proposed option 2.5/34 and the 

alternative options 2.5/40 and 2.0/34 (Table 7-5Table 7-5). The average cost-effectiveness of 

controlling methane is significantly lower than for NMOC because methane constitutes 

approximately 50 percent of landfill gas, while NMOC represents less than 1 percent of landfill 

gas. The overall average cost effectiveness for methane reductions is roughly $33 per Mg 

methane under the baseline and approximately $160 per Mg methane under the proposed option 

2.5/34 and the alternative options 2.5/40 and 2.0/34.

When estimating cost effectiveness excluding the estimated revenue from beneficial-use 

projects, the overall average cost effectiveness for NMOC reductions is $27,800 per Mg NMOC 

under the baseline and roughly $27,000 to $28,000 per Mg NMOC under the proposed option 

2.5/34 and alternative option 2.0/34, and roughly $24,000 per Mg NMOC under the alternative 

option 2.5/40 (Table 3-5Table 3-5). The average cost-effectiveness of controlling methane is 

significantly lower than for NMOC because methane constitutes approximately 50 percent of 

landfill gas, while NMOC represents less than 1 percent of landfill gas. The overall average cost 

effectiveness for methane reductions is $176 per Mg methane under the baseline and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-10 

approximately $150 - $175 per Mg methane under the proposed option 2.5/34 and the alternative 

options 2.5/40 and 2.0/34.

Table 7-5 Estimated Cost-effectiveness in 2025 for the Baseline and Alternative Options 

(7% Discount Rate) 

Cost-effectiveness (2012$ per Mg)

NMOC Methane 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Net 

Costb 

/ton

Total 

Cost

/ton 

Net 

Costb 

/ton

Total 

Cost

/ton 

Net 

Costb 

/ton

Total 

Cost

/ton 

 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 5,271 27,800 33.5 176 1.3 7.10

 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 26,100 23,800 166 151 6.6 6.0 

Proposed option 2.5/34 26,100 27,900 165 177 6.6 7.1 

Alternative option 2.0/34 25,600 27,100 163 172 6.5 6.9 

Note: The cost-effectiveness of NMOC and methane are estimated as if all of the control cost were attributed to each 

pollutant separately. 

a A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. The secondary CO2 emission 

reductions are not reflected in these estimates. 

b Net Cost is the total control and testing and monitoring cost minus any project revenue. The control costs for 

landfills with energy projects includes costs to install and operate a reciprocating engine (and associated electrical 

equipment), which is more expensive than a standard flare. Reciprocating engines are not required by the regulation 

but are expected to be used as control devices when it is cost-effective to recovery the LFG energy.

 

7.3 Benefits 

The proposed subpart to the NSPS is expected to result in significant emissions 

reductions of landfill gas (LFG) from existing new or modified MSW landfills. As in the case of 

the proposed emissions guidelines, there will be climate benefits and HAP, ozone and PM2.5 

health “co-benefits”. These co-benefits occur because the control techniques to meet the 

standards simultaneously reduce methane, VOC, and HAP emissions. By lowering the current 

NMOC emissions threshold of 50 Mg/yr to 34 Mg/yr, the proposal is anticipated to achieve 

reductions of 300 Mg/yr NMOC and 51,400 Mg/yr methane in 2025. The NMOC portion of 

LFG can contain a variety of air pollutants, including VOC and various organic HAP. VOC 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-11 

emissions are precursors to both fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone formation, while 

methane is a GHG and a precursor to global ozone formation. As described in detail in Chapter 

4, these pollutants are associated with substantial health effects, climate effects, and other 

welfare effects. As with the proposed emissions guidelines, the only categories of benefits 

monetized for the proposed NSPS are methane-related and CO2-related climate effects. While 

the methane-related climate effects are positive as with the proposed emissions guidelines, for 

the proposed NSPS there are small CO2 disbenefits associated with increased electricity demand 

due to the energy demands of the GCCS exceeding the increased generation of electricity by 

landfills through the burning of LFG in engines. 

While we expect that these avoided emissions will also result in improvements in air 

quality and reduce health and welfare effects associated with exposure to HAP, ozone, and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5), we have determined that quantification of those health benefits cannot 

be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to imply that these benefits do not 

exist; rather, it is a reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the 

reductions in emissions for this industrial sector with the data currently available. 

The methodology used to calculate methane climate benefits is discussed in detail in Section 4.2 

of this RIA. Applying the approach discussed in that section to the CH4 reductions estimated for 

this proposal, the 2025 methane benefits vary by discount rate and range from about $36 million 

to approximately $210 million; for the proposed option, the mean SC-CH4 at the 3% discount 

rate results in an estimate of about $78 million in 2025. These benefits are presented below in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-12 

Table 7-6Table 7-6. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-13 

Table 7-6 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CH4

reduced 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CO2-

equivalent 

reduced 

Discount rate and statistic

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 0.044 1.1 $32 $67 $86 $180 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 0.051 1.3 $36 $78 $100 $210 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 0.063 1.6 $44 $95 $120 $250 

*The SC-CH4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH4 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts. 

However, there are climate-related disbenefits that are expected from the proposal’s 

secondary air impacts, specifically, a net increase in CO2 emissions. These disbenefits arise 

because more energy is required to operate the GCCS at some landfills than is produced by these 

landfills through the burning of LFG in engines.75 These disbenefits are presented in Table 7-7 

below. Monetizing the net CO2 increases with the SC-CO2 estimates also described in Section 

4.2 yields disbenefits that vary by discount rate and range from about $0.01 million to 

approximately $0.10 million in 2025. For the proposed option, the mean SC-CO2 at the 3% 

discount rate results in an estimate of about $0.03 million in 2025. 

Table 7-7 Estimated Global Disbenefits of Net CO2 Increases in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) 

Metric tonnes of net 

CO2 increased 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 11,000 $0.17 $0.55 $0.81 $1.6 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 670 $0.010 $0.033 $0.049 $0.10 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 2,000 $0.030 $0.10 $0.14 $0.29 

*The SC-CO2 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CO2 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts. 

 

75 As in the case of the proposed Emissions Guidelines, there is an additional CO2 impact, specifically a small 

increase in CO2 emissions resulting from flaring of methane in response to this rule. We are not estimating the 

monetized disbenefits of these secondary emissions of CO2 because much of the methane that would have been 

released in the absence of the flare would have eventually oxidized into CO2 in the atmosphere. See Section 4.2.1 

for more discussion.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-14 

7.4 Economic Impacts 

7.4.1 Economic Impact Analysis 

As was discussed in Section 5.2, assessing the economic impacts of the costs of the 

proposed option is difficult due to the nature of the MSW industry. The cost of the current 

proposal is estimated to be $8.5 million in 2025. Because of the relatively low net cost of 

proposed option 2.5/34 compared to the overall size of the MSW industry as was discussed in 

Chapter 2 and Section 5.2, as well as the lack of appropriate economic parameters or model, the 

EPA is unable to estimate the impacts of the options on the supply and demand for MSW landfill 

services. However, because of the relatively low incremental costs of the proposed option 2.5/34, 

the EPA does not believe the proposal would lead to changes in supply and demand for landfill 

services or waste disposal costs, tipping fees, or the amount of waste disposed in landfills. 

Hence, the overall economic impact of the proposal should be minimal on the affected industries 

and their consumers. 

7.4.2 Employment Impacts 

As is the case with the proposed emissions guidelines, the EPA is unable to quantify the 

effect of the proposed NSPS on employment. However, a discussion of the potential impacts on 

employment appears in Section 5.3, and is relevant for the proposed NSPS as well as the 

proposed emissions guidelines. 

7.4.3 Small Business Impacts Analysis 

As discussed in Section 5.4, the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) generally requires an agency to 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and 

small not-for-profit enterprises. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-15 

It was determined that the July 2014 proposed NSPS subpart would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Given the changes in the number of 

landfills anticipated to become subject to the new proposed NSPS, the potential impact on small 

entities has been reanalyzed. 

For the purposes of assessing the impact of the proposed NSPS on small entities, a small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is primarily engaged in the collections and disposal 

of refuse in a landfill operation as defined by NAICS code 562212 with annual receipts less than 

$38.5 million; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 

school district, or school district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is 

not dominant in its field. 

The EPA typically assessed how the regulatory program may potentially impact owners 

(ultimate parent companies, governmental jurisdictions, or not-for-profit enterprises) by 

comparing pollution control costs to total sales or revenue. This is referred to as a “sales” test or 

cost-to-sales ratio. To perform this test, the total annualized control cost for a small entity (i) is 

divided by its reported revenue: 

		 =

	

	
		

	
	

The “sales test” is the impact metric the EPA employs in analyzing small entity impacts 

as opposed to a “profits test,” in which annualized compliance costs are calculated as a share of 

profits. The use of a “sales test” for estimating small business impacts for a rulemaking such as 

this one is consistent with guidance offered by the EPA on compliance with SBREFA76 and is 

consistent with guidance published by the U.S. SBA’s Office of Advocacy that suggests that cost 

 

76 The SBREFA compliance guidance to EPA rulewriters regarding the types of small business analysis that should 

be considered can be found at <http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/rfaguidance11-00-06.pdf> 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-16 

as a percentage of total revenues is a metric for evaluating cost increases on small entities in 

relation to increases on large entities.77 The results of the screening analysis appear below in 

Table 7-8. 

Table 7-8 Small Business Impact Screening Assessment Results (Reporters and 

Controllers) 

2.5 million Mg; 

Reduce to 40 Mg/yr 

NMOC 

2.5 million Mg; 

Reduce to 34 Mg/yr 

NMOC 

2.0 million Mg; 

Reduce to 34 Mg/yr 

NMOC 

 

Count from 

Screen 

Based on 

Total Cost 

Count from 

Screen 

Based on 

Net Cost 

Count from 

Screen 

Based on 

Total Cost 

Count from 

Screen 

Based on 

Net Cost 

Count from 

Screen 

Based on 

Total Cost 

Count from 

Screen 

Based on 

Net Cost 

No. Affected 13 13 13 13 14 14 

No. Affected with Sales Data 11 11 11 11 12 12 

No. Affected > 1% (n) 0 0 2 2 2 2 

No. Affected > 3% (n) 0 0 1 1 1 1 

No. Affected > 1% (%) 0.0% 0.0% 18.2% 18.2% 16.7% 16.7% 

No. Affected > 3% (%) 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 9.1% 8.3% 8.3% 

After considering the economic impact of the proposed NSPS on small entities, the 

analysis indicates that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 

small entities (SISNOSE). First, the proposed revision does not impact a substantial number of 

small entities, since only 13 small entities are projected to be impacted by the proposed option. 

Additionally, the impact to these entities are not significant, because only 2 entities have impacts 

greater than 1 percent of sales, and only 1 of these 2 entities has impacts greater than 3 percent of 

sales.

7.5 Comparison of Benefits and Costs 

The EPA compared the monetized methane-related climate benefits and CO2 co-benefits 

of the proposed NSPS for new or modified MSW landfills against the estimated annualized costs

 

77U.S. SBA, Office of Advocacy. A Guide for Government Agencies, How to Comply with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, Implementing the President’s Small Business Agenda and Executive Order 13272, June 2010. 

Commented [A30]: OMB RIA Comment 15: Reviewer notes 

that the basis for no SISNOSE finding isn’t stated and requests the 

analysis to support this conclusion. 

EPA Response: Justification has now been added to this section and 

section 8.3. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-17 

and found that the benefits of the proposed rule outweigh the costs. The net benefits are likely 

larger since the EPA was not able to monetize the benefits from reducing exposure to 300 Mg/yr 

of NMOC. The NMOC portion of LFG can contain a variety of air pollutants, including VOC 

and various organic HAP, and these pollutants are associated with health and welfare effects 

described in Chapter 4. 

7.6 Net Benefits of the Proposed Standards 

For the proposed 2.5/34 option, the monetized methane-related climate benefits are 

estimated to range from $36 million to $210 million (2012$)78 in 2025; these benefits are 

estimated to be $78 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. The CO2 disbenefits are 

estimated to range from $0.01 million to $0.10 million (2012$)79 in 2025; estimated CO2

disbenefits are $0.033 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. Under the proposed 

option 2.5/34, when using a 7% discount rate the additional cost in 2025 would be $8.5 million. 

Using a 3% discount rate, the additional cost over the baseline in 2025 would be $7.1 million. 

Thus, the net benefits in 2025, when using a 7% discount rate, are expected to be $28 million to 

$200 million, with a central estimate of $69 million. These results are summarized in Table 7-9. 

Table 7-9 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Proposed 

NSPS Option 2.5/34 in 2025 (2012$) 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Monetized Methane-related Benefits1 $36 million - $210 million 

Monetized CO2 disbenefits1 $0.010 million - $0.10 million 

Total Costs2 $7.1 million $8.5 million 

Net Benefits $29 million - $200 million $28 million - $200 million 

Non-monetized Benefits3 Health effects of PM2.5 and ozone exposure from 300 Mg 

NMOC/yr reduced 

Health effects of HAP exposure from 300 Mg NMOC/yr 

reduced 

 

78 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 

79 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CO2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-18 

Visibility impairment 

Vegetation effects 

1 Monetized benefits include the climate-related benefits associated with the reduction of 51,400 Mg/yr 

methane, valued using the social cost of methane, and the net increase of 665 Mg/yr of CO2, valued 

using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 and four SC-CO2

estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent 

discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models and scenarios using a 3% 

discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion.

2 The engineering compliance costs are annualized and include estimated revenue from electricity sales 

for landfills that are expected to generate revenue by using landfill gas for energy. 

3 While we expect that these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reductions 

in health effects associated with HAP, ozone, and particulate matter (PM), we have determined that 

quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to 

imply that there are no benefits or co-benefits of the rulesthese benefits do not exist; rather, it is a 

reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the reductions in emissions 

for this industrial sector with the data currently available. 

7.7 Net Benefits of the Alternate Standards 

For the less stringent 2.5/40 option, the monetized methane-related climate benefits are estimated 

to range from $31 million to $180 million (2012$)80 in 2025; these benefits are estimated to be 

$67 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. The CO2 disbenefits are estimated to 

range from $0.17 million to $1.6 million (2012$)81 in 2025; estimated CO2 disbenefits are $0.55 

million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. Under this option, when using a 7% discount 

rate the additional cost in 2025 would be $7.4 million. Using a 3% discount rate, the additional 

cost over the baseline in 2025 would be $6.4 million. Thus, the net benefits, when using a 7% 

discount rate, would be expected to be $23 million to $170 million in 2025, with a primary 

estimate of $59 million. These results are summarized in 

 

80 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 

81 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CO2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-19 

Table 7-10Table 7-10. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-20 

Table 7-10 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the 

Alternative NSPS Option 2.5/40 in 2025 (2012$) 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Monetized Methane-related Benefits1 $31 million - $180 million 

Monetized CO2 disbenefits1 $0.17 million - $1.60 million 

Total Costs2 $6.4 million $7.4 million 

Net Benefits $24 million - $170 million $23 million - $170 million 

Non-monetized Benefits3 Health effects of PM2.5 and ozone exposure from 300 Mg 

NMOC/yr reduced 

Health effects of HAP exposure from 300 Mg NMOC/yr 

reduced 

 Visibility impairment 

 Vegetation effects 

1 Monetized benefits include the climate-related benefits associated with the reduction of 44,400 Mg/yr 

methane, valued using the social cost of methane, and the net increase of 11,000 Mg/yr of CO2, valued 

using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 and four SC-CO2

estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent 

discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models and scenarios using a 3% 

discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion.

2 The engineering compliance costs are annualized and include estimated revenue from electricity sales 

for landfills that are expected to generate revenue by using landfill gas for energy. 

3 While we expect that these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reductions 

in health effects associated with HAP, ozone, and particulate matter (PM), we have determined that 

quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to 

imply that there are no benefits or co-benefits of the rulesthese benefits do not exist; rather, it is a 

reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the reductions in emissions 

for this industrial sector with the data currently available. 

For the more stringent 2.0/34 option, the monetized methane-related climate benefits are 

estimated to range from $44 million to $250 million (2012$)82 in 2025; these benefits are 

estimated to be $95 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. The CO2 disbenefits are 

estimated to range from $0.03 million to $0.29 million (2012$)83 in 2025; estimated CO2

disbenefits are $0.10 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. Under this option, when 

using a 7% discount rate the additional cost in 2025 would be $10 million. Using a 3% discount 

rate, the additional cost over the baseline in 2025 would be $8.6 million. Thus, the net benefits, 

 

82 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 

83 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CO2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-21 

when using a 7% discount rate, would be expected to be $34 million to $240 million in 2025, 

with a primary estimate of $85 million. These results are summarized in Table 7-11. 

Table 7-11 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the 

Alternative NSPS Option 2.0/34 in 2025 (2012$) 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Monetized Methane-related Benefits1 $44 million - $250 million 

Monetized CO2 disbenefits1 $0.03 million - $0.29 million 

Total Costs2 $8.6 million $10.0 million 

Net Benefits $35 million - $240 million $34 million - $240 million 

Non-monetized Benefits3 Health effects of PM2.5 and ozone exposure from 400 Mg 

NMOC/yr reduced 

Health effects of HAP exposure from 400 Mg NMOC/yr 

reduced 

 Visibility impairment 

 Vegetation effects 

1 Monetized benefits include the climate-related benefits associated with the reduction of 62,500 Mg/yr 

methane, valued using the social cost of methane, and the net increase of 1,970 Mg/yr of CO2, valued 

using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 and four SC-CO2

estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent 

discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models and scenarios using a 3% 

discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion.

2 The engineering compliance costs are annualized and include estimated revenue from electricity sales 

for landfills that are expected to generate revenue by using landfill gas for energy. 

3 While we expect that these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reductions 

in health effects associated with HAP, ozone, and particulate matter (PM), we have determined that 

quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to 

imply that there are no benefits or co-benefits of the rulesthese benefits do not exist; rather, it is a 

reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the reductions in emissions 

for this industrial sector with the data currently available. 

7.8 Alternative Years of Analysis 

While the EPA is assessing impacts in year 2025 as a representative year for the landfills 

NSPS for new or modified MSW landfills, the quantity and composition of landfill gas does 

change over the lifetime of a landfill, as discussed in Chapter 2. This section presents a more 

complete picture of the emission reductions, costs, and benefits of the NSPS alternatives over 

time by presenting results from the years 2020, 2030, and 2040. Throughout this section, costs 

are presented only at a 7% interest rate, and do not include testing and monitoring costs. 

However, testing and monitoring costs are typically a very small percentage of the overall costs. 

Commented [A31]: This section added in response to OMB 

General Comment 1. Table additions not tracked as changes for 

clarity. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-22 

Tables 7-12 and 7-13 present the emissions reductions and compliance costs, respectively, of the 

alternatives in the 2020 snapshot year. 

Table 7-12 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2020 for the Baseline and 

Alternative Options 

 Annual Average Reduction (Mg) 

NMOC 

Million 

Methane 

Million 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 10,100 1.6 39.9 

Incremental values versus the current NSPS 

Alternative option 2.5/40 400 0.06 1.6 

Proposed option 2.5/34 470 0.07 1.9 

Alternative option 2.0/34 550 0.09 2.2 

*A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. Secondary CO2 emission 

reductions are not included in this table. 

Table 7-13 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2020 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (7% Discount Rate) 

 

Landfills 

Controlling 

Emissions

Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions 

2012$) 

Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use 

Projects Net Cost 

Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 106 294 251 42.0 

Incremental values versus the current NSPS 

Alternative option 2.5/40 13 13.2 6.5 6.7 

Proposed option 2.5/34 16 15.9 8.3 7.6 

Alternative option 2.0/34 20 17.5 8.3 9.3 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. Costs do not include testing and monitoring costs. 

Tables 7-14 and 7-15 present the emissions reductions and compliance costs, respectively, in the 

2030 snapshot year.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-23 

Table 7-14 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2030 for the Baseline and 

Alternative Options 

 Annual Average Reduction (Mg) 

NMOC 

Million 

Methane 

Million 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 12,200 1.9 48.1 

Incremental values versus the current NSPS

Alternative option 2.5/40 190 0.03 0.7 

Proposed option 2.5/34 270 0.04 1.1 

Alternative option 2.0/34 330 0.05 1.3 

*A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. Secondary CO2 emission 

reductions are not included in this table. 

Table 7-15 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2030 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (7% Discount Rate) 

 

Landfills 

Controlling 

Emissions

Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions 

2012$) 

Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use 

Projects Net Cost 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 115 331 258 74.0 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 7 3.8 -0.5 4.3 

Proposed option 2.5/34 12 5.9 -1.0 7.0 

Alternative option 2.0/34 16 7.6 -1.0 8.6 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. Costs do not include testing and monitoring costs. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-24 

Tables 7-16 and 7-17 present the emissions reductions and compliance costs, respectively, in the 

2040 snapshot year. 

Table 7-16 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2040 for the Baseline and 

Alternative Options 

 Annual Average Reduction (Mg) 

NMOC 

Million 

Methane 

Million 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 11,600 1.8 45.7 

Incremental values versus the current EG

Alternative option 2.5/40 220 0.03 0.9 

Proposed option 2.5/34 350 0.05 1.4 

Alternative option 2.0/34 360 0.06 1.4 

*A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. Secondary CO2 emission 

reductions are not included in this table. 

Table 7-17 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2040 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (7% Discount Rate) 

 

Landfills 

Controlling 

Emissions

Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions 

2012$) 

Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use 

Projects Net Cost 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 107 321 228 93.0 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 7 5.0 -0.4 5.3 

Proposed option 2.5/34 12 11.6 3.2 8.4 

Alternative option 2.0/34 13 12.0 3.2 8.7 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. Costs do not include testing and monitoring costs. 

Table 7-18 presents the climate benefits of the alternatives in the 2020 snapshot year.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-25 

Table 7-18 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2020* (in millions, 2012$) 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CH4

reduced 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CO2-

equivalent 

reduced 

Discount rate and statistic

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 0.063 1.6 $37 $82 $110 $220 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 0.074 1.9 $43 $96 $130 $260 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 0.087 2.2 $51 $110 $150 $300 

*The SC-CH4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH4 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts. 

Table 7-19 presents the climate benefits of the alternatives in the 2030 snapshot year.

Table 7-19 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2030* (in millions, 2012$) 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CH4

reduced 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CO2-

equivalent 

reduced 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 0.029 0.73 $24 $50 $63 $130 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 0.042 1.1 $35 $73 $92 $190 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 0.052 1.3 $42 $89 $110 $230 

*The SC-CH4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH4 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts. 

Table 7-20 presents the climate benefits of the alternatives in the 2040 snapshot year. 

Table 7-20 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2040* (in millions, 2012$) 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CH4

reduced 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CO2-

equivalent 

reduced 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 0.035 0.87 $38 $75 $98 $210 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 0.055 1.4 $59 $120 $150 $330 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 0.056 1.4 $61 $120 $160 $330 

*The SC-CH4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH4 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-1 

8 STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER REVIEWS 

8.1 Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 

13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this action is an “economically significant regulatory action” because it is likely to have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and 13563 

(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for this action. In addition, the EPA prepared this RIA of 

the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. For the proposed Emission 

Guidelines, the monetized methane-related climate benefits are estimated to range from $310 

million to $1.7 billion (2012$); these benefits are estimated to be $660 million (2012$) in 2025 

using a 3% discount rate. The CO2 co-benefits are estimated to range from $3.6 million to $36 

million (2012$) in 2025; estimated CO2 benefits are $12 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% 

discount rate. Under the proposed option 2.5/34, when using a 3% discount rate, the additional 

cost over the baseline in 2025 would be $47 million. When using a 7% discount rate, the 

additional cost in 2025 would be $35 million. Thus, the net benefits are expected to be $260 

million to $1.7 billion, with a primary estimate of $620 million. Table 6-1 shows the results of 

the cost and benefits analysis for this proposed rule. 

The EPA also considered the impacts associated with the proposed revision to the NSPS 

and has concluded that the proposed NSPS is also economically significant. For the proposed 

rule, the monetized methane-related climate benefits are estimated to range from $36 million to 

$210 million (2012$) in 2025, depending on the discount rate; these benefits are estimated to be 

$78 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. The CO2 disbenefits are estimated to 

range from $0.01 million to $0.10 million (2012$) in 2025, depending on the discount rate; 

estimated CO2 disbenefits are $0.033 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. Under 

the proposed option 2.5/34, when using a 7% discount rate the additional cost in 2025 would be 

$8.5 million. Using a 3% discount rate, the additional cost over the baseline in 2025 would be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-2 

$7.1 million. Thus, the net benefits in 2025 are expected to be $28 million to $200 million, with 

a central estimate of $69 million. These results are summarized in Table 7-9. 

8.2 Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection requirements in the proposed Emission Guidelines have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document that the EPA prepared for the proposed Emission Guidelines has been assigned EPA 

ICR number [2522.01]. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is 

briefly summarized here. 

The information required to be collected is necessary to identify the regulated entities 

subject to the proposed rule and to ensure their compliance with the proposed Emission 

Guidelines. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements are mandatory and are being 

established under authority of CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than 

emissions data submitted as part of a report to the agency for which a claim of confidentiality is 

made will be safeguarded according to CAA section 114(c) and the EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

Respondents/affected entities: Municipal solid waste landfills that accepted waste on or 

after November 8, 1987 and commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification on 

or before July 17, 2014. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf). 

Estimated number of respondents: 988 municipal solid waste landfills. 

Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and annually. 

Total estimated burden: 621,947 hours (per year) for the responding facilities and 16,054 

hours (per year) for the agency. These are estimates for the average annual burden for the 

first 3 years after the rule is final. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-3 

Total estimated cost: $41,755,793 (per year), which includes annualized capital or 

operation and maintenance costs, for the responding facilities and $1,029,658 (per year) 

for the agency. These are estimates for the average annual cost for the first 3 years after 

the rule is final. 

The information collection requirements in the supplemental NSPS proposal have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document that the EPA prepared for this supplemental proposal has been assigned EPA ICR 

number 2498.02. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 

summarized here. 

The information required to be collected is necessary to identify the regulated entities 

subject to the proposed NSPS and to ensure their compliance with the proposed NSPS and this 

supplemental proposal. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements are mandatory and are 

being established under authority of CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other 

than emissions data submitted as part of a report to the agency for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to CAA section 114(c) and the EPA’s 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The information collection requirements in the proposed NSPS (79 FR 41828, July 17, 

2014) were submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA 

prepared was assigned EPA ICR number 2498.01. Since the NSPS review was proposed on July 

17, 2014, the EPA updated the number of existing landfills likely to modify after July 17, 2014, 

and, thus, become subject to proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX, as discussed in this 

preamble. The supplemental proposal to lower the emission threshold for new and modified 

sources affects the burden estimates the EPA presented in EPA ICR number 2498.01. As a result, 

the EPA updated the EPA ICR number 2498.01 and re-submitted it to OMB for approval as EPA 

ICR 2498.02 to reflect the estimated number of respondents and a lower NMOC emission rate. A 

copy of the ICR is in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215, and it is briefly summarized 

here. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-4 

Respondents/affected entities: Municipal solid waste landfills that commence 

construction, reconstruction, or modification after July 17, 2014. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX). 

Estimated number of respondents: 144 Municipal solid waste landfills that commence 

construction, reconstruction, or modification after July 17, 2014. 

Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and annually. 

Total estimated burden: 101,031 Hours (per year) for the responding facilities and 2,790 

hours (per year) for the agency. These are estimates for the average annual burden for the 

first 3 years after the rule is final. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $6,701,401 (per year), which includes annualized capital or 

operation and maintenance costs, for the responding facilities and $177,680 (per year) for 

the agency. These are estimates for the average annual cost for the first 3 years after the 

rule is final. 

8.3 Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities (SISNOSE). Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, small entity 

is defined as: (1) a small business that is a small industrial entity as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-5 

After considering the economic impact of the proposed Emission Guidelines on small 

entities, the EPA certifies that the proposed regulation will not have a Significant Impact on a 

Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE). 

The proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Specifically, 

Emission Guidelines established under CAA section 111(d) do not impose any requirements on 

regulated entities and, thus, will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial 

number of small entities. After emission guidelines are promulgated, states and U.S. territories 

establish standards on existing sources, and it is those requirements that could potentially impact 

small entities. 

Our analysis here is consistent with the analysis of the analogous situation arising when 

the EPA establishes NAAQS, which do not impose any requirements on regulated entities. As 

here, any impact of a NAAQS on small entities would only arise when states take subsequent 

action to maintain and/or achieve the NAAQS through their state implementation plans. See 

American Trucking Associations v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1029, 1043-45 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (NAAQS do 

not have significant impacts upon small entities because NAAQS themselves impose no 

regulations upon small entities). 

After considering the economic impact of the supplemental proposed NSPS on small 

entities, the analysis indicates that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities (SISNOSE). First, the proposed revision does not impact a substantial 

number of small entities, since only 13 small entities are projected to be impacted by the 

proposed option. Additionally, the impact to these entities are not significant, because only 2 

entities have impacts greater than 1 percent of sales, and only 1 of these 2 entities has impacts 

greater than 3 percent of sales. These results are summarized in Table 7-8.

8.4 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, 

establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on 

state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-6 

EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed 

and final rules with “federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. 

Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the 

UMRA generally requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and to adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 

achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an alternative 

other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation for why that alternative was not 

adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 

section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 

potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have 

meaningful and timely input in the development of the EPA regulatory proposals with significant 

federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments 

on compliance with the regulatory requirements. 

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described 

in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538. The proposed Emission Guidelines apply to landfills that were 

constructed, modified, or reconstructed on or after November 8, 1987, and that commenced 

construction, reconstruction, or modification on or before July 17, 2014. Impacts resulting from 

the proposed Emission Guidelines are below the applicable threshold. 

However, the proposed Emission Guidelines may significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments because small governments operate landfills. The EPA consulted with small 

governments concerning the regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 

them. In developing this rule, the EPA consulted with small governments pursuant to a plan 

established under section 203 of the UMRA to address impacts of regulatory requirements in the 

rule that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The EPA held meetings as 

discussed in Section 7.5 under Federalism consultations. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-7 

The supplemental proposal for the NSPS does not contain a federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. This action applies to landfills that were 

constructed, modified, or reconstructed on or after July 17, 2014. Impacts resulting from the 

proposed NSPS are far below the applicable threshold. Thus, the proposed NSPS is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. 

8.5 Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires 

the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by state and 

local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” 

“Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the 

national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 

the various levels of government.” The EPA has concluded that the proposed Emission 

Guidelines have federalism implications, because the rule imposes substantial direct compliance 

costs on state or local governments, and the federal government will not provide the funds 

necessary to pay those costs. 

The EPA has concluded that the supplemental proposal for the NSPS does not have 

Federalism implications. The proposed NSPS will not have substantial direct effects on the 

states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution 

of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive 

Order 13132. The supplemental proposal will not have impacts of $25 million or more in any 

one year. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the supplemental. Although section 6 

of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the supplemental proposal NSPS, the EPA consulted 

with state and local officials and representatives of state and local governments early in the 

process of developing the proposed rules for MSW landfills (both the NSPS and Emission 

Guidelines) to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into the rules’ development. The 

EPA conducted a Federalism Consultation Outreach Meeting on September 10, 2013. Due to 

interest in that meeting, additional outreach meetings were held on November 7, 2013 and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-8 

November 14, 2013. With the pending proposal of these Emission Guidelines, an additional 

Federalism outreach meeting was conducted on April 15, 2015. Participants included the 

National Governors’ Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of 

State Governments, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National 

Association of Counties, the International City/County Management Association, the National 

Association of Towns and Townships, the County Executives of America, the Environmental 

Council of States, National Association of Clean Air Agencies, Association of State and 

Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, environmental agency representatives from 43 

states, and approximately 60 representatives from city and county governments. The comment 

period was extended to allow sufficient time for interested parties to review briefing materials 

and provide comments. Concerns raised during the consultations include: implementation 

concerns associated with shortening of gas collection system installation and/or expansion 

timeframes, concerns regarding significant lowering of the design capacity or emission 

thresholds, the need for clarifications associated with wellhead operating parameters and the 

need for consistent, clear and rigorous surface monitoring requirements. 

8.6 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires the EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This action has tribal implications. However, it 

will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal 

governments, nor preempt tribal law. The database used to estimate impacts of the proposed 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Cf identified one tribe, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, 

which owns three landfills potentially subject to the proposed Emission Guidelines. One of these 

landfills is open, the Salt River Landfill, and is already controlling emissions under the current 

NSPS/EG framework, so while subject to this subpart, the costs of this proposal are not 

substantial. The two other landfills are closed and anticipated to meet the definition of the closed 

landfill subcategory. One of the landfills, the Tri Cities Landfill is already controlling emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-9 

under the current NSPS/EG framework and will not incur substantial additional compliance costs 

under Cf. The other landfill, North Center Street Landfill, is not estimated to install controls 

under the current NSPS/EG framework. 

The supplemental NSPS proposal does not have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. Based on the EPA’s review of existing landfills as outlined in the 

docketed memorandum, “Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction 

Analysis of Landfills Regulations. 2014,” tribal landfills are not anticipated to be large enough to 

become subject to the rulemaking. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the 

supplemental NSPS proposal. Nevertheless, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this action 

from tribal officials. 

8.7 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be 

“economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must 

evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain 

why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 

alternatives considered by the Agency. 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions 

that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-

202 of the Executive Order. The proposed Emission Guidelines and the supplemental NSPS 

proposal are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they do not concern an environmental 

health risk or safety risk. We also note that the methane and NMOC reductions expected from 

the proposed Emission Guidelines and NSPS will have positive health effects including for 

children as previously discussed in Chapter 4. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-10 

8.8 Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

This proposed action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 

13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, 

or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because in the Agency’s judgment it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The EPA has concluded 

that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects because there are a small number of 

landfills subject to control requirements under subpart Cf. Further, the EPA has concluded that 

the proposed Emission Guidelines and supplemental NSPS proposal are not likely to have any 

adverse energy effects because the energy demanded to operate these control systems will be 

offset by additional energy supply from landfill gas energy projects. 

8.9 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, §12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use 

voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA 

directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not 

to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to use EPA Methods 2, 

2E, 3, 3A, 3C, 21, 25, 25A, and 25C of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. While the EPA identified 

10 VCS as being potentially applicable (ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10, ASME B133.9-

1994 (2001), ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM D5835-95 (2013), ASTM 

D6522-11, CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 (1999), ASTM D6060-96 (2009), ISO 14965:2000(E), EN 

12619(1999)), the agency decided not to use these methods. The EPA determined that the 10 

candidate VCS identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or their surrogates subject to 

emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-11 

validation data, and other important technical and policy considerations. The agency identified 

no such standards for Methods 2E, 21, and 25C. The EPA’s review, including review comments 

for these 10 methods, is documented in the memorandum, “Voluntary Consensus Standard 

Results for Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

8.10 Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy 

on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low 

income populations in the United States. 

To gain a better understanding of the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills source category 

and near‐source populations, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis at a study area of 3 miles 

of the source category for this rulemaking. This analysis identifies, on a limited basis, the 

subpopulations that may be exposed to air pollution from the regulated sources and thus are 

expected to benefit most from this regulation. This analysis does not identify the demographic 

characteristics of the most highly affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify the 

level of risk faced by those individuals or communities. To the extent that any minority, low‐

income or indigenous subpopulation is disproportionately impacted by hazardous air emissions 

due to the proximity of their homes to sources of these emissions, that subpopulation also stands 

to see increased environmental and health benefit from the emission reductions called for by this 

rule. 

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will 

not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on 

minority, low-income or indigenous populations because the proposed subpart would reduce 

emissions of landfill gas, which contains both nonmethane organic compounds and methane. 

These avoided emissions will improve air quality and reduce public health and welfare effects 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-12 

associated with exposure to landfill gas emissions. The results of the proximity analysis 

conducted for the proposed Emission Guidelines are presented in the April 22, 2015 document 

entitled, “2015 Environmental Justice Screening Report for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,” a 

copy of which is available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0215). 

In regards to the supplemental landfills NSPS proposal, the EPA has concluded that it is 

not practicable to determine whether there would be disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority, low income, or indigenous populations from this 

proposed rule because it is unknown where new or modified facilities will be located. However, 

the previously mentioned proximity analysis conducted for the proposed Emission Guidelines 

provides information about the populations likely to be impacted. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

EO12866_LandfillsEG 2060 AS23 RIA 2015072020150805

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed 

Revisions to the Emission Guidelines for Existing 

Sources and Supplemental Proposed New Source 

Performance Standards in the Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills Sector 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air and Radiation 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

June JulyAugust 2015
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

ii 

CONTACT INFORMATION 

This document has been prepared by staff from the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Questions related to this document should be addressed to 

Charles Fulcher, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, C439-02, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

(email: fulcher.charles@epa.gov). 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

In addition to EPA staff from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and the 

Office of Atmospheric Programs with the U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, Eastern 

Research Group, Inc. (ERG) contributed data and analysis to this document. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... III

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. VI

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................... VIIIVII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1

ES.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 1

ES.2 RESULTS FOR PROPOSED REVISIONS TO EMISSION GUIDELINES ................................................................... 1

ES.3 RESULTS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................... 3

ES.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT ................................................................................................................ 5

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 STATEMENT OF NEED FOR POLICY ACTION ......................................................................................... 1-31-2

1.2.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment .................................................................... 1-31-2

1.2.2 Need for Regulatory Intervention Because of Market Failure .................................................... 1-41-3

1.2.2.1 Air Pollution as an Externality ............................................................................................. 1-4

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT ........................................................................................................ 1-51-4

1.4 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 1-61-5

2 INDUSTRY PROFILE .................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 WASTE STREAM BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 2-3

2.2.1 Municipal Waste........................................................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.1.1 Generation of MSW............................................................................................................. 2-3

2.2.1.2 Landfills Covered Under the EG .......................................................................................... 2-4

2.2.1.3 Trends in Per Capita Waste Sent to Landfills ........................................................................ 2-4

2.2.1.4 Composition of MSW Sent to Landfills ................................................................................ 2-5

2.2.2 Consolidation of Waste Streams .................................................................................................... 2-7

2.3 DISPOSAL FACILITY BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 2-8

2.3.1 Technical Background on Landfills as a Source Category .............................................................. 2-8

2.3.1.1 Landfill Siting and Permitting .............................................................................................. 2-8

2.3.1.2 Landfill Operations .............................................................................................................. 2-9

2.3.1.3 Landfill Closure................................................................................................................. 2-10

2.3.1.4 Management of Liquids ..................................................................................................... 2-10

2.3.2 Ownership and Characteristics of Landfills ................................................................................. 2-11

2.4 COSTS AND REVENUE STREAMS FOR LANDFILLS ................................................................................... 2-15

2.4.1 Major Cost Components for Landfills ......................................................................................... 2-15

2.4.2 Landfill Revenue Sources ........................................................................................................... 2-18

2.5 AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM LANDFILLS....................................................................................... 2-21

2.5.1 NMOC in LFG ........................................................................................................................... 2-21

2.5.2 Methane in LFG ......................................................................................................................... 2-22

2.5.3 Criteria Pollutants from Combustion of LFG ........................................................................ 2-242-23

2.6 TECHNIQUES FOR CONTROLLING EMISSIONS FROM LANDFILLS .............................................................. 2-24

2.6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2-24

2.6.2 Gas Collection Systems .............................................................................................................. 2-24

2.6.3 Destruction .......................................................................................................................... 2-272-26

2.6.4 Utilization .................................................................................................................................. 2-28

2.6.4.1 Technologies ..................................................................................................................... 2-28

2.6.4.2 Revenues and Incentives .................................................................................................... 2-33

2.7 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES .................................................................................. 2-36

2.7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2-36
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

iv 

2.7.2 Organics Management ................................................................................................................ 2-37

2.7.2.1 Trends ............................................................................................................................... 2-38

2.7.2.2 Benefits ...................................................................................................................... 2-412-40

2.7.2.3 Barriers ...................................................................................................................... 2-412-40

2.8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 2-432-42

3 REGULATORY PROGRAM COSTS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ......................................... 3-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND PROCEDURES ............................................................................................ 3-1

3.3 EMISSIONS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 3-3

3.4 ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE COST ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 3-4

3.5 REGULATORY BASELINE AND OPTIONS ................................................................................................... 3-7

3.6 ALTERNATIVE YEARS OF ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 3-143-12

4 BENEFITS OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS .................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 METHANE (CH4) .................................................................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.1 Methane climate effects and valuation ........................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.2 Methane as an ozone precursor ................................................................................................... 4-16

4.2.3 Combined climate and ozone effects of methane ......................................................................... 4-17

4.3 VOC AS A PM2.5PRECURSOR .......................................................................................................... 4-194-18

4.3.1 PM2.5 health effects and valuation ................................................................................................ 4-19

4.3.2 Visibility Effects......................................................................................................................... 4-23

4.4 VOC AS AN OZONE PRECURSOR ........................................................................................................... 4-23

4.4.1 Ozone health effects and valuation .............................................................................................. 4-24

4.4.2 Ozone vegetation effects ............................................................................................................. 4-25

4.4.3 Ozone climate effects.................................................................................................................. 4-25

4.5 HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (HAP)BENEFITS ..................................................................................... 4-26

4.5.1 Benzene...................................................................................................................................... 4-31

4.5.2 Ethylbenzene .............................................................................................................................. 4-32

4.5.3 Toluene ...................................................................................................................................... 4-33

4.5.4 Vinyl Chloride ............................................................................................................................ 4-34

4.5.5 Other Air Toxics ......................................................................................................................... 4-35

4.6 ALTERNATIVE YEARS OF ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 4-35

4.7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 4-36

5 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND DISTRIBUTIONAL ASSESSMENTS ................................ 5-1

5.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.3 EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS .......................................................................................................................... 5-2

5.3.1 Background on the Regulated Industry .......................................................................................... 5-3

5.3.2 Employment Impacts of Environmental Regulation ....................................................................... 5-6

5.3.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 5-11

5.4 SMALL BUSINESS IMPACTS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 5-12

5.5 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 5-13

6 COMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND COST .................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED STANDARDS ........................................................................................ 6-1

6.3 NET BENEFITS OF THE ALTERNATE STANDARDS ...................................................................................... 6-2

7 SUPPLEMENTAL NSPS PROPOSAL ......................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 REGULATORY BASELINE AND OPTIONS ................................................................................................... 7-2

7.3 BENEFITS ........................................................................................................................................ 7-107-8
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

v 

7.4 ECONOMIC IMPACTS ...................................................................................................................... 7-147-11

7.4.1 Economic Impact Analysis................................................................................................... 7-147-11

7.4.2 Employment Impacts ........................................................................................................... 7-147-11

7.4.3 Small Business Impacts Analysis ......................................................................................... 7-147-11

7.5 COMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND COSTS .......................................................................................... 7-167-13

7.6 NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED STANDARDS ............................................................................... 7-177-14

7.7 NET BENEFITS OF THE ALTERNATE STANDARDS ............................................................................. 7-187-15

7.8 ALTERNATIVE YEARS OF ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 7-217-17

8 STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER REVIEWS ................................................................... 8-1

8.1 EXECUTIVE ORDER 12866, REGULATORY PLANNING AND REVIEW AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 13563,

IMPROVING REGULATION AND REGULATORY REVIEW ...................................................................................... 8-1

8.2 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT ................................................................................................................ 8-2

8.3 REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT.............................................................................................................. 8-4

8.4 UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT ..................................................................................................... 8-5

8.5 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13132: FEDERALISM ................................................................................................ 8-7

8.6 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13175: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS ... 8-8

8.7 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13045: PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RISKS AND SAFETY 

RISKS .............................................................................................................................................................. 8-9

8.8 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13211: ACTIONS CONCERNING REGULATIONS THAT SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT ENERGY 

SUPPLY, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE ..................................................................................................................... 8-10

8.9 NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND ADVANCEMENT ACT ............................................................. 8-10

8.10 EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE .......................................................................... 8-11
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

vi 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table ES-1 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Proposed Emission Guidelines for 

Existing MSW Landfills in 2025 (2012$) ................................................................................................................ 3

Table ES-2 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Supplemental Proposed New 

Source Performance Standards for MSW Landfills in 2025 (2012$) ........................................................................ 5

Table 2-1 Generation and Discards of MSW, 1960 to 2012 (in pounds per person per day) ................................ 2-5

Table 2-2 Materials Discardeda In the MSW Stream, 1960 to 2012 (in thousands of tons) ................................... 2-7

Table 2-3 Top 5 Waste Management Companies That Owned or Operated MSW Landfills in the United States in 

2013a ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-14

Table 2-4 Typical Costs Per Acre for Components of Landfill Construction (Duffy, 2005a) .............................. 2-16

Table 2-5 Average Regional and National Per-Ton Tip Fees (Rounded): 1995-2011 ......................................... 2-19

Table 2-6 Average LFG Power Production Technology Costs ................................................................... 2-302-29

Table 2-7 Average LFG Direct-use Project Components Costs .................................................................. 2-322-31

Table 2-8 Waste Management of Organics in the United States ................................................................. 2-402-39

Table 3-1 Number of Affected Landfills in 2025 under the Baseline and Alternative Options .............................. 3-8

Table 3-2 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2025 for the Baseline and Alternative Options .... 3-9

Table 3-3 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2025 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount 

Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-113-10

Table 3-4 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2025 for Baseline and Alternative Options (3% Discount 

Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-133-11

Table 3-5 Estimated Cost-effectiveness in 2025 for the Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount Rate) ...... 3-

143-12

Table 3-6 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2020 for the Baseline and Alternative Options ...... 3-

163-13

Table 3-7 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2020 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount 

Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-163-13

Table 3-8 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2030 for the Baseline and Alternative Options ...... 3-

173-14

Table 3-9 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2030 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount 

Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-173-14

Table 3-10 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2040 for the Baseline and Alternative Options .... 3-

183-15

Table 3-11 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2040 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount 

Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-183-15

Table 4-1 Climate and Human Health Effects of Emission Reductions in this Rule ............................................. 4-2

Table 4-2 Social Cost of CH4, 2012 – 2050a [in 2012$ per metric ton] (Source: Marten et al., 2014b) ................ 4-12

Table 4-3 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) ..................................... 4-14

Table 4-4 Estimated Global Benefits of Net CO2 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) .............................. 4-15

Table 4-5 Monetized Benefits-per-Ton Estimates for VOC based on Previous Modeling in 2015 (2012$) ......... 4-22

Table 4-6 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2020* (in millions, 2012$) ..................................... 4-35

Table 4-7 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2030* (in millions, 2012$) ..................................... 4-36

Table 4-8 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2040* (in millions, 2012$) ..................................... 4-36

Table 6-1 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Proposed Emission Guidelines 

Option 2.5/34 in 2025 (2012$) ............................................................................................................................. 6-2

Table 6-2 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Alternative Emission Guidelines 

Option 2.5/40 in 2025 (2012$) ............................................................................................................................. 6-3

Table 6-3 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Alternative Emission Guidelines 

Option 2.0/34 in 2025 (2012$) ............................................................................................................................. 6-4

Table 7-1 Number of Affected Landfills in 2025 under the Baseline and Alternative Options .............................. 7-4

Table 7-2 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2025 for the Baseline and Alternative Options .... 7-5

Table 7-3 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2025 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount 

Rate) .............................................................................................................................................................. 7-77-6

Table 7-4 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2025 for Baseline and Alternative Options (3% Discount 

Rate) .............................................................................................................................................................. 7-97-7
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

vii 

Table 7-5 Estimated Cost-effectiveness in 2025 for the Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount Rate) ...... 7-

107-8

Table 7-6 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) .............................. 7-137-10

Table 7-7 Estimated Global Disbenefits of Net CO2 Increases in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) ...................... 7-137-10

Table 7-8 Small Business Impact Screening Assessment Results (Reporters and Controllers) .................... 7-167-13

Table 7-9 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Proposed NSPS Option 2.5/34 in 

2025 (2012$) .............................................................................................................................................. 7-177-14

Table 7-10 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Alternative NSPS Option 2.5/40 in 

2025 (2012$) .............................................................................................................................................. 7-207-16

Table 7-11 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Alternative NSPS Option 2.0/34 in 

2025 (2012$) .............................................................................................................................................. 7-217-17

Table 7-12 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2020 for the Baseline and Alternative Options .... 7-

227-18

Table 7-13 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2020 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount 

Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 7-227-18

Table 7-14 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2030 for the Baseline and Alternative Options .... 7-

237-19

Table 7-15 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2030 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount 

Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 7-237-19

Table 7-16 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2040 for the Baseline and Alternative Options .... 7-

247-20

Table 7-17 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2040 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount 

Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 7-247-20

Table 7-18 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2020* (in millions, 2012$) ............................ 7-257-21

Table 7-19 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2030* (in millions, 2012$) ............................ 7-257-21

Table 7-20 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2040* (in millions, 2012$) ............................ 7-257-21

 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

viii 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2-1 Material Composition of the MSW Discard Stream, 2012 2-6

Figure 2-2 Landfill Cost Life Cycle 2-18

Figure 2-3 Typical LFG Generation Curve 2-23

Figure 2-4 Vertical Well LFG Collection 2-25

Figure 2-5 Horizontal Well LFG Collection 2-262-25

Figure 4-1 Path from GHG Emissions to Monetized Damages (Source: Marten et al., 2014) 4-9

Figure 4-2 2005 NATA Model Estimated Census Tract Carcinogenic Risk from HAP Exposure from Emissions of 

All Outdoor Sources (inclusive of Residental Wood Heaters) based on the 2005 National Toxic Inventory. 4-28

Figure 4-3 2005 NATA Model Estimated Census Tract Noncancer Risk from HAP Exposure from Emissions of 

All Outdoor Sources (inclusive of Residental Wood Heaters) based on the 2005 National Toxic Inventory 4-29
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

ES-1 

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

ES.1 Background 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing revisions to the Emission 

Guidelines for existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. The EPA is not statutorily obligated to 

conduct a review of the Emission Guidelines, but has the discretionary authority to do so when 

circumstances 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. Based on our review, we are proposing to lower the annual NMOC emissions 

threshold from 50 Mg/year to 34 Mg/year.

In addition, the EPA is proposing Supplemental New Source Performance Standards for 

new or modified Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. On July 17, 2014, the EPA proposed a new 

NSPS subpart that retained the same design capacity size threshold of 2.5 million m3 or 2.5 

million Mg, but presented several options for revising the NMOC emission rate at which a MSW 

landfill must install controls. Since presenting these options, the EPA has updated its model that 

estimates the emission reduction and cost impacts based on public comments and new data. As a 

result of these data and model improvements, we are now proposing to lower the annual NMOC 

emissions threshold from 50 Mg/year to 34 Mg/year.

ES.2 Results for Proposed Revisions to Emission Guidelines 

For the proposed revisions to the Emission Guidelines for existing MSW landfills, the 

key results of the RIA follow and are summarized in Table ES-1: 

Engineering Cost Analysis: To meet the proposed emission limits, a MSW landfill is expected 

to install the least cost control for combusting the landfill gas. The control costs include the costs 

to install and operate gas collection. For landfills where the least cost control option was an 

engine, the costs also include installing and operate one or more reciprocating internal 

combustion engines to convert the landfill gas into electricity. Revenue from electricity sales was 

incorporated into the net control costs using state-specific data on wholesale purchase prices. The 

annualized costs also include testing and monitoring costs. For this proposal, which tightens the 

emissions threshold, the EPA estimated the nationwide incremental annualized compliance cost 

in 2025 to be $46.8 million (2012$) using a 7% discount rate. Using a 3% discount rate, the 

Commented [A1]: OMB RIA Comment 10: Reviewer 

recommends that the ES.1 background should more clearly articulate 

that the document represents the analysis for both emissions 

guidelines for existing landfills and NSPS for new landfills. 

EPA Response: This section now discusses the supplemental NSPS 

proposal. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

ES-2 

nationwide incremental annualized compliance cost in 2025 is estimated to be $35 million 

(2012$). 

Emissions Analysis: In 2025, this proposal would achieve reductions of 2,770 Mg NMOC and 

436,100 Mg methane (10.9 million Mg CO2-equivalents1) compared to the baseline. In addition, 

the proposal is expected to result in the net reduction of 238,000 Mg CO2, due to reduced 

demand for electricity from the grid as landfills generate electricity from landfill gas.2 These 

pollutants are associated with substantial health, welfare and climate effects. 

Benefits: The monetized benefits in this RIA include those from reducing 436,100 Mg methane, 

which are valued using the social cost of methane (SC-CH4), and the reductions in CO2, which 

are valued using the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2). The EPA estimates that, in 2025, the 

proposal will yield monetized climate benefits of $310 million (2012$) to approximately $1.7 

billion (2012$)3; the mean SC-CH4 at the 3% discount rate results in an estimate of about $660 

million (2012$) in 2025. The climate benefits associated with the reduction of 238,000 Mg CO2

are estimated to be $12 million (2012$) in 2025. The benefits from reducing some air pollutants 

have not been monetized in this analysis due to data, resource, and methodological limitations, 

including reducing 2,770 Mg NMOC (including undetermined amounts of HAPs). We assessed 

the benefits of these emission reductions qualitatively in this RIA. 

Small Entity Analysis: The EPA certifies that the proposed Emission Guidelines will not have a 

Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE) because the proposed 

rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Specifically, Emission Guidelines 

established under CAA section 111(d) do not impose any requirements on regulated entities and, 

thus, will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. 

Economic Impacts: Because of the relatively low net compliance cost of this proposal 

compared to the overall size of the MSW landfill industry, as well as the lack of appropriate 

economic parameters or models, the EPA is unable to estimate the impacts of the proposal on the 

supply and demand for MSW landfill services. However, the EPA does not believe the proposal 

will lead to changes in supply and demand for landfill services or waste disposal costs, tipping 

fees, or the amount of waste disposed in landfills. Hence, the overall economic impact of the 

proposal should be minimal on the affected industries and their consumers.

 

1

 A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. 

2

 The reduced demand for electricity from the grid more than offsets the additional energy demand required to 

operate the control system and the by-product emissions from the combustion of LFG. 

3

 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

ES-3 

Table ES-1 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Proposed 

Emission Guidelines for Existing MSW Landfills in 2025 (2012$) 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Total Monetized Benefits1 $670 million 

Total Costs2 $35 million $47 million 

Net Benefits $640 million $620 million 

Non-monetized Benefits3 Health effects of PM2.5 and ozone exposure from 2,770 Mg 

NMOC/yr reduced 

Health effects of HAP exposure from 2,770 Mg NMOC/yr 

reduced 

 Visibility impairment 

 Vegetation effects 

1 Monetized benefits include the climate-related benefits associated with the reduction of 436,100 

Mg/yr methane ($660 million, valued using the social cost of methane) and the net reduction of 238,000 

Mg/yr of CO2 ($12 million, valued using the social cost of carbon). The social cost of methane and 

social cost of carbon estimates are calculated with four different values of a one ton reduction (model 

average at 2.5 percent discount rate, 3 percent, and 5 percent; 95th percentile at 3 percent). For the 

purposes of this table, we show the benefits associated with the model average at 3% discount rate; 

however we emphasize the importance and value of considering the full range of values, which is $310 

million - $1.8 billion for the proposed option. We provide climate benefit estimates based on additional 

discount rates in Section 4.2.

2 The engineering compliance costs are annualized and include estimated revenue from electricity sales 

for landfills that are expected to generate revenue by using landfill gas for energy. 

3 While we expect that these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reductions 

in health effects associated with HAP, ozone, and particulate matter (PM), we have determined that 

quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to 

imply that there are no benefits or co-benefits of the rulesthese benefits do not exist; rather, it is a 

reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the reductions in emissions 

for this industrial sector with the data currently available. 

ES.3 Results for Supplemental Proposed New Source Performance Standards 

For the Supplemental Proposed New Source Performance Standards for new or modified 

MSW landfills, the key results of the RIA follow and are summarized in Table ES-2: 

Engineering Cost Analysis: To meet the proposed emission limits, a MSW landfill is expected 

to install the least cost control for combusting the landfill gas. The control costs include the costs 

to install and operate gas collection. For landfills where the least cost control option was an 

engine, the costs also include installing and operate one or more reciprocating internal 

combustion engines to convert the landfill gas into electricity. Revenue from electricity sales was 

incorporated into the net control costs using state-specific data on wholesale purchase prices. The 

annualized costs also include testing and monitoring costs. For this proposal, which tightens the 

emissions threshold, the EPA estimated the nationwide incremental annualized compliance cost 

in 2025 to be $8.5 million (2012$) using a 7% discount rate. Using a 3% discount rate, the 

nationwide incremental annualized compliance cost in 2025 is estimated to be $7.1 million 

(2012$). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

ES-4 

Emissions Analysis: In 2025, this proposal would achieve reductions of 300 Mg NMOC and 

51,400 Mg methane (1.3 million Mg CO2-equivalents4) compared to the baseline. The proposal is 

also expected to result in minor secondary air impacts, specifically an increase of 670 Mg CO2, 

because more energy is required to operate the GCCS at some landfills than is produced by these 

landfills through the burning of LFG in engines. These pollutants are associated with substantial 

health, welfare and climate effects. 

Benefits: The monetized benefits in this RIA include those from reducing 51,400 Mg methane, 

which are valued using the social cost of methane (SC-CH4), offset by the small increases in 

CO2, which are valued using the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2). The EPA estimates that, in 

2025, the proposal will yield monetized climate benefits of $36 million (2012$) to approximately 

$210 million (2012$)5; the mean SC-CH4 at the 3% discount rate results in an estimate of about 

$78 million (2012$) in 2025. The climate disbenefits associated with the increase of 670 Mg CO2

are estimated to be $0.03 million (2012$) in 2025. The benefits from reducing some air 

pollutants have not been monetized in this analysis due to data, resource, and methodological 

limitations, including reducing 300 Mg NMOC (including undetermined amounts of HAPs). We 

assessed the benefits of these emission reductions qualitatively in this RIA. 

Small Entity Analysis: The EPA performed a small business impacts analysis on the 

Supplemental Proposed New Source Performance Standards for new or modified MSW landfills, 

and as with the July 2014 proposed NSPS subpart certifies that the proposed rule will not have a 

Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE). The proposed revision 

does not impact a substantial number of small entities, and the impact to these entities are not 

significant. This is discussed in greater detail in Section 7.4.

Economic Impacts: Because of the relatively low net compliance cost of this proposal 

compared to the overall size of the MSW landfill industry, as well as the lack of appropriate 

economic parameters or models, the EPA is unable to estimate the impacts of the proposal on the 

supply and demand for MSW landfill services. However, the EPA does not believe the proposal 

will lead to changes in supply and demand for landfill services or waste disposal costs, tipping 

fees, or the amount of waste disposed in landfills. Hence, the overall economic impact of the 

proposal should be minimal on the affected industries and their consumers.

 

4

 A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. 

5

 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

ES-5 

Table ES-2 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the 

Supplemental Proposed New Source Performance Standards for MSW Landfills in 2025 

(2012$) 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Monetized Methane-related Benefits1 $78 million 

Monetized CO2 disbenefits1 $0.03 million 

Total Costs2 $7.1 million $8.5 million 

Net Benefits $71 million $70 million 

Non-monetized Benefits3 Health effects of PM2.5 and ozone exposure from 300 Mg 

NMOC/yr reduced 

Health effects of HAP exposure from 300 Mg NMOC/yr 

reduced 

 Visibility impairment 

 Vegetation effects 

1 Monetized benefits include the climate-related benefits associated with the reduction of 51,400 Mg/yr 

methane, valued using the social cost of methane, and the net increase of 670 Mg/yr of CO2, valued 

using the social cost of carbon. The social cost of methane and social cost of carbon estimates are 

calculated with four different values of a one ton reduction (model average at 2.5 percent discount rate, 

3 percent, and 5 percent; 95th percentile at 3 percent). For the purposes of this table, we show the 

benefits associated with the model average at 3% discount rate; however we emphasize the importance 

and value of considering the full range of values, which is $36 million - $210 million for the proposed 

option. We provide climate benefit estimates based on additional discount rates in Section 4.2.

2 The engineering compliance costs are annualized and include estimated revenue from electricity sales 

for landfills that are expected to generate revenue by using landfill gas for energy. 

3 While we expect that these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reductions 

in health effects associated with HAP, ozone, and particulate matter (PM), we have determined that 

quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to 

imply that there are no benefits or co-benefits of the rulesthese benefits do not exist; rather, it is a 

reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the reductions in emissions 

for this industrial sector with the data currently available. 

ES.3 Organization of this Report 

The remainder of this report details the methodology and the results of the EIARIA. 

Chapter 1 provides an introduction. Chapter 2 presents the industry profile for the municipal 

solid waste landfill industry. Chapter 3 describes emissions, emissions control options, and 

engineering costs of the Emission Guidelines for existing landfills. Chapter 4 presents estimates 

of the benefits of emissions reductions from the Emission Guidelines for existing landfills. 

Chapter 5 present the economic impacts, employment impacts, and small entity screening 

analysis for the Emission Guidelines for existing landfills. Chapter 6 presents the comparison of 

the benefits and costs of the Emission Guidelines for existing landfills, Chapter 7 presents an 

analysis of the supplemental New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new or modified 

MSW landfills proposal, and Chapter 8 concludes with the statutory and executive order reviews. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

1-1 

1 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background 

The EPA is proposing revisions to the Emission Guidelines for existing Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills. The EPA is not statutorily obligated to conduct a review of the Emission 

Guidelines, but has the discretionary authority to do so when circumstances 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. Based on our 

review, we are proposing to lower the annual NMOC emissions threshold from 50 Mg/year to 34 

Mg/year. 

In addition, the EPA is proposing Supplemental New Source Performance Standards for 

new or modified Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. On July 17, 2014, the EPA proposed a new 

NSPS subpart that retained the same design capacity size threshold of 2.5 million m3 or 2.5 

million Mg, but presented several options for revising the NMOC emission rate at which a MSW 

landfill must install controls. Since presenting these options, the EPA has updated its model that 

estimates the emission reduction and cost impacts based on public comments and new data. As a 

result of these data and model improvements, we are now proposing to lower the annual NMOC 

emissions threshold from 50 Mg/year to 34 Mg/year.

In accordance with Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, OMB Circular A-4, 

and the EPA’s “Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses,” the EPA prepared this RIA for 

these “significant regulatory actions.” These actions are economically significant regulatory 

actions because they may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments 

or communities.6In this RIA, the EPA presents a profile of the municipal solid waste industry in 

 

6 The analysis in this draft RIA constitutes the economic assessment required by CAA section 317. In the EPA’s 

judgment, the assessment is as extensive as practicable taking into account the EPA’s time, resources, and other 

duties and authorities.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

1-2 

the United States and an analysis of the costs and emissions reductions associated with a range of 

regulatory options, including the option chosen for proposal. The EPA drew upon a 

comprehensive database of existing landfills for this analysis. However, this dataset was missing 

some landfill data for recent years (2010-2014) and included incomplete data for many landfills. 

Thus, model landfills were created to represent the recent landfill data that were not included in 

the dataset. The model landfills were developed by evaluating the most recently opened existing 

landfills and assuming that the sizes and locations of landfills opening during 2010-2014 would 

be similar to the sizes and locations of landfills that opened in the most recent complete 5 years 

of data (2005-2010). The impacts of the proposed Emission Guidelines for existing MSW

landfills shown in this RIA are expressed as the incremental difference between facilities 

complying with the current Emission Guidelines for existing MSW landfills (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cc) and facilities that would be required to comply with proposed subpart Cf. Likewise, 

the impacts of the proposed NSPS for new or modified MSW landfills shown in this RIA are 

expressed as the incremental difference between facilities complying with the current NSPS for 

new or modified MSW landfills (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW) and facilities that would be 

required to comply with proposed subpart XXX. All impacts are shown for the year 2025. The 

EPA is assessing impacts in year 2025 as a representative year for the both the landfills Emission 

Guidelines and NSPS. While the year 2025 differs somewhat from the expected first year of 

implementation for the Emission Guidelines (year 2020), the number of existing landfills 

required to install controls under the proposed 2.5/34 option in year 2025 is comparable (within 2 

percent of those required to control in the estimated first year of implementation. Further, year 

2025 represents a year in which several of the landfills subject to control requirements have had 

to expand their GCCS according the expansion lag times set forth in proposed subpart Cf. While 

the analysis focuses on impacts in 2025, results for alternative years are also presented. 

The EPA certifies that the proposed Emission Guidelines for existing landfills will not 

have a Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE) because the 

proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Specifically, Emission 

Guidelines established under CAA section 111(d) do not impose any requirements on regulated 

entities and, thus, will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of 

small entities. The EPA also certifies that the supplemental proposed NSPS for new or modified 

MSW landfills also will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities 

Commented [A2]: OMB RIA Comment 9: Reviewer 

recommends clearly articulating the analytic timeline since EPA 

only presents results in the RIA for a snapshot of 2025. 

EPA Response: The discussion has been edited to explain the 

choice of 2025 as a representative year. This discussion also added 

to Sections 3.2 and 7.2. In addition, some results from alternative 

snapshot years are now being included in Chapters 3, 4, and 7. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

1-3 

(SISNOSE). The proposed revision does not impact a substantial number of small entities, and 

the impact to these entities are not significant. This is discussed in greater detail in Section 7.4.

1.2 Statement of Need for Policy Action 

1.2.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 

The EPA has concluded, after reviewing data on MSW landfills, that a review of the 

Emission Guidelines for existing MSW landfills is appropriate at this time. In addition, the EPA 

is proposing Supplemental New Source Performance Standards for new or modified Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfills. To ensure that public health, safety, and the environment are protected, 

the EPA must ensure that emissions of methane, VOC, and HAP from MSW landfills are 

limited. The pollutant regulated under rules affecting landfills is “MSW landfill emissions”. 

Municipal solid waste landfill emissions, also commonly referred to as landfill gas (LFG), are a 

collection of air pollutants, including methane and NMOC, some of which are toxic.

7 The 1996 

NSPS/EG regulated nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) as a surrogate for MSW landfill 

emissions but also considered significant methane reductions that could be achieved. In this EG 

and supplemental NSPS proposal, weWe are proposing to lower the annual NMOC emissions 

threshold from 50 Mg/year to 34 Mg/year. The proposed Emission Guidelines are expected to 

result in significant emissions reductions from existing MSW landfills. For the proposed 

Emission Guidelines, there will be climate benefits and HAP, ozone and PM2.5 health “cobenefits”. These co-benefits occur because the control techniques to meet the standards 

simultaneously reduce methane, VOC, and HAP emissions. 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, while methane is a 

greenhouse gas and a precursor to global ozone formation. As described in Chapter 4, these 

 

7 LFG is composed of approximately 50 percent methane, 50 percent CO2, and less than 1 percent NMOC. (Source: 

EPA. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Publication AP-42, Draft Section 2.4 Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills. October 2008. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/draft/d02s04.pdf.) While 

this composition is typical of LFG generated from established waste (waste that has typically been in place for at 

least a year), the quantity and composition of LFG does vary over the lifetime of the landfill. See Section 2.5 for 

more discussion. 

Commented [A3]: OMB RIA Comment 12: Reviewer requests 

providing a citation for 50% of landfill gas being composed of 

methane. 

EPA Response: Reference added in footnote. 

Commented [A4]: OMB RIA Comment 16: Reviewer 

recommends stating in 1.2.1 the requirements relevant to methane. 

Otherwise, it’s not clear why methane isn’t included in the cobenefit category. 

EPA Response: This discussion has been edited to indicate that 

NMOC is a surrogate for MSW landfill emissions, which is the 

regulated pollutant. MSW landfill emissions are composed of 

methane, CO2, and NMOC. In the 1996 NSPS/EG, it was noted that 

“The emissions of concern are non-methane organic compounds 

(NMOC) and methane.” Therefore, while NMOC has always been 

the emission measured to determine if a control system must be in 

place, methane has always been a targeted emission as well. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

1-4 

pollutants are associated with substantial health effects, climate effects, and other welfare effects. 

Thus, the proposed rule is expected to reduce human morbidity and premature mortality due to 

exposure to PM2.5, in addition to providing human health and ecosystem benefits due to reduced 

emissions of methane and HAP, and improved visibility due to reduced PM levels.

1.2.2 Need for Regulatory Intervention Because of Market Failure 

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directs regulatory agencies to 

demonstrate the need for a major rule. If the rule is intended to correct a market failure, the 

regulatory impact analysis must show that a market failure exists and that it cannot be resolved 

by measures other than Federal regulation. Market failures are categorized by OMB as 

externalities, market power, or inadequate or asymmetric information. The following paragraphs 

address each of the three categories of market failure as they apply to MSW landfills. The only 

of these three categories that applies to MSW landfills is air pollution as an externality, which is 

discussed in the following section.

1.2.2.1 Air Pollution as an Externality 

Air pollution is an example of a negative externality. This means that, in the absence of 

government regulation, the decisions of generators of air pollution do not fully reflect the costs 

associated with that pollution. For an MSW landfill operator, pollution from landfill gas is a byproduct that can be ignored or disposed of cheaply by venting it to the atmosphere. Left to their 

own devices, many MSW landfill operators may choose to treat air as a free good and not 

internalize the damage cause by emissions. NMOC and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions 

impose costs on society, such as negative health and welfare impacts that are not reflected in the 

market price of the MSW landfill services being provided. This damage is borne by society, and 

the people who are adversely affected by the pollution are not able to collect compensation to 

offset their costs. They cannot collect compensation because the adverse effects, like odor and 

increased risks of morbidity and mortality, are by and large non-market goods. That is, they are 

goods that are not explicitly and routinely traded in organized free markets. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

1-5 

1.2.2.2 Market Power 

In some respects, local disposal markets are natural monopolies. There are large 

economies of scale in disposal operations, there are barriers to entry through the large up-front 

capital costs necessary to construct a landfill, and in some situations transportation costs are too 

high to ship MSW between regions for disposal (though this is less the case in recent years). 

Unfortunately, the monopolistic (or oligopolistic) local markets that result from these natural 

conditions do not have the competitive market checks and balances that are needed to ensure the 

best utilization of societal resources. While the proposed Emission Guidelines are not designed 

to address the problem of market power, they are intended to ensure that MSW landfills operate 

in a more socially optimal manner. 

1.2.2.3 Inadequate or Asymmetric Information 

The third category of potential market failure that is sometimes used to justify 

government regulation is inadequate or asymmetric information. Some MSW landfills can 

reduce costs by installing gas collection systems, recovering energy from the gas, and selling 

purified gas or electricity. Due to the costs associated with obtaining information about the 

potential costs and benefits of control, some landfills do not install such systems. The Emission 

Guidelines would specify the collection of information that may reduce the cost of obtaining data 

to make an informed decision on whether energy recovery is a good option.

1.3 Organization of this Report 

The remainder of this report details the methodology and the results of the RIA. Chapter 

2 presents the industry profile for the municipal solid waste landfill industry. Chapter 3 describes 

emissions, emissions control options, and engineering costs of the Emission Guidelines for 

existing landfills. Chapter 4 presents estimates of the benefits of emissions reductions from the 

Emission Guidelines for existing landfills. Chapter 5 present the economic impacts, employment

impacts, and small entity screening analysis for the Emission Guidelines for existing landfills. 

Chapter 6 presents the comparison of the benefits and costs of the Emission Guidelines for 

existing landfills, Chapter 7 presents an analysis of the supplemental New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) for new and modified MSW landfills proposal, and Chapter 8 concludes with 

the statutory and executive order reviews. 

Commented [A5]: OMB RIA Comment 17: Reviewer 

recommends deleting the discussion in 1.2.2 of market power and 

inadequate/asymmetric information since they are not relevant to 

this rulemaking. 

EPA Response: Sections have been deleted. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

1-6 

1.4 References 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission 

Factors, Publication AP-42, Draft Section 2.4 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. October 

2008. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/draft/d02s04.pdf.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-1

2 INDUSTRY PROFILE 

2.1 Introduction 

Municipal solid waste (MSW) is the stream of garbage collected by sanitation services 

from homes, businesses, and institutions. MSW typically consists of metals, glass, plastics, 

paper, wood, organics, mixed categories, and composite products. The majority of collected 

MSW that is not recycled is typically sent to landfills—engineered areas of land where waste is 

deposited, compacted, and covered. The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and the 

state and federal plans implementing the emission guidelines (EG) for MSW landfills regulate air 

emissions from landfills that receive household waste as defined in 40 CFR 60.751. These MSW 

landfills can also receive other types of waste, such as construction and demolition debris, 

industrial wastes, or nonhazardous sludge. MSW landfills are designed to protect the 

environment from contaminants which may be present in the solid waste stream and as such are 

required to comply with federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations 

or equivalent state regulations, which include standards related to location restrictions, composite 

liners requirements, leachate collection and removal systems, operating practices, groundwater 

monitoring requirements, closure and post-closure care requirements, corrective action 

provisions, and financial assurance (EPA, 2012b). 

EPA estimates the total amount of MSW generated in the United States in 2012 was 

approximately 251 million tons, a 20 percent increase from 1990. Despite increased waste 

generation, the amount of MSW deposited in landfills decreased from about 145 million tons in 

1990 to 135 million tons in 2012. This decline is due to a significant increase in the amount of 

waste recovered for recycling and composting as well as that combusted for energy recovery 

(EPA, 2014a). The number of active MSW landfills in the United States has decreased from 

approximately 7,900 in 1988 to approximately 1,800 in 2014 (EPA, 2010; WBJ, 2014). 

Landfills are different than many other traditionally regulated emissions source 

categories. Typically, entities regulated for air emissions are involved in manufacturing or 

production and their emissions are directly related to processes involved in creating products 

(e.g., vehicles, bricks) or commodities (e.g., natural gas, oil). When manufacturing or production 

facilities cease to operate, their emissions typically cease. Landfills are a service industry—a 

repository for waste that needs to be properly disposed—and their emissions are a by-product of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-2

the deposition of that waste. Landfills continue to emit air pollution for many years after the last 

waste is deposited. 

Landfill gas (LFG) is a by-product of the decomposition of organic material in MSW in 

anaerobic conditions in landfills. LFG contains roughly 50 percent methane and 50 percent 

carbon dioxide, with less than 1 percent non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) and trace 

amounts of inorganic compounds. 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. LFG can be collected and combusted in flares or energy recovery devices to 

reduce emissions. MSW landfills receive approximately 69 percent of the total waste generated 

in the United States and produce 95 percent of landfill emissions. The remainder of the emissions 

is generated by industrial waste landfills (EPA, 2015h).

Entities potentially regulated under Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills include owners of MSW landfills and owners of combustion devices that burn 

untreated LFG. Firms engaged in the collection and disposal of refuse in a landfill operation are 

classified under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes Solid Waste 

Landfill (562212) and Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management 

Programs (924110). 

Landfills are owned by private companies, government (local, state, or federal), or 

individuals. In 2014, 58 percent of active MSW landfills were owned by public entities while 

42 percent were privately owned (EPA, 2014c). Affected entities comprise establishments 

primarily engaged in operating landfills for the disposal of non-hazardous solid waste; or the 

combined activity of collecting and/or hauling non-hazardous waste materials within a local area 

and operating landfills for the disposal of non-hazardous solid waste. This industry also includes 

government establishments primarily engaged in the administration and regulation of solid waste 

management programs. 

Private companies that own landfills range in size from very small businesses to large 

businesses with billions of dollars in annual revenue. Public landfill owners include cities, 

counties/parishes, regional authorities, state governments, and the federal government (including 

military branches, Bureau of Land Management, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and 

Department of the Interior - National Park Service). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-3

2.2 Waste Stream Background 

2.2.1 Municipal Waste 

2.2.1.1 Generation of MSW 

MSW is generally defined as nonhazardous waste from household, commercial, and 

institutional sources. These three broad categories of primary MSW generators are described as: 

• Household – solid waste from single-and multiple-family homes, hotels and motels, 

bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, and dayuse recreation areas. 

• Commercial – solid waste from stores, offices, restaurants, warehouses, and other 

nonmanufacturing activities. 

• Institutional – solid waste from public works (such as street sweepings and tree and 

brush trimmings), schools and colleges, hospitals, prisons, and similar public or 

quasi-public buildings. Infectious and hazardous waste from these generators are 

managed separately from MSW. 

Households are the primary source of MSW, accounting for 55 to 65 percent of total 

MSW generated, followed by the commercial sector (EPA, 2011). Waste from commercial and 

institutional locations amounts to 35 to 45 percent of total MSW (EPA, 2011). The industrial 

sector manages most of its own solid residuals by recycling, reuse, or self-disposal in industrial 

waste landfills. For this reason industry directly contributes a very small share of the MSW flow, 

although some industrial waste does end up in MSW landfills. 

Various underlying factors influence the trends in the quantity of MSW generated over 

time. These factors include changes in population, individual purchasing power and disposal 

patterns, trends in product packaging, and technological changes that affect disposal habits and 

the nature of materials disposed. Generators of MSW provide most of the demand for services 

that collect, treat, or dispose of MSW. Fluctuations in the quantity of MSW generated and 

changes in the cost and pricing structure of disposal services result in varying demand for landfill 

services. 

Most MSW generators are charged a flat fee for disposal services, which can be paid 

through taxes for household garbage collection. This structure may provide little economic 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-4

incentive to lower waste disposal or to divert waste through recycling because generators are 

charged the same price regardless of the quantity of waste disposed. Less common are unit price 

programs, such as “pay-as-you-throw” (PAYT). In PAYT programs, each unit of waste disposed 

has an explicit price, such that the total fee paid for MSW services increases with the quantity of 

waste discarded. Hence, the unit price can act as a disincentive to dispose of excess waste and 

also encourages recycling (Callan, 2006; Shin, 2014). 

2.2.1.2 Landfills Covered Under the EG 

The Landfills EG applies only to landfills that accept “household waste” as defined in 40 

CFR 60.751, which states “household waste means any solid waste (including garbage, trash, 

and sanitary waste in septic tanks) derived from households (including, but not limited to, single 

and multiple residences, hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, 

campgrounds, picnic grounds, and day-use recreation areas).” Some of the MSW landfills 

subject to the Landfills EG may also receive other types of wastes, such as commercial, 

industrial, and institutional solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, and construction and demolition 

debris. 

2.2.1.3 Trends in Per Capita Waste Sent to Landfills 

In 2012, Americans generated about 251 million tons of trash. More than 65 million tons 

of this material was recycled and more than 21 million tons was composted, equivalent to a 34.5 

percent recycling rate (EPA, 2014a). In addition, about 29 million tons of waste was combusted 

for energy recovery (~12 percent) (EPA, 2014a). After recycling, composting, and combustion 

with energy recovery, the net per capita discard rate to landfills was 2.36 pounds per person per 

day in 2012 (EPA, 2014a). This is a 6 percent decrease from the 2.51 per capita discard rate in 

1960, when minimal recycling occurred in the United States (see Table 2-1). 

Since 1990, the total amount of MSW going to landfills has dropped by about 10 million 

tons, from 145 million to 135 million tons in 2012 (EPA, 2014a). While the number of U.S. 

MSW landfills has steadily declined over the years, the average landfill size has increased. At the 

national level, landfill capacity appears to be sufficient, although it is limited in some areas 

(EPA, 2014a). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-5

Table 2-1 Generation and Discards of MSW, 1960 to 2012 (in pounds per person per day) 8

Activity 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2008 2010 2011 2012

Generation 

 2.68 3.25 3.66 4.57 4.74 4.69 4.55 4.44 4.40 4.38 

Discards to landfill a

2.51 3.02 3.24 3.19 2.73 2.63 2.46 2.41 2.36 2.36 

Discards to landfill 

(% of total generation) 94% 93% 89% 70% 58% 56% 54% 54% 54% 54% 

a Discards after recovery minus combustion with energy recovery. Discards include combustion without energy 

recovery. 

2.2.1.4 Composition of MSW Sent to Landfills 

In 2012, organic materials continued to be the largest component of discarded MSW. 

Yard trimmings and food scraps account for 29.8 percent and paper and paperboard account for 

another 14.8 percent. Plastics comprise 17.6 percent while metals and wood make up 9.0 percent 

and 8.2 percent, respectively. Rubber, leather, and textiles combined account for 11.2 percent 

and glass accounts for 5.1 percent. Other miscellaneous materials account for the remaining 

4.3 percent of the MSW discarded in 2012 (EPA, 2014a). Figure 2-1 displays material 

composition percentages of the MSW discard stream in 2012, and Table 2-2 shows the amounts 

of different materials discarded in the MSW stream from 1960 to 2012. 

 

8

 Table adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, 

and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2012.” Table 4. EPA-530-F-14-001. Washington, DC: 

U.S. EPA. <http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_fs.pdf>. Accessed January 6, 2015. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-6

 

Figure 2-1 Material Composition of the MSW Discard Stream, 20129

 

 

9

 Figure adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, 

Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2012.” Figure 7. EPA-530-F-14-001. 

Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. <http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_fs.pdf>. Accessed 

January 6, 2015.

21.1%

8.2%

17.6%

5.1%

9.0%

8.7%

14.8%

4.3%

11.2%

Food waste

Wood

Plastics

Glass

Metals

Yard trimmings

Paper & paperboard

Other

Rubber, leather & textiles
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-7

Table 2-2 Materials Discardeda In the MSW Stream, 1960 to 2012 (in thousands of tons)10

Wastes 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2012 

Paper and Paperboard 24,910 37,540 43,420 52,500 50,180 42,880 26,740 24,260 

Glass 6,620 12,580 14,380 10,470 9,890 9,950 8,400 8,370 

Metals 10,770 13,350 14,290 12,580 12,340 13,410 14,500 14,760 

Plastics 390 2,900 6,810 16,760 24,070 27,600 28,790 28,950 

Rubber and Leather 1,510 2,720 4,070 5,420 5,850 6,240 6,120 6,180 

Textiles 1,710 1,980 2,370 5,150 8,160 9,680 11,100 12,080 

Wood 3,030 3,720 7,010 12,080 12,200 12,960 13,430 13,410 

Other Materialsb

70 470 2,020 2,510 3,020 3,080 3,370 3,300 

Food Waste 12,200 12,800 13,000 23,860 30,020 32,240 34,770 34,690 

Yard Trimmings 20,000 23,200 27,500 30,800 14,760 12,210 14,200 14,370 

Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 1,300 1,780 2,250 2,900 3,500 3,690 3,840 3,900 

Total MSW Discarded 82,510 113,040 137,120 175,030 173,990 173,940 165,260 164,270

a Discards after materials and compost recovery. In this table, discards include combustion with energy recovery. 

Does not include construction and demolition debris, industrial process wastes, or certain other wastes. 

b

Includes electrolytes in batteries and fluff pulp, feces, and urine in disposable diapers. 

Details may not add to totals due to rounding. 

2.2.2 Consolidation of Waste Streams 

Collection and transportation are necessary components of all MSW management 

systems regardless of the specific disposal options. Collections of MSW vary by service 

arrangements between local governments and collectors and by level of service provided to 

households. Depending on the arrangement type and other considerations for particular 

jurisdictions, MSW being sent to landfills may be deposited in a local landfill or routed to a 

regional landfill through a transfer process. Local landfills are generally located in the 

communities in which they serve whereas regional landfills are often located outside of the 

communities they serve and receive waste from several cities and towns. 

Solid waste transfer is the process in which collection vehicles unload their waste at 

centrally located transfer stations. Transfer stations can minimize hauling costs by decreasing the 

number of drivers and vehicles hauling waste to disposal sites and reducing the turn-around time 

 

10 Table adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, 

Recycling, and Disposal in the United States Tables and Figures for 2012.” Table 3. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_dat_tbls.pdf>. Accessed January 15, 2015. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-8

of vehicles because they do not have to haul waste to distant regional landfills. Smaller loads are 

consolidated into larger vehicles, usually tractor-trailer trucks, trains, or barges, which are better 

suited for the long-distance hauls often required to reach the final disposal site, often a regional 

landfill. As public opposition to local MSW disposal facilities increases and the cost of disposal 

at locations near generators rise, long-distance hauls to regional landfills are becoming more 

common. 

2.3 Disposal Facility Background 

2.3.1 Technical Background on Landfills as a Source Category 

An MSW landfill refers to an area of land or an excavation where MSW is placed for 

permanent disposal. MSW landfills do not include land application units, surface impoundments, 

injection wells, or waste piles. Modern MSW landfills are well-engineered disposal facilities that 

are sited, designed, operated, and monitored to protect human health and the environment from 

pollutants that may be present in the solid waste stream (EPA, 2012b). 

2.3.1.1 Landfill Siting and Permitting 

MSW landfills are required to comply with federal regulations contained in Subtitle D of 

RCRA [40 CFR part 258], or equivalent state regulations. RCRA requirements include location 

restrictions that ensure landfills are constructed away from environmentally-sensitive areas, 

including fault zones, wetlands, flood plains, or other restricted areas (EPA, 2012b). Site 

selection for landfills is an integral part of the design process. 

Construction and operating permit applications for new landfills must be submitted to and 

approved by state and local regulatory agencies as part of the siting and design process. Often, 

states require a registered professional engineer to design the landfill (Guyer, 2009). Additional 

permits must be issued for each expansion of the landfill from its originally permitted waste 

design capacity and footprint area. New or modified landfills may also require air permits under 

the New Source Review (NSR) permitting program, which includes Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) requirements for landfills sited in attainment areas, or areas where the air 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-9

quality meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and more stringent NSR 

requirements for landfills located in non-attainment areas. 

Developing a new landfill or expanding an existing landfill has become increasingly 

difficult, especially in metropolitan areas, due to the urbanization of suitable sites, permitting 

barriers, elevated land costs, and other factors. If a new landfill is proposed or when expansion 

plans for existing landfills are announced, adjacent communities may mount opposition that can 

hinder issuance of required permits and thus development of the landfill (Alva, 2010). 

2.3.1.2 Landfill Operations 

The two most common methods for active disposal of waste into landfills are the area fill 

method and the trench method. The area fill method involves waste placement in a large open 

section of a lined landfill and then spreading and compacting waste in uniform layers using 

heavy equipment. The trench method of filling waste in a modern landfill involves placing and 

compacting waste into a trench and then using soil and other materials from the trench 

excavation as daily cover. Local conditions often determine the most appropriate method for a 

particular landfill, and a combination of the two methods can be utilized. The trench method is 

generally less desirable than the area fill method, mostly due to the expense of lining side slopes 

to protect groundwater from leachate leakage and restrict gas migration (Guyer, 2009). 

As required by Subtitle D of RCRA, cover material is applied on top of the waste mass at 

the end of each day to prevent odors and fires and reduce litter, insects, and rodents. Materials 

used as daily cover include soil, compost, incinerator ash, foam, and tarps (NW&RA, 2008). 

Similarly, intermediate cover is used when an area of the landfill is not expected to receive waste 

or a cap for an extended period of time. Intermediate covers have traditionally consisted of layers 

of soil, geotextiles, or other materials. The reasons for using intermediate cover are similar to 

those for using daily cover and may also include erosion control. 

It is important to maintain anaerobic conditions within the landfill waste mass to avoid 

excess air infiltration that can cause fires. Landfill fires can be avoided by closely monitoring 

landfill conditions and maintaining the landfill as a controlled facility. If an active LFG 

collection system is installed, then gas wells are monitored to ensure oxygen is not being pulled 

into the landfill due to excessive vacuum levels. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-10

2.3.1.3 Landfill Closure 

Once an area of the landfill, or cell, has reached its permitted height, that cell is closed 

and a low permeability cap made of compacted clay or synthetic material is installed to prevent 

infiltration of precipitation. To divert water off of the top of the landfill, a granular drainage layer 

is placed on top of the low-permeability barrier layer. A protective cover is placed on top of the 

filter blanket and topsoil is placed as the final layer to support vegetation. The final cap and 

cover inhibit soil erosion and provide odor and LFG control (NW&RA, 2008). If an LFG 

collection system is in place, then expansion of the collection system into filled cells or areas of 

the landfill may require additional gas wells to be installed soon after these cells are closed and 

capped. Gas collection system design is discussed further in Section 2.6. 

RCRA Subtitle D regulations contain closure and post-closure care requirements, 

including written closure and post-closure care plans and maintaining the final cover, leachate 

collection system, and groundwater and LFG monitoring systems. The required post-closure care 

period is 30 years from site closure, but this can be shortened or extended if approved by state 

regulatory agencies (EPA, 2012c). 

2.3.1.4 Management of Liquids 

Leachate is the liquid that passes through the landfilled waste and strips contaminants 

from the waste as it percolates. Precipitation is the primary source of this liquid. To prevent 

water pollution and protect soil beneath, RCRA Subtitle D requires liners for landfills as well as 

leachate collection and removal and groundwater monitoring systems. Composite liner systems 

are used along the bottom and sides of landfills as impermeable barriers and are typically 

constructed with layers of natural materials with low permeability (e.g., compacted clay) and/or 

synthetic materials (e.g., high-density polyethylene) (NW&RA, 2008). Landfill liner systems 

also help prevent offsite migration of LFG. 

Leachate collection systems remove leachate from the landfill as it collects on the liner 

using a perforated collection pipe placed in a drainage layer (e.g., gravel). Waste is placed 

directly above the leachate collection system in layers. Collected leachate can be treated on site 

or transported off site to treatment facilities. For landfills with LFG collection systems, LFG 

condensate can be combined with leachate prior to treatment. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-11

Although traditional landfills tend to minimize the infiltration of liquids into a landfill 

using liners, covers, and caps (sometimes referred to as “dry tombs”), some landfills recirculate 

all or a portion of leachate collected to increase the amount of moisture within the waste mass. 

This practice of leachate recirculation results in a faster anaerobic biodegradation process and 

increased rate of LFG generation. Similarly, landfills may introduce liquids other than leachate, 

such as sludge and industrial wastewater. Conventional landfills typically have in-situ moisture 

contents of approximately 20 percent, whereas landfills recirculating leachate or other liquids 

may maintain moisture contents ranging from 35 to 65 percent (EPA, 2012d). Often, landfills 

injecting or recirculating liquids are termed bioreactors, but bioreactor landfills are defined 

differently amongst industry and regulatory agencies. In addition, bioreactor landfills may have 

air injected in a controlled manner to further accelerate biodegradation of the waste, which 

occurs for aerobic and hybrid bioreactor configurations. 

2.3.2 Ownership and Characteristics of Landfills 

Since the 1980s, the number of active MSW landfills in the United States has decreased 

by approximately 75 percent (from ~7,900 in 1988 to ~1,800 in 2014) and the share of sites that 

are publicly owned has also decreased—from 83 percent in 1984 to 58 percent in 2014 (EPA, 

2010; WBJ, 2014; O’Brien, 2006; EPA, 2014c). However, the overall volume of disposal 

capacity has remained fairly constant, indicating a trend of growing individual landfill capacity 

(SWANA, 2007). Based on landfills reporting to the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

(GHGRP) that they were actively accepting waste in 2013, privately owned sites represented 73 

percent of the overall permitted MSW landfill capacity and 73 percent of the MSW landfilled in 

that year, an indication that private landfills are likely to be significantly larger than public ones 

(GHGRP, 2013). Among these reporting sites, the average annual amount of MSW disposed at 

public sites was just under 175,000 short tons, whereas the average private site landfilled about 

427,000 short tons of MSW per year—further evidence that publicly owned landfills are 

generally much smaller than their private counterparts (GHGRP, 2013). 

EPA recognized as early as 2002 that a nationwide trend in solid waste disposal is toward 

the construction of larger, more remote, regional landfills. Economic considerations, influenced 

by regulatory and social forces, are compelling factors that likely led to the closure of many 

existing sites and to the idea of regional landfills (EPA, 2002b). The passage of federal 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-12

environmental regulations that affected landfills (e.g., RCRA in 1976, Subtitle D of RCRA in 

1991), established requirements which made it more expensive to properly construct, operate, 

maintain, and close landfills (O’Brien, 2006; EPA 2012e; EPA, 2002b). Large, private 

companies are better able to accommodate the increased costs of owning a landfill, since owning 

multiple sites, many of which have large capacities, provides an economy of scale for cost 

expenditures (O’Brien, 2006). To offset the high cost of constructing and maintaining a modern 

landfill, facility owners construct large facilities that attract high volumes of waste from a large 

geographic area, often using shipments from rail or truck (BioCycle, 2014a). By maintaining a 

high volume of incoming waste, landfill owners can keep tipping fees relatively low, which 

subsequently attracts more business (EPA, 2002b). 

