Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451-0202
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Posted Date: 2016-08-29T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 167 (Monday, August 29, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59275-59330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17700]

[[Page 59275]]

Vol. 81

Monday,

No. 167

August 29, 2016

Part II

 Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 60

Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste 
Landfills; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 167 / Monday, August 29, 2016 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 59276]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451; FRL-9949-55-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS23

Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid 
Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a new 
subpart that updates the Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for 
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Emission Guidelines). The EPA reviewed 
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 (MSW) 
landfills considered landfills that accepted waste after November 8, 
1987, and commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification on or 
before July 17, 2014. Based on this review, the EPA has determined that 
it is appropriate to revise the Emission Guidelines to reflect changes 
to the population of landfills and the results of an analysis of the 
timing and methods for reducing emissions. This action will achieve 
additional reductions in emissions 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 a proposed rulemaking and addresses other regulatory 
issues including surface emissions monitoring, wellhead monitoring, and 
the definition of landfill gas treatment system.
    The revised Emission Guidelines, once implemented through revised 
state plans or a revised federal plan, will reduce emissions of 
landfill gas, which contains both nonmethane organic compounds and 
methane. Landfills are a significant source of methane, which is a 
potent greenhouse gas pollutant. These avoided emissions will improve 
air quality and reduce the potential for public health and welfare 
effects associated with exposure to landfill gas emissions.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 28, 2016.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as 
of October 28, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451. 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., Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this final 
rule, 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: 
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and 
abbreviations are used in this document.

ANPRM Advance notice of proposed rulemaking
ANSI American National Standards Institute
BMP Best management practice
Btu British thermal unit
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential business information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FID Flame ionization detector
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
IWG Interagency working group
LFG Landfill gas
LFGCost Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model
m\3\ Cubic meters
Mg Megagram
Mg/yr Megagram per year
mph Miles per hour
MSW Municipal solid waste
mtCO2e Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MW Megawatt
MWh Megawatt hour
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
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 and Budget
PM Particulate matter
PM2.5 Fine particulate matter
ppm Parts per million
ppmvd Parts per million by dry volume
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD&D Research, development, and demonstration
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review
SC-CH4 Social cost of methane
SC-CO2 Social cost of carbon dioxide
SEM Surface emissions monitoring
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SSM Startup, shutdown, and malfunction
Tg Teragram
TIP Tribal implementation plan
TTN Technology Transfer Network
U.S. United States
USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program
VCS Voluntary consensus standard
VOC Volatile organic compound
    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. 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 public health and welfare effects of landfill 
gas emissions?
    C. What is the EPA's authority for reviewing the Emission 
Guidelines?
    D. What is the purpose and scope of this action?
    E. How would the changes in applicability affect sources 
currently subject to subparts Cc and WWW?
IV. Summary of the Final Emission Guidelines
    A. What are the control requirements?
    B. What are the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
    C. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions
V. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
    A. Changes to Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
    B. Tier 4
    C. Changes to Address Closed or Non-Productive Areas
    D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions

[[Page 59277]]

    E. Other Corrections and Clarifications
VI. Rationale for Significant Changes Since Proposal
    A. Changes to Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
    B. Tier 4
    C. Changes to Address Closed or Non-Productive Areas
    D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions
    E. Other Corrections and Clarifications
VII. Impacts of This Final Rule
    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?
VIII. 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. 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 (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action

    This action finalizes changes to the MSW landfills Emission 
Guidelines resulting from the EPA's review of the Emission Guidelines 
under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111. The EPA's review identified a 
number of advances in technology and operating practices for reducing 
emissions of landfill gas (LFG) and the final changes are based on our 
evaluation of those advances and our understanding of LFG emissions. 
The resulting changes to the Emission Guidelines will achieve 
additional reductions in emissions of LFG and its components, including 
methane. This final 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, identifying 
technologies and best practices for reducing emissions, and identifying 
existing authorities and incentive-based opportunities to reduce 
methane emissions.'' The final rule is also consistent with the 
President's Methane Strategy,\2\ which directs the 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 resolves or 
clarifies several implementation issues that were previously addressed 
in amendments proposed on May 23, 2002 (67 FR 36475) and September 8, 
2006 (71 FR 53271).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Executive Office of the President, ``The President's Climate 
Action Plan'' June 2013. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf.
    \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_emissions_2014-03-28_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Need for Regulatory Action
    The EPA reviewed the Emission Guidelines to determine the potential 
for achieving additional reductions in emissions of LFG. 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 
review, we are finalizing changes to the Emission Guidelines. The 
changes will achieve additional emission reductions of LFG and its 
components (including methane), which will reduce air pollution and the 
resulting harm to public health and welfare. Landfills are a 
significant source of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, for which there 
are cost-effective means of reduction, so this rule is an important 
element of the United States' work to reduce emissions that are 
contributing to climate change. In addition, the changes provide more 
effective options for demonstrating compliance, and provide 
clarification of several implementation issues raised during the 
amendments proposed in 2002 and 2006. Additional information supporting 
the EPA's decision to review the Emission Guidelines can be found in 
Section I.A. of the Emission Guidelines proposal (80 FR 52100, August 
27, 2015).
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 determined that it was 
appropriate to review the Emission Guidelines based on changes in the 
landfill industry and changes in operation of landfills, including the 
size, trends in gas collection and control system installations, 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), public comments received on the Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) (79 FR 41772, July 17, 2014), and public comments 
received on the Emission Guidelines proposal (80 FR 52100, August 27, 
2015) for use in reviewing the Emission Guidelines. This information 
allowed the EPA to assess current practices, emissions, and the 
potential for additional emission reductions.
    The EPA interprets CAA section 111(d) as providing discretionary 
authority to update emission guidelines, and by extension to require 
states to update standards of performance, in appropriate 
circumstances. The EPA believes this is the best, and perhaps only, 
permissible interpretation of the CAA. It is consistent with the gap 
filling nature of section 111(d), the general purposes of the CAA to 
protect and enhance air quality. Moreover, this is supported because 
Congress's grant of authority to issue regulations carries with it the 
authority to amend or update regulations \3\ that they have issued.\4\ 
``Regulatory agencies do not establish rules of conduct to last 
forever; they are supposed, within the limits of the law and of fair 
and prudent administration, to adapt their rules and practices to the 
Nation's needs in a volatile, changing economy. They are neither 
required nor supposed to regulate the present and the future within the 
inflexible limits of yesterday.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Congress has provided the Agency with broad authority to 
issue regulations ``as necessary to carry out [her] functions 
under'' the Act. This broad grant of authority further supports the 
reasonableness of EPA's interpretation.
    \4\ See Trujillo v. General Electric Co., 621 F.2d 1084, 1086 
(10th Cir. 1980) (``Administrative agencies have an inherent 
authority to reconsider their own decisions, since the power to 
decide in the first instance carries with it the power to 
reconsider.'') (citing Albertson v. FCC, 182 F.2d 397, 399 (D.C. 
Cir. 1950)). See 621 F.2d at 1088 (``The authority to reconsider may 
result in some instances, as it did here, in a totally new and 
different determination.'').
    \5\ American Trucking Ass'n v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 
387 U.S. 397, 416 (1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To interpret the CAA otherwise would mean that Congress intended to

[[Page 59278]]

allow existing sources to operate forever without any consideration of 
the need for updated controls simply because, at some point in the 
distant past, the EPA had previously required these sources to be 
regulated. The EPA's interpretation is consistent with the gap filling 
nature of section 111(d), whereas the opposite interpretation would 
undermine it. By its terms, section 111(d) was designed to address 
emissions from existing sources of non-national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS), non-CAA section 112 hazardous air pollutants.\6\ A 
one-off approach would mean that the EPA would be unable to address the 
threats from these sources even as we improve our understanding of the 
danger presented by the pollutant at issue or new or improved control 
options become available. Indeed, this lack of authority would exist 
even in cases such as the instant one where some affected sources had 
not yet been required to invest in emission controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CAA subsection 111(d)(1)(A)(i), provides that regulation 
under CAA section 111(d) is intended to cover pollutants that are 
not regulated under either the criteria pollutant/NAAQS provisions 
or section 112 of the CAA. Thus, section 111(d) is designed to 
regulate pollutants from existing sources that fall in the gap not 
covered by the criteria pollutant provisions or the hazardous air 
pollutant provisions. This gap-filling purpose can be seen in the 
early legislative history of the CAA. As originally enacted in the 
1970 CAA, the precursor to CAA section 111 (which was originally 
section 114) was described as covering pollutants that would not be 
controlled by the criteria pollutant provisions or the hazardous air 
pollutant provisions. See S. Committee Rep. to accompany S. 4358 
(Sept. 17, 1970), 1970 CAA Legis. Hist. at 420 (``It should be noted 
that the emission standards for pollutants which cannot be 
considered hazardous (as defined in section 115 [which later became 
section 112]) could be established under section 114 [later, section 
111]. Thus, there should be no gaps in control activities pertaining 
to stationary source emissions that pose any significant danger to 
public health or welfare.''); Statement by S. Muskie, S. Debate on 
S. 4358 (Sept. 21, 1970), 1970 CAA Legis. Hist. at 227 (``[T]he bill 
[in section 114] provides the Secretary with the authority to set 
emission standards for selected pollutants which cannot be 
controlled through the ambient air quality standards and which are 
not hazardous substances.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The overall structure of the CAA also supports EPA's 
interpretation. The primary goal of the CAA is: ``[T]o protect and 
enhance the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health 
and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.'' CAA 
section 101(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(1). The CAA goes about this in a 
number of ways. Under section 111 the chosen approach is through the 
identification of the best system of emission reduction available to 
reduce emissions to the atmosphere which takes into account the cost of 
achieving such reductions and any nonair quality health and 
environmental impact and energy requirements. These systems change over 
time. Where such changes have the effect of substantially reducing 
harmful air emissions, it would be illogical that the EPA would be 
precluded from requiring existing sources to update their controls in 
recognition of those changes, particularly when those sources may 
continue to operate for decades. Similarly, if, after a rule was 
finalized, factual information were to arise revealing that the initial 
standards were too stringent to be met, it would be illogical that EPA 
would be precluded from revising the standards accordingly. Had 
Congress intended to preclude the EPA from updating the emission 
guidelines to reflect changes, it would surely have specifically said 
so, something it did not do.
    The fact that the EPA has the authority to update the emission 
guidelines does not, however, mean that it is unconstrained in 
exercising that authority. Rather, the decision whether to update a 
particular set of emission guidelines must be made on a rule-specific 
basis after considering the same factors the EPA considered in 
establishing those guidelines, including the level of reductions 
achievable and the cost of achieving those reductions, and, as 
appropriate, taking into account controls sources installed to comply 
with the initial emission guidelines. The EPA has determined that it is 
appropriate to update the emission guidelines for municipal solid waste 
(MSW) landfills. The EPA's final rule is not a requirement to install 
new and different control equipment (compared to the existing rule), 
but rather to install the same basic controls, i.e., a well-designed 
and well-operated landfill gas collection and control system, on an 
accelerated basis. While this will result in some additional cost, the 
EPA believes that cost is fully justified given the substantial 
reduction in emissions of landfill gas and its constituent components, 
including methane, that will result. As indicated in the final rule, 
lowering the threshold above which landfill owners/operators must 
install a gas collection and control system from 50 Mg of non-methane 
organic compounds (NMOC) per year to 34 Mg/year will result in an 
additional reduction in NMOC emissions of 1,810 Mg/yr and a concomitant 
reduction in methane emissions of 0.285 million Mg/yr. In these 
circumstances, the EPA believes that it not only has the legal 
authority to update the emission guidelines, but that doing so 
imminently reasonable.

B. Summary of Major Provisions

    The final Emission Guidelines apply to landfills that accepted 
waste after November 8, 1987,\7\ 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 final rule provisions are described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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 Emission Guidelines 
for landfills no longer receiving wastes because the EPA judged 
states would be able to identify active facilities as of this date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thresholds for Installing Controls. The final Emission Guidelines 
retain the current design capacity thresholds 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 of September 27, 2017. (A 
megagram is also known as a metric ton, which is equal to 1.1 U.S. 
short tons or about 2,205 pounds.) An MSW landfill that exceeds the 
design capacity thresholds must install and start up a GCCS within 30 
months after LFG emissions reach or exceed an NMOC level of 34 Mg/yr. 
Consistent with the existing Emission Guidelines, the owner or operator 
of a landfill may control the gas by routing 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.
    Emission Threshold Determination. The EPA is finalizing an 
alternative site-specific emission threshold determination methodology 
for when a landfill must install and operate a GCCS. This alternative 
methodology, referred to as ``Tier 4,'' is based on surface emissions 
monitoring (SEM) and demonstrates whether or not surface emissions are 
below a specific threshold. The Tier 4 SEM demonstration allows 
landfills that exceed the threshold using modeled NMOC emission rates 
using Tier 1 or 2 to demonstrate that actual site-specific surface 
methane emissions are below a specific threshold. A landfill that can 
demonstrate that surface emissions are below 500 parts per million 
(ppm) for four consecutive quarters does not trigger the requirement to 
install a GCCS even if Tier 1, 2, or 3 calculations

[[Page 59279]]

indicate that the 34 Mg/yr threshold has been exceeded. Landfills that 
have calculated NMOC emissions of 50 Mg/yr or greater are not eligible 
for the Tier 4 emission threshold determination in order to prevent 
conflicting requirements between subpart Cf and the landfills NESHAP 
(40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA). Many landfills that are subject to 
subpart Cf will also be subject to the landfills NESHAP. The landfills 
NESHAP requires landfills that exceed the size threshold (2.5 million 
Mg and 2.5 million m\3\) and exceed the NMOC emissions threshold (50 
Mg/yr) to install and operate a GCCS.
    Closed Landfill Subcategory. Because closed landfills do not 
produce as much LFG as an active landfill, the EPA is finalizing a 
separate subcategory for landfills that close on or before September 
27, 2017. Landfills in this subcategory will continue to be subject to 
an NMOC emission threshold of 50 Mg/yr for determining when controls 
must be installed or can be removed.
    Low LFG Producing Areas. The EPA is also finalizing criteria for 
determining when it is appropriate to cap or remove all or a portion of 
the GCCS. The final criteria for capping or removing all or a portion 
of the GCCS are: (1) The landfill is closed, (2) the GCCS has operated 
for at least 15 years or the landfill owner or operator can demonstrate 
that the GCCS will be unable to operate for 15 years due to declining 
gas flows, and (3) the calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill is 
less than 34 Mg/yr on three successive test dates. The final rule does 
not contain a GCCS removal criterion based on surface emissions 
monitoring.
    Landfill Gas Treatment. In the final Emission Guidelines, the EPA 
has addressed two issues related to LFG treatment. First, the EPA is 
clarifying that the use of treated LFG is not limited to use as a fuel 
for a stationary combustion device but may be used for other beneficial 
uses such as vehicle fuel, production of high-British thermal unit 
(Btu) gas for pipeline injection, or use as a raw material in a 
chemical manufacturing process. Second, the EPA is finalizing a 
definition of treated landfill gas that applies to LFG processed in a 
treatment system meeting the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
Cf, and defining treatment system as a system that filters, de-waters, 
and compresses LFG for sale or beneficial use. The definition of 
treatment system allows the level of treatment to be tailored to the 
type and design of the specific combustion equipment or the other 
beneficial use 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 LFG is used. Owners or operators 
must develop a site-specific treatment system monitoring plan that 
includes monitoring parameters addressing all three elements of 
treatment (filtration, de-watering, and compression) to ensure the 
treatment system is operating properly for the intended end use of the 
treated LFG. They also must keep records that demonstrate that such 
parameters effectively monitor filtration, de-watering, and compression 
system performance necessary for the end use of the treated LFG.
    Wellhead Operational Standards. The EPA is finalizing changes to 
certain operational standards (i.e., the requirement to meet specific 
operating limits) for nitrogen/oxygen level at the wellheads. Landfill 
owners or operators are not required to take corrective action based on 
exceedances of specified operational standards for nitrogen/oxygen 
levels at wellheads, but they must continue to monitor and maintain 
records of nitrogen/oxygen levels on a monthly basis in order to inform 
any necessary adjustments to the GCCS and must maintain records of 
monthly readings. The operational standard, corrective action, and 
corresponding recordkeeping and reporting remain for temperature and 
maintaining negative pressure at the wellhead.
    Surface Monitoring. The EPA is finalizing a requirement to monitor 
all surface penetrations at existing landfills. In final 40 CFR part 
60, subpart Cf, landfills must conduct 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 final 40 CFR part 
60, subpart Cf. Specifically, landfill owners or operators must conduct 
surface monitoring on a quarterly basis at the specified intervals and 
where visual observations indicate elevated concentrations of LFG, such 
as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover and all cover 
penetrations.
    Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction. The EPA is finalizing a 
requirement that standards of performance in the Emission Guidelines 
apply at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction (SSM). The EPA is also finalizing an alternative standard 
during SSM events: 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 of the collection or control 
system not operating.
    Other Clarifications. The EPA is finalizing a number of 
clarifications to address several issues that have been raised by 
landfill owners or operators during implementation of the current NSPS 
and Emission Guidelines. These clarifications include adding criteria 
for when an affected source must update its design plan and clarifying 
when landfill owners or operators must submit requests to extend the 
timeline for taking corrective action. The EPA is also updating several 
definitions in the Emission Guidelines. In addition, while the EPA is 
not mandating organics diversion, we are finalizing 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 compliance 
flexibilities are discussed in section V.A.1 and VI.A.1 (wellhead 
monitoring) and section V.B and section VI.B (Tier 4 emission threshold 
determination) of this preamble.

C. Costs and Benefits

    The final Emission Guidelines are expected to significantly reduce 
emissions of LFG 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 2014, landfills 
represented the third largest source of human-related methane emissions 
in the U.S. This rulemaking applies to existing landfills that 
commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction on or before 
July 17, 2014 and accepted waste after 1987. The EPA estimates 1,851 
existing landfills that accepted waste after 1987 and opened prior to 
2014.
    To comply with the emission limits in the final rule, MSW landfill 
owners or operators are expected to install the least-cost control for 
collecting, and treating or combusting LFG. The annualized net cost for 
the final Emission Guidelines is estimated to be $54.1 million (2012$) 
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 $92.6 million to install and 
operate a GCCS, as well as $0.76 million to complete the corresponding 
testing and monitoring. These control costs are offset by $39.3 million 
in revenue from electricity sales, which is incorporated into the net 
control costs for certain landfills that are expected to generate 
revenue by using the LFG to produce electricity.

[[Page 59280]]

    Installation of a GCCS to comply with the 34 Mg/yr NMOC emissions 
threshold at open landfills would achieve reductions of 1,810 Mg/yr 
NMOC and 285,000 metric tons methane (about 7.1 million metric tons of 
carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e)) beyond the baseline in 
year 2025. In addition, the final rule is expected to result in the net 
reduction of an additional 277,000 Mg CO2, due to reduced 
demand for electricity from the grid as landfills generate electricity 
from LFG. The NMOC portion of LFG can contain a variety of air 
pollutants, including VOC and various organic HAP. VOC emissions are 
precursors to both fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone 
formation. 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 the potential for health effects associated with 
exposure to air pollution related emissions, and result in climate 
benefits due to reductions of the methane component of LFG.
    The EPA estimates that the final rule's estimated methane emission 
reductions and secondary CO2 emission reductions in the year 
2025 would yield global monetized climate benefits of $200 million to 
approximately $1.2 billion, depending on the discount rate. Using the 
average social cost of methane (SC-CH4) and the average 
social cost of CO2 (SC-CO2), each at a 3-percent 
discount rate, results in an estimate of about $440 million in 2025 
(2012$).
    The SC-CH4 and SC-CO2 are the monetary values 
of impacts associated with marginal changes in methane and 
CO2 emissions, respectively, in a given year. It includes a 
wide range of anticipated climate impacts, such as net changes in 
agricultural productivity, property damage from increased flood risk, 
and changes in energy system costs, such as reduced costs for heating 
and increased costs for air conditioning.
    With the data available, we are not able to provide health benefit 
estimates for the reduction in exposure to HAP, ozone, and 
PM2.5 for this rule. This is not to imply that there are no 
such benefits of the rule; rather, it is a reflection of the 
difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the 
reductions in emissions for this sector with the data currently 
available.
    Based on the monetized benefits and costs, the annual net benefits 
of the final guidelines are estimated to be $390 million ($2012) in 
2025, based on the average SC-CH4 at a 3 percent discount 
rate, average SC-CO2 at a 3 percent discount rate, and costs 
at a 7 percent discount rate.

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This final rule addresses existing MSW landfills, i.e., landfills 
accepting waste after 1987 and on which construction was commenced on 
or before July 17, 2014, and associated solid waste management 
programs. Potentially affected categories include those listed in Table 
1 of this preamble.

                       Table 1--Regulated Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Examples of affected
             Category                   NAICS a          facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry: Air and water resource            924110  Solid waste
 and solid waste management.                         landfills.
Industry: Refuse systems--solid             562212  Solid waste
 waste landfills.                                    landfills.
State, local, and tribal                    924110  Administration of
 government agencies.                                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 
final 40 CFR 60.32f of subpart Cf. If you have any questions regarding 
the applicability of the final subpart to a particular entity, contact 
the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available through EPA's Technology Transfer Network 
(TTN) Web site, a forum for information and technology exchange in 
various areas of air pollution control. Following signature by the EPA 
Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this action at http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/landflpg.html. Following publication in 
the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of 
this final rule and technical documents at this same Web site.

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 proposal for 
revised NSPS for new MSW landfills (79 FR 41796). On August 27, 2015 
(80 FR 52100), the EPA proposed a review of 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 the 
landfill industry and changes in operation of the landfills, including 
the size, trends in GCCS installations, and age of landfills, as 
reflected in new data, (3) provide new options for demonstrating 
compliance, and (4) to complete efforts regarding unresolved 
implementation issues. The EPA considered information it received in 
response to the ANPRM (79 FR 41772) and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(80 FR 52100) for existing landfills in evaluating these final Emission 
Guidelines. We are also finalizing some of the amendments proposed on 
May 23, 2002, and September 8, 2006 to improve implementation of the 
Emission Guidelines. The respective frameworks of NSPS and Emission 
Guidelines have been similar since they were first promulgated in 1996 
(e.g., size threshold, emission threshold, monitoring requirements, 
etc). In response to public comments, which include implementation 
concerns

[[Page 59281]]

associated with the potential for different approaches and requirements 
between revised final rules, the EPA is finalizing similar requirements 
for the NSPS and Emission Guidelines.

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.'' \8\ 
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) that is 28-36 times greater 
than carbon dioxide (CO2) and has an atmospheric life of 
about 12 years.\9\ Because of methane's potency 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Executive Office of the President, ``The President's Climate 
Action Plan'' June 2013. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf.
    \9\ 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 from 28-36, compared to a GWP of 
25 in AR4. The impacts analysis in this final rule is based on the 
100-year GWP from AR4 (25) instead of AR5 to be consistent with and 
comparable to key Agency emission quantification programs such as 
the Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (GHG Inventory), 
and the GHGRP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``Climate Action Plan: Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions'' 
\10\ (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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_emissions_2014-03-28_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA recognized the climate benefits associated with reducing 
methane emissions from landfills nearly 25 years ago. The 1991 NSPS 
Background Information Document \11\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A recent study assessed EPA regulations and voluntary programs over 
the period 1993-2013 and found that they were responsible for the 
reduction of about 130 million metric tons of methane emissions (equal 
to about 18 percent of the total U.S. methane emissions over that time 
period), leading to a reduction in atmospheric concentrations of 
methane of about 28 parts per billion in 2013 \12\ (compared to an 
observed increase in methane concentrations of about 80 ppb over those 
20 years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Melvin, A.M.; Sarofim, M.C.; Crimmins, A.R., ``Climate 
benefits of U.S. EPA programs and policies that reduced methane 
emissions 1993-2013'', Environmental Science & Technology, 2016, in 
press. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.6b00367. DOI 
10.1021/acs.est.6b00367.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The review and final revision of the MSW landfills Emission 
Guidelines capitalizes on additional opportunities to achieve methane 
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.
    LFG is a collection of air pollutants, including methane and NMOC. 
LFG is typically composed of 50-percent methane, 50-percent 
CO2, and less than 1-percent NMOC by volume. The NMOC 
portion of LFG 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 LFG emissions because NMOC contains the 
air pollutants that at that time were of most concern due to their 
adverse effects on public health and welfare. Today, methane's effects 
on climate change are also considered important. In 2014, methane 
emissions from MSW landfills represented 18.2 percent of total U.S. 
methane emissions and 1.9 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions (in 
carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)).\13\ In 2014, MSW 
landfills continued to be the third largest source of human-related 
methane emissions in the U.S., releasing an estimated 133.1 million 
metric tons of CO2e. For these reasons and because 
additional emissions reductions can be achieved at a reasonable cost, 
the EPA is finalizing changes to the Emission Guidelines that are based 
on reducing the NMOC and methane components of LFG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Total U.S. methane emissions were 731 teragrams (Tg) 
CO2e and total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,870.5 Tg in 
2014. A teragram is equal to 1 million Mg. (A megagram is also known 
as a metric ton, which is equal to 1.1 U.S. short tons or about 
2,205 pounds.) U.S. EPA ``Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 
and Sinks: 1990-2014.'' Table ES-2. Available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

1. Public Health Effects of VOC and Various Organic HAP
    VOC emissions are precursors to both PM2.5 and ozone 
formation. As documented in previous analyses (U.S. EPA, 2006 \14\, 
2010 \15\, and 2014 \16\), exposure to PM2.5 and ozone is 
associated with significant public health effects. PM2.5 is 
associated with health effects, including premature mortality for 
adults and infants, cardiovascular morbidity such as heart attacks, and 
respiratory morbidity such as asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, 
hospital admissions and emergency room visits, work loss days, 
restricted activity days and respiratory symptoms, as well as welfare 
impacts such as visibility impairment.\17\ Ozone is associated with 
public 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).\18\ Nearly 30 
organic HAP have been identified in uncontrolled LFG, including 
benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and vinyl chloride.\19\ Benzene is a 
known human carcinogen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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.
    \15\ 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.
    \16\ 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.
    \17\ 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.
    \18\ 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.
    \19\ 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 59282]]

2. Climate Impacts of Methane Emissions
    In addition to the improvements in air quality and resulting 
benefits to human health and the non-climate welfare effects discussed 
above, reducing emissions from landfills is expected to result in 
climate co-benefits due to reductions of the methane component of LFG. 
Methane is a potent GHG with a global warming potential (GWP) 28-36 
times greater than CO2, which accounts for methane's 
stronger absorption of infrared radiation per ton in the atmosphere, 
but also its shorter lifetime (on the order of 12 years compared to 
centuries or millennia for CO2).20 21 According 
to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment 
Report, methane is the second leading long-lived climate forcer after 
CO2 globally.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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.
    \21\ As previously noted, this rulemaking uses the AR4 100-year 
GWP value for methane (25), rather than AR5, for CO2 
equivalency calculations to be consistent with and comparable to key 
Agency emission quantification programs such as the Inventory of 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (GHG Inventory), and the GHGRP.
    \22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Methane is also a precursor to ground-level ozone, which can cause 
a number of harmful effects on public health and the environment. 
Additionally, ozone is a short-lived climate forcer that contributes to 
global warming.
    In 2009, based on a large body of robust and compelling scientific 
evidence, the EPA Administrator issued an Endangerment Finding under 
CAA section 202(a)(1).\23\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for 
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,'' 74 FR 
66496 (Dec. 15, 2009) (``Endangerment Finding'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Public Health Impacts Detailed in the 2009 Endangerment Finding
    The 2009 Endangerment Finding documented that climate change caused 
by human emissions of GHGs threatens the health of Americans. 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 of other types 
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
    The 2009 Endangerment Finding documented that climate 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 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
    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).\24\ 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. The D.C. Circuit later 
upheld the Endangerment Finding from all challenges. Coalition for 
Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F. 3d 102, 116-26 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for 
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,'' 74 FR 
66496 (Dec. 15, 2009) (``Endangerment Finding'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the administrative record concerning the Endangerment Finding 
closed following the EPA's 2010 Reconsideration Denial, the climate has 
continued to change, with new records being set for a number of climate 
indicators such as global average surface temperatures, Arctic sea ice 
retreat, CO2 concentrations, and sea level rise. 
Additionally, a number of major scientific assessments have been 
released that improve understanding of the climate system and 
strengthen the case that GHGs endanger public health and welfare both 
for current and future generations. These assessments, from the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. Global 
Change Research Program (USGCRP), and the National Research Council 
(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), the USGCRP's 
2014 National Climate Assessment, Climate Change Impacts in the United 
States (NCA3), and the NRC's 2010 Ocean Acidification: A National 
Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing

[[Page 59283]]

