1 

### From: Grossman, Andrea <Andrea_L_Grossman@omb.eop.gov> Se n t: Monday, July 13, 2015 10:44 AM T o : Ward, Hillary Su b ject: Re: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO 12866 and 13563 for EPA's MSW Landfill R u les (RINs 2060-AM08 and 2060-AS23)



### Hillary,

I t hink 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

F r om : Ward, Hillary [mailto:Ward.Hillary@epa.gov] Sent : Monday, July 13, 2015 10:23 AM T o : 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,

Kar en 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

F r om : Grossman, Andrea Sent : Thursday, July 09, 2015 05:33 PM T o : Thundiyil, Karen < Thundiyil.Karen@epa.gov > Cc : Szabo, Aaron; Laity, Jim S ubject : 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 202-395-47561 

### From: Thundiyil, Karen <Thundiyil.Karen@epa.gov> Se nt: Friday, July 17, 2015 11:44 AM T o: Grossman, Andrea C c: Ward, Hillary; Marsh, Karen; Cozzie, David Su bject: Landfills - response to interagency comments A ttachments: EO 12866 Landfills EG 2060 AS23 NPRM 20150717.docx; DRAFT Screening Analysis EG N SPS Proposals 042915.xlsx; DRAFT Landfills EG Cost and Emission Impacts 071815.docx; Summary of Interagency Comments Under EO12866 13563 20150718.docx



### Hi Andrea,

At tached 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.

A t 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> Se nt: Monday, July 20, 2015 2:13 PM T o: Grossman, Andrea C c: Ward, Hillary; Cozzie, David; Marsh, Karen Su bject: Landfills - response to remaining interagency comments A ttachments: Summary of Interagency Comments Under EO12866 13563 20150720.docx; Copy of EG C ost 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 17 th 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 websit e 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 CO 2 Carbon dioxide CO 2 e 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

m 3 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 mtCO 2 e 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 PM 2.5 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-CH 4 Social cost of methane SC-CO 2 Social cost of carbon dioxide SEM Surface emissions monitoring SER Small entity representative SO 2 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 Plan 1 , 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 reducingemissions, and identifying existing authorities and incentivebased opportunities to reduce methane emissions.” The proposed changes are also consistent with the President’s Methane Strategy 2 , 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, 1987 3 , 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 (m 3 ), 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 Cfand 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 (mtCO 2 e/yr)) beyond the baseline in year 2025. In addition, the proposal is expected to result in the net reduction of 238,000 Mg CO 2 , 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 (PM 2.5 ) 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 CO 2 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-CH 4 ) and social

cost of CO 2 (SC- CO 2 ) , at a 3-percent discount rate, results in

an estimate of about $670 million in 2025.

The SC-CH 4 and SC-CO 2 are the monetary values of impacts associated with marginal changes in methane and CO 2 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 PM 2.5 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 NAICS a 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 (CO 2 ) and has an atmospheric life of about 12 years 5 . 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 Document 7 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 CO 2 , 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 emissions 9

8 Total U.S. methane emissions were 636Tg CO 2 e 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 CO 2 e) 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 PM 2.5 and ozone formation. As documented in previous analyses (U.S. EPA, 2006 11 , 2010 12 , and 2014 13 ), exposure to PM 2.5 and ozone is associated with significant public health effects. PM 2.5 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 CO 2 , 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 CO 2 ). 17,18 According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5 th Assessment Report, methane is the second leading long-lived climate forcer after CO 2 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 CO 2 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 climat e 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 E ndangerment 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.

E PA 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 climat e 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 E ndangerment 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.

E PA 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, CO 2 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 mentalhealth, 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 CO 2 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, CO 2 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 4 th 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-20 th 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 20 th 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 (NO X ) 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 burdenassociated 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. Youare 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, subpartCf 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 requirements 39 . 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.

N ote 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, andcost. 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 andindicated 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 pe r formance 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 37 th 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

Document 48 , 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 ensureemission 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 (m 3 ). 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 1987 49 and opened prior to

2014 50 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 (L 0 ), 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 (L 0 ), 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 mtCO 2 e) 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 mtCO 2 e). 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) CO 2 e in 1990 to 332.6 Tg CO 2 e in 2013. 51 If controls are considered, emissions from landfills have decreased from 173.8 Tg CO 2 e in 1990 to 97.5 Tg CO 2 e 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 m 3 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 lling a Annual

Net Cost (milli on $2012) b Annual

NMOC Reduct ions (Mg/yr ) Annua

l Metha ne Reduc tions (mill ion Mg/yr ) Annual CO 2 e Reduct ions (milli on mt/yr) NMOC

cost effecti veness ($/Mg) Methan

e cost effect ivenes s ($/Mg) CO 2 e

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 CO 2 e). 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 Mg 55 , 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 CO 2 e in 2014. This is in addition to the 231 million Mg CO 2 e 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 (m 3 ).***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 m 3 , and an option that reduced the design capacity to 2.0 million Mg and 2.0

million m 3 . 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 m 3 (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 m 3 . 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 Rule 56 (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

m 3 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 m 3 , 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

m 3 to 2.0 million Mg and 2.0 million m 3 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 m 3

.***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 forcapping 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/mtCO 2 e, compared with $19,300/Mg NMOC and $4.9/mtCO 2 e 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 mtCO 2 e) 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

41807 58 , 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 authoritybelieved 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 thispreamble; 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 ed b 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 CO 2 e Redu ctio ns (mil lion mt/y r) c NMOC

cost effect ivenes s ($/Mg) Metha

ne cost effec tiven ess ($/Mg ) CO 2 e cost effect ivenes s ($/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 CO 2 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 m 3 . 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 m 3 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 mtCO 2 e) 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 mtCO 2 e) 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 m 3 (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

mtCO 2 e) 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 mtCO 2 e) 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

m 3 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 mtCO 2 e) compared to the baseline. An emission threshold of 40 Mg/yr NMOC with a 2.5 million Mg and

2.5 million m 3 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 mtCO 2 e) 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. CO 2 e is an expression of

methane in terms of the CO 2 equivalents, given the methane GWP

of 25 59

. 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 m 3 , 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 m 3 , 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 m 3 (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 m 3 . 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 m 3 . 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 CO 2 , 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

mtCO 2 e per year, which compares to 19 to 33 million mtCO 2 e 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-CH 4 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, whic h 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 e) 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

e xperience as a result of local diversion initiatives.

T wo 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 correctiveaction 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 followthe 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 (C NMOC ). 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-designedGCCS 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 m 3 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 m 3 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 51 65 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 65 66 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 mtCO 2 e 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 mtCO 2 e 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 m 3

. 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 requirementsin “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 parametersaddressing 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 fashion 68 ; 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 lands 69 . 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 mtCO 2 e/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 L o ) 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

landfills 70 . One commenter urged the EPA to consider more representative k values when calculating emission reductions from wet landfills, and cited several studies for EPA

review 71,72,73 . 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 changes 74 . 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

landfills 75,76,77

. 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. 7 6 U.S. EPA, Landfill Bioreactor Performance, Second Interim Rep ort; EPN600/R-07/060, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Laboratory: Cincinnati, OH, 2006. 7 7 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 seekingadditional 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 contractorsor 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 literature 78 , 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/d0cf6618525 a9efb85257359003fb69d/155 19081fbf4002285257d8500477615!OpenDocument ; Detailed settlement i nfo.: http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/hyundai-and-kia-clean-air-actsettlement ; Consent Decree: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/productio n/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 lesscostly. 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 mtCO 2 e) a 226 Proposed Incremental Methane Emission Reductions (million mtCO 2 e) 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 landfillsversus 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 frompurchasing 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 (SO 2 ) 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 CO 2 e. 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 CO 2 emissions by 238,000 metric tons per year. These

CO 2 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 Cost a 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 mtCO 2 e/yr). In addition, the proposal is expected to result in the net reduction of 238,000 Mg CO 2 , 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 CO 2 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-CH 4 ), a metric that estimates the monetary value of impacts associated with marginal changes in methane emissions in a given year. The SC-CH 4 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 CO 2 (SC-CO 2 ), provides important context for understanding the Marten et al. SC-CH 4***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page 222 of 321

estimates. 85 The SC-CO 2 is a metric that estimates the monetary value of impacts associated with marginal changes in CO 2 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-CO 2 have been used by the EPA and other federal agencies to value the impacts of CO 2 emissions changes in benefit cost analysis for GHG-related rulemakings since 2008.

The SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 estimates and recommended four global values for use in regulatory analyses. The SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 GHGs in the discussion and analysis the more specific SC-CO 2 nomenclature is used to refer to the social cost of CO 2 emissions.***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page 223 of 321

The 2010 SC-CO 2 Technical Support Document (TSD) provides a complete discussion of the methods used to develop these

estimates and the current SC-CO 2 TSD presents and discusses the 2013 update (including recent minor technical corrections to the estimates). 86

The SC-CO 2 TSDs discuss a number of limitations to the SCCO 2 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 CO 2 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-CO 2 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-CO 2 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-CO 2 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-CO 2 GHG

emissions at the time the SC-CO 2 estimates were developed. In addition, the directly modeled estimates of the social costs of

non-CO 2 GHG emissions previously found in the published literature were few in number and varied considerably in terms of the models and input assumptions they employed 87 (EPA 2012). As a result, benefit-cost analyses informing U.S. federal rulemakings to date have not fully considered the monetized

benefits associated with CH 4 emissions mitigation. To understand the potential importance of monetizing non-CO 2 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 CH 4 to convert emission impacts to CO 2 equivalents, which can then be valued using the SC-CO 2 estimates. This approach approximates

the social cost of methane (SC-CH 4 ) using estimates of the SCCO 2 and the GWP of CH 4 . The published literature documents a variety of reasons that directly modeled estimates of SC-CH 4 are an analytical improvement over the estimates from the GWP approximationapproach. Specifically, several recent studies found that GWPweighted benefit estimates for CH 4 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 CO 2 . The directly modeled social cost estimates

differ from the GWP-scaled SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 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-CH 4 to overcome those challenges. Since these previous rulemakings, a paper by Marten et al. (2014) has provided the first set of published SC-CH 4 and social

cost of nitrous oxide (SC-N 2 O) estimates in the peer-reviewed literature that are consistent with the modeling assumptions underlying the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 estimates.

The SC-CH 4 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 CH 4 and N 2 O mitigation benefits consistent with the U.S. Government's SC-CO 2 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 CH 4 , 2012 – 2050 a [in 2012$ per metric ton] (Source: Marten et al., 2014 b )

Year SC-CH 4

5% Average 3%

Average 2.5%

Average 3%

95 th percentile 2012 $ 4 3 0 $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 1 4 00 2700 3 3 00 7 2 00

a The values are emissions-year specific. Estimates using several discount rates are included because the literature shows that estimates of the SC-CO 2 (and SC-CH 4 ) 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-CH 4 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-CH 4 distribution.

b The estimates in this table have been adjusted to reflect the recent minor technical corrections to the SC-CO 2 estimates described above. See the RIA for more details.

The application of these directly modeled SC-CH 4 estimates from Marten et al. (2014) in a benefit-cost analysis of a regulatory action is analogous to the use of the SC-CO 2 estimates. In addition, the limitations for the SC-CO 2 estimates discussed above likewise apply to the SC-CH 4 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-CO 2 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-CO 2 GHG impacts in its rulemakings, the agency has used the Marten et al. (2014) SC-CH 4 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-CO 2 GHGs in this rulemaking.

The CH 4 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-CH 4 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 CH 4 Reductions in 2025 [in millions, 2012$]

Million metric tons CH 4 Discount rate and Statistic

5% Average 3%

Average 2.5%

Average 3%

95 th 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 CO 2 emissions. Monetizing the net CO 2 reductions with the SC-CO 2 estimates described in this section yields benefits of $12 million in the year 2025 (average SC-CO 2 , 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 levels and the health effects associated with PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 reductions, we include a qualitative assessment of the health effects associated with exposure to HAP, ozone, and PM 2.5 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 ExecutiveOrders 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,

t he 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 part60, 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  )  

W here:

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 rateconstant 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 × 10−3Q LFG C NMOC

Where:

M NMOC = Mass emission rate of NMOC, megagrams per year. Q LFG = Flow rate of landfill gas, cubic meters per minute.