As older, public landfills near their capacities, communities must decide whether to 

construct new landfills or seek other options. Many find the cost of upgrading existing facilities 

or constructing new landfills to be prohibitively high, and opt to close existing facilities. Also, 

public opposition often makes siting new landfills near population centers difficult and adequate 

land may not be available near densely populated or urban areas. Many communities are finding 

that the most economically viable solution to their waste disposal needs is shipping their waste to 

regional landfills. In these circumstances, a transfer station serves as the critical link in making 

the shipment of waste to distant facilities cost-effective (EPA, 2002b). 

Waste transfer stations are facilities where MSW is unloaded from collection vehicles 

and reloaded into long-distance transport vehicles for delivery to landfills or other 

treatment/disposal facilities. By combining the loads of several waste collection trucks into a 

single shipment, communities and waste management companies can save money on the labor 

and operating costs of transporting waste to a distant disposal site. They can also reduce the total 

number of vehicular miles traveled to and from the disposal site(s) (EPA, 2012f). Given the 

dramatic decrease in the number of active landfills in the past 25 years, transfer stations play an 

important part in facilitating the movement of solid waste from the areas in which it originates to 

its end location, often a large, centrally located landfill. The role of transfer stations in waste 

management has become even more prominent with the increase in the number of “regional” 

landfills—sites with very large capacities, often located in remote areas, and usually privately 

owned. As more and more publicly owned landfills reach capacity and close, the waste must go 

somewhere, and often that is to a regional landfill by way of a transfer station. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-13

There are more than 100 private companies that own and/or operate currently active 

MSW landfills, ranging from large companies with numerous landfills throughout the country to 

local businesses that own a single landfill (EPA, 2014c). The handling of MSW in the United 

States generated $55 billion of revenue in 2011, of which landfilling contributed $13 billion 

(WBJ, 2012a). In terms of their overall 2013 revenue, the top two companies that own and/or 

operate MSW landfills in the United States were Waste Management ($13.98 billion) and 

Republic Services ($8.42 billion), which together accounted for approximately 40 percent of the 

solid waste management revenue share in 2013 (Bloomberg, 2014WM; Bloomberg, 2014RSG). 

The next tier of companies involved in landfill management includes Clean Harbors ($3.51 

billion), Progressive Waste Solutions ($2.03 billion), and Waste Connections ($1.93 billion) 

(Bloomberg, 2014CLH; Bloomberg, 2014BIN; Bloomberg, 2014WCN). Table 2-3 contains a 

summary of the 2013 revenue for the top five companies, as well as information about their 

MSW landfills and transfer stations. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-14

Table 2-3 Top 5 Waste Management Companies That Owned or Operated MSW 

Landfills in the United States in 2013a

Company 

2013 

Revenue 

(billion $) 

No. of MSW 

Landfills Owned 

and/or Operated 

MSW 

Received at 

Landfills 

(million tons) 

No. of Transfer 

Stations Owned 

and/or 

Operated 

Waste Management 

(Bloomberg, 

2014WM)

13.98 267 93.8 300 

Republic Services 

(Bloomberg, 

2014RSG)

8.42 

190 active/ 

124 closed 

N/A 199 

Clean Harbors 

(Bloomberg, 

2014CLH)

3.51 2 N/A N/A 

Progressive Waste 

Solutions 

(Bloomberg, 

2014BIN)

2.03 N/A N/A N/A 

Waste Connections 

(Bloomberg, 

2014WCN)

1.93 42 active 19.5 61 

a Ranking of top five companies adapted from “The 2013 Waste Age 100”. <http://waste360.com/%5Bprimaryterm%5D/2013-waste-age-100-premium>. Accessed January 16, 2015. 

N/A = Not available. 

The industry that deposits MSW in landfills encompasses a wide range of job types, 

including garbage collectors, truck drivers, heavy equipment operators, engineers of various 

disciplines, specialized technicians, executives, MSW department directors, administrative staff, 

weigh scale operators, salespersons, and landfill operations managers. In 2012, 1,290 private 

establishments had 15,426 employees in the continental United States under NAICS 562212 

(Solid Waste Landfill) (Census, 2012). In 2013, solid waste management departments of local 

governments reported 95,674 full-time employees and 14,638 part-time employees (Census, 

2013); however, statistics are not readily available solely for landfill-related aspects of these 

departments. As the population continues to grow in the United States the amount of waste 

generated will continue to increase, but the amount of waste landfilled may remain the same or 

decrease (EPA, 2015h). Employment within the waste management industry overall will likely 

remain strong, perhaps with an increased shift of employees from the public sector to the private 

sector. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-15

2.4 Costs and Revenue Streams for Landfills 

2.4.1 Major Cost Components for Landfills 

EPA promulgated Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR part 258) under 

the RCRA on October 9, 1991 (EPA, 2012g). The law requires that non-hazardous MSW be 

disposed of in specially designed sanitary landfills. The criteria include location restrictions, 

design and operating standards, groundwater monitoring requirements, corrective actions, 

financial assurance requirements, LFG migration controls, closure requirements, and postclosure requirements (EPA, 2012g). It can cost more than $1 million per acre to construct, 

operate, and close a landfill in compliance with these regulations (Fitzwater, 2012). 

Landfill costs are site specific and vary based on factors such as terrain, soil type, 

climate, site restrictions, regulatory issues, type and amount of waste disposed, preprocessing, 

and potential for groundwater contamination. Landfill costs fall into the following categories: 

site development, construction, equipment purchases, operation, closure, and post-closure. 

Site development includes site surveys, engineering and design studies, and permit 

package fees. Surveys are necessary to determine if a potential site is feasible. Permits are 

required from local, state, and federal governments. As an example, engineering design and a 

permit application for an MSW landfill in Kentucky can cost approximately $750,000 to 

$1.2 million (KY SWB, 2012). 

Construction costs encompass building the landfill cells as well as development of 

permanent onsite structures needed to operate the landfill. Cortland County, New York estimated 

that the cost for site development and cell construction (not including onsite building 

construction) for a 224.5-acre site would be approximately $500,000 per acre (EnSol, 2010). In 

2005, a series of articles was written that estimated costs for a hypothetical landfill based on 

known market conditions and cost data. The theoretical landfill had a design capacity of 

4 million cubic yards and a footprint of 33 acres. The study determined that the cost of 

constructing a landfill of this size would be between $300,000 and $800,000 per acre. Table 2-4 

summarizes typical construction costs per acre by individual task for this example site (Duffy, 

2005a). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-16

Table 2-4 Typical Costs Per Acre for Components of Landfill Construction (Duffy, 2005a) 

Task Low End High End 

Clear and Grub $1,000 $3,000

Site Survey $5,000 $8,000

Excavation $100,000 $330,000

Perimeter Berm $10,000 $16,000

Clay Liner $32,000 $162,000

Geomembrane $24,000 $35,000

Geocomposite $33,000 $44,000

Granular Soil $48,000 $64,000

Leachate System $8,000 $12,000

QA/QC $75,000 $100,000

TOTAL $336,000 $774,000

Excavation of the landfill site comprises a notable portion of the construction costs. 

Installation of a landfill liner can vary greatly in cost depending on the site’s geology. Most 

states require only a single liner and leachate collection system for MSW, but requirements vary 

for the minimum thickness of clay liners. Landfill sites may have good quality clay located on 

site that would significantly lower the cost of a clay liner. The QA/QC task in Table 2-4 refers to 

management and quality oversight which is usually performed by independent third-party 

consultants. 

For the hypothetical landfill in the study, total building and additional structure costs 

could total between $1.165 million and $1.77 million. Operation of the landfill requires a truck 

scale, scale house, wheel wash facility, and buildings to accommodate an office and provide 

space for maintenance. The cost of each building structure varies depending on its functions and 

could range from $10 to $100 per square foot. Office buildings cost more while maintenance 

buildings and tool sheds cost less. In addition, fencing around the facility and roadways are 

required and add to the costs (Duffy, 2005a). 

Operating costs of the example landfill include staffing, equipment (payments and 

maintenance), leachate treatment, and facilities and general maintenance. Landfill operations and 

maintenance activities are performed using a variety of heavy construction equipment with 

operating costs dependent on fuel, repairs, and maintenance. Operating costs are relatively small 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-17

when compared to the capital costs; estimated annual operating costs from this study are (Duffy, 

2005a): 

• Operations (equipment, staff, facilities and general maintenance): $500,000. 

• Leachate collection and treatment (assumes sewer connection and discharge cost of 

$0.02/gallon): $10,000. 

• Environmental sampling and monitoring (groundwater, surface water, air gas, 

leachate): $30,000. 

• Engineering services (consulting firms and in-house staff): $60,000. 

Once a landfill no longer accepts waste, the closure process includes the installation of a 

final cover and cap. Capital costs for installation of a cap can run between $80,000 and $500,000 

per acre. For example, at a Maryland sanitary landfill costs were $150,000 per acre (MDE, 

2012). The capping costs for a 249.4-acre site in Cortland County, New York were estimated to 

be approximately $134,000 per acre. Factors influencing these costs include the materials used 

for the cap, site topography, and the availability of clay or soil suitable for use as the cover. 

Similar to the costs of the clay liner during the construction of the landfill, availability of nearby 

clay would significantly reduce this cost (EnSol, 2010). 

The closure process can include the installation of an LFG collection system which is 

necessary to collect and destroy or beneficially use the methane gas that is generated. (However, 

many landfills install gas collection and control systems as the landfill is being filled, or as areas 

within the landfill reach final grade, rather than waiting until closure to begin gas collection 

system installation.) The costs associated with an LFG collection and flare system are minimal as 

compared to the capital costs for landfill construction, annual landfill operating costs, and other 

closure costs. Section 2.6 discusses average installation costs for gas collection systems and 

flares. 

Post-closure care requires maintenance to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the 

final cover system, leachate collection system, groundwater monitoring system, and methane gas 

monitoring system. These activities prevent water and air pollution from escaping into the 

surrounding environment. The required post-closure care period is 30 years from site closure, 

and can be shortened or extended by the director of an approved state program as necessary to 

ensure protection of human health and the environment. Over a 30-year period, post-closure care 

and maintenance can cost from $64,000 to $88,000 per acre (Duffy, 2005b). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-18

Figure 2-2 shows that landfill costs peak prior to the landfill opening and again following 

the landfill closing (EPA, 1997). 

Figure 2-2 Landfill Cost Life Cycle 

2.4.2 Landfill Revenue Sources 

The cost to dispose of MSW at a landfill is commonly known as a “tip fee” or “gate fee”. 

Typically, reported tip fees represent the “spot market” price for MSW disposal, i.e., the drive-up 

cost to dispose of a ton of waste (NW&RA, 2011). Other tip fees exist at MSW facilities (e.g., 

waste accepted under a long-term contract, volume discounts, and special wastes); these fees 

may be higher or lower than the spot market price (Repa, 2005). In 2012, the average national 

spot market price to dispose of one ton of waste in a U.S. landfill was roughly $45, up 3.5 

percent over 2011 (WBJ, 2012b), while the national average for only the largest public and 

private landfills was about $49 per ton (KleanIndustries, 2012). This compares to average 

national tip fees of approximately $32 in 1998 (Repa, 2005) and $8 in 1985 (NW&RA, 2011). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-19

Average tip fees also vary by region of the country, as shown in Table 2-5. Tip fees in 

northeastern states have historically been and continue to be higher than those in other regions. 

The next most expensive areas, on average, are the Mid-Atlantic and western states. Tip fees 

tend to be higher near large population centers (Wright, 2012); this is likely influenced by the 

fact that metropolitan areas have less land area for waste disposal and therefore, fewer landfills. 

There is variation in tip fees within states as well, depending on landfill ownership (public or 

private) and proximity of other landfills. 

Table 2-5 Average Regional and National Per-Ton Tip Fees (Rounded): 1995-2011 

U.S. Region 1995a 1998a 2000a 2002a 2004a 2008b 2010c 2011d

Northeast $73 $67 $70 $69 $71 $67 NA $78 

Mid-Atlantic $46 $44 $46 $45 $46 $56 NA $65 

South $29 $31 $31 $30 $31 $32 NA $39 

Midwest $31 $31 $33 $34 $35 $39 NA $43 

South Central $20 $21 $22 $23 $24 $34 NA $33 

West Central $23 $23 $22 $23 $24 $39 NA $35 

West $38 $36 $35 $39 $38 $44 NA $55 

National $32 $32 $32 $34 $34 $42 $44 $50 

Northeast: CT, ME, MA, NH, NY, RI, VT 

Mid-Atlantic: DE, MD, NJ, PA, VA, WV 

South: AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN 

Midwest: IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, OH, WI

South Central: AZ, AR, LA, NM, OK, TX 

West Central: CO, KS, MT, NE, ND, SD, UT, WY 

West: AK, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, WA

a Source: Repa, 2005. 

b

 Source: Data from BioCycle, 2010. Data were not available for all states. For nine states, 2006 or 2009 data 

were substituted for missing year 2008 data. 

c

 Source: WBJ, 2010. 

d

 Source: Shin, 2014 (data reported from Waste & Recycling News).

Publicly owned landfills set tip fees based on the need to cover landfill and other waste 

management-related costs, while privately owned landfills’ tip fees are set based on competition 

or the lack thereof (Wright, 2012). For municipalities that depend on landfill tip fees to fund 

programs and services, more waste disposed in the local community-owned landfill means more 

money generated to fund their solid waste systems, including non-disposal services like 

recycling. Conversely, if more waste starts going to private landfills instead, less revenue is 

generated for community programs. An increasing presence of private facilities that can set 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-20

competitive tip fees has caused some communities to reduce their own tip fees in an effort to 

attract enough disposal volume to keep revenues at a sufficient level (Burgiel, 2003). 

Historically, the construction and operating costs of public MSW landfills have been 

funded by tip fees, tax revenues (e.g., county/city property tax revenue that goes into a general 

fund), or a combination of these. Factors influencing tip fee values have included population and 

economic growth, recycling rates, operating and transportation costs, land values, and legislation. 

Traditionally, 30 percent of landfills receive all revenue from tip fees, 35 percent receive all 

revenue from taxes, and 35 percent cover the costs of waste disposal through a combination of 

tip fees and taxes. The use of taxes as a revenue source rather than tip fees has implications on 

waste disposal services. When disposal costs are included in taxes, most people are not aware of 

the actual costs involved and there is little incentive to reduce waste generation rates. Also, 

tax-supported facilities are typically underfunded relative to actual disposal costs, resulting in 

poorer operation than fully funded landfills supported by tip fees. Factors that influence the 

choice of revenue sources include landfill size and ownership. Landfills receiving small 

quantities of waste are likely to rely heavily on taxes for their revenue while larger landfills rely 

on both taxes and tip fees (EPA, 2002a). 

Private owners of landfills rely heavily on tip fees relative to other landfill owners. It 

remains unclear whether private landfills rely on tip fees because they are larger, or larger 

landfills rely heavily on tip fees because they are private (EPA, 2002a). 

As shown in Table 2-5, average tip fees by region remained fairly steady between 1995 

and 2004, with minor declines in some years but with a gradual upward trend. The greatest 

increases in average tip fees occurred between 1985 and 1995, with the national average tip fee 

increasing by $24 (300 percent) or an average of $2.40 per year. From 1985 to 2008, tipping fees 

for private landfills increased an average of $1.25 per year but these private fees increased by 

about $1.95 per year between 2004 and 2008 (KleanIndustries, 2012). Tip fees are expected to 

continue to increase gradually, based on recent data and given rising fuel costs, insurance costs, 

and other operating costs (Wright, 2012). 

A landfill can also generate revenue by entering an agreement to sell carbon credits for 

voluntary destruction of methane, entering a gas sales agreement to sell LFG for beneficial use, 

or entering a power purchase agreement to sell electricity generated from LFG and/or renewable 

energy credits from the generation of that electricity. These types of revenue are small relative to 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-21

tip fees and total landfill revenues, but can help offset some landfill expenses, for example, the 

cost of installing a gas collection system or energy recovery equipment. More information about 

these potential revenue sources is available in Section 2.6. 

2.5 Air Pollutant Emissions from Landfills 

MSW landfills are a source of NMOC which include volatile organic compounds (VOC), 

methane, a potent greenhouse gas (GHG), and hazardous air pollutants. LFG is formed during 

the decomposition of landfilled waste and, if not controlled, can emit numerous pollutants into 

the air. Several factors affect the amount of LFG generated and its components, including the age 

and composition of the waste, the amount of organic compounds in the waste, and the moisture 

content and temperature of the waste (EPA, 2012h). 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 carbon dioxide by volume, with trace amounts of NMOC and inorganic 

compounds (e.g., hydrogen sulfide) (EPA, 2015a; EPA, 2012h). 

2.5.1 NMOC in LFG 

The NMOC portion of LFG, while a small amount of LFG by volume, can contain a 

variety of significant air pollutants. NMOC include various organic hazardous air pollutants 

(HAPs) and VOC. If left uncontrolled, VOC can contribute to the formation of ground-level 

ozone, a common pollutant with adverse health impacts. Nearly 30 organic hazardous air 

pollutants have been identified in uncontrolled LFG, including benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, 

and vinyl chloride (EPA, 2012h). 

NMOC in LFG results mainly from the volatilization of organic compounds contained in 

the landfilled waste, while some NMOC may be formed by biological processes and chemical 

reactions within the waste (EPA, 1998). Waste materials that contribute to the formation of 

NMOC include items such as household cleaning products and materials coated with or 

containing paints and adhesives; during decomposition, NMOC can be stripped from these 

materials by other gases (e.g., methane or carbon dioxide) and become part of the LFG (EPA, 

2012h). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-22

The concentration of NMOC in uncontrolled LFG depends on several factors, including 

waste types in the landfill and the local climate. EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors (AP-42) provides a default NMOC concentration of 595 parts per million by volume 

(ppmv), of which 110 ppmv are considered HAP compounds. The total uncontrolled organic 

HAPs volume in LFG from MSW landfills is typically less than 0.02 percent of the total LFG 

(EPA, 2012h). 

2.5.2 Methane in LFG 

Methane is 28-3625 times more effective at retaining heat in the earth’s atmosphere than 

carbon dioxide, over a 100 year time horizon, and therefore is considered a potent GHG (IPCC, 

20072013).11 In 2012, landfills were the third-largest anthropogenic source of methane emissions 

in the United States, with MSW landfills accounting for approximately 15 percent of the total 

methane emissions from all sources (EPA, 2015h).The carbon dioxide generated from MSW 

landfills is deemed biogenic because the carbon dioxide would have been generated anyway as a 

result of natural decomposition of the organic waste materials if they had not been deposited in 

the landfill (EPA, 2015a). 

When waste is first placed in a landfill, it enters an aerobic decomposition stage. The 

availability of oxygen at this stage means that carbon released from the decomposition of organic 

waste materials is in the form of carbon dioxide, and little methane is produced. during which 

little methane is produced. However, within a year or less, the waste environment becomes 

anaerobic, methane generation increases, and the amount of carbon dioxide produced begins to 

level out (EPA, 2015a). Figure 2-3 presents a sample LFG generation curve over time for a 

typical MSW landfill. Significant methane generation can continue for 10 to 60 years after initial 

waste placement (EPA, 2012h). 

 

11 Note that this proposal uses a GWP value for methane of 25 for CO2 equivalency calculations, consistent with the 

GHG emissions inventories and the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Commented [A6]: OMB RIA comment 28: Reviewer notes 

that the RIA currently does not discuss the climate impacts of the 

oxidization of CH4 into CO2 into the atmosphere. While it is likely 

that these impacts are small when offset by other considerations, a 

discussion that these impacts were considered would be appropriate. 

For example, such a discussion occurs in section 4.7 of the Oil and 

Gas rule RIA. 

EPA response: We don’t account for the CO2 because it is deemed 

biogenic and would have been generated anyway as a result of 

natural decomposition of the organic waste materials if they had not 

been deposited in the landfill. In other words, the increase in 

atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration associated with the 

decomposition of organic waste materials would have occurred in 

the baseline and is not affected by the proposed rule. The new text in 

the RIA, pgs 2-22 and 2-23, clarifies this point. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-23

Figure 2-3 Typical LFG Generation Curve 

In 2012, landfills were the third-largest anthropogenic source of methane emissions in the 

United States, with MSW landfills accounting for approximately 15 percent of the total methane 

emissions from all sources (EPA, 2015h). Increasing attention is being given to mitigation of

methane, given its global warming potential 25 times greater than carbon dioxide and its 

relatively short atmospheric lifetime of about 12 years (as compared to 50-200 years for carbon 

dioxide) (EPA, 2015h). 

As methane oxides in the atmosphere, the carbon in methane is converted to carbon 

dioxide. Both the carbon dioxide generated directly from aerobic decomposition in MSW 

landfills and created as a result of methane oxidation in the atmosphere is deemed biogenic 

because the carbon dioxide would have been generated anyway as a result of natural 

decomposition of the organic waste materials if they had not been deposited in the landfill (EPA, 

2015a). In other words, the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration associated with 

the decomposition of organic waste materials would have occurred in the baseline and is not 

affected by the proposed rule.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-24

2.5.3 Criteria Pollutants from Combustion of LFG 

While collection and combustion of LFG in a flare or energy project equipment (e.g., 

reciprocating engine, boiler, turbine) greatly reduces emissions of methane and NMOC 

(including VOC and organic HAP), the combustion process generates criteria pollutants 

including carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate 

matter (PM) (EPA, 1998). NOX formation is strongly tied to the combustion temperature in the 

equipment, while CO and PM emissions are primarily the result of incomplete combustion of the 

gas. SO2 production depends upon the amount of sulfur in the LFG (EPA, 2000). More 

information about LFG combustion devices is available in Section 2.6. 

2.6 Techniques for Controlling Emissions from Landfills 

2.6.1 Introduction 

Emissions from landfills can be controlled by installing gas collection systems and either 

flaring the LFG or utilizing it as an energy source. Large landfills with emissions exceeding 50 

megagrams per year (Mg/yr) of NMOC are required by the MSW landfills EG to control and/or 

treat LFG to significantly reduce the amount of toxic air pollutants released. However, many 

landfills voluntarily choose to control emissions, in part because of the economic benefits of 

LFG energy projects. 

This section describes the equipment and costs associated with LFG emission controls. 

The control technologies are divided into three categories: gas collection systems, destruction, 

and utilization. Much of the information in this section was obtained from the U.S. EPA’s 

Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) LFG Energy Project Development Handbook 

(EPA, 2015a). 

2.6.2 Gas Collection Systems 

LFG collection typically begins after a portion of the landfill (known as a “cell”) is 

closed to additional waste placement. Gas vents are installed to collect LFG from the closed cell. 

The gas vents may be configured as vertical or horizontal wells, and some collection systems 

involve a combination of the two. Vertical wells (Figure 2-4) are the most common method of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-25

LFG collection and involve drilling wells vertically in the waste to collect gas. Horizontal wells 

(Figure 2-5) use piping laid horizontally in trenches in the waste; these systems are useful in 

deeper landfills and in areas of active filling. Both types of collection systems connect the 

wellheads to lateral piping that transports the gas to a collection header. 

Source: EPA, 2015a 

Figure 2-4 Vertical Well LFG Collection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-26

Source: EPA, 2015a 

Figure 2-5 Horizontal Well LFG Collection 

Collection from the gas vents may be either passive or active. Passive systems rely on the 

natural pressure gradient between the waste mass and the atmosphere to move gas to collection 

systems. Most passive systems intercept LFG migration and the collected gas is vented to the 

atmosphere. Active systems use mechanical blowers or compressors to create a vacuum that 

optimizes LFG collection (EPA, 1998). 

Collection efficiency is a measure of the ability of a gas collection system to capture 

generated LFG. Although rates of LFG capture can be measured, rates of actual generation in a 

landfill cannot be measured; therefore, considerable uncertainty exists regarding actual collection 

efficiencies achieved at landfills. Collection efficiencies at landfills with comprehensive gas 

collection systems typically range from 50 to 95 percent, with an average of 75 percent most 

commonly assumed (EPA, 1998; Sullivan, 2010; EPA, 2015a). In the current GHGRP 

requirements for MSW landfills (40 CFR part 98, subpart HH), LFG collection efficiencies vary 

for active gas collection systems depending upon cover material type, with daily soil cover 

assigned 60 percent, intermediate/final soil cover assigned 75 percent (also the default value), 

and final soil cover of three feet or thicker of clay and/or geomembrane cover system assigned 

95 percent. 

Total collection system costs vary widely, based on a number of site-specific factors. For 

example, if the landfill is deep, collection costs tend to be higher because well depths will need 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-27

to be increased. Collection costs also increase with the number of wells installed. Based on data 

from LMOP’s Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model (LFGcost-Web), the estimated capital cost (in 

2012 $’s) required for a 40-acre collection system is $897,000, assuming one well is installed per 

acre. Typical annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs (in 2012 $’s) for collection 

systems are approximately $2,500 per well, or $100,000 for a 40-acre system (EPA, 2014b). If 

an LFG energy project generates electricity, a landfill will often use a portion of the electricity 

generated to operate the system and sell the rest to the grid in order to offset these operational 

costs.

2.6.3 Destruction 

Collected LFG is typically combusted in flares or combustion devices that recover 

energy, such as boilers, internal combustion engines, and gas turbines. Properly designed and 

operated combustion equipment generally reduces NMOC by 98 percent or to a 20 ppmv outlet 

concentration, as specified in the current MSW landfills EG (40 CFR 60.752). Combustion also 

destroys over 98 percent of the methane. 

Flares are the most common control device used at landfills. Flares are also a component 

of each energy recovery option because they may be needed to control LFG emissions during 

energy recovery system startup and downtime and to control any gas that exceeds the capacity of 

the energy conversion equipment. In addition, a flare is a cost-effective way to gradually increase 

the size of the energy recovery system at an active landfill. As more waste is placed in the 

landfill and the gas collection system is expanded, the flare is used to control excess gas between 

energy conversion system upgrades (e.g., before addition of another engine). 

Flare designs include open (or candlestick) flares and enclosed flares. Open flares employ 

simple technology where the collected gas is combusted in an elevated open burner. A 

continuous or intermittent pilot light is generally used to maintain the combustion. Open flares 

used at landfills meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 60.18(b) have been demonstrated to have 

destruction efficiencies similar to enclosed flares. Enclosed flares typically employ multiple 

burners within fire-resistant walls, which allow them to maintain a relatively constant and limited 

peak temperature by regulating the supply of combustion air (ATSDR, 2001). Enclosed flares are 

more expensive but may be preferable (or required by state regulations) because they provide 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-28

greater control of combustion conditions and allow for stack testing. They can also reduce noise 

and light nuisances. 

Flare costs vary based on the gas flow of the system. LFGcost-Web estimates for flares 

include condensate collection and blowers. Condensate collection (also called knockout devices) 

is necessary because condensate forms when warm gas from the landfill cools as it travels 

through the collection system. If condensate is not removed, it can block the collection system. 

Blowers are needed to ensure a steady flow of gas to the flare. The size, type, and number of 

blowers needed depend on the gas flow rate and distance to downstream processes. 

Based on data from LFGcost-Web (in 2012$), a flare for a system designed for 600 cubic 

feet per minute (cfm) of LFG will cost $223,000 (including condensate collection and blowers). 

Typical annual O&M costs (in 2012$) are approximately $5,000 per flare. Electricity costs to 

operate the blower for a 600-cfm active gas collection system would be $53,000 per year, 

assuming an electricity price of $0.085 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) (EPA, 2014b). 

2.6.4 Utilization 

After collection, LFG may be used in an energy recovery system to combust the methane 

and other trace contaminants. LMOP’s Landfill and LFG Energy Project Database, which tracks 

the development of U.S. LFG energy projects and landfills with project development potential, 

indicates that approximately 640 LFG energy projects are currently operating in 48 states and 

Puerto Rico. Roughly three-fourths of these projects generate electricity, while one-fourth are 

direct-use projects in which LFG is used for its thermal capacity (EPA, 2015b). 

This section summarizes LFG utilization technologies in four general categories: power 

production, cogeneration, direct use, and alternative fuel. This section also provides a discussion 

of the economic benefits of LFG utilization projects. 

2.6.4.1 Technologies 

It is important to note that all of the technologies discussed below typically require 

treatment of LFG prior to entering the control device to remove moisture, particulates, and other 

impurities. (While “treatment” has a specific meaning within the MSW landfills EG, the term is 

used more generally in common usage and as discussed here.) The level of treatment can vary 

depending on the type of control and the types and amounts of contaminants in the gas. LFG is 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-29

typically dehumidified, filtered, and compressed before being sent to energy recovery devices. 

For most boilers and internal combustion engines, no additional treatment is used. Some internal 

combustion engines and many gas turbine and microturbine projects apply siloxane removal 

using adsorption beds after the dehumidification step. 

2.6.4.1.1 Power Production 

Producing electricity from LFG continues to be the most common beneficial-use 

application, accounting for about three-fourths of all U.S. LFG energy projects (EPA, 2015b). 

Electricity can be produced by burning LFG in an internal combustion engine, a gas turbine, or a 

microturbine. 

The majority (more than 70 percent) of LFG energy projects that generate electricity do 

so by combusting LFG in internal combustion engines. Advantages of this technology include: 

low capital cost, high efficiency, and adaptability to variations in the gas output of landfills. 

Internal combustion engines are well-suited for 800-kilowatt (kW) to 3-megawatt (MW) 

projects, but multiple units can be used together for projects larger than 3 MW. Internal 

combustion engines are relatively efficient at converting LFG into electricity, achieving 

efficiencies in the range of 25 to 35 percent. 

Gas turbines are more likely to be used for large projects, where LFG volumes are 

sufficient to generate a minimum of 3 MW and typically more than 5 MW. Unlike most internal 

combustion engine systems, gas turbine systems have significant economies of scale. The cost 

per kW of generating capacity drops as gas turbine size increases, and the electric generation 

efficiency generally improves as well. 

Microturbines, as their name suggests, are much smaller than turbines, with a single unit 

having between 30 and 250 kW in capacity, and thus are generally used for projects smaller than 

1 MW. Small internal combustion engines are also available for projects in this size range and 

are generally less costly. Microturbines may be selected for certain projects (rather than internal 

combustion engines) because they can operate with as little as 35 percent methane and less than 

300 cfm, and also produce low nitrogen oxide emissions. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-30

An LFG energy project may use multiple units to accommodate a landfill’s specific gas 

flow over time. For example, a project might have three internal combustion engines, two gas 

turbines, or an array of 10 microturbines, depending on gas flow and energy needs. 

The costs of energy generation using LFG vary greatly; they depend on many factors 

including the type and size of electricity generation equipment, the necessary compression and 

treatment system, and the interconnect equipment. Table 2-6 presents examples of typical costs 

for several technologies, including costs for a basic gas treatment system typically used with 

each technology as well as interconnection costs. 

Table 2-6 Average LFG Power Production Technology Costs 

Technology 

Typical Size Used 

to Estimate Costs 

Typical Capital 

Costs ($/kW)a

Typical Annual O&M 

Costs ($/kW)a

Internal combustion engine 3,000 kW $1,700 $200 

Small internal combustion engine 500 kW $2,500 $220 

Gas turbine 10,000 kW $1,400 $130 

Microturbine 200 kW $2,900 $220 

Source: EPA, 2014b 

a

 2012$ 

2.6.4.1.2 Cogeneration 

LFG energy cogeneration applications, also known as combined heat and power (CHP) 

projects, provide greater overall energy efficiency and are growing in number. In addition to 

producing electricity, these projects recover and beneficially use the heat from the unit 

combusting LFG. LFG cogeneration projects can use internal combustion engine, gas turbine, or 

microturbine technologies. 

Less common LFG electricity generation technologies include a few boiler/steam turbine 

applications in which LFG is combusted in a large boiler to generate steam which is then used by 

a steam turbine to create electricity. A few combined cycle applications have also been 

implemented. These combine a gas turbine that combusts LFG with a steam turbine that uses 

steam generated from the gas turbine’s exhaust to create electricity. Boiler/steam turbine and 

combined cycle applications tend to be larger in scale than the majority of LFG electricity 

projects that use internal combustion engines. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-31

2.6.4.1.3 Direct Use 

The simplest and often most cost-effective use of LFG is direct use as a fuel for boilers 

and other direct thermal applications to produce useful heat or steam. However, this is only an 

option if there is an end user located near the landfill who is willing and able to use the LFG. An 

end user’s energy requirements are an important consideration when evaluating the sale of LFG 

for direct use. Because no economical way to store LFG exists, all gas that is recovered must be 

used as available; gas that cannot be immediately used in energy recovery equipment is flared 

and the associated revenue opportunities are lost. The ideal gas customer, therefore, will have a 

steady annual gas demand compatible with the landfill’s gas flow. When a landfill does not have 

adequate gas flow to support the entire needs of a facility, LFG can still be used to supply a 

portion of the needs. The number and diversity of direct-use LFG applications is continuing to 

grow. 

Boilers are the most common type of direct use, and LFG is used in boilers at a wide 

variety of industrial manufacturing facilities as well as commercial and institutional buildings. 

Boilers can often be easily converted to use LFG alone or in combination with fossil fuels. 

Equipment modifications or adjustments may be necessary to accommodate the lower Btu value 

of LFG, and the costs of modifications will vary. If retuning the boiler burner is the only 

modification required, costs will be minimal. However, retrofitting an existing natural gas boiler 

to include LFG may cost between $100,000 and $400,000, depending on the extent of the retrofit 

(EPA, 2014b). 

Direct thermal applications include kilns (e.g., cement, pottery, and brick), tunnel 

furnaces, process heaters, and blacksmithing forges. In addition, infrared heaters can use LFG to 

fulfill space heating needs. Greenhouses can combust LFG in boilers to provide heat for the 

greenhouse and to heat water used in hydroponic plant culture. LFG can be used to heat the 

boilers in plants that produce biofuels including biodiesel and ethanol. 

Table 2-7 presents typical cost ranges for the components of a direct-use project. The 

costs shown below for the gas compression and treatment system include compression, moisture 

removal, and filtration equipment typically required to prepare the gas for transport through the 

pipeline and for use in a boiler or process heater. If more extensive treatment is required to 

remove other impurities, costs will be higher. The gas pipeline costs also assume typical 

construction conditions and pipeline design. Pipelines can range from less than a mile to more 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-32

than 30 miles long, although most are shorter than 10 miles because length has a major effect on 

costs. In addition, the costs of direct-use pipelines are often affected by obstacles along the route, 

such as highway, railroad, or water crossings. End users will likely need to modify their 

equipment to make it suitable for combusting LFG, but these costs are usually borne by the end 

user and are site-specific to their combustion device. 

Table 2-7 Average LFG Direct-use Project Components Costs 

Component Typical Capital Costsa

 Typical Annual O&M Costsa,b 

Gas compression and treatment $1,200/cfm $130/cfm 

Gas pipeline and condensate 

management system 

$449,000/mile Negligible 

Source: EPA, 2014b 

a

 2012$, based on a 1,000-cfm system with a 5-mile pipeline 

cfm: cubic feet per minute 

b

 Assuming an electricity price of $0.085 per kWh

2.6.4.1.4 Alternative Fuel 

Production of alternative fuels from LFG, by upgrading the gas using high-Btu 

conversion technologies, is becoming more prevalent. LFG can be used to produce the 

equivalent of pipeline-quality gas (natural gas), compressed natural gas (CNG), or liquefied 

natural gas (LNG). Pipeline-quality gas can be injected into a natural gas pipeline and used by 

residential, commercial, or industrial end users along the pipeline. CNG and LNG can be used to 

fuel vehicles at the landfill (e.g., water trucks, earthmoving equipment, light trucks, autos), fuel 

refuse-hauling tucks (long-haul refuse transfer trailers and route collection trucks), and supply 

the general commercial market. Although only a handful of these projects are currently 

operational, several more are in the construction or planning stages. 

LFG can be converted into a high-Btu gas by increasing its methane content and, 

conversely, reducing its carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen content. In the United States, three 

methods have been commercially employed (i.e., beyond pilot testing) to remove carbon dioxide 

from LFG, including membrane separation, molecular sieve (also known as pressure swing 

adsorption or PSA), and amine scrubbing. 

Capital costs of high-Btu processing equipment (in 2012$) range from $2,500 per cfm 

LFG for a 10,000-cfm processing system to $5,900 per cfm LFG for a 1,000-cfm processing 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-33

system. The annual cost to provide electricity to, operate, and maintain these systems (in 2012$) 

is approximately $500 per cfm LFG (EPA, 2014b). Costs will depend on the purity of the highBtu gas required by the receiving pipeline or energy end user as well as the size of the project, 

since some economies of scale can be achieved when producing larger quantities of high-Btu 

gas. 

For alternative fuel projects, the capital costs of converting LFG into CNG also vary, 

depending primarily on the quantity of fuel being converted and the type of fueling station 

equipment. Similar to high-Btu processing equipment, some economies of scale are realized for 

larger volumes of gas. The capital costs for onsite CNG production with a fueling station (in 

2012$) ranges from $7,200 per cfm LFG for a 600-cfm project to $14,800 per cfm LFG for a 

100-cfm project. The annual cost to operate and maintain a CNG project (in 2012$), including 

media and equipment replacement, is approximately $1 per gallon of gasoline equivalent 

produced by the system, or $0.003 per cfm LFG assuming a conversion efficiency of 65 percent 

and a fuel use rate of 111,200 Btu per gallon of gasoline equivalent (EPA, 2014b). 

2.6.4.2 Revenues and Incentives 

Landfill owners can receive revenue from the sale of carbon credits, the sale of electricity 

generated from LFG to the local power grid, or from the sale of LFG to a direct end user or 

pipeline. However, the revenue received represents only a small percentage of the operating 

costs of a landfill. 

2.6.4.2.1 GHG Credits 

Voluntary GHG trading programs purchase credits from landfills that capture LFG to 

destroy or convert methane contained in the gas and obtain credit for the reduction of GHG in 

terms of carbon equivalents. In order to qualify for these programs, the emission reductions must 

be in addition to regulated actions and have recent project installation. Examples of companies 

operating on the voluntary carbon market include Climate Action Reserve, EcoSecurities, 

Evolution Markets, Blue Source, and Chicago Climate Exchange (EPA 2012a). 

Bilateral trading and GHG credit sales are other voluntary sources of revenue. Bilateral 

trades are project-specific and are negotiated directly between a buyer and seller of GHG credits. 

In these cases, corporate entities or public institutions, such as universities, may wish to reduce 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-34

their “carbon footprint” or meet internal sustainability goals, but do not have direct access to 

developing their own project. Therefore, a buyer may help finance a specific project in exchange 

for the credit of offsetting GHG emissions from their organization. 

Many state and regional government entities are establishing their own GHG initiatives to 

cap or minimize GHG emissions within their jurisdictions. Examples include the Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the Washington carbon dioxide offset program, and 

Massachusetts’ carbon dioxide reduction from new plants. Some of these programs establish a 

cap-and-trade program on carbon dioxide emissions, while others require new fossil-fueled 

boilers and power plants to either implement or contribute to funding of offset projects, including 

LFG. 

Certain LFG energy projects may qualify for participation in nitrogen oxides cap-andtrade programs, such as the nitrogen oxides State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revenues for 

these incentives vary by state and will depend on factors such as the allowances allocated to each 

project, the price of allowances on the market, and if the project is a CHP project (typically CHP 

projects receive more revenue due to credit for avoided boiler fuel use). 

2.6.4.2.2 Electricity Project Revenue 

The primary revenue component of the typical electricity project is the sale of electricity 

to the local utility. This revenue stream is affected by the electricity buy-back rates (i.e., the rate 

at which the local utility purchases electricity generated by the LFG energy project). Electricity 

buy-back rates for new projects depend on several factors specific to the local electric utility and 

the type of contract available to the project, but typically range between 2.5 and 11 cents per 

kWh (EPA, 2014b). 

When assessing the economics of an electricity project, it is also important to consider 

the avoided cost of the electricity used on site. Electricity generated by the project that is used in 

other operations at the landfill is, in effect, electricity that the landfill does not have to purchase 

from a utility. This electricity is not valued at the buy-back rate, but at the rate the landfill is 

charged to purchase electricity (i.e., retail rate). The retail rate is often significantly higher than 

the buy-back rate. 

LFG energy projects can potentially use a variety of additional environmental revenue 

streams, which typically take advantage of the fact that LFG is recognized as a renewable, or 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-35

“green,” energy resource. These additional revenues can come from premium pricing, tax credits, 

GHG credit trading, or incentive payments. They can be reflected in an economic analysis in 

various ways, but typically, converting to a cents/kWh format is most useful. LFGcost-Web 

accommodates four common types of electricity project credits: a direct cash grant, an electricity 

generation tax credit expressed in dollars per kWh, a direct GHG (carbon) reduction credit 

expressed in dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (discussed in Section 2.6.4.2.1), 

and a direct renewable electricity credit expressed in dollars per kWh. This section includes 

discussion of the available environmental revenue streams that an LFG electricity project could 

possibly use. 

Premium pricing is often available for renewable electricity (including LFG) that is 

included in a green power program, through a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), a Renewable 

Portfolio Goal (RPG), or a voluntary utility green pricing program. These programs could 

provide additional revenue above the standard buy-back rate because LFG electricity is 

generated from a renewable resource. 

Renewable energy certificates (RECs) are sold through voluntary markets to consumers 

seeking to reduce their environmental footprint. They are typically offered in 1 megawatt-hour 

(MWh) units, and are sold by LFG electricity generators to industries, commercial businesses, 

institutions, and even private citizens who wish to achieve a corporate renewable energy 

portfolio goal or to encourage renewable energy. If the electricity produced by an LFG energy 

project is not being sold as part of a utility green power program or green pricing program, the 

project owner may be able to sell RECs through voluntary markets to generate additional 

revenue. 

Tax credits, tax exemptions, and other tax incentives, as well as federal and state grants, 

low-cost bonds, and loan programs are available to potentially provide funding for an LFG 

energy project. For example, Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code provides a per-kWh 

federal tax credit, commonly referred to as the renewable electricity Production Tax Credit 

(PTC), for power generated at privately owned LFG electricity projects. To qualify for the credit, 

which was 1.1 cent per kWh for the 2014 calendar year, all electricity produced must be sold to 

an unrelated person during the taxable year. Under legislation passed in December 2014, the 

placed-in-service date deadline for LFG energy projects to be eligible was extended to December 

31, 2014 (DSIRE, 2015). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-36

2.6.4.2.3 Direct-use Project Revenues 

The primary source of revenue for direct-use projects is the sale of LFG to the end user; 

the price of LFG, therefore, dictates a project’s revenue. Often LFG sales prices are indexed to 

the price of natural gas, but prices will vary depending on site-specific negotiations, the type of 

contract, and other factors. In recent years, typical LFG prices have ranged from $1.50 to $4.00 

per million British thermal units (MMBtu) or 0.14¢ to 0.38¢ per megajoule (EPA, 2013). In 

general, the price paid by the end user must provide an energy cost savings that outweighs the 

cost of required modifications to boilers, process heaters, kilns, and furnaces in order to burn 

LFG. 

Federal and state tax incentives, loans, and grants are available that may provide 

additional revenue for direct-use projects. Specific to vehicle fuel, EPA’s Renewable Fuel 

Standard (RFS) program allows registered renewable fuel producers, including biofuels 

produced from LFG, to generate Renewable Identification Number (RIN) credits for the 

renewable fuel produced which are purchased by parties required to meet specified volumes of 

renewable fuel (EPA, 2014d). In 2014, RIN credits for advanced biofuels (such as LFG-based 

biogas) were between $0.74 and $1.00 per RIN, equivalent to a range of $9 to $13 per million 

Btu (ABC, 2014). GHG emissions trading programs are also potential revenue streams for directuse projects. 

2.7 Integrated Waste Management Strategies 

2.7.1 Introduction 

Landfills are one method of waste disposal, but alternative strategies are available for the 

treatment of MSW, and multiple strategies are often used in combination. EPA has developed a 

non-hazardous waste management hierarchy that ranks the most environmentally sound 

strategies for MSW. Source reduction and reuse (waste prevention) is the most preferred method, 

followed by recycling and composting, energy recovery, and, lastly, treatment and disposal 

(EPA, 2015c). 

Waste prevention is the practice of designing products to reduce the amount of waste that 

will later need to be thrown away, which may result in less toxic waste (EPA, 2015d). Recycling 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-37

involves the recovery of useful materials, such as paper, glass, plastic, and metals from trash and 

using these materials to make new products. Recycling saves resources, including energy, raw 

materials, and landfill space. 

The diversion of organic materials, such as food scraps and yard waste (e.g., lawn 

trimmings, fallen leaves and branches), from landfills allows these materials to be used to create 

compost or generate energy. The management of organic materials is discussed in Section 2.7.2. 

Alternatively, MSW can be directly combusted in waste-to-energy facilities to generate 

electricity. At the power plant, MSW is unloaded from collection trucks and shredded or 

processed to ease handling. Recyclable materials are separated out, and the remaining waste is 

fed into a combustion chamber to be burned. The heat released from burning the MSW is used to 

produce steam, which turns a steam turbine to generate electricity (EPA, 2015e). 

Landfilling is often used as part of an integrated waste management strategy (e.g., where 

the same community has recycling programs, yard waste composting, and landfilling) and LFG 

can often be used for energy recovery as described in Section 2.6.4. LFG energy projects aim to 

recover and beneficially utilize methane generated from waste that has not been successfully 

diverted from landfills. The promotion of LFG energy is not in conflict with the promotion of 

organic waste diversion, nor does it compete with waste prevention or recycling, but allows LFG 

energy projects to utilize methane generated from millions of tons of organic waste already 

disposed in landfills while supporting future diversion of organic waste from landfills to reduce 

the amount of uncontrolled methane generated. In addition, some studies have shown that 

diverting waste from landfills may not always result in a comparative reduction in GHG 

emissions when efficient LFG collection systems and lifecycle emissions (from transportation 

and processing of organic waste) are taken into account (EPA, 2015f). 

2.7.2 Organics Management 

As detailed in Section 2.2.1.4, food waste, yard debris, and other organic materials 

continue to be the largest component of MSW discarded, with food waste comprising the largest 

portion (EPA, 2014a). Decreasing the amount of organics disposed in landfills would reduce the 

amount of LFG generated. If diverted from disposal in landfills, organic wastes can be 

composted or anaerobically digested. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-38

Composting is the controlled biological decomposition of organic material in the 

presence of air to form a humus-like material. Controlled methods of composting include 

mechanical mixing and aerating, ventilating the materials by dropping them through a vertical 

series of aerated chambers, or placing the compost in piles out in the open air and mixing the 

piles periodically (EPA, 2015g). Diverted organic materials can also be used in an anaerobic 

digester, although digesters generally handle relatively small quantities of easily digestible 

waste. BioCycle identified nearly 5,000 composting facilities in the United States, with about 70 

percent composting only yard trimmings and 7 percent composting food scraps (BioCycle, 

2014a). 

Anaerobic digestion involves the conversion of organic matter to energy by 

microbiological organisms in the absence of oxygen. The biogas produced in the digestion 

process is a mixture of methane and carbon dioxide and can be used as a fuel source for heating 

or electricity production. Organic waste can either be digested at facilities specifically designed 

for the organic portion of MSW, or co-digested at wastewater treatment plants and manure 

digesters. The number of anaerobic digesters in the United States that process MSW-based 

wastes is on the rise from the first commercial scale plant coming online by 2010 up to more 

than seven plants operating by 2013, some of them digesting food waste alone and others codigesting food waste with wastewater and other organics (Arsova, 2010; RWI, 2013a; RWI, 

2013b). 

2.7.2.1 Trends 

States and municipalities in the United States are increasingly moving toward the 

diversion of organic wastes from landfills. State initiatives to recycle organic wastes have 

contributed to the growth of curbside organics collection as well as commercial and institutional 

collection and treatment. Table 2-8 lists the 21 states that have mandated organics diversion 

and/or banned disposal of organics from landfills. In particular, five states (California, 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont) have enacted legislation for organics 

disposal specific to food waste (BioCycle, 2014b; MSW Management, 2015). At a local level, 

BioCycle’s Fall 2014 survey identified 198 communities in 19 states with curbside collection of 

food scraps, as shown in Table 2-8. Between 2009 and 2014, the number of municipalities with 

source separated food waste collection more than doubled (from 90 to 198) and the number of 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-39

households grew by nearly 50 percent (BioCycle, 2015). The assortment of organics 

management initiatives and programs at state and local levels varies across the country by: 

• Type of organic wastes targeted (e.g., food waste, yard waste); 

• Source of organic waste generation (e.g., commercial, residential, institutional); 

• Phase of implementation (from pilot projects to mandatory requirements with fines 

for violations); and 

• Pricing formats (e.g., “pay-as-you-throw,” property tax, fixed fee) (BioCycle, 2015). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-40

Table 2-8 Waste Management of Organics in the United States 

State State-wide Organics 

Diversion Mandate and/or 

Disposal Ban1,2,3

Local Residential Food 

Waste Collection 

Program4

Arkansas 

California (FW) 

Colorado 

Connecticut (FW) 

Delaware 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa  

Kentucky 

Maryland  

Massachusetts (FW) 

Michigan 

Minnesota  

Nebraska 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey  

New York 

North Carolina 

Ohio  

Oregon 

Rhode Island2 (FW)

Pennsylvania  

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Vermont (FW) 

Washington 

Wisconsin  

Number of States 21 19 

FW = Food waste diversion mandate and/or disposal ban

1

 Source: BioCycle, 2014a. Survey results from 39 states that responded. 

2

 Source: BioCycle, 2014b. Rhode Island legislation goes into effect January 2016. 

3

 Source: MSW Management, 2015. 

4

 Source: BioCycle, 2015. Denotes states that have one or more communities with a residential source separated 

food waste collection program. Programs are not state-wide initiatives.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-41

2.7.2.2 Benefits 

The benefits of diverting organic wastes from landfills include: 

• Reduction of methane, NMOC, and other air pollutants generated by the organic 

fraction of waste disposed in landfills; 

• Production of soil-improving compost material from composting (ILSR, 2014); 

• Generation of biogas from anaerobic digestion used to generate electricity and/or 

heat; and 

• Recovery and recycling of food waste to support food banks for humans or animals 

(MSW Management, 2015). 

2.7.2.3 Barriers 

Some barriers exist that can deter mandating the diversion of organics from landfills, 

especially in the format of a federal mandate, such as: 

• Lack of or variation in regulatory policies, incentives, and drivers to encourage 

organics diversion and make it more affordable (ILSR, 2014). For example, 

Kentucky’s composting permit fees for private entities led to a decline in applicants 

when the fee went from $0 to $3,000 in 2011, with an annual renewal fee of $500 

(BioCycle, 2014b). While New York does not have legislation in place, the state does 

review local materials management plans to provide suggestions on improving 

organics management and offers waste reduction and recycling grants to 

municipalities for education or capital expenditures (BioCycle, 2014b). Lessening 

permit restrictions and fees for organic waste facilities and offering state-level 

assistance to municipalities may spur movement to establish and expand organics 

management programs. 

• Limited capacity for organic material receiving, processing, and treatment facilities 

(e.g., composters, anaerobic digesters) and associated infrastructure (e.g., hauling 

services, transfer stations) (ILSR, 2014). While the United States has no shortage of 

landfill capacity overall, the average amount of organics diverted to composting in 27 

states is 5,155 tons per facility per year, which is far too low to adequately achieve 

higher composting rates (BioCycle, 2014a). Composting of organics can occur at 

several tiers, from home-based and small-scale farm and community sites to onsite 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-42

institutional systems (primarily schools) to large-scale centralized facilities, thus 

encouraging backyard and locally-based composting and developing adequate 

infrastructure for commercial composting (beyond yard waste) would lead to an 

increased capacity for organic wastes in urban, suburban, and rural areas (BioCycle, 

2014a). 

• Low cost to dispose waste in landfills relative to other waste treatment technologies 

(ILSR, 2014). Traditionally, waste disposal in the United States has been based on 

landfill tipping fees, or the fee a waste collector or hauler pays to discard waste in a 

landfill. Tipping fees at landfills vary across the United States, ranging from $5 to 

$142 per ton in 2011, with a national average just below $50 per ton (Shin, 2014). 

When recycling and organics diversion are introduced, the pricing structure shifts 

from a disposal cost to transportation and processing or treatment costs. Anaerobic 

digesters require significant capital investment and rely on tipping fees to recover 

costs to construct and operate the facility. In addition, due to opposition for siting 

these facilities, it is difficult to obtain permits to build digesters in densely populated 

areas, which results in increased costs to transport feedstock to the digester 

(Waste360, 2014). More recently, local solid waste agencies have offered reduced 

fees for source separated loads of organics at composting facilities. For example, 

Charleston County, South Carolina has a $25 per ton fee to drop off food and organic 

waste for composting, compared to $66 per ton for traditional waste sent to the 

landfill (ILSR, 2014). In addition, variable rate fees, or “pay-as-you-throw” pricing, 

incentivize separate collection of organics and recyclables as trash collection is 

typically priced at a higher fee than source separated organics and recyclables (ILSR, 

2014). 

• Multifaceted and regional nature of the solid waste management industry. Waste 

generators include households, institutions, and commercial entities, and these parties 

vary regionally in both density and demographics. Historically, state and local 

government has controlled all aspects of collection, transportation, disposal, and 

treatment of solid waste including the permitting of facilities and infrastructure and 

assessment of fees through taxes and operation of landfills. Private companies also 

play a significant role that ranges from collecting and hauling waste to owning and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-43

operating landfills. While the industry is moving towards more integrated solid waste 

management approaches at a local or regional level, there is not a shift towards a 

national solid waste management system. As a result, the policies, programs, and 

infrastructure to accommodate organics diversion must be tailored to the unique 

situations of each region, state, or municipality to best implement change among 

interlinked entities of generators, collectors, and treatment and disposal facilities. 

• Lack of information and understanding of the environmental and energy benefits of 

separating, recovering, and utilizing organics. Ultimately, effective organics 

diversion from landfills begins at the point of generation. Changing waste disposal 

habits can be challenging for individuals, businesses, and industries in the United 

States, but education and awareness about the benefits of composting and anaerobic 

digestion in a manner that relates directly to individuals and organizations may 

encourage and increase diversion of organics. 

2.8 References 

Alva, 2010. “Successfully Permitting a Solid Waste Landfill in a Metropolitan Area: Sunshine 

Landfill Expansion Project.” Paul Alva. Solid Waste Association of North America 

(SWANA) WASTECON 2010. 

American Biogas Council (ABC). 2014. “A Snapshot of RNG and the Market.” May 12, 2014. 

<https://www.americanbiogascouncil.org/biogasProcessing/rngMarket_snapshot.pdf>. 

Arsova, Ljupka. 2010. “Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste: Current Status, Problems and an 

Alternative Product.” Columbia University. Earth Engineering Center. May 2010. 

<http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/arsova_thesis.pdf>. 

ATSDR. 2001. Landfill Gas Primer – An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals, 

Chapter 5: Landfill Gas Control Measures. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (ATSDR). November 2001. 

<http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/landfill/html/ch5.html>.

BioCycle. 2010. “17th

 Nationwide Survey of MSW Management in the U.S.: The State of 

Garbage in America.” October 2010. <http://www.biocycle.net/2010/10/the-state-ofgarbage-in-america-4/>. 

BioCycle. 2014a. “State of Composting in the U.S.” July 2014. 

<http://www.biocycle.net/2014/07/16/state-of-composting-in-the-u-s/>. 

BioCycle. 2014b. “Taking States’ Pulse On Residential Food Waste Collection.” October 2014. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-44

BioCycle. 2015. “BioCycle Nationwide Survey: Residential Food Waste Collection in the U.S.” 

January 2015. <http://www.biocycle.net/2015/01/15/residential-food-waste-collection-inthe-u-s-2/>. [Table found in print edition only] 

Bloomberg Businessweek. 2014BIN. Financial Statements for Progressive Waste Solutions 

(BIN). Annual Income Statement as of December 31, 2013. 

<http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=BIN:

CN>. 

Bloomberg Businessweek. 2014CLH. 2013 SEC Filings - Clean Harbors Inc (CLH). 10-K, 

Annual Financials, March 3, 2014. 

<http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/secfilings.asp?ticker=CLH

>. 

Bloomberg Businessweek. 2014RSG. 2013 SEC Filings - Republic Services Inc (RSG). 10-K, 

Annual Financials, February 13, 2014. 

<http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/secfilings.asp?ticker=RSG

>. 

Bloomberg Businessweek. 2014WCN. 2013 SEC Filings - Waste Connections Inc (WCN). 10-

K, Annual Financials, February 10, 2014. 

<http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/secfilings.asp?ticker=WC

N>. 

Bloomberg Businessweek. 2014WM. 2013 SEC Filings - Waste Management Inc (WM). 10-K, 

Annual Financials, February 18, 2014. 

<http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/secfilings.asp?ticker=WM

>. 

Burgiel, Jonathan J. 2003. R.W. Beck, Inc. “Making Ends Meet When Revenues Start to 

Disappear”. October 2003. 

Callan, S. J. and J. M. Thomas. 2006. “Analyzing Demand for Disposal and Recycling Services: 

A Systems Approach.” Eastern Economic Journal 32(2): 221-238. 

Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). 2015. North Carolina State 

University. North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center. Web page: Renewable 

Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC). 

<http://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program/detail/734>. Accessed February 5, 2015. 

Duffy, Daniel P. 2005a. MSW Management. “Landfill Economics Part II: Getting Down to 

Business”. June 2005. 

<http://www.mswmanagement.com/MSW/Articles/Landfill_Economics_Part_II_Getting

_Down_to_Busines_1513.aspx>. 

Duffy, Daniel P. 2005b. MSW Management. “Landfill Economics Part III: Closing Up Shop”. 

August 2005. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-45

<http://www.mswmanagement.com/MSW/Editorial/Landfill_Economics_Part_III_Closin

g_Up_Shop_1504.aspx>. 

EnSol, Inc. 2010. “Cortland County Landfill Alternatives Analysis”. October 2010. 

<http://www.cortlandco.org/legislature/Ash%20to%20Trash%20Docs/CORTLAND%20COUNTY%20LAND

FILL%20ALTERNATIVES%20ANALYSIS%20-%20FINAL%20REPORT%2010-15-

10.pdf>. 

Fitzwater, Ryan. 2012. Seeking Alpha. “The Top Three Dividend Paying Waste Management 

Stocks”. May 21, 2012. <http://seekingalpha.com/article/604571-the-top-3-dividendpaying-waste-management-stocks>. 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). 2013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Web page: GHG Reporting Program Data Sets. Download GHGRP Data by Year. 2013 

GHG Data. Envirofacts. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgdata/reportingdatasets.html>. 

Guyer, 2009. “Introduction to Sanitary Landfills.” J. Paul Guyer, CED Engineering. 2009. 

<http://www.cedengineering.com/upload/An%20Introduction%20To%20Sanitary%20La

ndfills.pdf>. 

Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR). 2014. “State of Composting in the U.S.” July 2014. 

<http://www.ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/state-of-composting-in-us.pdf>. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Panel Climate Change, 2007. 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.

Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, Department for Environmental Protection, Division 

of Waste Management, Solid Waste Branch (KY SWB). 2012. “Landfill Permitting 

Overview”. Accessed December 4, 2012. 

<http://waste.ky.gov/SWB/Documents/Landfill%20Permitting%20Overview.pdf>. 

KleanIndustries. 2012. “Tipping fees vary across the U.S.” July 2012. 

<http://www.kleanindustries.com/s/environmental_market_industry_news.asp?ReportID

=538710>. 

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2012. “Estimated Costs of Landfill Closure”. 

Accessed December 4, 2012. 

<http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/ResearchCenter/FactSheets/LandFactSheet/Docu

ments/www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/factsheets/landfill_cl.pdf>. 

MSW Management. 2015. “LFGTE Supplement: The Organic Factor.” January/February 2015. 

<http://www.mswmanagement.com/MSW/Articles/LFGTE_Supplement_The_Organic_F

actor_27909.aspx>. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-46

National Waste & Recycling Association (NW&RA) (formerly National Solid Wastes 

Management Association). 2008. “Modern Landfills: A Far Cry from the Past.” August 

2008. <https://wasterecycling.org/images/documents/resources/Research-BulletinModern-Landfill.pdf>. 

NW&RA. 2011. “Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facts.” October 2011. 

<https://wasterecycling.org/images/documents/resources/Municipal-Solid-WasteLandfill-Facts.pdf>. 

O’Brien, Jeremy K. 2006. “Contracting out: Adapting local integrated waste management to 

regional private landfill ownership.” Waste Management World. <http://www.wastemanagement-world.com/index/display/article-display/271246/articles/wastemanagement-world/volume-7/issue-7/features/contracting-out-adapting-local-integratedwaste-management-to-regional-private-landfill-ownership.html>. 

Renewable Waste Intelligence (RWI). 2013a. “Business Analysis of Anaerobic Digestion in the 

U.S.A.” March 2013. <http://www.renewablewaste.com/pdf/AnaerobicDigestionEbrief.pdf>. 

Renewable Waste Intelligence (RWI). 2013b. “Commercial Updates: Municipal Solid Waste 

Conversion on the West Coast U.S.A.” October 2013. 

Repa, Edward W. National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA). 2005. 

“NSWMA’s 2005 Tip Fee Survey.” March 2005. 

<http://freewaterindependence.com/tipping_fee_bulletin_2005.pdf>. 

Shin, Dolly. 2014. “Generation and Disposition of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in the United 

States – A National Survey.” Columbia University. Earth Engineering Center. January 3, 

2014. <http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Dolly_Shin_Thesis.pdf>. 

Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA). 2007. “The Regional Privately-Owned 

Landfill Trend and Its Impact on Integrated Solid Waste Management Systems.” 

February 2007. 

Sullivan, Patrick. 2010. “The Importance of Landfill Gas Capture and Utilization in the U.S.” 

Columbia University. Earth Engineering Center. Council for Sustainable Use of 

Resources. April 6, 2010. 

<http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Importance_of_LFG_Capture_and_Util

ization_in_the_US.pdf>. 

U.S. Census Bureau (Census). 2012. Economic Census and Population Estimates. Economic 

Census: Industry Snapshots. Solid Waste Landfill (NAICS 562212). 2012. 

<http://thedataweb.rm.census.gov/TheDataWeb_HotReport2/econsnapshot/2012/snapsho

t.hrml?NAICS=562212>. 

U.S. Census Bureau (Census). 2013. Annual Survey of Public Employment & Payroll. Local 

Government Employment and Payroll Data. March 2013. 

<http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/>. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-47

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. “Full Cost Accounting for Municipal Solid 

Waste Management: A Handbook, Chapter 4: Allocating Costs.” September 1997. EPA530-R-95-041. <http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/fca/docs/fca-hanb.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (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”. November 1998. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/final/c02s04.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. 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 3: Stationary Internal 

Combustion Sources, Section 3.1: Stationary Gas Turbines”. April 2000. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/index.html>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002a. “Economic Impact Analysis for the 

Supplemental to the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) NESHAP.” December 2002. EPA452-R-03-001. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/EIAs/MSWsupnoticeEIAfinal.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002b. Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

“Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision-Making.” June 2002. EPA-530-R-02-

002. <http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/r02002.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. “Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 2009 Facts and Figures.” December 2010. EPA-530-R-10-012. Washington, DC: 

U.S EPA. <http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2009rpt.pdf>. 

Accessed January 6, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, 

Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2010.” December 

2011. EPA-530-F-11-005. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw_2010_rev_factsheet.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012a. Landfill Gas Energy: A Guide to 

Developing and Implementing Greenhouse Gas Reduction Programs. State and Local 

Climate and Energy Program, U.S. EPA. 2012. EPA-430-R-09-047. 

<http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/documents/pdf/landfill_methane_utilization.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012b. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response (OSWER), Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR). Web 

page: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. 

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill.htm>. Accessed December 4, 2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012c. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: Closure and 

Post-Closure Care Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-48

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/financial/mswclose.htm>. Accessed 

December 4, 2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012d. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfills: Bioreactors. 

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/bioreactors.htm>. Accessed 

December 4, 2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012e. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: History of 

RCRA. <http://www.epa.gov/osw/laws-regs/rcrahistory.htm>. Accessed November 14, 

2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012f. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: Transfer 

Stations. <http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/transfer.htm>. Accessed 

November 14, 2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012g. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: MSW 

Landfill Criteria Technical Manual. 

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/techman/>. Accessed December 4, 

2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012h. Landfill Methane Outreach Program 

(LMOP), Climate Change Division, U.S. EPA. Web page: Frequent Questions: Landfill 

Gas. <http://www.epa.gov/lmop/faq/landfill-gas.html>. Accessed December 3, 2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. An Overview of Landfill Gas Energy in the 

United States. LMOP, Climate Change Division, U.S. EPA. July 2013. 

<http://epa.gov/lmop/documents/pdfs/overview.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014a. “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, 

Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2012.” February 

2014. EPA-530-F-14-001. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_fs.pdf>. Accessed January 

6, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014b. Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model 

(LFGcost-Web), Version 3.0. LMOP, Climate Change Division, U.S. EPA. August 2014. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014c. “Landfill-level data only (all landfills) – 

updated August 2014.” LMOP, Climate Change Division, U.S. EPA. 

<http://www.epa.gov/lmop/projects-candidates/index.html>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014d. “Webinar: Using Landfill Gas as Vehicle 

Fuel.” LMOP, Climate Change Division, U.S. EPA. November 13, 2014. 

<http://epa.gov/lmop/documents/pdfs/lmop-webinar-13Nov2014.pdf>. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-49

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015a. LFG Energy Project Development 

Handbook. LMOP, Climate Change Division, U.S. EPA. February 2015. 

<http://epa.gov/lmop/publications-tools/handbook.html>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015b. “Landfill and LFG Energy Project 

Database.” LMOP, Climate Change Division, U.S. EPA. January 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015c. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: NonHazardous Waste Management Hierarchy.” 

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/hierarchy.htm>. Accessed January 22, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015d. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: Municipal 

Solid Waste. <http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/index.htm>. Accessed 

January 22, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015e. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: Electricity 

from Municipal Solid Waste. <http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-andyou/affect/municipal-sw.html>. Accessed January 22, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015f. LMOP. Web page: Frequent Questions: 

LFG Energy Projects. <http://www.epa.gov/lmop/faq/lfg.html#08>. Accessed January 

22, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015g. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: Types of 

Composting. <http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/composting/types.htm>. Accessed 

January 22, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013. Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, DC. 

EPA 430-R-15-004. Annex 3.14, Tables A-265 and Table ES-2. April 2015. 

<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html>. Accessed 

April 28, 2015.

 Waste 360. 2014. “Navigating the Complexities of Food Waste.” September 25, 2014. 

<http://waste360.com/organics/navigating-complexities-food-waste?NL=WST03&Issue=WST-03_20150128_WST03_312&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_4&YM_RID=CPEQW000001137125&YM_MID=

2476>. 

Waste Business Journal (WBJ). 2010. “Landfill Tipping Fees Reach New Record, Despite Slow 

Times”. August 17, 2010. 

<http://www.wastebusinessjournal.com/news/wbj20100817A.htm>. 

WBJ. 2012a. “Waste Market Overview & Outlook 2012.” 

<http://www.wastebusinessjournal.com/overview.htm>. Accessed January 16, 2015. 

WBJ. 2012b. “US Landfill Tipping Fees Reach $45 per Ton; Slow Volume Growth.” October 2, 

2012. <http://www.wastebusinessjournal.com/news/wbj20121003A.htm>. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

2-50

WBJ. 2014. “Directory of Waste Processing and Disposal Sites 2014.” 

<http://www.wastebusinessjournal.com/diratlas.htm>. Accessed January 6, 2015. 

Wright, Shawn. 2012. Waste & Recycling News. “Tipping fees vary across the U.S.” July 20, 

2012. Previously accessed at 

<http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com/article/20120720/NEWS01/120729997/tippingfees-vary-across-the-u-s>. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-1 

3 REGULATORY PROGRAM COSTS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS 

3.1 Introduction 

Currently, the Emission Guidelines for existing MSW landfills requires landfills of at 

least 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) capacity and 2.5 million cubic meters in size with estimated 

nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) emissions of at least 50 Mg per year to collect and 

control or treat landfill gas (LFG). Landfills which meet the design size requirements but do not 

emit at least 50 Mg NMOC per year are required to test and monitor. As part of this review, the 

EPA evaluated the emission reductions and costs associated with a series of regulatory options. 

This chapter of the RIA includes three sets of discussions related to the proposed new Emission 

Guidelines: 

• Emissions Analysis 

• Engineering and Administrative Cost Analysis 

• Regulatory Option Analysis 

This discussion of the emissions and cost analyses is meant to assist the reader of the RIA to 

better understand the regulatory impact analysis. However, we provide references to technical 

memoranda for readers interested in a greater level of detail. 

3.2 General Assumptions and Procedures 

The proposed Emission Guidelines will affect existing MSW landfills. 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, 198712, and that commenced construction, 

reconstruction, or modification prior to July 17, 2014 (the date of publication of proposed 

revisions to the landfills NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX). However, the EPA recognizes 

that many landfills subject to the proposed Subpart Cf are closed or contain inactive areas that do 

not produce as much landfill gas. Therefore, the EPA is proposing a separate subcategory for 

 

12 This 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-2 

landfills that closed after 1987 but on or before the date of this Emission Guidelines proposal. 

These landfills would be subject to a 50 Mg/yr NMOC emission rate threshold, consistent with 

the NMOC thresholds in Subparts Cc and WWW of Part 60. These landfills will also be exempt 

from initial reporting requirements, provided that the landfill already met these requirements 

under Subparts Cc or WWW of Part 60. 

To assess the impacts of the proposal, the EPA drew upon a comprehensive database of 

existing landfills, derived from a landfill and LFG energy project database maintained by the 

EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) and data from the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Program (GHGRP). Unfortunately, this dataset was missing some landfill data for 

recent years (2010-2014) and included incomplete data for many landfills. To better represent 

landfills from recent years, model landfills were created. These model future landfills were 

developed by evaluating the most recently opened existing landfills and assuming that the sizes 

and locations of landfills opening in 2010-2014 would be similar to the sizes and locations of 

landfills that opened in the most recent complete 5 years of data (2005-2010). Based on this 

assessment, the EPA created a total of five model landfills to represent landfills opening during 

2010-2014, which combined with the five landfills for which construction was already planned, 

led to ten projected future landfills that would be subject to the Emission Guidelines. In addition, 

11 model landfills were created that would be subject to the NSPS discussed in Chapter 7. 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 Landfill Regulations. 2014.” 

To estimate the cost and emission impacts of each regulatory option, EPA determined 

which landfills in the complete dataset met the design capacity and emission rate thresholds for 

each regulatory option, and then calculated the emission reductions and costs for each landfill 

under each regulatory option in 2025 using the methods described below. The EPA is assessing 

impacts in year 2025 as a representative year for the landfills Emission Guidelines. While the 

year 2025 differs somewhat from the expected first year of implementation for the Emission 

Guidelines (year 2020), the number of existing landfills required to install controls under the 

proposed 2.5/34 option in year 2025 is comparable (within 2 percent of those required to control 

in the estimated first year of implementation. Further, year 2025 represents a year in which 

several of the landfills subject to control requirements have had to expand their GCCS according 

the expansion lag times set forth in proposed subpart Cf. While the analysis focuses on impacts 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-3 

in 2025, results for alternative years are also presented in Section 3.6. The resulting costs and 

emission reductions incurred by each landfill were used to assess the overall impacts of the 

current Emission Guidelines in the baseline and the incremental impacts of the regulatory 

options considered. The emission reduction and cost and revenue equations and assumptions are 

detailed in the docketed memorandum from ERG to EPA, “Updated Methodology for Estimating 

Cost and Emission Impacts of Proposed MSW Landfill Regulations. 20142015.” 

The emissions and cost modeling was based upon the following basic assumptions: 

• The baseline represents the emission reductions and costs associated with the 

requirements of Subpart Cc. Each regulatory option was compared to this baseline. 

• Each landfill would install gas collection and control systems (GCCS) when the landfill 

exceeds the emission rate and design capacity threshold. 

• Each landfill would remove GCCS when the actual emissions are below the emissions 

threshold, the landfill is closed, and the controls have been in place for at least 15 years. 

• Costs were annualized using a 7% interest rate, which is consistent with EPA guidance 

for cost evaluations. Costs are also presented using a 3% interest rate, in accordance with 

OMB guidance. 

Alternative regulatory options varied the emission rate thresholds and design capacity thresholds. 

3.3 Emissions Analysis 

To estimate emission reductions, the amount of LFG and NMOC emitted at each landfill 

was estimated using a model programmed in Microsoft® Access. The model assumes that the 

collection equipment is installed and operational at the landfill 30 months after the emissions 

exceed the NMOC emission threshold in each option13. As the landfill is filled over time, the 

 

13 Note that even though the proposed rule allows a 30-month initial lag time, the model actually assumes the 

collection equipment is installed and operational at 36 months. We modeled as a 36 month (3-year) lag time 

since the first-order decay equation used to model emissions is on an annual, instead of monthly, basis. Further, 

because the current rule requires annual NMOC emission reports to be submitted by 6 months into the following 

calendar year, the landfill would have 30 months after the submittal of its first NMOC emission report showing 

an exceedance to install the GCCS, which is approximately 36 months after the excess emissions occurred. 

Commented [A7]: OMB RIA Comment 9: Reviewer 

recommends clearly articulating the analytic timeline since EPA 

only presents results in the RIA for a snapshot of 2025. 

EPA Response: The discussion has been edited to explain the 

choice of 2025 as a representative year. In addition, some results 

from alternative snapshot years are being included in Chapters 3, 4, 

and 7. 

Commented [A8]: OMB RIA Comment 7: Reviewer 

recommends providing additional details on EPA’s methods for 

estimating costs and emissions reductions, and recommends drawing 

additional language citing to the two summary TSDs referenced. 

EPA Response: We feel that the RIA provides an appropriate level 

of detail about the models, as the memos are essentially the 

description of a series of equations from the models. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-4 

model assumes the landfill expands the GCCS into new areas of waste placement in accordance 

with the expansion lag time of the standard. Once the landfill has reached maximum gas 

production, gas generation will begin to decline once waste is no longer accepted. At this point, 

the analysis assumes that the GCCS no longer needs to be expanded and the GCCS will continue 

to collect all the gas being produced until the gas production falls back below the emission 

threshold of the proposed standard and the GCCS has been installed for at least 15 years. The 

emission reductions are equal to the amount of collected NMOC or methane that is combusted, 

which is estimated by multiplying the amount of collected gas by a destruction efficiency of 98 

percent14. 

In addition to direct emission reductions, the proposed Emission Guidelines are expected 

to have secondary air impacts due to the additional energy demand required to operate the 

control system and the by-product emissions from the combustion of LFG. However, these are 

offset by avoided emissions from the national electrical grid as landfills generate electricity from 

the LFG. The methodology used to estimate secondary impacts of the proposed Emission 

Guidelines are detailed in the docketed memorandum from ERG to EPA, “Estimating Secondary 

Impacts of the Landfills Emission Guidelines Review. 2015” 

3.4 Engineering and Administrative Cost Analysis 

The evaluation will assume that landfills will install and remove LFG controls as required 

by the rule. Landfills are required to install controls when the landfill exceeds the emission rate 

and design capacity thresholds. Landfills are allowed to remove controls when the actual 

emissions are below the emissions threshold, the landfill is closed, and the controls have been in 

place for at least 15 years. 

The EPA derived the cost equations used in the evaluation from the EPA’s Landfill Gas 

Energy Cost Model (LFGcost-Web), version 3.0, which was developed by the EPA’s Landfill 

 

14 The regulatory analysis models collectable gas (see ERG. 2015. Updated Methodology for Estimating Cost and 

Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills Regulations). As per 60.34(f)(b)(2)(i), the GCCS should be designed to 

handle the maximum expected gas flow rate from the entire area of the landfill that warrants control over the 

intended use period of the gas control system equipment.

Commented [A9]: OMB RIA Comment 13: Reviewer 

recommends additional information on the basis for the assumed 

efficacy of the collection systems, including citations. 

EPA Response: A clarification and reference is provided in a 

footnote. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-5 

Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). LFGcost-Web estimates gas collection, flare, and energy 

recovery system costs and was developed based on cost data obtained from equipment vendors 

and consulting firms that have installed and operated numerous gas collection and control 

systems. LFGcost-Web encompasses the types of costs included in the EPA OAQPS control 

cost manual including capital costs, annual costs, and revenue from LFG electricity sales. Total 

capital costs include purchased equipment costs, installation costs, engineering and design costs, 

costs for site preparation and buildings, costs of permits and fees, and working capital. Total 

annual compliance costs include direct costs, indirect costs, and revenue from LFG electricity 

sales. Direct annual costs are those that are proportional to a facility-specific metric such as the 

facility’s productive output or size. Indirect annual costs are independent of facility-specific 

metrics and may include categories such as administrative charges, taxes, or insurance. 

For this evaluation, the EPA assessed costs in 2012$. The costs included in LFGcostWeb are in 2013$ and were adjusted for inflation to 2012$ using a factor of 2 percent for capital 

costs and 2.5 percent for O&M costs.15 For the primary estimate of costs, the EPA used an 

interest rate of 7% to annualize the capital costs in this evaluation to estimate the annual capital 

cost of flares, wells, wellheads (including piping to collect gas), and engines over the lifetime of 

the equipment. Costs were also estimated using an interest rate of 3%. The EPA assumes that the 

equipment will be replaced when its lifetime is over, so the annualized capital costs are incurred 

as long as the landfill still has controls in place. In order to calculate the annualization factors, 

the EPA assumes that flares, wells, well heads, and engines have a 15-year lifetime. In addition, 

there is a mobilization/installation charge to bring well drilling equipment on site each time the 

gas collection system is expanded. Because the landfill will be drilling wells to expand the 

control system during the expansion lag year, EPA assumes that this capital installation cost has 

a lifetime equal to the expansion lag time. 

 

15 The inflation rate for capital equipment is consistent with the default equipment inflation rate in the LFGcost-Web 

model; the inflation rate for O&M costs is consistent with the default general inflation rate in the LFGcost-Web 

model. See further documentation at: http://epa.gov/lmop/publications-tools/lfgcost/LFGcostWebV3_0manual.pdf 

Commented [A10]: OMB RIA Comment 18: Reviewer 

recommends that EPA use PPI data from BLS instead of the 2% 

inflation rate for capital and 2.5% inflation rate for O&M on 3-5 

EPA Response: As noted in footnote 14, the rates used for this 

analysis are consistent with the default rates in the LFGcost-Web 

model. EPA will edit its analysis of impacts in the final rule to use 

the PPI data from BLS, but this request is not feasible for the 

proposal.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-6 

A number of the capital costs equations are dependent upon the number of wells at each 

landfill. In order to estimate the number of wells at each landfill, EPA estimated the number of 

acres that have been filled with waste for each landfill for each year. We assumed that the 

percentage of design area filled (acres) would track the ratio of waste in place/design capacity 

(e.g., is a landfill has a waste-in-place amount equivalent to 40% of design capacity, then 40% of 

the planned acreage is filled). EPA assumed that each landfill would install one well per acre 

and that the number of wells would increase periodically based on expansion lag time. 

Engines are assumed to be installed only at landfills that produce enough LFG to power 

the engine and only when the electricity buyback rates allow the operation of the engine to be 

profitable. Standard engines used at landfills have approximately 1 MW capacity, which equates 

to 195 million ft3 per year of collected LFG (at 50 percent methane). Therefore, engines are 

assumed to be installed at landfills that have at least 195 million ft3 per year of collected LFG for 

at least 15 years. 

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

equations to determine at what electricity buyback rate an engine is profitable. The profitable 

electricity buyback rates are rates that are greater than $0.0457 per kWh at 7% and greater than 

$0.0430 per kWh at 3% interest. Engines were only assumed to be installed in states with 

buyback rates exceeding those values. 

Multiple engines may be present at a landfill when there is sufficient gas flow to support 

additional engines. As noted above, one engine requires 195 million ft3 per year of collected 

LFG, so in order to have two engines on-site, the landfill must have double that amount of LFG 

(390 million ft3 per year) for at least 15 years. 

The capital costs for engines are based on the capital costs for standard reciprocating 

engine-generator sets in LFGcost-Web. These costs include gas compression and treatment to 

remove particulates and moisture (e.g., a chiller), reciprocating engine and generator, electrical 

interconnect equipment, and site work including housings, utilities, and total facility engineering, 

design, and permitting. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-7 

Several of the compliance requirements require labor to complete the activities in 

addition to capital expenses for purchasing the monitoring and control equipment. This analysis 

assumes that a Civil Engineer or Civil Engineer Technician completes compliance requirements 

of the proposed amendments, depending on the complexity of the task. Some landfill owners or 

operators do all or a portion of this work directly while others contract out control installation or 

monitoring requirements. 

3.5 Regulatory Baseline and Options 

As mentioned before, the alternative regulatory options differ from the baseline by 

varying in the design capacity thresholds and emission rate thresholds: 

• Baseline: design capacity retained at 2.5 Mg, emission threshold retained at 50 Mg 

NMOC/year

• Alternative Option 2.5/40: design capacity retained at 2.5 Mg, emission threshold 

reduced to 40 NMOC Mg/yr

• Proposed Option 2.5/34: design capacity retained at 2.5 Mg, emission threshold reduced 

to 34 NMOC Mg/yr 

• Alternative Option 2.0/34: design capacity reduced to 2.0 Mg, emission threshold 

reduced to 34 Mg NMOC/year 

The baseline reflects the parameters of the current Emission Guidelines. In the baseline, 

the Emission Guidelines affect 989 landfills, with 574 landfills controlling emissions, 211 

landfills reporting but not controlling emissions, and 233 landfills in the closed subcategory in 

2025. 

Commented [A11]: OMB RIA Comment 19: Reviewer 

recommends clarifying on 3-8 what “baseline” means in Table 3-2. 

EPA Response: Requested clarification appears on 3-7 and is 

relevant for all tables and discussion in this section. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-8 

Table 3-1 Number of Affected Landfills in 2025 under the Baseline and Alternative 

Options 

Affected 

Landfills 

(Open and 

Closed) 

Affected 

Open 

Landfills 

Affected 

Closed 

Subcategory

Closed 

Landfills 

Controlling 

Emissions 

Open 

Landfills 

Controlling 

Emissions 

Open 

Landfills 

Reporting 

but Not 

Controlling 

Emissions 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC

Baseline 989 756 233 29 545 211 

 

Alternative EG Options

Alternative 

option 2.5/40 989 756 233 29 607 149 

Proposed option 

2.5/34 989 756 233 29 651 105 

Alternative 

option 2.0/34 1090 803 287 29 667 136 

Note: Affected landfills include landfills subject to rule based on size and open as of 2015 as well as landfills in the closed 

subcategory. Affected open landfills are comprised of open landfills controlling emissions and open landfills reporting but 

not controlling emissions. Some closed landfills are still controlling emissions in 2025. 

Based on the characteristics of the landfills, the proposed option presented in Table 3-1 

would require 106 additional landfills to install controls by 2025. The less stringent alternative 

option would require 62 additional landfills to install controls by 2025, while the more stringent 

alternative option would affect 101 additional landfills, with some being required only to report, 

others being required to control, and some being in the closed subcategory. In that option, 122 

additional landfills are required to install controls by 2025. 

 Under the proposed option 2.5/34, the emission reductions would be an additional 2,770 Mg 

NMOC and 436,100 Mg methane (10,900,000 Mg CO2 Eq.) compared to the baseline in 2025. 

The less stringent alternative option 2.5/40 would yield emissions reductions of 1,720 Mg 

NMOC and 270,700 Mg methane (6,800,000 Mg CO2 Eq.) compared to the baseline, while the 

more stringent alternative option 2.0/34 would result in emissions reductions of 3,040 Mg 

NMOC and 479,100 Mg methane (12,000,000 Mg CO2 Eq.) compared to the baseline. The wide 

range in magnitude of emission reductions among pollutants is due to the composition of landfill 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-9 

gas: NMOC represents less than 1 percent of landfill gas, while methane represents 

approximately 50 percent. The emission reductions are summarized in Table 3-2. 

Table 3-2 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2025 for the Baseline and 

Alternative Options 

 Annual Average Reduction (Mg)

NMOC Methane 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 57,300 9,035,000 226,000,000 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 1,720 270,700 6,800,000 

Proposed option 2.5/34 2,770 436,100 10,900,000 

Alternative option 2.0/34 3,040 479,100 12,000,000 

*A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. Secondary CO2 emission 

reductions are not included in this table. 

Under the proposed option 2.5/34, when using a 7% discount rate the additional cost of control 

over the baseline in 2025 would is estimated to be $101 million, $55.3 million of which is 

estimated to be offset by increased revenue from beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is 

estimated to be $46.8 million (

Commented [A12]: OMB RIA Comment 6: Reviewer 

recommends presenting the baseline emissions of methane and 

NMOC in tabular format. 

EPA Response: Requested information appears in this table. 

Commented [A13]: OMB RIA Comment 5: Reviewer 

recommends clarifying the gross cost in the cost discussion. 

EPA Response: This discussion and the discussion in Section 7.2 

have been edited to discuss the control cost, revenue from 

beneficial-use projects, and the resulting net cost. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-10 

Table 3-3Table 3-3). The additional cost of control for the less stringent alternative 

option 2.5/40 would is estimated to be $60.3 million, $33.6 million of which is estimated to be 

offset by increased revenue from beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is estimated to be $27 

million, while. the The cost of control for the more stringent alternative option 2.0/34 would is 

estimated to be $111 million, $60.7 million of which is estimated to be offset by increased 

revenue from beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is estimated to be $51 million. These 

options represent approximately between 9 to 17 percent in additional net costs beyond the 

baseline, with the proposed option 2.5/34 resulting in a 16 percent increase in net costs beyond 

the baseline for the industry as a whole. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-11 

Table 3-3 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2025 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (7% Discount Rate) 

 Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions 2012$) 

Testing and 

Monitoring 

Costs Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use

Projects Net Cost 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 7.3 1,700 1,410 299 

Incremental values versus the current EG

Alternative option 2.5/40 0.40 60.3 33.6 27.0 

Proposed option 2.5/34 0.69 101 55.3 46.8 

Alternative option 2.0/34 0.84 111 60.7 51.0 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. 

When using a 3% discount rate, the model predicts a different timing in the investment behavior 

by the landfills, which affects both the costs and revenue that are predicted in 2025. Under the 

proposed option 2.5/34, the additional cost of control over the baseline in 2025 would is 

estimated to be $117 million, $82.5 million of which is estimated to be offset in increased 

revenue from beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is estimated to be $35 million (
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-12 

Table 3-4Table 3-4). The cost of control for the less stringent alternative option 2.5/40 

would is estimated to be $72.1 million, $52.3 million of which is estimated to be offset by 

increased revenue from beneficial use projects, so the net cost is estimated to be $20.1 million, 

while. the The cost of control for the more stringent alternative option 2.0/34 would is estimated 

to be $126 million, of which $89.1 million is estimated to be offset by increased revenue from 

beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is estimated to be $38.1 million. These options represent 

approximately between 24 to 45 percent in additional net costs beyond the baseline, with the 

proposed option 2.5/34 resulting in a 41 percent increase in net costs beyond the baseline for the 

industry as a whole. However, it is important to note that the baseline value when using a 3% 

discount rate is less than 30 percent of the value when using a 7% discount rate, because the 

increased costs of earlier installation of GCCS and engines are offset by increased revenue from 

energy generation. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-13 

Table 3-4 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2025 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (3% Discount Rate) 

 Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions 2012$) 

Testing and 

Monitoring 

Costs Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use

Projects Net Cost 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 7.1 2,190 2,120 84.5 

Incremental values versus the current EG

Alternative option 2.5/40 0.37 72.1 52.3 20.1 

Proposed option 2.5/34 0.66 117 82.5 35.0 

Alternative option 2.0/34 0.80 126 89.1 38.1 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. 

In terms of cost effectiveness, when considering the estimated net cost of the options, the 

overall average cost effectiveness for NMOC reductions is $5,0905,200 per Mg NMOC under 

the baseline and roughly $17,000 per Mg NMOC under the proposed option 2.5/34 and 

alternative option 2.0/34, and roughly $16,000 per Mg NMOC under the alternative option 

2.5/40 (Table 3-5Table 3-5). The average cost-effectiveness of controlling methane is 

significantly lower than for NMOC because methane constitutes approximately 50 percent of 

landfill gas, while NMOC represents less than 1 percent of landfill gas. The overall average cost 

effectiveness for methane reductions is roughly $32 33 per Mg methane under the baseline and 

approximately $100 - $110 per Mg methane under the proposed option 2.5/34 and the alternative 

options 2.5/40 and 2.0/34. 

When estimating cost effectiveness excluding the estimated revenue from beneficial-use 

projects, the overall average cost effectiveness for NMOC reductions is $29,800 per Mg NMOC 

under the baseline and roughly $37,000 per Mg NMOC under the proposed option 2.5/34 and 

alternative option 2.0/34, and roughly $36,000 per Mg NMOC under the alternative option 

2.5/40 (Table 3-5Table 3-5). The average cost-effectiveness of controlling methane is 

significantly lower than for NMOC because methane constitutes approximately 50 percent of 

landfill gas, while NMOC represents less than 1 percent of landfill gas. The overall average cost 

effectiveness for methane reductions is $189 per Mg methane under the baseline and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-14 

approximately $225 - $235 per Mg methane under the proposed option 2.5/34 and the alternative 

options 2.5/40 and 2.0/34.

Table 3-5 Estimated Cost-effectiveness in 2025 for the Baseline and Alternative Options 

(7% Discount Rate) 

Cost-effectiveness (2012$ per Mg)

NMOC Methane 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Net 

Costb 

/ton 

Total 

Cost 

/ton 

Net 

Costb 

/ton

Total 

Cost

/ton 

Net 

Costb 

/ton

Total 

Cost

/ton 

 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 5,200 29,800 33.1 189 1.3 7.6 

 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 15,800 35,500 100 225 4.0 9.0 

Proposed option 2.5/34 17,000 37,000 108 235 4.3 9.4 

Alternative option 2.0/34 16,800 36,900 107 234 4.3 9.4 

Note: The cost-effectiveness of NMOC and methane are estimated as if all of the control cost were attributed to each 

pollutant separately. 

a A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. The secondary CO2 emission 

reductions are not reflected in these estimates. 

b Net Cost is the total control and testing and monitoring cost minus any project revenue. The control costs for 

landfills with energy projects includes costs to install and operate a reciprocating engine (and associated electrical 

equipment), which is more expensive than a standard flare. Reciprocating engines are not required by the regulation 

but are expected to be used as control devices when it is cost-effective to recovery the LFG energy.

3.6 Alternative Years of Analysis 

While the EPA is assessing impacts in year 2025 as a representative year for the landfills 

Emission Guidelines for existing MSW landfills, the quantity and composition of landfill gas 

does change over the lifetime of a landfill, as discussed in Chapter 2. This section presents a 

more complete picture of the emission reductions and costs of the Emission Guidelines 

alternatives over time by presenting results from the years 2020, 2030, and 2040. Throughout 

this section, costs are presented only at a 7% interest rate, and do not include testing and 

monitoring costs. However, testing and monitoring costs are typically a very small percentage of 

Commented [A14]: OMB RIA Comment 21: Reviewer 

recommends presenting cost-effectiveness both with and without the 

added revenue on 3-12. 

EPA Response: Table 3-5 has been modified to include costeffectiveness with and without added revenue (change is not tracked 

due to Word issues) and surrounding discussion has been modified. 

Similar change made to Table 7-5 and surrounding text for 

supplemental NSPS proposal. 

Commented [A15]: This section added in response to OMB 

General Comment 1. Table additions not tracked as changes for 

clarity. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-15 

the overall costs. Tables 3-6 and 3-7 present the emissions reductions and compliance costs, 

respectively, of the alternatives in the 2020 snapshot year. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-16 

Table 3-6 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2020 for the Baseline and 

Alternative Options 

 Annual Average Reduction (Mg) 

NMOC 

Million 

Methane 

Million 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 56,300 8.9 222 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 1,490 0.24 5.9 

Proposed option 2.5/34 2,270 0.36 9.0 

Alternative option 2.0/34 2,560 0.40 10.1 

*A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. Secondary CO2 emission 

reductions are not included in this table. 

Table 3-7 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2020 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (7% Discount Rate) 

 

Landfills 

Controlling 

Emissions

Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions 

2012$) 

Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use 

Projects Net Cost 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 595 1,660 1,390 262 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 57 53.0 42.9 18.1 

Proposed option 2.5/34 93 88.4 65.8 30.5 

Alternative option 2.0/34 108 96.9 70.0 34.9 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. 

