United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA-456R/98-009 f>
November 1998
Air
& EPA
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Volume 2:
Summary of the Requirements for
Section 11 l(d) State Plans for Implementing
the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Emission Guidelines
-------
o.
" '
"
-------
*" ABSTRACT
jUj...
This guidance document explains the State plan development and approval
1- process, and explains the regulations developed under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as they apply to
^ municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. The CAA requires States to adopt and submit a State
plan to implement the Emission Guidelines developed under the CAA. This document discusses
r* the regulations developed under Section 11 l(d) of the Clean Air Act, focusing on Subpart Cc,
fc. Emission Guidelines for existing MSW landfills; and Subpart B, Adoption and Submittal of
State plans for designated facilities. In addition, the document outlines and explains the required
*"" content of State plans, outlines the timeline and responsibilities for developing and submitting
w State plans, and answers general questions about how to prepare State plans. The appendices
include reference materials States may need when developing State plans. For example, copies
f" of relevant regulations, policy memos, procedures for estimating emissions, and a list of MSW
U. landfill rule contacts who can assist in developing the State plan are included. This volume is
one of a series of documents designed to assist States, EPA regional offices, and MSW landfill
r owners and operators in implementing the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
^•- Emission Guidelines. Full references to all related documents are provided in the Executive
Summary.
in
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Volume 2:
Summary of the Requirements for Section lll(d)
State Plans for Implementing the
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Emission Guidelines
EPA-456/R-98-009
Available at:
(1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
Room M-1500 Waterside Mall, Ground Floor
Phone: 202-260-7548
Docket Number: A-88-09
Item number: D-B-54
(2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Office Libraries (Regions I-X)
(see Appendix C for Addresses)
(3) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Technology Transfer Network Website (TTN Web)
Unified Air Toxics Website: Rule and Implementation Information for Standards of
Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/landfill/landflpg.html
or
Office of Air Policy and Guidance (OAR P&G)
http://www .epa.gov/ttn/oarpg
The file is located under:
Actions Sorted by CAA Title
Title ffl X
Policy and Guidance Memos.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ABSTRACT iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Background 1
State Plan Content 2
Schedule 4
Related Documents 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Organization of this Document 1-2
1.2 Clean Air Act Requirements 1-3
1.3 Indian Tribes and State Plans 1-4
1.4 MSW Landfills Covered by State Plans 1-4
1.5 Requirements for State Plans 1-6
1.6 Relationship Between the Section 11 l(d) State Plan and SIP 1-7
2.0 SCHEDULE AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2-1
2.1 State Plan Schedule 2-1
2.2 Responsibilities 2-4
2.2.1 EPA Responsibilities 2-4
2.2.2 State Responsibilities 2-5
2.2.3 Landfill Owners and Operators Responsibilities 2-6
3.0 REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF AN ACCEPTABLE STATE PLAN 3-1
3.1 Criteria for an Adequate Enforceable Mechanism 3-2
3.2 Demonstration of Legal Authority 3-5
3.3 Source Inventory 3-6
3.4 Emission Inventory 3-8
3.4.1 Emission Estimation Procedures 3-8
3.4.2 Annual Emission Reporting 3-10
3.5 Emission Standards 3-11
3.5.1 Allowable Emission Rates and Control Requirements 3-11
3.6 Process for Review of Design Plans 3-12
3.7 Compliance Schedules 3-13
3.7.1 Compliance Times 3-13
3.7.2 Increments of Progress 3-15
3.8 Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 3-17
3.8.1 Requirements of the Emission Guidelines 3-18
3.8.2 Provisions for Requirements Other Than Those in the Emission
Guidelines 3-20
3.9 Public Hearings 3-20
3.10 State Progress Reports to EPA 3-21
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
3.11 State Flexibility 3-23
3.11.1 Submittal of State Plan 3-23
3.11.2 Emission Standards 3-23
3.11.3 Compliance Schedules 3-24
4.0 ANSWERS TO SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 111 (D)
STATE PLANS 4-1
Appendices
A Emission Guideline Fact Sheet (40 CFR 60 Subpart Cc)
B MSW Landfills Implementation Timeline
C State, Regional, and Other Contacts
D Emission Estimation Procedures for State Plan Emissions Inventory
E New Source Review
F Title V Operating Permits White Paper Number 2
G Clean Air Act Section 111 (d)
H 40 CFR 60 Subpart B
I 40 CFR 60 Subparts Cc and WWW, Including June 16, 1998 Amendments
J Key Elements of an Acceptable Section 11 l(d) State Plan
K Memo: Emission Inventory of MSWLF State Plans
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
2-1 State Plan Approval Process and Schedule 2-2
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1-1 Appendices to this Document 1-3
1-2 Outline of the Emission Guidelines for MSW Landfills
(40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cc) 1-5
1-3 Regulations for Adopting and Submitting State Plans
(40 CFR 60 Subpart B) 1-9
2-1 Suggested Schedule for Section 11 l(d) State Plans 2-3
3-1 Summary of Requirements for Section 11 l(d) State Plans 3-3
3-2 Schedule for MSW Landfill Compliance with the
Emission Guidelines 3-14
vn
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AFS Aerometric Emissions Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
CAA Clean Air Act (of 1990)
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
Mg Megagram (2204 Ib)
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MWC Municipal Waste Combustor
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NMOC Non-methane organic compounds
NSPS New Source Performance Standard
NSR New Source Review
SIP State Implementation Plan
TAR Tribal Authority Rule
TTN Web EPA Technology Transfer Network Website
vm
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the second of two guidance documents designed to assist States, EPA
regional offices, and Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfill owners and operators in
implementing the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Emission Guidelines. The
NSPS apply to new landfills, whereas the Emission Guidelines pertain to existing landfills.
States must develop State plans as part of the implementation process for the Emission
Guidelines for existing landfills in their State. Indian Tribes are not required to submit Tribal
plans, but may submit Tribal plans to implement and enforce the Emission Guidelines in Indian
country. The purpose of this document is to explain the State plan development and approval
process. This volume, "Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Volume 2: Summary of the
Requirements for Section 11 l(d) State plans for Implementing the Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill Emission Guidelines," EPA-456/R-96-005 (MSW Landfills, Volume 2), draws together
the relevant information from the various Federal regulations that affect existing MSW landfills
to give the State regulatory agencies the information they need to develop State plans.
Background information is provided on the MSW landfills regulations that have been developed
under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). States must include specific information in their
State plans and must comply with a specific schedule. The required content of State plans and
the adoption and submittal schedule are outlined below and are discussed in detail in the body of
this guidance document. The first guidance document, Volume 1, and related documents that
will assist States in developing their plans are briefly discussed in the section of this Executive
Summary entitled "Related Documents."