C NMOC = NMOC concentration, parts per million by volume as

hexane. (1) The flow rate of landfill gas, Q LFG , 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, C NMOC , 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 C NMOC 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  (    )  

W here:

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 321each 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 specifiedin 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 demonstratecompliance 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 value500 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 321triggered § 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 operatingparameters 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 thenature, 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 tribalagency 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 21 st 

## 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 21 st 

## 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 discussionof 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, CO 2 

## , 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-CO 2 

## GHGs and that the rulemaking has no implications for other non-CO 2 

## 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 CO 2 

## 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

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... III L IST OF T ABLES .................................................................................................................................. VI L IST OF F IGURES ......................................................................................................................... VIIIVII E XECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 ES.1 B ACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 1 ES.2 R ESULTS FOR P ROPOSED R EVISIONS TO E MISSION G UIDELINES ................................................................... 1 ES.3 R ESULTS FOR S UPPLEMENTAL P ROPOSED N EW S OURCE P ERFORMANCE S TANDARDS ................................... 3 ES.3 O RGANIZATION OF THIS R EPORT ................................................................................................................ 5 1 I NTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 B ACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 S TATEMENT OF N EED FOR P OLICY A CTION .............................................................................................. 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 O RGANIZATION OF THIS R EPORT

........................................................................................................ 1-51-4 1.4 R EFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 1-5 2 I NDUSTRY P ROFILE .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 I NTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 W ASTE S TREAM B ACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 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 D ISPOSAL F ACILITY B ACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 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 C OSTS AND R EVENUE S TREAMS FOR L ANDFILLS ................................................................................... 2-15 2.4.1 Major Cost Components for Landfills ......................................................................................... 2-15 2.4.2 Landfill Revenue Sources ........................................................................................................... 2-18 2.5 A IR P OLLUTANT E MISSIONS FROM L ANDFILLS ....................................................................................... 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 T ECHNIQUES FOR C ONTROLLING E MISSIONS FROM L ANDFILLS .............................................................. 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 I NTEGRATED W ASTE M ANAGEMENT S TRATEGIES .................................................................................. 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 R EFERENCES

................................................................................................................................. 2-432-42 3 R EGULATORY P ROGRAM C OSTS AND E MISSIONS R EDUCTIONS ......................................... 3-1 3.1 I NTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 G ENERAL A SSUMPTIONS AND P ROCEDURES ............................................................................................ 3-1 3.3 E MISSIONS A NALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 3-3 3.4 E NGINEERING AND A DMINISTRATIVE C OST A NALYSIS ............................................................................. 3-4 3.5 R EGULATORY B ASELINE AND O PTIONS ................................................................................................... 3-7 3.6 A LTERNATIVE Y EARS OF A

NALYSIS

............................................................................................... 3-143-12 4 B ENEFITS OF E MISSIONS R EDUCTIONS .................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 I NTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 M ETHANE (CH 4 ) .................................................................................................................................... 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 PM 2.5 PRECURSOR

.......................................................................................................... 4-194-18 4.3.1 PM 2.5 health effects and valuation ................................................................................................ 4-19 4.3.2 Visibility Effects......................................................................................................................... 4-23 4.4 VOC AS AN O ZONE P RECURSOR ........................................................................................................... 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 H AZARDOUS A IR P OLLUTANT (HAP) B ENEFITS ..................................................................................... 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 A LTERNATIVE Y EARS OF A

NALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 4-35 4.7 R EFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 4-36 5 E CONOMIC I

MPACT A NALYSIS AND D ISTRIBUTIONAL A SSESSMENTS ................................ 5-1 5.1 I NTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 E CONOMIC I MPACT A NALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.3 E MPLOYMENT I MPACTS .......................................................................................................................... 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 S MALL B USINESS I MPACTS A NALYSIS ................................................................................................... 5-12 5.5 R EFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 5-13 6 C OMPARISON OF B ENEFITS AND C OST .................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 I NTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 N ET B ENEFITS OF THE P ROPOSED S TANDARDS ........................................................................................ 6-1 6.3 N ET B ENEFITS OF THE A LTERNATE S TANDARDS ...................................................................................... 6-2 7 S UPPLEMENTAL NSPS P ROPOSAL ......................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 I NTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 R EGULATORY B ASELINE AND O PTIONS ................................................................................................... 7-2 7.3 B ENEFITS

........................................................................................................................................ 7-107-8*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

v 7.4 E CONOMIC I MPACTS

...................................................................................................................... 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 C OMPARISON OF B ENEFITS AND C OSTS

.......................................................................................... 7-167-13 7.6 N ET B ENEFITS OF THE P ROPOSED S TANDARDS

............................................................................... 7-177-14 7.7 N ET B ENEFITS OF THE A LTERNATE S TANDARDS

............................................................................. 7-187-15 7.8 A LTERNATIVE Y EARS OF A

NALYSIS

............................................................................................... 7-217-17 8 S TATUTORY AND E XECUTIVE O RDER R EVIEWS ................................................................... 8-1 8.1 E XECUTIVE O RDER 12866, R EGULATORY P LANNING AND R EVIEW AND E XECUTIVE O RDER 13563, I MPROVING R EGULATION AND R EGULATORY R EVIEW ...................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 P APERWORK R EDUCTION A CT ................................................................................................................ 8-2 8.3 R EGULATORY F LEXIBILITY A CT .............................................................................................................. 8-4 8.4 U NFUNDED M ANDATES R EFORM A CT ..................................................................................................... 8-5 8.5 E XECUTIVE O RDER 13132: F EDERALISM ................................................................................................ 8-7 8.6 E XECUTIVE O RDER 13175: C ONSULTATION AND C OORDINATION WITH I NDIAN T RIBAL G OVERNMENTS ... 8-8 8.7 E XECUTIVE O RDER 13045: P ROTECTION OF C HILDREN FROM E NVIRONMENTAL H EALTH R ISKS AND S AFETY R ISKS .............................................................................................................................................................. 8-9 8.8 E XECUTIVE O RDER 13211: A CTIONS C ONCERNING R EGULATIONS T HAT S IGNIFICANTLY A FFECT E NERGY S UPPLY , D ISTRIBUTION , OR U SE ..................................................................................................................... 8-10 8.9 N ATIONAL T ECHNOLOGY T RANSFER AND A DVANCEMENT A

CT ............................................................. 8-10 8.10 E XECUTIVE O RDER 12898: E NVIRONMENTAL J USTICE .......................................................................... 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 Discarded a 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 2013 a ................................................................................................................................................................ 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 CH 4 , 2012 – 2050 a [in 2012$ per metric ton] (Source: Marten et al., 2014 b ) ................ 4-12 Table 4-3 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) ..................................... 4-14 Table 4-4 Estimated Global Benefits of Net CO 2 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) .............................. 4-15 Table 4-5 Monetized Benefits-per-Ton Estimates for VOC based on Previous Modeling in 2015 (2012$) ......... 4-22 Table 4-6 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2020* (in millions, 2012$) ..................................... 4-35 Table 4-7 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2030* (in millions, 2012$) ..................................... 4-36 Table 4-8 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2040* (in millions, 2012$) ..................................... 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 CH 4 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) .............................. 7-137-10 Table 7-7 Estimated Global Disbenefits of Net CO 2 Increases in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) ...................... 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$) .............................................................................................................................................. 7-217-17 Table 7-12 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2020 for the Baseline and Alternative Options .... 7- 227-18 Table 7-13 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2020 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 7-227-18 Table 7-14 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2030 for the Baseline and Alternative Options .... 7- 237-19 Table 7-15 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2030 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 7-237-19 Table 7-16 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2040 for the Baseline and Alternative Options .... 7- 247-20 Table 7-17 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2040 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 7-247-20 Table 7-18 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2020* (in millions, 2012$) ............................ 7-257-21 Table 7-19 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2030* (in millions, 2012$) ............................ 7-257-21 Table 7-20 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2040* (in millions, 2012$) ............................ 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.

I n 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 m 3 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 CO 2- equivalents 1 ) compared to the baseline. In addition, the proposal is expected to result in the net reduction of 238,000 Mg CO 2 , 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-CH 4 ), and the reductions in CO 2 , which are valued using the social cost of carbon (SC-CO 2 ). 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-CH 4 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 -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 Benefits 1 $670 million Total Costs 2 $35 million $47 million Net Benefits $640 million $620 million Non-monetized Benefits 3 Health effects of PM 2.5 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 CO 2 ($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 rulesthe se 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 CO 2- equivalents 4 ) compared to the baseline. The proposal is also expected to result in minor secondary air impacts, specifically an increase of 670 Mg CO 2 , 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-CH 4 ), offset by the small increases in CO 2 , which are valued using the social cost of carbon (SC-CO 2 ). 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-CH 4 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 -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 Benefits 1 $78 million Monetized CO 2 disbenefits 1 $0.03 million Total Costs 2 $7.1 million $8.5 million Net Benefits $71 million $70 million Non-monetized Benefits 3 Health effects of PM 2.5 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 rulesthe se 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.

I n 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 m 3 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 d ifference 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 propose d 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 enviro nment are protected, the EPA must ensure that emissions of methane, VOC, and HAP from MSW landfills are limited. The pollutant regulated under rules affecting landfi lls 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 PM 2.5 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 (PM 2.5 ) 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 PM 2.5 , 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 CO 2 , 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 costsassociated 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 em issions 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, 2012 8

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 Discarded a 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 Materials b 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

s election for landfills is an integral part of the design process. Construction and operating permit applications for n ew 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 2013 a

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 1995 a 1998 a 2000 a 2002 a 2004 a 2008 b 2010 c 2011 d 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 anthropoge nic 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 environmen t 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 CO 2 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 anthropoge nic 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 (NO X ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and particulate matter (PM) (EPA, 1998). NO X 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. SO 2 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 Costs a Typical Annual O&M Costs a,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 millionBtu (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 morethan 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 Ban 1,2,3 Local Residential Food Waste Collection Program

4 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 Island 2 

###  (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. “17 t h Nationwide Survey of MSW Management in the U.S.: The State ofGarbage 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 Ec onomics Part II: Getting Down to Business”. June 2005. < http://www.mswmanagement.com/MSW/Articles/Landfill_E conomics_Part_II_Getting _Down_to_Busines_1513.aspx >. D uffy, 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 >. E nSol, Inc. 2010. “Cortland County Landfill Alternatives Analysis”. October 2010. < http://www.cortlandc o.org/legislature/Ash%20to%20Trash%20Docs/CORTLAND%20COUNTY%20LAND FILL%20ALTERNATIVES%20ANALYSIS%20-%20FINAL%20REPORT%2010-15- 10.pdf >. F itzwater, Ryan. 2012. Seeking Alpha. “The Top Three Dividend Paying Waste Management Stocks”. May 21, 2012. < http://seekingalpha.com/article/604571-the-top-3-div idendpaying-waste-management-stocks >. G reenhouse 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/reportingdat asets.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%20Permitt ing%20Overview.pdf >. K leanIndustries. 2012. “Tipping fees vary across the U.S.” July 2012. < http://www.kleanindustries.com/s/environmental_marke t_industry_news.asp?ReportID =538710 >. M aryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2012. “Estimated Costs of Landfill Closure”. Accessed December 4, 2012. < http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/ResearchCenter/F actSheets/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.” August2008. <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 toregional 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 theU.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. “F ull Cost Accounting for Municipal SolidWaste Management: A Handbook, Chapter 4: Allocating Costs.” September 1997. EPA530-R-95-041. < http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/fca/docs/fca-h anb.pdf >. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Of fice 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 theSupplemental 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/tec hman/ >. Accessed December 4, 2 012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012h. L andfill 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: Electricityfrom 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. I nventory 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/usinve ntoryreport.html>

. Accessed A pril 28, 2015. Waste 360. 2014. “Navigating the Complexities of Fo od 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, 1987 11 , 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 option 12 . 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 percent 13

. 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-Webmodel. 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 ft 3 per year of collected LFG (at 50 percent methane). Therefore, engines are assumed to be installed at landfills that have at least 195 million ft 3 per year of collected LFG for at least 15 years. EPA calculated and summed the engine capital and operation and 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 ft 3 per year of collected LFG, so in order to have two engines on-site, the landfill must have double that amount of LFG (390 million ft

3 per year) for at least 15 years. The capital costs for engines are based on the 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 m 3 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 - equivalents)* Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 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 CO 2 -equivalents. Secondary CO 2 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 t o 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 m 3 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 t o 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 m 3 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 optio ns, 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 met hane 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.

W hen 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 met hane 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 - $235 per Mg methane under the p roposed option 2.5/34 and the alternative options 2.5/40 and 2.0/34. Table 3-5 Estimated Cost-effectiveness in 2025 for the Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount Rate) Cost-effectiveness (2012$ per Mg)

NMOC Methane Methane (in CO 2 - equivalents)* Net Cost b /ton Total

Cost /ton Net

Cost b /ton Total

Cost /ton Net

Cost b /ton Total

Cost /ton Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 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 CO 2 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 em issions 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 CO 2 - equivalents)* Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 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 CO 2 -equivalents. Secondary CO 2 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 m 3 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 CO 2 - equivalents)* Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 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 CO 2 -equivalents. Secondary CO 2 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 m 3 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 reduction s 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 CO 2 - equivalents)*

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 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 CO 2 -equivalents. Secondary CO 2 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 m 3 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 PM 2.5 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 (PM 2.5 ) 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 co-benefits are estimated to range from $3.6 million (2012$) to $36 million (2012$) in 2025; estimated CO 2 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 (PM 2.5 ), 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-PM 2 .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 (CH 4 ) and carbon dioxide (CO 2

) — 1  Marten et al. (2014), SC-CO 2 TSDs Other climate impacts (e.g., ozone , black carbon, aerosols, other impacts) — — IPCC, Ozone ISA, PM ISA 2 Improved Human Health Reduced incidence of premature mortality from exposure to PM 2.5 Adult premature mortality based on cohort

study estimates and expert elicitation estimates (age >25 or age >30) — — PM ISA 3 Infant mortality (age <1) — — PM ISA 3

Reduced incidence of morbidity from exposure to PM 2.5 Non-fatal heart attacks (age > 18) — — PM ISA 3

Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages) — — PM ISA 3 Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (age >20) — — PM ISA 3 Emergency room visits for asthma (all ages) — — PM ISA 3 Acute bronchitis (age 8-12) — — PM ISA 3 Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7-14) — — PM ISA 3 Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9

- 11) — — PM ISA 3 Asthma exacerbation (asthmatics age 6-18) — — PM ISA 3 Lost work days (age 18-65) — — PM ISA 3 Minor restricted-activity days (age 18-65) — — PM ISA 3 Chronic Bronchitis (age >26) — — PM ISA 3 Emergency room visits for cardiovascular effects (all ages) — — PM ISA 3