Tables 3-8 and 3-9 present the emissions reductions and compliance costs, respectively, in the 

2030 snapshot year.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-17 

Table 3-8 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2030 for the Baseline and 

Alternative Options 

 Annual Average Reduction (Mg) 

NMOC 

Million 

Methane 

Million 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 55,600 8.8 219 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 1,960 0.31 7.7 

Proposed option 2.5/34 3,150 0.50 12.4 

Alternative option 2.0/34 3,390 0.53 13.4 

*A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. Secondary CO2 emission 

reductions are not included in this table. 

Table 3-9 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2030 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (7% Discount Rate) 

 

Landfills 

Controlling 

Emissions

Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions 

2012$) 

Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use 

Projects Net Cost 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 554 1,680 1,360 325 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 65 69.4 31.5 32.9 

Proposed option 2.5/34 107 112.9 58.5 49.4 

Alternative option 2.0/34 123 122.4 63.9 53.5 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

3-18 

Tables 3-10 and 3-11 present the emissions reductions and compliance costs, respectively, in the 

2040 snapshot year. 

Table 3-10 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2040 for the Baseline and 

Alternative Options 

 Annual Average Reduction (Mg) 

NMOC 

Million 

Methane 

Million 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC

Baseline 49,500 7.8 195 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 1,340 0.21 5.3 

Proposed option 2.5/34 2,130 0.34 8.4 

Alternative option 2.0/34 2,210 0.35 8.7 

*A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. Secondary CO2 emission 

reductions are not included in this table. 

Table 3-11 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2040 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (7% Discount Rate) 

 

Landfills 

Controlling 

Emissions

Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions 

2012$)

Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use 

Projects Net Cost 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC

Baseline 464 1,500 1,100 398 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 47 51.6 26.7 27.0 

Proposed option 2.5/34 74 89.4 56.4 35.0 

Alternative option 2.0/34 81 93.0 58.2 36.7 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-1 

4 BENEFITS OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS 

4.1 Introduction 

The proposed Emission Guidelines are expected to result in significant emissions 

reductions of landfill gas (LFG) from existing MSW landfills. For the proposed Emission 

Guidelines, there will be climate benefits and HAP, ozone and PM2.5 health “co-benefits”. These 

co-benefits occur because the control techniques to meet the standards simultaneously reduce 

methane, VOC, and HAP emissions. By lowering the NMOC emissions threshold to 34 Mg/yr, 

the proposal is anticipated to achieve reductions of 2,770 Mg/yr NMOC and 436,100 Mg/yr 

methane in 2025. 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, while methane is a GHG and a precursor to global ozone 

formation. As described in the subsequent sections, these pollutants are associated with 

substantial health effects, climate effects, and other welfare effects. The only categories of 

benefits monetized in this RIA are methane-related climate effects and CO2 co-benefits 

associated with reduced electricity demand due to increased generation of electricity by landfills 

through the burning of LFG in engines. The methane-related climate benefits are estimated to 

range from $310 million (2012$) to $1.7 billion (2012$); these benefits are estimated to be $660 

million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. The CO2 co-benefits are estimated to range 

from $3.6 million (2012$) to $36 million (2012$) in 2025; estimated CO2 benefits are $12 

million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. 

While we expect that these avoided emissions will also result in improvements in air 

quality and reduce health and welfare effects associated with exposure to HAP, ozone, and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5), we have determined that quantification of those health benefits cannot 

be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to imply that these benefits do not 

exist; rather, it is a reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the 

reductions in emissions for this industrial sector with the data currently available. With the data 

available, we are not able to provide a credible health co-PM2.5 benefits estimates for this rule, 

due to the differences in the locations of MSW landfill emission points relative to existing 

information and the highly localized nature of air quality responses associated with HAP and 

Commented [A16]: OMB RIA Comment 22: Reviewer 

recommends clearly articulating which reductions are primary 

benefits and which are co-benefits on 4.1 

EPA Response: Section has been edited to make this clearer. 

Formatted: Not Superscript/ Subscript
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-2 

VOC reductions.16 Nearly 30 organic HAPs have been identified in uncontrolled LFG, including 

benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and vinyl chloride, and they will be reduced by this rule. In this 

chapter, we provide a qualitative assessment of the health benefits associated with reducing 

exposure to these pollutants, as well as visibility impairment and ecosystem benefits. Table 4-1 

summarizes the quantified and unquantified benefits in this analysis. 

Table 4-1 Climate and Human Health Effects of Emission Reductions in this Rule 

Category Specific Effect 

Effect Has 

Been 

Quantified 

Effect Has 

Been 

Monetized 

More 

Information 

Improved Environment 

Reduced climate 

effects 

Global climate impacts from methane (CH4) 

and carbon dioxide (CO2) —1 

Marten et al. 

(2014), SC-CO2

TSDs 

Other climate impacts (e.g., ozone, black 

carbon, aerosols, other impacts) — — 

IPCC, Ozone ISA, 

PM ISA2

Improved Human Health 

Reduced incidence of 

premature mortality 

from exposure to 

PM2.5

Adult premature mortality based on cohort 

study estimates and expert elicitation estimates 

(age >25 or age >30)

— — PM ISA3

Infant mortality (age <1) — — PM ISA3

Reduced incidence of 

morbidity from 

exposure to PM2.5

Non-fatal heart attacks (age > 18) — — PM ISA3

Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages) — — PM ISA3

Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (age >20) — — PM ISA3

Emergency room visits for asthma (all ages) — — PM ISA3

Acute bronchitis (age 8-12) — — PM ISA3

Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7-14) — — PM ISA3

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9-

11) — — PM ISA3

Asthma exacerbation (asthmatics age 6-18) — — PM ISA3

Lost work days (age 18-65) — — PM ISA3

Minor restricted-activity days (age 18-65) — — PM ISA3

Chronic Bronchitis (age >26) — — PM ISA3

Emergency room visits for cardiovascular 

effects (all ages) — — PM ISA3

 

16 Previous studies have estimated the monetized benefits-per-ton of reducing VOC emissions associated with the 

effect that those emissions have on ambient PM2.5 levels and the health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure 

(Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell, 2009). While these ranges of benefit-per-ton estimates provide useful context, the 

geographic distribution of VOC emissions from the MSW landfill sector are not consistent with emissions 

modeled in Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009). In addition, the benefit-per-ton estimates for VOC emission 

reductions in that study are derived from total VOC emissions across all sectors. Coupled with the larger 

uncertainties about the relationship between VOC emissions and PM2.5 and the highly localized nature of air 

quality responses associated with VOC reductions, these factors lead us to conclude that the available VOC 

benefit-per-ton estimates are not appropriate to calculate monetized benefits of these rules, even as a bounding 

exercise. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-3 

Category Specific Effect 

Effect Has 

Been 

Quantified 

Effect Has 

Been 

Monetized 

More 

Information 

Strokes and cerebrovascular disease (age 50-

79) — — PM ISA3

Other cardiovascular effects (e.g., other ages) — — PM ISA2

Other respiratory effects (e.g., pulmonary 

function, non-asthma ER visits, non-bronchitis 

chronic diseases, other ages and populations) 

— — PM ISA2

Reproductive and developmental effects (e.g., 

low birth weight, pre-term births, etc) — — PM ISA2,4

Cancer, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity effects — — PM ISA2,4

Reduced incidence of 

mortality from 

exposure to ozone 

Premature mortality based on short-term study 

estimates (all ages) — — Ozone ISA3

Premature mortality based on long-term study 

estimates (age 30–99) — — Ozone ISA3

Reduced incidence of 

morbidity from 

exposure to ozone 

Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (age > 

65) — — Ozone ISA3

Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (age 

<2) — — Ozone ISA3

Emergency department visits for asthma (all 

ages) — — Ozone ISA3

Minor restricted-activity days (age 18–65) — — Ozone ISA3

School absence days (age 5–17) — — Ozone ISA3

Decreased outdoor worker productivity (age 

18–65) — — Ozone ISA3

Other respiratory effects (e.g., premature aging 

of lungs) — — Ozone ISA2

Cardiovascular and nervous system effects — — Ozone ISA2

Reproductive and developmental effects — — Ozone ISA2,4

Reduced incidence of 

morbidity from 

exposure to HAP 

Effects associated with exposure to hazardous 

air pollutants such as benzene — — ATSDR, IRIS2,3

Improved Environment 

Reduced visibility 

impairment 

Visibility in Class 1 areas — — PM ISA3

Visibility in residential areas — — PM ISA3

Reduced effects from 

PM deposition 

(organics) 

Effects on Individual organisms and 

ecosystems 

— — PM ISA2

Reduced vegetation 

and ecosystem effects 

from exposure to 

ozone 

Visible foliar injury on vegetation — — Ozone ISA3

Reduced vegetation growth and reproduction — — Ozone ISA3

Yield and quality of commercial forest 

products and crops — — Ozone ISA3

Damage to urban ornamental plants — — Ozone ISA2

Carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems — — Ozone ISA3

Recreational demand associated with forest 

aesthetics — — Ozone ISA2

Other non-use effects Ozone ISA2

Ecosystem functions (e.g., water cycling, 

biogeochemical cycles, net primary 

productivity, leaf-gas exchange, community 

composition) 

— — Ozone ISA2

1

 The global climate and related impacts of CO2 and CH4 emissions changes, such as sea level rise, are estimated within each 

integrated assessment model as part of the calculation of the SC-CO2 and SC-CH4. The resulting monetized damages, which 

are relevant for conducting the benefit-cost analysis, are used in this RIA to estimate the welfare effects of quantified changes 

in CO2 emissions. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-4 

2

 We assess these benefits qualitatively because we do not have sufficient confidence in available data or methods. 

3

 We assess these benefits qualitatively due to data limitations for this analysis, but we have quantified them in other analyses. 

 4 We assess these benefits qualitatively because current evidence is only suggestive of causality or there are other significant 

concerns over the strength of the association. 

4.2 Methane (CH4) 

4.2.1 Methane climate effects and valuation 

Methane is the one of the principal components of landfill gas. Methane is also a potent 

greenhouse gas (GHG) that once emitted into the atmosphere absorbs terrestrial infrared 

radiation that contributes to increased global warming and continuing climate change. Methane 

reacts in the atmosphere to form ozone and ozone also impacts global temperatures. Methane, in 

addition to other GHG emissions, contributes to warming of the atmosphere, which over time 

leads to increased air and ocean temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, melting and 

thawing of global glaciers and ice, increasingly severe weather events, such as hurricanes of 

greater intensity, and sea level rise, among other impacts. 

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment 

Report (AR5, 2015), changes in methane concentrations since 1750 contributed 0.48 W/m2 of 

forcing, which is about 17% of all global forcing due to increases in anthropogenic GHG 

concentrations, and which makes methane the second leading long-lived climate forcer after 

CO2. However, after accounting for changes in other greenhouse substances such as ozone and 

stratospheric water vapor due to chemical reactions of methane in the atmosphere, historical 

methane emissions were estimated to have contributed to 0.97 W/m2 of forcing today, which is 

about 30% of the contemporaneous forcing due to historical greenhouse gas emissions. 

MSW landfills emit significant amounts of methane. The Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013 (published April 2015) estimates 2013 methane emissions 

from MSW landfills to be 97.5 MMt CO2 Eq. In 2013, total methane emissions from MSW 

landfills represented approximately 15 percent of the total methane emissions from all sources 

and account for about 1.5 percent of all CO2-equivalent (CO2 Eq.) emissions in the U.S., with 

landfills being the third largest contributor to U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions (EPA, 

2015). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-5 

This rulemaking proposes emission control technologies and regulatory alternatives that 

are expected to significantly decrease methane emissions from existing MSW landfills. By 

lowering the NMOC emissions threshold to 34 Mg/yr, the proposal would achieve reductions of 

2,770 Mg/yr NMOC and 436,100 Mg/yr methane in 2025. 

We calculated the global social benefits of methane emissions reductions expected from 

the proposed guidelines for existing MSW landfills using estimates of the social cost of methane 

(SC-CH4), a metric that estimates the monetary value of impacts associated with marginal 

changes in methane emissions in a given year. It includes a wide range of anticipated climate 

impacts, such as net changes in agricultural productivity and human health, property damage 

from increased flood risk, and changes in energy system costs, such as reduced costs for heating 

and increased costs for air conditioning. The SC-CH4 estimates applied in this analysis were 

developed by Marten et al. (2014) and are discussed in greater detail below. 

A similar metric, the social cost of CO2 (SC-CO2), provides important context for 

understanding the Marten et al. SC-CH4 estimates. Estimates of the SC-CO2 have been used by 

EPA and other federal agencies to value the impacts of CO2 emissions changes in benefit cost 

analysis for GHG-related rulemakings since 2008. The SC-CO2 is a metric that estimates the 

monetary value of impacts associated with marginal changes in CO2 emissions in a given year. 

Similar to the SC-CH4, it includes a wide range of anticipated climate impacts, such as net 

changes in agricultural productivity, property damage from increased flood risk, and changes in 

energy system costs, such as reduced costs for heating and increased costs for air conditioning. It 

is used to quantify the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions, or the disbenefit from increasing 

emissions, in regulatory impact analyses. 

The SC-CO2 estimates were developed over many years, using the best science available, 

and with input from the public. Specifically, an interagency working group (IWG) that included 

EPA and other executive branch agencies and offices used three integrated assessment models 

(IAMs) to develop the SC-CO2 estimates and recommended four global values for use in 

regulatory analyses. The SC-CO2 estimates were first released in February 2010 and updated in 

2013 using new versions of each IAM. The 2013 update did not revisit the 2010 modeling 

decisions with regards to the discount rate, reference case socioeconomic and emission scenarios, 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-6 

and equilibrium climate sensitivity distribution. Rather, improvements in the way damages are 

modeled are confined to those that have been incorporated into the latest versions of the models 

by the developers themselves and published in the peer-reviewed literature. The 2010 SC-CO2

Technical Support Document (2010 SC-CO2 TSD) provides a complete discussion of the 

methods used to develop these estimates and the current SC-CO2 TSD presents and discusses the 

2013 update (including recent minor technical corrections to the estimates).17 

The 2010 SC-CO2 TSD noted a number of limitations to the SC-CO2 analysis, including 

the incomplete way in which the IAMs capture catastrophic and non-catastrophic impacts, their 

incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change, uncertainty in the extrapolation of 

damages to high temperatures, and assumptions regarding risk aversion. Currently IAMs do not 

assign value to all of the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate change 

recognized in the climate change literature due to a lack of precise information on the nature of 

damages and because the science incorporated into these models understandably lags behind the 

most recent research. Nonetheless, these estimates and the discussion of their limitations 

represent the best available information about the social benefits of CO2 reductions to inform 

benefit-cost analysis; see RIA of this rule and the SC-CO2 TSDs for additional details. The new 

versions of the models offer some improvements in these areas, although further work is 

warranted. 

Accordingly, EPA and other agencies continue to engage in research on modeling and 

valuation of climate impacts with the goal to improve these estimates. The EPA and other 

agencies also continue to consider feedback on the SC-CO2 estimates from stakeholders through 

a range of channels, including public comments on Agency rulemakings that use the SC-CO2 in 

supporting analyses and through regular interactions with stakeholders and research analysts 

implementing the SC-CO2 methodology used by the interagency working group. In addition, 

OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs sought public comment on the approach 

 

17 Both the 2010 SC-CO2 TSD and the current TSD are available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/socialcost-of-carbonhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_regpol_agency_review. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-7 

used to develop the SC-CO2 estimates through a separate comment period that ended on 

February 26, 2014. 

After careful evaluation of the full range of comments, the interagency working group 

continues to recommend the use of the SC-CO2 estimates in regulatory impact analysis. With 

the release of the response to comments, the interagency working group announced plans to 

obtain expert independent advice from the National Academiesy of Sciences, Engineering, and 

Medicine to ensure that the SC-CO2 estimates continue to reflect the best available scientific and 

economic information on climate change. The NRC Academies review will be informed by the 

public comments received and focus on the technical merits and challenges of potential 

approaches to improving the SC-CO2 estimates in future updates. 

Concurrent with OMB’s publication of the response to comments on SC-CO2 and 

announcement of the NRC Academies process, OMB posted a revised TSD that includes two 

minor technical corrections to the current estimates. 18 One technical correction addressed an 

inadvertent omission of climate change damages in the last year of analysis (2300) in one model 

and the second addressed a minor indexing error in another model. On average the revised SCCO2 estimates are one dollar less than the mean SC-CO2 estimates reported in the November 

2013 TSD. The change in the estimates associated with the 95th percentile estimates when using 

a 3% discount rate is slightly larger, as those estimates are heavily influenced by the results from 

the model that was affected by the indexing error. 

The four SC-CO2 estimates are: $15, $50, $73, and $150 per metric ton of CO2 emissions 

in the year 2025 (2012 dollars).19 The first three values are based on the average SC-CO2 from 

the three IAMs, at discount rates of 5, 3, and 2.5 percent, respectively. Estimates of the SC-CO2

for several discount rates are included because the literature shows that the SC-CO2 is sensitive 

 

18 See https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/social-cost-of-carbon for the response to comments, the blog post 

announcing the Academies’ process, and the current TSD. 

19 The current version of the SCC TSD is available at: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_regpol_agency_review. The TSDs present SC-CO2 in $2007. The 

estimates were adjusted to 2012$ using the GDP Implicit Price Deflator. Also available at: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ECONI-2013-02/pdf/ECONI-2013-02-Pg3.pdf. The SC-CO2 values have been 

rounded to two significant digits. Unrounded numbers from the 2013 SCC TSD were adjusted to 2012$ and used 

to calculate the CO2 benefits. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-8 

to assumptions about the discount rate, and because no consensus exists on the appropriate rate 

to use in an intergenerational context (where costs and benefits are incurred by different 

generations). The fourth value is the 95th percentile of the SC-CO2 across all three models at a 

3% discount rate. It is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature 

change further out in the tails of the SC-CO2 distribution. The SC-CO2 increases over time 

because future emissions are expected to produce larger incremental damages as economies grow 

and physical and economic systems become more stressed in response to greater climate change. 

A challenge particularly relevant to this proposal is that the IWG did not estimate the 

social costs of non-CO2 GHG emissions at the time the SC-CO2 estimates were developed. One 

alternative approach to value methane impacts is to use the global warming potential (GWP) to 

convert the emissions to CO2 equivalents which are then valued using the SC-CO2 estimates. 

The GWP measures the cumulative radiative forcing from a perturbation of a non-CO2

GHG relative to a perturbation of CO2 over a fixed time horizon, often 100 years. The GWP 

mainly reflects differences in the radiative efficiency of gases and differences in their 

atmospheric lifetimes. While the GWP is a simple, transparent, and well-established metric for 

assessing the relative impacts of non-CO2 emissions compared to CO2 on a purely physical basis, 

there are several well-documented limitations in using it to value non-CO2 GHG benefits, as 

discussed in the 2010 SCC TSD and previous rulemakings (e.g., EPA 2012b, 2012d).20 In 

particular, several recent studies found that GWP-weighted benefit estimates for methane are 

likely to be lower than the estimates derived using directly modeled social cost estimates for 

these gases. Gas comparison metrics, such as the GWP, are designed to measure the impact of 

non-CO2 GHG emissions relative to CO2 at a specific point along the pathway from emissions to 

monetized damages (depicted in Figure 4-1), and this point may differ across measures. 

 

20 See also Reilly and Richards 1993; Schmalensee 1993; Fankhauser 1994; Marten and Newbold 2012. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-9 

Figure 4-1 Path from GHG Emissions to Monetized Damages (Source: Marten et al., 

2014) 

The GWP is not ideally suited for use in benefit-cost analyses to approximate the social 

cost of non-CO2 GHGs because it ignores important nonlinear relationships beyond radiative 

forcing in the chain between emissions and damages. These can become relevant because gases 

have different lifetimes and the SC-CO2 takes into account the fact that marginal damages from 

an increase in temperature are a function of existing temperature levels. Another limitation of gas 

comparison metrics for this purpose is that some environmental and socioeconomic impacts are 

not linked to all of the gases under consideration, or radiative forcing for that matter, and will 

therefore be incorrectly allocated. For example, the economic impacts associated with increased 

agricultural productivity due to higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations included in the SC-CO2

would be incorrectly allocated to methane emissions with the GWP-based valuation approach. 

Also of concern, is the fact that the assumptions made in estimating the GWP are not 

consistent with the assumptions underlying SC-CO2 estimates in general, and the SC-CO2

estimates developed by the IWG specifically. For example, the 100 year time horizon usually 

used in estimating the GWP is less than the 300 year horizon the IWG used in developing the 

SC-CO2 estimates. The GWP approach also treats all impacts within the time horizon equally, 

independent of the time at which they occur. This is inconsistent with the role of discounting in 

economic analysis, which accounts for a basic preference for earlier over later gains in utility and 

expectations regarding future levels of economic growth. In the case of methane, which has a 

relatively short lifetime compared to CO2, the temporal independence of the GWP could lead the 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-10 

GWP approach to underestimate the SC-CH4 with a larger downward bias under higher discount 

rates (Marten and Newbold 2012).21 

EPA sought public comments on the valuation of non-CO2 GHG impacts in previous 

rulemakings (EPA, 2012b; EPA, 2012d). In general, the commenters strongly encouraged EPA 

to incorporate the monetized value of non-CO2 GHG impacts into the benefit cost analysis, 

however they noted the challenges associated with the GWP-approach, as discussed above, and 

encouraged the use of directly-modeled estimates of the SC-CH4 to overcome those challenges. 

EPA had cited several researchers that had directly estimated the social cost of non-CO2

emissions using IAMs but noted that the number of such estimates was small compared to the 

large number of SC-CO2 estimates available in the literature. EPA found considerable variation 

among these published estimates in terms of the models and input assumptions they employ 

(EPA, 2012b; EPA, 2012d). These studies differed in the emissions perturbation year, employed 

a wide range of constant and variable discount rate specifications, and considered a range of 

baseline socioeconomic and emissions scenarios that have been developed over the last 20 years. 

Furthermore, at the time, none of the other published estimates of the social cost of non-CO2

GHG were consistent with the SC-CO2 estimates developed by the IWG, and most were likely 

underestimates due to changes in the underlying science since their publication. 

Therefore, EPA concluded that the GWP approach would serve as an interim method of 

analysis until directly modeled social cost estimates for non-CO2 GHGs, consistent with the SCCO2 estimates developed by the IWG, were developed. EPA presented GWP-weighted estimates 

in sensitivity analyses rather than the main benefit-cost analyses. 

Since then, a paper by Marten et al. (2014) has provided the first set of published SC-CH4

estimates in the peer-reviewed literature that are consistent with the modeling assumptions 

underlying the SC-CO2 estimates.22 Specifically, the estimation approach of Marten et al. used 

 

21 We note that the truncation of the time period in the GWP calculation could lead to an overestimate of SC-CH4 for 

near term perturbation years in cases where the SC-CO2 is based on a sufficiently low or steeply declining 

discount rate. 

22 Marten et al. (2014) also provided the first set of SC-N2O estimates that are consistent with the assumptions 

underlying the SC-CO2 estimates. 

Commented [A17]: OMB RIA comment 24: Reviewer 

recomends providing a citation for Marten and Newbold 2012, 

which is not in the reference list. See 4-10. 

EPA response: Updated the reference list. 

Commented [A18]: OMB RIA Comment 23: Reviewer 

recommends on 4-9 footnoting that the bias is unknown for other 

GHG. 

EPA Response: Both the text and footnote are written to be specific 

to methane rather than non-GHGs more broadly. Given that this text 

is precise and does not make any suggestions about other non-CO2 

GHGs and that the rulemaking has no implications for other nonCO2 GHGs, we recommend leaving the text unchanged. Other 

GHGs are not relevant to this section. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-11 

the same set of three IAMs, five socioeconomic and emissions scenarios, equilibrium climate 

sensitivity distribution, three constant discount rates, and aggregation approach used by the IWG 

to develop the SC-CO2 estimates. The aggregation method involved distilling the 45 distributions 

of the SC-CH4 produced for each emissions year into four estimates: the mean across all models 

and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile 

of the pooled estimates from all models and scenarios using a 3 percent discount rate. The 

atmospheric lifetime radiative efficacy of methane used by Marten et al. is based on the estimates 

reported by the IPCC in their Fourth Assessment Report (AR4, 2007), including an adjustment in 

the radiative efficacy of methane to account for its role as a precursor for tropospheric ozone and 

stratospheric water. These values represent the same ones used by in the IPCC in AR4 for 

calculating GWPs. At the time Marten et al. developed their estimates of the SC-CH4, AR4 was 

the latest assessment report by the IPCC. The IPCC updates GWP estimates with each new 

assessment, and in the latest assessment, AR5, the latest estimate of the methane GWP ranged 

from 28-36, compared to a GWP of 25 in AR4. The updated values reflect a number of changes: 

changes in the lifetime and radiative efficiency estimates for CO2, changes in the lifetime 

estimate for methane, and changes in the correction factor applied to methane’s GWP to reflect 

the effect of methane emissions on other climatically important substances such as tropospheric 

ozone and stratospheric water vapor. In addition, the range presented in the latest IPCC report 

reflects different choices regarding whether to account for how biogenic and fossil methane have 

different carbon cycle effects, and for whether to account for climate feedbacks on the carbon 

cycle for both methane and carbon dioxide (rather than just for carbon dioxide as was done in 

AR4).23,24 

 

23 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. 

24 Note that this proposal uses a GWP value for methane of 25 for CO2 equivalency calculations, consistent with the 

GHG emissions inventories and the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-12 

Marten et al. (2014) discuss these estimates (SC-CH4 estimates presented below in Table 

4-2), and compare them with other recent estimates in the literature.25 The authors noted that a 

direct comparison of their estimates with all of the other published estimates is difficult, given 

the differences in the models and socioeconomic and emissions scenarios, but results from three 

relatively recent studies offer a better basis for comparison (see Hope (2006), Waldhoff et al. 

(20141), Marten and Newbold (2012)). Marten et al. found that in general the SC-CH4 estimates 

from their 2014 paper are higher than previous estimates. The higher SC-CH4 estimates are 

partially driven by the higher effective radiative forcing due to the inclusion of indirect effects 

from methane emissions in their modeling. Marten et al., similar to other recent studies, also find 

that their directly modeled SC-CH4 estimates are higher than the GWP-weighted estimates. 

More detailed discussion of the SC-CH4 estimation methodology, results and a comparison to 

other published estimates can be found in Marten et al. 

Table 4-2 Social Cost of CH4, 2012 – 2050a [in 2012$ per metric ton] (Source: Marten et 

al., 2014b) 

Year 

SC-CH4

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

2012 $430 $1,000 $1,400 $2,800 

2015 $490 $1,100 $1,500 $3,000 

2020 $580 $1,300 $1,700 $3,500 

2025 $700 $1,500 $1,900 $4,000 

2030 $820 $1,700 $2,200 $4,500 

2035 $970 $1,900 $2,500 $5,300 

2040 $1,100 $2,200 $2,800 $5,900 

2045 $1,300 $2,500 $3,000 $6,600 

2050 $1,400 $2,700 $3,300 $7,200 

a

 The values are emissions-year specific and are defined in real terms, i.e., adjusted for inflation using the GDP 

implicit price deflator. 

b

 The estimates in this table have been adjusted to reflect the minor technical corrections to the SC-CO2 estimates 

described above. See erratum Marten et al. (2015) for more details. 

 

25 Marten et al. (2014) estimates are presented in 2007 dollars. These estimates were adjusted for inflation using 

National Income and Product Accounts Tables, Table 1.1.9, Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product 

(US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis), http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm 

Accessed 3/3/15. 

Commented [A19]: Citation added here and details added to 

references. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-13 

The application of directly modeled estimates from Marten et al. (2014) to benefit-cost 

analysis of a regulatory action is analogous to the use of the SC-CO2 estimates. Specifically, the 

SC-CH4 estimates in Table 4-2 are used to monetize the benefits of reductions in methane 

emissions expected as a result of the proposed rulemaking. Forecast changes in methane 

emissions in a given year, expected as a result of the proposed regulatory action, are multiplied 

by the SC-CH4 estimate for that year. To obtain a present value estimate, the monetized stream 

of future non-CO2 benefits are discounted back to the analysis year using the same discount rate 

used to estimate the social cost of the non-CO2 GHG emission changes. In addition, the 

limitations for the SC-CO2 estimates discussed above likewise apply to the SC-CH4 estimates, 

given the consistency in the methodology. 

EPA recently conducted a peer review of the application of the Marten et al. (2014) nonCO2 social cost estimates in regulatory analysis and received responses that supported this 

application. Three reviewers considered seven charge questions that covered issues such as the 

EPA’s interpretation of the Marten et al. estimates, the consistency of the estimates with the SCCO2 estimates, EPA’s characterization of the limits of the GWP-approach to value non-CO2

GHG impacts, and the appropriateness of using the Marten et al. estimates in regulatory impact 

analyses. The reviewers agreed with EPA’s interpretation of Marten et al.’s estimates; generally 

found the estimates to be consistent with the SC-CO2 estimates; and concurred with the 

limitations of the GWP approach, finding directly modeled estimates to be more appropriate. 

While outside of the scope of the review, the reviewers briefly considered the limitations in the 

SC-CO2 methodology (e.g., those discussed earlier in this section) and noted that because the 

SC-CO2 and SC-CH4 methodologies are similar, the limitations also apply to the resulting SCCH4 estimates. Two of the reviewers concluded that use in RIAs of the SC-CH4 estimates 

developed by Marten et al. and published in the peer-reviewed literature is appropriate, provided 

that the Agency discuss the limitations, similar to the discussion provided for SC-CO2 and other 

economic analyses. All three reviewers encouraged continued improvements in the SC-CO2

estimates and suggested that as those improvements are realized they should also be reflected in 

the SC-CH4 estimates, with one reviewer suggesting the SC-CH4 estimates lag this process. EPA 

supports continued improvement in the SC-CO2 estimates developed by the U.S. government and 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-14 

agrees that improvements in the SC-CO2 estimates should also be reflected in the SC-CH4

estimates. The fact that the reviewers agree that the SC-CH4 estimates are generally consistent 

with the SC-CO2 estimates that are recommended by OMB’s guidance on valuing CO2 emissions 

reductions leads EPA to conclude that use of the SC-CH4 estimates is an analytical improvement 

over excluding methane emissions from the monetized portion of the benefit cost analysis. 

In light of the favorable peer review and past comments urging EPA to value non-CO2

GHG impacts in its rulemakings, the Agency has used the Marten et al. (2014) SC-CH4 estimates 

to value methane impacts expected from this proposed rulemaking and has included those 

benefits in the main benefits analysis. EPA seeks comments on the use of these directly modeled 

estimates, from the peer-reviewed literature, for the social cost of non-CO2 GHG. 

The methane benefits calculated using Marten et al. (2014) are presented below in Table 

4-3 for 2025. Applying this approach to the methane reductions estimated for this proposal, the 

2025 methane benefits vary by discount rate and range from about $310 million to approximately 

$1.7 billion; for the proposed option, the mean SC-CH4 at the 3% discount rate results in an 

estimate of about $660 million in 2025. 

Table 4-3 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CH4

reduced 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CO2-

equivalent 

reduced 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 0.27 6.8 $190 $410 $530 $1,100 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 0.44 11 $310 $660 $850 $1,700 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 0.48 12 $340 $720 $930 $1,900 

*The SC-CH4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH4 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts. 

While the vast majority of this proposal’s climate-related benefits are associated with 

methane reductions, additional climate-related benefits are expected from the proposal’s 

secondary air impacts, specifically, a net reduction in CO2 emissions due to reduced demand for 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-15 

electricity from the grid as landfills generate electricity from landfill gas.26 These benefits are 

presented in Table 4-4 below. Monetizing the net CO2 reductions with the SC-CO2 estimates 

described in this section yields benefits that vary by discount rate and range from about $3.6 

million to approximately $36 million in 2025. For the proposed option, the mean SC-CO2 at the 

3% discount rate results in an estimate of about $12 million in 2025, which is about 2 percent of 

the estimated methane benefits in 2025 (average SC-CH4, 3 percent discount rate). 

Table 4-4 Estimated Global Benefits of Net CO2 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) 

Metric tonnes of net 

CO2 reduced 

Discount rate and statistic

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 102,000 $1.5 $5.0 $7.5 $15 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 238,000 $3.6 $12 $18 $36 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 238,000 $3.6 $12 $18 $36 

*The SC-CO2 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CO2 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts.

Finally, in addition to the CO2 impacts discussed above, there is a small increase in CO2

emissions resulting from flaring of methane in response to this rule. We are not estimating the 

monetized disbenefits of these secondary emissions of CO2 because much of the methane that 

would have been released in the absence of the flare would have eventually oxidized into CO2 in 

the atmosphere. Note that the CO2 produced from the methane oxidizing in the atmosphere is not 

included in the calculation of the SC-CH4. 

However, EPA does recognize that because the growth rate of the SC-CO2 estimates are 

lower than their associated discount rates, the estimated impact of CO2 produced in the future 

from oxidized methane would be less than the estimated impact of CO2 released immediately 

from flaring, which would imply a small disbenefit associated with flaring. Assuming an average 

methane oxidation period of 8.7 years, consistent with the lifetime used in IPCC AR4, the 

 

26 The reduced demand for electricity from the grid more than offsets the additional energy demand required to 

operate the control system and the by-product emissions from the combustion of LFG. 

Commented [A20]: This discussion added in response to 

question during OMB call. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-16 

disbenefits associated with destroying one metric ton of methane and releasing the CO2

emissions in 2020 instead of being released in the future via the methane oxidation process is 

estimated to be $5 to $25 per metric ton CH4 depending on the SC-CO2 value or 0.7 percent to 

0.9 percent of the SC-CH4 estimates per metric ton for 2020. The analogous estimates for 2025 

are $7 to $34 per metric ton CH4 or 0.8 percent to 1.0 percent of the SC-CH4 estimates per metric 

ton for 2025.27 While EPA is not accounting for the CO2 disbenefits at this time, we request 

comment on the appropriateness of the monetization of such impacts using the SC-CO2 and 

aspects of the calculation.

4.2.2 Methane as an ozone precursor 

This rulemaking would reduce emissions of methane, a GHG and also a precursor to 

ozone. In remote areas, methane is a dominant precursor to tropospheric ozone formation (EPA, 

2013). Approximately 40% of the global annual mean ozone increase since preindustrial times is 

believed to be due to anthropogenic methane (HTAP, 2010). Projections of future emissions also 

indicate that methane is likely to be a key contributor to ozone concentrations in the future 

(HTAP, 2010). 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 (HTAP, 2010). Reducing methane 

emissions, therefore, can reduce global background ozone concentrations, human exposure to 

ozone, and the incidence of ozone-related health effects (West et al., 2006, Anenberg et al., 2009, 

Sarofim et al., 2015). These benefits are global and occur in both urban and rural areas. 

Reductions in background ozone concentrations can also have benefits for agriculture and 

ecosystems (UNEP/WMO, 2011). Studies show that controlling methane emissions can reduce 

global ozone concentrations and climate change simultaneously, but controlling other shorterlived ozone precursors such as NOX, carbon monoxide, or non-methane VOC has larger local 

 

27 To calculate the disbenefits associated the complete destruction of a ton of CH4 through flaring, EPA took the 

difference between the SC-CO2 at the time of the flaring and in 8.7 years and discounted that value to the time of 

the flaring using the same discount rate as used to estimate the SC-CO2. This value was then scaled by 44/16 to 

account for the relative mass of carbon contained in a ton of CH4 versus a ton of CO2. The value of the SC-CO2

8.7 years after flaring was estimated by linearly interpolating between the annual SC-CO2 estimates reported in 

the TSD and inflated to 2012 dollars.
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-17 

health benefits from greater reductions in local ozone concentrations (West and Fiore, 2005; 

West et al., 2006; Fiore et al. 2008; Dentener et al., 2005; Shindell et al., 2005, 2012; 

UNEP/WMO, 2011). The health, welfare, and climate effects associated with ozone are 

described in the preceding sections. Without air quality modeling, we are unable to estimate the 

effect that reducing methane will have on ozone concentrations at particular locations.Examining 

mortality benefits in isolation, However, the global monetized benefit of ozone reduction due to 

methane mitigation have been estimated to be on the order of $1000 per metric ton of methane 

emissions reducedin several studies (Anenberg et al., 2012; Shindell et al., 2012), an estimate 

similar in magnitude to the climate benefits of methane reductions estimated by the Marten et al. 

(2014) or GWP methods.

Recently, a paper was published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that presented a 

range of estimates of the monetized ozone-related mortality benefits of reducing methane 

emissions (Sarofim et al. 2015). For example, under their base case assumptions using a 3% 

discount rate, Sarofim et al. find global ozone-related mortality benefits of methane emissions 

reductions to be $790 per tonne of methane in 2020, with 10.6%, or $80, of this amount resulting 

from mortality reductions in the United States. The methodology used in this study is consistent 

in some (but not all) aspects with the modeling underlying the SC-CO2 and SC-CH4 estimates 

discussed above, and required a number of additional assumptions such as baseline mortality 

rates and mortality response to ozone concentrations. The Sarofim et al. (2015) study may have 

implications for this benefits analysis as it provides a potential approach to estimating the ozone 

related mortality benefits resulting from the methane reductions expected from this proposed 

rulemaking. The EPA requests comment on Sarofim et al.’s approach to estimating the ozone 

related mortality benefits of methane emissions reductions, including technical considerations in 

applying their methodology to this regulatory impact analysis. 

4.2.3 Combined methane climate and ozone effects of methane

A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) assessment provided a 

comprehensive analysis of the health, climate, and agricultural benefits of measures to reduce 

methane, as well as black carbon, a component of fine particulate matter that absorbs radiation 

Commented [A21]: Updated based on recently published 

research. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-18 

(UNEP/WMO, 2011; Shindell et al., 2012). The UNEP assessment found that while reducing 

longer-lived GHGs such as CO2 is necessary to protect against long-term climate change, 

reducing global methane and black carbon emissions would have global health benefits by 

reducing exposure to ozone and PM2.5 as well as potentially slowing the rate of climate change 

within the first half of this century. Relative to a business as usual reference scenario, 

implementing methane mitigation measures that achieve approximately 40% reductions in global 

methane emissions were estimated to avoid approximately 0.3°C globally averaged warming in 

2050 (including the impacts of both methane itself and subsequently formed ozone) and 47,000 

ozone-related premature deaths and 27 million metric tons of ozone-related crop yield losses 

globally in 2030 (Shindell et al., 2012). These benefits, including global climate impacts of 

methane and resulting ozone changes, and global ozone-related health and agricultural impacts, 

were valued at $700 to $5,000 per metric ton.28 The methane measures examined include 

extended methane recovery/utilization and reduced fugitive emissions from oil and gas 

production, which contributed the greatest climate benefit of all methane mitigation measures in 

North America and Europe (UNEP, 2011). Examining mortality benefits in isolation, the 

monetized benefit of ozone reduction due to methane mitigation have been estimated to be on the 

order of $1000 per metric ton of methane emissions reduced (Anenberg et al., 2012; Shindell et 

al., 2012), an estimate similar in magnitude to the climate benefits of methane reductions 

estimated by the Marten et al. (2014) or GWP methods. While monetized per-ton benefits of the 

climate, health, and agriculture impacts of methane mitigation have been estimated, there has not 

yet been a similar monetization of the parallel impacts on broader ecosystems. EPA continues to 

monitor developments in this area of research, but is not yet utilizing monetized estimates of the 

benefits of methane mitigation on mortality and agriculture due to ozone reductions. 

 

28 Benefit per ton values derived from Shindell et al. (2012) cannot be directly compared to, nor are they additive 

with, the ozone health benefit-per-ton estimates for the U.S. reported in Section 4.4.1, since they include climate 

and agricultural impacts, are calculated for global rather than U.S. impacts, and use different assumptions for the 

value of a statistical life. Similarly, these values cannot be compared to, nor are they additive with, the methane 

climate valuation estimates in Section 4.2.1 since they include health and agricultural benefits and use different 

assumptions for the Social Cost of Carbon. 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-19 

4.3 VOC as a PM2.5 precursor 

This rulemaking would reduce emissions of VOC, which are a precursor to PM2.5. Most 

VOC emitted are oxidized to carbon dioxide (CO2) rather than to PM, but a portion of VOC 

emission contributes to ambient PM2.5 levels as organic carbon aerosols (EPA, 2009a). 

Therefore, reducing these emissions would reduce PM2.5 formation, human exposure to PM2.5, 

and the incidence of PM2.5-related health effects. However, we have not quantified the PM2.5-

related benefits in this analysis. Analysis of organic carbon measurements suggest only a 

fraction of secondarily formed organic carbon aerosols are of anthropogenic origin. The current 

state of the science of secondary organic carbon aerosol formation indicates that anthropogenic 

VOC contribution to secondary organic carbon aerosol is often lower than the biogenic (natural) 

contribution. Given that a fraction of secondarily formed organic carbon aerosols is from 

anthropogenic VOC emissions and the extremely small amount of VOC emissions from this 

sector relative to the entire VOC inventory it is unlikely this sector has a large contribution to 

ambient secondary organic carbon aerosols. Photochemical models typically estimate secondary 

organic carbon from anthropogenic VOC emissions to be less than 0.1 μg/m3. 

Data resources and methodological limitations prevented EPA from monetizing the 

benefits of reducing VOCs. We were unable to perform air quality modeling for this rule to 

quantify the PM2.5 benefits associated with reducing VOC emissions. Due to the high degree of 

variability in the responsiveness of PM2.5 formation to VOC emission reductions, we are unable 

to estimate the effect that reducing VOC will have on ambient PM2.5 levels without air quality 

modeling. However, we provide the discussion below for context regarding findings from 

previous modeling. 

4.3.1 PM2.5 health effects and valuation 

Reducing VOC emissions would reduce PM2.5 formation, human exposure, and the 

incidence of PM2.5-related health effects. Reducing exposure to PM2.5 is associated with 

significant human health benefits, including avoiding mortality and respiratory morbidity. 

Researchers have associated PM2.5 exposure with adverse health effects in numerous 

toxicological, clinical and epidemiological studies (EPA, 2009a). When adequate data and 

resources are available, EPA generally quantifies several health effects associated with exposure 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-20 

to PM2.5 (e.g., EPA, 2011d). These health effects include premature mortality for adults and 

infants, cardiovascular morbidity such as heart attacks, hospital admissions, and respiratory 

morbidity such as asthma attacks, acute and chronic bronchitis, hospital and ER visits, work loss 

days, restricted activity days, and respiratory symptoms. Although EPA has not quantified these 

effects in previous benefits analyses, the scientific literature suggests that exposure to PM2.5 is 

also associated with adverse effects on birth weight, pre-term births, pulmonary function, other 

cardiovascular effects, and other respiratory effects (EPA, 2009a). 

When EPA quantifies PM2.5-related benefits, the Agency assumes that all fine particles, 

regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality 

because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates by 

particle type (EPA, 2009a). Based on our review of the current body of scientific literature, EPA 

estimates PM-related mortality without applying an assumed concentration threshold. This 

decision is supported by the data, which are quite consistent in showing effects down to the 

lowest measured levels of PM2.5 in the underlying epidemiology studies. 

Previous studies have estimated the monetized benefits-per-ton of reducing VOC 

emissions associated with the effect that those emissions have on ambient PM2.5 levels and the 

health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure (Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell, 2009), and these 

estimates can provide useful context for this rulemaking. Using the estimates in Fann, Fulcher, 

and Hubbell (2009), the monetized benefit-per-ton of reducing VOC emissions in nine urban 

areas of the U.S. ranges from $560 in Seattle, WA to $5,700 in San Joaquin, CA, with a national 

average of $2,400. These estimates assume a 50 percent reduction in VOC, the Laden et al. 

(2006) mortality function (based on the Harvard Six Cities study, a large cohort epidemiology 

study in the Eastern U.S.), an analysis year of 2015, a 3% discount rate, and 2006$. 

 Additional benefit-per-ton estimates are available from this dataset using alternate 

assumptions regarding the relationship between PM2.5 exposure and premature mortality from 

empirical studies and supplied by experts (e.g., Pope et al., 2002; Laden et al., 2006; Roman et 

al., 2008). EPA generally presents a range of benefits estimates derived from the American 

Cancer Society cohort (e.g., Pope et al., 2002; Krewski et al., 2009) to the Harvard Six Cities 

cohort (e.g., Laden et al., 2006; Lepuele et al., 2012) because the studies are both well-designed 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-21 

and extensively peer reviewed, and EPA provides the benefit estimates derived from expert 

opinions in Roman et al. (2008) as a characterization of uncertainty. As shown in Table 4-5Table 

4-5, the range of VOC benefits that reflects the range of epidemiology studies and the range of 

the urban areas is $300 to $7,500 per ton of VOC reduced (2012$).29 Since these estimates were 

presented in the 2012 Oil and Gas NSPS RIA (EPA, 2012b), we updated our methods to apply 

more recent epidemiological studies for these cohorts (i.e., Krewski et al., 2009; Lepeule et al., 

2012) as well as additional updates to the morbidity studies and population data.30 Because these 

updates would not lead to significant changes in the benefit-per-ton estimates for VOC, we have 

not updated them here. 

While these ranges of benefit-per-ton estimates provide useful context, the geographic 

distribution of VOC emissions from the MSW landfill sector are not consistent with emissions 

modeled in Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009). In addition, the benefit-per-ton estimates for 

VOC emission reductions in that study are derived from total VOC emissions across all sectors. 

Coupled with the larger uncertainties about the relationship between VOC emissions and PM2.5, 

these factors lead the EPA to conclude that the available VOC benefit per ton estimates are not 

appropriate to calculate monetized benefits of this rule, even as a bounding exercise. 

 

29 We also converted the estimates from Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009) to 2012$ and applied EPA’s current 

value of a statistical life (VSL) estimate. For more information regarding EPA’s current VSL estimate, please see 

Section 5.6.5.1 of the RIA for the PM NAAQS RIA (EPA, 2012c). EPA continues to work to update its 

guidance on valuing mortality risk reductions. 

30 For more information regarding these updates, please see Section 5.3 of the RIA for the final PM NAAQS (EPA, 

2012c). 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

4-22 

Table 4-5 Monetized Benefits-per-Ton Estimates for VOC based on Previous Modeling in 2015 (2012$) 

Area Pope et al. (2002) Laden et al. (2006) Expert A Expert B Expert C Expert D Expert E Expert F Expert G Expert H Expert I Expert J Expert K Expert L 

Atlanta $660 $1,600 $1,700 $1,300 $1,300 $920 $2,100 $1,200 $780 $980 $1,300 $1,000 $260 $1,000

Chicago $1,600 $4,000 $4,200 $3,300 $3,200 $2,300 $5,300 $3,000 $1,900 $2,400 $3,200 $2,600 $640 $2,500

Dallas $320 $790 $830 $650 $630 $450 $1,000 $580 $380 $480 $630 $510 $130 $490 

Denver $770 $1,900 $2,000 $1,500 $1,500 $1,100 $2,400 $1,400 $910 $1,100 $1,500 $1,200 $300 $910 

NYC/ Philadelphia $2,300 $5,600 $5,900 $4,600 $4,500 $3,200 $7,300 $4,100 $2,700 $3,400 $4,500 $3,600 $890 $3,300

Phoenix $1,100 $2,700 $2,800 $2,200 $2,100 $1,500 $3,500 $2,000 $1,300 $1,600 $2,100 $1,700 $420 $1,600

Salt Lake $1,400 $3,300 $3,500 $2,700 $2,700 $1,900 $4,400 $2,500 $1,600 $2,000 $2,700 $2,200 $570 $2,100

San Joaquin $3,100 $7,500 $7,900 $6,100 $6,000 $4,300 $9,700 $5,500 $3,600 $4,500 $6,000 $4,900 $1,400 $4,600

Seattle $300 $730 $770 $570 $590 $420 $950 $540 $350 $440 $580 $470 $120 $350 

National average $1,300 $3,200 $3,400 $2,600 $2,600 $1,800 $4,200 $2,300 $1,500 $1,900 $2,500 $2,100 $520 $1,900

* These estimates assumed a 50 percent reduction in VOC emissions, an analysis year of 2015, and a 3 percent discount rate. All estimates are rounded to two 

significant digits. These estimates have been adjusted from Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009) to reflect a more recent currency year and EPA’s current VSL estimate. However, these estimates have not been updated to reflect recent epidemiological studies for mortality studies, morbidity studies, or population data. Using a discount rate of 7 percent, the benefit-per-ton estimates would be approximately 9 percent lower. Assuming a 75 percent reduction in VOC emissions would increase the benefit-per-ton estimates by approximately 4 percent to 52 percent. Assuming a 25 percent reduction in VOC emissions would decrease the benefit-per-ton estimates by 5 percent to 52 percent. EPA generally presents a range of benefits estimates derived from the expert functions from Roman et al. (2008) as a characterization of uncertainty. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-23 

4.3.2 Visibility Effects 

Reducing secondary formation of PM2.5 from VOC emissions would improve visibility 

throughout the U.S. Fine particles with significant light-extinction efficiencies include sulfates, 

nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil (Sisler, 1996). Suspended particles and gases 

degrade visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Higher visibility impairment levels in the 

East are due to generally higher concentrations of fine particles, particularly sulfates, and higher 

average relative humidity levels. Visibility has direct significance to people’s enjoyment of daily 

activities and their overall sense of wellbeing. Good visibility increases the quality of life where 

individuals live and work, and where they engage in recreational activities. Previous analyses 

(EPA, 2006b; EPA, 2011d; EPA, 2011a; EPA, 2012c) show that visibility benefits are a 

significant welfare benefit category. Without air quality modeling, we are unable to estimate 

visibility related benefits, nor are we able to determine whether VOC emission reductions would 

be likely to have a significant impact on visibility in urban areas or Class I areas. 

4.4 VOC as an Ozone Precursor 

This rulemaking would reduce emissions of VOC, which are also precursors to secondary 

formation of ozone. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created when its two 

primary components, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), react in 

the presence of sunlight. In urban areas, compounds representing all classes of VOC and CO are 

important compounds for ozone formation, but biogenic VOC emitted from vegetation tend to be 

more important compounds in non-urban vegetated areas (EPA, 2013). Therefore, reducing 

these emissions would reduce ozone formation, human exposure to ozone, and the incidence of 

ozone-related health effects. However, we have not quantified the ozone-related benefits in this 

analysis for several reasons. First, previous rules have shown that the monetized benefits 

associated with reducing ozone exposure are generally smaller than PM-related benefits, even 

when ozone is the pollutant targeted for control (EPA, 2010a; EPA, 2014a). Second, the 

complex non-linear chemistry of ozone formation introduces uncertainty to the development and 

application of a benefit-per-ton estimate, particularly for sectors with substantial new growth. 

Third, the impact of reducing VOC emissions is spatially heterogeneous depending on local air 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-24 

chemistry. Urban areas with a high population concentration are often VOC-limited, which 

means that ozone is most effectively reduced by lowering VOC. Rural areas and downwind 

suburban areas are often NOX-limited, which means that ozone concentrations are most 

effectively reduced by lowering NOX emissions, rather than lowering emissions of VOC. 

Between these areas, ozone is relatively insensitive to marginal changes in both NOX and VOC. 

Due to data limitations, we did not perform air quality modeling for this rule needed to 

quantify the ozone benefits associated with reducing VOC emissions. Due to the high degree of 

variability in the responsiveness of ozone formation to VOC emission reductions and data 

limitations regarding the location of the emissions reductions, we are unable to estimate the 

effect that reducing VOC will have on ambient ozone concentrations without air quality 

modeling. 

4.4.1 Ozone health effects and valuation 

Reducing ambient ozone concentrations is associated with significant human health 

benefits, including mortality and respiratory morbidity (EPA, 2010a). Researchers have 

associated ozone exposure with adverse health effects in numerous toxicological, clinical and 

epidemiological studies (EPA, 2013). When adequate data and resources are available, EPA 

generally quantifies several health effects associated with exposure to ozone (e.g., EPA, 2010a; 

EPA, 2011a). These health effects include respiratory morbidity such as asthma attacks, hospital 

and emergency department visits, school loss days, as well as premature mortality. The scientific 

literature is also suggestive that exposure to ozone is also associated with chronic respiratory 

damage and premature aging of the lungs. 

In a recent EPA analysis, EPA estimated that reducing 15,000 tons of VOC from 

industrial boilers resulted in $3.6 to $15 million (2008$) of monetized benefits from reduced 

ozone exposure (EPA, 2011b).31 After updating the currency year to 2012$, this implies a 

benefit-per-ton for ozone of $260 to $1,070 per ton of VOC reduced. Since EPA conducted the 

 

31 While EPA has estimated the ozone benefits for many scenarios, most of these scenarios also reduce NOX

emissions, which make it difficult to isolate the benefits attributable to VOC reductions. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-25 

analysis of industrial boilers, EPA published the Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone (EPA, 

2013), the Health Risk and Exposure Assessment for Ozone (EPA, 2014a), and the RIA for the 

proposed Ozone NAAQS (EPA, 2014b). Therefore, the ozone mortality studies applied in the 

boiler analysis, while current at that time, do not reflect the most updated literature available. 

The selection of ozone mortality studies used to estimate benefits in RIAs was revisited in the 

RIA for the proposed Ozone NAAQS. Applying the more recent studies would lead to benefitper-ton estimates for ozone within the range shown here. While these ranges of benefit-per-ton 

estimates provide useful context, the geographic distribution of VOC emissions from the MSW 

landfill sector are not consistent with emissions modeled in the boiler analysis. Therefore, we do 

not believe that those estimates to provide useful estimates of the monetized benefits of this rule, 

even as a bounding exercise. 

4.4.2 Ozone vegetation effects 

Exposure to ozone has been associated with a wide array of vegetation and ecosystem 

effects in the published literature (EPA, 2013a). Sensitivity to ozone is highly variable across 

species, with over 66 vegetation species identified as “ozone-sensitive”, many of which occur in 

state and national parks and forests. These effects include those that damage or impair the 

intended use of the plant or ecosystem. Such effects are considered adverse to the public welfare 

and can include reduced growth and/or biomass production in sensitive trees, reduced yield and 

quality of crops, visible foliar injury, species composition shift, and changes in ecosystems and 

associated ecosystem services. 

4.4.3 Ozone climate effects 

Ozone is a well-known short-lived climate forcing (SLCF) greenhouse gas (GHG) (EPA, 

2006a). Stratospheric ozone (the upper ozone layer) is beneficial because it protects life on Earth 

from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation. In contrast, tropospheric ozone (ozone in the 

lower atmosphere) is a harmful air pollutant that adversely affects human health and the 

environment and contributes significantly to regional and global climate change. Due to its short 

atmospheric lifetime, tropospheric ozone concentrations exhibit large spatial and temporal 

variability (EPA, 2009b). A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) study 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-26 

reports that the threefold increase in ground level ozone during the past 100 years makes it the 

third most important contributor to human contributed climate change behind CO2 and methane. 

This quantifiable influence of ground level ozone on climate leads to increases in global surface 

temperature and changes in hydrological cycles. 

4.5 Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Benefits 

Even though emissions of air toxics from all sources in the U.S. declined by approximately 

42 percent since 1990, the 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) predicts that 

most Americans are exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels that have the 

potential to cause adverse health effects (EPA, 2011c).32 The levels of air toxics to which people 

are exposed vary depending on where they live and work and the kinds of activities in which 

they engage. In order to identify and prioritize air toxics, emission source types and locations 

that are of greatest potential concern, the U.S. EPA conducts the NATA. 33 The most recent 

NATA was conducted for calendar year 2005 and was released in March 2011. NATA includes 

four steps: 

1) Compiling a national emissions inventory of air toxics emissions from outdoor sources 

2) Estimating ambient concentrations of air toxics across the United States utilizing 

dispersion models 

3) Estimating population exposures across the United States utilizing exposure models 

4) Characterizing potential public health risk due to inhalation of air toxics including both 

cancer and noncancer effects 

 

32 The 2005 NATA is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/.

33 The NATA modeling framework has a number of limitations that prevent its use as the sole basis for setting 

regulatory standards. These limitations and uncertainties are discussed on the 2005 NATA website. Even so, 

this modeling framework is very useful in identifying air toxic pollutants and sources of greatest concern, setting 

regulatory priorities, and informing the decision making process. U.S. EPA. (2011) 2005 National-Scale Air 

Toxics Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/

Commented [A22]: OMB RIA Comment 25: Reviewer 

recommends more specificity in the HAP benefits discussion on 4.5. 

If there are known HAP emissions please focus the discussion to 

those emissions. The current discussion doesn’t seem very relevant 

to these rulemakings. 

EPA Response: Section 4.5 only includes a qualitative discussion of 

four HAP that are known to be part of landfill gas: benzene, toluene, 

ethylbenzene, and vinyl chloride. Even though we cannot quantify 

the emission reductions of these HAP, we anticipate reduced 

exposure to them as a result of this rulemaking. The NATA 

discussion provides context for evaluating these qualitative HAP 

benefits. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-27 

Based on the 2005 NATA, EPA estimates that about 5 percent of census tracts 

nationwide have increased cancer risks greater than 100 in a million. The average national 

cancer risk is about 50 in a million. Nationwide, the key pollutants that contribute most to the 

overall cancer risks are formaldehyde and benzene. 34,35 Secondary formation (e.g., formaldehyde 

forming from other emitted pollutants) was the largest contributor to cancer risks, while 

stationary, mobile and background sources contribute almost equal portions of the remaining 

cancer risk. 

Noncancer health effects can result from chronic,36 subchronic,37 or acute38 inhalation 

exposures to air toxics, and include neurological, cardiovascular, liver, kidney, and respiratory 

effects as well as effects on the immune and reproductive systems. According to the 2005 

NATA, about three-fourths of the U.S. population was exposed to an average chronic 

concentration of air toxics that has the potential for adverse noncancer respiratory health effects.

Results from the 2005 NATA indicate that acrolein is the primary driver for noncancer 

respiratory risk. 

Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 depict the estimated census tract-level carcinogenic risk and 

noncancer respiratory hazard from the assessment. It is important to note that large reductions in 

HAP emissions may not necessarily translate into significant reductions in health risk because 

toxicity varies by pollutant, and exposures may or may not exceed levels of concern. For 

 

34 Details on EPA’s approach to characterization of cancer risks and uncertainties associated with the 2005 NATA 

risk estimates can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/riskbg.html#Z2. 

35 Details about the overall confidence of certainty ranking of the individual pieces of NATA assessments including 

both quantitative (e.g., model-to-monitor ratios) and qualitative (e.g., quality of data, review of emission 

inventories) judgments can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/roy/page16.html. 

36 Chronic exposure is defined in the glossary of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database 

(http://www.epa.gov/iris) as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than 

approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than approximately 90 days to 2 years in typically used 

laboratory animal species).

37 Defined in the IRIS database as repeated exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for more than 30 days, 

up to approximately 10% of the life span in humans (more than 30 days up to approximately 90 days in typically 

used laboratory animal species).

38 Defined in the IRIS database as exposure by the oral, dermal, or inhalation route for 24 hours or less. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-28 

example, acetaldehyde mass emissions were more than double acrolein emissions on a national 

basis in EPA’s 2005 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). However, the Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS) reference concentration (RfC) for acrolein is considerably lower than 

that for acetaldehyde, suggesting that acrolein could be potentially more toxic than 

acetaldehyde.39 Thus, it is important to account for the toxicity and exposure, as well as the mass 

of the targeted emissions. 

Figure 4-2 2005 NATA Model Estimated Census Tract Carcinogenic Risk from HAP 

Exposure from Emissions of All Outdoor Sources (inclusive of Residental Wood Heaters) 

based on the 2005 National Toxic Inventory. 

 

39 Details on the derivation of IRIS values and available supporting documentation for individual chemicals (as well 

as chemical values comparisons) can be found at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/compare.cfm. 

Commented [A23]: OMB RIA Comment 1: Reviewer 

recommends deleting the discussion in the RIA (starting on page 4-

25) because acrolein and acetaldehyde are HAPS but not key 

landfills gases. Further, the discussion of acrolein being “more 

toxic” is uncertain because there is no information about doseresponse. Without dose response, all that can be said is that adverse 

health effects can start to manifest at lower concentrations for 

acrolein than acetaldehyde. 

EPA Response: Text has been deleted. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-29 

Figure 4-3 2005 NATA Model Estimated Census Tract Noncancer Risk from HAP 

Exposure from Emissions of All Outdoor Sources (inclusive of Residental Wood Heaters) 

based on the 2005 National Toxic Inventory 

Due to methodology and data limitations, we were unable to estimate the benefits 

associated with the hazardous air pollutants that would be reduced as a result of this rule. In a 

few previous analyses of the benefits of reductions in HAP, EPA has quantified the benefits of 

potential reductions in the incidences of cancer and noncancer risk (e.g., EPA, 1995). In those 

analyses, EPA relied on unit risk factors (URF) and reference concentrations (RfC) developed 

through risk assessment procedures. The URF is a quantitative estimate of the carcinogenic 

potency of a pollutant, often expressed as the probability of contracting cancer from a 70-year 

lifetime continuous exposure to a concentration of one μg/m3 of a pollutant. These URFs are 

designed to be conservative, and as such, are more likely to represent the high end of the 

distribution of risk rather than a best or most likely estimate of risk. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-30 

An RfC is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a 

continuous inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is 

likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious noncancer health effects during a lifetime. 

As part of the second prospective analysis of the benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act (EPA, 

2011a), EPA conducted a case study analysis of the health effects associated with reducing 

exposure to benzene in Houston from implementation of the Clean Air Act (IEc, 2009). While 

reviewing the draft report, EPA’s Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis 

concluded that “the challenges for assessing progress in health improvement as a result of 

reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) are daunting...due to a lack of 

exposure-response functions, uncertainties in emissions inventories and background levels, the 

difficulty of extrapolating risk estimates to low doses and the challenges of tracking health 

progress for diseases, such as cancer, that have long latency periods” (EPA-SAB, 2008). 

In 2009, EPA convened a workshop to address the inherent complexities, limitations, and 

uncertainties in current methods to quantify the benefits of reducing HAP. Recommendations 

from this workshop included identifying research priorities, focusing on susceptible and 

vulnerable populations, and improving dose-response relationships (Gwinn et al., 2011). 

In summary, monetization of the benefits of reductions in cancer incidences requires 

several important inputs, including central estimates of cancer risks, estimates of exposure to 

carcinogenic HAP, and estimates of the value of an avoided case of cancer (fatal and non-fatal). 

Due to methodology and data limitations, we did not attempt to monetize the health benefits of 

reductions in HAP in this analysis. Instead, we provide a qualitative analysis of the health effects 

associated with the HAP anticipated to be reduced by this rule. EPA remains committed to 

improving methods for estimating HAP benefits by continuing to explore additional concepts of 

benefits, including changes in the distribution of risk. 

In the subsequent sections, we describe the health effects associated with the main HAP 

of concern from the MSW landfill sector: benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and vinyl chloride. 

This rule is anticipated to avoid or reduce 2,770 tons of NMOC per year. With the data 

available, it was not possible to estimate the tons of each individual HAP that would be reduced. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-31 

Therefore, in addition to the reasons identified above, we cannot estimate the monetized benefits 

associated with reducing HAP emissions for this rule.

4.5.1 Benzene 

The EPA’s IRIS database lists benzene as a known human carcinogen (causing leukemia) 

by all routes of exposure, and concludes that exposure is associated with additional health effects, 

including genetic changes in both humans and animals and increased proliferation of bone marrow 

cells in mice.40,41,42 EPA states in its IRIS database that data indicate a causal relationship between 

benzene exposure and acute lymphocytic leukemia and suggest a relationship between benzene 

exposure and chronic non-lymphocytic leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The IARC 

has determined that benzene is a human carcinogen and the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services has characterized benzene as a known human carcinogen.43,44

A number of adverse noncancer health effects including blood disorders, such as 

preleukemia and aplastic anemia, have also been associated with long-term exposure to 

benzene.45,46

 

40 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000. Integrated Risk Information System File for Benzene. 

Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is 

available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm. 

41 International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of 

chemicals to humans, Volume 29, Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, International Agency for Research 

on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France, p. 345-389, 1982. 

42 Irons, R.D.; Stillman, W.S.; Colagiovanni, D.B.; Henry, V.A. (1992) Synergistic action of the benzene metabolite 

hydroquinone on myelopoietic stimulating activity of granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor in vitro, 

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 89:3691-3695. 

43 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1987. Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk 

of chemicals to humans, Volume 29, Supplement 7, Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, World Health 

Organization, Lyon, France. 

44 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program 11th Report on Carcinogens 

available at: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/16183 . 

45 Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and carcinogenicity of benzene. Environ. Health Perspect. 82: 193-197. 

46 Goldstein, B.D. (1988). Benzene toxicity. Occupational medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 3: 541-554. 

Commented [A24]: OMB RIA Comment 2: Reviewer 

recommends clarifying in the RIA that EPA cannot estimate how 

much HAPs would be reduced because of this rule, and therefore 

cannot estimate benefits. 

EPA Response: This has been clarified in this section. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-32 

4.5.2 Ethylbenzene 

Ethylbenzene is a major industrial chemical produced by alkylation of benzene. The pure 

chemical is used almost exclusively for styrene production. It is also a constituent of crude 

petroleum and is found in gasoline and diesel fuels. Acute (short-term) exposure to ethylbenzene 

in humans results in respiratory effects such as throat irritation and chest constriction, and 

irritation of the eyes, and neurological effects such as dizziness. Chronic (long-term) exposure 

of humans to ethylbenzene may cause eye and lung irritation, with possible adverse effects on 

the blood. Animal studies have reported effects on the blood, liver, and kidneys and endocrine 

system from chronic inhalation exposure to ethylbenzene. No information is available on the 

developmental or reproductive effects of ethylbenzene in humans, but animal studies have 

reported developmental effects, including birth defects in animals exposed via inhalation. 

Studies in rodents reported increases in the percentage of animals with tumors of the nasal and 

oral cavities in male and female rats exposed to ethylbenzene via the oral route.47,48 The reports of 

these studies lacked detailed information on the incidence of specific tumors, statistical analysis, 

survival data, and information on historical controls, thus the results of these studies were 

considered inconclusive by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 2000) and 

the National Toxicology Program (NTP).49,50 The NTP (1999) carried out a chronic inhalation 

bioassay in mice and rats and found clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in male rats and some 

evidence in female rats, based on increased incidences of renal tubule adenoma or carcinoma in 

male rats and renal tubule adenoma in females. NTP (1999) also noted increases in the incidence 

 

47 Maltoni C, Conti B, Giuliano C and Belpoggi F, 1985. Experimental studies on benzene carcinogenicity at the 

Bologna Institute of Oncology: Current results and ongoing research. Am J Ind Med 7:415-446.

48 Maltoni C, Ciliberti A, Pinto C, Soffritti M, Belpoggi F and Menarini L, 1997. Results of long-term experimental 

carcinogenicity studies of the effects of gasoline, correlated fuels, and major gasoline aromatics on rats. Annals 

NY Acad Sci 837:15-52.

49International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 2000. Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks 

to Humans. Some Industrial Chemicals. Vol. 77, p. 227-266. IARC, Lyon, France.

50 National Toxicology Program (NTP), 1999. Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Ethylbenzene (CAS No. 

100-41-4) in F344/N Rats and in B6C3F1 Mice (Inhalation Studies). Technical Report Series No. 466. NIH 

Publication No. 99-3956. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National 

Institutes of Health. NTP, Research Triangle Park, NC.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-33 

of testicular adenoma in male rats. Increased incidences of lung alveolar/bronchiolar adenoma or 

carcinoma were observed in male mice and liver hepatocellular adenoma or carcinoma in female 

mice, which provided some evidence of carcinogenic activity in male and female mice (NTP, 

1999). IARC (2000) classified ethylbenzene as Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans, 

based on the NTP studies. 

4.5.3 Toluene51

Under the 2005 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, there is inadequate 

information to assess the carcinogenic potential of toluene because studies of humans chronically 

exposed to toluene are inconclusive, and toluene was not carcinogenic in adequate inhalation 

cancer bioassays of rats and mice exposed for life.

52,53,54, and increased Increased incidences of 

mammary cancer and leukemia were reported in a lifetime rat oral bioassay;

55

 however, this 

evidence was considered equivocal since cancers were observed at the low dose tested 

(500mg/kg/day) but not at the higher dose tested (800 mg/kg/day). In support of EPA’s cancer 

classification, IARC has classified toluene as Group 3 (not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity 

in humans) with a supporting statement that there is inadequate evidence in humans and evidence 

suggesting a lack of carcinogenicity of toluene in experimental animals.

56

 

51 All health effects language for this section came from: U.S. EPA. 2005. “Full IRIS Summary for Toluene 

(CASRN 108-88-3)” Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Office of 

Health and Environmental Assessment, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH. 

Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0118.htm>.

52 CIIT (Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology). (1980) A twenty-four month inhalation toxicology study in 

Fischer-344 rats exposed to atmospheric toluene. Conducted by Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc., Decatur, 

IL, and Experimental Pathology Laboratories, Inc., Raleigh, NC, for CIIT, Research Triangle Park, NC..

53 NTP (National Toxicology Program), 1990. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of toluene (CAS No. 108-88-

3) in F344/N rats and B5C3F1 mice (inhalation studies). Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services; NTP TR 371. Available from: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research 

Triangle Park, NC.

54 Huff, J., 2003. Absence of carcinogenic activity in Fischer rats and B6C3F1 mice following 103-week inhalation 

exposures to toluene. Int J Occup Environ Health 9:138-146.

55 Maltoni, C; Ciliberti, A; Pinto, C; et al., 1997. Results of long-term experimental carcinogenicity studies of the 

effects of gasoline, correlated fuels, and major gasoline aromatics on rats. Ann NY Acad Sci 837:15-52. 

56 IARC. (International Agency for Research on Cancer), 1999. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic 

risks of chemicals to humans. Vol. 71, Part 2. Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals, hydrazine and hydrogen 

peroxide. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, pp. 829-864.

Commented [A25]: OMB RIA Comment 3: Reviewer 

recommends clarifying the first paragraph of the RIA on toluene. It 

currently says “toluene was not carcinogenic in adequate inhalation 

cancer bioassays of rats and mice exposed for life, and increased 

evidence of mammary cancer and leukemia were reported in a 

lifetime rat oral bioassay.” Were the increased incidences of 

mammary cancer and leukemia observed in inadequate oral cancel 

bioassays? 

The cancer classification is just hazard identification, so there should 

be discussion on why the evidence is inadequate despite a positive 

oral cancer bioassay. 

EPA Response: This discussion has been clarified. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-34 

The central nervous system (CNS) is the primary target for toluene toxicity in both 

humans and animals for acute and chronic exposures. CNS dysfunction (which is often 

reversible) and narcosis have been frequently observed in humans acutely exposed to low or 

moderate levels of toluene by inhalation: symptoms include fatigue, sleepiness, headaches, and 

nausea. Central nervous system depression has been reported to occur in chronic abusers 

exposed to high levels of toluene. Symptoms include ataxia, tremors, cerebral atrophy, 

nystagmus (involuntary eye movements), and impaired speech, hearing, and vision. Chronic 

inhalation exposure of humans to toluene also causes irritation of the upper respiratory tract, eye 

irritation, dizziness, headaches, and difficulty with sleep. 

Human studies have also reported developmental effects, such as CNS dysfunction, 

attention deficits, and minor craniofacial and limb anomalies, in the children of women who 

abused toluene during pregnancy. A substantial database examining the effects of toluene in 

subchronic and chronic occupationally exposed humans exists. The weight of evidence from 

these studies indicates neurological effects (i.e., impaired color vision, impaired hearing, 

decreased performance in neurobehavioral analysis, changes in motor and sensory nerve 

conduction velocity, headache, and dizziness) as the most sensitive endpoint. 

4.5.4 Vinyl Chloride57

Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. 

Acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in air has resulted in central nervous 

system effects (CNS), such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches in humans. Chronic (longterm) exposure to vinyl chloride through inhalation and oral exposure in humans has resulted in 

liver damage. Cancer is a major concern from exposure to vinyl chloride via inhalation, as vinyl 

chloride exposure has been shown to increase the risk of a rare form of liver cancer in humans. 

 

57 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Vinyl Chloride. 2000. 

Available online at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/1001.htm. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-35 

EPA has classified vinyl chloride as a Group A, “human carcinogen”. IARC has classified vinyl 

chloride as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).58

4.5.5 Other Air Toxics 

In addition to the compounds described above, other air toxic compounds might be 

affected by this rule. Information regarding the health effects of those compounds can be found 

in EPA’s IRIS database.59

4.6 Alternative Years of Analysis 

While the EPA is assessing impacts in year 2025 as a representative year for the landfills 

Emission Guidelines for existing MSW landfills, the quantity and composition of landfill gas 

does change over the lifetime of a landfill, as discussed in Chapter 2. This section presents a 

more complete picture of the climate benefits of the Emission Guidelines alternatives over time 

by presenting results from the years 2020, 2030, and 2040. 

Table 4-6 presents the climate benefits of the alternatives in the 2020 snapshot year. 

Table 4-6 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2020* (in millions, 2012$) 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CH4

reduced 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CO2-

equivalent 

reduced 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 0.24 5.9 $140 $310 $410 $810 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 0.36 9.0 $210 $460 $620 $1,200 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 0.40 10.1 $240 $520 $700 $1,400 

*The SC-CH4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH4 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts. 

 

58 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2008. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic 

Risk of Chemicals for Humans. Vol. 97, pp311. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. 

Available online at http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol97/index.php. 

59 U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database is available at: www.epa.gov/iris 

Commented [A26]: This section added in response to OMB 

General Comment 1. Table additions not tracked as changes for 

clarity. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-36 

Table 4-7 presents the climate benefits of the alternatives in the 2030 snapshot year.

Table 4-7 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2030* (in millions, 2012$) 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CH4

reduced 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CO2-

equivalent 

reduced 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 0.31 7.7 $250 $530 $670 $1,400 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 0.50 12 $410 $860 $1,100 $2,300 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 0.53 13 $440 $920 $1,200 $2,400 

*The SC-CH4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH4 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts. 

Table 4-8 presents the climate benefits of the alternatives in the 2040 snapshot year.

Table 4-8 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2040* (in millions, 2012$) 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CH4

reduced 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CO2-

equivalent 

reduced 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 0.21 5.3 $230 $450 $590 $1,300 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 0.34 8.4 $360 $720 $940 $2,000 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 0.35 8.7 $380 $750 $980 $2,100 

*The SC-CH4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH4 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts. 

4.64.7 References 

Anenberg, S.C., et al. 2009. “Intercontinental impacts of ozone pollution on human mortality,” 

Environ. Sci. & Technol., 43, 6482-6487. 

Anenberg SC, Schwartz J, Shindell D, et al. 2012. “Global air quality and health co-benefits of 

mitigating near-term climate change through methane and black carbon emission 

controls.” Environ Health Perspect 120 (6):831. 

Dentener, F., D. Stevenson, J. Cofala, R. Mechler, M. Amann, P. Bergamaschi, F. Raes, and R. 

Derwent. 2005. “The impact of air pollutant and methane emission controls on 

tropospheric ozone and radiative forcing: CTM calculations for the period 1990-2030,” 

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 1731-1755. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-37 

Fankhauser, S. 1994. “The social costs of greenhouse gas emissions: an expected value 

approach.” Energy Journal 15(2):157–184. 

Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. “The influence of location, source, and emission 

type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution.” Air 

Qual Atmos Health 2:169-176. 

Fiore, A.M., J.J. West, L.W. Horowitz, V. Naik, and M.D. Schwarzkopf. 2008. “Characterizing 

the tropospheric ozone response to methane emission controls and the benefits to climate 

and air quality,” J. Geophys. Res., 113, D08307, doi:10.1029/2007JD009162 

Forster, P. et al. 2007. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: 

Climate Change 2007. The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and 

H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New 

York, NY, USA. 

Gwinn, M.R., J. Craig, D.A. Axelrad, R. Cook, C. Dockins, N. Fann, R. Fegley, D.E. Guinnup, 

G. Helfand, B. Hubbell, S.L. Mazur, T. Palma, R.L. Smith, J. Vandenberg, and 

B. Sonawane. 2011. “Meeting report: Estimating the benefits of reducing hazardous air 

pollutants—summary of 2009 workshop and future considerations.” Environ Health 

Perspect. 119(1): p. 125-30. 

Hope, C. 2005. “The climate change benefits of reducing methane emissions.” Climatic Change

68(1):21–39. 

Hope, C. and D. Newbery. 2006. “Calculating the Social Cost of Carbon” Forthcoming in 

Delivering a Low Carbon Electricity System: Technologies, Economics and Policy 

Editors: Michael Grubb, Tooraj Jamasb and Michael G. Pollitt (University of Cambridge) 

Cambridge University Press. <http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/194738> 

Accessed March 30, 2015. 

Industrial Economics, Inc (IEc). 2009. Section 812 Prospective Study of the Benefits and Costs of 

the Clean Air Act: Air Toxics Case Study—Health Benefits of Benzene Reductions in 

Houston, 1990–2020. Final Report, July 14, 2009. 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/dec09/812CAAA_Benzene_Houston_Final_Report_Jul

y_2009.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Social Cost of Carbon (SC-CO2). 2010. Technical 

Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 

Executive Order 12866. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-114577. Participation by 

Council of Economic Advisers, Council on Environmental Quality, Department of 

Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of 

Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Economic Council, Office of 

Energy and Climate Change, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science and 

Technology Policy, and Department of Treasury. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-38 

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-ofCarbon-for-RIA.pdf> Accessed March 31, 2015. 

Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Social Cost of Carbon (SC-CO2). 2013. Technical 

Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 

Executive Order 12866. Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495. Participation by Council 

of Economic Advisers, Council on Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture, 

Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, 

Domestic Policy Council, Environmental Protection Agency, National Economic 

Council, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

and Department of Treasury. 

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-updatesocial-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf> Accessed March 31, 2015. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis 

Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR4) [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, 

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

<http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report

_synthesis_report.htm>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: 

Climate Change 2007. Working Group II, Chapter 20 ‘Perspectives on Climate Change 

and Sustainability.’ <http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch20s20-

6-1.html> Accessed March 30, 2011. 

Kandlikar, M. 1995. “The relative role of trace gas emissions in greenhouse abatement policies.” 

Energy Policy 23(10): 879–883. 

Krewski D.; M. Jerrett; R.T. Burnett; R. Ma; E. Hughes; Y. Shi, et al. 2009. Extended Follow-Up 

and Spatial Analysis of the American Cancer Society Study Linking Particulate Air 

Pollution and Mortality. HEI Research Report, 140, Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA. 

4-64. 

Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. Dockery. 2006. “Reduction in Fine Particulate 

Air Pollution and Mortality.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care 

Medicine 173:667-672. 

Landers DH; Simonich SL; Jaffe DA; Geiser LH; Campbell DH; Schwindt AR; Schreck CB; 

Kent ML; Hafner WD; Taylor HE; Hageman KJ; Usenko S; Ackerman LK; Schrlau JE; 

Rose NL; Blett TF; Erway MM. 2008. The Fate, Transport and Ecological Impacts of 

Airborne Contaminants in Western National Parks (USA). EPA/600/R-07/138. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, NHEERL, 

Western Ecology Division. Corvallis, Oregon. 

Lepeule, J.; F. Laden; D. Dockery; J. Schwartz. 2012. “Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and 

Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009.” 

Environmental Health Perspectives, July, 120(7):965-70. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-39 

Marten, A. and S. Newbold. 20112012. “Estimating the Social Cost of Non-CO2 GHG 

Emissions: Methane and Nitrous Oxide.” NCEE Working Paper Series # 11-01. 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/WPNumber/2011-

01?opendocument>. Accessed March 30, 2015. Energy Policy 51:957-972.

Marten AL, Kopits KA, Griffiths CW, Newbold SC, Wolverton A. 2014. “Incremental CH4 and 

N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the US Government's SC-CO2 estimates,” 

Climate Policy 15, 2: 272-298. 

Marten AL, Kopits KA, Griffiths CW, Newbold SC, Wolverton A. 2015. “Corrigendum to: 

Incremental CH4 and N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the US Government's SCCO2 estimates,” Climate Policy 15, 5: 678-679. 

Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 

2002. “Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine 

Particulate Air Pollution.” Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132-1141. 

Roman, H.A., K.D. Walker, T.L. Walsh, L. Conner, H.M. Richmond, .J. Hubbell, and P.L. 

Kinney. 2008. “Expert Judgment Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in 

Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 42(7):2268-2274. 

Sarofim, Marcus C., S. Waldhoff, and S. Anenberg. “Valuing the Ozone-Related Health 

Benefits of Methane Emission Controls.” Environmental and Resource Economics, 2015. 

DOI: 10.1007/s10640-015-9937-6. 

Shindell, D., J.C.I. Kuylenstierna, E. Vignati, R. van Dingenen, M. Amann, Z. Klimont, S.C. 

Anenberg, N. Muller, G. Janssens-Maenhout, F. Raes, J. Schwartz, G. Faluvegi, L. 

Pozzoli, K. Kupiainen, L. Hoglund-Isakson, L. Emberson, D. Streets, V. Ramanathan, K. 

Hicks, K. Oanh, G. Milly, M. Williams, V. Demkine, D. Fowler. 2012. Simultaneously 

mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security, 

Science, 335:183-189. 

Shindell, D.T., G. Faluvegi, N. Bell, and G.A. Schmidt. 2005. “An emissions-based view of 

climate forcing by methane and tropospheric ozone,” Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L04803, 

doi:10.1029/2004GL021900

Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution (HTAP). 2010. Hemispheric Transport of 

Air Pollution 2010. Informal Document No.10. Convention on Long-range 

Transboundary Air Pollution Executive Body 28th Session. ECE/EB.AIR/2010/10 

(Corrected). Chapter 4, pp. 148-149. 

Tol, R. (2006). NEEDS Project 502687 ‘New Energy Externalities Developments for 

Sustainability Integrated Project’ < http://www.needsproject.org/RS1b/NEEDS_RS1B_TP_T5.4_T5.5.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

Tol, R, R.J. Heintz, and P.E.M. Lammers. 2003. “Methane emission reduction: An application of 

FUND.” Climatic Change 57(1):71–98. 

Commented [A27]: Updated citation 

Commented [A28]: Relevant, peer-reviewed paper just 

published online 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-40 

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Meteorological Organization 

(WMO), 2011. Opportunities to Limit Near-Term Climate Change: An Integrated 

Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone, and its Precursors, United 

Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. <http://www.unep.org>. Accessed February 

9, 2012. 

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2011. Near-Term Climate Protection and 

Clean Air Benefits: Actions for Controlling Short-Lived Climate Forcers, United Nations 

Environment Programme, Nairobi. Online at 

<http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/SLCF/>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006b. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2006 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, Chapter 5. Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/Chapter%205--Benefits.pdf>. Accessed 

March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Petroleum Refinery NESHAP. Revised Draft for Promulgation. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. <http://www.regmarkets.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=705>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment—RTP Division. 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>. Accessed March 30, 

2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Technical Support Document for 

Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under 

Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. 

<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Endangerment%20TSD.p

d>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010a. Regulatory Impact Analysis, National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, NC. <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/s1-

supplemental_analysis_full.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010e. 40 CFR Part 98 Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gases: Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems; Final Rule. Federal Register 

Vol. 75, No. 229, November 30, 2010. 74458-74515. 

<http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-28655.pdf> Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010f. Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 106, June 3, 

2010. 31514-31608 <http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-03/pdf/2010-

11974.pdf#page=1> Accessed March 30, 2015. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-41 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011a. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air 

Act from 1990 to 2020. Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. March. 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011b. Regulatory Impact Analysis: National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and 

Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Research Triangle Park, NC. February. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/boilersriafinal110221_psg.pdf>. Accessed 

March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011c. 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

March. < http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/> Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011d. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter 

and Ozone in 27 States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 22 States. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. July. 

<http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011e. Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the 

Oil and Natural Gas Source Category. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

Office of Air and Radiation. 

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012a. Residual Risk Assessment for the Oil and 

Gas Production and Natural Gas Transmission and Storage Source Categories. Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012b. Regulatory Impact Analysis Final New 

Source Performance Standards and Amendments to the National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. April. < 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/oil_natural_gas_final_neshap_nsps_ria.pdf >. 

Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012c. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final 

Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA452/R-12-003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental 

Impacts Division. December. Available at: 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/oil_natural_gas_final_neshap_nsps_ria.pdf>. 

Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012d. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final 

Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. EPA-420-R-12-016. Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division. August. < 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420r12016.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

4-42 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. Integrated Science Assessment of Ozone 

and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-10/076F. February. 

<http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=247492#Download>. Accessed 

March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014a. Health Risk and Exposure Assessment for 

Ozone (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 

NC, EPA-452/R-14-004a. August. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/data/20140829healthrea.pdf>. Accessed 

March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014b. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Proposed Ozone NAAQS. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC, EPA-452/P-14-006. December. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/20141125ria.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 

2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013. Office of Atmospheric Programs, Washington, DC. 

EPA 430-R-15-004. Annex 3.14, Tables A-265 and Table ES-2. April 2015. 

<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html>. Accessed 

April 28, 2015.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB). 2002. Workshop 

on the Benefits of Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants: Developing Best 

Estimates of Dose-Response Functions An SAB Workshop Report of an EPA/SAB 

Workshop (Final Report). EPA-SAB-EC-WKSHP-02-001. January. 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/34355712EC011A358525719A0

05BF6F6/$File/ecwkshp02001%2Bappa-g.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB). 2008. Benefits of 

Reducing Benzene Emissions in Houston, 1990–2020. EPA-COUNCIL-08-001. July. 

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/D4D7EC9DAEDA8A548525748600728A8

3/$File/EPA-COUNCIL-08-001-unsigned.pdf>. Accessed March 30, 2015. 

Waldhoff, S., D. Anthoff, S. Rose, R.S.J. Tol. 2014. “The Marginal Damage Costs of Different 

Greenhouse Gases: An Application of FUND.” The Open-Access, Open Assessment EJournal. 8(31): 1-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2014-31. Accessed 

July 13, 2015. 

West, J.J., A. M. Fiore , L. W. Horowitz, and D. L. Mauzerall. 2006. “Global health benefits of 

mitigating ozone pollution with methane emission controls.” PNAS 103:11:3988-3993. 

West, J.J., A.M. Fiore. 2005. “Management of tropospheric ozone by reducing methane 

emissions.” Environ Sci Technol, 39:4685-4691. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-1 

5 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND DISTRIBUTIONAL ASSESSMENTS 

5.1 Introduction 

This chapter of the RIA includes three sets of discussions related to the proposed 

Emission Guidelines for MSW landfills: 

• Economic Impact Analysis 

• Employment Analysis 

• Small Business Analysis 

These discussions are intended to assist the reader of the RIA to better understand the potential 

economic impacts of the proposal, though data and methodological limitations prevented a 

complete assessment of the economic impacts of the proposed Emission Guidelines. 

5.2 Economic Impact Analysis 

The impacts shown for the proposal reflect the incremental difference between facilities 

in the baseline and for an option that reduces the NMOC emission rate threshold to 34 Mg/yr 

from the current emissions guideline level of 50 Mg/yr (proposed option 2.5/34). The proposal 

retains the design capacity threshold of 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million cubic feet. Because the 

proposed option 2.5/34 tightens the criteria for installing and expanding the gas collection and 

control system, there are incremental costs associated with capturing and/or utilizing the 

additional LFG under this more stringent option. These costs were shown in Chapter 3 of this 

RIA to be about $46.8 million in 2025 for the proposed option. 

Assessing the economic impacts of these costs is difficult due to the nature of the MSW 

industry. As previously discussed in Chapter 2, landfills are owned by private companies, 

government (local, state, or federal), or individuals. In 2014, 58 percent of landfills were owned 

by public entities. Households served by public landfills may not respond to price increases in 

the same way as they would if served by private firms, since these households typically pay their 

collection fees through property taxes or other mandatory payments. In these cases, affected 

landfills may be more readily able to pass through increased costs to customers. Households 

served by private landfills may choose to alter their behavior in response to increased collection 

fees, but research into the price elasticity of demand for waste services has typically found the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-2 

demand for waste services to be price inelastic (Bel and Gradus, 2014; Kinnaman, 2006). As was 

shown in Table 2-5, tipping fees have for the most part increased over time, and industry reports 

indicate that “firms have generally managed to hold the line on pricing and win 2-3 percent 

increases to maintain positive revenue amid slow volume growth” (WBJ, 2012a). This suggests 

that firms will, for the most part, be able to pass along increased costs to their consumers. While 

households faced with higher costs will have less income to spend on other goods and services, 

the large number of households served by any particular landfill suggests that any individual 

household will be only modestly impacted. 

As previously discussed in Chapter 2, the handling of MSW in the United States 

generated $55 billion of revenue in 2011, of which landfilling contributed $13 billion (WBJ, 

2012a). Of the $46.8 million of costs in 2025 for the proposed option, 15 percent are borne by 

the five largest firms in the industry, who together accounted for nearly $30 billion in revenue in 

2013 (see Table 2-3). An additional 79 percent of the costs are expected to be incurred by entities 

that are large by SBA standards. Small public entities are predicted to incur approximately six 

percent of the costs, while small private entities are predicted to incur less than one percent of the 

total cost. 

Because of the relatively low net cost of proposed option 2.5/34 compared to the overall 

size of the MSW industry, as well as the lack of appropriate economic parameters or model, the 

EPA is unable to estimate the impacts of the options on the supply and demand for MSW landfill 

services. However, because of the relatively low incremental costs of the proposed option 2.5/34, 

the EPA does not believe the proposal would lead to changes in supply and demand for landfill 

services or waste disposal costs, tipping fees, or the amount of waste disposed in landfills. 

Hence, the overall economic impact of the proposal should be minimal on the affected industries 

and their consumers. 

5.3 Employment Impacts 

In addition to addressing the costs and benefits of the final rule, EPA has analyzed the 

impacts of this rulemaking on employment, which are presented in this section. While a 

standalone analysis of employment impacts is not included in a standard cost-benefit analysis, 

such an analysis is of particular concern in the current economic climate given continued interest 

Commented [A29]: OMB RIA Comment 26: Reviewer 

recommends that given the current unemployment rate of 5.3%, the 

compelling need for an extensive discussion on employment on 5.3 

isn’t clear. For the final rule, reviewer recommends abbreviating this 

discussion. 

EPA Response: Discussion will be revised for final rule. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-3 

in the employment impact of regulations such as this final rule. Executive Order 13563, states, 

“Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while 

promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.” 60 While 

disaggregated compliance costs are not available for the analyzed options, a brief discussion of 

the labor requirements associated with the installation, operation, and maintenance of control 

requirements, as well as reporting and recordkeeping requirements is included in Section 3.4, on 

engineering and administrative costs, of this RIA. However, due to data and methodology 

limitations, we have not quantified the rule’s effects on employment. What follows is an 

overview of the various ways that environmental regulation can affect employment. EPA 

continues to explore the relevant theoretical and empirical literature and to seek public comments 

in order to ensure that the way EPA characterizes the employment effects of its regulations is 

valid and informative.61

5.3.1 Background on the Regulated Industry 

This regulation is expected to affect domestic employment in the regulated sector – 

municipal solid waste landfills. Municipal solid waste (MSW) is the stream of garbage collected 

by sanitation services from homes, businesses, and institutions. The majority of collected MSW 

that is not recycled is typically sent to landfills—engineered areas of land where waste is 

deposited, compacted, and covered. Landfill gas (LFG) is a by-product of the decomposition of 

organic material in MSW in anaerobic conditions in landfills. LFG contains roughly 50 percent 

methane and 50 percent carbon dioxide, with less than 1 percent non-methane organic 

compounds (NMOC) and trace amounts of inorganic compounds. 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 landfill. LFG can be collected and combusted in 

flares or energy recovery devices to reduce emissions. In this rulemaking EPA is proposing to 

lower the annual NMOC emissions threshold from 50 Mg/year to 34 Mg/year. Because of the 

 

60Executive Order 13563 (January 21, 2011). Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Section 1. General 

Principles of Regulation, Federal Register, Vol. 76, Nr. 14, p. 3821. 