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 conclusions of the recent scientific assessments confirm and 
strengthen the science that supported the 2009 Endangerment Finding. 
The NCA3 indicates that climate change ``threatens human health and 
well-being in many ways, including impacts from increased extreme 
weather events, wildfire, decreased air quality, threats to mental 
health, and illnesses transmitted by food, water, and disease-carriers 
such as mosquitoes and ticks.'' \25\ Most recently, the USGCRP released 
a new assessment, ``The Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in 
the United States: A Scientific Assessment'' (also known as the USGCRP 
Climate and Health Assessment). This assessment finds that ``climate 
change impacts endanger our health'' and that in the United States we 
have ``observed climate-related increases in our exposure to elevated 
temperatures; more frequent, severe, or longer lasting extreme events; 
diseases transmitted through food, water, or disease vectors such as 
ticks and mosquitoes; and stresses to mental health and well-being.'' 
The assessment determines that ``[e]very American is vulnerable to the 
health impacts associated with climate change.'' Climate warming will 
also likely ``make it harder for any given regulatory approach to 
reduce ground-level ozone pollution'', and, unless offset by reductions 
of ozone precursors, it is likely that ``climate-driven increases in 
ozone will cause premature deaths, hospital visits, lost school days, 
and acute respiratory symptoms.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ USGCRP, Third National Climate Assessment, p. 221.
    \26\ See also Kleeman, M.J., S.-H. Chen, and R.A. Harley. 2010. 
Climate change impact on air quality in California: Report to the 
California Air Resources Board. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-349.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assessments state that certain populations are particularly 
vulnerable to climate change. The USGCRP Climate and Health Assessment 
assesses several disproportionately vulnerable populations, including 
those with low income, some communities of color, immigrant groups, 
indigenous peoples, pregnant women, vulnerable occupational groups, 
persons with disabilities, and persons with preexisting or chronic 
medical conditions. The Climate and Health Assessment also concludes 
that children's unique physiology and developing bodies contribute to 
making them particularly vulnerable to climate change. Children also 
have unique behaviors and exposure pathways that could increase their 
exposure to environmental stressors, like contaminants in dust or 
extreme heat events. Impacts from climate change on children are likely 
from heat waves, air pollution, infectious and waterborne illnesses, 
disruptions in food safety and security, and mental health effects 
resulting from extreme weather events. For example, climate change can 
disrupt food safety and security by significantly reducing food 
quality, availability and access. Children are more susceptible to this 
disruption because nutrition is important during critical windows of 
development and growth. Older people are at much higher risk of 
mortality during extreme heat events and 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 science that 
supported the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The NRC assessment 
Understanding Earth's Deep Past stated that ``[b]y the end of this 
century, without a reduction in emissions, atmospheric CO2 is projected 
to increase to levels that Earth has not experienced for more than 30 
million years.'' In fact, that assessment stated that ``the magnitude 
and rate of the present GHG increase place the climate system in what 
could be one of the most severe increases in radiative forcing of the 
global climate system in Earth history.'' \27\ Because of these 
unprecedented changes in atmospheric concentrations, several 
assessments state that we may be approaching critical, poorly 
understood thresholds. The NRC Abrupt Impacts report analyzed the 
potential for abrupt climate change in the physical climate system and 
abrupt impacts of ongoing changes that, when thresholds are crossed, 
could cause abrupt impacts for society and ecosystems. The report 
considered destabilization of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (which could 
cause 3-4 m of potential sea level rise) as an abrupt climate impact 
with unknown but probably low probability of occurring this century. 
The report categorized a decrease in ocean oxygen content (with 
attendant threats to aerobic marine life); increase in intensity, 
frequency, and duration of heat waves; and increase in frequency and 
intensity of extreme precipitation events (droughts, floods, 
hurricanes, and major storms) as climate impacts with moderate risk of 
an abrupt change within this century. The NRC Abrupt Impacts report 
also analyzed the threat of rapid state changes in ecosystems and 
species extinctions as examples of an irreversible impact that is 
expected to be exacerbated by climate change. Species at most risk 
include those whose migration potential is limited, whether because 
they live on mountaintops or fragmented habitats with barriers to 
movement, or because climatic conditions are changing more rapidly than 
the species can move or adapt. While some of these abrupt impacts may 
be of low or moderate probability in this century, the probability for 
a significant change in many of these processes after 2100 was judged 
to be higher, with severe impacts likely should the abrupt change 
occur. Future temperature changes will be influenced by what emissions 
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 [deg]C to 4.8 [deg]C (4.7 to 8.6 [deg]F) warmer than today. 
There is very high confidence that temperatures on land and in the 
Arctic will 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. According to the NCA3, 
regions closer to the poles are projected to receive more 
precipitation, while the dry subtropics expand (colloquially, this has 
been summarized as wet areas getting wet and dry regions getting 
drier), while ``[t]he widespread trend of increasing heavy downpours is 
expected to continue, with precipitation becoming less frequent but 
more intense.'' Meanwhile, the NRC Climate Stabilization Targets 
assessment found that the area burned by wildfire in parts of western 
North America is expected to grow by 2 to 4 times for 1 [deg]C (1.8 
[deg]F) of warming. The NCA also found that

[[Page 59284]]

``[e]xtrapolation of the present observed trend suggests an essentially 
ice-free Arctic in summer before mid-century.'' Retreating snow and 
ice, and emissions of carbon dioxide and methane released from thawing 
permafrost, are very likely to amplify future warming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ National Research Council, Understanding Earth's Deep Past, 
p. 138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the IPCC AR5, the USGCRP NCA3, 
and three of the new NRC assessments provide estimates of projected 
global average sea level rise. These estimates, while not always 
directly comparable as they assume different emissions scenarios and 
baselines, are at least 40 percent larger than, and in some cases more 
than twice as large as, the projected rise estimated in the IPCC AR4 
assessment, which was referred to in the 2009 Endangerment Finding. The 
NRC Sea Level Rise assessment projects a global average sea level rise 
of 0.5 to 1.4 meters by 2100. The NRC National Security Implications 
assessment suggests that ``the Department of the Navy should expect 
roughly 0.4 to 2 meters global average sea-level rise by 2100.'' The 
NRC Climate Stabilization Targets assessment states that a global 
average temperature increase of 3 [deg]C will lead to a global average 
sea level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter by 2100. These NRC and IPCC 
assessments continue to recognize and characterize the uncertainty 
inherent in accounting for melting ice sheets in sea level rise 
projections.
    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 U.S. 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 [deg]C (1.5 [deg]F) from 1880 
to 2012. It is extremely likely (>95 percent probability) that human 
influence was the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-
20th century, and likely (>66 percent probability) that human influence 
has more than doubled the probability of occurrence of heat waves in 
some locations. In the Northern Hemisphere, the last 30 years were 
likely the warmest 30 year period of the last 1400 years.
     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 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 [deg]C (5.4 [deg]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. According to the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), methane 
concentrations in 2014 were about 1,823 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.\28\ 
Concentrations today are likely higher than they have been for at least 
the past 800,000 years.\29\ Arctic sea ice has continued to decline, 
with September of 2012 marking the record low in terms of Arctic sea 
ice extent, 40 percent below the 1979-2000 median. Sea level has 
continued to rise at a rate of 3.2 mm per year (1.3 inches/decade) 
since satellite observations started in 1993, more than twice the 
average rate of rise in the 20th century prior to 1993.\30\ And 2015 
was the warmest year globally in the modern global surface temperature 
record, going back to 1880, breaking the record previously held by 
2014; this now means that the last 15 years have been 15 of the 16 
warmest years on record.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Ed Dlugokencky, NOAA/ESRL (www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/).
    \29\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Climate change 
indicators in the United States, 2014. Third edition. EPA 430-R-14-
004. www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators.
    \30\ Blunden, J., and D. S. Arndt, Eds., 2015: State of the 
Climate in 2014. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 96 (7), S1-S267.
    \31\ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These assessments and observed changes raise concerns that reducing 
emissions of GHGs across the globe is necessary in order to avoid the 
worst impacts of climate change, and underscore the urgency of reducing 
emissions now. In 2011 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.'' \32\ 
For example, they stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ NRC, 2011: America's Climate Choices, The National 
Academies Press, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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 manifested, many of these 
changes will persist for hundreds or even thousands of years.
     In the committee's judgment, the risks associated with 
maintaining business as usual are a much greater concern than the risks 
associated with engaging in strong response efforts.

Overview of Climate Change Impacts in the United States

    The NCA3 assessed the climate impacts in eight regions of the U.S., 
noting that changes in physical climate parameters such as 
temperatures, precipitation, and sea ice retreat were already having 
impacts on forests, water supplies, ecosystems, flooding, heat waves, 
and air quality. The U.S. average temperatures have similarly increased 
by 1.3 to 1.9 degrees F since 1895, with most of that increase 
occurring since 1970, and the most recent decade was the U.S.'s hottest 
as well as the world's hottest. Moreover, the NCA3 found that future 
warming is projected to be much larger than recent observed variations 
in temperature, with 2 to 4 degrees F warming expected in most areas of 
the U.S. over the next few decades, and up to 10 degrees F possible by 
the end of the century assuming continued increases in emissions. 
Extreme heat events will continue to become more common, and extreme 
cold less common. Additionally, precipitation is considered likely to 
increase in the northern states, decrease in the southern states, and 
with the heaviest precipitation events projected to increase 
everywhere.

[[Page 59285]]

    In the Northeast, temperatures increased almost 2[emsp14][deg]F 
from 1895 to 2011, precipitation increased by about 5 inches (10 
percent), and sea level rise of about a foot has led to an increase in 
coastal flooding. In the future, if emissions continue to increase, the 
Northeast is projected to experience 4.5 to 10[emsp14][deg]F of warming 
by the 2080s. This is expected to lead to more heat waves, coastal and 
river flooding, and intense precipitation events. Sea levels in the 
Northeast are expected to increase faster than the global average 
because of subsidence, and models suggest changing ocean currents may 
further increase the rate of sea level rise.
    In the Southeast, average annual temperature during the last 
century cycled between warm and cool periods. A warm peak occurred 
during the 1930s and 1940s followed by a cool period and temperatures 
then increased again from 1970 to the present by an average of 
2[emsp14][deg]F. Louisiana has already lost 1,880 square miles of land 
in the last 80 years due to sea level rise and other contributing 
factors. The Southeast is exceptionally vulnerable to sea level rise, 
extreme heat events, hurricanes, and decreased water availability. 
Major risks of further warming include significant increases in the 
number of hot days (95[emsp14][deg]F or above) and decreases in 
freezing events, as well as exacerbated ground level ozone in urban 
areas. Projections suggest that there may be fewer hurricanes in the 
Atlantic in the future, but they will be more intense, with more 
Category 4 and 5 storms. The NCA identified New Orleans, Miami, Tampa, 
Charleston, and Virginia Beach as cities at particular risk of 
flooding.
    In the Northwest, temperatures increased by about 1.3[emsp14][deg]F 
between 1895 and 2011. Snowpack in the Northwest is an important 
freshwater source for the region. More precipitation falling as rain 
instead of snow has reduced the snowpack, and warmer springs have 
corresponded to earlier snowpack melting and reduced stream flows 
during summer months. Drier conditions have increased the extent of 
wildfires in the region. Average annual temperatures are projected to 
increase by 3.3[emsp14][deg]F to 9.7[emsp14][deg]F by the end of the 
century (depending on future global GHG emissions), with the greatest 
warming is expected during the summer. Continued increases in global 
GHG emissions are projected to result in up to a 30 percent decrease in 
summer precipitation. Warmer waters are expected to increase disease 
and mortality in important fish species, including Chinook and sockeye 
salmon.
    In Alaska, temperatures have changed faster than anywhere else in 
the U.S. Annual temperatures increased by about 3[emsp14][deg]F in the 
past 60 years. Warming in the winter has been even greater, rising by 
an average of 6[emsp14][deg]F. Glaciers in Alaska are melting at some 
of the fastest rates on Earth. Permafrost soils are also warming and 
beginning to thaw. Drier conditions had already contributed to more 
large wildfires in the 10 years prior to the NCA3 than in any previous 
decade since the 1940s, when recordkeeping began, and subsequent years 
have seen even more wildfires. By the end of this century, continued 
increases in GHG emissions are expected to increase temperatures by 10 
to 12[emsp14][deg]F in the northernmost parts of Alaska, by 8 to 
10[emsp14][deg]F in the interior, and by 6 to 8[emsp14][deg]F across 
the rest of the state. These increases will exacerbate ongoing arctic 
sea ice loss, glacial melt, permafrost thaw and increased wildfire, and 
threaten humans, ecosystems, and infrastructure.
    In the Southwest, temperatures are now about 2[emsp14][deg]F higher 
than the past century, and are already the warmest that region has 
experienced in at least 600 years. The NCA notes that there is evidence 
that climate-change induced warming on top of recent drought has 
influenced tree mortality, wildfire frequency and area, and forest 
insect outbreaks. 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. The Southwest is projected to warm an additional 
5.5 to 9.5[emsp14][deg]F over the next century if emissions continue to 
increase. Winter snowpack in the Southwest is projected to decline 
(consistent with recent record lows), reducing the reliability of 
surface water supplies for cities, agriculture, cooling for power 
plants, and ecosystems. Sea level rise along the California coast is 
projected to worsen coastal erosion, increase flooding risk for coastal 
highways, bridges, and low-lying airports, and pose a threat to 
groundwater supplies in coastal cities. Also, ``[t]he combination of a 
longer frost-free season, less frequent cold air outbreaks, and more 
frequent heat waves accelerates crop ripening and maturity, reduces 
yields of corn, tree fruit, and wine grapes, stresses livestock, and 
increases agricultural water consumption.'' Increased drought, higher 
temperatures, and bark beetle outbreaks are likely to contribute to 
continued increases in wildfires.
    The rate of warming in the Midwest has markedly accelerated over 
the past few decades. Temperatures rose by more than 1.5[emsp14][deg]F 
from 1900 to 2010, but between 1980 and 2010 the rate of warming was 
three times faster than from 1900 through 2010. Precipitation generally 
increased over the last century, with much of the increase driven by 
intensification of the heaviest rainfalls. Several types of extreme 
weather events in the Midwest (e.g., heat waves and flooding) have 
already increased in frequency and/or intensity due to climate change. 
In the future, if emissions continue increasing, the Midwest is 
expected to experience 5.6 to 8.5[emsp14][deg]F of warming by the 
2080s, leading to more heat waves. Specific vulnerabilities highlighted 
by the NCA include long-term decreases in agricultural productivity, 
changes in the composition of the region's forests, increased public 
health threats from heat waves and degraded air and water quality, 
negative impacts on transportation and other infrastructure associated 
with extreme rainfall events and flooding, and risks to the Great Lakes 
including shifts in invasive species, increases in harmful algal 
blooms, and declining beach health.
    High temperatures (more than 100[emsp14][deg]F in the Southern 
Plains and more than 95[emsp14][deg]F in the Northern Plains) are 
projected to occur much more frequently by mid-century. Increases in 
extreme heat will increase heat stress for residents, energy demand for 
air conditioning, and water losses. In Hawaii, other Pacific islands, 
and the Caribbean, rising air and ocean temperatures, shifting rainfall 
patterns, changing frequencies and intensities of storms and drought, 
decreasing base flow in streams, rising sea levels, and changing ocean 
chemistry will affect ecosystems on land and in the oceans, as well as 
local communities, livelihoods, and cultures. Low islands are 
particularly at risk.
    In Hawaii and the Pacific islands, ``[w]armer oceans are leading to 
increased coral bleaching events and disease outbreaks in coral reefs, 
as well as changed distribution patterns of tuna fisheries. Ocean 
acidification will reduce coral growth and health. Warming and 
acidification, combined with existing stresses, will strongly affect 
coral reef fish communities.'' For Hawaii and the Pacific islands, 
future sea surface temperatures are projected to increase 
2.3[emsp14][deg]F by 2055 and 4.7[emsp14][deg]F by 2090 under a 
scenario that assumes continued increases in emissions.
    Methane Specific Impacts. Methane is also a precursor to ground-
level ozone, which can cause a number of harmful effects on health and 
the environment. Additionally, ozone is a short-lived climate forcer 
that contributes to global

[[Page 59286]]

warming. In remote areas, methane is an important precursor to 
tropospheric ozone formation.\33\ Almost half of the global annual mean 
ozone increase since preindustrial times is believed to be due to 
anthropogenic methane.\34\ Projections of future emissions also 
indicate that methane is likely to be a key contributor to ozone 
concentrations in the future.\35\ Unlike nitrogen oxide 
(NOX) and VOC, which affect ozone concentrations regionally 
and at hourly time scales, methane emissions affect ozone 
concentrations globally and on decadal time scales given methane's 
relatively long atmospheric lifetime compared to these other ozone 
precursors.\36\ Reducing methane emissions, therefore, may contribute 
to efforts to reduce global background ozone concentrations that 
contribute to the incidence of ozone-related health 
effects.37 38 39 These benefits are global and occur in both 
urban and rural areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 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 www.epa.gov/ncea/isa/.
    \34\ Ibid.
    \35\ Ibid.
    \36\ Ibid.
    \37\ West, J.J., Fiore, A.M. 2005. ``Management of tropospheric 
ozone by reducing methane emissions.'' Environ. Sci. Technol. 
39:4685-4691.
    \38\ Anenberg, S.C., et al. 2009. ``Intercontinental impacts of 
ozone pollution on human mortality,'' Environ. Sci. & Technol. 43: 
6482-6487.
    \39\ Sarofim, M.C., Waldhoff, S.T., Anenberg, S.C. 2015. 
``Valuing the Ozone-Related Health Benefits of Methane Emission 
Controls,'' Environ. Resource Econ. DOI 10.1007/s10640-015-9937-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the EPA's authority for reviewing the Emission Guidelines?

    The EPA is not statutorily obligated to conduct a review of the 
Emission Guidelines, but has the discretionary authority to do so when 
circumstances indicate that it is appropriate. The EPA has determined 
that it is appropriate to conduct a review of and finalize certain 
changes to the Emission Guidelines due to changes in the landfill 
industry and changes in operation of the landfills, including the size, 
trends in GCCS installations (such as the types of MSW landfills that 
have installed gas collection systems), and age of landfills 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, as well as a proposed rulemaking 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.

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

    The purpose of this action is to (1) Present the results of the 
EPA's review of the Emission Guidelines, (2) finalize revisions to the 
Emission Guidelines based on that review, and (3) resolve or provide 
clarification regarding several 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 final revisions appear in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf.\40\ 
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 document, the EPA is 
summarizing several comments it received to provide a framework and 
support the rationale for the final revisions to the Emission 
Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 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 revisions to, or the addition of, 
other provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. How would the changes in applicability affect sources currently 
subject to subparts Cc and WWW?

    Landfills currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW, 
are considered ``existing'' with the promulgation of this new subpart 
Cf and are ultimately affected by any changes to the Emission 
Guidelines resulting from this review. Each MSW landfill for which 
construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced on or before 
July 17, 2014, the date of proposal of the standard for new landfills 
under subpart XXX, is an existing source as of the effective date of 
this rule. Under CAA 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)). Because the revised Emission Guidelines apply to 
existing sources, any source that is not subject to subpart XXX will be 
subject to the revised Emission Guidelines. Any existing MSW landfill 
that modifies or reconstructs after July 17, 2014 would become a new 
source subject to the NSPS subpart XXX.
    Consistent with the general approach evinced by CAA section 111, 
sources currently subject to subpart WWW would need to continue to 
comply with the requirements in that rule 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, because the EPA is finalizing 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 must develop (or revise) and 
submit a state plan to the EPA within 9 months of promulgation of any 
revisions to the Emission Guidelines (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. To 
assist regulatory agencies in preparing state plans, the EPA developed 
the document ``Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Volume 2: Summary of 
Requirements for Section 111(d) State Plans for Implementing the 
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Emission Guidelines.'' This volume 
describes the elements of a state plan and explains the state plan 
development and review process. The requirements include making the 
state plan publically available and providing the opportunity for 
public discussion. MSW Landfills, Volume 2 is available on the TTN Web 
site at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/landfill/landflpg.html. Note that 
MSW Landfills, Volume 2 was written for implementing the 1996 Emission 
Guidelines and contains a schedule corresponding to the 1996 Emission 
Guidelines. For these 2016 Emission Guidelines, state plans are due May 
30, 2017.
    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

[[Page 59287]]

according to the schedule in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. The EPA will 
publish notice of 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 the changes and other requirements adopted in this 
final action revising 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 state plan until such 
time as an initial state plan or revised state plan is approved. 
Fifteen states and territories implement the original Emission 
Guidelines promulgated at subpart Cc under the Federal Plan (40 CFR 
part 62, subpart GGG) The revised federal plan would also apply in 
Indian country unless and until replaced by a tribal implementation 
plan (TIP).\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because many of the landfills currently subject to 40 CFR part 60, 
subparts Cc and WWW, are closed, the EPA is finalizing provisions to 
minimize the burden on these closed landfills while continuing to 
protect air quality, as discussed in sections V.C and VI.C of this 
preamble.

IV. Summary of the Final Emission Guidelines

A. What are the control requirements?

1. Design Capacity and Emissions Thresholds
    The revised Emission Guidelines retain the current design capacity 
thresholds of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\, but reduce the NMOC 
emission threshold for the installation and removal of a GCCS from 50 
Mg/yr to 34 Mg/yr for landfills that are not closed as of September 27, 
2017. An MSW landfill that exceeds the design capacity thresholds must 
install and start up a GCCS within 30 months after reporting that LFG 
emissions reach or exceed a NMOC level of 34 Mg/yr NMOC. The owner or 
operator of a landfill may control the gas by routing 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.
2. Tier 4
    The current Emission Guidelines (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc) 
provide that owners or operators determine whether the landfill has 
exceeded the NMOC emissions threshold using one of three available 
modeling procedures, known as Tiers 1, 2, and 3. The EPA is finalizing 
in subpart Cf an additional optional methodology based on site-specific 
surface methane emissions to determine when a landfill must install and 
operate a GCCS. This alternative emission threshold methodology, 
referred to as ``Tier 4,'' is based on SEM and demonstrates that 
surface methane emissions are below a specific threshold. The Tier 4 
SEM demonstration allows certain landfills that exceed modeled NMOC 
emission rates using Tier 1 or 2 to demonstrate that site-specific 
surface methane emissions are below a surface concentration threshold 
(a landfill need not model emissions under Tier 3 before using Tier 4). 
A landfill that can demonstrate that surface emissions are below 500 
ppm for four consecutive quarters does 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. Owners or operators continue to 
keep detailed records of each quarterly monitoring demonstration and 
must submit a Tier 4 surface emissions report annually. If a landfill 
measures a surface emissions reading of greater than 500 ppm methane, 
the landfill must submit a GCCS design plan and install and operate a 
GCCS.
    Tier 4 is based on the results of quarterly site-specific methane 
emissions monitoring of the perimeter of the landfill and entire 
surface of the landfill along a pattern that traverses the landfill at 
30-meter (98-ft) intervals, in addition to monitoring areas where 
visual observations may indicate elevated concentrations of LFG, 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 ppm 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 modeling to demonstrate that emissions are 
below the NMOC threshold.
    Tier 4 is allowed only if the landfill owner or operator can 
demonstrate that NMOC emissions are greater than or equal to 34 Mg/yr, 
but less than 50 Mg/yr using Tier 1 or Tier 2. If both Tier 1 and Tier 
2 indicate NMOC emissions of 50 Mg/yr or greater, Tier 4 cannot be 
used. In addition, a wind barrier must be used for Tier 4 when the 
average wind speed exceeds 4 miles per hour (mph)(or 2 meters per 
second), or gusts are above 10 mph. Tier 4 measurements cannot be 
conducted if the average wind speed exceeds 25 mph. Wind speed must be 
measured with an on-site anemometer with a continuous recorder and data 
logger for the entire duration of the monitoring event. The average 
wind speed must be determined at 5-minute intervals. The gust must be 
determined at 3-second intervals. Further, when conducting Tier 4 
monitoring, the sampling probe must be held no more than 5 centimeters 
above the landfill (e.g., using a mechanical device such as a wheel on 
a pole). Tier 4 measurements cannot be conducted if the average wind 
speed exceeds 25 mph
    In addition, landfills with a non-regulatory GCCS are allowed to 
operate the GCCS during the Tier 4 SEM demonstration, however, the GCCS 
must have operated at least 75 percent of the hours during the 12 
months leading up to the Tier 4 SEM demonstration.
3. Subcategory of Closed Landfills
    Because many landfills are closed and do not produce as much LFG, 
the EPA is finalizing the proposed subcategory for landfills that close 
on or before September 27, 2017. Landfills in this subcategory will 
continue to be subject to an NMOC emission threshold of 50 Mg/yr for 
determining when controls must be installed or can be removed, 
consistent with the NMOC thresholds in subparts Cc and WWW of 40 CFR 
part 60. These closed landfills would also be exempt from initial 
reporting requirements (i.e., initial design capacity, initial NMOC 
emission rate, GCCS design plan, initial annual report, closure report, 
equipment removal report, and initial performance test report), 
provided that the landfill already met these requirements under 
subparts Cc or WWW of 40 CFR part 60.
4. Criteria for Removing GCCS
    Landfill emissions increase as waste is added to a landfill, but 
decline over time; as waste decays, a landfill produces less and less 
methane and other pollutants. In the proposed Emission Guidelines (80 
FR 52112), the EPA recognized that many open landfills subject to the 
Emission Guidelines contain inactive areas that have experienced 
declining LFG flows. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing criteria for 
determining when it is appropriate to cap, remove, or decommission a 
portion of the GCCS. The criteria for capping, removing, or 
decommissioning

[[Page 59288]]

the GCCS are: (1) The landfill is closed, (2) the GCCS has operated for 
at least 15 years or the landfill owner or operator can demonstrate 
that the GCCS will be unable to operate for 15 years due to declining 
gas flows, and (3) the calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill is 
less than 34 Mg/yr on three successive test dates. For landfills in the 
closed subcategory, the NMOC emission rate threshold for removing 
controls is 50 Mg/yr.
5. Excluding Non-Productive Areas From Control
    The EPA is finalizing a provision that allows the use of actual 
flow data when estimating NMOC emissions for the purposes of excluding 
low- or non-producing areas of the landfill from control. Owners or 
operators of landfills with physically separated, closed areas may 
either model NMOC emission rates, or may determine the flow rate of LFG 
using actual measurements, to determine NMOC emissions. Using actual 
flow measurements yields 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. The Emission Guidelines 
historically allowed owners or operators to exclude from control areas 
that are non-productive. In this final action, the retained the 1 
percent criteria level, rather than raising it, to prevent landfills 
from excluding areas from control unless emissions were very low. But, 
to help owners or operators demonstrate that a non-productive area may 
be excluded from control, the final rule allow the owner or operator to 
use site-specific flow measurements to determine NMOC emissions.
6. Landfill Gas Treatment
    The EPA is finalizing two provisions related to LFG treatment. 
First, the EPA is clarifying 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 defining ``treated landfill 
gas'' as LFG processed in a treatment system meeting the requirements 
in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, and defining ``treatment system'' as a 
system that filters, de-waters, and compresses LFG for sale or 
beneficial use. Owners or operators must develop a site-specific 
treatment system monitoring plan that includes monitoring parameters 
addressing all three elements of treatment (filtration, de-watering, 
and compression) to ensure the treatment system is operating properly 
for each intended end use of the treated LFG. They also must keep 
records that demonstrate that such parameters effectively monitor 
filtration, de-watering, and compression system performance necessary 
for each end use of the treated LFG. The treatment system monitoring 
plan must be submitted as part of the landfill's title V permit 
application. The permitting authority will review the permit 
application, including the treatment system monitoring plan, as part of 
the general permitting process. The treatment system monitoring 
parameters would be included in the permit as applicable requirements 
and thus become enforceable conditions (i.e., the landfill monitors the 
treatment system monitoring parameters and maintains them in the 
specified range).

