Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215-0210
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Standards of Performance 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 59331-59384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17687]

[[Page 59331]]

Vol. 81

Monday,

No. 167

August 29, 2016

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 60

Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; Final 
Rule

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

[[Page 59332]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215; FRL-9949-51-OAR]
RIN 2060-AM08

Standards of Performance 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 Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid 
Waste Landfills. Under section 111 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA must 
review, and, if appropriate, revise standards of performance at least 
every 8 years. The EPA's review of the standards for municipal solid 
waste landfills considered landfills that commence construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after July 17, 2014. The final 
standards also reflect changes to the population of landfills and 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 the proposed 
rulemaking and addresses other regulatory issues including surface 
emissions monitoring, wellhead monitoring, and the definition of 
landfill gas treatment system.
    The new subpart 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-2003-0215. 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
BSER Best system of emission reduction
Btu British thermal unit
CAA Clean Air Act
CA LMR California Landfill Methane Rule
CBI Confidential business information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
EIA Energy Information Administration
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
lb/MMBtu Pounds per million British thermal unit
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 & Budget
PM Particulate matter
PM2.5 Fine particulate matter
ppm Parts per million
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD&D Research, development, and demonstration
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review
SC-CH4 Social cost of methane
SC-CO2 Social cost of carbon dioxide
SEM Surface emissions monitoring
SER Small entity representative
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SSM Startup, shutdown, and malfunction
Tg Teragram
TTN Technology Transfer Network
U.S. United States
USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program
VCS Voluntary consensus standard
VOC Volatile organic compound
WWW World Wide Web

    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 NSPS?
    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 NSPS
    A. What are the control requirements?
    B. What are the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
    C. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions
    D. Other Corrections and Clarifications
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
    E. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and Treatment System and 
Treatment System Monitoring

[[Page 59333]]

    F. 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. Definitions of Treated Landfill Gas and Treatment System
    F. 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 Standards of Performance for 
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills (landfills new source performance 
standards or landfills NSPS) resulting from the EPA's review of the 
landfills NSPS 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. In order to avoid possible confusion regarding which MSW 
landfills would actually be subject to these requirements, the EPA is 
establishing a new subpart XXX (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) rather 
than merely updating the existing subpart WWW (40 CFR part 60, subpart 
WWW). The requirements in new subpart XXX apply to MSW landfills for 
which construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced after 
July 17, 2014, the date of the proposed rule. The requirements in 
subpart WWW continue to apply to MSW landfills for which construction, 
reconstruction, or modification was commenced on or after May 30, 1991 
and on or before July 17, 2014. For a discussion of how changes in 
applicability affect sources currently subject to subparts Cc and WWW, 
see the proposed Emission Guidelines (80 FR 52110, August 27, 2016).
    The resulting changes to the NSPS found in subpart XXX 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 and 
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
    Several factors led to today's final action. First, section 111 of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7411) requires the EPA to review 
standards of performance at least every 8 years and, if appropriate, 
revise the standards to reflect improvements in methods for reducing 
emissions. Second, a mandatory duty lawsuit was filed against the EPA 
for failure to review the NSPS by the statutorily required deadline. 
Under a consent decree resolving that lawsuit, the EPA agreed to 
propose a review and take final action on the proposal. Third, the EPA 
has concluded that landfill owners or operators, as well as regulators, 
need clarification regarding issues that have arisen during 
implementation of the existing standards. Implementation issues include 
the definition of LFG treatment, among other topics. Fourth, landfills 
are a significant source of methane, a very 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.
2. Legal Authority
    CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B)) requires the EPA 
to ``at least every 8 years review and, if appropriate, revise'' new 
source performance standards. CAA section 111(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 
7411(a)(1)) provides that performance standards are to ``reflect the 
degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the 
best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost 
of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and 
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator 
determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' We refer to this level 
of control as the best system of emission reduction or ``BSER.''
    As indicated above, the EPA has decided to finalize its review of 
the landfill NSPS in a new subpart rather than update existing 
requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. The EPA believes that 
either approach is legally permissible.\3\ The final subpart XXX will 
appear in 40 CFR part 60 and will apply to landfills that commence 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after July 17, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The EPA believes that it has the legal authority in updating 
an NSPS to either propose and make changes to the existing subpart 
or to promulgate a new subpart and has previously done both. In 
either case, any substantive changes to the NSPS apply only to 
sources for which construction, reconstruction, or modification 
commenced on or after the date on which the proposed changes were 
published in the Federal Register (July 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of Major Provisions
    The final NSPS apply to landfills that commenced construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after July 17, 2014 (the date of 
publication of the proposed NSPS). The final rule provisions are 
described below.
    Thresholds for Installing Controls. The final NSPS retain the 
current design capacity threshold of 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) and 2.5 
million cubic meters (m\3\), but reduce the nonmethane

[[Page 59334]]

organic compounds (NMOC) emission threshold for the installation and 
removal of a gas collection and control system (GCCS) from 50 megagrams 
per year (Mg/yr) to 34 Mg/yr. An MSW landfill that exceeds the design 
capacity threshold must install and start up a GCCS within 30 months 
after LFG emissions reach or exceed an NMOC level of 34 Mg/yr. (A 
megagram is also known as a metric ton, which is equal to 1.1 United 
States (U.S.) short tons or about 2,205 pounds.) Consistent with the 
existing NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW), 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 methodology for when a 
landfill must install and operate a GCCS. This alternative methodology, 
referred to as ``Tier 4,'' is based on surface emission 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 the 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 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 XXX and the landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA). 
Many landfills that are subject to subpart XXX 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.
    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.
    Landfill Gas Treatment. In the final NSPS, 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 the definition of 
treated landfill gas that applies to LFG processed in a treatment 
system meeting the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX 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 
uses such as vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas for pipeline 
injection, or use as a raw material in a chemical manufacturing process 
in which the 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 the requirement to 
monitor all surface penetrations at landfills. In final 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart XXX, 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 
XXX. 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 NSPS 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 that could contribute 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 NSPS. In addition, while the EPA is not mandating 
organics diversion, we are finalizing two specific compliance 
flexibilities in the NSPS to encourage wider adoption of organics 
diversion and GCCS Best Management Practices (BMPs) for emission 
reductions at landfills. These compliance flexibilities are discussed 
in sections VI.A.1 and VI.A.2 (wellhead monitoring) and section V.B and 
VI.B (Tier 4 emission threshold determination) of this preamble.

C. Costs and Benefits

    The final NSPS 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 landfills that commence

[[Page 59335]]

construction, modification, or reconstruction after July 17, 2014. In 
the 5 years following July 17, 2014, the EPA estimates that 14 
landfills will commence construction and 123 landfills will modify. 
Note that landfills are not expected to reconstruct (63 FR 32745, June 
16, 1998).
    To comply with the emissions limits in the final rule, owners or 
operators of new or modified MSW landfills are expected to install the 
least-cost control for collecting and treating or combusting LFG. The 
annualized net cost for the final NSPS is estimated to be $6.0 million 
(2012$) in 2025, when using a 7 percent discount rate. The annualized 
costs represent the costs compared to no changes to the current NSPS 
(i.e., baseline) and include $11 million to install and operate a GCCS, 
as well as $0.08 million to complete the corresponding testing and 
monitoring. These control costs are offset by $5.1 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.
    Installation of a GCCS to comply with the 34 Mg/yr NMOC emissions 
threshold at new or modified landfills would achieve reductions of 281 
Mg/yr NMOC and 44,300 Mg/yr methane (about 1.1 million metric tons of 
carbon dioxide equivalent per year (mtCO2e/yr)) beyond the 
baseline in year 2025. In addition, the final rule is expected to 
result in the net reduction of 26,000 Mg-CO2, due to reduced 
demand by landfills 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 $31 million to 
approximately $180 million, depending on the discount rate. Using the 
mean social cost of methane (SC-CH4) and social cost of 
CO2 (SC-CO2), at a 3-percent discount rate, 
results in an estimate of about $68 million in 2025 (2012$).
    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. Each metric 
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 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 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 standards are estimated to be $62 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 MSW landfills that are new, 
reconstructed, or modified after 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Category                            NAICS \a\             Examples of affected facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry: Air and water resource and solid                        924110  Solid waste landfills
 waste management.
Industry: Refuse systems--solid waste landfills                   562212  Solid waste landfills
State, local, and tribal government agencies...                   924110  Administration of air and water
                                                                           resource and solid waste management
                                                                           programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the new 
subpart. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this 
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 
final 40 CFR 60.760 of subpart XXX. 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 
the final rule and key technical documents at this same Web site.

III. Background

    On July 17, 2014, the EPA proposed a new NSPS subpart (40 CFR part 
60, subpart XXX) based on its ongoing review of the MSW Landfills NSPS 
(40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW) (79 FR 41796). On August 27, 2015 (80 FR 
52162), the EPA issued a supplemental proposal to achieve additional 
reductions of LFG and its components, including methane, through a 
lower emission threshold at which MSW landfills must install and 
operate a GCCS. On August 27, 2015, the EPA issued a concurrent 
proposal for revised Emission Guidelines for existing MSW Landfills (80 
FR 52100). The EPA considered information it received in response to an 
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for the MSW landfills 
Emission Guidelines (79 FR 41772) and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
for existing landfills (80 FR 52100), in addition to the Notice of

[[Page 59336]]

Proposed Rulemaking for new landfills (79 FR 41796), in evaluating 
these final provisions for new sources.

A. Landfill Gas Emissions and Climate Change

    In June 2013, President Obama issued a Climate Action Plan that 
directed federal agencies to focus on ``assessing current emissions 
data, addressing data gaps, identifying technologies and best practices 
for reducing emissions, and identifying existing authorities and 
incentive-based opportunities to reduce methane emissions.'' \4\ 
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) that is 28-36 times greater 
than carbon dioxide (CO2) and has an atmospheric life of 
about 12 years.\5\ 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 impacts in mitigating global climate 
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Executive Office of the President, ``The President's Climate 
Action Plan'' June 2013. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf.
    \5\ The IPCC updates GWP estimates with each new assessment 
report, and in the latest assessment report, AR5, the latest 
estimate of the methane GWP ranged from 28-36, compared to a GWP of 
25 in AR4. The impacts analysis in this final rule is based on AR4 
instead of AR5 (i.e., a GWP of 25) 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'' 
\6\ (the Methane Strategy) was released in March 2014. The strategy 
recognized the methane reductions achieved through the EPA's regulatory 
and voluntary programs to date. It also directed the EPA to continue to 
pursue emission reductions through regulatory updates and to encourage 
LFG energy recovery through voluntary programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Executive Office of the President, ``Climate Action Plan 
Strategy to Reduce Methane'', March 2014. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/strategy_to_reduce_methane_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 \7\ asserted that the reduction of 
methane emissions from MSW landfills was one of many options available 
to reduce global warming. The NSPS for MSW landfills, promulgated in 
1996, also recognized the climate co-benefits of controlling methane 
(61 FR 9917, March 12, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills-
Background Information for Proposed Standards and Guidelines, U.S. 
EPA (EPA-450/3-90-011a) (NTIS PB 91-197061) page 2-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 \8\ (compared to an 
observed increase in methane concentrations of about 80 ppb over those 
20 years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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 NSPS 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 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)).\9\ 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.\10\ For these reasons and because additional 
emissions reductions can be achieved at a reasonable cost, the EPA is 
finalizing changes to the NSPS that are based on reducing the NMOC and 
methane components of LFG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Total U.S. methane emissions were 731 Teragram (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.
    \10\ Ibid, Section 7. Waste, Table 7-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

1. 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,\11\ 
2010,\12\ and 2014[hairsp]\13\), 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.\14\ Ozone is associated with 
health effects, including hospital and emergency department visits, 
school loss days and premature mortality, as well as ecological effects 
(e.g., injury to vegetation and climate change).\15\ Nearly 30 organic 
HAP have been identified in uncontrolled LFG, including benzene, 
toluene, ethyl benzene, and vinyl chloride.\16\ Benzene is a known 
human carcinogen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ U.S. EPA. RIA. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
Particulate Matter, Chapter 5. Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. October 2006. Available on 
the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/
Chapter%205_Benefits.pdf.
    \12\ U.S. EPA. RIA. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
Ozone. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research 
Triangle Park, NC. January 2010. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/s1-supplemental_analysis_full.pdf.
    \13\ U.S. EPA. RIA. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
Ozone. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research 
Triangle Park, NC. December 2014. Available on the Internet at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/20141125ria.pdf.
    \14\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate 
Matter (Final Report). EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for 
Environmental Assessment--RTP Division. December 2009. Available at 
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546.
    \15\ U.S. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related 
Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/600/R-05/004aF-cF. Washington, 
DC: U.S. EPA. February 2006. Available on the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=149923.
    \16\ U.S. EPA. 1998. Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards. ``Compilation of Air Pollutant 
Emission Factors, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area 
Sources, Chapter 2: Solid Waste Disposal, Section 2.4: Municipal 
Solid Waste Landfills''. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch02/final/c02s04.pdf.