This document is a revision of the final draft published in October 1996,
EPA-456/R-96-005. It has been revised to reflect the amendments to the NSPS and Emission
Guidelines published on June 16, 1998 (63 FR 32743) and to update other information.
Background
Air pollution emissions from MSW landfills are regulated by various federal
regulations promulgated to implement the CAA of 1990. This document addresses the MSW
1
-------
landfills regulations that have been developed under Section 111 of the CAA. Section 111 of the
CAA addresses Standards of Performance for Stationary Sources.
Federal air pollution rules promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
that affect MSW landfills include: (1) Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills [Title 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ccj; (2) New Source
Performance Standards for MSW Landfills [Title 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart WWW]; and (3) rules
governing the Adoption and Submittal of State plans for Designated Facilities [Title 40 CFR Part
60, Subpart B]. This document focuses on the Emission Guidelines and the rules governing State
plans. Appendices G and H of this document contain the full text of Section 11 l(d) and
Subpart B, respectively. Appendix I contains the full text of Subparts Cc and WWW, including
amendments published on June 16, 1998 (63 FR 32743).
The Subpart Cc Emission Guidelines apply to existing MSW landfills. States
with existing MSW landfills must implement the Emission Guidelines. As part of the
implementation effort, States must develop a State plan and submit it for approval to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Together, Subpart B and Subpart Cc specify the State
plan content and the general rules for adopting and submitting State plans.
State plan requirements for MSW landfills are similar to those for municipal
waste combustor (MWC) units because they are both regulated under Section 111 (d) of the CAA.
However, there are differences because MWC units are regulated under Section 129 of the CAA
in addition to Section 11 l(d). Section 129 addresses Solid Waste Combustion and does not
apply to MSW landfills; therefore, State plans for MSW landfills will differ slightly from State
plans for MWC units and other section 129 State plans.
State Plan Content
On March 12, 1996 the EPA adopted (1) Emission Guidelines for existing MSW
landfills and (2) New Source Performance Standards for new MSW landfills. On June 16, 1998,
EPA published a notice to amend, correct errors, and clarify regulatory text. These amendments
-------
*"* did not affect the due date or the required contents of State plans for existing landfills. The CAA
1™ requires that State regulatory agencies implement the Emission Guidelines according to a State
^ plan developed under Section 111 (d) of the CAA, and that they submit the State plan to EPA
r> within nine months of EPA's adoption of the Emission Guidelines. The CAA and the Tribal
Authority Rule (TAR) allow, but do not require, Indian Tribes to develop Tribal plans in the
r" same manner as States if the Indian Tribe meets criteria outlined in the TAR.
L.
r State plans must contain specific information and legal mechanisms necessary to
to*
implement the Emission Guidelines. The minimum requirements are listed below and are
,*»-
discussed in detail in Section 3 and Appendix J.
**>
• Identification of enforceable State mechanisms selected by the State for
«. implementing the Emission Guidelines;
• A demonstration of the State's legal authority to carry out the
«•• Section 11 l(d) State plan as submitted;
• An inventory of existing MSW landfills in the State affected by the
**• Emission Guidelines. An existing landfill may be active (currently
accepting waste or having additional capacity available to accept waste) or
closed (no longer accepting waste nor having available capacity for future
*** waste deposition).
• An inventory of emissions from existing MSW landfills in the State that
*""* are affected by the Emission Guidelines;
• Emission standards for existing MSW landfills that are no less stringent
than those in the Emission Guidelines;1
fc • A State process, as stipulated in § 60.33c(b) of Subpart Cc, for State
review and approval of site-specific gas collection and control system
design plans;
'On a case-by-case basis, the State may provide for a less stringent standard or a longer
compliance schedule if the State demonstrates to EPA that the criteria in § 60.24(f) of Subpart B
are met, and the EPA approves the standard or schedule. See Section 3.11 for additional
information.
-------
• Compliance schedules, extending no later than 30 months after the date
the annual NMOC emission rate reaches or exceeds 50 megagrams (Mg)
per year;
• Testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements;
• A record of public hearing(s) on the State plan; and
• Provision for annual State progress reports to EPA on implementation of
the State plan.
Schedule
States must adopt and submit a State plan to EPA within nine months
(December 12, 1996) after promulgation of the Emission Guidelines. The State must make
available to the public the State plan implementing the Emission Guidelines and provide
opportunity for discussion of the State plan in a public hearing prior to submittal to EPA. EPA
then has four months (April 12, 1997) to approve or disapprove the State plan. Plan approval or
disapproval will be published in the Federal Register (FR). If a plan is disapproved, EPA will
State the reasons for disapproval in the FR. If a State does not submit an approvable State plan,
EPA will adopt and implement a Federal Plan.
Related Documents
A number of related documents and resources are available that may prove useful
to States, EPA regional offices, and landfill owners and operators. These documents are
available as indicated below, however, these and other landfill-related documents are available
on the EPA Technology Transfer Network Website (TTN web) at:
http//www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/landfill/1 andflpg.html.
"Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Volume 1: Summary of the
Requirements, for the New Source Performance Standards and Emission
Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills," EPA-453/R-96-004
(MSW Landfills, Volume 1 is posted on the TTN web and explains
landfills NSPS and Emission Guideline control, monitoring, recordkeeping
-------
and reporting requirements, and assists States in determining compliance.
The document is also available in the docket (see address on page iv).
"Municipal Solid Waste Landfill New Source Performance Standards and
Emission Guidelines—Issues and Answers," is posted on the TTN Web
and contains a periodically updated summary of answers to questions EPA
has recently been asked about the MSW Landfills NSPS and Emission
Guidelines.
"Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills — Background
Information for Final Standards and Guidelines," EPA-453/R-94-021
contains summaries of public comments received on the landfills NSPS
and Emission Guidelines, EPA's responses, and the estimated impacts of
these regulations. This document may be obtained from the TTN Web, the
U.S. EPA Library (MD-33), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone
(919) 541-2777, or from the docket (see addresses on page iv).
EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). To cost-effectively
reduce methane emissions from landfills, the EPA encourages the
development of environmentally and economically beneficial landfill gas-
to-energy projects through the LMOP. The LMOP works with States,
utilities, and the landfill gas-to-energy industry to facilitate the
development of successful projects. One of the key ways the LMOP does
this is by publishing technical information on how to develop a gas-to-
energy project including current technology, cost, and financing options,
and regulatory considerations. Appendix C includes information on how
to contact LMOP.
"Landfill Gas Emissions Model" Version 2.01 and User's Manual,
September 1998. The computer model can be used to calculate annual
emission rates as to determine applicability of the NSPS or Emission
Guidelines or for State emission inventory or other purposes. The user's
guide and diskettes can be obtained from the National Technical
Information Services, as described in Appendix D, or accessed on the TTN
Web at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/products.htmlttsoftware.