B. What are the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements?

1. Wellhead Monitoring
    The operational standard, corrective action, and corresponding 
recordkeeping and reporting remain for temperature and maintaining 
negative pressure at the wellhead. The EPA is removing the operational 
standards for nitrogen/oxygen levels at wellheads. Thus, the EPA is 
removing the corresponding requirement to take corrective action for 
exceedances of nitrogen/oxygen at wellheads. These adjustments to the 
wellhead monitoring parameters apply to all landfills. Although 
landfill owners or operators are not required to take corrective action 
based on exceedances of nitrogen/oxygen levels at wellheads, they are 
required to monitor nitrogen/oxygen levels at wellheads on a monthly 
basis to inform any necessary adjustments to the GCCS and must maintain 
records of all monthly readings. The landfill owner or operator must 
make these records available to the Administrator upon request.
2. Surface Monitoring
    The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement to monitor all 
surface penetrations. Landfills must conduct SEM at all cover 
penetrations and openings within the area of the landfill where waste 
has been placed and a GCCS is required to be in place and operating 
according to the operational standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. 
Specifically, landfill owners or operators must conduct surface 
monitoring on a quarterly basis around the perimeter of the collection 
area and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at no more than 30 
meter intervals, at all cover penetrations, and where visual 
observations may indicate the presence of elevated concentrations of 
LFG, such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover. 
Cover penetrations include wellheads, but do not include items such as 
survey stakes, fencing or litter fencing, flags, signs, trees, and 
utility poles.
3. Corrective Action
    The owner or operator must measure the LFG temperature at the 
wellhead and gauge pressure in the gas collection header applied to 
each individual well on a monthly basis. If there is an exceedance 
(i.e., LFG temperature of 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees Fahrenheit) 
or positive pressure), the owner or operator must initiate corrective 
action within 5 days. If the temperature exceedance or positive 
pressure cannot be resolved within 15 days, then the owner or operator 
must determine the appropriate corrective action by conducting a root 
cause analysis and correct the exceedance as soon as practicable, but 
no later than 60 days after the first measurement of the temperature 
exceedance or positive pressure. For corrective action that takes 
longer than 60 days to fully implement, the owner or operator must also 
conduct a corrective action analysis and develop an implementation 
schedule for the corrective action that does not exceed 120 days. The 
owner or operator must also notify the Administrator of any corrective 
action exceeding 60 days within 75 days and also include a description 
of the root cause analysis, corrective action analysis and 
implementation schedule in the annual report. If corrective action is 
expected to take longer than 120 days after the initial exceedance, the 
owner or operator must submit the corrective action plan and 
corresponding implementation timeline to the Administrator for approval 
within 75 days of the first measurement of positive pressure. Owners or 
operators must keep records of corrective action analyses. Owners or 
operators must include corrective action records in the annual 
compliance report for corrective actions that take more than 60 days to 
implement.
4. Update and Approval of Design Plan
    The EPA is reaffirming some requirements and revising others to 
address design plans. Design plans must continue to be prepared and 
approved by a professional engineer. The landfill owner or operator 
must then notify the Administrator that the plan is completed and 
provide a copy of the

[[Page 59289]]

plan's signature page. The Administrator will now have 90 days to make 
a decision about whether the plan should be submitted for review. If 
the Administrator chooses to review, the approval process continues at 
outlined in this section. However, if the Administrator indicates that 
submission is not required or doesn't respond within 90 days, the 
landfill owner or operator can continue to implement the plan with the 
recognition that they are proceeding at their own risk. In the event 
that the design plan is required to be modified to obtain approval, the 
owner/operator must take any steps necessary to conform any prior 
actions to the approved design plan and any failure to do so could 
result in an enforcement action.
    The EPA is also finalizing two criteria for when an affected source 
must update its design plan and submit it to the Administrator for 
approval. A revised design plan must 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 the one described in the previous design plan. The final rule 
continues to require landfill owners or operators to prepare both an 
initial and revised design plan.
5. Electronic Reporting
    The EPA is requiring owners or operators of existing MSW Landfills 
to submit electronic copies of certain required performance test 
reports, NMOC emission rate reports, annual reports, Tier 4 emission 
rate reports, and wet landfilling practices through the EPA's Central 
Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting 
Interface (CEDRI). Owners or operators are allowed to maintain 
electronic copies of the records in lieu of hardcopies to satisfy 
federal recordkeeping requirements.
    The requirement 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: www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_info.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 
(www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/emissions-inventory-listservs) 
and a notice of availability will be added to the ERT Web site. You are 
encouraged to check the ERT Web site regularly for up-to-date 
information on methods supported by the ERT.
    The EPA believes that the electronic submittal of the reports 
addressed in this rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data 
contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data 
availability, will further assist in the protection of public health 
and the environment and will ultimately result in less burden on the 
regulated community. Electronic reporting can also eliminate paper-
based, manual processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying 
data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors 
and providing data quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, 
air agencies, the EPA and the public.
    The EPA Web site that stores the submitted electronic data, 
WebFIRE, will be easily accessible to everyone and will provide a user-
friendly interface that any stakeholder could access. By making the 
records, data, and reports addressed in this rulemaking readily 
available, the EPA, the regulated community, and the public will 
benefit when the EPA conducts its CAA-required reviews. As a result of 
having reports readily accessible, our ability to carry out 
comprehensive reviews will be increased and achieved within a shorter 
period of time.
    We anticipate fewer or less substantial information collection 
requests (ICRs) in conjunction with prospective CAA-required reviews 
may be needed. Under an electronic reporting system, the EPA would have 
air emissions and performance test data in hand; we would not have to 
collect these data from the regulated industry. The data would provide 
useful information on actual emissions, types of controls in place, 
locations of facilities, and other data that the EPA uses in conducting 
required reviews or future assessments. We expect this to result in a 
decrease in time spent by industry to respond to data collection 
requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain less extensive stack 
testing provisions, as we will already have stack test data 
electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost savings to 
industry. The EPA should also be able to conduct these required reviews 
more quickly. While the regulated community may benefit from a reduced 
burden of ICRs, the general public benefits from the agency's ability 
to provide these required reviews more quickly, resulting in increased 
public health and environmental protection.
    Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and automated 
review of the electronically submitted data. Having reports and 
associated data in electronic format will facilitate review through the 
use of software ``search'' options, as well as the downloading and 
analyzing of data in spreadsheet format. The ability to access and 
review air emission report information electronically will assist air 
agencies to more quickly and accurately determine compliance with the 
applicable regulations, potentially allowing a faster response to 
violations which could minimize harmful air emissions. This benefits 
both air agencies and the general public.
    For a more thorough discussion of electronic reporting required by 
this rule, see the discussion in the proposed NSPS (79 FR 41818) and 
the 2015 proposed Emission Guidelines (80 FR 52127). 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 will save 
industry, air agencies, and the EPA significant time, money, and effort 
while improving the quality of emission inventories and air quality 
regulations and enhancing the public's access to this important 
information.
6. Landfills Recirculating Leachate or Adding Other Liquids
    In the ANPRM and proposed Emission Guidelines, the EPA solicited 
input on whether additional action should be taken to address emissions 
from wet landfills. As discussed in section VI.A.3 of this preamble, 
there were a wide variety of perspectives provided in the public 
comments, and while many commenters supported separate thresholds for 
wet landfills, the EPA did not receive sufficient data to support a 
separate subcategory for landfills adding leachate or other liquids. In 
addition, the EPA has several other pending regulatory actions that 
could affect wet landfills. Accordingly, the EPA believes it is 
appropriate to further assess emissions from wet landfills prior to 
taking additional action. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing electronic 
reporting of additional data elements, as discussed in Section V.A.3 of 
this preamble, to inform potential action on wet landfills in the 
future.

C. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions

    The standards in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, apply at all times, 
including periods of startup or shutdown, and periods of malfunction. 
The EPA is reaffirming the work practice standard applicable during SSM 
events wherein

[[Page 59290]]

the landfill owner or operator is required to shut down the gas mover 
system and close all valves in the collection and control system 
potentially contributing to the venting of the gas to the atmosphere 
within 1 hour of the collection or control system not operating. The 
landfill owner or operator must also keep records and submit reports of 
all periods when the collection and control device is not operating.

V. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal

A. Changes to Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

1. Wellhead Monitoring
    Although the EPA is finalizing the proposed removal of wellhead 
operational standards for nitrogen/oxygen, the EPA has decided to 
retain the operational standards for temperature. The temperature 
standards were considered to be an essential indicator for fires, as 
discussed in Section VI.A.1 of this preamble.
2. Corrective Action
    We are revising the procedural requirements for correcting positive 
pressure and temperature by allowing owners or operators 60 days to 
correct exceedances. If the owner or operator cannot achieve negative 
pressure or temperature of 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees Fahrenheit) 
by 60 days after the initial exceedance, owners or operators must 
conduct a root cause analysis to identify the most appropriate 
corrective action, which can include, but is not limited to, expanding 
the GCCS. For corrective action that takes longer than 60 days, owners 
or operators must develop an implementation schedule to complete the 
corrective action as soon as practicable, but no more than 120 days 
following the initial positive pressure or temperature reading. 
Additionally, owners or operators must keep records of the corrective 
action analysis. Owners or operators must submit the corrective action 
and corresponding implementation timeline to the Administrator for 
approval when implementation of the corrective action is expected to 
take longer than 120 days after the initial exceedance.
    This change provides flexibility to owners or operators in 
determining the appropriate remedy, as well as the timeline for 
implementing the remedy.
3. Landfills Recirculating Leachate or Adding Other Liquids
    The EPA is adding additional electronic reporting requirements for 
wet areas of landfills. The additional reporting applies to areas of 
the landfill that have recirculated leachate within the last 10 years 
and to areas where other liquids were added within the last 10 years.
    The EPA is requiring these landfills to annually report quantities 
of liquids added and/or leachate recirculated. The first report will 
contain historical quantities, where those data are available in on-
site records. The EPA is also requiring the landfill to report the 
surface area over which the liquids are added or the leachate is 
recirculated during each reporting year. The EPA is also requiring the 
landfill to report the total waste disposed in the area with 
recirculated leachate or added liquids as well as the annual waste 
acceptance rates in those same areas. As discussed in Section VI.A.3 of 
this preamble, this additional electronic reporting for wet landfills 
will inform potential future action on wet landfills.
4. Portable Gas Analyzers
    We are allowing the use of portable gas composition analyzers in 
conjunction with Method 3A to monitor the oxygen level at a wellhead. A 
portable analyzer may be used to monitor the oxygen level at a wellhead 
provided that it is calibrated and meets all QA/QC requirements 
according to Method 3A. ASTM D6522-11 may be used as an alternative to 
Method 3A for wellhead monitoring as long as all the quality assurance 
is conducted as required by ASTM D6522-11. To use ASTM D6552-11, the 
sample location must be prior to combustion.
    This change allows owners or operators to employ devices that are 
commonly used in practice to measure wellhead parameters. This change 
also eliminates the need for the landfill owner or operator to request 
portable analyzers as an alternative, as well as the need for agency 
review or approval of such requests. In addition to providing reliable 
results when used properly, portable analyzers have a number of 
benefits, including common use, the ability to provide additional 
information on gas composition, and the ability to download data to a 
spreadsheet for easy access and analysis.
5. More Precise Location Data
    The EPA is finalizing a requirement for landfills to report the 
latitude and longitude coordinates of each surface emissions exceedance 
(500 ppm methane or greater), as proposed, except the instrument 
accuracy must be at least 4 meters instead of 3 meters. This change 
will provide a more robust and long-term record of GCCS performance. 
Landfill owners or operators and regulators can use locational data to 
gain perspective on how the LFG collection system is functioning over 
time and owners or operators will be able to track trends in GCCS 
performance and cover practices to ensure a well operating system and 
minimize emissions.

B. Tier 4

    The EPA is finalizing the use of Tier 4 SEM as an alternative way 
of determining when a landfill must install a GCCS; however, in the 
final rule, the final Tier 4 emissions threshold determination can be 
used only at landfills that have modeled NMOC emissions using Tier 1 or 
Tier 2 of greater than or equal to 34 Mg/yr but less than 50 Mg/yr 
because the landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) requires 
landfills that have modeled NMOC emissions of 50 Mg/yr or greater to 
install and operate a GCCS irrespective of surface emissions. If both 
Tier 1 and Tier 2 indicate NMOC emissions of 50 Mg/yr or greater, Tier 
4 cannot be used (a landfill need not model emissions under Tier 3 
before using Tier 4). In order to verify that the landfill is eligible 
for Tier 4, the EPA is finalizing a provision to require landfill 
owners or operators that choose to use Tier 4 to continue to conduct 
Tier 1 and Tier 2 NMOC emission rate calculations and report results in 
the annual report.
    The EPA is also limiting the use of Tier 4 at landfills with a GCCS 
installed. In order for a landfill with an operational GCCS to qualify 
for Tier 4, the GCCS must have operated for at least 75 percent of the 
12 months prior to initiating Tier 4 testing. The EPA is finalizing 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the annual operating hours 
of destruction devices in order to verify that a landfill with a GCCS 
installed and opting for Tier 4 meets the GCCS criteria for having 
operated the system.
    In addition, the EPA is finalizing specific requirements for the 
use of Tier 4 for emission threshold determinations related to wind 
speed. Since accurate measurements can be compromised in even 
moderately windy conditions, the EPA is requiring the owner or operator 
to use a wind barrier, similar to a funnel or other device, to minimize 
surface air turbulence when onsite wind speed exceeds the limits in the 
rule. Thus, when a wind barrier is used, the final rule allows the Tier 
4 surface emissions demonstration to proceed when the average on-site 
wind speed exceeds 4 mph, or gusts exceed 10 mph. Tier 4 measurements 
cannot be conducted if the average wind speed exceeds 25

[[Page 59291]]

mph. Although we are aware of the use of wind barriers in the field, 
the EPA intends to provide additional guidance on their use. In 
addition, the owner or operator must take digital photographs of the 
instrument setup, including the wind barrier. The photographs must be 
time and date-stamped and taken at the first sampling location prior to 
sampling and at the last sampling location after sampling at the end of 
each sampling day, for the duration of the Tier 4 monitoring 
demonstration. The owner or operator must maintain those photographs 
per the recordkeeping requirements. Wind speed must be measured with an 
on-site anemometer with a continuous recorder and data logger for the 
entire duration of the monitoring event. The average wind speed must be 
determined at 5-minute intervals. The gust must be determined at 3-
second intervals. Further, when taking surface measurements, the 
sampling probe must be held no more than 5 centimeters above the 
landfill surface (e.g., using a mechanical device such as a wheel on a 
pole).
    The EPA is also finalizing reporting and recordkeeping requirements 
to ensure that a GCCS is installed in a timely manner and to improve 
the transparency of SEM testing. To ensure that a GCCS is installed in 
a timely manner, the EPA is requiring a GCCS to be installed and 
operated within 30 months of the most recent NMOC emission rate report 
in which the calculated NMOC emission rate equals or exceeds 34 Mg/yr 
according to Tier 2, once there is any measured concentration of 
methane of 500 ppm or greater from the surface of the landfill. To 
improve the transparency of SEM testing, landfill owners or operators 
must notify the delegated authority 30 days prior to conducting Tier 4 
tests and maintain records of all SEM monitoring data and calibrations. 
In addition, landfill owners or operators must take and store digital 
photographs of the instrument setup. The photographs must be time and 
date-stamped and taken at the first sampling location prior to sampling 
and at the last sampling location after sampling at the end of each 
sampling day, for the duration of the Tier 4 monitoring demonstration.

C. Changes To Address Closed or Non-Productive Areas

1. Closed Landfill Subcategory
    The closed landfill subcategory is expanded to include those 
landfills that close on or before September 27, 2017 which is 13 months 
after publication of the final Emission Guidelines. This change gives 
landfills that closed or are planning to close time to complete the 
steps to reach closure.
2. Criteria for Removing or Decommissioning GCCS
    The GCCS can be capped or removed when a landfill owner or operator 
demonstrates that (1) the landfill is closed, (2) the GCCS has operated 
for at least 15 years or the landfill owner or operator can demonstrate 
that the GCCS will be unable to operate for 15 years due to declining 
gas flows, and (3) the calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill is 
less than 34 Mg/yr on three consecutive test dates (50 Mg/yr for the 
closed landfill subcategory). The final rule does not contain a GCCS 
removal criterion based on SEM.

D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions

    In the 2015 Emission Guidelines proposal (80 FR 52103), the EPA 
clarified that standards apply at all times, including periods of SSM. 
The EPA also added requirements to estimate emissions during SSM 
events. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 
2008), the EPA is clarifying that the standards in the Emission 
Guidelines, once implemented through an EPA-approved state plan or a 
promulgated federal plan, apply at all times. In recognition of the 
unique nature of landfill emissions, and consistent with the need for 
standards to apply at all times, including during periods of SSM, the 
EPA is reaffirming a work practice standard that applies during SSM 
events. During such events, owners or operators must shut down the gas 
mover system and close within 1 hour all valves in the collection and 
control system contributing to the potential venting of the gas to the 
atmosphere. The landfill owner or operator must also keep records and 
submit reports of all periods when the collection and control device is 
not operating.

E. Other Corrections and Clarifications

    The use of EPA Method 25A and Method 18 (on a limited basis, e.g., 
specific compounds like methane) are included in the final rule. Method 
25A in conjunction with Method 18 (for methane) or Method 3C can be 
used to determine NMOC for the outlet concentrations less than 50 ppm 
NMOC as carbon.

VI. Rationale for Significant Changes Since Proposal

    After considering public comments and further analyzing the 
available data, the EPA made several changes in this final rule 
relative to what we proposed. A complete list of public comments 
received on the proposed rule and the responses to them can be viewed 
in the document ``Responses to Public Comments on EPA's Standards of 
Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and Emission Guidelines 
and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills: Proposed 
Rules'' (hereafter ``Response to Comments document''), which is 
available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451. This section of the preamble 
summarizes comments and presents responses to those comments for only 
those provisions that have changed since the 2015 proposed Emission 
Guidelines.

A. Changes to Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

1. Wellhead Monitoring
    In the 2014 proposed NSPS, the EPA requested comment on alternative 
wellhead monitoring requirements, including potential exclusion from 
the temperature and nitrogen/oxygen monitoring requirements, or a 
reduction in the frequency of this monitoring. For example, the EPA 
indicated that it could reduce the frequency of wellhead monitoring for 
these three parameters (temperature and nitrogen/oxygen) from monthly 
to a quarterly or semi-annual schedule. The EPA requested comments on 
whether the potential exclusion should apply to a subset of landfills 
or landfill areas based on beneficial use of LFG.
    In the 2015 proposed Emission Guidelines, the EPA proposed to 
remove the operational standards (i.e., the requirement to meet 
operating limits) for temperature and nitrogen/oxygen at the wellheads, 
thus removing the corresponding requirement to take corrective action 
for exceedances of these parameters. This approach was taken to 
eliminate the need for owners or operators to request higher operating 
values (HOVs) for these parameters, submit alternative timelines for 
corrective action, or expand the GCCS to address exceeding these 
wellhead standards. The EPA proposed to maintain the requirement to 
monitor nitrogen/oxygen and temperature on a monthly basis, but to 
remove the requirement to report exceedances from fluctuations or 
variations in these parameters in the annual reports. Instead of annual 
reporting, the EPA proposed that landfill owners or operators maintain 
the records of this monthly monitoring on site to inform any necessary 
adjustments to the GCCS and make these records available to the 
Administrator upon request. The EPA proposed to maintain the 
requirement to

[[Page 59292]]

operate the GCCS at negative pressure and in a manner that collects the 
most LFG and minimizes losses of LFG through the surface of the 
landfill. The EPA also requested comments on whether it should add a 
requirement to monitor wellhead flow rate, or any other wellhead 
monitoring parameters, that would help to ensure a well-operated GCCS 
(80 FR 52138).
    Comment: Several commenters want the EPA to maintain the wellhead 
operational standards, including states, industry consultants, and 
environmental organizations, with one environmental organization 
stating that these wellhead parameters are the only warning signal for 
potential fire hazards. One state stated that the removal of the 
operational standards could lead to some landfill owners or operators 
not operating the GCCS in an effective manner, thus creating a 
potential for increased LFG emissions through the landfill surface.
    Many other commenters supported removing the nitrogen/oxygen and 
temperature operational standards, including industry, some states), 
and the Small Business Association. Several commenters indicated that a 
lack of response to or approval of HOV requests or alternative 
timelines for corrective action, despite appropriate justification, is 
a significant administrative barrier in the current Emission 
Guidelines. These commenters stated that a lack of response to or 
approval of HOVs results in owners or operators having to install new 
wells to correct for temperature or oxygen exceedances even though such 
expansion of the GCCS does not correct the exceedance and may be 
contrary to a well-operated GCCS. One commenter stated that removing 
the operational standards would alleviate one of the most significant 
barriers to installing interim gas collection measures and would 
alleviate the corresponding administrative burden of requesting HOVs. 
Other commenters stated that removing the operational standards would 
not only reduce administrative burden, but would also facilitate early 
installation of GCCS and the use of appropriate best management 
practices to maximize gas collection. Two commenters from state 
agencies agreed with removing the operational standards, and agreed 
with retaining monthly monitoring of temperature and nitrogen/oxygen 
and retaining the corresponding monitoring data.
    Several commenters suggested that certain monitoring data should be 
reported on a semi-annual basis so that agencies can identify or 
prevent fires. For example, state agency commenters suggested that the 
EPA require semi-annual reporting of wellhead readings above 5 percent 
oxygen and 130 degrees Fahrenheit, which was supported by supplemental 
comments received from the industry and industry trade organizations. 
One commenter also suggested reporting of any subsurface fire. One 
regional agency wanted the results to be reported if temperature 
exceeds 150[emsp14][deg]F and also suggested reporting any methane to 
carbon dioxide ratio less than 1.
    Commenters that supported removal of the operational standards for 
temperature and nitrogen/oxygen also contended that the nitrogen/oxygen 
and temperature wellheads parameters are poor indicators of landfill 
fires or inhibited decomposition and that landfill owners or operators 
already have their own incentive to prevent landfill fires. Commenters 
added that expanding the LFG collection system by drilling new wells 
may introduce more air into the landfill, which can exacerbate a fire 
and actually increase oxygen content. Commenters (0451-0178, 0451-0167, 
0215-0191, 0215-0121) that favored retaining the operational standards 
for temperature and nitrogen/oxygen contend that temperature and 
nitrogen/oxygen data are essential to inform regulators of the presence 
of the potential for a landfill fire.
    Response: After carefully considering public comments and available 
data, the EPA is removing the operational standards (i.e., the 
requirement to meet operating limits) for nitrogen/oxygen, but not 
temperature. Landfill owners or operators must continue to monitor 
nitrogen/oxygen on a monthly basis, however, to ensure that the GCCS is 
well maintained and operated, collects the most LFG, and minimizes 
losses of LFG through the surface of the landfill. Landfill owners or 
operators must maintain records of this monthly monitoring and make 
these records available to the Administrator upon request. The EPA is 
requiring monthly monitoring and recordkeeping for these wellhead 
monitoring parameters (i.e., oxygen, nitrogen, temperature, and 
pressure), since these are key indicators that are already being 
monitored by landfill owner or operators to determine how well the 
landfill is being operated, including the capturing and destroying 
landfill gas, promoting efficient anaerobic decomposition and/or 
preventing landfill fires.
    Because of concerns regarding fire hazards, the EPA is retaining 
the operational standard for temperature. Landfill owners or operators 
must electronically submit, as part of their annual report, all 
readings that show LFG temperatures greater than 55 degrees Celsius 
(131 degrees Fahrenheit), and document the root cause and corrective 
action taken to correct for this exceedance, as discussed in section 
VI.A.2 of this preamble. While several commenters supported removing 
the temperature parameter, other commenters were concerned with fire 
risks if the parameter was removed. In addition, given the EPA 
experience with consent decrees and other enforcement actions involving 
elevated temperature values, the EPA has decided to retain temperature 
as an operating standard in the final rule. This overall approach will 
reduce the number of requests for higher operating values and 
alternative timeliness for nitrogen/oxygen parameters. In addition, 
note that regulatory agencies can request data records of oxygen, 
nitrogen, or temperature monitoring, as measured on a monthly basis, at 
any time.
    Landfills are subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart A. These 
provisions require landfill owners or operators, to the extent 
practicable, to 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. Due to 
the extreme environmental consequences of a subsurface landfill fire, 
these provisions obligate landfill owners or operators to take all 
practical steps necessary to avoid landfill fires. While this action 
removes requirements to meet operational standards for nitrogen/oxygen 
at wellheads and to make corrective actions, landfill owners or 
operators must continue all due diligence to ensure that the GCCS is 
not overdrawn, thereby creating a flammable subsurface environment.
    Because the corrective action requirements for certain parameters 
have been retained, the EPA is reaffirming its provisions for HOVs. The 
HOV provisions were originally enacted to address variations in 
temperature between landfills and between wells. With a sufficient 
demonstration (i.e., supporting data showing the elevated parameter 
does not cause fires or significantly inhibit anaerobic decomposition 
by killing methanogens), an HOV may be established for temperature, 
nitrogen, or oxygen at a particular well. The EPA encourages regulatory 
authorities review requests for HOVs in a timely manner and to make use 
of these mechanisms where

[[Page 59293]]

appropriate.\42\ States may also consider HOVs when developing state 
plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The EPA asserts the importance of case specific HOV 
requests and approvals. However, to address concerns from HOV 
request reviewers and those submitting requests, an example of 
regulatory guidance for HOV demonstrations can be found at http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/34/document/guidance/gd_1002.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Corrective Action
    In a 1998 Federal Register notice (63 FR 32748, June 16, 1998), the 
EPA amended the wellhead monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW, to allow an alternative timeline for correcting wellhead 
exceedances to be submitted to the Administrator for approval. The rule 
change made the wellhead monitoring provisions consistent with the SEM 
provisions, which allow an alternative remedy and corresponding 
timeline for correcting an exceedance to be submitted to the 
Administrator for approval. The EPA noted in the 1998 preamble that any 
timeline extending more than 120 days must be approved by the 
regulating agency. Since 1998, questions have been raised about the 
timing of correcting wellhead exceedances and whether a landfill needs 
agency approval for corrective action timelines that exceed 15 calendar 
days but are less than the 120 days allowed for expanding the GCCS.
    In the 2015 Emission Guidelines proposal, the EPA clarified its 
intent and outlined a corresponding timeline for correcting positive 
pressure at a wellhead. The EPA proposed that a landfill must submit an 
alternative corrective action timeline request to the Administrator for 
approval 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 system within 120 days of the initial exceedance. The EPA 
explained in the preamble that it did not specify a schedule in the 
proposed rule language by when a landfill would need to submit 
alternative timeline requests because the EPA determined that 
investigating and determining the appropriate corrective action, as 
well as the schedule for implementing corrective action, would be site 
specific and depend on the reason for the exceedance (80 FR 52126). In 
addition, the EPA requested comment (80 FR 52126) on an alternative 
timeline 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. In the 2014 ANPRM, the EPA had requested 
comment on the same approach, as well as whether 60 days is the 
appropriate time to make necessary repairs.
    Comment: The EPA received comments on the proposed changes, 
including the time allowed for corrective action and for submitting 
alternative timeline requests for approval by the Administrator. 
Regarding the timeframe for submitting a request, several state 
agencies recommended extending the 15-day timeline for a request to be 
submitted and indicated that 15 days is not sufficient time to evaluate 
the problem and plan for corrective action, which may often involve 
construction activities. There were varied opinions from the state 
agencies on what length of time beyond 15 days is appropriate. Two 
agencies supported an extension to as soon as practicable but no later 
than 60 days, other agencies specified that the request should be 
submitted within 30 days from the initial exceedance.
    Industry representatives from private and publicly owned landfills 
as well as waste industry consultants opposed the requirement to submit 
a request for an alternative corrective action timeline within 15 days. 
The commenters were concerned that 15 days is not enough time to assess 
the appropriate solution across miles of interconnected piping. In 
addition, the commenters were concerned that a 15-day time period would 
increase the paperwork for both the landfill and the reviewing 
regulatory agency. One commenter indicated that while many repairs can 
be completed within 60 days, some repairs, especially in cold weather 
climates, may take longer. One industry commenter suggested that a 
timeframe of 90 days to complete any adjustments or repairs is 
appropriate. If the corrections could not be made within 90 days, the 
commenter stated that the landfill would be prepared to have the system 
expanded within 120 days.
    Industry commenters raised the issue that the timeline for 
corrective action for surface exceedances in the current subpart WWW 
regulations, 40 CFR 60.755(c)(4)(v), allows 120 days to install a new 
well or other collection device or submit an alternative timeline for 
another corrective action. These commenters also indicated that the 
1998 NSPS amendments modified the corrective action for wellhead 
parameter exceedances to be consistent with the timeframe allowed for 
correcting surface exceedances (63 FR 32748, June 16, 1998). The 
commenters also noted that the 1998 amendments recognized that 
installation of a new well may not always be the appropriate corrective 
action for remedying a wellhead exceedance.
    Despite the 1998 rule amendments, several of these industry 
commenters note that interpretation and implementation of the 1998 
amendments to 40 CFR 60.755(a)(3) have been inconsistent, with some 
agencies only requiring the landfill owner or operator to submit 
requests if the corrective action will take longer than 120 days. Other 
states have taken the position that any exceedances that cannot be 
resolved within 15 days must automatically result in a requirement to 
expand the GCCS. One commenter referenced determinations that required 
landfills to submit an alternative timeline request within 15 days. One 
commenter indicated that the original rule never anticipated 
notification and a request for an alternative compliance timeline 
within 15 days, while another commenter indicated that the state of 
Texas requires landfills to submit alternative timelines only if the 
corrective action requires more than 120 days to complete.
    In consideration of the 1998 final rule notice, industry commenters 
recommended that EPA require landfill owners or operators to submit an 
alternative timeline request for approval as soon as practicable and 
only in circumstances in which a system expansion or alternative 
corrective action will require more than 120 days to complete. One of 
the commenters (Republic 0451-0176) suggested that this approach was 
consistent with the Petroleum Refineries NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart 
Ja). The commenter noted that while the Landfills NSPS requires special 
approval to avoid the default corrective action of expanding the GCCS, 
the Refineries NSPS requires a root cause analysis to identify the 
appropriate corrective action, without specifying a default approach. 
The Refineries NSPS requires a root cause analysis and a corrective 
action analysis for exceedances and requires the facility to implement 
the corrective action within 45 days. If the corrective action cannot 
be completed in 45 days, the refinery must document and record all 
corrective actions completed to date. For actions not fully completed 
by day 45, they must develop an implementation schedule, as soon as 
practicable, for beginning and completing all corrective action.
    One commenter provided some ideas for landfills to demonstrate good 
faith effort to comply with the 120-day corrective action schedule. 
They suggested the rules clarify that the landfill owner or operator is 
required to submit a notification to the agency that