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

[[Page 59337]]

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).17 18 According 
to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment 
Report, methane is the second leading long-lived climate forcer after 
CO2 globally.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science 
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment 
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, 
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. 
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge 
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
    \18\ Note that this final uses a GWP value for methane of 25 for 
CO2 equivalency calculations, consistent with the GHG 
emissions inventories and the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
    \19\ IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science 
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment 
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, 
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. 
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge 
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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).\20\ In the Endangerment Finding, the 
Administrator found that the current, elevated concentrations of GHGs 
in the atmosphere--already at levels unprecedented in human history--
may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare of 
current and future generations in the U.S. We summarize these adverse 
effects on public health and welfare briefly here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ``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).\21\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ``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 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

[[Page 59338]]

(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.'' \22\ 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.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ USGCRP, Third National Climate Assessment, p. 221.
    \23\ 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.'' \24\ 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 ``[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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ National Research Council, Understanding Earth's Deep Past, 
p. 138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the IPCC AR5, the USGCRP

[[Page 59339]]

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.\25\ 
Concentrations today are likely higher than they have been for at least 
the past 800,000 years.\26\ 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.\27\ 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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Ed Dlugokencky, NOAA/ESRL (www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/).
    \26\ 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.
    \27\ Blunden, J., and D.S. Arndt, Eds., 2015: State of the 
Climate in 2014. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 96 (7), S1-S267.
    \28\ 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.'' \29\ 
For example, they stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 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 
doing 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.
    In the Northeast, temperatures increased almost 2 [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 [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

[[Page 59340]]

and 1940s followed by a cool period and temperatures then increased 
again from 1970 to the present by an average of 2 [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 
[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 [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 [deg]F to 9.7 [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 [deg]F in the past 60 
years. Warming in the winter has been even greater, rising by an 
average of 6 [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 [deg]F in the northernmost parts of Alaska, by 8 to 10 [deg]F in 
the interior, and by 6 to 8 [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 [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 [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 [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 [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 [deg]F in the Southern Plains and 
more than 95 [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 [deg]F by 
2055 and 4.7 [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 public 
health and the environment. Additionally, ozone is a short-lived 
climate forcer that contributes to global warming. In remote areas, 
methane is an important precursor to tropospheric ozone formation.\30\ 
Almost half of the global annual mean ozone increase since 
preindustrial times is believed to be due to anthropogenic methane.\31\ 
Projections of future emissions also indicate that methane is likely to 
be a key contributor to ozone concentrations in the future.\32\ 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

[[Page 59341]]

time scales given methane's relatively long atmospheric lifetime 
compared to these other ozone precursors.\33\ Reducing methane 
emissions, therefore, may contribute to efforts to reduce global 
background ozone concentrations that contribute to the incidence of 
ozone-related health effects.34 35 36 These benefits are 
global and occur in both urban and rural areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ U.S. EPA. 2013. ``Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone 
and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report).'' EPA-600-R-10-
076F. National Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP Division. 
Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/isa/.
    \31\ Ibid.
    \32\ Ibid.
    \33\ Ibid.
    \34\ West, J.J., Fiore, A.M. 2005. ``Management of tropospheric 
ozone by reducing methane emissions.'' Environ. Sci. Technol. 
39:4685-4691.
    \35\ Anenberg, S.C., et al. 2009. ``Intercontinental impacts of 
ozone pollution on human mortality,'' Environ. Sci. & Technol. 43: 
6482-6487.
    \36\ 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 NSPS?

    Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA 
Administrator to list categories of stationary sources that in the 
Administrator's judgment cause or contribute significantly to air 
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health 
or welfare. 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(A). The EPA must then issue 
performance standards for new (and modified or reconstructed) sources 
in each source category. 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B). These standards are 
referred to as new source performance standards or NSPS. The EPA has 
the authority to define the scope of the source categories, determine 
the pollutants for which standards should be developed, set the 
emission level of the standards, and distinguish among classes, type 
and sizes within categories in establishing the standards. 42 U.S.C. 
7411(b).
    On March 12, 1996 (61 FR 9905), under the authority of CAA section 
111(b)(1)(A), the EPA added the MSW landfills source category to the 
priority list in 40 CFR 60.16 because, in the judgment of the 
Administrator, the source category contributes significantly to air 
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health 
and welfare. In that same notice, the EPA promulgated new source 
performance standards, which apply to new (and modified or 
reconstructed) landfills under the authority of CAA section 
111(b)(1)(B), and emission guidelines, which apply to existing 
landfills, under the authority of CAA section 111(d). In the March 12, 
1996 notice, the EPA defined the MSW landfills source category, 
identified municipal solid waste landfill emissions (commonly referred 
to as landfill gas) as the pollutant for which standards should be 
developed, identified which landfills would be covered, and determined 
the applicability threshold and emission level of the standards.
    CAA section 111(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(1)) provides that 
standards of performance are to ``reflect the degree of emission 
limitation achievable through the application of the best system of 
emission limitation achievable through the application of the best 
system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of 
achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health environmental 
impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been 
adequately demonstrated.'' We refer to this level of control as the 
best system of emission reduction or BSER. When promulgated in 1996, 
BSER for MSW landfills was determined to be a well-designed and well-
operated LFG collection and control system with a control device 
capable of reducing NMOC by 98 percent by weight. NMOC was established 
as a surrogate for LFG in the final rule.
    The CAA also requires the EPA to review the NSPS at least every 8 
years to determine if the level of control that was previously 
established remains appropriate. Specifically, CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) 
(42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B)) requires the EPA to ``at least every 8 years 
review and, if appropriate, revise'' standards of performance. The 
Administrator need not review a standard, however, if the 
``Administrator determines that such review is not appropriate in light 
of readily available information on the efficacy'' of the standard. 
While not required to do so, the EPA has authority to revise an NSPS to 
add emission limits for pollutants or emission sources not currently 
concurrent with its review of the NSPS (77 FR 49494, August 16, 2012).
    In determining BSER, we typically conduct a review that identifies 
what emission reduction systems exist and how much they reduce air 
pollution in practice. Next, for each control system identified, we 
evaluate its costs, energy requirements, and any nonair quality health 
and environmental impacts. Based on our evaluation, we determine BSER 
for each pollutant to be regulated and establish an appropriate 
standard of performance based on the identified BSER. The resultant 
standard is usually expressed either as a numerical emissions limit, 
e.g., ppm or pounds per million British thermal unit (lb/MMBtu), or a 
percent reduction requirement. Although the standards are based on the 
identified BSER, the EPA may not require the use of a particular 
technology to comply with a performance standard unless the 
Administrator determines that it is not feasible to prescribe or 
enforce a standard of performance. (CAA 111(b)(5), 42 U.S.C. 
7411(b)(5).) Thus, except in rare circumstances, sources remain free to 
select any control measures that will meet the requirements of the 
standard(s). Upon promulgation, an NSPS becomes a national standard 
with which all new, reconstructed, and modified sources must comply. 
(CAA 111(e), 42 U.S.C. 7411(e).)

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 MSW landfills NSPS, (2) finalize revisions to the 
NSPS based on that review, and (3) resolve or clarify 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 new, modified, or reconstructed sources. The 
final revisions appear in 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX.\37\ Although the 
EPA is not required to respond to comments received on the July 17, 
2014, ANPRM (79 FR 41772) for the MSW landfills Emission Guidelines or 
comments it received on the concurrent proposal for revised Emission 
Guidelines for existing 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 NSPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Rather than merely updating 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, 
the existing NSPS, 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 NSPS 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 NSPS 
subpart XXX and are not affected by any changes to the NSPS 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 landfill under subpart 
XXX, is an existing source. Under section 111, a source is either new, 
i.e., construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced after a 
proposed NSPS is published in the Federal Register (CAA section 
111(a)(1))

[[Page 59342]]

or existing, i.e., any source other than a new source (CAA section 
111(a)(6)). Since the revised NSPS apply to new (and modified or 
reconstructed) sources, any source that is not subject to subpart XXX 
will be subject to the revised Emission Guidelines found in 40 CFR part 
60, subpart Cf. Any existing MSW landfill that modifies or reconstructs 
after July 17, 2014 would become a new source subject to the NSPS 
subpart XXX.

IV. Summary of the Final NSPS

A. What are the control requirements?

1. Design Capacity and Emissions Thresholds
    The revised NSPS retain the current design capacity threshold 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 commence construction, reconstruction, or 
modification after July 17, 2014. An MSW landfill that exceeds the 
design capacity threshold must install and start up a GCCS within 30 
months after LFG emissions reach or exceed an 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 NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW) provides that owners 
or operators determine whether the landfill has exceeded the NMOC 
emissions threshold using one of three available modeling approaches, 
known as Tiers 1, 2 and 3. The EPA is finalizing in subpart XXX 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 rate thresholds 
using Tier 1 or 2 to demonstrate that site-specific surface methane 
emissions are below a surface concentration threshold. 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. Upon 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 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 return to Tier 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 
(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.
    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 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 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.
    The EPA is also finalizing reporting and recordkeeping requirements 
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.
3. 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 revisions to the NSPS (79 
FR 41811), the EPA requested comment on whether the three criteria for 
control device removal in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW were appropriate 
for proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX, and whether alternative 
criteria such as consecutive

[[Page 59343]]

quarterly measurements below a surface emission threshold should also 
be considered. Additionally, in the proposed revisions to the Emission 
Guidelines (80 FR 52112), the EPA recognized that many open landfills 
subject to control requirements contain inactive areas that have 
experienced declining LFG flows. 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 the GCCS are: (1) The landfill is closed, (2) the 
calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill is less than 34 Mg/yr on 
three successive test dates, and (3) 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.
4. Excluding Non-Productive Areas From Control
    In the proposed revisions to the NSPS (79 FR 41817), the EPA 
recognized that there are situations in which the quantity of gas 
production has greatly declined in separate closed areas of some 
landfills, and the methane content has fallen such that the area is 
producing insufficient gas to properly operate a GCCS and control 
device. Thus, 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-productive areas of the landfill from control. To 
determine whether NMOC emissions from non-productive areas of the 
landfill are less than 1 percent of the total landfill NMOC emissions 
(and hence controls are not required), subpart WWW relies on modeled 
(calculated) NMOC rates (see 40 CFR 60.759(a)(3)(ii)). To refine the 
measurements of these non-productive areas, subpart XXX (40 CFR 
60.769(a)(3)(ii)) allows owners or operators of landfills with 
physically separated, closed areas to either model NMOC emission rates, 
or 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 landfill's total NMOC 
emissions. The NSPS has historically allowed owners or operators to 
exclude from control areas that are non-productive. In the final rule, 
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 allows the 
owner or operator to use site-specific flow measurements to determine 
NMOC emissions.
5. 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 XXX 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 (i.e., the requirement to meet operating limits) for 
nitrogen/oxygen at the wellheads. Thus, the EPA is removing the 
corresponding requirement to take corrective action for exceedances of 
nitrogen/oxygen at the 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 and maintain records of 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 (EPA 
Administrator or administrator of a state air pollution control agency 
or his or her designee) 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 XXX. 
Specifically, landfill owners or operators must conduct surface 
monitoring on a quarterly basis around the entire 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 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 negative 
pressure cannot be achieved 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

[[Page 59344]]

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 greater 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 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 new or modified 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 2014 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.

