
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 137 (Thursday, July 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41795-41843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16405]



[[Page 41795]]

Vol. 79

Thursday,

No. 137

July 17, 2014

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 60





Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; Proposed 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 137 / Thursday, July 17, 2014 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 41796]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215; FRL-9912-12-OAR]
RIN 2060-AM08


Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a new 
subpart, 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX 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 applies to landfills 
that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after July 
17, 2014. The proposed standards reflect changes to the population of 
landfills and an analysis of the timing and methods for reducing 
emissions. The proposed standards also address other regulatory issues 
including the definition of landfill gas treatment systems, among other 
topics. The new subpart will reduce emissions of landfill gas, which 
contains both nonmethane organic compounds and methane. These avoided 
emissions will improve air quality and reduce public health and welfare 
effects associated with exposure to landfill gas emissions.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before September 15, 
2014.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public 
hearing by July 22, 2014, we will hold a public hearing on August 12, 
2014, in Washington, DC at the William Jefferson Clinton East Building, 
Room 1153, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. The 
public hearing will convene at 9:00 a.m. and end at 6:00 p.m. (Eastern 
Standard Time). There will be a lunch break from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 
p.m. Please contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at (919) 541-0832 or at 
hunt.virginia@epa.gov to register to speak at one of the hearings. The 
last day to pre-register in advance to speak at the hearings will be 
Friday August 8, 2014. Additionally, requests to speak will be taken 
the day of the hearing at the hearing registration desk, although 
preferences on speaking times may not be able to be fulfilled. If you 
require the service of a translator or special accommodations such as 
audio description, please let us know at the time of registration.
    If no one contacts the EPA requesting a public hearing to be held 
concerning this proposed rule by July 22, 2014, a public hearing will 
not take place. If a hearing is held, it will provide interested 
parties the opportunity to present data, views or arguments concerning 
the proposed action. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all 
speakers who arrive and register. Because this hearing, if held, will 
be at U.S. government facilities, individuals planning to attend the 
hearing should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the 
security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. In 
addition, you will need to obtain a property pass for any personal 
belongings you bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be 
required to return this property pass to the security desk. No large 
signs will be allowed in the building, cameras may only be used outside 
of the building and demonstrations will not be allowed on federal 
property for security reasons.
    The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, 
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written 
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment 
period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and 
supporting information presented at the public hearing. Commenters 
should notify Ms. Hunt if they will need specific equipment, or if 
there are other special needs related to providing comments at the 
hearings. Verbatim transcripts of the hearing and written statements 
will be included in the docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will make 
every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day 
of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearing to run either 
ahead of schedule or behind schedule. Information regarding the hearing 
(including information as to whether or not one will be held) will be 
available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/landflpg.html.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0215, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: A-and-R-docket@epa.gov. Include docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2003-0215 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0215.
     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center 
(EPA/DC), Mailcode 28221T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0215, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please 
include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your 
comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA 
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0215. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 
protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver 
information identified as CBI to only the mail or hand/courier delivery 
address listed above, attention: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (Room C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your 
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with 
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due 
to technical difficulties and cannot contact

[[Page 41797]]

you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, 
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/
DC, William Jefferson Clinton West Building, Room B102, 1301 
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this 
proposal, contact Ms. Hillary Ward, Fuels and Incineration Group, 
Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards (E143-05), Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3154; fax number: 
(919) 541-0246; email address: ward.hillary@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of proposed subpart XXX for 40 CFR part 60 is 
available on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site. Following 
signature, the EPA will post a copy of the proposed subpart XXX on the 
TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules 
at http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/landflpg.html. The TTN provides 
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution 
control.
    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
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential business information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
CRDS Cavity ringdown spectroscopy
DOC Degradable organic carbon
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FLIR Forward-looking infrared
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared
GCCS Gas collection and control system
GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
GWP Global warming potential
HAP Hazardous air pollutants
ICR Information collection request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
lb/MMBtu Pounds per million British thermal unit
LFG Landfill gas
LFGCost Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model
LMOP Landfill Methane Outreach Program
m\3\ Cubic meters
Mg Megagram
Mg/yr Megagram per year
MSW Municipal solid waste
MW Megawatt
MWh Megawatt hour
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NMOC Nonmethane organic compound
NSPS New source performance standards
NSR New Source Review
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management & Budget
ppm Parts per million
ppmvd Parts per million by dry volume
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory impacts analysis
RPM Radial plume mapping
SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review
SER Small entity representative
SISNOSE Significant impact on a substantial number of small entities
SSM Startup, shutdown and malfunction
TDL Tunable diode laser
tpy Tons per year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
USG U.S. government
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. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?
III. Background
    A. Legal Authority
    B. What is the purpose and scope of this action?
    C. Where in the Code of Federal Regulations will these changes 
appear?
IV. Summary of Proposed Changes Based on Periodic Review of the MSW 
Landfills NSPS Under the CAA
V. What analyses did the EPA conduct to determine BSER?
    A. Review of Control Technology
    B. What data and control criteria did the EPA consider in 
evaluating potential changes to the timing of installing, expanding, 
and removing the GCCS?
    C. What control options did the EPA consider?
    D. What are the implementation concerns with changing the design 
capacity criteria?
    E. What are the implementation concerns with reducing the NMOC 
threshold?
    F. What are the implementation concerns with shortening the 
initial or expansion lag times?
    G. Request for Comment on BSER
VI. Rationale for the Proposed Changes Based on Review of the NSPS
    A. What are the environmental impacts and costs associated with 
the baseline?
    B. How did the EPA determine which control option to propose?
VII. Summary of Clarifications and Resolutions That Are the Result 
of Implementation Activity
    A. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and Treatment System and 
Treatment System Monitoring
    B. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions
    C. Closed Areas
    D. Surface Monitoring
    E. Electronic Reporting
    F. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements
    G. Requirements for Updating the Design Plan
    H. Submitting Corrective Action Timeline Requests
    I. Other Corrections and Clarifications
VIII. Rationale for the Clarifications and Resolutions That Are the 
Result of Implementation Activity
    A. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and Treatment System and 
Treatment System Monitoring
    B. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions
    C. Closed Areas
    D. Surface Monitoring
    E. Electronic Reporting
    F. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements
    G. Requirements for Updating Design Plan
    H. Submitting Corrective Action Timeline Requests
    I. Other Corrections and Clarifications
IX. Request for Comment on Specific Provisions
    A. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and Treatment System and 
Treatment System Monitoring
    B. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements
    C. Enhanced Surface Monitoring Requirements
    D. Alternative Emission Threshold Determination Techniques
X. Impacts of Proposed Revisions
    A. What are the air quality impacts?
    B. What are the water quality and solid waste impacts?
    C. What are the secondary air impacts?
    D. What are the energy impacts?
    E. What are the cost impacts?
    F. What are the economic impacts?
    G. What are the benefits?

[[Page 41798]]

    H. What are the health and welfare effects of LFG emissions?
XI. 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
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action

    The EPA has conducted an initial review of the Standards of 
Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (landfill new source 
performance standards or landfills NSPS). The EPA's review is ongoing 
and will be informed by, among other matters, comments received on 
today's proposed action. Based on its initial review, the EPA is 
proposing a number of changes to the existing landfills NSPS. In order 
to avoid possible confusion regarding which MSW landfills would 
actually be subject to any revised, or new, requirements, the EPA is 
establishing a new subpart XXX (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) rather 
than merely updating existing subpart WWW (40 CFR part 60, subpart 
WWW). The requirements in new subpart XXX will apply to MSW landfills 
for which construction, modification, or reconstruction is commenced on 
or after July 17, 2014. The requirements in subpart WWW will continue 
to apply to MSW landfills on which construction, modification or 
reconstruction was commenced on or after May 30, 1991 and before July 
17, 2014. Note that this preamble uses both of the terms ``MSW 
landfills'' and ``landfills'' to refer to MSW landfills.
1. Need for Regulatory Action
    Several factors led to today's proposed action. First, section 111 
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. Sec.  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 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 and operators, as well as 
regulators, need clarification regarding issues that have arisen during 
implementation of the existing standards. Implementation issues include 
the definition of landfill gas treatment, among other topics.
2. Legal Authority
    CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C. Sec.  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. Sec.  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 propose 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.\1\ Proposed subpart XXX would 
appear in 40 CFR part 60 and would apply to landfills that commence 
construction, reconstruction, or modification on or after July 17, 
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 will 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of Major Provisions

    The proposed new subpart retains the same design capacity threshold 
but reduces the non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) emission threshold 
at which MSW landfills must install controls. The new subpart also 
resolves or clarifies issues that the EPA and stakeholders identified 
during implementation of the current landfills NSPS.
    Thresholds for installing controls. Under the current NSPS, an MSW 
landfill that has a design capacity of 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) and 
2.5 million cubic meters (m\3\) must install and start up a gas 
collection control system within 30 months after landfill gas emissions 
reach or exceed a level of 50 Mg NMOC per year. (A megagram is also 
known as a metric ton, which is equal to 1.1 U.S. short tons or about 
2,205 pounds.) The current NSPS is referred to as the ``baseline'' in 
this document. Proposed subpart XXX retains the same design capacity 
threshold as the baseline, but reduces the NMOC emission threshold to 
40 Mg/yr. 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.
    Landfill gas treatment. The EPA is addressing two issues related to 
landfill gas treatment. First, the EPA is proposing to clarify that the 
use of treated landfill gas is not limited to use as a fuel for a 
stationary combustion device but also allows other beneficial uses such 
as vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas for pipeline injection, and 
use as a raw material in a chemical manufacturing process. Second, the 
EPA is proposing to clarify what constitutes landfill gas treatment. 
For filtration and dewatering, the definition contains specific 
numerical values that would provide long-term protection of the 
combustion equipment, which would support good combustion. We are also 
proposing to clarify monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements for treatment systems.
    Startup, shutdown and malfunction. In today's action, the EPA is 
proposing that the standards in proposed subpart XXX apply at all 
times, including periods of startup or shutdown, and periods of 
malfunction. In addition, to enable the EPA to determine the severity 
of an emissions exceedance for periods when the gas collection system 
or a control device is not operating, the EPA is proposing to add a 
recordkeeping and reporting requirement for landfill owners or 
operators to estimate emissions during such periods.
    Other clarifications. The EPA is proposing other clarifications to 
address issues that have been raised by landfill owners or operators 
during implementation of the current NSPS. These other clarifications 
include improvements to criteria for exempting areas from collection 
and control, adding criteria for when an affected source must update 
its design plan, and clarifying when landfill owners or operators must 
submit corrective action timeline requests. We intend to address

[[Page 41799]]

clarifications and other implementation issues for existing landfills 
in a separate rulemaking.

C. Costs and Benefits

    An MSW landfill owner or operator is expected to install the least-
cost control for collecting and combusting landfill gas. The control 
costs include the costs to install and operate a GCCS. For certain 
landfills that were expected to generate revenue by using the landfill 
gas for energy, revenue from electricity sales was incorporated into 
the net control costs. The annualized costs also include testing and 
monitoring costs.
    Proposed subpart XXX, which tightens the NMOC emissions threshold 
from 50 to 40 Mg/yr NMOC, would achieve reductions of 79 Mg NMOC/yr and 
12,300 Mg methane/yr (about 307,600 Mg CO2e/yr) beyond the 
baseline in year 2023. The associated annualized net cost for proposed 
subpart XXX is estimated to be an additional $471,000 (2012$) in 2023. 
The EPA expects that the avoided emissions will result in improvements 
in air quality and reduce health effects associated with exposure to 
air pollution related emissions, and result in climate co-benefits due 
to reductions of the methane component of landfill gas. However, 
because this rulemaking is not an ``economically significant regulatory 
action'' under Executive Order 12866 because it is not likely to have 
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, we have not 
conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) or a benefits analysis. 
The baseline NSPS in effect today is estimated to achieve a reduction 
of 610 Mg/yr NMOC and 94,800 Mg/yr methane (about 2.4 million Mg/yr 
CO2e) in 2023, compared to the absence of control (see 
section VI.A. of this preamble and the Economic Impact Analysis for 
more detail). The associated annualized net cost of the baseline is 
estimated to be $2.7 million ($2012) in 2023.

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This proposal affects municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills and 
associated solid waste management programs. Affected categories and 
entities include those listed in Table 1 of this preamble.

                       Table 1--Regulated Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of affected
              Category                NAICS \a\         facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry: Air and water resource          924110  Solid waste landfills.
 and solid waste management.
Industry: Refuse systems--solid           562212  Solid waste landfills.
 waste landfills.
State, local, and tribal government       924110  Administration of air
 agencies.                                         and water resource
                                                   and solid waste
                                                   management programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by the new 
subpart. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this 
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 
proposed 40 CFR 60.760 of subpart XXX. If you have any questions 
regarding the applicability of the proposed subpart to a particular 
entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

1. Submitting CBI
    Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to 
be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the 
EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that 
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.
    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 
protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver 
information identified as CBI to only the following address: Mr. 
Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-02), U.S. 
EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0215.
    If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming 
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
2. Docket
    The docket number for the municipal solid waste landfills new 
source performance standards (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) is Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215. Docket ID No. A-88-09 contains supporting 
information for related 40 CFR part 60, subparts WWW and Cc.

III. Background

    In June 2013, President Obama issued a Climate Action Plan which, 
among other matters, directed the EPA and five other federal agencies 
to develop a comprehensive interagency strategy to reduce methane 
emissions. The plan recognized that methane emissions constitute a 
significant percentage of domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 
highlighted reductions in methane emissions since 1990, and outlined 
specific actions that could be taken to achieve additional progress. 
Specifically, the federal agencies were instructed to focus on 
``assessing current emissions data, addressing data gaps, identifying 
technologies and best practices for reducing emissions and identifying 
existing authorities and incentive-based opportunities to reduce 
methane emissions.''
    As a follow up to the 2013 Climate Action Plan, the Climate Action 
Plan: Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions (the Methane Strategy) was 
released in March 2014. The focus on reducing methane emissions is due 
to the fact that methane is a potent GHG with a global warming 
potential that is 25 times greater than carbon dioxide.\2\ Methane has 
an atmospheric life of 12 years, and because of its potency as a GHG 
and its atmospheric life, reducing methane emissions achieves a near-
term beneficial impact in mitigating global climate change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007. Climate Change 
2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 
the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. 
(eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The targeted strategy noted that the landfill standards at issue 
here and voluntary programs already in place

[[Page 41800]]

have considerably reduced methane emissions.\3\ With respect to 
landfills, the Methane Strategy directs the agency to build upon 
progress to date through updates to the EPA's rules for reducing 
emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed landfills, issuance of 
an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to explore options to 
address emissions from existing landfills, and encouragement of 
beneficial use through voluntary programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Climate Action Plan: Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions. 
March 2014. p.5. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/strategy_to_reduce_methane_emissions_2014-03-28_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has long recognized the climate benefits associated with 
reducing methane emissions from landfills. In the 1991 Landfill NSPS 
Background Information Document \4\ the EPA noted that reduction of 
methane emissions from MSW landfills is one of the many options 
available to reduce possible global warming. When the EPA promulgated 
the NSPS for MSW landfills, which regulates MSW landfill emissions 
(commonly referred to as landfill gas), in 1996, the EPA noted the co-
benefits of controlling methane, but recognized the then relatively 
limited understanding of GHG and their effect on global climate change 
(61 FR 9917, March 12, 1996). In 1996, we stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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.

    An ancillary benefit from regulating air emissions from MSW 
landfills is a reduction in the contribution of MSW landfill 
emissions to global emissions of methane. Methane is a major 
greenhouse gas, and is 20 to 30 times more potent than 
CO2 on a molecule-per-molecule basis. There is a general 
concern within the scientific community that the increasing 
emissions of greenhouse gases could lead to climate change, although 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the rate and magnitude of these changes are uncertain.

    Since 1996, the EPA and the scientific community have gained a 
better understanding of GHGs, such as methane, and their effects on 
climate change and human health and welfare. In 2009, the EPA 
Administrator issued the document known as the Endangerment Finding 
under CAA section 202(a)(1).\5\ In the Endangerment Finding, which 
focused on public health and public welfare impacts within the United 
States, the Administrator found that elevated concentrations of GHGs in 
the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public 
health and welfare of current and future generations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for 
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,'' 74 FR 
66496 (December 15, 2009) (``Endangerment Finding'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is now scientific consensus that GHGs affect climate change 
and, as recognized by the President in the Methane Strategy, this 
scientific consensus increases the need for the EPA to examine 
regulatory options for reducing methane emissions. The EPA is currently 
reviewing the MSW Landfills NSPS in light of the President's Climate 
Action Plan, the Methane Strategy, and improvements in the science 
related to GHG emissions, and is exploring opportunities to achieve 
additional reductions in emissions, including methane emissions.

A. Legal Authority

    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. Sec.  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. Sec.  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. Sec.  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 thresholds and emission level of the standards.
    CAA section 111(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. Sec.  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 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. 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. Sec.  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 
regulated for that source category 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., parts per million (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

[[Page 41801]]

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).)

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

    The purpose of this action is (1) to review the MSW landfills NSPS, 
(2) to propose a resolution or to provide clarification regarding 
implementation issues that were addressed in prior proposed rules 
published on May 23, 2002 (67 FR 36475) and September 8, 2006 (71 FR 
53271), as they apply to new sources, and (3) to take comment on 
specific aspects of EPA's review that will be considered in 
promulgating the final NSPS standard. These proposed revisions appear 
in the proposed 40 CFR part 60 subpart XXX.
    Many changes have occurred in the landfill industry since the 
landfills NSPS was originally promulgated in 1996 that have 
necessitated this review. Among the factors contributing to the need 
for review are the following: Changes in landfill characteristics 
(i.e., size, ownership, age) and population; proliferation of landfill 
gas energy projects; the availability of more comprehensive data on 
landfills from mandatory (Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP)) and 
voluntary EPA programs; and the introduction of new techniques for 
monitoring landfill gas emissions. The number and size distribution of 
MSW landfills in the United States has also evolved since 1996. Public 
opposition to local MSW disposal facilities and the increasing cost of 
disposal at locations near where the waste is generated have resulted 
in consolidation and led to an increase in long-distance hauls to large 
regional landfills. As a result, the corresponding emission profiles 
and per landfill compliance costs have also changed.
    The number of landfill gas to energy projects has also increased 
substantially. In 1996, there were approximately 160 operational 
landfill gas energy projects and approximately 700 candidate landfills 
according to data obtained by the EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program 
(LMOP). According to LMOP, as of March 2014, there were 636 operational 
projects using landfill gas to produce energy and 450 landfills that 
remain candidates for energy recovery. LMOP is a voluntary assistance 
program that encourages recovery and beneficial use of landfill gas, 
and in turn, helps to reduce methane emissions from landfills. During 
our review, the EPA has also become aware of techniques and procedures 
for monitoring landfill gas emissions that were not available at the 
time of the original rule.
    The EPA is required to review the MSW Landfills NSPS and sections 
IV, V, and VI of this preamble present our initial determinations. In 
addition, the EPA has determined that it is appropriate to propose a 
revised NSPS based on these initial determinations.
    This action also provides clarification regarding issues that arose 
during the implementation of the current landfills regulations and 
proposes regulatory text addressing some of those issues. We addressed 
these issues in previous notices as published on May 23, 2002 (67 FR 
36475) and September 8, 2006 (71 FR 53271). These issues include the 
definition of landfill gas treatment and other topics such as surface 
monitoring, how to address closed areas of landfills and when to allow 
removal of controls. Although the cited notices addressed these issues 
in the context of subparts Cc and WWW, the clarifications and 
resolutions discussed in sections VII and VIII of this preamble would 
affect only landfills that commence construction, reconstruction, or 
modification on or after July 17, 2014.
    The EPA plans to address amendments and clarifications resulting 
from implementation activities for landfills subject to 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW and state or federal plans implementing subpart Cc in a 
separate action.
    This action also requests comment on specific aspects of the EPA's 
review, the consideration of which will be integral to the EPA in 
taking final action to promulgate a new NSPS. These provisions include 
landfill gas treatment, wellhead monitoring, and surface monitoring. 
See section IX of this preamble for a discussion of those provisions.

C. Where in the Code of Federal Regulations will these changes appear?

    The EPA is proposing to add new subpart XXX to 40 CFR part 60. 
Subpart XXX would apply to landfills that commence construction, 
reconstruction, or modification on or after July 17, 2014. Proposed 
subpart XXX in 40 CFR part 60 contains a revision to the NMOC emission 
rate threshold, as well as provisions that provide clarification and 
proposed resolutions to technical and implementation issues.

IV. Summary of Proposed Changes Based on Periodic Review of the MSW 
Landfills NSPS Under the CAA

    The EPA is proposing to reduce the NMOC emission rate threshold for 
installing and operating a gas collection and control system to 40 Mg/
yr from the current NSPS level of 50 Mg/yr. The proposal retains the 
design capacity cutoff of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million cubic meters 
that appears in subpart WWW. See sections V and VI of this preamble for 
a discussion of the proposed rule changes. The new subpart also 
resolves or clarifies issues that the EPA and stakeholders identified 
during implementation of the current landfills NSPS.
    The EPA is proposing this revised emission threshold that takes 
into account the total methane emission reductions that can be achieved 
in addition to the reductions of NMOC emissions that are realized when 
the GCCS is installed at an earlier point in time. While the proposal 
continues to require measurement of NMOC as a surrogate for landfill 
gas, the EPA asserts that the methane reductions achieved are 
consistent with the President's Methane Strategy as described in 
section III of this preamble.

V. What analyses did the EPA conduct to determine BSER?

    The EPA first undertook a review to determine whether a well 
designed and well operated landfill GCCS, which EPA previously 
determined was BSER for controlling landfill gas, remains BSER for that 
purpose. The EPA considered GCCSs, as well as other emission control 
technologies that are either currently in place at landfills, or could 
be adopted, and considered the emission reductions achieved by those 
systems. Based on this analysis, the EPA determined that a well 
designed and operated landfill GCCS remains BSER. The EPA then 
undertook an analysis to determine whether applying the existing 
criteria for installing and operating a landfill GCCS to the expected 
population of new MSW landfills remains the preferred approach to 
implementing BSER. To do so, the EPA developed and applied a model 
program in Microsoft[supreg] Access to revisit the design capacity 
cutoff, the NMOC emission rate cutoff, and the time allowed for 
installing and expanding a gas collection system. In addition to 
reviewing the thresholds that determine the schedule for installing and 
expanding the GCCS system, the EPA also reviewed whether the schedule 
for removing the GCCS needed adjustment (see section V.A of this 
preamble). For

[[Page 41802]]

the above analyses, the EPA compared the environmental benefits and 
corresponding costs that are expected to be achieved under various 
control options to the environmental benefits and corresponding costs 
that are expected to be achieved under the baseline.

A. Review of Control Technology

    Prior to promulgation of the MSW landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW) in 1996, we conducted a review that identified the 
existing types of emission control systems being used and the 
corresponding emission reductions that were being achieved in practice. 
Based on that evaluation, we determined BSER to be: (1) A well designed 
and well operated landfill GCCS and (2) a control device capable of 
reducing NMOC in the collected gas by 98 percent by weight (56 FR 
24468, May 30, 1991 and 61 FR 9914, March 12, 1996). For BSER, we set 
design and operating standards for the gas collection system and set an 
emission limit for the control system. Then, we established a schedule 
for installing and then expanding the GCCS based on the landfill's 
design capacity (2.5 million megagrams and 2.5 million cubic meters) 
and the estimated NMOC emissions rate (50 Mg/yr).
    The current technology review shows that the same types of 
collection and control systems reviewed in 1996 (see Docket ID No. A-
88-09) continue to be prominently used to reduce landfill gas emissions 
and the design and operational standards promulgated in 1996 continue 
to be robust. Section VI of this preamble discusses our findings 
resulting from consideration of potential revisions affecting the 
criteria and schedule for installing and then expanding the GCCS. We 
undertook this evaluation to determine if the thresholds associated 
with BSER established in 1996 are still relevant today, ``taking into 
account the cost of achieving such reduction and any non-air quality 
health and environmental impact and energy requirements'' in accordance 
with CAA section 111(a)(1).
    In 1996, the EPA set design and operational standards in subpart 
WWW for the GCCS and an emission limit for the control device (61 FR 
9907; March 12, 1996).\6\ Subpart WWW established design criteria for 
both horizontal and vertical collection systems because both types of 
systems are used. The criteria ensure that owners and operators design, 
construct, and operate gas collection systems to maximize collection 
and minimize emissions of landfill gas. Landfill GCCS designed 
according to these criteria are expected to, at a minimum: (1) Be 
capable of handling the maximum gas generation rate, (2) have a design 
that provides for monitoring and adjusting the operation of the system, 
(3) be able to collect gas effectively from all areas of the landfill 
that warrant control, and (4) be expandable through the addition of 
further collection system components to collect gas from new areas of 
the landfill as they require control. Within 1 year of reaching or 
exceeding an NMOC emission rate of 50 Mg/yr, landfill owners and 
operators must submit (or update in the case of modification or 
reconstruction) a collection and control system design plan prepared by 
a professional engineer to the EPA or delegated authority for approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In developing the current NSPS, the EPA determined that in 
order to set a performance standard such as a collection efficiency 
for the gas collection system it would be necessary to quantify the 
landfill gas available for collection in comparison to the amount 
collected and that it was not technically feasible to measure the 
amount of gas available for collection. On that basis, the EPA 
concluded that it was necessary to establish a design and operation 
standard for the gas collection system (56 FR 24484, May 30, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Gas collection system technology review. Our review shows that a 
gas collection system comprising gas collection wells, horizontal or 
vertical piping, and blowers continues to be the most common technology 
used to collect landfill gas, regardless of whether a landfill is 
complying with subpart WWW, state or local regulations, or voluntarily 
controlling landfill gas for other reasons. Landfills continue to 
collect landfill gas using gas collection systems that are similar to 
the types of systems described in the background information of the 
1996 landfill NSPS and emission guidelines proposal.\7\ As of 2013, 
hundreds of landfills have installed collection systems to comply with 
subpart WWW. The EPA is also aware that many landfill owners and 
operators have installed collection systems on a voluntary basis. As of 
2013, approximately 500 landfills voluntarily collect and control 
landfill gas using the same technologies required by subpart WWW. The 
EPA estimated this number by comparing the list of landfills that are 
modeled to have installed a GCCS in 2014 in the NSPS/EG dataset to the 
list of landfills that are reported to have a GCCS installed in the 
LMOP database. See section V.B of this preamble for a discussion of the 
dataset of landfills and corresponding model that the EPA used to 
examine the potential impact of changes to the landfills NSPS. The LMOP 
database is a voluntary national database of landfills and landfill gas 
energy projects, including information on which landfills have a GCCS 
in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Landfill owners and operators collect landfill gas for a variety of 
reasons: To control odor, to minimize fire and explosion hazards, to 
recover landfill gas to be used for energy recovery, to sell carbon 
credits, and to comply with local, state, or federal air quality 
standards. Landfill owners and operators are motivated to design and 
operate their landfill gas collection systems to efficiently collect 
and control landfill gas and they continue to install a gas collection 
system comprising gas collection wells, horizontal or vertical piping, 
and blowers to collect and control landfill gas.
    Gas collection system as BSER. For this NSPS review, the EPA is 
proposing that the combination of design and operational criteria in 
subpart WWW continue to ensure that the collection system efficiently 
collects landfill gas and that a gas collection and control system 
meeting these criteria continues to represent BSER for MSW landfills 
that commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after July 
17, 2014. The EPA is also proposing that a combined design and 
operation standard for the gas collection system remains the best 
format for the rule. In developing subpart WWW, the EPA determined that 
in order to set a performance standard such as a collection efficiency 
for the gas collection system it would be necessary to quantify the 
landfill gas available for collection in comparison to the amount 
collected and that it was not technically feasible to measure the 
amount of gas available for collection. On that basis, the EPA 
concluded that it was necessary to establish a design and operation 
standard for the gas collection system (56 FR 24484, May 30, 1991). The 
EPA has not determined that the circumstances have changed so as to 
require the establishment of a standard of performance for the gas 
collection system. (CAA section 111(h)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7411(h)(3).) 
Therefore, for the gas collection system, the EPA proposes to maintain 
the design and operational standards in subpart WWW in subpart XXX.
    Gas control system technology review. As part of the BSER review 
prior to promulgation of subpart WWW in 1996, we conducted a technology 
review that identified the existing types of emission control systems, 
emerging technologies, and the emission reductions achieved in