[[Page 59294]]

identifies and describes the diagnosis performed, the results of the 
diagnosis, identifies the corrective measure or alternative remedy to 
be implemented and reason(s) why system expansion is not appropriate to 
correct the exceedance. Under such an approach, corrective measures 
other than expansion that take 0-60 days to complete from the initial 
exceedance would not require any notification or approval but they 
would be documented in the annual compliance report. For corrective 
actions other than expansion that take longer than 60 days but less 
than 120 days to complete, the landfill owner or operator would notify 
the regulatory agency by day 75 from the date of the initial 
exceedance. This would allow 45 days for the agency to review and 
comment, and such notification would not require agency approval so as 
not to delay the site from proceeding with and completing the 
corrective action, as long as the corrective actions are completed 
within the 120-day timeframe.
    Industry commenters indicated that the timeline for corrective 
action is affected by other regulations. Two of these commenters noted 
that any corrective action that involves disturbing the final landfill 
cover could delay diagnosing the problem. All of these commenters also 
noted that a 60-day timeframe is problematic for landfills affected by 
the Asbestos NESHAP (40 CFR part 61, subpart M), which requires a 45-
day notification prior to disturbing areas that may have asbestos 
containing material.
    Response: The EPA is retaining the corrective action requirements 
for temperature in addition to negative pressure. The EPA recognizes 
the importance of temperature as a critical indicator of landfill fires 
and its effect on methanogens. Further removal of the corrective action 
requirements for temperature could have the unintended consequence of 
improper operation of a GCCS which could lead to a subsurface fire. Due 
to the importance of this parameter, e-reporting requirements for 
excessive temperature have also been established to better assess 
landfill fires.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The need to rely on temperature in addition to pressure is 
also illustrated in the report titled Subsurface Heating Events at 
Solid Waste and Construction and Demolition Debris Landfills: Best 
Management Practices at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/Portals/34/document/guidance/gd_1009.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After carefully considering the comments received and evaluating 
the available data, the EPA is finalizing corrective action 
requirements that generally give owners or operators 60 days to 
investigate and determine the appropriate corrective action and then 
implement that action. The EPA has retained the requirements for 
temperature and positive pressure, in that if positive pressure or 
temperature exceedances exist, action must be initiated to correct the 
exceedances within 5 calendar days. This requirement has been retained 
to ensure the landfill takes prompt action to ensure the GCCS remains 
well-operated. The EPA recognizes, however, that the appropriate 
corrective action, as well as a schedule to implement it, is site-
specific and depends on the reason for the exceedance. Therefore, for 
corrective action that takes longer than 60 days after the initial 
exceedance to implement, the EPA is providing flexibility for the 
landfill to determine the appropriate course of action based on a root 
cause analysis. Specifically, if the owner or operator cannot achieve 
negative pressure or temperature of 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees 
Fahrenheit) at the GCCS wellhead within 15 days, then the owner or 
operator must conduct a root cause analysis and correct the exceedance 
as soon as practicable, but no later than 60 days after positive 
pressure or temperature of 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees Fahrenheit) 
was first measured. An implementation schedule is required for 
exceedances that will take longer than 60 days to correct. A root cause 
analysis is an assessment conducted through a process of investigation 
to determine the primary cause, and any other contributing cause(s), of 
positive pressure at a wellhead or temperature above 55 degrees Celsius 
(131 degrees Fahrenheit). The root cause analysis and documentation of 
the corrective action taken to restore negative pressure or temperature 
of 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees Fahrenheit) must be kept on site as 
a record, but they do not have to be submitted or approved.
    If negative pressure or temperature of 55 degrees Celsius (131 
degrees Fahrenheit) cannot be achieved within 60 days, then the owner 
or operator must develop an implementation schedule to complete the 
corrective action(s) as soon as practicable, but no more than 120 days 
following the positive pressure or temperature reading. The owner or 
operator must also notify the Administrator within 75 days. The 
implementation schedule, root cause analysis, and documentation of the 
corrective action taken to restore negative pressure or temperature of 
55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees Fahrenheit) must be submitted in the 
facility's next annual report, but these items do not have to be 
approved.
    If the exceedance cannot be corrected (or is not expected to be 
corrected) within 120 days, then the owner or operator must submit the 
root cause analysis, plan for corrective action to restore negative 
pressure or temperature of 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees Fahrenheit), 
and the corresponding implementation timeline to the Administrator. The 
Administrator must approve the plan for corrective action and the 
corresponding timeline. The owner or operator must submit the proposed 
corrective action and timeline to the Administrator for approval as 
soon as practicable but no later than 75 days after the initial 
exceedance. Requiring approval by the Administrator for corrective 
action timelines that extend beyond 120 days is consistent with the 
corrective action timeline for surface emissions in 40 CFR 
60.36f(c)(4)(v). This approach also prevents the landfill owner or 
operator from delaying submittals for corrective action requests until 
day 120. Once the negative pressure has been restored, the facility 
must document the corrective actions taken in the facility's next 
annual report.
    For corrective action required to address positive pressure or 
temperature, the owner or operator must keep a record of the root cause 
analysis conducted, including a description of the recommended 
corrective action(s); the date for corrective action(s) already 
completed following the positive pressure reading and; and for 
action(s) not already completed within 60 days of the initial positive 
pressure reading, a schedule for implementation, including proposed 
commencement and completion dates. For corrective actions taking longer 
than 60 days to correct the exceedance, the owner or operator would 
also include in the annual report the root cause analysis, recommended 
corrective action(s), date corrective actions were completed, and 
schedule for implementing corrective actions. The owner or operator 
must also notify the Administrator within 75 days. For corrective 
actions taking longer than 120 days to correct the exceedance, the 
owner or operator would include, in a separate notification submitted 
to the Administrator for approval as soon as practicable, but no later 
than 75 days after the initial positive pressure or elevated 
temperature reading, the root cause analysis, recommended corrective 
action(s), date corrective actions taken to date were completed, and 
proposed schedule for implementing corrective actions.

[[Page 59295]]

3. Landfills Recirculating Leachate or Adding Other Liquids
    In the ANPRM and proposed Emission Guidelines, the EPA solicited 
input on whether additional action should be taken to address emissions 
from wet landfills (i.e., landfills that recirculate leachate or add 
liquids). Commenters differed on whether the EPA should require 
separate thresholds or different lag times for landfills that 
recirculate leachate or add liquids. (The 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.)
    Comments: Commenters supported more environmentally protective 
requirements for wet landfills and asserted that wet landfills produce 
more methane but actually collect less. Commenters said that the EPA 
should shorten the lag time for installing controls for these 
landfills. Other commenters opposed separate requirements for wet 
landfills and contended that additional requirements for wet landfills 
would achieve minimal emission reductions and would result in a 
significant additional burden for landfills that recirculate leachate. 
One commenter said that the EPA should focus on potential emission 
reductions at landfills that recirculate leachate.
    Commenters also differed on what methane generation rate (k-value) 
should be used in the landfill Emission Guidelines for wet landfills. 
One commenter indicated that they have previously provided several 
studies on k-values for wet landfills to EPA and urged the EPA to 
update the emission factors for wet landfills based on this literature 
prior to adjusting the control requirements at landfills recirculating 
leachate or adding other liquids. Another commenter asked the EPA to 
use higher, more representative k-values, or perhaps a sensitivity 
analysis for a range of k-values to estimate the impacts of controlling 
emissions from wet landfills in the landfills Emission Guidelines.
    Response: Based on the diverse nature of the feedback provided and 
several other outstanding EPA actions affecting the control 
requirements and emission factors for wet landfills, the EPA is not 
creating separate emission threshold or lag time requirements for wet 
landfills in this action. Instead, the EPA believes it is appropriate 
to further assess emissions from wet landfills prior to taking 
additional action on control requirements or changes to the k-values. 
As a result, the EPA is finalizing additional electronic reporting 
requirements for wet landfills with a design capacity of 2.5 million Mg 
or greater to inform potential future action on wet landfills. The 
final rule is limiting reporting of these additional data to wet 
landfills that meet the current size threshold of 2.5 million Mg of 
design capacity to be consistent with the universe of landfills that 
are affected by the rule.
    Specifically, the final Emission Guidelines require annual 
electronic reporting of the volume of leachate recirculated (gallons 
per year) and the volume of other liquids added (gallons per year), as 
well as the surface area over which the leachate is recirculated (or 
sprayed), and the surface area (acres) over which any liquids are 
applied. The quantity of leachate recirculated or liquids added should 
be based on company records or engineering estimates. The initial 
report will collect historical data for the 10 years preceding the 
initial annual reporting year, to the extent the data are available in 
on-site records, along with data corresponding to the initial reporting 
year. After the initial report, the other annual electronic reports 
will include only the quantities of leachate recirculated and/or added 
liquid and their corresponding surface areas for each the subsequent 
reporting year. The EPA believes many landfills, especially those 
operating with a Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D) 
permit, already keep records and may submit reports containing 
quantities of liquids added. So, the effort to track these additional 
data is expected to be minimal. RD&D permits are issued through 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle D, part 258 
regulations for MSW landfills. The EPA is also aware of some state 
rules that require reporting of leachate or added liquids outside of 
the Clean Air Act reporting requirements. Consolidating these data in 
an electronic format in a central repository can help inform how 
leachate or added liquids affect LFG generation and collection whether 
air emission standards should be adjusted for wet landfills.
    The EPA is also requiring the landfill to report the total waste 
disposed (Mg) in the area with recirculated leachate and/or added 
liquids, as well as the annual waste acceptance rates (Mg/yr) in those 
same areas. Recognizing that the waste quantities may be tracked at the 
scale house entry to the landfill and not the specific cell where the 
liquids are added, the EPA is allowing the landfill to report data 
based on on-site records or engineering estimates.
    The EPA is exempting landfills in the closed landfill subcategory 
from this wet landfill report recognizing that this information would 
be difficult to obtain from this subcategory of landfills, these 
landfills are unlikely to still be adding liquids if closed, and also 
because the gas generation from these landfills is on the downward side 
of their gas generation curve. In addition, for similar reasons the EPA 
is allowing owners or operators of landfills to discontinue annual 
reporting of the wet landfill report after the landfill has submitted 
its closure report.
    The EPA is also aware of annual LFG collected and annual LFG 
generation data electronically reported to 40 CFR part 98, subpart HH, 
of the GHGRP and therefore the EPA is not requesting reporting of these 
data in this rule to avoid duplicative requests. However, the EPA may 
link the wet landfill practices data collected under the landfills NSPS 
with the annual gas collected data under subpart HH in order to inform 
how liquids addition affects LFG emissions. Similarly, the EPA 
understands that precipitation may affect gas generation. However, 
since precipitation data are readily available through the National 
Weather Service, the EPA is not requiring reporting of this parameter. 
Instead, the EPA will use existing electronic data already available to 
link up with data collected under this final rule. These additional 
data will be used to assess the appropriateness of potential future 
action on wet areas of landfills.
    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires each federal agency to 
obtain OMB approval before undertaking a collection of information 
directed to 10 or more people. The PRA applies whether a ``collection 
of information is mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain 
a benefit.'' The EPA believes the additional data on wet landfills will 
be beneficial for evaluating whether separate thresholds for wet 
landfills are appropriate when revising future MSW landfill standards. 
Because the EPA understands that many of the data elements in the wet 
landfill report, including quantities of leachate or other liquids 
added and the surface areas over which those liquids are added are 
tracked at a state level as part of a leachate management or RDD 
permit, the EPA does not anticipate these data. Additionally, the EPA 
is allowing landfill owners or operators to report the data elements in 
the wet landfill monitoring report using either engineering estimates 
or on-site records to minimize the burden on respondents, depending on 
the types of records the landfill owner/operator may keep.
    This is a new rule and a new collections submitted to OMB under

[[Page 59296]]

EPA ICR number 2522.02. This collection is similar to collections for 
subpart Cc. Thus, many of the line item burden estimates in this ICR 
estimate are the same as the burdens submitted to OMB under ICR number 
1893.06 for the most recent ICR renewal for subpart Cc.
4. Portable Gas Analyzers
    Commenters on the proposed NSPS (79 FR 41796) 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 are 
calibrated according to the manufacturer's specifications. Currently, 
approvals of these analyzers are done on a case-by-case basis. 
Therefore, in the preamble for the proposed revisions of the Emission 
Guidelines (80 FR 52141), the EPA requested data or information on 
using a portable gas composition analyzer according to Method 3A for 
wellhead monitoring. The EPA also requested data on other reference 
methods used for calibrating these analyzers.
    Comment: Many commenters supported the use of portable gas 
composition analyzers and requested that the EPA specify that these 
analyzers may be used as an approved alternative monitoring method for 
well monitoring. Three state agencies indicated the use of the portable 
analyzers is common practice. One of these agencies stated that Method 
3A and Method 3C are designed to be used in ``quasi-CEMS'' and/or 
``laboratory benchtop'' situations and most landfill operators are not 
using this type of equipment to test wellhead LFG; instead, landfill 
operators are using handheld-size portable analyzers. Another state 
agency stated that portable gas composition analyzers (e.g., Landtec 
GEM 2000) are a standard for conducting MSW landfill well monitoring 
and the analyzers provide additional information on gas composition 
than what the current Emission Guidelines require, which provides 
operators with a better understanding of the condition of the landfill. 
This commenter said that a primary advantage of portable gas 
composition analyzers, for both landfills and regulators, is that these 
devices take and record the monitored readings (as well as other 
information on gas composition that is not required to be monitored in 
the Emission Guidelines), which can then be downloaded into a 
spreadsheet and prevent landfills from making data collection mistakes. 
The commenter suggested that the EPA and state air pollution control 
agencies would benefit if the EPA were to require landfills to submit, 
in their semi-annual reports, all of the monitoring data recorded by 
portable gas composition analyzers.
    One commenter stated that most portable gas composition analyzers 
can be used to measure the oxygen level at the wellhead and can be 
calibrated according to Method 3A, but are unlikely to be calibrated 
according to Method 3C (to measure oxygen or nitrogen levels) because 
such calibration requires the use of gas chromatograph equipment with a 
thermal conductivity detector and integrator. The commenter said that 
Method 3A is straightforward and does not specify a particular 
technology. Several commenters specifically referenced the comments 
from an equipment manufacturer that provided specific details on how 
its Landtec GEM Series portable analyzers are able to comply with each 
specific requirement in Method 3A, including the calibration 
requirements. Two of these commenters said that portable gas 
composition analyzers should be allowed in both the Emissions 
Guidelines and NSPS. Another of these commenters requested that the EPA 
add language to the rule to recognize that balance gas is commonly used 
as a surrogate for nitrogen.
    With regard to the EPA's request for data on other reference 
methods used for calibrating portable gas composition analyzers, one 
commenter suggested that the EPA allow ASTM D6522 as an alternative to 
Method 3A because an analyzer can easily be calibrated for oxygen alone 
following ASTM D6522. The commenter stated that although the QA/QC 
procedures in ASTM D6522 are different from Method 3A, they are just as 
rigorous as Method 3A. The commenter stated that it has extensive data 
available showing portable gas composition analyzers are routinely 
calibrated according to ASTM Method D6522 for measuring NOx, CO, and 
oxygen during engine testing. This commenter also stated that any 
analyzer or device must be calibrated according to an EPA approved 
method and not just manufacturer's specifications.
    Response: The EPA appreciates the commenters providing information 
regarding the use of portable gas composition analyzers for landfill 
monitoring. Commenters provided data showing that their portable gas 
composition analyzers are used to monitor the oxygen level at a 
wellhead and are capable of meeting the calibration requirements in 
Method 3A. Therefore, in this action, we are clarifying the use of 
portable gas composition analyzers with Method 3A. A portable gas 
composition analyzer may be used to monitor the oxygen level at a 
wellhead provided that the analyzer is calibrated and meets all QA/QC 
according to Method 3A. Although we did not receive enough information 
regarding calibration methods that could be used on a portable gas 
composition analyzer to monitor the nitrogen level at a wellhead, any 
portable combustion monitor analyzer that uses gas chromatography and 
thermal conductivity technology may be used with Method 3C. Other 
technologies for the measurement of nitrogen may be used in lieu of 
Method 3C through the administrative alternative test method process 
outlined in 40 CFR 60.8(b)(2).
    Regarding the suggestion to allow ASTM D6522-11 as an alternative 
to Method 3A, the EPA thanks the commenter for their perspective. As 
long as all the quality assurance is conducted as required by ASTM 
D6522-11, then ASTM D6522-11 may be used as an alternative to Method 3A 
for wellhead monitoring (prior to combustion). Examples of quality 
assurance required by ASTM D6522-11 include, but are not limited to: 
analyzers must have a linearity check, interference check, bias check 
using mid-level gases, stability check, and be calibrated before a 
test; and a calibration error check and the interference verification 
must be conducted after the testing has occurred. Due to a different 
sample matrix typically found in post-combustion gas streams as stated 
in the applicability of ASTM D6522-11, the interference check must be 
done on the oxygen measurement with the appropriate gases (e.g., carbon 
dioxide, VOC mixture, and methane) and concentration ranges. The ASTM 
D6522-11 method also has calibrations before and calibration checks 
after testing. According to Methods 3A, 3C, and ASTM D6522-11, the data 
are valid only when they pass the bias check or zero and upscale 
calibration error check. The EPA does not believe manufacturers' 
specifications are rigorous enough to ensure data are of a proper 
quality.
5. More Precise Location Data
    The EPA proposed more specific requirements for reporting the 
locations where measured methane surface emissions are 500 ppm above 
background (80 FR 52124). Specifically, the EPA proposed to require 
landfills to report the latitude and longitude coordinates of each SEM 
exceedance using an instrument with an accuracy of at least 3 meters. 
This includes surface methane readings above 500 ppm for landfills 
conducting quarterly SEM with

[[Page 59297]]

GCCS in place, as well as landfills that are conducting Tier 4 SEM to 
determine the timing of GCCS installation.
    Comments: Several commenters supported and several commenters 
opposed the EPA's proposed requirement to report the latitude and 
longitude coordinates of each methane surface emissions exceedance 
using an instrument with an accuracy of at least 3 meters.
    Of those commenters that supported the requirement, one said that 
making global positioning system (GPS) coordinates of each exceedance 
available would assist owners or operators in determining the location 
and timing of exceedances relative to the GCCS components and would 
also assist in inspections and enforcement. This commenter added that 
these requirements provided important compliance monitoring assurances 
as well as important information to landfill owners or operators 
regarding their GCCS effectiveness. Other supportive commenters argued 
that all SEM data and GPS coordinates should be recorded, no matter 
whether there is an exceedance. One of these commenters, a state 
agency, said that the NSPS and Emission Guidelines have historically 
required retention of only exceedance data, but GPS data correlated 
with SEM readings would be an invaluable addition to the monitoring 
procedure. Another commenter said recording all SEM data (rather than 
only exceedances) was necessary to show compliance with the monitoring 
requirement; and by linking the methane readings with positioning data, 
the time required to process the data would be reduced. Commenters said 
that by correlating the SEM readings directly with the location of the 
reading, facilities and their regulators could easily gain a clear 
picture of how the LFG collection system was functioning and anticipate 
problems before they arose by tracking trends in the data.
    Of the commenters that opposed the requirement that owners or 
operators of landfills report the latitude and longitude coordinates of 
each exceedance using an instrument with an accuracy of at least 3 
meters, one said it was unclear why coordinate information must be 
reported, given that it merely adds burden for sites to collect and 
report as well as for agencies to review. Two of these commenters 
argued that the added expense to purchase an instrument (i.e., a GPS 
device), use that GPS device in the field, and then plot the GPS data 
on a map, may provide no additional value to the operator compared to 
marking exceedances with marker flags. One of these commenters stated 
that 3 meters is too much of an error range such that the use of GPS 
alone may not allow the operator to return to the exact spot of the 
exceedance, and may still necessitate the use of a marker flag. Another 
of these commenters added that the existing approach of marking 
exceedances at their exact physical location with a marker flag is 
actually more accurate because it does not rely on a technology with 
accuracy limitations.
    Some of the commenters that oppose the requirement said that it is 
unclear from the docket materials (e.g., the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis) whether the EPA evaluated: (1) If GPS equipment can achieve 
an accuracy of at least 3 meters; (2) the cost to purchase or rent GPS 
equipment; and/or (3) the size and weight of the GPS equipment with 
regard to requiring a technician to carry another field monitoring 
instrument. One of these commenters added that because GPS equipment is 
not typically integrated into other monitoring devices, monitoring 
technicians will be required to carry the GPS equipment in addition to 
the monitoring equipment, which could be difficult and present a safety 
concern.
    Response: The EPA is finalizing a requirement for landfills to 
report the latitude and longitude coordinates of each surface emissions 
exceedance, as proposed, except the instrument accuracy must be at 
least 4 meters instead of 3 meters. GPS technology is readily available 
and is currently in use at landfills in California and other landfills 
employing electronic LFG data management systems. These GPS devices 
have the ability to identify latitude and longitude coordinates in 
decimal degrees with at least five decimal places. This level of 
accuracy and precision is consistent with the requirements in Petroleum 
Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance 
Standards (80 FR 75250). The EPA is aware of one device that is already 
in use by some landfills in California to conduct surface emissions 
monitoring and to create a more comprehensive understanding of the 
GCCS. The instrument, containing a flame ionization detector (FID), is 
linked by Bluetooth wireless technology to a GPS-enabled handheld field 
instrument. This instrument has an accuracy of 2-4 meters.
    When reviewing site records on the location of the traversed path 
and where surface emission leaks were identified, inspectors will be 
able to identify areas of the landfill where surface monitoring 
activities may be incomplete, which may assist with targeting 
inspections to problem areas of the landfill. In addition, more precise 
location data will allow the landfill owner or operator to overlay the 
coordinates of surface exceedances against maps of the GCCS to 
determine spatial and temporal patterns of exceedances relative to GCCS 
components. Both the landfill owner or operator and regulators can use 
locational data to gain perspective on how the LFG collection system is 
functioning over time and will allow the landfill to track trends in 
GCCS performance and cover practices.
    Using GPS locational data will provide a more robust and long-term 
record of GCCS performance compared to the short-term practice of 
simply marking an exceedance location with a marker flag. Owners or 
operators may continue the practice of marking exceedances with a flag, 
but GPS data will allow the landfill owner or operator to return 
readily to the location of the exceedance to not only take the required 
corrective action, but also to track and inform long-term performance 
of the GCCS to minimize emissions.
    The EPA included the rental price of a Trimble Integrated Landfill 
Gas Solution device, which combines a FID linked by Bluetooth wireless 
technology to a GPS-enabled handheld field instrument, in the revised 
testing and monitoring cost analysis for both the final Emission 
Guidelines and final NSPS. The GPS location is recorded in real time as 
the technician traverses the path so the labor involved in gathering 
and recording the data with GPS coordinates is expected to be minimal. 
In fact, the recording of each surface reading and the corresponding 
locational data is automatic, in contrast to the older technology, 
which may have involved handwriting an exceedance in a notebook and 
then transposing the data to a computer after returning from the field. 
Eliminating transposing the data could reduce data entry errors and 
improve data accuracy and credibility. The GPS device is already in use 
by landfills that maintain an electronic LFG data management system to 
map long-term trends in GCCS performance. The GPS device weighs 
approximately 21 ounces (including battery weight) and can be clipped 
to a belt or attached to a backpack to allow the technician to complete 
the monitoring safely.

B. Tier 4

    In the 2015 Emission Guidelines proposal, the EPA proposed Tier 4 
as an alternative site-specific emission threshold determination for 
when a landfill must install and operate a GCCS (80 FR 52112). For both 
Tier 4 SEM for

[[Page 59298]]

determining the timing for GCCS installation and SEM to ensure a well 
operated GCCS, the EPA considered limiting SEM during windy conditions. 
Specifically, in the Emission Guidelines, the EPA proposed that SEM 
must be terminated when the average wind speed exceeds 5 mph or the 
instantaneous wind speed exceeds 10 mph. However, the EPA also proposed 
that the Administrator may approve alternatives to this wind speed 
surface monitoring termination for landfills consistently having 
measured winds in excess of these specified limits.
    Comments. The EPA received numerous comments on the Tier 4 
provisions included in the 2015 Emission Guidelines proposal. The 
discussion below includes all comments related to changes since the 
2015 proposal; more detailed comments are available in the Response to 
Comments document. A summary of the initial comments received in 
response to our request for comments for a Tier 4 provision in the 2014 
ANPRM was provided in the preamble to the proposal (80 FR 52112).
    Which landfills should qualify. Some commenters believe that the 
EPA should limit the types of landfills that qualify for Tier 4. One 
commenter 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. One commenter encouraged the EPA to ban Tier 4 
for landfills with a voluntary (non-regulatory) GCCS because it is 
possible that GCCS design, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements could be avoided indefinitely through the use of a non-
regulatory GCCS that may not provide the same level of control as 
required by the EPA landfills regulations. Another commenter thinks 
that Tier 4 could be conducted at landfills with a GCCS installed, but 
that the GCCS should follow typical operational conditions during the 
Tier 4 test. In other words, if portions of the site are typically 
offline due to decreased gas flow, the commenter (0215-0197) thinks 
those portions must remain offline during Tier 4. Further, one 
commenter believes that no means of gas control whatsoever should be 
employed during the Tier 4 exemption.
    Frequency. There were a variety of opinions on how often SEM should 
be conducted for Tier 4. One commenter suggested the SEM should be done 
annually instead of quarterly. Two other commenters were concerned with 
reducing the frequency to semi-annually unless the landfill no longer 
accepted waste. One of these commenters noted that if a landfill has 
already crossed the 34 Mg/yr NMOC threshold and the facility continues 
to receive solid waste, then the expected gas generation will continue 
to increase.
    Windy conditions. 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.
    Commenters claimed that climate conditions across the United States 
are too variable, that monitoring the wind using an anemometer is not 
representative of wind conditions where the surface monitoring is 
required (5-10 cm of surface), and that it is difficult to assemble 
monitoring team and schedule monitoring events if they may be cancelled 
due to wind. One commenter supports the development of a Tier 4 SEM 
methodology that is functional during windy conditions. Other 
commenters support the removal of the wind speed criteria and 
replacement with a requirement that surface monitoring be performed 
during typical meteorological conditions. Lastly, one commenter pointed 
out that the Tier 4 proposal is inconsistent with the ongoing quarterly 
SEM requirements since Tier 4 has wind restrictions and the ongoing 
quarterly SEM does not.
    One commenter noted that EPA recognized wind speed can skew the 
results of SEM. Another commenter did not submit comments specific to 
the wind speed limitations; however, this commenter supported the SEM 
approach in the CA LMR, which does include wind speed restrictions.
    Reporting requirement. Commenters supported the notification 
requirement; however, one commenter believes landfills should not be 
required to reschedule monitoring events based on the availability of 
regulatory authorities. Furthermore, two commenters thought the 
notification requirement was acceptable but with the existing wind 
requirements, coordination with regulators could become even more 
challenging. Another commenter did not support the notification 
requirement because Tier 4 is voluntary.
    Response: After considering public comments and input from small 
entity outreach, the EPA is finalizing Tier 4 SEM procedures for 
determining when a landfill must install a GCCS. Tier 4 provides 
operational flexibility and allows owners or operators of landfills 
that have exceeded the modeled NMOC emission rate threshold to 
demonstrate that site-specific surface methane emissions are below a 
specific threshold. Commenters raised some valid points, however, and 
based on our consideration of that input, we are making some 
adjustments to the final rule.
    In response to public comments concerned with implementation of 
Tier 4 with wind speed restrictions, the EPA is retaining a wind speed 
limitation with allowance of a wind barrier when onsite wind speed 
exceeds the limits in the regulation. The EPA is also providing 
additional clarifications about probe placement (as described in 
sections IV.A.2 and V.B of this preamble) for Tier 4 SEM. In the 
proposed NSPS (80 FR 52136), the EPA acknowledged concerns about the 
accuracy of SEM under windy conditions. The EPA is including the wind 
speed restriction, because air movement can affect whether the monitor 
is accurately reading the methane concentration during surface 
monitoring. Because Tier 4 is an optional emission threshold 
methodology, the EPA believes that wind speed restrictions and the use 
of wind barriers are appropriate to ensure the reliability of the 
results, which in turn determine the timing of GCCS installation. We 
also refined the wind speed criteria to account for gusts up to 10 mph. 
The EPA is not finalizing a variance for wind speed, but is allowing 
the use of a wind barrier. In the proposed NSPS (80 FR 52136), the EPA 
acknowledged concerns about the accuracy of SEM under windy conditions. 
The EPA also expressed concern about whether monitors could accurately 
read methane concentrations or provide representative results. The EPA 
has provided the Tier 4 approach as a flexible alternative to 
traditional modeling based approaches; but still asserts the importance 
of accurate measurements due to the use of the SEM approach to 
determine installation of controls.
    In addition, Tier 4 is allowed only if the landfill owner or 
operator can demonstrate that NMOC emissions are greater than or equal 
to 34 Mg/yr but less than 50 Mg/yr using Tier 1 or Tier 2 (a landfill 
need not model emissions under Tier 3 before using Tier 4). Tier 3 was 
not required because tiers 1 and 2 are more commonly used. If both Tier 
1 and Tier 2 indicate NMOC emissions of 50 Mg/yr or greater, then Tier 
4 cannot be used. This change avoids a