[[Page 59345]]

6. Landfills Recirculating Leachate or Adding Other Liquids
    In the 2014 ANPRM and 2015 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.2 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 XXX apply at all times, 
including periods of startup or shutdown, and periods of malfunction. 
The EPA is reaffirming the work practice standard that is applicable 
during SSM events wherein 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.

D. Other Corrections and Clarifications

    The EPA is finalizing the following clarifications and corrections 
to subpart XXX, which are consistent with the May 23, 2002 and 
September 8, 2006 proposed amendments to subpart WWW.
    Consistent with the May 23, 2002 and September 8, 2006 proposed 
amendments, the EPA is finalizing language in subpart XXX to exempt 
owners/operators of boilers and process heaters with design capacities 
of 44 megawatts or greater from the requirement to conduct an initial 
performance test (40 CFR 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(B)).
    Consistent with the September 8, 2006 proposed amendments, the EPA 
is finalizing the removal of the term ``combustion'' from the 
requirement to monitor temperature of enclosed combustors (40 CFR 
60.768(b)(2)(i) and 40 CFR 60.768(c)(1)(i)).
    Consistent with the September 8, 2006 proposed amendments, we are 
amending the definition of ``household waste'' and adding a definition 
of ``segregated yard waste'' in subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.761) to clarify 
our intent regarding the applicability of the landfills NSPS to 
landfills that do not accept household waste, but accept segregated 
yard waste.

V. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal

A. Changes to Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting

1. 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.
2. Landfills Recirculating Leachate or Adding Other Liquids
    The EPA is adding 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.
3. 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. 
The 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 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 D6522-11, the sample location must be prior to combustion.
    This change allows owners or operators to employ proven, reliable 
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.
4. 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) with an instrument accuracy of at least 4 
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.

[[Page 59346]]

5. Update and Approval of Design Plan
    Landfill owners or operators must submit an updated design plan for 
approval based on the following criteria: (1) Within 90 days of 
expanding operations to an area not covered by the previously approved 
design plan; and (2) before installing or expanding the gas collection 
system in a way that is not consistent to the previous design plan. In 
the final NSPS, the EPA removed a third criteria that was proposed: 
Update the design plan prior to implementing an approved alternative 
operating parameter value for temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen, if the 
owner or operator has requested alternative operating parameter values.

B. Tier 4

    In the 2014 proposed NSPS, the EPA requested comment on whether to 
include an additional tier, ``Tier 4,'' which would allow the use of 
site-specific measurements of surface methane emissions to determine if 
installation of a GCCS is required. In the 2015 proposed Emission 
Guidelines, the EPA proposed Tier 4 to determine if a landfill needed 
to install and operate a GCCS based on surface emission monitoring 
using EPA Method 21 (80 FR 52112). As indicated in section IV.A.2 of 
this preamble, the EPA is finalizing the use of Tier 4 SEM as an 
alternative way of determining when a landfill must install a GCCS. The 
details of the Tier 4 emission threshold methodology are presented in 
sections IV.A.2 and VI.B of this preamble.

C. Changes To Address Closed or Non-Productive Areas

    Criteria for Removing GCCS. Since the emission threshold was 
reduced from 40 Mg/yr in the 2014 NSPS proposal to 34 Mg/yr in the 2015 
supplemental NSPS proposal, the EPA is editing the criteria for removal 
in this final rule to be consistent with the final NMOC threshold of 34 
Mg/yr. In addition, the EPA is finalizing an option for the landfill to 
demonstrate the GCCS will be unable to operate for 15 years due to 
declining gas flows to provide additional flexibility on low producing 
areas. The GCCS can be capped, removed, or decommissioned when a 
landfill owner or operator demonstrates that (1) the landfill is 
closed, (2) the calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill is less 
than 34 Mg/yr on three consecutive test dates, and (3) 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.

D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Provisions

    In the 2014 NSPS proposal (79 FR 41812), the EPA clarified that 
performance 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 standards outlined in the NSPS 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. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and Treatment System and 
Treatment System Monitoring

    The definition of treated LFG is clarified to include not only use 
as a fuel for stationary combustion devices, 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. Additionally, the treatment system is defined as 
a system that filters, de-waters, and compresses LFG for sale or 
beneficial use. Further, the EPA is requiring site-specific treatment 
system monitoring plans that include monitoring parameters that address 
filtration, de-watering, and compression to ensure the treatment system 
is operating properly for the intended end use of the treated LFG.

F. 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 that are 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-2003-0215. This section of this preamble 
summarizes comments and presents responses for only provisions that 
have changed since the 2014 proposed NSPS and 2015 supplemental 
proposal.

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 removal of 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 59347]]

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 flowrate, 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 hazard. 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 or approval of HOV requests or alternative timelines 
for corrective action, despite appropriate justification, is a 
significant administrative barrier in the current NSPS and 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 exceedance 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 comments 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 degrees Fahrenheit and also suggested reporting any methane 
to carbon dioxide ratio less than 1.
    Commenters that supported the removal of the operational standards 
for temperature and nitrogen/oxygen also contended that the nitrogen/
oxygen and temperature wellhead 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 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 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 parameters, 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 HOVs 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 appropriate.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 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.

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

[[Page 59348]]

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.
    The EPA clarified in the proposed subpart XXX that, with the 
exception of system expansion, all corrective actions expected to 
exceed 15 calendar days should be submitted to the agency for approval 
of an alternate timeline. Additionally, the EPA proposed that if a 
landfill owner or operator expects the system expansion to exceed the 
120-day allowance period, it should submit a request and justification 
for an alternative timeline. Further, the EPA solicited comment on 
extending the requirement for notification from 15 days to as soon as 
practicable, but no later than 60 days.
    The proposed Emission Guidelines noted that the proposed removal of 
operational standards for nitrogen/oxygen and temperature would 
drastically reduce the number of requests for alternative corrective 
action timelines. However, the requirement to maintain negative 
pressure at the wellhead remained in the proposal. Therefore, the EPA 
proposed a timeline for correcting positive pressure, including a 
requirement to submit an alternative corrective action timeline request 
to the Administrator if the landfill cannot restore negative pressure 
within 15 calendar days or the initial failure to maintain negative 
pressure and the landfill is unable to (or does not plan to) expand the 
gas collection within 120 days of the initial exceedance.
    The EPA explained in the preamble for the 2015 Emission Guidelines 
proposal 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.
    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, while 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), allow 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 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

[[Page 59349]]

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 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 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 important of this parameter, e-reporting 
requirements for excessive temperatures have also been established to 
better assess landfill fires.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 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.ohio.gov/portals/34/document/guidance/subsurface%20heating%20events.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 above 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees 
Fahrenheit) was first measured. An implementation schedule is required 
for exceedances that 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(s), 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 
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 regulatory agency for corrective 
action timelines that extend beyond 120 days is consistent with the 
corrective action timeline for surface emissions in 40 CFR 
60.765(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 the corrective action required to address positive pressure, 
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 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 that take 
longer than 120 days to correct the exceedance, the

[[Page 59350]]

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 reading, the root 
cause analysis, recommended corrective action(s), date corrective 
actions taken to date were completed, and proposed schedule for 
implementing corrective actions.
3. Landfills Recirculating Leachate or Adding Other Liquids
    In the 2014 ANPRM and 2015 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.) Commenters 
supported more environmentally protective requirements for wet 
landfills and asserted that wet landfills produce more methane but 
actually collect less. Commenters stated that the EPA should shorten 
the lag time for installing controls. 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 landfills NSPS 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 NSPS.
    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 this 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 NSPS requires 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 leachate or 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 allowing owners or operators of landfills to discontinue 
annual reporting of the wet landfill report after the landfill has 
submitted its closure report recognizing that this information would be 
difficult to obtain after the landfill closed, these landfills are 
unlikely to still be adding liquids if closed, and also because the gas 
generation from these landfills are on the downward side of their gas 
generation curve.
    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 RD&D 
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

[[Page 59351]]

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 EPA 
ICR number 2498.03. This collection is similar to collections for 
subpart WWW. Thus, many of the line item burden estimates in this ICR 
estimate are the same as the burdens submitted to OMB under ICR number 
1557.09 for the most recent ICR renewal for subpart WWW.
4. Portable 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, which 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 today's 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 portable 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

[[Page 59352]]

background in the 2015 proposed Emission Guidelines (80 FR 52124). 
Specifically, the EPA proposed to require landfills to report the 
latitude and longitude coordinates of each surface emissions monitoring 
(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 GCCS in place, as well as 
landfills that are conducting Tier 4 SEM to determine the timing of 
GCCS installation.
    Comments: Several commenters support and several commenters oppose 
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 support the requirement, one said that 
making global positioning system (GPS) coordinates of each exceedance 
available will 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 provide 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) is necessary to show compliance with the monitoring 
requirement; and by linking the methane readings with positioning data, 
the time required to process the data will be reduced. Commenters said 
that by correlating the SEM readings directly with the location of the 
reading, facilities and their regulators can easily gain a clear 
picture of how the LFG collection system was functioning and anticipate 
problems before they arise by tracking trends in the data.
    Of the commenters that oppose 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 is 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 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 in the 2015 Emission Guidelines, 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 finalized in the 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 NSPS and final 
Emission Guidelines. 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

[[Page 59353]]

battery weight) and can be clipped to a belt or attached to a backpack 
to allow the technician to complete the monitoring safely.
6. Update and Approval of Design Plan
    The EPA proposed three criteria for when a design plan must be 
submitted for approval: (1) Within 90 days of expanding operations to 
an area not covered by the previously approved design plan; (2) before 
installing or expanding the gas collection system in a way that is not 
consistent with the previous design plan; and (3) prior to implementing 
an approved alternative operating parameter value for temperature, 
nitrogen, or oxygen, if the owner or operator has requested alternative 
operating parameter values. Further, the EPA proposed to maintain the 
same site-specific design plan review and approval procedures while 
soliciting comment on ways to streamline the design plan submission and 
approval procedures. Similarly, the August 2015 proposed Emission 
Guidelines included the first two criteria but omitted the third 
criteria to submit an updated design plan prior to implementing an 
approved alternative operating parameter value for temperature, 
nitrogen, or oxygen.
    Comment: Commenters opposed the requirement to update the design 
plan prior to implementing an approved alternative operating parameter 
value for temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen because the requirement to 
obtain approval of the updated design plan creates a duplicative 
approval process for these alternative values. Commenters stated that 
the EPA has removed operational flexibility and placed additional 
burden on the regulatory agencies by requiring this update and approval 
process for design plans. Several commenters noted that there is no 
approval timeline, which leaves landfills in limbo regarding their 
operations, even when alternative operating values have already been 
approved for the landfill.
    Response: As discussed in Section VI.A.1 of this preamble, the EPA 
is finalizing the removal of operational standards for nitrogen/oxygen 
levels at the wellhead. High temperature values will be reported 
electronically on an annual basis. Thus, the EPA has also removed the 
criterion to update the design plan for alternative operational 
standards. The EPA did not finalize this criterion, in order to 
minimize additional burden on approving agencies and landfill owners or 
operators. See the Response to Comments document located in the docket 
for this final rule for additional discussion related to updates and 
approval of the design plan.