[[Page 41803]]

practice by those systems. Properly operated GCCS reducing NMOC by 98 
percent by weight had been demonstrated on landfills of the size 
affected by subpart WWW. The EPA selected a reduction of 98 percent as 
the level representing BSER for control of landfill gas because this is 
the level achievable by demonstrated technologies. Based on this 
analysis, the EPA selected 98 percent reduction, expressed as a 
performance level (i.e., a rate-based standard or percent control), as 
the appropriate BSER-based standard. The EPA determined that this level 
was reasonable considering costs, nonair quality health and 
environmental impacts, and energy requirements.\8\ Subpart XXX, 
therefore, requires all control devices to demonstrate 98 percent 
reduction by weight of NMOC or an outlet concentration of 20 ppmvd of 
NMOC, as hexane. Enclosed combustion devices have the option of 
reducing emissions to 20 parts per million, dry volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills--
Background Information for Final Standards and Guidelines, EPA-453/
R-94-021. EPA Office of Air and Radiation/Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division, December 1995, 
page 2-79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each of the estimated 1,000 gas collection systems in place today, 
both required and voluntary, has an associated combustion device used 
to control emissions of landfill gas. At a minimum, landfills employ a 
flare to combust the gas. Both open and enclosed flares were determined 
to be among BSER combustion devices and these technologies continue to 
be used today. The following combustion controls can achieve at least 
98 percent destruction of NMOCs and we propose that they continue to 
represent BSER: Enclosed flares and incinerators, and devices that burn 
landfill gas to recover energy, such as boilers, turbines, and internal 
combustion engines. The EPA continues to believe that 98 percent 
reduction is appropriate because this continues to be the level 
achievable by demonstrated technologies. Current data are consistent 
with 98 percent destruction. However, we request comment and additional 
data on the NMOC destruction efficiency of incinerators and devices 
that burn landfill gas to recover energy, such as boilers, turbines, 
and internal combustion engines.
    Non-enclosed flares used at landfills meeting the criteria in 40 
CFR 60.18(b) are thought to have destruction efficiencies similar to 
enclosed flares and incinerators, and devices that burn landfill gas to 
recover energy, such as boilers, turbines, and internal combustion 
engines. However, in April 2012 the EPA conducted an external peer 
review on flaring efficiency and made available to the public a draft 
technical report, ``Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated 
Flares.'' \9\ In this report, the EPA evaluated test data and 
identified a variety of parameters that may affect flare performance 
and that could be monitored to help assure good combustion efficiency. 
Nevertheless, none of the flare performance data used in this report 
comes from flares used at MSW landfills, and it does not provide any 
new test data on non-assisted flare types, which, to our knowledge, are 
the only non-enclosed flare type found in this source category. Thus, 
while we have no new information to suggest that flares at MSW 
landfills complying with 40 CFR 60.18(b) will not achieve at least 98 
percent destruction of NMOCs (and methane), we solicit comments and 
additional information on flare performance specifically for this 
source category in order to determine whether non-enclosed flares 
continue to represent BSER for new landfills. Examples of information 
requested for this source category include: Prevalence of flaring; 
number and types of flares used; waste gas characteristics such as flow 
rate, composition and heat content; use of flare gas recovery and other 
flare emission minimization practices; and existing flare monitoring 
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ U.S. EPA, Parameters for Properly Designed and Operated 
Flares, Report for Flare Review Panel, April 2012. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/flare/2012flaretechreport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Gas control system as BSER. Based on the above, for this stage of 
the NSPS review, the EPA has determined that a control system designed 
and operated within the parameters demonstrated in the performance test 
to reduce NMOC (and, in turn, methane) by 98 percent by weight or 
reduction to 20 parts per million by volume, continues to represent 
BSER for controlling landfill gas emissions. Therefore, the EPA 
proposes in subpart XXX to maintain the current performance standard 
from subpart WWW for the gas control system.
    Other current technologies. The EPA is also considering emission 
control technologies or practices other than GCCS that are currently in 
place as part of its review. The EPA qualitatively evaluated the 
emission reductions achieved by those systems in practice and also 
considered whether such technologies or practices could be relied upon 
in establishing a standard of performance under CAA section 111.
    The EPA reviewed several best management practices (BMPs) for GCCS 
that may achieve greater reductions in landfill gas emissions than a 
well designed and well operated system alone. The EPA reviewed these 
BMPs to determine if and how they could be incorporated into subpart 
XXX in conjunction with the current performance-based standard.
    One BMP the EPA considered was collecting landfill gas from 
leachate removal systems in order to control landfill gas that exists 
below the waste mass along the bottom of the landfill. The EPA is aware 
of landfills with leachate recirculation systems that have connected 
the landfill gas collection system and leachate collection system; 
however, references suggest that connection of these systems is not 
common at landfills that do not employ leachate recirculation.\10\ The 
efficiency of capturing LFG emissions through this BMP depends on the 
efficiency of both the gas collection system and the leachate 
recirculation system. Proposed 40 CFR 60.762(b)(2)(i)(D) recognizes 
that leachate collection components may be part of a site-specific 
collection and control system design plan. Because the design plan is 
not prescriptive and instead contains design and operational standards 
that are site-specific, the design plan has the flexibility to include 
collection of landfill gas from leachate collection systems. However, 
since we do not currently have sufficient information on the efficacy 
of collecting gas from leachate removal systems in circumstances that 
do not include leachate recirculation and since the use of leachate 
recirculation is not prevalent in the landfill industry, the EPA does 
not currently consider this BMP to be part of BSER for controlling 
landfill gas, including methane, emissions. The EPA does, however, 
request comments on the efficacy and costs of enhancing gas collection 
systems to collect LFG from leachate removal or storage systems. The 
EPA also requests comment on the types of landfills currently 
collecting gas from leachate removal systems and the specifics of the 
gas collection systems used in practice. The EPA will use this 
information to evaluate if and when the use of an enhanced gas 
collection system that collects landfill gas from the leachate removal 
system may be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ SCS Engineers, Technology and Management Options for 
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Prepared for California 
Integrated Waste Management Board. Prepared by SCS Engineers. April 
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another BMP the EPA considered is requiring a gas collection system 
to prevent waterlogged wells, perhaps

[[Page 41804]]

through the use of leachate removal pumps. Leachate and condensate can 
accumulate in collection wells, blocking landfill gas capture. Because 
a flooded well cannot collect gas, fixing a flooded well would have a 
high emission reduction potential. Wellhead operating parameters in 
proposed subpart XXX require that each owner or operator of an MSW 
landfill either operate the collection system with a negative pressure 
at each wellhead or, in areas with a geomembrane or synthetic cover, 
establish acceptable pressure limits in the design plan. These 
performance standards would help identify any inoperable wells 
resulting from flooding. The proposed surface emissions monitoring 
would also identify any elevated methane levels resulting from an 
inoperable well. The EPA has determined that the operating requirements 
in proposed subpart XXX provide a sufficient system to detect and 
correct waterlogged wells and thus ensure that the gas collection 
system is well operated.
    The EPA does not currently consider requiring that the gas 
collection system be operated in such a way as to prevent waterlogged 
wells, rather than requiring that the wells be monitored so as to 
identify any such wells, to be BSER. Nonetheless, the EPA requests 
comment on whether the current combination of wellhead monitoring and 
surface emission monitoring is sufficient for identifying inoperable 
wells, especially in cases where wells have been installed for a 
significant amount of time. If the proposed monitoring systems are 
believed to be deficient for identifying flooded wells, the EPA also 
asks for comment on whether any additional recordkeeping, such as 
periodic measurement of liquid levels in gas wells, might be useful in 
identifying flooded wells that are not collecting gas.
    The EPA also considered a BMP of requiring redundant seals and 
enhanced sealing materials on wellheads. One study includes a forward-
looking infrared (FLIR) survey suggesting that landfill gas wellheads 
and other surface penetrations present high potential for concentrated 
leaks of organic compounds.\11\ The use of advanced seals at wellheads 
may help to ensure that the well can apply sufficient vacuum to the 
landfill to facilitate gas extraction while preventing leaks of 
landfill gas to the atmosphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ARCADIS. Quantifying Methane Abatement Efficiency at Three 
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Prepared for USEPA/ORD. January 
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed subpart XXX requires the preparation of a site-specific 
design plan by a professional engineer, which must be approved by the 
EPA or a delegated authority. Because the design plan is not 
prescriptive and instead contains design and operational standards that 
are site-specific, the design plan has the flexibility to determine the 
appropriate number or type of seals in order to accommodate the 
conditions and climates at different landfills. The EPA believes that 
this site-specific approach is preferable to specifying the use of a 
particular number of seals. This site-specific approach also provides 
for continued flexibility for future design plans to incorporate new 
sealing materials that may be more efficient than those currently 
available today. The design plan, coupled with wellhead and surface 
monitoring requirements, ensures that leaks from wells are minimized.
    With this proposal, the EPA is clarifying that all cover 
penetrations must be checked during quarterly surface monitoring and 
this clarification would apply to checking around each wellhead for any 
elevated emission levels. Proposed subpart XXX requires corrective 
action for any surface monitoring reading over 500 ppm. Finally, the 
EPA is taking comment on tighter traverse patterns for surface 
monitoring, coupled with more rigorous surface maintenance activity, as 
another level of protection against leaks from improperly sealed wells.
    Further, one reference indicates that many engineers already 
require two and sometimes three seals in a well when preparing design 
plans for GCCS. For all of these reasons, the EPA believes that a site-
specific approach is more effective than prescribing the use of a 
particular number of seals or the use of a particular type of sealing 
material. As a result, at this point in its review, the EPA has 
determined that the use of advanced seals is not a component of BSER. 
The EPA, nevertheless, requests comment on whether the use of advanced 
seals should be a component of BSER.
    The EPA also reviewed several emerging technologies that may 
achieve additional landfill gas emission reductions. The EPA evaluated 
whether the technology is adequately demonstrated and the extent to 
which the technology could be applied to new landfills.
    The EPA considered a number of technologies that increase the 
methane oxidation rate of the landfill, thereby reducing the amount of 
methane that could escape through the surface of the landfill. Co-
oxidation of NMOC has been observed during use of these alternative 
landfill cover materials, which has the potential to reduce odors and 
toxic air pollutants.\12\ Oxidative covers, including biocovers, use 
methanotrophic bacteria to oxidize methane into water, carbon dioxide, 
and biomass. A biocover is an additional layer of final cover that is 
typically made of two layers, a permeable layer to evenly distribute 
the landfill gas to the oxidation media, and a layer of oxidation media 
typically made of soil, compost, or other porous media. While these 
innovative final cover practices at MSW landfills have the potential 
for achieving a moderate amount of methane emission reductions, final 
cover practices are currently addressed under Subtitle D of the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and not under the CAA. As 
a result, the EPA does not currently consider them to be BSER; however, 
research indicates that biocovers may help to reduce emissions of 
methane, a primary constituent of landfill gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ U.S. EPA. Available and Emerging Technologies for Reducing 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. June 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another method for increasing the oxidation rate is to route 
passively vented landfill gas through a vessel containing methane-
oxidizing media, commonly referred to as a biofiltration cell. 
Biofilters have been tested for use at landfills over only the past 10 
to 15 years, and, although they may achieve moderate to high reductions 
in uncontrolled methane emissions, we cannot conclude at this time that 
these systems have been adequately demonstrated, as we explain 
below.13 14 Biofiltration cells are feasible for use only at 
small landfills or landfills with passive gas collection systems due to 
the size of the biofiltration bed required to treat the mixture of air 
and landfill gas. New landfills are expected to be large and have 
active gas collection systems to comply with the requirements in the 
proposed subpart XXX. In addition, due to the nature of passive gas 
collection systems, this technology lacks the ability to control and 
monitor the oxidation of methane in the landfill gas.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Buske, D. and M. Lannan. The Biofilter Effect on Landfill 
Gas Capture. 2009 SWANA Landfill Gas Symposium Proceedings.
    \14\ Gebert, J.; and Groengroeft, A., 2006, ``Performance of a 
passively vented field-scale biofilter for the microbial oxidation 
of landfill methane''. Waste Management Research 26: 399-407.
    \15\ USEPA. Available and Emerging Technologies for Reducing 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. June 
2011. http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/landfills.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No data exist on the long-term performance, effectiveness, or 
maintenance requirements of these

[[Page 41805]]

systems.16 17 18 For these reasons, these methane oxidation 
technologies were not considered to be BSER. However, the EPA is 
requesting information about application of these technologies to 
better understand these characteristics for full-scale use of biocovers 
and biofilters. The EPA is seeking information and data about the long-
term performance, effectiveness, and/or maintenance requirements of 
full-scale use of biocovers and biofilters, as well as comment on 
appropriate mechanisms to monitor the performance of these 
alternatives. Comment is also requested on biocover parameters and 
their effect on oxidation. Such parameters may include depth, soil 
characteristics, measurement, and their effect on percent oxidation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Ibid.
    \17\ Abichou, T, J. Chanton, D. Powelson, ``Field Performance of 
Biocells, Biocovers, and Biofilters to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas 
Emissions from Landfills,'' State University Systems of Florida, 
Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management March 2006.
    \18\ Yazdani, R, and Imhoff, P. Contractor's report to 
CalRecycle: Biocovers at Landfills for Methane Emissions Reduction 
Demonstration. October 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What data and control criteria did the EPA consider in evaluating 
potential changes to the timing of installing, expanding, and removing 
the GCCS?

    To examine the potential impact of changes to the timing of 
initiating landfill gas collection and control, the EPA developed a 
dataset of information for existing and new landfills, as described 
below, and applied a model to assess when controls were needed under 
the baseline control scenario as well as various regulatory options. 
Each regulatory option assessed variations in the design capacity and 
emission rate thresholds, as well as changes to the initial lag time 
and expansion lag time. The ``initial lag time'' is the time period 
between when the landfill exceeds the emission rate threshold and when 
controls are required to be installed and started up (30 months in 
subpart WWW). The ``expansion lag time'' is the amount of time allotted 
for the landfill to expand the GCCS into new areas of the landfill (5 
years for active areas and 2 years for areas that are closed or at 
final grade in subpart WWW).
    The EPA created a dataset of information for existing and new 
landfills, which included landfill-specific data such as landfill open 
and closure year, landfill design capacity, landfill design area, and 
landfill depth. The creation of the landfill dataset is detailed in the 
docketed memorandum, ``Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and 
Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfills Regulations. 2014.''
    The EPA used attributes of these existing landfills to develop 
model landfills to represent new landfills opening in the first 5 years 
after subpart XXX is proposed (2014-2018). The model future landfills 
were developed by evaluating the most recently opened existing 
landfills and assuming that the sizes and locations of landfills 
opening in the future would be similar to the sizes and locations of 
landfills that opened in the last 8 years with complete data (2003-
2010).
    The EPA then incorporated technical landfill parameters from this 
dataset, such as landfill size, annual waste acceptance rate, and open 
year, into a model in order to estimate when each landfill would 
install GCCS under various regulatory options. This model used a first-
order decay equation to model the landfill gas emissions (i.e., NMOC 
and methane) from each landfill for 50 years following the effective 
date of subpart XXX.
    The EPA programmed a Microsoft[supreg] Access database to calculate 
the cost and emission impacts associated with different regulatory 
options (hereinafter referred to as the ``model''). To determine when 
landfills exceeded regulatory emission thresholds, the model uses Tier 
1 default values from subpart WWW for the methane generation potential 
(L0) and the methane generation rate (k), but uses the NMOC 
concentration in ``Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42 
\19\)'' for determining when landfills would meet the regulatory NMOC 
emissions threshold. The Tier 1 default values in subpart WWW for 
L0 and k are conservatively high for the purpose of 
estimating actual emissions; therefore, they are used only for 
estimating uncontrolled emissions to determine when landfills could 
exceed the threshold and be required to install controls. For the 
average NMOC concentration, the model uses the default value specified 
in AP-42. Subpart WWW allows the use of Tier 2 tests to determine NMOC 
concentration, and industry experience suggests the majority of 
landfills have conducted Tier 2 tests and obtained estimates that are 
consistent with the AP-42 NMOC value; thus, the AP-42 NMOC value was 
deemed to be more representative than Tier 1 NMOC values for 
determining when landfills would meet the regulatory NMOC emissions 
threshold for installing a landfill GCCS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ U.S. EPA, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air 
Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area 
Sources. 1995. http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When modeled landfill gas emissions for a particular landfill 
exceeded the emission rate threshold, the EPA assumed that collection 
equipment was installed and started operating at the landfill after the 
initial lag time specified in each option. The EPA also assumed that as 
the landfill was filled over time, the landfill would expand the GCCS 
into new areas of waste placement in time intervals that coincide with 
the expansion lag time specified in each option.
    To determine when controls may be capped or removed, and to 
calculate the amount of landfill gas, NMOC, and methane collected under 
each option, the model uses L0, k, and NMOC values from AP-
42 instead of the Tier 1 default values. To determine when control 
systems may be removed, subpart WWW requires landfills to conduct 
actual measurements of the collected gas flow rate and NMOC 
concentration. Because the AP-42 default values are more representative 
of actual emissions from landfills than Tier 1 values, they are more 
useful for predicting when a landfill would be able to remove its 
control system. For the same reason, AP-42 values were used to 
determine actual annual emissions reductions achieved by control 
systems.
    To estimate the costs of each regulatory option, the EPA 
incorporated the estimated landfill gas recovery rates from the first-
order decay equation and an estimated well field acreage into a set of 
cost equations based on EPA's Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model (LFGcost), 
version 2.3, which was developed by EPA's LMOP. (LFGcost estimates gas 
collection, flare and energy recovery system capital, operating, and 
maintenance costs.) The EPA also collected data on monitoring and 
testing costs such as initial performance tests, subpart WWW Tier 1 and 
Tier 2 calculations, and quarterly surface monitoring that were not 
provided in the LFGcost model.
    The capital costs are all presented in year 2012 dollars and 
annualized using an interest rate of 7 percent over the lifetime of the 
equipment (typically 15 years), or in the case of drill mobilization 
costs, the length of time between each wellfield expansion. These 
annualized capital costs were added to the annual operating and 
maintenance costs estimated by LFGcost. The annualized cost includes 
capital requirements related to the purchase, installation, operation 
and maintenance of GCCS, and costs related to testing and monitoring 
requirements.

[[Page 41806]]

    For certain landfills that were expected to generate revenue by 
using the LFG for energy, the EPA also estimated LFG energy recovery 
rates and associated costs to install and operate the energy recovery 
equipment as well as the revenue streams from the recovered energy. 
These revenues were subtracted from the annualized capital and 
operating and maintenance costs at each landfill in order to obtain a 
net cost estimate for each option in each year. The emission reduction 
and cost and revenue equations and assumptions are detailed in the 
docketed memorandum, ``Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emission 
Impacts of MSW Landfills Regulations. 2014.''
    Often the EPA examines the impacts of NSPS at 5 years after rule 
implementation; however, the EPA selected 10 years for this landfills 
NSPS review, 2023. Due to the emission characteristics of new landfills 
that begin to accept waste in 2014 or after and the applicability 
provisions of the NSPS, 5 years would not provide a representative 
population of landfills for evaluating alternative standards, and in 
fact none of the modeled landfills would be expected to have installed 
controls by year five. Landfills do not become subject to the control 
requirements of the NSPS on the date that they begin operation. 
Instead, landfills exceeding the design capacity threshold become 
subject to control requirements 30 months after the emissions exceed 
the NMOC emission threshold. It may take well over 5 years for a newly 
constructed landfill to exceed the NMOC threshold, depending on the 
rate of waste acceptance and other site-specific factors. Therefore, 
evaluating the impacts of the rule at 5 years would significantly 
underestimate the impacts that subpart XXX may have on affected 
facilities.
    The EPA recognizes that landfills have a unique emissions and 
emission control timeline over their lifetime, compared to other 
stationary sources of emissions. The quantity of emission reductions 
achieved and the costs to achieve those reductions will vary depending 
on where each landfill is in its lifecycle. By year 10 (year 2023), 
landfills in this analysis are further along in their lifecycle than 
they would be at year five and over half of the modeled landfills have 
installed controls, incurred costs, and achieved emission reductions 
under several options the EPA considered in its review of the NSPS.

C. What control options did the EPA consider?

    When determining which control options would represent BSER, the 
EPA ran many permutations of various control options. Some options 
adjusted a single threshold in isolation; for example, reducing the 
NMOC emission threshold while keeping the design capacity threshold 
constant, or conversely, reducing the design capacity threshold while 
keeping the NMOC emission threshold constant. Other options adjusted 
multiple control parameters simultaneously, taking into account the 
relationship between the parameters. For example, recognizing that NMOC 
emissions are a function of waste-in-place, some options that 
significantly reduced the NMOC emission threshold also reduced the 
design capacity thresholds to avoid situations where the NMOC emission 
threshold would be exceeded long before the design capacity threshold. 
Other options increased the design capacity threshold while reducing 
the NMOC emission threshold by relatively small increments in order to 
minimize the reporting-only burden that would be imposed on landfills 
that had exceeded the design capacity threshold, but not the NMOC 
emission threshold, and would therefore be reporting, but not 
controlling.
    In addition to adjusting applicability and emission control 
thresholds, other model runs varied the initial and/or expansion lag 
times. These variations estimated the impacts of requiring landfill 
owners or operators to install gas collection systems more quickly 
after crossing each applicable NMOC emission threshold. Specifically, 
some model runs assessed the impacts of reducing the initial lag time 
from 30 months (modeled as 3 years for the purpose of this analysis, as 
discussed in the docketed memorandum ``Methodology for Estimating Cost 
and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills Regulations. 2014'') to 2 years. 
Model runs varying the expansion lag time were also run. For expansion 
lag times, subpart WWW allows 2 years after initial waste placement in 
closed areas and 5 years after initial waste placement in active areas 
of the landfill. As a result, the actual expansion lag time varies by 
landfill depending on how quickly expansion areas are filled and 
closed. Modern large landfill designs tend to expand the collection 
system 5 years after initial waste placement in active areas of the 
landfill. Based on input received during public outreach, most modern 
large landfills do not reach final grade within 2 years and a majority 
of landfills are complying with the 5 year provision. Therefore, a 4-
year expansion lag time was assumed to represent the baseline, as 
discussed in more detail in the docketed memorandum ``Methodology for 
Estimating Cost and Emission Impacts of MSW Landfills Regulations. 
2014.'' A shorter expansion lag time of 2 years after initial waste 
placement was examined as an alternative regulatory option. Some model 
runs evaluated the impacts of reducing both the initial and expansion 
lag times in parallel and other model runs evaluated the impacts of 
reduced emission and/or design capacity thresholds in conjunction with 
reduced initial and/or expansion lag times.
    Preliminary results of the model runs showed that the current set 
of design capacity and NMOC emission threshold parameters in subpart 
WWW was the most cost effective option in year 2023. Options that 
reduced the NMOC emission threshold slightly, either in isolation or in 
conjunction with a reduction in the design capacity threshold had only 
a slightly higher cost effectiveness than the baseline. See the 
docketed memorandum ``Cost and Emissions Impacts Resulting from the 
Landfills NSPS Review. 2014'' and the docketed item ``Modeling Database 
Containing Inputs and Results of Proposed Revisions to MSW Landfill 
NSPS. 2014.'' Options that reduced the initial and/or expansion lag 
times to 2 years were typically less cost effective than the options 
that reduced the NMOC emission threshold.
    Based on the results of the preliminary analysis, the EPA presented 
different model runs during Federalism consultations and small entity 
outreach that represented the range of variation in both the threshold 
and lag time parameters. For the options presented, Small entity 
representatives (SERs) and Federalism consultation participants 
provided feedback to the EPA, which included implementation concerns 
with varying certain parameters as part of this NSPS review, as 
discussed in the following section. The EPA took these concerns into 
consideration when developing the set of proposed options in this 
action.

D. What are the implementation concerns with changing the design 
capacity criteria?

    Options that increase the design capacity threshold provide some 
opportunities for reduced reporting burden; however, these options also 
introduce the potential to miss emission reduction opportunities at 
certain landfills that exceed the NMOC

[[Page 41807]]

emission thresholds but do not meet the design capacity thresholds. 
Further, installation of GCCS at landfills with design capacities 
between 2.5 and 3.0 million Mg are well demonstrated. According to the 
LMOP database, there are more than 50 landfills out of 70 in this size 
range that have installed GCCS.
    Options that reduce the design capacity threshold without also 
lowering the NMOC emission threshold would create additional reporting 
and permitting burden without any additional environmental benefit. 
These types of options would not change the number of landfills 
required to control emissions, but they would increase the number of 
landfills required to obtain an operating permit and also increase the 
number of landfills required to complete Tier 1 or Tier 2 emission 
calculations and reports.
    When the EPA promulgated the 2.5 million Mg design capacity 
threshold in 1996, we considered the impact on small entities based on 
public comment (61 FR 9910). Today, small entities still tend to own 
smaller sized landfills, whereas larger entities tend to own larger 
regional landfills. Approximately 10 percent of the landfills subject 
to subpart WWW or the MSW landfills state or federal plan implementing 
subpart Cc are owned by small entities. Further, the cost burden for 
installing a collection and control system is more significant for 
small landfills, which are more often owned by small entities, than 
larger landfills. Certain costs to construct the gas collection system 
(e.g., flat fees for drill rig mobilization, and monitoring and 
construction costs) remain relatively constant regardless of the size 
of the landfill.
    For these reasons, the EPA is not proposing any changes to the 
current design capacity threshold of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million 
m\3\.