[[Page 59299]]

potential conflict between what is required under the Emission 
Guidelines and what is required by the landfills NESHAP for landfills 
with modeled NMOC emissions greater than 50 Mg/yr. It also ensures that 
landfills with modeled NMOC emissions at 50 Mg/yr or more continue to 
be required to install controls at an NMOC level and on a schedule that 
is at least as stringent as the current NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart 
WWW). To demonstrate that NMOC emissions are less than 50 Mg/yr 
according to Tier 1 and Tier 2, landfill owners or operators will 
continue to calculate the NMOC emission rate and report results 
annually.
    Regarding frequency of monitoring, the EPA is finalizing an 
approach where quarterly SEM is required for Tier 4 indefinitely unless 
the landfill is closed. Closed landfills would be able to reduce the 
frequency of surface emission monitoring to annually after four 
quarters of no surface exceedances. Landfills that are closed are on 
the downside of their gas generation profile.
    Regarding landfills equipped with a non-regulatory GCCS, the EPA is 
allowing the non-regulatory GCCS to be in operation during the Tier 4 
SEM demonstration, but only if the non-regulatory GCCS has operated for 
at least 75 percent of the hours the 12 months leading up to the Tier 4 
SEM demonstration (6,570 hours), as discussed below. The EPA recognizes 
that many landfills have acted early to control their emissions and 
installed a GCCS before surpassing the size and NMOC emission 
thresholds in the landfills regulations in order to recover and utilize 
LFG methane for beneficial use, flare for carbon credits, control 
odors, or meet state-specific regulations that may be more stringent 
than the federal NSPS standards. Thus, during the SEM demonstration, 
the non-regulatory GCCS must continue to operate as it normally would 
to collect and control as much LFG as possible. Although these 
landfills do not operate their GCCS under the landfills NSPS, they 
employ the same technology that would be applied to comply with the 
landfills NSPS. Many of these non-regulatory GCCSs are located at sites 
that are likely to eventually exceed the NSPS size and NMOC emissions 
thresholds and thus if no exceedances are identified during a Tier 4 
SEM, the system is operating at a level consistent with the landfills 
NSPS collection and control requirements and operational standards at a 
point in time earlier than when federal regulations would require. 
These near-term methane reductions from non-regulatory GCCS are 
beneficial to the environment and the goal of achieving short-term 
emission reductions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. In addition, 
landfill owners or operators have incentive to operate the GCCS as 
efficiently as possible to collect and control LFG to avoid surface 
exceedances, as it would reduce paperwork requirements associated with 
the compliance provisions of the landfills NSPS. The non-regulatory 
GCCS would have to be robust to keep readings below 500 ppm methane 
during an SEM demonstration.
    To not allow the Tier 4 demonstration while a non-regulatory GCCS 
is in operation under these circumstances would create a disincentive 
for landfill owners or operators to install control systems voluntarily 
before emissions reach the regulatory threshold for review. The 
requirement to operate the GCCS at least 75 percent of the hours during 
the 12 months leading up to the Tier 4 SEM demonstration (described 
below) will ensure that the non-regulatory GCCS is in regular use and 
thus represents accurate operation of the facility.
    The landfill owner or operator is allowed to operate the non-
regulatory GCCS during the Tier 4 demonstration, but only if the non-
regulatory GCCS has operated for at least 75 percent of the hours 
during the 12 months leading up to the Tier 4 SEM demonstration (6,570 
of 8,760 hours). To demonstrate that the non-regulatory GCCS operated 
at least 75 percent of the hours during the 12 months leading up to the 
Tier 4 SEM demonstration, landfill owners or operators must keep 
records of the total operating hours of the gas collection system as 
measured for each destruction device (i.e., at the flare, engine, or 
other destruction device), as well as the annual operating hours where 
active gas flow was sent to each destruction device. If the non-
regulatory GCCS has not operated at least 75 percent of the hours 
during the 12 months leading up to the Tier 4 SEM demonstration, then 
the landfill is not eligible for Tier 4. The EPA seeks to encourage use 
of voluntary non-regulatory GCCS systems for early gas collection 
before emissions reach the regulatory threshold for review, while still 
allowing landfill owners and operators to use Tier 4 surface emissions 
monitoring approach to determine if a GCCS is required. We believe that 
requiring the operation of the non-regulatory GCCS at least 75 percent 
of the hours during the 12 months leading up to the Tier 4 SEM 
demonstration (described below) will ensure that the non-regulatory 
GCCS is in regular use and thus results would be representative of the 
operation of the landfill.
    Regarding other recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated 
with Tier 4, landfill owners or operators choosing Tier 4 would 
continue to calculate the NMOC emission rate and report results in the 
annual report to demonstrate that NMOC emissions are less than 50 Mg/
yr. Once there is any measured concentration of methane of 500 ppm or 
greater from the surface of the landfill, the EPA is requiring a GCCS 
to be installed and operated within 30 months of the most recent NMOC 
emission rate report in which the calculated NMOC emission rate equals 
or exceeds 34 Mg/yr according to Tier 2. Starting the 30 months from 
the most recent NMOC emission rate report ensures that a GCCS is 
installed in a timely manner. The EPA believes that if a landfill owner 
or operator chooses to use Tier 4 SEM, it is appropriate to require the 
installation and operation of a GCCS when any reading of 500 ppm or 
greater is detected during the quarterly SEM event. Since Tier 4 is 
allowed only if the landfill owner or operator can demonstrate that 
NMOC emissions are greater than or equal to 34 Mg/yr NMOC, but less 
than 50 Mg/yr using Tier 1 or Tier 2, we would expect the methane 
emissions at the landfill to be below the 500 ppm threshold. If an 
exceedance of the threshold is detected, it would be indicative of 
higher emissions than would normally be expected at a landfill.
    The EPA is also finalizing a recordkeeping requirement to take and 
store digital photographs of the instrument setup. The photographs must 
be time and date-stamped and taken at the first sampling location prior 
to sampling and at the last sampling location after sampling at the end 
of each sampling day, for the duration of the Tier 4 monitoring 
demonstration. The EPA believes these records will help provide 
credibility to the Tier 4 sampling results.
    The EPA is also finalizing a requirement to notify delegated 
authorities 30 days prior to the Tier 4 test so that officials can be 
present to observe the SEM. This notification is consistent with other 
notification requirements for stack testing. This notification 
requirement will also mitigate concerns that the SEM is being conducted 
incorrectly and ensure transparency of results achieved during the SEM 
approach. In the event the Tier 4 SEM is postponed due to weather 
conditions or other unforeseen events, the EPA is requiring the owner 
or operator to notify the delegated authority to arrange a rescheduled 
Tier 4 SEM date.

[[Page 59300]]

    Emerging Measurement Technologies. This rulemaking provides certain 
MSW landfill owners or operators the option of using either modeling or 
the Tier 4 SEM approach to determine whether controls are required to 
be installed at specific landfills. Current modeling approaches, which 
rely on the decomposition rate of different waste streams buried in a 
landfill, are prone to uncertainties due to inaccuracies in input data 
and often unverifiable assumptions. Current surface emission 
measurement methodologies can also have associated uncertainties.
    New methane emissions measurement methodologies are emerging that 
are anticipated to provide landfill methane emission rates (mass per 
unit time) over time, thereby reducing significantly the uncertainty 
associated with current modeling and emission measurements approaches. 
Two promising examples of new methane measurement methodologies being 
used by research groups to quantify landfill methane emissions are 
mobile tracer correlation (TC) 44 45 46 47 and discrete area 
source eddy covariance (DASEC).\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Development of a mobile tracer correlation method for 
assessment of air emissions from landfills and other area sources, 
Foster-Wittig, T.A.; Thoma, E.D.; Green, R.B.; Hater, G.R.; Swan, 
N.D.; Chanton, J.P. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 102 (0), 323-330.
    \45\ Quantification of methane emissions from 15 Danish 
landfills using the mobile tracer dispersion method, M[oslash]nster, 
J.; Samuelsson, J.; Kjeldsen, P.; Scheutz, C. Waste Manage. 2015, 35 
(0), 177-186.
    \46\ Methane Emissions Measured at Two California Landfills by 
OTM-10 and an Acetylene Tracer Method, Green, R.B., Hater, G.R., 
Thoma, E.D., DeWees, J., Rella, C.W., Crosson, E.R., Goldsmith, 
C.D., Swan, N., Proceedings of the Global Waste Management 
Symposium, San Antonio, TX, October 3-6, 2010.
    \47\ Development of Mobile Measurement Method Series OTM 33; 
Thoma, E.D.; Brantley, H.L.; Squier, B.; DeWees, J.; Segall, R.; 
Merrill, R.; Proceedings of the Air and Waste Management Conference 
and Exhibition, Raleigh, NC, June 22-25, 2015.
    \48\ Using Eddy Covariance to Quantify Methane Emissions from a 
Dynamic Heterogeneous Area, Xu, L., Lin, X., Amen, J., Welding, K. 
and McDermitt, D. Impact of changes in barometric pressure on 
landfill methane emission. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 2014, 28(7), 
pp. 679-695.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Mobile tracer correlation. This methodology provides a ``snap-
shot in time'' assessment of whole facility methane emissions using on-
site release of atmospheric tracer gases. It provides a total mass 
emission rate of methane (or other gas) per unit of time. An 
instrumented vehicle driving 1 km to 4 km downwind of the landfill 
simultaneously measures the emitted landfill methane plume along with 
the superimposed tracer gas release. The landfill methane emission rate 
is determined through a simple ratio to the known tracer gas release 
rate. The technique has been demonstrated using a variety of tracer 
gases and instruments by a number of groups to investigate emissions 
from landfills and other sources. The mobile tracer correlation 
approach is under development by the EPA as a Category C ``other test 
method (OTM)'' with potential posting in 2017 (https://www3.epa.gov/ttnemc01/prelim.html).
    2. Eddy covariance (EC). This micrometeorological method estimates 
the source emission rate from the vertical wind speed and gas 
concentration above the emitting surface. This technique measures the 
emissions flux in mass of methane (or other gas) per unit area. The 
technique is well-established for measurement of emission fluxes from 
spatially-extended homogenous sources, such as very large, flat fields. 
Discrete area source eddy covariance (DASEC) is an application of EC to 
finite, heterogeneous area sources. This application of EC has been 
recently demonstrated on landfills, although method development 
questions on the effects of topography and variable observational foot 
print remain. DASEC provides the potential for long term (near 
continuous) measurements of discrete sections of a landfill using 
solar-powered on-site instrumentation. Development of this type of long 
term measurement capability is critical to better understand and *track 
changes in landfill emissions overtime that may be caused by both site 
management and atmospheric factors.
    In sum, as noted above, these techniques are still being 
investigated and additional work will be needed before the EPA can deem 
them ready for use in this application. Once additional research is 
completed, we believe that DASEC used in combination with mobile TC 
will provide a characterization of methane landfill emissions with 
significantly reduced uncertainty over current models or measurement 
techniques.

C. Changes To Address Closed or Non-Productive Areas

1. Closed Landfill Subcategory
    In the 2015 Emission Guidelines proposal, the EPA proposed a 
separate subcategory for landfills that closed before August 27, 2015. 
These landfills would be subject to an NMOC emission threshold of 50 
Mg/yr NMOC for determining when controls must be installed or removed, 
rather than the 34 Mg/yr NMOC emission threshold (or corresponding Tier 
4 emission threshold) that would apply to open landfills. In addition, 
the EPA requested comments on extending the subcategory of closed 
landfills to those that close no later than 13 months after publication 
of the final Emission Guidelines in the Federal Register.
    Comment: Commenters generally favored the creation of a closed 
landfill subcategory and believe it was appropriate for closed 
landfills to be categorized separately. One commenter agreed that a 
separate category is appropriate, but only if EPA decides to lower the 
NMOC emission threshold thus ensuring that closed landfills with low 
emissions are not burdened with a requirement to install a GCCS. 
Another commenter suggested that the EPA exempt closed landfills from 
40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, entirely since facilities that no longer 
have income from waste acceptance have financially planned for closure. 
The commenter believes that if these landfills were included in the new 
rule, it would cause financial burden.
    Many commenters, including one state agency, support the expansion 
of the closed landfill subcategory to include those facilities that 
closed no later than 13 months of publication of the Emission 
Guidelines. Commenters believe it is critical that landfills that are 
planning to close are given the necessary time to meet all criteria and 
file required documentation to achieve closed status. Another commenter 
believes the EPA should provide the opportunity for landfills to be 
closed under the Emission Guidelines until the state or federal 
regulations implementing the revised Emission Guidelines are effective 
(i.e., through a revised state or federal plan). This would allow more 
landfills nearing the end of their useful lifetime with little ability 
to change their fees or plan for longer GCCS operation the chance to 
close and remain under current regulations.
    Response: After considering public comments, the EPA is finalizing 
the subcategory for closed landfills and is expanding the subcategory 
to include those landfills that close on or before September 27, 2017. 
Landfills in the closed landfill subcategory continue to be subject to 
a 50 Mg/yr NMOC emission rate threshold for installing a GCCS, 
consistent with the NMOC threshold in 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and 
WWW.
    The EPA recognizes that after landfills stop accepting waste and 
close, LFG flows decline as well as the corresponding ability to 
achieve additional reductions. Many of these closed landfills are 
subject to the emission control requirements in the current Emission 
Guidelines (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc, or corresponding state or 
federal plan) or the current

[[Page 59301]]

NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW) and have achieved significant 
reductions. However, commenters report that declining gas flows make it 
difficult to operate a GCCS according to the landfills regulations and 
many closed landfills must use supplemental fuel to properly operate 
control devices such as flares for example. In addition, many closed 
landfills no longer have income from tipping fees, and have either 
decommissioned their GCCS or are in process of doing so. Thus, the EPA 
recognizes that it could be financially burdensome for landfills that 
are already closed to restart or expand their GCCS. For these reasons, 
the EPA is finalizing the subcategory of closed landfills.
    To give closed landfills or landfills that are planning to close 
more time to complete the steps to reach closure, the EPA is expanding 
the closed landfill subcategory to include those landfills that close 
on or before September 27, 2017. Closed landfills must submit a closure 
report to the Administrator within 30 days of waste acceptance 
cessation. The Administrator may request additional information as may 
be necessary to verify that permanent closure has taken place in 
accordance with the closure requirements under RCRA (40 CFR 258.60). 
Closure criteria include a requirement to prepare a written closure 
plan and to install a final cover system that is designed to minimize 
infiltration and erosion.
    Landfills in the closed landfill subcategory of the Emission 
Guidelines would be exempt from initial reporting requirements in 
subpart Cf, provided that the landfill already met these requirements 
under subparts Cc or WWW of 40 CFR part 60.
    For landfills that are expected to close after September 27, 2017, 
the EPA understands that gas quality will remain a concern and has 
revised the GCCS removal criteria, as discussed in section IV.A.5 of 
this preamble.
2. Criteria for Removing or Decommissioning a GCCS
    The proposed revisions to the Emission Guidelines in 2015 modified 
the criteria that allow a landfill owner or operator to cap or remove 
the GCCS. Specifically, the proposal refined the 15-year criterion by 
allowing a landfill owner or operator to demonstrate that the GCCS will 
be unable to operate for 15 years due to declining gas flows. In 
addition, the EPA tightened the NMOC emissions criterion, requiring the 
controls until the NMOC emissions were below 34 Mg/yr for three 
consecutive quarters to be consistent with the emission threshold for 
installing controls. For closed landfills, the NMOC emissions criterion 
remained at 50 Mg/yr to be consistent with the emission threshold for 
the closed landfill subcategory. Finally, the proposed Emission 
Guidelines added an alternative removal criterion based on site-
specific SEM of methane. This alternative would allow the owner or 
operator to demonstrate for four consecutive quarters that there are no 
surface emissions of 500 ppm or greater from the closed landfill or 
area of an open landfill that is closed. The EPA received numerous 
comments on the revised set of GCCS removal criteria.
    Comment: Commenters did not agree on the proposed alternative to 
allow an SEM demonstration as a criterion for removing a GCCS. 
Commenters in favor of an SEM demonstration for GCCS removal agreed 
with the flexibility that the approach would offer, but commenters that 
opposed the criterion expressed concern about emissions once the GCCS 
was no longer operating.
    Some commenters opposed SEM procedures for determining removal or 
decommissioning of the GCCS. One commenter expressed concerns with 
relying on surface emission testing because the intervals are too far 
apart to detect localized high emissions and low surface emission 
readings during a dormant period could lead to uncontrolled emissions 
at a later period. The commenter (0215-0121) added that even in a 
closed landfill the decay process is not complete and gas collection 
systems should stay in place. Another commenter opposed SEM 
specifically at closed areas of open landfills due to gas migration 
concerns and difficulty in defining these areas.
    Several commenters representing industry and state agency interests 
supported the use of 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 area of 
an open landfill that is closed is no longer producing gas in 
significant quantities could 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 VI.B of this 
preamble.
    Commenters that supported an SEM demonstration for GCCS removal 
presented several options on how to implement the SEM procedure. 
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. Two commenters 
made recommendations on SEM procedures for GCCS removal or 
decommissioning, which included shutting down the GCCS for 30 days 
following a Tier 2 test showing NMOC emissions below the threshold, 
then relying on subsequent SEM demonstrations and corrective action to 
determine whether the GCCS could remain off. Other commenters also 
stated that when considering SEM for removing the GCCS, quarterly SEM 
should be performed at steady state conditions. As LFG generation 
declines, one commenter suggested that some wells may be removed from 
service; however, such wells must not be turned on in order to pass 
quarterly SEM and subsequently turned back off for the remainder of the 
quarter. Another commenter suggested that EPA not rely solely on 
surface emissions when defining a closed landfill in arid areas, but 
instead should consider the gas quality being collected (methane, 
carbon dioxide, negative pressure, or nitrogen/oxygen content) when 
determining when a GCCS can be removed.
    Regarding the 15-year criterion in the 2015 Emission Guidelines, 
several commenters noted that the provision to allow landfills to 
demonstrate the GCCS could not be operated for 15 years due to 
declining flow was vague, and more guidance was needed to provide 
instructions to landfills on how to demonstrate this to regulators.
    Response: After considering public comments, the EPA is finalizing 
criteria for capping, removing, or decommissioning the GCCS that are 
similar to the criteria in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc, but have been 
adjusted to reflect the NMOC emission threshold in the final rule and 
to provide flexibility on the requirement to operate the GCCS for 15 
years. The final criteria are: (1) The landfill is a closed landfill, 
(2) the GCCS has been in operation for 15 years or the landfill owner 
or operator can demonstrate that the GCCS will be unable to operate for 
15 years due to declining gas flows, and (3) three successive tests for 
NMOC emissions are below the NMOC emission threshold of 34 Mg/yr for 
open landfills and below 50 Mg/yr NMOC for closed landfills. The three 
successive tests for NMOC emissions makes the threshold for removing a 
GCCS consistent with the threshold for installing a GCCS. The EPA is 
not finalizing an alternative set of criteria for capping, removing, or 
decommissioning a GCCS that includes a SEM demonstration.
    While a SEM approach has been allowed for installation of controls, 
the

[[Page 59302]]

EPA believes it is not appropriate to allow SEM demonstrations for 
capping, removing, or decommissioning a control system. The EPA 
recognizes the unique emissions profile for landfills including the 
ability of these sources to release emissions for decades. For these 
reasons, the EPA believes it is appropriate to ensure that controls are 
installed and properly maintained for the appropriate period of time. 
The EPA believes sufficient flexibility has been added to the control 
removal approach by allowing a demonstration of the system's inability 
to operate for 15 years due to declining gas flows and a calculation of 
the NMOC emission rate. Further, during the comment period, concerns 
were raised about changes in the waste mass over time and how the SEM 
approach could inadvertently allow landfills whose emissions were in a 
period of dormancy, rather than a decline in their emissions profile, 
to remove controls. Agency enforcement personnel are also aware of 
situations where the installation of additional wells led to additional 
gas capture at sites asserting declining emissions. The EPA understands 
the importance of gas capture from landfills and believes the SEM 
approach for control removal may have the unintended consequence of 
allowing controls to be removed when significant gas capture is still 
possible. As a result, the EPA is not finalizing the SEM approach for 
removal.
    Several commenters noted that the provision provided in the 2015 
Emission Guidelines to allow landfills to demonstrate the GCCS could 
not be operated for 15 years due to declining flow was vague, and more 
guidance was needed to provide instructions to landfills on how to 
demonstrate this to regulators.
    Regarding the 15-year criterion, the EPA is retaining the 
requirement to operate the GCCS for 15 years, but is providing 
flexibility to address declining gas flow in areas where the GCCS has 
not operated for 15 years. If the landfill is closed and the NMOC 
emission rate is less than 34 Mg/yr, but the GCCS has not operated for 
15 years, the landfill owner or operator can demonstrate that the GCCS 
will be unable to operate for 15 years due to declining gas flows. The 
EPA is providing this flexibility to address areas of declining gas 
flows due to the age of the waste, arid climate, or low organic 
content. Given that there are unique situations that could cause low 
gas flow, or low gas quality which would cause a GCCS to be unable to 
operate for 15 years, the EPA is not providing prescriptive criteria 
for how a landfill owner or operator can demonstrate that a GCCS could 
not operate for 15 years and will proceed with a site-specific approach 
for handling these unique cases. Some examples of data elements that 
could be used to demonstrate a GCCS is unable to operate may include 
supplemental fuel use at the flare to sustain operations or LFG quality 
sample measurements showing methane content lower than what is viable 
for combustion in the destruction device.

D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions

    In July 2014, the EPA proposed that the standards in subpart XXX 
apply at all times, including periods of startup or shutdown, and 
periods of malfunction. In addition, the proposed NSPS included 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for all landfill owners or 
operators to estimate emissions during such periods.
    Similarly, the EPA proposed standards that apply at all times in 
the August 2015 proposed Emission Guidelines. However, the EPA 
considered how the landfill emissions differ from those generated by 
industrial or manufacturing sources. Specifically, the EPA noted that 
landfill emissions are produced by a continuous biological process that 
cannot be stopped or restarted. Therefore, the primary concern related 
to SSM is with malfunction of the landfill GCCS and associated 
monitoring equipment, not with the startup or shutdown of the entire 
source. SSM periods that we have determined should be covered by the 
work practice standard are those periods when the landfill GCCS and 
associated monitoring equipment are not operating.
    To address these SSM periods, the EPA proposed in the 2015 Emission 
Guidelines 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 
GCCS contributing to venting of gas to the atmosphere must be closed 
within 1 hour of the collection or control system not operating. This 
provision is consistent with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. Additionally, 
the EPA proposed recordkeeping of combustion temperature, bypass flow, 
and periods when the flare flame or the flare pilot flame is out. The 
EPA received numerous comments on the 2014 proposed changes to the NSPS 
and the additional proposed edits made in the 2015 Emission Guidelines. 
A summary of these comments are presented below.
    Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Many commenters 
stated that the Sierra Club decision applies only to rules with 
numerical emission limits and not to rules that are specified as a work 
practice. One of these commenters elaborated that Sierra Club applies 
to section 111 of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the commenter concluded 
that landfills subject to the NSPS are not bound by the findings of 
Sierra Club and instead they are legally allowed to develop a clear and 
achievable landfill rule by considering the unique circumstances that a 
landfill is a biological process that cannot be stopped or restarted 
and that the gas collection and control systems must periodically be 
shut down for maintenance, repair, and expansion.
    Retain the 5 day/1-hour exemption for SSM events. Many commenters, 
including affected industry commenters and some state agencies, 
disagreed with removing the provisions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, 
which allow for exemption periods of 5 days for collection systems and 
1 hour for treatment or control devices. These commenters indicated 
that by removing this provision, state and local agencies could 
misconstrue the rule to require that a landfill must operate the gas 
collection system at all times, even during SSM, including periods of 
collection system construction, expansion, and repair. These commenters 
suggested instead of removing the exemption provision during periods of 
SSM, compliance can be maintained as long as the landfill owner or 
operator minimizes emissions of LFG by following the applicable work 
practices and restores the system to operation as expeditiously as 
practicable.
    One of the state agency commenters, suggested that the 5-day and 1-
hour time limitations in subpart WWW are appropriate for most 
situations and instead of removing these exemptions, the new subpart 
XXX could provide a mechanism for the facility to apply to the 
Administration for an extension of those timeframes. On the contrary, 
one state agency commenter and an NGO agreed with the standards 
applying at all times, including periods of SSM.
    If the 5 day/1-hour exemption is not retained, the EPA should add a 
work practice standard for SSM events. One commenter was concerned that 
the preamble language for the 2014 proposed Emission Guidelines does 
not clarify how a landfill can demonstrate compliance with the standard 
during SSM events stating that ``compliance with proposed 40 CFR 
60.34f(e) does not constitute compliance with the applicable standards 
in proposed 40 CFR 60.36f'' and that ``by shutting down flow to the 
flare or other control devices a source is unlikely to be in violation 
of

[[Page 59303]]

the 98 percent emission reduction requirements since there will be no 
gas flowing to the control device'' (see 80 FR 52134-52135). This 
commenter stated that EPA must clarify this confusion and specify a 
clear set of work practices (e.g., shut down of the gas mover system 
and prevention of venting) that constitute compliance during SSM 
periods when the collection or control system is not operated. Several 
other industry commenters and the U.S. Small Business Administration 
also asked that the rule specifically accommodate periods when the 
collection system is not operating during activities associated with 
construction, expansion, repair, replacement, testing, upgrades, or 
other maintenance of the system or its components.
    Reporting requirement to estimate NMOC emissions whenever the 
collection system or control system is not operating. Two commenters 
representing a state agency and an NGO supported reporting NMOC 
emissions during SSM periods. Several industry commenters provided 
numerous technical arguments to explain the infeasibility of accurately 
estimating NMOC emissions during the short periods of SSM. For example, 
methods to estimate LFG emissions are based on site-specific variables 
that estimate LFG generation over the life of the landfill, typically 
on an annual basis, and cannot be used to estimate hourly or daily 
emissions. Accordingly, the commenters contended that it is technically 
and practically inappropriate to require landfill owners/operators to 
make this estimate for the time periods that the gas collection or 
control systems are not operated, given the substantial technical 
uncertainties involved in estimating these emissions over discrete, 
short-term time periods. Further, other commenters noted that emissions 
during SSM are expected to be very low, reporting SSM emissions is an 
onerous and meaningless exercise and is likely to overestimate 
emissions.
    Two commenters asked that if the reporting requirement is retained, 
the EPA should limit the reporting to periods when the flare is free 
venting because these are the only emissions that can be estimated 
accurately. Several commenters asked EPA to develop guidance on how to 
estimate emissions during SSM if this requirement is retained in the 
final rule.
    Several commenters stated that because there should be no deviation 
from the rule when the work practices of the rule are followed, there 
are no excess emissions, and the reported emissions are not relevant to 
determining compliance. Commenters are concerned that if estimated NMOC 
emissions are reported, states will deem the reported emissions to be 
``excess emissions,'' which could be treated as a serious violation. 
Therefore, reporting these emissions poses the risk of state or citizen 
suits for enforcement, even when a landfill is following all 
requirements of the rule.
    Other Comments. Several commenters added that because SSM 
provisions apply to numerical emission limitations and a numerical 
limitation applies only to the control device (not the collection 
devices), commenters stated that SSM provisions should address only 
operation of the control devices during periods when LFG is routed from 
the collection system.
    Several commenters indicated that EPA must retain an allowance of 5 
days/1 hour for downtime events so that states do not file enforcement 
actions for downtime events that are shorter than the previously 
allowed 5 days/1-hour allowance. These commenters also asked the EPA to 
clarify that the 1-hour allowance for shutting vents allows for free 
venting for 1 hour such that venting during this time period does not 
constitute ``excess emissions'' that can be deemed a serious violation.
    Response: The EPA recognizes that landfills are not typical 
affected sources that can be started up or shut down. Landfill 
emissions are produced by a continuous biological process that cannot 
be stopped or shut down. The EPA also recognizes that the primary 
concern is with malfunction of the LFG collection and control system 
and associated monitoring equipment, not with the startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction of the entire source. The EPA received extensive comments 
on the proposed requirements applicable to landfills during SSM events, 
as summarized above. Consistent with the recent Court decision that 
vacated the exemption in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) for SSM (Sierra 
Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019), the EPA has established standards in this 
rule that apply at all times.
    The general provisions in 40 CFR part 60 provide that emissions in 
excess of the level of the applicable emissions limit during periods of 
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.
    The EPA is finalizing a requirement in 40 CFR 60.465(e) whereby the 
standards apply at all times, including periods of SSM. However, the 
final rule incorporates a work practice during periods of SSM. During 
these SSM events, owners or operators must shut down the gas mover 
system and close within 1 hour all valves in the GCCS contributing to 
venting of the gas to the atmosphere. The landfill owner or operator 
must also keep records and submit reports of all periods when the 
collection and control device is not operating. The EPA, however, is 
not reinstating the 5-day exemption for SSM periods because the 
provision provides an exemption from compliance with the standard 
during SSM periods, which the EPA does not have the authority to do 
under the reasoning of the Sierra Club decision.