61 The employment analysis in this RIA is part of EPA’s ongoing effort to “conduct continuing evaluations of 

potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration or enforcement of [the Act]” 

pursuant to CAA section 321(a).
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-4 

lack of appropriate economic parameters or model, EPA is unable to estimate the impacts of the 

rule options on the supply and demand for MSW landfill services. However, because of the 

relatively low incremental costs of the proposed option, the EPA does not believe the proposal 

would lead to changes in supply and demand for landfill services or waste disposal costs, tipping 

fees, or the amount of waste disposed in landfills. Hence, the overall economic impact of the 

proposal should be minimal on the affected industries and their consumers. 

As described in Chapter 2 of this RIA, EPA estimates the total amount of MSW 

generated in the United States in 2012 was approximately 251 million tons, a 20 percent increase 

from 1990. The number of active MSW landfills in the United States has decreased from 

approximately 7,900 in 1988 to approximately 1,800 in 2014 (EPA, 2010; WBJ, 2014). Firms 

engaged in the collection and disposal of refuse in a landfill operation are classified under the 

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes Solid Waste Landfill (562212) 

and Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs 

(924110). There are more than 200 private companies that own and/or operate landfills, ranging 

from large companies with numerous landfills throughout the country to local businesses that 

own a single landfill (EPA, 2012a). In terms of 2011 revenue, the top two companies that own 

and/or operate MSW landfills in the United States were Waste Management ($13.38 billion) and 

Republic Services ($8.19 billion), which together accounted for 39 percent of the revenue share 

in 2011 (Bloomberg, 2012WM; Bloomberg, 2012RSG). See Chapter 2, Table 2-3, for a 

summary of the 2011 revenue for the top five companies, as well as information about their 

MSW landfills and transfer stations. 

Landfills are owned by private companies, government (local, state, or federal), or 

individuals. In 2014, 58 percent of active MSW landfills were owned by public entities while 

42 percent were privately owned (EPA, 2014). As older local public landfills approach their 

capacities, many communities are finding that the most economically viable solution to their 

waste disposal needs is shipping their waste to large regional landfills. In these circumstances, a 

transfer station serves as the critical link in making the shipment of waste to distant facilities 

cost-effective (EPA, 2002). Waste transfer stations are facilities where MSW is unloaded from 

collection vehicles and reloaded into long-distance transport vehicles for delivery to regional 

landfills or other treatment/disposal facilities. By combining the loads of several waste collection 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-5 

trucks into a single shipment, communities and waste management companies can reduce labor 

used and operating costs for transporting waste to a distant disposal site. They can also reduce 

the total number of vehicular miles traveled to and from the disposal site(s) (EPA, 2012b). 

The industry that collects, transfers, deposits and manages MSW in landfills encompasses 

a wide range of job types, including garbage collectors, truck drivers, heavy equipment 

operators, engineers of various disciplines, specialized technicians, executives, MSW department 

directors, administrative staff, weigh scale operators, salespersons, and landfill operations 

managers. For employment estimates related to publicly-owned landfills, solid waste 

management departments of local governments reported, in 2013, 95,674 full-time employees 

and 14,638 part-time employees (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013); however, statistics from the U.S. 

Census Bureau are not readily available solely for landfill-related aspects of these departments. 

An additional government source of employment data by detailed industry is the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, which gathers 

employment data from state unemployment insurance programs, reports employment data for 

publicly-owned solid waste landfills (NAICS 562212) owned by local governments: in March 

2013, they report 22,586 employees (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). For employment 

estimates related to private landfills, both the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics provide employment data. However, because these agencies use different methods to 

gather and classify employment data, their estimates indicate a range of employment within 

NAICS 562212, “solid waste landfills”.62 For March 2012, the most recent estimate from the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns, the Census estimate is 18,208 employees at 

privately-owned solid waste landfills (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). However, for privately-owned 

solid waste landfills, the BLS estimate for March 2012 is 37,628 employees (U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, 2012). When data series differ, it can be instructive to look at more aggregated 

industry categories, and in this case, more aggregated employment estimates are very similar 

 

62 BLS QCEW methodology for “industrial classification”: http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch5_b.htm. Census 

methodology for “industry classification of establishments”: 

https://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/methodology.htm. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-6 

between Census and BLS at the 3-digit level NAICS, 562 Waste Management and Remediation 

Services. Based on observed within NAICS 562, the range in estimates at the 6-digit NAICS 

562212 may be driven by methodological differences in categorizing establishments by their 

“main economic activity”, which for this detailed industry, is likely a combination of waste 

treatment, waste disposal, and waste remediation and recovery services, and therefore difficult to 

classify by a single economic activity.63 

As the population continues to grow in the United States the amount of waste generated 

will continue to increase, but the amount of waste landfilled may remain the same or decrease 

due to recycling and other diversion activities (EPA, 2012c). Employment within the waste 

management industry overall will likely remain strong, perhaps with an increased shift of 

employees from the public sector to the private sector as the trend towards increased use of 

regional landfills and waste transfer stations continues. In addition, employment may be affected 

as landfills add technologies in response to the proposed regulation. Whether the technology 

added will capture and flare landfill gas, or capture and combust it for energy recovery, 

employment will be associated with these activities. 

5.3.2 Employment Impacts of Environmental Regulation 

From an economic perspective labor is an input into producing goods and services; if a 

regulation requires that more labor be used to produce a given amount of output, that additional 

labor is reflected in an increase in the cost of production. Moreover, when the economy is at full 

employment, we would not expect an environmental regulation to have an impact on overall 

employment because labor is being shifted from one sector to another. On the other hand, in 

periods of high unemployment, employment effects (both positive and negative) are possible. 

For example, an increase in labor demand due to regulation may result in a short-term net 

increase in overall employment as workers are hired by the regulated sector to help meet new 

requirements (e.g., to install new equipment) or by the environmental protection sector to 

 

63 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-digit NAICS listings for NAICS 56 “Administrative and Support and Waste Management and 

Remediation Services” < http://www.census.gov/cgibin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?chart_code=56&search=2012%20NAICS%20Search>.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-7 

produce new abatement capital resulting in hiring previously unemployed workers . When 

significant numbers of workers are unemployed, the opportunity costs associated with displacing 

jobs in other sectors are likely to be smaller. And, in general, if a regulation imposes high costs 

and does not increase the demand for labor, it may lead to a decrease in employment. The 

responsiveness of industry labor demand depends on how these forces all interact. Economic 

theory indicates that the responsiveness of industry labor demand depends on a number of 

factors: price elasticity of demand for the product, substitutability of other factors of production, 

elasticity of supply of other factors of production, and labor’s share of total production costs. 

Berman and Bui (2001) put this theory in the context of environmental regulation, and suggest 

that, for example, if all firms in the industry are faced with the same compliance costs of 

regulation and product demand is inelastic, then industry output may not change much at all. 

Regulations set in motion new orders for pollution control equipment and services. New 

categories of employment have been created in the process of implementing environmental 

regulations. When a regulation is promulgated, one typical response of industry is to order 

pollution control equipment and services in order to comply with the regulation when it becomes 

effective. On the other hand, the closure of plants that choose not to comply – and any changes in 

production levels at plants choosing to comply and remain in operation - occur after the 

compliance date, or earlier in anticipation of the compliance obligation. Environmental 

regulation may increase revenue and employment in the environmental technology industry. 

While these increases represent gains for that industry, they translate into costs to the regulated 

industries required to install the equipment. 

Environmental regulations support employment in many basic industries. Regulated firms 

either hire workers to design and build pollution controls directly or purchase pollution control 

devices from a third party for installation. Once the equipment is installed, regulated firms hire 

workers to operate and maintain the pollution control equipment—much like they hire workers 

to produce more output. In addition to the increase in employment in the environmental 

protection industry (via increased orders for pollution control equipment), environmental 

regulations also support employment in industries that provide intermediate goods to the 

environmental protection industry. The equipment manufacturers, in turn, order steel, tanks, 

vessels, blowers, pumps, and chemicals to manufacture and install the equipment. Currently in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-8 

most cases there is no scientifically defensible way to generate sufficiently reliable estimates of 

the employment impacts in these intermediate goods sectors. 

It is sometimes claimed that new or more stringent environmental regulations raise 

production costs thereby reducing production which in turn must lead to lower employment. 

However, the peer-reviewed literature indicates that determining the direction of net employment 

effects in a regulated industry is challenging due to competing effects. Environmental regulations 

are assumed to raise production costs and thereby the cost of output, so we expect the “output” 

effect of environmental regulation to be negative (higher prices lead to lower sales). On the other 

hand, complying with the new or more stringent regulation requires additional inputs, including 

labor, and may alter the relative proportions of labor and capital used by regulated firms in their 

production processes. Two sets of researchers discussed here, Berman and Bui (2001) and 

Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002),64 demonstrate using standard neoclassical microeconomics 

that environmental regulations have an ambiguous effect on employment in the regulated sector. 

These theoretical results imply that the effect of environmental regulation on employment in the 

regulated sector is an empirical question and both sets of authors tested their models empirically 

using different methodologies. Both Berman and Bui and Morgenstern et al. examine the effect 

of environmental regulations on employment and both find that overall they had no significant 

net impact on employment in the sectors they examined. 

Berman and Bui (2001) developed an innovative approach to examine how an increase in 

local air quality regulation that reduces nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions affects manufacturing 

employment in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which 

incorporates Los Angeles and its suburbs. During the time frame of their study, 1979 to 1992, the 

SCAQMD enacted some of the country’s most stringent air quality regulations. Using 

 

64 Berman, E. and L. T. M. Bui (2001). “Environmental Regulation and Labor Demand: Evidence from the South 

Coast Air Basin.” Journal of Public Economics 79(2): 265-295. Morgenstern, R. D., W. A. Pizer, and J. S. Shih. 

2002. Jobs versus the Environment: An Industry-Level Perspective. Journal of Environmental Economics and 

Management 43(3):412-436. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-9 

SCAQMD’s local air quality regulations, Berman and Bui identify the effect of environmental 

regulations on net employment in the regulated industries.65,66 The authors find that “while 

regulations do impose large costs, they have a limited effect on employment” (Berman and Bui, 

2001, p. 269). Their conclusion is that local air quality regulation “probably increased labor 

demand slightly” but that “the employment effects of both compliance and increased stringency 

are fairly precisely estimated zeros, even when exit and dissuaded entry effects are included” 

(Berman and Bui, 2001, p. 269).67

Morgenstern et al. (2002) estimated the effects of pollution abatement expenditures from 

1979 to 1991 at the plant level on net employment in four highly regulated sectors (pulp and 

paper, plastics, steel, and petroleum refining). Thus, in contrast to Berman and Bui (2001), this 

study identifies employment effects by examining differences in abatement expenditures rather 

than geographical differences in stringency. They conclude that increased abatement 

expenditures generally have not caused a significant change in net employment in those sectors. 

While the specific sectors Morgenstern et al. examined are different than the sectors considered 

here, the methodology that Morgenstern et al. developed is still an informative way to 

qualitatively, if not quantitatively, assess the effects of this rulemaking on employment at MSW 

landfills. For example, as firms add new technologies to capture landfill gases for flaring or for 

conversion to energy, there will be a demand for labor to install, monitor, and operate these new 

approaches to waste management and energy production. 

While there is an extensive empirical, peer-reviewed literature analyzing the effect of 

environmental regulations on various economic outcomes including productivity, investment, 

competitiveness as well as environmental performance, there are only a few papers that examine 

the impact of environmental regulation on employment, but this area of the literature has been 

growing. As stated previously in this RIA section, empirical results from Berman and Bui (2001) 

and Morgenstern et al (2002) suggest that new or more stringent environmental regulations do 

 

65 Note, like Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002), this study does not estimate the number of jobs created in the 

environmental protection sector. 

66 Berman and Bui include over 40 4-digit SIC industries in their sample. 

67 Including the employment effect of exiting plants and plants dissuaded from opening will increase the estimated 

impact of regulation on employment. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-10 

not have a substantial impact on net employment (either negative or positive) in the regulated 

sector. Similarly, Ferris, Shadbegian, and Wolverton (2014) also find that regulation-induced net 

employment impacts are close to zero in the regulated sector. Furthermore, Gray et al. (2014) 

find that pulp mills that had to comply with both the air and water regulations in EPA’s 1998 

“Cluster Rule” experienced relatively small and not always statistically significant, decreases in 

employment. Nevertheless, other empirical research suggests that more highly regulated 

counties may generate fewer jobs than less regulated ones (Greenstone 2002, Walker 2011). 

However, the methodology used in these two studies cannot estimate whether aggregate 

employment is lower or higher due to more stringent environmental regulation, it can only imply 

that relative employment growth in some sectors differs between more and less regulated areas. 

List et al. (2003) find some evidence that this type of geographic relocation, from more regulated 

areas to less regulated areas may be occurring. Overall, the peer-reviewed literature does not 

contain evidence that environmental regulation has a large impact on net employment (either 

negative or positive) in the long run across the whole economy. 

While the theoretical framework laid out by Berman and Bui (2001) and Morgenstern et 

al. (2002) still holds for the industries affected under these emission guidelines, important 

differences in the markets and regulatory settings analyzed in their study and the setting 

presented here lead us to conclude that it is inappropriate to utilize their quantitative estimates to 

estimate the employment impacts from this proposed regulation. In particular, the industries used 

in these two studies as well as the timeframe (late 1970’s to early 1990’s) are quite different than 

those in the proposed Emission Guidelines. Furthermore, the control strategies analyzed for this 

RIA include gas collection systems, destruction, and utilization, which are very different than the 

control strategies examined by Berman and Bui and Morgenstern et al.68 For these reasons we 

conclude there are too many uncertainties as to the transferability of the quantitative estimates in 

these two studies to apply their estimates to quantify the employment impacts within the 

regulated sectors for this regulation, though these studies have usefulness for qualitative 

assessment of employment impacts. 

 

68 More detail on how emission reductions expected from compliance with this rule can be obtained can be found in 

Chapter 3 of this RIA. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-11 

The preceding sections have outlined the challenges associated with estimating net 

employment effects in the regulated sector and in the environmental protection sector. These 

challenges make it very difficult to accurately produce net employment estimates for the whole 

economy that would appropriately capture the way in which costs, compliance spending, and 

environmental benefits propagate through the macro-economy. Quantitative estimates are further 

complicated by the fact that macroeconomic models often have very little sectoral detail and 

usually assume that the economy is at full employment. EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) is 

currently in the process of seeking input from an independent expert panel on modeling 

economy-wide impacts, including employment effects. 

5.3.3 Conclusion 

Economic theory predicts that the total effect of an environmental regulation on labor 

demand in regulated sectors is not necessarily positive or negative. Peer-reviewed econometric 

studies that use a structural approach, applicable to in the regulated sectors, converge on the 

finding that such effects, whether positive or negative, have been small. 

Because of the lack of appropriate economic parameters or model, the EPA is unable to 

estimate the impacts of the regulatory options on the supply and demand for MSW landfill 

services. However, because of the relatively low incremental costs of the proposed option, the 

EPA does not believe the proposal would lead to changes in supply and demand for landfill 

services or waste disposal costs, tipping fees, or the amount of waste disposed in landfills. 

Hence, the overall economic impact of the proposal should be minimal on the affected industries 

and their consumers. 

MSW landfill activities encompasses a wide range of job types, including garbage 

collectors, truck drivers, heavy equipment operators, engineers of various disciplines, specialized 

technicians, executives, MSW department directors, administrative staff, weigh scale operators, 

salespersons, and landfill operations managers. As the population continues to grow in the 

United States the amount of waste generated will continue to increase, but the amount of waste 

landfilled may remain the same or decrease due to recycling or other waste diversion (EPA, 

2012c). Employment within the waste management industry overall will likely remain strong, 

perhaps with an increased shift of employees from the public sector to the private sector. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-12 

Employment to design, construct and operate new technologies for managing landfill gases 

either through flaring or conversion to energy may also increase. 

5.4 Small Business Impacts Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small not-for-profit enterprises. 

For the purposes of assessing the impact of the proposed Emission Guidelines on small 

entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is primarily engaged in the 

collections and disposal of refuse in a landfill operation as defined by NAICS code 562212 with 

annual receipts less than $38.5 million; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, school district, or school district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is 

independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic impact of the proposed Emission Guidelines on small 

entities, the EPA certifies that the proposed regulation will not have a Significant Impact on a 

Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE). 

The proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Specifically, 

Emission Guidelines established under CAA section 111(d) do not impose any requirements on 

regulated entities and, thus, will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial 

number of small entities. After Emission Guidelines are promulgated, states establish standards 

on existing sources and it is those state requirements that could potentially impact small entities. 

Our analysis here is consistent with the analysis of the analogous situation arising when the EPA 

establishes NAAQS, which do not impose any requirements on regulated entities. As here, any 

impact of a NAAQS on small entities would only arise when states take subsequent action to 

maintain and/or achieve the NAAQS through their state implementation plans. See American 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-13 

Trucking Associations v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1029, 1043-45 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (NAAQS do not have 

significant impacts upon small entities because NAAQS themselves impose no regulations upon 

small entities). 

5.5 References 

Bel, Germà and Raymond Gradus. 2014. “Effects of Unit-based Pricing on the Waste Collection 

Demand: a Meta-regression Analysis.” Working Paper 2014/20. Research Institute of 

Applied Economics. <http://www.ub.edu/irea/working_papers/2014/201420.pdf>. 

Berman, E. and L. T. M. Bui. 2001. “Environmental Regulation and Labor Demand: Evidence 

from the South Coast Air Basin.” Journal of Public Economics 79(2): 265-295, docket nr. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135 at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Bloomberg Businessweek. 2014RSG. 2013 SEC Filings - Republic Services Inc (RSG). 10-K, 

Annual Financials, February 13, 2014. 

<http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/secfilings.asp?ticker=RSG

>. 

Bloomberg Businessweek. 2014WM. 2013 SEC Filings - Waste Management Inc (WM). 10-K, 

Annual Financials, February 18, 2014. 

<http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/secfilings.asp?ticker=WM

>. 

Ferris, Ann, Ronald J. Shadbegian, and Ann Wolverton. 2014. “The Effect of Environmental 

Regulation on Power Sector Employment: Phase I of the Title IV SO2 Trading Program.” 

Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 5, 173-193. 

Gray, Wayne B., Ronald J. Shadbegian, Chunbei Wang, and Merve Meral. 2014. “Do EPA 

Regulations Affect Labor Demand? Evidence from the Pulp and Paper Industry.” Journal 

of Environmental Economics and Management: 68, 188-202. 

Greenstone, M. 2002. “The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Industrial Activity: 

Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Census of 

Manufactures.” Journal of Political Economy 110(6): 1175-1219. 

Kinnaman, Thomas C. 2006. “Examining the Justification for Residential Recycling.” Journal of 

Economic Perspectives 20(4): 219-232. 

List, J. A., D. L. Millimet, P. G. Fredriksson, and W. W. McHone. 2003. “Effects of 

Environmental Regulations on Manufacturing Plant Births: Evidence from a Propensity 

Score Matching Estimator.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 85(4): 944-952. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-14 

Morgenstern, Richard D., William A. Pizer, and Jhih-Shyang Shih. 2002. “Jobs Versus the 

Environment: An Industry-Level Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Economics and 

Management 43: 412-436, docket nr. EPA-HQOAR-2011-0135-0057 at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Private, 

NAICS 562212 Solid waste landfill, All States and U.S. 2012 First Quarter, All 

establishment sizes < 

http://www.bls.gov/cew/apps/table_maker/v3/table_maker.htm#type=0&year=2012&qtr

=1&own=5&ind=562&supp=1>. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Local 

Government, NAICS 562212 Solid waste landfill, All States and U.S. 2013 First Quarter, 

All establishment sizes < 

http://www.bls.gov/cew/apps/table_maker/v3/table_maker.htm#type=0&year=2013&qtr

=1&own=3&ind=562212&supp=1>. 

U.S. Census Bureau (Census). 2012. County Business Patterns. Solid Waste Landfill (NAICS 

562212). < 

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=BP_201

2_00A1&prodType=table>. 

U.S. Census Bureau (Census). 2013. Annual Survey of Public Employment & Payroll. Local 

Government Employment and Payroll Data. March 2013. 

<http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 

“Waste Transfer Stations: A Manual for Decision-Making.” June 2002. EPA-530-R-02-

002. <http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/r02002.pdf>. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. “Municipal Solid Waste in the United 

States: 2009 Facts and Figures.” December 2010. EPA-530-R-10-012. Washington, DC: 

U.S EPA. <http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2009rpt.pdf>. 

Accessed January 6, 2015. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012a. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response (OSWER), Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR). Web 

page: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. 

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill.htm>. Accessed December 4, 2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012b. OSWER, ORCR. Web page: MSW 

Landfill Criteria Technical Manual. 

<http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/techman/>. Accessed December 4, 

2012. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012c. Landfill Methane Outreach Program 

(LMOP), Climate Change Division, U.S. EPA. Web page: Frequent Questions: Landfill 

Gas. <http://www.epa.gov/lmop/faq/landfill-gas.html>. Accessed December 3, 2012. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

5-15 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. “Landfill-level data only (all landfills) – 

updated August 2014.” LMOP, Climate Change Division, U.S. EPA. 

<http://www.epa.gov/lmop/projects-candidates/index.html>. 

Walker, Reed. 2011. “Environmental Regulation and Labor Reallocation.” American Economic 

Review: Papers and Proceedings, 101(2). 

Waste Business Journal (WBJ). 2012a. “Waste Market Overview & Outlook 2012.” 

<http://www.wastebusinessjournal.com/overview.htm>. Accessed January 16, 2015. 

WBJ. 2014. “Directory of Waste Processing and Disposal Sites 2014.” 

<http://www.wastebusinessjournal.com/diratlas.htm>. Accessed January 6, 2015. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

6-1 

6 COMPARISON OF BENEFITS AND COST 

6.1 Introduction 

The EPA compared the monetized methane-related climate benefits and CO2 co-benefits of 

the proposed Emission Guidelines for existing landfills against the estimated annualized compliance 

costs and found that the benefits of the proposed rule outweigh the costs. The net benefits are likely 

larger since the EPA was not able to monetize the benefits from reducing exposure to 2,770 Mg/yr 

of NMOC. The NMOC portion of LFG can contain a variety of air pollutants, including VOC 

and various organic HAP, and these pollutants are associated with health and welfare effects 

described in Chapter 4.

6.2 Net Benefits of the Proposed Standards 

For the proposed 2.5/34 option, the monetized methane-related climate benefits are 

estimated to range from $310 million to $1.7 billion (2012$)69 in 2025; these benefits are 

estimated to be $660 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. The CO2 co-benefits are 

estimated to range from $3.6 million to $36 million (2012$)70 in 2025; estimated CO2 benefits 

are $12 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. Under the proposed option 2.5/34, 

when using a 7% discount rate the additional cost in 2025 would be $47 million. Using a 3% 

discount rate, the additional cost over the baseline in 2025 would be $35 million. Thus, the net 

benefits, using a 7% discount rate, are expected to be $260 million to $1.7 billion, with a central 

estimate of $620 million. These results are summarized in Table 6-1. 

 

 

69 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 

70 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CO2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

6-2 

Table 6-1 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Proposed 

Emission Guidelines Option 2.5/34 in 2025 (2012$) 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Monetized Methane-related Benefits1 $310 million - $1.7 billion 

Monetized CO2 co-benefits1 $3.6 million - $36 million 

Total Costs2 $35 million $47 million 

Net Benefits $270 million - $1.7 billion $260 million - $1.7 billion 

Non-monetized Benefits3 Health effects of PM2.5 and ozone exposure from 2,770 Mg 

NMOC/yr reduced 

Health effects of HAP exposure from 2,770 Mg NMOC/yr 

reduced 

 Visibility impairment 

 Vegetation effects 

1 Monetized benefits include the climate-related benefits associated with the reduction of 436,100 

Mg/yr methane, valued using the social cost of methane, and the net reduction of 238,000 Mg/yr of 

CO2, valued using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 and four SCCO2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent 

discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models and scenarios using a 3% 

discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion.

2 The engineering compliance costs are annualized and include estimated revenue from electricity sales 

for landfills that are expected to generate revenue by using landfill gas for energy. 

3 While we expect that these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reductions 

in health effects associated with HAP, ozone, and particulate matter (PM), we have determined that 

quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to 

imply that there are no benefits or co-benefits of the rulesthese benefits do not exist; rather, it is a 

reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the reductions in emissions 

for this industrial sector with the data currently available. 

6.3 Net Benefits of the Alternate Standards 

For the less stringent 2.5/40 option, the monetized methane-related climate benefits are 

estimated to range from $190 million to $1.1 billion (2012$)71 in 2025; these benefits are 

estimated to be $410 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. The CO2 co-benefits are 

estimated to range from $1.5 million to $15 million (2012$)72 in 2025; estimated CO2 benefits 

are $5.0 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. Under this option, when using a 7% 

 

71 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 

72 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CO2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

6-3 

discount rate the additional cost in 2025 would be $27 million. Using a 3% discount rate, the 

additional cost over the baseline in 2025 would be $20 million. Thus, the net benefits, when 

using a 7% discount rate, would be expected to be $160 million to $1.1 billion, with a central 

estimate of $390 million. These results are summarized in Table 6-2. 

Table 6-2 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Alternative 

Emission Guidelines Option 2.5/40 in 2025 (2012$) 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Monetized Methane-related Benefits1 $190 million - $1.1 billion 

Monetized CO2 co-benefits1 $1.5 million - $15 million 

Total Costs2 $20 million $27 million 

Net Benefits $170 million - $1.1 billion $160 million - $1.1 billion 

Non-monetized Benefits3 Health effects of PM2.5 and ozone exposure from 1,720 Mg 

NMOC/yr reduced 

Health effects of HAP exposure from 1,720 Mg NMOC/yr 

reduced 

 Visibility impairment 

 Vegetation effects 

1 Monetized benefits include the climate-related benefits associated with the reduction of 270,700 

Mg/yr methane, valued using the social cost of methane, and the net reduction of 102,000 Mg/yr of 

CO2, valued using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 and four SCCO2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent 

discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models and scenarios using a 3% 

discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion.

2 The engineering compliance costs are annualized and include estimated revenue from electricity sales 

for landfills that are expected to generate revenue by using landfill gas for energy. 

3 While we expect that these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reductions 

in health effects associated with HAP, ozone, and particulate matter (PM), we have determined that 

quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to 

imply that there are no benefits or co-benefits of the rulesthese benefits do not exist; rather, it is a 

reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the reductions in emissions 

for this industrial sector with the data currently available. 

For the more stringent 2.0/34 option, the monetized methane-related climate benefits are 

estimated to range from $340 million to $1.9 billion (2012$)73 in 2025; these benefits are 

 

73 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

6-4 

estimated to be $720 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. The CO2 co-benefits are 

estimated to range from $3.6 million to $36 million (2012$)74 in 2025; estimated CO2 benefits 

are $12 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. Under this option, when using a 7% 

discount rate the additional cost in 2025 would be $51 million. Using a 3% discount rate, the 

additional cost over the baseline in 2025 would be $38 million. Thus, the net benefits, when 

using a 7% discount rate, would be expected to be $290 million to $1.9 billion, with a central 

estimate of $690 million. These results are summarized in Table 6-3.

Table 6-3 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Alternative 

Emission Guidelines Option 2.0/34 in 2025 (2012$) 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Monetized Methane-related Benefits1 $340 million - $1.9 billion 

Monetized CO2 co-benefits1 $3.6 million - $36 million 

Total Costs2 $38 million $51 million 

Net Benefits $300 million - $1.9 billion $290 million - $1.9 billion 

Non-monetized Benefits3 Health effects of PM2.5 and ozone exposure from 3,040 Mg 

NMOC/yr reduced 

Health effects of HAP exposure from 3,040 Mg NMOC/yr 

reduced 

 Visibility impairment 

 Vegetation effects 

1 Monetized benefits include the climate-related benefits associated with the reduction of 479,100 

Mg/yr methane, valued using the social cost of methane, and the net reduction of 238,000 Mg/yr of 

CO2, valued using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 and four SCCO2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent 

discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models and scenarios using a 3% 

discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion.

2 The engineering compliance costs are annualized and include estimated revenue from electricity sales 

for landfills that are expected to generate revenue by using landfill gas for energy. 

3 While we expect that these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reductions 

in health effects associated with HAP, ozone, and particulate matter (PM), we have determined that 

quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to 

imply that there are no benefits or co-benefits of the rulesthese benefits do not exist; rather, it is a 

reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the reductions in emissions 

for this industrial sector with the data currently available. 

 

74 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CO2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-1 

7 SUPPLEMENTAL NSPS PROPOSAL 

7.1 Introduction 

On July 17, 2014, the EPA proposed a new NSPS subpart resulting from its ongoing 

review of the landfills NSPS (79 FR 41796). The proposed new subpart retained the same design 

capacity size threshold of 2.5 million m3 or 2.5 million Mg, but presented several options for 

revising the NMOC emission rate at which a MSW landfill must install controls. Since 

presenting these options, the EPA has updated its model that estimates the emission reduction 

and cost impacts based on public comments and new data. 

At proposal, the EPA estimated the emission reductions and costs associated with 17 new 

“greenfield” landfills that the EPA projected to commence construction, reconstruction, or 

modification between 2014 and 2018 and have a design capacity of 2.5 million m3 and 2.5 

million Mg. The basis of the projected number of new landfills and associated emission 

reductions is presented in the landfills NSPS docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215. Multiple 

commenters on the landfills NSPS proposal stated that the EPA underestimated the cost impacts 

of the landfills NSPS because the EPA failed to consider the number of landfills that are 

expected to undergo a modification, and thus become subject to the proposed NSPS. In response 

to these comments, the EPA consulted with its Regional Offices, as well as state and local 

authorities, to identify landfills expected to undergo a modification within the next 5 years. 

Based on this information, the EPA estimated the number of existing landfills likely to modify 

after July 17, 2014 and become subject to subpart XXX. In addition, the EPA has made several 

changes to its underlying dataset and methodology used to analyze the impacts of potential 

control options, as discussed in Chapter 3 of this RIA. Using the revised dataset, the EPA re-ran 

the model and control options similar to the options presented in the proposed NSPS. As a result 

of these changes, the number and characteristics of the model new landfills and modified 

landfills that are expected to become subject to proposed subpart XXX have changed. The 

revised number of affected landfills, as well as revised estimates of the costs and benefits of the 

previously proposed and newly proposed option, are discussed below. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-2 

7.2 Regulatory Baseline and Options 

The July 2014 proposed new subpart to the NSPS for MSW landfills analyzed options 

slightly different from those analyzed for the current proposed revisions to the emissions 

guidelines. The options analyzed in that Economic Impact Analysis were: 

• Baseline: design capacity retained at 2.5 Mg, emission threshold retained at 50 Mg 

NMOC/year

• Alternative Option 3.0/40: design capacity increased to 3.0 Mg, emission threshold 

reduced to 40 NMOC Mg/yr

• Proposed Option 2.5/40: design capacity retained at 2.5 Mg, emission threshold reduced 

to 40 NMOC Mg/yr 

• Alternative Option 2.0/40: design capacity reduced to 2.0 Mg, emission threshold 

reduced to 40 Mg NMOC/year. 

Consistent with the Methane Strategy that was developed as part of the President’s Climate 

Action Plan, when preparing this supplemental NSPS proposal the EPA considered more 

stringent control options that may achieve additional reductions of methane and NMOC for new 

landfills. As a result of the revised analysis, the EPA is proposing no changes to the design 

capacity threshold for new sources, but is proposing to lower the NMOC emission rate threshold 

to 34 Mg/yr for new and modified sources subject to subpart XXX. In addition to responding to 

feedback received during the NSPS proposal comment period, the EPA believes consistency 

between the thresholds in the emission guidelines and the NSPS is important, given that an 

existing landfill can modify and become subject to the proposed subpart XXX by commencing 

construction on an increase in design capacity. Commenters on the July 17, 2014 notices 

weighed in on consistency between the NSPS and emission guidelines. An environmental 

organization recommended adopting consistent applicability standards, such as design capacity 

and NMOC emission thresholds, between subpart XXX for new landfills and subpart Cf for 

existing landfills to maximize beneficial environmental impacts for existing landfills, which are 

more numerous than anticipated new landfills, and to prevent creating incentives for existing 

landfills subject to modification by allowing them to comply with less rigorous requirements. In 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-3 

addition, two regulatory agencies requested harmonizing requirements for existing and new 

landfills between the current regulations in subpart WWW and the new proposed subpart XXX. 

As a result, the options analyzed for this supplemental NSPS proposal for new or 

modified MSW landfills match the options analyzed for the proposed revisions to the emissions 

guidelines for existing MSW landfills, and are: 

• Baseline: design capacity retained at 2.5 Mg, emission threshold retained at 50 Mg 

NMOC/year

• Alternative Option 2.5/40: design capacity retained at 2.5 Mg, emission threshold 

reduced to 40 NMOC Mg/yr

• Proposed Option 2.5/34: design capacity retained at 2.5 Mg, emission threshold reduced 

to 34 NMOC Mg/yr 

• Alternative Option 2.0/34: design capacity reduced to 2.0 Mg, emission threshold 

reduced to 34 Mg NMOC/year 

The baseline and alternative option 2.5/40 correspond to options analyzed in the previous 

NSPS proposal, and can be directly compared to the results in that economic impact analysis to 

better understand the effects of the change in the number of landfills predicted to be affected by 

the NSPS.75 The baseline reflects the parameters of the current NSPS. Specifically, all reported 

results are incremental to the current NSPS (2.5/50) and not the proposed option (2.5/40) from 

the July 2014 proposed new subpart to the NSPS for MSW landfills. In the baseline, the NSPS 

affects 140 landfills, with 28 landfills reporting but not controlling emissions and 112 landfills 

reporting and controlling emissions in 2025. The EPA is assessing impacts in year 2025 as a 

representative year for the both the landfills Emission Guidelines and NSPS. While the analysis 

focuses on impacts in 2025, results for alternative years are also presented in Section 7.8.

 

75 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. “Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed New 

Subpart to the New Source Performance Standards.” June 2014. Available at < 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/EIAs/LandfillsNSPSProposalEIA.pdf>. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-4 

Table 7-1 Number of Affected Landfills in 2025 under the Baseline and Alternative 

Options 

 Affected Landfills (no.) 

Landfills 

Affected 

Landfills 

Reporting but 

Not Controlling 

Emissions 

Landfills 

Reporting and 

 Controlling 

Emissions 

Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 140 28 112 

Incremental values versus the current NSPS

Alternative option 2.5/40 0 -11 11 

Proposed option 2.5/34 0 -15 15 

Alternative option 2.0/34 7 -12 19 

Based on the characteristics of the projected landfills, the proposed option presented in 

Table 7-1Table 7-1 would require 15 additional landfills to install controls by 2025. The less 

stringent alternative option 2.5/40 (which corresponds to the proposed option in the July 2014 

NSPS proposal) would require 11 additional landfills to install controls by 2025, while the more 

stringent alternative option 2.0/34 would affect 22 additional landfills, with some being required 

only to report and others being required to control. In that option, 19 additional landfills are 

required to install controls by 2025. 

Under the proposed option 2.5/34, the emission reductions would be an additional 300 Mg 

NMOC and 51,400 Mg methane (1,300,000 Mg CO2 Eq.) compared to the baseline in 2025. The 

less stringent alternative option 2.5/40 would yield emissions reductions of 300 Mg NMOC and 

44,400 Mg methane (1,100,000 Mg CO2 Eq.) compared to the baseline, while the more stringent 

alternative option 2.0/34 would result in emissions reductions of 400 Mg NMOC and 62,500 Mg 

methane (1,600,000 Mg CO2 Eq.) compared to the baseline. The emission reductions are 

summarized in Table 7-2Table 7-2. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-5 

Table 7-2 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2025 for the Baseline and 

Alternative Options 

 Annual Average Reduction (Mg) 

NMOC Methane 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 11,600 1,834,000 45,900,000 

Incremental values versus the current NSPS 

Alternative option 2.5/40 300 44,400 1,100,000 

Proposed option 2.5/34 300 51,400 1,300,000 

Alternative option 2.0/34 400 62,500 1,600,000 

*A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. Minor secondary air impacts 

are not included in this table. See Section 7.3 for details. 

Costs for the NSPS were estimated in the same manner as the costs for the emissions guidelines. 

This methodology is discussed in Chapter 3. Under the proposed option 2.5/34, when using a 7% 

discount rate the additional cost of control in 2025 would is estimated to be $9.0 million, of 

which approximately $0.6 million is estimated to be offset by increased revenue from beneficialuse projects, so the net cost is estimated to be approximately $8.5 million (
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-6 

Table 7-3Table 7-3). The cost of control for the less stringent alternative option 2.5/40 

would is estimated to be $6.6 million, which is estimated to be supplemented by approximately 

$0.65 million in reduced revenue from beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is estimated to be 

approximately $7.4 million., while the The cost of control for the more stringent alternative 

option 2.0/34 would is estimated to be $10.7 million, of which approximately $0.6 million is 

estimated to be offset by increased revenue from beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is 

estimated to be approximately $10.2 million. These options represent approximately between 12 

to 16 percent in additional net costs beyond the baseline, with the proposed option 2.5/34 

resulting in a 14 percent increase in net costs beyond the baseline for the industry as a whole. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-7 

Table 7-3 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2025 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (7% Discount Rate) 

 Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions $2012) 

Testing and 

Monitoring 

Costs Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use

Projects Net Cost 

Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 1.3 322 262 61 

Incremental values versus the current NSPS 

Alternative option 2.5/40 0.06 6.6 -0.65 7.4 

Proposed option 2.5/34 0.08 9.0 0.60 8.5 

Alternative option 2.0/34 0.11 10.7 0.60 10.2 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. 

When using a 3% discount rate, the model predicts a different timing in the investment behavior 

by the landfills, which affects both the costs and revenue that are predicted in 2025. Under the 

proposed option 2.5/34, the additional cost of control over the baseline in 2025 would is 

estimated to be $12.6 million, of which $5.5 is estimated to be offset by increased revenue from 

beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is estimated to be $7.1 million (
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-8 

Table 7-4Table 7-4). The cost of control for the less stringent alternative option 2.5/40 

would is estimated to be $8.0 million, of which $1.6 million is estimated to be offset by 

increased revenue from beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is estimated to be $6.4 million., 

while the The cost of control for the more stringent alternative option 2.0/34 is estimated to be 

$14.9 million, of which $6.3 million is estimated to be offset by increased revenue from 

beneficial-use projects, so the net cost is estimated to would be $8.6 million. These options 

represent approximately between 28 to 38 percent in additional net costs beyond the baseline, 

with the proposed option 2.5/34 resulting in a 31 percent increase in net costs beyond the 

baseline for the industry as a whole. However, it is important to note that the baseline value 

when using a 3% discount rate is less than 40 percent of the cost when using a 7% discount rate, 

because the increased costs of earlier installation of GCCS and engines are offset by increased 

revenue from energy generation. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-9 

Table 7-4 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2025 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (3% Discount Rate) 

 Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions $2012) 

Testing and 

Monitoring 

Costs Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use

Projects Net Cost 

Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 1.2 404 382 22 

Incremental values versus the current NSPS 

Alternative option 2.5/40 0.06 8 1.6 6.4 

Proposed option 2.5/34 0.07 12.6 5.5 7.1 

Alternative option 2.0/34 0.10 14.9 6.3 8.6 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. 

In terms of cost effectiveness, when considering the estimated net cost of the options, the 

overall average cost effectiveness for NMOC reductions is $5,271 per Mg NMOC under the 

baseline and roughly $26,000 per Mg NMOC under the proposed option 2.5/34 and the 

alternative options 2.5/40 and 2.0/34 (Table 7-5Table 7-5). The average cost-effectiveness of 

controlling methane is significantly lower than for NMOC because methane constitutes 

approximately 50 percent of landfill gas, while NMOC represents less than 1 percent of landfill 

gas. The overall average cost effectiveness for methane reductions is roughly $33 per Mg 

methane under the baseline and approximately $160 per Mg methane under the proposed option 

2.5/34 and the alternative options 2.5/40 and 2.0/34.

When estimating cost effectiveness excluding the estimated revenue from beneficial-use 

projects, the overall average cost effectiveness for NMOC reductions is $27,800 per Mg NMOC 

under the baseline and roughly $27,000 to $28,000 per Mg NMOC under the proposed option 

2.5/34 and alternative option 2.0/34, and roughly $24,000 per Mg NMOC under the alternative 

option 2.5/40 (Table 3-5Table 3-5). The average cost-effectiveness of controlling methane is 

significantly lower than for NMOC because methane constitutes approximately 50 percent of 

landfill gas, while NMOC represents less than 1 percent of landfill gas. The overall average cost 

effectiveness for methane reductions is $176 per Mg methane under the baseline and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-10 

approximately $150 - $175 per Mg methane under the proposed option 2.5/34 and the alternative 

options 2.5/40 and 2.0/34.

Table 7-5 Estimated Cost-effectiveness in 2025 for the Baseline and Alternative Options 

(7% Discount Rate) 

Cost-effectiveness (2012$ per Mg)

NMOC Methane 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Net 

Costb 

/ton

Total 

Cost

/ton 

Net 

Costb 

/ton

Total 

Cost

/ton 

Net 

Costb 

/ton

Total 

Cost

/ton 

 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 5,271 27,800 33.5 176 1.3 7.10

 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 26,100 23,800 166 151 6.6 6.0 

Proposed option 2.5/34 26,100 27,900 165 177 6.6 7.1 

Alternative option 2.0/34 25,600 27,100 163 172 6.5 6.9 

Note: The cost-effectiveness of NMOC and methane are estimated as if all of the control cost were attributed to each 

pollutant separately. 

a A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. The secondary CO2 emission 

reductions are not reflected in these estimates. 

b Net Cost is the total control and testing and monitoring cost minus any project revenue. The control costs for 

landfills with energy projects includes costs to install and operate a reciprocating engine (and associated electrical 

equipment), which is more expensive than a standard flare. Reciprocating engines are not required by the regulation 

but are expected to be used as control devices when it is cost-effective to recovery the LFG energy.

 

7.3 Benefits 

The proposed subpart to the NSPS is expected to result in significant emissions 

reductions of landfill gas (LFG) from existing new or modified MSW landfills. As in the case of 

the proposed emissions guidelines, there will be climate benefits and HAP, ozone and PM2.5 

health “co-benefits”. These co-benefits occur because the control techniques to meet the 

standards simultaneously reduce methane, VOC, and HAP emissions. By lowering the current 

NMOC emissions threshold of 50 Mg/yr to 34 Mg/yr, the proposal is anticipated to achieve 

reductions of 300 Mg/yr NMOC and 51,400 Mg/yr methane in 2025. The NMOC portion of 

LFG can contain a variety of air pollutants, including VOC and various organic HAP. VOC 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-11 

emissions are precursors to both fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone formation, while 

methane is a GHG and a precursor to global ozone formation. As described in detail in Chapter 

4, these pollutants are associated with substantial health effects, climate effects, and other 

welfare effects. As with the proposed emissions guidelines, the only categories of benefits 

monetized for the proposed NSPS are methane-related and CO2-related climate effects. While 

the methane-related climate effects are positive as with the proposed emissions guidelines, for 

the proposed NSPS there are small CO2 disbenefits associated with increased electricity demand 

due to the energy demands of the GCCS exceeding the increased generation of electricity by 

landfills through the burning of LFG in engines. 

While we expect that these avoided emissions will also result in improvements in air 

quality and reduce health and welfare effects associated with exposure to HAP, ozone, and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5), we have determined that quantification of those health benefits cannot 

be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to imply that these benefits do not 

exist; rather, it is a reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the 

reductions in emissions for this industrial sector with the data currently available. 

The methodology used to calculate methane climate benefits is discussed in detail in Section 4.2 

of this RIA. Applying the approach discussed in that section to the CH4 reductions estimated for 

this proposal, the 2025 methane benefits vary by discount rate and range from about $36 million 

to approximately $210 million; for the proposed option, the mean SC-CH4 at the 3% discount 

rate results in an estimate of about $78 million in 2025. These benefits are presented below in 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-12 

Table 7-6Table 7-6. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-13 

Table 7-6 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CH4

reduced 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CO2-

equivalent 

reduced 

Discount rate and statistic

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 0.044 1.1 $32 $67 $86 $180 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 0.051 1.3 $36 $78 $100 $210 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 0.063 1.6 $44 $95 $120 $250 

*The SC-CH4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH4 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts. 

However, there are climate-related disbenefits that are expected from the proposal’s 

secondary air impacts, specifically, a net increase in CO2 emissions. These disbenefits arise 

because more energy is required to operate the GCCS at some landfills than is produced by these 

landfills through the burning of LFG in engines.76 These disbenefits are presented in Table 7-7 

below. Monetizing the net CO2 increases with the SC-CO2 estimates also described in Section 

4.2 yields disbenefits that vary by discount rate and range from about $0.01 million to 

approximately $0.10 million in 2025. For the proposed option, the mean SC-CO2 at the 3% 

discount rate results in an estimate of about $0.03 million in 2025. 

Table 7-7 Estimated Global Disbenefits of Net CO2 Increases in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) 

Metric tonnes of net 

CO2 increased 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 11,000 $0.17 $0.55 $0.81 $1.6 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 670 $0.010 $0.033 $0.049 $0.10 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 2,000 $0.030 $0.10 $0.14 $0.29 

*The SC-CO2 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CO2 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts. 

 

76 As in the case of the proposed Emissions Guidelines, there is an additional CO2 impact, specifically a small 

increase in CO2 emissions resulting from flaring of methane in response to this rule. We are not estimating the 

monetized disbenefits of these secondary emissions of CO2 because much of the methane that would have been 

released in the absence of the flare would have eventually oxidized into CO2 in the atmosphere. See Section 4.2.1 

for more discussion.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-14 

7.4 Economic Impacts 

7.4.1 Economic Impact Analysis 

As was discussed in Section 5.2, assessing the economic impacts of the costs of the 

proposed option is difficult due to the nature of the MSW industry. The cost of the current 

proposal is estimated to be $8.5 million in 2025. Because of the relatively low net cost of 

proposed option 2.5/34 compared to the overall size of the MSW industry as was discussed in 

Chapter 2 and Section 5.2, as well as the lack of appropriate economic parameters or model, the 

EPA is unable to estimate the impacts of the options on the supply and demand for MSW landfill 

services. However, because of the relatively low incremental costs of the proposed option 2.5/34, 

the EPA does not believe the proposal would lead to changes in supply and demand for landfill 

services or waste disposal costs, tipping fees, or the amount of waste disposed in landfills. 

Hence, the overall economic impact of the proposal should be minimal on the affected industries 

and their consumers. 

7.4.2 Employment Impacts 

As is the case with the proposed emissions guidelines, the EPA is unable to quantify the 

effect of the proposed NSPS on employment. However, a discussion of the potential impacts on 

employment appears in Section 5.3, and is relevant for the proposed NSPS as well as the 

proposed emissions guidelines. 

7.4.3 Small Business Impacts Analysis 

As discussed in Section 5.4, the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) generally requires an agency to 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and 

small not-for-profit enterprises. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-15 

It was determined that the July 2014 proposed NSPS subpart would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Given the changes in the number of 

landfills anticipated to become subject to the new proposed NSPS, the potential impact on small 

entities has been reanalyzed. 

For the purposes of assessing the impact of the proposed NSPS on small entities, a small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is primarily engaged in the collections and disposal 

of refuse in a landfill operation as defined by NAICS code 562212 with annual receipts less than 

$38.5 million; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 

school district, or school district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is 

not dominant in its field. 

The EPA typically assessed how the regulatory program may potentially impact owners 

(ultimate parent companies, governmental jurisdictions, or not-for-profit enterprises) by 

comparing pollution control costs to total sales or revenue. This is referred to as a “sales” test or 

cost-to-sales ratio. To perform this test, the total annualized control cost for a small entity (i) is 

divided by its reported revenue: 

		 =

	

	
		

	
	

The “sales test” is the impact metric the EPA employs in analyzing small entity impacts 

as opposed to a “profits test,” in which annualized compliance costs are calculated as a share of 

profits. The use of a “sales test” for estimating small business impacts for a rulemaking such as 

this one is consistent with guidance offered by the EPA on compliance with SBREFA77 and is 

consistent with guidance published by the U.S. SBA’s Office of Advocacy that suggests that cost 

 

77 The SBREFA compliance guidance to EPA rulewriters regarding the types of small business analysis that should 

be considered can be found at <http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/rfaguidance11-00-06.pdf> 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-16 

as a percentage of total revenues is a metric for evaluating cost increases on small entities in 

relation to increases on large entities.78 The results of the screening analysis appear below in 

Table 7-8. 

Table 7-8 Small Business Impact Screening Assessment Results (Reporters and 

Controllers) 

2.5 million Mg; 

Reduce to 40 Mg/yr 

NMOC 

2.5 million Mg; 

Reduce to 34 Mg/yr 

NMOC 

2.0 million Mg; 

Reduce to 34 Mg/yr 

NMOC 

 

Count from 

Screen 

Based on 

Total Cost 

Count from 

Screen 

Based on 

Net Cost 

Count from 

Screen 

Based on 

Total Cost 

Count from 

Screen 

Based on 

Net Cost 

Count from 

Screen 

Based on 

Total Cost 

Count from 

Screen 

Based on 

Net Cost 

No. Affected 13 13 13 13 14 14 

No. Affected with Sales Data 11 11 11 11 12 12 

No. Affected > 1% (n) 0 0 2 2 2 2 

No. Affected > 3% (n) 0 0 1 1 1 1 

No. Affected > 1% (%) 0.0% 0.0% 18.2% 18.2% 16.7% 16.7% 

No. Affected > 3% (%) 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 9.1% 8.3% 8.3% 

After considering the economic impact of the proposed NSPS on small entities, the 

analysis indicates that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 

small entities (SISNOSE). First, the proposed revision does not impact a substantial number of 

small entities, since only 13 small entities are projected to be impacted by the proposed option. 

Additionally, the impact to these entities are not significant, because only 2 entities have impacts 

greater than 1 percent of sales, and only 1 of these 2 entities has impacts greater than 3 percent of 

sales.

7.5 Comparison of Benefits and Costs 

The EPA compared the monetized methane-related climate benefits and CO2 co-benefits 

of the proposed NSPS for new or modified MSW landfills against the estimated annualized costs

 

78U.S. SBA, Office of Advocacy. A Guide for Government Agencies, How to Comply with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, Implementing the President’s Small Business Agenda and Executive Order 13272, June 2010. 

Commented [A30]: OMB RIA Comment 15: Reviewer notes 

that the basis for no SISNOSE finding isn’t stated and requests the 

analysis to support this conclusion. 

EPA Response: Justification has now been added to this section and 

section 8.3. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-17 

and found that the benefits of the proposed rule outweigh the costs. The net benefits are likely 

larger since the EPA was not able to monetize the benefits from reducing exposure to 300 Mg/yr 

of NMOC. The NMOC portion of LFG can contain a variety of air pollutants, including VOC 

and various organic HAP, and these pollutants are associated with health and welfare effects 

described in Chapter 4. 

7.6 Net Benefits of the Proposed Standards 

For the proposed 2.5/34 option, the monetized methane-related climate benefits are 

estimated to range from $36 million to $210 million (2012$)79 in 2025; these benefits are 

estimated to be $78 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. The CO2 disbenefits are 

estimated to range from $0.01 million to $0.10 million (2012$)80 in 2025; estimated CO2

disbenefits are $0.033 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. Under the proposed 

option 2.5/34, when using a 7% discount rate the additional cost in 2025 would be $8.5 million. 

Using a 3% discount rate, the additional cost over the baseline in 2025 would be $7.1 million. 

Thus, the net benefits in 2025, when using a 7% discount rate, are expected to be $28 million to 

$200 million, with a central estimate of $69 million. These results are summarized in Table 7-9. 

Table 7-9 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the Proposed 

NSPS Option 2.5/34 in 2025 (2012$) 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Monetized Methane-related Benefits1 $36 million - $210 million 

Monetized CO2 disbenefits1 $0.010 million - $0.10 million 

Total Costs2 $7.1 million $8.5 million 

Net Benefits $29 million - $200 million $28 million - $200 million 

Non-monetized Benefits3 Health effects of PM2.5 and ozone exposure from 300 Mg 

NMOC/yr reduced 

Health effects of HAP exposure from 300 Mg NMOC/yr 

reduced 

 

79 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 

80 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CO2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-18 

Visibility impairment 

Vegetation effects 

1 Monetized benefits include the climate-related benefits associated with the reduction of 51,400 Mg/yr 

methane, valued using the social cost of methane, and the net increase of 665 Mg/yr of CO2, valued 

using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 and four SC-CO2

estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent 

discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models and scenarios using a 3% 

discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion.

2 The engineering compliance costs are annualized and include estimated revenue from electricity sales 

for landfills that are expected to generate revenue by using landfill gas for energy. 

3 While we expect that these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reductions 

in health effects associated with HAP, ozone, and particulate matter (PM), we have determined that 

quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to 

imply that there are no benefits or co-benefits of the rulesthese benefits do not exist; rather, it is a 

reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the reductions in emissions 

for this industrial sector with the data currently available. 

7.7 Net Benefits of the Alternate Standards 

For the less stringent 2.5/40 option, the monetized methane-related climate benefits are estimated 

to range from $31 million to $180 million (2012$)81 in 2025; these benefits are estimated to be 

$67 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. The CO2 disbenefits are estimated to 

range from $0.17 million to $1.6 million (2012$)82 in 2025; estimated CO2 disbenefits are $0.55 

million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. Under this option, when using a 7% discount 

rate the additional cost in 2025 would be $7.4 million. Using a 3% discount rate, the additional 

cost over the baseline in 2025 would be $6.4 million. Thus, the net benefits, when using a 7% 

discount rate, would be expected to be $23 million to $170 million in 2025, with a primary 

estimate of $59 million. These results are summarized in 

 

81 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 

82 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CO2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-19 

Table 7-10Table 7-10. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-20 

Table 7-10 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the 

Alternative NSPS Option 2.5/40 in 2025 (2012$) 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Monetized Methane-related Benefits1 $31 million - $180 million 

Monetized CO2 disbenefits1 $0.17 million - $1.60 million 

Total Costs2 $6.4 million $7.4 million 

Net Benefits $24 million - $170 million $23 million - $170 million 

Non-monetized Benefits3 Health effects of PM2.5 and ozone exposure from 300 Mg 

NMOC/yr reduced 

Health effects of HAP exposure from 300 Mg NMOC/yr 

reduced 

 Visibility impairment 

 Vegetation effects 

1 Monetized benefits include the climate-related benefits associated with the reduction of 44,400 Mg/yr 

methane, valued using the social cost of methane, and the net increase of 11,000 Mg/yr of CO2, valued 

using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 and four SC-CO2

estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent 

discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models and scenarios using a 3% 

discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion.

2 The engineering compliance costs are annualized and include estimated revenue from electricity sales 

for landfills that are expected to generate revenue by using landfill gas for energy. 

3 While we expect that these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reductions 

in health effects associated with HAP, ozone, and particulate matter (PM), we have determined that 

quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to 

imply that there are no benefits or co-benefits of the rulesthese benefits do not exist; rather, it is a 

reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the reductions in emissions 

for this industrial sector with the data currently available. 

For the more stringent 2.0/34 option, the monetized methane-related climate benefits are 

estimated to range from $44 million to $250 million (2012$)83 in 2025; these benefits are 

estimated to be $95 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. The CO2 disbenefits are 

estimated to range from $0.03 million to $0.29 million (2012$)84 in 2025; estimated CO2

disbenefits are $0.10 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. Under this option, when 

using a 7% discount rate the additional cost in 2025 would be $10 million. Using a 3% discount 

rate, the additional cost over the baseline in 2025 would be $8.6 million. Thus, the net benefits, 

 

83 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 

84 The range of estimates reflects four SC-CO2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 

percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models 

and scenarios using a 3% discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-21 

when using a 7% discount rate, would be expected to be $34 million to $240 million in 2025, 

with a primary estimate of $85 million. These results are summarized in Table 7-11. 

Table 7-11 Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits for the 

Alternative NSPS Option 2.0/34 in 2025 (2012$) 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Monetized Methane-related Benefits1 $44 million - $250 million 

Monetized CO2 disbenefits1 $0.03 million - $0.29 million 

Total Costs2 $8.6 million $10.0 million 

Net Benefits $35 million - $240 million $34 million - $240 million 

Non-monetized Benefits3 Health effects of PM2.5 and ozone exposure from 400 Mg 

NMOC/yr reduced 

Health effects of HAP exposure from 400 Mg NMOC/yr 

reduced 

 Visibility impairment 

 Vegetation effects 

1 Monetized benefits include the climate-related benefits associated with the reduction of 62,500 Mg/yr 

methane, valued using the social cost of methane, and the net increase of 1,970 Mg/yr of CO2, valued 

using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH4 and four SC-CO2

estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent 

discount rate, and the 95th percentile of the pooled estimates from all models and scenarios using a 3% 

discount rate. See Section 4.2 for a complete discussion.

2 The engineering compliance costs are annualized and include estimated revenue from electricity sales 

for landfills that are expected to generate revenue by using landfill gas for energy. 

3 While we expect that these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reductions 

in health effects associated with HAP, ozone, and particulate matter (PM), we have determined that 

quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to 

imply that there are no benefits or co-benefits of the rulesthese benefits do not exist; rather, it is a 

reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the reductions in emissions 

for this industrial sector with the data currently available. 

7.8 Alternative Years of Analysis 

While the EPA is assessing impacts in year 2025 as a representative year for the landfills 

NSPS for new or modified MSW landfills, the quantity and composition of landfill gas does 

change over the lifetime of a landfill, as discussed in Chapter 2. This section presents a more 

complete picture of the emission reductions, costs, and benefits of the NSPS alternatives over 

time by presenting results from the years 2020, 2030, and 2040. Throughout this section, costs 

are presented only at a 7% interest rate, and do not include testing and monitoring costs. 

However, testing and monitoring costs are typically a very small percentage of the overall costs. 

Commented [A31]: This section added in response to OMB 

General Comment 1. Table additions not tracked as changes for 

clarity. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-22 

Tables 7-12 and 7-13 present the emissions reductions and compliance costs, respectively, of the 

alternatives in the 2020 snapshot year. 

Table 7-12 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2020 for the Baseline and 

Alternative Options 

 Annual Average Reduction (Mg) 

NMOC 

Million 

Methane 

Million 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 10,100 1.6 39.9 

Incremental values versus the current NSPS 

Alternative option 2.5/40 400 0.06 1.6 

Proposed option 2.5/34 470 0.07 1.9 

Alternative option 2.0/34 550 0.09 2.2 

*A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. Secondary CO2 emission 

reductions are not included in this table. 

Table 7-13 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2020 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (7% Discount Rate) 

 

Landfills 

Controlling 

Emissions

Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions 

2012$) 

Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use 

Projects Net Cost 

Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 106 294 251 42.0 

Incremental values versus the current NSPS 

Alternative option 2.5/40 13 13.2 6.5 6.7 

Proposed option 2.5/34 16 15.9 8.3 7.6 

Alternative option 2.0/34 20 17.5 8.3 9.3 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. Costs do not include testing and monitoring costs. 

Tables 7-14 and 7-15 present the emissions reductions and compliance costs, respectively, in the 

2030 snapshot year.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-23 

Table 7-14 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2030 for the Baseline and 

Alternative Options 

 Annual Average Reduction (Mg) 

NMOC 

Million 

Methane 

Million 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 12,200 1.9 48.1 

Incremental values versus the current NSPS

Alternative option 2.5/40 190 0.03 0.7 

Proposed option 2.5/34 270 0.04 1.1 

Alternative option 2.0/34 330 0.05 1.3 

*A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. Secondary CO2 emission 

reductions are not included in this table. 

Table 7-15 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2030 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (7% Discount Rate) 

 

Landfills 

Controlling 

Emissions

Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions 

2012$) 

Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use 

Projects Net Cost 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 115 331 258 74.0 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 7 3.8 -0.5 4.3 

Proposed option 2.5/34 12 5.9 -1.0 7.0 

Alternative option 2.0/34 16 7.6 -1.0 8.6 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. Costs do not include testing and monitoring costs. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-24 

Tables 7-16 and 7-17 present the emissions reductions and compliance costs, respectively, in the 

2040 snapshot year. 

Table 7-16 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2040 for the Baseline and 

Alternative Options 

 Annual Average Reduction (Mg) 

NMOC 

Million 

Methane 

Million 

Methane 

(in CO2-

equivalents)* 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 11,600 1.8 45.7 

Incremental values versus the current EG

Alternative option 2.5/40 220 0.03 0.9 

Proposed option 2.5/34 350 0.05 1.4 

Alternative option 2.0/34 360 0.06 1.4 

*A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. Secondary CO2 emission 

reductions are not included in this table. 

Table 7-17 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2040 for Baseline and Alternative 

Options (7% Discount Rate) 

 

Landfills 

Controlling 

Emissions

Estimated Annualized Net Cost (Millions 

2012$) 

Control Costs 

Revenue from 

Beneficial-use 

Projects Net Cost 

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC 

Baseline 107 321 228 93.0 

Incremental values versus the current EG 

Alternative option 2.5/40 7 5.0 -0.4 5.3 

Proposed option 2.5/34 12 11.6 3.2 8.4 

Alternative option 2.0/34 13 12.0 3.2 8.7 

Note: All total are independently rounded and may not sum. Costs do not include testing and monitoring costs. 

Table 7-18 presents the climate benefits of the alternatives in the 2020 snapshot year.
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

7-25 

Table 7-18 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2020* (in millions, 2012$) 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CH4

reduced 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CO2-

equivalent 

reduced 

Discount rate and statistic

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 0.063 1.6 $37 $82 $110 $220 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 0.074 1.9 $43 $96 $130 $260 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 0.087 2.2 $51 $110 $150 $300 

*The SC-CH4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH4 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts. 

Table 7-19 presents the climate benefits of the alternatives in the 2030 snapshot year.

Table 7-19 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2030* (in millions, 2012$) 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CH4

reduced 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CO2-

equivalent 

reduced 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 0.029 0.73 $24 $50 $63 $130 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 0.042 1.1 $35 $73 $92 $190 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 0.052 1.3 $42 $89 $110 $230 

*The SC-CH4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH4 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts. 

Table 7-20 presents the climate benefits of the alternatives in the 2040 snapshot year. 

Table 7-20 Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2040* (in millions, 2012$) 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CH4

reduced 

Million 

metric 

tonnes of 

CO2-

equivalent 

reduced 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

(average) 

3% 

(average) 

2.5% 

(average) 

3% (95th

percentile) 

Alternative Option 2.5/40 0.035 0.87 $38 $75 $98 $210 

Proposed Option 2.5/34 0.055 1.4 $59 $120 $150 $330 

Alternative Option 2.0/34 0.056 1.4 $61 $120 $160 $330 

*The SC-CH4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH4 values represent only a partial 

accounting of climate impacts. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-1 

8 STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER REVIEWS 

8.1 Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 

13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this action is an “economically significant regulatory action” because it is likely to have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and 13563 

(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for this action. In addition, the EPA prepared this RIA of 

the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. For the proposed Emission 

Guidelines, the monetized methane-related climate benefits are estimated to range from $310 

million to $1.7 billion (2012$); these benefits are estimated to be $660 million (2012$) in 2025 

using a 3% discount rate. The CO2 co-benefits are estimated to range from $3.6 million to $36 

million (2012$) in 2025; estimated CO2 benefits are $12 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% 

discount rate. Under the proposed option 2.5/34, when using a 3% discount rate, the additional 

cost over the baseline in 2025 would be $47 million. When using a 7% discount rate, the 

additional cost in 2025 would be $35 million. Thus, the net benefits are expected to be $260 

million to $1.7 billion, with a primary estimate of $620 million. Table 6-1 shows the results of 

the cost and benefits analysis for this proposed rule. 

The EPA also considered the impacts associated with the proposed revision to the NSPS 

and has concluded that the proposed NSPS is also economically significant. For the proposed 

rule, the monetized methane-related climate benefits are estimated to range from $36 million to 

$210 million (2012$) in 2025, depending on the discount rate; these benefits are estimated to be 

$78 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. The CO2 disbenefits are estimated to 

range from $0.01 million to $0.10 million (2012$) in 2025, depending on the discount rate; 

estimated CO2 disbenefits are $0.033 million (2012$) in 2025 using a 3% discount rate. Under 

the proposed option 2.5/34, when using a 7% discount rate the additional cost in 2025 would be 

$8.5 million. Using a 3% discount rate, the additional cost over the baseline in 2025 would be 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-2 

$7.1 million. Thus, the net benefits in 2025 are expected to be $28 million to $200 million, with 

a central estimate of $69 million. These results are summarized in Table 7-9. 

8.2 Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection requirements in the proposed Emission Guidelines have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document that the EPA prepared for the proposed Emission Guidelines has been assigned EPA 

ICR number [2522.01]. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is 

briefly summarized here. 

The information required to be collected is necessary to identify the regulated entities 

subject to the proposed rule and to ensure their compliance with the proposed Emission 

Guidelines. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements are mandatory and are being 

established under authority of CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than 

emissions data submitted as part of a report to the agency for which a claim of confidentiality is 

made will be safeguarded according to CAA section 114(c) and the EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

Respondents/affected entities: Municipal solid waste landfills that accepted waste on or 

after November 8, 1987 and commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification on 

or before July 17, 2014. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf). 

Estimated number of respondents: 988 municipal solid waste landfills. 

Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and annually. 

Total estimated burden: 621,947 hours (per year) for the responding facilities and 16,054 

hours (per year) for the agency. These are estimates for the average annual burden for the 

first 3 years after the rule is final. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-3 

Total estimated cost: $41,755,793 (per year), which includes annualized capital or 

operation and maintenance costs, for the responding facilities and $1,029,658 (per year) 

for the agency. These are estimates for the average annual cost for the first 3 years after 

the rule is final. 

The information collection requirements in the supplemental NSPS proposal have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document that the EPA prepared for this supplemental proposal has been assigned EPA ICR 

number 2498.02. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 

summarized here. 

The information required to be collected is necessary to identify the regulated entities 

subject to the proposed NSPS and to ensure their compliance with the proposed NSPS and this 

supplemental proposal. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements are mandatory and are 

being established under authority of CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other 

than emissions data submitted as part of a report to the agency for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to CAA section 114(c) and the EPA’s 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The information collection requirements in the proposed NSPS (79 FR 41828, July 17, 

2014) were submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA 

prepared was assigned EPA ICR number 2498.01. Since the NSPS review was proposed on July 

17, 2014, the EPA updated the number of existing landfills likely to modify after July 17, 2014, 

and, thus, become subject to proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX, as discussed in this 

preamble. The supplemental proposal to lower the emission threshold for new and modified 

sources affects the burden estimates the EPA presented in EPA ICR number 2498.01. As a result, 

the EPA updated the EPA ICR number 2498.01 and re-submitted it to OMB for approval as EPA 

ICR 2498.02 to reflect the estimated number of respondents and a lower NMOC emission rate. A 

copy of the ICR is in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215, and it is briefly summarized 

here. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-4 

Respondents/affected entities: Municipal solid waste landfills that commence 

construction, reconstruction, or modification after July 17, 2014. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX). 

Estimated number of respondents: 144 Municipal solid waste landfills that commence 

construction, reconstruction, or modification after July 17, 2014. 

Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and annually. 

Total estimated burden: 101,031 Hours (per year) for the responding facilities and 2,790 

hours (per year) for the agency. These are estimates for the average annual burden for the 

first 3 years after the rule is final. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $6,701,401 (per year), which includes annualized capital or 

operation and maintenance costs, for the responding facilities and $177,680 (per year) for 

the agency. These are estimates for the average annual cost for the first 3 years after the 

rule is final. 

8.3 Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities (SISNOSE). Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, small entity 

is defined as: (1) a small business that is a small industrial entity as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-5 

After considering the economic impact of the proposed Emission Guidelines on small 

entities, the EPA certifies that the proposed regulation will not have a Significant Impact on a 

Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE). 

The proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Specifically, 

Emission Guidelines established under CAA section 111(d) do not impose any requirements on 

regulated entities and, thus, will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial 

number of small entities. After emission guidelines are promulgated, states and U.S. territories 

establish standards on existing sources, and it is those requirements that could potentially impact 

small entities. 

Our analysis here is consistent with the analysis of the analogous situation arising when 

the EPA establishes NAAQS, which do not impose any requirements on regulated entities. As 

here, any impact of a NAAQS on small entities would only arise when states take subsequent 

action to maintain and/or achieve the NAAQS through their state implementation plans. See 

American Trucking Associations v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1029, 1043-45 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (NAAQS do 

not have significant impacts upon small entities because NAAQS themselves impose no 

regulations upon small entities). 

After considering the economic impact of the supplemental proposed NSPS on small 

entities, the analysis indicates that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities (SISNOSE). First, the proposed revision does not impact a substantial 

number of small entities, since only 13 small entities are projected to be impacted by the 

proposed option. Additionally, the impact to these entities are not significant, because only 2 

entities have impacts greater than 1 percent of sales, and only 1 of these 2 entities has impacts 

greater than 3 percent of sales. These results are summarized in Table 7-8.

8.4 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, 

establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on 

state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-6 

EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed 

and final rules with “federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. 

Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the 

UMRA generally requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and to adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 

achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an alternative 

other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation for why that alternative was not 

adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 

section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 

potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have 

meaningful and timely input in the development of the EPA regulatory proposals with significant 

federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments 

on compliance with the regulatory requirements. 

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described 

in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538. The proposed Emission Guidelines apply to landfills that were 

constructed, modified, or reconstructed on or after November 8, 1987, and that commenced 

construction, reconstruction, or modification on or before July 17, 2014. Impacts resulting from 

the proposed Emission Guidelines are below the applicable threshold. 

However, the proposed Emission Guidelines may significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments because small governments operate landfills. The EPA consulted with small 

governments concerning the regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 

them. In developing this rule, the EPA consulted with small governments pursuant to a plan 

established under section 203 of the UMRA to address impacts of regulatory requirements in the 

rule that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The EPA held meetings as 

discussed in Section 7.5 under Federalism consultations. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-7 

The supplemental proposal for the NSPS does not contain a federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. This action applies to landfills that were 

constructed, modified, or reconstructed on or after July 17, 2014. Impacts resulting from the 

proposed NSPS are far below the applicable threshold. Thus, the proposed NSPS is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. 

8.5 Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires 

the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by state and 

local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” 

“Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the 

national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 

the various levels of government.” The EPA has concluded that the proposed Emission 

Guidelines have federalism implications, because the rule imposes substantial direct compliance 

costs on state or local governments, and the federal government will not provide the funds 

necessary to pay those costs. 

The EPA has concluded that the supplemental proposal for the NSPS does not have 

Federalism implications. The proposed NSPS will not have substantial direct effects on the 

states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution 

of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive 

Order 13132. The supplemental proposal will not have impacts of $25 million or more in any 

one year. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the supplemental. Although section 6 

of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the supplemental proposal NSPS, the EPA consulted 

with state and local officials and representatives of state and local governments early in the 

process of developing the proposed rules for MSW landfills (both the NSPS and Emission 

Guidelines) to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into the rules’ development. The 

EPA conducted a Federalism Consultation Outreach Meeting on September 10, 2013. Due to 

interest in that meeting, additional outreach meetings were held on November 7, 2013 and 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-8 

November 14, 2013. With the pending proposal of these Emission Guidelines, an additional 

Federalism outreach meeting was conducted on April 15, 2015. Participants included the 

National Governors’ Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of 

State Governments, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National 

Association of Counties, the International City/County Management Association, the National 

Association of Towns and Townships, the County Executives of America, the Environmental 

Council of States, National Association of Clean Air Agencies, Association of State and 

Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, environmental agency representatives from 43 

states, and approximately 60 representatives from city and county governments. The comment 

period was extended to allow sufficient time for interested parties to review briefing materials 

and provide comments. Concerns raised during the consultations include: implementation 

concerns associated with shortening of gas collection system installation and/or expansion 

timeframes, concerns regarding significant lowering of the design capacity or emission 

thresholds, the need for clarifications associated with wellhead operating parameters and the 

need for consistent, clear and rigorous surface monitoring requirements. 

8.6 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires the EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This action has tribal implications. However, it 

will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal 

governments, nor preempt tribal law. The database used to estimate impacts of the proposed 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Cf identified one tribe, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, 

which owns three landfills potentially subject to the proposed Emission Guidelines. One of these 

landfills is open, the Salt River Landfill, and is already controlling emissions under the current 

NSPS/EG framework, so while subject to this subpart, the costs of this proposal are not 

substantial. The two other landfills are closed and anticipated to meet the definition of the closed 

landfill subcategory. One of the landfills, the Tri Cities Landfill is already controlling emissions 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-9 

under the current NSPS/EG framework and will not incur substantial additional compliance costs 

under Cf. The other landfill, North Center Street Landfill, is not estimated to install controls 

under the current NSPS/EG framework. 

The supplemental NSPS proposal does not have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. Based on the EPA’s review of existing landfills as outlined in the 

docketed memorandum, “Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction 

Analysis of Landfills Regulations. 2014,” tribal landfills are not anticipated to be large enough to 

become subject to the rulemaking. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the 

supplemental NSPS proposal. Nevertheless, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this action 

from tribal officials. 

8.7 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks 

and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be 

“economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must 

evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain 

why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 

alternatives considered by the Agency. 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions 

that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-

202 of the Executive Order. The proposed Emission Guidelines and the supplemental NSPS 

proposal are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they do not concern an environmental 

health risk or safety risk. We also note that the methane and NMOC reductions expected from 

the proposed Emission Guidelines and NSPS will have positive health effects including for 

children as previously discussed in Chapter 4. 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-10 

8.8 Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

This proposed action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 

13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, 

or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because in the Agency’s judgment it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The EPA has concluded 

that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects because there are a small number of 

landfills subject to control requirements under subpart Cf. Further, the EPA has concluded that 

the proposed Emission Guidelines and supplemental NSPS proposal are not likely to have any 

adverse energy effects because the energy demanded to operate these control systems will be 

offset by additional energy supply from landfill gas energy projects. 

8.9 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, §12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use 

voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA 

directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not 

to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to use EPA Methods 2, 

2E, 3, 3A, 3C, 21, 25, 25A, and 25C of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. While the EPA identified 

10 VCS as being potentially applicable (ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10, ASME B133.9-

1994 (2001), ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM D5835-95 (2013), ASTM 

D6522-11, CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 (1999), ASTM D6060-96 (2009), ISO 14965:2000(E), EN 

12619(1999)), the agency decided not to use these methods. The EPA determined that the 10 

candidate VCS identified for measuring emissions of pollutants or their surrogates subject to 

emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to lack of equivalency, documentation, 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-11 

validation data, and other important technical and policy considerations. The agency identified 

no such standards for Methods 2E, 21, and 25C. The EPA’s review, including review comments 

for these 10 methods, is documented in the memorandum, “Voluntary Consensus Standard 

Results for Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

8.10 Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy 

on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low 

income populations in the United States. 

To gain a better understanding of the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills source category 

and near‐source populations, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis at a study area of 3 miles 

of the source category for this rulemaking. This analysis identifies, on a limited basis, the 

subpopulations that may be exposed to air pollution from the regulated sources and thus are 

expected to benefit most from this regulation. This analysis does not identify the demographic 

characteristics of the most highly affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify the 

level of risk faced by those individuals or communities. To the extent that any minority, low‐

income or indigenous subpopulation is disproportionately impacted by hazardous air emissions 

due to the proximity of their homes to sources of these emissions, that subpopulation also stands 

to see increased environmental and health benefit from the emission reductions called for by this 

rule. 

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will 

not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on 

minority, low-income or indigenous populations because the proposed subpart would reduce 

emissions of landfill gas, which contains both nonmethane organic compounds and methane. 

These avoided emissions will improve air quality and reduce public health and welfare effects 
*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review *** 

8-12 

associated with exposure to landfill gas emissions. The results of the proximity analysis 

conducted for the proposed Emission Guidelines are presented in the April 22, 2015 document 

entitled, “2015 Environmental Justice Screening Report for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,” a 

copy of which is available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0215). 

In regards to the supplemental landfills NSPS proposal, the EPA has concluded that it is 

not practicable to determine whether there would be disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority, low income, or indigenous populations from this 

proposed rule because it is unknown where new or modified facilities will be located. However, 

the previously mentioned proximity analysis conducted for the proposed Emission Guidelines 

provides information about the populations likely to be impacted. 
From: Thundiyil, Karen 

Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 6:27 PM 

To: Andrea_L_Grossman@omb.eop.gov

Cc: Ward, Hillary; Marsh, Karen; Cozzie, David; Vetter, Rick 

Subject: Follow-up on remaining Landfills items 

Hi Andrea, 

Following up on the minor issues we discussed over the phone, here are the responses from the program. Please 

let us know if you have any questions. 

1. C&D waste exclusion 

See the last sentence in the currently proposed regulatory definition of Household waste at 60.41f: 

Household waste means any solid waste (including garbage, trash, and sanitary waste in septic tanks) derived 

from households (including, but not limited to, single and multiple residences, hotels and motels, bunkhouses, 

ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, and day-use recreation areas). Household waste 

does not include fully segregated yard waste. Segregated yard waste means vegetative matter resulting 

exclusively from the cutting of grass, the pruning and/or removal of bushes, shrubs, and trees, the weeding of 

gardens, and other landscaping maintenance activities. Household waste does not include construction, 

renovation, or demolition wastes. 

See also Section IX.C of current preamble: We intend for subpart Cf to apply to municipal solid waste landfills 

that accept general household waste (including garbage, trash, sanitary waste), as indicated in the definitions. 

We do not intend the landfills rules to apply to landfills that accept only segregated yard waste or a 

combination of segregated yard waste and non-household waste such as construction and demolition waste. 

This rationale is consistent with 2006 proposed amendments to NSPS. See 71 FR 53277, September 8, 2006. 

2. SSM provisions 

We added a request for comment on p181: EPA requests comment on alternate ways to prevent free 

venting of landfill gas to the atmosphere during control device malfunctions. 

3. Oxygen/temperature monitoring requirement 

We added a request for other parameters at the end of Section X.C of the preamble, after asking about 

flowrate specifically. We inserted a very generic request for comment: The EPA is also requesting comment on 

any other wellhead monitoring parameters that would help ensure a well-operated GCCS. 

Separately, we made minor changes to text in the RIA: 

Updated the footnote to the table on p4-12 to include a reference (now reads “The estimates in this table 

have been adjusted to reflect the minor technical corrections to the SC-CO2 estimates described above. See 

erratum Marten et al. (2015) for more details.” and removed the comment (“OP should be able to provide 

complete citation for erratum by the end of the week”). The citation added to the reference list is “Marten AL, 

Kopits KA, Griffiths CW, Newbold SC, Wolverton A. 2015. “Corrigendum to: Incremental CH4 and N2O 

mitigation benefits consistent with the US Government's SC-CO2 estimates,” Climate Policy 15, 5: 678-679.” 
Additionally, a couple of sentences and a footnote have just been added to section 1.1 per our Office of 

General Counsel. Those sentences say “In accordance with Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, 

OMB Circular A-4, and the EPA’s “Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses,” the EPA prepared this RIA for 

these “significant regulatory actions.” These actions are economically significant regulatory actions because 

they may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way 

the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities.6” And the footnote says “6 The analysis in this 

draft RIA constitutes the economic assessment required by CAA section 317. In the EPA’s judgment, the 

assessment is as extensive as practicable taking into account the EPA’s time, resources, and other duties and 

authorities.” 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

 

E.O. 12866 Landfills EG 2060 AS23 NPRM 20150617 

6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451; FRL- ] 

RIN 2060-AS23 

Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 

proposing a new subpart, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf that updates 

the Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc) (Emission 

Guidelines). The EPA determined that it was appropriate to 

review the landfills Emission Guidelines based on changes in the 

landfills industry since the Emission Guidelines were 

promulgated in 1996. The EPA’s review of the Emission Guidelines 

for municipal solid waste landfills applies to landfills that 

accepted waste after November 8, 1987 and commenced 

construction, reconstruction, or modification on or before July 

17, 2014. Based on its initial review, the EPA has determined 

that it is appropriate to propose revisions to the Emission 

Guidelines that reflect changes to the population of landfills 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 2 of 321 

and the results of an analysis of the timing and methods for 

reducing emissions. This action proposes to achieve additional 

reductions of landfill gas and its components, including 

methane, by lowering the emissions threshold at which a landfill 

must install controls. This action also incorporates new data 

and information received in response to an advanced notice of 

proposed rulemaking and addresses other regulatory issues 

including surface emissions monitoring, wellhead monitoring, and 

the definition of landfill gas treatment system. 

In addition to considering information received in response 

to this proposed rule in evaluating potential changes to the 

Emission Guidelines, the EPA intends to consider the information 

in evaluating whether changes to the requirements for new 

sources beyond those in the July 17, 2014 proposed rule (79 FR 

41796) for new sources are warranted. 

The proposed revisions to the Emission Guidelines, once 

implemented through revised state plans or a revised federal 

plan, would reduce emissions of landfill gas, which contains 

both nonmethane organic compounds and methane. Landfills are a 

significant source of methane and methane is a potent greenhouse 

gas pollutant. These avoided emissions will improve air quality 

and reduce public health and welfare effects associated with 

exposure to landfill gas emissions. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 3 of 321 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before [insert 

date 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a 

public hearing by [insert date 5 days after date of publication 

in the Federal Register], the EPA will hold a public hearing on 

[insert date 15 days after date of publication in the Federal 

Register] from 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) to 5:00 pm 

(Eastern Standard Time) at the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency building located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711. Information regarding whether or not a 

hearing will be held will be posted on the rule’s website 

located at http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/landflpg.htm.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

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 the message. 

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

2014-0451. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center 

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

OAR–2014-0451, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 

20460. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 4 of 321 

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: OAQPS 

Document Control Officer (Room C404-02), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 5 of 321 

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. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a 

public hearing by [insert date 5 days after date of publication 

in the Federal Register], the EPA will hold a public hearing on 

[insert date 15 days after date of publication in the Federal 

Register] from 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) to 5:00 p.m. 

(Eastern Standard Time) at the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency building located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711. If no one contacts the EPA requesting a 

public hearing to be held concerning this proposed rule by 

[insert date 5 days after date of publication in the Federal 

Register], a public hearing will not take place. Information 

regarding whether or not a hearing will be held will be posted 

on the rule’s website located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/landflpg.htm. 

Please contact Ms. Aimee St. Clair at (919) 541-1063 or at 

stclair.aimee@epa.gov to register to speak at the hearing. The 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 6 of 321 

last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be [insert

date 12 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]. 

Requests to speak will be taken the day of the hearing at the 

hearing registration desk, although preferences on speaking 

times may not be able to be fulfilled. If you require the 

service of a translator or special accommodations such as audio 

description, please let us know at the time of registration. 

If a hearing is held, it will provide interested parties 

the opportunity to present data, views or arguments concerning 

the proposed action. The EPA will make every effort to 

accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. Because this 

hearing, if held, will be at U.S. government facilities, 

individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to 

show valid picture identification to the security staff in order 

to gain access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID 

Act, passed by Congress in 2005, established new requirements 

for entering federal facilities. If your driver’s license is 

issued by Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Oklahoma or 

the state of Washington, you must present an additional form of 

identification to enter the federal building. Acceptable 

alternative forms of identification include: Federal employee 

badges, passports, enhanced driver’s licenses and military 

identification cards. In addition, you will need to obtain a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 7 of 321 

property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. 

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

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

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

building and demonstrations will not be allowed on federal 

property for security reasons. 

The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral 

presentations, but will not respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting information submitted 

during the comment period will be considered with the same 

weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. Commenters should notify Ms. St. Clair if 

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

needs related to providing comments at the hearings. Verbatim 

transcripts of the hearing and written statements will be 

included in the docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will make 

every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on 

the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearing to 

run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. A public 

hearing will not be held unless requested. Please contact Ms. 

Aimee St. Clair at (919) 541-1063 or at stclair.aimee@epa.gov to 

request or register to speak at the hearing or to inquire as to 

whether a hearing will be held. Again further information on the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 8 of 321 

public hearing will be provided on the rule’s website located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/landflpg.html.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 

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

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

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 

other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials 

are available either electronically in 

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

Center, EPA/DC, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 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 

proposal, contact Ms. Hillary Ward, Fuels and Incineration 

Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards (E143-05), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone 

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

address: ward.hillary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 9 of 321 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 

abbreviations are used in this document. 

ACUS Administrative Conference of the United States 

ANPRM Advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

ARB Air Resources Board 

BMP Best management practice 

BSER Best system of emission reduction 

Btu British thermal unit 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CA LMR California Landfill Methane Rule 

CBI Confidential business information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEA Council of Economic Advisers 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent 

DOC Degradable organic carbon 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

GCCS Gas collection and control system 

GHG Greenhouse gas 

GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

GWP Global warming potential 

HAP Hazardous air pollutant 

HOV Higher operating value 

IAMS Integrated assessment models 

ICR Information collection request 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

IRFA Initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

IWG Interagency working group 

lb/MMBtu Pounds per million British thermal unit 

LCRS Leachate collection and removal system 

LFG Landfill gas 

LFGCost Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model 

LMOP Landfill Methane Outreach Program 

m3 Cubic meters 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 10 of 321 

Mg Megagram 

Mg/yr Megagram per year 

mph Miles per hour 

MSW Municipal solid waste 

mtCO2e Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 

MW Megawatt 

MWh Megawatt hour 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

NMOC Nonmethane organic compound 

NRC National Research Council 

NSPS New source performance standards 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

OMB Office of Management & Budget 

PM Particulate matter 

PM2.5 Fine particulate matter

ppm Parts per million 

ppmvd Parts per million by dry volume 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RFS Renewable Fuel Standard 

RIA Regulatory Impacts Analysis 

SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review 

SC-CH4 Social cost of methane 

SC-CO2 Social cost of carbon dioxide 

SEM Surface emissions monitoring 

SER Small entity representative 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

SSM Startup, shutdown and malfunction 

Tg Teragram 

TIP Tribal implementation plan 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

U.S. United States 

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

VCS Voluntary consensus standard 

VOC Volatile organic compound 

WWW World Wide Web 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 11 of 321 

Organization of This Document. The following outline is 

provided to aid in locating information in this preamble. 

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action

B. Summary of Major Provisions

C. Costs and Benefits

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 

information?

III. Background

A. Landfill Gas Emissions and Climate Change

B. What are the health and welfare effects of landfill gas 

emissions?

C. What is EPA’s authority for reviewing the Emission 

Guidelines?

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

E. How would the proposed changes in applicability affect 

sources currently subject to subparts Cc and WWW?

F. Where in the CFR will these changes appear?

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

Guidelines

A. Control Technology Review

B. Proposed changes to Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

C. Emission Threshold Determinations

D. Proposed Changes to Address Closed or Non-Producing Areas

E. Other Proposed Changes

V. Rationale for the Proposed Changes Based on GCCS Technology 

Review

A. Control Technology Review

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

evaluating potential changes to the timing of installing, 

expanding, and removing the GCCS?

C. What emissions and emission reduction programs are associated 

with existing MSW landfills?

D. What control options did the EPA consider?
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 12 of 321 

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Changes to Monitoring, 

Recordkeeping, and Reporting

A. Surface Emissions Monitoring Requirements

B. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements

C. Requirements for Updating the Design Plan

D. Submitting Corrective Action Timeline Requests

E. Electronic Reporting

VII. Rationale for Proposed Alternative Emission Threshold 

Determination Techniques

VIII. Proposed Changes to Address Closed or Non-Producing Areas

A. Subcategory for Closed Landfills

B. Criteria for Capping or Removing a GCCS

C. Non-producing Areas and Wellhead Standards

IX. Rationale for the Other Proposed Changes

A. Landfill Gas Treatment

B. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

C. Definitions and Other Rule Changes.

X. Request for Comment on Specific Provisions

A. Defining Closed Areas of Open Landfills.

B. Enhanced Surface Emissions Monitoring

C. Wet Landfills

D. Monitoring Wellhead Flowrate

E. Third Party Design Plan Certification Program

F. Use of Portable Analyzers for Monitoring Oxygen

XI. Impacts of Proposed Revisions

A. What are the air quality impacts?

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

C. What are the secondary air impacts?

D. What are the energy impacts?

E. What are the cost impacts?

F. What are the economic impacts?

G. What are the benefits?

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 13 of 321 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

This action proposes changes to the MSW landfills Emission 

Guidelines resulting from the EPA’s review of the Emission 

Guidelines under Clean Air Act section 111. The EPA’s review 

identified a number of advances in technology and operating 

practices and the proposed changes are based on our evaluation 

of those advances and our understanding of landfill gas (LFG) 

emissions. The resulting changes to the Emission Guidelines, if 

adopted, will achieve additional reductions in emissions of 

landfill gas and its components, including methane. This 

proposed rule is consistent with the President’s 2013 Climate 

Action Plan1, which directs federal agencies to focus on 

“assessing current emissions data, addressing data gaps, 

 

1 Executive Office of the President, “The President’s Climate Action Plan” 

June 2013. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactio

nplan.pdf 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 14 of 321 

identifying technologies and best practices for reducing 

emissions, and identifying existing authorities and incentivebased opportunities to reduce methane emissions.” The proposed 

changes are also consistent with the President’s Methane 

Strategy2, which directs EPA’s regulatory and voluntary programs 

to continue to pursue emission reductions through regulatory 

updates and to encourage LFG energy recovery through voluntary 

programs. These directives are discussed in detail in section 

III.A of this preamble. This regulatory action also proposes to 

either resolve or clarify implementation issues that were 

previously addressed in amendments proposed on May 23, 2002 (67 

FR 36475) and September 8, 2006 (71 FR 53271). 

1. Need for Regulatory Action 

The EPA reviewed the Emission Guidelines to determine the 

potential for achieving 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. Based on 

the EPA’s initial review, we are proposing changes to the 

 

2 Executive Office of the President, “Climate Action Plan Strategy to Reduce 

Methane, March 2014. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/strategy_to_reduce_methane_emi

ssions_2014-03-28_final.pdf 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 15 of 321 

Emission Guidelines. The proposed changes, if adopted, will 

achieve additional emission reductions of LFG and its components 

(including methane), provide more effective options for 

demonstrating compliance, and provide clarification of 

implementation issues raised during the amendments proposed in 

2002 and 2006. 

2. Legal Authority 

The EPA is not statutorily obligated to conduct a review of 

the Emission Guidelines, but has the discretion to do so when 

circumstances indicate that it is appropriate. The EPA has 

determined that it is appropriate to review and propose changes 

to the Emission Guidelines at this time based on changes in the 

landfill industry and changes in the size, ownership, and age of 

landfills since the Emission Guidelines were promulgated in 

1996. The EPA compiled new information on landfills through data 

collection efforts for a statutorily mandated review of the 

existing new source performance standards (NSPS) (40 CFR part 

60, subpart WWW), public comments received on the NSPS proposal 

(79 FR 41796, July 17, 2014), and public comments received on 

the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) (79 FR 41772, 

July 17, 2014) for a review of the Emission Guidelines. This 

information is allowing the EPA to assess current practices, 

emissions, and the potential for additional emission reductions. 

B. Summary of Major Provisions 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 16 of 321 

The proposed revised Emission Guidelines will ultimately 

apply to landfills that accepted waste after November 8, 19873, 

and that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification 

on or before July 17, 2014 (the date of publication of proposed 

revisions to the landfills NSPS, 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX). 

The proposed rule provisions are described below. 

Thresholds for installing or removing controls. The 

proposed revised Emission Guidelines retain the current design 

capacity threshold of 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) and 2.5 million 

cubic meters (m3), but reduce the nonmethane organic compounds 

(NMOC) emission threshold for the installation and removal of a 

gas collection and control system (GCCS) from 50 Mg/yr to 34 

Mg/yr for landfills that are not closed. As proposed, a 

municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill that exceeds the design 

capacity threshold must install and start up a GCCS within 30 

months after landfill gas (LFG) emissions reach or exceed an 

NMOC level of 34 Mg/yr NMOC. (A megagram is also known as a 

metric ton, which is equal to 1.1 U.S. short tons or about 2,205 

pounds.) Consistent with the existing Emission Guidelines, the 

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

 

3 This date in 1987 is the date on which permit programs were established 

under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of the Resource, Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) which amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), 42 

U.S.C. §§ 6901 – 6992k. This date was also selected as the regulatory cutoff 

in the EG for landfills no longer receiving wastes because the EPA judged 

States would be able to identify active facilities as of this date. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 17 of 321 

it to a non-enclosed flare, an enclosed combustion device, or a 

treatment system that processes the collected gas for subsequent 

sale or beneficial use. 