15 Previous studies have estimated the monetized benefits-per-ton of reducing VOC emissions associated with the effect that those emissions have on ambient PM 2.5 levels and the health effects associated with PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 ISA 3 Other cardiovascular effects (e.g., other ages) — — PM ISA 2 Other respiratory effects (e.g., pulmonary function, non-asthma ER visits, non-bronchitis chronic diseases, other ages and populations) — — PM ISA 2 Reproductive and developmental effects (e.g., low birth weight, pre-term births, etc) — — PM ISA 2,4 Cancer, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity effects — — PM ISA 2,4 Reduced incidence of mortality from exposure to ozone Premature mortality based on short-term study

estimates (all ages) — — Ozone ISA 3 Premature mortality based on long

- term study estimates (age 30–99) — — Ozone ISA 3

Reduced incidence of morbidity from exposure to ozone Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (age >

65) — — Ozone ISA 3 Hospital admissions

— respiratory causes (age <2) — — Ozone ISA 3 Emergency department visits for asthma (all ages) — — Ozone ISA 3 Minor restricted-activity days (age 18–65) — — Ozone ISA 3 School absence days (age 5–17) — — Ozone ISA 3 Decreased outdoor worker productivity (age 18–65) — — Ozone ISA 3 Other respiratory effects (e.g., premature aging of lungs) — — Ozone ISA 2 Cardiovascular and nervous system effects — — Ozone ISA 2 Reproductive and developmental effects — — Ozone ISA 2,4 Reduced incidence of morbidity from exposure to HAP Effects associated with exposure to hazardous

air pollutants such as benzene — — ATSDR, IRIS 2,3 Improved Environment Reduced visibility impairment Visibility in Class 1 areas — — PM ISA 3

Visibility in residential areas — — PM ISA 3 Reduced effects from PM deposition (organics) Effects on Individual organisms and

ecosystems — — PM ISA 2

Reduced vegetation and ecosystem effects from exposure to ozone Visible foliar injury on vegetation — — Ozone ISA 3

Reduced vegetation growth and reproduction — — Ozone ISA 3 Yield and quality of commercial forest products and crops — — Ozone ISA 3 Damage to urban ornamental plants — — Ozone ISA 2 Carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems — — Ozone ISA 3 Recreational demand associated with forest aesthetics — — Ozone ISA 2 Other non-use effects Ozone ISA 2 Ecosystem functions (e.g., water cycling, biogeochemical cycles, net primary productivity, leaf-gas exchange, community composition) — — Ozone ISA 2

1 The global climate and related impacts of CO 2 and CH 4 emissions changes, such as sea level rise, are estimated within each integrated assessment model as part of the calculation of the SC-CO 2 and SC-CH 4 . 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 CO 2 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 (CH 4 )

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/m 2 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 CO 2 . 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/m 2 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 -equivalent (CO 2 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-CH 4 ), 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-CH 4 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 CO 2 (SC-CO 2 ), provides important context for understanding the Marten et al. SC-CH4 estimates. Estimates of the SC-CO 2 have been used by EPA and other federal agencies to value the impacts of CO 2 emissions changes in benefit cost analysis for GHG-related rulemakings since 2008. The SC-CO 2 is a metric that estimates the monetary value of impacts associated with marginal changes in CO 2 emissions in a given year. Similar to the SC-CH 4 , 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 CO 2 emissions, or the disbenefit from increasing emissions, in regulatory impact analyses.

The SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 estimates and recommended four global values for use in regulatory analyses. The SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 Technical Support Document (2010 SC-CO 2 TSD) provides a complete discussion of the methods used to develop these estimates and the current SC-CO 2 TSD presents and discusses the 2013 update (including recent minor technical corrections to the estimates). 16

The 2010 SC-CO 2 TSD noted a number of limitations to the SC-CO 2 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 CO 2 reductions to inform benefit-cost analysis; see RIA of this rule and the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 estimates from stakeholders through a range of channels, including public comments on Agency rulemakings that use the SC-CO 2 in supporting analyses and through regular interactions with stakeholders and research analysts implementing the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 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-CO 2 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 Academ iesy of Sciences , Engineering, and Medicine to ensure that the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 estimates in future updates. Concurrent with OMB’s publication of the response to comments on SC-CO 2 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 modeland the second addressed a minor indexing error in another model. On average the revised SCCO 2 estimates are one dollar less than the mean SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 estimates are: $15, $50, $73, and $150 per metric ton of CO 2 emissions in the year 2025 (2012 dollars). 18 The first three values are based on the average SC-CO 2 from the three IAMs, at discount rates of 5, 3, and 2.5 percent, respectively. Estimates of the SC-CO 2 for several discount rates are included because the literature shows that the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 values have been rounded to two significant digits. Unrounded numbers from the 2013 SCC TSD were adjusted to 2012$ and used to calculate the CO 2

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 95 th percentile of the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 distribution. The SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 GHG emissions at the time the SC-CO 2 estimates were developed. One alternative approach to value methane impacts is to use the global warming potential (GWP) to convert the emissions to CO 2 equivalents which are then valued using the SC-CO 2 estimates.

The GWP measures the cumulative radiative forcing from a perturbation of a non-CO 2 GHG relative to a perturbation of CO 2 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-CO 2 emissions compared to CO 2 on a purely physical basis, there are several well-documented limitations in using it to value non-CO 2 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-CO 2 GHG emissions relative to CO 2 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-CO 2 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-CO 2 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 CO 2 concentrations included in the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 estimates in general, and the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 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 CO 2 , 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-CH 4 with a larger downward bias under higher discount rates (Marten and Newbold 2012). 20 EPA sought public comments on the valuation of non-CO 2 GHG impacts in previous rulemakings (EPA, 2012b; EPA, 2012d). In general, the commenters strongly encouraged EPA to incorporate the monetized value of non-CO 2 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-CH 4 to overcome those challenges. EPA had cited several researchers that had directly estimated the social cost of non-CO 2 emissions using IAMs but noted that the number of such estimates was small compared to the large number of SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 GHG were consistent with the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 GHGs, consistent with the SCCO 2 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-CH 4 estimates in the peer-reviewed literature that are consistent with the modeling assumptions underlying the SC-CO 2 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-CH 4 for near term perturbation years in cases where the SC-CO 2 is based on a sufficiently low or steeply declining discount rate. 21 Marten et al. (2014) also provided the first set of SC-N 2 O estimates that are consistent with the assumptions underlying the SC-CO 2 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-CO2GHGs 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-CO 2 estimates. The aggregation method involved distilling the 45 distributions of the SC-CH 4 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 95 th 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-CH 4 , 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 CO 2 , 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 CO 2 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-CH 4 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. (201 41 ), Marten and Newbold (2012)). Marten et al. found that in general the SC-CH 4 estimates from their 2014 paper are higher than previous estimates. The higher SC-CH 4 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-CH 4 estimates are higher than the GWP-weighted estimates. More detailed discussion of the SC-CH 4 estimation methodology, results and a comparison to other published estimates can be found in Marten et al.

Table 4-2 Social Cost of CH 4 , 2012 – 2050 a [in 2012$ per metric ton] (Source: Marten et al., 2014 b )

Year SC-CH 4

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-CO 2 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-CO 2 estimates. Specifically, the SC-CH 4 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-CH 4 estimate for that year. To obtain a present value estimate, the monetized stream of future non-CO 2 benefits are discounted back to the analysis year using the same discount rate used to estimate the social cost of the non-CO 2 GHG emission changes. In addition, the limitations for the SC-CO 2 estimates discussed above likewise apply to the SC-CH 4 estimates, given the consistency in the methodology.EPA recently conducted a peer review of the application of the Marten et al. (2014) nonCO 2 social cost estimates in regulatory analysis and received responses that supported this application. Three reviewers considered seven charge questions that covered issues such as theEPA’s interpretation of the Marten et al. estimates, the consistency of the estimates with the SCCO 2 estimates, EPA’s characterization of the limits of the GWP-approach to value non-CO 2 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-CO 2 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-CO 2 methodology (e.g., those discussed earlier in this section) and noted that because the SC-CO 2 and SC-CH 4 methodologies are similar, the limitations also apply to the resulting SCCH 4 estimates. Two of the reviewers concluded that use in RIAs of the SC-CH 4 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-CO 2 and other economic analyses. All three reviewers encouraged continued improvements in the SC-CO 2 estimates and suggested that as those improvements are realized they should also be reflected in the SC-CH 4 estimates, with one reviewer suggesting the SC-CH 4 estimates lag this process. EPA supports continued improvement in the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 estimates should also be reflected in the SC-CH 4 estimates. The fact that the reviewers agree that the SC-CH 4 estimates are generally consistent with the SC-CO 2 estimates that are recommended by OMB’s guidance on valuing CO 2 emissions reductions leads EPA to conclude that use of the SC-CH 4 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-CO 2 GHG impacts in its rulemakings, the Agency has used the Marten et al. (2014) SC-CH 4 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-CO 2 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-CH 4 at the 3% discount rate results in an estimate of about $660 million in 2025.

Table 4-3 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$)

Million metric tonnes of CH 4 reduced Million

metric tonnes of CO 2 - equivalent reduced Discount rate and statistic

5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CH

4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH 4 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 reductions with the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 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-CH 4 , 3 percent discount rate).

Table 4-4 Estimated Global Benefits of Net CO 2 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$)

Metric tonnes of net CO 2 reduced Discount rate and statistic 5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CO 2 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CO 2 values represent only a partial accounting of climate impacts. Finally, in addition to the CO 2 impacts discussed above, there is a small increase in CO 2 emissions resulting from flaring of methane in response to this rule. We are not estimating the monetized disbenefits of these secondary emissions of CO 2 because much of the methane that would have been released in the absence of the flare would have eventually oxidized into CO 2 in the atmosphere. Note that the CO 2 produced from the methane oxidizing in the atmosphere is not included in the calculation of the SC-CH 4 . However, EPA does recognize that because the growth rate of the SC-CO 2 estimates are lower than their associated discount rates, the estimated impact of CO 2 produced in the future from oxidized methane would be less than the estimated impact of CO 2 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 to n of methane and releasing the CO 2 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 CH 4 depending on the SC-CO2 value or 0.7 percent to 0.9 percent of the SC-CH 4 estimates per metric ton for 2020. The analogous estimates for 2025 are $7 to $34 per metric ton CH 4 or 0.8 percent to 1.0 percent of the SC-CH 4 estimates per metric ton for 2025. 26 While EPA is not accounting for the CO 2 disbenefits at this time, we request comment on the appropriateness of the monetization of such impacts using the SC-CO 2 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 NO X 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 urba n 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 reduceglobal ozone concentrations and climate change simultaneously, but controlling other shorterlived ozone precursors such as NO X , carbon monoxide, or non-methane VOC has larger local

26 To calculate the disbenefits associated the complete destruction of a ton of CH 4 through flaring, EPA took the difference between the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 . This value was then scaled by 44/16 to account for the relative mass of carbon contained in a ton of CH 4 versus a ton of CO 2 . The value of the SC-CO 2 8.7 years after flaring was estimated by linearly interpolating between the annual SC-CO 2 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 reduced in 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 CO 2 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 precursor This rulemaking would reduce emissions of VOC, which are a precursor to PM 2.5. Most VOC emitted are oxidized to carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) rather than to PM, but a portion of VOC emission contributes to ambient PM 2.5 levels as organic carbon aerosols (EPA, 2009a). Therefore, reducing these emissions would reduce PM 2.5 formation, human exposure to PM 2.5 , and the incidence of PM 2.5 -related health effects. However, we have not quantified the PM 2.5 - 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/m 3

. 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 PM 2.5 benefits associated with reducing VOC emissions. Due to the high degree of variability in the responsiveness of PM 2.5 formation to VOC emission reductions, we are unable to estimate the effect that reducing VOC will have on ambient PM 2.5 levels without air quality modeling. However, we provide the discussion below for context regarding findings from previous modeling.

4.3.1 PM

2.5 health effects and valuation Reducing VOC emissions would reduce PM 2.5 formation, human exposure, and the incidence of PM 2.5 -related health effects. Reducing exposure to PM 2.5 is associated with significant human health benefits, including avoiding mortality and respiratory morbidity. Researchers have associated PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 (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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 -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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 levels and the health effects associated with PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 , 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***4-22Table 4-5 Monetized Benefits-per-Ton Estimates for VOC based on Previous Modeling in 2015 (2012$)AreaPope et al.(2002)Laden et al.(2006)ExpertAExpertBExpertCExpertDExpertEExpertFExpertGExpertHExpertIExpertJExpertKExpertLAtlanta$660 $1,600 $1,700$1,300$1,300$920 $2,100$1,200$780 $980 $1,300$1,000$260 $1,000Chicago$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 $2,500Dallas$320 $790 $830 $650 $630 $450 $1,000$580 $380 $480 $630 $510 $130 $490Denver $770 $1,900 $2,000$1,500$1,500$1,100$2,400$1,400$910 $1,100$1,500$1,200$300 $910NYC/ 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 $3,300Phoenix $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 $1,600Salt 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 $2,100San 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$4,600Seattle$300 $730 $770 $570 $590 $420 $950 $540 $350 $440 $580 $470 $120 $350National 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 twosignificant digits. These estimates have been adjusted from Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009) to reflect a more recent currency year and EPA’s current VSLestimate. 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 emissionswould increase the benefit-per-ton estimates by approximately 4 percent to 52 percent. Assuming a 25 percent reduction in VOC emissions would decrease thebenefit-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 PM 2.5 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 (NO X ), 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 NO X -limited, which means that ozone concentrations are most effectively reduced by lowering NO X emissions, rather than lowering emissions of VOC. Between these areas, ozone is relatively insensitive to marginal changes in both NO X 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 NO X 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 theRIA 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 CO 2 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 acute 37 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 an d 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 “moretoxic” 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 abo ve, 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. 48 International 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 Toluene 50 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

. 5 1 , 52 , 53 , and increased Increased incidences of mammary cancer and leukemia were reported in a lifetime rat oral bioassay ; 5 4 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 C IIT (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 Chloride 56 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 nervoussystem 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 CH 4 Reductions in 2020* (in millions, 2012$)

Million metric tonnes of CH 4 reduced Million

metric tonnes of CO 2 - equivalent reduced Discount rate and statistic

5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CH

4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH 4 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 alter natives in the 2030 snapshot year.