E. Other Corrections and Clarifications

1. Test Methods
    In the 2014 proposed NSPS, the EPA did not include EPA Method 18 or 
EPA Method 25A. In the 2015 proposed Emission Guidelines, the EPA 
proposed to include Method 25A based on public comments received on the 
2014 proposed NSPS and the EPA's recognition that the use of Method 25A 
is necessary for measuring outlet concentrations less than 50 ppm NMOC. 
However, the EPA did not propose to include Method 18 (80 FR 52112) 
because the EPA had determined that Method 18 was not appropriate or 
cost effective for testing the large number of NMOCs found in landfill 
samples. Specifically, 40 target analytes are listed in the current 
landfills section of AP-42 and 160 analytes are listed in the draft 
landfills section AP-42. The EPA determined that the extensive quality 
assurance required by the method makes the method technically and 
economically prohibitive for all the potential target analytes.
    Comment: Commenters requested that the EPA retain both Method 18 
and 25A in the final rule and cited a number of reasons that the EPA 
should retain them, including both technical and legal reasons. 
Commenters stated that landfill owners or operators have relied on 
these test methods to demonstrate compliance for performance testing of 
enclosed flares as a part of EPA policy for over a decade under 40 CFR 
60.764 [60.754]. One commenter emphasized the importance of Method 25A 
because its use is required for many sources with an outlet 
concentration of less than 50 ppmv NMOC as carbon.
    The commenters noted that the majority of LFG destruction devices 
show NMOC concentrations below 50 ppmv as carbon. Due to issues with 
Methods 25/25C in measuring NMOC

[[Page 59304]]

content under this level, commenters observed that the proposed NSPS 
rule change effectively removes the ability to accurately measure 
compliance with the 20 ppmv outlet standard for a large class of 
enclosed combustors. Commenter believes that Method 25A is the superior 
testing methodology for certain circumstances and is more commonly used 
in practice. Commenters cited limitations of Method 25, including 
sensitivity of the test method to water and carbon dioxide and the 
inability to measure NMOC content below 50 ppmv as carbon.
    Commenters also contended that the EPA did not provide any 
justification for removing these methods. Commenters stated that the 
EPA did not provide any factual data, methodology, or any legal or 
policy justification for its proposed exclusion of Method 25A or Method 
18; thus commenters claimed that the EPA did not satisfy the notice-
and-comment requirements of the CAA.
    Response: After considering public comments, the EPA is including 
both EPA Method 25A and Method 18 (on a limited basis, i.e., compound 
specific) in the final landfills regulations (40 CFR part 60, subparts 
Cf and XXX).
    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. EPA Method 25A determines total gaseous organic concentration of 
vapor (total organic compounds). Because the rule regulates NMOC, EPA 
Method 18 or Method 3C are needed to determine the concentration of 
methane in the gas stream. Method 25A, in conjunction with Methods 18 
or 3C (for methane), can be used to determine NMOC for the outlet 
concentrations less than 50 ppm NMOC as carbon. Note that Method 25A 
FIDs are insensitive to formaldehyde.
    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 QA 
required by the method makes the method technically and economically 
prohibitive for all the potential target analytes.
2. Tier 2 Sampling Procedure
    The EPA continues to believe that the number of samples required 
per hectare is appropriate for Tier 2. As described in 40 CFR 60.764, 
the EPA is reaffirming that the two samples are required per hectare 
and if additional samples are taken, all samples must be used in 
determining the site-specific NMOC concentration. Landfill owners or 
operators must also ensure that the probes are evenly distributed over 
the landfill surface. The EPA explored a number of methods, including a 
statistical approach, when establishing requirements for the number and 
location of Tier 2 samples for the original rule. Public commenters 
raised significant concerns with approaches based on equations. As 
such, the EPA determined that a simplified method (2 samples per 
hectare) was best and received no public comments to the contrary.
3. Non-degradable Waste
    The EPA is reaffirming that all the waste must be included in 
calculating the design capacity. Non-degradable waste cannot be 
subtracted from the permitted landfill design capacity. However, non-
degradable waste can be subtracted from the mass of solid waste when 
calculating the NMOC emission rate because such waste would not produce 
NMOC emissions. Non-degradable waste is defined as waste that does not 
break down through chemical or microbiological activity. Examples 
include concrete, municipal waste combustor ash, and metals. Petroleum 
contaminated soils (PCS) and paper mill sludges likely contain organics 
that could be emitted as MSW LFG emissions. Therefore, emissions from 
PCS and sludges would need to be accounted for in the emission estimate 
only. The EPA is also reaffirming that documentation of the nature and 
amount of non-degradable waste needs to be maintained when subtracting 
the mass of non-degradable waste from the total mass of waste for NMOC 
emission rate calculations.

VII. Impacts of This Final Rule

    For most Emission Guidelines, the EPA analyzes the impacts in the 
year the standard is implemented. If the Emission Guidelines are 
promulgated and published in August 2016, then the implementation year 
would be 2017 based on the following: states have 9 months to prepare a 
state plan implementing the guidelines (May 2017); the EPA has 4 months 
to review the plan (September 2017); and if necessary, the state has an 
additional 2 months to revise and submit a corrected plan based on any 
comments from the EPA (November 2017). Concurrently, the EPA must 
promulgate a federal plan within 6 months after the state plan is due, 
consistent with 40 CFR 60.27(d), or November 2017. Thus, the EPA-
approved state plan and updated federal plan implementing the Emission 
Guidelines are expected to become effective in November 2017. Although 
late 2017 is the estimated implementation year, the reporting and 
control timeframe allows 3 months to submit the first NMOC emission 
report and then 30 months after reporting the NMOC emission rate 
results before the GCCS is required to be installed. Therefore, the 
first year that affected landfills could have controls installed under 
the final rule will be late 2020.
    Because of the necessarily lengthy implementation process, 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 final rule in year 2025 is the same as those 
estimated 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 will have had to expand their GCCS 
according the expansion lag times set forth in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
Cf.
    The landfills dataset used for estimating the impacts of the 
Emission Guidelines is discussed in detail in the August 27, 2015 
proposed revisions to the Emission Guidelines (80 FR 52116-52117). The 
EPA made several significant edits to the dataset since the August 2015 
proposal, based on public comments received; new data made available 
from the landfills reporting 2014 emissions to 40 CFR part 98, subpart 
HH, of GHGRP; and consultations with EPA regional offices, and state 
and local authorities to identify additional landfills expected to 
undergo a modification within the next 5 years. After incorporating all 
of the updates to the inventory and removing the landfills expected to 
modify, the revised dataset to analyze the impacts of the final rule 
now has 1,851 existing landfills that accepted waste after

[[Page 59305]]

1987 \49\ and opened prior to 2014.\50\ 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, 2016.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 include 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 proposal 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The methodology used for estimating the impacts of the Emission 
Guidelines is discussed in detail in the August 27, 2015 proposed 
revisions to the Emission Guidelines (80 FR 52116-52117). The EPA made 
several significant edits to the methodology since the August 2015 
proposal based on public comments and comments on a separate peer 
review of the EPA Landfill Gas Energy Cost (LFGcost) model.\51\ 
Notably, the EPA adjusted its assumption of gas collection efficiency 
to an average of 85 percent. The impacts analysis at the proposal did 
not apply a collection efficiency assumption. However, in consideration 
of public comments received and EPA assumptions in subpart HH of the 
GHGRP, and analyses performed for marginal abatement cost curves, the 
EPA has included an 85 percent average gas collection efficiency factor 
to reflect a more realistic indicator of GCCS performance.\52\ In 
addition, Chapter 2.4 of the EPA AP-42 for MSW landfills cites a range 
of collection efficiencies for LFG between 60 and 85 percent. The EPA 
also adjusted the electricity purchase price and anticipated revenue 
estimates using forecasted commercial retail electricity rate data and 
forecasted electricity generation price data for different Energy 
Information Administration (EIA) Electricity Market Module 
regions.53 54
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See the docketed 2016 RIA for additional discussion of 
changes made on the methodology for estimating impacts as a result 
of the LFGcost peer review.
    \52\ USEPA. Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse 
Gases: 2010-2030. EPA-430-R-13-011.
    \53\ See the docketed 2016 RIA for additional discussion of 
changes made to electricity pricing assumptions.
    \54\ To map existing landfill sites to EIA's Electricity Market 
Module regions, the sites' geospatial coordinates were overlayed on 
a map of the EMM regions. The AEO Electricity Market Module regions 
are commensurate with the eGRID2012 primary regions for which a 
shapefile is available at https://www.epa.gov/energy/download-egrid2012-shapefiles. For expected new landfills within a state the 
specific location is unknown, therefore the landfill is located at 
the state's centroid for purposes of mapping the site to an EMM 
region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A detailed discussion of the methodology and equations used to 
estimate the impacts of the final rule are available in the docketed 
memorandum ``Revised Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emission 
Impacts of MSW Landfill Regulations, 2016.'' The results of applying 
this methodology to the population of existing landfills potentially 
subject to the final rule are in the docketed memorandum ``Revised Cost 
and Emission Impacts Resulting from the Landfill EG Review, 2016.'' 
Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the emission reductions and costs 
associated with the final rule.

                                                Table 2--Emission Reductions and Costs for Final Rule in Year 2025 at Existing Landfills (2012$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Number of
                                                               Number of                landfills     Annual                   Annual      Annual
                                          Landfills affected   landfills   Number of    reporting    Net cost  Annual NMOC    methane       CO2e       NMOC Cost     Methane cost    CO2e Cost
                 Option                     by final rule a     affected   landfills     but not     (million   reductions   reductions  reductions  effectiveness  effectiveness  effectiveness
                                                                   b      controlling  controlling    $2012)      (Mg\yr)     (million     (million      ($\Mg)         ($\Mg)        ($\mt) d
                                                                                            c                                  Mg\yr)     mt\yr) d
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (2.5 million Mg design          All.................       1014          638          177        642       58,770          9.3         231         10,900           69.3            2.8
 capacity\50 Mg\yr NMOC).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Incremental values vs. the Baseline
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Option (2.5 million Mg design      Open................          0           93         -100     e 54.1        1,810        0.285         7.1         29,900            190            7.6
 capacity/34 Mg/yr NMOC).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The final option in this table shows the impacts of reducing the NMOC emission threshold to 34 Mg/yr on open landfills only, and retaining the NMOC threshold of 50 Mg/yr for the closed
  landfill subcategory.
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. Since we are not changing the size threshold, there are no incremental landfills affected.
c Since the number of landfills affected remains the same as the baseline, the number of landfills reporting NMOC (but not controlling) decreases since more landfills will control emissions
  under the final rule.
d Results do not include secondary CO[ihel2] impacts.
e The annualized net cost for the final Emission Guidelines is estimated to be $54.1 million (2012$) 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 $92.6 million to install and operate a GCCS, as well as $0.76 million to complete the corresponding
  testing and monitoring. These control costs are offset by $39.3 million in revenue from electricity sales, which is incorporated into the net control costs for certain landfills that are
  expected to generate revenue by using the LFG to produce electricity.

A. What are the air quality impacts?

    The EPA estimates that the final rule will achieve nearly an 
additional 3 percent reduction in NMOC from existing landfills, or 
1,810 Mg/yr, when compared to the baseline, as shown in Table 2 of this 
preamble. The final rule would also achieve 0.285 million Mg of methane 
reductions (7.1 million mtCO2e) in 2025. These reductions are achieved 
by reducing the NMOC threshold from 50 Mg/yr to 34 Mg/yr open 
landfills.

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 final rule have finite lifetimes (approximately 15 years) and 
these

[[Page 59306]]

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 final rule of 
$54.1 million in 2025 (7% discount rate, 2012$) 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. The handling of waste by 
the private companies in the industry was estimated to generate $55 
billion of revenue in 2011, of which landfilling contributed $13 
billion, while a more recent estimate shows the U.S. non-hazardous 
solid waste services industry generated about $60 billion in annual 
revenues in 2015. These revenue estimates do not include activity 
related to publicly owned landfills. For more information, see the 
``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the Emission 
Guidelines for Existing Sources and the New Source Performance 
Standards in the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Sector, 2016'' 
(hereafter ``2016 RIA'') included in the docket. There also is 
insufficient information to quantify the effect increased gas control 
costs might have on the amount of solid waste disposed in landfills 
versus other disposal mechanisms such as recycling, waste-to-energy, or 
composting. Note that elements of this final rule--notably lowering the 
NMOC threshold to 34 Mg/yr--provide additional incentives to separate 
waste.

C. What are the secondary air impacts?

    Secondary air impacts may include grid emissions from purchasing 
electricity to operate the GCCS components, by-product emissions from 
combustion of LFG in flares or energy recovery devices, and offsets to 
conventional grid emissions from new LFG energy supply.
    The secondary air impacts are presented as net impacts, considering 
both the energy demand and energy supply resulting from the final rule. 
The methodology used to prepare the estimated secondary impacts for 
this preamble is discussed in the docketed memorandum ``Revised 
Estimates of Secondary Impacts of the Landfills Emission Guidelines 
Review, 2016.''
    While we do expect NOx and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission 
changes as a result of these guidelines, we expect these changes to be 
small and these changes have not been estimated. The net impacts were 
computed for CO2e. After considering the offsets from LFG 
electricity, the impacts of the final rule are expected to reduce 
CO2 emissions by 277,000 metric tons per year. These 
CO2 emission reductions are in addition to the methane 
emission reductions achieved from the direct destruction of methane in 
flares or engines presented in Table 2 of this preamble.

D. What are the energy impacts?

    The final rule 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 final rule will increase the 
volume of LFG collected. When the least cost control is a flare, energy 
may be purchased from the grid to operate the blowers of the LFG 
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 
final rule is estimated to supply 0.51 million megawatt hours (MWh) of 
additional renewable LFG energy per year, which will reduce the need 
for conventional fossil-based energy sources.

E. What are the cost impacts?

    To meet the final rule emission thresholds, a landfill is expected 
to install the least cost control for combusting the LFG. The cost 
estimates 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 LFG 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 for which the least cost control option is an 
engine, the costs also include the cost to install and operate one or 
more reciprocating internal combustion engines to convert the LFG into 
electricity. Revenue from electricity sales was incorporated into the 
net control costs using forecasted electricity generation price data 
from EIA Electricity Market Module regions. 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 final rule 
is $54.1 million, when using a 7 percent discount rate and 2012$. The 
annualized net costs of $54.1 million represent the costs compared to 
no changes to the current Emission Guidelines (i.e., baseline) and 
include $92.6 million to install and operate a GCCS, as well as $0.76 
million to complete the corresponding testing and monitoring. These 
control costs are offset by $39.3 million in revenue from electricity 
sales, which is incorporated into the net control costs for certain 
landfills that are expected to generate revenue by using the LFG to 
produce electricity.

F. What are the economic impacts?

    Because of the relatively low net cost of the final rule 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 on the supply and demand for MSW landfill services. 
However, because of the relatively low incremental costs, the EPA does 
not believe the final rule 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 final rule should be minimal on the affected 
industries and their consumers.

G. What are the benefits?

    This final action is expected to result in significant emissions 
reductions from existing MSW landfills. By lowering the NMOC emissions 
threshold to 34 Mg/yr, these final guidelines would achieve reductions 
of more than 1,810 Mg/yr NMOC and 285,000 metric tons of methane (7.1 
million mtCO2e). In addition, the guidelines are expected to 
result in the net reduction of 277,000 metric tons CO2, due 
to reduced demand for electricity from the grid as landfills generate 
electricity from LFG.
    This rule is expected to result in significant public health and 
welfare benefits resulting from the climate benefits due to anticipated 
methane and CO2 reductions. Methane is a potent GHG that, 
once emitted into the atmosphere, absorbs terrestrial infrared 
radiation that contributes to increased global warming and continuing 
climate change. Methane reacts in the atmosphere to form tropospheric 
ozone and stratospheric water vapor, both of which also contribute to 
global warming. When accounting for the

[[Page 59307]]

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 
includes several changes to the Emission Guidelines for MSW landfills 
that will decrease methane emissions from this sector. Specifically, 
the final emission guideline changes are expected to reduce methane 
emissions from all landfills in 2025 by about 285,000 metric tons of 
methane.
    We calculated the global social benefits of these methane emission 
reductions using estimates of SC-CH4, a metric that 
estimates the monetary value of impacts associated with marginal 
changes in methane emissions in a given year. The SC-CH4 
estimates applied in this analysis were developed by Marten et al. 
(2014) and are discussed in greater detail below.
    A similar metric, the social cost of CO2 (SC-
CO2), provides important context for understanding the 
Marten et al. SC-CH4 estimates.\55\ The SC-CO2 is 
a metric that estimates the monetary value of impacts associated with 
marginal changes in CO2 emissions in a given year. It 
includes a wide range of anticipated climate impacts, such as net 
changes in agricultural productivity and human health, property damage 
from increased flood risk, and changes in energy system costs, such as 
reduced costs for heating and increased costs for air conditioning. 
Estimates of the SC-CO2 have been used by the EPA and other 
federal agencies to value the impacts of CO2 emissions 
changes in benefit cost analysis for GHG-related rulemakings since 
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Previous analyses have commonly referred to the social cost 
of carbon dioxide emissions as the social cost of carbon or SCC. To 
more easily facilitate the inclusion of non-CO2 GHGs in 
the discussion and analysis the more specific SC-CO2 
nomenclature is used to refer to the social cost of CO2 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SC-CO2 estimates were developed over many years, 
using the best science available, and with input from the public. 
Specifically, an interagency working group (IWG) that included the EPA 
and other executive branch agencies and offices used three integrated 
assessment models (IAMs) to develop the SC-CO2 estimates and 
recommended four global values for use in regulatory analyses. The SC-
CO2 estimates were first released in February 2010 and 
updated in 2013 using new versions of each IAM.
    The 2010 SC-CO2 Technical Support Document (TSD) 
provides a complete discussion of the methods used to develop these 
estimates and the current SC-CO2 TSD presents and discusses 
the 2013 update (including recent minor technical corrections to the 
estimates).\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Both the 2010 SC-CO2 TSD and the current TSD are 
available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/social-cost-of-carbon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SC-CO2 TSDs discuss a number of limitations to the 
SC-CO2 analysis, including the incomplete way in which the 
IAMs capture catastrophic and non-catastrophic impacts, their 
incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change, 
uncertainty in the extrapolation of damages to high temperatures, and 
assumptions regarding risk aversion. Currently, IAMs do not assign 
value to all of the important physical, ecological, and economic 
impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature 
due to a lack of precise information on the nature of damages and 
because the science incorporated into these models understandably lags 
behind the most recent research. Nonetheless, these estimates and the 
discussion of their limitations represent the best available 
information about the social benefits of CO2 reductions to 
inform benefit-cost analysis. The EPA and other agencies continue to 
engage in research on modeling and valuation of climate impacts with 
the goal to improve these estimates, and continue to consider feedback 
on the SC-CO2 estimates from stakeholders through a range of 
channels, including public comments received on Agency rulemakings, a 
separate Office of Management and Budget (OMB) public comment 
solicitation, and through regular interactions with stakeholders and 
research analysts implementing the SC-CO2 methodology. See 
the docketed 2016 RIA for additional details.
    A challenge particularly relevant to this rule is that the IWG did 
not estimate the social costs of non-CO2 GHG emissions at 
the time the SC-CO2 estimates were developed. In addition, 
the directly modeled estimates of the social costs of non-
CO2 GHG emissions previously found in the published 
literature were few in number and varied considerably in terms of the 
models and input assumptions they employed \57\ (EPA 2012). In the 
past, the EPA has sought to understand the potential importance of 
monetizing non-CO2 GHG emissions changes through sensitivity 
analysis using an estimate of the GWP of CH4 to convert 
emission impacts to CO2 equivalents, which can then be 
valued using the SC-CO2 estimates. This approach 
approximates the SC-CH4 using estimates of the SC-
CO2 and the GWP of methane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ 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_ria.pdf. Accessed 
April 7, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The published literature documents a variety of reasons that 
directly modeled estimates of SC-CH4 are an analytical 
improvement over the estimates from the GWP approximation approach. 
Specifically, several recent studies found that GWP-weighted benefit 
estimates for CH4 are likely to be lower than the estimates 
derived using directly modeled social cost estimates for these 
gases.\58\ The GWP reflects only the relative integrated radiative 
forcing of a gas over 100 years in comparison to CO2. The 
directly modeled social cost estimates differ from the GWP-scaled SC-
CO2 because the relative differences in timing and magnitude 
of the warming between gases are explicitly modeled, the non-linear 
effects of temperature change on economic damages are included, and 
rather than treating all impacts over a hundred years equally, the 
modeled damages over the time horizon considered (300 years in this 
case) are discounted to present value terms. A detailed discussion of 
the limitations of the GWP approach can be found in the 2016 RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Waldhoff et al. (2011); Marten and Newbold (2012); and 
Marten et al. (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, the commenters on previous rulemakings strongly 
encouraged the EPA to incorporate the monetized value of non-
CO2 GHG impacts into the benefit cost analysis. However, 
they noted the challenges associated with the GWP approach, as 
discussed above, and encouraged the use of directly modeled estimates 
of the SC-CH4 to overcome those challenges.
    Since then, a paper by Marten et al. (2014) has provided the first 
set of published SC-CH4 estimates in the peer-reviewed 
literature that are consistent with the modeling assumptions

[[Page 59308]]

underlying the SC-CO2 estimates.59 60 
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 by the IWG to develop the SC-CO2 
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Marten et al. (2014) also provided the first set of SC-
N2O estimates that are consistent with the assumptions 
underlying the IWG SC-CO2 estimates.
    \60\ Marten, A. L., E. A. Kopits, C. W. Griffiths, S. C. Newbold 
& A. Wolverton (2014). Incremental CH4 and N2O 
mitigation benefits consistent with the U.S. Government's SC-
CO2 estimates, Climate Policy, DOI: 10.1080/
14693062.2014.912981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SC-CH4 estimates from Marten, et al. (2014) are 
presented in Table 3 of this preamble. More detailed discussion of the 
methodology, results, and a comparison to other published estimates can 
be found in the 2016 RIA and in Marten, et al.

                                    Table 3--Social Cost of CH4, 2012-2050 a
                           [In 2012$ per metric ton (Source: Marten et al., 2014 \b\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              SC-CH4
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                      Year                                                                            3% 95th
                                                    5% Average      3% Average     2.5% Average     percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012............................................            $430           $1000           $1400           $2800
2015............................................             490            1100            1500            3000
2020............................................             580            1300            1700            3500
2025............................................             700            1500            1900            4000
2030............................................             820            1700            2200            4500
2035............................................             970            1900            2500            5300
2040............................................            1100            2200            2800            5900
2045............................................            1300            2500            3000            6600
2050............................................            1400            2700            3300            7200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The values are emissions-year specific. Estimates using several discount rates are included because the
  literature shows that estimates of the SC-CO2 (and SC-CH4) are sensitive to assumptions about the discount
  rate, and because no consensus exists on the appropriate rate to use in an intergenerational context (where
  costs and benefits are incurred by different generations). The fourth value is the 95th percentile of the SC-
  CH4 estimates across three models using a 3 percent discount rate. It is included to represent higher-than-
  expected impacts from temperature change further out in the tails of the SC-CH4 distribution.
\b\ The estimates in this table have been adjusted to reflect recent minor technical corrections to the SC-CO2
  estimates. See the Corrigendum to Marten et al. (2014), http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14693062.2015.1070550.

    The application of these directly modeled SC-CH4 
estimates from Marten et al. (2014) in a benefit-cost analysis of a 
regulatory action is analogous to the use of the SC-CO2 
estimates. In addition, the limitations for the SC-CO2 
estimates discussed above likewise apply to the SC-CH4 
estimates, given the consistency in the methodology.
    In early 2015, the EPA conducted a peer review of the application 
of the Marten, et al. (2014) non-CO2 social cost estimates 
in regulatory analysis and received responses that supported this 
application. See the 2016 RIA for a detailed discussion.
    The EPA also carefully considered the full range of public comments 
and associated technical issues on the Marten et al. SC-CH4 
estimates received through this rulemaking. The comments addressed the 
technical details of the SC-CO2 estimates and the Marten et al. SC-CH4 
estimates as well as their application to this rulemaking analysis. One 
comment letter also provided constructive recommendations to improve 
the SC-CO2 and SC-CH4 estimates in the future. Based on the evaluation 
of the public comments on this rulemaking, the favorable peer review of 
the Marten et al. application, and past comments urging the EPA to 
value non-CO2 GHG impacts in its rulemakings, the agency has 
concluded that the estimates represent the best scientific information 
on the impacts of climate change available in a form appropriate for 
incorporating the damages from incremental CH4 emissions 
changes into regulatory analysis. The EPA has included those benefits 
in the main benefits analysis. See the EPA's Response to Comments 
document for the complete response to comments received on the SC-
CH4 as part of this rulemaking.
    The methane benefits based on Marten et al. (2014) are presented 
for the year 2025. Applying this approach to the methane reductions 
estimated for these guidelines, the 2025 methane benefits vary by 
discount rate and range from about $200 million to approximately $1.1 
billion; the mean SC-CH4 at the 3-percent discount rate 
results in an estimate of about $430 million in 2025, as presented in 
Table 4 of this preamble.

                       Table 4--Estimated Global Benefits of CH[ihel4] Reductions in 2025
                                              [In millions, 2012$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Discount rate and statistic
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
        Million metric tons CH[ihel4]                                                                3% 95th
                                                 5% Average       3% Average      2.5% Average      percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.285.......................................            $200             $430             $550           $1,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The vast majority of this action's climate-related benefits are 
associated with methane reductions. Additional climate-related benefits 
are expected from the guidelines' secondary air impacts, specifically, 
a net reduction in CO2 emissions. Monetizing the net 
CO2 reductions with the SC-CO2 estimates 
described in this section yields benefits

[[Page 59309]]

of $14 million in the year 2025 (average SC-CO2, 3 percent 
discount rate, 2012$). Monetized climate benefits associated with 
reductions in methane and secondary CO2 emissions are approximately 
$440 million in 2025 (2012$), based on the average SC-CH4 at 
a 3 percent discount rate and the average SC-CO2 at a 3 percent 
discount rate. See the 2016 RIA for more details.
    In addition to the limitation discussed above, and the referenced 
documents, there are additional impacts of individual GHGs that are not 
currently captured in the IAMs used in the directly modeled approach of 
Marten et al. (2014), and therefore not quantified for the rule. For 
example, the NMOC portion of LFG can contain a variety of air 
pollutants, including VOC and various organic HAP. VOC emissions are 
precursors to both PM2.5 and ozone formation, while methane 
is a GHG and a precursor to global ozone formation. These pollutants 
are associated with substantial health effects, welfare effects, and 
climate effects, which are discussed in section III.B of this preamble. 
The ozone generated by methane has important non-climate impacts on 
agriculture, ecosystems, and human health. The 2016 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.
    Finally, these final Emission Guidelines will yield benefits from 
reductions in VOC and HAP emissions and from reductions in methane as a 
precursor to global background concentrations of tropospheric ozone. 
With the data available, we are not able to provide quantified health 
benefit estimates for the reduction in exposure to HAP, ozone, and 
PM2.5 for this rule. This is not to imply that there are no 
benefits of the rules; rather, it is a reflection of the difficulties 
in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the reductions in 
emissions for this sector with the data currently available.\61\ In 
addition to health improvements, there will be improvements in 
visibility effects, ecosystem effects, and climate effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Previous studies have estimated the monetized benefits-per-
ton of reducing VOC emissions associated with the effect that those 
emissions have on ambient PM2.5 levels and the health 
effects associated with PM2.5 exposure (Fann, Fulcher, 
and Hubbell, 2009). While these ranges of benefit-per-ton estimates 
can provide useful context, the geographic distribution of VOC 
emissions from the MSW landfills sector are not consistent with 
emissions modeled in Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009). In addition, 
the benefit-per-ton estimates for VOC emission reductions in that 
study are derived from total VOC emissions across all sectors. 
Coupled with the larger uncertainties about the relationship between 
VOC emissions and PM2.5 and the highly localized nature 
of air quality responses associated with HAP and VOC reductions, 
these factors lead us to conclude that the available VOC benefit-
per-ton estimates are not appropriate to calculate monetized 
benefits of these rules, even as a bounding exercise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although we do not have sufficient information or modeling 
available to provide quantitative estimates of the health benefits 
associated with HAP, ozone, and PM2.5 reductions, we include 
a qualitative assessment of the public health effects associated with 
exposure to HAP, ozone, and PM2.5 in the 2016 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 2016 RIA, which is available in the docket.
    Based on the monetized benefits and costs of the final emission 
guidelines, the annual net benefits of the rule are estimated to be 
$390 million ($2012) in 2025 based on the average SC-CH4 at a 3 percent 
discount rate and costs at a 7 percent discount rate.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statues and Executive Orders can 
be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/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 costs and benefits associated with 
the proposed Emission Guidelines. The analysis is documented in the 
2016 RIA, which is available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451 and is 
briefly summarized in section VII of this preamble.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    OMB has approved the information collection activities contained in 
this rule under the PRA and has assigned OMB control number 2060-NEW. 
The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared 
for the final Emission Guidelines has been assigned EPA ICR number 
2522.02. 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 final rule and to ensure their 
compliance with the final 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: MSW landfills that accepted waste 
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: 1,192 MSW landfills.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and annually.
    Total estimated burden: 679,668 hours (per year) for the responding 
facilities and 17,829 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: $45,225,362 (per year), which includes 
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs, for the 
responding facilities and 1,161,840 (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.