Appendix C includes information on how to contact landfill resources, including EPA regional
and State contacts and EPA contacts for LMOP, the landfill model, implementation model,
implementation issues, and other information. Documents posted on the TTN Web may be
accessed by computer as described on page iv. The user can download an electronic copy from
the TTN Web. Printed copies of the documents are available as discussed above.
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to assist the State air regulatory agencies in
developing State plans that implement regulations controlling air pollutant emissions from
municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. The United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has developed regulations to control air pollutant emissions from MSW landfills under the
Clean Air Act of 1990. Emissions from new MSW landfills are addressed by standards of
performance for new sources (New Source Performance Standards [NSPS]), and emissions from
existing MSW landfills are addressed by standards of performance for existing sources (Emission
Guidelines). EPA promulgated the NSPS (Subpart WWW) and Emission Guidelines
(Subpart Cc) for MSW landfills on March 12, 1996, and published amendments on June 16,
1998. States are required to develop State plans to implement the Emission Guidelines for
existing sources and submit the State plans to EPA by December 12, 1996. Indian Tribes may
submit, but are not required to submit, Tribal plans to implement and enforce the emission
guidelines in Indian country. This document provides State agencies and Indian Tribes
information on the required content of these State plans. In some cases, local agencies, or
protectorates of the of the United States may submit plans for landfills in their jurisdictions. The
same guidance applies. The word "State plan" used throughout this document includes tribal
plans developed by Indian Tribes and plans developed by agencies or protectorates.
Another document has been prepared to assist States, Tribes, EPA regional
offices, and MSW landfill owners and operators in implementing the NSPS and Emission
Guidelines. A September 1998 draft document entitled, "Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,
Volume 1: Summary of the Requirements for the New Source Performance Standards and
Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills," EPA-453/R-96-004 (MSW Landfills,
Volume 1) is posted on the EPA Technology Transfer Network Website (TTN Web). The
September 1998 version of MSW Landfills Volume 1 replaces and updates a March 1996 draft to
reflect the rule amendments published on June 16, 1998. Volume 1 provides a plain English
summary of the requirements of the NSPS and Emission Guidelines. It contains example forms
that may be used for reporting. It also contains tools, such as checklists, that may be used by
regulatory agencies to determine landfill compliance with the rules. A question-and-answer
1-1
-------
document, "Municipal Solid Waste Landfill New Source Performance Standards and Emission
Guidelines—Questions and Answers" is also posted on the TTN Web, and contains answers to
questions EPA has been asked about the MSW Landfills NSPS and Emission Guidelines. The
document may be updated as additional questions are received. The TTN Web address for these
documents is http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/landfill/landflpg.html.
1.1 Organization of this Document
This document brings together the information on the relevant parts of the various
regulations that affect existing MSW landfills, i.e., those that were constructed, modified or
reconstructed before May 30, 1991 and have not been modified or reconstructed since May 30,
1991 and that have accepted waste since November 8, 1987 or have additional capacity available
for future waste deposition. These regulations were developed under Section 111 (d) of the Clean
Air Act. The regulations are codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The
CFR rules include (1) Adoption and Submittal of State plans for designated facilities, Subpart B,
and (2) the Emission Guidelines for existing MSW landfills, Subpart Cc.
This document provides information on the relevant requirements of the Clean Air
Act and the Emission Guidelines, and the required contents of State plans, including an overview
of Clean Air Act, regulatory, and State plan requirements (Section 1); information on the
timeline and responsibilities for developing and submitting State plans (Section 2); the elements
of a State plan (Section 3); and answers to some general questions about preparing State plans
(Section 4).
The appendices of this document (Table 1-1) include reference materials that
States may find useful when developing the State plans. The appendices include copies of
Section 11 l(d), relevant regulations, policy memos, procedures for estimating MSW landfill
emissions, and contact lists.
1-2
-------
Table 1-1. Appendices to this Document
Appendix Title
A Emission Guideline Fact Sheet (40 CFR 60 Subpart Cc)
B MSW Landfills Implementation Timeline
C State, Regional, and Other Contacts
D Emission Estimation Procedures for State Plan Emissions Inventory
E New Source Review
F Title V Operating Permits White Paper Number 2
G Clean Air Act Section 11 l(d)
H 40 CFR 60 Subpart B
I 40 CFR 60 Subparts Cc and WWW, including the June 16, 1998
Amendments
J Key Elements of an Acceptable Section 11 l(d) State Plan
K Memo: Emission Inventory for MSWLF State Plans
1.2 Clean Air Act Requirements
Section 11 l(d) (see Appendix G) has been included in the Clean Air Act since the
1970's and requires EPA to establish procedures for submitting State plans for implementing
Emission Guidelines. The landfill standard is a health-based Emission Guideline. Procedures
and requirements for health-based Emission Guidelines are different from welfare-based.
Because the landfills Emission Guidelines are health-based, this document focuses on the
procedures and requirements for health-based Emission Guidelines. The first health-based
Emission Guideline adopted was for sulfuric acid plants in 1977. Other health- and welfare-
based Emission Guidelines have been adopted since that time. The State plans implement and
provide for enforcing the Emission Guidelines. Detailed procedures for submitting and
approving State plans were promulgated by EPA in 1975 as 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B and
amended in 1979, 1989, and 1995 (see Appendix H). The MSW landfill Emission Guidelines
(Subpart Cc) were promulgated on March 12, 1996, under the authority of Section 11 l(d) of the
Act, and were amended on June 16, 1998.
1-3
-------
The Subpart Cc Emission Guidelines for MSW landfills differ from those
adopted for MWC units because MSW landfills are regulated under Section 11 l(d) of the CAA,
whereas MWC units are regulated under Sections 11 l(d) and 129 of the CAA. Section 129 does
not apply to MSW landfills. Therefore, the State plan requirements for landfills are slightly
different than those for MWC units or other Section 129 State plans. In particular, Subpart B
requires that State plans for MSW landfills be submitted to EPA within nine months after
promulgation of Emission Guidelines; whereas the Section 129 requirements that apply to MWC
units have a different schedule.
1.3 Indian Tribes and State Plans
Indian Tribes are not required to submit State or Tribal plans. However, Indian
Tribes have the authority under the CAA to develop Tribal plans in the same manner States
develop State plans. On February 12, 1998, EPA promulgated regulations that outline provisions
of the CAA for which EPA is authorized to treat Indian Tribes in the same manner as States
(see 63 FR 7254, Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning and Management). If the Indian Tribe
meets certain criteria, it may submit for EPA approval a Tribal plan to implement and enforce the
Emission Guidelines in Indian country. If an Indian Tribe chooses to prepare a Tribal plan, the
Indian Tribe would follow this guidance the same way as a State.