B. Tier 4

    The proposed subpart XXX included three different tiers that are 
available to an affected landfill to estimate whether or not the 
landfill exceeds the NMOC emission threshold, thus requiring collection 
and controls. The EPA requested comment on whether to include an 
additional tier, ``Tier 4'', which would allow the use of site-specific 
measurements of surface methane emissions to determine if installation 
of a GCCS is required.
    Further, in the Emission Guidelines, 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). Under the 
proposed Tier 4, landfills could demonstrate that surface methane 
emissions are below 500 ppm for four consecutive quarters 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 where visual observations may indicate elevated 
concentrations of LFG, such as distressed vegetation and cracks or 
seeps in the cover and all cover penetrations. Once a landfill opts to 
use Tier 4, any reading of 500 ppm or greater would require the 
installation and operation of a GCCS within 30 months of the Tier 2 
exceedance. For both Tier 4 SEM for 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 SEM termination for 
landfills consistently having measured winds in excess of these 
specified limits.
    The EPA received several comments on both the general request for 
comment on a Tier 4 provision in the 2014 NSPS proposal as well as more 
specific comments on the proposed Tier 4 provision included in the 2015 
Emission Guidelines proposal. These comments are summarized below.
    Comment: Many commenters, representing industry, state regulatory 
agencies, and environmental interests, supported the Tier 4 SEM 
approach for determining when a GCCS must be installed. In addition, 
the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) presented the idea of a surface 
concentration threshold as one of many potential alternatives to 
further reduce emissions from landfills in its January 2013 
whitepaper.\40\ Commenters stated that the option to conduct site-
specific measurements using SEM is a more accurate indication of when 
gas collection is necessary to reduce emissions, compared to modeled 
emission rates. SEM is a data-driven approach that is better able to 
adjust for differentials in gas generation that may be a result of 
climate differences, waste acceptance rates, and cover soil materials 
that vary between landfills in different regions of the United States. 
One of these commenters claims that modeling can also cause landfills 
to install GCCS prematurely, incurring a financial burden that is not 
warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Environmental Defense Fund. Recommendations and 
Considerations for EPA's Forthcoming Revisions to Section 111 
Standards for MSW Landfills. January 2, 2013. See EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0215-0050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter disagreed with using Tier 4 to determine the timing 
of GCCS installation and suggested that the approach provides landfills 
another option to delay installation of controls. This commenter 
suggested either removing the provision or making Tier 4 much more 
stringent. Other commenters expressed concern about state agencies' 
lack of experience with SEM and time to determine whether Tier 4 
monitoring requires a GCCS to be installed. These commenters also 
requested guidance for Tier 4 implementation procedures.
    Commenters disagreed on the potential benefits of a Tier 4 option. 
Commenters representing both industry and environmental interests 
asserted the SEM option would encourage landfill owners or operators to 
implement methane reduction practices, such as the use of oxidative 
landfill covers, organic waste diversion, and interim gas control 
measures (horizontal gas collectors, connecting a leachate collection 
recovery system into a GCCS), noting that such practices could be 
implemented more quickly and more cost-effectively than a GCCS 
installed in accordance with the design plan requirements of the 
current NSPS. One commenter indicated that the use of SEM in 
determining the need to install a GCCS would reduce costs and energy 
consumption for landfills otherwise required to install controls. The 
commenter also asserted that landfills would not generate a sufficient 
amount of gas to support a collection system but would remain below 
surface emission thresholds based on site-specific

[[Page 59354]]

measurements. Two commenters disagreed that Tier 4 would encourage 
organics diversion at landfills. One of these commenters agreed that 
Tier 4 would encourage the use of other methane reduction practices 
such as oxidative covers and interim gas controls, but these practices 
would be done at the expense of more effective installation of active 
GCCS.
    Commenters made several specific suggestions regarding details of 
how Tier 4 should be implemented, including which landfills should 
qualify for Tier 4, the areas subject to SEM under Tier 4, the surface 
emission concentration to identify exceedances and how many exceedances 
would be needed to trigger GCCS installation under Tier 4, the ordering 
of Tiers 1-3 relative to Tier 4, and meteorological conditions 
necessary to achieve robust results. A summary of each of these 
implementation comments is presented below.
    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 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.
    Which areas. Commenters also recommended certain Tier 4 procedures 
for GCCS installation. They recommended conducting Tier 4 over the 
parts of the landfill that are required to install a GCCS, following 
the SEM methods currently established in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. 
If no exceedances of 500 ppm over background concentration occur, then 
GCCS installation would not be required. Quarterly SEM would be 
conducted thereafter until the landfill or area of the landfill is 
closed. Closed areas would also be reviewed using the SEM approach, but 
if no exceedances occur, those closed areas would no longer be required 
to be tested.
    Surface exceedances and corrective action. Regarding how many 
surface exceedances identified using Tier 4 should trigger GCCS 
installation requirements, commenters generally supported some form of 
corrective action allowance. Some commenters recommended that if an 
exceedance occurred during Tier 4 SEM testing, then landfill owners or 
operators should follow the same procedures and timelines for 
remediation and re-monitoring as outlined in 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
WWW. These commenters further suggested that if an exceedance could not 
be remediated under the existing subpart WWW procedures, then the 
landfill would be required to prepare a GCCS design plan within 1 year 
of the initial exceedance and install a GCCS within the monitored area 
within 30 months of the initial exceedance. One commenter claimed that 
a lack of corrective action would cause facilities to avoid using Tier 
4, causing it to seldom be used. Another commenter recommended some 
level of corrective action, because a single exceedance would not mean 
that LFG emissions were sufficient to necessitate GCCS installation. 
One commenter recommended providing a short period of time for 
corrective action and re-testing before GCCS installation. Other 
commenters recommend that Tier 4 SEM be modified to allow for a single, 
10-day corrective action period for each exceedance of the 500 ppm 
threshold. Another commenter agreed to allow 10 days to correct the 
first exceedance, but also recommended allowing 10 days to correct the 
second exceedance, 1 year from the third exceedance to prepare the GCCS 
design plan, and 30 months from the initial exceedance to install the 
GCCS.
    Order of tiers. In regards to moving through the tiers, commenters 
presented one of two opinions. Some commenters suggested that Tier 4 be 
available for use in place of or in addition to performing a Tier 1 or 
Tier 2 analysis. Several commenters suggested that Tier 4 could be 
employed at any point following a Tier 1 or Tier 2 test where the 
calculated NMOC emission rate was greater than the NMOC threshold for 
installing a GCCS. On the other hand, another commenter suggested that 
Tier 4 become the new Tier 3.
    Threshold concentration. Commenters disagreed on the appropriate 
surface threshold concentration. Several commenters did not support a 
threshold below 500 ppm. Other commenters supported the adoption of a 
200 ppm threshold for Tier 4 consistent with the CA Landfill Methane 
Rule (LMR) and incorporating an integrated limit of 25 ppm for Tier 4.
    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.
    Wind restrictions. In the 2015 Emission Guidelines, the EPA 
proposed Tier 4 as an alternative site-specific emission threshold for 
determining when a landfill must install and operate a GCCS. For both 
Tier 4 SEM for 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 2015 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.
    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 teams 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.

[[Page 59355]]

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.
    Traverse pattern. One commenter recommended that EPA require 
enhanced SEM as part of Tier 4 demonstrations, including tighter 
walking patterns, consistent with the CA LMR.
    Recordkeeping and reporting requirement. Some commenters believed 
the requirement to maintain all data was burdensome and that landfills 
should only be required to document exceedances of the 500 ppm 
threshold. These same 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.
    The EPA agrees with commenters that the Tier 4 SEM option will 
encourage landfill owners or operators to implement methane reduction 
practices, such as the use of oxidative landfill covers, organic waste 
diversion, and interim gas control measures and that such practices can 
be implemented more quickly and more cost-effectively than an NSPS-
compliant GCCS. Such measures can directly affect surface emissions and 
when employed would help a landfill ensure that surface emissions are 
low. The EPA expects that delaying installation of a regulatory GCCS 
will not have a significant negative impact on public health or the 
environment, if the surface emissions can be demonstrated to be kept 
below the threshold with early control or voluntary control measures. 
In fact, the EPA expects that alternative methane reduction operational 
practices employed by landfill owners or operators who are interested 
in Tier 4 will reduce near-term emissions of LFG from the surface of 
the landfill.
    Under Tier 4, the landfill owner or operator would continue to 
calculate the NMOC emission rate using Tiers 1, 2, or 3, and report 
results in the annual report to demonstrate that NMOC emissions are 
less than 50 Mg/yr. However, a landfill that can demonstrate that 
surface emissions are below 500 ppm over the entire perimeter of the 
landfill and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at 30-meter 
intervals for four consecutive quarters will 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. 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 of 500 ppm methane or greater. Landfills that are 
closed are on the downside of their gas generation profile.
    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. 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 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.
    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. 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 with a calculated NMOC emission rate of 34 
Mg/yr or greater 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 requiring installation of a GCCS upon any measured 
concentration of methane of 500 ppm or greater from the surface of the 
landfill--without any corrective action, to ensure that landfills 
employ operational practices that minimize emissions. A reading of 500 
ppm methane for a landfill that has modeled NMOC emissions greater than 
or equal to 34 Mg/yr NMOC would indicate that the landfill conditions 
warrant installation of a GCCS.
    The EPA selected a 500 ppm threshold for Tier 4 because 500 ppm is 
consistent with the level the EPA determined to be appropriate to 
demonstrate that a GCCS is well-designed and well-operated. In other 
words, when conducted properly, SEM is a good indicator of how well a 
GCCS is operating overall. For landfills without a GCCS (including 
those that may be using other LFG mitigation strategies), the level of 
500 ppm methane will demonstrate that site-specific surface methane 
emissions are as low as those allowed at a landfill with a well-
operated and well-designed GCCS in place. (See the docketed memorandum 
``Establishing a Site-Specific Emission Threshold Alternative for MSW 
Landfills, 2015.'') Therefore,

[[Page 59356]]

the EPA believes this alternative site-specific concentration threshold 
will achieve the goal of minimizing methane emissions to the 
atmosphere. In addition, this approach is consistent with the surface 
concentration threshold approach in the CA LMR.
    In response to public comments concerned with implementation of 
Tier 4 with wind speed restrictions, the EPA is retaining a wind speed 
limitation but allowing the use 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 
section IV.A.2 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 and clarified that 
measurements must be terminated if the average wind speed exceeds 25 
mph.
    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 during 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, the EPA is finalizing the requirement to retain all 
surface data readings, including calibration data and traverse path and 
sampling location data based on GPS coordinates up to 5 decimal places. 
This approach will improve transparency of Tier 4 results, and make 
them readily available to any inspector coming to the landfill. 
Further, many sites already use data loggers to collect and store SEM 
readings and evaluate geospatial surface emission trends over time and 
the EPA disagrees that it would be overly burdensome to record these 
data and maintain them on-site. While the final rule is specifically 
requiring an electronic record of the latitude and longitude 
coordinates of each surface measurement, the EPA is not specifying a 
file extension for storing a record of an actual digital map file 
because each landfill or each regulatory agency may employ different 
GIS mapping or data management software programs. Instead, the EPA 
believes the electronic record of latitude and longitude coordinates 
associated with each surface emission sample will be more appropriate 
to withstand variation in technology versions over time or across 
different agencies, while still providing for a record format that can 
be easily converted into a map. The records will also include wind 
speed data, a timestamp (to the nearest second) of when the sample 
collection begins, and a log of the length of time each sample was 
taken (e.g., the time the probe was held over the surface for each 
sample). 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

[[Page 59357]]

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.
    Emerging Measurement Technologies. Today's 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) 41 42 43 44 and discrete area 
source eddy covariance (DASEC).\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 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.
    \42\ 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.
    \43\ 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.
    \44\ 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.
    \45\ 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