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.

[[Page 59310]]

    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 conducted stakeholder 
outreach as detailed in sections 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 VIII.C and VIII.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-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 final rule.

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 final 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 final Emission Guidelines are below the applicable 
threshold.
    We note however, that the final Emission Guidelines may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because small 
governments operate landfills. The EPA consulted with small governments 
concerning the regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect them. In developing this rule, the EPA consulted with 
small governments pursuant to a plan established under section 203 of 
the UMRA to address impacts of regulatory requirements in the rule that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The EPA also 
held meetings as discussed in section VIII.E of this preamble under 
Federalism consultations.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    The EPA has concluded that the final Emission Guidelines may 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 provides the following federalism summary impact statement. 
The EPA consulted with state and local officials, including their 
representative national organizations, early in the process of 
developing the proposed action to permit them to have meaningful and 
timely input into its development. In developing the regulatory options 
reflected in the proposed rule as well as this final action, the EPA 
consulted with 8 national organizations representing state and local 
elected officials, including the National Governors Association, the 
National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the 
National Conference of State Legislatures, the United States Conference 
of Mayors, the County Executives of America, the Council of State 
Governments, and the National Association of Towns and Townships. 
Additionally, the Environmental Council of the States, the National 
Association of Clean Air Agencies and the Association of State and 
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials participated in pre-
proposal briefings. Finally, in addition to these associations, over 
140 officials representing state and local governments across the 
nation participated in at least one of three pre-proposal briefings in 
the Fall of 2013 (September 10, 2013, November 7, 2013, and November 
14, 2013.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local 
governments, the EPA specifically solicited input prior to proposal 
from these intergovernmental associations, their members, and the 
participating state and local officials during and in follow-up to 
these briefings. As a result of the first phase of pre-proposal 
intergovernmental outreach, the EPA received comments from [over 40] 
entities representing State and local governments. As the development 
of the rule continued, and in the interest of sharing additional 
information with its intergovernmental partners prior to proposing the 
rule, EPA conducted an additional Federalism outreach meeting on April 
15, 2015.
    The principal intergovernmental concerns raised during the pre-
proposal consultations, as well as during the proposed rule's public 
comment period, 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. In response to 
these comments and based upon the data currently available, the EPA has 
decided not to adjust the design capacity or significantly lower the 
emission threshold. The EPA has also decided not to adjust the time 
allotted for installation of the GCCS or expansion of the wellfield. In 
80 FR 52121 (the proposed rule), the EPA highlighted specific concerns 
raised by commenters, which included state agencies as well as landfill 
owners and operators, about the interaction between shortened lag times 
and design plan approvals, costs and safety concerns associated with 
reduced lag times, and the need for flexibility for lag time 
adjustments. Wellhead operating parameters have been adjusted to limit 
corrective action requirements to negative pressure and temperature. 
The EPA also acknowledged concerns about wellhead operating parameters 
in 80 FR 52121 and reviewed public comments in favor of and against 
retention of the parameters during the public comment period as 
described in section VI.A.1 of this preamble.
    As described section VI.B of this preamble, the EPA is finalizing a 
SEM approach for determining GCCS installation. Commenters were 
generally supportive of this approach and recognized the additional 
flexibility provided as an alternative to the traditional approach for 
determining GCCS installation based on a series of models. The EPA is 
also finalizing a subcategory for closed landfills as outlined in 
section VI.C of this preamble. While federalism commenters primarily 
supported this approach, some representatives of local

[[Page 59311]]

governments opposed it due to trends in ownership and size of landfills 
and the perception that landfills owned by these entities should not 
benefit from subcategorization.
    A complete list of the comments from State and local governments 
has been provided to OMB and has been placed in the docket for this 
rulemaking. In addition, the detailed response to comments from these 
entities is contained in the EPA's Response to Comments document for 
this rulemaking.
    As required by section 8(a) of Executive Order 13132, the EPA 
included a certification from its Federalism Official stating that the 
EPA had met the Executive Order's requirements in a meaningful and 
timely manner when it sent the draft of this final action to OMB for 
review pursuant to Executive Order 12866. A copy of this certification 
is included in the public version of the official record for this final 
action.

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 final 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, identified 
one tribe, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, which owns 
three landfills potentially subject to the final 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 subpart Cf. The other landfill, North 
Center Street Landfill, is not estimated to install controls under the 
current NSPS/EG framework.
    As required by section 7(a), the EPA's Tribal Consultation Official 
has certified that the requirements of the Executive Order have been 
met in a meaningful and timely manner. A copy of the certification is 
included in the docket for this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997) because it is a significant regulatory action as defined by 
Executive Order 12866, and the EPA believes that the environmental 
health or safety risk addressed by this action has a disproportionate 
effect on children. Accordingly, the EPA has evaluated the 
environmental health and welfare effects of climate change on children.
    Greenhouse gases including methane contribute to climate change and 
are emitted in significant quantities by the landfill sector. The EPA 
believes that the GHG emission reductions resulting from implementation 
of this final rule will further improve children's health.
    The assessment literature cited in the EPA's 2009 Endangerment 
Finding concluded that certain populations and life stages, including 
children, the elderly, and the poor, are most vulnerable to climate-
related health effects. The assessment literature since 2009 
strengthens these conclusions by providing more detailed findings 
regarding these groups' vulnerabilities and the projected impacts they 
may experience.
    These assessments describe how children's unique physiological and 
developmental factors contribute to making them particularly vulnerable 
to climate change. Impacts to children are expected from heat waves, 
air pollution, infectious and waterborne illnesses, and mental health 
effects resulting from extreme weather events. In addition, children 
are among those especially susceptible to most allergic diseases, as 
well as health effects associated with heat waves, storms, and floods. 
Additional health concerns may arise in low income households, 
especially those with children, if climate change reduces food 
availability and increases prices, leading to food insecurity within 
households.
    More detailed information on the impacts of climate change to human 
health and welfare is provided in section III.B 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 
final Emission Guidelines 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 LFG energy projects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 
Part 51

    The final Emission Guidelines involve technical standards. For the 
final Emission Guidelines, the EPA has decided to use EPA Methods 2, 
2E, 3, 3A, 3C, 18, 21, 25, 25A, and 25C of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    The EPA identified 15 voluntary consensus standards (VCS) as being 
potentially applicable (ASTM D3154-00 (2006), ASTM D3464-96 (2007), 
ASTM D3796-90 (2001), ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10, ASME B133.9-
1994 (2001), ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, ISO 10780:1994, 
ASTM D5835-95 (2013), ASTM D6522-11, ASTM D6420-99 (2010), CAN/CSA 
Z223.2-M86 (1999), ASTM D6060-96 (2009), ISO 14965:2000(E), EN 
12619(1999)). The EPA determined that 14 of the 15 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 
equivalent standards for Methods 2E, 21, and 25C. However, one 
voluntary consensus standard was identified as acceptable alternative 
to EPA test method for the purposes of this rule.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6522-11, Standard Test 
Method for the Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and 
Oxygen Concentrations in Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating 
Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using 
Portable Analyzers'' is an acceptable alternative to Method 3A when 
used at the wellhead before combustion. It is advisable to know the 
flammability and check the Lower Explosive Limit of the flue gas 
constituents, prior to sampling, in order to avoid undesired ignition 
of the gas. The results of ASTM D6522-11 may be used to determine 
nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide emission concentrations from 
natural gas combustion at stationary sources. This test method may also 
be used to monitor emissions during short-term emission tests or 
periodically in order to optimize process operation for nitrogen oxides 
and carbon monoxide control.
    The EPA's review, including review of comments for these 15 
methods, is documented in the memorandum, ``Voluntary Consensus 
Standard Results

[[Page 59312]]

for Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste 
Landfills, 2016'' in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0451).
    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text for 40 CFR part 
60, subpart Cf, that includes incorporation by reference in accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5. Specifically, the EPA is incorporating 
by reference ASTM D6522-11. You may obtain a copy from American Society 
for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, 
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 or http://www.astm.org.

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 this action will not have potential disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, 
or indigenous populations. The EPA has determined this because the 
rulemaking increases the level of environmental protection for all 
affected populations without having any disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 
including any minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. 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 has provided meaningful participation opportunities for 
minority, low-income, indigenous populations and tribes during the 
rulemaking process by conducting and participating in community calls 
and webinars. Documentation of these activities can be found in the 
July 13, 2016, document titled, ``2016 Environmental Justice Screening 
Report for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,'' a copy of which is 
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451).
    The EPA is committed to assisting states and communities to develop 
plans that ensure there are no disproportionate, adverse impacts on 
overburdened communities. To provide information fundamental to that 
process, the EPA has conducted a proximity analysis for this final 
rulemaking that summarizes demographic data on the communities located 
near landfills.\62\ The EPA understands that, in order to prevent 
disproportionately, high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on these communities, both states and communities must have 
information on the communities living near facilities, including 
demographic data, and that accessing and using census data files 
requires expertise that some community groups may lack. Therefore, the 
EPA used census data from the American Community Survey (ACS) 2008-2012 
to conduct a proximity analysis that can be used by states and 
communities as they develop state plans and as they later assess the 
final plans' impacts. The analysis and its results are presented in the 
EJ Screening Report for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, which is 
located in the docket for this rulemaking at EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ The proximity analysis was conducted using the EPA's 
environmental justice mapping and screening tool, EJSCREEN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proximity analysis provides detailed demographic information on 
the communities located within a 3-mile radius of each affected 
landfill in the U.S. Included in the analysis is the breakdown by 
percentage of community characteristics such as income and minority 
status. The analysis shows a higher percentage of communities of color 
and people without high school diplomas living near landfills than 
national averages. It is important to note that the impacts of landfill 
emissions are not limited to a 3-mile radius and the impacts of both 
potential increases and decreases in landfill emissions can be felt 
many miles away. Still, being aware of the characteristics of 
communities closest to landfills is a starting point in understanding 
how changes in the landfill's air emissions may affect the air quality 
experienced by some of those already experiencing environmental 
burdens.
    As stated in the Executive Order 12898 discussion located in 
section XIII.J of this preamble, the EPA believes that all communities 
will benefit from this final rulemaking because this action addresses 
the impacts of climate change by climate co-benefits achieved through 
reductions in the methane component of LFG. The EPA also believes that 
the information provided in the proximity analysis will promote 
engagement between vulnerable communities and their states and will be 
useful for states as they develop their plans.
    Additionally, the EPA encourages states to conduct their own 
analyses of community considerations when developing their plans. Each 
state is uniquely knowledgeable about its own communities and well-
positioned to consider the possible impacts of plans on vulnerable 
communities within its state. Conducting state-specific analyses would 
not only help states assess possible impacts of plan options, but it 
would also enhance a state's understanding of the means to engage these 
communities that would most effectively reach them and lead to valuable 
exchanges of information and concerns. A state analysis, together with 
the proximity analysis conducted by the EPA, would provide a solid 
foundation for engagement between a state and its communities.
    Such state-specific analyses need not be exhaustive. An examination 
of the options a state is considering for its plan, and any projections 
of likely resulting increases in landfill emissions affecting low-
income populations, communities of color populations, or indigenous 
communities, would be informative for communities. The analyses could 
include available air quality monitoring data and information from air 
quality models, and, if available, take into account information about 
local health vulnerabilities such as asthma rates or access to 
healthcare. Alternatively, a simple analysis may consider expected 
landfill utilization in geographic proximity to overburdened 
communities. The EPA will provide states with information on its 
publicly available environmental justice screening and mapping tool, EJ 
SCREEN, which they may use in conducting a state-specific analysis. 
Additionally, the EPA encourages states to submit a copy of their 
analysis if they choose to conduct one, with their initial and final 
plan submittals.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 14, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency amends title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

[[Page 59313]]

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. Section 60.17 is amended:
0
a. By redesignating paragraphs (h)(185) through (206) as paragraphs 
(h)(186) through (207), respectively; and
0
b. By adding a new paragraph (h)(185).
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  60.17  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (185) ASTM D6522-11 Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in 
Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion 
Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers 
(Approved December 1, 2011), IBR approved for Sec.  60.37f(a).
* * * * *

0
3. Part 60 is amended by adding subpart Cf to read as follows:
Subpart Cf--Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal 
Solid Waste Landfills
Sec.
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 for collection and control systems.
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.

Subpart Cf--Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal 
Solid Waste Landfills

Sec.  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 of this part.
    (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 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 May 30, 2017.
    (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]

Sec.  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 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 Sec.  70.5(a)(1)(i) or Sec.  
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:
    (1) The landfill was never subject to the requirement to install 
and operate a gas collection and control system under Sec.  60.33f; or
    (2) The landfill meets the conditions for control system removal 
specified in Sec.  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 subpart WWW of this 
part; 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG; or a state plan implementing subpart 
Cc of this part on or before July 17, 2014:
    (1) Initial design capacity report specified in Sec.  60.38f(a).
    (2) Initial or subsequent NMOC emission rate report specified in 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
60.38f(d).
    (4) Closure report specified in Sec.  60.38f(f).
    (5) Equipment removal report specified in Sec.  60.38f(g).
    (6) Initial annual report specified in Sec.  60.38f(h).
    (7) Initial performance test report in Sec.  60.38f(i).

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 of the most recent NMOC emission rate report that shows NMOC 
emissions equal or exceed 34 megagrams per year (50 megagrams per year 
for the closed landfill subcategory), if Tier 4 surface emissions 
monitoring shows a surface emission concentration of 500 parts per 
million methane or greater.

Sec.  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

[[Page 59314]]

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.
    (3) The landfill has an NMOC emission rate greater than or equal to 
34 megagrams per year or Tier 4 surface emissions monitoring shows a 
surface emission concentration of 500 parts per million methane or 
greater.
    (4) The landfill in the closed landfill subcategory and has an NMOC 
emission rate greater than or equal to 50 megagrams per year or Tier 4 
surface emissions monitoring 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 gas collection and control system 
meeting the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) and (c) of 
this section at each MSW landfill meeting the conditions in paragraph 
(a) of this section.
    (1) Collection system. 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 NMOC emission rate equals 
or exceeds 34 megagrams per year, unless Tier 2 or Tier 3 sampling 
demonstrates that the NMOC emission rate is less than 34 megagrams per 
year, as specified in Sec.  60.38f(d)(4); or
    (ii) The first annual NMOC emission rate report for a landfill in 
the closed landfill subcategory in which the NMOC emission rate equals 
or exceeds 50 megagrams per year, unless Tier 2 or Tier 3 sampling 
demonstrates that the NMOC emission rate is less than 50 megagrams per 
year, as specified in Sec.  60.38f(d)(4); or
    (iii) The most recent NMOC emission rate report in which the NMOC 
emission rate equals or exceeds 34 megagrams per year based on Tier 2, 
if the Tier 4 surface emissions monitoring shows a surface methane 
emission concentration of 500 parts per million methane or greater as 
specified in Sec.  60.38f(d)(4)(iii).
    (2) Active. 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 off-site migration of subsurface gas.
    (3) Passive. 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 Sec.  258.40 of this chapter.
    (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 Sec.  60.24.
    (1) A non-enclosed flare designed and operated in accordance with 
the parameters established in Sec.  60.18 except as noted in Sec.  
60.37f(d); 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 Sec.  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.
    (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 Sec.  60.37f.
    (iii) For the closed landfill subcategory, the initial or most 
recent performance test conducted to comply with subpart WWW of this 
part; 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG; or a state plan implementing subpart 
Cc of this part on or before July 17, 2014 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 is not allowed. If the treated landfill gas cannot be routed for 
subsequent sale or beneficial use, then the treated landfill gas must 
be controlled according to either paragraph (c)(1) or (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 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 Sec.  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 (2) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator must submit an amended design capacity 
report as provided in Sec.  60.38f(b).
    Note to paragraph (d)(1): 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, then the landfill becomes 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 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

[[Page 59315]]

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 Sec.  
60.35f(a). The NMOC emission rate must be recalculated annually, except 
as provided in Sec.  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 Sec.  
60.38f(c), except as provided in Sec.  60.38f(c)(3); and
    (ii) Recalculate the NMOC emission rate annually using the 
procedures specified in Sec.  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 calculated NMOC emission rate, upon initial calculation 
or annual recalculation required in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this 
section, is equal to or greater than 34 megagrams per year, the owner 
or operator must either: Comply with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 
section; calculate NMOC emissions using the next higher tier in Sec.  
60.35f; or conduct a surface emission monitoring demonstration using 
the procedures specified in Sec.  60.35f(a)(6).
    (B) If the landfill is permanently closed, a closure report must be 
submitted to the Administrator as provided in Sec.  60.38f(f), except 
for exemption allowed under Sec.  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 Sec.  60.38f(d), except 
for exemptions allowed under Sec.  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 
Sec.  60.35f; or conduct a surface emission monitoring demonstration 
using the procedures specified in Sec.  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 specified in Sec.  60.38f(d), except for exemptions allowed 
under Sec.  60.31f(e)(3); calculate NMOC emissions using a higher tier 
in Sec.  60.35f; or conduct a surface emission monitoring demonstration 
using the procedures specified in Sec.  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 as specified in Sec.  
60.38f(d), except for exemptions allowed under Sec.  60.31f(e)(3); 
calculate NMOC emissions using a higher tier in Sec.  60.35f; or 
conduct a surface emission monitoring demonstration using the 
procedures specified in Sec.  60.35f(a)(6).
    (f) Removal criteria. The collection and control system may be 
capped, removed, or decommissioned if the following criteria are met:
    (1) The landfill is a closed landfill (as defined in Sec.  60.41f). 
A closure report must be submitted to the Administrator as provided in 
Sec.  60.38f(f).
    (2) The collection and control system has been in operation a 
minimum of 15 years or the landfill owner or operator demonstrates that 
the GCCS will be unable to operate for 15 years due to declining gas 
flow.
    (3) Following the procedures specified in Sec.  60.35f(b), the 
calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill is 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.
    (4) For the closed landfill subcategory (as defined in Sec.  
60.41), following the procedures specified in Sec.  60.35f(b), the 
calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill is 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.

Sec.  60.34f  Operational standards for collection and control systems.

    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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  60.33f(b) and (c) must:
    (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) Five (5) years or more if active; or
    (2) Two (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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
60.38f(d).
    (c) Operate each interior wellhead in the collection system with a 
landfill gas temperature less than 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees 
Fahrenheit). The owner or operator may establish a higher operating 
temperature value at a particular well. A higher operating value 
demonstration must be submitted to the Administrator for approval and 
must include supporting data demonstrating that the elevated parameter 
neither causes fires nor significantly inhibits anaerobic decomposition 
by killing methanogens. The demonstration must satisfy both criteria in 
order to be approved (i.e., neither causing fires nor killing 
methanogens is acceptable).
    (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 using an organic vapor analyzer, 
flame ionization detector, or other portable monitor meeting the 
specifications provided in Sec.  60.36(d). The owner or operator must 
conduct surface testing around the perimeter of the collection area and 
along a 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

[[Page 59316]]

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 Sec.  
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 of the collection or control 
system not operating.
    (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 
paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section are not met, corrective 
action must be taken as specified in Sec.  60.36f(a)(3) and (5) or (c). 
If corrective actions are taken as specified in Sec.  60.36f, the 
monitored exceedance is not a violation of the operational requirements 
in this section.

Sec.  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) NMOC Emission Rate. The landfill owner or operator must 
calculate the NMOC emission rate using either Equation 1 provided in 
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section or Equation 2 provided in paragraph 
(a)(1)(ii) of this section. Both Equation 1 and Equation 2 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 
Equation 1 and Equation 2 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.
    (i)(A) Equation 1 must be used if the actual year-to-year solid 
waste acceptance rate is known.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29AU16.000

Where:

MNMOC = Total NMOC emission rate from the landfill, 
megagrams per year.
k = Methane generation rate constant, year-\1\.
Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic meters per 
megagram solid waste.
Mi = Mass of solid waste in the i\th\ section, megagrams.
ti = Age of the i\th\ section, years.
CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, parts per million by 
volume as hexane.
3.6 x 10-\9\ = Conversion factor.

    (B) 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)(A) Equation 2 must be used if the actual year-to-year solid 
waste acceptance rate is unknown.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29AU16.001

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\.
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 x 10-\9\ = Conversion factor.

    (B) 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 Sec.  
60.38f(c), and must recalculate the NMOC mass emission rate annually as 
required under Sec.  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 within 1 
year as specified in Sec.  60.38f(d) and install and operate a gas 
collection and control system within 30 months according to Sec.  
60.33f(b) and (c);
    (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; or
    (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.
    (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, evenly distributed over the 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 probes should be evenly 
distributed across the sample area. 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 verify that composite volumes 
are equal. Composite sample volumes should not be less than one liter 
unless evidence can be provided to substantiate the

[[Page 59317]]

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 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 Sec.  60.38f(j)(2).
    (ii) The landfill owner or operator must recalculate the NMOC mass 
emission rate using Equation 1 or Equation 2 provided in paragraph 
(a)(1)(i) or (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 resulting NMOC mass emission rate is less than 34 
megagrams per year, then the owner or operator must submit a periodic 
estimate of NMOC emissions in an NMOC emission rate report according to 
Sec.  60.38f(c), and must recalculate the NMOC mass emission rate 
annually as required under Sec.  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 within 1 
year as specified in Sec.  60.38f(d) and install and operate a gas 
collection and control system within 30 months according to Sec.  
60.33f(b) and (c);
    (B) Determine a site-specific methane generation rate constant and 
recalculate the NMOC emission rate using the site-specific methane 
generation rate using the Tier 3 procedures specified in paragraph 
(a)(4) of this section; or
    (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 Equation 1 or Equation 2 in paragraph 
(a)(1)(i) or (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 within 1 
year as specified in Sec.  60.38f(d) and install and operate a gas 
collection and control system within 30 months according to Sec.  
60.33f(b) and (c); or
    (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 Equation 1 or Equation 2 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 NMOC emission rate report as provided in Sec.  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) Other methods. 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 (4) of this section if the method has been approved by the 
Administrator.
    (6) Tier 4. The landfill owner or operator must demonstrate that 
surface methane emissions are below 500 parts per million. Surface 
emission monitoring must be conducted on a quarterly basis using the 
following procedures. Tier 4 is allowed only if the landfill owner or 
operator can demonstrate that NMOC emissions are greater than or equal 
to 34 Mg/yr but less than 50 Mg/yr using Tier 1 or Tier 2. If both Tier 
1 and Tier 2 indicate NMOC emissions are 50 Mg/yr or greater, then Tier 
4 cannot be used. In addition, the landfill must meet the criteria in 
paragraph (a)(6)(viii) of this section.
    (i) The owner or operator must measure surface concentrations of 
methane along the entire perimeter of the 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 Sec.  60.36f(d).
    (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 no more than 5 centimeters above the 
landfill surface; the constant measurement of distance above the 
surface should be based on a mechanical device such as with a wheel on 
a pole.
    (A) The owner or operator must use a wind barrier, similar to a 
funnel, when onsite average wind speed exceeds 4 miles per hour or 2 
meters per second or gust exceeding 10 miles per hour. Average on-site 
wind speed must also be determined in an open area at 5-minute 
intervals using an on-site anemometer with a continuous recorder and 
data logger for the entire duration of the monitoring event. The wind 
barrier must surround the SEM monitor, and must be placed on the 
ground, to ensure wind turbulence is blocked. SEM cannot be conducted 
if average wind speed exceeds 25 miles per hour.
    (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 cover penetrations must also 
be monitored using a device meeting the specifications provided in 
Sec.  60.36f(d).
    (iv) 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 Sec.  60.39f(g) and submit a 
Tier 4 surface emissions report as provided in Sec.  60.38f(d)(4)(iii).

[[Page 59318]]

    (v) 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 Sec.  60.38f(d) and install and operate a gas collection and control 
system according to Sec.  60.33f(b) and (c) within 30 months of the 
most recent NMOC emission rate report in which the NMOC emission rate 
equals or exceeds 34 megagrams per year based on Tier 2.
    (vi) If after four consecutive quarterly monitoring periods at a 
landfill, other than a closed landfill, 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 continue quarterly 
surface emission monitoring using the methods specified in this 
section.
    (vii) If after four consecutive quarterly monitoring periods at a 
closed landfill 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 conduct annual surface emission monitoring using 
the methods specified in this section.
    (viii) If a landfill has installed and operates a collection and 
control system that is not required by this subpart, then the 
collection and control system must meet the following criteria:
    (A) The gas collection and control system must have operated for at 
least 6,570 out of 8,760 hours preceding the Tier 4 surface emissions 
monitoring demonstration.
    (B) During the Tier 4 surface emissions monitoring demonstration, 
the gas collection and control system must operate as it normally would 
to collect and control as much landfill gas as possible.
    (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, removed, or decommissioned as provided in Sec.  
60.33f(f), using Equation 3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29AU16.002

Where:

MNMOC = Mass emission rate of NMOC, megagrams per year.
QLFG = Flow rate of landfill gas, cubic meters per 
minute.
CNMOC = NMOC concentration, parts per million by volume 
as hexane.

    (1) The flow rate of landfill gas, QLFG, must be 
determined by measuring the total landfill gas flow rate at the common 
header pipe that leads to the control system using a gas flow measuring 
device calibrated according to the provisions of section 10 of Method 
2E of appendix A of this part.
    (2) The average NMOC concentration, CNMOC, must be 
determined by collecting and analyzing landfill gas sampled from the 
common header pipe before the gas moving or condensate removal 
equipment using the procedures in Method 25 or Method 25C of appendix A 
of this part. The sample location on the common header pipe must be 
before any condensate removal or other gas refining units. The landfill 
owner or operator must divide the NMOC concentration from Method 25 or 
Method 25C by six to convert from CNMOC as carbon to 
CNMOC as hexane.
    (3) The owner or operator may use another method to determine 
landfill gas flow rate and NMOC concentration if the method has been 
approved by the Administrator.
    (i) Within 60 days after the date of calculating the NMOC emission 
rate for purposes of determining when the system can be capped or 
removed, the owner or operator must submit the results according to 
Sec.  60.38f(j)(2).
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (c) When calculating emissions for Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration 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 Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration major source and significance levels in Sec.  51.166 or 
Sec.  52.21 of this chapter using Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 
Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources (AP-42) or other 
approved measurement procedures.
    (d) For the performance test required in Sec.  60.33f(c)(1), the 
net heating value of the combusted landfill gas as determined in Sec.  
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 Sec.  60.18(f)(4).
    (1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test (as defined in Sec.  60.8), the owner or operator must submit the 
results of the performance tests required by paragraph (b) or (d) of 
this section, including any associated fuel analyses, according to 
Sec.  60.38f(j)(1).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (e) For the performance test required in Sec.  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 Sec.  
60.38f(d)(2). Method 3, 3A, or 3C 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. 
Method 18 may be used in conjunction with Method 25A on a limited basis 
(compound specific, e.g., methane) or Method 3C may be used to 
determine methane. The methane as carbon should be subtracted from the 
Method 25A total hydrocarbon value as carbon to give NMOC concentration 
as carbon. The landfill owner or operator must divide the NMOC 
concentration as carbon by 6 to convert the CNMOC as carbon 
to CNMOC as hexane. Equation 4 must be used to calculate 
efficiency:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29AU16.003

[[Page 59319]]

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 Sec.  60.8), the owner or operator must submit the 
results of the performance tests, including any associated fuel 
analyses, according to Sec.  60.38f(j)(1).
    (2) [Reserved]

Sec.  60.36f  Compliance provisions.