Table 4-7 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2030* (in millions, 2012$)

Million metric tonnes of CH 4 reduced Million

metric tonnes of CO 2 - equivalent reduced Discount rate and statistic

5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CH

4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH 4 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 CH 4 Reductions in 2040* (in millions, 2012$)

Million metric tonnes of CH 4 reduced Million

metric tonnes of CO 2 - equivalent reduced Discount rate and statistic

5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CH

4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH 4 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-CO 2 ). 2010. T echnical 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-CO 2 ). 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-CO 2 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 CH 4 and N 2 O mitigation benefits consistent with the US Government's SC-CO 2 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 QualityPlanning 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. I nventory 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/usinve ntoryreport.html>

. Accessed A pril 28, 2015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisor y 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

59 Executive 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 (NO X ) 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 CO 2 co-benefits of t he 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

o f 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 N et 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 CO 2 co-benefits are estimated to range from $3.6 million to $36 million (2012$) 69 in 2025; estimated CO 2 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-CH 4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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-CO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 Benefits 1 $310 million - $1.7 billion Monetized CO 2 co-benefits 1 $3.6 million - $36 million Total Costs 2 $35 million $47 million Net Benefits $270 million - $1.7 billion $260 million - $1.7 billion Non-monetized Benefits 3 Health effects of PM 2.5 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 CO 2 , valued using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH 4and four SCCO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 rulesthe se 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 CO 2 co-benefits are estimated to range from $1.5 million to $15 million (2012$) 71 in 2025; estimated CO 2 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-CH 4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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-CO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 Benefits 1 $190 million - $1.1 billion Monetized CO 2 co-benefits 1 $1.5 million - $15 million Total Costs 2 $20 million $27 million Net Benefits $170 million - $1.1 billion $160 million - $1.1 billion Non-monetized Benefits 3 Health effects of PM 2.5 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 CO 2 , valued using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH 4and four SCCO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 rulesthe se 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-CH 4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 CO 2 co-benefits are estimated to range from $3.6 million to $36 million (2012$) 73 in 2025; estimated CO 2 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 Benefits 1 $340 million - $1.9 billion Monetized CO 2 co-benefits 1 $3.6 million - $36 million Total Costs 2 $38 million $51 million Net Benefits $300 million - $1.9 billion $290 million - $1.9 billion Non-monetized Benefits 3 Health effects of PM 2.5 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 CO 2 , valued using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH 4and four SCCO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 rulesthe se 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-CO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 m 3 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 revision s 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 m 3 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 co ntrols 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 - equivalents)* Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 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 CO 2 -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, ofwhich 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 i s 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 whol e.*** 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 m 3 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 offs et 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 m 3 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 opt ions , 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.

W hen 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 met hane 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 - $175 per Mg methane under the p roposed option 2.5/34 and the alternative options 2.5/40 and 2.0/34. Table 7-5 Estimated Cost-effectiveness in 2025 for the Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount Rate) Cost-effectiveness (2012$ per Mg)

NMOC Methane Methane (in CO 2 - equivalents)* Net Cost b /ton Total

Cost /ton Net

Cost b /ton Total

Cost /ton Net

Cost b /ton Total

Cost /ton Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 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 CO 2 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 PM 2.5 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 (PM 2.5 ) 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 CO 2 -related climate effects. While the methane-related climate effects are positive as with the proposed emissions guidelines, for the proposed NSPS there are small CO 2 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 (PM 2.5 ), 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 CH 4 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-CH 4 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 CH 4 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$)

Million metric tonnes of CH 4 reduced Million

metric tonnes of CO 2 - equivalent reduced Discount rate and statistic

5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CH

4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH 4 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 CO 2 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 b elow. Monetizing the net CO 2 increases with the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 at the 3% discount rate results in an estimate of about $0.03 million in 2025.

Table 7-7 Estimated Global Disbenefits of Net CO 2 Increases in 2025* (in millions, 2012$)

Metric tonnes of net CO 2 increased Discount rate and statistic 5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CO 2 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CO 2 values represent only a partial accounting of climate impacts.

75 As in the case of the proposed Emissions Guidelines, there is an additional CO 2 impact, specifically a small increase in CO 2 emissions resulting from flaring of methane in response to this rule. We are not estimating the monetized disbenefits of these secondary emissions of CO 2 because much of the methane that would have been released in the absence of the flare would have eventually oxidized into CO 2 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 SBREFA 76 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 subs tantial 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 CO 2 co-benefits of the proposed NSPS for new or modified MSW landfills against the estimated annualized costs

77 U.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 CO 2 disbenefits are estimated to range from $0.01 million to $0.10 million (2012$) 79 in 2025; estimated CO 2 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 Benefits 1 $36 million - $210 million Monetized CO 2 disbenefits 1 $0.010 million - $0.10 million Total Costs 2 $7.1 million $8.5 million Net Benefits $29 million - $200 million $28 million - $200 million Non-monetized Benefits 3 Health effects of PM 2.5 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-CH 4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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-CO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 CO 2 , valued using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH 4 and four SC-CO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 rulesthe se 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 CO 2 disbenefits are estimated to range from $0.17 million to $1.6 million (2012$) 81 in 2025; estimated CO 2 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-CH 4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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-CO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 Benefits 1 $31 million - $180 million Monetized CO 2 disbenefits 1 $0.17 million - $1.60 million Total Costs 2 $6.4 million $7.4 million Net Benefits $24 million - $170 million $23 million - $170 million Non-monetized Benefits 3 Health effects of PM 2.5 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 CO 2 , valued using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH 4 and four SC-CO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 rulesthe se 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 CO 2 disbenefits are estimated to range from $0.03 million to $0.29 million (2012$) 83 in 2025; estimated CO 2 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-CH 4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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-CO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 Benefits 1 $44 million - $250 million Monetized CO 2 disbenefits 1 $0.03 million - $0.29 million Total Costs 2 $8.6 million $10.0 million Net Benefits $35 million - $240 million $34 million - $240 million Non-monetized Benefits 3 Health effects of PM 2.5 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 CO 2 , valued using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH 4 and four SC-CO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 rulesthe se 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 reduction s 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 CO 2 - equivalents)* Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 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 CO 2 -equivalents. Secondary CO 2 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 m 3 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 reduction s 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 CO 2 - equivalents)* Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC Baseline 12,200 1.9 48.1

Increment

al 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 CO 2 -equivalents. Secondary CO 2 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 m 3 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 reduction s 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 CO 2 - equivalents)* Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC Baseline 11,600 1.8 45.7

Increment

al 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 CO 2 -equivalents. Secondary CO 2 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 m 3 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 alte rnatives 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 CH 4 Reductions in 2020* (in millions, 2012$)

Million metric tonnes of CH 4 reduced Million

metric tonnes of CO 2 - equivalent reduced Discount rate and statistic

5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CH

4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH 4 values represent only a partial accounting of climate impacts. Table 7-19 presents the climate benefits of the alte rnatives in the 2030 snapshot year.

Table 7-19 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2030* (in millions, 2012$)

Million metric tonnes of CH 4 reduced Million

metric tonnes of CO 2 - equivalent reduced Discount rate and statistic

5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CH

4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH 4 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 CH 4 Reductions in 2040* (in millions, 2012$)

Million metric tonnes of CH 4 reduced Million

metric tonnes of CO 2 - equivalent reduced Discount rate and statistic

5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CH

4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH 4 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 CO 2 co-benefits are estimated to range from $3.6 million to $36 million (2012$) in 2025; estimated CO 2 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 CO 2 disbenefits are estimated to range from $0.01 million to $0.10 million (2012$) in 2025, depending on the discount rate; estimated CO 2 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).

A fter 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

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... III L IST OF T ABLES .................................................................................................................................. VI L IST OF F IGURES ......................................................................................................................... VIIIVII E XECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 ES.1 B ACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 1 ES.2 R ESULTS FOR P ROPOSED R EVISIONS TO E MISSION G UIDELINES ................................................................... 1 ES.3 R ESULTS FOR S UPPLEMENTAL P ROPOSED N EW S OURCE P ERFORMANCE S TANDARDS ................................... 3 ES.3 O RGANIZATION OF THIS R EPORT ................................................................................................................ 5 1 I NTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 B ACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 S TATEMENT OF N EED FOR P OLICY A CTION

......................................................................................... 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 O RGANIZATION OF THIS R EPORT

........................................................................................................ 1-51-4 1.4 R EFERENCES

..................................................................................................................................... 1-61-5 2 I NDUSTRY P ROFILE .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 I NTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 W ASTE S TREAM B ACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 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 D ISPOSAL F ACILITY B ACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 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 C OSTS AND R EVENUE S TREAMS FOR L ANDFILLS ................................................................................... 2-15 2.4.1 Major Cost Components for Landfills ......................................................................................... 2-15 2.4.2 Landfill Revenue Sources ........................................................................................................... 2-18 2.5 A IR P OLLUTANT E MISSIONS FROM L ANDFILLS ....................................................................................... 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 T ECHNIQUES FOR C ONTROLLING E MISSIONS FROM L ANDFILLS .............................................................. 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 I NTEGRATED W ASTE M ANAGEMENT S TRATEGIES .................................................................................. 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 R EFERENCES

................................................................................................................................. 2-432-42 3 R EGULATORY P ROGRAM C OSTS AND E MISSIONS R EDUCTIONS ......................................... 3-1 3.1 I NTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 G ENERAL A SSUMPTIONS AND P ROCEDURES ............................................................................................ 3-1 3.3 E MISSIONS A NALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 3-3 3.4 E NGINEERING AND A DMINISTRATIVE C OST A NALYSIS ............................................................................. 3-4 3.5 R EGULATORY B ASELINE AND O PTIONS ................................................................................................... 3-7 3.6 A LTERNATIVE Y EARS OF A

NALYSIS

............................................................................................... 3-143-12 4 B ENEFITS OF E MISSIONS R EDUCTIONS .................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 I NTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 M ETHANE (CH 4 ) .................................................................................................................................... 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 PM 2.5 PRECURSOR

.......................................................................................................... 4-194-18 4.3.1 PM 2.5 health effects and valuation ................................................................................................ 4-19 4.3.2 Visibility Effects......................................................................................................................... 4-23 4.4 VOC AS AN O ZONE P RECURSOR ........................................................................................................... 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 H AZARDOUS A IR P OLLUTANT (HAP) B ENEFITS ..................................................................................... 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 A LTERNATIVE Y EARS OF A

NALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 4-35 4.7 R EFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 4-36 5 E CONOMIC I

MPACT A NALYSIS AND D ISTRIBUTIONAL A SSESSMENTS ................................ 5-1 5.1 I NTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 E CONOMIC I MPACT A NALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 5-1 5.3 E MPLOYMENT I MPACTS .......................................................................................................................... 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 S MALL B USINESS I MPACTS A NALYSIS ................................................................................................... 5-12 5.5 R EFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 5-13 6 C OMPARISON OF B ENEFITS AND C OST .................................................................................. 6-1 6.1 I NTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 N ET B ENEFITS OF THE P ROPOSED S TANDARDS ........................................................................................ 6-1 6.3 N ET B ENEFITS OF THE A LTERNATE S TANDARDS ...................................................................................... 6-2 7 S UPPLEMENTAL NSPS P ROPOSAL ......................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 I NTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 R EGULATORY B ASELINE AND O PTIONS ................................................................................................... 7-2 7.3 B ENEFITS

........................................................................................................................................ 7-107-8*** E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ***

v 7.4 E CONOMIC I MPACTS

...................................................................................................................... 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 C OMPARISON OF B ENEFITS AND C OSTS

.......................................................................................... 7-167-13 7.6 N ET B ENEFITS OF THE P ROPOSED S TANDARDS

............................................................................... 7-177-14 7.7 N ET B ENEFITS OF THE A LTERNATE S TANDARDS