    The EPA proposed criteria that allow a landfill owner or operator 
to cap or remove the GCCS from certain areas of the landfill where gas 
generation is expected to be diminished. Specifically, the 2014 
proposed NSPS allowed GCCS removal when the landfill is closed, the 
GCCS has been operated for a minimum of 15 years, and the NMOC gas 
produced by the landfill is calculated below 40 Mg/yr for three 
consecutive quarters.
    Comment: Commenters opposed the 15-year criteria for GCCS 
equipment, stating that the requirement is arbitrary and does not 
account for the site-specific conditions. One commenter added that the 
15-year criteria presents significant compliance challenges and costs 
for a facility and the NSPS presents few options to address low flow 
and gas quality conditions. Another commenter contended that the length 
of time a GCCS has been operating in a portion of a landfill is 
unrelated to the productivity of that area and that the age of the 
waste is more relevant. Other commenters believe that regardless of how 
long a GCCS system has actually been in operation, closed landfills 
should be able to discontinue operations based on site-specific 
emission levels. One commenter believes that a closed MSW landfill 
should be able to remove NSPS control requirements once the site 
demonstrates that it emits less than the emissions threshold based on 
actual LFG flow and site-specific NMOC concentration in accordance with 
40 CFR 60.764(b) regardless of the age of the GCCS or how long it has 
operated.
    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.
    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 WWW, 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 closed, (2) the GCCS 
has been in operation for 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, and (3) three successive tests for NMOC 
emissions are below the NMOC emission threshold of 34 Mg/yr.
    The EPA is requiring that NMOC emission rate of the landfill must 
be less than 34 Mg/yr on three successive test dates. This makes the 
threshold for removing a GCCS consistent with the threshold for 
installing a GCCS. In addition, 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

[[Page 59358]]

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 is presented below.
    Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Many commenters 
stated that the Sierra Club decision, which addressed SSM conditions in 
EPA rules, 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 a 5-day exemption period for collection systems and 1-
hour exemption period 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 the 98 percent emission reduction requirements since there will be 
no gas flowing to the control device'' (emphasis added, see 80 FR 
52134-52135). This commenter stated that the 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,

[[Page 59359]]

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 the 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 reaffirms the work practice during periods of SSM (40 CFR 
60.763(e)). 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. This provision is 
consistent with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. 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. Definitions of Treated Landfill Gas and Treatment System

    The EPA proposed clarifications related to LFG treatment in the 
proposal. Specifically, the EPA proposed to clarify that the use of 
treated LFG is not limited to use as a fuel for a stationary combustion 
device but also allows other beneficial uses such as vehicle fuel, 
production or high-Btu gas for pipeline injection, and use as a raw 
material in a chemical manufacturing process. The EPA also proposed to 
clarify what constitutes LFG treatment by updating the definition to 
include specific numerical values for filtration and dewatering in 
order to provide long-term protection of the combustion equipment. 
Specifically, the 2014 proposed NSPS included a treatment definition 
that required the water dew point of LFG to be reduced to at least 45 
degrees Fahrenheit, rather than lowered by at least 20 [deg]F, and 
specified a location for the temperature monitoring device that would 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the 45 degrees Fahrenheit 
requirement. As an alternative to these numerical values, the EPA also 
requested comment on an alternative definition for treatment system as 
a system that filers, de-waters, and compresses LFG. Additionally, the 
EPA requested comment on the use of treatment system monitoring plans 
to document procedures to ensure that the LFG has been adequately 
treated for the intended use.
    Similarly, the 2015 proposal to revise the Emission Guidelines for 
existing landfills included the clarification that the use of treated 
LFG is not limited to use as a fuel for a stationary combustion device 
and proposed a definition for LFG treatment. Specifically, the Emission 
Guidelines proposed a definition of treatment system as a system that 
filters, de-waters, and compresses LFG for sale or beneficial use. This 
definition did not include specific numerical values in order to allow 
tailoring of the level of treatment to the type and design of the 
specific combustion or other equipment for other beneficial uses in 
which LFG is used.
    Further, the Emission Guidelines included a proposed requirement 
for owners or operators to develop a site-specific treatment system 
monitoring plan that would include monitoring parameters addressing all 
three elements of treatment (filtration, de-watering, and compression) 
to ensure the treatment system is operating properly for the intended 
end use of the treated LFG. Additional records that demonstrate that 
such parameters effectively monitor filtration, de-watering, and 
compression system performance were also proposed.
    Consistent with public comments received on previous landfills 
documents (67 FR 36475, May 23, 2002; 71 FR 53271, September 8, 2006; 
79 FR 41796, July 17, 2014; 79 FR 41772, July 17, 2014), as well as 
input from participants in small entity outreach, the EPA is finalizing 
a definition of treatment system as a system that filters, de-waters, 
and compresses LFG to levels determined by the landfill owner or 
operators based on the beneficial end use of the gas. The EPA agrees 
with commenters that the extent of filtration, de-watering, and 
compression can be site-specific and equipment-dependent, and that 
different levels of LFG treatment are required for the protection of 
combustion devices that use treated LFG as a fuel.
    Many commenters on the proposed NSPS opposed basing LFG treatment 
on specific numerical values for filtration and de-watering because 
this ``one-size-fits-all'' approach was not appropriate, and provided 
no emission reductions.

[[Page 59360]]

One commenter specifically noted the impact of the costs of these 
requirements on small entities. Additional discussion of the concerns 
related to costs can be found in the Response to Comments document 
located in the docket for this rulemaking.
    Commenters also supported the use of a site-specific treatment 
system monitoring plan in place of the proposed numeric values and 
continuous monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. However, these 
commenters opposed submission of these monitoring plans for approval 
from the Administrator. Specifically, the commenters stated that LFG 
treatment systems are closed loop systems that process LFG for 
beneficial use and are not control devices that are subject to emission 
limits. Two commenters cited specific examples from recent rulemaking 
actions that have similar operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans 
that are prepared, followed, maintained, and made available to the 
Administrator for review upon request. For example, the greenhouse gas 
reporting program (GHGRP) rules require each reporting facility to 
prepare, follow, and maintain a monitoring plan which is made available 
to an inspector upon request. Another example cited included the 
Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring Plan required in the NESHAP for 
Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and the NESHAP for 
Clay Ceramics Manufacturing which were finalized on September 24, 2015.
    In consideration of these comments, the EPA is finalizing a 
requirement that owners or operators must develop a site-specific 
treatment system monitoring plan that includes monitoring parameters 
that address filtration, de-watering, and compression to ensure the LFG 
treatment system is properly operating for the intended end use of the 
treated LFG. The EPA is also finalizing a requirement that landfills 
owners or operators seeking to demonstrate compliance using a LFG 
treatment system must maintain and operate all monitoring systems in 
accordance with the site-specific treatment system monitoring plan and 
maintain records of parameters that ensure the treatment is operating 
properly for the intended use of the gas. The EPA is not finalizing the 
requirement that these monitoring plans obtain Administrator approval 
because the treatment system monitoring plan must be submitted as part 
of the landfill's Title V air pollution control permit application and 
these monitoring parameters would be integrated into the permit as 
enforceable conditions (i.e., the landfill monitors the treatment 
system monitoring parameters and maintains them in the specified 
range).
    The EPA is also finalizing revisions to 40 CFR 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(C) 
to clarify that if treated LFG cannot be beneficially used for reasons 
such as end-user capacity limitations, market conditions for gas sales, 
or unforeseeable shutdowns of the beneficial use equipment, then the 
treated gas must be controlled in a flare. The flare requirements apply 
to any gas routed to flares, regardless of whether the LFG is treated. 
The intent is to require all gas not used for beneficial use to be 
controlled in either a non-enclosed flare or a control system designed 
to reduce NMOC by 98 weight-percent to an outlet NMOC concentration of 
less than 20 ppm, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.762(b)(A) or (B).

F. 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 Emissions 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 Methods 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 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 EPA Method 18 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 is 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 
flame ionization detectors 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

[[Page 59361]]

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. Specifications for Active GCCS
    The EPA received a comment saying that proposed 40 CFR 60.769(a)(1) 
referenced the term ``perimeter areas'' and noted that this term was 
not well defined or explained. The EPA has removed this phrase to avoid 
confusion. The intent is that all wells installed in the boundary of 
the waste mass that are connected to the active GCCS should be operated 
according to 40 CFR 60.769. The final rule language is clearer on this 
point.
    The EPA also added a phrase to 40 CFR 60.769(a)(1) based on public 
comment to ensure that GCCS design allows for the ability to isolate a 
well or section and still be able to operate the remainder of the 
active collection system.
4. Wellhead Pressure Monitoring
    In response to public comments, we are clarifying the location and 
type of pressure required to be measured monthly at each wellhead to 
demonstrate whether the requirement to maintain negative pressure is 
being met.
5. Definition of Modification
    In the 2014 proposed NSPS, the EPA included ``mass or volume'' in 
the definition of modification. Based on public comments, which 
correctly point out that mass can change based on the density of the 
waste received, we are finalizing the definition of modification 
consistent with the definition in subpart WWW, which is based on volume 
only. We also changed the reference to ``horizontal'' to ``lateral'' 
within the modification definition to be consistent with the defined 
term ``lateral expansion''.
6. Definition of Sludge and Solid Waste
    We are updating the definitions of sludge and solid waste to 
reference the terms as defined in 40 CFR 258.2 for consistency with the 
terms as defined in RCRA.
7. 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 NSPS, impacts are expressed 5 years after the effective 
date of the rule. However, for the landfills NSPS, impacts are 
expressed 10 years after the effective date (year 2025) because the 
landfills regulations require controls at a given landfill only after 
the NMOC emission rate reaches the level of the regulatory threshold, 
which may take a number of years. Further, once the NMOC emission rate 
is exceeded, the reporting and control timeframe allows 3 months to 
submit the first NMOC emission report and then 30 months after 
exceeding the NMOC emission threshold before the GCCS is required to be 
installed. Additionally, the regulations allow the collection and 
control devices to be capped or removed at each landfill after certain 
criteria are met, which includes having the GCCS operate a minimum of 
15 years. Controls would not be required over the same time period for 
all landfills. The impacts are a direct result of control; therefore, 
the annualized impacts change from year to year. By 2025, over 80 
percent of the greenfield landfills and modified landfills affected by 
the NSPS are expected to have installed controls and thus, the EPA 
considered the impacts of the final rule relative to the baseline in 
2025.
    The landfills dataset used for estimating the impacts of the NSPS 
is discussed in detail in the August 27, 2015 supplemental proposal for 
the NSPS (80 FR 52163). The EPA made several significant edits to the 
dataset since the August 2015 supplemental proposal, based on public 
comments received; new data made available from the landfills reporting 
2014 emissions to 40 CFR part 98, subpart HH of the 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 adding the landfills expected to modify, 
the revised dataset to analyze the impacts of the final rule now has 
137 landfills that commenced construction, reconstruction, or 
modification after July 17, 2014.\46\ A detailed discussion of updates 
made to the dataset is in the docketed memorandum, ``Summary of Updated 
Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of 
Landfills Regulations, 2016.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ July 17, 2014, is the proposed date of the revised NSPS for 
MSW landfills in 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX. A landfill opening or 
commencing construction on its modification after this date would 
become subject to this new subpart and would not be subject to the 
revised emission guidelines. The EPA cannot predict the exact month 
a model landfill will open so the analysis uses a cutoff year of 
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The methodology used for estimating the impacts of the NSPS is 
discussed in detail in the August 27, 2015 supplemental proposal to the 
NSPS (80 FR 52163). The EPA made several significant edits to the 
dataset since the August 2015 supplemental proposal based on public 
comments and comments on a separate peer review of the EPA Landfill Gas 
Energy Cost (LFGcost) model.\47\ Notably, the EPA adjusted its 
assumption of gas collection efficiency to an average of 85 percent. 
The impacts analysis at the proposal or supplemental 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

[[Page 59362]]

gas collection efficiency factor to reflect a more realistic indicator 
of GCCS performance.\48\ 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, with an average of 75 percent. The EPA also adjusted 
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.49 50
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 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.
    \48\ USEPA. Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse 
Gases: 2010-2030. EPA-430-R-13-011.
    \49\ See the docketed 2016 RIA for additional discussion of 
changes made to electricity pricing assumptions.
    \50\ 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 ``Updated Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emission 
Impacts of MSW Landfill Regulations, 2016.'' The results of applying 
this methodology to the population of new or modified landfills 
potentially subject to the final rule are in the docketed memorandum 
``Revised Cost and Emission Impacts Resulting from the Landfill NSPS 
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 New or Modified Landfills
                                                                                             [2012$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            No. of
                                                                   No. of                 landfills     Annual     Annual      Annual      Annual
                                                                 landfills     No. of     reporting    net cost     NMOC       methane      CO2e       NMOC cost     Methane cost    CO2e cost
                             Option                               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 capacity/50 Mg/yr NMOC)........        128         103           25        90.4      10,520         1.7        41.4        8,600           54.6            2.2
Option (2.5 million Mg design capacity/34 Mg/yr NMOC)..........          0          12          -13     6.0 \e\         281         .04         1.1       21,470            136            5.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Options in this table show the impacts of reducing the NMOC emission threshold below baseline levels for all landfills.
\b\ Landfills are affected by the landfills NSPS 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 CO2 impacts.
\e\ The annualized costs represent the costs compared to no changes to the current NSPS (i.e., baseline) and include $11 million to install and operate a GCCS, as well as $0.08 million to
  complete the corresponding testing and monitoring. These control costs are offset by $5.1 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 new, reconstructed, or 
modified landfills, or 281 Mg/yr, when compared to the baseline, as 
shown in Table 2 of this preamble. The final rule would also achieve 
44,300 Mg/yr of methane reductions (1.1 million mtCO2e/yr). These 
reductions are achieved by reducing the NMOC threshold from 50 Mg/yr to 
34 Mg/yr.