    For approval, a state plan must include the compliance provisions 
in this section.
    (a) Except as provided in Sec.  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 Sec.  
60.33f(b)(2).
    (1) For the purposes of calculating the maximum expected gas 
generation flow rate from the landfill to determine compliance with 
Sec.  60.33f(b)(2)(i), either Equation 5 or Equation 6 in paragraph 
(a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section must be used. The methane generation 
rate constant (k) and methane generation potential (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 Sec.  
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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29AU16.004

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:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29AU16.005
    

Where:

QM = Maximum expected gas generation flow rate, cubic 
meters per year.
k = Methane generation rate constant, year-\1\.
Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic meters per 
megagram solid waste.
Mi = Mass of solid waste in the i\th\ section, megagrams.
ti = Age of the i\th\ 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, Equation 5 or Equation 6 
in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (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 Equation 5 
or Equation 6 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 Sec.  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 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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  60.34f(b). Any attempted corrective measure must 
not cause exceedances of other operational or performance standards.
    (i) If negative pressure cannot be achieved without excess air 
infiltration within 15 calendar days of the first measurement of 
positive pressure, the owner or operator must conduct a root cause 
analysis and correct the exceedance as soon as practicable, but not 
later than 60 days after positive pressure was first measured. The 
owner or operator must keep records according to Sec.  60.39f(e)(3).
    (ii) If corrective actions cannot be fully implemented within 60 
days following the positive pressure measurement for which the root 
cause analysis was required, the owner or operator must also conduct a 
corrective action analysis and develop an implementation schedule to 
complete the corrective action(s) as soon as practicable, but no more 
than 120 days following the positive pressure measurement. The owner or 
operator must submit the items listed in Sec.  60.38f(h)(7) as part of 
the next annual report. The owner or operator must keep records 
according to Sec.  60.39f(e)(4).
    (iii) If corrective action is expected to take longer than 120 days 
to complete after the initial exceedance, the owner or operator must 
submit the root cause analysis, corrective action analysis, and 
corresponding implementation timeline to the Administrator, according 
to Sec.  60.38f(h)(7) and (k). The owner or operator must keep records 
according to Sec.  60.39f(e)(5).
    (4) [Reserved]
    (5) For the purpose of identifying whether excess air infiltration 
into the landfill is occurring, the owner or operator must monitor each 
well monthly for temperature as provided in Sec.  60.34f(c). If a well 
exceeds the operating parameter for temperature, action must be 
initiated to correct the exceedance within 5 calendar days. Any 
attempted corrective measure must not

[[Page 59320]]

cause exceedances of other operational or performance standards.
    (i) If a landfill gas temperature less than 55 degrees Celsius (131 
degrees Fahrenheit) cannot be achieved within 15 calendar days of the 
first measurement of landfill gas temperature greater than 55 degrees 
Celsius (131 degrees Fahrenheit), the owner or operator must conduct a 
root cause analysis and correct the exceedance as soon as practicable, 
but no later than 60 days after a landfill gas temperature greater than 
55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees Fahrenheit) was first measured. The 
owner or operator must keep records according to Sec.  60.39f(e)(3).
    (ii) If corrective actions cannot be fully implemented within 60 
days following the positive pressure measurement for which the root 
cause analysis was required, the owner or operator must also conduct a 
corrective action analysis and develop an implementation schedule to 
complete the corrective action(s) as soon as practicable, but no more 
than 120 days following the measurement of landfill gas temperature 
greater than 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees Fahrenheit). The owner or 
operator must submit the items listed in Sec.  60.38f(h)(7) as part of 
the next annual report. The owner or operator must keep records 
according to Sec.  60.39f(e)(4).
    (iii) If corrective action is expected to take longer than 120 days 
to complete after the initial exceedance, the owner or operator must 
submit the root cause analysis, corrective action analysis, and 
corresponding implementation timeline to the Administrator, according 
to Sec.  60.38f(h)(7) and (k). The owner or operator must keep records 
according to Sec.  60.39f(e)(5).
    (6) An owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with 
Sec.  60.33f(b)(2)(iv) through the use of a collection system not 
conforming to the specifications provided in Sec.  60.40f must provide 
information satisfactory to the Administrator as specified in Sec.  
60.38f(d)(3) demonstrating that off-site migration is being controlled.
    (b) For purposes of compliance with Sec.  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 Sec.  
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) Five (5) years or more if active; or
    (2) Two (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 Sec.  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 paragraph (d) of this section.
    (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 Sec.  
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 4 meters. The 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 each exceedance 
must be made and the location must be re-monitored within 10 calendar 
days of detecting the exceedance.
    (iii) If the re-monitoring of the location shows a second 
exceedance, additional corrective action must be taken and the location 
must be monitored again within 10 days of the second exceedance. If the 
re-monitoring shows a third exceedance for the same location, the 
action specified in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section must be taken, 
and no further monitoring of that location is required until the action 
specified in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section has been taken.
    (iv) Any location that initially showed an exceedance but has a 
methane concentration less than 500 parts per million methane above 
background at the 10-day re-monitoring specified in paragraph 
(c)(4)(ii) or (iii) of this section must be re-monitored 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 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 or Sec.  60.35f(a)(6) 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 6 of Method 21 of appendix A of this part, except 
that ``methane'' replaces 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 8.1 
of Method 21 of appendix A of this part, the instrument evaluation 
procedures of section 8.1 of Method 21 must be used.
    (4) The calibration procedures provided in sections 8 and 10 of 
Method 21 of appendix A of this part must be followed immediately 
before commencing a surface monitoring survey.
    (e) The provisions of this subpart apply at all times, including 
periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. During periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must comply with the work 
practice specified in Sec.  60.34f(e) in lieu of the compliance 
provisions in Sec.  60.36f.

[[Page 59321]]

Sec.  60.37f  Monitoring of operations.

    For approval, a state plan must include the monitoring provisions 
in this section, except as provided in Sec.  60.38f(d)(2).
    (a) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
60.38f(d)(2).
    (ii) Unless an alternative test method is established as allowed by 
Sec.  60.38f(d)(2), the oxygen level must be determined by an oxygen 
meter using Method 3A, 3C, or ASTM D6522-11 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  60.17). Determine the oxygen level by an oxygen meter using 
Method 3A, 3C, or ASTM D6522-11 (if sample location is prior to 
combustion) except that:
    (A) The span must be set between 10 and 12 percent oxygen;
    (B) A data recorder is not required;
    (C) Only two calibration gases are required, a zero and span;
    (D) A calibration error check is not required; and
    (E) The allowable sample bias, zero drift, and calibration drift 
are 10 percent.
    (iii) A portable gas composition analyzer may be used to monitor 
the oxygen levels provided:
    (A) The analyzer is calibrated; and
    (B) The analyzer meets all quality assurance and quality control 
requirements for Method 3A or ASTM D6522-11 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  60.17).
    (3) Monitor temperature of the landfill gas on a monthly basis as 
provided in Sec.  60.36f(a)(5). The temperature measuring device must 
be calibrated annually using the procedure in this part 60, appendix A-
1, Method 2, Section 10.3.
    (b) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.  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 the control device and bypass of 
the control device (if applicable). 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 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 Sec.  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 the flare and bypass of the flare 
(if applicable). The owner or operator must:
    (i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring 
device that records 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.
    (d) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with 
Sec.  60.33f(c) using a device other than a non-enclosed flare or an 
enclosed combustor or a treatment system must provide information 
satisfactory to the Administrator as provided in Sec.  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 Sec.  60.40f or seeking to 
monitor alternative parameters to those required by Sec. Sec.  60.34f 
through 60.37f must provide information satisfactory to the 
Administrator as provided in Sec.  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.
    (f) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with 
the 500 parts per million surface methane operational standard in Sec.  
60.34f(d) must monitor surface concentrations of methane according to 
the procedures provided in Sec.  60.36f(c) and the instrument 
specifications in Sec.  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 Sec.  60.33f(c) using a landfill gas 
treatment system must maintain and operate all monitoring systems 
associated with the treatment system in accordance with the site-
specific treatment system monitoring plan required in Sec.  
60.39f(b)(5)(ii) and must calibrate, maintain, and operate according to 
the manufacturer's specifications a device that records flow to the 
treatment system and bypass of the treatment system (if applicable). 
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 the closed position and that 
the gas flow is not diverted through the bypass line.
    (h) The monitoring requirements of paragraphs (b), (c) (d) and (g) 
of this section apply at all times the affected source is operating, 
except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs 
associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring

[[Page 59322]]

system quality assurance or quality control activities. A monitoring 
system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 
preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data. 
Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance 
or careless operation are not malfunctions. You are required to 
complete monitoring system repairs in response to monitoring system 
malfunctions and to return the monitoring system to operation as 
expeditiously as practicable.

Sec.  60.38f  Reporting guidelines.

    For approval, a state plan must include the reporting provisions 
listed in this section, as applicable, except as provided under 
Sec. Sec.  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 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 meet or exceed 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 Sec.  60.39f(f).
    (c) NMOC emission rate report. For existing MSW landfills covered 
by this subpart with a design capacity equal to or 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)(2) 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 to the 
Administrator annually following the procedure specified in paragraph 
(j)(2) 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 Sec.  60.35f(a) or (b), as applicable.
    (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)(2) 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 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 Sec.  60.33f(b) and (c), during such time as the 
collection and control system is in operation and in compliance with 
Sec. Sec.  60.34f and 60.36f.
    (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 be prepared and approved by a 
professional engineer and must meet the following requirements:
    (1) The collection and control system as described in the design 
plan must meet the design requirements in Sec.  60.33f(b) and (c).
    (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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  60.40f 
or include a demonstration to the Administrator's satisfaction of the 
sufficiency of the alternative provisions to Sec.  60.40f.
    (4) 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 copy of the collection and control system 
design plan cover page that contains the engineer's seal 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 provided in 
Sec.  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 NMOC 
emission rate is equal to or greater than 34 megagrams per year or

[[Page 59323]]

the landfill is closed. The revised NMOC emission rate report, with the 
recalculated NMOC emission rate based on NMOC sampling and analysis, 
must be submitted, following the procedures in paragraph (j)(2) 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 Sec.  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 NMOC 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 Sec.  60.35f(a)(4) and the resulting site-specific 
methane generation rate constant k must be submitted, following the 
procedure specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this section, to the 
Administrator within 1 year of the first calculated NMOC emission rate 
equaling or exceeding 34 megagrams per year.
    (iii) If the owner or operator elects to demonstrate that site-
specific surface methane emissions are below 500 parts per million 
methane, based on the provisions of Sec.  60.35f(a)(6), then the owner 
or operator must submit annually a Tier 4 surface emissions report as 
specified in this paragraph (d)(4)(iii) following the procedure 
specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this section until a surface emissions 
readings of 500 parts per million methane or greater is found. If the 
Tier 4 surface emissions report shows no surface emissions readings of 
500 parts per million methane or greater for four consecutive quarters 
at a closed landfill, then the landfill owner or operator may reduce 
Tier 4 monitoring from a quarterly to an annual frequency. 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 time (to the nearest second), average wind speeds 
including wind gusts, and reading (in parts per million) of any value 
500 parts per million methane or greater, other than non-repeatable, 
momentary readings. For location, you must determine the latitude and 
longitude coordinates using an instrument with an accuracy of at least 
4 meters. The coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at least five 
decimal places. The Tier 4 surface emission report should also include 
the results of the most recent Tier 1 and Tier 2 results in order to 
verify that the landfill does not exceed 50 Mg/yr of NMOC.
    (A) The initial Tier 4 surface emissions report must be submitted 
annually, starting within 30 days of completing the fourth quarter of 
Tier 4 surface emissions monitoring that demonstrates that site-
specific surface methane emissions are below 500 parts per million 
methane, and following the procedure specified in paragraph (j)(2) of 
this section.
    (B) The Tier 4 surface emissions rate report must be submitted 
within 1 year of the first measured surface exceedance of 500 parts per 
million methane, following the procedure specified in paragraph (j)(2) 
of this section.
    (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 
Sec.  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 NMOC 
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 NMOC emission rate based on NMOC sampling and analysis, 
must be submitted, following the procedure specified in paragraph 
(j)(2) 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 Sec.  60.35f(a)(4), and the 
resulting NMOC emission rate is less than 50 megagrams per year, annual 
periodic reporting must be resumed. The resulting site-specific methane 
generation rate constant k must be used in the NMOC 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 Sec.  60.35f(a)(4) and the resulting site-specific 
methane generation rate constant k must be submitted, following the 
procedure specified in paragraph (j)(2) 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 paragraph 
(d)(4)(iii) of this section.
    (D) The landfill has already submitted a gas collection and control 
system design plan consistent with the provisions of subpart WWW of 
this part; 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG; or a state plan implementing 
subpart Cc of this part.
    (5) The landfill owner or operator must notify the Administrator 
that the design plan is completed and submit a copy of the plan's 
signature page. The Administrator has 90 days to decide whether the 
design plan should be submitted for review. If the Administrator 
chooses to review the plan, the approval process continues as described 
in paragraph (c)(6) of this section. However, if the Administrator 
indicates that submission is not required or does not respond within 90 
days, the landfill owner or operator can continue to implement the plan 
with the recognition that the owner or operator is proceeding at their 
own risk. In the event that the design plan is required to be modified 
to obtain approval, the owner or operator must take any steps necessary 
to conform any prior actions to the approved design plan and any 
failure to do so could result in an enforcement action.
    (6) Upon receipt of an initial or revised design plan, the 
Administrator must review the information submitted under paragraphs 
(d)(1) through (3) 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 
vertical collection systems, or horizontal trenches only, leachate 
collection components, and passive systems. If the Administrator does 
not approve or disapprove the design plan, or does not request that 
additional information be submitted within 90 days of receipt, then the 
owner or operator may continue with implementation of the design plan, 
recognizing they would be proceeding at their own risk.
    (7) 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

[[Page 59324]]

treatment system monitoring plan as specified in Sec.  60.39f(b)(5).
    (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 subpart WWW of this part; 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG; or a 
state plan implementing subpart Cc of this part, must submit a revised 
design plan to the Administrator for approval as follows:
    (1) At least 90 days before 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 Sec.  60.7(a)(4).
    (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 copies of three successive NMOC emission rate reports 
demonstrating that the landfill is no longer producing 34 megagrams or 
greater of NMOC per year, unless the NMOC emission rate reports have 
been submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX. If the NMOC emission rate 
reports have been previously submitted to the EPA's CDX, a statement 
that the NMOC emission rate 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 NMOC emission 
rate reports; or
    (iv) 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, unless 
the NMOC emission rate reports have been submitted to the EPA via the 
EPA's CDX. If the NMOC emission rate reports have been previously 
submitted to the EPA's CDX, a statement that the NMOC emission rate 
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 NMOC emission rate reports.
    (2) The Administrator may request such additional information as 
may be necessary to verify that all of the conditions for removal in 
Sec.  60.33f(f) have been met.
    (h) Annual report. The owner or operator of a landfill seeking to 
comply with Sec.  60.33f(e)(2) using an active collection system 
designed in accordance with Sec.  60.33f(b) must submit to the 
Administrator, following the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(2) 
of this section, an annual report of the recorded information in 
paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) 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 initial performance test report required under Sec.  60.8, 
as applicable, unless the report of the results of the performance test 
has been submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX. In the initial annual 
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. The initial performance test report must be 
submitted, following the procedure specified in paragraph (j)(1) of 
this section, no later than the date that the initial annual report is 
submitted. For enclosed combustion devices and flares, reportable 
exceedances are defined under Sec.  60.39f(c)(1).
    (1) Value and length of time for exceedance of applicable 
parameters monitored under Sec.  60.37f(a)(1), (b), (c), (d), and (g).
    (2) Description and duration of all periods when the gas stream was 
diverted from the control device or treatment system through a bypass 
line or the indication of bypass flow as specified under Sec.  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 Sec.  60.34f(d) and the 
concentration recorded at each location for which an exceedance 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 4 meters. The 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 Sec.  60.36f(a)(3), 
(a)(5), (b), and (c)(4).
    (7) For any corrective action analysis for which corrective actions 
are required in Sec.  60.36f(a)(3) or (5) and that take more than 60 
days to correct the exceedance, the root cause analysis conducted, 
including a description of the recommended corrective action(s), the 
date for corrective action(s) already completed following the positive 
pressure reading, and, for action(s) not already completed, a schedule 
for implementation, including proposed commencement and completion 
dates.
    (i) Initial performance test report. Each owner or operator seeking 
to comply with Sec.  60.33f(c) must include the following information 
with the initial performance test report required under Sec.  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;

[[Page 59325]]

    (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 off-site migration.
    (j) Electronic reporting. The owner or operator must submit reports 
electronically according to paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test (as defined in Sec.  60.8), the owner or operator must submit the 
results of each performance test according to the following procedures:
    (i) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site 
(https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_info.html) at the time of the 
test, 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) 
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). Performance test data must be submitted in a 
file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an 
alternative 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 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/OAQPS/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 (j)(1)(i).
    (ii) For data collected using test methods that are not supported 
by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the 
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  60.4.
    (2) Each owner or operator required to submit reports following the 
procedure specified in this paragraph must submit reports to the EPA 
via the CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX.) The owner 
or operator must use the appropriate electronic report in CEDRI for 
this subpart or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the 
XML schema listed on the CEDRI Web site (https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/cedri/index.html). If the reporting form specific to this subpart 
is not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, the owner 
or operator must submit the report to the Administrator at the 
appropriate address listed in Sec.  60.4. Once the form has been 
available in CEDRI for 90 calendar days, the owner or operator must 
begin submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. The reports must be 
submitted by the deadlines specified in this subpart, regardless of the 
method in which the reports are submitted.
    (k) Corrective action and the corresponding timeline. The owner or 
operator must submit according to paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) For corrective action that is required according to Sec.  
60.36f(a)(3)(iii) or (a)(5)(iii) and is expected to take longer than 
120 days after the initial exceedance to complete, you must submit the 
root cause analysis, corrective action analysis, and corresponding 
implementation timeline to the Administrator as soon as practicable but 
no later than 75 days after the first measurement of positive pressure 
or temperature monitoring value of 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees 
Fahrenheit) or above. The Administrator must approve the plan for 
corrective action and the corresponding timeline.
    (2) For corrective action that is required according to Sec.  
60.36f(a)(3)(iii) or (a)(5)(iii) and is not completed within 60 days 
after the initial exceedance, you must submit a notification to the 
Administrator as soon as practicable but no later than 75 days after 
the first measurement of positive pressure or temperature exceedance.
    (l) Liquids addition. The owner or operator of an affected landfill 
with a design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams 
and 2.5 million cubic meters that has employed leachate recirculation 
or added liquids based on a Research, Development, and Demonstration 
permit (issued through Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle 
D, part 258) within the last 10 years must submit to the Administrator, 
annually, following the procedure specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this 
section, the following information:
    (1) Volume of leachate recirculated (gallons per year) and the 
reported basis of those estimates (records or engineering estimates).
    (2) Total volume of all other liquids added (gallons per year) and 
the reported basis of those estimates (records or engineering 
estimates).
    (3) Surface area (acres) over which the leachate is recirculated 
(or otherwise applied).
    (4) Surface area (acres) over which any other liquids are applied.
    (5) The total waste disposed (megagrams) in the areas with 
recirculated leachate and/or added liquids based on on-site records to 
the extent data are available, or engineering estimates and the 
reported basis of those estimates.
    (6) The annual waste acceptance rates (megagrams per year) in the 
areas with recirculated leachate and/or added liquids, based on on-site 
records to the extent data are available, or engineering estimates.
    (7) The initial report must contain items in paragraph (l)(1) 
through (6) of this section per year for the most recent 365 days as 
well as for each of the previous 10 years, to the extent historical 
data are available in on-site records, and the report must be submitted 
no later than:
    (i) September 27, 2017, for landfills that commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction after July 17, 2014 but before August 
29, 2016; or
    (ii) 365 days after the date of commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction for landfills that commence 
construction, modification, or reconstruction after August 29, 2016.
    (8) Subsequent annual reports must contain items in paragraph 
(l)(1) through (6) of this section for the 365-day period following the 
365-day period included in the previous annual report, and the report 
must be submitted no later than 365 days after the date the previous 
report was submitted.
    (9) Landfills in the closed landfill subcategory are exempt from 
reporting requirements contained in paragraphs (l)(1) through (7) of 
this section.
    (10) Landfills may cease annual reporting of items in paragraphs 
(l)(1) through (6) of this section once they have submitted the closure 
report in Sec.  60.38f(f).
    (m) Tier 4 notification. (1) The owner or operator of an affected 
landfill with

[[Page 59326]]

a design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams and 
2.5 million cubic meters must provide a notification of the date(s) 
upon which it intends to demonstrate site-specific surface methane 
emissions are below 500 parts per million methane, based on the Tier 4 
provisions of Sec.  60.35f(a)(6). The landfill must also include a 
description of the wind barrier to be used during the SEM in the 
notification. Notification must be postmarked not less than 30 days 
prior to such date.
    (2) If there is a delay to the scheduled Tier 4 SEM date due to 
weather conditions, including not meeting the wind requirements in 
Sec.  60.35f (a)(6)(iii)(A), the owner or operator of a landfill shall 
notify the Administrator by email or telephone no later than 48 hours 
before any known delay in the original test date, and arrange an 
updated date with the Administrator by mutual agreement.

Sec.  60.39f  Recordkeeping guidelines.

    For approval, a state plan must include the recordkeeping 
provisions in this section.
    (a) Except as provided in Sec.  60.38f(d)(2), each owner or 
operator of an MSW landfill subject to the provisions of Sec.  
60.33f(e) must keep for at least 5 years up-to-date, readily 
accessible, on-site records of the design capacity report that 
triggered Sec.  60.33f(e), the current amount of solid waste in-place, 
and the year-by-year waste acceptance rate. Off-site records may be 
maintained if they are retrievable within 4 hours. Either paper copy or 
electronic formats are acceptable.
    (b) Except as provided in Sec.  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 (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 Sec.  60.33f(b):
    (i) The maximum expected gas generation flow rate as calculated in 
Sec.  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 Sec.  60.40f(a)(1).
    (2) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this 
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with Sec.  60.33f(c) 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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.
    (5) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this 
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with Sec.  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) Monitoring records of parameters that are identified in the 
treatment system monitoring plan and that ensure the treatment system 
is operating properly for each intended end use of the treated landfill 
gas. At a minimum, records should include records of filtration, de-
watering, and compression parameters that ensure the treatment system 
is operating properly for each 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 each 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 Sec.  60.38f(d)(2), each owner or 
operator of a controlled landfill subject to the provisions of this 
subpart must keep for 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible continuous 
records of the equipment operating parameters specified to be monitored 
in Sec.  60.37f as well as up-to-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 Sec.  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 28 degrees Celsius 
(82 degrees Fahrenheit) below the average combustion temperature during 
the most recent performance test at which compliance with Sec.  
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 car-seals or lock-and-
key configurations used to seal bypass lines, specified under Sec.  
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 Sec.  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,

[[Page 59327]]

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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  60.33f(e) using an active collection system designed in 
accordance with Sec.  60.33f(b) must keep records of periods when the 
collection system or control device is not operating.
    (d) Except as provided in Sec.  60.38f(d)(2), each owner or 
operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must keep for 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 Sec.  60.36f(b).
    (2) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this 
subpart must keep readily accessible documentation of the nature, date 
of deposition, amount, and location of asbestos-containing or 
nondegradable waste excluded from collection as provided in Sec.  
60.40f(a)(3)(i) as well as any nonproductive areas excluded from 
collection as provided in Sec.  60.40f(a)(3)(ii).
    (e) Except as provided in Sec.  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 the following:
    (1) All collection and control system exceedances of the 
operational standards in Sec.  60.34f, the reading in the subsequent 
month whether or not the second reading is an exceedance, and the 
location of each exceedance.
    (2) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this 
subpart must also keep records of each wellhead temperature monitoring 
value of 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees Fahrenheit) or above, each 
wellhead nitrogen level at or above 20 percent, and each wellhead 
oxygen level at or above 5 percent.
    (3) For any root cause analysis for which corrective actions are 
required in Sec.  60.36f(a)(3) or (5), keep a record of the root cause 
analysis conducted, including a description of the recommended 
corrective action(s) taken, and the date(s) the corrective action(s) 
were completed.
    (4) For any root cause analysis for which corrective actions are 
required in Sec.  60.36f(a)(3)(ii) or (a)(5)(ii), keep a record of the 
root cause analysis conducted, the corrective action analysis, the date 
for corrective action(s) already completed following the positive 
pressure reading or high temperature reading, and, for action(s) not 
already completed, a schedule for implementation, including proposed 
commencement and completion dates.
    (5) For any root cause analysis for which corrective actions are 
required in Sec.  60.36f(a)(3)(iii) or (a)(5)(iii), keep a record of 
the root cause analysis conducted, the corrective action analysis, the 
date for corrective action(s) already completed following the positive 
pressure reading or high temperature reading, for action(s) not already 
completed, a schedule for implementation, including proposed 
commencement and completion dates, and a copy of any comments or final 
approval on the corrective action analysis or schedule from the 
regulatory agency.
    (f) Landfill owners or operators who convert design capacity from 
volume to mass or mass to volume to demonstrate 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, on-site records of the annual recalculation of 
site-specific density, design capacity, and the supporting 
documentation. Off-site 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 Sec.  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 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.
    (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) Digital photographs of the instrument setup. The photographs 
must be time and date-stamped and taken at the first sampling location 
prior to sampling and at the last sampling location after sampling at 
the end of each sampling day, for the duration of the Tier 4 monitoring 
demonstration.
    (3) Timestamp of each surface scan reading:
    (i) Timestamp should be detailed to the nearest second, based on 
when the sample collection begins.
    (ii) A log for the length of time each sample was taken using a 
stopwatch (e.g., the time the probe was held over the area).
    (4) Location of each surface scan reading. The owner or operator 
must determine the coordinates using an instrument with an accuracy of 
at least 4 meters. Coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at least 
five decimal places.
    (5) Monitored methane concentration (parts per million) of each 
reading.
    (6) Background methane concentration (parts per million) after each 
instrument calibration test.
    (7) Adjusted methane concentration using most recent calibration 
(parts per million).
    (8) For readings taken at each surface penetration, the unique 
identification location label matching the label specified in paragraph 
(d) of this section.
    (9) Records of the operating hours of the gas collection system for 
each destruction device.
    (h) Except as provided in Sec.  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 monitoring data for parameters measured in Sec.  
60.37f(a)(1), (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.
    (j) For each owner or operator reporting leachate or other liquids 
addition under Sec.  60.38f(l), keep records of any engineering 
calculations or company records used to estimate the quantities of 
leachate or liquids added, the surface areas for which the leachate or 
liquids were applied, and the

[[Page 59328]]

estimates of annual waste acceptance or total waste in place in the 
areas where leachate or liquids were applied.

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 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 (ii) of this section.
    (i) Any segregated area of asbestos or nondegradable material may 
be excluded from collection if documented as provided under Sec.  
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 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 Equation 7:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29AU16.006

Where:

Qi = NMOC emission rate from the i\th\ 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 i\th\ 
section, megagram.
ti = Age of the solid waste in the i\th\ section, years.
CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, parts per million by 
volume.
3.6x10-9 = Conversion factor.

    (B) If the owner or 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 Equation 3 in Sec.  60.35f or Equation 7 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 (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 Sec.  60.35f or the alternative values 
from Sec.  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 Sec.  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. 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 cross-section 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 Sec.  60.33f(c) 
must convey the landfill gas to a control system in compliance with 
Sec.  60.33f(c) through the collection header pipe(s). The gas mover 
equipment must be sized to handle the 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

[[Page 59329]]

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 Sec.  60.36f(a)(1).

Sec.  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 area means a separately lined area of an MSW landfill in 
which solid waste is no longer being placed. If additional solid waste 
is placed in that area of the landfill, that landfill area is no longer 
closed. The area must be separately lined to ensure that the landfill 
gas does not migrate between open and closed areas.
    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 modification as prescribed under 
Sec.  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 Sec.  60.38f(f) on or before 
September 27, 2017.
    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 prepared in compliance 
with Sec.  60.33f(e)(2).
    Corrective action analysis means a description of all reasonable 
interim and long-term measures, if any, that are available, and an 
explanation of why the selected corrective action(s) is/are the best 
alternative(s), including, but not limited to, considerations of cost 
effectiveness, technical feasibility, safety, and secondary impacts.
    Design capacity means the maximum amount of solid waste a landfill 
can accept, as indicated in terms of volume or mass in the most recent 
permit issued by the state, local, or tribal agency responsible for 
regulating the landfill, plus any in-place waste not accounted for in 
the most recent permit. 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.
    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.
    Gust means the highest instantaneous wind speed that occurs over a 
3-second running average.
    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, even 
if originating from a household.
    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 chapter. 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/by-products; 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 application unit, 
surface impoundment, injection well, or waste pile as those terms are 
defined under Sec.  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.
    Leachate recirculation means the practice of taking the leachate 
collected from the landfill and reapplying it to the landfill by any of 
one of a variety of methods, including pre-wetting of the waste, direct 
discharge into the working face, spraying, infiltration ponds, vertical 
injection wells, horizontal gravity distribution systems, and pressure 
distribution systems.
    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 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D 
wastes (Sec.  257.2 of this title) such as commercial solid waste,

[[Page 59330]]

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 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 Sec.  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.
    Root cause analysis means an assessment conducted through a process 
of investigation to determine the primary cause, and any other 
contributing causes, of positive pressure at a wellhead.
    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 subpart B of this part that implements and enforces 
this subpart.
    Sufficient density means any number, spacing, and combination of 
collection system components, including vertical 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.

[FR Doc. 2016-17700 Filed 8-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P