E. What are the implementation concerns with reducing the NMOC 
threshold?

    The EPA recognizes that NMOC emissions are site specific, varying 
widely from landfill to landfill and understands that a majority of 
landfills currently affected by subpart WWW conduct Tier 2 testing in 
order to refine their NMOC emission estimates before installing a GCCS.
    Lowering the NMOC emission threshold would result in earlier GCCS 
installations, 13 percent more emission reductions, and a dollar-per-Mg 
cost to control NMOC that is higher than the baseline ($6,000/Mg NMOC 
vs. $4,400/Mg NMOC). Despite these higher costs, the EPA also 
recognizes the value of reducing methane emissions ($1.50/Mg 
CO2e vs. $1.10/Mg CO2e at baseline) that are 
associated with a lower NMOC emission threshold, as discussed in 
sections III and VI.B of this preamble. Based on these considerations, 
among others, the EPA is proposing to reduce the NMOC emission 
threshold from 50 Mg/yr to 40 Mg/yr. See section VI.B of this preamble 
for more details.

F. What are the implementation concerns with shortening the initial or 
expansion lag times?

    The emission reductions achieved by reducing the initial or 
expansion lag time are affected by the size of the landfill, waste 
placement patterns, and annual acceptance rates. For example, the size 
of the landfill and the filling cycle affects how much and when 
emission reductions would be achieved. Based on comments received from 
SERs and Federalism consultation participants, modern landfill designs 
typically do not reach final grade before 7 years. Because the 
landfills NSPS allows two options for expanding the GCCS (2 years after 
initial waste placement in closed areas and 5 years after initial waste 
placement in active areas), any reduction to the 2 year lag time for 
closed areas would not likely achieve any actual additional reductions 
from these larger landfills because the majority of landfills are 
complying with the 5-year allowance period instead of the 2-year 
allowance period. Modifying the 5-year provision may also have a 
limited actual impact on emission reductions. Many landfills in wet 
climates install wells ahead of the 5-year schedule for odor or energy 
recovery purposes. When examining the effects of shortening the lag 
times, the emission reductions vary over the time period considered. To 
visually observe how reducing the lag times affects emissions and 
reductions over the 10-year period following proposal, see the charts 
comparing emissions from reduced lag times in the docketed memorandum, 
``Cost and Emissions Impacts Resulting from the Landfills NSPS Review. 
2014.''
    When isolating the timeframe for initial GCCS installation from the 
other control criteria, modeling showed that the reductions in year 
2023 are lower than those estimated to be achieved under the current 
baseline. Although the initial GCCS would be installed earlier, for 
example in year 2020, it would also be designed slightly smaller (i.e., 
a smaller number of wells) than a GCCS installed in a later year. By 
2023, the system would not have been expanded yet, thus, the total 
amount of emission reductions achieved in 2023 will be less than the 
baseline until the system is expanded in 2024.
    Reducing the expansion lag time would achieve a short period of 
modeled reductions during every expansion cycle because the GCCS would 
be expanded one year earlier. Emission reductions in year 2023 would be 
approximately 27 percent higher than an option that did not shorten the 
expansion lag time. However, when considered over a 10-year period, the 
additional emission reduction would be approximately 8 percent.
    Small entity representatives and Federalism consultation 
participants expressed concern about the potential shortening of lag 
times. For details, refer to the docketed report ``Summary of Small 
Entity Outreach. 2014.''
    According to the commenters, reduced lag times would result in the 
installation of more GCCS equipment in active fill areas. Wells located 
in these areas are more frequently damaged as a result of daily filling 
operations and the movement of equipment. Damaged wells must be 
repaired with well extensions and/or redrilling of wells. In addition, 
waste in active fill areas undergoes significant settlement. This 
settlement affects the alignment of gas header equipment, requiring 
more frequent repairs, troubleshooting, and replacement of equipment. 
These repairs can add a significant cost to the construction and 
operation of a GCCS that is not currently accounted for in the LFGcost 
estimates and also increase the amount of system downtime.
    In addition to the implementation concerns, reducing the lag times 
would require more frequent mobilization of drill rig equipment, 
purchase of GCCS infrastructure, and system repairs, which could lead 
to higher costs. In year 2023, the dollar-per-Mg cost to reduce the 
initial and/or expansion lag times in conjunction with reducing the 
NMOC threshold are higher than the options that do not adjust the lag 
times ($6,900 to $11,300/Mg NMOC vs. $6,000/Mg NMOC). This higher cost 
is due in part to the timing of the first round of wellfield expansions 
at these new landfills, many of which were modeled to expand their 
systems in 2023, and thus incurring additional costs in that year to 
operate both the initial GCCS and the first set of expansion wells.
    Small entity representatives and Federalism consultation 
participants raised several practical concerns with reducing the 
expansion lag time. Reducing the expansion lag time would result in 
more wells located in active fill areas because more of the face of the 
landfill is active after only 2 years of waste acceptance and the 
landfill owner

[[Page 41808]]

or operator must add wells into these active areas sooner.
    In addition, active fill areas are still in the aerobic phase of 
waste decomposition. Installing wells in areas with high oxygen levels 
increases the chance of subsurface fires. It also leads to more 
frequent exceedances of the current wellhead monitoring standards for 
oxygen. In these cases the landfill owner or operator would also be 
unlikely to request a higher operating value for oxygen because they 
would have difficulty meeting the two criteria in proposed 40 CFR 
60.763(c) for a higher operating value demonstration: A higher 
operating value must not cause fires and must not significantly inhibit 
anaerobic decomposition by killing methanogens. Neither of these 
criteria would apply to wells located in active fill areas.
    Horizontal LFG collection wells may provide some relief to these 
implementation concerns that were raised by the SERs, while also 
allowing for the wells to be installed more quickly after the waste is 
placed in the landfill. These types of wells consist of perforated pipe 
in gravel-filled trenches constructed within the waste mass as an 
active area is filled. The wellheads are installed remotely outside of 
the active fill area to allow landfill owners/operators to monitor the 
wells. Although the horizontal collection infrastructure is installed 
as the waste is placed in the fill area, the collectors are not brought 
online under an active vacuum until a sufficient refuse layer has been 
placed on top of the collectors. This time period is necessary in order 
to prevent air infiltration in the landfill. However, this time period 
is often shorter than the timeframe needed to install vertical wells, 
and can be as short as a few months after refuse is buried.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Barlaz et al., Controls on Landfill Gas Collection 
Efficiency: Instantaneous and Lifetime Performance 59 J. Air & Waste 
Mgmt. Ass'n 1399, 1402-03 (Dec. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is aware of several horizontal collector installations, 
including several landfills in California \21\ and 18 different 
landfills that reported using horizontal collectors in the voluntary 
data collection effort for this rulemaking (see ``Summary of Landfill 
Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfills 
Regulations. 2014'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ SCS Engineers, Technology and Management Options for 
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Prepared for California 
Integrated Waste Management Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The shorter length of time associated with bringing horizontal 
collectors online can be especially important at landfills employing 
liquids recirculation techniques or located in wetter climates, given 
the higher LFG generation rates at those sites (see section V.G of this 
preamble). Bringing these collectors online more quickly and more 
proactively addresses odor concerns at landfills. These systems are 
also useful in landfills that practice ``over-filling,'' where new 
waste is placed on top of a section of the landfill that was capped 
temporarily. SERs did express some implementation concerns with 
horizontal collectors, indicating that these systems have a shorter 
lifetime than vertical wells and require more frequent replacement.
    For the reasons presented in this section, the EPA is not proposing 
to shorten the initial or expansion lag times from the lag times 
codified in subpart WWW. However, the EPA requests comment on the 
feasibility and potential benefits of reducing either or both of the 
lag times. Specifically, the EPA requests comment on the practicality, 
cost, and emission reduction implications of installing or expanding 
the wellfield on active areas in a shorter timeframe. The EPA believes 
that this may be appropriate since horizontal collector systems have 
been installed at several landfills that were not in operation when the 
NSPS was originally promulgated in 1996. The EPA also requests data 
and/or comment on the potential emission reductions and corresponding 
costs that could result from reduced lag times. The EPA also notes that 
the cost analysis presented in section X of this preamble is based on 
vertical wells and the EPA is interested in any comments and data that 
address any differential in costs between these two types of systems.

G. Request for Comment on BSER

    The EPA is requesting comment on several items regarding BSER. EPA 
is requesting comment on the proposed design and operational standards 
for new sources that EPA believes are necessary to ensure a GCCS is 
well designed and well operated. The EPA is requesting comment on 
additional emission control technologies that are in place at 
landfills--other than a GCCS as described here--that could be 
considered BSER. We request descriptions of such systems, an indication 
of their current use, data demonstrating emission reductions, and 
corresponding costs of such systems. The EPA is also requesting comment 
on whether a well designed and well operated GCCS in conjunction with 
any of the technologies or practices discussed in section V.A of this 
preamble should be considered to be BSER.
    The EPA is also taking comment on whether it should consider 
reducing the design capacity threshold or initial lag times for 
landfills that are located in a wet climate or that recirculate 
leachate or add other liquids to the landfills to accelerate waste 
decomposition. Wetter wastes decompose more quickly than drier wastes 
and as a result generate more landfill gas in the short term. 
Therefore, it may be appropriate to require these landfills to install 
the gas collection system sooner, which SERs indicated is already 
occurring in practice for landfills in wetter climates. Similarly, 
smaller landfills in wetter climates, or those employing leachate 
recirculation, may also generate earlier spikes in landfill gas 
emissions that could exceed the NMOC threshold. Although these 
landfills are exempt from proposed subpart XXX under the design 
capacity threshold of 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million cubic meters, if a 
smaller design capacity threshold were adopted for these wet landfills, 
more emission reductions may be achieved.
    If a separate set of thresholds and/or lag times were to apply to 
these wet landfills, the EPA requests comment on how a wet landfill 
might be defined. For example, a wet landfill could be defined as a 
landfill that has precipitation of greater than 25 inches per year and/
or recirculates leachate (or other liquids).

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Changes Based on Review of the NSPS

    To determine which option to propose, the EPA considered the 
emission reductions that are expected to be achieved under the criteria 
in the baseline (subpart WWW), as well as emission reductions that 
would be achieved under several control options more stringent than the 
baseline.

A. What are the environmental impacts and costs associated with the 
baseline?

    In this analysis, the baseline contains the same gas collection and 
control requirements and thresholds (2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million 
cubic meters and 50 Mg NMOC per year) that are in subpart WWW. For the 
baseline, the initial lag time is 30 months; and the expansion lag time 
is 2 years after initial waste placement in cells that are closed or at 
final grade or 5 years after initial waste placement in active areas of 
the landfill. These parameters are described in detail in section V of 
this preamble.
    Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the impacts of the baseline for 
year 2023. The table includes emission reductions for NMOC, methane, 
and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) and corresponding 
annualized net costs based on the annualized control, testing,

[[Page 41809]]

and monitoring costs, and annual revenues from energy recovery (when 
applicable), as discussed in section V.B of this preamble.

                                                 Table 2--Baseline Emission Reductions and Costs in 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Number of
  Number of      Number of      landfills      Annual net    Annual NMOC       Annual      Annual CO2e      NMOC cost      Methane cost      CO2e cost
  landfills      landfills    reporting but   cost ($2012)    reductions      methane       reductions    effectiveness    effectiveness   effectiveness
   affected     controlling        not            \a\          (Mg/yr)       reductions      (Mg/yr)          ($/Mg)          ($/Mg)          ($/Mg)
                               controlling                                    (Mg/yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         17              8              9      2,708,000            610         94,800      2,371,000           4,400               29             1.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The annualized net cost ($2,708,000) is the difference between the average annualized revenue ($21,315,300) and the sum of annualized control cost
  ($23,956,900) and the average annualized testing and monitoring costs ($66,400).

    The baseline is estimated to require control at eight landfills in 
2023, and achieve reductions of 610 Mg/yr NMOC, 94,800 Mg/yr methane 
(2,371,000 Mg/yr CO2e). The annualized net cost is $2.7 
million. The cost effectiveness of the baseline is estimated to be 
$4,400 per Mg NMOC, and $29 per Mg methane ($1.10 per Mg 
CO2e) if all of the control cost were attributed to each 
pollutant separately.
    In this analysis, the EPA projects 21 new landfills would commence 
construction, reconstruction, or modification between 2014 and 2018. 
The basis of this projection is discussed in detail in the docketed 
memorandum ``Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and Emission 
Reduction Analysis of Landfills Regulations. 2014.'' These 21 landfills 
are projected to emit, 1,040 Mg/yr of NMOC and 161,600 Mg/yr of methane 
in 2023 if the landfills had no emission controls in place. However, 
the baseline is modeled to require 38 percent (8/21) of these projected 
landfills to install emission controls by at least year 2023. In terms 
of emissions, the baseline is expected to achieve 59 percent reduction 
in estimated emissions from these landfills in 2023. Further, the eight 
landfills installing controls under the baseline represent 77 percent 
of the estimated total waste-in-place in 2023 from all 21 of the 
projected landfills.
    The baseline allows landfills to remove the GCCS only after the 
following criteria are met (1) the landfill is closed, (2) the landfill 
has had the GCCS in operation for at least 15 years, and (3) three 
successive tests for NMOC emissions are below the NMOC emission 
threshold of 50 Mg/yr. Until the GCCS is removed, the landfill must 
continue to operate the system in accordance with 40 CFR 60.763, which 
includes wellhead monitoring and surface emissions monitoring to detect 
and correct for any emission exceedances.

B. How did the EPA determine which control option to propose?

    When determining which control options would represent BSER, the 
EPA considered several factors: The implementation concerns identified 
in section V of this preamble; and the incremental emission reductions, 
cost, and co-benefits that would be achieved beyond the baseline.
    The EPA compared the annualized net cost and emission impacts in 
2023 of the various regulatory options to the annualized net costs and 
emission impacts in 2023 of the baseline. The EPA analyzed numerous 
iterations of alternate control and reporting thresholds and presented 
potential control options to SERs and Federalism consultation 
participants, as described in section V of this preamble. After 
considering feedback from the SERs and Federalism consultation 
participants, the EPA selected for consideration three regulatory 
alternatives as presented in Table 3 of this preamble. Table 3 of this 
preamble summarizes the incremental impacts of each control option, 
when compared to the baseline. The table shows the emission reductions 
and corresponding annualized net costs for NMOC and methane in 2023.

                                                             Table 3--Emission Reductions and Costs for Control Options in Year 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Number of      Number of                                Annual        Annual
                                                                landfills      landfills    Annual net  Annual NMOC    methane        methane        NMOC cost     Methane cost    Methane cost
                      Control parameters                         affected     controlling      cost      reductions   reductions    reductions     effectiveness   effectiveness   effectiveness
                                                                   \a\            \a\         (2012$)      (Mg/yr)     (Mg/yr)     (Mg CO2e/yr)       ($/Mg)          ($/Mg)      *  ($/Mg CO2e)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Baseline = 2.5 million Mg and m\3\, design capacity and 50 Mg/yr NMOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (2.5 design capacity/50 Mg/yr NMOC).................           17               8   2,708,000          610       94,800       2,371,000           4,400              29             1.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Incremental values versus the Baseline
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option (3.0 design capacity/40 Mg/yr NMOC....................            0               3     471,000           79       12,300         307,600           6,000              38             1.5
Option (2.5 design capacity/40 Mg/yr NMOC....................            0               3     471,000           79       12,300         307,600           6,000              38             1.5
Option (2.0 design capacity/40 Mg/yr NMOC....................            1               3     472,700           79       12,300         307,600           6,000              38             1.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 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.

    Baseline. The baseline affects 17 new landfills, meaning that 17 
landfills meet the design capacity thresholds and would have to report 
their emissions during this period. Eight of these landfills would have 
controls in place in

[[Page 41810]]

year 2023. The baseline values are compared to landfills' emissions 
assuming that no GCCS are installed. This comparison to a no-control 
scenario may overestimate both the costs and emissions reduction 
resulting from implementation of subpart XXX due to other regulatory or 
voluntary reasons for installing GCCS, as discussed below.
    The EPA is aware that some state or local ordinances require 
landfill gas combustion for odor, safety, or methane control reasons. 
For example, methane regulations in California \22\ require GCCS to be 
installed at all landfills accepting waste after January 1, 1977, 
having at least 450,000 tons of waste-in-place, and having a gas heat 
input capacity threshold of 3.0 MMBtu/hr or greater to install GCCS. 
The emission reductions from these programs could not be quantified for 
the projected set of model landfills because the EPA cannot reliably 
estimate where these future landfills will be installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ California Code of Regulations, title 17, subchapter 10, 
article 4, subarticle 6, sections 95460 to 95476, Methane Emissions 
from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, based on data from LMOP, the EPA is also aware of 
approximately 500 landfills that have voluntarily installed a gas 
collection system that would not otherwise be required under federal 
NSPS or emission guideline regulations (see section V.A of this 
preamble for details). These systems may have been installed to recover 
energy and generate revenue, including sale of electricity or landfill 
gas as well as to create carbon credits. However, because it is not 
known how many projected new landfills will voluntarily collect and 
combust their gas in the absence of NSPS regulation, the reductions 
associated with voluntary gas collection system installations were not 
considered when establishing the reductions associated with the 
baseline.
    Regulatory options. The EPA considered three regulatory options 
more stringent than the baseline, as presented in Table 3 of this 
preamble. Based on the characteristics of the projected landfills, all 
three of the more stringent options would require a total of 11 
landfills to install controls by 2023. Thus, 11 landfills would incur 
costs and achieve emission reductions in 2023 under all of the more 
stringent options, compared with eight landfills under the baseline.
    Although the overall difference in the number of landfills 
requiring control in 2023 under the more stringent options is only 
three landfills, it is important to note that each of these options 
would require controls to be installed earlier than the baseline, 
because lower NMOC emission thresholds would subject landfills to the 
control requirements at an earlier date.
    Table 4 presents the number of landfills with control systems 
installed, by year, for the baseline and options considered in this 
analysis. Due to the 30-month initial lag time period, no controls are 
anticipated to be installed prior to 2020 under any of the options 
under consideration.

 Table 4--Total Number of New Landfills Projected To Control Landfill Gas Emissions in Each Year of the 10-Year
                                                Period, by Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of landfills with  control systems installed
         Control parameters         ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      2014-2019        2020            2021            2022            2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline 2.5/50....................            0               0               6               7               8
Option 3.0/40......................            0               3               6               7              11
Option 2.5/40......................            0               3               6               7              11
Option 2.0/40......................            0               3               6               7              11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emission reductions. Under all three of the options considered, 
three additional landfills would be required to install controls in 
2023 compared to the baseline. The reductions achieved under these 
three options are the same because each option has the same NMOC 
threshold trigger of 40 Mg/yr. The corresponding emission reductions in 
2023 would be an additional 79 Mg/year NMOC, 12,300 Mg/year methane 
(307,600 Mg/year CO2e) compared to the baseline. The wide 
range in magnitude of emission reductions among pollutants is due to 
the composition of landfill gas: NMOC represents less than 1 percent of 
landfill gas, while methane represents approximately 50 percent. 
CO2e is an expression of methane in terms of the carbon 
dioxide equivalents, given the methane global warming potential (GWP) 
of 25.\23\ Each of these options represents approximately a 13 percent 
reduction beyond the baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007. Climate Change 
2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 
the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. 
(eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cost. Under both options 2.5/40 and 3.0/40, the incremental annual 
cost would be $471,000. The cost is identical for these two options 
because all of the projected new landfills that exceed the NMOC 
thresholds and install controls by 2023 have a design capacity greater 
than 3.0 million Mg. Based on the characteristics of recently 
constructed landfills, it is likely that most new landfills will be 
larger sites. The incremental annual cost of option 2.0/40 is $2,700 
higher, at $472,700 due to additional reporting costs for one landfill 
that is projected to exceed the lowered design capacity threshold but 
not the NMOC threshold. All of these options represent approximately 17 
percent in additional costs beyond the baseline.
    In terms of cost effectiveness, the overall dollar-per-Mg cost for 
NMOC reductions is $4,400 per Mg NMOC under the baseline in Table 3 of 
this preamble. Note the cost of controlling methane is significantly 
lower than for NMOC because methane constitutes approximately 50 
percent of landfill gas, while NMOC represents less than 1 percent of 
landfill gas. The incremental dollar-per-Mg cost for NMOC reductions is 
$6,000 per Mg NMOC under all of the other options. For option 2.0/40, 
however, there are additional reporting requirements for one landfill 
affected by this option that would result in a marginally higher actual 
cost compared with the option 2.5/40. Therefore, we are not proposing 
option 2.0/40. Other than the added reporting costs, the emission 
reductions and control costs are identical for options 2.5/40 and 3.0/
40. For the reasons stated in section V.D of this preamble (potential 
to miss reductions at landfills that exceed the NMOC emission 
thresholds but do not

[[Page 41811]]

meet the design capacity thresholds and application of GCCS at 
landfills with design capacities between 2.5 and 3.0 million Mg is well 
demonstrated), alternative option 3.0/40 is also not being proposed.
    Proposed option 2.5/40. Based on the emission reduction and cost 
discussions above and consistent with the President's Methane Strategy 
as discussed in section III of this preamble, the EPA is proposing to 
reduce the NMOC threshold to 40 Mg/yr. Lowering the NMOC threshold 
would result in earlier GCCS installations and additional NMOC and 
methane reductions compared to the baseline, as shown in Table 3 of 
this preamble. This lowered threshold achieves reductions without 
adjusting the initial and expansion lag times and incurring the 
associated costs and implementation concerns.
    Reducing the NMOC threshold from the baseline-level of 50 Mg/yr to 
40 Mg/yr would affect only three more landfills in 2023 but would 
achieve an estimated 13 percent additional reduction in emissions of 
NMOC and methane compared to the baseline. Further, this proposal would 
maintain the same control device removal criteria as the baseline 
except that the controls would have to stay on until three successive 
tests for NMOC emissions were below the NMOC emission threshold of 40 
Mg/yr instead of 50 Mg/yr. Depending on the waste-in-place of the 
landfill at closure and other site-specific factors (e.g., waste 
composition, climate), it may take more than 30 years after closure for 
a large modern landfill to emit less than the NMOC emission threshold, 
and in turn qualify for capping or removing the GCCS. Although the 
emission reductions associated with these later years in the landfills' 
lifetimes are not incorporated in the environmental and economic 
impacts of the baseline and options under consideration, the lower 
threshold associated with this proposal would require controls to be 
installed for a slightly longer period than the baseline.
    Although some commenters have expressed concerns about the quantity 
of emissions after landfills have closed and the GCCS has ceased to 
operate, the analysis the EPA conducted demonstrates that GCCS would be 
installed for a significant period after landfill closure that is 
commensurate with the size and corresponding emissions profile of each 
affected landfill. For these reasons, the EPA is proposing that 
emissions must be below an emissions threshold of 40 Mg/yr as one of 
the three criteria for determining when a GCCS may be capped or 
removed. The EPA is also requesting comment on whether these three 
criteria are appropriate, and if alternative criteria such as 
consecutive quarterly measurements below a surface emission threshold 
should also be considered. RCRA, specifically subpart F of Part 258, 
also requires supplemental basic post-closure care to maintain cover 
integrity.
    Reducing the NMOC threshold also recognizes the opportunity to 
build upon progress to date and achieve even more reductions of 
landfill gas and its components, consistent with the President's 
Methane Strategy as discussed in section III of this preamble. Landfill 
gas generated from established waste (waste that has been in place for 
at least a year) is typically composed of roughly 50 percent methane 
and 50 percent carbon dioxide by volume, with less than 1 percent NMOC. 
Because the components of landfill gas are associated with substantial 
health, welfare, and climate effects, additional reductions of landfill 
gas would improve air quality and reduce health and welfare effects 
associated with exposure to landfill gas emissions. Note that in 2012, 
landfills continued to be the third largest source of human-related 
methane emissions in the United States, representing 18.1 percent of 
total methane emissions.\24\ Methane emissions represent 8.7 percent of 
all GHG emissions (in CO2e) in the United States.
    Alternative option 2.0/34. Consistent with the President's Methane 
Strategy and the potential to achieve a near-term beneficial impact in 
mitigating global climate change (see section III of this preamble), 
the EPA considered even more stringent alternatives in its analysis of 
control options that may achieve additional reductions of methane and 
NMOC. For example, reducing the NMOC threshold below 40 Mg/yr in 
conjunction with reducing the design capacity to below 2.5 million Mg 
or 2.5 million cubic meters, an alternative option 2.0/34 would require 
controls at 11 landfills by 2023, which is the same number of landfills 
required to control under this proposal. However, under this more 
stringent option, four of the 11 landfills would install controls one 
year earlier. The extent of the emission reductions for this option 
depends on the time period considered. For example, in year 2023, 
emission reductions would not be any greater than the proposal. 
However, when averaged over the 10-year period (2014-2023), this more 
stringent option would achieve additional NMOC and methane reductions 
compared with the proposal. Refer to the Environmental Impacts 
Analysis,\25\ and the docketed memoranda ``Cost and Emissions Impacts 
Resulting from the Landfills NSPS Review. 2014'' for details on the 
estimated reductions. Additional emission reductions would be expected 
to be achieved over the lifetime of the landfills subject to subpart 
XXX because the lower NMOC threshold would require earlier installation 
of controls and also require the controls to remain installed for a 
longer period. The annualized cost to implement alternative option 2.0/
34 would be higher than the proposal. The EPA did not analyze an option 
that reduced the NMOC threshold below 40 Mg/year without also reducing 
the design capacity threshold. In light of these additional reductions, 
as well as the additional costs to affected entities, the EPA is 
soliciting comment on whether an NMOC threshold below 40 Mg/yr in 
conjunction with a reduced design capacity threshold should be 
considered for new landfills subject to subpart XXX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Economic Impact Analysis 
for the Proposed New Subpart to the New Source Performance 
Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Summary of Clarifications and Resolutions That Are the Result of 
Implementation Activity

    The EPA proposed amendments to the landfills NSPS (40 CFR part 60, 
subpart WWW) on May 23, 2002 (67 FR 36475) to address implementation 
issues. Consideration of public comments received and additional 
implementation activity led to the proposal of further clarifications 
on implementing the landfills regulations on September 8, 2006. After 
considering public comments received on the September 8, 2006 
amendments and additional implementation activity, we are proposing 
resolutions and clarifications of the issues specifically identified 
below under new subpart XXX. The EPA plans to address amendments and 
clarifications resulting from implementation activities as they apply 
to subparts Cc and WWW in a separate document. The EPA will also 
address any potential changes to subparts Cc and WWW in a separate 
document. Thus EPA is not taking final action on either the May 23, 
2002 or the September 8, 2006 proposed rules at this time. In addition 
to the specifically identified resolutions and clarifications 
associated with the May 23, 2002 and September 8, 2006 proposed rules, 
we are proposing a number of provisions in subpart XXX that are 
intended to address other implementation issues

[[Page 41812]]

that have arisen in the context of subpart WWW.
    2002 Proposed amendments. On May 23, 2002 (67 FR 36475), the EPA 
proposed several amendments to subpart WWW, including clarifying what 
constitutes treated landfill gas by adding a definition of treatment 
system that specified that the system must filter, de-water, and 
compress landfill gas.
    2006 Proposed amendments. Public comments on the May 23, 2002 
amendments created new questions and caused the EPA to reconsider the 
approach we had taken on several proposed amendments, including our 
approach to clarifying what constitutes treated landfill gas. 
Specifically, we proposed refined definitions of ``treated landfill 
gas'' and ``treatment system'' by adding specific numerical values for 
filtration and de-watering to provide long-term protection of the 
combustion equipment, which would also support good combustion. The 
September 8, 2006 amendments also proposed to clarify the monitoring 
requirements for treatment systems.
    The following resolutions and clarifications apply to proposed 
subpart XXX.

A. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and Treatment System and 
Treatment System Monitoring

    Subpart XXX contains requirements for landfill gas treatment that 
are consistent with the September 8, 2006 proposed amendments, except 
that the treatment definition would require the water dew point of 
landfill gas to be reduced to at least 45 [deg]F, rather than lowered 
by at least 20 [deg]F. We also propose to specify a location for the 
temperature monitoring device that would demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the 45 [deg]F requirement. The measurement device would 
be located at (or immediately after) the coalescing filter or other 
direct contact moisture removal device that follows the chiller and 
removes the condensed moisture. If a landfill owner/operator uses de-
watering equipment that is not based on cooling the gas, such as a 
desiccant system, the landfill owner/operator would monitor dew point 
instead of temperature. For particulate matter filtration, we propose 
to retain the requirement for a filter system to have an absolute 
rating no greater than 10 microns.
    We also propose to clarify monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements for treatment systems. To ensure that treatment systems 
are operating properly to achieve the filtration and de-watering levels 
specified in the revised proposed treatment system definition, owners/
operators would install equipment to continuously monitor pressure drop 
across a filter, temperature for a chiller-based de-watering system, 
and dew point for a non-chiller-based de-watering system. Owners/
operators would record 24-hour block averages. Owners/operators may use 
other site-specific monitoring parameters if they demonstrate that such 
parameters would effectively monitor filtration or de-watering system 
performance. For other site-specific monitoring parameters, owners/
operators must develop operating ranges for each monitored operating 
parameter based on manufacturer's recommendations or engineering 
analysis and submit those ranges, along with justification, for 
approval by the Administrator in an amended design plan. The proposed 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for treatment systems are 
similar to those for control device temperature monitoring requirements 
already in the NSPS.
    The EPA is considering and taking public comment on an alternative 
approach to defining landfill gas treatment and the corresponding 
monitoring requirements, as discussed in section IX.A of this preamble.
    Uses of treated landfill gas. Subpart WWW allows landfill owners or 
operators the option of achieving compliance by routing the collected 
gas to a treatment system ``that processes the collected gas for 
subsequent sale or use.'' We propose to include language in subpart XXX 
(40 CFR 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(C)) to clarify that the use of treated 
landfill gas is not limited to use as a fuel for a stationary 
combustion device, as some people have previously interpreted this 
compliance option, but also includes other uses such as the production 
of vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas for pipeline injection, or 
use as a raw material in a chemical manufacturing process.

B. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions

    The general provisions in 40 CFR part 60 provide that emissions in 
excess of the level of the applicable emissions limit during periods of 
startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) shall not be considered a 
violation of the applicable emission limit unless otherwise specified 
in the applicable standard (see 40 CFR 60.8(c))(emphasis added). As 
reflected in the italicized language, an individual subpart can 
supersede this provision. In today's action, the EPA is proposing 
standards in subpart XXX that apply at all times, including periods of 
startup or shutdown, and periods of malfunction. In addition, to enable 
the EPA to determine the severity of an emissions exceedance for 
periods when the gas collection system or a control device is not 
operating, the EPA is proposing to add a recordkeeping and reporting 
requirement for landfill owners or operators to estimate emissions 
during such periods.

C. Closed Areas

    To determine whether NMOC emissions from nonproductive 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 nonproductive areas, the EPA is proposing to 
allow owners or operators of landfills subject to subpart XXX to use 
measured or modeled flow of landfill gas to determine if an area is 
nonproductive. The EPA proposes that owners or operators of physically 
separated, closed areas of landfills subject to subpart XXX may use the 
procedures in proposed 40 CFR 60.764(b), which determine the flow rate 
of landfill gas using actual or modeled measurements, to determine NMOC 
emissions.

D. Surface Monitoring

    Subpart WWW requires quarterly surface monitoring to demonstrate 
that the cover and gas collection system are working properly. The 
intent of the surface monitoring provision is to maintain a tight cover 
that minimizes landfill gas emissions through the landfill surface. In 
this proposal, we are reiterating the intent that landfills must 
monitor along a pattern that traverses the landfill at specified 
intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated 
concentrations of landfill gas, which includes all cover penetrations 
and openings within the area of the landfill where waste has been 
placed and a gas collection system is required. The EPA is also 
considering and taking public comment on revisions to the surface 
monitoring requirements, as discussed in section IX of this preamble.

E. Electronic Reporting

    The EPA is proposing electronic reporting of required performance 
test reports, NMOC emission rate reports, and annual reports. We also 
propose that industry should be required to maintain only electronic 
copies of the records to satisfy federal recordkeeping requirements. 
The proposed electronic submission and storage procedures are

[[Page 41813]]

discussed in detail in section VIII.E of this preamble.
    The proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the 
EPA applies only to those performance tests conducted using test 
methods that are supported by the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). At 
this time, most of the methods in the landfills NSPS are not supported 
by the ERT. Thus, electronic reporting of performance tests may not be 
required for some landfills initially, but will be required when 
applicable methods are added to the ERT. A listing of the pollutants 
and test methods supported by the ERT is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html.

F. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements

    Subpart WWW addresses operational standards for wellheads. Under 40 
CFR 60.753(c), landfill owners/operators may request and demonstrate a 
higher operating temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen value at a particular 
well. The EPA is clarifying in this preamble the intent of the 
following requirement: ``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 meet both criteria; that is a 
higher operating value must not cause fires and must not significantly 
inhibit anaerobic decomposition by killing methanogens.
    The EPA proposes to clarify in subpart XXX that any alternate 
operating value for temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen proposed by an 
owner or operator according to the proposed 40 CFR 60.763(c) must be 
submitted to the Administrator (i.e., the EPA Administrator or 
delegated authority) for approval. The request may be submitted 
separately from a design plan revision. However, the design plan would 
have to be updated on the schedule described in the next section.
    The EPA is also considering and taking comment on the landfill 
wellhead monitoring requirements, as discussed in the section IX.B of 
this preamble.

G. Requirements for Updating the Design Plan

    We propose adding three criteria for when an affected source must 
update its design plan and submit it to the Administrator under subpart 
XXX (40 CFR 60.767(h)). We propose requiring submittal of a revised 
design plan as follows: (1) Within 90 days of expanding operations to 
an area not covered by the previously approved design plan; (2) prior 
to installing or expanding the gas collection system in a manner other 
than described in a previously approved design plan; and (3) prior to 
implementing an alternative operating parameter value for temperature, 
nitrogen, or oxygen.

H. Submitting Corrective Action Timeline Requests

    Subpart WWW outlines the timeline for correcting for air 
infiltration in the gas collection system within 15 days of any 
exceedance of temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen parameters. We propose 
clarifying this requirement in subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.765(a)(5)) to 
require the landfill to submit an alternative corrective action 
timeline request to the Administrator if the landfill cannot correct 
for air infiltration within 15 calendar days of the initial exceedance 
and the landfill is unable to (or does not plan to) expand the gas 
collection within 120 days of the initial exceedance.

I. Other Corrections and Clarifications

    We propose to standardize the terms ``control system'' and 
``collection and control system'' throughout proposed subpart XXX in 
order to use consistent terminology throughout the regulatory text. 
Subparts Cc and WWW include phrases such as ``control or treatment 
system''; however, 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii) indicates that a treatment 
system described in 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C) is considered to be a 
type of control system, and therefore the term ``control system'' is 
sufficient and more concise. Further, some other parts of subpart WWW 
refer to ``collection and control device'' or ``control equipment''; 
however, the terms ``device'' and ``equipment'' are synonymous with the 
term ``system'' in the context of these rules and were replaced with 
``control system'' or ``control system equipment'' in several places as 
appropriate, for consistency. Finally, many parts of subpart WWW 
inaccurately reference ``control system'' instead of ``collection and 
control system'' when referring back to paragraphs in 40 CFR 60.752(b). 
These corrections and clarifications appear in subpart XXX.
    We also propose to make the following clarifications and 
corrections to subpart XXX, which are consistent with the May 23, 2002 
and September 8, 2006 proposed amendments in subpart WWW.
    Consistent with the May 23, 2002 and September 8, 2006 proposed 
amendments, we propose to include 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, we 
propose to remove 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 
propose to incorporate a corrected test method cross-reference in 40 
CFR 60.765(c)(3) of subpart XXX necessitated by the reorganization of 
Method 21 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
    Consistent with the September 8, 2006 proposed amendments, we 
propose to amend the definition of ``household waste'' and add 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.
    We are clarifying that the definition of ``Modification'' in 
subpart XXX includes a change in mass or volume and we are requesting 
comment on the definition of modification as discussed in section 
VIII.I of this preamble.

VIII. Rationale for the Clarifications and Resolutions That Are the 
Result of Implementation Activity

A. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and Treatment System and 
Treatment System Monitoring

    Landfill gas treatment. In the May 23, 2002 proposed amendments, we 
proposed a definition for ``treatment system'' that would be used to 
determine if a facility qualifies for the treatment option provided in 
subpart WWW. The purpose of this definition was to provide consistency 
as to what qualifies as a treatment system and to reduce the burden on 
state and local agencies and EPA Regions currently performing case-by-
case determinations related to the adequacy of treatment options being 
employed across the nation. The proposed definition of treatment system 
was ``a system that filters, de-waters, and compresses landfill gas.''
    Following the May 23, 2002 proposal of the treatment system 
definition, several commenters requested further clarification as to 
what levels of filtration and de-watering would be considered 
acceptable to meet the definition of treatment. Some

[[Page 41814]]

commenters requested that EPA allow owners/operators to treat their gas 
such that it would meet the end-use combustion equipment 
``manufacturer's requirements'' for fuel quality. Other commenters 
requested that EPA develop specific particulate, moisture, and 
compression targets that demonstrate ``treated landfill gas.''
    We agreed with commenters that the definition of treatment system 
needed additional detail. We contacted manufacturers of combustion 
devices that are used to recover energy from landfill gas, and we 
obtained their written specifications and recommendations for fuel 
quality. As suggested by the commenters, we reviewed the available 
manufacturers' specifications for acceptable moisture and particulate 
levels. Because different manufacturers have different specifications, 
our proposed definition of ``treatment system'' did not refer directly 
to the manufacturers' requirements. Instead, we developed specific 
filtration and de-watering targets based on those requirements.
    On September 8, 2006, we proposed levels of de-watering and 
filtration that were consistent with most manufacturers' specifications 
for landfill gas burned in energy recovery devices such as 
reciprocating engines, gas turbines, and boilers. We also proposed a 
supplemental definition of treatment system, as follows: ``. . . a 
system that has an absolute filtration rating of 10 microns or less, 
lowers the water dew point of the landfill gas by at least 20 degrees 
Fahrenheit with a de-watering process, and compresses the landfill 
gas.'' The term ``absolute filtration rating'' means the diameter of 
the largest hard spherical particle that would pass through the filter. 
These treatment levels would minimize degradation of the combustion 
device and promote proper destruction of NMOC.
    Following the September 8, 2006 supplemental amendments, several 
commenters objected to the 20 [deg]F dew point reduction requirement 
and the requirement to monitor temperature reduction across the 
moisture removal system. Commenters cited several reasons, including 
the following:

     In cold climates, it might not be feasible to meet the 
proposed definition because the gas can be cooled from wellhead to 
temperatures in the 40 [deg]F-range simply because of ambient 
conditions, and lowering the temperature further is not feasible.
     Verifying inlet and outlet temperatures is difficult 
because they vary depending on the pressures in the system. 
Accounting for these conditions could require multiple points of 
measure plus use of an algorithm to determine the reduction.
     The proposed standard does not take into account water 
removal that may be occurring in other parts of the gas collection 
system, such as the header.
     The level of treatment needed depends on the type and 
design of the specific combustion equipment being used, so some 
commenters favored case-by-case determinations.

    The EPA maintains the position that the intent of the treatment 
option is to require active lowering of the dew point consistent with 
the better available treatment systems, and that we did not intend 
knock-out pots (for example) to qualify. The numerical specifications 
ensure that the treated gas is suitable for use in a wide range of 
applications. They also allow uniform national application of the NSPS, 
provide certainty to the landfill industry and regulated agencies, and 
avoid case-by-case determinations that are likely to be complex, time-
consuming, and yield inconsistent results.
    However, the EPA agrees with the comments that the 2006 proposed 20 
[deg]F dew point reduction requirement contains some ambiguity. For 
example, is the 20 [deg]F relative to the gas temperature at the wells, 
in the main header prior to compression, or just prior to the chiller? 
Does the gas need to be chilled 20 [deg]F below atmospheric 
temperature, which could be impractical in cold climates? We also agree 
with the commenters that if the treatment system first compresses and 
then chills the gas, measuring the gas temperature before the 
compressor and after the chiller would not give an accurate indication 
of the dew point reduction due to the change in pressure, and 
algorithms would be required to calculate the reduction.
    In light of these comments, we reviewed designs from manufacturers 
of gas treatment compression-dehydration skids for the landfill gas 
utilization industry to determine if the numerical moisture requirement 
could be expressed as an absolute dew point or temperature that could 
be measured at a single location, rather than requiring a 20 [deg]F 
reduction. Such a requirement would eliminate ambiguity and make it 
easier for landfills and regulatory agencies to determine compliance. 
Manufacturers commonly compress the gas first and then cool the gas to 
reduce the dew point. Manufacturers commonly offer dew points of 38 to 
45 [deg]F. They also reheat the final dehydrated product prior to it 
leaving their treatment unit. Therefore, we propose a dew point 
reduction to 45 [deg]F, rather than a reduction by 20 [deg]F.
    The EPA requests comments on all aspects of this proposed 
definition of landfill gas treatment.
    Continuous monitoring. To ensure continuous compliance with the 
treatment option, we are proposing similar monitoring requirements to 
the September 8, 2006 supplemental proposal, except that temperature or 
dew point is measured at a single location to determine that it has 
been reduced to 45 [deg]F, rather than measuring it before and after 
the moisture removal device. Landfill owners/operators would install 
instrumentation to continuously monitor pressure drop across a filter, 
temperature for a chiller-based de-watering system, and dew point for a 
non-chiller-based de-watering system. These requirements would ensure 
that the treatment system is continuously operating in the manner in 
which it was designed to operate to achieve the specific filtration, 
de-watering, and compression targets that define a treatment system for 
the purposes of the landfills NSPS.
    Continuous monitoring is appropriate for treatment systems because 
it ensures timely identification of sudden failures in equipment such 
as chillers and filters and ensures that treatment systems are 
operating properly to achieve the filtration and de-watering levels 
specified in the rule. Continuous monitoring is available for the 
selected treatment system operating parameters and is required to 
ensure continuous compliance.
    For filtration systems, the pressure drop (24-hour average) across 
the filter would be continuously monitored and maintained above the 
minimum pressure drop established by engineering analysis or 
manufacturer's specifications. Alternatively, the owners/operators can 
request approval to monitor another parameter that indicates proper 
performance of the filtration system. Pressure drop was selected as a 
monitoring parameter because it is a good indicator of proper filter 
operation. A noticeable reduction in pressure drop across the filter 
indicates a breach of the filter material.
    Continuous monitoring of temperature for a chiller-based de-
watering system, dew point from a de-watering system that is not 
chiller-based, or another approved parameter that is indicative of 
proper performance of the de-watering system, would also be required. 
If the owner/operator requests to measure a parameter other than 
temperature or dew point, then the monitored parameter (24-hour 
average) would have to be kept within the operating range established 
by engineering analysis or manufacturer's

[[Page 41815]]

specifications. The owner or operator would submit the treatment system 
design and justification for the operating parameter ranges for 
approval by the Administrator in the design plan required by 40 CFR 
60.752(b)(2) of subpart WWW.
    For chiller-based de-watering systems, we selected temperature as a 
monitoring parameter because it indicates that the chiller is operating 
properly and the target 45 [deg]F dew point is achieved. Continuous 
measurement of the gas temperature at the chiller outlet is required. 
The temperature measurement device should be located at (or immediately 
after) the coalescing filter or other direct contact moisture removal 
device that follows the chiller and removes the condensed moisture. 
Because the gas will be saturated at the temperature it leaves the 
filter, the temperature in that location is a good measure of the dew 
point. Temperature monitors are readily available, commonly used, 
reliable, and less expensive than alternative monitoring systems.
    If a de-watering system that is not based on chilling, for example, 
a desiccant system, is used, then temperature would not be an 
appropriate parameter to monitor. In such cases, monitoring of the dew 
point would indicate whether the system is operating properly to 
achieve a temperature of 45 [deg]F. Dew point can be continuously 
monitored using a hygrometer with a dew point readout. The hygrometer 
should be located after the equipment that performs the moisture 
removal. Dew point monitors are available and suitable for landfill gas 
applications.
    Data collection is required at 15-minute intervals, consistent with 
current landfills NSPS requirements for flare pilot flame monitoring 
and enclosed combustor temperature monitoring that apply to landfills 
that opt to comply with the control options rather than the treatment 
option. A 24-hour block average for determining compliance with the 
treatment system operating parameter limits is sufficient to indicate 
any significant change in treatment system operation and would be less 
burdensome than more frequent averaging. Owners or operators of 
treatment systems would be required to report periods when the 24-hour 
block average for a monitored parameter (e.g., pressure drop, 
temperature, dew point) is outside the operating range established in 
the approved design plan.
    Compliance schedule. Landfills subject to subpart XXX that choose 
to comply with subpart XXX by treating the landfill gas according to 40 
CFR 60.762(b)(2)(iii)(C) would comply with the treatment requirements 
upon choosing to control landfill gas using the treatment option.
    Uses of Treated Landfill Gas. Subpart WWW allows landfill owners or 
operators the option of achieving compliance by routing the collected 
gas to a treatment system ``that processes the collected gas for 
subsequent sale or use.'' We propose language in subpart XXX (40 CFR 
60.762(b)(2)(iii)(C)) to clarify that the use of treated landfill gas 
is not limited to use as a fuel for a stationary combustion device as 
some have interpreted the provision. We clarify the intent of the 
treatment option to allow 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. Newer uses of landfill 
gas are being implemented and result in the production of useful energy 
or products, reducing the use of fossil fuels or other raw materials 
and the associated emissions. For the uses mentioned, the gas is 
treated at least as well as the specified treatment requirements. Site-
specific approval of alternative monitoring parameters would be 
required for uses other than combustion because treatment systems for 
these end uses are relatively few in number and have unique designs. 
Owners or operators would be required to apply for approval of 
monitoring parameters.

B. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Provisions

    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010), the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated 
portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations 
governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. Specifically, the 
Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 
CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under CAA section 302(k), emissions 
standards or limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM 
exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some CAA section 112 
standards apply continuously.
    Periods of startup or shutdown. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 
(551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008)), the EPA has established standards in 
subpart XXX that apply at all times. The part 60 general provisions, 
which define startup, shutdown and malfunction, were written for 
typical industrial or manufacturing sources and associated processes. 
Many of these sources and processes may, at times, be shut down 
entirely for clean-out, maintenance, or repairs, and then restarted. 
Applying the standards at all times, including periods of startup and 
shutdown, is intended to minimize excess emissions when the source or 
process ceases operation or commences operation, or malfunctions. 
Landfill emissions, however, are produced by a continuous biological 
process that cannot be stopped or restarted. For landfills, the primary 
SSM concern is with malfunction of the landfill GCCS and associated 
monitoring equipment, not with the startup or shutdown of the entire 
source. Thus, SSM provisions in the subpart XXX focus primarily on 
malfunction of the gas collection system, gas control system, and gas 
treatment system, which is part of the gas control system.
    Periods of malfunction. Periods of startup, normal operations, and 
shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source's 
operations. However, by contrast, malfunction is defined as ``any 
sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air 
pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate 
in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions'' (40 CFR 60.2). 
The EPA has determined that CAA section 111 does not require that 
emissions that occur during periods of malfunction be factored into 
development of CAA section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or 
in case law requires that the EPA anticipate and account for the 
innumerable types of potential malfunction events in setting emission 
standards. CAA section 111 provides that the EPA set standards of 
performance which reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable 
through ``the application of the best system of emission reduction'' 
that the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated. A malfunction is a 
failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no 
statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting 
standards based on the ``best system of emission reduction.'' The 
``application of the best system of emission reduction'' is more 
appropriately understood to include operating units in such a way as to 
avoid malfunctions.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards 
would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types 
of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and 
given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the 
frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might

[[Page 41816]]

occur. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not 
``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 
658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically has wide latitude in 
determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. 
We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of 
imperfect scientific information, rather than to `invest the resources 
to conduct the perfect study.' '') See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 
590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no 
general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can 
anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the 
transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of 
third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or 
insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for 
the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not 
for specification in advance by regulation.''). In addition, emissions 
during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions 
at any other time of source operation and thus accounting for 
malfunctions could lead to standards that are significantly less 
stringent than levels that are achieved by a well-performing non-
malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA section 111 to 
avoid such a result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent 
with CAA section 111 and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 111 standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would 
determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the 
good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as 
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. 
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with 
the CAA section 111 standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation'' (40 CFR 60.2 (definition of 
malfunction)).
    Further, to the extent the EPA files an enforcement action against 
a source for violation of an emission standard, the source can raise 
any and all defenses in that enforcement action and the federal 
district court will determine what, if any, relief is appropriate. The 
same is true for citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding 
officer in an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised 
and determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In several prior rules, the EPA had included an affirmative defense 
to civil penalties for violations caused by malfunctions in an effort 
to create a system that incorporates some flexibility, recognizing that 
there is a tension, inherent in many types of air regulation, to ensure 
adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that despite the 
most diligent of efforts, emission standards may be violated under 
circumstances entirely beyond the control of the source. Although the 
EPA recognized that its case-by-case enforcement discretion provides 
sufficient flexibility in these circumstances, it included the 
affirmative defense to provide a more formalized approach and more 
regulatory clarity. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 
1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal case-by-case 
enforcement discretion approach is adequate); but see Marathon Oil Co. 
v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more 
formalized approach to consideration of ``upsets beyond the control of 
the permit holder''). Under the EPA's regulatory affirmative defense 
provisions, if a source could demonstrate in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding that it had met the requirements of the 
affirmative defense in the regulation, civil penalties would not be 
assessed. Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia Circuit vacated such an affirmative defense in one of the 
EPA's section 112(d) regulations. NRDC v. EPA, No. 10-1371 (D.C. Cir. 
April 18, 2014) 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281 (vacating affirmative defense 
provisions in section 112(d) rule establishing emission standards for 
Portland cement kilns). The court found that the EPA lacked authority 
to establish an affirmative defense for private civil suits and held 
that under the CAA, the authority to determine civil penalty amounts 
lies exclusively with the courts, not the EPA. Specifically, the Court 
found: ``As the language of the statute makes clear, the courts 
determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether civil penalties are 
`appropriate.' '' See NRDC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281 at *21 (``[U]nder 
this statute, deciding whether penalties are `appropriate' in a given 
private civil suit is a job for the courts, not EPA.''). In light of 
NRDC, the EPA is not including a regulatory affirmative defense 
provision in this rulemaking. As explained above, if a source is unable 
to comply with emissions standards as a result of a malfunction, the 
EPA may use its case-by-case enforcement discretion to provide 
flexibility, as appropriate. Further, as the D.C. Circuit recognized, 
in an EPA or citizen enforcement action, the court has the discretion 
to consider any defense raised and determine whether penalties are 
appropriate. Cf. NRDC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281 at *24. (arguments 
that violation were caused by unavoidable technology failure can be 
made to the courts in future civil cases when the issue arises). The 
same logic applies to EPA administrative enforcement actions.
    Limit on SSM duration. Subpart WWW limits the duration of SSM 
events to 5 days for the landfill gas collection system and 1 hour for 
treatment or control devices. Proposed subpart XXX does not include the 
5-day and 1-hour time limitations because some malfunctions cannot be 
corrected within these timeframes. Excluding these provisions is 
consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA (551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008)), 
which concluded that that emission standards apply at all times, 
including periods of SSM, and 40 CFR 60.11(d), which states that at all 
times, including periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction, owners 
or operators shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and operate any 
source facility including associated air pollution control equipment in 
a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for 
minimizing emissions. The proposed revisions clarify that the NSPS 
standards continue to apply during periods of SSM.
    To prevent free venting of landfill gas to the atmosphere during 
control device malfunctions, we propose to include a requirement in 
subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.763(e)) that states that in the event the 
collection or control system is not operating, the gas mover system 
must be shut down and all valves in the collection and control system 
contributing to venting of gas to the atmosphere must be closed within 
1 hour. Note that 40 CFR 60.753(e) of subpart WWW says ``inoperable.'' 
This provision was written when there was an allowance for periods of 
SSM: Subpart WWW (40 CFR 60.755(e)) allows SSM periods of 5 days for 
the landfill gas collection system and 1 hour for periods when 
collection or control devices were ``not operable'' due to malfunction. 
During those periods, the emission standards do not apply. However, 
proposed subpart XXX states that the standards apply at all times, 
including periods of SSM, and there is no allowance for SSM periods. 
Thus,

[[Page 41817]]

the term ``inoperable'' no longer applies. The EPA proposes to use the 
term ``not operating,'' which includes periods when the gas collection 
or control system is not operating for whatever reason, including when 
the gas collection or control system is inoperable.
    The practice to shut down the gas mover equipment and all valves 
contributing to venting of gas to the atmosphere minimizes emissions 
from the landfill while the control system is not operating and is 
being repaired. Compliance with 40 CFR 60.763(e) does not constitute 
compliance with the applicable standards in 40 CFR 60.762. Compliance 
with 40 CFR 60.763(e) is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the 
general duty to minimize emissions in 40 CFR 60.11(d) during control or 
collection system malfunctions.
    Under subpart XXX, landfill owners/operators must keep records of 
combustion temperature, bypass flow, and periods when the flare flame 
or the flare pilot flame is out. However, without additional 
provisions, the EPA would have no way to gauge the severity of an 
emissions exceedance that may occur when these operating parameters are 
not being met or when the control device is not operating. Therefore, 
the EPA is including provisions for landfill owners/operators to 
estimate NMOC emissions when the control device or collection system is 
not operating. The landfill owners/operators may use whatever 
information is available to estimate NMOC emissions during the period, 
including but not limited to, landfill gas flow to or bypass of the 
control device, the concentration of NMOC (from the most recent 
performance test or from AP-42), and the amount of time the control 
device is not operating. Landfill owners/operators would keep records 
of the estimated emissions and would report the information in the 
annual compliance report. (See provisions in proposed subpart XXX: 
60.767(f)(7) and 60.768(c)(5).)