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 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 
$6.0 million in 2025 (7 percent discount, 2012$) 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'' (hereafter 
``2016 RIA'') included in the docket. There is also 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

[[Page 59363]]

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 NSPS 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 26,000 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 0.07 million megawatt hours (MWh) of 
additional energy per year.

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 $6 million, when using a 7 percent discount rate (2012$). The 
annualized costs represent the costs compared to no changes to the 
current NSPS (i.e., baseline) and include $11 million to install and 
operate a GCCS, as well as $0.08 million to complete the corresponding 
testing and monitoring. These control costs are offset by $5.1 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 new, reconstructed, or modified MSW landfills. By 
lowering the NMOC emissions threshold to 34 Mg/yr, the final NSPS would 
achieve reductions of 281 Mg/yr NMOC and 44,300 Mg/yr methane (1.1 
million metric tons CO2-Eq./yr). In addition, the final 
rulemaking is expected to result in the net reduction of 26,000 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 health and welfare 
benefits resulting from the climate benefits due to anticipated methane 
and CO2 reductions. Methane is a potent GHG that, once 
emitted into the atmosphere, absorbs terrestrial infrared radiation 
that contributes to increased global warming and continuing climate 
change. Methane reacts in the atmosphere to form tropospheric ozone and 
stratospheric water vapor, both of which also contribute to global 
warming. When accounting for the impacts of changing methane, 
tropospheric ozone, and stratospheric water vapor concentrations, the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report 
(2013) found that historical emissions of methane accounted for about 
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 NSPS for MSW landfills that will 
decrease methane emissions from this sector. Specifically, the final 
NSPS are expected to reduce methane emissions from all landfills 
annually by about 44,300 metric tons of methane.
    We calculated the global social benefits of these methane emission 
reductions using estimates of the social cost of methane (SC-
CH4), a metric that estimates the monetary value of impacts 
associated with marginal changes in methane emissions in a given year. 
The SC-CH4 estimates applied in this analysis were developed 
by Marten et al. (2014) and are discussed in greater detail below.
    A similar metric, the social cost of CO2 (SC-
CO2), provides important context for understanding the 
Marten et al. SC-CH4 estimates.\51\ 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

[[Page 59364]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 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).\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 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.\53\ In the past, 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 methane to convert emission impacts to 
CO2 equivalents, which can then be valued using the SC-
CO2 estimates. This approach approximates the social cost of 
methane (SC-CH4) using estimates of the SC-CO2 
and the GWP of methane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 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.\54\ 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 RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 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 underlying 
the SC-CO2 estimates.55 56 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 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.
    \56\ 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 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

[[Page 59365]]

 
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 Response to Comments document 
for the complete response to comments received on the SC-CH4 
as part of this rulemaking.
    The CH4 benefits based on Marten et al. (2014) are 
presented for the year 2025. Applying this approach to the methane 
reductions estimated for these NSPS, the 2025 methane benefits vary by 
discount rate and range from about $31 million to approximately $180 
million; the mean SC-CH4 at the 3-percent discount rate 
results in an estimate of about $67 million in 2025, as presented in 
Table 4 of this preamble.

                          Table 4--Estimated Global Benefits of CH4 Reductions in 2025
                                              [In millions, 2012$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Discount rate and statistic
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
           Million metric tons CH4                                                                   3% 95th
                                                 5% Average       3% Average      2.5% Average      percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.044.......................................             $31              $67              $86             $180
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The vast majority of this action's climate-related benefits are 
associated with methane reductions. Additional climate-related benefits 
are expected from the NSPS secondary air impacts, specifically, a net 
reduction in CO2 emissions. Monetizing the net 
CO2 reductions with the SC-CO2 estimates 
described in this section yields benefits of $1.3 million in the year 
2025 (average SC-CO2, 3 percent discount rate, 2012$). See 
the 2016 RIA for more details. The climate-related benefits associated 
with methane reductions plus the benefits from the secondary air impact 
CO2 reductions amount to about $68 million in 2025 (average 
SC-CH4 and average SC-CO2, each at a 3 percent 
discount rate, 2012$).
    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 are 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 RIA describes the 
specific impacts of

[[Page 59366]]

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 NSPS 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.
    Based on the monetized benefits and costs, the annual net benefits 
of the rule are estimated to be approximately $62 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.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes 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 
analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this 
action. This analysis is documented in the 2016 RIA, which is available 
in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215 and is briefly summarized in section VII 
of this preamble.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the 
information collection activities contained in this rule under the PRA 
and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0697. The Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared for the final 
NSPS has been assigned EPA ICR number 2498.03. 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 NSPS. 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 
111(c) and the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart 
B.
    Respondents/affected entities: MSW landfills that commence 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after July 17, 2014.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, 
subpart XXX).
    Estimated number of respondents: 133 MSW landfills (per year) that 
commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after July 17, 
2014.
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and annually.
    Total estimated burden: 91,087 hours (per year) for the responding 
facilities and 2,634 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 CCFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $6,130,652 (per year), which includes 
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs, for the 
responding facilities and $169,978 (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. The 
small entities subject to the requirements of this final rule may 
include private small businesses and small governmental jurisdictions 
that own or operate landfills. Although it is unknown how many new 
landfills will be owned or operated by small entities, recent trends in 
the waste industry have been towards consolidated ownership among 
larger companies. The EPA has determined that approximately 10 percent 
of existing landfills subject to similar regulations (40 CFR part 60, 
subparts WWW and Cc or the corresponding state or federal plan) are 
small entities. It was determined that the July 2014 proposed NSPS and 
August 2015 supplemental to the proposed NSPS subpart would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Given the changes in the number of landfills anticipated to become 
subject to the new NSPS, the potential impact on small entities has 
been reanalyzed. The EPA has determined that, with a size threshold of 
2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\ and an NMOC emission rate of 34 Mg/
yr, no small entities are expected to experience an impact of greater 
than 1 percent of revenues in 2025. Details of the analysis are 
presented in the 2016 RIA, located in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0215.
    Although not required by the RFA to convene a Small Business 
Advocacy Review Panel because the EPA has now determined that the final 
NSPS would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, the EPA originally convened a panel to obtain 
advice and recommendations from small entity representatives 
potentially subject to this rule's requirements. A copy of the 
``Summary of Small Entity Outreach'' is included in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2003-0215.

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. This final NSPS 
applies to landfills that commence construction, reconstruction, or 
modification after July 17, 2014. Impacts resulting from the final NSPS 
are far below the applicable threshold. Thus, the final NSPS is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. 
However, in developing the final NSPS, the EPA consulted with small 
governments pursuant to a plan established under section 203 of the 
UMRA to address impacts of regulatory requirements in the rule that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The EPA held 
meetings as discussed in section VIII.E of this preamble under 
Federalism consultations.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    The EPA has concluded that the final NSPS does not have Federalism 
implications. The final NSPS does not have substantial direct effects 
on the states, on the relationship between the national government and 
the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 
13132. The final rule does not have impacts of $25 million or more in 
any one year. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final 
NSPS.
    Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the 
final NSPS, the EPA consulted with state and local officials and 
representatives of state and local governments early in the process

[[Page 59367]]

of developing the final rules for MSW landfills (both the NSPS and 
Emission Guidelines) to permit them to have meaningful and timely input 
into its development.
    The EPA conducted a Federalism Consultation Outreach Meeting on 
September 10, 2013. Due to interest in that meeting, additional 
outreach meetings were held on November 7, 2013, and November 14, 2014. 
An additional Federalism outreach meeting was conducted on April 15, 
2015. Participants included the National Governors' Association, the 
National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State 
Governments, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the International City/
County Management Association, the National Association of Towns and 
Townships, the County Executives of America, the Environmental Council 
of States, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, Association 
of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, 
environmental agency representatives from 43 states, and approximately 
60 representatives from city and county governments. Concerns raised 
during the consultations include: implementation concerns associated 
with shortening of gas 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. The EPA has addressed 
many of these concerns in the final rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. Based on methodology used to predict future 
landfills as outlined in the docketed memorandum ``Summary of Updated 
Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of 
Landfills Regulations, 2016,'' future tribal landfills are not 
anticipated to be large enough to become subject to the rulemaking. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 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 this 
rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects because there are 
a small number of new or modified landfills expected to be subject to 
control requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX in 2025. 
Further, 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 NSPS involves technical standards. For the final NSPS, 
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 an 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 EPA's review, including review of comments for these 15 
methods, is documented in the memorandum, ``Voluntary Consensus 
Standard Results for Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste 
Landfills, 2016'' in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0215).
    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text for 40 CFR part 
60, subpart XXX 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

[[Page 59368]]

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 
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-2003-0215).

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This rule 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:

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. Amend Sec.  60.17(h)(185) by removing the period at the end of the 
paragraph and adding in its place ``, 60.766(a).''

0
3. Add subpart XXX to read as follows:
Subpart XXX--Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste 
Landfills That Commenced Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification 
After July 17, 2014
Sec.
60.760 Applicability, designation of affected source, and delegation 
of authority.
60.761 Definitions.
60.762 Standards for air emissions from municipal solid waste 
landfills.
60.763 Operational standards for collection and control systems.
60.764 Test methods and procedures.
60.765 Compliance provisions.
60.766 Monitoring of operations.
60.767 Reporting requirements.
60.768 Recordkeeping requirements.
60.769 Specifications for active collection systems.

Subpart XXX--Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste 
Landfills That Commenced Construction, Reconstruction, or 
Modification After July 17, 2014

Sec.  60.760  Applicability, designation of affected source, and 
delegation of authority.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each municipal solid 
waste landfill that commenced construction, reconstruction, or 
modification after July 17, 2014. Physical or operational changes made 
to an MSW landfill solely to comply with subparts Cc, Cf, or WWW of 
this part are not considered construction, reconstruction, or 
modification for the purposes of this section.
    (b) The following authorities are retained by the Administrator and 
are not transferred to the state: Sec.  60.764(a)(5).
    (c) Activities required by or conducted pursuant to a Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), or state remedial action 
are not considered construction, reconstruction, or modification for 
purposes of this subpart.

Sec.  60.761  Definitions.