Landfill Gas Treatment. The EPA is proposing to address two 

issues related to LFG treatment. First, the EPA is proposing to 

clarify that the use of treated LFG is not limited to use as a 

fuel for a stationary combustion device but also allows other 

beneficial uses such as vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas 

for pipeline injection, and use as a raw material in a chemical 

manufacturing process. Second, the EPA is proposing to define 

Treated landfill gas as landfill gas processed in a treatment 

system meeting the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf 

and to define Treatment system as a system that filters, dewaters, and compresses landfill gas for sale or beneficial use. 

The proposed definition allows the level of treatment to be 

tailored to the type and design of the specific combustion 

equipment or other equipment for other beneficial uses such as 

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

or use as a raw material in a chemical manufacturing process in 

which the landfill gas is used. Owners and operators would 

develop a site-specific treatment system monitoring plan that 

would include monitoring parameters addressing all three 

elements of treatment (filtration, de-watering, and compression) 

to ensure the treatment system is operating properly for the 

Commented [A1]: OMB General Comment 7. 

Reviewer recommends including broader language 

(beyond combustion and chemical manufacturing) 

in the below sentence on page 17 of the 

emission guidelines to clarify that treated 

landfill gas can be used in a variety of ways 

including vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu 

gas for pipeline injection, and other 

beneficial uses. 

Response: Additional text has been added here 

to broaden the language. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 18 of 321 

intended end use of the treated LFG. They would also keep 

records that demonstrate that such parameters effectively 

monitor filtration, de-watering, and compression system 

performance necessary for the end use of the treated landfill 

gas. 

Surface Monitoring. The EPA proposes monitoring of all 

surface penetrations for existing landfills. In proposed 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cf, landfills must conduct surface emissions 

monitoring (SEM) at all cover penetrations and openings within 

the area of the landfill where waste has been placed and a gas 

collection system is required to be in place and operating 

according to the operational standards in proposed 40 CFR part 

60, subpart Cf. Specifically, landfill owners/operators must 

conduct surface monitoring on a quarterly basis at the specified 

intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated 

concentrations of landfill gas, such as distressed vegetation 

and cracks or seeps in the cover and all cover penetrations. 

Emission Threshold Determination. The EPA is proposing an 

alternative site-specific emission threshold determination for 

when a landfill must install and operate a GCCS. This 

alternative emission threshold determination, referred to as 

“Tier 4,” is based on surface emission monitoring and 

demonstrates that surface emissions are below a specific 

threshold. The Tier 4 SEM demonstration would allow landfills 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 19 of 321 

that exceed modeled NMOC emission rates using Tiers 1, 2, or 3 

to demonstrate that site-specific surface methane emissions are 

low. A landfill that can demonstrate that surface emissions are 

below 500 parts per million (ppm) for 4 consecutive quarters 

would not trigger the requirement to install a GCCS even if Tier 

1, 2, or 3 calculations indicate that the 34 Mg/yr threshold has 

been exceeded. 

Wellhead Operational Standards. The EPA proposes to remove 

the operational standards (i.e., the requirement to meet 

operating limits) for temperature and nitrogen/oxygen at the 

wellheads. Landfill owners and operators would not be required 

to take corrective action based on exceedances of specified 

operational standards, but they would continue to monitor 

temperature and oxygen/nitrogen levels at wellheads in order to 

inform any necessary adjustments to the GCCS and would maintain 

records of monthly readings. The operational standard, 

corrective action, and corresponding recordkeeping and reporting 

remain for maintaining negative pressure at the wellhead. 

Closed Landfills. Because many landfills are closed and do 

not produce as much LFG, the EPA is proposing a separate 

subcategory for landfills that closed on or before [insert date 

of publication in the Federal Register]. Landfills in this 

subcategory will continue to be subject to an NMOC emission 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 20 of 321 

threshold of 50 Mg/yr for determining when controls must be 

installed or can be removed. 

Low LFG Producing Areas. The EPA is also proposing 

alternative criteria for determining when it is appropriate to 

cap or remove a portion of the GCCS at such landfills. The 

proposed alternative criteria for capping or removing the GCCS 

are: 1) the landfill is closed or an area of an active landfill 

is closed, 2) the GCCS has operated for at least 15 years or the 

landfill owner/operator can demonstrate that the GCCS will be 

unable to operate for 15 years due to declining gas flows, and 

3) the landfill owner/operator demonstrates that there are no 

surface methane emissions of 500 ppm or greater in the landfill 

or closed area for 4 consecutive quarters. 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. The EPA is proposing 

that standards in the Emission Guidelines apply at all times, 

including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. In 

addition, to enable the EPA to determine the severity of any 

emissions exceedance that might occur during periods when the 

gas collection system or a control device is not operating, the 

EPA is proposing to add a recordkeeping and reporting 

requirement for landfill owners or operators to estimate 

emissions during such periods. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 21 of 321 

Requests for Comment. The EPA welcomes comments on all 

aspects of this proposal and is specifically requesting comments 

on the following topics: 

• Defining closed areas of open landfills. 

• Changing the walking pattern for surface emissions 

monitoring from 30 meters (98 ft) to 25 ft and adding a 

methane concentration limit of 25 ppm as determined by an 

integrated reading. 

• Addressing wet landfills. 

• Monitoring wellhead flow rate. 

• Establishing a program for third party design plan 

certification. 

• Using a portable gas composition analyzer as acceptable 

alternative to Method 3A or 3C. 

Other Clarifications. The EPA is proposing other 

clarifications to address issues that have been raised by 

landfill owners or operators during implementation of the 

current NSPS and Emission Guidelines. These other clarifications 

include adding criteria for when an affected source must update 

its design plan and clarifying when landfill owners or operators 

must submit corrective action timeline requests. The EPA is also 

proposing to update several definitions in the Emission 

Guidelines. In addition, while the EPA is not proposing to 

mandate organics diversion we are proposing two specific 

compliance flexibilities in the Emission Guidelines to encourage 

wider adoption of organics diversion and GCCS Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) for emission reductions at landfills. These 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 22 of 321 

compliance flexibilities are discussed in sections VI.B 

(wellhead monitoring) and VII.A (Tier 4 emission threshold 

determination) of this preamble. 

C. Costs and Benefits 

The proposed revised Emission Guidelines are expected to 

significantly reduce emissions of landfill gas and its 

components, which include methane, volatile organic compounds 

(VOC), and hazardous air pollutants (HAP). Landfills are a 

significant source of methane emissions, and in 2013, landfills 

represented the third largest source of human-related methane 

emissions in the U.S. 

To comply with the emissions limits in the proposed rule, 

MSW landfill owners or operators are expected to install the 

least-cost control for collecting and combusting landfill gas. 

The annualized net cost for the proposed Emission Guidelines is 

estimated to be $46.8 million (2012$) in 2025, when using a 7 

percent discount rate. The annualized costs represent the costs 

compared to no changes to the current Emission Guidelines (i.e., 

baseline) and include $101 million to install and operate a 

GCCS, as well as $0.64 million to complete the corresponding 

testing and monitoring. These control costs are offset by $55.3 

million in revenue from electricity sales, which is incorporated 

into the net control costs for certain landfills that are 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 23 of 321 

expected to generate revenue by using the landfill gas to 

produce electricity. 

Installation of a gas collection and control system to 

comply with the 34 Mg/yr NMOC emissions threshold at open 

landfills would achieve reductions of 2,770 Mg/yr NMOC and 

436,100 Mg/yr methane (about 10.9 million metric tons of carbon 

dioxide equivalent per year (mtCO2e/yr)) beyond the baseline in 

year 2025. In addition, the proposal is expected to result in 

the net reduction of 238,000 Mg CO2, due to reduced demand for 

electricity from the grid as landfills generate electricity from 

landfill gas. The NMOC portion of landfill gas 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. These pollutants, along with 

methane, are associated with substantial health effects, welfare 

effects, and climate effects. The EPA expects that the reduced 

emissions will result in improvements in air quality and lessen 

health effects associated with exposure to air pollution related 

emissions, and result in climate benefits due to reductions of 

the methane component of landfill gas. 

The EPA estimates that the proposal’s estimated methane 

emission reductions and secondary CO2 emission reductions in the 

year 2025 would yield global monetized climate benefits of $310 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 24 of 321 

million to approximately $1.7 billion, depending on the discount 

rate. Using the mean social cost of methane (SC-CH4) and social 

cost of CO2 (SC- CO2), at a 3-percent discount rate, results in 

an estimate of about $670 million in 2025. 

The SC-CH4 and SC-CO2 are the monetary values of impacts 

associated with marginal changes in methane and CO2 emissions, 

respectively, in a given year. It includes a wide range of 

anticipated climate impacts, such as net changes in agricultural 

productivity, property damage from increased flood risk, and 

changes in energy system costs, such as reduced costs for 

heating and increased costs for air conditioning. 

With the data available, we are not able to provide health 

benefit estimates for the reduction in exposure to HAP, ozone, 

and PM2.5 for this rule. This is not to imply that there are no 

such benefits of the rule; rather, it is a reflection of the 

difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the 

reductions in emissions for this sector with the data currently 

available. 

Based on the monetized benefits and costs, the estimated 

net benefits of the rule are estimated to be $620 million 

($2012) in 2025. 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 25 of 321 

This proposed rule addresses existing MSW landfills and 

associated solid waste management programs. Potentially affected 

categories include those listed in Table 1 of this preamble. 

Table 1. Regulated Entities 

Category NAICSa Examples of affected facilities 

Industry: Air and 

water resource 

and solid waste 

management 

924110 Solid waste landfills 

Industry: Refuse 

systems--solid 

waste landfills 

562212 Solid waste landfills 

State, local, and 

tribal government 

agencies

924110 

Administration of air and water 

resource and solid waste 

management programs

a North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by the new subpart. To determine whether your facility 

would be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine 

the applicability criteria in proposed 40 CFR 60.32f of subpart 

Cf. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the 

proposed subpart to a particular entity, contact the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

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

1. Submitting CBI 

Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 

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

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 26 of 321 

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: 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. 

2. Docket 

The docket number for the Emission Guidelines and 

Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (proposed 

40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-

0451. Docket ID No. A-88-09 for related 40 CFR part 60, subparts 

WWW and Cc contains supporting information. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 27 of 321 

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 the proposed Emission Guidelines 

is available on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site. 

Following signature, the EPA will post a copy of proposed 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cf on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/landflpg.html. The TTN 

provides information and technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. 

III. Background 

The Emission Guidelines for MSW landfills were promulgated 

on March 12, 1996 and subsequently amended on June 16, 1998, 

February 24, 1999, and April 10, 2000 to make technical 

corrections and clarifications. Amendments were proposed on May 

23, 2002 and September 8, 2006 to address implementation issues, 

but those amendments were never finalized. On July 17, 2014 the 

EPA issued an ANPRM for the MSW landfills Emission Guidelines 

(79 FR 41772). The purpose of that action was to request public 

input on controls and practices that could further reduce 

emissions from existing MSW landfills and to evaluate that input 

to determine if changes to the Emission Guidelines were 

appropriate. On July 17, 2014 the EPA issued a concurrent 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 28 of 321 

proposal for revised NSPS for new MSW landfills (79 FR 41796). 

In this action, the EPA is proposing a review of and certain 

changes to the Emission Guidelines to build on progress to date 

to (1) achieve additional reductions in emissions of LFG and its 

components, (2) account for changes in size, ownership and age 

of landfills and trends in GCCS installations, as reflected in 

new data, (3) provide new options for demonstrating compliance, 

and (4) to complete efforts regarding unresolved implementation 

issues. The proposed approaches are consistent with the Methane 

Strategy developed as part of the President’s Climate Action 

Plan. 

A. Landfill Gas Emissions and Climate Change 

In June 2013, President Obama issued a Climate Action Plan 

that directed federal agencies 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.”4 Methane is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) 

that is 28-36 times greater than carbon dioxide (CO2) and has an 

atmospheric life of about 12 years5. Because of methane’s potency 

 

4 Executive Office of the President, “The President’s Climate Action Plan” 

June 2013. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactio

nplan.pdf 

5 The IPCC updates GWP estimates with each new assessment report, and in the 

latest assessment report, AR5, the latest estimate of the methane GWP ranged 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 29 of 321 

as a GHG and its atmospheric life, reducing methane emissions is 

one of the best ways to achieve near-term beneficial impact in 

mitigating global climate change. 

The “Climate Action Plan: Strategy to Reduce Methane 

Emissions”6 (the Methane Strategy) was released in March 2014. 

The strategy recognized the methane reductions achieved through 

the EPA’s regulatory and voluntary programs to date. It also 

directed the EPA to continue to pursue emission reductions 

through regulatory updates and to encourage LFG energy recovery 

through voluntary programs. 

The EPA recognized the climate benefits associated with 

reducing methane emissions from landfills nearly 25 years ago. 

The 1991 NSPS Background Information Document7 asserted that the 

reduction of methane emissions from MSW landfills was one of 

many options available to reduce global warming. The NSPS for 

MSW landfills, promulgated in 1996, also recognized the climate 

co-benefits of controlling methane (61 FR 9917, March 12, 1996). 

The review and proposed revision of the MSW landfills Emission 

Guidelines explores additional opportunities to achieve methane 

 

from 28-36, compared to a GWP of 25 in AR4. The impacts analysis in this 

proposal is based on AR4 instead of AR5 (i.e., a GWP of 25). 

6 Executive Office of the President, “Climate Action Plan Strategy to Reduce 

Methane, March 2014. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/strategy_to_reduce_methane_emi

ssions_2014-03-28_final.pdf 

7 Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills-Background Information 

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

91–197061) page 2–15. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 30 of 321 

reductions while acknowledging historical agency perspectives 

and research on climate, a charge from the President’s Climate 

Action Plan, the Methane Strategy, and improvements in the 

science surrounding GHG emissions. 

Landfill gas is a collection of air pollutants, including 

methane and NMOC. Landfill gas is typically composed of 50-

percent methane, 50-percent CO2, and less than 1-percent NMOC by 

volume. The NMOC portion of landfill gas can contain various 

organic HAP and VOC. When the Emission Guidelines and NSPS were 

promulgated in 1996, NMOC was selected as a surrogate for MSW 

landfill gas emissions because NMOC contains the air pollutants 

that at that time were of most pose more concern due to their 

adverse effects on health and welfare. Today, methane’s effects 

on climate change are also considered importantthere is a 

greater emphasis on methane emissions because of methane’s 

effects on climate change. In 2012, methane emissions from MSW 

landfills represented 15.3 percent of total U.S. methane 

emissions and 1.5 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions 8. In 2013, 

landfills continued to be the third largest source of humanrelated methane emissions among stationary source categories in 

the U.S., representing 18.0 percent of total methane emissions9

 

8 Total U.S. methane emissions were 636Tg CO2e in 2013. U.S. EPA “Inventory of 

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2013.” Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html. 

9 Ibid, Page ES-14. 

Commented [A2]: OMB General Comment #11: 

Reviewer recommends editing the sentence on 

page 29 EG about NMOC containing air 

pollutants that pose more concern due to 

adverse effects on health and welfare. Since 

this rule focuses on greenhouse gas and aligns 

with the Climate Action Plan, it seems odd to 

call methane less concerning. 

EPA Response: See redline edits 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 31 of 321 

and 1.7 percent of all GHG emissions (in CO2e) in the U.S.10 For 

these reasons and because additional emissions reductions can be 

achieved at a reasonable cost, the EPA is proposing changes to 

the Emission Guidelines that are based on reducing the NMOC and 

methane components of LFG. 

B. What are the health and welfare effects of landfill gas 

emissions? 

1. Health Impacts of VOC and Various Organic HAP 

VOC emissions are precursors to both PM2.5 and ozone 

formation. As documented in previous analyses (U.S. EPA, 200611, 

201012, and 201413), exposure to PM2.5 and ozone is associated 

with significant public health effects. 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 bronchitis, 

hospital admissions and emergency room visits, work loss days, 

 

10 Ibid, Table ES-2. 

11 U.S. EPA. RIA. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate 

Matter, Chapter 5. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research 

Triangle Park, NC. October 2006. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/Chapter%205--Benefits.pdf. 

12 U.S. EPA. RIA. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. January 2010. 

Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/s1-

supplemental_analysis_full.pdf. 

13 U.S. EPA. RIA. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. December 

2014. Available on the Internet at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/20141125ria.pdf. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 32 of 321 

restricted activity days and respiratory symptoms, as well as 

welfare impacts such as visibility impairment.14 Ozone is 

associated with health effects, including hospital and emergency 

department visits, school loss days and premature mortality, as 

well as ecological effects (e.g., injury to vegetation and 

climate change).15 Nearly 30 organic HAP have been identified in 

uncontrolled LFG, including benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and 

vinyl chloride.16 Benzene is a known human carcinogen. 

2. Climate Impacts of Methane Emissions 

In addition to the improvements in air quality and 

resulting benefits to human health and the 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 

global warming potential (GWP) 28-36 times greater than CO2, 

which accounts for methane’s stronger absorption of infrared 

radiation per ton in the atmosphere, but also its shorter 

 

14 U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final 

Report). EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment—RTP 

Division. December 2009. Available at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546. 

15 U.S. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants 

(Final). EPA/600/R-05/004aF-cF. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. February 2006. 

Available on the Internet at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=149923. 

16 U.S. EPA. 1998. Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Fifth Edition, 

Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Chapter 2: Solid Waste Disposal, 

Section 2.4: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills”. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/final/c02s04.pdf. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 33 of 321 

lifetime (on the order of 12 years compared to centuries or 

millennia for CO2).17,18 According to the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report, methane is the 

second leading long-lived climate forcer after CO2 globally.19 

In 2009, based on a large body of robust and compelling 

scientific evidence, the EPA Administrator issued the 

Endangerment Finding under CAA section 202(a)(1).20 In the 

Endangerment Finding, the Administrator found that the current, 

elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere—already at 

levels unprecedented in human history—may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health and welfare of current and 

future generations in the U.S. We summarize these adverse 

effects on public health and welfare briefly here. 

3. Public Health Impacts Detailed in the 2009 Endangerment 

Finding 

 

17 IPCC, 2013: 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. 

18 Note that this proposal uses a GWP value for methane of 25 for CO2

equivalency calculations, consistent with the GHG emissions inventories and 

the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. 

19 IPCC, 2013: 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. 

19 “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under 

20 “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under 

Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009) 

(“Endangerment Finding”). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 34 of 321 

The 2009 Endangerment Finding documented that climate 

change caused by human emissions of GHGs threatens the health of 

AmericansClimate change caused by human emissions of GHGs 

threatens the health of Americans 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. 

Climate change is also expected to cause more intense hurricanes 

and more frequent and intense storms and heavy precipitation, 

with impacts on other areas of public health, such as the 

potential for increased deaths, injuries, infectious and 

waterborne diseases, and stress-related disorders. Children, the 

elderly, and the poor are among the most vulnerable to these 

climate-related health effects. 

4. Public Welfare Impacts Detailed in the 2009 Endangerment 

Finding 

Commented [A3]: Response to OMB Comments 

(Typographical comments #1, 2, 5). EPA notes 

that pages 33-35 are a summary of the 2009 

Endangerment Finding (which itself summarizes 

the assessment literature), and therefore 

inserting citations in the middle of the 

summary would not be appropriate. The 

statements from pages 35-50 reference in text 

the assessments (NCA3, NRC, or IPCC) from 

which they were taken.

EPA has updated the first sentence of this 

section to make clear the information comes 

from the Endangerment Finding.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 35 of 321 

The 2009 Endangerment Finding documented that climate 

change impacts touch nearly every aspect of public 

welfareClimate change impacts touch nearly every aspect of 

public welfare. Among the multiple threats caused by human 

emissions of GHGs, 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 a multitude of increased risks, particularly from rising 

sea level and increases in the severity of storms. These 

communities face storm and flooding damage to property, or even 

loss of land due to inundation, erosion, wetland submergence and 

habitat loss. 

Impacts of climate change on public welfare also include 

threats to social and ecosystem services. Climate change is 

expected to result in an increase in peak electricity demand, 

Extreme weather from climate change threatens energy, 

transportation, and water resource infrastructure. Climate 

change may also exacerbate ongoing environmental pressures in 

certain settlements, particularly in Alaskan indigenous 

communities, and 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 

Commented [A4]: Response to OMB Comments 

(Typographical comments #1, 2, 5). EPA notes 

that pages 33-35 are a summary of the 2009 

Endangerment Finding (which itself summarizes 

the assessment literature), and therefore 

inserting citations in the middle of the 

summary would not be appropriate. The 

statements from pages 35-50 reference in text 

the assessments (NCA3, NRC, or IPCC) from 

which they were taken.

EPA has updated the first sentence of this 

section to make clear the information comes 

from the Endangerment Finding.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 36 of 321 

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. 

5. New Scientific Assessments 

Since the 2009 administrative record concerning the 

Endangerment Finding closed following the EPA’s 2010 

Reconsideration Denial, the climate has continued to change, 

with new records being set for a number of climate indicators 

such as global average surface temperatures, Arctic sea ice 

retreat, CO2 concentrations, and sea level rise. Additionally, a 

number of major, scientific assessments have been released that 

improve understanding of the climate system and strengthen the 

case that GHGs endanger public health and welfare both for 

current and future generations. These assessments, from the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), and the National 

Research Council of the National Academies (NRC), include: 

IPCC’s 2012 Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme 

Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) 

and the 2013-2014 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), USGCRP’s 2014 

National Climate Assessment, Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States (NCA3), and the NRC’s 2010 Ocean Acidification: A 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 37 of 321 

National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean 

(Ocean Acidification), 2011 Report on Climate Stabilization 

Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to 

Millennia (Climate Stabilization Targets), 2011 National 

Security Implications for U.S. Naval Forces (National Security 

Implications), 2011 Understanding Earth’s Deep Past: Lessons for 

Our Climate Future (Understanding Earth’s Deep Past), 2012 Sea 

Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: 

Past, Present, and Future, 2012 Climate and Social Stress: 

Implications for Security Analysis (Climate and Social Stress), 

and 2013 Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change (Abrupt Impacts) 

assessments. 

The EPA has carefully reviewed these recent assessments in 

keeping with the same approach outlined in Section VIII.A of the 

2009 Endangerment Finding, which was to rely primarily upon the 

major assessments by the USGCRP, IPCC, and the NRC to provide 

the technical and scientific information to inform the 

Administrator’s judgment regarding the question of whether GHGs 

endanger public health and welfare. These assessments addressed 

the scientific issues that the EPA was required to examine were 

comprehensive in their coverage of the GHG and climate change 

issues, and underwent rigorous and exacting peer review by the 

expert community, as well as rigorous levels of U.S. government 

review. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 38 of 321 

The findings of the recent scientific assessments confirm 

and strengthen the conclusion that GHGs endanger public health, 

now and in the future. The NCA3 indicates that human health in 

the United States will be impacted by “increased extreme weather 

events, wildfire, decreased air quality, threats to mental 

health, and illnesses transmitted by food, water, and diseasecarriers such as mosquitoes and ticks.” The most recent 

assessments now have greater confidence that climate change will 

influence production of pollen that exacerbates asthma and other 

allergic respiratory diseases such as allergic rhinitis, as well 

as effects on conjunctivitis and dermatitis. Both the NCA3 and 

the IPCC AR5 found that increasing temperature has lengthened 

the allergenic pollen season for ragweed, and that increased CO2

by itself can elevate production of plant-based allergens. 

The NCA3 also finds that climate change, in addition to 

chronic stresses such as extreme poverty, is negatively 

affecting indigenous peoples’ health in the United States 

through impacts such as reduced access to traditional foods, 

decreased water quality, and increasing exposure to health and 

safety hazards. The IPCC AR5 finds that climate change-induced 

warming in the Arctic and resultant changes in environment 

(e.g., permafrost thaw, effects on traditional food sources) 

have significant impacts, observed now and projected, on the 

health and well-being of Arctic residents, especially indigenous 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 39 of 321 

peoples. Small, remote, predominantly-indigenous communities are 

especially vulnerable given their “strong dependence on the 

environment for food, culture, and way of life; their political 

and economic marginalization; existing social, health, and 

poverty disparities; as well as their frequent close proximity 

to exposed locations along ocean, lake, or river shorelines.”21

In addition, increasing temperatures and loss of Arctic sea ice 

increases the risk of drowning for those engaged in traditional 

hunting and fishing. 

The NCA3 concludes that children’s unique physiology and 

developing bodies contribute to making them particularly 

vulnerable to climate change. Impacts on children are expected 

from heat waves, air pollution, infectious and waterborne 

illnesses, and mental health effects resulting from extreme 

weather events. The IPCC AR5 indicates that children are among 

those especially susceptible to most allergic diseases, as well 

as health effects associated with heat waves, storms, and 

floods. The IPCC finds that additional health concerns may arise 

in low income households, especially those with children, if 

 

21 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. 

Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Barros, 

V.R., C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. 

Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. 

Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, p. 1581. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 40 of 321 

climate change reduces food availability and increases prices, 

leading to food insecurity within households. 

Both the NCA3 and IPCC AR5 conclude that climate change 

will increase health risks facing the elderly. Older people are 

at much higher risk of mortality during extreme heat events. 

Pre-existing health conditions also make older adults 

susceptible to cardiac and respiratory impacts of air pollution 

and to more severe consequences from infectious and waterborne 

diseases. Limited mobility among older adults can also increase 

health risks associated with extreme weather and floods. 

The new assessments also confirm and strengthen the 

conclusion that GHGs endanger public welfare, and emphasize the 

urgency of reducing GHG emissions due to their projections that 

show GHG concentrations climbing to ever-increasing levels in 

the absence of mitigation. The NRC assessment Understanding 

Earth’s Deep Past projected that, without a reduction in 

emissions, CO2 concentrations by the end of the century would 

increase to levels that the Earth has not experienced for more 

than 30 million years.22 In fact, that assessment stated that 

“the magnitude and rate of the present greenhouse gas increase 

place the climate system in what could be one of the most severe 

increases in radiative forcing of the global climate system in 

 

22 National Research Council, Understanding Earth’s Deep Past, p. 1. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 41 of 321 

Earth history.”23 Because of these unprecedented changes, several 

assessments state that we may be approaching critical, poorly 

understood thresholds: as stated in the NRC assessment 

Understanding Earth’s Deep Past, “As Earth continues to warm, it 

may be approaching a critical climate threshold beyond which 

rapid and potentially permanent—at least on a human timescale—

changes not anticipated by climate models tuned to modern 

conditions may occur.” Moreover, due to the time lags inherent 

in the Earth’s climate, the NRC Climate Stabilization Targets 

assessment notes that the full warming from increased GHG 

concentrations will not be fully realized for several centuries, 

underscoring that emission activities today carry with them 

climate commitments far into the future. 

Future temperature changes will depend on what emission 

path the world follows. In its high emission scenario, the IPCC 

AR5 projects that global temperatures by the end of the century 

will likely be 2.6 °C to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) warmer than 

today. Temperatures on land and in northern latitudes will 

likely warm even faster than the global average. However, 

according to the NCA3, significant reductions in emissions would 

lead to noticeably less future warming beyond mid-century, and 

therefore less impact to public health and welfare. 

 

23 Id., p.138. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 42 of 321 

While rainfall may see only small globally and annually 

averaged changes, there are expected to be substantial shifts in 

where and when that precipitation falls. According to the NCA3, 

regions closer to the poles will see more precipitation, while 

the dry subtropics are expected to expand (colloquially, this 

has been summarized as wet areas getting wetter and dry regions 

getting drier). In particular, the NCA3 notes that the western 

U.S., and especially the Southwest, is expected to become drier. 

This projection is consistent with the recent observed drought 

trend in the West. At the time of publication of the NCA, even 

before the last 2 years of extreme drought in California, tree 

ring data was already indicating that the region might be 

experiencing its driest period in 800 years. Similarly, the NCA3 

projects that heavy downpours are expected to increase in many 

regions, with precipitation events in general becoming less 

frequent but more intense. This trend has already been observed 

in regions such as the Midwest, Northeast, and upper Great 

Plains. Meanwhile, the NRC Climate Stabilization Targets 

assessment found that the area burned by wildfire is expected to 

grow by 2 to 4 times for 1 °C (1.8 °F) of warming. For 3 °C of 

warming, the assessment found that nine out of 10 summers would 

be warmer than all but the 5 percent of warmest summers today, 

leading to increased frequency, duration, and intensity of heat 

waves. Extrapolations by the NCA also indicate that Arctic sea 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 43 of 321 

ice in summer may essentially disappear by mid-century. 

Retreating snow and ice, and emissions of carbon dioxide and 

methane released from thawing permafrost, will also amplify 

future warming. 

Since the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the USGCRP NCA3 and 

multiple NRC assessments have projected future rates of sea 

level rise that are 40 percent larger to more than twice as 

large as the previous estimates from the 2007 IPCC 4th Assessment 

Report due in part to improved understanding of the future rate 

of melt of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. The NRC Sea 

Level Rise assessment projects a global sea level rise of 0.5 to 

1.4 meters (1.6 to 4.6 feet) by 2100, the NRC National Security 

Implications assessment suggests that “the Department of the 

Navy should expect roughly 0.4 to 2 meters (1.3 to 6.6 feet) 

global average sea-level rise by 2100,”24 and the NRC Climate 

Stabilization Targets assessment states that an increase of 3°C 

will lead to a sea level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter (1.6 to 3.3 

feet) by 2100. These assessments continue to recognize that 

there is uncertainty inherent in accounting for ice sheet 

processes. Additionally, local sea level rise can differ from 

the global total depending on various factors: the east coast of 

the U.S. in particular is expected to see higher rates of sea 

 

24 NRC, 2011: National Security Implications of Climate Change for U.S. Naval 

Forces. The National Academies Press, p. 28. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 44 of 321 

level rise than the global average. For comparison, the NCA3 

states that “five million Americans and hundreds of billions of 

dollars of property are located in areas that are less than four 

feet above the local high-tide level,” and the NCA3 finds that 

“[c]oastal infrastructure, including roads, rail lines, energy 

infrastructure, airports, port facilities, and military bases, 

are increasingly at risk from sea level rise and damaging storm 

surges.”25 Also, because of the inertia of the oceans, sea level 

rise will continue for centuries after GHG concentrations have 

stabilized (though more slowly than it would have otherwise). 

Additionally, there is a threshold temperature above which the 

Greenland ice sheet will be committed to inevitable melting: 

according to the NCA, some recent research has suggested that 

even present day carbon dioxide levels could be sufficient to 

exceed that threshold. 

In general, climate change impacts are expected to be 

unevenly distributed across different regions of the United 

States and have a greater impact on certain populations, such as 

indigenous peoples and the poor. The NCA3 finds climate change 

impacts such as the rapid pace of temperature rise, coastal 

erosion and inundation related to sea level rise and storms, ice 

 

25 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: 

Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate 

Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, p. 9. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 45 of 321 

and snow melt, and permafrost thaw are affecting indigenous 

people in the United States. Particularly in Alaska, critical 

infrastructure and traditional livelihoods are threatened by 

climate change and, “[i]n parts of Alaska, Louisiana, the 

Pacific Islands, and other coastal locations, climate change 

impacts (through erosion and inundation) are so severe that some 

communities are already relocating from historical homelands to 

which their traditions and cultural identities are tied.”26 The 

IPCC AR5 notes, “Climate-related hazards exacerbate other 

stressors, often with negative outcomes for livelihoods, 

especially for people living in poverty (high confidence). 

Climate-related hazards affect poor people’s lives directly 

through impacts on livelihoods, reductions in crop yields, or 

destruction of homes and indirectly through, for example, 

increased food prices and food insecurity.”27 

Events outside the United States, as also pointed out in 

the 2009 Endangerment Finding, will also have relevant 

consequences. The NRC Climate and Social Stress assessment 

concluded that it is prudent to expect that some climate events 

 

26 Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014: 

Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate 

Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, p. 17. 

27 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. 

Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the 

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

[Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. 

Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. 

Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press, p. 796. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 46 of 321 

“will produce consequences that exceed the capacity of the 

affected societies or global systems to manage and that have 

global security implications serious enough to compel 

international response.” The NRC National Security Implications 

assessment recommends preparing for increased needs for 

humanitarian aid; responding to the effects of climate change in 

geopolitical hotspots, including possible mass migrations; and 

addressing changing security needs in the Arctic as sea ice 

retreats. 

In addition to future impacts, the NCA3 emphasizes that 

climate change driven by human emissions of GHGs is already 

happening now and it is happening in the United States. 

According to the IPCC AR5 and the NCA3, there are a number of 

climate-related changes that have been observed recently, and 

these changes are projected to accelerate in the future. The 

planet warmed about 0.85 °C (1.5 °F) from 1880 to 2012. It is 

extremely likely (>95 percent probability) that human influence 

was the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th

century, and likely (>66 percent probability) that human 

influence has more than doubled the probability of occurrence of 

heat waves in some locations. In the Northern Hemisphere, the 

last 30 years were likely the warmest 30 year period of the last 

1,400 years. U.S. average temperatures have similarly increased 

by 1.3 to 1.9 degrees F since 1895, with most of that increase 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 47 of 321 

occurring since 1970. Global sea levels rose 0.19 m (7.5 inches) 

from 1901 to 2010. Contributing to this rise was the warming of 

the oceans and melting of land ice. It is likely that 275 

gigatons per year of ice melted from land glaciers (not 

including ice sheets) since 1993, and that the rate of loss of 

ice from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets increased 

substantially in recent years, to 215 gigatons per year and 147 

gigatons per year respectively since 2002. For context, 360 

gigatons of ice melt is sufficient to cause global sea levels to 

rise 1 millimeter (mm). Annual mean Arctic sea ice has been 

declining at 3.5 to 4.1 percent per decade, and Northern 

Hemisphere snow cover extent has decreased at about 1.6 percent 

per decade for March and 11.7 percent per decade for June. 

Permafrost temperatures have increased in most regions since the 

1980s, by up to 3 °C (5.4 °F) in parts of Northern Alaska. 

Winter storm frequency and intensity have both increased in the 

Northern Hemisphere. The NCA3 states that the increases in the 

severity or frequency of some types of extreme weather and 

climate events in recent decades can affect energy production 

and delivery, causing supply disruptions, and compromise other 

essential infrastructure such as water and transportation 

systems. 

In addition to the changes documented in the assessment 

literature, there have been other climate milestones of note. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 48 of 321 

According to the IPCC, methane concentrations in 2011 were about 

1,803 parts per billion, 150 percent higher than concentrations 

were in 1750. After a few years of nearly stable concentrations 

from 1999 to 2006, methane concentrations have resumed 

increasing at about 5 parts per billion per year. Concentrations 

today are likely higher than they have been for at least the 

past 800,000 years. Arctic sea ice has continued to decline, 

with September of 2012 marking a new record low in terms of 

Arctic sea ice extent, 40 percent below the 1979-2000 median. 

Sea level has continued to rise at a rate of 3.2 mm per year 

(1.3 inches/decade) since satellite observations started in 

1993, more than twice the average rate of rise in the 20th

century prior to 1993.28 And 2014 was the warmest year globally 

in the modern global surface temperature record, going back to 

1880; this now means 19 of the 20 warmest years have occurred in 

the past 20 years, and except for 1998, the 10 warmest years on 

record have occurred since 2002.29 The first months of 2015 have 

also been some of the warmest on record. 

These assessments and observed changes make it clear that 

reducing emissions of GHGs across the globe is necessary in 

order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, and 

 

28 Blunden, J., and D. S. Arndt, Eds., 2014: State of the Climate in 2013. 

Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 95 (7), S1-S238. 

29 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 49 of 321 

underscore the urgency of reducing emissions now. The NRC 

Committee on America’s Climate Choices listed a number of 

reasons “why it is imprudent to delay actions that at least 

begin the process of substantially reducing emissions.”30 For 

example: 

• The faster emissions are reduced, the lower the risks 

posed by climate change. Delays in reducing emissions 

could commit the planet to a wide range of adverse 

impacts, especially if the sensitivity of the climate 

to GHGs is on the higher end of the estimated range. 

• Waiting for unacceptable impacts to occur before 

taking action is imprudent because the effects of GHG 

emissions do not fully manifest themselves for decades 

and, once manifest, many of these changes will persist 

for hundreds or even thousands of years. 

In the committee’s judgment, the risks associated with 

doing business as usual are a much greater concern than the 

risks associated with engaging in strong response efforts. 

Methane is a precursor to ground-level ozone, a healthharmful 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 

 

30 NRC, 2011: America’s Climate Choices, The National Academies Press. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 50 of 321 

formation.31 Approximately 50 percent of the global annual mean 

ozone increase since preindustrial times is believed to be due 

to anthropogenic methane.32 Projections of future emissions also 

indicate that methane is likely to be a key contributor to ozone 

concentrations in the future.33 Unlike nitrogen oxide (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.34 Reducing methane emissions, therefore, may 

contribute to efforts to reduce global background ozone 

concentrations that contribute to the incidence of ozone-related 

health effects.35,36 These benefits are global and occur in both 

urban and rural areas. 

 

31 U.S. EPA. 2013. “Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related 

Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report).” EPA-600-R-10-076F. National Center 

for Environmental Assessment—RTP Division. Available at 

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

32 Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, 

D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. 

Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative 

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. 

33 Ibid. 

34 Ibid. 

35 West, J.J., Fiore, A.M. 2005. “Management of tropospheric ozone by reducing 

methane emissions.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:4685-4691. 

36 Anenberg, S.C., et al. 2009. “Intercontinental impacts of ozone pollution 

on human mortality,” Environ. Sci. & Technol. 43: 6482-6487. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 51 of 321 

C. What is 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 indicate that it is appropriate. The 

EPA has determined that it is appropriate to conduct a review of 

and propose certain changes to the Emission Guidelines due to 

changes in the size, ownership and age of landfills and the 

types of MSW landfills with gas collection systems installed 

since the Emission Guidelines were promulgated in 1996 and the 

opportunities for significant reductions in methane and other 

pollutants at reasonable cost. The EPA compiled new information 

on MSW landfills through data collection efforts for a 

statutorily mandated review of the NSPS, public comments 

received on the NSPS proposal, and public comments received on 

an ANPRM for a review of the Emission Guidelines. This 

information allowed the EPA to conduct an assessment of current 

practices, emissions and potential for additional emission 

reductions. Information received in response to this proposed 

rule will allow EPA to further refine that assessment. 

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

The purpose of this action is to (1) present the results of 

EPA’s initial review of the Emission Guidelines, (2) propose and 

take comment on revisions to the Emission Guidelines based on 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 52 of 321 

that review, and (3) propose a resolution or provide 

clarification regarding implementation issues that were 

addressed in prior proposed amendments published on May 23, 2002 

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

to existing sources. The proposed revisions appear in the 

proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf.37 Although the EPA is not 

required to respond to comments received on the July 17, 2014 

ANPRM (79 FR 41772) for the MSW landfills Emission Guidelines or 

comments it received on the concurrent proposal for revised NSPS 

for new MSW landfills in this notice, the EPA is summarizing 

several comments it received to provide a framework and support 

the rationale for today’s proposed revisions to the Emission 

Guidelines. 

E. How would the proposed changes in applicability affect 

sources currently subject to subparts Cc and WWW? 

Landfills currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc 

and WWW would be considered “existing” and would ultimately be 

affected by any changes to the Emission Guidelines resulting 

from this review. Any source for which construction, 

modification, or reconstruction commenced on or before July 17, 

2014, the date of proposal of new subpart XXX, is an existing 

 

37 Rather than merely updating 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc, the existing 

emissions guidelines, the EPA has determined that the most appropriate way to 

proceed is to establish a new subpart that includes both the verbatim 

restatement of certain provisions in the existing emission guidelines and 

proposed revisions to, or the addition of, other provisions. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 53 of 321 

source. Under section 111, a source is either new, i.e., 

construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced after a 

proposed NSPS is published in the Federal Register (CAA section 

111(a)(1)) or existing, i.e., any source other than a new source 

(CAA section 111(a)(6)). Since the revised Emission Guidelines 

apply to existing sources, any source that is not subject to new 

subpart XXX will be subject to the revised Emission Guidelines. 

Consistent with the general approach evinced by section 111, 

sources currently subject to subpart WWW would need to continue 

to comply with the requirements in that rule unless and until 

they become subject to more stringent requirements in the 

revised Emission Guidelines as implemented through a revised 

state or federal plan. The current Emission Guidelines, subpart 

Cc, refer to subpart WWW for their substantive requirements. 

That is, the requirements regarding the installation and 

operation of a well-designed and well-operated GCCS and 

compliance with the specified emission limits are the same in 

both rules. Thus, if the EPA were to finalize its proposal to 

revise the Emission Guidelines to increase their stringency, a 

landfill currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW would 

need to comply with the more stringent requirements in a revised 

state plan or federal plan implementing the revised Emission 

Guidelines (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf). States with designated 

facilities would be required to develop (or revise) and submit a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 54 of 321 

state plan to the EPA within 9 months of promulgation of any 

revisions to the Emission Guidelines unless the EPA specifies a 

longer timeframe in promulgating those revisions (40 CFR 60.23). 

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 (40 CFR 60.20 – 29). Those requirements 

include making the state plan publically available and providing 

the 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. The EPA will 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 40 CFR 

60.27(b). The EPA will publish state plan approvals or 

disapprovals in the Federal Register and will include an 

explanation of its decision. The EPA also intends to revise the 

existing federal plan (40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG) to 

incorporate any changes and other requirements that result from 

the EPA’s review of the Emission Guidelines. The revised federal 

plan will apply in states that have either never submitted a 

state plan or not received approval of any necessary revised 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 55 of 321 

state plan until such time as an initial state plan or revised 

state plan is approved.38 

Because many of the landfills currently subject to 40 CFR 

part 60, subparts Cc and WWW are closed, the EPA is proposing 

several items to minimize the burden ofon these closed 

landfills, as discussed in section VIII.A of this preamble. 

F. Where in the CFR will these changes appear? 

The EPA is proposing to add a new subpart Cf to 40 CFR part 

60, beginning at 40 CFR 60.30f. Subpart Cf would apply to 

landfills that have accepted waste after November 8, 1987 and 

were constructed, reconstructed, or modified on or before July 

17, 2014. Proposed subpart Cf in 40 CFR part 60 contains a 

revision to the NMOC emission threshold for landfills that are 

not closed and addresses technical and implementation issues for 

all landfills subject to this subpart. 

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

Guidelines 

The EPA is proposing several changes to the Emission 

Guidelines following its review of the Emission Guidelines and 

the NSPS for MSW landfills. The EPA reviewed both landfills 

 

38 Indian tribes may, but are not required to, seek approval for treatment in 

a manner similar to a state for purposes of developing a tribal 

implementation plan (TIP) implementing the emission guidelines. If a tribe 

obtains such approval and submits a proposed TIP, the EPA will use the same 

criteria and follow the same procedure in approving that plan as it does with 

state plans. The federal plan will apply to all affected facilities located 

in Indian country unless and until EPA approves an applicable TIP. 

Commented [A5]: OMB Typographical Comment 6: 

Reviewer recommends replacing the word “of” 

with “on” on page 54 EG in the sentence 

including “...several items to minimize the 

burden...” 

Response: Text has been edited. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 56 of 321 

regulations and considered the current technology, practices, 

and associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements. The rationale for the following proposed changes 

is presented in sections V through VIII of this preamble. 

A. Control Technology Review 

1. Best System of Emission Reduction 

The EPA has determined that a well-designed and well 

operated landfill GCCS with a control device capable of reducing 

NMOC by 98 percent by weight continues to be the best system of 

emission reduction (BSER) for controlling LFG emissions. Thus, 

there is no change to the fundamental means of controlling LFG: 

proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf requires landfill owners and 

operators to install a system to collect the LFG from the 

landfill and to route the collected gas to a combustion device 

or treatment system. Landfill owners and operators must submit 

for approval a site-specific GCCS design plan prepared by a 

professional engineer. The EPA is proposing 98 percent reduction 

of NMOC, expressed as a performance level (i.e., a rate-based 

standard or percent control), as the appropriate BSER-based 

standard. Thus, 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf requires combustion 

control devices to demonstrate 98 percent reduction by weight of 

NMOC or an outlet concentration of 20 parts per million dry 

volume (ppmvd) of NMOC, as hexane. Enclosed combustion devices 

have the option of reducing emissions to 20 ppmvd. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 57 of 321 

The EPA carefully considered whether various emission 

reduction techniques and BMPs that could improve collection and 

control of LFG emissions should be considered a component of 

BSER. As explained in section V.A. of this document, the EPA has 

concluded that the various emission reduction techniques and 

BMPs should not be considered to be components of BSER and, 

therefore, is not proposing to require their use. The EPA 

believes that the techniques and BMPs can, however, be useful in 

minimizing emissions in appropriate circumstances. 

2. Criteria for Installing and Expanding GCCS 

The EPA undertook an analysis of existing landfills to 

determine whether applying the existing 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Cc and WWW size, emissions, and timing criteria for installing 

and operating a landfill GCCS to the population of existing MSW 

landfills remains the preferred approach to implementing BSER. 

Based on the analysis of the threshold and timing parameters, 

the EPA is proposing to reduce the NMOC emission rate threshold 

for installing the GCCS from 50 Mg/yr to 34 Mg/yr. There are no 

proposed changes regarding the size of landfill covered by the 

Emission Guidelines or the timing of installation and expansion: 

the requirements would continue to apply to landfills with a 

design capacity greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million 

cubic meters, landfill owners and operators would continue to 

have 30 months to install and begin operating the GCCS upon the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 58 of 321 

landfill exceeding the emission threshold and owners, and 

operators would be required to expand the GCCS into new areas of 

the landfill within 5 years for active areas and within 2 years 

for areas that are closed or at final grade. However, a landfill 

could potentially delay the requirement to install a GCCS 

through the use of emission reduction techniques and BMPs in 

conjunction with Tier 4 monitoring. The rationale for the change 

to the NMOC emissions threshold is provided in section V.B of 

this preamble and the rationale for Tier 4 is presented in 

section VII.A of this preamble. 

B. Proposed changes to Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 

1. Proposed Changes to Monitoring 

Surface Monitoring. The EPA proposes that all surface 

penetrations at existing landfills must be monitored. In 

proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, landfills must monitor all 

cover penetrations and openings within the area of the landfill 

where waste has been placed and a gas collection system is 

required to be in place and operating according to the 

operational standards in proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. 

Specifically, landfill owners/operators must conduct surface 

monitoring on a quarterly basis at 30-meter intervals and where 

visual observations indicate elevated concentrations of landfill 

gas, such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the 

cover and all cover penetrations. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 59 of 321 

The EPA is also considering alternative surface monitoring 

provisions for 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. The alternative 

provisions would reduce the walking pattern for conducting 

surface monitoring from 30-meter (98 feet (ft)) intervals to 25-

ft intervals. The alternative would also add a methane 

concentration limit of 25 ppm as determined by integrated 

surface emissions monitoring, in addition to the instantaneous 

methane concentration limit of 500 ppm. This alternative would 

also limit surface monitoring during windy conditions. Under the 

alternative, the landfill would have to take corrective action 

if either the integrated or instantaneous limits were exceeded. 

More information about this approach is provided in sections 

VI.A and X.B of this preamble. 

The EPA is also proposing an alternative site-specific 

emission threshold determination based on surface emission 

monitoring for when a landfill must install and operate a GCCS, 

as described in sections IV.C and VII.A, and when to cap or 

remove a GCCS, as described in section VIII of this preamble. 

Wellhead Monitoring. The EPA proposes to remove the 

operational standards (i.e., the requirement to meet operating 

limits) for temperature and nitrogen/oxygen at the wellheads and 

is thus removing the corresponding requirement to take 

corrective action for exceedances of these two parameters as 

discussed in section VI.B of this preamble. These adjustments to 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 60 of 321 

the wellhead monitoring parameters would apply to all landfills. 

Monthly monitoring of oxygen/nitrogen and temperature would 

still be required; however, fluctuations/variations in these 

parameters would no longer be required to be identified as 

exceedances in the annual reports. Instead, the landfill would 

maintain the records of this monthly monitoring on site and use 

the monitoring to inform any necessary adjustments to the GCCS 

and make them available to the Administrator (EPA Administrator 

or administrator of a state air pollution control agency or his 

or her designee) upon request. Landfill owners and operators 

would continue to be required to operate their GCCS with 

negative pressure and in a manner that collects the most LFG and 

minimizes losses of LFG through the surface of the landfill. 

Landfills would also continue to be required to prepare and 

submit to the regulating authority for approval a gas collection 

design plan, prepared by a professional engineer. 

2. Proposed Changes to Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Update and Approval of Design Plan. We propose two criteria 

for when an affected source must update its design plan and 

submit it to the Administrator for approval. A revised design 

plan would be submitted on the following timeline: (1) Within 90 

days of expanding operations to an area not covered by the 

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

expanding the gas collection system in a manner other than one 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 61 of 321 

described in a previously approved design plan. The EPA is also 

taking comment on potentially establishing a third-party design 

plan certification program, which could reduce the burden 

associated with EPA or state review and approval of sitespecific design plans and plan revisions, as discussed in 

section X.E of this preamble. 

Submitting Corrective Action Timeline Requests. The EPA 

expects that eliminating the operational standards for 

oxygen/nitrogen and temperature will drastically reduce the 

number of requests for alternative timelines for making 

necessary corrections. However, landfills would still be 

required to maintain negative pressure at the wellhead to 

demonstrate a sufficient extraction rate and would be required 

to take corrective action in the event that a negative pressure 

is not maintained. Therefore, proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Cf outlines the timeline for correcting positive pressure. A 

landfill must submit an alternative corrective action timeline 

request to the Administrator if the landfill cannot restore 

negative pressure within 15 calendar days of the initial failure 

to maintain negative pressure and the landfill is unable to (or 

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

the initial exceedance. 

Electronic Reporting. The EPA is proposing electronic 

reporting of required performance test reports, NMOC emission 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 62 of 321 

rate reports, and annual reports. We also propose that industry 

should be required to maintain only electronic copies of the 

records to satisfy federal recordkeeping requirements. The 

proposed electronic submission and storage procedures are 

discussed in detail in section VI.E of this preamble. 

The proposal to submit performance test data electronically 

to the EPA applies only to those performance tests conducted 

using test methods that are supported by the Electronic 

Reporting Tool (ERT). A listing of the pollutants and test 

methods supported by the ERT is available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. When the EPA adds 

new methods to the ERT, a notice will be sent out through the 

Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions Factors (CHIEF) 

Listserv (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/listserv.html#chief) and 

a notice of availability will be added to the ERT Web site. You 

are encouraged to check the ERT Web site regularly for up-todate information on methods supported by the ERT. 

C. Emission Threshold Determinations 

The EPA is proposing an alternative site-specific emission 

threshold determination for when a landfill must install and 

operate a GCCS based on surface emission monitoring using EPA 

Method 21. This alternative emission threshold determination is 

referred to as “Tier 4.” The Tier 4 SEM demonstration would 

allow landfills that have modeled NMOC emission rates (using 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 63 of 321 

Tiers 1, 2, or 3) at or above the threshold to demonstrate that 

site-specific methane emissions are actually below the 

threshold. A landfill that can demonstrate that surface 

emissions are below 500 ppm for 4 consecutive quarters does not 

trigger the requirement to install a GCCS. Tier 4 would be based 

on the results of quarterly site-specific methane emissions 

monitoring of the entire surface of the landfill along a 30-

meter (98-ft) path, in addition to monitoring areas where visual 

observations indicate elevated concentrations of landfill gas, 

such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover 

and all cover penetrations. If the landfill opts to use Tier 4 

for its emission threshold determination and there is any 

measured concentration of methane of 500 parts per million or 

greater from the surface of the landfill, the owner or operator 

must install a GCCS, and the landfill cannot go back to using 

Tiers 1, 2, or 3. Because Tier 4 is based on site-specific 

actual surface data whereas Tiers 1-3 are based on modeled 

emission rates, the EPA is requiring a GCCS to be installed and 

operated within 30 months of a Tier 4 exceedance of 500 ppm or 

higher. 

D. Proposed Changes to Address Closed or Non-Producing Areas 

1. Subcategory for Closed Landfills. 

The EPA recognizes that many landfills subject to proposed 

subpart Cf are closed. Therefore, the EPA is proposing a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 64 of 321 

separate subcategory for landfills that closed on or before 

[insert date of publication in the Federal Register]. These 

landfills would be subject to a 50 Mg/yr NMOC emission rate 

threshold, consistent with the NMOC thresholds in subparts Cc 

and WWW of 40 CFR part 60. These landfills would also be exempt 

from initial reporting requirements, provided that the landfill 

already met these requirements under subparts Cc or WWW of 40 

CFR part 60. The EPA also solicits comments on an alternative 

approach which would expand the closed landfill subcategory to 

include those landfills that close within 13 months after 

publication of the final emission guidelines.

2. Alternative Criteria for Removing GCCS. 

The EPA also recognizes that many open landfills subject to 

proposed subpart Cf contain inactive areas that do not produce 

as much landfill gas. Therefore, the EPA is also proposing an 

alternative set of criteria for determining when it is 

appropriate to cap or remove a portion of the GCCS. The proposed 

alternative criteria for capping or removing the GCCS are: (1) 

the landfill is closed or an area of an active landfill is 

closed, (2) the GCCS has operated for at least 15 years or the 

landfill owner/operator can demonstrate that the GCCS will be 

unable to operate for 15 years due to declining gas flows, and 

(3) the landfill owner or operator demonstrates that there are 

no surface emissions of 500 ppm methane or greater for 4 

Commented [A6]: OMB General Comment 6: 

Reviewer recommends providing for more time 

for existing facilities to close to be 

included in the closed facility subcategory. 

The reasoning behind this subcategory would 

apply equally well to facilities close to the 

end of their useful life. Because of the time 

it will take to implement changes to the 

emissions guidelines, reviewer recommends that 

EPA propose included facilities that within 13 

months after the publication of the final 

emission guidelines (a period of time likely 

before the first SIPs would be approved) for 

facilities to close and be included in the 

closed subcategory. 

Response: Additional text has been added to 

specifically request comment on the closed 

landfill subcategory to include those 

landfills that close within 13 months after 

publication of the final emission guidelines. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 65 of 321 

consecutive quarters. With these provisions, the landfill can 

employ various technologies or practices to minimize surface 

emissions and have the flexibility to decommission or 

permanently cap and remove the GCCS based on site-specific 

surface emission readings. Note that the EPA is requesting 

comment on defining closed areas of open landfills as discussed 

in section X.A of this preamble. 

E. Other Proposed Changes 

1. Treated Landfill Gas. 

The EPA is proposing a definition of treated landfill gas 

and treatment systems. Specifically, the EPA proposes to define 

Treated landfill gas as landfill gas processed in a treatment 

system meeting the criteria in proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Cf and to define Treatment system as a system that filters, dewaters, and compresses landfill gas. The proposed definition 

allows the level of treatment to be tailored to the type and 

design of the specific combustion equipment, chemical process, 

or other purpose for which the landfill gas is used. These 

definitions would be available for all MSW landfill 

owners/operators. Owners/operators would identify monitoring 

parameters, develop a site-specific treatment system monitoring 

plan, and keep records that demonstrate that such parameters 

effectively monitor filtration, de-watering, and compression 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 66 of 321 

system performance necessary for the end use of the treated 

landfill gas. 

Uses of Treated LFG. In addition, the EPA is proposing that 

the use of treated landfill gas not be limited to use as a fuel 

for a stationary combustion device but also for other beneficial 

uses such as vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas for 

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

manufacturing process. 

2. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions. 

The general provisions in 40 CFR part 60 provide that 

emissions in excess of the level of the applicable emissions 

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

shall not be considered a violation of the applicable emission 

limit unless otherwise specified in the applicable standard (see 

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

language, an individual subpart can supersede this provision. In 

this action, the EPA is proposing standards in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf that apply at all times, including periods of startup 

or shutdown, and periods of malfunction. In addition, the EPA is 

proposing to add a recordkeeping and reporting requirement for 

landfill owners or operators to estimate emissions during 

periods when the gas collection system or control device is not 

operating, to determine the severity of any emissions exceedance 

during such periods. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 67 of 321 

3. Other Proposed Changes 

We are proposing to revise the definition of “Modification” 

and “Household waste” “Solid waste,” and “Sludge” and to add a 

definition of “Segregated yard waste” to make clear the 

applicability of proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. 

Method 25A. Method 25A is being included in proposed 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cf. After reviewing the comments received on 

the NSPS for new landfills proposed on July 17, 2014, the EPA 

recognizes that the use of Method 25A is necessary for measuring 

outlet concentrations less than 50 ppm NMOC. Per Emission 

Measurement Center Guidance Document 033 (EMC GD-033-available 

at http://www.epa.gov//ttn/emc/guidlnd/gd-033.pfd), Method 25A 

should be used only in cases where the outlet concentration is 

less than 50 ppm NMOC as carbon (8 ppm NMOC as hexane). 

Method 18. Method 18 is not included in proposed 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cf. While Method 18 may be used in conjunction 

with Method 25A for methane or specific compounds of interest, 

there are limitations on the number of analytes that can be 

reasonably quantified in measuring the sum of all NMOCs. With 

the possibility of 40 target analytes listed in the current 

landfill section of AP-42 (160 analytes in the draft landfill 

AP-42), Method 18 is not an appropriate or cost effective method 

to test all NMOCs found in landfill samples. The extensive 

quality assurance required by the method makes the method 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 68 of 321 

technically and economically prohibitive for all the potential 

target analytes. 

Surface monitoring intervals. The EPA is clarifying that 

surface emissions monitoring can be conducted at an interval 

less than specified in the rule text. Thus, the EPA is adding 

“no more than” in front of the specified interval in proposed 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Cf (i.e., at no more than 30-meter 

intervals). 

V. Rationale for the Proposed Changes Based on GCCS Technology 

Review 

A. Control Technology Review 

1. Gas Collection and Control Systems 

The EPA has determined that a well-designed and well 

operated GCCS that collects the LFG from the landfill and routes 

the collected gas to a combustion device that reduces NMOC by 98 

percent by weight or an outlet concentration of 20 ppmvd of 

NMOC, as hexane, or to a treatment system that processes the gas 

for subsequent beneficial use in a process that ensures that 

such reductions are achieved continues to be BSER for 

controlling LFG emissions for both new and existing MSW 

landfills. As discussed in section IX.A of this preamble, 

landfill gas energy recovery has environmental benefits in 

controlling emissions and offsetting conventional energy 

sources. The BSER determination is based on the EPA’s review of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 69 of 321 

the NSPS for new landfills as described in the landfills NSPS 

proposal at 79 FR 41800-41805, as well as public comments and 

information received on the proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796) and 

public input received on both the proposed NSPS and the ANPRM 

(79 FR 41772) for existing landfills. 

The majority of comments on this topic, received in 

response to the proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796), including those 

from industry owners and operators, landfill engineering 

consultants, and trade organizations, as well as input received 

in response to the ANPRM (79 FR 41772), agreed that a GCCS and 

98 percent NMOC destruction represent BSER for MSW landfills. 

2. Open Flares and Destruction Efficiencies 

98 Percent Reduction. The EPA is proposing 98 percent 

reduction of NMOC, expressed as a performance level (i.e., a 

rate-based standard or percent control), as the appropriate 

BSER-based standard. The EPA previously determined that this 

level was reasonable considering costs, nonair quality health 

and environmental impacts, and energy requirements39. That 

determination still stands today and the EPA proposes 98 percent 

NMOC reduction for proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. The 

following combustion controls can achieve at least 98 percent 

 

39 Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills—Background Information 

for Final Standards and Guidelines, EPA–453/R–94–021. EPA Office of Air and 

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

Division, December 1995, page 2–79. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 70 of 321 

destruction of NMOCs and we propose that they continue to 

represent BSER: enclosed flares and incinerators, and devices 

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

turbines, and internal combustion engines. The EPA solicits 

comment on whether these devices can in fact achieve at least 98 

percent destruction of NMOCs and whether uses of the landfill 

gas other than for combustion achieve equivalent reductions.

Note that although the landfills rules measure NMOC, similar 

reductions are expected for methane.40

The EPA continues to believe that 98 percent reduction is 

appropriate because this continues to be the level achievable by 

demonstrated technologies. Current data are consistent with 98 

percent destruction. Nonetheless, in the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed NSPS (79 FR 41803), we requested comment and 

additional data on the NMOC destruction efficiency of 

incinerators and devices that burn landfill gas to recover 

 

40 Methane is more readily combustible than other organic compounds, thus 

methane generally has higher destruction (or control) efficiencies than other 

organic compounds such as NMOC and VOC. Therefore, although compliance with 

the landfills regulations is expressed as a percent reduction (or reduction 

to a level of 20 ppmv) of NMOC, landfills that reduce NMOC by 98 percent 

reduce methane by a similar percentage. Two EPA programs use a 99 percent 

destruction efficiency for methane: the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks: 1990-2013 and the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. In addition, the 

EPA’s AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Chapter 2.4 

(1998), contains typical NMOC control efficiencies of 94-99+ for various 

devices used at landfills, including flares, internal combustion engines, 

boiler/steam turbines, and gas turbines. Draft updates (2008) to AP-42 

contain typical NMOC control efficiencies for flares of 97.7 percent. Because 

methane is more readily combustible than NMOC, methane destruction 

efficiencies would be at least at this level.

Commented [A7]: OMB General Comment 3: 

Reviewer recommends clarifying in the rules 

whether the cited 98% effectiveness of GCCS at 

destroying NMOCs (referenced throughout the 

rules) is also 98% effective at destroying 

methane. 

Response: Additional text and footnote added 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 71 of 321 

energy, such as boilers, turbines, and internal combustion 

engines. The EPA did not receive new data on the NMOC 

destruction of energy recovery devices. 

Open/Non-enclosed Flares. Both enclosed and non-enclosed 

(open) flares have been determined to be BSER combustion devices 

and these technologies continue to be used today. Commenters on 

the proposed landfills NSPS noted the prevalence of non-enclosed 

flares as both a primary and secondary control device. 

Commenters contend that non-enclosed flares used at landfills 

meeting the criteria in 40 CFR 60.18(b) have been demonstrated 

to have destruction efficiencies similar to enclosed flares and 

incinerators, and devices that burn landfill gas to recover 

energy, such as boilers, turbines, and internal combustion 

engines. 

Commenters on the NSPS did not submit new data on flare 

performance. However, one commenter included a statement of a 

guaranteed 98 percent destruction efficiency from a commonly 

used flare technology provider at landfills.41 Commenters on the 

proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796) and information submitted in 

response to the ANPRM (79 FR 41772) indicate that hundreds of 

open/non-enclosed flares are currently in use and that these 

 

41 Comment submitted by Republic Waste Services (EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0100). 

Attachment 15 includes statement from John Zink Company on standard emissions 

for elevated flares. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 72 of 321 

flares are fully capable of achieving a performance standard of 

98 percent reduction of NMOC. The use of open/non-enclosed 

flares is supported because of their inherent flexibility in 

addressing multiple operational components including flow rate, 

Btu content, other gas constituents, proximity to neighbors, and 

cost. The information provided also indicates that open/nonenclosed flares are simpler and therefore easier and less 

expensive to operate when compared with enclosed combustion 

devices; in addition, their simplicity makes them less 

susceptible to malfunctions or shutdowns. A better turndown 

ratio for open/non-enclosed flares was cited as an important 

consideration in addressing variable operating flow rates over 

the life of the landfill. The ability to use flares as a back up 

to LFG energy recovery projects is also an important 

consideration. 

One commenter on the proposed landfills NSPS did, however, 

state that EPA should not consider open flares to be part of the 

BSER for landfills, given issues with their performance in 

reducing emissions. The commenter provided several references 

that identified the difficulty in measuring the performance of 

flares and poor or questionable flare performance when 

measurements were made, especially in windy conditions. 

Based on the operational flexibilities open flares offer 

landfill operators, and the flare design and operational 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 73 of 321 

requirements in the general provisions, the EPA is retaining the 

option for landfills to comply with proposed 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf using an open flare operated in accordance with 40 

CFR 60.18(b) of the general provisions. The EPA maintains that 

the design and operational requirements set forth in 40 CFR 

60.18(b) ensure that open flares are operated to adequately 

destroy NMOC to a level consistent with NMOC destruction 

requirements for other control devices. The general provisions 

require a minimum heating value to ensure combustion efficiency. 

Specifically, 40 CFR 60.18(c)(3)(ii) requires the net heating 

value of the gas being combusted to be 7.45 megajoules per 

standard cubic meter (MJ/scm)(200 Btu/standard cubic foot) or 

greater if the flare is nonassisted or 11.2 MJ/scm (300 Btu/scf) 

or greater if the flare is steam-assisted or air-assisted. 

Landfill gas typically contains 50 percent methane, but methane 

content generally ranges from 45 to 60 percent, depending on 

several factors including waste characteristics and landfill 

design and operation activities. This range of methane contents 

is equivalent to landfill gas heating values of approximately 

450 to 600 Btu/scf, which are above the minimum net heating 

values outlined in 40 CFR 60.18(c)(3)(ii). Regardless of the 

specific methane content of landfill gas, the landfill owner or 

operator must calculate the net heating value of the landfill 

gas for comparison to the appropriate minimum net heating value 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 74 of 321 

defined in 40 CFR 60.18. Proposed subpart Cf (40 CFR 60.35f(d)) 

complements the general provision requirements by requiring 

three 30-minute samples obtained by Method 3C. These rule 

provisions ensure that the landfill gas burned in the flare has 

adequate heating value to ensure complete combustion, which in 

turn, ensures adequate NMOC destruction. 

Note that flares at landfills are typically non-assisted 

and generally have low variability in the flow of landfill gas. 

A non-assisted, relatively constant flow of gas means there is 

nothing to dilute or interrupt the mixture of gas in the 

combustion zone. Thus, landfill gas and its components are 

destroyed more efficiently. In addition, with respect to 

concerns about operating flares in windy conditions, the EPA has 

found extremely limited data exists to indicate that wind 

conditions adversely affect destruction efficiencies of flares. 

Studies cited regarding wind conditions are based on experiments 

conducted in laboratory environments using very small diameter 

flares (4.5 to 6 inches) that are more susceptible to wind than 

larger diameter flares used at MSW landfills. 

Although flaring remains one compliance option for 

collecting and controlling emissions of landfill gas, the EPA 

believes that the use of landfill gas to produce energy 

represents a higher value use and requests comments on whether 

there are opportunities to incentivize the use of landfill gas 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 75 of 321 

for energy production rather than flaring. Thus, the EPA 

solicits comments on incentive approaches to encourage landfill 

owner/operators to productively use landfill gas for energy. 

3. Emission Reduction Techniques and GCCS Best Management 

Practices 

In the ANPRM for existing landfills (79 FR 41784), the EPA 

presented several alternative technologies, including oxidative 

technologies, that could potentially serve as a component of 

BSER. The principle of oxidative technologies is the use of 

methanotrophic bacteria, commonly found in most soils and 

compost, to oxidize methane into water, carbon dioxide, and 

biomass. The EPA also presented information on various BMPs that 

could improve the operation and performance of GCCS and thus 

achieve additional emission reductions. Such BMPs included 

installing final cover early to increase gas collection 

efficiency, connecting the leachate collection and removal 

system (LCRS) to a GCCS, providing redundant seals on wellheads, 

installing horizontal collectors to facilitate earlier gas 

collection (i.e., shorter lag times), and preventing flooded 

wells via the use of pumps and surface collectors. The EPA 

received comments both supporting and objecting to considering 

BMPs and oxidative control technologies as BSER. 

Commenters generally pointed out the site-specific nature 

of the various GCCS BMPs. Several commenters disagreed that the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 76 of 321 

EPA should prescribe enhanced wellhead seals in the rule and 

indicated that landfill operators are already employing sitespecific approaches to ensure that wells are properly sealed in 

order to avoid exceedances of wellhead standards and maintain 

good gas quality. Regarding connecting to a LCRS, two commenters 

raised several technical site-specific issues associated with 

connecting an LCRS to a GCCS. Several commenters indicated that 

LCRS connections are typically shallow and can introduce ambient 

air into the GCCS, which could increase the risk of subsurface 

fire. According to these commenters, to reduce these risks, each 

individual connection point of an LCRS would need to be 

evaluated to determine if it was suitable for connection to a 

GCCS. For cover, several commenters stated that landfill cover 

materials must meet multiple objectives, including controlling 

odors, vectors, fires, and litter, shedding moisture to reduce 

infiltration, and supporting vegetation and compaction. One of 

the commenters added that Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) and state and local regulations govern many of these 

cover criteria and expressed concerns that cover requirements in 

the Emission Guidelines could be contradictory to other 

requirements. These commenters indicated that as landfill owners 

and operators select cover materials and designs intended to 

promote methane oxidation, such as biocovers or cover soils, 

these performance objectives should be taken into consideration. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 77 of 321 

Other commenters advocated for requiring BMPs including 

enhanced or duplicate seals on wellheads, connections to LCRS to 

collect LFG, early final covers, horizontal collectors, and BMPs 

for dewatering gas collection wells. 

With respect to oxidative covers, several commenters 

mentioned or provided information on articles and other 

literature that discuss selecting appropriate biocover 

materials.42 Some of these commenters noted that the rate of 

oxidation depends on both material properties and site-specific 

operations, including moisture, temperature, material particle 

size, depth, and compaction. One state agency agreed that 

methane oxidation is well demonstrated for cover materials such 

as compost or yard waste, but expressed concern that methane 

oxidation performance in extreme climate conditions is not well 

known, in particular as related to daily and intermediate cover 

thicknesses. One commenter expressed concerns that the use of an 

oxidizing cover can reduce gas collection efficiency and should 

not be required by the Emission Guidelines. 

Several commenters expressed concern with whether the longterm performance of oxidative control technologies in real-world 

conditions has been established for controlling landfill methane 

and NMOC emissions. Several commenters appreciated the EPA’s 

 

42 Refer to pages 55-56 of the original comment letter at DCN EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-

0215-0100 for references. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 78 of 321 

willingness to recognize the role of oxidation in mitigating 

methane and NMOC emissions and agreed that the use of biocovers 

or biofilters for landfill methane oxidation is promising but 

did not recommend requiring oxidative controls in the Emission 

Guidelines. A couple of these commenters indicated that these 

technologies are not BSER, one of which specifically noted that 

biocover technology has not been sufficiently demonstrated to 

support a regulatory requirement under CAA section 111, as that 

requires the EPA to determine performance standards based on 

adequately demonstrated technology. 

The EPA recognizes the site-specific nature of GCCS design 

and operation and that the effectiveness of any particular BMP, 

therefore, depends on the site-specific circumstances of a 

particular MSW landfill. Therefore, while EPA strongly 

encourages the use of appropriate BMP to ensure the best 

possible design and operation of each GCCS, EPA does not 

consider any particular BMPs to constitute BSER and, thus, is 

not proposing to prescribe the use of GCCS BMPs in proposed 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Cf. The EPA continues to believe that BSER 

remains a well-designed and well-operated GCCS and that while 

all such systems have certain characteristics in common, what 

constitutes a well-designed and well-operated GCCS will vary 

somewhat from landfill to landfill. While we agree with 

commenters that these alternative technologies and BMPs can 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 79 of 321 

achieve additional reductions in some circumstances, the 

performance, cost, and technical feasibility of these BMPs can 

vary greatly from site to site as well as from cell to cell even 

within the same site. Further, designing specific components of 

a GCCS (e.g., biofiltration cells, prescribed wellhead seals, 

horizontal collectors, LCRS connection to GCCS, and surface 

collectors) depends on climate-specific and site-specific 

conditions that must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and 

requires engineering judgment, which is best exercised by the 

professional engineer that reviews the GCCS design plan for 

approval and the staff at each delegated authority responsible 

for approving the GCCS design plan. 

The EPA recognizes that the effectiveness of cover 

practices, both early installation of final cover and the use of 

oxidative covers in reducing emissions is also site-specific. 

Therefore, the EPA does not consider these to constitute BSER 

and is not proposing to prescribe specific cover practices in 

proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. The timing of final cover 

installation depends on the filling sequence and cell design of 

the particular landfill. For biocovers, the applicability is 

dependent on whether the area is closed or open. The materials 

allowed to be used for oxidative covers could also vary from 

site to site depending on state or local yard waste or compost 

bans, materials most favorable to the local climate, or 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 80 of 321 

materials that are best suited to meet multiple site-specific 

performance objectives in addition to reducing landfill gas 

emissions. The EPA also agrees with commenters who noted that 

long-term performance of oxidative covers has not yet been 

adequately demonstrated in a full-scale industrial setting at a 

landfill. 

Based on the information and public input it received on 

emission reduction techniques and various BMPs that could 

improve collection and control of LFG emissions, the EPA 

proposes to conclude that BSER does not include specific GCCS 

BMPs, cover practices, or oxidative controls and, therefore, is 

not proposing to require landfills to adopt those practices in 

the Emission Guidelines. The EPA does not consider oxidative 

technologies (biocovers and biofilters) or BMPs to be part of 

BSER. 

Although the EPA is not prescribing BMPs for GCCS or 

advanced cover practices in proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, 

the EPA expects that two proposed rule flexibilities will 

encourage and promote more widespread adoption of BMPs and 

alternative cover technologies. First, the proposed Tier 4 

surface monitoring demonstration allows a landfill 

owner/operator to use site-specific surface methane emissions 

measurements prior to determining when the installation of a 

regulatory compliant GCCS is required. (The Tier 4 surface 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 81 of 321 

emissions threshold is discussed in section VII.A of this 

preamble. Tier 4 may also be used to determine when the GCCS can 

be removed, as discussed in section VIII of this preamble.) 

Thus, the EPA expects that at least some landfill owners or 

operators will utilize oxidative cover practices or BMPs such as 

early gas collection or LCRS connection to minimize surface 

emissions. 

Second, the EPA is proposing to remove the wellhead 

temperature and oxygen/nitrogen performance requirements and the 

corresponding requirement to take corrective action upon 

exceeding one of these parameters, thereby providing flexibility 

with regard to wellhead operating parameters. (The wellhead 

operating parameters are discussed in section VI.B of this 

preamble.) With the proposed wellhead operating parameter 

flexibility, landfill owners and operators may employ cover 

practices or GCCS BMPs that are suitable for their sites and 

GCCS designs, thereby allowing them to collect more LFG and 

reduce emissions without the risk of exceeding a wellhead 

operating parameter. 

In addition to these two flexibilities, the EPA is 

requesting comment on other compliance flexibilities to better 

promote the use of GCCS BMPs that could be used in the final 

Emission Guidelines. To complement the compliance flexibilities 

proposed in these Emission Guidelines, the EPA intends to 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 82 of 321 

explore the creation of technical assistance documents and other 

tools or resources for educating the owners/ operators of 

affected landfills and delegated authorities about how GCCS BMPs 

and oxidative controls can be implemented effectively to achieve 

additional methane and NMOC emission reductions from landfills. 

4. Organics Diversion and Source Separation 

Landfill gas 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. Food waste, yard 

debris, and other organic materials continue to be the largest 

component of MSW discarded, with food waste comprising the 

largest portion. Decreasing the amount of organics disposed in 

landfills would reduce the amount of LFG generated. 

As previously discussed in this section V.A, we are 

proposing to define BSER as a well-designed, installed and 

operated GCCS. We are proposing to conclude that organics 

diversion and source separation are not part of a well-designed, 

installed and operated GCCS and, therefore, not part of BSER. 

The EPA does, however, consider organics diversion and source 

separation advantageous because such practices reduce the amount 

of LFG generated and thus may serve as a useful compliance tool 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 83 of 321 

as it may allow landfill owners and operators to postpone the 

need to install a GCCS. 

In the ANPRM for existing landfills (79 FR 41787, July 17, 

2014), the EPA solicited input on methods to encourage organics 

diversion in any proposed revised Emission Guidelines. The EPA 

received a variety of ideas on how best to encourage diversion. 

Many commenters generally recognized that organics 

diversion could achieve emission reductions from landfills. 

Although the ANPRM (79 FR 41772) specifically stated EPA was not 

soliciting comments on mandating organics diversion, many 

commenters cautioned against an organics diversion mandate in 

the Emission Guidelines, given the complexity and local nature 

of waste management. Specific examples of how a Tier 4 emission 

threshold determination and flexible wellhead operating 

parameters could encourage more landfills to adopt organics 

diversion programs were provided, as discussed in sections VI, 

VII, and VIII of this preamble. Several commenters suggested 

that the EPA encourage partial organics diversion programs 

instead of focusing on rule exemptions for landfills with 100 

percent diversion rates, which commenters said is impractical at 

this point given current infrastructure and technology 

limitations. One commenter touted the economic and job creation 

benefits of increased organic diversion rates. A state agency 

suggested that a separate subcategory with a higher design 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 84 of 321 

capacity threshold could be developed for landfills diverting 

organics. Another commenter suggested that the EPA should 

provide states the flexibility to incorporate both source 

control requirements and landfill diversion programs into their 

state plans.

States and municipalities in the U.S. are increasingly 

moving toward the diversion of organic wastes from landfills to 

composting and anaerobic digesters. At least 21 states have 

mandated organics diversion and/or banned disposal of at least 

some organics (primarily yard waste) from landfills. Five of 

these states (California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont) have enacted legislation governing organics 

disposal specific to food waste.43 In addition, state initiatives 

to recycle organic wastes have contributed to the growth of 

local residential organics collection, with 198 communities in 

19 states reporting curbside collection of food scraps.44 Between 

2009 and 2014, the number of municipalities with source 

separated food waste collection more than doubled (from 90 to 

198) and the number of affected households grew by nearly 50 

percent.45 Separate collection and treatment of organics in the 

commercial and institutional sectors has also risen. The nature 

 

43 U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for Proposed Emission Guidelines and 

Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Section 2.7, 2015. 

44 Ibid. 

45 Ibid. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 85 of 321 

of organics management initiatives and programs at the state and 

local levels varies across the country by several factors, 

including type of organics targeted (e.g., food waste, yard 

waste), source of organics generation (e.g., commercial, 

residential, institutional), implementation phase (e.g., pilot 

projects, mandatory with fines for violations), and pricing 

formats (e.g., “pay-as-you-throw,” property tax, fixed fee). 

The EPA recognizes the emission reduction benefit of 

organics diversion from landfills. A recent study indicated that 

modest organics diversion programs could achieve a 9 percent 

reduction in LFG generation rates, while more aggressive 

diversion programs could yield up to 18.5 percent reduction.46

Nevertheless, while the EPA has proposed several pathways to 

encourage voluntary organics diversion in this proposal, the EPA 

is not proposing a federal mandate of organics diversion under 

this proposal. There are significant barriers to issuing a 

federal mandate for diversion under the Emission Guidelines, 

including: lack of regulations and incentives at the state and 

local level; limited processing and transfer capacity for 

organic wastes; low cost to dispose of waste in landfills 

relative to other waste treatment technologies; multifaceted and 

 

46 Stege, Alex. The Effects of Organic Waste Diversion on LFG Generation and 

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

2014. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 86 of 321 

regional nature of the solid waste management industry; and 

behavioral changes needed among waste generators (individuals, 

businesses, and industries) to divert their organic wastes from 

landfills.47 

In the 1996 Landfills NSPS Background Information 

Document48, 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 wide-ranging issues associated with solid 

waste management for landfills.” The EPA continues to believe 

that this is the case. The EPA has, however, proposed three 

compliance flexibilities as discussed in sections VI.B (wellhead 

monitoring), VII.A (Tier 4 emission threshold determination), 

and VIII.B (Criteria for Capping or Removing a GCCS) of this 

preamble that may aid landfills in increasing organics 

diversion. The proposed adjustments to wellhead operating 

standards provide some GCCS operational flexibility to 

accommodate declining LFG quantity or quality resulting from 

modified waste composition at landfills employing an organic 

diversion program. The formats of the Tier 4 option and 

alternative set of surface emission-based GCCS removal criteria 

 

47 Ibid. 

48 Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills-Background Information 

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

91-197061). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 87 of 321 

serve as built-in incentives for the landfill owner/operator to 

implement a variety of surface emission reduction techniques, 

including organics diversion. 

In addition to the three compliance flexibilities discussed 

in sections VI.B (wellhead monitoring), VII.A (Tier 4 emission 

threshold determination), and VIII.B (criteria for capping or 

removing a GCCS), the EPA is seeking comment on other compliance 

flexibilities it should consider when issuing the final Emission 

Guidelines to encourage more organics diversion. The EPA is also 

requesting comment on other ways we could structure the 

guidelines to credit organics diversion. 

In response to public input, the EPA is also seeking 

comment on what, if any, role organics diversion policies or 

measures could play in an approvable state plan. The EPA must 

ensure that each state plan establishes requirements for LFG 

emission controls that are at least as stringent as the Emission 

Guidelines. We are, therefore, interested in how states might 

demonstrate that a state plan that contains organics diversion 

policies and measures is at least as stringent as the Emission 

Guidelines. The EPA is interested in supporting state organics 

diversion initiatives and one way of doing this may be to 

provide flexibility to include such initiatives as a component 

of an approvable state plan. As previously stated, however, to 

be approvable, a state plan must be at least as stringent in its 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 88 of 321 

effect on LFG as the Emission Guidelines, i.e., it must ensure 

emission reductions equivalent to those achieved with a welldesigned, installed, and well-operated GCCS with a NMOC 

destruction efficiency of 98 percent and we are not surerequest 

comments on how a state that relies on organics diversion could

do this. The EPA, through its various voluntary programs intends 

to explore the creation of outreach materials, technical 

assistance documents, trainings, and other tools or resources 

for educating owners and operators of affected landfills and 

implementing authorities about the benefits of organics 

diversion and how organics diversion programs can be implemented 

effectively to achieve additional reductions in methane and NMOC 

emissions from landfills. The EPA is also exploring 

opportunities through its voluntary programs to recognize 

leadership in diverting organics from landfills. 

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

evaluating potential changes to the timing of installing, 

expanding, and removing the GCCS? 

To examine the potential impact of changes to the timing of 

initiating and removing landfill gas collection and control, the 

EPA updated a dataset of information for landfills, as described 

below, and applied a model to assess when controls were needed 

under the baseline control scenario (2.5 million Mg design 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 89 of 321 

capacity threshold and 50 Mg/yr NMOC threshold) as well as 

various regulatory options. 

As discussed at 79 FR 41805, in determining whether to 

revise the proposed standards of performance for new MSW 

landfills, the EPA developed a dataset of information for 

landfills, which included landfill-specific data such as 

landfill open and closure year, landfill design capacity, 

landfill design area, and landfill depth. For the regulatory 

analysis, we approximated the number of landfills that would 

become subject to the regulation based on size using the 

reported design capacities, which were provided in units of 

megagrams. For purposes of rule applicability, size is based on 

both mass (Mg) and volume (m3). 

The EPA made several significant updates to this original 

dataset to evaluate the impacts of this proposal. Notably, the 

EPA updated the technical attributes of over 1,200 landfills 

based on new detailed data reported to 40 CFR part 98, subpart 

HH of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). In addition, 

the EPA consulted with its regional offices, as well as state 

and local authorities, to identify landfills expected to undergo 

a modification within the next 5 years. According to the 

applicability of the proposed subpart XXX, if a landfill 

commenced construction on its modification after July 2014, it 

would no longer be subject to the state or federal plans 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 90 of 321 

implementing these proposed revisions to the Emission 

Guidelines; therefore, these landfills were excluded from the 

impacts analysis conducted for this proposal, and their impacts 

will be considered as part of the final revisions to the 

standards of performance for new (and modified) landfills issued 

under 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX. After incorporating all of 

the updates to the inventory and taking out the landfills 

expected to modify, the revised dataset now has 1,839 existing 

landfills that accepted waste after 198749 and opened prior to 

201450 that are analyzed in this regulatory options analysis. A 

detailed discussion of updates made to the landfill dataset is 

in the docketed memorandum, “Summary of Updated Landfill Dataset 

Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfills 

Regulations. 2015.” 

The EPA programmed a Microsoft® Access database 

(hereinafter referred to as the “model”) to calculate the costs 

and emission reductions associated with the regulatory options 

 

49 November 8, 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 emission guidelines for landfills no 

longer receiving wastes because the EPA judged states would be able to 

identify active facilities as of this date. The data available to EPA 

includes an open year without the month and so the analysis uses a cutoff 

year of 1988 for landfill closure year. 

50 July 17, 2014 is the proposed date of the revised NSPS for MSW landfills in 

40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX. A landfill opening or commencing construction on 

its modification after this date would become subject to this new subpart and 

would not be subject to the revised emission guidelines. The EPA cannot 

predict the exact month a model landfill will open so the analysis uses a 

cutoff year of 2014. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 91 of 321 

for each of the landfills in the revised dataset. The default 

parameters for methane generation potential (L0), the methane 

generation rate (k), and the NMOC concentration used to estimate 

when the landfills exceeded regulatory emission thresholds and 

estimate emission reductions are the same as those discussed at 

79 FR 41805. Similarly, the default parameters for methane 

generation potential (L0), the methane generation rate (k), and 

the NMOC concentration used to estimate when landfills could cap 

or remove controls are the same as those discussed at 79 FR 

41805. 

When modeled landfill gas emissions for a particular 

landfill exceeded the emission rate threshold, the EPA assumed 

that collection equipment was installed and started operating at 

the landfill 30 months after first exceeding the threshold (as 

discussed in the docketed memorandum “Methodology for Estimating 

Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills Regulations. 2014”). 

The EPA also assumed that as the landfill was filled over time, 

the landfill would expand the GCCS into new areas of waste 

placement according to an expansion lag time of 5 years for 

active areas and 2 years for areas that are closed or at final 

grade. Based on input received during public outreach to small 

entity representatives (SERs) as well as comments received on 

the proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796), most modern large landfills do 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 92 of 321 

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

are complying with the 5 year provision. 

Although we are proposing a new Tier 4 option as a sitespecific alternative for determining if a landfill has exceeded 

the regulatory emission threshold (and must install controls) or 

if a landfill has fallen below the regulatory emission threshold 

(and can remove or cap controls), the number and types of 

landfills that could opt to use a Tier 4 option are unknown and 

could not be incorporated into the impacts calculated in the 

model. As a result, the number of landfills expected to control 

under each regulatory option, as well as the estimated emission 

reductions and costs associated with each regulatory option are 

based on modeled estimates of landfill gas emissions.

To estimate the costs of each regulatory option, the EPA 

made minor changes to the cost methodology discussed in the 

landfills NSPS proposal at 79 FR 41805. In this analysis, cost 

equations were obtained from a recent update to EPA’s Landfill 

Gas Energy Cost Model (LFGcost-Web), version 3.0, which was 

updated by EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) in 

August 2014. The EPA also updated estimates for surface emission 

monitoring costs based on revised estimates made available to 

the EPA since proposal of the NSPS in July 2014. 

The capital costs continue to be presented in year 2012 

dollars and annualized using an interest rate of 7 percent over 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 93 of 321 

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

case of drill mobilization costs, the length of time between 

each wellfield expansion. These annualized capital costs were 

added to the annual operating and maintenance costs estimated by 

LFGcost-Web. The annualized cost includes capital related to the 

purchase, installation, operation and maintenance of GCCS, and 

costs related to testing and monitoring. 

For certain landfills that were expected to generate 

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

energy recovery rates and associated costs to install and 

operate the energy recovery equipment as well as the revenue 

streams from the recovered energy. These revenues were 

subtracted from the annualized capital and operating and 

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

estimate for each option in each year. The emission reduction 

and cost and revenue equations and assumptions are detailed in 

the docketed memoranda, “Updated Methodology for Estimating Cost 

and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills Regulations. 2015” and 

“Updated Methodology for Estimating Testing and Monitoring Costs 

for the MSW Landfill Regulations. 2015.”

C. What emissions and emission reduction programs are associated 

with existing MSW landfills? 

The EPA estimates that the potential uncontrolled emissions 

from the approximately 1,800 landfills in its regulatory 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 94 of 321 

analysis dataset (as explained in section V.B of this preamble) 

are approximately 69,700 Mg NMOC and 11.0 million Mg methane 

(275 million mtCO2e) in year 2014. In year 2025, the EPA 

estimates that the potential uncontrolled emissions from the 

approximately 1,800 landfills in the dataset are approximately 

71,400 Mg NMOC and 11.2 million Mg methane (281 million mtCO2e). 

The majority of landfills in the dataset are expected to remain 

open through 2025, thus uncontrolled emissions are higher in 

2025. 

Looking beyond the modeled dataset, the Inventory of U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013 shows a growth in 

uncontrolled emissions from MSW landfills, from 205.4 teragrams 

(Tg) CO2e in 1990 to 332.6 Tg CO2e in 2013.51 If controls are 

considered, emissions from landfills have decreased from 173.8 

Tg CO2e in 1990 to 97.5 Tg CO2e in 2013 from both regulatory and 

voluntary programs as discussed below.52

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, 

 

51 U.S. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013. 

April 2015. Table 7-3. 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html 

52 Ibid, Annex 3.14, Table A-265. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 95 of 321 

expanding and removing the GCCS to the modeled emission 

estimates discussed in section V.B of this preamble. 

Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the reductions 

anticipated to be achieved in 2025 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 m3 must install a 

GCCS when NMOC emissions reach or exceed 50 Mg/yr. The table 

includes emission reductions for NMOC and methane. 

Table 2. Baseline Emission Reductions in 2025 at Existing 

Landfills 

No. of 

landfi

lls 

affect

ed 

No. of 

landfil

ls 

control

ling 

No. of 

landfi

lls 

report

ing 

but 

not 

contro

llinga 

Annual 

Net 

Cost 

(milli

on 

$2012)

b

Annual 

NMOC 

Reduct

ions 

(Mg/yr

) 

Annua

l 

Metha

ne 

Reduc

tions 

(mill

ion 

Mg/yr

) 

Annual 

CO2e 

Reduct

ions 

(milli

on 

mt/yr) 

NMOC 

cost 

effecti

veness 

($/Mg) 

Methan

e cost 

effect

ivenes

s 

($/Mg) 

CO2e 

cost 

effecti

veness 

($/mt) 

989 574 211 299 57,300 9.0 226 5,090 32.3 1.3

a Excludes closed landfills from reporting count, because the closed 

landfills are not expected to have to submit reports in 2025. They would have 

already submitted their one-time reports under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW or 

the state or federal plan implementing 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc, and 

because they are closed, they would also be expected to be done with NMOC 

reporting by 2025 because they are on the tail end of their gas curve and gas 

rates are declining. 

b The annualized net cost ($299 million) is the difference between the 

average annualized revenue ($1,408 million) and the sum of annualized control 

cost ($1,700 million) and the average annualized testing and monitoring costs 

($7.3 million). 

The Emission Guidelines in the baseline are estimated to 

require control at 574 of the 989 affected landfills in 2025 and 

achieve reductions of 57,300 Mg/yr NMOC and 9.0 million Mg/yr 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 96 of 321 

methane (226 million mt/yr CO2e). In the baseline we estimate 

that 31 percent (574/1,839) of existing landfills will operate 

emission controls in 2025.

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 proposed action 

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. 

a. State and Local Ordinances 

The EPA is aware that some state or local ordinances 

require LFG combustion. The number of landfills controlling 

under these ordinances is unknown and is not factored into the 

incremental impacts analysis for this rule. The EPA is also 

aware that other states have rules regulating LFG combustion for 

odor control or safety reasons, which may be less comprehensive 

than the requirements of a GCCS operated in accordance with the 

NSPS and emission guideline requirements. 

b. Market-based Mechanisms 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 97 of 321 

Many of these systems may have been installed to recover 

energy and generate revenue through the sale of electricity or 

LFG. 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 115 LFG 

capture projects in 36 states have been issued credits known as 

Climate Reserve Tonnes (CRTs).53 

To estimate the number of landfills that may be controlling 

LFG emissions voluntarily, the EPA evaluated the most current 

data available and 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 or subpart HH GHGRP databases. 

While the NSPS/Emission Guidelines dataset estimates that 

approximately 620 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 and GHGRP 

databases show approximately 330 additional landfills as having 

installed controls, resulting in approximately 950 landfills 

estimated to have a GCCS installed in 2014.54 Approximately 55 

 

53 Climate Action Reserve. Issued List of CRTs as of January 7, 2015. 

https://thereserve2.apx.com/myModule/rpt/myrpt.asp?r=112. 