1.4 MSW Landfills Covered bv State Plans
State plans must address existing landfills that are subject to the Emission
Guidelines for MSW landfills. These Emission Guidelines outlined in Table 1-2 were
promulgated on March 12, 1996 (61 FR 9905), and codified in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cc.
Amendments to clarify the Emission Guidelines were published in the Federal Register on
June 16, 1998 (63 FR 32743). The amended rule will be published in Subpart Cc when the next
version of the CFR is published.
1-4
-------
Table 1-2. Outline of the Emission Guidelines for MSW Landfills
r (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cc)
P.. Section Contents
L 60.30c Scope
60.3 Ic Definitions
60.32c Designated facilities
60.33c Emission guidelines for municipal solid waste landfill emissions
60.34c Test methods and procedures
60.35c Reporting and recordkeeping guidelines
60.36c Compliance times
HP
The Emission Guidelines apply to existing MSW landfills, i.e., those that
commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction before May 30, 1991 and that have
**••
accepted waste at any time since November 8, 1987 or have additional capacity for future waste
deposition. New landfills (those that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction
on or after May 30, 1991) need not be addressed by State plans. Modification means an increase
„ in the permitted volume design capacity by either horizontal or vertical expansion. New,
modified, and reconstructed landfills are subject to the federal NSPS (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart
WWW), which has similar requirements to the Emission Guidelines.
The pollutant regulated by Subpart Cc is MSW landfill emissions, which contain a
mixture of VOC, other organic compounds, methane, and toxic pollutants. To determine
** whether control is required, non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) are measured as a
surrogate for MSW landfill emissions. The NSPS and Emission Guidelines are summarized in a
* fact sheet included in this document (see Appendix A). The full text of the Emission Guidelines
(Subpart Cc) including the direct final amendments is also provided (see Appendix I).
1-5
-------
1.5 Requirements for State Plans
States are required to develop Section 11 l(d) State plans to implement the MSW
landfill Emission Guidelines and to submit plans to EPA for approval. The first step for meeting
the State plan requirement is to identify existing MSW landfills that are subject to the Emission
Guidelines that are located in the State. If there are no existing MSW landfills in the State, then
the State need only submit a letter of certification to that effect, which is called a negative
declaration, and no plan is submitted. States may also submit negative declarations if they have
no existing MSW landfills with design capacities greater than or equal to 2.5 million megagrams
(Mg) and 2.5 million cubic meters (m3). Such negative declarations must include the design
capacities of the landfills. (The Emission Guidelines do not require control for landfills with
design capacities less than 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3.) Existing MSW landfills that are
closed must be included in the MSW landfill inventory if they have accepted waste at any time
since November 8, 1987, or have additional capacity for future waste deposition.
States that have existing MSW landfills and have not submitted a negative
declaration are required to submit a Section 11 l(d) State plan. As a minimum, the State plan
must include the following elements which are discussed in detail in Section 3.0.
• Identification of enforceable State mechanisms selected by the State for
implementing the Emission Guidelines;
• A demonstration of the State's legal authority to carry out the
Section 11 l(d) State plan as submitted;
• An inventory of existing MSW landfills in the State affected by the
Emission Guidelines;
• An inventory of emissions from existing MSW landfills in the State;
• Emission standards for existing MSW landfills;
• A process for State review and approval of site-specific gas collection and
control system design plans;
• Compliance schedules;
1-6
-------
• Testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements;
• A record of public hearing(s) on the State plan; and
• Provision for annual progress reports to EPA.
The State plans are due to EPA by December 12, 1996. Table 1-3 summarizes the
regulations for adopting and submitting State plans, as codified in Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 60,
and specifies the required elements of the plans.
1.6 Relationship Between the Section lll(d) State Plan and SIP
The State plans for implementing the MSW landfill Emission Guidelines are
different from State Implementation Plans (SIP) required by Sections 110 or 172 of the Clean Air
Act. The State plan and the SIP are both programs for State implementation of federal
requirements. For both, the administrative procedures, particularly the public hearing process,
are the same. Both programs are designed to achieve emission reductions at sources by
identifying the pollutant to be controlled, establishing the emission limits for the source, and
establishing procedures to ensure that emission limits are met.
However, the States and EPA fulfill different responsibilities under the two
programs. The goal of Section 11 l(d) State plans is to control the emissions of designated
pollutants2 by establishing standards of performance for existing sources. Section 11 l(d)
Emission Guidelines (including emission standards or performance levels) are based on
demonstrated technology and are established by EPA on a national level, and the States are
responsible for developing and implementing a program to achieve compliance with these
standards. The goal of the SIPs, on the other hand, is to attain and maintain National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or ambient concentrations for certain criteria pollutants (lead,
SO2, PM10, NO2, CO, and ozone) in a given area. Hence, in the SIP program, the State
2 The MSW landfills Section 11 l(d) Plans apply to MSW landfill emissions, measured as
NMOC.
1-7
-------
Table 1-3. Regulations for Adopting and Submitting State Plans
(40 CFR 60 Subpart B)
Section Number and Title
60.20 Applicability
60.21 Definitions
60.22 Publication of guideline
documents, Emission Guidelines,
and final compliance times
60.23 Adoption and submittal of State
plans, public hearings
60.24 Emission standards* and
compliance schedules
60.25 Emission inventories, source
surveillance, reports
60.26 Legal authority
60.27 Actions by the Administrator
60.28 Plan revisions6 by the State
60.29 Plan revisions6 by the
Administrator
General Contents
Subpart B applies when final guidelines
(Subpart Cc) are promulgated.
Defines key terms.
Describes contents of Emission Guidelines to be
developed by EPA.
Schedules and procedures for States to follow in
developing and submitting State plans.
Requirements for public hearings on State plans.
State plans must include emission standards and
compliance schedules. State plans may be no
less stringent than the guidelines, except as
provided in § 60.24(f).
Plans must include an inventory of existing
MSW landfills and their emissions and
provisions for monitoring compliance. States
must submit progress reports to EPA.
Plans must demonstrate that the State has legal
authority to carry out the plan as submitted.
Procedures for EPA review and approval or
disapproval of plans. Federal Plans will be
developed if States have not submitted timely
and approvable plans.
Procedures for revision of plans.
Procedures for revision of plans.
a Note that "emission standards" can include any State enforceable mechanisms including, but
not limited to, State rules (see Section 3.1 in this document).
b Plan revisions refer to changes to a State Plan that is already in place.
1-8
-------
establishes emission standards or standards based on the sources' contributions to local air
quality, meteorology, and other local factors. The emission control requirements for a regulated
source category under a SIP may vary from plant to plant based on local factors.
The States are responsible for implementing both Section 11 l(d) State plans and
SIP programs, and both programs complement each other. Where the SIP requirements are
adequate to meet the Section 11 l(d) standard, the State may elect to submit a Section 11 l(d)
State plan that relies on the requirements in the SIP, Section 110, to meet the Section 11 l(d)
emission standard. In addition, where the Section 11 l(d) requirements protect the NAAQS, the
State may elect to rely on these requirements in the control strategy in the SIP.