............................................................................. 7-187-15 7.8 A LTERNATIVE Y EARS OF A

NALYSIS

............................................................................................... 7-217-17 8 S TATUTORY AND E XECUTIVE O RDER R EVIEWS ................................................................... 8-1 8.1 E XECUTIVE O RDER 12866, R EGULATORY P LANNING AND R EVIEW AND E XECUTIVE O RDER 13563, I MPROVING R EGULATION AND R EGULATORY R EVIEW ...................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 P APERWORK R EDUCTION A CT ................................................................................................................ 8-2 8.3 R EGULATORY F LEXIBILITY A CT .............................................................................................................. 8-4 8.4 U NFUNDED M ANDATES R EFORM A CT ..................................................................................................... 8-5 8.5 E XECUTIVE O RDER 13132: F EDERALISM ................................................................................................ 8-7 8.6 E XECUTIVE O RDER 13175: C ONSULTATION AND C OORDINATION WITH I NDIAN T RIBAL G OVERNMENTS ... 8-8 8.7 E XECUTIVE O RDER 13045: P ROTECTION OF C HILDREN FROM E NVIRONMENTAL H EALTH R ISKS AND S AFETY R ISKS .............................................................................................................................................................. 8-9 8.8 E XECUTIVE O RDER 13211: A CTIONS C ONCERNING R EGULATIONS T HAT S IGNIFICANTLY A FFECT E NERGY S UPPLY , D ISTRIBUTION , OR U SE ..................................................................................................................... 8-10 8.9 N ATIONAL T ECHNOLOGY T RANSFER AND A DVANCEMENT A

CT ............................................................. 8-10 8.10 E XECUTIVE O RDER 12898: E NVIRONMENTAL J USTICE .......................................................................... 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 Discarded a 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 2013 a ................................................................................................................................................................ 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 CH 4 , 2012 – 2050 a [in 2012$ per metric ton] (Source: Marten et al., 2014 b ) ................ 4-12 Table 4-3 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) ..................................... 4-14 Table 4-4 Estimated Global Benefits of Net CO 2 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) .............................. 4-15 Table 4-5 Monetized Benefits-per-Ton Estimates for VOC based on Previous Modeling in 2015 (2012$) ......... 4-22 Table 4-6 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2020* (in millions, 2012$) ..................................... 4-35 Table 4-7 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2030* (in millions, 2012$) ..................................... 4-36 Table 4-8 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2040* (in millions, 2012$) ..................................... 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 CH 4 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) .............................. 7-137-10 Table 7-7 Estimated Global Disbenefits of Net CO 2 Increases in 2025* (in millions, 2012$) ...................... 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$) .............................................................................................................................................. 7-217-17 Table 7-12 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2020 for the Baseline and Alternative Options .... 7- 227-18 Table 7-13 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2020 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 7-227-18 Table 7-14 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2030 for the Baseline and Alternative Options .... 7- 237-19 Table 7-15 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2030 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 7-237-19 Table 7-16 Estimated Annual Average Emissions Reductions in 2040 for the Baseline and Alternative Options .... 7- 247-20 Table 7-17 Estimated Engineering Compliance Costs in 2040 for Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount Rate) .......................................................................................................................................................... 7-247-20 Table 7-18 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2020* (in millions, 2012$) ............................ 7-257-21 Table 7-19 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2030* (in millions, 2012$) ............................ 7-257-21 Table 7-20 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2040* (in millions, 2012$) ............................ 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.

I n 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 m 3 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 CO 2- equivalents 1 ) compared to the baseline. In addition, the proposal is expected to result in the net reduction of 238,000 Mg CO 2 , 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-CH 4 ), and the reductions in CO 2 , which are valued using the social cost of carbon (SC-CO 2 ). 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-CH 4 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 -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 Benefits 1 $670 million Total Costs 2 $35 million $47 million Net Benefits $640 million $620 million Non-monetized Benefits 3 Health effects of PM 2.5 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 CO 2 ($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 rulesthe se 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 CO 2- equivalents 4 ) compared to the baseline. The proposal is also expected to result in minor secondary air impacts, specifically an increase of 670 Mg CO 2 , 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-CH 4 ), offset by the small increases in CO 2 , which are valued using the social cost of carbon (SC-CO 2 ). 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-CH 4 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 -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 Benefits 1 $78 million Monetized CO 2 disbenefits 1 $0.03 million Total Costs 2 $7.1 million $8.5 million Net Benefits $71 million $70 million Non-monetized Benefits 3 Health effects of PM 2.5 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 rulesthe se 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.

I n 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 m 3 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. 6 In this RIA, the EPA presents a profile of the munic ipal 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 d ifference 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 propose d 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 s ubstantial 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 enviro nment are protected, the EPA must ensure that emissions of methane, VOC, and HAP from MSW landfills are limited. The pollutant regulated under rules affecting landfi lls 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 PM 2.5 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 (PM 2.5 ) 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 CO 2 , 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 PM 2.5 , 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 costsassociated 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 em issions 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, 2012 9

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 Discarded a 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 Materials b 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

s election for landfills is an integral part of the design process. Construction and operating permit applications for n ew 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 2013 a

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 1995 a 1998 a 2000 a 2002 a 2004 a 2008 b 2010 c 2011 d 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 anthropoge nic 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 environmen t 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 CO 2 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 anthropoge nic 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 (NO X ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and particulate matter (PM) (EPA, 1998). NO X 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. SO 2 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 Costs a Typical Annual O&M Costs a,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 millionBtu (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 morethan 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 Ban 1,2,3 Local Residential Food Waste Collection Program

4 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 Island 2 

###  (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. “17 t h Nationwide Survey of MSW Management in the U.S.: The State ofGarbage 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 Ec onomics Part II: Getting Down to Business”. June 2005. < http://www.mswmanagement.com/MSW/Articles/Landfill_E conomics_Part_II_Getting _Down_to_Busines_1513.aspx >. D uffy, 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 >. E nSol, Inc. 2010. “Cortland County Landfill Alternatives Analysis”. October 2010. < http://www.cortlandc o.org/legislature/Ash%20to%20Trash%20Docs/CORTLAND%20COUNTY%20LAND FILL%20ALTERNATIVES%20ANALYSIS%20-%20FINAL%20REPORT%2010-15- 10.pdf >. F itzwater, Ryan. 2012. Seeking Alpha. “The Top Three Dividend Paying Waste Management Stocks”. May 21, 2012. < http://seekingalpha.com/article/604571-the-top-3-div idendpaying-waste-management-stocks >. G reenhouse 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/reportingdat asets.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%20Permitt ing%20Overview.pdf >. K leanIndustries. 2012. “Tipping fees vary across the U.S.” July 2012. < http://www.kleanindustries.com/s/environmental_marke t_industry_news.asp?ReportID =538710 >. M aryland Department of the Environment (MDE). 2012. “Estimated Costs of Landfill Closure”. Accessed December 4, 2012. < http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/ResearchCenter/F actSheets/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.” August2008. <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 toregional 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 theU.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. “F ull Cost Accounting for Municipal SolidWaste Management: A Handbook, Chapter 4: Allocating Costs.” September 1997. EPA530-R-95-041. < http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/fca/docs/fca-h anb.pdf >. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Of fice 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 theSupplemental 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/tec hman/ >. Accessed December 4, 2 012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012h. L andfill 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: Electricityfrom 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. I nventory 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/usinve ntoryreport.html>

. Accessed A pril 28, 2015. Waste 360. 2014. “Navigating the Complexities of Fo od 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, 1987 12 , 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 option 13 . 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 percent 14

. 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-Webmodel. 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 ft 3 per year of collected LFG (at 50 percent methane). Therefore, engines are assumed to be installed at landfills that have at least 195 million ft 3 per year of collected LFG for at least 15 years. EPA calculated and summed the engine capital and operation and 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 ft 3 per year of collected LFG, so in order to have two engines on-site, the landfill must have double that amount of LFG (390 million ft

3 per year) for at least 15 years. The capital costs for engines are based on the 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 m 3 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 - equivalents)* Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 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 CO 2 -equivalents. Secondary CO 2 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 t o 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 m 3 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 t o 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 m 3 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 optio ns, 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 met hane 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.

W hen 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 met hane 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 - $235 per Mg methane under the p roposed option 2.5/34 and the alternative options 2.5/40 and 2.0/34. Table 3-5 Estimated Cost-effectiveness in 2025 for the Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount Rate) Cost-effectiveness (2012$ per Mg)

NMOC Methane Methane (in CO 2 - equivalents)* Net Cost b /ton Total

Cost /ton Net

Cost b /ton Total

Cost /ton Net

Cost b /ton Total

Cost /ton Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 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 CO 2 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 em issions 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 CO 2 - equivalents)* Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 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 CO 2 -equivalents. Secondary CO 2 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 m 3 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 CO 2 - equivalents)* Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 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 CO 2 -equivalents. Secondary CO 2 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 m 3 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 reduction s 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 CO 2 - equivalents)*

Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 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 CO 2 -equivalents. Secondary CO 2 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 m 3 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 PM 2.5 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 (PM 2.5 ) 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 co-benefits are estimated to range from $3.6 million (2012$) to $36 million (2012$) in 2025; estimated CO 2 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 (PM 2.5 ), 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-PM 2 .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 (CH 4 ) and carbon dioxide (CO 2

) — 1  Marten et al. (2014), SC-CO 2 TSDs Other climate impacts (e.g., ozone , black carbon, aerosols, other impacts) — — IPCC, Ozone ISA, PM ISA 2 Improved Human Health Reduced incidence of premature mortality from exposure to PM 2.5 Adult premature mortality based on cohort

study estimates and expert elicitation estimates (age >25 or age >30) — — PM ISA 3 Infant mortality (age <1) — — PM ISA 3

Reduced incidence of morbidity from exposure to PM 2.5 Non-fatal heart attacks (age > 18) — — PM ISA 3

Hospital admissions—respiratory (all ages) — — PM ISA 3 Hospital admissions—cardiovascular (age >20) — — PM ISA 3 Emergency room visits for asthma (all ages) — — PM ISA 3 Acute bronchitis (age 8-12) — — PM ISA 3 Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7-14) — — PM ISA 3 Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9

- 11) — — PM ISA 3 Asthma exacerbation (asthmatics age 6-18) — — PM ISA 3 Lost work days (age 18-65) — — PM ISA 3 Minor restricted-activity days (age 18-65) — — PM ISA 3 Chronic Bronchitis (age >26) — — PM ISA 3 Emergency room visits for cardiovascular effects (all ages) — — PM ISA 3

16 Previous studies have estimated the monetized benefits-per-ton of reducing VOC emissions associated with the effect that those emissions have on ambient PM 2.5 levels and the health effects associated with PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 ISA 3 Other cardiovascular effects (e.g., other ages) — — PM ISA 2 Other respiratory effects (e.g., pulmonary function, non-asthma ER visits, non-bronchitis chronic diseases, other ages and populations) — — PM ISA 2 Reproductive and developmental effects (e.g., low birth weight, pre-term births, etc) — — PM ISA 2,4 Cancer, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity effects — — PM ISA 2,4 Reduced incidence of mortality from exposure to ozone Premature mortality based on short-term study

estimates (all ages) — — Ozone ISA 3 Premature mortality based on long

- term study estimates (age 30–99) — — Ozone ISA 3

Reduced incidence of morbidity from exposure to ozone Hospital admissions—respiratory causes (age >

65) — — Ozone ISA 3 Hospital admissions

— respiratory causes (age <2) — — Ozone ISA 3 Emergency department visits for asthma (all ages) — — Ozone ISA 3 Minor restricted-activity days (age 18–65) — — Ozone ISA 3 School absence days (age 5–17) — — Ozone ISA 3 Decreased outdoor worker productivity (age 18–65) — — Ozone ISA 3 Other respiratory effects (e.g., premature aging of lungs) — — Ozone ISA 2 Cardiovascular and nervous system effects — — Ozone ISA 2 Reproductive and developmental effects — — Ozone ISA 2,4 Reduced incidence of morbidity from exposure to HAP Effects associated with exposure to hazardous

air pollutants such as benzene — — ATSDR, IRIS 2,3 Improved Environment Reduced visibility impairment Visibility in Class 1 areas — — PM ISA 3

Visibility in residential areas — — PM ISA 3 Reduced effects from PM deposition (organics) Effects on Individual organisms and

ecosystems — — PM ISA 2

Reduced vegetation and ecosystem effects from exposure to ozone Visible foliar injury on vegetation — — Ozone ISA 3

Reduced vegetation growth and reproduction — — Ozone ISA 3 Yield and quality of commercial forest products and crops — — Ozone ISA 3 Damage to urban ornamental plants — — Ozone ISA 2 Carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems — — Ozone ISA 3 Recreational demand associated with forest aesthetics — — Ozone ISA 2 Other non-use effects Ozone ISA 2 Ecosystem functions (e.g., water cycling, biogeochemical cycles, net primary productivity, leaf-gas exchange, community composition) — — Ozone ISA 2

1 The global climate and related impacts of CO 2 and CH 4 emissions changes, such as sea level rise, are estimated within each integrated assessment model as part of the calculation of the SC-CO 2 and SC-CH 4 . 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 CO 2 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 (CH 4 )

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/m 2 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 CO 2 . 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/m 2 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 -equivalent (CO 2 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-CH 4 ), 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-CH 4 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 CO 2 (SC-CO 2 ), provides important context for understanding the Marten et al. SC-CH4 estimates. Estimates of the SC-CO 2 have been used by EPA and other federal agencies to value the impacts of CO 2 emissions changes in benefit cost analysis for GHG-related rulemakings since 2008. The SC-CO 2 is a metric that estimates the monetary value of impacts associated with marginal changes in CO 2 emissions in a given year. Similar to the SC-CH 4 , 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 CO 2 emissions, or the disbenefit from increasing emissions, in regulatory impact analyses.

The SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 estimates and recommended four global values for use in regulatory analyses. The SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 Technical Support Document (2010 SC-CO 2 TSD) provides a complete discussion of the methods used to develop these estimates and the current SC-CO 2 TSD presents and discusses the 2013 update (including recent minor technical corrections to the estimates). 17

The 2010 SC-CO 2 TSD noted a number of limitations to the SC-CO 2 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 CO 2 reductions to inform benefit-cost analysis; see RIA of this rule and the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 estimates from stakeholders through a range of channels, including public comments on Agency rulemakings that use the SC-CO 2 in supporting analyses and through regular interactions with stakeholders and research analysts implementing the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 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-CO 2 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 Academ iesy of Sciences , Engineering, and Medicine to ensure that the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 estimates in future updates. Concurrent with OMB’s publication of the response to comments on SC-CO 2 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 modeland the second addressed a minor indexing error in another model. On average the revised SCCO 2 estimates are one dollar less than the mean SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 estimates are: $15, $50, $73, and $150 per metric ton of CO 2 emissions in the year 2025 (2012 dollars). 19 The first three values are based on the average SC-CO 2 from the three IAMs, at discount rates of 5, 3, and 2.5 percent, respectively. Estimates of the SC-CO 2 for several discount rates are included because the literature shows that the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 values have been rounded to two significant digits. Unrounded numbers from the 2013 SCC TSD were adjusted to 2012$ and used to calculate the CO 2

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 95 th percentile of the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 distribution. The SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 GHG emissions at the time the SC-CO 2 estimates were developed. One alternative approach to value methane impacts is to use the global warming potential (GWP) to convert the emissions to CO 2 equivalents which are then valued using the SC-CO 2 estimates.

The GWP measures the cumulative radiative forcing from a perturbation of a non-CO 2 GHG relative to a perturbation of CO 2 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-CO 2 emissions compared to CO 2 on a purely physical basis, there are several well-documented limitations in using it to value non-CO 2 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-CO 2 GHG emissions relative to CO 2 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-CO 2 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-CO 2 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 CO 2 concentrations included in the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 estimates in general, and the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 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 CO 2 , 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-CH 4 with a larger downward bias under higher discount rates (Marten and Newbold 2012). 21 EPA sought public comments on the valuation of non-CO 2 GHG impacts in previous rulemakings (EPA, 2012b; EPA, 2012d). In general, the commenters strongly encouraged EPA to incorporate the monetized value of non-CO 2 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-CH 4 to overcome those challenges. EPA had cited several researchers that had directly estimated the social cost of non-CO 2 emissions using IAMs but noted that the number of such estimates was small compared to the large number of SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 GHG were consistent with the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 GHGs, consistent with the SCCO 2 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-CH 4 estimates in the peer-reviewed literature that are consistent with the modeling assumptions underlying the SC-CO 2 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-CH 4 for near term perturbation years in cases where the SC-CO 2 is based on a sufficiently low or steeply declining discount rate. 22 Marten et al. (2014) also provided the first set of SC-N 2 O estimates that are consistent with the assumptions underlying the SC-CO 2 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-CO2GHGs 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-CO 2 estimates. The aggregation method involved distilling the 45 distributions of the SC-CH 4 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 95 th 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-CH 4 , 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 CO 2 , 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 CO 2 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-CH 4 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. (201 41 ), Marten and Newbold (2012)). Marten et al. found that in general the SC-CH 4 estimates from their 2014 paper are higher than previous estimates. The higher SC-CH 4 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-CH 4 estimates are higher than the GWP-weighted estimates. More detailed discussion of the SC-CH 4 estimation methodology, results and a comparison to other published estimates can be found in Marten et al.

Table 4-2 Social Cost of CH 4 , 2012 – 2050 a [in 2012$ per metric ton] (Source: Marten et al., 2014 b )

Year SC-CH 4

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-CO 2 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-CO 2 estimates. Specifically, the SC-CH 4 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-CH 4 estimate for that year. To obtain a present value estimate, the monetized stream of future non-CO 2 benefits are discounted back to the analysis year using the same discount rate used to estimate the social cost of the non-CO 2 GHG emission changes. In addition, the limitations for the SC-CO 2 estimates discussed above likewise apply to the SC-CH 4 estimates, given the consistency in the methodology.EPA recently conducted a peer review of the application of the Marten et al. (2014) nonCO 2 social cost estimates in regulatory analysis and received responses that supported this application. Three reviewers considered seven charge questions that covered issues such as theEPA’s interpretation of the Marten et al. estimates, the consistency of the estimates with the SCCO 2 estimates, EPA’s characterization of the limits of the GWP-approach to value non-CO 2 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-CO 2 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-CO 2 methodology (e.g., those discussed earlier in this section) and noted that because the SC-CO 2 and SC-CH 4 methodologies are similar, the limitations also apply to the resulting SCCH 4 estimates. Two of the reviewers concluded that use in RIAs of the SC-CH 4 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-CO 2 and other economic analyses. All three reviewers encouraged continued improvements in the SC-CO 2 estimates and suggested that as those improvements are realized they should also be reflected in the SC-CH 4 estimates, with one reviewer suggesting the SC-CH 4 estimates lag this process. EPA supports continued improvement in the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 estimates should also be reflected in the SC-CH 4 estimates. The fact that the reviewers agree that the SC-CH 4 estimates are generally consistent with the SC-CO 2 estimates that are recommended by OMB’s guidance on valuing CO 2 emissions reductions leads EPA to conclude that use of the SC-CH 4 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-CO 2 GHG impacts in its rulemakings, the Agency has used the Marten et al. (2014) SC-CH 4 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-CO 2 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-CH 4 at the 3% discount rate results in an estimate of about $660 million in 2025.

Table 4-3 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$)

Million metric tonnes of CH 4 reduced Million

metric tonnes of CO 2 - equivalent reduced Discount rate and statistic

5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CH

4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH 4 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 reductions with the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 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-CH 4 , 3 percent discount rate).

Table 4-4 Estimated Global Benefits of Net CO 2 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$)

Metric tonnes of net CO 2 reduced Discount rate and statistic 5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CO 2 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CO 2 values represent only a partial accounting of climate impacts. Finally, in addition to the CO 2 impacts discussed above, there is a small increase in CO 2 emissions resulting from flaring of methane in response to this rule. We are not estimating the monetized disbenefits of these secondary emissions of CO 2 because much of the methane that would have been released in the absence of the flare would have eventually oxidized into CO 2 in the atmosphere. Note that the CO 2 produced from the methane oxidizing in the atmosphere is not included in the calculation of the SC-CH 4 . However, EPA does recognize that because the growth rate of the SC-CO 2 estimates are lower than their associated discount rates, the estimated impact of CO 2 produced in the future from oxidized methane would be less than the estimated impact of CO 2 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 to n of methane and releasing the CO 2 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 CH 4 depending on the SC-CO2 value or 0.7 percent to 0.9 percent of the SC-CH 4 estimates per metric ton for 2020. The analogous estimates for 2025 are $7 to $34 per metric ton CH 4 or 0.8 percent to 1.0 percent of the SC-CH 4 estimates per metric ton for 2025. 27 While EPA is not accounting for the CO 2 disbenefits at this time, we request comment on the appropriateness of the monetization of such impacts using the SC-CO 2 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 NO X 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 urba n 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 reduceglobal ozone concentrations and climate change simultaneously, but controlling other shorterlived ozone precursors such as NO X , carbon monoxide, or non-methane VOC has larger local

27 To calculate the disbenefits associated the complete destruction of a ton of CH 4 through flaring, EPA took the difference between the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 . This value was then scaled by 44/16 to account for the relative mass of carbon contained in a ton of CH 4 versus a ton of CO 2 . The value of the SC-CO 2 8.7 years after flaring was estimated by linearly interpolating between the annual SC-CO 2 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 reduced in 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 CO 2 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 precursor This rulemaking would reduce emissions of VOC, which are a precursor to PM 2.5. Most VOC emitted are oxidized to carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) rather than to PM, but a portion of VOC emission contributes to ambient PM 2.5 levels as organic carbon aerosols (EPA, 2009a). Therefore, reducing these emissions would reduce PM 2.5 formation, human exposure to PM 2.5 , and the incidence of PM 2.5 -related health effects. However, we have not quantified the PM 2.5 - 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/m 3

. 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 PM 2.5 benefits associated with reducing VOC emissions. Due to the high degree of variability in the responsiveness of PM 2.5 formation to VOC emission reductions, we are unable to estimate the effect that reducing VOC will have on ambient PM 2.5 levels without air quality modeling. However, we provide the discussion below for context regarding findings from previous modeling.

4.3.1 PM

2.5 health effects and valuation Reducing VOC emissions would reduce PM 2.5 formation, human exposure, and the incidence of PM 2.5 -related health effects. Reducing exposure to PM 2.5 is associated with significant human health benefits, including avoiding mortality and respiratory morbidity. Researchers have associated PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 (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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 -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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 levels and the health effects associated with PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 , 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***4-22Table 4-5 Monetized Benefits-per-Ton Estimates for VOC based on Previous Modeling in 2015 (2012$)AreaPope et al.(2002)Laden et al.(2006)ExpertAExpertBExpertCExpertDExpertEExpertFExpertGExpertHExpertIExpertJExpertKExpertLAtlanta$660 $1,600 $1,700$1,300$1,300$920 $2,100$1,200$780 $980 $1,300$1,000$260 $1,000Chicago$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 $2,500Dallas$320 $790 $830 $650 $630 $450 $1,000$580 $380 $480 $630 $510 $130 $490Denver $770 $1,900 $2,000$1,500$1,500$1,100$2,400$1,400$910 $1,100$1,500$1,200$300 $910NYC/ 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 $3,300Phoenix $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 $1,600Salt 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 $2,100San 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$4,600Seattle$300 $730 $770 $570 $590 $420 $950 $540 $350 $440 $580 $470 $120 $350National 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 twosignificant digits. These estimates have been adjusted from Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009) to reflect a more recent currency year and EPA’s current VSLestimate. 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 emissionswould increase the benefit-per-ton estimates by approximately 4 percent to 52 percent. Assuming a 25 percent reduction in VOC emissions would decrease thebenefit-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 PM 2.5 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 (NO X ), 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 NO X -limited, which means that ozone concentrations are most effectively reduced by lowering NO X emissions, rather than lowering emissions of VOC. Between these areas, ozone is relatively insensitive to marginal changes in both NO X 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 NO X 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 theRIA 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 CO 2 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 acute 38 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 an d 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 “moretoxic” 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 abo ve, 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. 49 International 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 Toluene 51 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

. 5 2 , 53 , 54 , and increased Increased incidences of mammary cancer and leukemia were reported in a lifetime rat oral bioassay ; 5 5 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 C IIT (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 Chloride 57 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 nervoussystem 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 CH 4 Reductions in 2020* (in millions, 2012$)

Million metric tonnes of CH 4 reduced Million

metric tonnes of CO 2 - equivalent reduced Discount rate and statistic

5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CH

4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH 4 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 alter natives in the 2030 snapshot year.

Table 4-7 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2030* (in millions, 2012$)

Million metric tonnes of CH 4 reduced Million

metric tonnes of CO 2 - equivalent reduced Discount rate and statistic

5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CH

4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH 4 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 CH 4 Reductions in 2040* (in millions, 2012$)

Million metric tonnes of CH 4 reduced Million

metric tonnes of CO 2 - equivalent reduced Discount rate and statistic

5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CH

4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH 4 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-CO 2 ). 2010. T echnical 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-CO 2 ). 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-CO 2 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 CH 4 and N 2 O mitigation benefits consistent with the US Government's SC-CO 2 estimates,” Climate Policy 15, 2: 272-298. Marten AL, Kopits KA, Griffiths CW, Newbold SC, Wolv erton A. 2015. “Corrigendum to: Incremental CH 4 and N 2 O mitigation benefits consistent with the US Government's SCCO 2 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 QualityPlanning 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. I nventory 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/usinve ntoryreport.html>

. Accessed A pril 28, 2015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Science Advisor y 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

60 Executive 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 (NO X ) 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 CO 2 co-benefits of t he 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

o f 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 N et 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 CO 2 co-benefits are estimated to range from $3.6 million to $36 million (2012$) 70 in 2025; estimated CO 2 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-CH 4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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-CO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 Benefits 1 $310 million - $1.7 billion Monetized CO 2 co-benefits 1 $3.6 million - $36 million Total Costs 2 $35 million $47 million Net Benefits $270 million - $1.7 billion $260 million - $1.7 billion Non-monetized Benefits 3 Health effects of PM 2.5 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 CO 2 , valued using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH 4and four SCCO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 rulesthe se 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 CO 2 co-benefits are estimated to range from $1.5 million to $15 million (2012$) 72 in 2025; estimated CO 2 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-CH 4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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-CO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 Benefits 1 $190 million - $1.1 billion Monetized CO 2 co-benefits 1 $1.5 million - $15 million Total Costs 2 $20 million $27 million Net Benefits $170 million - $1.1 billion $160 million - $1.1 billion Non-monetized Benefits 3 Health effects of PM 2.5 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 CO 2 , valued using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH 4and four SCCO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 rulesthe se 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-CH 4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 CO 2 co-benefits are estimated to range from $3.6 million to $36 million (2012$) 74 in 2025; estimated CO 2 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 Benefits 1 $340 million - $1.9 billion Monetized CO 2 co-benefits 1 $3.6 million - $36 million Total Costs 2 $38 million $51 million Net Benefits $300 million - $1.9 billion $290 million - $1.9 billion Non-monetized Benefits 3 Health effects of PM 2.5 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 CO 2 , valued using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH 4and four SCCO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 rulesthe se 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-CO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 m 3 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 revision s 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 m 3 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 co ntrols 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 - equivalents)* Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 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 CO 2 -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, ofwhich 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 i s 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 whol e.*** 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 m 3 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 offs et 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 m 3 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 opt ions , 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.