54 See sections V.B and V.C of this action for a detailed discussion of the 

modeling database and estimated reductions under the current federal 

regulatory framework. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 98 of 321 

percent of these 330 landfills exceed the design capacity of 2.5 

million Mg55, but as of 2014, are not modeled to exceed the NMOC 

emission threshold that dictates when a GCCS must be installed. 

In some cases these GCCS may have been installed earlier than 

required by the time frames currently specified in the NSPS and 

Emission Guidelines. The LMOP database estimates that nearly 120 

of the 330 landfills with voluntary systems have an energy 

recovery component. Among landfills with design capacities of 

2.5 million Mg or greater, approximately 80 of the 180 landfills 

with a voluntary GCCS have an energy recovery component. These 

330 landfills are estimated to reduce approximately 12 million 

Mg CO2e in 2014. This is in addition to the 231 million Mg CO2e 

reduction achieved by the current regulatory baseline. This 

represents an additional 5 percent reduction in year 2014 coming 

from systems installed for reasons other than compliance with 

the NSPS or state and federal plans implementing the Emission 

Guidelines. 

D. What control options did the EPA consider? 

The EPA considered several factors when determining which 

control options would represent BSER. This section of the 

preamble describes those control options, which include varying 

 

55 For the regulatory analysis, we approximated the number of landfills that 

would become subject to the regulation based on size using the reported 

design capacities, which were provided in units of megagrams. For purposes of 

rule applicability size is based on both mass (Mg) and volume (m3). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 99 of 321 

the design capacity threshold, varying the NMOC emission rate 

threshold, and varying the time allowed to install and then 

expand the gas collection and control system. To examine these 

options, the EPA ran several permutations of various control 

options on the original dataset developed for the July 2014 NSPS 

proposal. Each regulatory option assessed variations in the 

design capacity and/or emission rate thresholds, as well as 

changes to the initial lag time and expansion lag time. The 

“initial lag time” is the time period between when the landfill 

exceeds the emission rate threshold and when controls are 

required to be installed and started up (30 months in 40 CFR 

part 60, subparts Cc and WWW). The “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 in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart WWW). 

Some options adjusted a single threshold in isolation; for 

example, reducing the NMOC emission threshold to between 34 and 

40 Mg/yr while keeping the design capacity threshold constant at 

2.5 million Mg. Other options adjusted multiple control 

parameters simultaneously, taking into account the relationship 

between the parameters. For example, recognizing that NMOC 

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

significantly reduced the NMOC emission threshold also reduced 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 100 of 321 

the design capacity thresholds to 2.0 million Mg to avoid 

situations where the NMOC emission threshold would be exceeded 

long before the design capacity threshold. 

In addition to adjusting design capacity and emission 

control thresholds, other preliminary model runs varied the 

initial and/or expansion lag times. These variations estimated 

the impacts of requiring landfill owners or operators to install 

or expand gas collection systems more quickly after crossing 

each modeled NMOC emission threshold. 

In 2013, the EPA presented different model runs during 

Federalism consultations and small entity outreach that 

represented the range of variation in both the threshold and lag 

time parameters. For the options presented, small entity 

representatives (SERs) and Federalism consultation participants 

provided feedback to the EPA, which included implementation 

concerns with varying certain parameters as part of the Emission 

Guidelines review, as discussed in the following sections. The 

EPA also received comments on varying certain parameters in 

response to its July 2014 NSPS proposal and ANPRM for Emission 

Guidelines at MSW landfills (79 FR 41772) and conducted a 

subsequent round of Federalism consultations and small entity 

outreach in 2015. The EPA considered these concerns and comments 

received on the July 2014 NSPS proposal and ANRPM when 

developing a revised set of regulatory options in this proposal. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 101 of 321 

1. What are the implementation considerations with changing the 

design capacity criteria? 

For this proposal, the EPA considered two different design 

capacity thresholds: no change from the current regulatory 

baseline of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3, and an option 

that reduced the design capacity to 2.0 million Mg and 2.0 

million m3. This section of the preamble describes the resulting 

potential burden to regulated entities, including small 

entities. Potential burden includes obtaining a title V permit 

and calculating an annual NMOC emission rate. This discussion 

also considers the size threshold associated with existing state 

regulations, as well as collection systems that are in place on 

a voluntary basis. 

The EPA did not consider an option to remove the design 

capacity criteria for this proposal so that all landfills would 

be affected sources no matter their size, because of the burdens 

of permitting and reporting at small landfills as discussed 

below and at 79 FR 41782. If the EPA were to remove the design 

capacity threshold, a significant number of additional landfills 

would be subject to the rule. Out of the approximately 1,800 

existing landfills in the revised dataset, approximately 850 

have a design capacity of less than 2.5 million Mg. Without a 

design capacity threshold, the NMOC emission rate would be the 

only criterion for installing controls. Thus, these 850 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 102 of 321 

landfills would be required to begin calculating and reporting 

their NMOC emission rate. They would also be required to obtain 

a Title V permit. This would present a significant burden on 

both regulated landfills and delegated permitting authorities, 

which must be evaluated in light of potential emissions 

reductions. 

The EPA did not analyze control options for landfills with 

landfill design capacities less than 2.0 million Mg in the 

model. Based on the revised dataset, 571 of the 623 closed 

landfills (91.6 percent) have a design capacity less than 2.0 

million Mg. Lowering the design capacity below 2.0 million Mg 

would cause a large number of closed landfills to become subject 

to regulatory requirements including annual NMOC reporting 

requirements and Title V permitting requirements. Additionally 

depending on NMOC emission rates, a number of these landfills 

may also be required to install GCCS despite the fact that many 

of these landfills have been closed for many years and are on 

the downside of their gas production curve. The EPA concludes 

lowering the design capacity threshold below 2.0 million Mg 

would add regulatory requirements with minimal environmental 

benefit. The EPA also notes that closed landfills may have 

limited access to additional revenue because they are no longer 

collecting tipping fees and the cost for GCCS and regulatory 

compliance were not factored into their closure plans, they may 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 103 of 321 

have poor or incomplete records for estimating landfill gas 

emissions, and they are less likely to be permitted. 

Several commenters from state agencies expressed concerns 

with the permitting and reporting burdens on smaller landfills 

and advised the EPA to retain the current design capacity 

threshold. Another state agency noted that MSW landfills with a 

design capacity greater than 0.38 million m3 (roughly 15 percent 

of the current design capacity threshold in the Emission 

Guidelines) are required to install gas collection and control 

systems under the state’s HAP rule. In practice, the smallest 

landfills controlling under the state regulation have design 

capacities as low as 0.6 million Mg and 0.4 million m3. The 

commenter noted that the state rule has control requirements 

similar to those in the Emission Guidelines, but does relax some 

of the monitoring requirements given the lower gas quality and 

smaller emission potential at older and smaller landfills. 

Two commenters advocated for reducing or eliminating the 

design capacity criteria, referencing the state of California 

Landfill Methane Rule56 (CA LMR), which requires all landfills 

with at least 450,000 tons of waste-in-place to assess whether 

or not GCCS is required based on other criteria, including 

 

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

6, sections 95460 to 95476, Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 104 of 321 

estimated heat input capacity from the landfill gas and surface 

emissions monitoring data. 

Based on a review of GCCS data reported in its dataset, the 

EPA estimates that over 900 landfills in its revised dataset 

have installed a GCCS for either voluntary or regulatory 

reasons. Of these, 17 percent of landfills with a capacity less 

than 2.0 Million Mg report having a GCCS installed; 47 percent 

of landfills with a capacity between 2.0 million Mg and 2.5 

million Mg have a GCCS installed; and 76 percent of landfills 

with a capacity of 2.5 Million Mg or greater have a GCCS 

installed.57 Thus, it appears that a significant number of 

landfills have installed GCCS even in the absence of federal 

regulation of these smaller sources, based on site-specific 

circumstances such as gas quality and age of waste in the 

landfill or areas of the landfill, access to capital, and energy 

recovery opportunities. 

When the EPA promulgated the 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million 

m3 design capacity threshold in 1996, we considered the impact 

on small entities based on public comment (61 FR 9918, March 12, 

1996). Today, small private entities and municipalities still 

tend to own smaller sized landfills, whereas larger private 

entities tend to own larger regional landfills. One commenter 

 

57 See Docket Item “Modeling Database Containing Inputs and Impacts for 

Proposed Review of the MSW Emission Guidelines. 2015.” 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 105 of 321 

noted that reducing the design capacity may disproportionately 

affect local governments and small entities. Based on the 

ownership data reported in the revised dataset, 78 percent of 

landfills with a design capacity less than 2.0 million Mg are 

publicly owned and a similarly strong majority (71 percent) of 

landfills between 2.0 million Mg and 2.5 million Mg are publicly 

owned. For landfills with a design capacity of 2.5 million Mg or 

greater, the share of public ownership drops to 48 percent of 

landfills. Further, small entity ownership represents only 

approximately 8.7 percent of the landfills required to control 

under a state or federal plan implementing subpart Cc. If the 

EPA were to reduce the design capacity to 2.0 million Mg and 2.0 

million m3, approximately 730 landfills would be subject to 

control requirements and 70 (9.8 percent) of those are 

classified as small entities. If the EPA were to eliminate the 

design capacity criteria, approximately 749 additional existing 

landfills with a design capacity below 2.0 million Mg (50 

percent) would become subject to the rule, of which 379 are 

classified as small entities, with many of these being required 

to install controls depending on the NMOC level selected. 

Further, the cost burden for installing a collection and control 

system is more significant for small landfills, which are more 

often owned by small entities, compared to larger landfills. 

Because certain costs to construct the gas collection system 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 106 of 321 

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

construction costs) remain relatively constant regardless of the 

size of the landfill, the per-acre costs to control a small 

landfill are more expensive than the per-acre costs to control a 

large landfill. 

Assuming an NMOC emission threshold level of 34 Mg/yr, 

reducing the design capacity from 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million 

m3 to 2.0 million Mg and 2.0 million m3 would require controls 

at an additional 20 landfills that have a design capacity 

between 2.0 million and 2.5 million Mg, as shown in Table 3 of 

this preamble. Requiring controls at landfills in the 2.0 

million to 2.5 million Mg size range would be less cost 

effective because these landfills have a smaller emission 

reduction potential in later years. This is apparent when 

considering the percent changes in net control costs and 

corresponding emission reductions: net control costs increase by 

approximately 1.5 percent, while emission reductions increase by 

only 0.5 percent in year 2025. 

The EPA does not believe that the additional burden on 

small entities and the disproportionate impact on publicly-owned 

landfills can be justified in light of the limited additional 

reduction in overall emissions and is, therefore, not proposing 

any changes to the current design capacity threshold of 2.5 

million Mg and 2.5 million m3. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 107 of 321 

2. What are the implementation considerations with reducing the 

NMOC threshold? 

For this proposal, the EPA considered two alternative NMOC 

emission thresholds: 40 Mg/yr and 34 Mg/yr. The EPA recognizes 

that NMOC emissions are site specific, varying widely from 

landfill to landfill and understands that a majority of 

landfills currently affected by the federal and state plans 

implementing the Emission Guidelines conduct Tier 2 testing in 

order to refine their NMOC emission estimates before installing 

a GCCS. This proposal also allows a new site-specific Tier 4 

alternative to determine when a landfill must install a GCCS, as 

discussed in sections IV.C and VII.A of this preamble. 

Despite these variations in NMOC emissions, results from 

the model show that a lower NMOC emissions threshold could 

accelerate the schedule for installing GCCS at existing 

landfills and also increase the number of existing landfills 

required to install controls, thereby achieving additional 

reductions of NMOC emissions. 

The EPA proposed on July 17, 2014 a lower NMOC emission 

threshold in the NSPS (40 Mg/yr) and discussed this alternative 

in the ANPRM (79 FR 41772) and several nongovernmental 

organizations (NGOs) and a local government entity commented in 

support of a reduction in the NMOC emission threshold. One state 

agency also provided examples of existing landfills controlling 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 108 of 321 

emissions in its state with estimated NMOC emission rates as low 

as 8.1 Mg/yr. 

Two commenters expressed concern about whether landfills 

planning to install controls based on the current threshold of 

50 Mg/yr would be financially ready to install controls at an 

earlier time. Other commenters expressed concern about whether 

landfills that have closed and decommissioned their GCCS should 

be pulled back into control requirements if their emissions fall 

between the current 50 Mg/yr threshold and a more stringent NMOC 

emission threshold. These commenters recommended that EPA exempt 

these landfills from more stringent control requirements. One of 

the commenters added that it would be costly to re-install or 

refurbish a previously shutdown system and noted that the system 

would likely operate for only a few more years before it once 

again fell below the more stringent NMOC emission threshold. 

Other commenters expressed concerns that lowering the NMOC 

threshold would jeopardize carbon credit revenues expected from 

landfills emitting between 40 and 50 Mg/yr NMOC that were 

planning on voluntarily installing a GCCS. A state agency also 

expressed concern about the additional burden to delegated 

authorities of managing a larger group of landfills. Another 

state agency expressed concerns that landfills in arid areas 

will have difficulty continuously operating a flare at landfills 

with lower quality gas that emit between 40 and 50 Mg/yr. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 109 of 321 

Another commenter indicated that older and closed landfills will 

struggle to maintain continuous operation of their flare at a 

lower NMOC emission threshold and will need to operate the flare 

with a supplemental fossil fuel. 

Because of concerns with GCCS operations at landfills that 

have closed, the EPA evaluated whether the lower NMOC thresholds 

of 34 and 40 Mg/yr should apply to this subset of landfills, as 

discussed in section VIII.A of this preamble and presented in 

Table 3 of this preamble. Because of concerns about areas with 

low gas quality, the EPA is proposing changes to address closed 

or low-gas-quality areas, including changes to the criteria for 

capping or removing a GCCS, and providing for the use of sitespecific surface emissions monitoring measurements to indicate 

area-specific LFG emissions, as discussed in section VIII.B of 

this preamble. 

As shown in Table 3 of this preamble, the incremental cost 

to control NMOC at open landfills at a threshold of 34 Mg/yr 

NMOC is $17,000/Mg NMOC and $4.3/mtCO2e, compared with 

$19,300/Mg NMOC and $4.9/mtCO2e to control at both open and 

closed landfills. As discussed in section V.H of this preamble, 

an NMOC threshold of 34 Mg/yr at open landfills would achieve 

reductions of 2,770 Mg/year NMOC, and 436,100 Mg/year methane 

(10.9 million mtCO2e) compared to the baseline in year 2025. 

Commented [A8]: OMB Typographical Comment 3: 

Reviewer recommends clarifying on page 108 EG 

that the proposed rule would “reduce” methane. 

As written, it says “achieve” methane. Could 

also say “achieve methane reductions of...” 

Response: Text has been edited. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 110 of 321 

Based on these considerations, the EPA is proposing to reduce 

the NMOC emission threshold from 50 Mg/yr to 34 Mg/yr at open 

landfills. The EPA is proposing a separate subcategory for 

landfills that closed on or before [insert date of publication 

in the Federal Register], as discussed in section VIII.A of this 

preamble.

3. What are the implementation concerns with shortening the 

initial or expansion lag times? 

In its revised regulatory options analysis for this 

proposal, the EPA did not model the impacts from any regulatory 

options that reduced the initial or expansion lag times. To a 

great extent, this decision was based on our consideration of 

the numerous implementation and cost concerns raised by SERs and 

Federalism consultation participants as discussed at 79 FR 

4180758, as well as in comments received on the 2014 MSW 

landfills NSPS proposal and ANPRM for Emission Guidelines (79 FR 

41772). Those concerns are summarized below. The initial lag 

time is the time period between when the landfill exceeds the 

emission rate threshold and when controls are required to be 

installed and started up and the expansion lag time is the 

 

58 See also the docketed report “Summary of Small Entity Outreach. 2014.”(Docket 

Item: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0051) [and the Final Report of the Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel on EPA’s Planned Proposed Rule Emission Guidelines and 

Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, June 2015]. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 111 of 321 

amount of time allotted for the landfill to expand the GCCS into 

new areas of the landfill. 

One state agency commented that shortening the current 

initial lag time would not allow sufficient time to develop and 

approve the GCCS design plan, obtain the necessary permit, and 

construct the GCCS. The commenter added that one unintended 

consequence of shortening the initial lag time could be the 

inhibition of the beneficial reuse of landfill gas, since a 

shorter lag time may not allow time to design and approve a more 

complex landfill gas energy recovery system. Commenters 

representing affected landfills also expressed concerns that 

current administrative and construction lead times would make 

shorter lag times difficult. 

Several landfill owners/operators and a state authority 

agreed with costs and operational and safety concerns described 

at 79 FR 41807 associated with increasing the number of wells in 

active areas as a result of shorter initial or expansion lag 

times. One commenter provided detailed information on costs to 

install and repair wells in active areas, which the commenter 

estimated to be between two and three times more expensive than 

wells installed in areas at final grade. This commenter added 

that 43 percent of the wells installed during 2014 were 

replacement wells that had to be installed as a result of damage 

to existing wells resulting from ongoing activities in active 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 112 of 321 

areas and noted that shortened lag times would only increase the 

number of replacement wells required. In addition to the damage 

to wells from filling operations, one commenter added that 

vertical wells in active areas require additional lateral 

collection pipes to be installed on rather flat slopes that are 

susceptible to condensate blockage and must also be replaced 

more frequently. Similarly, two commenters were concerned 

whether horizontal collectors could universally meet the need 

for shorter lag times in light of the susceptibility of flooding 

of the horizontal designs and the inability to dewater these 

wells with pumps. 

Several commenters recognized the benefit of earlier GCCS 

installation, but these commenters also discussed aerobic 

conditions in active areas and other factors affecting gas 

quality that in turn create exceedances of wellhead monitoring 

requirements for pressure, temperature, and oxygen/nitrogen. 

They noted that few states have accommodated flexible monitoring 

alternatives for early collection systems. One state authority 

believed that site-specific factors other than the regulatorydriven lag times, such as safety or odor control, are already 

achieving earlier installation of GCCS. Three other commenters 

urged EPA to include early collection requirements in the 

proposed Emission Guidelines. One of these commenters indicated 

that the requirement to promote early collection could be 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 113 of 321 

flexible instead of a rigid adjustment to the lag times. For the 

reasons presented in this section as well as those detailed at 

79 FR 41807, the EPA is not proposing to shorten the initial or 

expansion lag times in the revised Emission Guidelines. However, 

the EPA is requesting comment on whether the regulation should 

require that the GCCS design plan contain a description of early 

gas collection measures or best management practices, in order 

for the reviewing professional engineer or the Administrator to 

ensure that emissions are minimized. The EPA is also taking 

comment on whether the monitoring in the rule should be 

strengthened to require GCCS to be expanded in a site-specific 

manner as long as surface emission monitoring limits in all 

areas of the landfill were maintained at all times, similar to 

the approach taken in the California Landfill Methane Rule 

(LMR).

E. How did we select the proposed options? 

When determining which control options would represent 

BSER, the EPA considered several factors: the implementation 

considerations identified earlier in this section of this 

preamble; and the incremental emission reductions, cost, and cobenefits that would be achieved beyond the baseline. 

The EPA compared the annualized net cost and emission 

impacts in 2025 of three different regulatory options to the 

annualized net costs and emission impacts in 2025 of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 114 of 321 

baseline. The EPA analyzed numerous iterations of alternate 

control and reporting thresholds and presented potential control 

options to SERs and Federalism consultation participants, as 

described in section V.D of this preamble. After considering 

feedback from the SERs and Federalism consultation participants, 

as well as comments received on the July 2014 NSPS proposal and 

ANPRM (79 FR 41772), the EPA selected for consideration three 

regulatory alternatives as presented in Table 3 of this 

preamble. Table 3 summarizes the incremental impacts of each 

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

the NMOC and methane emission reductions and corresponding 

annualized net costs, when using a 7 percent discount rate, in 

2025. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 115 of 321 

Table 3. Emission Reductions and Costs for Control Options in 

Year 2025 at Existing Landfills (2012$) 

Option

Lan

dfi

lls 

aff

ect

ed 

by 

pro

pos

ed 

opt

ion

a

No. 

of 

lan

dfi

lls 

aff

ect

edb 

No. 

of 

landf

ills 

contr

ollin

g 

No. 

of 

land

fill

s 

repo

rtin

g 

but 

not 

cont

roll

ing 

Ann

ual 

Net 

Cos

t 

(mi

lli

on 

$20

12) 

Annu

al 

NMOC 

Redu

ctio

ns 

(Mg/

yr) 

Annual 

Methan

e 

Reduct

ions 

(milli

on 

Mg/yr) 

Annu

al 

CO2e 

Redu

ctio

ns 

(mil

lion 

mt/y

r)c 

NMOC 

cost 

effect

ivenes

s 

($/Mg) 

Metha

ne 

cost 

effec

tiven

ess 

($/Mg

) 

CO2e 

cost 

effect

ivenes

s 

($/mt)

c 

Baseline 

Baseli

ne 

(2.5 

millio

n Mg 

design 

capaci

ty/50 

Mg/yr 

NMOC) 

All 989 574 211 299 57,3

00 9.0 226 5,100 32.3 1.3 

Incremental values vs. the Baseline 

Option 

(2.5 

millio

n Mg 

design 

capaci

ty/40 

Mg/yr 

NMOC) 

Ope

n 

0 62 -62 27.

0 

1,72

0 0.27 6.8 15,800 100 4.0 

All 0 84 120 48.

1 

2,50

0 0.39 9.9 19,200 122 4.9 

Option 

(2.5 

millio

n Mg 

design 

capaci

ty/34 

Mg/yr 

NMOC) 

Ope

n 

0 106 -106 46.

8 

2,77

0 0.44 10.9 17,000 108 4.3 

All 0 142 62 77.

6 

4,03

0 0.64 15.9 19,300 122 4.9 

Option 

(2.0 

millio

n Mg 

design 

capaci

ty/34 

Mg/yr 

NMOC) 

Ope

n 

101 122 -75 51.

0 

3,04

0 0.48 12.0 16,800 107 4.3 

All 101 162 143 83.

5 

4,36

0 0.69 17.2 19,200 122 4.9 

a Options in this table show the impacts of reducing the design capacity 

and/or NMOC emission threshold below baseline levels on open landfills only, 

and retaining the NMOC threshold of 50 Mg/yr for the closed landfill 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 116 of 321 

subcategory as well as reducing the design capacity and/or NMOC emission 

thresholds for all landfills (open and closed). 

b Landfills are affected by the landfills Emission Guidelines based on design 

capacity. Once affected, they calculate and report emissions until they 

exceed the NMOC threshold, which triggers control requirements. 

c Results do not include secondary CO2 impacts. 

Regulatory options. The EPA considered three regulatory 

options more stringent than the baseline, as presented in Table 

3 of this preamble. The first option reduces the NMOC emission 

threshold to 40 Mg/yr. The second option further reduces the 

NMOC threshold to 34 Mg/yr. The third option reduces both the 

NMOC emission threshold to 34 Mg/yr and the design capacity 

threshold to 2.0 million Mg and 2.0 million m3. We analyzed the 

impacts of applying each of these three more stringent 

thresholds to only open landfills as well as all (open and 

closed) landfills. 

Based on the characteristics of the landfills, between 

approximately 60 and 160 additional landfills would be required 

to install controls in 2025. In addition to increasing the total 

number of landfills that would control their emissions, the 

schedule for installing controls would be accelerated for many 

landfills in years prior to 2025 because the landfill would 

exceed the lower thresholds of 34 or 40 Mg/yr NMOC earlier than 

the baseline, and in turn begin collecting and destroying 

landfill gas emissions earlier. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 117 of 321 

Emission reductions. If the EPA were to reduce the NMOC 

emission threshold to 34 Mg/yr at open landfills while retaining 

the 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3 design capacity threshold 

(option 2.5/34) as proposed in this rule, the corresponding 

emission reductions in 2025 would be 2,770 Mg/year NMOC and 

436,100 Mg/year methane (10.9 million mtCO2e) compared to the 

baseline, which represents a 4.8 percent reduction in emissions 

beyond the baseline. If EPA were to apply this threshold to all 

landfills (open and closed), the corresponding emission 

reductions in 2025 would be 4,030 Mg/year NMOC and 635,100 

Mg/year methane (15.9 million mtCO2e) compared to the baseline. 

Additional reductions could be achieved if the EPA combined the 

NMOC emission threshold of 34 Mg/yr with a lower design capacity 

threshold of 2.0 million Mg and 2.0 million m3 (option 2.0/34). 

The corresponding emission reductions for open landfills in 2025 

would be 3,040 Mg/yr NMOC and 479,100 Mg/yr methane (12 million 

mtCO2e) compared to the baseline for open landfills, 

representing a 5.3 percent reduction in emissions beyond the 

baseline. If the EPA were to apply this lower threshold for both 

design capacity and NMOC to all landfills (open and closed), the 

corresponding emission reductions in 2025 would be 4,360 Mg/year 

NMOC and 687,100 Mg/year methane (17.2 million mtCO2e) when 

compared to the baseline. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 118 of 321 

If the EPA were to reduce the NMOC threshold to 40 Mg/yr at 

open landfills while retaining a 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million 

m3 design capacity threshold (option 2.5/40), the emission 

reductions in 2025 would be 1,720 Mg/year NMOC and 270,700 

Mg/year methane (6.8 million mtCO2e) compared to the baseline. 

An emission threshold of 40 Mg/yr NMOC with a 2.5 million Mg and 

2.5 million m3 design capacity threshold represents 

approximately a 3 percent reduction in emissions beyond the 

baseline. If the EPA were to apply the 40 Mg/yr NMOC threshold 

to all landfills (open and closed), the corresponding emission 

reductions in 2025 would be 2,500 Mg/year NMOC, 270,000 Mg/year 

methane (6.8 million mtCO2e) compared to the baseline. 

The wide range in the magnitude of emission reductions 

among pollutants is due to the composition of landfill gas: NMOC 

represents less than 1 percent of landfill gas, while methane 

represents approximately 50 percent. CO2e is an expression of 

methane in terms of the CO2 equivalents, given the methane GWP 

of 2559. 

Cost. In terms of control costs in 2025, option 2.5/34 

represents an approximately 16 percent increase in control costs 

 

59 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. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 119 of 321 

compared to the baseline if the threshold were reduced for open 

landfills only, and a 26 percent increase in control costs 

compared to the baseline if the threshold were reduced for all 

landfills (open and closed). If the EPA adopted a lower NMOC 

threshold of 34 Mg/yr NMOC along with a reduction in design 

capacity to 2.0 million Mg and 2.5 million m3, the net cost 

would increase by 17 percent above the baseline if applying more 

stringent controls only at for open landfills, and 28 percent 

for more stringent control of all landfills (open and closed). 

If the EPA adopted an NMOC threshold of 40 Mg/yr NMOC but 

retained a design capacity of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3, 

the net cost would be 9 percent above the baseline for open 

landfills and a 16 percent increase for all landfills. 

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

cost for NMOC reductions under the baseline is $5,100 per Mg 

NMOC and $32.3 per Mg methane as presented in Table 3 of this 

preamble. Under option 2.5/34, the cost effectiveness is $17,000 

for controlling open landfills and $19,300 for all landfills. If 

the EPA adopted a lower NMOC threshold of 34 Mg/yr NMOC along 

with a reduction in design capacity to 2.0 million Mg and 2.0 

million m3 (option 2.0/34), the cost effectiveness is $16,800 

for open landfills and $19,200 for all landfills, although the 

EPA recognizes that this lower cost effectiveness does not 

Commented [A9]: OMB Technical Comment 6: 

Reviewer recommends clarifying the cost 

language on pages 117 and 118 EG. As written, 

it sounds like a fraction of the costs will be 

borne by “open landfills” and a larger cost 

for all landfills. Does this mean that 

“closed” landfills will bear a greater 

proportion of the costs? Why? 

Response: See edits here. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 120 of 321 

incorporate costs related to additional permitting needs for 

sources between 2.0 and 2.5 million Mg and m3. Under option 

2.5/40, the incremental dollar-per-Mg control cost for NMOC 

reductions is approximately $15,800 per Mg NMOC for open 

landfills and $19,200 for all landfills. The EPA welcomes 

additional data and comment on the issue of costs. 

Proposed Option 2.5/34. Based on the emission reduction and 

cost discussions above and consistent with the President’s 

Methane Strategy and the potential to achieve a near-term 

beneficial impact in mitigating global climate change as 

discussed in section III of this preamble, the EPA is proposing 

to reduce the NMOC threshold to 34 Mg/yr at open landfills but 

retain the current design capacity threshold of 2.5 million Mg 

and 2.5 million m3. Lowering the NMOC threshold would result in 

earlier GCCS installations at landfills already subject to the 

rule based on their design capacity, thereby achieving 

additional reductions of NMOC and methane. This lowered 

threshold achieves reductions without adjusting the initial and 

expansion lag times and incurring the associated costs and 

implementation concerns. 

Reducing the NMOC threshold from the baseline-level of 50 

Mg/yr to 34 Mg/yr at open landfills would affect 106 more 

landfills in 2025 and would achieve an estimated 4.8 percent 

additional reduction in emissions of NMOC and methane compared 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 121 of 321 

to the baseline. These additional reductions can be achieved at 

very similar cost effectiveness to an NMOC threshold of 40 

Mg/yr, but a level of 34 Mg/yr would achieve almost 60 percent 

more reductions than a level of 40 Mg/yr. In addition, the 

proposal is expected to result in the net reduction of 238,000 

Mg CO2, due to reduced demand for electricity from the grid as 

landfills generate electricity from landfill gas. Reducing the 

NMOC threshold to 34 Mg/yr results in an incremental reduction 

of methane that is equivalent to approximately 10.9 million 

mtCO2e per year, which compares to 19 to 33 million mtCO2e 

reductions from the April 16, 2012 regulations for the oil and 

gas industry (77 FR 49490). In addition, as discussed in section 

XI.G of this preamble, a level of 34 Mg/yr NMOC also results in 

climate-related benefits associated with methane reductions. The 

2025 methane benefits vary by discount rate and range from about 

$310 million to approximately $1.7 billion; the mean SC-CH4 at 

the 3-percent discount rate results in an estimate of about $660 

million in 2025. 

Further, this proposal would tighten the control device 

removal criteria, requiring that the controls would have to stay 

on until three successive tests for NMOC emissions were below 

the NMOC emission threshold of 34 Mg/yr instead of 50 Mg/yr, 

unless the landfill can demonstrate that its surface emissions 

Commented [A10]: OMB General Comment 15: 

Reviewer recommends clarifying why EPA is 

proposing to choose option 2.5/34, which based 

on the cost comparison tables seems to have 

the highest cost per Mg NMOC and methane of 

the options considered. 

Response: Additional text has been added. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 122 of 321 

are low, as discussed in section VIII.B of this preamble. 

Depending on the waste-in-place of the landfill at closure and 

other site-specific factors (e.g., waste composition, climate), 

it may take 15 to 45 years after closure for a large modern 

landfill to emit less than the NMOC emission threshold, and in 

turn qualify for capping or removing the GCCS. Although the 

emission reductions associated with these later years in the 

landfills’ lifetimes are not incorporated in the environmental 

and economic impacts of the baseline and options under 

consideration in year 2025, the lower threshold associated with 

this proposal would require controls to be installed for a 

longer period than the baseline. 

Reducing the NMOC threshold also recognizes the opportunity 

to build upon progress to date and achieve even more reductions 

of landfill gas and its components, consistent with the 

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

preamble. Landfill gas generated from established waste (waste 

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. Because the components of 

landfill gas are associated with substantial health, welfare, 

and climate effects, additional reductions of landfill gas would 

improve air quality and reduce health and welfare effects 

associated with exposure to landfill gas emissions. Note that in 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 123 of 321 

2013, landfills continued to be the third largest source of 

human-related methane emissions in the U.S., representing 15.3 

percent of total methane emissions.60 Methane emissions represent 

9.5 percent of all GHG emissions (in CO2e) in the U.S.61 

The EPA is not proposing to reduce the design capacity in 

conjunction with a reduction in the NMOC emission threshold. As 

discussed in section VI.E of this preamble, this option achieves 

only modest additional reductions (less than one percent more 

than the proposed option 2.5/34), but has a disproportionate 

impact on small entity- and municipally-owned sites, and closed 

landfills that are on the downward trend of generating landfill 

gas. Reducing the design capacity would also pose substantial 

burden on delegated authorities because these small entity- and 

municipally- owned landfills are not affected by the currently 

promulgated NSPS or Emission Guidelines. 

Alternative Option 2.5/40. The EPA recognizes that the 

ownership, operating status, and other technical characteristics 

of individual landfills can affect the site-specific cost 

effectiveness of achieving additional reductions of NMOC and 

methane and ability to sustain the operation of GCCS that may 

not be readily apparent when selecting a control option based on 

 

60 U.S. EPA. 2013. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 

1990–2013. Executive Summary, ES-8.” Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html. 

61 Ibid. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 124 of 321 

the national aggregate values shown in Table 3 of this preamble. 

The EPA is soliciting comment on whether an NMOC threshold 

higher than 34 Mg/yr may be appropriate for all, or a subset of 

the existing landfills affected by this proposal, in addition to 

retaining the current threshold of 50 Mg/yr for the closed 

landfill subcategory, as proposed and discussed in section 

VIII.A of this preamble. 

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Changes to Monitoring, 

Recordkeeping, and Reporting 

A. Surface Emissions Monitoring Requirements 

The intent of the surface monitoring provision in the 

existing Emission Guidelines is to maintain a tight cover that 

minimizes the migration of emissions through the landfill 

surface. Quarterly surface emissions monitoring indicates 

whether the cover and gas collection system are working 

properly. In addition to the proposed surface emission 

provisions discussed here, the EPA is also seeking comment on 

additional enhancements to surface emissions monitoring in 

section X.B of this preamble. 

Every Cover Penetration. The EPA proposes that all surface 

penetrations must be monitored for existing landfills. Proposed 

40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf specifies that the landfill must 

“operate the collection system so that the methane concentration 

is less than 500 parts per million above background at the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 125 of 321 

surface of the landfill. To determine if this level is exceeded, 

the owner or operator must conduct surface monitoring around the 

perimeter of the collection area along a pattern that traverses 

the landfill at 30 meter intervals and where visual observations 

indicate elevated concentrations of landfill gas, such as 

distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover and all 

cover penetrations.” 

Commenters both supported and opposed monitoring every 

cover penetration. Several commenters, including two state/local 

agencies and one environmental organization supported monitoring 

every cover penetration. The state agency noted that seals 

around penetrations can be compromised as a result of 

settlement, separation from the barrier layers or boot 

materials, and cracking of cover soils tied into penetrations, 

thus, leading to detections of landfill gas during surface 

monitoring as reported by field staff. Several commenters 

opposed the requirement to monitor every cover penetration, 

citing significant additional cost with no or limited 

environmental benefit. In proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, 

we are reiterating the position in the current regulation that 

landfills must monitor all cover penetrations and openings 

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

a gas collection system is required. Specifically, landfill 

owners/operators must conduct surface monitoring at 30-meter 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 126 of 321 

intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated 

concentrations of landfill gas. The EPA maintains that cover 

penetrations can be observed visually and are clearly a place 

where gas would be escaping from the cover, so monitoring of 

them is required by the regulatory language. The regulatory 

language gives distressed vegetation and cracks as an example of 

a visual indication that gas may be escaping, but this example 

does not limit the places that should be monitored by landfill 

staff or by enforcement agency inspectors. Thus, consistent with 

the EPA’s historical intent and interpretation, the landfill 

owner or operator must monitor any openings that are within an 

area of the landfill where waste has been placed and a gas 

collection system is required. 

More Precise Location Data. The EPA is proposing more 

specific requirements for reporting the locations where measured 

methane surface emissions are 500 parts per million above 

background. Since the Emission Guidelines were originally 

promulgated in 1996, EPA is aware of new, relatively inexpensive 

monitoring technologies that incorporate GPS technologies to 

more precisely identify the location of exceedances. The EPA is 

aware of several landfills that have been using GPS to more 

accurately track the location of measurements and store these 

data in databases. The EPA is proposing to require landfills to 

report the latitude and longitude coordinates of each exceedance 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 127 of 321 

using an instrument with an accuracy of at least 3 meters. 

Coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at least five 

decimal places. This level of accuracy and precision is 

consistent with the requirements proposed in Petroleum Refinery 

Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance 

Standards (79 FR 36880). This precision will also provide more 

transparency to inspectors reviewing site records on the 

location of surface emission leaks, and confirming areas of the 

landfill where surface monitoring activities were skipped, which 

may assist with targeting inspections to problem areas of the 

landfill. In addition, this precision will allow the landfill to 

overlay the coordinates of surface exceedances against maps of 

the GCCS to determine spatial and temporal patterns of 

exceedances relative to GCCS components. This specificity for 

location data is also being required for landfills using the 

Tier 4 site-specific measurement approach, as discussed in 

section VII.A of this preamble. 

B. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements 

The operational standards of the current Emission 

Guidelines are to operate each interior wellhead in the 

collection system with a negative pressure (vacuum), a landfill 

gas temperature less than 55 °C and with either a nitrogen level 

less than 20 percent or an oxygen level less than 5 percent. 

Since 1996, when the rules were originally promulgated, the EPA 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 128 of 321 

has heard concerns from both regulated entities and implementing 

authorities regarding the implementation of the operational 

standards for temperature and oxygen/nitrogen at wellheads. The 

EPA received feedback during 2013 and 2014 from SERs and 

Federalism consultation participants expressing concern that the 

wellhead standards were overly prescriptive. In the July 17, 

2014 proposed NSPS (79 FR 41821) and the ANPRM for the Emission 

Guidelines (79 FR 41788), the EPA discussed whether these 

parameters should be adjusted in order to provide monitoring 

flexibility for landfills while also ensuring that the GCCS were 

well operated. The EPA also requested comment on what types of 

landfills may be eligible for adjustments to these wellhead 

standards; for example, the EPA asked whether only small 

entities, or landfills with energy recovery projects should 

benefit from this flexible monitoring. 

In response to the July 2014 proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796) 

and ANPRM (79 FR 41772), many commenters questioned the need for 

the current wellhead operating standards for monitoring 

pressure, temperature, and oxygen or nitrogen to assess whether 

the GCCS was operating effectively. 

Fire. Industry commenters recognized that the wellhead 

operational standards were intended to ensure the landfill gas 

collection system is operating properly and to avoid propagation 

of a subsurface fire or inhibit anaerobic decomposition, but 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 129 of 321 

they asserted that the standards achieve neither of the latter 

objectives. 

Commenters asserted that the wellhead monitoring parameters 

are poor indicators of landfill fires or inhibited decomposition 

and impede proper operation of the collection system without 

providing any of the expected benefits. They also explained that 

landfill operators typically respond to high temperature and 

oxygen/nitrogen readings by reducing flow from the well or 

expanding the gas collection system. They explained that both 

approaches can have unintended and harmful consequences, 

including exacerbating a fire, and reducing the collection 

efficiency of the GCCS. In addition, they asserted that 

expanding a GCCS in an area with poor gas quality or quantity 

does not assist with achieving additional reductions. Commenters 

emphasized the difficulty of meeting the wellhead standards in 

areas of the landfill with declining gas flowrates or gas 

quality, which is more common in older or closed areas of the 

landfill. Several commenters stated that landfill owners already 

have inherent incentives to minimize fire risks in order to 

protect significant investments in GCCS and energy recovery 

infrastructure. 

Flooding. Commenters both agreed and disagreed that surface 

emission monitoring and monthly monitoring of pressure at the 

wellhead are sufficient to determine if the well is inoperable 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 130 of 321 

or functioning below expected capacity as a result of flooding. 

Commenters suggested that landfill gas flowrate measurement is 

an established technology to assess well performance and can be 

measured without removing the wellhead (unlike measurement of 

liquid levels) and added that flow rate measurement is required 

for landfills affected by the Wisconsin landfills regulations. 

The EPA recognizes that this parameter can be measured using the 

same equipment used to monitor other wellhead parameters and it 

is taking comment on whether to monitor this parameter in 

section X of this preamble. 

Wellhead Monitoring and BMPs. In response to the July 17, 

2014 ANPRM (79 FR 41772) and NSPS proposal, the EPA received 

input indicating that the currently required wellhead operating 

parameters (particularly oxygen/nitrogen and temperature), are 

barriers to, rather than a part of, a “well operated” GCCS and 

prevent proactive LFG collection practices such as connecting 

the GCCS to the leachate collection system and installing 

horizontal or other early gas collectors. Specifically, the EPA 

received information explaining that leachate systems are not 

designed to be air tight and are not constructed in refuse. The 

information also indicated that when leachate collection systems 

contain liquids, the piping that conveys the leachate may be 

unable to collect enough gas until the liquid is removed and 

that as a result, when a vacuum is applied, ambient air can be 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 131 of 321 

pulled in as well, leading to elevated oxygen concentrations. 

Accordingly, an alternative operating procedure would be needed 

to accommodate these higher oxygen levels. The information 

received indicates that regulatory agencies have been reluctant 

to grant these alternatives. 

It was also pointed out that gas quality and quantity can 

vary widely from different systems and at different times within 

the same system, which is why horizontal collectors and leachate 

system components are not designed to meet the 40 CR part 60, 

subpart Cc and WWW operating parameters for pressure, 

temperature, and nitrogen/oxygen concentration. Information from 

a state agency indicated that some intake of ambient air is 

likely with leachate collectors and suggested that operators 

should have flexibility to decide the balance between gas flow 

and oxygen intake and on whether to cease extracting landfill 

gas or use another method. The information provided further 

indicated that the time delay associated with modifying a GCCS 

design plan or getting approval for higher operating values 

(HOVs) is problematic when applied to collector pipes used for 

seep and odor control, since operators must make these changes 

more quickly for safety reasons. 

The EPA also received input explaining the benefits of 

early gas collection, such as fewer emissions and reduced odors. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 132 of 321 

Corrective Action Concerns. Under the current rules, 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, subparts WWW and Cc 

for correcting the exceedance. If the exceedance cannot be 

corrected within the specified timeframe, the landfill 

owner/operator should prepare to expand the GCCS. As commenters 

note above, exceedances involving elevated temperature and 

oxygen/nitrogen concentration are often not solved by expanding 

the GCCS, especially in older areas. Several industry 

commenters, as well as a state regulatory agency, noted that 

wellhead corrective action often requires very site-specific and 

technical solutions other than expanding a GCCS and it is not 

reasonable to develop these actions and have them approved 

within the narrow timeframes allowed in the current rules. A 

trade association noted that most landfills have occasional 

exceedances of wellhead standards and that requests for HOVs are 

among the top five paperwork items submitted for landfill GCCS 

operations. Given the numerous landfills subject to control 

requirements as well as the fact that many landfills could have 

more than 100 wells installed, the trade association also noted 

that the prescriptive review and approval processes for HOV of 

wellhead operating standards present a significant burden for 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 133 of 321 

both the landfill and the delegated authority without an 

environmental benefit. 

Commenters representing industry, state government, the SBA 

Office of Advocacy, and a trade organization called on the EPA 

to remove temperature and oxygen/nitrogen wellhead operating 

parameters from Emission Guidelines for all landfills. These 

commenters were all in agreement that negative pressure and 

surface monitoring can assure proper GCCS operation. One 

commenter noted that landfills with energy recovery projects 

will continue to monitor wellhead parameters to ensure proper 

equipment operation and maximize revenue from energy sales, 

without requiring the monitoring and reporting of these 

parameters under the Emission Guidelines. Another commenter 

noted that the regulations should provide some flexibility to 

accommodate declining gas generation that facilities will 

experience as a result of local diversion initiatives.

Two state agencies requested that the wellhead operating 

parameters of temperature and oxygen/nitrogen merely serve as 

guidance to provide flexibility, particularly to small entities. 

One of the commenters provided an example of monitoring 

requirements in its state regulation, which exempts supplemental 

and/or temporary odor and gas control system components (e.g., 

leachate cleanouts, leachate recirculation, early collectors) 

from pressure, temperature, and oxygen/nitrogen limits. In this 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 134 of 321 

case, the state does not impose limits for these parameters, but 

it does require the landfill to monitor those parameters. 

Two commenters requested that temperature and 

oxygen/nitrogen monitoring requirements be continued while 

maintaining current surface methane monitoring methods. A state 

agency noted that wellhead monitoring can identify subsurface 

biological and chemical reactions that can present a safety 

hazard and cannot be detected by surface emission monitoring 

only. An environmental organization explained that wellhead 

monitoring provides indicators of conditions that could lead to 

subsurface fires, release massive volumes of HAP, and cause 

terrible odors and was concerned that removing these 

requirements prevents the landfill and the implementing 

authorities from identifying early indicators of potential 

problems. The commenter explained that landfill owners may have 

difficulty meeting the requirements due to improper site 

management and failure to maintain tight seals, leading to too 

much air intake. One city also advocated for more stringent 

monitoring in order to more proactively identify odors or other 

operational concerns with a GCCS. 

Based on public comments, input from small entities, and 

our own analysis of available information, the EPA is proposing 

to remove the requirement to meet operational standards for 

temperature and nitrogen/oxygen at wellheads and is thus also 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 135 of 321 

proposing to remove the corresponding requirement for corrective 

action for exceedances of these parameters. To ensure a welldesigned and well-operated GCCS that minimizes surface 

emissions, the EPA is proposing to use a combination of GCCS 

design and approval requirements as discussed in section VI.C of 

this preamble, landfill surface emission monitoring requirements 

as discussed in section VI.A of this preamble, and continued 

maintenance of negative pressure at wellheads. Based on the 

feedback provided by commenters and our analysis of available 

information, the EPA believes these adjustments provide more 

flexibility to landfills, can result in additional reductions of 

LFG emissions from other GCCS components, and will reduce the 

burden of corrective action on both the landfill owner/operator 

and the implementing authority. Based on public input, the EPA 

expects that eliminating the operational standards for 

oxygen/nitrogen and temperature will drastically reduce the 

number of requests for HOVs and alternative timelines for making 

corrections while ensuring that the gas collection and control 

system continues to operate properly. The procedures for 

approving HOVs for wellheads not demonstrating compliance with 

the negative pressure standard are discussed in section VI.D of 

this preamble. 

While the EPA is proposing to remove the requirement to 

meet operational standards for temperature and nitrogen/oxygen, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 136 of 321 

the EPA is proposing that landfill owners/operators continue 

monthly monitoring and recordkeeping of the wellhead temperature 

and oxygen/nitrogen values, consistent with operational guidance 

documents and best practices for operating a GCCS in a safe and 

efficient manner.62,63 Based on our evaluation of commenters’ 

concern that the oxygen/nitrogen and temperature operational 

standards can be a limiting factor in promoting earlier and more 

robust collection of LFG, the EPA is proposing to no longer 

require the landfill to take corrective action if the monitoring 

of these parameters demonstrates that a particular value or 

values is/are exceeded. The EPA is proposing that landfill 

owners and operators continue monitoring these parameters 

because, as several industry commenters and regulatory agencies 

stated, the measurement of these parameters can still serve as 

useful guidance for landfill operators and landfill gas energy 

project operators because they assess GCCS performance and thus 

help to periodically adjust or “tune” the GCCS to minimize LFG 

emissions and maintain safe operating conditions at the 

landfill. The equipment used to monitor wellheads commonly 

includes these parameters, so these parameters can be measured 

at the same time the technician monitors wellhead pressure 

without imposing additional burden. The results of this monthly 

 

62 http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/27/engineer/eguides/guide78.pdf 

63 http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy97/23070.pdf 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 137 of 321 

wellhead monitoring will now be kept as records on site because 

the EPA continues to believe these data will be useful for 

implementing authorities when approving modifications to the 

original GCCS design plan, or when conducting inspections of the 

site. 

The requirement to maintain negative pressure at each 

wellhead ensures that gas is being routed to a GCCS that was 

designed and built in accordance with a GCCS design plan that 

has been approved by a professional engineer. The EPA believes 

these wellhead standards, together with the surface emission 

monitoring requirements, are effective and limit the possibility 

of surface emissions of LFG. This approach also allows landfills 

and state regulators the time and flexibility to determine the 

appropriate response for adjusting wellfield operations, as 

needed, without imposing overly prescriptive requirements. This 

approach also provides increased flexibility for landfills to 

install supplemental and temporary gas collection components to 

achieve additional reductions of LFG without the risk of 

exceeding oxygen/nitrogen or temperature operational standards. 

C. Requirements for Updating the Design Plan 

The EPA is proposing criteria for when an affected source 

must update its design plan and submit it to the implementing 

authority for approval. We are proposing that a revised design 

plan must be submitted as follows: (1) Within 90 days of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 138 of 321 

expanding operations to an area not covered by the previously 

approved design plan, and (2) prior to installing or expanding 

the gas collection system in a manner other than as described in 

a previously approved design plan. 

The EPA is proposing site-specific design plan review and 

approval procedures that recognize the unique site-specific 

topography, climate, and other factors affecting the design of 

the GCCS. However, the EPA solicits comment on ways to 

streamline the design plan submission and approval procedures as 

part of its review of the Emission 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. 

D. Submitting Corrective Action Timeline Requests 

We have included provisions in proposed 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf (40 CFR 60.36f(a)(3)) to clarify our intent that 

agency approval of corrective action timelines is required only 

if a landfill does not fix an exceedance in 15 days and is 

unable to or does not plan to expand the gas collection system 

within 120 days. The EPA is clarifying that “expansion” of the 

GCCS means a permanent change that increases the capacity of the 

GCCS, such as increasing the size of header pipes, increasing 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 139 of 321 

the blower sizes and capacity, and increasing the number of 

wells. Excluding system expansion, all other types of corrective 

actions expected to exceed 15 calendar days should be submitted 

to the agency for approval of an alternate timeline. In 

addition, if a landfill owner or operator expects the system 

expansion to exceed the 120-day allowance period, it should 

submit a request and justification for an alternative timeline. 

We have not proposed a specific schedule for submitting these 

requests for alternative corrective action timelines because 

investigating and determining the appropriate corrective action, 

as well as the schedule for implementing the corrective action, 

will be site specific and depend on the reason for the 

exceedance. We clarify that a landfill should submit an 

alternative timeline request as soon as possible (i.e., as soon 

as the owner or operator knows that it would not be able to 

correct the exceedance in 15 days or expand the system in 120 

days) to avoid being in violation of the rule. If the landfill 

were to wait until 120 days after the exceedance to submit an 

alternative timeline, then by the time the regulatory agency has 

the chance to review the timeline and determine if it is 

approvable, the landfill will already be in violation of the 

requirement to expand the system within 120 days. After 

submitting the alternative timeline request, the landfill should 

work with its permitting authority to communicate the reasons 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 140 of 321 

for the exceedances, status of the investigation, and schedule 

for corrective action. 

To address implementation concerns associated with the time 

allowed for corrective action, the EPA requests comment on an 

alternative that extends the requirement for notification from 

15 days to as soon as practicable, but no later than 60 days 

from when an exceedance is identified. 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 associated with the approval of an alternative 

timeline and ensure sufficient time for correction without 

significant environmental detriment. If the EPA were to extend 

the time period to as soon as practicable, but no later than 60 

days, then the EPA is also considering the removal of the 

provision to submit an alternative timeline for correcting the 

exceedance. Thus, by no later than day 60, the landfill would 

have to either have completed the adjustments and repairs 

necessary to correct the exceedance, or be prepared to have the 

system expansion completed by day 120. The EPA is also 

requesting input on whether 60 days is the appropriate amount of 

time to allow owners or operators to make the necessary repairs. 

E. Electronic Reporting 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 141 of 321 

In this proposal, the EPA is describing a process to 

increase the ease and efficiency of performance test data 

submittal while improving data accessibility. Specifically, the 

EPA is proposing that owners and operators of MSW landfills 

submit electronic copies of required performance test and 

performance evaluation reports by direct computer-to-computer 

electronic transfer using the EPA-provided software. The direct 

computer-to-computer electronic transfer is accomplished through 

the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and 

Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The CDX is the EPA’s 

portal for submittal of electronic data. The EPA-provided 

software is called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT), which is 

used to generate electronic reports of performance tests and 

evaluations. The ERT generates an electronic report package that 

will be submitted using the CEDRI. The submitted report package 

will be stored in the CDX archive (the official copy of record) 

and the EPA’s public database called WebFIRE. All stakeholders 

will have access to all reports and data in WebFIRE and 

accessing these reports and data will be very straightforward 

and easy (see the WebFIRE Report Search and Retrieval link at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/index.cfm?action=fire.searchERTSubm

ission). A description and instructions for use of the ERT can 

be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html, and 

CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site at 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 142 of 321 

www.epa.gov/cdx. A description of the WebFIRE database is 

available at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. 

The proposal to submit performance test data electronically 

to the EPA applies only to those performance tests conducted 

using test methods that are supported by the ERT. The ERT 

supports most of the commonly used EPA reference methods. A 

listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the ERT 

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

We believe that industry would benefit from this proposed 

approach to electronic data submittal. Specifically, by using 

this approach, industry will save time in the performance test 

submittal process. Additionally, the standardized format that 

the ERT uses allows sources to create a more complete test 

report resulting in less time spent on data backfilling if a 

source failed to include all data elements required to be 

submitted. Also through this proposal, industry may only need to 

submit a report once to meet the requirements of the applicable 

subpart because stakeholders can readily access these reports 

from the WebFIRE database. This also benefits industry by 

cutting back on recordkeeping costs as the performance test 

reports that are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer 

required to be retained in hard copy, thereby, reducing staff 

time needed to coordinate these records. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 143 of 321 

Since the EPA will already have performance test data in 

hand, another benefit to industry is that fewer or less 

substantial data collection requests in conjunction with 

prospective required residual risk assessments or technology 

reviews will be needed. This would result in a decrease in staff 

time needed to respond to data collection requests. 

State, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies 

will also benefit from having electronic versions of the reports 

they are now receiving because they will be able to conduct a 

more streamlined and accurate review of electronic data 

submitted to them. For example, the ERT would allow for an 

electronic review process, rather than a manual data assessment, 

making review and evaluation of the source provided data and 

calculations easier and more efficient. In addition, the public 

will also benefit from electronic reporting of emissions data 

because the electronic data will be easier for the public to 

access. How the air emissions data are collected, accessed, and 

reviewed will be more transparent for all stakeholders. 

One major advantage of the proposed submittal of 

performance test data through the ERT is a standardized method 

to compile and store much of the documentation required to be 

reported by this rule. The ERT clearly states what testing 

information would be required by the test method and has the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 144 of 321 

ability to house additional data elements that might be required 

by a delegated authority. 

In addition, the EPA must have performance test data to 

conduct effective reviews of Clean Air Act section 111 

standards, as well as for many other purposes, including 

compliance determinations, emission factor development, and 

annual emission rate determinations. In conducting these 

required reviews, the EPA has found it ineffective and time 

consuming, not only for us, but also for regulatory agencies and 

source owners and operators, to locate, collect, and submit 

performance test data. In recent years, stack testing firms have 

typically collected performance test data in electronic format, 

making it possible to move to an electronic data submittal 

system that would increase the ease and efficiency of data 

submittal and improve data accessibility. 

A common complaint heard from industry and regulators is 

that emission factors are outdated or not representative of a 

particular source category. With timely receipt and 

incorporation of data from most performance tests, the EPA would 

be able to ensure that emission factors, when updated, represent 

the most current range of operational practices. Finally, 

another benefit of the proposed data submittal to WebFIRE 

electronically is that these data would greatly improve the 

overall quality of existing and new emissions factors by 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 145 of 321 

supplementing the pool of emissions test data for establishing 

emissions factors 

In summary, in addition to supporting regulation 

development, control strategy development, and other air 

pollution control activities, having an electronic database 

populated with performance test data would save industry, 

state/local/tribal agencies, and the EPA significant time, 

money, and effort while also improving the quality of emission 

inventories, air quality regulations, and enhancing the public’s 

access to this important information. 

VII. Rationale for Proposed Alternative Emission Threshold 

Determination Techniques 

The EPA is proposing an emission threshold determination 

based on site-specific surface emissions monitoring (SEM) that 

provides flexibility for when a landfill must install and 

operate a GCCS. If the owner or operator limits landfill surface 

methane emissions and can demonstrate that those emissions are 

below 500 ppm methane for 4 consecutive quarters, then the 

requirement to install a GCCS is not triggered even though 

estimates using Tiers 1, 2, and/or 3 may show that the 

landfill’s annual NMOC emissions have exceeded the regulatory 

threshold. In addition, the Tier 4 surface emission approach 

could also be used as one of the criteria for determining when a 

GCCS can be removed or partially removed or decommissioned at 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 146 of 321 

closed landfills or closed areas of active landfills, as 

discussed in sections IV.D and VIII.C of this preamble. 

The idea to measure site-specific surface emissions to help 

determine the timing of GCCS installation was presented while 

the EPA was conducting outreach with small entities during its 

review of the landfills regulations in 2014. Small entities 

recommended a new Tier 4 surface emission demonstration to allow 

increased flexibility for landfills that exceed modeled NMOC 

emission rates to demonstrate that site-specific methane 

emissions are actually low prior to being required to install a 

GCCS. In addition, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) 

presented the idea of a surface concentration threshold as one 

of many potential alternatives to increase emission reductions 

from landfills in its January 2013 whitepaper.64 The EPA 

presented and solicited comments on potential Tier 4 procedures 

in both the NSPS proposal for new landfills and the ANPRM for 

existing landfills (79 FR 41772). 

Many commenters, representing both industry and 

environmental interests, supported the Tier 4 SEM approach for 

determining when a GCCS must be installed. These commenters 

stated that the option to conduct site-specific measurements 

 

64 Environmental Defense Fund. Recommendations and Considerations for EPA’s 

Forthcoming Revisions to Section 111 Standards for MSW Landfills. January 2, 

2013. See EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0050. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 147 of 321 

using SEM is a more accurate indication of when gas collection 

is necessary to reduce emissions, compared to modeled emission 

rates. However, one commenter on the NSPS proposed rule opposed 

the inclusion of a Tier 4 option for new landfills, stating that 

it allows a subset of new landfills to delay methane capture 

requirements when these landfills will be required to install a 

GCCS in the future and should have a GCCS designed and installed 

during landfill construction. Other commenters expressed concern 

about state agencies lack of experience and time to determine 

whether Tier 4 monitoring requires a GCCS to be installed and 

requested guidance for Tier 4 implementation procedures. 

Many commenters identified the potential benefits of a Tier 

4 option. Commenters representing both industry and 

environmental interests noted that the SEM option will encourage 

landfill owners and operators to implement methane reduction 

practices, such as the use of oxidative landfill covers, organic 

waste diversion, and interim gas control measures (horizontal 

gas collectors, connecting a leachate collection recovery system 

into a GCCS), noting that such practices can be implemented more 

quickly and more cost-effectively than a GCCS installed in 

accordance with the design plan requirements of the current 

Emission Guidelines. Commenters indicated that a SEM method 

reflects actual site-specific emissions data that account for 

gas generation differentials attributed to climate variations, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 148 of 321 

waste acceptance rates, and cover soil materials that vary 

between landfills in different regions of the U.S. One commenter 

indicated that the use of SEM in determining the need to install 

a GCCS would reduce costs and energy consumption for landfills 

otherwise required to install controls, that would not generate 

a sufficient amount of gas to support a collection system but 

would remain below surface emission thresholds based on sitespecific measurements. Another commenter added that a Tier 4 

approach grants additional flexibility and a potential cost 

savings compared to the Tier 2 method, but cautioned that a 

surface monitoring methodology needs to be developed that is 

functional during windy conditions. 

Commenters also considered how to implement a Tier 4 

approach, including the hierarchy of the new tier relative to 

the existing tiers, procedures for conducting the SEM, the level 

of the appropriate exceedance, and what to do upon an 

exceedance. Several commenters suggested that Tier 4 could be 

employed at any point following a Tier 1 or Tier 2 test where 

the calculated NMOC emission rate is greater than the NMOC 

threshold for installing a GCCS. These same commenters suggested 

that landfill owners and operators have the option to perform 

Tier 4 SEM testing in the same areas and using the same methods 

currently established in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. These 

commenters recommended that if an exceedance occurs during Tier 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 149 of 321 

4 SEM testing, then landfill owners and operators should follow 

the same procedures and timelines for remediation and remonitoring as outlined in subpart WWW. These commenters further 

suggested that if an exceedance cannot be remediated under the 

existing subpart WWW procedures, then the landfill would be 

required to prepare a GCCS design plan within 1 year of the 

initial exceedance and install a GCCS within the monitored area 

within 30 months of the initial exceedance. These commenters 

further suggested that if during the initial monitoring event 

methane surface emissions do not exceed 500 ppm over background, 

then the installation of a GCCS is not required and routine SEM 

should be performed until the landfill or area of the landfill 

is closed. One commenter requested that the EPA propose a 

surface concentration level of 200 ppm and indicated that this 

level provides empirical confirmation that the landfill is ready 

to install a GCCS. 

After considering public comments and input from small 

entity outreach, the EPA is proposing Tier 4 SEM procedures for 

determining when a landfill must install a GCCS. Tier 4 allows 

landfill owners and operators to demonstrate that site-specific 

surface methane emissions are low. Under Tier 4, as proposed in 

this proposed rule, if the site-specific surface methane 

emissions are below 500 ppm for 4 consecutive quarters, then the 

requirement to install and operate a GCCS has not been triggered 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 150 of 321 

even in circumstances where emission estimates using Tiers 1, 2, 

and/or 3 are above the regulatory threshold. However, any 

quarterly surface emissions value over 500 ppm would trigger the 

requirement to install and begin operating a GCCS. If the 

landfill opts to use Tier 4 for its emission threshold 

determination and there is any measured concentration of methane 

of 500 parts per million or greater from the surface of the 

landfill, the owner or operator must install a GCCS, and it 

cannot go back to using Tiers 1, 2 or 3. The landfill owner or 

operator would be required to submit a design plan within 1 year 

of reporting the surface emissions value over 500 ppm to the 

implementing authority in an annual report and would be required 

to install and start up a GCCS within 30 months of reporting the 

surface emissions value over 500 ppm. 

The SEM demonstration would be conducted using the SEM 

procedures described in sections IV.B and VI.A of this preamble. 

SEM would be conducted around the perimeter of the landfill and 

the required traverse every 30 meters for the entire landfill. 

Note that the EPA is requesting comment on enhanced surface 

monitoring, including the 30 meter traverse pattern, in section 

X.B of this preamble. The Tier 4 provisions can be utilized by 

any landfill that has exceeded the design capacity threshold. 

The Tier 4 provisions provide an incentive for a landfill 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 151 of 321 

owner/operator to keep surface emissions low as described later 

in this section. 

Under this proposal, if a landfill exceeds the modeled NMOC 

emission rate under Tier 1, then the landfill may choose to 

estimate the NMOC emission rate by using the Tier 2 or 3 

procedures or measure actual surface emissions using Tier 4. If 

a landfill failed a Tier 4 test, the landfill would trigger the 

requirement to submit a design plan and to install and operate a 

GCCS. However, if a landfill failed a Tier 2 or 3 test, proposed 

40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf allows the landfill to test using a 

“higher” tier, including Tier 4. For example, if a landfill 

exceeds the proposed NMOC emission rate of 34 Mg/yr using Tier 

2, then the landfill may choose to calculate the NMOC emission 

rate using Tier 3, or the landfill may choose to demonstrate 

that site-specific surface methane emissions are below 500 ppm 

using Tier 4. Tier 1 is the most conservative method for 

estimating NMOC emissions and models NMOC emissions based on 

default values for methane generation rate (k), methane 

generation potential (Lo), and NMOC concentration (CNMOC). Tier 1 

takes the least effort and expense to conduct, but tends to 

overestimate NMOC emissions given the conservative default 

parameters. A landfill would likely use Tier 1 for its initial 

estimate of NMOC emissions. Tier 2 models NMOC emissions based 

on the same default values for methane generation rate and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 152 of 321 

methane generation potential, which are in turn based on waste 

composition and climate data, but allows the landfill 

owner/operator to determine a site-specific NMOC concentration. 

Under Tier 2, landfills would incur a more substantial cost to 

determine the site-specific NMOC concentration. Tier 3 also 

models NMOC emissions, but adds another site-specific 

measurement for a methane generation rate using Method 2E. Under 

Tier 3, landfills would incur a substantial cost to determine 

the site-specific methane generation rate. Industry experience 

and public comments indicate that sites do not frequently use 

Tier 3 because of the expense. Commenters stated that the Tier 3 

test is extremely rare because of the high cost and the fact 

that in many geographical areas the “k” factor (methane 

generation rate constant) is not reduced via testing. There are 

a significant number of landfills reporting under the Tier 2 

method, which allows the site to measure a site-specific NMOC 

concentration instead of using the higher default NMOC 

concentrations required under the Tier 1 calculations, however, 

Tier 3 is not widely used. Thus, we are proposing to allow 

landfills to conduct Tier 4 testing after a failed Tier 1, Tier 

2, or Tier 3 test. 

A landfill owner or operator may undertake Tier 4 SEM 

testing upon submitting an annual NMOC emission rate report that 

shows an NMOC emission rate greater than 34 Mg/yr using Tier 1, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 153 of 321 

2, or 3 procedures. If the landfill owner or operator chooses to 

undertake Tier 4 SEM instead of submitting a design plan and 

installing and operating a GCCS or estimating the NMOC emission 

rate using the next higher tier, then the landfill owner or 

operator would begin keeping records of all Tier 4 SEM readings 

and submit a “Tier 4 SEM report” as its next annual report. The 

report would include and identify the number of SEM readings 

above 500 ppm. If the report shows any SEM readings above 500 

ppm methane, then the landfill would be required to submit a 

GCCS design plan within one year and install and begin operating 

a GCCS within 30 months. (The landfill could not take corrective 

action to correct the Tier 4 exceedance and could not estimate 

the annual NMOC emission rate using Tiers 1, 2, or 3.) 

If the Tier 4 SEM report shows no SEM readings above 500 

ppm for 4 consecutive quarters, then the landfill may continue 

Tier 4 monitoring at a reduced semi-annual frequency or return 

to Tier 1, 2, or 3. This approach allows owners and operators 

some flexibility to select the tier that is most applicable to 

their landfill, based on the point each landfill is in its 

lifecycle, and other site-specific factors. Note that a landfill 

can recalculate NMOC using Tiers 1, 2, or 3 only if it has 4 

consecutive quarters with no SEM readings above 500 ppm. 

The EPA selected a 500 ppm threshold for Tier 4 because it 

is consistent with the level the EPA determined to be 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 154 of 321 

appropriate to demonstrate that a GCCS is well-designed and well 

operated. In other words, when conducted properly, SEM is a good 

indicator of how well a GCCS is operating overall. For landfills 

without a GCCS (including those that may be using other LFG 

mitigation strategies), the level of 500 will demonstrate that 

site-specific surface methane emissions are as low as those 

allowed at a landfill with a well-operated and well-designed 

GCCS in place. See the docketed memorandum “Establishing a SiteSpecific Emission Threshold Alternative for MSW Landfills, 

2015.” Therefore the EPA believes this alternative site-specific 

concentration threshold will achieve the goal of minimizing 

methane emissions to the atmosphere. The EPA is aware that the 

surface emission threshold for installing a GCCS under the CA 

LMR is 200 ppm. However, the EPA also notes that CA LMR retains 

the 500 ppm level as an appropriate level for instantaneous SEM 

readings for areas already controlled by a GCCS. California ARB 

initially proposed a 200 ppm SEM threshold for both GCCS 

installation and for GCCS operation in its regulation, but 

finalized 500 ppm for GCCS operation because a lower threshold 

could cause an operator to overdraw the vacuum on the GCCS (to 

avoid a surface exceedance), which in turn could draw in too 

much oxygen and possibly cause fires. The EPA recognizes the 

concerns with setting the threshold too low, which may cause 

operators of voluntary GCCS to overdraw the vacuum on the GCCS, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 155 of 321 

and has proposed a level of 500 ppm. The EPA requests comment on 

whether a level between 200 and 500 ppm is appropriate for the 

Tier 4 provisions, and whether setting the level below a 

specific point in this range poses fire or other safety concerns 

for operating a GCCS. The EPA also requests data that might 

support a different surface emissions threshold. 

The EPA requests comments on whether landfill owners and 

operators should provide notification to EPA when conducting 

Tier 4 surface emissions monitoring. Such notification would be 

similar to the performance test notification required by 40 CFR 

60.8(d), wherein the owner or operator of an affected facility 

provides the Administrator at least 30 days prior notice of any 

performance test to afford the Administrator the opportunity to 

have an observer present. 

As noted earlier in this section, commenters representing 

both industry and environmental interests noted that the Tier 4 

SEM option would encourage landfill owners and operators to 

implement alternative methane reduction practices, such as the 

use of oxidative landfill covers, interim gas control measures, 

and organic waste diversion. The EPA agrees. Such measures can 

directly affect surface emissions and when employed would help a 

landfill ensure that surface emissions are low, enabling a 

landfill to delay the regulatory requirement to install a GCCS 

without a significant negative impact on public health or the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 156 of 321 

environment. Section V.A of this preamble discusses alternative 

methane reduction practices, such as the use of oxidative 

landfill covers, interim gas control measures, and organic waste 

diversion. 

VIII. Proposed Changes to Address Closed or Non-Producing Areas 

The EPA recognizes that many landfills or landfill areas 

are closed or have inactive areas that do not produce as much 

landfill gas. The production of landfill gas naturally declines 

over time as an area stops accepting waste and the amount of 

degradable organic content declines. In the ANPRM for the 

Emission Guidelines (79 FR 41772), the EPA requested input on 

ways to ensure emissions are minimized in the later stages of a 

landfill’s lifecycle (79 FR 41783). Specifically, the EPA sought 

input on whether the current criteria for capping or removing a 

GCCS are appropriate: (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. 

We also sought input on alternative approaches to determining 

when it is appropriate to cap or remove a GCCS, such as 

consecutive quarterly measurements that would demonstrate that 

surface emissions are low. 

A. Subcategory for Closed Landfills 

The EPA notes that many existing landfills in our dataset 

closed at various points since 1987, including landfills that 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 157 of 321 

closed as many as 18 years prior to today’s proposed action. In 

the ANPRM, the EPA presented the distribution of existing 

landfills by closure date (see Table 3, 79 FR 41792). These data 

showed that nearly 80 percent of the existing landfills with a 

design capacity of at least 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3

were active landfills as of 2014. Similarly, 77 percent of the 

cumulative waste disposed in these existing landfills were at 

active landfills. The EPA recognizes that these active landfills 

are the most significant sources of landfill gas emissions at 

existing landfills. 

The EPA evaluated the costs and benefits of controlling 

emissions at a level between 34 Mg/yr and 40 Mg/yr at both open 

and closed landfills. Table 3 of section V.E of this preamble 

presents the number of landfills affected and the corresponding 

emission reductions and costs. The EPA also considered how 

closed landfills would be affected by this proposal. We are 

considering “closed” landfills to be those that closed after 

1987 but on or before the date of this proposal. 

At the baseline NMOC emission threshold of 50 Mg/yr, the 

EPA estimates that 29 of the 233 closed landfills with a design 

capacity of at least 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3 would be 

required to install controls. At an NMOC emission threshold of 

40 Mg/yr, the EPA estimates that an additional 22 landfills 

beyond the baseline would be required to install controls, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 158 of 321 

resulting in controls at approximately 5165 closed landfills in 

2025. The landfill gas controlled at these 51 closed landfills 

represents approximately 6 percent of the total emission 

reductions achieved from all active and closed landfills 

expected to control emissions at a level of 40 Mg/yr NMOC in 

year 2025. At the proposed NMOC emission threshold of 34 Mg/yr, 

the EPA estimates that an additional 36 landfills beyond the 

baseline would be required to install controls, resulting in 

controls at approximately 6566 closed landfills in 2025. The 

landfill gas controlled at these 65 closed landfills represents 

less than 7 percent of the total emission reductions achieved 

from all active and closed landfills expected to control 

emissions at a level of 34 Mg/yr NMOC in year 2025. 

An NMOC emission rate threshold of 34 Mg/yr NMOC at closed 

landfills would achieve an additional 1,260 Mg NMOC and 5 

million mtCO2e as compared to retaining the threshold of 50 

Mg/yr NMOC for these closed sites. These reductions would be 

achieved at an incremental control cost effectiveness of $23,700 

per Mg NMOC and $6 per mtCO2e for closed landfills in 2025 

(excluding additional testing and monitoring costs). 

See the docketed memorandum “Revised Cost and Emission 

Impacts Resulting from the Landfill EG Review (2015)” for 

 

65 22 closed landfills plus 29 closed landfills

66 36 closed landfills plus 29 closed landfills

Commented [A11]: OMB Technical Comment 7: 

Reviewer recommends clarifying that the 

additional 22 and additional 36 landfills 

referred to on page 156 EG are all closed 

landfills. 

Response: Clarifying text has been added as a 

footnote. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 159 of 321 

additional detail on the impacts on closed landfills. In 

addition to these control costs, the EPA estimates that 160 

closed landfills that are not controlling in 2025 would be 

required to estimate and report NMOC emissions under the 

proposed option because they have a design capacity of at least 

2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3. 

After closure, the gas flows at landfills decline and the 

ability to achieve additional reductions also declines. The EPA 

received input from SERs that many closed landfills supplement 

their flare with pilot (fossil) fuels in order to maintain flare 

operation despite declining gas quantities and quality. These 

SERs were concerned that a lower threshold at these closed 

landfills would extend the amount of pilot fuel necessary for 

flame stability. The EPA notes that closed landfills may have 

limited access to additional revenue because they are no longer 

collecting tipping fees and the cost for GCCS and regulatory 

compliance were not factored into their closure plans. Further, 

many SERs expressed concerns that many compliance costs are 

fixed cost items, regardless of the operating status of the 

landfill, such as permitting fees, drill rig mobilization fees, 

and others, as discussed in section V.D.1 of this preamble. Many 

SERs also expressed concerns about staffing limitations at 

closed landfills, who may have limited staff to oversee extended 

GCCS design, operations, maintenance, and compliance. For 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 160 of 321 

landfills that closed after [insert date of publication in the 

Federal Register], the EPA understands that gas quality will 

remain a concern and it has provided an alternative set of GCCS 

removal criteria based on site-specific emissions, as discussed 

in section VIII.B of this preamble. 

Commenters expressed concern about whether landfills that 

have closed and decommissioned their GCCS should be pulled back 

into control requirements if their emissions fall between the 

current 50 Mg/yr threshold and a more stringent NMOC emission 

threshold. These commenters recommended that the EPA exempt 

these landfills from more stringent control requirements. One 

commenter added that it would be costly to re-install or 

refurbish a previously shutdown system and noted that the system 

would likely operate for only a few more years before the 

landfill fell below the more stringent NMOC emission threshold. 

For example, the proposed reduction of the NMOC emission rate 

threshold to 34 Mg/yr NMOC could affect landfills that installed 

a GCCS to comply with the 50 Mg/yr NMOC emissions threshold in 

40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW (or the state plans or federal plan 

implementing 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc), but whose emissions 

are still above the EPA’s proposed 34 Mg/yr NMOC threshold. 

These landfills could have declining gas flows, could be closed, 

or could have met the 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW criteria for 

capping or removing the GCCS. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 161 of 321 

To address concerns about closed landfills, the EPA is 

proposing to create a subcategory of closed landfills, to which 

an NMOC emission rate threshold of 50 Mg/yr would apply, instead 

of an NMOC emission rate of 34 Mg/yr. The subcategory of closed 

landfills is proposed to be defined as a landfill that has 

submitted a closure report as specified in 40 CFR 60.38f(f) on 

or before [insert date the proposed rule is published in the 

Federal Register]. As noted above, the emissions associated with 

the 65 closed landfills represents less than 7 percent of the 

total emission reductions achieved from all active and closed 

landfills expected to control emissions at a level of 34 Mg/yr 

NMOC in year 2025. The EPA believes today’s proposed subcategory 

for closed landfills alleviates concerns with lowering the 

threshold for closed landfills, while focusing the proposed 

changes to the regulatory framework on emission reductions from 

the existing landfills contributing most significantly to 

methane emissions from MSW landfills. 

The EPA is requesting input on whether the proposed 

subcategory for closed landfills is the most appropriate method 

for controlling emissions and addressing concerns with closed 

landfills, or whether the EPA should consider exempting closed 

landfills from the proposed subpart Cf entirely. The EPA is also 

requesting comments on whether additional provisions should be 

considered for closed landfills when establishing the revised 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 162 of 321 

Emission Guidelines, including whether the closed landfill 

subcategory should be expanded to include landfills that closed 

within 13 months after publication of the Emission Guidelines in 

the Federal Register. 

B. Criteria for Capping or Removing a GCCS 

Several commenters requested that the EPA reconsider the 

15-year criteria for capping or removing a GCCS and one 

commenter stated that the 15-year period should be longer, 

rather than shorter. Commenters supported the use of Tier 4 SEM 

procedures to help determine the removal or decommissioning of 

existing GCCS. Commenters supported the use of SEM to allow the 

flexibility to confirm when a closed landfill or closed area of 

a landfill no longer producing gas in significant quantities can 

remove or decommission all or a portion of the GCCS. Several of 

these commenters referenced a rationale similar to the one they 

provided for supporting the use of Tier 4 SEM for determining 

GCCS installation as discussed in section VII.A of this 

preamble. Several commenters requested that the EPA provide a 

“step-down” procedure for scaling down GCCS operations in nonproducing areas and allowing a GCCS to be removed from rule 

applicability. 

The EPA is proposing two sets of criteria for capping and 

removing the GCCS. The first set of criteria is similar to the 

criteria in subpart Cc, but has been adjusted to reflect the new 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 163 of 321 

NMOC emission threshold proposed in this proposal: (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 proposed NMOC emission threshold of 34 Mg/yr for open 

landfills and 50 Mg/yr NMOC for closed landfills. The EPA is 

also proposing an alternative set of criteria for capping or 

removing the GCCS that employs a SEM demonstration: (1) the 

landfill, or an area of an active landfill, is closed, (2) the 

GCCS has operated for at least 15 years or the landfill 

owner/operator can demonstrate that the GCCS will be unable to 

operate for 15 years due to declining gas flows, and (3) the 

owner or operator demonstrates for 4 consecutive quarters that 

there are no surface emissions of 500 ppm or greater from the 

landfill or closed area. The EPA selected a level of 500 ppm to 

be consistent with the operational standard for operating a 

GCCS. The operational standard is the surface emissions level 

that cannot be exceeded once a GCCS has been installed. 

The EPA proposes the use of SEM procedures in section VI.A 

of this preamble for determining when to decommission wells and 

for when the landfill can cap or remove a GCCS. If a landfill 

owner or operator can demonstrate that surface emissions in the 

closed area of an open landfill or a closed landfill are below 

500 ppm for 4 consecutive quarters, then they would be able to 

stop collecting gas from that area or the landfill as a whole. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 164 of 321 

After 4 consecutive quarters of no exceedances, the landfill 

continues to monitor the closed area annually for surface 

emission exceedances of 500 ppm or greater. If exceedances are 

found, the landfill must restart the GCCS in the closed area and 

the GCCS would be required to operate according to proposed 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Cf. 

As discussed in section VII.A of this preamble, surface 

emissions monitoring more closely reflects the site’s actual 

emissions and accounts for differences in gas generation due to 

waste composition and local conditions. As discussed in section 

VII.A of this preamble, sites will have the incentive to employ 

various technologies or practices to minimize surface emissions, 

thus giving the owner or operator flexibility at both the 

installation and removal stages of LFG collection and control. 

With these rule provisions, the EPA can ensure environmental 

protection is demonstrated through low surface emissions and 

landfill owners and operators will have the flexibility to cap 

or remove the GCCS based on site-specific surface emission 

readings. 

C. Non-producing Areas and Wellhead Standards 

Commenters have identified the difficulty of operating a 

GCCS in “non-producing” areas and meeting the wellhead 

operational standards for the GCCS. They have also contended 

that the corrective action—expanding the GCCS, is counter to a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 165 of 321 

“well-operated” GCCS. Several commenters requested that the EPA 

provide flexibility to meet the wellhead and other requirements 

in “non-producing” areas. Commenters generally consider a “nonproducing” area as one with declining LFG generation and gas 

flow, which in turn make it difficult to continuously meet the 

operational standards for a GCCS. One commenter stated that when 

landfill gas production decreases significantly, even small 

amounts of vacuum can draw air into the waste mass causing 

exceedances of the wellhead oxygen parameter. The commenter 

added that the landfill owner or operator may address the oxygen 

exceedance by reducing the vacuum to a very low level, but then 

may not be able to maintain negative pressure. Another commenter 

stated that LFG wells in old waste can be very sensitive to 

vacuum adjustments, easily exceeding the 5 percent oxygen 

standard not due to excessive air infiltration, but rather due 

to low LFG volume. Other commenters noted that the difficulty of 

meeting the wellhead oxygen/nitrogen operational standards could 

be exacerbated if the EPA were to reduce the NMOC emissions 

threshold below 50 Mg/yr. 

As discussed in section VI.B of this preamble, the EPA 

proposes to remove the requirement to meet wellhead operating 

standards for temperature and nitrogen/oxygen. Removing these 

two standards will not only promote earlier and more robust 

collection of LFG as discussed in section VI.B of this preamble, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 166 of 321 

but will also give owners and operators flexibility to operate 

the GCCS in non-producing or closed areas without the risk of 

exceeding the oxygen/nitrogen operating standards. Removing the 

requirement to meet the oxygen/nitrogen operating standards and 

the need for corrective action, including expanding the GCCS, 

will reduce the burden on both the landfill owner/operator and 

the implementing authority. As discussed in section VIII.B of 

this preamble, the EPA is also providing flexibility for 

temporary decommissioning of wells in closed landfills or closed 

areas of active landfills to provide flexibility for meeting 

negative pressure in areas that can demonstrate low surface 

emissions. 

IX. Rationale for the Other Proposed Changes 

A. Landfill Gas Treatment 

The EPA is proposing a definition of treated landfill gas 

and treatment system. A Treatment system would be defined as a 

system that filters, de-waters, and compresses landfill gas to 

levels determined by the landfill owner or operator based on the 

beneficial end use of the gas. The EPA is proposing this 

definition to provide compliance flexibility and to promote the 

beneficial use of LFG. The approach works in conjunction with 

the EPA’s proposed expansion of the use of treated landfill gas 

beyond use as a fuel for a stationary combustion device to 

include other beneficial uses such as vehicle fuel, production 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 167 of 321 

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

material in a chemical manufacturing process. This definition 

would be available for all MSW landfill owners/operators. 

The approach is consistent with public comments received on 

previous landfills documents (67 FR 36475, May 23, 2002; 71 FR 

53271, September 8, 2006; 79 FR 41796, July 17, 2014; 79 FR 

41772, July 17, 2014), as well as input from participants in 

small entity outreach, who stated that the extent of filtration, 

de-watering, and compression can be site- and equipmentdependent, 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. 

Commenters on the proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796) and ANPRM (79 

FR 41772) supported the expanded use of treated LFG. Commenters 

including state/local agencies, a large landfill owner/operator, 

and an industry trade association supported the expanded 

beneficial use of LFG to include uses beyond subsequent sale or 

use and agreed that a broader definition is appropriate. No 

commenters opposed the expanded use. 

Many commenters on the July 17, 2014 proposed NSPS (79 FR 

41796) and ANPRM (79 FR 41772) opposed a definition of LFG 

treatment based on specific numerical values for filtration and 

de-watering. Numerous commenters disagreed with a requirement to 

meet specific absolute filtration and dew point suppression 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 168 of 321 

values and contended that a “one-size-fits-all” approach was not 

appropriate, and would not reduce emissions. One commenter 

specifically noted the impact that the costs of these 

requirements would have on small entities. 

Commenters estimated costs to comply with the dew point 

reduction. Based on experience, commenters estimated that 

chillers alone would cost $500,000 each. Commenters estimated 

that instrumentation, monitoring, and controls would cost an 

additional $150,000 per chiller, plus up to $60,000 for annual 

maintenance, monitoring, and operation. These commenters also 

expressed concerns about the timeframe for installing chillers. 

Plus, many commenters also expressed concern that the numerical 

requirements would be detrimental to existing and potential 

beneficial use projects, including potentially shutting down 

existing beneficial use projects and preventing future ones. 

On the other hand, many commenters supported the more 

flexible definition of treatment system that allows the level of 

treatment to be tailored to the type and design of the specific 

project equipment. Commenters pointed out that owners and 

operators of combustion equipment are already motivated to treat 

landfill gas to manufacturer specifications to protect equipment 

and maintain warranties. Commenters added that compliance with a 

site-specific definition of treatment can be tracked using a 

preventative maintenance plan. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 169 of 321 

The EPA recognizes that the landfill industry continues to 

develop new LFG beneficial use projects and the EPA continues to 

support the recovery and use of LFG as an energy source. Thus, 

the EPA is proposing a simplified definition of treatment as 

filtering, de-watering, and compressing landfill gas, but is 

retaining as alternative a definition of LFG treatment based on 

specific numerical values for filtration and de-watering. 

The simplified definition of treatment, combined with siteand equipment-specific monitoring, is expected to provide 

compliance flexibility, ensure environmental protection, and 

promote the beneficial use of LFG. The proposed definition would 

allow the level of filtration, dewatering, and compression to be 

tailored to the type and design of the specific equipment in 

which the LFG is used. Owners and operators would need to 

identify monitoring parameters, be able to demonstrate that such 

parameters effectively monitor filtration, de-watering or 

compression system performance necessary for the end use of the 

treated LFG and keep records to demonstrate that the parameters 

are being met. 

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. A well-operated system with a level of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 170 of 321 

treatment specific to the site and end-use equipment would 

prevent equipment disruptions and limit emissions resulting 

during shutdowns or malfunctions. A treatment approach that can 

be tailored to the end use of the gas would also promote wider 

use of LFG energy recovery, by limiting the compliance burden 

for those landfills opting to include an energy recovery 

component. Landfill gas energy recovery protects the environment 

by not only controlling LFG and its components, but also by 

offsetting conventional sources of energy with a renewable 

resource for heating, electricity, vehicle fuel, or other 

innovative end uses. The EPA also notes that landfills complying 

with a treatment compliance option are also subject to the 

surface emissions monitoring requirements discussed in section 

VI.A of this preamble to ensure that the GCCS is well operated 

and surface emissions are minimized. 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 and provide verifiable records of proper 

operation to the EPA or other implementing authorities. 

The plan would be required to include monitoring parameters 

addressing all three elements of treatment (filtration, dewatering, and compression) to ensure the treatment system is 

operating properly for the intended end use of the treated LFG. 

The plan would be required to include monitoring methods, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 171 of 321 

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. 

Promote the Beneficial Use of LFG. Technical assistance is 

available to landfill owners and operators who want to 

beneficially use LFG. The EPA LMOP is a voluntary assistance 

program that encourages recovery and beneficial use of landfill 

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

landfills. LMOP has developed many publications and tools to 

assist stakeholders interested in developing LFG energy projects 

or promote landfill gas energy recovery to various audiences. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 172 of 321 

LMOP also provides customized, direct assistance to individual 

Partners to address their needs, such as preliminary analyses to 

estimate landfill gas energy project feasibility or responses to 

technical questions about particular issues or barriers involved 

with project development. LMOP’s Web site has become one of the 

main modes of providing LMOP Partners, others in the industry, 

and the public with basic information and keeping them abreast 

of the latest LFG energy–related advances and opportunities 

(http://www.epa.gov/lmop/). Many LMOP resources and tools are 

available on the Web site including a Project Development 

Handbook, a preliminary economic assessment model, and a 

database of LFG energy recovery projects. 

B. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP 

during periods of SSM. Specifically, the court vacated the SSM 

exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), 

holding that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions 

standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that 

the SSM exemption violates the CAA’s requirement that some 

section 112 standards apply continuously. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 173 of 321 

Periods of Startup or Shutdown. Consistent with Sierra Club 

v. EPA, the EPA is proposing standards in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf that apply at all times. In proposing the standards 

in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and 

shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not 

proposed alternate standards for those periods. 

The part 60 general provisions, which define startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction, were written for typical industrial 

or manufacturing sources and associated processes. Many of these 

sources and processes may, at times, be shut down entirely for 

clean-out, maintenance, or repairs, and then restarted. Applying 

the standards at all times, including periods of startup and 

shutdown, is intended to minimize excess emissions when the 

source or process ceases operation or commences operation, or 

during malfunctions. Landfill emissions, however, are produced 

by a continuous biological process that cannot be stopped or 

restarted. For landfills, the primary SSM concern is with 

malfunction of the landfill GCCS and associated monitoring 

equipment, not with the startup or shutdown of the entire 

source. Thus, SSM provisions in the 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf 

focus primarily on malfunction of the gas collection system, gas 

control system, and gas treatment system, which is part of the 

gas control system. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 174 of 321 

Periods of Malfunction. Periods of startup, normal 

operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects 

of a source’s operations. Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither 

predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by definition sudden, 

infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions 

control, process or monitoring equipment. (40 CFR 60.2). The EPA 

interprets CAA section 111 as not requiring emissions that occur 

during periods of malfunction to be factored into development of 

CAA section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case 

law requires that the EPA consider malfunctions when determining 

what standards of performance reflect the degree of emission 

limitation achievable through “the application of the best 

system of emission reduction” that the EPA determines is 

adequately demonstrated. While the EPA accounts for variability 

in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 111 

requires the agency to consider malfunctions as part of that 

analysis. A malfunction should not be treated in the same manner 

as the type of variation in performance that occurs during 

routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a failure of 

the source to perform in a “normal or usual manner” and no 

statutory language compels EPA to consider such events in 

setting CAA section 111 standards of performance. 

Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission 

standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 175 of 321 

myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all 

sources in the category and given the difficulties associated 

with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and 

duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the 

performance of units that are malfunctioning is not “reasonably” 

foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 

(D.C. Cir. 1999) (“The EPA typically has wide latitude in 

determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a 

problem. We generally defer to an agency’s decision to proceed 

on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to 

‘invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.’”) See also, 

Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) 

(“In the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, 

or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. 

After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory limits 

caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ such as 

strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a 

variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the 

administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, 

not for specification in advance by regulation.”). In addition, 

emissions during a malfunction event can be significantly higher 

than emissions at any other time of source operation. For 

example, if an air pollution control device with 99 percent 

removal goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 176 of 321 

happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and 

the emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take 

days to shut down, the source would go from 99 percent control 

to zero control until the control device was repaired. The 

source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times 

higher than during normal operations. As such, the emissions 

over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual 

emissions of the source during normal operations. As this 

example illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to 

standards that are not reflective of (and significantly less 

stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well-performing 

non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret section 

111 to avoid such a result. The EPA’s approach to malfunctions 

is consistent with section 111 and is a reasonable 

interpretation of the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to comply with the 

applicable CAA section 111 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate 

response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of 

the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root 

cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The 

EPA would also consider whether the source’s failure to comply 

with the CAA section 111 standard was, in fact, sudden, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 177 of 321 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable and was not instead 

caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation (40 CFR 

§ 60.2 (definition of malfunction)). 

If the EPA determines in a particular case that an 

enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission 

standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses 

in that enforcement action and the federal district court will 

determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true 

for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding 

officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense 

raised and determine whether administrative penalties are 

appropriate. 

In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in 

particular, CAA section 111 is reasonable and encourages 

practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and 

judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards 

fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith 

efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. 

In several prior rules, the EPA had included an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for violations caused by malfunctions 

in an effort to create a system that incorporates some 

flexibility, recognizing that there is a tension, inherent in 

many types of air regulation, to ensure adequate compliance 

while simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 178 of 321 

of efforts, emission standards may be violated under 

circumstances entirely beyond the control of the source. 

Although the EPA recognized that its case-by-case enforcement 

discretion provides sufficient flexibility in these 

circumstances, it included the affirmative defense to provide a 

more formalized approach and more regulatory clarity. See 

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 

1978) (holding that an informal case-by-case enforcement 

discretion approach is adequate); but see Marathon Oil Co. v. 

EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more 

formalized approach to consideration of “upsets beyond the 

control of the permit holder”). Under the EPA’s regulatory 

affirmative defense provisions, if a source could demonstrate in 

a judicial or administrative proceeding that it had met the 

requirements of the affirmative defense in the regulation, civil 

penalties would not be assessed. Recently, the U. S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated an 

affirmative defense in one of the EPA’s CAA section 112 

regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir., 2014) 

(vacating affirmative defense provisions in the CAA section 112 

rule establishing emission standards for Portland cement kilns). 