1-9
-------
2.0 SCHEDULE AND RESPONSIBILITIES
To develop a State plan to implement and enforce the Emission Guidelines, the
States, EPA, and landfill owners and operators have specific responsibilities in developing,
reviewing, and complying with State plans, as discussed below. Appendix B also discusses the
timeline for MSW landfills to comply with the Emission Guidelines.
2.1 State Plan Schedule
States must submit a plan to implement and enforce the Emission Guidelines
within nine months after promulgation of the Emission Guidelines. According to
40 CFR § 60.23(a), States are required by EPA to adopt and submit to the Administrator a plan
implementing requirements of the Emission Guidelines. Within the nine months, or before
December 12, 1996, States must develop a State plan, hold public hearings, and submit the plan
to the Administrator. Figure 2-1 is a flow chart showing the approval process. Table 2-1 is a
suggested schedule for developing State plans. The table shows more detail on the steps States
need to take to develop State plans.
After the State plan is submitted, EPA is required to approve or disapprove the
State plan within four months (approximately April 12, 1997). It is possible for the
Administrator to approve a portion of the plan and disapprove another portion. EPA's decision to
approve or disapprove each State plan will be published in the Federal Register (FR). Final
decisions will be codified in 40 CFR Part 62, "Approval and Promulgation of State plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants." If a plan is not approved, the basis for disapproval will be
discussed in the FR notice. For plans that are disapproved, the State should submit a corrected
plan that addresses these concerns. If a State does not submit an approvable plan, EPA will
promulgate a Federal Plan for the State. Under certain circumstances, a State may request an
extension of the period to submit a plan or corrected plan (see Section 3.11.1).
2-1
-------
3/12/96
Emission Guidelines,
Subpart Cc Promulgated
Designated Facility Located
Within the State 60.23(b)
9 months
12/12/96
No
Yes
State Submits Negative
Declaration Letter
Exempting Themselves
from Submitting a State Plan
State Conducts
Public Hearings
60.23(c)-(f)
State Submits Plan
60.23(a)
4 months
4/12/97
6/12/97
Administrator Approves
State Plan
60.27
No
Yes
State Implements
Plan
State Submits a corrected plan
the Administrator determines to
be approvable, or Administrator
promulgates a plan for the State,
60.27(d)
Figure 2-1. State Plan Approval Process and Schedule
2-2
-------
u Table 2-1. Suggested Schedule for Section lll(d) State Plans
*** Action Date
EPA promulgates Emission Guidelines March 12, 1996
EPA posts draft Guidance Document Volume 1 on the TTN March 1996
Web
»» State decides what State authority to use April 1996
State starts rulemaking or other procedure needed to ensure May 1996
State authority
State starts drafting State plan August 1996
State posts notice of public hearings September 1996 (30 days
before hearing)
EPA issues guidance on Section 11 l(d) State plans October 1996
**•
State completes rulemaking or other procedure needed to October 1996
ensure State authority
**>
State completes public hearing on State plan October 1996
State submits State plan to EPA (Regional Office) unless an December 12, 1996
* extension is received
State responds to any clarifications requested by EPA During the 4 month period
following December 12, 1996
EPA approves/disapproves the State plan April 12, 1997
EPA promulgates Federal Plan if State has not submitted an 1999a
approvable State plan
aA Federal Plan is expected to be proposed in late 1998 and promulgated in 1999.
2-3
-------
State plans may need to be modified in response to clarifying amendments to the
Emission Guidelines. A direct-final notice to amend the guidelines was published in the Federal
Register on June 16, 1998. Under 40 CFR § 60.23(a)(2), States have 9 months to adopt and
submit to EPA plan revisions consistent with the revised Emission Guidelines. EPA would then
review plan revisions and approve or disapprove them within 4 months. Because the
amendments were primarily corrections and clarifications, any changes to State plans are
expected to be minor.
2.2 Responsibilities
EPA, the States, and owners and operators of MSW landfills are responsible for
implementing the Emission Guidelines. The primary responsibilities are outlined below.
2.2.1 EPA Responsibilities
Assisting State, Local, and Tribal Programs and MSW Landfill Owners and
Operators. EPA assists State, local, and tribal agencies in developing approvable
Section 11 l(d) State plans. EPA provides information, answers questions, and interprets federal
requirements for the State and for MSW landfill owners and operators. EPA conducts outreach
and compliance assistance programs. EPA identifies contact persons to answer States' questions,
clarify approval criteria, and address specific implementation issues as necessary. States'
questions should be directed to the appropriate EPA contact to ensure efficient and consistent
responses. (See Appendix C for a list of State, regional, and other contacts.)
Review of State Plans. EPA is required to approve or disapprove the State plan
within four months of the submittal due date (December 12, 1996). States must develop their
Section 111 (d) State plans according to the criteria in this document and 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart B. EPA will inform the State if the EPA has questions about the State plan before
making a decision on the approval or disapproval of the State plan.
2-4
-------
Federal Plan. In the event approvable State plans (or local or tribal agency plans)
are not submitted, EPA will develop and implement a Federal Plan for those landfills not covered
by State plans or Tribal plans. The Federal Plan is expected to be a gap-filling action. When a
State or Tribal plan is submitted and approved after the Federal Plan is in effect, the Federal Plan
will no longer apply to MSW landfills covered by the State or Tribal plan after the State or Tribal
plan becomes effective.
Related Programs. EPA reviews and comments on State development of Title V
operating permits. Title V permits are not a required component of State plan submittal, nor are
they required for EPA approval of the State plan.
2.2.2 State Responsibilities
Developing a State Plan. The State develops and submits a State plan that meets
the criteria presented in Section 11 l(d), the Emissions Guidelines, and this document. This
document outlines how States can meet this responsibility. In some cases, local agencies, Indian
Tribes, or protectorates, rather than States, may develop plans for landfills in their jurisdictions.
The same responsibilities apply.
Establishing Compliance Schedules. The State plan must develop emission
limits and compliance schedules for all existing MSW landfills in the State. States should meet
with MSW landfill owners and operators to develop compliance schedules to ensure a workable
Section 11 l(d) State plan. All MSW landfills addressed by the State plan that have a design
capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3 must install emission controls
within 30 months after the landfill NMOC emission rate report shows NMOC emissions reach or
exceed 50 Mg/yr. States may require compliance sooner, but not later, than specified in the
Emission Guidelines, except in unusual case-by-case situations (see Section 3.11).
Submitting Progress Reports. States must report annually to the EPA on the
progress of implementing the plan, including the status of meeting increments of progress and
achieving final compliance. The States must also include in an annual report (as specified in
2-5
-------
Section 3.10) compliance status, enforcement actions, and updates on MSW landfill information
and emission data.