W hen 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 met hane 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 - $175 per Mg methane under the p roposed option 2.5/34 and the alternative options 2.5/40 and 2.0/34. Table 7-5 Estimated Cost-effectiveness in 2025 for the Baseline and Alternative Options (7% Discount Rate) Cost-effectiveness (2012$ per Mg)

NMOC Methane Methane (in CO 2 - equivalents)* Net Cost b /ton Total

Cost /ton Net

Cost b /ton Total

Cost /ton Net

Cost b /ton Total

Cost /ton Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 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 CO 2 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 PM 2.5 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 (PM 2.5 ) 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 CO 2 -related climate effects. While the methane-related climate effects are positive as with the proposed emissions guidelines, for the proposed NSPS there are small CO 2 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 (PM 2.5 ), 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 CH 4 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-CH 4 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 CH 4 Reductions in 2025* (in millions, 2012$)

Million metric tonnes of CH 4 reduced Million

metric tonnes of CO 2 - equivalent reduced Discount rate and statistic

5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CH

4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH 4 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 CO 2 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 b elow. Monetizing the net CO 2 increases with the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 at the 3% discount rate results in an estimate of about $0.03 million in 2025.

Table 7-7 Estimated Global Disbenefits of Net CO 2 Increases in 2025* (in millions, 2012$)

Metric tonnes of net CO 2 increased Discount rate and statistic 5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CO 2 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CO 2 values represent only a partial accounting of climate impacts.

76 As in the case of the proposed Emissions Guidelines, there is an additional CO 2 impact, specifically a small increase in CO 2 emissions resulting from flaring of methane in response to this rule. We are not estimating the monetized disbenefits of these secondary emissions of CO 2 because much of the methane that would have been released in the absence of the flare would have eventually oxidized into CO 2 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 SBREFA 77 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 subs tantial 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 CO 2 co-benefits of the proposed NSPS for new or modified MSW landfills against the estimated annualized costs

78 U.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 CO 2 disbenefits are estimated to range from $0.01 million to $0.10 million (2012$) 80 in 2025; estimated CO 2 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 Benefits 1 $36 million - $210 million Monetized CO 2 disbenefits 1 $0.010 million - $0.10 million Total Costs 2 $7.1 million $8.5 million Net Benefits $29 million - $200 million $28 million - $200 million Non-monetized Benefits 3 Health effects of PM 2.5 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-CH 4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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-CO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 CO 2 , valued using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH 4 and four SC-CO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 rulesthe se 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 CO 2 disbenefits are estimated to range from $0.17 million to $1.6 million (2012$) 82 in 2025; estimated CO 2 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-CH 4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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-CO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 Benefits 1 $31 million - $180 million Monetized CO 2 disbenefits 1 $0.17 million - $1.60 million Total Costs 2 $6.4 million $7.4 million Net Benefits $24 million - $170 million $23 million - $170 million Non-monetized Benefits 3 Health effects of PM 2.5 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 CO 2 , valued using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH 4 and four SC-CO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 rulesthe se 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 CO 2 disbenefits are estimated to range from $0.03 million to $0.29 million (2012$) 84 in 2025; estimated CO 2 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-CH 4 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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-CO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 Benefits 1 $44 million - $250 million Monetized CO 2 disbenefits 1 $0.03 million - $0.29 million Total Costs 2 $8.6 million $10.0 million Net Benefits $35 million - $240 million $34 million - $240 million Non-monetized Benefits 3 Health effects of PM 2.5 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 CO 2 , valued using the social cost of carbon. The range of estimates reflects four SC-CH 4 and four SC-CO 2 estimates: the mean across all models and scenarios using a 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rate, and the 95 th 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 rulesthe se 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 reduction s 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 CO 2 - equivalents)* Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 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 CO 2 -equivalents. Secondary CO 2 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 m 3 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 reduction s 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 CO 2 - equivalents)* Current NSPS = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC Baseline 12,200 1.9 48.1

Increment

al 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 CO 2 -equivalents. Secondary CO 2 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 m 3 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 reduction s 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 CO 2 - equivalents)* Current EG = 2.5 million Mg and m 3 design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC Baseline 11,600 1.8 45.7

Increment

al 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 CO 2 -equivalents. Secondary CO 2 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 m 3 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 alte rnatives 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 CH 4 Reductions in 2020* (in millions, 2012$)

Million metric tonnes of CH 4 reduced Million

metric tonnes of CO 2 - equivalent reduced Discount rate and statistic

5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CH

4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH 4 values represent only a partial accounting of climate impacts. Table 7-19 presents the climate benefits of the alte rnatives in the 2030 snapshot year.

Table 7-19 Estimated Global Benefits of CH 4 Reductions in 2030* (in millions, 2012$)

Million metric tonnes of CH 4 reduced Million

metric tonnes of CO 2 - equivalent reduced Discount rate and statistic

5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CH

4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH 4 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 CH 4 Reductions in 2040* (in millions, 2012$)

Million metric tonnes of CH 4 reduced Million

metric tonnes of CO 2 - equivalent reduced Discount rate and statistic

5% (average) 3%

(average) 2.5%

(average) 3% (95 th

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-CH

4 values are dollar-year and emissions-year specific. SC-CH 4 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 CO 2 co-benefits are estimated to range from $3.6 million to $36 million (2012$) in 2025; estimated CO 2 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 CO 2 disbenefits are estimated to range from $0.01 million to $0.10 million (2012$) in 2025, depending on the discount rate; estimated CO 2 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).

A fter 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 17 th 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 websit e 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 CO 2 Carbon dioxide CO 2 e 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

m 3 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 mtCO 2 e 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 PM 2.5 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-CH 4 Social cost of methane SC-CO 2 Social cost of carbon dioxide SEM Surface emissions monitoring SER Small entity representative SO 2 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 Plan 1 , 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 reducingemissions, and identifying existing authorities and incentivebased opportunities to reduce methane emissions.” The proposed changes are also consistent with the President’s Methane Strategy 2 , 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, 1987 3 , 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 (m 3 ), 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 Cfand 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 (mtCO 2 e/yr)) beyond the baseline in year 2025. In addition, the proposal is expected to result in the net reduction of 238,000 Mg CO 2 , 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 (PM 2.5 ) 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 CO 2 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-CH 4 ) and social

cost of CO 2 (SC- CO 2 ) , at a 3-percent discount rate, results in

an estimate of about $670 million in 2025.

The SC-CH 4 and SC-CO 2 are the monetary values of impacts associated with marginal changes in methane and CO 2 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 PM 2.5 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 NAICS a 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 (CO 2 ) and has an atmospheric life of about 12 years 5 . 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 Document 7 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 CO 2 , 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 emissions 9

8 Total U.S. methane emissions were 636Tg CO 2 e 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 CO 2 e) 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 PM 2.5 and ozone formation. As documented in previous analyses (U.S. EPA, 2006 11 , 2010 12 , and 2014 13 ), exposure to PM 2.5 and ozone is associated with significant public health effects. PM 2.5 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 CO 2 , 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 CO 2 ). 17,18 According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5 th Assessment Report, methane is the second leading long-lived climate forcer after CO 2 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 CO 2 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 climat e 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 E ndangerment 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.

E PA 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 climat e 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 E ndangerment 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.

E PA 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, CO 2 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 mentalhealth, 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 CO 2 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, CO 2 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 4 th 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-20 th 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 20 th 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 (NO X ) 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 burdenassociated 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. Youare 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, subpartCf 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 requirements 39 . 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.

N ote 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, andcost. 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 andindicated 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 pe r formance 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 37 th 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

Document 48 , 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 ensureemission 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 (m 3 ). 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 1987 49 and opened prior to

2014 50 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 (L 0 ), 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 (L 0 ), 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 mtCO 2 e) 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 mtCO 2 e). 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) CO 2 e in 1990 to 332.6 Tg CO 2 e in 2013. 51 If controls are considered, emissions from landfills have decreased from 173.8 Tg CO 2 e in 1990 to 97.5 Tg CO 2 e 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 m 3 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 lling a Annual

Net Cost (milli on $2012) b Annual

NMOC Reduct ions (Mg/yr ) Annua

l Metha ne Reduc tions (mill ion Mg/yr ) Annual CO 2 e Reduct ions (milli on mt/yr) NMOC

cost effecti veness ($/Mg) Methan

e cost effect ivenes s ($/Mg) CO 2 e

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 CO 2 e). 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 Mg 55 , 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 CO 2 e in 2014. This is in addition to the 231 million Mg CO 2 e 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 (m 3 ).***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 m 3 , and an option that reduced the design capacity to 2.0 million Mg and 2.0

million m 3 . 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 m 3 (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 m 3 . 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 Rule 56 (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

m 3 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 m 3 , 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

m 3 to 2.0 million Mg and 2.0 million m 3 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 m 3

.***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 forcapping 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/mtCO 2 e, compared with $19,300/Mg NMOC and $4.9/mtCO 2 e 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 mtCO 2 e) 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

41807 58 , 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 authoritybelieved 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 thispreamble; 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 ed b 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 CO 2 e Redu ctio ns (mil lion mt/y r) c NMOC

cost effect ivenes s ($/Mg) Metha

ne cost effec tiven ess ($/Mg ) CO 2 e cost effect ivenes s ($/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 CO 2 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 m 3 . 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 m 3 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 mtCO 2 e) 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 mtCO 2 e) 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 m 3 (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

mtCO 2 e) 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 mtCO 2 e) 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

m 3 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 mtCO 2 e) compared to the baseline. An emission threshold of 40 Mg/yr NMOC with a 2.5 million Mg and

2.5 million m 3 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 mtCO 2 e) 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. CO 2 e is an expression of

methane in terms of the CO 2 equivalents, given the methane GWP

of 25 59

. 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 m 3 , 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 m 3 , 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 m 3 (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 m 3 . 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 m 3 . 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 CO 2 , 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

mtCO 2 e per year, which compares to 19 to 33 million mtCO 2 e 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-CH 4 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 e) 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

e xperience as a result of local diversion initiatives.

T wo 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 correctiveaction 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 followthe 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 (C NMOC ). 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-designedGCCS 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 m 3 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 m 3 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 51 65 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 65 66 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 mtCO 2 e 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 mtCO 2 e 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 m 3

. 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 requirementsin “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 parametersaddressing 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 fashion 68 ; 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 lands 69 . 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 mtCO 2 e/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 L o ) 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

landfills 70 . One commenter urged the EPA to consider more representative k values when calculating emission reductions from wet landfills, and cited several studies for EPA

review 71,72,73 . 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 changes 74 . 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

landfills 75,76,77

. 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. 7 6 U.S. EPA, Landfill Bioreactor Performance, Second Interim Rep ort; EPN600/R-07/060, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Laboratory: Cincinnati, OH, 2006. 7 7 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 seekingadditional 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, i n the publicrecord 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 contractorsor 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 literature 78 , 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 me morandum “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/d0cf6618525 a9efb85257359003fb69d/155 19081fbf4002285257d8500477615!OpenDocument ; Detailed settlement i nfo.: 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/productio n/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 lesscostly. 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 mtCO 2 e) a 226 Proposed Incremental Methane Emission Reductions (million mtCO 2 e) 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 landfillsversus 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 frompurchasing 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 (SO 2 ) 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 CO 2 e. After considering the offsets from LFG electricity, the impacts of the proposal are expected

to reduce CO 2 emissions by 238,000 metric tons per year. These

CO 2 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 Cost a 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 mtCO 2 e/yr). In addition, the proposal is expected to result in the net reduction of 238,000 Mg CO 2 , 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 CO 2 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-CH 4 ), a metric that estimates the monetary value of impacts associated with marginal changes in methane emissions in a given year. The SC-CH 4 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 CO 2 (SC-CO 2 ), provides important context for understanding the Marten et al. SC-CH 4

estimates. 85 The SC-CO 2 is a metric that estimates the monetary value of impacts associated with marginal changes in CO 2 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-CO 2 have been used by the EPA and other federal agencies to value the impacts of CO 2 emissions changes in benefit cost analysis for GHG-related rulemakings since 2008.

The SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 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-CO 2 GHGs in the discussion and analysis the more specific SC-CO 2 nomenclature is used to refer to the social cost of CO 2 emissions.***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** Page 223 of 321 regulatory analyses. The SC-CO 2 estimates were first released in February 2010 and updated in 2013 using new versions of each

IAM.

The 2010 SC-CO 2 Technical Support Document (TSD) provides a complete discussion of the methods used to develop these

estimates and the current SC-CO 2 TSD presents and discusses the 2013 update (including recent minor technical corrections to the estimates). 86

The SC-CO 2 TSDs discuss a number of limitations to the SCCO 2 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-CO 2 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 CO 2 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-CO 2 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-CO 2 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-CO 2 GHG

emissions at the time the SC-CO 2 estimates were developed. In addition, the directly modeled estimates of the social costs of

non-CO 2 GHG emissions previously found in the published literature were few in number and varied considerably in terms of the models and input assumptions they employed 87 (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 CH 4 emissions mitigation. To understand the potential importance of monetizing non-CO 2 GHG emissions changes, the EPA has conducted sensitivity analysis in some of its past regulatory analyses using an estimate of the GWP of CH 4 to convert emission impacts to CO 2 equivalents, which can then be valued using the SC-CO 2 estimates. This approach approximates

the social cost of methane (SC-CH 4 ) using estimates of the SCCO 2 and the GWP of CH 4 . The published literature documents a variety of reasons that directly modeled estimates of SC-CH 4 are an analytical improvement over the estimates from the GWP approximationapproach. Specifically, several recent studies found that GWPweighted benefit estimates for CH 4 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 CO 2 . The directly modeled social cost estimates

differ from the GWP-scaled SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 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-CH 4 to overcome those challenges. Since these previous rulemakings, a paper by Marten et al. (2014) has provided the first set of published SC-CH 4 and social

cost of nitrous oxide (SC-N 2 O) estimates in the peer-reviewed literature that are consistent with the modeling assumptions underlying the SC-CO 2 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-CO 2 estimates.