    As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein have the 
meaning given them in the Act or in subpart A 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.
    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.
    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 
nonmethane organic compounds emission rate. The landfill is considered 
controlled at the time a collection and control system design plan is 
submitted in compliance with Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(i).
    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

[[Page 59369]]

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 RCRA Subtitle D wastes (Sec.  257.2 of this title) such as 
commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, conditionally exempt small 
quantity generator waste, and industrial solid waste. Portions of an 
MSW landfill may be separated by access roads. An MSW landfill may be 
publicly or privately owned. An MSW landfill may be a new MSW landfill, 
an existing MSW landfill, or a lateral expansion.
    Municipal solid waste landfill emissions or MSW landfill emissions 
means gas generated by the decomposition of organic 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.  60.764.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.

Sec.  60.762  Standards for air emissions from municipal solid waste 
landfills.

    (a) 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 must submit an initial design capacity report to the 
Administrator as provided in Sec.  60.767(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

[[Page 59370]]

of this subpart except as provided for in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (1) The owner or operator must submit to the Administrator an 
amended design capacity report, as provided for in Sec.  60.767(a)(3).
    (2) When an increase in the maximum design capacity of a landfill 
exempted from the provisions of Sec.  60.762(b) through Sec.  60.769 on 
the basis of the design capacity exemption in paragraph (a) of this 
section results in a revised maximum design capacity equal to or 
greater than 2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters, the 
owner or operator must comply with the provisions of paragraph (b) of 
this section.
    (b) 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 either comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section 
or calculate an NMOC emission rate for the landfill using the 
procedures specified in Sec.  60.764. The NMOC emission rate must be 
recalculated annually, except as provided in Sec.  60.767(b)(1)(ii). 
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 is subject to part 70 or 71 permitting 
requirements.
    (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 emission report to the 
Administrator, except as provided for in Sec.  60.767(b)(1)(ii); and
    (ii) Recalculate the NMOC emission rate annually using the 
procedures specified in Sec.  60.764(a)(1) 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 (b) of this section, is 
equal to or greater than 34 megagrams per year, the owner or operator 
must either: Comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section; calculate 
NMOC emissions using the next higher tier in Sec.  60.764; or conduct a 
surface emission monitoring demonstration using the procedures 
specified in Sec.  60.764(a)(6).
    (B) If the landfill is permanently closed, a closure report must be 
submitted to the Administrator as provided for in Sec.  60.767(e).
    (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:
    (i) Calculated NMOC Emission Rate. Submit a collection and control 
system design plan prepared by a professional engineer to the 
Administrator within 1 year as specified in Sec.  60.767(c); calculate 
NMOC emissions using the next higher tier in Sec.  60.764; or conduct a 
surface emission monitoring demonstration using the procedures 
specified in Sec.  60.764(a)(6). The collection and control system must 
meet the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this 
section.
    (ii) Collection system. Install and start up a collection and 
control system that captures the gas generated within the landfill as 
required by paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(C) or (D) and (b)(2)(iii) of this 
section within 30 months after:
    (A) 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.  60.767(c)(4); or
    (B) 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.  60.767(c)(4)(iii).
    (C) An active collection system must:
    (1) 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;
    (2) 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.
    (3) Collect gas at a sufficient extraction rate;
    (4) Be designed to minimize off-site migration of subsurface gas.
    (D) A passive collection system must:
    (1) Comply with the provisions specified in paragraphs 
(b)(2)(ii)(C)(1), (2), and (3) of this section.
    (2) 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 40 CFR 258.40.
    (iii) Control system. Route all the collected gas to a control 
system that complies with the requirements in either paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii)(A), (B), or (C) of this section.
    (A) A non-enclosed flare designed and operated in accordance with 
the parameters established in Sec.  60.18 except as noted in Sec.  
60.764(e); or
    (B) 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. The reduction efficiency or 
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.  60.764(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.
    (1) If a boiler or process heater is used as the control device, 
the landfill gas stream must be introduced into the flame zone.
    (2) 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.  60.766;
    (C) 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 (b)(2)(iii)(A) or (B) of 
this section.
    (D) All emissions from any atmospheric vent from the gas treatment 
system are subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) or 
(B) 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)(2)(iii)(A) 
or (B) of this section.
    (iv) Operation. Operate the collection and control device installed 
to comply with this subpart in accordance with the provisions of 
Sec. Sec.  60.763, 60.765 and 60.766.
    (v) Removal criteria. The collection and control system may be 
capped, removed, or decommissioned if the following criteria are met:

[[Page 59371]]

    (A) The landfill is a closed landfill (as defined in Sec.  60.761). 
A closure report must be submitted to the Administrator as provided in 
Sec.  60.767(e).
    (B) 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.
    (C) Following the procedures specified in Sec.  60.764(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.
    (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, 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, regardless 
of when the design capacity report is actually submitted, no later 
than:
    (1) November 28, 2016 for MSW landfills that commenced 
construction, modification, or reconstruction after July 17, 2014 but 
before August 29, 2016;
    (2) Ninety days after the date of commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction for MSW landfills that commence 
construction, modification, or reconstruction after August 29, 2016.
    (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 for a control 
system under paragraph (b)(2) of this section; or
    (2) The owner or operator meets the conditions for control system 
removal specified in paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section.

Sec.  60.763  Operational standards for collection and control systems.

    Each owner or operator of an MSW landfill with a gas collection and 
control system used to comply with the provisions of Sec.  60.762(b)(2) 
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) 5 years or more if active; or
    (2) 2 years or more if closed or at final grade;
    (b) Operate the collection system with negative pressure at each 
wellhead except under the following conditions:
    (1) A fire or increased well temperature. The owner or operator 
must record instances when positive pressure occurs in efforts to avoid 
a fire. These records must be submitted with the annual reports as 
provided in Sec.  60.767(g)(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.  
60.767(c);
    (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.  60.765(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 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.  
60.762(b)(2)(iii). 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; and
    (f) Operate the control system at all times when the collected gas 
is routed to the system.
    (g) If monitoring demonstrates that the operational requirements in 
paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of this section are not met, corrective 
action must be taken as specified in Sec.  60.765(a)(3) and (5) or (c). 
If corrective actions are taken as specified in Sec.  60.765, the 
monitored exceedance is not a violation of the operational requirements 
in this section.

Sec.  60.764  Test methods and procedures.

    (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

[[Page 59372]]

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] TR29AU16.007

Where:

MNMOC = Total NMOC emission rate from the landfill, 
megagrams per year.
k = Methane generation rate constant, year-\1\.
Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic meters per 
megagram solid waste.
Mi = Mass of solid waste in the ith section, 
megagrams.
ti = Age of the ith section, years.
CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, parts per million by 
volume as hexane.
3.6 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] TR29AU16.008

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 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 landfill 
owner or operator must submit an NMOC emission rate report according to 
Sec.  60.767(b), and must recalculate the NMOC mass emission rate 
annually as required under Sec.  60.762(b).
    (ii) If the calculated NMOC emission rate as calculated in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section is equal to or greater than 34 
megagrams per year, then the landfill owner must either:
    (A) Submit a gas collection and control system design plan within 1 
year as specified in Sec.  60.767(c) and install and operate a gas 
collection and control system within 30 months according to Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(ii) and (iii);
    (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 accuracy of smaller 
volumes. Terminate compositing before the cylinder approaches ambient 
pressure where measurement accuracy diminishes. If more than the 
required number of samples are taken, all samples must be used in the 
analysis. The landfill owner or operator must divide the NMOC 
concentration from Method 25 or 25C of appendix A of this part by six 
to convert from CNMOC as carbon to CNMOC as 
hexane. If the landfill has an active or passive gas removal system in 
place, Method 25 or 25C samples may be collected from these systems 
instead of surface probes provided the removal system can be shown to 
provide sampling as representative as the two sampling probe per 
hectare requirement. For active collection systems, samples may be 
collected from the common header pipe. The sample location on the 
common header pipe must be before any gas moving, condensate removal, 
or treatment system equipment. For active collection systems, a minimum 
of three samples must be collected from the header pipe.
    (i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test (as defined in Sec.  60.8), the owner or operator must submit the 
results according to Sec.  60.767(i)(1).
    (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 (a)(1)(ii) of this section and 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.  60.767(b)(1), and must recalculate the NMOC mass emission rate 
annually as required under Sec.  60.762(b). The site-specific

[[Page 59373]]

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 landfill owner or operator must either:
    (A) Submit a gas collection and control system design plan within 1 
year as specified in Sec.  60.767(c) and install and operate a gas 
collection and control system within 30 months according to Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(ii) and (iii);
    (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.  60.767(c) and install and operate a gas 
collection and control system within 30 months according to Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(ii) and (iii); 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.  60.767(b)(1). 
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.  60.765(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, except as described in paragraph (a)(6)(iii)(A) of this 
section.
    (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.  60.765(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.  60.768(g) and submit a 
Tier 4 surface emissions report as provided in Sec.  60.767(c)(4)(iii).
    (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.  60.767(c) and install and operate a gas collection and control 
system according to Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) 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 
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

[[Page 59374]]

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.  
60.762(b)(2)(v), using Equation 3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29AU16.009

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. The sample 
location on the common header pipe must be before any condensate 
removal or other gas refining units. The landfill owner or operator 
must divide the NMOC concentration from Method 25 or Method 25C of 
appendix A of this part by six to convert from CNMOC as 
carbon to CNMOC as hexane.
    (3) The owner or operator may use another method to determine 
landfill gas flow rate and NMOC concentration if the method has been 
approved by the Administrator.
    (i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test (as defined in Sec.  60.8), the owner or operator must submit the 
results of the performance test, including any associated fuel 
analyses, according to Sec.  60.767(i)(1).
    (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. Sec.  51.166 
or 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.  
60.762(b)(2)(iii)(B), 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 concentration level, unless another method to 
demonstrate compliance has been approved by the Administrator as 
provided by Sec.  60.767(c)(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 landowner or operator must 
divide the NMOC concentration as carbon by 6 to convert from the CNMOC 
as carbon to CNMOC as hexane. Equation 4 must be used to calculate 
efficiency:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29AU16.010

Where:

NMOCin = Mass of NMOC entering control device.
NMOCout = Mass of NMOC exiting control device.
    (e) For the performance test required in Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(iii)(A), 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, including any associated fuel 
analyses, required by Sec.  60.764(b) or (d) according to Sec.  
60.767(i)(1).
    (2) [Reserved]

Sec.  60.765  Compliance provisions.

    (a) Except as provided in Sec.  60.767(c)(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.  
60.762(b)(2)(ii).
    (1) For the purposes of calculating the maximum expected gas 
generation flow rate from the landfill to determine compliance with 
Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(ii)(C)(1), either Equation 5 or Equation 6 must be 
used. The methane generation rate constant (k) and methane generation 
potential (Lo) kinetic factors should be those published in 
the most recent Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (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.  60.764(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:

[[Page 59375]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29AU16.011

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] TR29AU16.012
    
Where:

QM = Maximum expected gas generation flow rate, cubic 
meters per year.
k = Methane generation rate constant, year-1.
Lo = Methane generation potential, cubic meters per 
megagram solid waste.
Mi = Mass of solid waste in the ith section, 
megagrams.
ti = Age of the ith section, years.