C. Closed Areas

    In the September 8, 2006 proposed amendments, the EPA requested 
public comments on how to address closed areas of landfills and when to 
allow removal of controls. Under 40 CFR 60.759(a)(3)(ii) of subpart 
WWW, landfills owners/operators can exclude from control, provided that 
the total NMOC emissions of all excluded areas can be shown to 
contribute less than 1 percent of the total amount of NMOC emissions 
from the landfill.
    As discussed in the September 8, 2006 proposed amendments (71 FR 
53277), it has come to our attention 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. Actual measurements may show that the quantity of 
landfill gas from the area is less than 1 percent of the total gas from 
the entire landfill, but using the first order decay equation, it is 
calculated to be greater than 1 percent of the total gas from the 
entire landfill.
    The EPA proposes in subpart XXX that owners or operators of 
physically separated, closed areas of landfills may use the procedures 
in 40 CFR 60.764(b), which determine the flow rate of landfill gas 
using actual measurements, to determine NMOC emissions. Alternatively, 
owners or operators of physically separated, closed areas may use 
subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.769(a)(3)(ii)), which relies on modeled 
(calculated) NMOC rates. The EPA proposes to allow the use of actual 
flow measurements because using actual flow measurements yields a more 
precise measurement of NMOC emissions for purposes of determining if 
NMOC emissions from the closed, nonproductive area of the landfill are 
less than 1 percent of the total NMOC emissions from the entire 
landfill. Landfills would be allowed to stop collecting gas from the 
closed separated area if it accounts for less than 1 percent of total 
landfill NMOC emissions.
    The measurement approach would be allowed only in closed areas that 
are physically separated from other parts of the landfill (e.g., with 
liners). If the closed area is not separated, gas can migrate between 
that area and the rest of the landfill. In such a situation, 
measurements might not accurately reflect emissions from the given 
landfill area because gas could be moving underground and escaping or 
being collected from an adjacent section of the landfill.

D. Surface Monitoring

    The landfills NSPS requires quarterly surface monitoring to 
demonstrate that the cover and gas collection system are working 
properly. The intent of the surface monitoring provision is to maintain 
a tight cover that minimizes the migration of emissions through the 
landfill surface. The operational requirements in subpart WWW specify 
that the landfill must ``operate the collection system so that the 
methane concentration is less than 500 parts per million above 
background at the surface of the landfill. To determine if this level 
is exceeded, the owner or operator shall conduct surface testing around 
the perimeter of the collection area along a pattern that traverses the 
landfill at 30 meter intervals and where visual observations indicate 
elevated concentrations of landfill gas, such as distressed vegetation 
and cracks or seeps in the cover.''
    Several commenters on the September 8, 2006 notice asserted that 
the monitoring of every cover penetration was unnecessary or too 
burdensome. One commenter believed quarterly monitoring of penetrations 
was needed and suggested rule amendments to require the surface 
monitoring be conducted not only in areas where distressed vegetation 
and cracks or seeps in the cover can be seen, but also in other areas 
such as at the base of gas collection wells or at the top of the gas 
collection boot.
    In proposed subpart XXX, we are reiterating the position that 
landfills must monitor all cover penetrations and openings within the 
area of the landfill where waste has been placed and a gas collection 
system is required. Specifically, landfill owners/operators must 
conduct surface monitoring at 30-meter intervals and where visual 
observations indicate elevated concentrations of landfill gas. Cover 
penetrations can be observed visually and are clearly a place where gas 
would be escaping from the cover, so monitoring of them is required by 
the regulatory language. The regulatory language gives distressed 
vegetation and cracks as an example of a visual indication that gas may 
be escaping, but this example does not limit the places that should be 
monitored by landfill staff or by enforcement agency inspectors. Thus, 
the landfill 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 EPA is clarifying this intent in 40 CFR 60.763(d), as 
follows: Owners/operator must also monitor ``* * * where visual 
observations indicate elevated concentrations of landfill gas, such as 
distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover and all cover 
penetrations.''
    Regarding how to monitor landfill surfaces including surface 
penetrations, subpart XXX states that surface emission monitoring must 
be performed in accordance with section 8.3.1 of Method 21 of appendix 
A of part 60, except that the probe must be placed within 5 to 10 
centimeters of the ground.

[[Page 41818]]

E. Electronic Reporting

    Through this proposal, the EPA is presenting a process to increase 
the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data 
accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that owners or 
operators of MSW landfills submit electronic copies of required 
performance test reports, NMOC emission rate reports, and annual 
reports by direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer through the 
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions 
Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).
    The CDX is the EPA's portal for submittal of electronic data. The 
EPA-provided ERT software is used to generate electronic reports of 
performance tests that will be uploaded into the CDX using the CEDRI. 
NMOC emission rate reports and annual reports will be submitted using 
subpart specific forms in the CEDRI. The submitted report package will 
be stored in the CDX archive (the official copy of record) and the 
EPA's public database called WebFIRE. All stakeholders will have access 
to all reports and data in WebFIRE and accessing these reports and data 
will be very straightforward and easy (see the WebFIRE Report Search 
and Retrieval link at http://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/index.cfm?action=fire.searchERTSubmission). A description and 
instructions for use of the ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html and CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site 
(http://www.epa.gov/cdx). A description of the WebFIRE database is 
available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
    Electronic data transmittal and reporting is becoming an 
increasingly common element of modern life (as evidenced by electronic 
banking and income tax filing). Electronic reporting of environmental 
data is also common practice in many media offices at the EPA; programs 
such as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), the Greenhouse Gas 
Reporting Program, Acid Rain and NOX Budget Trading 
Programs, and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) new chemical 
program all require electronic submissions to the EPA. The changes 
being proposed today are needed to continue the transition to 
electronic reporting. Under current requirements, paper reports are 
often stored in filing cabinets or boxes, which make the reports more 
difficult to obtain and use for data analysis and sharing. Electronic 
storage of such reports would make data more accessible for review, 
analyses, and sharing. Electronic reporting can eliminate paper-based, 
manual processes. This will save time and resources, simplify data 
entry, eliminate redundancies, and provide data quickly and accurately 
to the affected sources, air agencies, the EPA, and the public.
    Under an electronic reporting system, the EPA would have air 
emissions and performance test data in hand; thus, it is possible that 
fewer or less substantial information collection requests (ICRs) in 
conjunction with prospective CAA-required technology and risk-based 
reviews may be needed. This may result in a decrease in the need for 
industry staff time to respond to data collection requests.
    Affected sources could also see reduced costs as a result of 
electronic reporting. The electronic reporting system forms will 
contain only the data elements specified by the regulations. As such, 
the data required to be included in each report will be clearly spelled 
out, reducing the time spent in determining required data elements and 
eliminating the time spent on including unnecessary data. The time 
savings realized by making the reports standardized could reduce 
facility costs. Reducing the reporting burden is also achieved through 
labor savings because some of the required data are already in existing 
EPA databases and do not need to be submitted again. Existing source 
files can be reused and already contain a portion of the required data. 
Electronic reporting could minimize submission of unnecessary or 
duplicative reports in cases where facilities report to multiple 
government agencies and the agencies opt to rely on the EPA's 
electronic reporting system to view report submissions. Where air 
agencies continue to require a paper copy of these reports and will 
accept a hard copy of the electronic report, facilities will have the 
option to print paper copies of the electronic reporting forms to 
submit to the air agencies, thus minimizing the time spent reporting to 
multiple agencies. Additionally, maintenance and storage costs 
associated with retaining paper records could likewise be minimized by 
replacing those records with electronically submitted data and reports.
    Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and automated 
review of the electronically submitted data. For example, because the 
performance test data would be readily-available in a standard 
electronic format, air agencies would be able to review reports and 
data electronically rather than having to conduct a review of the 
reports and data manually. 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 
electronic format. Additionally, air agencies would benefit from the 
reported data being accessible to them through the EPA's electronic 
reporting system wherever and whenever they want or need access (as 
long as they have access to the Internet).
    The general public would also benefit from electronic reporting of 
emissions data because the data would be available for viewing sooner 
and would be easier for the public to access. The EPA Web site that 
stores the submitted electronic data will be easily accessible to the 
public and will provide a user-friendly interface that any stakeholder 
could access.
    Another advantage to electronic reporting is that it makes data 
that can be used for the development of emission factors more readily 
available. An emission factor is a representative value that attempts 
to relate the quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere with 
an activity associated with the release of that pollutant (e.g., 
kilograms of particulate emitted per megagram of coal burned). Such 
factors facilitate estimation of emissions from various sources of air 
pollution and are an important tool in developing emissions 
inventories, which in turn are the basis for numerous efforts including 
trends analysis, regional and local scale air quality modeling, 
regulatory impact assessments, and human exposure modeling. In most 
cases, emission factors are simply averages of all available data 
regardless of the data quality, and they are generally assumed to be 
representative of long-term averages for all facilities in the source 
category (i.e., a population average).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ For more information on emission factors and their uses, 
see: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has received feedback from stakeholders asserting that many 
of the EPA's emission factors are outdated or not representative of a 
particular industry emission source. While the EPA believes that the 
emission factors are suitable for their intended purpose, we also 
recognize that emissions profiles on different pieces of equipment can 
change over time due to a number of factors (fuel changes, equipment 
improvements, industry work practices), and it is important for 
emission factors to be updated to keep up with these changes. The EPA 
is currently pursuing emission factor development improvements that 
include procedures to incorporate the source test data that we are 
proposing be submitted electronically. By requiring

[[Page 41819]]

the electronic submission of the reports identified in this proposed 
action, the EPA would be able to access and use the submitted data to 
update emission factors more quickly and efficiently, creating factors 
that are characteristic of what is currently representative of the 
industry sector. Likewise, an increase in the number of test reports 
used to develop the emission factors will provide more confidence that 
the factor is of higher quality and representative of the whole 
industry sector. The EPA's new emission factor development procedures 
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/efpac/procedures/index.html) that 
incorporate the use of electronic test data automatically perform 
routines to indicate when a factor is no longer representative of an 
industry sector based on current data and calculates an updated factor. 
Because these routines are run automatically, the process is quick, and 
we are able to provide representative factors sooner. Emission factors 
are used in the development of emissions inventories, and as such, 
improved emission factors means that the quality of these inventories 
will be improved on a much quicker scale than they would under the 
current paper reporting requirements.
    The electronic reporting system will also result in information 
that is submitted in a standardized format. Standardizing the reporting 
format will require the reporting of specific data elements, thereby 
helping to ensure completeness of the data and allowing for accurate 
assessment of data quality. In the past, incomplete test reports have 
resulted in lower quality emission factors because the data could not 
be adequately reviewed to determine representativeness. Imbedded 
quality assurance checks will perform some of the required method 
calculations, reducing errors in test reports. The system will perform 
statistical analyses routines to evaluate below detection limit data 
and outliers prior to performing the emission factor calculations. The 
result will be a factor of the highest quality rating that is most 
representative for the source category. And because the system is 
entirely electronic, it eliminates transcription errors in moving data 
from paper reports to data systems for analysis. These quality 
assurance checks and procedures will increase the accuracy of test 
report data, improve the overall quality of test data, and lead to more 
accurate emission factors and higher quality emissions inventories. 
These features benefit all users of the data.
    Because those records, data, and reports that will be required to 
be submitted to the EPA electronically will be stored safely and will 
be available to all stakeholders at all times, we propose that industry 
should be required to maintain only electronic copies of these records 
to satisfy federal recordkeeping requirements. Thus, in this 
rulemaking, we are proposing to eliminate the requirement to maintain 
hard copies of records, data, and reports submitted to the EPA's CDX. 
This provision will benefit industry sources that currently maintain 
these reports in hardcopy form; no more rooms of file cabinets to store 
these reports will be needed, while maintaining the accessibility of 
this information on site. We note, however, that air agencies that 
require submission of reports in hardcopy form may also require 
hardcopy records.
    We plan to store records, data, and reports submitted to the EPA's 
CDX electronically in two sites (CDX and WebFIRE), with frequent 
backups. Upon submission of a report, CEDRI will archive a copy of each 
submitted report in the CDX (this copy becomes the official copy of 
record). Both WebFIRE and CDX backup their files on a daily basis. The 
EPA's National Computer Center (where the WebFIRE files are stored) 
maintains a dual back-up file (one kept on site and the other stored 
off site). The CDX also employs a dual backup system to avoid problems 
in the event of a catastrophe at the location of the servers storing 
the files. Thus, the EPA has established redundancy into the electronic 
reporting and storage system to ensure submitted data are retained. In 
summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control 
strategy development, and other air pollution control activities, 
having an electronic database populated with these reports would save 
industry; state, local, and tribal agencies; and the EPA significant 
time, money, and effort while also improving the quality of emission 
inventories and, as a result, air quality regulations.

F. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements

    During implementation of subpart WWW, the question has been raised 
about whether a landfill needs agency approval to establish higher 
operating values for temperature, nitrogen, or oxygen as allowed under 
subpart WWW (40 CFR 60.753(c)). Subpart WWW (40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(1)(B)) 
specifically states that the design plan shall include any alternatives 
to the operational standards, test methods, procedures, compliance 
measures, monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting provisions of subpart 
WWW proposed by the owner or operator. Therefore, the EPA is confirming 
in subpart XXX that alternative values allowed for under subpart XXX 
(40 CFR 60.763(c)) should be submitted for approval by the 
Administrator or the delegated state authority and then, after it is 
approved, submitted again to the Administrator or the delegated state 
authority as part of a design plan revision.
    Another question has been raised during implementation concerning 
supporting data requirements for the allowance of an elevated wellfield 
monitoring parameter. The EPA is clarifying its intent in subpart XXX 
(40 CFR 60.763(c)), such that the demonstration must meet this 
criteria: A higher operating value must not cause fires and must not 
significantly inhibit anaerobic decomposition by killing methanogens.

G. Requirements for Updating Design Plan

    Currently subpart WWW does not directly specify when a design plan 
should be updated and submitted to the Administrator for approval. To 
clarify questions received during implementation on the timing of 
submittals of updated design plans, we are proposing in subpart XXX to 
outline a set of three criteria under a consolidated section 40 CFR 
60.767(h) for when a design plan must be submitted for approval. A 
revised design plan must be submitted for approval: Within 90 days of 
expanding operations to an area not covered by the previously approved 
design plan; before installing or expanding the gas collection system 
in a way that is not consistent the previous design plan; and 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.
    The EPA is proposing to maintain the same site-specific design plan 
review and approval procedures, recognizing the unique site-specific 
topography, climate and other factors affecting the design of a GCCS. 
However, the EPA solicits comment on ways to streamline the design plan 
submission and approval procedures as part of its review of this NSPS. 
Examples of streamlining may include the potential development of a 
process by which approved alternative operating parameters could be 
automatically linked to updates of design plans or development of a 
process by which alternative operating parameters and updated design 
plans could be approved on a similar schedule.

[[Page 41820]]

H. Submitting Corrective Action Timeline Requests

    During implementation of subpart WWW, the question has been raised 
about whether a landfill needs agency approval of corrective action 
timelines that exceed 15 calendar days but are less than the 120 days 
allowed for installing a GCCS. The intent of the rule is to require 
agency approval of corrective action timelines only if a landfill does 
not fix an exceedance in 15 days and is unable to or does not plan to 
expand the gas collection system within 120 days. We have included 
provisions in subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.765(a)(5)) to clarify this point. 
Excluding system expansion, all other types of corrective actions 
expected to exceed 15 calendar days should be submitted to the agency 
for approval of an alternate timeline. In addition, if a landfill owner 
or operator expects the system expansion to exceed the 120-day 
allowance period, it should submit a request and justification for an 
alternative timeline. We have not proposed a specific schedule for 
submitting these requests for alternative corrective action timelines 
because investigating and determining the appropriate corrective 
action, as well as the schedule for implementing the corrective action, 
will be site specific and depend on the reason for the exceedance. We 
clarify that a landfill should submit an alternative time line request 
as soon as possible (i.e., as soon as they know that they would not be 
able to correct the exceedance in 15 days or expand the system in 120 
days) to avoid being in violation of the rule. If the landfill waits 
until 120 days after the exceedance to submit an alternative time line, 
then by the time the regulatory agency has the chance to review the 
time line and determine if it is approvable, the landfill will already 
be in violation of the requirement to expand the system within 120 
days. After submitting the alternative timeline request, the landfill 
should work with its permitting authority to communicate the reasons 
for the exceedances, status of the investigation, and schedule for 
corrective action.
    To address implementation concerns associated with the time allowed 
for corrective action, the EPA requests comment on an alternative that 
extends the requirement for notification from 15 days to as soon as 
practicable, but no later than 60 days. Many requests for an 
alternative compliance timeline express the need for additional time to 
make necessary repairs to a well that requires significant construction 
activities. Extending the time period to as soon as practicable, but no 
later than 60 days may reduce the burden and ensure sufficient time for 
correction. If the EPA were to extend the time period to as soon as 
practicable, but no later than 60 days, then the EPA is also 
considering the removal of the provision to submit an alternative 
timeline for correcting the exceedance. Thus, by no later than day 60, 
the landfill would have to either have completed the adjustments and 
repairs necessary to correct the exceedance, or be prepared to have the 
system expansion completed by day 120. The EPA is also requesting input 
on whether 60 days is the appropriate amount of time that would allow 
owners or operators to make the necessary repairs.

I. Other Corrections and Clarifications

    The clarifications and provisions described in this section apply 
to new subpart XXX. During implementation of subpart WWW, the EPA 
learned about potential confusion in the rule caused by the terms 
``control and treatment system'' and ``control system.'' It was 
requested that the EPA revise the term ``control or treatment system'' 
to read ``control system.'' We agree that the term treatment system is 
a subset of the control system as described in subpart WWW (40 CFR 
60.752(b)(2)(iii)(C)) and are proposing to make this change in proposed 
subpart XXX. While making this change, we also conducted an extensive 
review of the remainder of the rule text to make several editorial and 
consistency changes to how the terms ``control system'' and 
``collection and control system'' were used. As part of this review, we 
clarified our intent for the terms ``device'' and ``equipment'' to be 
used interchangeably with ``system'' in the context of the landfills 
NSPS; and we are proposing to replace these terms with ``system'' in 
several places, as appropriate, for consistency. We also identified 
editorial inconsistencies in the use of how the terms ``control 
system'' and ``collection and control system'' were referenced and we 
are proposing in subpart XXX to change the text to reference the 
correct term, consistent with the intent of the rule text.
    We propose to include language in subpart XXX to exempt owners or 
operators of boilers and process heaters with design capacities of 44 
megawatts or greater from the requirement to conduct an initial 
performance test. Available data demonstrate that boilers and process 
heaters with heat input capacities of 44 megawatts or greater 
consistently achieve the required level of control, and the exemption 
of these boilers from testing has been included in several other air 
regulations, such as those for the chemical industry and petroleum 
refineries.
    We propose to apply new language in subpart XXX (40 CFR 
60.768(b)(2)(i) and 40 CFR 60.768(c)(1)(i)) by removing the term 
``combustion'' from the requirement to monitor temperature of enclosed 
combustors. The amendment clarifies that the ``combustion'' temperature 
does not have to be monitored, because, for some enclosed combustors, 
it is not possible to monitor temperature inside the combustion chamber 
to determine combustion temperature. Instead, temperature can be 
monitored at another location, as long as the monitored temperature 
relates to proper operation of the enclosed combustor.
    We propose to include a corrected test method cross-reference in 
subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.765(c)(3)) necessitated by the reorganization of 
Method 21 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
    We propose to include definitions of ``household waste'' and 
``segregated yard waste'' in subpart XXX (40 CFR 60.761) to clarify our 
intent regarding the applicability of subpart XXX to landfills that do 
not accept household waste, but accept segregated yard waste. We intend 
for subpart XXX to apply to municipal solid waste landfills that accept 
general household waste (including garbage, trash, sanitary waste), as 
indicated in the definitions. We did not intend these rules to apply to 
landfills that accept only segregated yard waste and non-household 
waste such as construction and demolition and yard waste.
    We are clarifying the definition of ``Modification'' in subpart XXX 
to include an increase in the permitted design capacity in terms of not 
only the volume, but also the mass.
    The EPA is exploring options to achieve additional emissions 
reductions from existing landfills under CAA section 111(d) in an 
ANPRM. The EPA will consider all of the information it receives in 
response to the ANPRM in the context of its review of the NSPS and will 
respond to that information accordingly. In light of our interest in 
valuing methane reductions in our review of these standards as well as 
the number of cost-effective measures for existing landfills described 
in the ANPRM, the EPA is also exploring whether it is reasonable to 
review the definition of modification for landfills. A revision to the 
definition may provide additional opportunities to apply cost-effective 
measures to mitigate landfill gas emissions in modified sources because 
of the close relationship of control strategies that may apply to both 
modified landfills and existing sources.

[[Page 41821]]

The EPA requests comment on changes that may be appropriate and whether 
these changes should be enacted to achieve additional emissions 
reductions.

IX. Request for Comment on Specific Provisions

    The EPA is specifically requesting public comment on three issues: 
Landfill gas treatment, wellhead monitoring, and enhanced surface 
monitoring.

A. Definitions for Treated Landfill Gas and Treatment System and 
Treatment System Monitoring

    The EPA is requesting public comment on an alternative approach for 
defining treatment system and treated landfill gas. The alternative 
approach would define Treated landfill gas as landfill gas processed in 
a treatment system according to subpart XXX and would define Treatment 
system as a system that filters, de-waters, and compresses landfill 
gas. The alternative approach would be available for only new landfills 
subject to subpart XXX that treat the landfill gas for subsequent sale 
or beneficial use. The EPA is considering providing this flexibility 
for new landfills that beneficially use landfill gas, given the site-
specific and end-use specific treatment requirements for different 
energy recovery technologies. The EPA is also requesting comment on 
providing this flexibility for all landfills. Most landfills that 
beneficially use landfill gas either combust the landfill gas in a 
device that achieves 98 percent destruction of NMOCs or they treat gas 
for sale or on-site use. This level of treatment and subsequent 
combustion not only achieves the environmental benefits of reducing 
landfill gas emissions, but also utilizes landfill gas as an energy 
resource.
    This technical aspects of this alternative approach are consistent 
with public comments on previous notices (67 FR 36475, May 23, 2002 and 
71 FR 53271, September 8, 2006). It is also consistent with input from 
the SERs and recent Federalism consultation participants who stated 
that the extent of filtration, de-watering, and compression can be site 
dependent, and that different sites require different levels of gas 
treatment to protect the combustion devices that use treated landfill 
gas as a fuel and ensure good combustion. The alternative treatment 
provisions are also consistent with the 2002 proposed definition of 
treatment system as ``a system that filters, de-waters, and compresses 
landfill gas.'' The alternative definition of treatment system gas 
allows the level of treatment to be tailored to the type and design of 
the specific combustion equipment in which the landfill gas is used. 
Instead of meeting numerical specifications for treated landfill gas, 
owners/operators would specify the level of treatment based on the type 
and design of the specific combustion equipment that uses the treated 
landfill gas. Owners/operators would identify monitoring parameters and 
keep records that demonstrate that such parameters effectively monitor 
filtration, de-watering, or compression system performance necessary 
for the end use of the treated landfill gas. We are also proposing to 
define ``treated landfill gas'' to mean landfill gas processed in a 
treatment system. The intent of the treatment option is to require 
active lowering of the dew point consistent with the better available 
treatment systems, as such, we did not intend knock-out pots (for 
example) to qualify.
    Owners/operators would develop a site-specific treatment system 
monitoring plan that would not only accommodate site-specific and end-
use specific treatment requirements for different energy recovery 
technologies, but would also ensure environmental protection. Most 
landfill owners and operators that treat landfill gas combust the 
landfill gas in a combustion device that achieves 98 percent 
destruction of NMOCs. Thus, the treatment option offers a similar level 
of environmental protection as combusting the landfill gas. Landfill 
owners and operators that are beneficially using landfill gas are 
motivated to efficiently treat landfill gas for the intended purpose in 
order to protect energy recovery equipment, maintain warranties on 
equipment, and meet the gas specifications often specified in 
contractual requirements with third parties purchasing the gas. Thus, 
preparing the monitoring plan would document procedures to ensure that 
the landfill gas has been adequately treated for the intended use. 
Having a properly operated and efficient treatment system should 
minimize downtime of the entire GCCS (or routing of the landfill gas to 
a flare due to shutdown of end-use equipment) because the end-use 
equipment will continue to operate properly and will need less 
maintenance if the gas is treated appropriately. By minimizing downtime 
of the entire system, the destruction of NMOC will be maximized.
    The plan would be required to include monitoring parameters 
addressing all three elements of treatment (filtration, de-watering, 
and compression) to ensure the treatment system is operating properly 
for the intended end use of the treated landfill gas. The plan would be 
required to include monitoring methods, frequencies, and operating 
ranges for each monitored operating parameter based on manufacturer's 
recommendations or engineering analysis for the intended end use of the 
treated landfill gas. Documentation of the monitoring methods and 
ranges, along with justification, must be included in the site-specific 
monitoring plan. In the plan, the owner/operator would also need to 
identify who is responsible (by job title) for data collection, explain 
the processes and methods used to collect the necessary data, and 
describe the procedures and methods that are used for quality 
assurance, maintenance, and repair of all continuous monitoring 
systems.
    The monitoring plan may rely on references to existing corporate 
documents (e.g., standard operating procedures, quality assurance 
programs or other documents) provided that the elements required by the 
monitoring plan are easily recognizable.
    The owner or operator would be required to revise the monitoring 
plan to reflect changes in processes, monitoring instrumentation, and 
quality assurance procedures; or to improve procedures for the 
maintenance and repair of monitoring systems to reduce the frequency of 
monitoring equipment downtime.
    The plan must be kept on site and must be available for inspection. 
In addition, upon request by the Administrator, the owner or operator 
would be required to make all information that is collected in 
conjunction with the monitoring plan available for review during an 
audit or inspection.