The court found that the EPA lacked authority to establish an 

affirmative defense for private civil suits and held that under 

the CAA, the authority to determine civil penalty amounts in 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 179 of 321 

such cases lies exclusively with the courts, not the EPA. 

Specifically, the court found: “As the language of the statute 

makes clear, the courts determine, on a case-by-case basis, 

whether civil penalties are ‘appropriate.’” See NRDC at 1063 

(“[U]nder this statute, deciding whether penalties are 

‘appropriate’ in a given private civil suit is a job for the 

courts, not EPA.”). In light of NRDC, the EPA is not including a 

regulatory affirmative defense provision in this rulemaking. As 

explained above, if a source is unable to comply with emissions 

standards as a result of a malfunction, the EPA may use its 

case-by-case enforcement discretion to provide flexibility, as 

appropriate. Further, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit recognized, in an EPA or citizen 

enforcement action, the court has the discretion to consider any 

defense raised and determine whether penalties are appropriate. 

Cf. NRDC, at 1064 (arguments that violation were caused by 

unavoidable technology failure can be made to the courts in 

future civil cases when the issue arises). The same is true for 

the presiding officer in EPA administrative enforcement 

actions.67 

 

67 Although the NRDC case does not address the EPA’s authority to establish an 

affirmative defense to penalties that is available in administrative 

enforcement actions, EPA is not including such an affirmative defense in the 

proposed rule. As explained above, such an affirmative defense is not 

necessary. Moreover, assessment of penalties for violations caused by 

malfunctions in administrative proceedings and judicial proceedings should be 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 180 of 321 

Limit on SSM duration. Subpart WWW of 40 CFR part 60 limits 

the duration of SSM events for MSW landfills to 5 days for the 

landfill gas collection system and 1 hour for treatment or 

control devices. Proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf does not 

include the 5-day and 1-hour time limitations because some 

malfunctions cannot be corrected within these timeframes. 

Excluding these provisions is consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 

(551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008)), which concluded that that 

emission standards apply at all times, including periods of SSM, 

and 40 CFR 60.11(d), which states that at all times, including 

periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction, owners or 

operators shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and operate 

any affected facility including associated air pollution control 

equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control 

practice for minimizing emissions. The proposed revisions 

clarify that the NSPS standards continue to apply during periods 

of SSM. 

To prevent free venting of landfill gas to the atmosphere 

during control device malfunctions, we propose to include a 

requirement in subpart Cf (40 CFR 60.34f(e)) that states that in 

the event the collection or control system is not operating, the 

gas mover system must be shut down and all valves in the 

 

consistent. Cf. CAA section 113(e) (requiring both the Administrator and the 

court to take specified criteria into account when assessing penalties). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 181 of 321 

collection and control system contributing to venting of gas to 

the atmosphere must be closed within 1 hour. The EPA proposes to 

use the term “not operating,” which includes periods when the 

gas collection or control system is not operating for whatever 

reason, including when the gas collection or control system is 

inoperable. The EPA requests comment on alternate ways to 

prevent free venting of landfill gas to the atmosphere during 

control device malfunctions.

Shutting down the gas mover equipment and all valves 

contributing to venting of gas to the atmosphere minimizes 

emissions from the landfill while the control system is not 

operating and is being repaired. Compliance with proposed 40 CFR 

60.34f(e) does not constitute compliance with the applicable 

standards in proposed 40 CFR 60.36f. Compliance with proposed 40 

CFR 60.34f(e) is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the 

general duty to minimize emissions in 40 CFR 60.11(d) during 

control or collection system malfunctions. 

Under proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, landfill 

owners/operators must keep records of combustion temperature, 

bypass flow, and periods when the flare flame or the flare pilot 

flame is out. However, without additional provisions, the EPA 

would have no way to gauge the severity of an emissions 

exceedance that may occur when these operating parameters are 

not being met or when the control device is not operating. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 182 of 321 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to include provisions for 

landfill owners/operators to estimate NMOC emissions when the 

control device or collection system is not operating. The 

landfill owners/operators may use whatever information is 

available to estimate NMOC emissions during the period, 

including but not limited to, landfill gas flow to or bypass of 

the control device, the concentration of NMOC (from the most 

recent performance test or from AP-42), and the amount of time 

the control device is not operating. Landfill owners/operators 

would keep records of the estimated emissions and would report 

the information in the annual compliance report. 

C. Definitions and Other Rule Changes. 

We propose to include definitions of “household waste” and 

“segregated yard waste” in proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf 

to clarify our intent regarding the applicability of proposed 

subpart Cf to landfills that do not accept household waste, but 

accept segregated yard waste. We also proposed to exclude 

construction and demolition waste from the definition of 

household waste. We intend for subpart Cf to apply to municipal 

solid waste landfills that accept general household waste 

(including garbage, trash, sanitary waste), as indicated in the 

definitions. We do not intend the landfills rules to apply to 

landfills that accept only segregated yard waste or a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 183 of 321 

combination of segregated yard waste and non-household waste 

such as construction and demolition waste. 

X. Request for Comment on Specific Provisions 

A. Defining Closed Areas of Open Landfills. 

In the ANPRM for the Emission Guidelines (79 FR 41772), the 

EPA requested input on how non-producing areas of the landfill, 

i.e., areas that are no longer generating landfill gas, could be 

excluded from gas collection requirements when designing a GCCS 

(79 FR 41792). The EPA also sought input on whether the current 

criteria for capping or removing a GCCS are appropriate, one of 

which requires that the landfill be closed (79 FR 41783). As 

discussed in section VIII.B of this preamble, we are proposing a 

second set of alternative criteria for capping or removing the 

GCCS at closed landfills or closed areas of active landfills, 

based on surface emissions monitoring. 

Commenters expressed concern with the requirement for 

closed areas to be physically separated in order to be excluded 

from GCCS requirements, noting that many closed areas of active 

landfills are non-producing but remain physically connected to 

other areas of the landfill. 

To help address the difficulty of controlling landfill gas 

in low-producing areas, the EPA is proposing an alternative set 

of criteria for capping or removing the GCCS that employs a SEM 

demonstration: 1) the landfill is closed or an area of an active 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 184 of 321 

landfill is closed, 2) the GCCS has operated for at least 15 

years or the landfill owner/operator can demonstrate that the 

GCCS will be unable to operate for 15 years due to declining gas 

flows, and 3) the landfill or closed area demonstrates for 4 

consecutive quarters that there are no surface emissions of 500 

ppm or greater. The EPA is also requesting comment on whether 

owners or operators of physically separated, closed areas of 

landfills may model NMOC emission rates, or may determine the 

flow rate of landfill gas using actual measurements, to 

determine NMOC emissions in order to identify areas that can be 

excluded from gas collection. The EPA considers areas to be 

physically separated if they have separate liners and gas cannot 

migrate between the separate areas. 

To further address non-producing areas, proposed 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cf contains procedures for excluding areas from 

gas collection and control. Owners or operators of landfills 

with physically separated, closed areas may demonstrate that the 

quantity of NMOC emissions from the area is less than 1 percent 

of the total NMOC emissions from the entire landfill, and thus 

exclude the area from control. Under proposed 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart Cf, owners or operators of landfills with physically 

separated, closed areas may model NMOC emission rates, or may 

determine the flow rate of landfill gas using actual 

measurements, to determine NMOC emissions. Using actual flow 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 185 of 321 

measurements would yield a more precise measurement of NMOC 

emissions for purposes of demonstrating the closed area 

represents less than 1 percent of the landfills total NMOC 

emissions. 

Because both of these topics rely on defining a closed area 

of a landfill, the EPA requests comment on how to define closed 

areas of open landfills. 

B. Enhanced Surface Emissions Monitoring 

The proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf collection and 

control requirements are intended to ensure that landfills 

maintain a tight cover that minimizes any emissions of landfill 

gas through the surface. The surface emissions monitoring 

procedures in proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf are consistent 

with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW and require quarterly surface 

emissions monitoring to demonstrate that the cover and gas 

collection system are working properly. However, we are also 

considering and requesting additional public input on a 

potential alternative approach to surface emissions monitoring. 

The alternative surface monitoring approach includes 

changing the walking pattern that traverses the landfill from 30 

meters (98 ft) to 25 ft and adding a methane concentration limit 

of 25 ppm as determined by integrated surface emissions 

monitoring. This would be in addition to the 500 ppm emission 

concentration as determined by instantaneous surface emissions 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 186 of 321 

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 ft grids. A 

tighter walking pattern and the addition of an integrated 

methane concentration limit 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 in all types 

of climates. As part of these potential changes, the EPA is also 

considering not allowing surface monitoring when the average 

wind speed exceeds 5 miles per hour (mph) or the instantaneous 

wind speed exceeds 10 mph because air movement can affect 

whether the monitor is accurately reading the methane 

concentration during surface monitoring. We are considering this 

change because conducting surface emissions monitoring during 

windy periods may not yield readings that are representative of 

the emissions. The EPA requested public comment on this same 

enhanced approach in the landfills NSPS (79 FR 41822) and ANPRM 

(79 FR 41789). 

Many commenters supported the enhanced surface monitoring 

provisions for detecting surface emissions. A state agency 

supported reducing the traverse pattern to 25 feet, stating that 

the tighter traverse pattern would increase the chance of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 187 of 321 

detecting exceedances. An environmental organization supported 

all elements of the enhanced surface monitoring and contended 

that the current monitoring at 30 meter intervals leaves most 

areas of the landfill unmonitored. Both these commenters 

suggested that the walking pattern be varied each quarter (i.e., 

offset by 10 meters) to monitor additional areas over time. The 

environmental organization supported an integrated reading 

because it would be a better indicator of GCCS performance and 

they contended that the additional costs were not unreasonable. 

Many commenters opposed the enhanced surface monitoring 

provisions. Commenters that opposed the enhanced surface 

monitoring provisions primarily cited the additional costs and 

contended that the additional expense was not warranted because 

of limited environmental benefits. Two commenters commissioned a 

study to compare the level of effort and monitoring results of 

the CA LMR to the SEM requirements under the current NSPS (40 

CFR part 60, subpart WWW). The CA LMR utilizes a 25 ft traverse 

pattern, an instantaneous as well as integrated reading, and 

prevents sampling during windy conditions (greater than 5 mph 

average and greater than 10 mph instantaneous). 

The study examined monitoring results for eight quarters of 

NSPS surface monitoring at 42 California landfills, encompassing 

27,140 acres. Those results were compared to CA LMR surface 

monitoring for 10 quarters at 72 California landfills, including 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 188 of 321 

the 42 landfills conducting NSPS surface monitoring, 

encompassing a total of 57,151 acres. Among other observations, 

the study concludes that although the CA LMR surface emission 

monitoring requirements detected 2.1 percent more exceedances 

than NSPS surface emission monitoring requirements, detecting 

these additional exceedances is not cost effective. The study 

also concluded that under the NSPS monitoring, only one landfill 

was required to expand its GCCS, while under the CA LMR 

monitoring, only three landfills were required to expand the 

GCCS. The two commenters that commissioned the study contended 

that the additional cost to conduct enhanced surface monitoring, 

estimated by the EPA to be seven times more expensive than NSPS 

monitoring, was an extraordinary amount of money to spend 

detecting exceedances at merely an additional 2.8 percent of 

acres monitored, while increasing gas collection at only one 

landfill. 

The EPA examined the data supporting the study as provided 

by one of the commenters. The data allowed for direct comparison 

of exceedance data from 29 landfills, although for different 

time periods. The study and supporting data provide evidence of 

greater exceedances under the California approach than the 

current approach. However, the EPA was unable to determine the 

magnitude of emission reductions that might result from the 

greater exceedances under the California approach. See the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 189 of 321 

docketed memorandum entitled “Analysis of Surface Exceedances 

from California Landfills under the New Source Performance 

Standards and the California Landfill Methane Rule.” 

Many commenters, including many state agencies, opposed 

limiting surface monitoring during windy conditions, stating 

that the wind restrictions would be a significant inhibitor to 

completing the required monitoring in many regions of the 

country due to typical windy conditions. Commenters also stated 

that it would be difficult to schedule and reschedule dedicated 

sampling crews and conditions could change quickly during 

sampling events, causing crews to stop monitoring. 

For proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, the EPA estimated 

the costs associated with both the proposed subpart Cf surface 

monitoring requirements (which are the same as the surface 

monitoring requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW) and 

potential changes to the surface monitoring provisions under the 

proposed 2.5/34 option and the proposed 2.5/40 option and 

applied them to the set of existing landfills that would be 

subject to control requirements under the respective option. To 

determine the costs, the EPA used the following assumptions: 

most landfills will hire a contractor to conduct the quarterly 

monitoring. The landfill will incur labor costs based on the 

time it takes to walk the traverse (hours per acre), the size of 

the landfill (acres), and a labor rate (dollars per hour). The 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 190 of 321 

landfill will also incur an equipment rental rate (dollars per 

hour) as well as a flat fee for purchasing calibration gases and 

hydrogen to fuel the equipment. Equipment rental rates are 

dollar per day/week/month, depending on the size of the landfill 

and time to traverse the acreage during each quarterly period. 

See the docketed memo, “Updated Methodology for Estimating 

Testing and Monitoring Costs for the MSW Landfill Regulations. 

2015,” which contains the details for determining the costs that 

a landfill would incur to conduct enhanced surface monitoring. 

Using the techniques discussed in section V.B of this 

preamble, the EPA estimated the number of landfills that are 

expected to install controls under the baseline, as well as the 

proposed option 2.5/34 and option 2.5/40. Then, the EPA applied 

surface monitoring costs to the respective set of landfills 

because landfills that must install controls must also conduct 

surface monitoring. Table 4 of this preamble compares the 

enhanced surface monitoring costs that would be incurred for new 

landfills under the baseline and proposed option 2.5/34 and 

proposed option 2.5/40. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 191 of 321 

Table 4. Comparison of Baseline Surface Monitoring Versus 

Enhanced Surface Monitoring in 2025 

Control 

option 

Surface 

monitoring 

type 

Number of 

landfills 

controllin

g 

Annual 

Cost 

Incrementa

l Cost 

Total Cost 

per 

controlled 

landfill 

Incremental 

cost per 

controlled 

landfill 

Baselin

e 

2.5/50 

(2.5 

million 

Mg 

design 

capacit

y/50 

Mg/yr 

NMOC) 

No change (30 

meter 

traverse) 

574 

 6,327,000 NA 11,000 NA 

Enhanced (25-

foot 

traverse, 

integrated 

sample) 

43,831,000 37,504,000 76,400 65,300 

Option 

2.5/40 

(2.5 

million 

Mg 

design 

capacit

y/40 

Mg/yr 

NMOC) 

No change (30 

meter 

traverse) 

636 

 6,741,000 414,000 10,600 700 

Enhanced (25-

foot 

traverse, 

integrated 

sample) 

46,746,000 40,419,000 73,500 63,600 

Propose

d 

Option 

2.5/34 

(2.5 

million 

Mg 

design 

capacit

y/34 

Mg/yr 

NMOC) 

No change (30 

meter 

traverse) 

680 

 7,062,000 735,000 10,400 1,100 

Enhanced (25-

foot 

traverse, 

integrated 

sample) 

49,037,000 42,710,000 72,100 62,800 

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 4 times as long, because the distance is 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 192 of 321 

approximately 4 times greater. For a landfill to conduct the 

integrated surface emissions monitoring, the EPA assumed the 

landfill would rent a handheld portable vapor analyzer with a 

data logger. The data logger is necessary to obtain an 

integrated reading over a single 50,000 square foot grid. 

However, the EPA does not expect that requiring an integrated 

methane concentration would add significant cost because 

landfills could use the same instrument that they currently use 

for the instantaneous readings and these instruments can be 

programmed to provide an integrated value as well as an 

instantaneous value. 

The EPA recognizes that these provisions could reduce 

surface emissions and that these emissions reductions are 

difficult to quantify. The EPA also understands that there are 

potential implementation concerns with these enhanced 

procedures. Surface monitoring is a labor intensive process and 

tightening the grid pattern would increase costs. Of the 574 

landfills expected to be controlling in 2025 under the baseline, 

it would take these landfills over 42 hours, on average, to 

complete each quarterly traverse pattern. Tightening the 

traverse pattern to 25 ft instead of 30 meters would require 

over 165 hours per quarter, or nearly 500 additional hours per 

year, per landfill, compared to the current 30-meter traverse 

pattern. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 193 of 321 

At this time, the EPA is not proposing surface monitoring 

provisions that differ from those outlined in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart WWW, but we are soliciting comment on the various 

elements of enhanced surface emissions monitoring (the width of 

the traverse pattern, offsetting the walking pattern each 

quarter (i.e., offset by 10 meters), an integrated reading of 25 

ppm, and restrictions during windy conditions), as well as 

techniques and data to estimate the emission reductions 

associated with enhanced surface monitoring. 

C. Wet Landfills 

In the ANPRM (79 FR 41784), we solicited input on separate 

thresholds for wet landfills and how wet landfills might be 

defined. Among other concerns, we received feedback from 

commenters expressing concern on potential overlap between wet 

landfills handled under the Emission Guidelines and bioreactor 

landfills handled under 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA (National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills). A landfill is defined as a bioreactor under 40 

CFR part 63, subpart AAAA if it has added liquids other than 

leachate into the waste mass in a controlled fashion68; such 

 

68 Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA, bioreactor means a MSW landfill or 

portion of a MSW landfill where any liquid other than leachate (leachate 

includes landfill gas condensate) is added in a controlled fashion into the 

waste mass (often in combination with recirculating leachate) to reach a 

minimum average moisture content of at least 40 percent by weight to 

accelerate or enhance the anaerobic (without oxygen) biodegradation of the 

waste. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 194 of 321 

bioreactor landfills are required to install and operate a GCCS 

on an accelerated schedule compared to non-bioreactor landfills. 

Once a landfill is required to install and operate a GCCS under 

either 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA, or 40 CFR part 60, subparts 

WWW and Cc, the GCCS requirements are the same. In addition to 

bioreactors as defined under 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA, the 

EPA is aware of 31 bioreactor projects permitted under the 

research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) rule in 11 

states and one project on tribal lands69. These bioreactor 

landfills generally do not meet the 40 percent by weight 

moisture component of the bioreactor definition in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart AAAA. Based on the options analyzed and presented in 

Table 3 of this preamble, proposed option 2.5/34 is estimated to 

achieve reductions of NMOC and methane emissions at 651 existing 

open landfills in year 2025. Of these 651 landfills, 18 are 

identified as having RD&D permits, which permit liquids 

addition; 343 are located in areas receiving greater than 40 

inches of precipitation each year; and an additional 16 

landfills report leachate recirculation activities and a k value 

of 0.057 year-1 or greater to subpart HH of the GHGRP, but are 

not located in areas receiving 40 inches of precipitation or 

 

69 EPA/600/R-14/335. Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations: Ten Years 

after the RD&D Rule. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 195 of 321 

more, for a total of 377 “wet” landfills out of those required 

to control emissions. 

Collectively, reductions from these 377 wet landfills 

constitute approximately 50 percent of the incremental 

reductions achieved by the proposed option 2.5/34. Nearly all of 

these incremental reductions are coming from the 343 landfills 

that are located in areas receiving 40 inches of precipitation 

or more. Based on this analysis, the NMOC threshold of 34 Mg/yr 

in this proposal achieves significant reduction in emissions 

from wet landfills. 

The EPA conducted a preliminary analysis to determine the 

additional reductions that could be achieved if the initial lag 

time was shortened by 1 year and the expansion lag time was 

shortened by 2 years and applied to open wet landfills in 

addition to the lower NMOC emission threshold of 34 Mg/yr. The 

results of this analysis show that an additional approximately 

220 Mg/yr of reductions in NMOC emissions and 35,200 Mg/yr of 

reductions in methane (879,000 mtCO2e/yr) could be achieved from 

these 377 wet landfills in 2025. 

It is important to note that the impacts of the options in 

Table 3 as well as this preliminary analysis of wet landfills 

were conducted using a k value of 0.04 for any landfill that is 

located in an area with at least 25 inches of rainfall, 

consistent with the analysis discussed at 79 FR 41805. This 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 196 of 321 

modeling parameter was used for all but nine of the 377 wet 

landfills discussed above. Those nine landfills, which are 

either RD&D landfills or reported significant leachate 

recirculation to subpart HH of the GHGRP were modeled using a k 

value of 0.02 because they were located in arid areas. 

The results of the impacts analyses presented in Table 3 of 

this preamble and above could differ significantly if 

alternative modeling parameters (k and/or Lo) were used to model 

emissions from this group of wet landfills. For example, subpart 

HH of the GHGRP uses a k value of 0.057 for landfills that 

exceed 40 inches per year when considering both leachate 

recirculation and precipitation. The EPA also identified a study 

containing alternative k values for five different bioreactor 

landfills70. One commenter urged the EPA to consider more 

representative k values when calculating emission reductions 

from wet landfills, and cited several studies for EPA 

review71,72,73. This commenter also requested that the EPA adopt 

 

70 Barlaz, Morton et al., Performance of North American Bioreactor Landfills 

II: Chemical and Biological Characteristics. Journal of Environmental 

Engineering. Volume 136, No. 8. August 2010. 

71 Xiaoming Wang et al., Using Observed Data to Improve Estimated Methane 

Collection From Select U.S. Landfills, Environ. Sci. Technol. 3251, 3256 

(2013). 

72 Hamid R. Amini et al., Comparison of First-Order Decay Modeled and Actual 

Field Measured Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Methane Data, 33 Waste 

Management 2720, 2725 (2013). 

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

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

1402-03 (Dec. 2009)
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 197 of 321 

shorter lag times for these wet landfills. Another commenter 

urged the EPA to finalize the changes proposed in 2009 to AP-42 

emission factors for MSW landfills, which included a much higher 

k value of 0.3 for wet landfills, among other changes74. Another 

commenter provided input that leachate recirculation will have 

negligible impact on the total precipitation value that 

ultimately dictates which k value to use. This commenter also 

referenced its prior comments expressing concerns that the draft 

AP-42 k value for wet landfills was too high, and provided 

several studies containing alternative k values for wet 

landfills75,76,77.

Given the additional emission reductions that could be 

achieved from shortening the lag times at wet landfills and in 

consideration of the President’s Methane Strategy, the EPA is 

soliciting input on whether the wet landfills not subject to the 

requirements in 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA should be subject 

to different schedules for installing and expanding their GCCS 

 

74 U.S. EPA AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 2, Draft Section 

2.4: Solid Waste Disposal 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/draft/d02s04.pdf 

75 Staley, B.F. and M.A. Barlaz, 2009, "Composition of Municipal Solid Waste 

in the U.S. and Implications for Carbon Sequestration and Methane Yield," 

Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 10, October 1, 2009.

76 U.S. EPA, Landfill Bioreactor Performance, Second Interim Report; 

EPN600/R-07/060, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management 

Laboratory: Cincinnati, OH, 2006.

77 Tolaymat, T.M., Green, R.B., Hater, G.R., Barlaz, M.A., Black, P., 

Bronston, D., and J. Powell, "Evaluation of Landfill Gas Decay Constant for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Operated as Bioreactors." Submitted to the 

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. 2009. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 198 of 321 

under the Emission Guidelines. Additionally, the EPA requests 

comment on how these wet landfills that are not bioreactors (as 

defined in subpart AAAA) might be defined. Finally, recognizing 

the wide range of k values used to model emissions at wet 

landfills (0.057 to 0.3), the EPA requests comment and data to 

support revising the k value used for assessing the impacts on 

wet landfills, as well as the k value landfills should use in 

Tier 1 and Tier 2 emission threshold determinations. The EPA 

also requests comment on whether revisions to the k value for 

wet landfills would require changes to the Lo modeling parameter 

for wet landfills. 

D. Monitoring Wellhead Flowrate 

Based on comments received and discussed in section VI.B of 

this preamble, as well as the proposal to eliminate the 

operating standards for oxygen/nitrogen and temperature, the EPA 

is requesting input on whether it should add a requirement to 

monitor wellhead flowrate to help ensure a well-operated GCCS. 

Monitoring wellhead flow rate would allow the landfill owner or 

operator to detect low gas flow and whether a well is 

waterlogged, clogged, or pinched. The EPA is also requesting 

comment on any other wellhead monitoring parameters that would 

help ensure a well-operated GCCS. 

E. Third Party Design Plan Certification Program 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 199 of 321 

In the ANPRM for existing landfills (79 FR 41784, July 17, 

2014), the EPA solicited input on the possibility of 

establishing a third-party design plan certification program and 

provided examples of several rules and programs with third-party 

verification components. The third-party program would 

supplement or replace the current approach of requiring EPA or 

state review and approval of site-specific design plans and plan 

revisions with a program whereby 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 process of approving site-specific design plans 

and plan revisions can be extremely resource-intensive for 

regulators and regulated entities alike. The EPA believes 

modifying the regulations to provide for the review and approval 

of the plans by competent and independent third-parties could 

reduce these burdens. Such an independent program would need to 

be designed to ensure that, among other things, the third 

parties are competent, accurate, independent, and appropriately 

accredited. The program would also need to ensure that the 

reviews are thorough, independent, and conducted pursuant to 

clear and objective design plan review criteria. Finally, the 

program would need to ensure that the system is transparent, 

including requiring appropriate public disclosures, and that 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 200 of 321 

there is regular and effective oversight of the third-party 

system. Some criteria for auditor competence, independence, 

reporting, and oversight requirements provisions might include 

the following: 

• Engaging a third-party inspection team (team) and 

submitting the members’ resumes and qualifications to EPA; 

• Requiring the team to have at least one person with 

landfill industry expertise acceptable to the EPA, one 

expert in environmental compliance auditing, and one expert 

in chemical process safety management; 

• Restricting team members to those who have not previously 

performed work for the respondents; 

• Restricting team members from working for the respondents 

or any of the respondents’ officers for 5 years after 

completion of inspections ; 

• After giving the respondents notice of the first upcoming 

inspection, restricting the team from communicating with 

its respondents unless EPA is copied on the communication 

(communications during on-site inspections are excepted); 

• Unannounced follow-up inspections with no notice to 

respondents but advance notice to the EPA; 

• Restricting respondents from having control over the timing 

of any of the follow-up inspections; 

• Having the EPA or the delegated authority retain the right 

to accompany the team on any inspection; 

• Within 15 days of each inspection, requiring the team to 

simultaneously submit to the EPA and the respondents an 

inspection report, photographs, and digital video of the 

inspection; 

• Denying the opportunity to review any draft or final 

inspection report before its submittal. 

The EPA developed the above provisions based on the 

theoretical and empirical research for best practices for 

independent third party audits. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 201 of 321 

Commenters on the ANPRM generally did not support a third 

party design plan certification program and cited several 

reasons. Commenters noted that the ANPRM (79 FR 41772) 

discussion of the program was overly general and that the EPA 

did not adequately describe the possible design features. One 

commenter expressed concerns that the examples of third-party 

certification presented in the ANPRM are neither comparable nor 

relevant to the review of MSW landfill GCCS design plans. One 

commenter acknowledged that a third-party reviewer system could 

reduce the burden and backlog experienced by reviewing agencies, 

but expressed concern that the costs of verification would be 

significant. Another commenter indicated the EPA did not present 

any economic and implementation impacts concerning such a 

program in the ANPRM and requested that EPA provide more 

details. Commenters also expressed concern about finding 

consultants that would be free of conflicts of interest given 

the consolidated nature of the MSW landfill industry. One 

commenter noted that cost and potential conflicts of interest 

were cited as reasons that the EPA did not adopt a third-party 

certification program for the GHGRP. Another commenter agreed 

that there was the potential for conflicts of interest and 

stated that design plan review is an essential government 

oversight and should not be delegated. Commenters also urged the 

EPA to thoroughly review the many issues that could arise with a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 202 of 321 

third-party certification program and urged the EPA to take 

further notice and comment before promulgating such a program. 

Several commenters on the ANPRM (79 FR 41772) solicited 

additional details on components of a proposed third-party 

certification program, and the EPA is providing further details 

in this proposal. In this notice, the EPA is also seeking 

additional input on the possibility of establishing a thirdparty design certification program. This preamble discussion 

provides notice of the key features the EPA is considering in 

such a program to ensure the integrity of such a program, 

including the use of effective auditors and audits. See 

[DOCUMENT], Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451, in the public 

record for this rulemakingthe docketed memorandum “Using ThirdParty Audits to Improve Compliance” for additional specificity 

regarding such third-party design features with supporting 

studies, articles, and reports. 

1. Definition and Characteristics of Independent Third-Party 

Compliance Verification 

Third-party compliance verification occurs when an 

independent third party verifies to a regulator that a regulated 

entity is meeting or conforming to one or more compliance 

obligations (in the literature and other regulations, the terms 

“certifier,” “auditor,” or “inspector” are also used to describe 

such verifiers). Independent third-party programs are distinct 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 203 of 321 

from programs whereby regulated sources employ contractors or 

consultants, even if they are separate legal entities from the 

regulated facilities and are highly qualified. When contractors 

or consultants report to facilities directly, have other nonaudit business or relationships with the facilities, and/or the 

facilities are able to control or influence the audit reports’ 

form and/or content, this is not independent third-party 

verification but rather enhanced self-auditing 

2. Third-Party Audit Program Considerations and Characteristics 

Based on careful review of the literature78, the EPA 

believes independent third-party programs can be effective, but 

only if properly designed and overseen. The most critical 

considerations in designing successful third-party auditing 

programs are building in provisions and procedures for ensuring 

auditors are competent and independent. The EPA seeks comment on 

the suitability of an independent third-party verification 

program for landfills that includes the following design 

elements to ensure its effectiveness and integrity: the use of 

competent and independent auditors; accurate audits; public 

transparency; and effective regulatory oversight. See also 

Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451the docketed memorandum 

“Using Third-Party Audits to Improve Compliance” for a review of 

 

78 Lesley K. McAllister, Regulation by Third-Party Verification, 53 Boston C. 

L Rev. 1, 21-26 (Jan. 2012). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 204 of 321 

additional design features the EPA is considering and more 

detailed information on the features listed below: 

a. A requirement that the auditing (verifying) firm, 

including any corporate parent and/or subsidiaries and the 

actual persons responsible for the audit, neither have had any 

prior business or family relationship with the firm being 

audited in the past five years, nor have worked on the 

development or implementation of the project/process subject to 

the audit. 

b. A requirement that the auditing firm (including its 

corporate parent and/or subsidiaries, if any) is prohibited from 

engaging in any business transactions with the firm it is 

auditing for at least five years after the audit is completed. 

c. A requirement that the verifying entity and the specific 

auditors hold appropriate professional and educational 

credentials issued by either the government entity that would 

otherwise review the plan or an independent professional 

organization (accreditation board) neither funded nor associated 

with the regulated sector. 

d. A requirement that the auditing firm share all drafts 

and the final version of its audits with the government entity 

before, or at the same time, as it shares them with the 

regulated entity. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 205 of 321 

e. A requirement that appropriate auditing standards and 

protocols be spelled out, including, if possible, by reference 

to identified standards established by outside entities, e.g., 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO), American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI), ASTM International (ASTM), 

etc. 

f. A requirement that audit reports, including names of key 

persons involved in the audits, be made accessible to the public 

subject to protecting confidential business information (CBI) 

and national security information 

g. Requirements to ensure that the verifying firms operate 

with integrity, competence, and independence and that the 

regulator audit, i.e., review or “backcheck,” including some 

number of on-site inspections, a significant percentage (e.g., 

10 percent) of the auditing firms and their audit reports. 

The EPA is requesting comments regarding the appropriate 

professional and educational credentials requirements for 

auditors. For example, should auditors be licensed professional 

engineers? In addition based upon comments received, the EPA 

also requests information concerning the costs associated with 

third party certification design plans. 

The EPA is also considering defining more specifically what 

it means for an auditor to be independent, i.e., what potential 

conflicts of interest such as being employees of parent company, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 206 of 321 

affiliates, or vendors/contractors that are currently working in 

the landfill industry, could exclude an auditor from qualifying 

as independent. Criteria for, and research on, competence and 

independence are discussed further below. 

The EPA is also considering allowing a person at the 

facility who is a registered professional engineer to conduct 

the audit at the facility, i.e., first party/self auditing, 

instead of requiring independent third party audits.. If selfauditing is authorized, the EPA seeks comment on how best to 

structure it to maximize auditor independence and accurate 

auditing outcomes. Under the U.S. CARB v. Hyundai Motor Company, 

et al. consent decree, for example, until the consent decrees 

corrective measures are fully implemented, the defendants must 

audit their fleets to ensure that vehicles sold to the public 

conform to the vehicles’ certification. The consent decree 

provides that the audit team will be in the United States, will 

be independent from the group that performed the original 

certification work, and must perform their audits without access 

to or knowledge of the defendants’ original certification test 

data, which the consent decree-required audits are intended to 

backcheck.79 The EPA seeks comment as to whether similar 

 

79 Press Release: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OPA/ADMPRESS.NSF/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/155

19081fbf4002285257d8500477615!OpenDocument; Detailed settlement 

info.: http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/hyundai-and-kia-clean-air-act-
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 207 of 321 

restrictions should be placed on any self-auditing conducted 

under the MSW landfills Emission Guidelines. 

As another alternative approach, the EPA could require 

auditors to have accreditation by a recognized accrediting body.

Several of the examples that have already been provided of 

existing or proposed federal or state independent third party 

auditing programs in rules use this approach. The EPA thus seeks 

comment on whether third party auditors should be required to 

receive accreditation by a recognized accrediting body. The EPA 

also seeks comment on the standards such accrediting bodies 

should be required to meet, e.g., International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO)/IEC 17011:2004(E), Conformity Assessments—

General Requirements for Accreditation Bodies Accrediting 

Conformity Assessments Bodies (First Edition). 

There are advantages to third-party auditing, particularly 

with strong auditor competence and independence criteria. 

According to the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), 

“Third-party auditors (typically, consulting companies who can 

provide experienced auditors) potentially provide the highest 

degree of objectivity.”80 The Administrative Conference of the 

United States (ACUS), in its Recommendation on Agency Use of 

 

settlement; Consent Decree: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-

11/documents/hyundai-kia-cd.pdf 

80 Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety, March 2007. CCPS. 

http://www.aiche.org/ccps/resources/publications/books/guidelines-risk-basedprocess-safety 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 208 of 321 

Third-Party Programs to Assess Regulatory Compliance (December 

6, 2012), found that, when well-designed and implemented per the 

Recommendation, “[s]everal broad reasons support the growing use 

of third-party programs in federal regulation.” Specifically, 

ACUS found that “...federal regulatory agencies are faced with 

assuring the compliance of an increasing number of entities and 

products without a corresponding growth in agency resources. 

Third-party programs may leverage private resources and 

expertise in ways that make regulation more effective and less 

costly. In comparison with other regulatory approaches, thirdparty programs may also enable more frequent compliance 

assessment and more complete and reliable compliance data”81 A 

leading scholar on regulatory third-party programs likewise 

found that, when well-designed and implemented, “third-party 

verification could furnish more and better data about regulatory 

compliance” while providing additional compliance and resource 

savings benefits.82

All independent third-party compliance verification 

programs establish criteria and standards for auditor 

 

81 Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS); Administrative 

Conference Recommendation 2012-7; Agency Use of Third-Party Programs to 

Assess Regulatory Compliance (Adopted December 6, 2012) at 3-4. 

https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/agency-use-third-party-programs-assessregulatory-compliance 

82 Lesley K. McAllister, Regulation by Third-Party Verification, 53 Boston C. 

L Rev. 1, 21-26 (Jan. 2012). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 209 of 321 

competence. Typically, such criteria and standards combine 

specified minimum levels of education, knowledge, experience, 

and training. Auditors should be knowledgeable and experienced 

with the facility type and processes being audited. The 

applicable recognized and generally accepted good engineering 

practices, trained or certified in proper third-party auditing 

techniques, and licensed professional engineers should be 

employed where appropriate. The EPA seeks comment on whether 

these criteria are appropriate and sufficient to ensure that 

auditors are competent to perform high-quality auditing. 

3. Public Disclosure/Transparency 

It is EPA policy that both the government and the public 

have appropriate access to information about regulated entities 

and their compliance status. This includes relevant information 

on the operation of any independent third-party programs. The 

EPA seeks comment on what information associated with such a 

program for landfills should be publicly disclosed and how to 

disclose it. 

4. E-Reporting of Audit Reports and Certifications 

Pursuant to EPA’s Policy Statement on E-Reporting in EPA 

Regulations (September 30, 2013), “[t]he Policy of the [EPA] is 

to [b]egin the regulatory development process with the 

assumption that all reporting will be electronic, unless there 

is a compelling reason to use paper reporting. Consistent with 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 210 of 321 

that policy, the EPA is requesting comment on requiring 

independent third-party auditors to provide their audit reports 

and associated certification statements (see discussion below) 

to EPA electronically and seeks comment on how to best design 

the e-reporting system to facilitate its use by the regulated 

facilities and third-party auditors. 

5. Facility and Third-Party Auditor Certification Statements 

EPA’s experience shows that requiring a responsible 

corporate or third-party official to attest to self-monitoring, 

reporting, and third-party auditing can help ensure that 

appropriate officials are personally familiar with the reported 

information and reminds them of the penalties associated with 

knowingly submitting false information. The EPA intends to 

require such language for any third-party audit reports under 

these emission guidelines and requests comment on its wording. 

The EPA also requests comment on whether the Agency should, for 

this rule, require regulated facilities and/or third-party 

auditors to publicly post their certifications to their 

qualifications to conduct the audit and/or the accuracy and 

completeness of the audit reports. 

6. Examples of Independent Third Party Programs in Other Rules 

Third party audits or other forms of compliance 

verification are also required by a variety of final or proposed 

EPA programs to promote compliance with regulatory standards. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 211 of 321 

Examples of proposed or final federal environmental regulatory 

programs with built-in third-party verification include the 

following rules and rulemakings: 

• EPA CAA Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program: The RFS 

regulations include requirements for obligated parties to: 

1) meet annual attest engagement requirements using 

independent certified public accountants (the purpose of 

attest engagements is to provide regulated parties an 

independent review of their compliance with both the fuels 

requirements themselves as well as the regulated party's 

internal systems to monitor and document compliance); 2) 

submit independent third-party engineering reviews to the 

EPA before generating Renewable Identification Numbers.83

• EPA CAA wood stoves rule: Residential wood heaters (which 

include stoves) contribute significantly to particulate air 

pollution. Wood stove model lines that are in compliance 

with the wood stoves rule are referred to as EPA-certified 

wood stoves. The EPA's certification process requires 

manufacturers to verify that each of their wood stove model 

lines meet a specific particulate emission limit by 

undergoing emission testing at an EPA-accredited 

laboratory.84

F. Use of Portable Analyzers for Monitoring Oxygen 

In the proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796), as well as 40 CFR 

60.37f(a)(2) of the proposed Emission Guidelines, landfill 

owners or operators must use Method 3A or Method 3C when 

monitoring the oxygen and nitrogen levels at the wellhead, 

unless an alternative test method is established. Several 

 

83 EPA, Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS), 

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

 

84 EPA, Wood Heater Compliance Monitoring Program, 

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/03/16/2015-03733/standards-ofperformance-for-new-residential-wood-heaters-new-residential-hydronicheaters-and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 212 of 321 

commenters on the proposed NSPS requested that the EPA specify 

that portable gas composition analyzers are an acceptable 

alternative to Methods 3A or 3C, and noted that these devices 

are commonly used in practice to measure wellhead parameters and 

calibrated according to the manufacturer’s specifications. 

Currently, approval of these analyzers are done on a case-bycase basis. In proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, the EPA has 

not listed portable gas composition analyzers for determining 

oxygen or nitrogen levels. The EPA did not receive any data 

supporting these comments as to why the analyzers could not be 

calibrated according to Method 3A and maintains that proper 

calibration of portable gas composition analyzers is important 

for generating accurate results. The EPA is requesting data or 

information on the use of a portable gas composition analyzer 

according to Method 3A. The EPA is also requesting data on other 

reference methods used for calibrating these analyzers. 

XI. Impacts of Proposed Revisions 

For most Emission Guidelines, the EPA analyzes the impacts 

in the year the standard is implemented. As discussed in Section 

III.E, the EPA is proposing to extend the review period for 

state plans. Assuming the Emission Guidelines are promulgated in 

the summer of 2016, states have 9 months to prepare a state plan 

implementing the guidelines (March 2017) and the EPA has one 

year to review the plan (March 2018). If necessary, the state 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 213 of 321 

has an additional 2 months to revise and submit a corrected plan 

based on any comments from the EPA (May 2018). Concurrently, the 

EPA must promulgate a federal plan within 6 months after the 

state plan is due, consistent with 60.27(d), or May 2018. So, 

the EPA-approved state plan and updated federal plan 

implementing the Emission Guidelines are expected to become 

effective in May 2018. While 2018 is the estimated 

implementation year, the proposed reporting and control 

timeframe allows 3 months to submit the first NMOC emission 

report and then 30 months after exceeding the NMOC emission 

threshold before the GCCS is required to be installed. So, the 

first year of controls under the proposed revisions would be 

2021. 

The EPA is assessing impacts in year 2025 as a 

representative year for the landfills Emission Guidelines. While 

the year 2025 differs somewhat from the expected first year of 

implementation for the Emission Guidelines (year 2020), the 

number of existing landfills required to install controls under 

the proposed 2.5/34 option in year 2025 is comparable (within 2 

percent of those required to control in the estimated first year 

of implementation. Further, year 2025 represents a year in which 

several of the landfills subject to control requirements have 

had to expand their GCCS according the expansion lag times set 

forth in proposed subpart Cf. The methodology for estimating the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 214 of 321 

impacts of the Emission Guidelines is discussed in section V.B 

of this preamble and in the docketed memorandum “Revised 

Methodology for Cost and Emission Impacts of Landfill 

Regulations (2015).” The results of applying this methodology to 

the population of existing landfills potentially subject to each 

of the regulatory options are in the docketed memorandum 

“Revised Cost and Emission Impacts Resulting from the Landfill 

EG Review (2015).” Table 3 of this preamble summarizes the 

emission reductions and costs associated with the control 

options considered. 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

This proposal would achieve nearly an additional 5 percent 

reduction in NMOC from existing landfills, or 2,770 Mg/yr, when 

compared to the baseline, as shown in Table 5 of this preamble. 

The proposal would also achieve substantial reductions in 

methane emissions. These reductions are achieved by reducing the 

NMOC threshold from 50 Mg/yr to 34 Mg/yr as proposed at open 

landfills. 

Table 5. Emission Reductions in 2025 for Existing Landfills 

Subject to Additional Controls Under Proposed Option 2.5/34

Parameter Quantity 

Baseline NMOC Emission Reductions(Mg)a 57,300 

Proposed Incremental NMOC Emission 

Reductions (Mg) 2,770

Baseline Methane Emission Reductions (Mg)a 9,035,000

Proposed Incremental Methane Emission 

Reductions (Mg) 436,100
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 215 of 321 

Parameter Quantity 

Baseline Methane Emission Reductions 

(million mtCO2e)a

226

Proposed Incremental Methane Emission 

Reductions (million mtCO2e) 10.9

% Emission Reduction from Proposal 5% below baseline

a These are the reductions that would be achieved from existing landfills if 

40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf retained the same gas collection and control 

requirements that are in 40 CFR part 60, subparts WWW and Cc. 

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

Leachate is the liquid that passes through the landfilled 

waste and strips contaminants from the waste as the leachate 

percolates. Precipitation generates the vast majority of 

leachate volume. Installation of a gas collection system will 

generate additional liquid, in the form of gas condensate, and 

it will be routed to the same leachate treatment mechanisms in 

place for controlling precipitation-based leachate. Collected 

leachate can be treated on site or transported off site to 

wastewater treatment facilities. Some landfills have received 

permits allowing for recirculation of leachate in the landfill, 

which may further reduce the volume of leachate requiring 

treatment. Additional liquid generated from gas condensate is 

not expected to be significant and insufficient data are 

available to estimate the increases in leachate resulting from 

expanded gas collection and control requirements. 

The additional gas collection and control components 

required by this proposal have finite lifetimes (approximately 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 216 of 321 

15 years) and these pipes and wells will be capped or disposed 

of at the end of their useful life. There are insufficient data 

to quantify the solid waste resulting from disposal of this 

control infrastructure. 

Further, the incremental costs of control for the proposal 

are not expected to have an appreciable market effect on the 

waste disposal costs, tipping fees, or the amount of solid waste 

disposed in landfills because the costs for gas collection 

represent a small portion of the overall costs to design, 

construct, and operate a landfill. There is insufficient 

information to quantify the effect increased gas control costs 

might have on the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills 

versus other disposal mechanisms such as recycling, waste-toenergy, or composting. Note that elements of this proposed rule—

notably lowering the NMOC threshold to 34 Mg/yr—provide 

additional incentives to separate waste. 

C. What are the secondary air impacts? 

Secondary air impacts may include grid emissions from 

purchasing electricity to operate the GCCS components, byproduct emissions from combustion of landfill gas in flares or 

energy recovery devices, and offsets to conventional grid 

emissions from new landfill gas energy supply. 

The secondary air impacts are presented as net impacts, 

considering both the energy demand and energy supply resulting 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 217 of 321 

from the proposal. The methodology used to prepare the estimated 

secondary impacts for this preamble is discussed in the docketed 

memorandum “Estimating Secondary Impacts of the Landfills 

Emission Guidelines Review. 2015.” 

While we do expect NOx and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission 

changes as a result of these guidelines, we expect these changes 

to be small and these changes have not been estimated. The net 

impacts were computed for CO2e. After considering the offsets 

from LFG electricity, the impacts of the proposal are expected 

to reduce CO2 emissions by 238,000 metric tons per year. These 

CO2 emission reductions are in addition to the methane emission 

reductions achieved from the direct destruction of methane in 

flares or engines presented in Table 3 of this preamble. 

D. What are the energy impacts? 

The proposal is expected to have a very minimal impact on 

energy supply and consumption. Active gas collection systems 

require energy to operate the blowers and pumps and the proposal 

will increase the volume of landfill gas collected. When the 

least cost control is a flare, energy may be purchased from the 

grid to operate the blowers of the landfill gas collection 

system. However, when the least cost control option is an 

engine, the engine may provide this energy to the gas control 

system and then sell the excess to the grid. Considering the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 218 of 321 

balance of energy generated and demanded from the estimated 

least cost controls, the proposal is estimated to supply 0.4 

million megawatt hours (MWh) of additional energy per year. 

E. What are the cost impacts? 

To meet the proposed emission limits, a landfill is 

expected to install the least cost control for combusting the 

landfill gas. The cost estimates (described in sections V of 

this preamble) evaluated each landfill to determine whether a 

gas collection and flare or a gas collection with flare and 

engine equipment would be least cost, after considering local 

power buyback rates and whether the quantity of landfill gas was 

sufficient to generate electricity. The control costs include 

the costs to install and operate gas collection infrastructure 

such as wells, header pipes, blowers, and an enclosed flare. For 

landfills where the least cost control option was an engine, the 

costs also include the cost to install and operate one or more 

reciprocating internal combustion engines to convert the 

landfill gas into electricity. Revenue from electricity sales 

was incorporated into the net control costs using state-specific 

data on wholesale purchase prices, where engines were deemed to 

be the least cost control option. Testing and monitoring costs 

at controlled landfills include the cost to conduct initial 

performance tests on the enclosed flare or engine control 

equipment, quarterly surface monitoring, continuous combustion 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 219 of 321 

monitoring, and monthly wellhead monitoring. At uncontrolled 

landfills, the testing and monitoring costs include calculation 

and reporting of NMOC emission rates. 

The nationwide incremental annualized net cost for the 

proposal is $46.8 million, when using a 7 percent discount rate, 

of which $0.7 million is testing and monitoring costs. Table 6 

of this preamble presents the costs. 

Table 6. Incremental Cost Impacts in 2025 for Existing Landfills 

Subject to Additional Controls under the Proposal 

Option 

Total No. 

of 

Landfills 

Incurring 

Costa

Annualized 

Control 

Cost 

Average 

Annualized 

Revenue 

Average 

Annualized 

Testing 

and 

Monitoring

Cost 

Average 

Net Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

Total Costs of Baseline ($2012) 

Baseline 2.5/50 

(2.5 million Mg 

design 

capacity/50 Mg/yr 

NMOC) 

785 1,700 1,408 7.3 299 

Incremental Costs Above Baseline ($2012) 

Proposed Option 

2.5/34 (2.5 

million Mg design 

capacity/34 Mg/yr

NMOC) 

0 101 55.3 0.7 46.8 

a At the baseline, 574 of the landfills are controlling in 2025 and an 

additional 211 landfills are expected to submit NMOC emission reports, but 

are not yet controlling for a total of 785. In the proposed option, the total 

landfills incurring cost are also 785, but the proposal is estimated to 

require controls at 680 landfills and the remaining 105 landfills are 

expected to submit NMOC emission reports, but are not yet controlling. 

F. What are the economic impacts? 

Because of the relatively low net cost of the proposed 

option compared to the overall size of the MSW industry, as well 

as the lack of appropriate economic parameters or model, the EPA 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 220 of 321 

is unable to estimate the impacts of the options on the supply 

and demand for MSW landfill services. However, because of the 

relatively low incremental costs of the proposal, the EPA does 

not believe the proposal would lead to substantial changes in 

supply and demand for landfill services or waste disposal costs, 

tipping fees, or the amount of waste disposed in landfills. 

Hence, the overall economic impact of the proposal should be 

minimal on the affected industries and their consumers. 

G. What are the benefits? 

The proposal is expected to result in significant emissions 

reductions from existing MSW landfills. By lowering the NMOC 

emissions threshold to 34 Mg/yr, the proposal would achieve 

reductions of 2,770 Mg/yr NMOC and 436,100 Mg/yr methane (10.9 

million mtCO2e/yr). In addition, the proposal is expected to 

result in the net reduction of 238,000 Mg CO2, due to reduced 

demand for electricity from the grid as landfills generate 

electricity from landfill gas. 

This rule is expected to result in significant health and 

welfare benefits resulting from the climate benefits due to 

anticipated methane and CO2 reductions. Methane is a potent GHG 

that, once emitted into the atmosphere, absorbs terrestrial 

infrared radiation that contributes to increased global warming 

and continuing climate change. Methane reacts in the atmosphere 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 221 of 321 

to form tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor, both 

of which also contribute to global warming. When accounting for 

the impacts of changing methane, tropospheric ozone, and 

stratospheric water vapor concentrations, the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (2013) 

found that historical emissions of methane accounted for about 

30 percent of the total current warming influence (radiative 

forcing) due to historical emissions of greenhouse gases. 

Methane is therefore a major contributor to the climate change 

impacts described in section III.B of this preamble. The 

remainder of this section discusses the methane reductions 

expected from this proposed rule and the associated monetized 

benefits. 

As discussed in section IV of this preamble, this 

rulemaking proposes several changes to the Emission Guidelines 

for MSW landfills that would decrease methane emissions from 

this sector. Specifically, the proposed changes are expected to 

reduce methane emissions from all landfills annually by about 

436,100 metric tons of methane. 

We estimate the global social benefits of these methane 

emission reductions using estimates of the social cost of 

methane (SC-CH4), a metric that estimates the monetary value of 

impacts associated with marginal changes in methane emissions in 

a given year. The SC-CH4 estimates applied in this analysis were 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 222 of 321 

developed by Marten et al. (2014) and are discussed in greater 

detail below. 

A similar metric, the social cost of CO2 (SC-CO2), provides 

important context for understanding the Marten et al. SC-CH4

estimates.85 The SC-CO2 is a metric that estimates the monetary 

value of impacts associated with marginal changes in CO2

emissions in a given year. It includes a wide range of 

anticipated climate impacts, such as net changes in agricultural 

productivity and human health, property damage from increased 

flood risk, and changes in energy system costs, such as reduced 

costs for heating and increased costs for air conditioning. 

Estimates of the SC-CO2 have been used by the EPA and other 

federal agencies to value the impacts of CO2 emissions changes 

in benefit cost analysis for GHG-related rulemakings since 2008. 

The SC-CO2 estimates were developed over many years, using 

the best science available, and with input from the public. 

Specifically, an interagency working group (IWG) that included 

the EPA and other executive branch agencies and offices used 

three integrated assessment models (IAMs) to develop the SC-CO2

estimates and recommended four global values for use in 

 

85 Previous analyses have commonly referred to the social cost of carbon 

dioxide emissions as the social cost of carbon or SCC. To more easily 

facilitate the inclusion of non-CO2 GHGs in the discussion and analysis the 

more specific SC-CO2 nomenclature is used to refer to the social cost of CO2

emissions. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 223 of 321 

regulatory analyses. The SC-CO2 estimates were first released in 

February 2010 and updated in 2013 using new versions of each 

IAM. 

The 2010 SC-CO2 Technical Support Document (TSD) provides a 

complete discussion of the methods used to develop these 

estimates and the current SC-CO2 TSD presents and discusses the 

2013 update (including recent minor technical corrections to the 

estimates).86

The SC-CO2 TSDs discuss a number of limitations to the SCCO2 analysis, including the incomplete way in which the IAMs 

capture catastrophic and non-catastrophic impacts, their 

incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change, 

uncertainty in the extrapolation of damages to high 

temperatures, and assumptions regarding risk aversion. Current 

IAMs do not assign value to all of the important physical, 

ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized in 

the climate change literature due to a lack of precise 

information on the nature of damages and because the science 

incorporated into these models understandably lags behind the 

most recent research. Nonetheless, these estimates and the 

discussion of their limitations represent the best available 

 

86 Both the 2010 SC-CO2

 TSD and the current TSD are available at: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_regpol_agency_review 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/social-cost-of-carbon. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 224 of 321 

information about the social benefits of CO2 reductions to 

inform benefit-cost analysis. The EPA and other agencies 

continue to engage in research on modeling and valuation of 

climate impacts with the goal to improve these estimates, and 

continue to consider feedback on the SC-CO2 estimates from 

stakeholders through a range of channels, including public 

comments received on Agency rulemakings, a separate recent OMB 

public comment solicitation, and through regular interactions 

with stakeholders and research analysts implementing the SC-CO2

methodology. See the docketed Regulatory Impacts Analysis (RIA) 

for additional details. 

A challenge particularly relevant to this proposal is that 

the IWG did not estimate the social costs of non-CO2 GHG 

emissions at the time the SC-CO2 estimates were developed. In 

addition, the directly modeled estimates of the social costs of 

non-CO2 GHG emissions previously found in the published 

literature were few in number and varied considerably in terms 

of the models and input assumptions they employed87 (EPA 2012). 

As a result, benefit-cost analyses informing U.S. federal 

rulemakings to date have not fully considered the monetized 

 

87 U.S. EPA. 2012. Regulatory Impact Analysis Final New Source Performance 

Standards and Amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. April. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/oil_natural_gas_final_neshap_nsps_ri

a.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2015. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 225 of 321 

benefits associated with CH4 emissions mitigation. To understand 

the potential importance of monetizing non-CO2 GHG emissions 

changes, the EPA has conducted sensitivity analysis in some of 

its past regulatory analyses using an estimate of the GWP of CH4

to convert emission impacts to CO2 equivalents, which can then 

be valued using the SC-CO2 estimates. This approach approximates 

the social cost of methane (SC-CH4) using estimates of the SCCO2 and the GWP of CH4. 

The published literature documents a variety of reasons 

that directly modeled estimates of SC-CH4 are an analytical 

improvement over the estimates from the GWP approximation 

approach. Specifically, several recent studies found that GWPweighted benefit estimates for CH4 are likely to be lower than 

the estimates derived using directly modeled social cost 

estimates for these gases.88 The GWP reflects only the relative 

integrated radiative forcing of a gas over 100 years in 

comparison to CO2. The directly modeled social cost estimates 

differ from the GWP-scaled SC-CO2 because the relative 

differences in timing and magnitude of the warming between gases 

are explicitly modeled, the non-linear effects of temperature 

change on economic damages are included, and rather than 

 

88 See Waldhoff et al (2011); Marten and Newbold (2012); and Marten et al. 

(2014). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 226 of 321 

treating all impacts over a hundred years equally, the modeled 

damages over the time horizon considered (2300 in this case) are 

discounted to present value terms. A detailed discussion of the 

limitations of the GWP approach can be found in the RIA. 

In general, the commenters on previous rulemakings strongly 

encouraged the EPA to incorporate the monetized value of non-CO2

GHG impacts into the benefit cost analysis. However they noted 

the challenges associated with the GWP approach, as discussed 

above, and encouraged the use of directly modeled estimates of 

the SC-CH4 to overcome those challenges. 

Since these previous rulemakings, a paper by Marten et al. 

(2014) has provided the first set of published SC-CH4 and social 

cost of nitrous oxide (SC-N2O) estimates in the peer-reviewed 

literature that are consistent with the modeling assumptions 

underlying the SC-CO2 estimates.89 Specifically, the estimation 

approach of Marten et al. used the same set of three IAMs, five 

socioeconomic-emissions scenarios, equilibrium climate 

sensitivity distribution, three constant discount rates, and 

aggregation approach used to develop the SC-CO2 estimates. 

 

89 Marten, A. L., E. A. Kopits, C. W. Griffiths, S. C. Newbold & A. Wolverton 

(2014). Incremental CH4 and N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the U.S. 

Government's SC-CO2 estimates, Climate Policy, DOI: 

10.1080/14693062.2014.912981. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 227 of 321 

The SC-CH4 estimates from Marten, et al. (2014) are 

presented in Table 7 of this preamble. More detailed discussion 

of the methodology, results, and a comparison to other published 

estimates can be found in the RIA and in Marten, et al. 

Table 7. Social Cost of CH4, 2012 – 2050a [in 2012$ per metric 

ton] (Source: Marten et al., 2014b) 

Year 

SC-CH4

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th

percentile 

2012 $430 $1000 $1400 $2800 

2015 490 1100 1500 3000 

2020 580 1300 1700 3500 

2025 700 1500 1900 4000 

2030 820 1700 2200 4500

2035 970 1900 2500 5300 

2040 1100 2200 2800 5900 

2045 1300 2500 3000 6600 

2050 1400 2700 3300 7200 

a The values are emissions-year specific. Estimates using several discount 

rates are included because the literature shows that estimates of the SC-CO2

(and SC-CH4) are sensitive to assumptions about the discount rate, and 

because no consensus exists on the appropriate rate to use in an 

intergenerational context (where costs and benefits are incurred by different 

generations). The fourth value is the 95th percentile of the SC-CH4 estimates 

across three models using a 3 percent discount rate. It is included to 

represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature change further out in 

the tails of the SC-CH4 distribution.

b The estimates in this table have been adjusted to reflect the recent minor 

technical corrections to the SC-CO2 estimates described above. See the RIA 

for more details. 

The application of these directly modeled SC-CH4 estimates 

from Marten et al. (2014) in a benefit-cost analysis of a 

regulatory action is analogous to the use of the SC-CO2

estimates. In addition, the limitations for the SC-CO2 estimates 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 228 of 321 

discussed above likewise apply to the SC-CH4 estimates, given 

the consistency in the methodology. 

The EPA recently conducted a peer review of the application 

of the Marten, et al. (2014) non-CO2 social cost estimates in 

regulatory analysis and received responses that supported this 

application. See the RIA for a detailed discussion. 

In light of the favorable peer review and past comments 

urging the EPA to value non-CO2 GHG impacts in its rulemakings, 

the agency has used the Marten et al. (2014) SC-CH4 estimates to 

value methane impacts expected from this proposed rulemaking and 

has included those benefits in the main benefits analysis. The 

EPA seeks comments on the use of these directly modeled 

estimates, from the peer-reviewed literature, for the social 

cost of non-CO2 GHGs in this rulemaking. 

The CH4 benefits based on Marten et al. (2014) are 

presented for the year 2025. Applying this approach to the 

methane reductions estimated for this proposal, the 2025 methane 

benefits vary by discount rate and range from about $310 million 

to approximately $1.7 billion; the mean SC-CH4 at the 3-percent 

discount rate results in an estimate of about $660 million in 

2025, as presented in Table 8 of this preamble. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 229 of 321 

Table 8. Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2025 [in 

millions, 2012$] 

Million metric 

tons CH4

Discount rate and Statistic 

5% 

Average

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th

percentile 

0.44 $310 $660 $850 $1,700 

The vast majority of this proposal’s climate-related 

benefits are associated with methane reductions. Additional 

climate-related benefits are expected from the proposal’s 

secondary air impacts, specifically, a net reduction in CO2

emissions. Monetizing the net CO2 reductions with the SC-CO2

estimates described in this section yields benefits of $12 

million in the year 2025 (average SC-CO2, 3 percent discount 

rate). See the RIA for more details. 

In addition to the limitation discussed above, and the 

referenced documents, there are additional impacts of individual 

GHGs that are not currently captured in the IAMs used in the 

directly modeled approach of Marten et al. (2014), and therefore 

not quantified for the rule. For example, the NMOC portion of 

LFG can contain a variety of air pollutants, including VOC and 

various organic HAP. VOC emissions are precursors to both PM2.5

and ozone formation, while methane is a GHG and a precursor to 

global ozone formation. These pollutants are associated with 

substantial health effects, welfare effects, and climate 

effects, which are discussed in section III.B of this preamble. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 230 of 321 

The ozone generated by methane, has important non-climate 

impacts on agriculture, ecosystems, and human health. The RIA 

describes the specific impacts of methane as an ozone precursor 

in more detail and discusses studies that have estimated 

monetized benefits of these methane generated ozone effects. The 

EPA continues to monitor developments in this area of research 

and seeks comment on the potential inclusion of health impacts 

of ozone generated by methane in future regulatory analysis. 

Finally, this proposal is also expected to result in 

improvements in air quality and resulting benefits to human 

health. With the data available, we are not able to provide 

health benefit estimates for the reduction in exposure to HAP, 

ozone, and PM2.5 for this rule. This is not to imply that there 

are no benefits of the rules; rather, it is a reflection of the 

difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the 

reductions in emissions for this sector with the data currently 

available.90 In addition to health improvements, there will be 

 

90 Previous studies have estimated the monetized benefits-per-ton of reducing 

VOC emissions associated with the effect that those emissions have on ambient 

PM2.5 levels and the health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure (Fann, 

Fulcher, and Hubbell, 2009). While these ranges of benefit-per-ton estimates 

can provide useful context, the geographic distribution of VOC emissions from 

the MSW landfills sector are not consistent with emissions modeled in Fann, 

Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009). In addition, the benefit-per-ton estimates for 

VOC emission reductions in that study are derived from total VOC emissions 

across all sectors. Coupled with the larger uncertainties about the 

relationship between VOC emissions and PM2.5 and the highly localized nature 

of air quality responses associated with HAP and VOC reductions, these 

factors lead us to conclude that the available VOC benefit-per-ton estimates 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 231 of 321 

improvements in visibility effects, ecosystem effects, and 

climate effects. 

Although we do not have sufficient information or modeling 

available to provide quantitative estimates of the health 

benefits associated with HAP, ozone, and PM2.5 reductions, we 

include a qualitative assessment of the health effects 

associated with exposure to HAP, ozone, and PM2.5 in the RIA for 

this rule. These qualitative impact assessments are briefly 

summarized in section III.B of this preamble, but for more 

detailed information, please refer to the RIA, which is 

available in the docket. 

XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Additional information about these statues and Executive 

Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review 

This action is an economically significant regulatory 

action that was submitted to OMB for review. Any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the 

docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential 

 

are not appropriate to calculate monetized benefits of these rules, even as a 

bounding exercise. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 232 of 321 

costs and benefits associated with the proposed Emission 

Guidelines. The analysis is documented in the RIA, which is 

available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451 and is briefly 

summarized in section V.E of this preamble. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection requirements in the proposed 

Emission Guidelines have been submitted for approval to OMB 

under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document 

that the EPA prepared for the proposed Emission Guidelines has 

been assigned EPA ICR number [2522.01]. You can find a copy of 

the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 

summarized here. 

The information required to be collected is necessary to 

identify the regulated entities subject to the proposed rule and 

to ensure their compliance with the proposed Emission 

Guidelines. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 

mandatory and are being established under authority of CAA 

section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than 

emissions data submitted as part of a report to the agency for 

which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded 

according to CAA section 114(c) and the EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

Respondents/affected entities: Municipal solid waste 

landfills that accepted waste after November 8, 1987 and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 233 of 321 

commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification on or 

before July 17, 2014. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 

60, subpart Cf). 

Estimated number of respondents: 988 municipal solid waste 

landfills. 

Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and 

annually. 

Total estimated burden: 621,947 hours (per year) for the 

responding facilities and 16,054 hours (per year) for the 

agency. These are estimates for the average annual burden for 

the first 3 years after the rule is final. Burden is defined at 

5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $41,755,793 (per year), which 

includes annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs, 

for the responding facilities and $1,029,658 (per year) for the 

agency. These are estimates for the average annual cost for the 

first 3 years after the rule is final. 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 234 of 321 

Submit your comments on the agency’s need for this 

information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and 

any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the 

EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. 

You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB’s Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to 

oriaoira_submissions@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for 

the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the 

ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive 

comments no later than [insert date 30 days after publication in 

the Federal Register]. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related 

comments in the final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under 

the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small 

entities. Specifically, Emission Guidelines established under 

CAA section 111(d) do not impose any requirements on regulated 

entities and, thus, will not have a significant economic impact 

upon a substantial number of small entities. After Emission 

Guidelines are promulgated, states and U.S. territories 

establish standards on existing sources, and it is those state 

requirements that could potentially impact small entities. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 235 of 321 

Our analysis here is consistent with the analysis of the 

analogous situation arising when the EPA establishes National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which do not impose any 

requirements on regulated entities. As here, any impact of a 

NAAQS on small entities would only arise when states take 

subsequent action to maintain and/or achieve the NAAQS through 

their state implementation plans. See American Trucking Assoc. 

v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1029, 1043-45 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (NAAQS do not 

have significant impacts upon small entities because NAAQS 

themselves impose no regulations upon small entities). 

Nevertheless, the EPA is aware that there is substantial 

interest in the rule among small entities. The EPA has conducted 

stakeholder outreach as detailed in section XI.C and XI.E of the 

preamble to the proposed Standards of Performance for MSW 

Landfills (79 FR 41828-41829; July 17, 2014) and in sections 

XII.D and XII.E of this preamble. The EPA convened a Small 

Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel in 2013 for the landfills 

rulemaking. The EPA originally planned a review of the Emission 

Guidelines and NSPS in one action, but the actions were 

subsequently divided into separate rulemakings. The SBAR Panel 

evaluated the assembled materials and small-entity comments on 

issues related to the rule’s potential effects and significant 

alternative regulatory approaches. A copy of the Summary of 

Small Entity Outreach is available in the rulemaking docket EPA-
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 236 of 321 

HQ-OAR-2014-0451. While formulating the provisions of the rule, 

the EPA considered the input provided over the course of the 

stakeholder outreach as well as the input provided in the many 

public comments, and we have incorporated many of the 

suggestions in this proposal.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 

million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538. The 

proposed Emission Guidelines apply to landfills that were 

constructed, modified, or reconstructed after November 8, 1987, 

and that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification 

on or before July 17, 2014. Impacts resulting from the proposed 

Emission Guidelines are below the applicable threshold. 

We note however, that the proposed Emission Guidelines may 

significantly or uniquely affect small governments because small 

governments operate landfills. The EPA consulted with small 

governments concerning the regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect them. In developing this rule, 

the EPA consulted with small governments pursuant to a plan 

established under section 203 of the UMRA to address impacts of 

regulatory requirements in the rule that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The EPA also held meetings as 

discussed in section XII.E of this preamble under Federalism 

consultations. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 237 of 321 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

The EPA has concluded that the proposed Emission Guidelines 

have federalism implications, because the rule imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on state or local 

governments, and the federal government will not provide the 

funds necessary to pay those costs. 

The EPA conducted a Federalism Consultation Outreach 

Meeting on September 10, 2013. Due to interest in that meeting, 

additional outreach meetings were held on November 7, 2013 and 

November 14, 2013. With the pending proposal of these Emission 

Guidelines, an additional Federalism outreach meeting was 

conducted on April 15, 2015. Participants included the National 

Governors’ Association, the National Conference of State 

Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National 

League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National 

Association of Counties, the International City/County 

Management Association, the National Association of Towns and 

Townships, the County Executives of America, the Environmental 

Council of States, National Association of Clean Air Agencies, 

Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 

Officials, environmental agency representatives from 43 states, 

and approximately 60 representatives from city and county 

governments. Concerns raised during the consultations include: 

implementation concerns associated with shortening of gas 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 238 of 321 

collection system installation and/or expansion timeframes, 

concerns regarding significant lowering of the design capacity 

or emission thresholds, the need for clarifications associated 

with wellhead operating parameters and the need for consistent, 

clear and rigorous surface monitoring requirements. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This action has tribal implications. However, it will 

neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally 

recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The 

database used to estimate impacts of the proposed 40 CFR part 

60, subpart Cf identified one tribe, the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community, which owns three landfills 

potentially subject to the proposed Emission Guidelines. One of 

these landfills is open, the Salt River Landfill, and is already 

controlling emissions under the current NSPS/EG framework, so 

while subject to this subpart, the costs of this proposal are 

not substantial. The two other landfills are closed and 

anticipated to meet the definition of the closed landfill 

subcategory. One of the closed landfills, the Tri Cities 

Landfill, is already controlling emissions under the current 

NSPS/EG framework and will not incur substantial additional 

compliance costs under Cf. The other landfill, North Center 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 239 of 321 

Street Landfill, is not estimated to install controls under the 

current NSPS/EG framework. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or 

safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per the definition of 

“covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive 

Order. The proposed Emission Guidelines are not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because they do not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. We also note that the 

methane and NMOC reductions expected from the proposed Emission 

Guidelines will have positive health effects including for 

children as previously discussed in section XII.G of this 

preamble. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a “significant energy action” because it 

is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have 

concluded that the proposed Emission Guidelines are not likely 

to have any adverse energy effects because the energy demanded 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 240 of 321 

to operate these control systems will be offset by additional 

energy supply from landfill gas energy projects. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

The proposed Emission Guidelines involve technical 

standards. For the proposed Emission Guidelines, the EPA has 

decided to use EPA Methods 2, 2E, 3, 3A, 3C, 21, 25, 25A, and 

25C of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. While the EPA identified 10 

VCS as being potentially applicable (ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 

Part 10, ASME B133.9-1994 (2001), ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 

12039:2001, ASTM D5835-95 (2013), ASTM D6522-11, CAN/CSA Z223.2-

M86 (1999), ASTM D6060-96 (2009), ISO 14965:2000(E), EN 

12619(1999)), the agency decided not to use these methods. The 

EPA determined that the 10 candidate VCS identified for 

measuring emissions of pollutants or their surrogates subject to 

emission standards in the rule would not be practical due to 

lack of equivalency, documentation, validation data, and other 

important technical and policy considerations. The agency 

identified no such standards for Methods 2E, 21, and 25C. The 

EPA’s review, including review of comments for these 10 methods, 

is documented in the memorandum, “Voluntary Consensus Standard 

Results for Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills” in the docket for this 

rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 241 of 321 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk 

addressed by the proposed Emission Guidelines will not have 

potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous 

populations because the proposed subpart would reduce emissions 

of landfill gas, which contains both nonmethane organic 

compounds and methane. These avoided emissions will improve air 

quality and reduce public health and welfare effects associated 

with exposure to landfill gas emissions. The results of the 

proximity analysis conducted for the proposed Emission 

Guidelines are located in the April 22, 2015 document entitled, 

“2015 Environmental Justice Screening Report for Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills,” a copy of which is available in the docket 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0215).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times and Supplemental Standards of 

Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

Page 242 of 321 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: 

 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 243 of 321 

Subpart Cf—Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

Contents 

§ 60.30f Scope and delegated authorities.

§ 60.31f Designated facilities.

§ 60.32f Compliance times.

§ 60.33f Emission Guidelines for municipal solid waste landfill 

emissions.

§ 60.34f Operational standards.

§ 60.35f Test methods and procedures.

§ 60.36f Compliance provisions.

§ 60.37f Monitoring of operations.

§ 60.38f Reporting guidelines.

§ 60.39f Recordkeeping guidelines.

§ 60.40f Specifications for active collection systems.

§ 60.41f Definitions.

§ 60.30f Scope and delegated authorities. 

This subpart establishes Emission Guidelines and compliance 

times for the control of designated pollutants from certain 

designated municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills in accordance 

with section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act and subpart B. 

(a) If you are the Administrator of an air quality program 

in a State or United States protectorate with one or more 

existing MSW landfills that commenced construction, 

modification, or reconstruction on or before July 17, 2014, you 

must submit a State plan to the U.S. Environmental Protection 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 244 of 321 

Agency (EPA) that implements the Emission Guidelines contained 

in this subpart. The requirements for State plans are specified 

in subpart B of this part. 

(b) You must submit a State plan to EPA by [insert date 9 

months after the final rule is published in the Federal 

Register]. 

(c) The following authorities will not be delegated to 

state, local, or tribal agencies: 

(1) Approval of alternative methods to determine the NMOC 

concentration or a site-specific methane generation rate 

constant (k). 

(2) [Reserved] 

§ 60.31f Designated facilities. 

(a) The designated facility to which these Emission 

Guidelines apply is each existing MSW landfill for which 

construction, reconstruction, or modification was commenced on 

or before July 17, 2014. 

(b) Physical or operational changes made to an existing MSW 

landfill solely to comply with an emission guideline are not 

considered a modification or reconstruction and would not 

subject an existing MSW landfill to the requirements of a 

standard of performance for new MSW landfills. 

(c) For purposes of obtaining an operating permit under 

title V of the Clean Air Act, the owner or operator of an MSW 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 245 of 321 

landfill subject to this subpart with a design capacity less 

than 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters is not 

subject to the requirement to obtain an operating permit for the 

landfill under part 70 or 71 of this chapter, unless the 

landfill is otherwise subject to either part 70 or 71. For 

purposes of submitting a timely application for an operating 

permit under part 70 or 71, the owner or operator of an MSW 

landfill subject to this subpart with a design capacity greater 

than or equal to 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic 

meters on the effective date of EPA approval of the State's 

program under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, and not 

otherwise subject to either part 70 or 71, becomes subject to 

the requirements of §§ 70.5(a)(1)(i) or 71.5(a)(1)(i) of this 

chapter 90 days after the effective date of such section 111(d) 

program approval, even if the design capacity report is 

submitted earlier. 

(d) When an MSW landfill subject to this subpart is closed 

as defined in this subpart, the owner or operator is no longer 

subject to the requirement to maintain an operating permit under 

part 70 or 71 of this chapter for the landfill if the landfill 

is not otherwise subject to the requirements of either part 70 

or 71 and if either of the following conditions are met: 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 246 of 321 

(1) The landfill was never subject to the requirement to 

install and operate a gas collection and control system under § 

60.33f; or 

(2) The landfill meets the conditions for control system 

removal specified in § 60.33f(f). 

(e) When an MSW landfill subject to this subpart is in the 

closed landfill subcategory, the owner or operator is not 

subject to the following reports of this subpart, provided the 

owner or operator submitted these reports under the provisions 

of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW; 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG; or 

a state plan implementing 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc on or 

before [insert date of publication in the Federal Register]: 

(1) Initial design capacity report specified in §§ 

60.33f(d) and 60.38f(a) 

(2) Initial or subsequent NMOC emission rate report 

specified in §§ 60.33f(e) and 60.38f(c), provided that the most 

recent NMOC emission rate report indicated the NMOC emissions 

were below 50 Mg/yr. 

(3) Collection and control system design plan specified in 

§ 60.38f(d). 

(4) Closure report specified in § 60.38f(f). 

(5) Equipment removal specified in § 60.38f(g). 

(6) Initial annual report specified in § 60.38f(h). 

(7) Initial performance test report in § 60.38f(i). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 247 of 321 

§ 60.32f Compliance times. 

Planning, awarding of contracts, installing, and starting 

up MSW landfill air emission collection and control equipment 

that is capable of meeting the Emission Guidelines under § 

60.33f must be completed within 30 months after the date an NMOC 

emission rate report shows NMOC emissions equal or exceed 34 

megagrams per year (50 megagrams per year for the closed 

landfill subcategory) or within 30 months after the date Tier 4 

surface emissions monitoring shows a surface emission 

concentration of 500 parts per million methane or greater. 

§ 60.33f Emission Guidelines for municipal solid waste landfill 

emissions. 

(a) Landfills. For approval, a State plan must require each 

owner or operator of an MSW landfill having a design capacity 

greater than or equal to 2.5 million megagrams by mass and 2.5 

million cubic meters by volume to collect and control MSW 

landfill emissions at each MSW landfill that meets the following 

conditions: 

(1) The landfill has accepted waste at any time since 

November 8, 1987, or has additional design capacity available 

for future waste deposition. 

(2) The landfill commenced construction, reconstruction, or 

modification on or before July 17, 2014. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 248 of 321 

(3) The landfill has an NMOC emission rate greater than or 

equal to 34 megagrams per year or the Tier 4 surface emissions 

report shows a surface emission concentration of 500 parts per 

million methane or greater. 

(4) A landfill in the closed landfill subcategory that has 

an NMOC emission rate greater than or equal to 50 megagrams per 

year or the Tier 4 surface emissions report shows a surface 

emission concentration of 500 parts per million methane or 

greater. 

(b) Collection system. For approval, a State plan must 

include provisions for the installation of a collection and 

control system meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (b)(3) and (c) of this section at each MSW landfill 

meeting the conditions in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(1) Install and start up a collection and control system 

that captures the gas generated within the landfill within 30 

months after: 

(i) The first annual report in which the emission rate 

equals or exceeds 34 megagrams per year, unless Tier 2 or Tier 3 

sampling demonstrates that the emission rate is less than 34 

megagrams per year, as specified in § 60.38f(c)(5)(i) or (ii), 

(ii) The emission rate at a landfill in the closed landfill 

subcategory equals or exceeds 50 megagrams per year, unless Tier 

2 or Tier 3 sampling demonstrates that the emission rate is less 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 249 of 321 

than 50 megagrams per year, as specified in § 

60.38f(c)(5)(iv)(A) or (B), or 

(iii) The Tier 4 surface emissions report shows that 

surface methane emissions are below 500 parts per million 

methane for four consecutive quarters, as specified in § 

60.38f(c)(5)(iii). 

(2) An active collection system must: 

(i) Be designed to handle the maximum expected gas flow 

rate from the entire area of the landfill that warrants control 

over the intended use period of the gas control system 

equipment. 

(ii) Collect gas from each area, cell, or group of cells in 

the landfill in which the initial solid waste has been placed 

for a period of 5 years or more if active; or 2 years or more if 

closed or at final grade. 

(iii) Collect gas at a sufficient extraction rate. 

(iv) Be designed to minimize offsite migration of 

subsurface gas. 

(3) A passive collection system must: 

(i) Comply with the provisions specified in paragraphs 

(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iv) of this section. 

(ii) Be installed with liners on the bottom and all sides 

in all areas in which gas is to be collected. The liners must be 

installed as required under § 258.40. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 250 of 321 

(c) Control system. For approval, a State plan must include 

provisions for the control of the gas collected from within the 

landfill through the use of control devices meeting the 

following requirements, except as provided in § 60.24. 

(1) A non-enclosed flare designed and operated in 

accordance with the parameters established in § 60.18 except as 

noted in § 60.37f(c); or 

(2) A control system designed and operated to reduce NMOC 

by 98 weight percent; or when an enclosed combustion device is 

used for control, to either reduce NMOC by 98 weight percent or 

reduce the outlet NMOC concentration to less than 20 parts per 

million by volume, dry basis as hexane at 3 percent oxygen or 

less. The reduction efficiency or concentration in parts per 

million by volume must be established by an initial performance 

test to be completed no later than 180 days after the initial 

startup of the approved control system using the test methods 

specified in § 60.35f(d). The performance test is not required 

for boilers and process heaters with design heat input 

capacities equal to or greater than 44 megawatts that burn 

landfill gas for compliance with this subpart. 

(i) If a boiler or process heater is used as the control 

device, the landfill gas stream must be introduced into the 

flame zone. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 251 of 321 

(ii) The control device must be operated within the 

parameter ranges established during the initial or most recent 

performance test. The operating parameters to be monitored are 

specified in § 60.37f. 

(iii) For the closed landfill subcategory, the initial or 

most recent performance test conducted to comply with 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart WWW; 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG; or a state 

plan implementing 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc on or before 

[insert date of publication in the Federal Register] is 

sufficient for compliance with this subpart. 

(3) Route the collected gas to a treatment system that 

processes the collected gas for subsequent sale or beneficial 

use such as fuel for combustion, production of vehicle fuel, 

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

raw material in a chemical manufacturing process. Venting of 

treated landfill gas to the ambient air or combustion in a flare 

is not allowed under this option. (If flares are used, they must 

meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this 

section.) 

(4) All emissions from any atmospheric vent from the gas 

treatment system are subject to the requirements of paragraph 

(b) or (c) of this section. For purposes of this subpart, 

atmospheric vents located on the condensate storage tank are not 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 252 of 321 

part of the treatment system and are exempt from the 

requirements of paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. 

(d) Design capacity. For approval, a State plan must 

require each owner or operator of an MSW landfill having a 

design capacity less than 2.5 million megagrams by mass or 2.5 

million cubic meters by volume to submit an initial design 

capacity report to the Administrator as provided in § 60.38f(a). 

The landfill may calculate design capacity in either megagrams 

or cubic meters for comparison with the exemption values. Any 

density conversions must be documented and submitted with the 

report. Submittal of the initial design capacity report fulfills 

the requirements of this subpart except as provided in 

paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section. 

(1) The owner or operator must submit an amended design 

capacity report as provided in § 60.38f(b). [Guidance: Note that 

if the design capacity increase is the result of a modification, 

as defined in this subpart, that was commenced after July 17, 

2014, the landfill will become subject to subpart XXX of this 

part instead of this subpart. If the design capacity increase is 

the result of a change in operating practices, density, or some 

other change that is not a modification as defined in this 

subpart, then the landfill remains subject to this subpart.] 

(2) When an increase in the maximum design capacity of a 

landfill with an initial design capacity less than 2.5 million 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 253 of 321 

megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters results in a revised 

maximum design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million 

megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters, the owner or operator 

must comply with paragraph (e) of this section. 

(e) Emissions. For approval, a State plan must require each 

owner or operator of an MSW landfill having a design capacity 

equal to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million 

cubic meters to either install a collection and control system 

as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section or 

calculate an initial NMOC emission rate for the landfill using 

the procedures specified in § 60.35f(a). The NMOC emission rate 

must be recalculated annually, except as provided in § 

60.38f(c)(3). 

(1) If the calculated NMOC emission rate is less than 34 

megagrams per year, the owner or operator must: 

(i) Submit an annual NMOC emission rate report according to 

§ 60.38f(c); and 

(ii) Recalculate the NMOC emission rate annually using the 

procedures specified in § 60.35f(a) until such time as the 

calculated NMOC emission rate is equal to or greater than 34 

megagrams per year, or the landfill is closed. 

(A) If the NMOC emission rate, upon initial calculation or 

annual recalculation, is equal to or greater than 34 megagrams 

per year, the owner or operator must either: submit a gas 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 254 of 321 

collection and control system design plan as specified in § 

60.38f(d) and install a collection and control system as 

provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section; calculate 

NMOC emissions using the next higher tier in § 60.35f; or 

conduct a surface emission monitoring demonstration using the 

procedures specified in § 60.35f(a)(6). 

(B) If the landfill is permanently closed, a closure report 

must be submitted to the Administrator as provided in § 

60.38f(f), except for exemptions allowed under 60.31f(e)(4). 

(C) For the closed landfill subcategory, if the most 

recently calculated NMOC emission rate is equal to or greater 

than 50 megagrams per year, the owner or operator must either: 

submit a gas collection and control system design plan as 

specified in § 60.38f(d), except for exemptions allowed under 

60.31f(e)(3), and install a collection and control system as 

provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section; calculate 

NMOC emissions using the next higher tier in § 60.35f; or 

conduct a surface emission monitoring demonstration using the 

procedures specified in § 60.35f(a)(6). 

(2) If the calculated NMOC emission rate is equal to or 

greater than 34 megagrams per year using Tier 1, 2, or 3 

procedures, the owner or operator must either: submit a 

collection and control system design plan prepared by a 

professional engineer to the Administrator within 1 year as 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 255 of 321 

specified in § 60.38f(d); calculate NMOC emissions using a 

higher tier in § 60.35f; or conduct a surface emission 

monitoring demonstration using the procedures specified in § 

60.35f(a)(6). 

(3) For the closed landfill subcategory, if the calculated 

NMOC emission rate is equal to or greater than 50 megagrams per 

year using Tier 1, 2, or 3 procedures, the owner or operator 

must either: submit a collection and control system design plan 

prepared by a professional engineer to the Administrator within 

1 year as specified in § 60.38f(d), except for exemptions 

allowed under 60.31f(e)(3); calculate NMOC emissions using a 

higher tier in § 60.35f; or conduct a surface emission 

monitoring demonstration using the procedures specified in § 

60.35f(a)(6). 

(f) Removal criteria. The collection and control system may 

be capped or removed if the criteria in paragraph (f)(1), 

(f)(2), and either (f)(3), (f)(4), or (f)(5) of this section are 

met: 

(1) The landfill is closed or an area of an open landfill 

is closed as defined in § 60.41f. A closure report must be 

submitted to the Administrator as provided in § 60.38f(f); 

(2) The collection and control system must have been in 

operation a minimum of 15 years or the landfill owner or 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 256 of 321 

operator must demonstrate that the GCCS will be unable to 

operate for 15 years due to declining gas flow; and 

(3) The landfill or closed area demonstrates for four 

consecutive quarters that there are no surface emissions of 500 

parts per million or greater as determined using procedures 

specified in § 60.36f(d); 

(4) Following the procedures specified in § 60.35f(b), the 

calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill must be less than 

34 megagrams per year on three successive test dates. The test 

dates must be no less than 90 days apart, and no more than 180 

days apart; or 

(5) For the closed landfill subcategory, following the 

procedures specified in § 60.35f(b), the calculated NMOC 

emission rate at the landfill must be less than 50 megagrams per 

year on three successive test dates. The test dates must be no 

less than 90 days apart, and no more than 180 days apart. 

§ 60.34f Operational standards. 

For approval, a State plan must include provisions for the 

operational standards in this section for an MSW landfill with a 

gas collection and control system used to comply with the 

provisions of § 60.33f(b) and (c). Each owner or operator of an 

MSW landfill with a gas collection and control system used to 

comply with the provisions of § 60.33f(b) must: 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 257 of 321 

(a) Operate the collection system such that gas is 

collected from each area, cell, or group of cells in the MSW 

landfill in which solid waste has been in place for: 

(1) 5 years or more if active; or 

(2) 2 years or more if closed or at final grade; 

(b) Operate the collection system with negative pressure at 

each wellhead except under the following conditions: 

(1) A fire or increased well temperature. The owner or 

operator must record instances when positive pressure occurs in 

efforts to avoid a fire. These records must be submitted with 

the annual reports as provided in § 60.38f(h)(1); 

(2) Use of a geomembrane or synthetic cover. The owner or 

operator must develop acceptable pressure limits in the design 

plan; 

(3) A decommissioned well. A well may experience a static 

positive pressure after shut down to accommodate for declining 

flows. All design changes must be approved by the Administrator 

as specified in § 60.38f(d); 

(c) [Reserved] 

(d) Operate the collection system so that the methane 

concentration is less than 500 parts per million above 

background at the surface of the landfill. To determine if this 

level is exceeded, the owner or operator must conduct surface 

testing around the perimeter of the collection area and along a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 258 of 321 

pattern that traverses the landfill at no more than 30-meter 

intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated 

concentrations of landfill gas, such as distressed vegetation 

and cracks or seeps in the cover and all cover penetrations. 

Thus, the owner or operator must monitor any openings that are 

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

gas collection system is required. The owner or operator may 

establish an alternative traversing pattern that ensures 

equivalent coverage. A surface monitoring design plan must be 

developed that includes a topographical map with the monitoring 

route and the rationale for any site-specific deviations from 

the 30-meter intervals. Areas with steep slopes or other 

dangerous areas may be excluded from the surface testing. 

(e) Operate the system such that all collected gases are 

vented to a control system designed and operated in compliance 

with § 60.33f(c). In the event the collection or control system 

is not operating, the gas mover system must be shut down and all 

valves in the collection and control system contributing to 

venting of the gas to the atmosphere must be closed within 1 

hour; and 

(f) Operate the control system at all times when the 

collected gas is routed to the system. 

(g) If monitoring demonstrates that the operational 

requirements in paragraphs (b) or (d) of this section are not 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 259 of 321 

met, corrective action must be taken as specified in § 

60.36f(a)(3) through (4) or § 60.36f(c). If corrective actions 

are taken as specified in § 60.36f, the monitored exceedance is 

not a violation of the operational requirements in this section. 

§ 60.35f Test methods and procedures. 

For approval, a State plan must include provisions in this 

section to calculate the landfill NMOC emission rate or to 

conduct a surface emission monitoring demonstration. 

(a)(1) The landfill owner or operator must calculate the 

NMOC emission rate using either the equation provided in 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section or the equation provided in 

paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section. Both equations may be used 

if the actual year-to-year solid waste acceptance rate is known, 

as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, for part of 

the life of the landfill and the actual year-to-year solid waste 

acceptance rate is unknown, as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) 

of this section, for part of the life of the landfill. The 

values to be used in both equations are 0.05 per year for k, 170 

cubic meters per megagram for Lo, and 4,000 parts per million by 

volume as hexane for the CNMOC. For landfills located in 

geographical areas with a 30-year annual average precipitation 

of less than 25 inches, as measured at the nearest 

representative official meteorologic site, the k value to be 

used is 0.02 per year. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 260 of 321 

(i) The following equation must be used if the actual yearto-year solid waste acceptance rate is known. 

 = 	 ∑ 2	
	
( )()(3.6		10)	 




Where: 

MNMOC = Total NMOC emission rate from the landfill, 

megagrams per year. 

k = Methane generation rate constant, year−1. 

Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic meters per 

megagram solid waste. 

Mi = Mass of solid waste in the ith section, megagrams. 

ti = Age of the ith section, years. 

CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, parts per million by volume 

as hexane. 

3.6 × 10−9 = Conversion factor. 

The mass of nondegradable solid waste may be subtracted 

from the total mass of solid waste in a particular section of 

the landfill when calculating the value for Mi if documentation 

of the nature and amount of such wastes is maintained. 

(ii) The following equation must be used if the actual 

year-to-year solid waste acceptance rate is unknown. 

 MNMOC = 2LoR (e−kc−e−kt) CNMOC(3.6 × 10−9) 

Where: 

MNMOC = Mass emission rate of NMOC, megagrams per year. 

Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic meters per 

megagram solid waste. 

R = Average annual acceptance rate, megagrams per year. 

k = Methane generation rate constant, year−1.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 261 of 321 

t = Age of landfill, years. 

CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, parts per million by volume 

as hexane. 

c = Time since closure, years; for an active landfill c 

= 0 and e−kc = 1.

3.6 × 10−9 = Conversion factor. 

The mass of nondegradable solid waste may be subtracted 

from the total mass of solid waste in a particular section of 

the landfill when calculating the value of R, if documentation 

of the nature and amount of such wastes is maintained. 

(2) Tier 1. The owner or operator must compare the 

calculated NMOC mass emission rate to the standard of 34 

megagrams per year. 

(i) If the NMOC emission rate calculated in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section is less than 34 megagrams per year, then 

the owner or operator must submit an NMOC emission rate report 

according to § 60.38f(c), and must recalculate the NMOC mass 

emission rate annually as required under § 60.33f(e). 

(ii) If the NMOC emission rate calculated in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section is equal to or greater than 34 megagrams 

per year, then the landfill owner or operator must either: 

(A) Submit a gas collection and control system design plan 

as specified in § 60.38f(d) within 1 year and install and 

operate a gas collection and control system according to § 

60.33f(b) and (c) within 30 months; 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 262 of 321 

(B) Determine a site-specific NMOC concentration and 

recalculate the NMOC emission rate using the Tier 2 procedures 

provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section; 

(C) Determine a site-specific methane generation rate 

constant and recalculate the NMOC emission rate using the Tier 3 

procedures provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section; or 

(D) Conduct a surface emission monitoring demonstration 

using the Tier 4 procedures specified in paragraph (a)(6) of 

this section. 