Related Programs. Once EPA approves a State's Section 11 l(d) plan and it is
effective, all applicable requirements from the plan and all the terms and conditions needed to
assure compliance with the applicable requirements must be incorporated into Title V permits for
those MSW landfills that are subject to Title V and the Emission Guidelines. See White Paper
Number 2 in Appendix F for EPA guidance on improving the implementation of Title V
operating permits programs.
Some MSW landfills are on the Superfund national priorities list. The Emission
Guidelines apply to existing MSW landfills, including Superfund sites that meet these criteria.
State plans should include such landfills. In addition to being subject to the requirements of the
Emission Guidelines, these landfills may need to undergo remedial actions under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). For
consistency, the requirements of the Emission Guidelines should be considered when
determining case-by-case CERCLA remedial actions at Superfund sites. This is discussed
further in the preamble to the promulgated NSPS and guidelines (61 FR 9909, March 12, 1996).
2.2.3 Landfill Owners and Operators Responsibilities
Developing Compliance Schedules and Installing Controls. MSW landfill
owners and operators must work with the State to develop a compliance plan and control system
schedule for the State plan that are both workable and meet requirements established by the State
to implement the Emission Guidelines. The schedule for achieving compliance generally must
be as stringent as the Emission Guidelines, however, on a case-by-case basis, the flexibility of the
Emission Guidelines allows some variations from the schedules specified in § 60.33c of
Subpart Cc and § 60.757 of Subpart WWW (see section 3.11 for additional information). Since
landfill owners and operators need to comply with their State's requirements, they should consult
with their State for schedules specific to their landfills. An example schedule of submittals and
2-6
-------
compliance times is described below for landfill owners and operators whose States adopt the
provisions of Subparts Cc and WWW.
Example submittals include a Design Capacity Report, an Annual Emission Rate
Report, and a Collection and Control System Design Plan. The owner or operator would submit
a Design Capacity Report within 90 days after the effective date of EPA's approval of the State
plan. If the design capacity is greater than or equal to 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3, the first
Emission Rate Report would be submitted at the same time. The MSW landfill owner or
operator would then submit a collection and control system design plan prepared by a
professional engineer within 1 year after the date of the first Emission Rate Report that shows
that the landfill's NMOC emission rate equals or exceeds 50 Mg/yr. Within 30 months after a
landfill's NMOC emission rate report shows NMOC emissions to be equal to or greater than
50 Mg/yr, MSW landfill owners and operators would install and start up a gas collection and
control system at a landfill. The landfill owner or operator would conduct an initial performance
test on the control system to document compliance within 180 days after control system startup.
A brief discussion and flow chart timeline describing the responsibilities of
landfill owners or operators is provided in Appendix B. The details regarding the owner or
operator's responsibilities and the schedule for installing controls are discussed in Section 2 of
MSW Landfills, Volume 1.
Meeting Additional Emission Guideline Requirements. Owners and operators
are responsible for meeting other Emission Guidelines requirements, including an initial
performance test and report to demonstrate compliance. They will also report ongoing
monitoring results and keep required records to demonstrate compliance.
Related Programs. Owners and operators must apply for a Title V operating
permit within a year of becoming subject to a Title V program. The authority for requiring
Title V permits for existing MSW landfills is found in Section 502(a) of the CAA and is codified
in 40 CFR Parts 70 and 71. Section 502(a) specifies that major sources and sources (including
2-7
-------
area sources) subject to standards or regulations under Sections 111 or 112 of the CAA (such as
the Emission Guidelines and NSPS) are required to obtain Title V operating permits.
MSW landfills that are subject to a Title V permitting program under parts 70 or
71 are required to submit Title V permit application within 12 months after first becoming
subject to Title V. If more than one requirement causes a landfill to become subject to Title V
permitting, the 12-month time frame for submitting a Title V application will be triggered by the
requirement that first causes the landfill to be subject to Title V. MSW landfills may, for
example, be subject to Title V permitting as a result of being a major source under one or more
of three major source definitions in Title V: (1) Section 112, (2) Section 302, or (3) Part D of
Title I of the CAA. MSW landfills could also be subject to Title V permitting as a result of being
subject to the Emission Guidelines.
The Emission Guidelines specify that landfills with design capacities greater than
or equal to 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3 are subject to Title V permitting requirements.
The guidelines also state that landfills smaller than 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3 are not
subject to Title V unless they are a major source or are subject for some other reason (e.g.,
subject to another section 111 or 112 regulation). An existing MSW landfill with a design
capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3 which is not already subject
to Title V, becomes subject to Title V permitting 90 days after the effective date of EPA's
approval of the relevant State plan. (This allows time for submission of the design capacity
report to determine if the landfill meets or exceeds the design capacity cutoff.) Permit
applications would generally be due within 1 year after this date, but States can establish earlier
schedules, prior to the 12-month deadline, for the submittal of permit applications. The
establishment of those earlier deadlines is consistent with Section 503(c) of the CAA. Owners
and operators should contact the respective permitting authorities to determine when permit
applications are due for their MSW landfills. White Paper Number 2 (see Appendix F) provides
guidance on improving implementation of Title V operating permits programs.
Construction or modification of a MSW landfill may trigger NSR. The NSR
program requires the preconstruction review of major new sources and major modifications. The
2-8
-------
review includes a control technology review and an analysis of the air quality impacts of the new
or modified source. On a case-by-case basis, some sources with Pollution Control Projects
(PCP) may be excluded from NSR. Landfills that apply controls to comply with the Emission
Guidelines may contact their State to determine whether they quality for the PCP exclusion.
NSR and the PCP exclusion are discussed in more detail in Appendix E.
2-9
-------
f-
3.0 REQUIRED ELEMENTS OF AN ACCEPTABLE STATE PLAN
This document and Appendix J contain summaries of existing information on the
required elements of a State plan. States may find this summary helpful in preparing
Section 11 l(d) State plans, and EPA will use it in reviewing the plans. A Section 11 l(d) State
plan for MSW landfills has ten essential elements:
1. Identification of enforceable State mechanisms selected by the State for
implementing the Emission Guidelines,
2. A demonstration of the State's legal authority to carry out the
Section 11 l(d) State plan as submitted,
3. An inventory of existing MSW landfills in the State affected by the
Emission Guidelines. An existing landfill may be active (currently
accepting waste or having additional capacity available for waste
deposition) or closed (no longer accepting waste nor having available
capacity for future waste deposition),
4. An inventory of emissions from existing MSW landfills in the State,
5. Emission standards for existing MSW landfills that are "no less stringent"
than those in the Emission Guidelines3,
6. A State process, as specified in § 60.33c(b) of Subpart Cc, for State review
and approval of site-specific gas collection and control system design
plans.