89 Marten, A. L., E. A. Kopits, C. W. Griffiths, S. C. Newbold & A. Wolverton (2014). Incremental CH 4 and N 2 O mitigation benefits consistent with the U.S. Government's SC-CO 2 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-CH 4 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 CH 4 , 2012 – 2050 a [in 2012$ per metric ton] (Source: Marten et al., 2014 b )

Year SC-CH 4

5% Average 3%

Average 2.5%

Average 3%

95 th percentile 2012 $430 $1000 $1400 $2800 2015 490 1100 1500 3000 2020 580 1300 1700 3500 2025 700 1500 1900 4000 2030 8 2 0 1700 2200 4 5 00 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-CO 2 (and SC-CH 4 ) 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-CH 4 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-CH 4 distribution.

b The estimates in this table have been adjusted to reflect the recent minor technical corrections to the SC-CO 2 estimates described above. See the RIA for more details.

The application of these directly modeled SC-CH 4 estimates from Marten et al. (2014) in a benefit-cost analysis of a regulatory action is analogous to the use of the SC-CO 2 estimates. In addition, the limitations for the SC-CO 2 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-CH 4 estimates, given the consistency in the methodology. The EPA recently conducted a peer review of the application of the Marten, et al. (2014) non-CO 2 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-CO 2 GHG impacts in its rulemakings, the agency has used the Marten et al. (2014) SC-CH 4 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-CO 2 GHGs in this rulemaking.

The CH 4 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-CH 4 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 CH 4 Reductions in 2025 [in millions, 2012$]

Million metric tons CH 4 Discount rate and Statistic

5% Average 3%

Average 2.5%

Average 3%

95 th 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 CO 2 emissions. Monetizing the net CO 2 reductions with the SC-CO 2 estimates described in this section yields benefits of $12 million in the year 2025 (average SC-CO 2 , 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 levels and the health effects associated with PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 reductions, we include a qualitative assessment of the health effects associated with exposure to HAP, ozone, and PM 2.5 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 ExecutiveOrders 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 fo r 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,

t he 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 part60, 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  )  

W here:

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 rateconstant 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 × 10−3Q LFG C NMOC

Where:

M NMOC = Mass emission rate of NMOC, megagrams per year. Q LFG = Flow rate of landfill gas, cubic meters per minute.

C NMOC = NMOC concentration, parts per million by volume as

hexane. (1) The flow rate of landfill gas, Q LFG , 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, C NMOC , 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 C NMOC 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  (    )  

W here:

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 321each 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 specifiedin 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 demonstratecompliance 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 value500 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 321triggered § 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 operatingparameters 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 thenature, 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 tribalagency 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 Prot ection 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 Emissi on Guidelines are expected to be fully implemented and this year is representative of costs a nd the number of controlling landfills. The results of the impacts analysis are presen ted 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 d esign capacity and NMOC emission thresholds currently in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW and the state a nd federal plans implementing subpart Cf. Landfillspecific details of each option under consider ation 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 a nd 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



## D escriptions of the current regulatory baseline, th e proposed revision, and alternative options are included in this section. 1.1 Baseline

 Currently, 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW requi res all landfills with a design capacity of 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) and 2.5 million cubi c 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 98 9 existing landfills are expected to meet the design capacity threshold. Of these 989 landfills, 574 are expect ed 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 in stall a GCCS by 2025 when compared to the baseline.

 Consistent with the current baseline, the propo sal employs a modeled initial GCCS installation lag time of 3 years after exceeding the NMOC th reshold, 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 th e 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 (o pen 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 a nd 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 redu ced 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 th reshold and install a GCCS by 2025 when compared to the baseline. Considering all la ndfills (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 wh en compared to the baseline. Considering all landfills (open and closed) 162 more landfills woul d 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 initia l 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 cont rols 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 la g time, the initial system will be designed slightly smaller than a system designed to capture gas in a s ubsequent year. The options that reduced the initial lag times also shortened the expansion lag times. Redu cing 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 contro ls to be installed under either lag time. This combination of initial and expansi on 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 rainfa ll, 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 prelim inary 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 reporte d a k value of at least 0.057 to the GHGRP subpart HH and indicated they recirculated leachate. Most we t 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 re ported 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 altern ative modeling parameters (k and/or L o 

### ) were used to model emissions from this group of wet landfills. 2. Estimating Cost Impacts For each option, the cost impacts analysis compar es 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 mainte nance (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 ener gy recovery project was subtracted from the total annualized costs in order to compute the net annuali zed 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 w ith preparation of NMOC emission rate reports, conducting initial performance tests, monthly wellhead monitoring, continuous combustor monitoring, and quarterly surface emission monitoring. The detaile d 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 othe r 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 CO 2 

### e/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 CO 2 

### e/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 CO 2 

### -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 cons ideration of project revenue from electricity sales. Table 4. Summary of Overall Cost-Effectiveness

Option Net Cost a 

### Total Cost Net Cost a 

### Total Cost Net Cost a 

### Total Cost $/Mg NMOC $/Mg Methane $/CO 2 

### e 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 wh en 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 a nd 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 b ased on where the landfill is in its lifecycle. This variation is not as pronounced when looking at the to tal 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 or der to demonstrate how the proposed option affects an individual landfill over time.

9 

### ERG. 2015. Modeling Database Containing Inputs an d Results for Review of the MSW Landfill Emission Guidelines.

## 6 Appendix A: Index of Regulatory Option s for Landfill Emission Guidelines Review

Database

Model Option # Option Name Description 1 

### 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, 4a 2 

### 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, 14a 2 

### 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 us ed 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 in itial lag times were evaluated for wet landfills.

## 7 Appendix B: See spreadsheet containing detail ed cost and emission reduction impacts.

## 8 Appendix C: Emi ssion Profiles

 LF ID 1742 would stop control ling in year 2049 under the ba seline, but would continue on with controls beyond year 2063 w ith 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 thre shold of 34 Mg/yr, according to our model.

 LF 522776 is controlling at the same le vel throughout the period of 2025-2063, the dropoff occurs outside the scope of our modeled emissions. 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 6000002020202220242026202820302032203420362038204020422044204620482050205220542056205820602062Mg/yrCO2eReductions,bylandfill



### 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 appropriat e 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 Ex ecutive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, OMB Cir cular A-4, and the EPA’s “Guidelines for Preparing Econom ic Analyses,” the EPA prepared this RIA for these “significant regulatory actions.” These actions are economically significant regulatory actions becaus e they may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 mi llion or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, com petition, jobs, the environment, public health or s afety, 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 EP A’s time, resources, and other duties and authoriti es.” 

### We have confirmed that the highlighted text is stan dard 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 appro priate response based on, among other things, the good fai th efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as w ell as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emis sions. The

EPA would also consider whether the source’s failur e to comply with the CAA section 111 standard was, in fact, sud den, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor maintenance or careless oper ation (40 CFR § 60.2 (definition of malfunction)). If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement action against a source for violation o f 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 pre siding officer in an administrative proceeding can conside r any defense raised and determine whether administrative penalti es are appropriate. In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, CAA section 111 is reasonable and encou ragespractices that will avoid malfunctions. Administrat ive and

judicial procedures for addressing exceedances of t he standards fully recognize that violations may occur despite g ood faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those situati ons. In several prior rules, the EPA had included an aff irmative defense to civil penalties for violations caused by malfunctions in an effort to create a system that incorporates s ome flexibility, recognizing that there is a tension, i nherent in many types of air regulation, to ensure adequate co mpliance while simultaneously recognizing that despite the m ost diligent of efforts, emission standards may be violated unde r circumstances entirely beyond the control of the so urce. Although the EPA recognized that its case-by-case e nforcement discretion provides sufficient flexibility in these circumstances, it included the affirmative defense to provide a more formalized approach and more regulatory clarit y. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal case-by-case enforc ement discretion approach is adequate); but see Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977) (requir ing a more formalized approach to consideration of “upsets bey ond the control of the permit holder”). Under the EPA’s reg ulatory affirmative defense provisions, if a source could d emonstrate in a judicial or administrative proceeding that it had met therequirements of the affirmative defense in the regu lation, civil

penalties would not be assessed. Recently, the U. S . Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacate d 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 c ement kilns). The court found that the EPA lacked authority to es tablish an affirmative defense for private civil suits and hel d that under the CAA, the authority to determine civil penalty a mounts in such cases lies exclusively with the courts, not th e EPA. Specifically, the court found: “As the language of the statute makes clear, the courts determine, on a case-by-cas e basis, whether civil penalties are ‘appropriate.’” See NRD C at 1063 (“[U]nder this statute, deciding whether penalties are ‘appropriate’ in a given private civil suit is a jo b for the courts, not EPA.”). In light of NRDC , the EPA is not including a regulatory affirmative defense provision in this ru lemaking. As explained above, if a source is unable to comply wi th emissions standards as a result of a malfunction, the EPA may use its case-by-case enforcement discretion to provide flex ibility, 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 anydefense raised and determine whether penalties are appropriate.

Cf. NRDC, at 1064 (arguments that violation were ca used by unavoidable technology failure can be made to the c ourts in future civil cases when the issue arises). The same is true for the presiding officer in EPA administrative enforce ment actions. 1 Limit on SSM duration. Subpart WWW of 40 CFR part 6 0 limits

the duration of SSM events for MSW landfills to 5 d ays for the landfill gas collection system and 1 hour for treat ment or control devices. Proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart C f does not include the 5-day and 1-hour time limitations becau se some malfunctions cannot be corrected within these timef rames. Excluding these provisions is consistent with Sierr a Club v. EPA (551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008)), which concluded tha t that emission standards apply at all times, including pe riods of SSM, and 40 CFR 60.11(d), which states that at all times , including periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction, owner s or operators shall, to the extent practicable, maintai n and operate any affected facility including associated air poll ution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air poll ution control practice for minimizing emissions. The proposed rev isions

1 Although the NRDC case does not address the EPA’s authority to establ ish an affirmative defense to penalties that is available in administrative enforcement actions, EPA is not including such an a ffirmative defense in the proposed rule. As explained above, such an affirmat ive defense is not necessary. Moreover, assessment of penalties for vi olations caused by malfunctions in administrative proceedings and judi cial 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 d uring periods

of SSM. To prevent free venting of landfill gas to the atmo sphere during control device malfunctions, we propose to i nclude a requirement in subpart Cf (40 CFR 60.34f(e)) that s tates that in the event the collection or control system is not o perating, the gas mover system must be shut down and all valves i n the collection and control system contributing to venti ng of gas to the atmosphere must be closed within 1 hour. The EP A proposes to use the term “not operating,” which includes period s when the gas collection or control system is not operating f or whatever reason, including when the gas collection or contro l 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 atmosph ere during

control device malfunctions. Shutting down the gas mover equipment and all valve s contributing to venting of gas to the atmosphere mi nimizes emissions from the landfill while the control syste m is not operating and is being repaired. Compliance with pr oposed 40 CFR 60.34f(e) does not constitute compliance with the a pplicable standards in proposed 40 CFR 60.36f ; however, as a practical matter it is unlikely that there would be a violati on 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 demonstra te compliance

with the general duty to minimize emissions in 40 C FR 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 te mperature, bypass flow, and periods when the flare flame or th e flare pilot flame is out. However, without additional provision s, the EPA would have no way to gauge the severity of an emiss ions exceedance that may occur when these operating para meters are not being met or when the control device is not ope rating. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to include provisio ns for landfill owners/operators to estimate NMOC emission s when the control device or collection system is not operatin g. The landfill owners/operators may use whatever informat ion is available to estimate NMOC emissions during the per iod, 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 amo unt of time the control device is not operating. Landfill owner s/operators would keep records of the estimated emissions and w ould 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: Doublemyriad different types of malfunctions that can occ ur and there

are significant difficulties associated with predic ting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As a result, EPA be lieves that it is generally not technically feasible to establi sh an alternative emission standard that would apply duri ng periods of

malfunction. EPA also believes that it would be di fficult to

defend an alternative standard that does not achiev e a level of emission reduction comparable to that required by t he standard that applies during periods of normal operation in circumstances where there are steps that an owner or operator cou ld take to achieve such reductions such as shutting down the p rocess or having a second control device. In the immediate ca se, by shutting down the flow to the flare or other contro l device a source is unlikely to be in violation of the 98% em ission reduction requirement since there will be no gas fl owing to the control device. We are, however, interested in com ment on whether there are alternative ways in which the emi ssion limit could be complied with when the control device malf unctions.

EPA specifically requests comment on whether the de scribed procedures for the prevention of free venting are a n appropriate work practice standard for periods of malfunction. The EPA alsorequests comment on alternate potential application s 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