B. Wellhead Monitoring Requirements

    The EPA is requesting public comment on alternative wellhead 
monitoring requirements in proposed subpart XXX. One alternative 
monitoring provision could be in the form of an exclusion from the 
temperature and oxygen/nitrogen monitoring requirements, or a reduction 
in the frequency of monitoring. For example, the EPA could reduce the 
frequency of wellhead monitoring for these three parameters 
(temperature and oxygen/nitrogen) from monthly to a quarterly or semi-
annual schedule. Owners or operators would continue to monitor the 
wellhead for negative pressure.
    The EPA is specifically requesting comment on whether this 
adjustment should apply only to landfills that

[[Page 41822]]

beneficially use landfill gas, and if so whether any quantity of the 
recovered LFG should qualify for alternative wellhead monitoring. 
Alternatively, the EPA is requesting comment on whether it would be 
more appropriate to require a certain percentage of the overall 
recovered LFG to be beneficially used in order to exempt landfills from 
or reduce the frequency of the wellhead monitoring requirements. The 
EPA also requests comments on the availability of this flexibility to 
small entities owning or operating landfills, regardless of beneficial 
use.
    The EPA would provide these alternatives to encourage new landfills 
to beneficially use landfill gas. Both of these alternative options 
(exclusion or reduced monitoring frequency) would provide monitoring 
relief to these landfills. Landfill owners and operators must operate 
their GCCS in a manner that collects the most landfill gas and 
minimizes losses of landfill gas through the surface of the landfill. 
In addition, landfills would still have to prepare and submit to the 
regulating authority a gas collection design plan, prepared by a 
professional engineer.
    As proposed, subpart XXX requires landfill owners and operators to 
operate each interior wellhead in the collection system with a landfill 
gas temperature less than 55 [deg]C and with either a nitrogen level 
less than 20 percent or an oxygen level less than 5 percent. Instead of 
having the landfill owner or operator conduct monthly monitoring of 
temperature and nitrogen/oxygen at the wellheads, the EPA is 
considering relying on landfill surface emission monitoring 
requirements in combination with maintenance of negative pressure at 
wellheads to indicate proper operation of the GCCS and minimization of 
surface emissions. The potential removal of the temperature and 
nitrogen/oxygen operational standards and associated wellhead 
monitoring requirements for these three parameters would be 
complemented by the surface monitoring provisions discussed in this 
preamble. As discussed in section VII.F and VIII.F of this preamble, we 
are reiterating that landfills must monitor all cover penetrations and 
openings within the area of the landfill where waste has been placed 
and a gas collection system is required.
    Given recent technological advancements in data storage and 
transmission, the EPA is also considering an alternative to automate 
the wellhead monthly monitoring provisions. Automation could reduce 
long-term burden on landfill owner/operators as well as delegated 
authorities by allowing for a more frequent, but less labor-intensive, 
data collection system consisting of remote wellhead sensors (i.e. 
thermistors, electronic pressure transducers, oxygen cells) and a 
centralized data logger.
    The use of continuous monitoring would allow more immediate 
detection and repair. This would eliminate the time between when the 
exceedance of the parameter occurs and when it is detected. It could 
also improve enforceability of the rule by allowing inspectors to 
review information on the data logger in real time during a site visit. 
Another advantage to automating the monitoring is that it could provide 
flexibility for incorporating additional parameters into the monitoring 
program. The EPA is soliciting comment on this alternative, including 
the types of parameters that are best suited for an automated 
monitoring alternative, examples of successful automated monitoring 
programs at MSW landfills and their associated costs, additional 
considerations for equipment calibration, and input on any averaging 
times that might be appropriate to determine when one or more monitored 
parameters have been exceeded.

C. Enhanced Surface Monitoring Requirements

    The EPA is requesting public comment on potential alternative 
approaches to the surface emission monitoring in proposed subpart XXX. 
Subpart XXX collection and control requirements are intended for 
landfills to maintain a tight cover that minimizes any emissions of 
landfill gas through the surface. The surface emissions monitoring 
procedures in proposed subpart XXX require quarterly surface emissions 
monitoring to demonstrate that the cover and gas collection system are 
working properly. The operational requirements in subpart XXX (40 CFR 
60.763(d)) specify that the landfill must `` . . . operate the 
collection system so that the methane concentration is less than 500 
parts per million above background at the surface of the landfill. To 
determine if this level is exceeded, the owner or operator shall 
conduct surface testing around the perimeter of the collection area and 
along a pattern that traverses the landfill at 30 meter intervals and 
where visual observations indicate elevated concentrations of landfill 
gas, such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover.''
    Proposed subpart XXX requires quarterly monitoring and includes 
provisions for increased monitoring and corrective procedures if 
readings above 500 ppm are detected. Instrumentation specifications, 
monitoring frequencies, and monitoring patterns are structured to 
provide clear and straightforward procedures that are the minimum 
necessary to assure compliance.
    In this document, we are requesting public comment on potential 
alternatives to the surface monitoring procedures in proposed subpart 
XXX. Potential alternatives could include provisions such as those in a 
California regulation (provisions in California Air Resources Board, 
Final Regulation Order, Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste 
Landfills (Article 4, Subarticle 6, sections 95460 to 95476, title 17, 
California Code of Regulations)) and include changing the walking 
pattern that traverses the landfill, adding an integrated methane 
concentration measurement, and allowing sampling only when wind is 
below a certain speed.
    For subpart XXX, we are requesting comment on reducing the interval 
for the walking pattern that traverses the landfill from 30 meters (98 
ft.) to 25 ft. We are also requesting comment on the addition of a 
methane concentration limit of 25 ppm as determined by integrated 
surface emissions monitoring. This would be in addition to the 500 ppm 
emission concentration as determined by instantaneous surface emissions 
monitoring. Integrated surface emissions monitoring provides an average 
surface emission concentration across a specified area. For integrated 
surface emissions monitoring, the specified area would be individually 
identified 50,000 square foot grids. A tighter walking pattern and the 
addition of an integrated methane concentration would more thoroughly 
ensure that the collection system is being operated properly, that the 
landfill cover and cover material are adequate, and that methane 
emissions from the landfill surface are minimized. As part of these 
potential changes, the EPA is also considering not allowing surface 
monitoring when the average wind speed exceeds 5 miles per hour or the 
instantaneous wind speed exceeds 10 miles per hour because air movement 
can affect whether the monitor is accurately reading the methane 
concentration during surface monitoring. We are considering this change 
because measurements during windy periods are usually not 
representative of the emissions.
    The EPA estimated the costs associated with both the proposed 
subpart XXX surface monitoring requirements (which are the same as the 
surface monitoring requirements in subpart WWW) and potential changes 
to the surface monitoring provisions under

[[Page 41823]]

the proposed option 2.4/40 and applied them to the set of new landfills 
that would be subject to control requirements under the respective 
option. To determine the costs, the EPA used the following assumptions: 
Most landfills will hire a contractor to conduct the quarterly 
monitoring. The landfill will incur labor costs based on the time it 
takes to walk the traverse (hours per acre), the size of the landfill 
(acres), and a labor rate (dollars per hour). The landfill will also 
incur an equipment rental rate (dollars per hour). Equipment rental 
rates are dollars per day/week/month, depending on the size of the 
landfill and time to traverse the acreage during each quarterly period. 
See the docketed memo ``Methodology for Estimating Testing and 
Monitoring Costs for the MSW Landfill Regulations. 2014,'' which 
contains the details for determining the costs that a landfill would 
incur to conduct enhanced surface monitoring.
    Using the techniques discussed in section V.A of this preamble, the 
EPA estimated the number of landfills that are expected to install 
controls under the baseline, as well as the proposed option 2.5/40. 
Then, the EPA applied surface monitoring costs to the respective set of 
landfills because landfills that must install controls must also 
conduct surface monitoring. Table 5 of this preamble compares the 
enhanced surface monitoring costs that would be incurred for new 
landfills under the baseline and proposed option 2.5/40.

                              Table 5--Comparison of Baseline Surface Monitoring Versus Enhanced Surface Monitoring in 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                            Incremental
                                     Surface monitoring      Number of       Number of     Total annual     Incremental   Total cost per     cost per
          Control option                   option            landfills       landfills     cost (2012$)        cost         controlled      controlled
                                                             affected       controlling                                      landfill        landfill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (2.5/50).................  No change (30 meter               17               8          42,300             N/A           5,300             N/A
                                     traverse).
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Enhanced (25-foot                 17               8         312,800         270,500          39,100          33,800
                                     traverse,
                                     integrated sample).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed option (2.5/40)..........  No change (30 meter               17              11          50,000           7,700           4,500             700
                                     traverse).
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Enhanced (25-foot                 17              11         362,900         320,600          33,000          29,100
                                     traverse,
                                     integrated sample).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several factors contribute to the cost of enhanced surface 
monitoring. Monitoring along a traverse with a 25 ft. interval would 
increase monitoring time, and thus the labor costs, compared to 
monitoring along a 30 meter (98 ft.) interval. Monitoring along the 
tighter traverse pattern would take approximately four times as long, 
because the distance is approximately four times. For a landfill to 
conduct the integrated surface emissions monitoring, the EPA assumed 
the landfill would rent a handheld portable vapor analyzer with a data 
logger. The data logger is necessary to obtain an integrated reading 
over a single 50,000 square foot grid. However, the EPA does not expect 
that requiring an integrated methane concentration would add 
significant cost because landfills could use the same instrument that 
they currently use for the instantaneous readings and these instruments 
can be programmed to provide an integrated value as well as an 
instantaneous value.
    The EPA recognizes that these provisions could reduce surface 
emissions and that these emissions reductions are difficult to 
quantify. The EPA also understands that there are potential 
implementation concerns with these enhanced procedures. Surface 
monitoring is a labor intensive process and tightening the grid pattern 
would increase costs. Of the eight landfills expected to install 
controls under the baseline, it would take these landfills over 29 
hours, on average, to complete each quarterly traverse pattern. 
Tightening the traverse pattern to 25-feet instead of 30-meters would 
require over 79 hours per quarter, or more than 200 additional hours 
per year compared to the current 30-meter traverse pattern. At this 
time, the EPA is not proposing surface monitoring provisions that 
differ from those outlined in subpart WWW, but we are soliciting 
comment on techniques and data to estimate the emission reductions 
associated with enhanced surface monitoring.
    The EPA is requesting comment on allowing the use of alternative 
remote measurement and monitoring techniques for landfills that exceed 
the surface monitoring concentrations in subpart XXX. The EPA would 
like information to determine whether or not to allow these alternative 
techniques to be used to demonstrate that surface emissions are below 
the methane surface concentrations in the subpart XXX. Alternative 
remote measurement and monitoring techniques may include radial plume 
mapping (RPM), optical remote sensing, Fourier Transform Infrared 
(FTIR) spectroscopy, cavity ringdown spectroscopy (CRDS), tunable diode 
laser (TDL), tracer correlation, micrometeorological eddy-covariance, 
static flux chamber, or differential absorption. The EPA is also 
seeking comment on the frequency of testing and the format of the 
standard to use these technologies as an alternative to average surface 
concentration as measured by Method 21. Incorporation of these 
technologies in subpart XXX would require a change in format of the 
standard to be consistent with the technology.

D. Alternative Emission Threshold Determination Techniques

    The EPA is considering adjusting the emission threshold 
determinations that dictate when a GCCS must be installed, including 
variations in the modeling parameters as well as adding site-specific 
emission threshold determination. These alternatives may provide 
additional reporting and compliance flexibilities for owners and 
operators of affected landfills.
1. Modeling Adjustments
    As proposed, subpart XXX has three different tiers available to an 
affected landfill to estimate whether or not the landfill exceeds the 
NMOC emission threshold of 50 Mg per year. The

[[Page 41824]]

simplest Tier 1 calculation method uses default values for the 
potential methane generation capacity (L0) and methane 
generation rate (k) to determine when the landfill exceeds the 50 Mg 
NMOC per year emission rate cutoff. The default L0 is 170 
m\3\ per Mg of waste (equal to 5,458 cubic feet methane per ton of 
waste) and the k values are 0.05 per year for areas receiving 25 inches 
or more of rainfall per year and 0.02 per year for areas receiving less 
than 25 inches of rainfall. The Tier 1 default NMOC concentration is 
4,000 ppmv as hexane. If the Tier 1 calculated NMOC exceeds 50 Mg per 
year, the landfill must install controls or demonstrate, using more 
complex Tier 2 or 3 procedures, that NMOC emissions are less than 50 Mg 
per year.
    The EPA is soliciting comment on allowing for alternative Tier 1 
default values and modeling techniques based on the amount of organics 
in the waste. For example, the L0 is a function of the 
moisture content and organic content of the waste and L0 
decreases as the amount of organic matter decreases. Recent studies 
have shown that average U.S. landfill L0 values have 
decreased 22 percent between 1990 and 2012 (from 102.6 m\3\ per Mg of 
waste to 79.8 m\3\ per Mg of waste) due to increased recovery of 
organic materials.\27\ Subpart XXX could allow for landfill-specific 
L0 values to be calculated based on the amount of degradable 
organic carbon (DOC), similar to components of Equation HH-1 in the 
GHGRP for MSW landfills (40 CFR part 98 subpart HH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Stege, Alex. The Effects of Organic Waste Diversion on LFG 
Generation and Recovery from U.S. Landfills. SWANA's 37th Annual 
Landfill Gas Symposium. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subpart HH of the GHGRP also provides separate k-values for 
different types of materials, which could be used as alternate Tier 1 
default values in the revised NSPS. Sewage sludge and food waste have 
the highest k values, followed by garden waste, diapers, paper, 
textiles, and wood and straw.\11\
    The IPCC model employs a modeling method to accommodate separate k 
and DOC modeling parameters as well as separate calculations for six 
different categories of organic wastes.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), IPCC 
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 5 
(Waste), Chapter 3 (Solid Waste Disposal). 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the EPA incorporates alternative Tier 1 modeling values in 
subpart XXX, the EPA would also need to allow for an alternative first-
order decay model structure to compute a total methane generation rate 
for the landfill based on the sum of the methane generated from each 
separate waste stream. This alternative model may incorporate material-
specific k and L0 values, instead of a single pair of k and 
L0 values applied to bulk MSW. The EPA requests comment on 
whether the alternative modeling parameters and model structure in 
subpart HH, or other default parameters or modeling procedures would be 
appropriate to use for emission threshold determinations in subpart 
XXX.
2. Site-Specific Measurements
    Under the proposed subpart XXX, there are three different tiers 
available to an affected landfill to estimate whether or not the 
landfill exceeds the NMOC emission threshold of 50 Megagrams per year. 
If an affected landfill fails a Tier 2 test (i.e., the calculated NMOC 
emissions are greater than 50 Mg/year), then the landfill must conduct 
Tier 3 testing or install and operate an active GCCS. The EPA received 
comments while conducting outreach with small entities that recommended 
a new Tier 4 surface emission monitoring (SEM) demonstration to allow 
increased flexibility for landfills that exceed modeled NMOC emission 
rates if they can demonstrate that site-specific methane emissions are 
low. This SEM demonstration would be conducted using similar procedures 
in proposed subpart XXX (see proposed 40 CFR 60.765(d)). If the 
monitoring finds that methane emissions are below a level that the EPA 
finalizes in the NSPS review, then installation of a GCCS could be 
delayed.
    As an example, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) adopted the 
Methane Emissions from MSW Landfills regulation in 2009.\29\ Under this 
rule, if a landfill exceeds the waste-in-place and heat input 
thresholds, the landfill may conduct an SEM demonstration prior to 
being required to install a GCCS. If the surface methane emissions show 
any exceedances above 200 ppm the landfill must install a GCCS. This 
SEM demonstration is similar to the Tier 4 option being considered by 
the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ California Code of Regulations, title 17, subchapter 10, 
article 4, subarticle 6, section 95463, Methane Emissions from 
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is soliciting comment about this new Tier 4 option or other 
ideas for more flexible emission threshold determination ``Tiers'' and 
what implementation procedures for each determination may be 
appropriate. As the EPA takes this new Tier 4 option under 
consideration, there are some implementation procedures that would need 
to be established. The EPA requests comment on all aspects of 
implementing a new Tier 4 option, including the following specific 
items: (1) Which areas of the landfill would be subject to SEM 
requirements because these areas would no longer be limited to areas 
with GCCS installed for applicability purposes; (2) what number of 
exceedances over a specified time period that would require GCCS 
installation (proposed subpart XXX specifies a new well must be 
installed at three or more exceedances in a quarter); (3) what 
frequency of SEM demonstration (e.g., quarterly monitoring for 
landfills accepting waste, annual monitoring for closed landfills) is 
appropriate; and (4) what exceedance level is appropriate for 
determining if a GCCS must be installed (200 ppm or some other level).

X. Impacts of Proposed Revisions

    The impacts shown in this section are expressed as the incremental 
difference between facilities affected by baseline and the proposed 
reduction of the NMOC emission threshold to 40 Mg/yr from the current 
NSPS level of 50 Mg/yr. There are incremental costs, emissions, and 
secondary impacts associated with capturing and/or utilizing the 
additional LFG under this proposal.
    As discussed in section V.B of this preamble, 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 
(year 2023) because the landfills regulations require controls at a 
given landfill only after the increasing NMOC emission rate reaches the 
level of the regulatory threshold. 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 
2023, over half of the modeled new landfills are expected to have 
installed controls and thus, the EPA considered the impacts of the 
proposal relative to the baseline in 2023, as discussed in section V.B 
and VI of this preamble. The methodology for estimating the impacts of 
the NSPS is discussed in section VI of this preamble and in the 
docketed memorandum ``Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emission 
Impacts of MSW Landfills Regulations. 2014.'' The results of applying 
this methodology to the population of future landfills potentially 
subject to this proposal are in the

[[Page 41825]]

docketed memorandum ``Cost and Emission Impacts Resulting from the 
Landfill NSPS Review. 2014.'' The impacts of subpart XXX are summarized 
as the impacts to new landfills estimated to be built during the first 
5 years of the standards, between 2014 and 2018. Table 3 of this 
preamble summarizes the emission reductions and costs associated with 
the control options considered.

A. What are the air quality impacts?

    The proposal would achieve an additional 13 percent reduction in 
NMOC from landfills constructed since 2013, or 79 Mg/yr, when compared 
to the baseline, as shown in Table 6 of this preamble. The proposal 
would also achieve substantial reductions in methane emissions. These 
reductions are achieved by reducing the NMOC threshold from 50 Mg/yr to 
40 Mg/yr.

    Table 6--Emission Reductions in 2023 for New Landfills Subject to
            Additional Controls Under Proposed Option 2.5/40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Parameter                             Quantity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline NMOC Emission Reductions      610.
 (Mg) \a\.
Proposed Incremental NMOC Emission     79.
 Reductions (Mg).
Baseline Methane Emission Reductions   94,800.
 (Mg) \a\.
Proposed Methane Emission Reductions   12,300.
 (Mg).
Baseline Methane Emission Reductions   2.4 million.
 (Mg CO2e) \a\.
Proposed Methane Emission Reductions   307,600.
 (Mg CO2e).
% Emission Reduction from Proposal...  13% below baseline.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These are the reductions that would be achieved from new landfills
  if subpart XXX retained the same gas collection and control
  requirements that are in subpart WWW.

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 precipitation-based 
leachate. Collected leachate can be treated on site or transported off 
site to wastewater treatment facilities. Some landfills have received 
permits allowing for recirculation of leachate in the landfill, which 
may further reduce the volume of leachate requiring treatment. 
Additional liquid generated from gas condensate is not expected to be 
significant and insufficient data are available to estimate the 
increases in leachate resulting from expanded gas collection and 
control requirements.
    The additional gas collection and control components required by 
this proposal have finite lifetimes (approximately 15 years) and these 
pipes and wells will be disposed of at the end of their useful life. 
There are insufficient data to quantify the solid waste resulting from 
disposal of this control infrastructure.
    Further, the incremental costs of control for the proposal are not 
expected to have an appreciable market effect on the waste disposal 
costs, tipping fees, or the amount of solid waste disposed in landfills 
because the costs for gas collection represent a small portion of the 
overall costs to design, construct, and operate a landfill. There is 
insufficient information to quantify the effect increased gas control 
costs might have on the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills 
versus other disposal mechanisms as recycling, waste-to-energy, or 
composting.

C. What are the secondary air impacts?

    Secondary air impacts may include grid emissions from purchasing 
electricity to operate the GCCS components, by-product emissions from 
combustion of landfill gas in flares or energy recovery devices, and 
offsets to conventional grid emissions from new landfill gas energy 
supply.
    The secondary air impacts are presented as net impacts, considering 
both the energy demand and energy supply resulting from the proposal. 
The methodology used to prepare the estimated secondary impacts for 
this preamble is discussed in the docketed memorandum ``Estimating 
Secondary Impacts of the Landfills NSPS Review. 2014.''
    Because NOX and SO2 are covered by capped 
emissions trading programs, and methodological limitations prevent us 
from quantifying the change in CO and PM, we do not estimate an 
increase in secondary air impacts for this rule from additional demand 
for grid purchased electricity to operate control systems. The net 
impacts were computed for mercury and CO2e. After 
considering the offsets from LFG electricity, the impacts of the 
proposal are expected to reduce overall mercury emissions by 577 tons 
per year (tpy) and reduce CO2 emissions by 26,139 tpy. These 
CO2 emission reductions are in addition to the 
CO2e emission reductions achieved from the direct 
destruction of methane in flares or engines presented in Table 6 of 
this preamble.

D. What are the energy impacts?

    The proposal is expected to have a very minimal impact on energy 
supply and consumption. Active gas collection systems require energy to 
operate the blowers and pumps and the proposal will increase the volume 
of landfill gas collected. When the least cost control is a flare, 
energy may be purchased from the grid to operate the blowers of the 
landfill gas collection system. However, when the least cost control 
option is an engine, the engine may provide this energy to the gas 
control system and then sell the excess to the grid. Considering the 
balance of energy generated and demanded from the estimated least cost 
controls, the proposal is estimated to have a net impact of 42,400 
megawatt hours (MWh) of additional energy supply per year.

E. What are the cost impacts?

    To meet the proposed emission limits, a landfill is expected to 
install the least cost control for combusting the landfill gas. The 
cost estimates (described in sections V and VI of this preamble) 
evaluated each landfill to determine whether a gas collection and flare 
or a gas collection with flare and engine equipment would be least 
cost, after considering local power buyback rates and whether the 
quantity of landfill gas was sufficient to generate electricity. The 
control costs include the costs to install and operate gas collection 
infrastructure such as wells, header pipes, blowers, and an enclosed 
flare. For landfills where the least cost control option was an engine, 
the costs also

[[Page 41826]]

include the cost to install and operate one or more reciprocating 
internal combustion engines to convert the landfill gas into 
electricity. Revenue from electricity sales was incorporated into the 
net control costs using state-specific data on wholesale purchase 
prices, where engines were deemed to be the least cost control option. 
Testing and monitoring costs at controlled landfills include the cost 
to conduct initial performance tests on the enclosed flare or engine 
control equipment, quarterly surface monitoring, continuous combustion 
monitoring, and monthly wellhead monitoring. At uncontrolled landfills, 
the testing and monitoring costs include calculation and reporting of 
NMOC emission rates using either Tier 1 or Tier 2 testing.
    The nationwide incremental annualized net cost for the proposal is 
$471,000, of which $5,900 is testing and monitoring costs. Table 7 of 
this preamble presents the costs.

  Table 7--Incremental Cost Impacts in 2023 for New Landfills Subject to Additional Controls Under the Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Average
                                   Total number                       Average       annualized      Average net
             Option                of landfills     Annualized      annualized      testing and        total
                                     incurring     control cost       revenue       monitoring      annualized
                                      cost a                                           cost            cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Total Costs of Baseline ($2012)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline 2.5/50.................              13      23,956,900      21,315,300          66,400       2,708,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Incremental Costs Above Baseline ($2012)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed 2.5/40.................              17       3,178,800       2,713,700           5,900         471,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Under proposal, a total of 11 landfills are expected to install controls by 2023, compared with eight
  landfills under the baseline. A total of 17 landfills meet the design capacity criteria of 2.5 million Mg and
  must report their NMOC emission rates under the proposal. This is the same number of landfills expected to
  report under the baseline.

F. What are the economic impacts?

    Because of the relatively low cost of the proposal and the lack of 
appropriate economic parameters or model, the EPA is unable to estimate 
the impacts of the options on the supply and demand for MSW landfill 
services. However, because of the relatively low incremental costs of 
the proposal, the EPA does not believe the proposal would lead to 
changes in supply and demand for landfill services or waste disposal 
costs, tipping fees, or the amount of waste disposed in landfills. 
Hence, the overall economic impact of the proposal should be minimal on 
the affected industries and their consumers.

G. What are the benefits?

    The proposal is expected to achieve additional emission reductions 
from MSW landfills from landfills constructed, modified or 
reconstructed on or after July 17, 2014. By lowering the NMOC emissions 
threshold to 40 Mg/yr, the proposal would achieve additional reductions 
of 79 Mg NMOC/year, 12,300 Mg/yr methane (307,000 Mg/yr 
CO2e) in 2023. These pollutants are associated with 
substantial health, welfare, and climate effects.
    This rulemaking is not an ``economically significant regulatory 
action'' under Executive Order 12866 because it is not likely to have 
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Therefore, we 
have not conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) or a benefits 
analysis for this rulemaking. Although we expect that these avoided 
emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reduce health 
effects associated with exposure to air pollution related emissions, we 
have not quantified or monetized the benefits of reducing these 
emissions for this rulemaking. This does not imply that there are no 
benefits associated with these emission reductions. We provide a 
qualitative description of benefits associated with reducing these 
pollutants below. When determining if the benefits of an action exceed 
its costs, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct the agency to 
consider qualitative benefits that are difficult to quantity but 
nevertheless essential to consider.