7. Compliance schedules extending no later than 30 months after the date
the annual NMOC emission rate reaches or exceeds 50 Mg/yr5,
8. Testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements,
9. A record of public hearing(s) on the State plan, and
10. Provision for annual State progress reports to EPA on implementation of
the State plan.
3On a case-by-case basis, the State may provide for a less stringent standard or a longer
compliance schedule if the State demonstrates to EPA that the criteria in § 60.24(f) of Subpart B
are met, and the EPA approves the standard or schedule. See Section 3.11 for additional
information.
3-1
-------
Table 3-1 summarizes these elements of the State plan for MSW landfills, provides citations
from Subparts B and Cc, and identifies the sections of this chapter that discuss each element.
Some components of a Section 11 l(d) State plan may duplicate existing State
requirements and therefore will not add additional requirements. For example, most States
require public notice for rulemaking consistent with 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B. Similarly,
Section 112 and Title V of the CAA require various demonstrations of legal authority. If earlier
demonstrations of legal authority by the State meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart B, the State will simply need to include copies of such demonstrations in the State plan
submittal. Appendix J, Key Elements of an Acceptable Section 11 l(d) State plan, provides a
detailed list of requirements for demonstrating legal authority if this initial authority has not been
previously demonstrated.
3.1 Criteria for an Adequate Enforceable Mechanism
Many States that have MSW landfills covered by the guidelines are developing
Section 11 l(d) State plans that will use State rules as the legal instrument to enforce the
Emission Guidelines. However, some States may use alternative mechanisms to implement the
Emission Guidelines. An essential element of a Section 11 l(d) State plan requires the plan to
include emission standards, which 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B § 60.20(f) defines as "a legally
enforceable regulation setting forth an allowable rate of emissions into the atmosphere, or
prescribing equipment specifications for control of air pollution emissions." For Section 11 l(d)
State plans, EPA interprets the term "regulation" in Section 60.22(f) to include, in addition to a
uniform State requirement or State rule, other mechanisms that are legally enforceable under
State law. For example, depending on the applicable State law, enforceable mechanisms that
might be used as the vehicle for implementing the MSW landfills Emission Guidelines may
include a regulatory or administrative order, a compliance order, or a State operating permit. A
State may select other enforceable mechanisms provided that the State demonstrates that it has
the underlying authority and demonstrates that the selected mechanism is State enforceable.
3-2
-------
Table 3-1. Summary of Requirements for Section lll(d) State Plans3
Required Item
Identify enforceable mechanisms selected by the
State to implement the guidelines
Show that State has legal authority to carry out
plan
An inventory of MSW landfills and an emissions
inventory
Allowable emission rates
Process for State review and approval of site-
specific gas collection and control system design
plans
Compliance schedules and legally enforceable
increments of progress for MSW landfills to
achieve compliance
Test methods and procedures used for determining
compliance with the emissions standards
Provisions for monitoring a MSW landfill's
compliance status, including:
1 . Legally enforceable procedures for requiring
the maintenance of records and periodic
reporting to the State for the determination of
compliance,
2. Periodic inspections and testing, and
3. Specific testing, monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements specified by
Subpart Cc.
Certification that a public hearing was held before
the State plan was adopted and list of the
attendees at the hearing and their affiliation, with
a summary of their presentations and handouts
State progress reports
Reference in 40 CFR
Part 60, Subpart B or Cc
60.24(a) of Subpart B
60.26(a) of Subpart B
60.25(a) and 60.25(c) of
Subpart B
60.24(b)(l), 60.24(c), and
60.24(f) of Subpart B and
60.33c of Subpart Cc
60.33c(b) of Subpart Cc
60.24(a) and 60.24(e)(l) of
Subpart B and 60.36(c) of
Subpart Cc
60.24(b)(2) of Subpart B and
60.34c of Subpart Cc
60.25(b) of Subpart Band
60.34c and 60.35c of
Subpart Cc
60.23(f)(l) and (2) of
Subpart B
60.25(f) of Subpart B
Section of this
Document
3.1
3.2
3.3 and 3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.10
aSee text of Section 3 and Appendix J of this document for additional discussion of the
required elements of a State plan.
3-3
-------
All applicable requirements on MSW landfills and terms and conditions needed to implement
and enforce these applicable requirements must remain continually in force throughout the time
the landfill is subject to the State plan even if the enforceable mechanism, e.g., permit, expires.
If the State relies on a mechanism that is not a State rule to implement the
Emission Guidelines, such as a regulatory order, the State must document in the State plan how
the selected mechanism meets the emission standards for the designated pollutant (MSW landfill
emissions, measured as NMOC) and attach a copy of the enforceable mechanism. A State
operating permit can be used as the enforceable mechanism in a State plan, as long as the
requirements contained in the permit are binding on the owner or operator as a matter of State
law. When EPA approves the State plan, the requirements in the permit would then become
federally enforceable. If a State rule is used, only citations of the overall rule and copies of the
sections pertaining to MSW landfills are required. The State does not have to submit a copy of
the entire rule. The State may submit a Section 11 l(d) State plan that relies on the requirements
in the SIP to meet the Section 11 l(d) emission standard for NMOC emissions, where they are
found to be adequate. If the State relies on existing or revised SIP emission limits to implement
the Section 11 l(d) MSW landfill emission standards, the State must submit the Section 11 l(d)
State plan citing the SIP and the date when it became effective and document how the SIP
assures that the requirements of Section 11 l(d) are met. In all cases the mechanism(s) must be in
place and effective by the date the State plan is submitted.
The EPA emphasizes that the determination of whether a particular mechanism
may be used to enforce the Emission Guidelines in a particular State is a question of State law;
the State law must give the State the requisite authority to enforce the emission limit using the
legal mechanism identified by the State. Thus, a mechanism (for example, a regulatory order)
that is approvable for one State under its State law might not be approvable if selected by another
State under the law in that State.
3-4
-------
After a State incorporates a State-enforceable requirement into the State plan, and
the plan has been approved by EPA and is effective, the State requirement, if it is to be codified,
becomes federally enforceable.
3.2 Demonstration of Legal Authority
The Section 11 l(d) State plan must demonstrate that the State has the legal
authority under current State law to adopt and implement the emission standards and compliance
schedules in the Section 111 (d) State plan. The legal authority must support the legal mechanism
selected by the State to implement the emission limits for MSW landfills. The legal authority
must be available to the State at the time the State submits its Section 11 l(d) State plan to EPA
[40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B, § 60.26(c)]. States must submit with the Section 11 l(d) State plan
copies of the laws or regulations that demonstrate the State's legal authority, unless: (1) such
laws or regulations were approved when previously submitted under either 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart B or other sections of the CAA, and (2) the State can demonstrate that such previously
submitted laws or regulations are applicable to the pollutants4 for which the plan is submitted
[§ 60.26(b)].