(3) Tier 2. The landfill owner or operator must determine 

the site-specific NMOC concentration using the following 

sampling procedure. The landfill owner or operator must install 

at least two sample probes per hectare of landfill surface that 

has retained waste for at least 2 years. If the landfill is 

larger than 25 hectares in area, only 50 samples are required. 

The sample probes should be located to avoid known areas of 

nondegradable solid waste. The owner or operator must collect 

and analyze one sample of landfill gas from each probe to 

determine the NMOC concentration using Method 25 or 25C of 

appendix A of this part. Taking composite samples from different 

probes into a single cylinder is allowed; however, equal sample 

volumes must be taken from each probe. For each composite, the 

sampling rate, collection times, beginning and ending cylinder 

vacuums, or alternative volume measurements must be recorded to 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 263 of 321 

verify that composite volumes are equal. Composite sample 

volumes should not be less than one liter unless evidence can be 

provided to substantiate the accuracy of smaller volumes. 

Terminate compositing before the cylinder approaches ambient 

pressure where measurement accuracy diminishes. If more than the 

required number of samples is taken, all samples must be used in 

the analysis. The landfill owner or operator must divide the 

NMOC concentration from Method 25 or 25C of appendix A of this 

part by six to convert from CNMOC as carbon to CNMOC as hexane. 

If the landfill has an active or passive gas removal system in 

place, Method 25 or 25C samples may be collected from these 

systems instead of surface probes provided the removal system 

can be shown to provide sampling as representative as the two 

sampling probe per hectare requirement. For active collection 

systems, samples may be collected from the common header pipe. 

The sample location on the common header pipe must be before any 

gas moving, condensate removal, or treatment system equipment. 

For active collection systems, a minimum of three samples must 

be collected from the header pipe. 

(i) Within 60 days after the date of determining the NMOC 

concentration and corresponding NMOC emission rate, the owner or 

operator must submit the results according to § 60.38f(j). 

(ii) The landfill owner or operator must recalculate the 

NMOC mass emission rate using the equations provided in 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 264 of 321 

paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this section using the 

average site-specific NMOC concentration from the collected 

samples instead of the default value provided in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. 

(iii) If the NMOC mass emission rate is less than 34 

megagrams per year, then the owner or operator must submit an 

NMOC emission rate report according to § 60.38f(c), and must 

recalculate the NMOC mass emission rate annually as required 

under § 60.33f(e). The site-specific NMOC concentration must be 

retested every 5 years using the methods specified in this 

section. 

(iv) If the NMOC mass emission rate as calculated using the 

Tier 2 site-specific NMOC concentration is equal to or greater 

than 34 megagrams per year, the owner or operator must either: 

(A) Submit a gas collection and control system design plan 

as specified in § 60.38f(d) within 1 year and install and 

operate a gas collection and control system according to § 

60.33f(b) and (c) within 30 months; 

(B) Determine a site-specific methane generation rate 

constant and recalculate the NMOC emission rate using the sitespecific methane generation rate using the Tier 3 procedures 

specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section; or 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 265 of 321 

(C) Conduct a surface emission monitoring demonstration 

using the Tier 4 procedures specified in paragraph (a)(6) of 

this section. 

(4) Tier 3. The site-specific methane generation rate 

constant must be determined using the procedures provided in 

Method 2E of appendix A of this part. The landfill owner or 

operator must estimate the NMOC mass emission rate using the 

equations in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this section 

and using a site-specific methane generation rate constant, and 

the site-specific NMOC concentration as determined in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section instead of the default values provided in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The landfill owner or operator 

must compare the resulting NMOC mass emission rate to the 

standard of 34 megagrams per year. 

(i) If the NMOC mass emission rate as calculated using the 

Tier 2 site-specific NMOC concentration and Tier 3 site-specific 

methane generation rate is equal to or greater than 34 megagrams 

per year, the owner or operator must either: 

(A) Submit a gas collection and control system design plan 

as specified in § 60.38f(d) within 1 year and install and 

operate a gas collection and control system according to § 

60.33f(b) and (c) within 30 months; or 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 266 of 321 

(B) Conduct a surface emission monitoring demonstration 

using the Tier 4 procedures specified in paragraph (a)(6) of 

this section. 

(ii) If the NMOC mass emission rate is less than 34 

megagrams per year, then the owner or operator must recalculate 

the NMOC mass emission rate annually using the equations in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section and using the site-specific 

Tier 2 NMOC concentration and Tier 3 methane generation rate 

constant and submit a periodic emission rate report as provided 

in § 60.38f(c). The calculation of the methane generation rate 

constant is performed only once, and the value obtained from 

this test must be used in all subsequent annual NMOC emission 

rate calculations. 

(5) The owner or operator may use other methods to 

determine the NMOC concentration or a site-specific methane 

generation rate constant as an alternative to the methods 

required in paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this section if the 

method has been approved by the Administrator. 

(6) Tier 4. The landfill owner or operator may demonstrate 

that surface methane emissions are below 500 parts per million 

by conducting surface emission monitoring on a quarterly basis 

using the following procedures. 

(i) The owner or operator must measure surface 

concentrations of methane along the entire perimeter of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 267 of 321 

landfill and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at no 

more than 30-meter intervals using an organic vapor analyzer, 

flame ionization detector, or other portable monitor meeting the 

specifications provided in paragraph (a)(6)(iv) of this section. 

(ii) The background concentration must be determined by 

moving the probe inlet upwind and downwind at least 30 meters 

from the waste mass boundary of the landfill. 

(iii) Surface emission monitoring must be performed in 

accordance with section 8.3.1 of Method 21 of appendix A of this 

part, except that the probe inlet must be placed within 5 to 10 

centimeters of the landfill surface. Monitoring must be 

performed during typical meteorological conditions. 

(A) Surface emission monitoring must be terminated when the 

average wind speed exceeds 5 miles per hour or the instantaneous 

wind speed exceeds 10 miles per hour. The Administrator may 

approve alternatives to this wind speed surface monitoring 

termination for landfills consistently having measured winds in 

excess of these specified limits. Average wind speed must be 

determined on a 15-minute average using an onsite anemometer 

with a continuous recorder for the entire duration of the 

monitoring event. 

(B) Landfill surface areas where visual observations 

indicate elevated concentrations of landfill gas, such as 

distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover, and all 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 268 of 321 

cover penetrations must also be monitored using a device meeting 

the specifications provided in paragraph (a)(6)(iv) of this 

section. 

(iv) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the 

provisions in paragraph (a)(6) of this section must comply with 

the following instrumentation specifications and procedures for 

surface emission monitoring devices. 

(A) The portable analyzer must meet the instrument 

specifications provided in section 3 of Method 21 of appendix A 

of this part, except that “methane” replaces all references to 

“VOC”. 

(B) The calibration gas is methane, diluted to a nominal 

concentration of 500 parts per million in air. 

(C) To meet the performance evaluation requirements in 

section 3.1.3 of Method 21 of appendix A of this part, the 

instrument evaluation procedures of section 4.4 of Method 21 of 

appendix A of this part must be used. 

(D) The calibration procedures provided in section 4.2 of 

Method 21 of appendix A of this part must be followed 

immediately before commencing a surface monitoring survey. 

(v) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the Tier 

4 provisions in paragraph (a)(6) of this section must maintain 

records of surface emission monitoring as provided in § 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 269 of 321 

60.39f(g) and submit a Tier 4 surface emissions report as 

provided in § 60.38f(c)(5)(iii). 

(vi) If there is any measured concentration of methane of 

500 parts per million or greater from the surface of the 

landfill, the owner or operator must submit a gas collection and 

control system design plan within 1 year of the first measured 

concentration of methane of 500 parts per million or greater 

from the surface of the landfill according to § 60.38f(d) and 

install and operate a gas collection and control system 

according to § 60.33f(b) and (c) within 30 months of the first 

measured concentration of methane of 500 parts per million or 

greater from the surface of the landfill. 

(vii) If after four consecutive quarterly monitoring 

periods there is no measured concentration of methane of 500 

parts per million or greater from the surface of the landfill, 

the owner or operator must either conduct semi-annual surface 

emission monitoring using the methods specified in this section 

or recalculate the NMOC mass emission rate annually as provided 

in § 60.33f(e). 

(A) If conducting semi-annual surface emissions monitoring 

and there is any measured concentration of methane of 500 parts 

per million or greater from the surface of the landfill, the 

owner or operator must submit a gas collection and control 

system design plan within 1 year of the first measured 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 270 of 321 

concentration of methane of 500 parts per million or greater 

from the surface of the landfill according to § 60.38f(d) and 

install and operate a gas collection and control system 

according to § 60.33f(b) and (c) within 30 months of the first 

measured concentration of methane of 500 parts per million or 

greater from the surface of the landfill. 

(B) [Reserved] 

(b) After the installation and startup of a collection and 

control system in compliance with this subpart, the owner or 

operator must calculate the NMOC emission rate for purposes of 

determining when the system can be capped or removed as provided 

in § 60.33f(f), using the following equation: 

MNMOC = 1.89 × 10−3QLFGCNMOC

Where: 

MNMOC = Mass emission rate of NMOC, megagrams per year. 

QLFG = Flow rate of landfill gas, cubic meters per minute. 

CNMOC = NMOC concentration, parts per million by volume as 

hexane. 

(1) The flow rate of landfill gas, QLFG, must be determined 

by measuring the total landfill gas flow rate at the common 

header pipe that leads to the control system using a gas flow 

measuring device calibrated according to the provisions of 

section 4 of Method 2E of appendix A of this part. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 271 of 321 

(2) The average NMOC concentration, CNMOC, must be 

determined by collecting and analyzing landfill gas sampled from 

the common header pipe before the gas moving or condensate 

removal equipment using the procedures in Method 25 or Method 

25C of appendix A of this part. The sample location on the 

common header pipe must be before any condensate removal or 

other gas refining units. The landfill owner or operator must 

divide the NMOC concentration from Method 25 or Method 25C of 

appendix A of this part by six to convert from CNMOC as carbon 

to CNMOC as hexane. 

(3) The owner or operator may use another method to 

determine landfill gas flow rate and NMOC concentration if the 

method has been approved by the Administrator. 

(i) Within 60 days after the date of calculating the NMOC 

emission rate for purposes of determining when the system can be 

capped or removed, the owner operator must submit the results 

according to § 60.38f(j). 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(c) When calculating emissions for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) purposes, the owner or operator 

of each MSW landfill subject to the provisions of this subpart 

must estimate the NMOC emission rate for comparison to the PSD 

major source and significance levels in §§51.166 or 52.21 of 

this chapter using Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 272 of 321 

Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources (AP–42) or 

other approved measurement procedures. 

(d) For the performance test required in § 60.33f(c)(1), 

the net heating value of the combusted landfill gas as 

determined in § 60.18(f)(3) is calculated from the concentration 

of methane in the landfill gas as measured by Method 3C. A 

minimum of three 30-minute Method 3C samples are determined. The 

measurement of other organic components, hydrogen, and carbon 

monoxide is not applicable. Method 3C may be used to determine 

the landfill gas molecular weight for calculating the flare gas 

exit velocity under § 60.18(f)(4). 

(1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in § 60.8), the owner or operator 

must submit the results of the performance tests required by § 

60.35f(b) or (d), including any associated fuel analyses, 

according to § 60.38f(j). 

(2) [Reserved] 

(e) For the performance test required in § 60.33f(c)(2), 

Method 25 or 25C (Method 25C may be used at the inlet only) of 

appendix A of this part must be used to determine compliance 

with the 98 weight-percent efficiency or the 20 parts per 

million by volume outlet NMOC concentration level, unless 

another method to demonstrate compliance has been approved by 

the Administrator as provided by § 60.38f(d). Method 3 or 3A 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 273 of 321 

must be used to determine oxygen for correcting the NMOC 

concentration as hexane to 3 percent. In cases where the outlet 

concentration is less than 50 ppm NMOC as carbon (8 ppm NMOC as 

hexane), Method 25A should be used in place of Method 25. The 

following equation must be used to calculate efficiency: 

 Control Efficiency = (NMOCin− NMOCout)/(NMOCin)

Where: 

NMOCin = Mass of NMOC entering control device. 

NMOCout = Mass of NMOC exiting control device. 

(1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in § 60.8), the owner or operator 

must submit the results of the performance tests, including any 

associated fuel analyses, according to § 60.38f(j). 

(2) [Reserved] 

§ 60.36f Compliance provisions. 

For approval, a State plan must include the compliance 

provisions in this section. 

(a) Except as provided in § 60.38f(d)(2), the specified 

methods in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section must be 

used to determine whether the gas collection system is in 

compliance with § 60.33f(b)(2). 

(1) For the purposes of calculating the maximum expected 

gas generation flow rate from the landfill to determine 

compliance with § 60.33f(b)(2)(i), one of the following 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 274 of 321 

equations must be used. The k and Lo kinetic factors should be 

those published in the most recent AP–42 or other site-specific 

values demonstrated to be appropriate and approved by the 

Administrator. If k has been determined as specified in § 

60.35f(a)(4), the value of k determined from the test must be 

used. A value of no more than 15 years must be used for the 

intended use period of the gas mover equipment. The active life 

of the landfill is the age of the landfill plus the estimated 

number of years until closure. 

(i) For sites with unknown year-to-year solid waste 

acceptance rate: 

Qm = 2LoR (e−kc−e−kt) 

Where: 

Qm = Maximum expected gas generation flow rate, cubic 

meters per year. 

Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic meters per 

megagram solid waste. 

R = Average annual acceptance rate, megagrams per year. 

k = Methane generation rate constant, year−1.

t = Age of the landfill at equipment installation plus 

the time the owner or operator intends to use the 

gas mover equipment or active life of the landfill, 

whichever is less. If the equipment is installed 

after closure, t is the age of the landfill at 

installation, years. 

c = Time since closure, years (for an active landfill c 

= 0 and e−kc = 1).

(ii) For sites with known year-to-year solid waste 

acceptance rate: 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 275 of 321 

 	 ∑ 2



(

)




Where: 

QM = Maximum expected gas generation flow rate, cubic 

meters per year. 

k = Methane generation rate constant, year−1. 

Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic meters per 

megagram solid waste. 

Mi = Mass of solid waste in the ith section, megagrams. 

ti = Age of the ith section, years. 

(iii) If a collection and control system has been 

installed, actual flow data may be used to project the maximum 

expected gas generation flow rate instead of, or in conjunction 

with, the equations in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. If the landfill is still accepting waste, the actual 

measured flow data will not equal the maximum expected gas 

generation rate, so calculations using the equations in 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section or other methods 

must be used to predict the maximum expected gas generation rate 

over the intended period of use of the gas control system 

equipment. 

(2) For the purposes of determining sufficient density of 

gas collectors for compliance with § 60.33f(b)(2)(ii), the owner 

or operator must design a system of vertical wells, horizontal 

collectors, or other collection devices, satisfactory to the 

Administrator, capable of controlling and extracting gas from 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 276 of 321 

all portions of the landfill sufficient to meet all operational 

and performance standards. 

(3) For the purpose of demonstrating whether the gas 

collection system flow rate is sufficient to determine 

compliance with § 60.33f(b)(2)(iii), the owner or operator must 

measure gauge pressure in the gas collection header applied to 

each individual well monthly. If a positive pressure exists, 

action must be initiated to correct the exceedance within 5 

calendar days, except for the three conditions allowed under § 

60.34f(b). If negative pressure cannot be achieved without 

excess air infiltration within 15 calendar days of the first 

measurement, the gas collection system must be expanded to 

correct the exceedance within 120 days of the initial 

measurement of positive pressure. Any attempted corrective 

measure must not cause exceedances of other operational or 

performance standards. An alternative timeline for correcting 

the exceedance may be submitted to the Administrator for 

approval. 

(4) Owners or operators are not required to expand the 

system as required in paragraph (a)(3) of this section during 

the first 180 days after gas collection system startup. 

(5) [Reserved] 

(6) An owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance 

with § 60.33f(b)(2)(iv) through the use of a collection system 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 277 of 321 

not conforming to the specifications provided in § 60.40f must 

provide information satisfactory to the Administrator as 

specified in § 60.38f(d)(3) demonstrating that offsite migration 

is being controlled. 

(b) For purposes of compliance with § 60.34f(a), each owner 

or operator of a controlled landfill must place each well or 

design component as specified in the approved design plan as 

provided in § 60.38f(d). Each well must be installed no later 

than 60 days after the date on which the initial solid waste has 

been in place for a period of: 

(1) 5 years or more if active; or 

(2) 2 years or more if closed or at final grade. 

(c) The following procedures must be used for compliance 

with the surface methane operational standard as provided in § 

60.34f(d): 

(1) After installation and startup of the gas collection 

system, the owner or operator must monitor surface 

concentrations of methane along the entire perimeter of the 

collection area and along a pattern that traverses the landfill 

at no more than 30-meter intervals (or a site-specific 

established spacing) for each collection area on a quarterly 

basis using an organic vapor analyzer, flame ionization 

detector, or other portable monitor meeting the specifications 

provided in § 60.36f(d). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 278 of 321 

(2) The background concentration must be determined by 

moving the probe inlet upwind and downwind outside the boundary 

of the landfill at a distance of at least 30 meters from the 

perimeter wells. 

(3) Surface emission monitoring must be performed in 

accordance with section 8.3.1 of Method 21 of appendix A of this 

part, except that the probe inlet must be placed within 5 to 10 

centimeters of the ground. Monitoring must be performed during 

typical meteorological conditions. 

(4) Any reading of 500 parts per million or more above 

background at any location must be recorded as a monitored 

exceedance and the actions specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) 

through (v) of this section must be taken. As long as the 

specified actions are taken, the exceedance is not a violation 

of the operational requirements of § 60.34f(d). 

(i) The location of each monitored exceedance must be 

marked and the location and concentration recorded. For 

location, you must determine the latitude and longitude 

coordinates using an instrument with an accuracy of at least 3 

meters. Your coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at 

least five decimal places. 

(ii) Cover maintenance or adjustments to the vacuum of the 

adjacent wells to increase the gas collection in the vicinity of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 279 of 321 

each exceedance must be made and the location must be remonitored within 10 calendar days of detecting the exceedance. 

(iii) If the re-monitoring of the location shows a second 

exceedance, additional corrective action must be taken and the 

location must be monitored again within 10 days of the second 

exceedance. If the re-monitoring shows a third exceedance for 

the same location, the action specified in paragraph (c)(4)(v) 

of this section must be taken, and no further monitoring of that 

location is required until the action specified in paragraph 

(c)(4)(v) of this section has been taken. 

(iv) Any location that initially showed an exceedance but 

has a methane concentration less than 500 parts per million 

methane above background at the 10-day re-monitoring specified 

in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) or (iii) of this section must be remonitored 1 month from the initial exceedance. If the 1-month 

re-monitoring shows a concentration less than 500 parts per 

million above background, no further monitoring of that location 

is required until the next quarterly monitoring period. If the 

1-month re-monitoring shows an exceedance, the actions specified 

in paragraph (c)(4) (iii) or (v) of this section must be taken. 

(v) For any location where monitored methane concentration 

equals or exceeds 500 parts per million above background three 

times within a quarterly period, a new well or other collection 

device must be installed within 120 calendar days of the initial 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 280 of 321 

exceedance. An alternative remedy to the exceedance, such as 

upgrading the blower, header pipes or control device, and a 

corresponding timeline for installation may be submitted to the 

Administrator for approval. 

(5) The owner or operator must implement a program to 

monitor for cover integrity and implement cover repairs as 

necessary on a monthly basis. 

(d) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the 

provisions in paragraph (c) of this section must comply with the 

following instrumentation specifications and procedures for 

surface emission monitoring devices: 

(1) The portable analyzer must meet the instrument 

specifications provided in section 3 of Method 21 of appendix A 

of this part, except that “methane” must replace all references 

to “VOC”. 

(2) The calibration gas must be methane, diluted to a 

nominal concentration of 500 parts per million in air. 

(3) To meet the performance evaluation requirements in 

section 3.1.3 of Method 21 of appendix A of this part, the 

instrument evaluation procedures of section 4.4 of Method 21 of 

appendix A of this part must be used. 

(4) The calibration procedures provided in section 4.2 of 

Method 21 of appendix A of this part must be followed 

immediately before commencing a surface monitoring survey. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 281 of 321 

(e) The provisions of this subpart apply at all times, 

including periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction. 

§ 60.37f Monitoring of operations. 

For approval, a State plan must include the monitoring 

provisions in this section, except as provided in § 

60.38f(d)(2). 

(a) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with § 

60.33f(b)(2) for an active gas collection system must install a 

sampling port and a thermometer, other temperature measuring 

device, or an access port for temperature measurements at each 

wellhead and: 

(1) Measure the gauge pressure in the gas collection header 

on a monthly basis as provided in § 60.36f(a)(3); and 

(2) Monitor nitrogen or oxygen concentration in the 

landfill gas on a monthly basis as follows: 

(i) The nitrogen level must be determined using Method 3C, 

unless an alternative test method is established as allowed by § 

60.38f(d)(2). 

(ii) Unless an alternative test method is established as 

allowed by § 60.38f(d)(2), the oxygen must be determined by an 

oxygen meter using Method 3A or 3C except that: 

(A) The span must be set between 10 and 12 percent oxygen; 

(B) A data recorder is not required; 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 282 of 321 

(C) Only two calibration gases are required, a zero and 

span; 

(D) A calibration error check is not required; 

(E) The allowable sample bias, zero drift, and calibration 

drift are ±10 percent. 

(3) Monitor temperature of the landfill gas on a monthly 

basis. The temperature measuring device must be calibrated 

annually using the procedure in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-1, 

Method 2, Section 10.3. 

(b) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with § 

60.33f(c) using an enclosed combustor must calibrate, maintain, 

and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications, the 

following equipment: 

(1) A temperature monitoring device equipped with a 

continuous recorder and having a minimum accuracy of ±1 percent 

of the temperature being measured expressed in degrees Celsius 

or ±0.5 degrees Celsius, whichever is greater. A temperature 

monitoring device is not required for boilers or process heaters 

with design heat input capacity equal to or greater than 44 

megawatts. 

(2) A device that records flow to or bypass of the control 

device. The owner or operator must: 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 283 of 321 

(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate 

measuring device that must record the flow to the control device 

at least every 15 minutes; and 

(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position 

with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual 

inspection of the seal or closure mechanism must be performed at 

least once every month to ensure that the valve is maintained in 

the closed position and that the gas flow is not diverted 

through the bypass line. 

(c) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with § 

60.33f(c) using a non-enclosed flare must install, calibrate, 

maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's 

specifications the following equipment: 

(1) A heat sensing device, such as an ultraviolet beam 

sensor or thermocouple, at the pilot light or the flame itself 

to indicate the continuous presence of a flame. 

(2) A device that records flow to or bypass of the flare. 

The owner or operator must: 

(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate 

measuring device that must record the flow to the control device 

at least every 15 minutes; and 

(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position 

with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual 

inspection of the seal or closure mechanism must be performed at 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 284 of 321 

least once every month to ensure that the valve is maintained in 

the closed position and that the gas flow is not diverted 

through the bypass line. 

(d) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate 

compliance with § 60.33f(c) using a device other than a nonenclosed flare or an enclosed combustor or a treatment system 

must provide information satisfactory to the Administrator as 

provided in § 60.38f(d)(2) describing the operation of the 

control device, the operating parameters that would indicate 

proper performance, and appropriate monitoring procedures. The 

Administrator must review the information and either approve it, 

or request that additional information be submitted. The 

Administrator may specify additional appropriate monitoring 

procedures. 

(e) Each owner or operator seeking to install a collection 

system that does not meet the specifications in § 60.40f or 

seeking to monitor alternative parameters to those required by § 

60.34f through § 60.37f must provide information satisfactory to 

the Administrator as provided in § 60.38f(d)(2) and (3) 

describing the design and operation of the collection system, 

the operating parameters that would indicate proper performance, 

and appropriate monitoring procedures. The Administrator may 

specify additional appropriate monitoring procedures. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 285 of 321 

(f) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate 

compliance with the 500 parts per million surface methane 

operational standard in § 60.34f(d) must monitor surface 

concentrations of methane according to the procedures provided 

in § 60.36f(c) and the instrument specifications in § 60.36f(d). 

Any closed landfill that has no monitored exceedances of the 

operational standard in three consecutive quarterly monitoring 

periods may skip to annual monitoring. Any methane reading of 

500 parts per million or more above background detected during 

the annual monitoring returns the frequency for that landfill to 

quarterly monitoring. 

(g) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate 

compliance with the control system requirements in § 60.33f(c) 

using a landfill gas treatment system must calibrate, maintain, 

and operate according to the manufacturer’s specifications a 

device that records flow to or bypass of the treatment system. 

The owner or operator must: 

(1) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate 

measuring device that records the flow to the treatment system 

at least every 15 minutes; and 

(2) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position 

with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual 

inspection of the seal or closure mechanism must be performed at 

least once every month to ensure that the valve is maintained in 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 286 of 321 

the closed position and that the gas flow is not diverted 

through the bypass line. 

§ 60.38f Reporting guidelines. 

For approval, a State plan must include the reporting 

provisions listed in this section, as applicable, except as 

provided under §§ 60.24 and 60.38f(d)(2). 

(a) Design capacity report. For existing MSW landfills 

subject to this subpart, the initial design capacity report must 

be submitted no later than 90 days after the effective date of 

EPA approval of the State’s plan under section 111(d) of the 

Clean Air Act. The initial design capacity report must contain 

the following information: 

(1) A map or plot of the landfill, providing the size and 

location of the landfill, and identifying all areas where solid 

waste may be landfilled according to the permit issued by the 

state, local, or tribal agency responsible for regulating the 

landfill. 

(2) The maximum design capacity of the landfill. Where the 

maximum design capacity is specified in the permit issued by the 

state, local, or tribal agency responsible for regulating the 

landfill, a copy of the permit specifying the maximum design 

capacity may be submitted as part of the report. If the maximum 

design capacity of the landfill is not specified in the permit, 

the maximum design capacity must be calculated using good 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 287 of 321 

engineering practices. The calculations must be provided, along 

with the relevant parameters as part of the report. The landfill 

may calculate design capacity in either megagrams or cubic 

meters for comparison with the exemption values. If the owner or 

operator chooses to convert the design capacity from volume to 

mass or from mass to volume to demonstrate its design capacity 

is less than 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters, 

the calculation must include a site-specific density, which must 

be recalculated annually. Any density conversions must be 

documented and submitted with the design capacity report. The 

state, local, or tribal agency or the Administrator may request 

other reasonable information as may be necessary to verify the 

maximum design capacity of the landfill. 

(b) Amended design capacity report. An amended design 

capacity report must be submitted providing notification of an 

increase in the design capacity of the landfill, within 90 days 

of an increase in the maximum design capacity of the landfill to 

or above 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters. 

This increase in design capacity may result from an increase in 

the permitted volume of the landfill or an increase in the 

density as documented in the annual recalculation required in § 

60.39f(f). 

(c) NMOC emission rate report. For existing MSW landfills 

covered by this subpart with a design capacity equal to or 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 288 of 321 

greater than 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters, 

the NMOC emission rate report must be submitted following the 

procedure specified in paragraph (j) of this section no later 

than 90 days after the effective date of EPA approval of the 

State’s plan under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The NMOC 

emission rate report must be submitted annually following the 

procedure specified in paragraph (j) of this section, except as 

provided for in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. The 

Administrator may request such additional information as may be 

necessary to verify the reported NMOC emission rate. 

(1) The NMOC emission rate report must contain an annual or 

5-year estimate of the NMOC emission rate calculated using the 

formula and procedures provided in § 60.35f(a). 

(2) The NMOC emission rate report must include all the 

data, calculations, sample reports and measurements used to 

estimate the annual or 5-year emissions. 

(3) If the estimated NMOC emission rate as reported in the 

annual report to the Administrator is less than 34 megagrams per 

year in each of the next 5 consecutive years, the owner or 

operator may elect to submit, following the procedure specified 

in paragraph (j) of this section, an estimate of the NMOC 

emission rate for the next 5-year period in lieu of the annual 

report. This estimate must include the current amount of solid 

waste-in-place and the estimated waste acceptance rate for each 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 289 of 321 

year of the 5 years for which an NMOC emission rate is 

estimated. All data and calculations upon which this estimate is 

based must be provided to the Administrator. This estimate must 

be revised at least once every 5 years. If the actual waste 

acceptance rate exceeds the estimated waste acceptance rate in 

any year reported in the 5-year estimate, a revised 5-year 

estimate must be submitted to the Administrator. The revised 

estimate must cover the 5-year period beginning with the year in 

which the actual waste acceptance rate exceeded the estimated 

waste acceptance rate. 

(4) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of 

this subpart is exempted from the requirements to submit an NMOC 

emission rate report, after installing a collection and control 

system that complies with § 60.33f(b) and (c), during such time 

as the collection and control system is in operation and in 

compliance with §§ 60.34f and 60.36f. 

(5) Each owner or operator of an MSW landfill having a 

design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams 

and 2.5 million cubic meters must submit a collection and 

control system design plan to the Administrator within 1 year of 

the first NMOC emission rate report in which the NMOC emission 

rate equals or exceeds 34 megagrams per year, except as follows: 

(i) If the owner or operator elects to recalculate the NMOC 

emission rate after Tier 2 NMOC sampling and analysis as 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 290 of 321 

provided in § 60.35f(a)(3) and the resulting rate is less than 

34 megagrams per year, annual periodic reporting must be 

resumed, using the Tier 2 determined site-specific NMOC 

concentration, until the calculated emission rate is equal to or 

greater than 34 megagrams per year or the landfill is closed. 

The revised NMOC emission rate report, with the recalculated 

emission rate based on NMOC sampling and analysis, must be 

submitted, following the procedure specified in paragraph (j) of 

this section, within 180 days of the first calculated exceedance 

of 34 megagrams per year. 

(ii) If the owner or operator elects to recalculate the 

NMOC emission rate after determining a site-specific methane 

generation rate constant k, as provided in Tier 3 in § 

60.35f(a)(4), and the resulting NMOC emission rate is less than 

34 megagrams per year, annual periodic reporting must be 

resumed. The resulting site-specific methane generation rate 

constant k must be used in the emission rate calculation until 

such time as the emissions rate calculation results in an 

exceedance. The revised NMOC emission rate report based on the 

provisions of § 60.35f(a)(4) and the resulting site-specific 

methane generation rate constant k must be submitted, following 

the procedure specified in paragraph (j) of this section, to the 

Administrator within 1 year of the first calculated NMOC 

emission rate equaling or exceeding 34 megagrams per year. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 291 of 321 

(iii) If the owner or operator elects to demonstrate that 

site-specific surface methane emissions are below 500 parts per 

million methane, then the owner or operator must submit annually 

a Tier 4 surface emissions report as specified in this paragraph 

following the procedure specified in paragraph (j) of this 

section. If the Tier 4 surface emissions report shows no surface 

emissions readings of 500 parts per million methane or greater 

for four consecutive quarters, then the landfill may continue 

Tier 4 monitoring at a reduced semi-annual frequency or return 

to Tier 1, 2, or 3. An owner or operator may elect to 

recalculate NMOC using Tier 1, 2, or 3 only if it has four 

consecutive quarters with no surface emissions monitoring 

readings of 500 parts per million or greater. The NMOC emission 

rate report must be submitted annually, following the procedure 

specified in paragraph (j) of this section, except as provided 

for in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. The Administrator may 

request such additional information as may be necessary to 

verify the reported instantaneous surface emission readings. The 

Tier 4 surface emissions report must clearly identify the 

location, date, and reading (in parts per million) of any value 

500 parts per million methane or greater, other than nonrepeatable, momentary readings. For location, you must determine 

the latitude and longitude coordinates using an instrument with 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 292 of 321 

an accuracy of at least 3 meters. Your coordinates must be in 

decimal degrees with at least five decimal places. 

(iv) If the landfill is in the closed landfill subcategory, 

the owner or operator must submit a collection and control 

system design plan to the Administrator within 1 year of the 

first NMOC emission rate report in which the NMOC emission rate 

equals or exceeds 50 megagrams per year, except as follows: 

(A) If the owner or operator elects to recalculate the NMOC 

emission rate after Tier 2 NMOC sampling and analysis as 

provided in § 60.35f(a)(3) and the resulting rate is less than 

50 megagrams per year, annual periodic reporting must be 

resumed, using the Tier 2 determined site-specific NMOC 

concentration, until the calculated emission rate is equal to or 

greater than 50 megagrams per year or the landfill is closed. 

The revised NMOC emission rate report, with the recalculated 

emission rate based on NMOC sampling and analysis, must be 

submitted, following the procedure specified in paragraph (j) of 

this section, within 180 days of the first calculated exceedance 

of 50 megagrams per year. 

(B) If the owner or operator elects to recalculate the NMOC 

emission rate after determining a site-specific methane 

generation rate constant k, as provided in Tier 3 in § 

60.35f(a)(4), and the resulting NMOC emission rate is less than 

50 megagrams per year, annual periodic reporting must be 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 293 of 321 

resumed. The resulting site-specific methane generation rate 

constant k must be used in the emission rate calculation until 

such time as the emissions rate calculation results in an 

exceedance. The revised NMOC emission rate report based on the 

provisions of § 60.35f(a)(4) and the resulting site-specific 

methane generation rate constant k must be submitted, following 

the procedure specified in paragraph (j) of this section, to the 

Administrator within 1 year of the first calculated NMOC 

emission rate equaling or exceeding 50 megagrams per year. 

(C) The landfill owner or operator elects to demonstrate 

surface emissions are low, consistent with the provisions in § 

60.38(c)(5)(iii). 

(D) The landfill has already submitted a gas collection and 

control system design plan consistent with the provisions of 40 

CFR part 60, subpart WWW; 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG; or a 

state plan implementing 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc. 

(d) Collection and control system design plan. The State 

plan must include a process for state review and approval of the 

site-specific design plan for each gas collection and control 

system. The collection and control system design plan must meet 

the following requirements: 

(1) The collection and control system as described in the 

design plan must meet the design requirements in § 60.33f(b) and 

(c). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 294 of 321 

(2) The collection and control system design plan must 

include any alternatives to the operational standards, test 

methods, procedures, compliance measures, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, or reporting provisions of §§ 60.34f through 

60.39f proposed by the owner or operator. 

(3) The collection and control system design plan must 

either conform to specifications for active collection systems 

in § 60.40f or include a demonstration to the Administrator's 

satisfaction of the sufficiency of the alternative provisions to 

§ 60.40f. 

(4) If the owner or operator chooses to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission control requirements of this 

subpart using a treatment system as defined in this subpart, 

then the owner or operator must prepare a site-specific 

treatment system monitoring plan as specified in § 

60.39f(b)(5)(ii). 

(5) The Administrator must review the information submitted 

under paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section and either 

approve it, disapprove it, or request that additional 

information be submitted. Because of the many site-specific 

factors involved with landfill gas system design, alternative 

systems may be necessary. A wide variety of system designs are 

possible, such as vertical wells, combination horizontal and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 295 of 321 

vertical collection systems, or horizontal trenches only, 

leachate collection components, and passive systems. 

(e) Revised design plan. The owner or operator who has 

already been required to submit a design plan under paragraph 

(d) of this section, or under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW; 40 

CFR part 62, subpart GGG; or a state plan implementing 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart Cc, must submit a revised design plan to the 

Administrator for approval as follows: 

(1) Within 90 days of expanding operations to an area not 

covered by the previously approved design plan. 

(2) Prior to installing or expanding the gas collection 

system in a way that is not consistent with the design plan that 

was submitted to the Administrator according to paragraph (d) of 

this section. 

(f) Closure report. Each owner or operator of a controlled 

landfill must submit a closure report to the Administrator 

within 30 days of ceasing waste acceptance. The Administrator 

may request additional information as may be necessary to verify 

that permanent closure has taken place in accordance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 258.60. If a closure report has been 

submitted to the Administrator, no additional wastes may be 

placed into the landfill without filing a notification of 

modification as described under § 60.7(a)(4). 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 296 of 321 

(g) Equipment removal report. Each owner or operator of a 

controlled landfill must submit an equipment removal report to 

the Administrator 30 days prior to removal or cessation of 

operation of the control equipment. 

(1) The equipment removal report must contain the following 

items: 

(i) A copy of the closure report submitted in accordance 

with paragraph (f) of this section; and 

(ii) A copy of the initial performance test report 

demonstrating that the 15-year minimum control period has 

expired, unless the report of the results of the performance 

test has been submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX, or 

information that demonstrates that the GCCS will be unable to 

operate for 15 years due to declining gas flows. In the 

equipment removal report, the process unit(s) tested, the 

pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such performance test was 

conducted may be submitted in lieu of the performance test 

report if the report has been previously submitted to the EPA’s 

CDX; and 

(iii) Dated records of surface emissions monitoring data of 

the landfill or closed area that demonstrates that there are no 

surface emissions of 500 parts per million or greater for four 

consecutive quarters, unless the reports have been submitted to 

the EPA via the EPA’s CDX. If the surface emissions monitoring 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 297 of 321 

reports have been previously submitted to the EPA’s CDX, a 

statement that the reports have been submitted electronically 

and the dates that the reports were submitted to the EPA’s CDX 

may be submitted in the equipment removal report in lieu of the 

surface emissions monitoring reports; or 

(iv) Dated copies of three successive NMOC emission rate 

reports demonstrating that the landfill is no longer producing 

34 megagrams or greater of NMOC per year; or 

(v) For the closed landfill subcategory, dated copies of 

three successive NMOC emission rate reports demonstrating that 

the landfill is no longer producing 50 megagrams or greater of 

NMOC per year. 

(2) The Administrator may request such additional 

information as may be necessary to verify that all of the 

conditions for removal in § 60.33f(f) have been met. 

(h) Annual report. The owner or operator of a landfill 

seeking to comply with § 60.33f(e)(2) using an active collection 

system designed in accordance with § 60.33f(b) must submit to 

the Administrator, following the procedures specified in 

paragraph (j) of this section, an annual report of the recorded 

information in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(6) of this section. 

The initial annual report must be submitted within 180 days of 

installation and startup of the collection and control system. 

The initial annual report must include the following information 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 298 of 321 

pertaining to the initial performance test report required under 

§ 60.8: The process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and 

the date that such performance test was conducted. The initial 

performance test report must be submitted, following the 

procedure specified in § 60.8(j), no later than the date that 

the initial annual report is submitted. For enclosed combustion 

devices, flares, and treatment systems reportable exceedances 

are defined under § 60.39f(c)(1). 

(1) Value and length of time for exceedance of applicable 

parameters monitored under § 60.37f(a)(1), (b), (c), (d), and 

(g). 

(2) Description and duration of all periods when the gas 

stream is diverted from the control device or treatment system 

through a bypass line or the indication of bypass flow as 

specified under § 60.37f. 

(3) Description and duration of all periods when the 

control device or treatment system was not operating and length 

of time the control device or treatment system was not 

operating. 

(4) All periods when the collection system was not 

operating. 

(5) The location of each exceedance of the 500 parts per 

million methane concentration as provided in § 60.34f(d) and the 

concentration recorded at each location for which an exceedance 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 299 of 321 

was recorded in the previous month. For location, you must 

determine the latitude and longitude coordinates using an 

instrument with an accuracy of at least 3 meters. Your 

coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at least five 

decimal places. 

(6) The date of installation and the location of each well 

or collection system expansion added pursuant to § 60.36f(a)(3), 

(b), and (c)(4). 

(i) Initial performance test report. Each owner or operator 

seeking to comply with § 60.33f(c) must include the following 

information with the initial performance test report required 

under § 60.8: 

(1) A diagram of the collection system showing collection 

system positioning including all wells, horizontal collectors, 

surface collectors, or other gas extraction devices, including 

the locations of any areas excluded from collection and the 

proposed sites for the future collection system expansion; 

(2) The data upon which the sufficient density of wells, 

horizontal collectors, surface collectors, or other gas 

extraction devices and the gas mover equipment sizing are based; 

(3) The documentation of the presence of asbestos or 

nondegradable material for each area from which collection wells 

have been excluded based on the presence of asbestos or 

nondegradable material; 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 300 of 321 

(4) The sum of the gas generation flow rates for all areas 

from which collection wells have been excluded based on 

nonproductivity and the calculations of gas generation flow rate 

for each excluded area; 

(5) The provisions for increasing gas mover equipment 

capacity with increased gas generation flow rate, if the present 

gas mover equipment is inadequate to move the maximum flow rate 

expected over the life of the landfill; and 

(6) The provisions for the control of offsite migration. 

(j) Electronic reporting. The owner or operator must submit 

the results of each performance test according to the following 

procedures: 

(1) For data collected using test methods supported by the 

EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html), you must 

submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the 

Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI 

can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) 

(http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp). Performance test data must be 

submitted in a file format generated through the use of the 

EPA’s ERT. Alternatively, you may submit performance test data 

in an electronic file format consistent with the extensible 

markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, 

once the XML schema is available. If you claim that some of the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 301 of 321 

performance test information being submitted is confidential 

business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file 

generated through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate 

electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the 

EPA’s ERT Web site, including information claimed to be CBI, on 

a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic 

storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly 

marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, 

Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 

4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate 

file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the 

EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph. 

(2) For data collected using test methods that are not 

supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, 

you must submit the results of the performance test to the 

Administrator at the appropriate address listed in §60.4. 

§ 60.39f Recordkeeping guidelines. 

For approval, a State plan must include the recordkeeping 

provisions in this section. 

(a) Except as provided in § 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or 

operator of an MSW landfill subject to the provisions of § 

60.33f(e) must keep for at least 5 years up-to-date, readily 

accessible, onsite records of the design capacity report that 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 302 of 321 

triggered § 60.33f(e), the current amount of solid waste inplace, and the year-by-year waste acceptance rate. Offsite 

records may be maintained if they are retrievable within 4 

hours. Either paper copy or electronic formats are acceptable. 

(b) Except as provided in § 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or 

operator of a controlled landfill must keep up-to-date, readily 

accessible records for the life of the control system equipment 

of the data listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this 

section as measured during the initial performance test or 

compliance determination. Records of subsequent tests or 

monitoring must be maintained for a minimum of 5 years. Records 

of the control device vendor specifications must be maintained 

until removal. 

(1) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of 

this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with § 60.33f(b): 

(i) The maximum expected gas generation flow rate as 

calculated in § 60.36f(a)(1). The owner or operator may use 

another method to determine the maximum gas generation flow 

rate, if the method has been approved by the Administrator. 

(ii) The density of wells, horizontal collectors, surface 

collectors, or other gas extraction devices determined using the 

procedures specified in § 60.40f(a)(1). 

(2) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of 

this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with § 60.33f(c) 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 303 of 321 

through use of an enclosed combustion device other than a boiler 

or process heater with a design heat input capacity equal to or 

greater than 44 megawatts: 

(i) The average temperature measured at least every 15 

minutes and averaged over the same time period of the 

performance test. 

(ii) The percent reduction of NMOC determined as specified 

in § 60.33f(c)(2) achieved by the control device. 

(3) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of 

this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with § 

60.33f(c)(2)(i) through use of a boiler or process heater of any 

size: a description of the location at which the collected gas 

vent stream is introduced into the boiler or process heater over 

the same time period of the performance testing. 

(4) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of 

this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with § 60.33f(c)(1) 

through use of a non-enclosed flare, the flare type (i.e., 

steam-assisted, air-assisted, or non-assisted), all visible 

emission readings, heat content determination, flow rate or 

bypass flow rate measurements, and exit velocity determinations 

made during the performance test as specified in § 60.18; and 

continuous records of the flare pilot flame or flare flame 

monitoring and records of all periods of operations during which 

the pilot flame or the flare flame is absent. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 304 of 321 

(5) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of 

this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with § 60.33f(c)(3) 

through use of a landfill gas treatment system: 

(i) Bypass records. Records of the flow of landfill gas to, 

and bypass of, the treatment system. 

(ii) Site-specific treatment monitoring plan, to include: 

(A) Records of filtration, de-watering, and compression 

parameters that ensure the treatment system is operating 

properly for the intended end use of the treated landfill gas. 

(B) Monitoring methods, frequencies, and operating ranges 

for each monitored operating parameter based on manufacturer’s 

recommendations or engineering analysis for the intended end use 

of the treated landfill gas. 

(C) Documentation of the monitoring methods and ranges, 

along with justification for their use. 

(D) Identify who is responsible (by job title) for data 

collection. 

(E) Processes and methods used to collect the necessary 

data. 

(F) Description of the procedures and methods that are used 

for quality assurance, maintenance, and repair of all continuous 

monitoring systems. 

(c) Except as provided in § 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or 

operator of a controlled landfill subject to the provisions of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 305 of 321 

this subpart must keep for 5 years up-to-date, readily 

accessible continuous records of the equipment operating 

parameters specified to be monitored in § 60.37f as well as upto-date, readily accessible records for periods of operation 

during which the parameter boundaries established during the 

most recent performance test are exceeded. 

(1) The following constitute exceedances that must be 

recorded and reported under § 60.38f: 

(i) For enclosed combustors except for boilers and process 

heaters with design heat input capacity of 44 megawatts (150 

million British thermal unit per hour) or greater, all 3-hour 

periods of operation during which the average temperature was 

more than 28oC below the average combustion temperature during 

the most recent performance test at which compliance with § 

60.33f(c) was determined. 

(ii) For boilers or process heaters, whenever there is a 

change in the location at which the vent stream is introduced 

into the flame zone as required under paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section. 

(2) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of 

this subpart must keep up-to-date, readily accessible continuous 

records of the indication of flow to the control system and the 

indication of bypass flow or records of monthly inspections of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 306 of 321 

car-seals or lock-and-key configurations used to seal bypass 

lines, specified under § 60.37f. 

(3) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of 

this subpart who uses a boiler or process heater with a design 

heat input capacity of 44 megawatts or greater to comply with § 

60.33f(c) must keep an up-to-date, readily accessible record of 

all periods of operation of the boiler or process heater. 

(Examples of such records could include records of steam use, 

fuel use, or monitoring data collected pursuant to other state, 

local, tribal, or federal regulatory requirements.) 

(4) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the 

provisions of this subpart by use of a non-enclosed flare must 

keep up-to-date, readily accessible continuous records of the 

flame or flare pilot flame monitoring specified under § 

60.37f(c), and up-to-date, readily accessible records of all 

periods of operation in which the flame or flare pilot flame is 

absent. 

(5) Each owner or operator of a landfill seeking to comply 

with § 60.33f(e) using an active collection system designed in 

accordance with § 60.33f(b) must keep records of estimates of 

NMOC emissions for periods when the collection system or control 

device is not operating. 

(d) Except as provided in § 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or 

operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must keep for 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 307 of 321 

the life of the collection system an up-to-date, readily 

accessible plot map showing each existing and planned collector 

in the system and providing a unique identification location 

label on each collector that matches the labeling on the plot 

map. 

(1) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of 

this subpart must keep up-to-date, readily accessible records of 

the installation date and location of all newly installed 

collectors as specified under § 60.36f(b). 

(2) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of 

this subpart must keep readily accessible documentation of the 

nature, date of deposition, amount, and location of asbestoscontaining or nondegradable waste excluded from collection as 

provided in § 60.40f(a)(3)(i) as well as any nonproductive areas 

excluded from collection as provided in § 60.40f(a)(3)(ii). 

(e) Except as provided in § 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or 

operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must keep for 

at least 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible records of all 

collection and control system exceedances of the operational 

standards in § 60.34f, the reading in the subsequent month 

whether or not the second reading is an exceedance, and the 

location of each exceedance. 

(f) Landfill owners or operators who convert design 

capacity from volume to mass or mass to volume to demonstrate 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 308 of 321 

that landfill design capacity is less than 2.5 million megagrams 

or 2.5 million cubic meters, as provided in the definition of 

“design capacity”, must keep readily accessible, onsite records 

of the annual recalculation of site-specific density, design 

capacity, and the supporting documentation. Offsite records may 

be maintained if they are retrievable within 4 hours. Either 

paper copy or electronic formats are acceptable. 

(g) Landfill owners or operators seeking to demonstrate 

that site-specific surface methane emissions are below 500 parts 

per million by conducting surface emission monitoring under the 

Tier 4 procedures specified in § 60.35f(a)(6) must keep for at 

least 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible records of all 

surface emissions monitoring and information related to 

monitoring instrument calibrations conducted according to 

sections 8.1.2 and 10 of Method 21 of Appendix A of this part. 

including all of the following items: 

(1) Calibration records. 

(i) Date of calibration and initials of operator performing 

the calibration. 

(ii) Calibration gas cylinder identification, certification 

date, and certified concentration. 

(iii) Instrument scale(s) used. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 309 of 321 

(iv) A description of any corrective action taken if the 

meter readout could not be adjusted to correspond to the 

calibration gas value. 

(v) If an owner or operator makes their own calibration 

gas, a description of the procedure used. 

(2) Timestamp of each surface scan reading, to the nearest 

minute. 

(3) Location of each surface scan reading. The owner or 

operator must determine the coordinates using an instrument with 

an accuracy of at least 3 meters. Coordinates must be in decimal 

degrees with at least five decimal places. 

(4) Monitored methane concentration (parts per million) of 

each reading. 

(5) Background methane concentration (parts per million) 

after each instrument calibration test. 

(6) Adjusted methane concentration using most recent 

calibration (parts per million). 

(7) For readings taken at each surface penetration, the 

unique identification location label matching the label 

specified in § 60.39f(d). 

(h) Except as provided in § 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or 

operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must keep for 

at least 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible records of all 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 310 of 321 

collection and control system monitoring data for parameters 

measured in § 60.37f(a)(2) and (3). 

(i) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart 

that are submitted electronically via the EPA’s CDX may be 

maintained in electronic format. 

§ 60.40f Specifications for active collection systems. 

For approval, a State plan must include the specifications 

for active collection systems in this section. 

(a) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with § 

60.33f(b) must site active collection wells, horizontal 

collectors, surface collectors, or other extraction devices at a 

sufficient density throughout all gas producing areas using the 

following procedures unless alternative procedures have been 

approved by the Administrator. 

(1) The collection devices within the interior must be 

certified to achieve comprehensive control of surface gas 

emissions by a professional engineer. The following issues must 

be addressed in the design: depths of refuse, refuse gas 

generation rates and flow characteristics, cover properties, gas 

system expandability, leachate and condensate management, 

accessibility, compatibility with filling operations, 

integration with closure end use, air intrusion control, 

corrosion resistance, fill settlement, resistance to the refuse 

decomposition heat, and ability to isolate individual components 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 311 of 321 

or sections for repair or troubleshooting without shutting down 

entire collection system. 

(2) The sufficient density of gas collection devices 

determined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must address 

landfill gas migration issues and augmentation of the collection 

system through the use of active or passive systems at the 

landfill perimeter or exterior. 

(3) The placement of gas collection devices determined in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section must control all gas producing 

areas, except as provided by paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii) 

of this section. 

(i) Any segregated area of asbestos or nondegradable 

material may be excluded from collection if documented as 

provided under § 60.39f(d). The documentation must provide the 

nature, date of deposition, location and amount of asbestos or 

nondegradable material deposited in the area, and must be 

provided to the Administrator upon request. 

(ii) Any nonproductive area of the landfill may be excluded 

from control, provided that the total of all excluded areas can 

be shown to contribute less than 1 percent of the total amount 

of NMOC emissions from the landfill. The amount, location, and 

age of the material must be documented and provided to the 

Administrator upon request. A separate NMOC emissions estimate 

must be made for each section proposed for exclusion, and the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 312 of 321 

sum of all such sections must be compared to the NMOC emissions 

estimate for the entire landfill. 

(A) The NMOC emissions from each section proposed for 

exclusion must be computed using the following equation: 

 
 = 2



(

 )( )(3.6		10)

Where: 

Qi = NMOC emission rate from the ith section, megagrams 

per year. 

k = Methane generation rate constant, year−1. 

Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic meters per 

megagram solid waste. 

Mi = Mass of the degradable solid waste in the ith 

section, megagram. 

ti = Age of the solid waste in the ith section, years. 

CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, parts per million by volume. 

3.6×10−9 = Conversion factor. 

(B) If the owner/operator is proposing to exclude, or cease 

gas collection and control from, nonproductive physically 

separated (e.g., separately lined) closed areas that already 

have gas collection systems, NMOC emissions from each physically 

separated closed area must be computed using either the equation 

in § 60.35f or the equation in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A) of this 

section. 

(iii) The values for k and CNMOC determined in field 

testing must be used if field testing has been performed in 

determining the NMOC emission rate or the radii of influence 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 313 of 321 

(the distance from the well center to a point in the landfill 

where the pressure gradient applied by the blower or compressor 

approaches zero). If field testing has not been performed, the 

default values for k, Lo, and CNMOC provided in § 60.35f or the 

alternative values from § 60.35f must be used. The mass of 

nondegradable solid waste contained within the given section may 

be subtracted from the total mass of the section when estimating 

emissions provided the nature, location, age, and amount of the 

nondegradable material is documented as provided in paragraph 

(a)(3)(i) of this section. 

(b) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with § 

60.33f(b) must construct the gas collection devices using the 

following equipment or procedures: 

(1) The landfill gas extraction components must be 

constructed of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high density 

polyethylene (HDPE) pipe, fiberglass, stainless steel, or other 

nonporous corrosion resistant material of suitable dimensions 

to: convey projected amounts of gases; withstand installation, 

static, and settlement forces; and withstand planned overburden 

or traffic loads. The collection system must extend as necessary 

to comply with emission and migration standards. Collection 

devices such as wells and horizontal collectors must be 

perforated to allow gas entry without head loss sufficient to 

impair performance across the intended extent of control. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 314 of 321 

Perforations must be situated with regard to the need to prevent 

excessive air infiltration. 

(2) Vertical wells must be placed so as not to endanger 

underlying liners and must address the occurrence of water 

within the landfill. Holes and trenches constructed for piped 

wells and horizontal collectors must be of sufficient crosssection so as to allow for their proper construction and 

completion including, for example, centering of pipes and 

placement of gravel backfill. Collection devices must be 

designed so as not to allow indirect short circuiting of air 

into the cover or refuse into the collection system or gas into 

the air. Any gravel used around pipe perforations should be of a 

dimension so as not to penetrate or block perforations. 

(3) Collection devices may be connected to the collection 

header pipes below or above the landfill surface. The connector 

assembly must include a positive closing throttle valve, any 

necessary seals and couplings, access couplings and at least one 

sampling port. The collection devices must be constructed of 

PVC, HDPE, fiberglass, stainless steel, or other nonporous 

material of suitable thickness. 

(c) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with § 

60.33f(c) must convey the landfill gas to a control system in 

compliance with § 60.33f(c) through the collection header 

pipe(s). The gas mover equipment must be sized to handle the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 315 of 321 

maximum gas generation flow rate expected over the intended use 

period of the gas moving equipment using the following 

procedures: 

(1) For existing collection systems, the flow data must be 

used to project the maximum flow rate. If no flow data exist, 

the procedures in paragraph (c)(2) of this section must be used. 

(2) For new collection systems, the maximum flow rate must 

be in accordance with § 60.36f(a)(1). 

§ 60.41f Definitions. 

Terms used but not defined in this subpart have the meaning 

given them in the Clean Air Act and in subparts A and B of this 

part. 

Active collection system means a gas collection system that 

uses gas mover equipment. 

Active landfill means a landfill in which solid waste is 

being placed or a landfill that is planned to accept waste in 

the future. 

Administrator means the Administrator of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency or his/her authorized 

representative or the Administrator of a State Air Pollution 

Control Agency. 

Closed landfill means a landfill in which solid waste is no 

longer being placed, and in which no additional solid wastes 

will be placed without first filing a notification of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 316 of 321 

modification as prescribed under § 60.7(a)(4). Once a 

notification of modification has been filed, and additional 

solid waste is placed in the landfill, the landfill is no longer 

closed. 

Closed landfill subcategory means a closed landfill that 

has submitted a closure report as specified in § 60.38f(f) on or 

before [insert date of publication in the Federal Register]. 

Closure means that point in time when a landfill becomes a 

closed landfill. 

Commercial solid waste means all types of solid waste 

generated by stores, offices, restaurants, warehouses, and other 

nonmanufacturing activities, excluding residential and 

industrial wastes. 

Controlled landfill means any landfill at which collection 

and control systems are required under this subpart as a result 

of the NMOC emission rate. The landfill is considered controlled 

at the time a collection and control system design plan is 

submitted in compliance with § 60.33f(e)(2). 

Design capacity means the maximum amount of solid waste a 

landfill can accept, as indicated in terms of volume or mass in 

the most recent permit issued by the state, local, or tribal 

agency responsible for regulating the landfill, plus any inplace waste not accounted for in the most recent permit. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 317 of 321 

Disposal facility means all contiguous land and structures, 

other appurtenances, and improvements on the land used for the 

disposal of solid waste. 

Emission rate cutoff means the threshold annual emission 

rate to which a landfill compares its estimated emission rate to 

determine if control under the regulation is required. 

Enclosed combustor means an enclosed firebox which 

maintains a relatively constant limited peak temperature 

generally using a limited supply of combustion air. An enclosed 

flare is considered an enclosed combustor. 

Flare means an open combustor without enclosure or shroud. 

Gas mover equipment means the equipment (i.e., fan, blower, 

compressor) used to transport landfill gas through the header 

system. 

Household waste means any solid waste (including garbage, 

trash, and sanitary waste in septic tanks) derived from 

households (including, but not limited to, single and multiple 

residences, hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew 

quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, and day-use recreation 

areas). Household waste does not include fully segregated yard 

waste. Segregated yard waste means vegetative matter resulting 

exclusively from the cutting of grass, the pruning and/or 

removal of bushes, shrubs, and trees, the weeding of gardens, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 318 of 321 

and other landscaping maintenance activities. Household waste 

does not include construction, renovation, or demolition wastes. 

Industrial solid waste means solid waste generated by 

manufacturing or industrial processes that is not a hazardous 

waste regulated under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act, parts 264 and 265 of this title. Such waste 

may include, but is not limited to, waste resulting from the 

following manufacturing processes: electric power generation; 

fertilizer/agricultural chemicals; food and related products/byproducts; inorganic chemicals; iron and steel manufacturing; 

leather and leather products; nonferrous metals 

manufacturing/foundries; organic chemicals; plastics and resins 

manufacturing; pulp and paper industry; rubber and miscellaneous 

plastic products; stone, glass, clay, and concrete products; 

textile manufacturing; transportation equipment; and water 

treatment. This term does not include mining waste or oil and 

gas waste. 

Interior well means any well or similar collection 

component located inside the perimeter of the landfill waste. A 

perimeter well located outside the landfilled waste is not an 

interior well. 

Landfill means an area of land or an excavation in which 

wastes are placed for permanent disposal, and that is not a land 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 319 of 321 

application unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or waste 

pile as those terms are defined under §257.2 of this title. 

Lateral expansion means a horizontal expansion of the waste 

boundaries of an existing MSW landfill. A lateral expansion is 

not a modification unless it results in an increase in the 

design capacity of the landfill. 

Modification means an increase in the permitted volume 

design capacity of the landfill by either lateral or vertical 

expansion based on its permitted design capacity as of July 17, 

2014. Modification does not occur until the owner or operator 

commences construction on the lateral or vertical expansion. 

Municipal solid waste landfill or MSW landfill means an 

entire disposal facility in a contiguous geographical space 

where household waste is placed in or on land. An MSW landfill 

may also receive other types of RCRA Subtitle D wastes (§257.2 

of this title) such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous 

sludge, conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste, and 

industrial solid waste. Portions of an MSW landfill may be 

separated by access roads. An MSW landfill may be publicly or 

privately owned. An MSW landfill may be a new MSW landfill, an 

existing MSW landfill, or a lateral expansion. 

Municipal solid waste landfill emissions or MSW landfill 

emissions means gas generated by the decomposition of organic 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 320 of 321 

waste deposited in an MSW landfill or derived from the evolution 

of organic compounds in the waste. 

NMOC means nonmethane organic compounds, as measured 

according to the provisions of § 60.35f. 

Nondegradable waste means any waste that does not decompose 

through chemical breakdown or microbiological activity. Examples 

are, but are not limited to, concrete, municipal waste combustor 

ash, and metals. 

Passive collection system means a gas collection system 

that solely uses positive pressure within the landfill to move 

the gas rather than using gas mover equipment. 

Protectorate means American Samoa, the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern 

Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. 

Sludge means the term sludge as defined in 40 CFR 258.2. 

Solid waste means the term solid waste as defined in 40 CFR 

258.2. 

State means any of the 50 United States and the 

protectorates of the United States. 

State plan means a plan submitted pursuant to section 

111(d) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR part 60, subpart B that 

implements and enforces 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. 

Sufficient density means any number, spacing, and 

combination of collection system components, including vertical 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** 

Page 321 of 321 

wells, horizontal collectors, and surface collectors, necessary 

to maintain emission and migration control as determined by 

measures of performance set forth in this part. 

Sufficient extraction rate means a rate sufficient to 

maintain a negative pressure at all wellheads in the collection 

system without causing air infiltration, including any wellheads 

connected to the system as a result of expansion or excess 

surface emissions, for the life of the blower. 

Treated landfill gas means landfill gas processed in a 

treatment system as defined in this subpart. 

Treatment system means a system that filters, de-waters, 

and compresses landfill gas for sale or beneficial use. 

Untreated landfill gas means any landfill gas that is not 

treated landfill gas. 
From: Grossman, Andrea [mailto:Andrea_L_Grossman@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 12:06 PM 

To: Thundiyil, Karen 

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO 12866 and 13563 Landfills MSW rules 

Karen, 

Attached for your consideration please find minor proposed edits to the SSM section of the Landfills 

MSW EG. Also attached is the NSPS supplementary proposal with minor edits that may be necessary to 

ensure that the treatment of SSM has been similarly noticed and proposed for comment in both rules. 

We can discuss these or other potential edits that could accomplish a similar message in the 1 pm call. 

Andrea Grossman 

202-395-4756 
In the event that a source fails to comply with the 

applicable CAA section 111 standards, including potential work 

practice standards as discussed below, as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate 

response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of 

the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root 

cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The 

EPA would also consider whether the source’s failure to comply 

with the CAA section 111 standard was, in fact, sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable and was not instead 

caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation (40 CFR 

§ 60.2 (definition of malfunction)). 

If the EPA determines in a particular case that an 

enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission 

standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses 

in that enforcement action and the federal district court will 

determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true 

for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding 

officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense 

raised and determine whether administrative penalties are 

appropriate. 

In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in 

particular, CAA section 111 is reasonable and encourages 
practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and 

judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards 

fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith 

efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. 

In several prior rules, the EPA had included an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for violations caused by malfunctions 

in an effort to create a system that incorporates some 

flexibility, recognizing that there is a tension, inherent in 

many types of air regulation, to ensure adequate compliance 

while simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent 

of efforts, emission standards may be violated under 

circumstances entirely beyond the control of the source. 

Although the EPA recognized that its case-by-case enforcement 

discretion provides sufficient flexibility in these 

circumstances, it included the affirmative defense to provide a 

more formalized approach and more regulatory clarity. See 

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 

1978) (holding that an informal case-by-case enforcement 

discretion approach is adequate); but see Marathon Oil Co. v. 

EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more 

formalized approach to consideration of “upsets beyond the 

control of the permit holder”). Under the EPA’s regulatory 

affirmative defense provisions, if a source could demonstrate in 

a judicial or administrative proceeding that it had met the 
requirements of the affirmative defense in the regulation, civil 

penalties would not be assessed. Recently, the U. S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated an 

affirmative defense in one of the EPA’s CAA section 112 

regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir., 2014) 

(vacating affirmative defense provisions in the CAA section 112 

rule establishing emission standards for Portland cement kilns). 

The court found that the EPA lacked authority to establish an 

affirmative defense for private civil suits and held that under 

the CAA, the authority to determine civil penalty amounts in 

such cases lies exclusively with the courts, not the EPA. 

Specifically, the court found: “As the language of the statute 

makes clear, the courts determine, on a case-by-case basis, 

whether civil penalties are ‘appropriate.’” See NRDC at 1063 

(“[U]nder this statute, deciding whether penalties are 

‘appropriate’ in a given private civil suit is a job for the 

courts, not EPA.”). In light of NRDC, the EPA is not including a 

regulatory affirmative defense provision in this rulemaking. As 

explained above, if a source is unable to comply with emissions 

standards as a result of a malfunction, the EPA may use its 

case-by-case enforcement discretion to provide flexibility, as 

appropriate. Further, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit recognized, in an EPA or citizen 

enforcement action, the court has the discretion to consider any 
defense raised and determine whether penalties are appropriate. 

Cf. NRDC, at 1064 (arguments that violation were caused by 

unavoidable technology failure can be made to the courts in 

future civil cases when the issue arises). The same is true for 

the presiding officer in EPA administrative enforcement actions.1 

Limit on SSM duration. Subpart WWW of 40 CFR part 60 limits 

the duration of SSM events for MSW landfills to 5 days for the 

landfill gas collection system and 1 hour for treatment or 

control devices. Proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf does not 

include the 5-day and 1-hour time limitations because some 

malfunctions cannot be corrected within these timeframes. 

Excluding these provisions is consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 

(551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008)), which concluded that that 

emission standards apply at all times, including periods of SSM, 

and 40 CFR 60.11(d), which states that at all times, including 

periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction, owners or 

operators shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and operate 

any affected facility including associated air pollution control 

equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control 

practice for minimizing emissions. The proposed revisions 

                                                            

1 Although the NRDC case does not address the EPA’s authority to establish an 

affirmative defense to penalties that is available in administrative 

enforcement actions, EPA is not including such an affirmative defense in the 

proposed rule. As explained above, such an affirmative defense is not 

necessary. Moreover, assessment of penalties for violations caused by 

malfunctions in administrative proceedings and judicial proceedings should be 

consistent. Cf. CAA section 113(e) (requiring both the Administrator and the 

court to take specified criteria into account when assessing penalties). 
clarify that the NSPS standards continue to apply during periods 

of SSM. 

To prevent free venting of landfill gas to the atmosphere 

during control device malfunctions, we propose to include a 

requirement in subpart Cf (40 CFR 60.34f(e)) that states that in 

the event the collection or control system is not operating, the 

gas mover system must be shut down and all valves in the 

collection and control system contributing to venting of gas to 

the atmosphere must be closed within 1 hour. The EPA proposes to 

use the term “not operating,” which includes periods when the 

gas collection or control system is not operating for whatever 

reason, including when the gas collection or control system is 

inoperable. The EPA requests comment on alternate ways to 

prevent free venting of landfill gas to the atmosphere during 

control device malfunctions. 

Shutting down the gas mover equipment and all valves 

contributing to venting of gas to the atmosphere minimizes 

emissions from the landfill while the control system is not 

operating and is being repaired. Compliance with proposed 40 CFR 

60.34f(e) does not constitute compliance with the applicable 

standards in proposed 40 CFR 60.36f. Compliance with proposed 40 

CFR 60.34f(e) is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the 

general duty to minimize emissions in 40 CFR 60.11(d) during 

control or collection system malfunctions.
Under proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, landfill 

owners/operators must keep records of combustion temperature, 

bypass flow, and periods when the flare flame or the flare pilot 

flame is out. However, without additional provisions, the EPA 

would have no way to gauge the severity of an emissions 

exceedance that may occur when these operating parameters are 

not being met or when the control device is not operating. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to include provisions for 

landfill owners/operators to estimate NMOC emissions when the 

control device or collection system is not operating. The 

landfill owners/operators may use whatever information is 

available to estimate NMOC emissions during the period, 

including but not limited to, landfill gas flow to or bypass of 

the control device, the concentration of NMOC (from the most 

recent performance test or from AP-42), and the amount of time 

the control device is not operating. Landfill owners/operators 

would keep records of the estimated emissions and would report 

the information in the annual compliance report. 

EPA specifically requests comment on whether the described 

procedures for the prevention of free venting are an appropriate 

work practice standard for periods of malfunction. The EPA also 

requests comment on alternate potential applications of SSM 

standards to MSW landfills.
1 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Hillary Ward, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS/Sector Policies and 

Programs Division, Fuel and Incineration Group, Docket 

FROM: Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) 

DATE: July 2015 

SUBJECT: Revised Cost and Emissions Impacts Resulting from the Landfill EG Review 

Introduction 

The purpose of this memorandum is to present the results of the analysis to estimate costs and 

emission reductions for the 2015 supplemental proposed review of the emission guidelines for municipal 

solid waste (MSW) landfills. These impacts were calculated for existing landfills that accepted waste after 

1987 and modified before July 17, 2014. The equations and data inputs used to estimate the impacts are 

discussed in other memoranda in the docket.1, 2,3 

Results are presented in 2012 dollars ($2012) and are based on the annualized costs in 2025 using 

an interest rate of 7 percent. By 2025, the Emission Guidelines are expected to be fully implemented and 

this year is representative of costs and the number of controlling landfills. 

The results of the impacts analysis are presented for the proposed changes to the emission 

guidelines (the proposal) as well as several options. The results are presented as incremental impacts 

relative to impacts associated with the current design capacity and NMOC emission thresholds currently 

in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW and the state and federal plans implementing subpart Cf. Landfillspecific details of each option under consideration are documented in the modeling database.4

 This 

memorandum is organized as follows: 

1.0 Overview of Regulatory Options 

2.0 Estimating Cost Impacts 

3.0 Estimating Emission Reductions Impacts 

4.0 Estimating Impacts for Enhanced Surface Emission Monitoring 

Appendix A: Index of Regulatory Options 

Appendix B: Detailed Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts 

 

1

 ERG. 2015. Summary of Updated Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of 

Landfills Regulations.

2

 ERG. 2015. Updated Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills 

Regulations.

3

 ERG. 2015. Updated Methodology for Estimating Testing and Monitoring Costs for the MSW Landfill 

Regulations.

4

 ERG. 2015. Summary of Updated Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of 

Landfills Regulations.
2 

Appendix C: Emissions Profiles 

1. Overview of Regulatory Options 

Descriptions of the current regulatory baseline, the proposed revision, and alternative options are 

included in this section. 

1.1 Baseline 

 Currently, 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW requires all landfills with a design capacity of 

2.5 million megagrams (Mg) and 2.5 million cubic meters or greater to report their NMOC 

emission rate. When the NMOC emission rate exceeds 50 Mg/yr, a landfill is required to control 

its emissions within 30 months of submitting a report in which the NMOC emissions exceeded 

the threshold. Approximately 989 existing landfills are expected to meet the design capacity 

threshold. Of these 989 landfills, 574 are expected to exceed the NMOC emission threshold and 

install a gas collection and control system (GCCS) by 2025. 

1.2 Proposal 

 The proposal reduces the NMOC emission threshold from 50 Mg/yr to 34 Mg/yr for landfills that 

are open as of the date of this proposal. The number of landfills subject to the rule remains the 

same as the baseline because the design capacity threshold remains the same. However, 106 more 

open landfills are expected to exceed the NMOC emission threshold and install a GCCS by 2025 

when compared to the baseline. 

 Consistent with the current baseline, the proposal employs a modeled initial GCCS installation 

lag time of 3 years after exceeding the NMOC threshold, and an average GCCS expansion lag 

time of 4 years as discussed in another memorandum.5

 

1.3 Alternative Regulatory Options 

The impacts of several regulatory options other than proposed option 2.5/34 were also 

considered. The options varied one or more of the size and NMOC control parameters. For each of these 

variations in size and NMOC thresholds, the universe of landfills potentially subject to more stringent 

requirements were analyzed. First, for all landfills (open or closed) meeting the revised criteria and then 

for just landfills that are open as of the date of the proposal and meeting the revised criteria. These options 

are summarized in this memorandum for reference and include the following adjustments to the control 

requirements. A complete index of the characteristics of each option considered is shown in Appendix A. 

 If the proposed threshold of 34 Mg/yr were reduced for all landfills (open and closed), 142 more 

landfills would expect to install a GCCS by 2025 when compared to the baseline. 

 One option incorporated a reduction in the NMOC threshold, to 40 Mg/yr. 62 more open landfills 

are expected to exceed the NMOC emission threshold and install a GCCS by 2025 when 

compared to the baseline. Considering all landfills (open and closed) 84 more landfills would 

install a GCCS in 2025 when compared to the baseline. 

 One option combined a reduced size threshold of 2.0 million Mg design capacity with an NMOC 

emission threshold of 34 Mg/yr. 122 more open landfills are expected to exceed the NMOC 

 

5

 ERG. 2015. Updated Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills 

Regulations.
3 

emission threshold and install a GCCS by 2025 when compared to the baseline. Considering all 

landfills (open and closed) 162 more landfills would install a GCCS in 2025 when compared to 

the baseline. 

For wet landfills, the EPA also considered options to reduce the lag times to install and expand on the 

GCCS: 

Several options paired the NMOC thresholds of 34 and 40 Mg/yr and size thresholds of 2.0 and 2.5 

million Mg design capacity with shortened the initial lag times for installing the GCCS. For example, 

shortening the initial lag time from 3 years to 2 years would require some landfills to install the controls 

earlier and would also trigger an earlier installation schedule for each subsequent expansion. However, 

because the same subset of landfills would require controls to be installed under the current 3-year lag 

times, the overall additional emission reductions are not as significant over time. Further, when installing 

controls a year earlier as a result of a shortened lag time, the initial system will be designed slightly 

smaller than a system designed to capture gas in a subsequent year. The options that reduced the initial 

lag times also shortened the expansion lag times. Reducing the expansion lag time achieves a larger net 

emission reduction over time because each subsequent expansion is on a shorter 2-year cycle. However, 

the same subset of landfills would still require controls to be installed under either lag time. This 

combination of initial and expansion lag time reductions achieved the largest amount of reductions over 

time because they achieved an earlier installation start date, paired with a tighter frequency of subsequent 

expansions. 

The emission reduction and cost analysis was conducted using a k value of 0.04 for any landfill that is 

located in an area with at least 25 inches of rainfall, consistent with the analysis discussed at 79 FR 

41805. The reductions and cost impacts on wet landfills shown in Appendix B-3a and B-3b were isolated 

for wet landfills, which for the purpose of the preliminary analysis included landfills receiving greater 

than 40 inches of rain fall per year, landfills permitted under the research, development, and 

demonstration (RD&D) rule, or landfills that reported a k value of at least 0.057 to the GHGRP subpart 

HH and indicated they recirculated leachate. Most wet landfills were located in non-arid climate zones, 

but there were nine additional landfills, which are either bioreactor projects permitted under the research, 

development, and demonstration (RD&D) rule or reported significant leachate recirculation to subpart 

HH of the GHGRP were modeled using a k value of 0.02 because they were located in arid areas. The 

results could differ significantly if alternative modeling parameters (k and/or Lo) were used to model 

emissions from this group of wet landfills. 

2. Estimating Cost Impacts 

For each option, the cost impacts analysis compares net annualized costs of the baseline option in 

2025 to the net annualized costs of each regulatory option in 2025. The costs incorporate annualized 

capital costs to install the GCCS, operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for the GCCS, and if relevant, 

any annualized capital and O&M costs for energy recovery equipment. If energy recovery was expected 

to occur at a landfill, the annual revenue from the energy recovery project was subtracted from the total 

annualized costs in order to compute the net annualized cost to each landfill. The detailed control cost 

equations are shown in another memorandum.6

 

In addition to the control costs to comply with the regulation, the costs also include testing and 

monitoring costs to demonstrate compliance. The testing and monitoring costs include the labor, 

equipment rental, and any capital expenses involved with preparation of NMOC emission rate reports, 

conducting initial performance tests, monthly wellhead monitoring, continuous combustor monitoring, 

and quarterly surface emission monitoring. The detailed testing and monitoring equations are shown in 

 

6

 ERG. 2015. Updated Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills 

Regulations.
4 

another memorandum.7 The costs and revenues associated with the baseline and proposal are shown in 

Table 2. 

Table 2. Summary of Cost Impacts for Proposal in 2025 

Option Annualized 

Control 

Cost 

Average 

Annualized 

Revenue 

Average 

Annualized 

Testing and 

Monitoring 

Cost 

Average 

Net Total 

Annualized 

Cost 

Total Costs of Baseline (millions, $2012) 

Baseline 

2.5/50 

1,700 1,408 7.3 299 

Incremental Costs above Baseline (millions, $2012) 

Proposal 

2.5/34 open 

and 2.5/50 

closed 

102 55.5 0.68 46.8 

The incremental costs associated with the other regulatory alternatives as well as a summary of 

each individual cost component are shown in Appendix B. 

3. Estimating Emission Reduction Impacts 

The emission reductions of each regulatory option are presented in terms of NMOC (Mg/yr), 

methane (Mg/yr), and carbon dioxide equivalents (Mg CO2e/yr) based on a global warming potential of 

25 for methane. The detailed emission reductions equations are shown in another memorandum.2

 The 

reductions associated with the baseline and the proposal are shown in Table 3. 

Table 3. Summary of Emission Reductions for Proposal in 2025 

Option NMOC 

Reductions 

(Mg/yr) 

Methane 

Reductions 

(million 

Mg/yr) 

Methane 

Reductions 

(million mt 

CO2e/yr)* 

Baseline 57,300 9.0 226 

Incremental Reductions above Baseline 

Proposal 

2.5/34 open 

and 2.5/50 

closed 

2,770 0.44 10.9

*A global warming potential of 25 is used to convert methane to CO2-equivalents. Minor secondary air impacts 

are not included in this table but are presented in another memorandum.8

 

Detailed annual emission reductions for other options for each affected landfill are shown in the 

 

7

 ERG. 2015. Updated Methodology for Estimating Testing and Monitoring Costs for the MSW Landfill 

Regulations.

8

 ERG. 2015. Estimating Secondary Impacts of the Emission Guidelines for MSW Landfills. 
5 

landfill modeling database outputs.9 Table 4 summarizes the overall and incremental cost effectiveness of 

the proposal. The cost effectiveness is presented with and without consideration of project revenue from 

electricity sales. 

Table 4. Summary of Overall Cost-Effectiveness 

Option Net Costa Total 

Cost 

Net Costa Total 

Cost 

Net Costa Total 

Cost 

$/Mg NMOC $/Mg Methane $/CO2e 

Baseline 

2.5/50 

5,100 29,800 32.3 189 1.3 7.6 

Proposal 

2.5/34 open 

and 2.5/50 

closed 

17,000 37,000 108 235 4.3 9.4 

a Net Cost is the total control and testing and monitoring cost minus any project revenue. The control costs for 

landfills with energy projects includes costs to install and operate a reciprocating engine (and associated electrical 

equipment), which is more expensive than a standard flare. Reciprocating engines are not required by the regulation 

but are expected to be used as control devices when it is cost-effective to recovery the LFG energy. 

The overall cost effectiveness of the baseline is provided for reference and it was calculated by 

dividing the total emission reductions achieved under the baseline by the total costs associated with the 

baseline. The incremental cost effectiveness of the proposal was calculated by dividing the incremental 

costs of the proposal by the incremental reductions of the proposal. 

Additional details about the emission impacts and cost effectiveness of other regulatory 

alternatives can be found in Appendix B. 

4. Impacts Over Time 

While the formal regulatory analysis was based on the costs and benefits in year 2025, the EPA 

recognizes that cost and reduction impacts could vary based on where the landfill is in its lifecycle. This 

variation is not as pronounced when looking at the total impacts of each option in a given snapshot year 

because the landfills controlling in any given year are each at different points of their lifecycle. Appendix 

C presents three different landfills as examples in order to demonstrate how the proposed option affects 

an individual landfill over time. 

 

 

9

 ERG. 2015. Modeling Database Containing Inputs and Results for Review of the MSW Landfill Emission 

Guidelines. 
6 

Appendix A: Index of Regulatory Options for Landfill Emission Guidelines Review 

Database 

Model 

Option # Option Name Description1 

1, 1a Baseline 

(2.5/50) 

 Design capacity cutoff = 2.5 million Mg 

 NMOC cutoff = 50 Mg/yr 

 Initial lag time = 3 years (30 months in rule, modeled as 3 years to account for 

time between when emission threshold was first exceeded and the time the report 

was submitted) 

 Expansion lag time = 4 years (some will do 2, more will do 5, so use 4 as typical) 

3, 3a 2.5/40 Same as current rule, except:  NMOC cutoff = 40 Mg/yr 

4, 4a2 2.5/40, IL, EL Same as current rule, except:  NMOC cutoff = 40 Mg/yr 

 Expansion lag time = 2 years 

 Initial lag time = 2 years 

7, 7a 2.0/34 Same as current rule, except:  Design capacity cutoff = 2.0 million Mg 

 NMOC cutoff = 34 Mg/yr 

13, 13a 2.5/34 

PROPOSED 

OPTION 

Same as current rule, except:  NMOC cutoff = 34 Mg/yr 

14, 14a2 2.5/34, IL, EL Same as current rule, except:  NMOC cutoff = 34 Mg/yr 

 Expansion lag time = 2 years 

 Initial lag time = 2 years 

1 For each option, interest rates of both 3% and 7% were used to annualize the costs. The option number with an “a” 

suffix denotes 3% in the database (i.e. Option 1a) and the option number without this suffix denotes a 7% rate (i.e. 

Option 1) 

2 Options with shorter expansion lag times or initial lag times were evaluated for wet landfills. 

 
7 

Appendix B: See spreadsheet containing detailed cost and emission reduction impacts. 

 
8 

Appendix C: Emission Profiles 

 LF ID 1742 would stop controlling in year 2049 under the baseline, but would continue 

on with controls beyond year 2063 with a lower emission threshold. 

 LF ID 52598 would not add controls under the baseline option, but controls would be 

required until 2033 under the lower emission threshold of 34 Mg/yr, according to our 

model. 

 LF 522776 is controlling at the same level throughout the period of 2025-2063, the 

dropoff occurs outside the scope of our modeled emissions. 

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

2020202220242026202820302032203420362038204020422044204620482050205220542056205820602062

Mg/yr CO2e Reductions, by landfill

Axis Title

Emissions Profile 2025‐2063 for EG (Subpart Cc) Landfills

Baseline ‐ 1742 Proposed Option 2.5/34 ‐ 1742

Baseline ‐ 522776 Proposed Option 2.5/34 ‐ 522776

Baseline ‐ 525598 Proposed Option 2.5/34 ‐ 525598
From: Grossman, Andrea [mailto:Andrea_L_Grossman@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 3:11 PM 

To: Thundiyil, Karen 

Cc: Ward, Hillary; Marsh, Karen; Cozzie, David; Vetter, Rick 

Subject: RE: Follow-up on remaining Landfills items 

Karen, 

Checking in to see if the EPA team has an E.T.A for responses to the conversation we had on #2 

yesterday? 

Thanks, 

Andrea Grossman 

202-395-4756 
From: Thundiyil, Karen 

Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:26 PM 

To: Grossman, Andrea 

Cc: Szabo, Aaron; Ward, Hillary; Marsh, Karen; Cozzie, David; Vetter, Rick 

Subject: Landfills - Malfunctions 

Importance: High 

Hi Andrea, 

Attached you will find the response to the 3 issues we discussed yesterday. 

Please note that we do not believe it is appropriate to address SSM in the NSPS supplemental package. 

The NSPS supplemental is a streamlined notice which address the emission threshold and modifications. 

Additionally, you asked about specific text related to the RIA. 

Text excerpt: 

Additionally, a couple of sentences and a footnote have just been added to section 1.1 per our Office of General 

Counsel. Those sentences say “In accordance with Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, OMB Circular 

A-4, and the EPA’s “Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses,” the EPA prepared this RIA for these 

“significant regulatory actions.” These actions are economically significant regulatory actions because they 

may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or 

state, local, or tribal governments or communities.6” And the footnote says “6 The analysis in this draft RIA 

constitutes the economic assessment required by CAA section 317. In the EPA’s judgment, the assessment is as 

extensive as practicable taking into account the EPA’s time, resources, and other duties and authorities.” 

We have confirmed that the highlighted text is standard language for any regulation that is reflected in 

Section 317 of the CAA. 

Please let us know if you have any questions, 

Karen. 
In the event that a source fails to comply with the

applicable CAA section 111 standards, including potential work 

practice standards as discussed below, as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would determine an appropriate 

response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of 

the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root 

cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. The 

EPA would also consider whether the source’s failure to comply 

with the CAA section 111 standard was, in fact, sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable and was not instead 

caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation (40 CFR 

§ 60.2 (definition of malfunction)). 

If the EPA determines in a particular case that an 

enforcement action against a source for violation of an emission 

standard is warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses 

in that enforcement action and the federal district court will 

determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true 

for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding 

officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense 

raised and determine whether administrative penalties are 

appropriate. 

In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in 

particular, CAA section 111 is reasonable and encourages 
practices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and 

judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards 

fully recognize that violations may occur despite good faith 

efforts to comply and can accommodate those situations. 

In several prior rules, the EPA had included an affirmative 

defense to civil penalties for violations caused by malfunctions 

in an effort to create a system that incorporates some 

flexibility, recognizing that there is a tension, inherent in 

many types of air regulation, to ensure adequate compliance 

while simultaneously recognizing that despite the most diligent 

of efforts, emission standards may be violated under 

circumstances entirely beyond the control of the source. 

Although the EPA recognized that its case-by-case enforcement 

discretion provides sufficient flexibility in these

circumstances, it included the affirmative defense to provide a 

more formalized approach and more regulatory clarity. See 

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 

1978) (holding that an informal case-by-case enforcement 

discretion approach is adequate); but see Marathon Oil Co. v. 

EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more 

formalized approach to consideration of “upsets beyond the 

control of the permit holder”). Under the EPA’s regulatory 

affirmative defense provisions, if a source could demonstrate in 

a judicial or administrative proceeding that it had met the 
requirements of the affirmative defense in the regulation, civil 

penalties would not be assessed. Recently, the U. S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated an 

affirmative defense in one of the EPA’s CAA section 112 

regulations. NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir., 2014) 

(vacating affirmative defense provisions in the CAA section 112 

rule establishing emission standards for Portland cement kilns). 

The court found that the EPA lacked authority to establish an 

affirmative defense for private civil suits and held that under 

the CAA, the authority to determine civil penalty amounts in 

such cases lies exclusively with the courts, not the EPA. 

Specifically, the court found: “As the language of the statute 

makes clear, the courts determine, on a case-by-case basis, 

whether civil penalties are ‘appropriate.’” See NRDC at 1063 

(“[U]nder this statute, deciding whether penalties are 

‘appropriate’ in a given private civil suit is a job for the 

courts, not EPA.”). In light of NRDC, the EPA is not including a 

regulatory affirmative defense provision in this rulemaking. As 

explained above, if a source is unable to comply with emissions 

standards as a result of a malfunction, the EPA may use its 

case-by-case enforcement discretion to provide flexibility, as 

appropriate. Further, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit recognized, in an EPA or citizen 

enforcement action, the court has the discretion to consider any 
defense raised and determine whether penalties are appropriate. 

Cf. NRDC, at 1064 (arguments that violation were caused by 

unavoidable technology failure can be made to the courts in 

future civil cases when the issue arises). The same is true for 

the presiding officer in EPA administrative enforcement actions.1 

Limit on SSM duration. Subpart WWW of 40 CFR part 60 limits 

the duration of SSM events for MSW landfills to 5 days for the 

landfill gas collection system and 1 hour for treatment or 

control devices. Proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf does not 

include the 5-day and 1-hour time limitations because some 

malfunctions cannot be corrected within these timeframes. 

Excluding these provisions is consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 

(551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008)), which concluded that that 

emission standards apply at all times, including periods of SSM, 

and 40 CFR 60.11(d), which states that at all times, including 

periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction, owners or 

operators shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and operate 

any affected facility including associated air pollution control 

equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control 

practice for minimizing emissions. The proposed revisions 

 

1 Although the NRDC case does not address the EPA’s authority to establish an 

affirmative defense to penalties that is available in administrative 

enforcement actions, EPA is not including such an affirmative defense in the 

proposed rule. As explained above, such an affirmative defense is not 

necessary. Moreover, assessment of penalties for violations caused by 

malfunctions in administrative proceedings and judicial proceedings should be 

consistent. Cf. CAA section 113(e) (requiring both the Administrator and the 

court to take specified criteria into account when assessing penalties). 
clarify that the NSPS standards continue to apply during periods 

of SSM. 

To prevent free venting of landfill gas to the atmosphere 

during control device malfunctions, we propose to include a 

requirement in subpart Cf (40 CFR 60.34f(e)) that states that in 

the event the collection or control system is not operating, the 

gas mover system must be shut down and all valves in the 

collection and control system contributing to venting of gas to 

the atmosphere must be closed within 1 hour. The EPA proposes to 

use the term “not operating,” which includes periods when the 

gas collection or control system is not operating for whatever 

reason, including when the gas collection or control system is 

inoperable. The EPA requests comment on the technical 

feasibility of this approach as well as alternate ways to 

prevent free venting of landfill gas to the atmosphere during 

control device malfunctions. 

Shutting down the gas mover equipment and all valves 

contributing to venting of gas to the atmosphere minimizes 

emissions from the landfill while the control system is not 

operating and is being repaired. Compliance with proposed 40 CFR 

60.34f(e) does not constitute compliance with the applicable 

standards in proposed 40 CFR 60.36f; however, as a practical 

matter it is unlikely that there would be a violation since no 

gas would be flowing to the control device.. Compliance with 

Formatted: Highlight

Commented [A1]: New text added 

Formatted: Highlight

Commented [A2]: 

Commented [A3]: First part of sentence(previously 

deleted) would be retained. 
proposed 40 CFR 60.34f(e) is necessary to demonstrate compliance 

with the general duty to minimize emissions in 40 CFR 60.11(d) 

during control or collection system malfunctions.

Under proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, landfill

owners/operators must keep records of combustion temperature, 

bypass flow, and periods when the flare flame or the flare pilot 

flame is out. However, without additional provisions, the EPA 

would have no way to gauge the severity of an emissions 

exceedance that may occur when these operating parameters are 

not being met or when the control device is not operating. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to include provisions for 

landfill owners/operators to estimate NMOC emissions when the 

control device or collection system is not operating. The 

landfill owners/operators may use whatever information is 

available to estimate NMOC emissions during the period, 

including but not limited to, landfill gas flow to or bypass of 

the control device, the concentration of NMOC (from the most 

recent performance test or from AP-42), and the amount of time 

the control device is not operating. Landfill owners/operators 

would keep records of the estimated emissions and would report 

the information in the annual compliance report. 

As discussed above, malfunctions are by definition sudden, 

infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures of emissions 

control, process or monitoring equipment. Further, there are 

Formatted: Font: (Default) Courier New, 12 pt

Formatted: Line spacing: Double
myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur and there 

are significant difficulties associated with predicting or 

accounting for the frequency, degree, and duration of various 

malfunctions that might occur. As a result, EPA believes that 

it is generally not technically feasible to establish an 

alternative emission standard that would apply during periods of 

malfunction. EPA also believes that it would be difficult to 

defend an alternative standard that does not achieve a level of 

emission reduction comparable to that required by the standard 

that applies during periods of normal operation in circumstances 

where there are steps that an owner or operator could take to 

achieve such reductions such as shutting down the process or 

having a second control device. In the immediate case, by 

shutting down the flow to the flare or other control device a 

source is unlikely to be in violation of the 98% emission 

reduction requirement since there will be no gas flowing to the 

control device. We are, however, interested in comment on 

whether there are alternative ways in which the emission limit 

could be complied with when the control device malfunctions. 

EPA specifically requests comment on whether the described 

procedures for the prevention of free venting are an appropriate 

work practice standard for periods of malfunction. The EPA also 
requests comment on alternate potential applications of SSM 

standards to MSW landfills. 
From: Grossman, Andrea <Andrea_L_Grossman@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 4:34 PM

To: Thundiyil, Karen

Cc: Ward, Hillary; Marsh, Karen; Cozzie, David; Muellerleile, Caryn; Laity, Jim; Szabo, Aaron

Subject: Conclusion of EO 12866 and 13563 Review: MSW Landfills (RINs 2060‐AM08 and 2060‐AS23)  

  

This email serves as notice that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has concluded its review

under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed

rule titled Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and the

supplementary proposal titled Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (RINs 2060‐

AM08 and 2060‐AS23).

  

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thank you.

  

Andrea Grossman

202‐395‐4756