H. What are the health and welfare effects of LFG emissions?

1. Health Impacts of VOC and Various Organic HAP
    The pollutant regulated under the landfills NSPS is ``MSW landfill 
emissions.'' Municipal solid waste landfill emissions, also commonly 
referred to as LFG, are a collection of air pollutants, including 
methane and NMOC, some of which are toxic. LFG generated from 
established waste (waste that has been in place for at least a year) is 
typically composed of roughly 50-percent methane and 50-percent 
CO2 by volume, with less than 1 percent NMOC. The NMOC 
portion of landfill gas can contain a variety of air pollutants, 
including various organic HAPs and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 
Nearly 30 organic HAPs have been identified in uncontrolled landfill 
gas, including benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and vinyl chloride.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    VOC emissions are precursors to both fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) and ozone formation. Exposure to PM2.5 
and ozone is associated with significant public health effects.\31\ 
\32\ PM2.5 is associated with health effects, including 
premature mortality for adults and infants, cardiovascular morbidity 
such as heart attacks, and respiratory morbidity such as asthma 
attacks, acute and chronic bronchitis, hospital admissions and 
emergency room visits, work loss days, restricted activity days and 
respiratory symptoms, as well as visibility impairment.\33\ Ozone is 
associated with

[[Page 41827]]

health effects including premature mortality, lung damage, asthma 
aggravation and other respiratory symptoms, hospital and emergency 
department visits, and school loss days, as well as injury to 
vegetation and climate effects.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ U.S. EPA. 2009. ``Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report).'' EPA-600-R-08-139F. National 
Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP Division. Available at 
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/isa/.
    \32\ U.S. EPA. 2013. ``Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone 
and Related Photochemical Oxidents (Final Report).'' EPA-600-R-10-
076F. National Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP Division. 
Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/isa/.
    \33\ U.S. EPA. 2009. ``Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report).'' EPA-600-R-08-139F. National 
Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP Division. Available at 
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/isa/.
    \34\ U.S. EPA. 2013. ``Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone 
and Related Photochemical Oxidents (Final Report).'' EPA-600-R-10-
076F. National Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP Division. 
Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/isa/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Climate Impacts of Methane Emissions
    In addition to the improvements in air quality and resulting 
benefits to human health and non-climate welfare effects previously 
discussed, this rule is expected to result in climate co-benefits due 
to anticipated methane reductions. In 2012, landfills were the third-
largest anthropogenic source of methane emissions in the United States, 
accounting for approximately 18 percent of domestic methane 
emissions.\35\ Methane is a potent GHG with a global warming potential 
that is 25 times greater than CO2, which accounts for 
methane's stronger absorption of infrared radiation per ton in the 
atmosphere but also its shorter lifetime (on the order of a decade 
compared to centuries or millennia for carbon dioxide).\36\ According 
to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment 
Report, methane is the second leading long-lived climate forcer after 
CO2 globally.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ U.S. EPA. 2012. ``Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2012. Executive Summary.'' Available at 
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2014-Chapter-Executive-Summary.pdf.
    \36\ IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007. Climate Change 
2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 
the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. 
(eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.
    \37\ Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, L.V. Alexander, S.K. 
Allen, N.L. Bindoff, F.-M. Br[eacute]on, J.A. Church, U. Cubasch, S. 
Emori, P. Forster, P. Friedlingstein, N. Gillett, J.M. Gregory, D.L. 
Hartmann, E. Jansen, B. Kirtman, R. Knutti, K. Krishna Kumar, P. 
Lemke, J. Marotzke, V. Masson-Delmotte, G.A. Meehl, I.I. Mokhov, S. 
Piao, V. Ramaswamy, D.Randall, M. Rhein, M. Rojas, C. Sabine, D. 
Shindell, L.D. Talley, D.G. Vaughan and S.-P. Xie. 2013: ``Technical 
Summary. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. 
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of 
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'' [Stocker, T.F., D. 
Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, 
Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in detail in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, climate 
change caused by human emissions of GHGs threatens public health in 
multiple ways. By raising average temperatures, climate change 
increases the likelihood of heat waves, which are associated with 
increased deaths and illnesses. While climate change also increases the 
likelihood of reductions in cold-related mortality, evidence indicates 
that the increases in heat mortality will be larger than the decreases 
in cold mortality in the United States. Compared to a future without 
climate change, climate change is expected to increase ozone pollution 
over broad areas of the United States, including in the largest 
metropolitan areas with the worst ozone problems, and thereby increase 
the risk of morbidity and mortality. Other public health threats also 
stem from projected increases in intensity or frequency of extreme 
weather associated with climate change, such as increased hurricane 
intensity, increased frequency of intense storms, and heavy 
precipitation. Increased coastal storms and storm surges due to rising 
sea levels are expected to cause increased drownings and other health 
impacts. Children, the elderly, and the poor are among the most 
vulnerable to these climate-related health effects.
    As documented in the 2009 Endangerment Finding, climate change 
caused by human emissions of GHGs also threatens public welfare in 
multiple ways. Climate changes are expected to place large areas of the 
country at serious risk of reduced water supplies, increased water 
pollution, and increased occurrence of extreme events such as floods 
and droughts. Coastal areas are expected to face increased risks from 
storm and flooding damage to property, as well as adverse impacts from 
rising sea level, such as land loss due to inundation, erosion, wetland 
submergence and habitat loss. Climate change is expected to result in 
an increase in peak electricity demand, and extreme weather from 
climate change threatens energy, transportation, and water resource 
infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate ongoing environmental 
pressures in certain settlements, particularly in Alaskan indigenous 
communities. Climate change also is very likely to fundamentally 
rearrange U.S. ecosystems over the 21st century. Though some benefits 
may balance adverse effects on agriculture and forestry in the next few 
decades, the body of evidence points towards increasing risks of net 
adverse impacts on U.S. food production, agriculture and forest 
productivity as temperature continues to rise. These impacts are global 
and may exacerbate problems outside the United States that raise 
humanitarian, trade, and national security issues for the United 
States.
    While the EPA recognizes the potential methane reductions resulting 
from the range of changes to the current control framework outlined in 
this proposal would provide for economic climate co-benefits, the EPA 
has not presented monetized estimates of these potential co-benefits 
because the U.S. Government (USG) has not released directly modeled 
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.
    In recent rulemakings expected to have impacts on methane 
emissions, the EPA has considered the benefits of methane emission 
reductions in sensitivity analyses using an approach to approximate the 
value of marginal non-CO2 GHG emission reductions. In these 
sensitivity analyses, the global warming potential is used to convert 
the reductions in methane emissions to CO2-equivalents, 
which are then valued using the USG SC-CO2 estimates. The 
EPA has not presented these estimates in a main benefit-cost analysis 
due to the well-documented limitations associated with using GWP and 
the SC-CO2 to value changes in non-CO2 GHG 
emissions.
    Methane is also a precursor to ground-level ozone, a health-harmful 
air pollutant. Additionally, ozone is a short-lived climate forcer that 
contributes to global warming. In remote areas, methane is a dominant 
precursor to tropospheric ozone formation.\38\ Approximately 50 percent 
of the global annual mean ozone increase since preindustrial times is 
believed to be due to anthropogenic methane.\39\ Projections of future 
emissions also indicate that methane is likely to be a key contributor 
to ozone concentrations in the future.\40\ Unlike NOX and 
VOC, which affect ozone concentrations regionally and at hourly time 
scales, methane emissions

[[Page 41828]]

affect ozone concentrations globally and on decadal time scales given 
methane's relatively long atmospheric lifetime compared to these other 
ozone precursors.\41\ Reducing methane emissions, therefore, may 
contribute to efforts to reduce global background ozone concentrations 
that contribute to the incidence of ozone-related health 
effects.42 43 These benefits are global and occur in both 
urban and rural areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ U.S. EPA. 2013. ``Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone 
and Related Photochemical Oxidents (Final Report).'' EPA-600-R-10-
076F. National Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP Division. 
Available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/isa/.
    \39\ Myhre, G., D. Shindell, F.-M. Br[eacute]on, W. Collins, J. 
Fuglestvedt, J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza, 
T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura and H. Zhang, 2013: 
Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forc[not]ing. In: Climate Change 
2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, 
S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley 
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and 
New York, NY, USA. Pg. 680.
    \40\ Ibid.
    \41\ Ibid.
    \42\ West, J.J., Fiore, A.M. 2005. ``Management of tropospheric 
ozone by reducing methane emissions.'' Environ. Sci. Technol. 
39:4685-4691.
    \43\ Anenberg, S.C., et al. 2009. ``Intercontinental impacts of 
ozone pollution on human mortality,'' Environ. Sci. & Technol. 43: 
6482-6487.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises novel 
legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive 
Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes 
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the 
docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) 
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2498.01.
    The information required to be collected is necessary to identify 
the regulated entities subject to the proposed rule and to ensure their 
compliance with the proposed rule. The recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are mandatory and are being established under authority of 
CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than emissions 
data submitted as part of a report to the agency for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to CAA section 
114(c) and the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart 
B.
    The proposed rule requires very similar information collection 
requirements as the ICR currently approved for existing landfills under 
subpart WWW (ICR number 1557.08). However, this ICR will affect new 
landfills that are constructed, modified or reconstructed on or after 
July 17, 2014 that have a design capacity of 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 
million cubic meters.
    The proposed rule will require affected landfills to submit a one-
time initial design capacity report, and a periodic amended design 
capacity report if the design capacity is increased above the 
threshold. The proposed rule will also require an annual or every 5 
year submittal of an NMOC emission rate report, depending on whether 
the landfill conducts Tier 1 or Tier 2 testing, respectively. Prior to 
installing GCCS, the proposed rule requires the landfill owner or 
operator to submit a design plan for approval by the delegated 
authority. The proposed rule also requires a one-time closure report 
after the landfill ceases to accept waste and another one-time report 
just prior to the removal or cessation of gas collection and control 
equipment. The proposed rule requires annual reports to be submitted to 
document any exceedances or periods when the GCCS was not operating as 
well an initial performance test of the control system. The proposed 
rule also requires records to be maintained for at least 5 years. The 
types of records depend on whether or not the landfill has installed 
gas collection and control equipment and are detailed in the supporting 
statement for ICR number 2498.01.
    The EPA estimates that no new landfills will install controls 
during the first 3 years after the effective date of subpart XXX. 
Therefore, the burden estimates shown in this section represent the 
burden associated with many of the one-time recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements as well as the reports that are required from landfills 
with design capacities under the proposed threshold of 2.5 million Mg 
and 2.5 million cubic meters.
    The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of 
the standards) for the proposal is estimated to be 51 hours per 
response. An estimated eight responses per year will be submitted each 
year and there will be approximately 12 annual respondents per year. 
This burden is estimated to cost $39,300 per year. This includes an 
annual labor cost of $33,200 and a purchased services cost of $6,100. 
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    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.
    To comment on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket 
for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0215. Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EPA and 
OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document for where 
to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after July 17, 2014, a comment to OMB is best 
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by August 18, 
2014. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of the proposed rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is 
primarily engaged in the collection and disposal of refuse in a 
landfill operation as defined by NAICS codes 562212 with annual 
receipts less than $35.5 million; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction 
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or 
special district with a population of less than 50,000, and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small 
entities subject to the requirements of this proposed rule may include 
private small businesses and small governmental jurisdictions that

[[Page 41829]]

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 the 
existing landfills subject to similar regulations (40 CFR Part 60 
subparts WWW and Cc or the corresponding state or federal plan) are 
small entities.
    Because the ownership of new landfills in the future is unknown, 
the EPA performed a screening analysis that assumed new landfills would 
be physically and financially similar to and have the same type of 
ownership as recently established landfills. Based upon historical 
data, the screening analysis predicted that four new landfills would be 
owned by small entities, but that none would be owned by small 
governments.
    One of the four small landfills is predicted to be incrementally 
affected by proposal. The screening analysis compared estimated 
annualized compliance costs for the proposal to company sales based on 
historical data. The maximum ratio of compliance cost to company 
revenue was 12 percent for this modeled small entity. To determine 
whether the impacts estimated for 2023 are representative of longer-
term impacts to small landfills, the EPA further investigated 30 years 
of cost information (2014-2043) for the four small model landfills. 
Over the 30-year time frame, two small landfills are never 
incrementally affected by the proposal. One landfill has impacts of up 
to 12 percent (as described above), but impacts of this magnitude only 
occur in two years of the 30 years. In general, average impacts over 
the 30-year timeframe are approximately 1 percent or less and maximum 
impacts are less than 3 percent. In some years, incremental impacts are 
negative, indicating that the proposed provisions are less costly than 
the baseline NSPS. These impacts are shown in more detail in the 
Economic Impact Analysis.
    Based upon this analysis, we conclude there will not be SISNOSE 
arising from this proposal. First, these proposed revisions do not 
impact a substantial number of small entities. Only two small entities 
are potentially impacted, which does not constitute a substantial 
number. Additionally, the impacts to these small entities are not 
significant. Only one of the two landfills has impacts greater than 3 
percent of sales in two of the 30 years examined. The costs incurred by 
small entities are the result of having to install controls earlier 
than would have been the case under the existing NSPS. (These costs 
would have been incurred in later years under the existing NSPS.) There 
will continue be a lag between the opening of the landfill and the 
implementation of controls during which the site will be generating 
revenue through tipping fees. This analysis only considers control 
costs and revenues associated with the collection of landfill gas and 
does not estimate the future collection of tipping fees which will be 
set at a level to adequately plan for known, future requirements.
    Given the trend toward larger landfills, it is possible that there 
will be fewer small landfills in the future than in data from the past 
5 years. Additionally, while we assume that the new landfills will be 
financially and operationally similar to recently opened landfills, 
numerous factors could influence the actual size, location, and revenue 
of landfills that open in the future. The model landfills are based on 
landfills currently in operation that will not be subject to the 
proposed revisions. All small landfills that will be subject to these 
proposed revisions will make decisions about their development and 
operations with full knowledge of the requirements proposed.
    Although not required by the RFA to convene a Small Business 
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel because the EPA has now determined that 
this proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the EPA had originally convened a 
panel to obtain advice and recommendations from small entity 
representatives potentially subject to this rule's requirements. The 
panel was not formally concluded; however, a summary of the outreach 
conducted and the written comments submitted by the small entity 
representatives that the SBAR Panel consulted can be found in the 
docket for this rulemaking. Although this proposed rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
the EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on 
small entities. For more information, please refer to the economic 
impact and small business analysis that is in the docket. We continue 
to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small 
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires federal agencies, unless otherwise 
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on 
state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Federal 
agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small 
governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any 
regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal 
intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small 
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    This action does not contain a federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
This action applies to landfills that were constructed, modified or 
reconstructed on or after July 17, 2014. Impacts resulting from the 
proposed subpart XXX are far below the applicable threshold. Thus, this 
action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the 
UMRA.
    In developing this rule, the EPA consulted with small governments 
pursuant to a plan established under section 203 of the UMRA to address 
impacts of regulatory requirements in the rule that might significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments. The EPA held meetings as 
discussed in section XI.E of this preamble under Federalism 
consultations.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule will not have 
impacts of $25 million or more in any one year. Thus, Executive Order 
13132 does not apply to this action. Although section 6 of Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to this action, the EPA did consult with 
state and local officials and representatives of state and local 
governments in developing this action. The EPA conducted a Federalism 
Consultation Outreach Meeting on September 10, 2013. Due to interest in 
that meeting, additional outreach meetings were held on November 7, 
2013 and November 14, 2013. 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.

[[Page 41830]]

Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the 
International City/County Management Association, the National 
Association of Towns and Townships, the County Executives of America, 
the Environmental Council of States, National Association of Clean Air 
Agencies, Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 
Officials, environmental agency representatives from 43 states, and 
approximately 60 representatives from city and county governments. The 
comment period was extended to allow sufficient time for interested 
parties to review briefing materials and provide comments. Concerns 
raised during that consultation include: Implementation concerns 
associated with shortening of gas collection system installation and/or 
expansion timeframes, the need for clarity in regards to the definition 
of landfill gas treatment, 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 
provided responses to these concerns in sections V, VII, and VIII of 
this preamble.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local 
governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed 
action from state and local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Based on 
methodology used to predict future landfills as outlined in the 
docketed memorandum ``Summary of Landfill Dataset Used in the Cost and 
Emission Reduction Analysis of Landfills Regulations. 2014,'' 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. The EPA specifically solicits comment on this action 
from tribal officials.

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

    The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety 
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the 
Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
action is not subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an 
environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), 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 landfills expected to be subject control 
requirements under subpart XXX in 2023. Further, the energy demanded to 
operate these control systems will be offset by additional energy 
supply from landfill gas energy projects.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use 
available and applicable VCS.
    The EPA conducted searches for VCS for the Landfills NSPS through 
the enhanced National Service Standards Network Database managed by the 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The EPA also contacted 
VCS organizations and accessed and searched their databases. Searches 
were conducted for EPA Methods 2E, 3, 3A, 3C, 21, 25, and 25C of 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A. No applicable voluntary standards were identified 
for Methods 2E, 21, and 25C.
    The search identified nine VCS that were potentially applicable for 
this rule in lieu of EPA reference methods. After reviewing the 
available standards, the EPA determined that the nine candidate VCS 
(ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981 Part 10, ASTM D3154-00 (2006), ASME B133.9-
1994 (2001), ISO 10396:1993 (2007), ISO 12039:2001, ASTM D5835-95 
(2007), ASTM D6522-00 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86 (1999), ISO 
14965:2000(E)) 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 EPA's 
review, including review comments for these nine methods, is documented 
in the memorandum, ``Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Standards 
of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 40 CFR Part 60, 
Subpart XXX'' in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0215).
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such 
standards should be used in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low income 
populations in the United States.
    To gain a better understanding of the landfill source category and 
near-source populations, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis at a 
study area of 3 miles of the source category for this rulemaking. This 
analysis identifies, on a limited basis, the subpopulations that may be 
exposed to air pollution from the regulated sources and thus are 
expected to benefit most from this regulation. This analysis does not 
identify the demographic characteristics of the most highly affected 
individuals or communities, nor does it quantify the level of risk 
faced by those individuals or communities. To the extent that any 
minority, low-income or indigenous subpopulation is disproportionately 
impacted by hazardous air emissions due to the proximity of their homes 
to sources of these emissions, that subpopulation also stands to see 
increased environmental and health benefit from the emission reductions 
called for by this rule.
    In regards to the landfills NSPS, the EPA has concluded that it is 
not

[[Page 41831]]

practicable to determine whether there would be disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low 
income, or indigenous populations from this proposed rule because it is 
unknown where new facilities will be located. The demographic analysis 
results and the details concerning their development are presented in 
the March 25, 2014 document entitled, ``2014 Environmental Justice 
Screening Report for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,'' a copy of which 
is available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0215).

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 60

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

    Dated: June 30, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

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

PART 60--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Add subpart XXX to read as follows:
Subpart XXX--Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste 
Landfills That Commenced Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification 
on or 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 on or 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 on or after July 17, 2014. Physical or operational changes 
made to a MSW landfill solely to comply with subpart Cc or WWW of this 
part are not considered construction, reconstruction, or modification 
for the purposes of this section.
    (b) The following authorities shall be retained by the 
Administrator and not transferred to the state: Sec.  60.764(a)(5).
    (c) Activities required by or conducted pursuant to a CERCLA, 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 shall 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 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).
    Design capacity means the maximum amount of solid waste a landfill 
can accept, as indicated in terms of volume or mass in the most recent 
permit issued by the state, local, or Tribal agency responsible for 
regulating the landfill, plus any in-place waste not accounted for in 
the most recent permit. If the owner or operator chooses to convert the 
design capacity from volume to mass or from mass to volume to 
demonstrate its design capacity is less than 2.5 million megagrams or 
2.5 million cubic meters, the calculation must include a site specific 
density, which must be recalculated annually.
    Disposal facility means all contiguous land and structures, other 
appurtenances, and improvements on the land used for the disposal of 
solid waste.
    Emission rate cutoff means the threshold annual emission rate to 
which a landfill compares its estimated emission rate to determine if 
control under the regulation is required.
    Enclosed combustor means an enclosed firebox which maintains a 
relatively constant limited peak temperature generally using a limited 
supply of combustion air. An enclosed flare is considered an enclosed 
combustor.
    Flare means an open combustor without enclosure or shroud.
    Gas mover equipment means the equipment (i.e., fan, blower, 
compressor) used to transport landfill gas through the header system.
    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.
    Industrial solid waste means solid waste generated by manufacturing 
or industrial processes that is not a hazardous waste regulated under 
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, parts 264 and 
265 of this title. Such waste may include, but is not limited to, waste 
resulting from the following manufacturing processes: Electric power 
generation; fertilizer/agricultural chemicals; food and related 
products/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

[[Page 41832]]

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.
    Modification means an increase in the permitted mass or volume 
design capacity of the landfill by either horizontal 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 horizontal 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.
    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 any solid, semisolid, or liquid waste generated from a 
municipal, commercial, or industrial wastewater treatment plant, water 
supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility, exclusive of 
the treated effluent from a wastewater treatment plant.
    Solid waste means any garbage, sludge from a wastewater treatment 
plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility 
and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or 
contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, 
mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but 
does not include solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage, or 
solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial 
discharges that are point sources subject to permits under 33 U.S.C. 
1342, or source, special nuclear, or by-product material as defined by 
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C 2011 et seq.).
    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 has an absolute filtration 
rating of 10 microns or less, lowers the water dew point of the 
landfill gas to 45 degrees Fahrenheit or lower with a de-watering 
process, and compresses the landfill gas.
    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 shall 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 shall be 
documented and submitted with the report. Submittal of the initial 
design capacity report shall fulfill the requirements of this subpart 
except as provided for in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator shall 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 of 
this subpart 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 shall comply with the provision 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, shall 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 shall be 
recalculated annually, except as provided in Sec.  60.767(b)(1)(ii) of 
this subpart. 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 40 megagrams 
per year, the owner or operator shall:
    (i) Submit an annual 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 40 megagrams 
per year, or the landfill is closed.
    (A) If the NMOC emission rate, upon recalculation required in 
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, is equal to or greater than 40 
megagrams per year, the owner or operator shall install and start up a 
collection and control system in compliance with paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section.
    (B) If the landfill is permanently closed, a closure notification 
shall be submitted to the Administrator as provided for in Sec.  
60.767(d).
    (2) If the calculated NMOC emission rate is equal to or greater 
than 40 megagrams per year, the owner or operator shall:

[[Page 41833]]

    (i) Submit a collection and control system design plan prepared by 
a professional engineer to the Administrator within 1 year:
    (A) The collection and control system as described in the plan 
shall meet the design requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this 
section.
    (B) The collection and control system design plan shall 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.
    (C) The collection and control system design plan shall 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.
    (D) 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 and according to the requirements of 
paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(C) of this section, then the collection and 
control system design plan must include:
    (1) Design specifications for the filtration, de-watering, and 
compression systems that demonstrate conformance with the treatment 
system definition contained in Sec.  60.761.
    (2) The minimum pressure drop across the filtration system, or 
other monitoring parameter(s) and operating ranges that indicate proper 
performance of the filtration system. The collection and control plan 
must include information, such as manufacturer's recommendations or 
engineering analyses, to justify the minimum pressure drop or operating 
ranges for other monitoring parameters.
    (3) The landfill gas temperature for a chiller-based de-watering 
system, the landfill gas dew point for a non-chiller-based de-watering 
system, or other operating parameters and operating ranges that 
indicate proper performance of the de-watering system. The collection 
and control plan must include information, such as manufacturer's 
recommendations or engineering analyses, to justify the operating 
ranges for temperature, dew point, or other monitoring parameters.
    (E) The Administrator shall review the information submitted under 
paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A), (B), (C), and (D) 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.
    (ii) Install and start up a collection and control system that 
captures the gas generated within the landfill as required by 
paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) and (b)(2)(iii) of this section within 
30 months after the first annual report in which the emission rate 
equals or exceeds 40 megagrams per year, unless Tier 2 or Tier 3 
sampling demonstrates that the emission rate is less than 40 megagrams 
per year, as specified in Sec.  60.767(c)(1) or (2).
    (A) An active collection system shall:
    (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:
    (i) 5 years or more if active; or
    (ii) 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.
    (B) A passive collection system shall:
    (1) Comply with the provisions specified in paragraphs 
(b)(2)(ii)(A)(1), (2), and (2)(ii)(A)(4) 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 shall be installed as 
required under Sec.  258.40.
    (iii) 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) An non-enclosed flare designed and operated in accordance with 
Sec.  60.18 except as noted in Sec.  60.764(e);
    (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 shall 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 shall be introduced into the flame zone.
    (2) The control device shall 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. The treated gas must be used as a fuel, or must 
be used for other beneficial uses such as vehicle fuel, production of 
high-Btu gas for pipeline injection, or use as a raw material in a 
chemical manufacturing process. Venting of treated landfill gas to the 
ambient air or combustion in a flare is not allowed under this option. 
(If flares are used, they must meet Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(iii)(A) or (B)).
    (D) All emissions from any atmospheric vent from the gas treatment 
system shall be 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.
    (E) Landfill gas that is treated for the uses listed in paragraph 
(b)(2)(iii)(C) of this section must be treated in a treatment system as 
defined in Sec.  60.761 that meets the requirements of paragraph 
(b)(2)(i)(D) of this section. The landfill owner or operator who is 
treating landfill gas for the uses listed in paragraph (c)(3) of this 
section must apply for approval of monitoring parameters that 
demonstrate that the landfill gas is meeting the definition of treated 
landfill gas in Sec.  60.761. The landfill owner or operator must meet 
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements listed in 
Sec. Sec.  60.766, 60.767, and 60.768 that apply to treatment systems.
    (iv) 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.

[[Page 41834]]

    (v) The collection and control system may be capped or removed 
provided that all the conditions of paragraphs (b)(2)(v)(A), (B), and 
(C) of this section are met:
    (A) The landfill shall be a closed landfill as defined in Sec.  
60.761 of this subpart. A closure report shall be submitted to the 
Administrator as provided in Sec.  60.767(d);
    (B) The collection and control system shall have been in operation 
a minimum of 15 years; and
    (C) Following the procedures specified in Sec.  60.764(b) of this 
subpart, the calculated NMOC gas produced by the landfill shall be less 
than 40 megagrams per year on three successive test dates. The test 
dates shall 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 Act, the owner or operator of a 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 a 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. Sec.  70.5(a)(1)(i) or 71.5(a)(1)(i) of this chapter, regardless 
of when the design capacity report is actually submitted, no later 
than:
    (1) [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER] for MSW landfills that commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction on or after July 17, 2014 but before 
[DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER];
    (2) Ninety days after the date of commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction for MSW landfills that commence 
construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after [DATE THE 
FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    (d) When a MSW landfill subject to this subpart is closed, 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)(ii) of this subpart shall:
    (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 
shall record instances when positive pressure occurs in efforts to 
avoid a fire. These records shall be submitted with the annual reports 
as provided in Sec.  60.767(f)(1);
    (2) Use of a geomembrane or synthetic cover. The owner or operator 
shall 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 shall be approved by the Administrator;
    (c) Operate each interior wellhead in the collection system with a 
landfill gas temperature less than 55 [deg]C and with either a nitrogen 
level less than 20 percent or an oxygen level less than 5 percent. The 
owner or operator may establish a higher operating temperature, 
nitrogen, or oxygen 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).
    (1) The nitrogen level shall be determined using Method 3C, unless 
an alternative test method is established as allowed by Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(i) of this subpart.
    (2) Unless an alternative test method is established as allowed by 
Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(i) of this subpart, the oxygen shall be determined 
by an oxygen meter using Method 3A or 3C except that:
    (i) The span shall be set so that the regulatory limit is between 
20 and 50 percent of the span;
    (ii) A data recorder is not required;
    (iii) Only two calibration gases are required, a zero and span, and 
ambient air may be used as the span;
    (iv) A calibration error check is not required;
    (v) The allowable sample bias, zero drift, and calibration drift 
are 10 percent.
    (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 shall conduct surface testing around the perimeter of the 
collection area and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at 30 
meter intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated 
concentrations of landfill gas, such as distressed vegetation and 
cracks or seeps in the cover and all cover penetrations. The owner or 
operator may establish an alternative traversing pattern that ensures 
equivalent coverage. A surface monitoring design plan shall 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 shall be shut down and all valves in 
the collection and control system contributing to venting of the gas to 
the atmosphere shall be closed within 1 hour; and
    (f) Operate the control system at all times when the collected gas 
is routed to the system.
    (g) If monitoring demonstrates that the operational requirements in 
paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of this section are not met, corrective 
action shall be taken as specified in Sec.  60.765(a)(3) through (5) or 
Sec.  60.765(c) of this subpart. 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.