    (iii) If a collection and control system has been installed, actual 
flow data may be used to project the maximum expected gas generation 
flow rate instead of, or in conjunction with, Equation 5 or Equation 6 
in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. If the landfill is 
still accepting waste, the actual measured flow data will not equal the 
maximum expected gas generation rate, so calculations using Equation 5 
or Equation 6 in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section or other 
methods must be used to predict the maximum expected gas generation 
rate over the intended period of use of the gas control system 
equipment.
    (2) For the purposes of determining sufficient density of gas 
collectors for compliance with Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(ii)(C)(2), 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.  
60.762(b)(2)(ii)(C)(3), 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.  60.763(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 no 
later than 60 days after positive pressure was first measured. The 
owner or operator must keep records according to Sec.  60.768(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.  60.767(g)(7) as part of 
the next annual report. The owner or operator must keep records 
according to Sec.  60.768(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.  60.767(g)(7) and Sec.  60.767(j). The owner or operator must 
keep records according to Sec.  60.768(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.  60.763(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 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.  60.768(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.  60.767(g)(7) as part of 
the next annual report. The owner or operator must keep records 
according to Sec.  60.768(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.  60.767(g)(7) and Sec.  60.767(j). The owner or operator must 
keep records according to Sec.  60.768(e)(5).
    (6) An owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with 
Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(ii)(C)(4) through the use of a collection system not 
conforming to the specifications provided in Sec.  60.769 must provide 
information satisfactory to the Administrator as specified in Sec.  
60.767(c)(3) demonstrating that off-site migration is being controlled.
    (b) For purposes of compliance with Sec.  60.763(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.  
60.767(c). Each well must be installed

[[Page 59376]]

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.  60.763(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 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.  
60.763(d).
    (i) The location of each monitored exceedance must be marked and 
the location and concentration recorded.
    (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 ppm 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.  60.764(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 of appendix A of this part 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.  60.763(e) in lieu of the compliance provisions in 
Sec.  60.765.

Sec.  60.766  Monitoring of operations.

    Except as provided in Sec.  60.767(c)(2):
    (a) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(ii)(C) 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.  60.765(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.  
60.767(c)(2).
    (ii) Unless an alternative test method is established as allowed by 
Sec.  60.767(c)(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;
    (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.  60.765(a)(5). The temperature measuring device must 
be calibrated annually using the procedure in 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A-1, Method 2, Section 10.3.
    (b) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(iii) 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

[[Page 59377]]

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.  
60.762(b)(2)(iii) 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.  60.762(b)(2)(iii) 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.  60.767(c)(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.  60.769 or seeking to 
monitor alternative parameters to those required by Sec. Sec.  60.763 
through 60.766 must provide information satisfactory to the 
Administrator as provided in Sec.  60.767(c)(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.  
60.763(d) must monitor surface concentrations of methane according to 
the procedures in Sec.  60.765(c) and the instrument specifications in 
Sec.  60.765(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 ppm 
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 
Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(iii) 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.  60.768(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 
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.  60.767  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Design capacity report. Each owner or operator subject to the 
requirements of this subpart must submit an initial design capacity 
report to the Administrator.
    (1) Submission. The initial design capacity report fulfills the 
requirements of the notification of the date construction is commenced 
as required by Sec.  60.7(a)(1) and must be submitted no later than:
    (i) November 28, 2016, for landfills that commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction after July 17, 2014 but before August 
29, 2016; or
    (ii) Ninety days after the date of commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction for landfills that commence 
construction, modification, or reconstruction after August 29, 2016.
    (2) Initial design capacity report. The initial design capacity 
report must contain the following information:
    (i) 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.
    (ii) 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

[[Page 59378]]

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, tribal, local agency or 
Administrator may request other reasonable information as may be 
necessary to verify the maximum design capacity of the landfill.
    (3) Amended design capacity report. An amended design capacity 
report must be submitted to the Administrator 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.  60.768(f).
    (b) NMOC emission rate report. Each owner or operator subject to 
the requirements of this subpart must submit an NMOC emission rate 
report following the procedure specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this 
section to the Administrator initially and annually thereafter, except 
as provided for in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) 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.  60.764(a) or (b), as applicable.
    (i) The initial NMOC emission rate report may be combined with the 
initial design capacity report required in paragraph (a) of this 
section and must be submitted no later than indicated in paragraphs 
(b)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section. Subsequent NMOC emission rate 
reports must be submitted annually thereafter, except as provided for 
in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (A) November 28, 2016, for landfills that commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction after July 17, 2014, but before August 
29, 2016, or
    (B) Ninety days after the date of commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction for landfills that commence 
construction, modification, or reconstruction after August 29, 2016.
    (ii) 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 (i)(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.
    (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) 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.  60.762(b)(2), during such time as the collection 
and control system is in operation and in compliance with Sec. Sec.  
60.763 and 60.765.
    (c) Collection and control system design plan. Each owner or 
operator subject to the provisions of Sec.  60.762(b)(2) must submit a 
collection and control system design plan to the Administrator for 
approval according to the schedule in paragraph (c)(4) of this section. 
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.  60.762(b)(2).
    (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.  60.763 through 60.768 proposed by the owner or operator.
    (3) The collection and control system design plan must either 
conform with specifications for active collection systems in Sec.  
60.769 or include a demonstration to the Administrator's satisfaction 
of the sufficiency of the alternative provisions to Sec.  60.769.
    (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 collection and control system design plan to 
the Administrator for approval 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.  60.764(a)(3) and the resulting rate is less than 34 megagrams per 
year, annual periodic reporting must be resumed, using the Tier 2 
determined site-specific NMOC concentration, until the calculated 
emission rate is equal to or greater than 34 megagrams per year or the 
landfill is closed. The revised NMOC emission rate report, with the 
recalculated emission rate based on NMOC sampling and analysis, must be 
submitted, following the procedures in paragraph (i)(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.  60.764(a)(4), and the 
resulting NMOC emission rate is less than 34 Mg/yr, annual periodic 
reporting must be resumed. The resulting site-specific methane 
generation rate constant k must be used in the emission rate 
calculation until such time as the emissions rate calculation results 
in an exceedance. The revised NMOC emission rate report based on the 
provisions of Sec.  60.764(a)(4) and the resulting site-specific 
methane generation rate constant k must be submitted, following the 
procedure specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, to the 
Administrator within 1 year of the first calculated 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.  60.764(a)(6), then the owner 
or operator must submit annually a Tier 4 surface emissions report as 
specified in this paragraph following the procedure specified in 
paragraph (i)(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

[[Page 59379]]

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 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 must 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 (i)(2) of 
this section.
    (B) The Tier 4 surface emissions 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 (i)(2) of this 
section.
    (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 
(c)(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 treatment system monitoring plan as specified 
in Sec.  60.768(b)(5).
    (d) Revised design plan. The owner or operator who has already been 
required to submit a design plan under paragraph (c) of this section 
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 (c) of this section.
    (e) Closure report. Each owner or operator of a controlled landfill 
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 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).
    (f) 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 all of the following 
items:
    (i) A copy of the closure report submitted in accordance with 
paragraph (e) of this section;
    (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.
    (2) The Administrator may request such additional information as 
may be necessary to verify that all of the conditions for removal in 
Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(v) have been met.
    (g) Annual report. The owner or operator of a landfill seeking to 
comply with Sec.  60.762(b)(2) using an active collection system 
designed in accordance with Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(ii) must submit to the 
Administrator, following the procedure specified in paragraph (i)(2) of 
this section, annual reports of the recorded information in paragraphs 
(g)(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, and 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. 
For enclosed combustion devices and

[[Page 59380]]

flares, reportable exceedances are defined under Sec.  60.768(c).
    (1) Value and length of time for exceedance of applicable 
parameters monitored under Sec.  60.766(a), (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.  60.766.
    (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.  60.763(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.  60.765(a)(3), 
(a)(5), (b), and (c)(4).
    (7) For any corrective action analysis for which corrective actions 
are required in Sec.  60.765(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.
    (h) Initial performance test report. Each owner or operator seeking 
to comply with Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(iii) 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;
    (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; 
and
    (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.
    (i) Electronic reporting. The owner or operator must submit reports 
electronically according to paragraphs (i)(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.
    (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.
    (j) Corrective action and the corresponding timeline. The owner or 
operator must submit according to paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this 
section.
    (1) For corrective action that is required according to Sec.  
60.765(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). The Administrator must approve the plan for corrective 
action and the corresponding timeline.
    (2) For corrective action that is required according to Sec.  
60.765(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.
    (k) 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

[[Page 59381]]

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 (i)(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 (k)(1) 
through (6) of this section per year for the initial annual reporting 
period 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 containing data for the first 12 months after August 29, 2016; 
or
    (ii) Thirteen (13) months after the date of commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction for landfills that commence 
construction, modification, or reconstruction after August 29, 2016 
containing data for the first 12 months after August 29, 2016.
    (8) Subsequent annual reports must contain items in paragraph 
(k)(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 may cease annual reporting of items in paragraphs 
(k)(1) through (7) of this section once they have submitted the closure 
report in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (1) Tier 4 notification. (1) 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 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.  60.764(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.  60.764(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 delay or cancellation in the original test date, and arrange 
an updated date with the Administrator by mutual agreement.

Sec.  60.768  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) Except as provided in Sec.  60.767(c)(2), each owner or 
operator of an MSW landfill subject to the provisions of Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) must keep for at least 5 years up-to-date, 
readily accessible, on-site records of the design capacity report that 
triggered Sec.  60.762(b), 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.  60.767(c)(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.  60.762(b)(2)(ii):
    (i) The maximum expected gas generation flow rate as calculated in 
Sec.  60.765(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.  60.769(a)(1).
    (2) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this 
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(iii) 
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.  
60.762(b)(2)(iii)(B) achieved by the control device.
    (3) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this 
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(iii)(B)(1) 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.  60.762(b)(2)(iii)(A) 
through use of a non-enclosed flare, the flare type (i.e., steam-
assisted, air-assisted, or nonassisted), 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; continuous records of the flare pilot flame 
or flare flame monitoring and records of all periods of operations 
during which the pilot flame of the flare flame is absent.
    (5) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this 
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(iii) 
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

[[Page 59382]]

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.  60.767(c)(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.  60.766 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.  60.767(g):
    (i) For enclosed combustors except for boilers and process heaters 
with design heat input capacity of 44 megawatts (150 million British 
thermal units 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.  
60.762(b)(2)(iii) 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.  
60.766.
    (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.  
60.762(b)(2)(iii) must keep an up-to-date, readily accessible record of 
all periods of operation of the boiler or process heater. (Examples of 
such records could include records of steam use, fuel use, or 
monitoring data collected pursuant to other state, local, tribal, or 
federal regulatory requirements.)
    (4) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the provisions of 
this subpart by use of a non-enclosed flare must keep up-to-date, 
readily accessible continuous records of the flame or flare pilot flame 
monitoring specified under Sec.  60.766(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.  60.762(b)(2) using an active collection system designed in 
accordance with Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(ii) must keep records of periods 
when the collection system or control device is not operating.
    (d) Except as provided in Sec.  60.767(c)(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 for each collector.
    (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.  60.765(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.  
60.769(a)(3)(i) as well as any nonproductive areas excluded from 
collection as provided in Sec.  60.769(a)(3)(ii).
    (e) Except as provided in Sec.  60.767(c)(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.  60.763, 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.  60.765(a)(3)(i) or (a)(5)(i), 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.  60.765(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.  60.765(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.  60.764(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:

[[Page 59383]]

    (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, 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.
    (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.  60.767(c)(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.  
60.766(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.  60.767(k), 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 estimates of annual waste acceptance or 
total waste in place in the areas where leachate or liquids were 
applied.

Sec.  60.769  Specifications for active collection systems.

    (a) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(i) 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 as provided in Sec.  60.767(c)(2) and (3):
    (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.  
60.768(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] TR29AU16.013

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 
ith section, megagram.
ti = Age of the solid waste in the ith 
section, years.
CNMOC = Concentration of nonmethane organic compounds, 
parts per million by volume.
3.6 x 10-\9\ = Conversion factor.

    (B) If the owner/operator is proposing to exclude, or cease gas 
collection and control from, nonproductive physically separated (e.g., 
separately lined) closed areas that already have gas collection 
systems, NMOC emissions from each physically separated closed area must 
be computed using either Equation 3 in Sec.  60.764(b) 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 (this 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.  60.764(a)(1) or the alternative 
values from Sec.  60.764(a)(5) must be used. The mass of nondegradable 
solid waste contained

[[Page 59384]]

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.  
60.762(b)(2)(ii)(A) 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.  
60.762(b)(2)(iii) must convey the landfill gas to a control system in 
compliance with Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(iii) 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 exists, 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.  60.765(a)(1).

[FR Doc. 2016-17687 Filed 8-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P