[[Page 41835]]

Sec.  60.764  Test methods and procedures.

    (a)(1) The landfill owner or operator shall calculate the NMOC 
emission rate using either the equation provided in paragraph (a)(1)(i) 
of this section or the equation provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of 
this section. Both equations may be used if the actual year-to-year 
solid waste acceptance rate is known, as specified in paragraph 
(a)(1)(i) of this section, for part of the life of the landfill and the 
actual year-to-year solid waste acceptance rate is unknown, as 
specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, for part of the life 
of the landfill. The values to be used in both equations are 0.05 per 
year for k, 170 cubic meters per megagram for LO, and 4,000 
parts per million by volume as hexane for the CNMOC. For 
landfills located in geographical areas with a thirty year annual 
average precipitation of less than 25 inches, as measured at the 
nearest representative official meteorologic site, the k value to be 
used is 0.02 per year.
    (i) The following equation shall be used if the actual year-to-year 
solid waste acceptance rate is known.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17JY14.000

Where:

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

    The mass of nondegradable solid waste may be subtracted from the 
total mass of solid waste in a particular section of the landfill when 
calculating the value for Mi if documentation of the nature 
and amount of such wastes is maintained.
    (ii) The following equation shall be used if the actual year-to-
year solid waste acceptance rate is unknown.

MNMOC = 2LoR (e-\kc\ - 
e-\kt\) CNMOC (3.6 x 10-\9\)

Where:

MNMOC = mass emission rate of NMOC, megagrams per year.
Lo = methane generation potential, cubic meters per 
megagram solid waste.
R = average annual acceptance rate, megagrams per year.
k = methane generation rate constant, year-\1\.
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 = O and 
e-\kc\1.
3.6 x 10-9 = conversion factor.

    The mass of nondegradable solid waste may be subtracted from the 
total mass of solid waste in a particular section of the landfill when 
calculating the value of R, if documentation of the nature and amount 
of such wastes is maintained.
    (2) Tier 1. The owner or operator shall compare the calculated NMOC 
mass emission rate to the standard of 40 megagrams per year.
    (i) If the NMOC emission rate calculated in paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section is less than 40 megagrams per year, then the landfill 
owner shall submit an emission rate report as provided in Sec.  
60.767(b)(1), and shall recalculate the NMOC mass emission rate 
annually as required under Sec.  60.762(b)(1).
    (ii) If the calculated NMOC emission rate is equal to or greater 
than 40 megagrams per year, then the landfill owner shall either comply 
with Sec.  60.762(b)(2), or determine a site-specific NMOC 
concentration and recalculate the NMOC emission rate using the 
procedures provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
    (3) Tier 2. The landfill owner or operator shall determine the NMOC 
concentration using the following sampling procedure. The landfill 
owner or operator shall install at least two sample probes per hectare 
of landfill surface that has retained waste for at least 2 years. If 
the landfill is larger than 25 hectares in area, only 50 samples are 
required. The sample probes should be located to avoid known areas of 
nondegradable solid waste. The owner or operator shall 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 of the performance test, including any associated fuel 
analyses, according to the method specified by either paragraph 
(a)(3)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.
    (A) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site 
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html), the owner or operator 
must submit the results of the performance test to the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) accessed through the EPA's 
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp), unless 
otherwise approved by the Administrator. Performance test data must be 
submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. 
Owners or operators who claim that some of the performance test 
information being submitted is confidential business information (CBI) 
must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA's ERT, 
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash 
drive, or other commonly used

[[Page 41836]]

electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be 
clearly marked as CBI and mailed to Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711. The same file with the CBI omitted must be 
submitted to the EPA via CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
    (B) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, the owner or 
operator must submit the results of the performance test to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  60.4.
    (ii) The landfill owner or operator shall recalculate the NMOC mass 
emission rate using the equations provided in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or 
(a)(1)(ii) of this section and using the average NMOC concentration 
from the collected samples instead of the default value in the equation 
provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (iii) If the resulting mass emission rate calculated using the 
site-specific NMOC concentration is equal to or greater than 40 
megagrams per year, then the landfill owner or operator shall either 
comply with Sec.  60.762(b)(2), or determine the site-specific methane 
generation rate constant and recalculate the NMOC emission rate using 
the site-specific methane generation rate using the procedure specified 
in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
    (iv) If the resulting NMOC mass emission rate is less than 40 
megagrams per year, the owner or operator shall submit a periodic 
estimate of the emission rate report as provided in Sec.  60.767(b)(1) 
and retest the site-specific NMOC concentration every 5 years using the 
methods specified in this section.
    (4) Tier 3. The site-specific methane generation rate constant 
shall be determined using the procedures provided in Method 2E of 
appendix A of this part. The landfill owner or operator shall estimate 
the NMOC mass emission rate using equations in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or 
(a)(1)(ii) of this section and using a site-specific methane generation 
rate constant k, 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 shall compare the resulting NMOC mass emission rate to the 
standard of 40 megagrams per year.
    (i) If the NMOC mass emission rate as calculated using the site-
specific methane generation rate and concentration of NMOC is equal to 
or greater than 40 megagrams per year, the owner or operator shall 
comply with Sec.  60.762(b)(2).
    (ii) If the NMOC mass emission rate is less than 50 megagrams per 
year, then the owner or operator shall submit a periodic emission rate 
report as provided in Sec.  60.767(b)(1) and shall recalculate the NMOC 
mass emission rate annually, as provided in Sec.  60.767(b)(1) using 
the equations in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and using the site-
specific methane generation rate constant and NMOC concentration 
obtained in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The calculation of the 
methane generation rate constant is performed only once, and the value 
obtained from this test shall be used in all subsequent annual NMOC 
emission rate calculations.
    (5) The owner or operator may use other methods to determine the 
NMOC concentration or a site-specific k as an alternative to the 
methods required in paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this section if the 
method has been approved by the Administrator.
    (b) After the installation and startup of a collection and control 
system in compliance with Sec.  60.765, the owner or operator shall 
calculate the NMOC emission rate for purposes of determining when the 
system can be removed as provided in Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(v), using the 
following equation:

    MNMOC = 1.89 x 
10-\3\QLFGCNMOC

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, shall be 
determined by measuring the total landfill gas flow rate at the common 
header pipe that leads to the control system using a gas flow measuring 
device calibrated according to the provisions of section 4 of Method 2E 
of appendix A of this part.
    (2) The average NMOC concentration, CNMOC, shall be 
determined by collecting and analyzing landfill gas sampled from the 
common header pipe before the gas moving or condensate removal 
equipment using the procedures in Method 25 or Method 25C of appendix A 
of this part. The sample location on the common header pipe shall be 
before any condensate removal or other gas refining units. The landfill 
owner or operator shall 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 operator must submit the 
results of the performance test, including any associated fuel 
analyses, according to the method specified by either paragraph 
(b)(3)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.
    (A) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site 
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html), the owner or operator 
must submit the results of the performance test to the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) accessed through the EPA's 
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp), unless 
otherwise approved by the Administrator. Performance test data must be 
submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. 
Owners or operators who claim that some of the performance test 
information being submitted is confidential business information (CBI) 
must submit a complete file generated through the use of the EPA's ERT, 
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: Roberto 
Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. The same file with the 
CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via CDX as described earlier 
in this paragraph.
    (B) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
the EPA`s ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, the owner or 
operator must submit the results of the performance test to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  60.4.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (c) When calculating emissions for PSD purposes, the owner or 
operator of each MSW landfill subject to the provisions of this subpart 
shall estimate the NMOC emission rate for comparison to the PSD major 
source and significance levels in Sec. Sec.  51.166 or 52.21

[[Page 41837]]

of this chapter using 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 ppmv outlet 
concentration level, unless another method to demonstrate compliance 
has been approved by the Administrator as provided by Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(i)(B). Method 3 or 3A shall be used to determine oxygen 
for correcting the NMOC concentration as hexane to 3 percent. The 
following equation shall be used to calculate efficiency:

    Control Efficiency = (NMOCin- NMOCout)/
(NMOCin)

Where:

NMOCin = mass of NMOC entering control device.
NMOCout = mass of NMOC exiting control device.

    (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) or this subpart according 
to the method specified by either paragraph (e)(1)(i) or (ii) of this 
section.
    (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 
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html), the owner or operator 
must submit the results of the performance test to the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) accessed through the EPA's 
Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp), unless 
otherwise approved by the Administrator. Owners or operators who claim 
that some of the performance test information being submitted is 
confidential business information (CBI) must submit a complete file 
generated through the use of the EPA's ERT, including information 
claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly 
used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be 
clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, 
Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., 
Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted 
to the EPA via 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, the owner or 
operator must submit the results of the performance test to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  60.4.
    (2) [Reserved]


Sec.  60.765  Compliance provisions.

    (a) Except as provided in Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), the specified 
methods in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section shall 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)(A)(1), one of the following equations shall be 
used. The k and 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 shall be 
used. A value of no more than 15 years shall be used for the intended 
use period of the gas mover equipment. The active life of the landfill 
is the age of the landfill plus the estimated number of years until 
closure.
    (i) For sites with unknown year-to-year solid waste acceptance 
rate:

    Qm = 2LoR (e-kc- e-kt)

Where:

Qm = maximum expected gas generation flow rate, cubic 
meters per year.
Lo = methane generation potential, cubic meters per 
megagram solid waste.
R = average annual acceptance rate, megagrams per year.
k = methane generation rate constant, year-\1\.
t = age of the landfill at equipment installation plus the time the 
owner or operator intends to use the gas mover equipment or active 
life of the landfill, whichever is less. If the equipment is 
installed after closure, t is the age of the landfill at 
installation, years.
c = time since closure, years (for an active landfill c = O and 
e-kc = 1).

    (ii) For sites with known year-to-year solid waste acceptance rate:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17JY14.001
    
Where:

QM = maximum expected gas generation flow rate, cubic 
meters per year.
k = methane generation rate constant, year-1.
Lo = methane generation potential, cubic meters per 
megagram solid waste.
Mi = mass of solid waste in the ith section, megagrams.
ti = age of the ith section, years.

    (iii) If a collection and control system has been installed, actual 
flow data may be used to project the maximum expected gas generation 
flow rate instead of, or in conjunction with, the equations in 
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. If the landfill is still 
accepting waste, the actual measured flow data will not equal the 
maximum expected gas generation rate, so calculations using the 
equations in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) or (ii) or other methods shall 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)(A)(2), the owner 
or operator shall 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)(A)(3), the owner or operator shall measure gauge 
pressure in the gas collection header at each individual well, monthly. 
If a positive pressure exists, action shall be initiated to correct the 
exceedance within 5 calendar days, except for the three conditions 
allowed under Sec.  60.763(b). If negative pressure cannot be achieved 
without excess air infiltration within 15 calendar days of the first 
measurement, the gas collection system shall be expanded to correct the 
exceedance within 120 days of the initial measurement of positive 
pressure. Any attempted corrective measure shall not cause exceedances 
of other operational or performance standards. An alternative timeline 
for correcting the exceedance may be submitted to the Administrator for 
approval.
    (4) Owners or operators are not required to expand the system as 
required in paragraph (a)(3) of this

[[Page 41838]]

section during the first 180 days after gas collection system startup.
    (5) For the purpose of identifying whether excess air infiltration 
into the landfill is occurring, the owner or operator shall monitor 
each well monthly for temperature and nitrogen or oxygen as provided in 
Sec.  60.763(c). If a well exceeds one of these operating parameters, 
action shall be initiated to correct the exceedance within 5 calendar 
days. If correction of the exceedance cannot be achieved within 15 
calendar days of the first measurement, then either the gas collection 
system shall be expanded to correct the exceedance within 120 days of 
the initial exceedance or an alternative timeline shall be submitted. 
If the owner or operator is unable to correct an exceedance within 15 
days, or does not plan to expand the collection and control system 
within 120 days, then the owner or operator must submit to the 
Administrator for approval an alternative timeline for correcting the 
exceedance. The owner or operator must submit an alternative time line 
for any type of corrective action other than system expansion that will 
take longer than 15 days. The owner or operator must also submit an 
alternative time line and justification if they expect a system 
expansion to take longer than 120 days. Any attempted corrective 
measure shall not cause exceedances of other operational or performance 
standards. Any attempted corrective measure shall not cause exceedances 
of other operational or performance standards.
    (6) An owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with 
Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(ii)(A)(4) through the use of a collection system not 
conforming to the specifications provided in Sec.  60.769 shall provide 
information satisfactory to the Administrator as specified in Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(i)(C) 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 shall place each well or design 
component as specified in the approved design plan as provided in Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(i). Each well shall be installed no later than 60 days 
after the date on which the initial solid waste has been in place for a 
period of:
    (1) 5 years or more if active; or
    (2) 2 years or more if closed or at final grade.
    (c) The following procedures shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall be performed in accordance 
with section 8.3.1 of Method 21 of appendix A of this part, except that 
the probe inlet shall be placed within 5 to 10 centimeters of the 
ground. Monitoring shall be performed during typical meteorological 
conditions.
    (4) Any reading of 500 parts per million or more above background 
at any location shall be recorded as a monitored exceedance and the 
actions specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (v) of this section 
shall 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 shall 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 
shall be made and the location shall 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 shall be taken and the 
location shall 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 
shall 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 shall be re-monitored 1 month from the initial exceedance. If 
the 1-month remonitoring 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 
remonitoring shows an exceedance, the actions specified in paragraph 
(c)(4)(iii) or (v) of this section shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall comply with the following 
instrumentation specifications and procedures for surface emission 
monitoring devices:
    (1) The portable analyzer shall meet the instrument specifications 
provided in section 3 of Method 21 of appendix A of this part, except 
that ``methane'' shall replace all references to VOC.
    (2) The calibration gas shall be methane, diluted to a nominal 
concentration of 500 parts per million in air.
    (3) To meet the performance evaluation requirements in section 
3.1.3 of Method 21 of appendix A of this part, the instrument 
evaluation procedures of section 4.4 of Method 21 of appendix A of this 
part shall be used.
    (4) The calibration procedures provided in section 4.2 of Method 21 
of appendix A of this part shall 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.


Sec.  60.766  Monitoring of operations.

    Except as provided in Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(i)(B),
    (a) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(ii)(A) for an active gas collection system shall 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

[[Page 41839]]

monthly basis as provided in Sec.  60.765(a)(5); and
    (3) Monitor temperature of the landfill gas on a monthly basis as 
provided in Sec.  60.765(a)(5).
    (b) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(iii) using an enclosed combustor shall calibrate, 
maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications, 
the following equipment.
    (1) A temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous 
recorder and having a minimum accuracy of 1 percent of the 
temperature being measured expressed in degrees Celsius or 0.5 degrees Celsius, whichever is greater. A temperature 
monitoring device is not required for boilers or process heaters with 
design heat input capacity equal to or greater than 44 megawatts.
    (2) A device that records flow to and bypass of the control device. 
The owner or operator shall:
    (i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring 
device that shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 and bypass of the flare. The 
owner or operator shall:
    (i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring 
device that shall 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 shall 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 shall provide 
information satisfactory to the Administrator as provided in Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(i)(B) describing the operation of the control device, the 
operating parameters that would indicate proper performance, and 
appropriate monitoring procedures. The Administrator shall 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.  60.763 
through Sec.  60.766 shall provide information satisfactory to the 
Administrator as provided in Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(i)(B) and (C) 
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 
Sec.  60.765(c), shall monitor surface concentrations of methane 
according to the instrument specifications and procedures provided 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 
calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's 
specifications, the following equipment.
    (1) A device that monitors pressure drop across, or other approved 
parameter(s) for, the filtration system that is equipped with a 
continuous recorder that shall record such parameters at least once 
every 15 minutes. Records of hourly and 24-hour block averages computed 
from the continuous monitoring data must also be retained.
    (2) A device that monitors the landfill gas temperature for a 
chiller-based dewatering system, the landfill gas dew point for a non-
chiller-based dewatering system, or the approved operating parameter(s) 
for the dewatering system at the monitoring locations specified in the 
approved design plan. The temperature measurement device must be 
located at or immediately after the coalescing filter or other direct 
contact moisture removal device that follows the chiller and removes 
the condensed moisture. The dew point monitoring device should be 
located after the equipment that performs the moisture removal. Each 
monitoring device must be equipped with a continuous recorder that 
records such parameters at least once every 15 minutes. Records of 
hourly and 24-hour block averages computed from the continuous 
monitoring data must also be retained.
    (3) Owners/operators may use monitoring parameters other than those 
listed in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section if they demonstrate 
that such parameters would effectively monitor filtration or de-
watering system performance. Owners/operators must develop operating 
ranges for each monitored operating parameter based on manufacturer's 
recommendations or engineering analysis and submit those ranges, along 
with justification, for approval in the design plan required by Sec.  
60.762(b)(2). Owners/operators must monitor the required parameters and 
keep them within the ranges specified in the approved design plan.
    (4) A device that records flow to and bypass of the treatment 
system. The owner or operator must:
    (i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring 
device that records the flow to the treatment system 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.


Sec.  60.767  Reporting requirements.

    Except as provided in Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(i)(B),
    (a) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this 
subpart shall submit an initial design capacity report to the 
Administrator.
    (1) The initial design capacity report shall fulfill the 
requirements of the notification of the date construction is commenced 
as required by Sec.  60.7(a)(1) and shall be submitted no later than:
    (i) [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE 
Federal Register], for landfills that commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction on or after July 17, 2014 but before 
[DATE

[[Page 41840]]

THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register] or
    (ii) Ninety days after the date of commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction for landfills that commence 
construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after [DATE THE 
FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register].
    (2) The initial design capacity report shall 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 shall be 
calculated using good engineering practices. The calculations shall be 
provided, along with the relevant parameters as part of the 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) An amended design capacity report shall 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 or above 2.5 million megagrams and 
2.5 million cubic meters. This increase in design capacity may result 
from an increase in the permitted volume of the landfill or an increase 
in the density as documented in the annual recalculation required in 
Sec.  60.768(f).
    (b) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this 
subpart shall submit an NMOC emission rate report to the Administrator 
initially and annually thereafter, except as provided for in paragraphs 
(b)(1)(ii) or (b)(3) of this section. The Administrator may request 
such additional information as may be necessary to verify the reported 
NMOC emission rate.
    (1) The NMOC emission rate report shall 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 shall be submitted no later than indicated in paragraphs 
(b)(1)(i)(A) and (B) of this section. Subsequent NMOC emission rate 
reports shall be submitted annually thereafter, except as provided for 
in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(3) of this section.
    (A) [DATE 90 DAYS AFTER THE DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE 
Federal Register], for landfills that commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction on or after July 17, 2014, but before 
[DATE THE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register], or
    (B) Ninety days after the date of commenced construction, 
modification, or reconstruction for landfills that commence 
construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after [DATE THE 
FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE Federal Register].
    (ii) If the estimated NMOC emission rate as reported in the annual 
report to the Administrator is less than 40 megagrams per year in each 
of the next 5 consecutive years, the owner or operator may elect to 
submit an estimate of the NMOC emission rate for the next 5-year period 
in lieu of the annual report. This estimate shall 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 
shall be provided to the Administrator. This estimate shall 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 shall be submitted to the 
Administrator. The revised estimate shall 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 shall 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 of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) 
of this section, after the installation of a collection and control 
system in compliance 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) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(i) shall submit a collection and control system design 
plan to the Administrator within 1 year of the first report required 
under paragraph (b) of this section in which the emission rate equals 
or exceeds 40 megagrams per year, except as follows:
    (1) 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 40 megagrams per 
year, annual periodic reporting shall be resumed, using the Tier 2 
determined site-specific NMOC concentration, until the calculated 
emission rate is equal to or greater than 40 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, shall 
be submitted within 180 days of the first calculated exceedance of 40 
megagrams per year.
    (2) 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 40 Mg/yr, annual periodic 
reporting shall be resumed. The resulting site-specific methane 
generation rate constant (k) shall 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) shall be submitted to the 
Administrator within 1 year of the first calculated emission rate 
exceeding 40 megagrams per year.
    (d) Each owner or operator of a controlled landfill shall 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).
    (e) Each owner or operator of a controlled landfill shall 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 shall contain all of the following 
items:

[[Page 41841]]

    (i) A copy of the closure report submitted in accordance with 
paragraph (d) of this section;
    (ii) A copy of the initial performance test report demonstrating 
that the 15 year minimum control period has expired; and
    (iii) Dated copies of three successive NMOC emission rate reports 
demonstrating that the landfill is no longer producing 40 megagrams or 
greater of NMOC per year.
    (2) The Administrator may request such additional information as 
may be necessary to verify that all of the conditions for removal in 
Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(v) have been met.
    (f) 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) shall submit to the 
Administrator annual reports of the recorded information in (f)(1) 
through (f)(6) of this section. The initial annual report shall be 
submitted within 180 days of installation and startup of the collection 
and control system, and shall include the initial performance test 
report required under Sec.  60.8, as applicable. For enclosed 
combustion devices, flares, and treatment systems 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 is 
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.
    (6) The date of installation and the location of each well or 
collection system expansion added pursuant to paragraphs (a)(3), (b), 
and (c)(4) of Sec.  60.765.
    (g) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(iii) shall 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.
    (h) The owner or operator who has already been required to submit a 
design plan under Sec.  60.767(c) must submit a revised design plan to 
the Administrator for approval as follows:
    (1) Within 90 days of expanding operations to an area not covered 
by the previously approved design plan.
    (2) Prior to installing or expanding the gas collection system in a 
way that is not consistent with the design plan that was submitted to 
the Administrator according to paragraph (c) of this section.
    (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 according 
to Sec.  60.763(c).


Sec.  60.768  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) Except as provided in Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each owner or 
operator of an MSW landfill subject to the provisions of Sec.  
60.762(b) shall keep for at least 5 years up-to-date, readily 
accessible, on-site records of the design capacity report which 
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.  60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each owner or 
operator of a controlled landfill shall keep up-to-date, readily 
accessible records for the life of the control system equipment of the 
data listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section as 
measured during the initial performance test or compliance 
determination. Records of subsequent tests or monitoring shall be 
maintained for a minimum of 5 years. Records of the control device 
vendor specifications shall 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

[[Page 41842]]

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) Hourly and 24-hour block averages computed from the device that 
monitors pressure drop across, or other approved parameter(s) for, the 
filtration system.
    (ii) Hourly and 24-hour block average temperature (chiller-based 
system) or dew point (non-chiller based system) or the approved 
operating parameters for the device that monitors the dewatering system 
operating parameters.
    (iii) Records of exceedances of the treatment system operating 
parameters that were approved in the design plan as required by Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(i)(D).
    (iv) Records of the flow of landfill gas to, and bypass of, the 
treatment system.
    (c) Except as provided in Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each owner or 
operator of a controlled landfill subject to the provisions of this 
subpart shall 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 shall be recorded and 
reported under Sec.  60.767(f):
    (i) For enclosed combustors except for boilers and process heaters 
with design heat input capacity of 44 megawatts (150 million British 
thermal unit per hour) or greater, all 3-hour periods of operation 
during which the average temperature was more than 28 [deg]C 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.
    (iii) For treatment systems used to demonstrate compliance with 
Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(iii), all 24-hour periods of operation during which 
the average operating parameter values are outside of the approved 
ranges identified in Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(i)(D) as those that indicate 
proper performance of the treatment system.
    (2) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this 
subpart shall 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) shall 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 shall 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) shall keep records of estimates 
of NMOC emissions for periods when the collection system or control 
device is not operating.
    (d) Except as provided in Sec.  60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each owner or 
operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall 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 shall 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 shall 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.  60.762(b)(2)(i)(B), each owner or 
operator subject to the provisions of this subpart shall keep for at 
least 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible records of 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.
    (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'', shall 
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.


Sec.  60.769  Specifications for active collection systems.

    (a) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(i) shall 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.  60.762(b)(2)(i)(C) and (D):
    (1) The collection devices within the interior and along the 
perimeter areas shall be certified to achieve comprehensive control of 
surface gas emissions by a professional engineer. The following issues 
shall 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, and 
resistance to the refuse decomposition heat.
    (2) The sufficient density of gas collection devices determined in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall 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 shall control all gas producing areas, except as 
provided by paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Any segregated area of asbestos or nondegradable material may 
be excluded from collection if documented as provided under Sec.  
60.768(d). The

[[Page 41843]]

documentation shall provide the nature, date of deposition, location 
and amount of asbestos or nondegradable material deposited in the area, 
and shall 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 shall 
be documented and provided to the Administrator upon request. A 
separate NMOC emissions estimate shall be made for each section 
proposed for exclusion, and the sum of all such sections shall be 
compared to the NMOC emissions estimate for the entire landfill.
    (A) The NMOC emissions from each section proposed for exclusion 
shall be computed using the following equation:

Qi = 2 k LoMi(e - \kt\i) 
(CNMOC) (3.6 x 10-9)

Where:

Qi = NMOC emission rate from the i\th\ section, megagrams 
per year.
k = methane generation rate constant, year-1.
Lo = methane generation potential, cubic meters per 
megagram solid waste.
Mi = mass of the degradable solid waste in the i\th\ 
section, megagram.
ti = age of the solid waste in the i\th\ section, years.
CNMOC = concentration of 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 
shall be computed using either the equation in Sec.  60.764(b) or the 
equation in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A) of this section.
    (iii) The values for k and CNMOC determined in field 
testing shall 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) shall be used. The mass 
of nondegradable solid waste contained within the given section may be 
subtracted from the total mass of the section when estimating emissions 
provided the nature, location, age, and amount of the nondegradable 
material is documented as provided in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this 
section.
    (b) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.  
60.762(b)(2)(i)(A) shall construct the gas collection devices using the 
following equipment or procedures:
    (1) The landfill gas extraction components shall 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 shall extend 
as necessary to comply with emission and migration standards. 
Collection devices such as wells and horizontal collectors shall be 
perforated to allow gas entry without head loss sufficient to impair 
performance across the intended extent of control. Perforations shall 
be situated with regard to the need to prevent excessive air 
infiltration.
    (2) Vertical wells shall be placed so as not to endanger underlying 
liners and shall address the occurrence of water within the landfill. 
Holes and trenches constructed for piped wells and horizontal 
collectors shall 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 
shall 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 shall 
include a positive closing throttle valve, any necessary seals and 
couplings, access couplings and at least one sampling port. The 
collection devices shall 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)(i)(A) shall 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 shall 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 shall be used to 
project the maximum flow rate. If no flow data exists, the procedures 
in paragraph (c)(2) of this section shall be used.
    (2) For new collection systems, the maximum flow rate shall be in 
accordance with Sec.  60.765(a)(1).

[FR Doc. 2014-16405 Filed 7-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