A State may use existing demonstrations of legal authority to meet the
requirements of Subpart B. The legislative structure of the State will determine which existing
authorities the State can use to implement the Section 11 l(d) requirements. This implementation
guidance provides the minimum requirements of Section 11 l(d) pertaining to MSW landfills,
and leaves the State flexibility to implement the requirements as long as provisions are
enforceable under State law.
"For MSW landfills, the regulated pollutant is MSW landfill emissions, measured as NMOC.
3-5
-------
A State must include in its demonstration of existing legal authority a showing
that it has the authority to:
1. Adopt emission standards and enforceable conditions (see Section 3.1) as
well as compliance schedules applicable to the designated facilities and
pollutant for which the Section 11 l(d) State plan is submitted;
2. Enforce the relevant laws, regulations, standards and compliance
schedules referenced in Section 11 l(d);
3. Obtain information necessary to determine compliance;
4. Require recordkeeping, make inspections, and conduct tests;
5. Require the use of monitors and require emission reports of MSW landfill
owners or operators; and
6. Make emission data available to the public.
Demonstrations of legal authority can take several forms. States that use a legal
mechanism other than rulemaking to implement the Emission Guidelines should submit legal
documentation, preferably an opinion by the State's Attorney General that the State possesses the
adequate authority to implement and enforce the Section 11 l(d) State plan using that legal
mechanism.
A State governmental agency other than the State air pollution control agency may
be assigned responsibility for carrying out a portion of a Section 11 l(d) State plan, provided that
the State demonstrates that the State governmental agency has adequate authority [§ 60.26(e) of
Subpart B]. The State may authorize a local agency to implement a portion of the Section 11 l(d)
State plan provided that the local agency demonstrates that it has adequate legal authority to
implement that portion of the plan and the State is not relieved of responsibility [§ 60.26(e)].
3.3 Source Inventory
A complete source inventory of existing MSW landfills in the State that are
regulated by the Emission Guidelines must be submitted as part of the Section 11 l(d) State plan
3-6
-------
[§ 60.25(a) of Subpart B]. An "existing" landfill is a landfill that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction before May 30, 1991 and that has accepted waste at any time
since November 8, 1987 or has additional capacity for future waste deposition. (Landfills that
commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction since then are considered "new" and
are subject to the NSPS instead of the Emission Guidelines.) "Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
New Source Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines — Questions and Answers",
posted on the TTN Web, contains additional information on applicability.
The source inventory should include existing MSW landfills with design
capacities both above and below the 2.5 million Mg/yr or 2.5 million m3/yr design capacity
cutoff. Landfills below this capacity are not required to apply controls under the Emission
Guidelines, but they are required to submit a design capacity report and supporting information
to show that they are below the cutoff.
State air agencies may be able to obtain information on these landfills from their
State solid waste agency counterparts. The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to
RCRA required States to establish a permit program or other system of prior approval to ensure
that facilities receiving household hazardous waste or small quantity generator hazardous waste
are in compliance with 40 CFR Part 257. This permit program was to be established by
November 8, 1987. This permit program is a resource for States to use in locating landfills that
are subject to the Emission Guidelines. Another source of information may be county and
municipal governments.
One special consideration for identifying all of the existing MSW landfills is that
some may be closed. Identifying and locating owners or operators of closed MSW landfills may
be difficult; however, only landfills that have accepted MSW since November 8, 1987 or have
additional capacity for future waste deposition are subject to the Emission Guidelines.
Therefore, these landfills may have RCRA permits. Once a closed MSW landfill has been
identified, the State will need to identify and locate the owner, operator, or responsible party.
3-7
-------
3.4 Emission Inventory
An emission inventory based on the MSW landfills source inventory required by
§ 60.25(a) of Subpart B, must be included in the Section 11 l(d) State plan. The inventory must
present estimates of the pollutant regulated by the Emission Guidelines, which is NMOC.
Emission estimates should be reported in Mg/yr NMOC. The emissions inventory must be made
available to the general public and presented with the applicable emission standards.
In view of the limited requirements on landfills below the 2.5 million Mg or
2.5 million m3 cutoff, the EPA will allow States, in limited circumstances, to submit emission
inventories as part of State plans without developing emissions data where the development of
such data would be unreasonable or impractical. For example, it may be unreasonable or
impractical for an MSW landfill below the size cutoff to estimate NMOC emissions if the
landfill is closed and there are no records of waste in place. A memo entitled, "Emission
Inventory for MSWLF State plans" is posted on the TTN Web
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3pgm.html) and discusses this policy in detail. The memo is also
included in this document as Appendix K. The allowance for exclusion of NMOC emission
from certain landfills below 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3 does not affect the requirement for
States to submit an inventory of existing MSW landfills with the State plans. The memo
provides details on situations where obtaining emissions data may be unreasonable or
impractical.
3.4.1 Emission Estimation Procedures
Two different methods can be used to estimate emissions from landfills. To
estimate emissions for State inventories, the procedures in AP-42, "Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors"5 are the preferred method unless site-specific data is available. To determine
5AP-42 is the common name for the EPA document entitled "Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources," Fifth Edition, January 1995,
available from GPO or from the CHIEF TTN Website (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief). The
landfill emission factors section was updated in November 1998.
3-8
-------
applicability of or compliance with the MSW Emission Guidelines, the owner or operator must
use the tiered emission estimation procedure in § 60.754 of Subpart WWW or another method if
it has been approved by the EPA Administrator as provided in § 60.752(b)(2)(i)(B).
The equations in Subpart WWW are the same as the AP-42 equations. However,
the values of the variables used in the equations are different for the two methods. The variable
values specified in Subpart WWW are purposefully conservative to protect human health, to
encompass a wide range of landfills, and to encourage the use of site-specific data. The variable
values in AP-42 would more accurately reflect current conditions at a landfill and thus yield
more accurate emissions for the purposes of the emission inventory.
AP-42 Procedures. Emission estimation procedures for MSW landfills from
AP-42, the "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors" are presented in Appendix D. These
procedures, from Section 2.4, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills have been updated to reflect
changes to the Section which were published in September 1997. AP-42 includes equations that
estimate emissions as a function of three variables: the NMOC concentration in landfill gas
(CNMOC); the methane generation rate constant (k); and the refuse methane generation potential
(L0). Although site-specific testing is not required for developing the emission inventory, it is
preferable to use site-specific measured data for the variables when it is available because it
would better reflect the conditions at a particular landfill. If site-specific data is not available,
default values for these variables, which are found in AP-42, can be used. The default values for
these variables are designed to provide typical, or average, estimates of landfill emissions and are
appropriate for use in State emission inventories. However, it should be stressed that the AP-42
default values should NOT be used to determine applicability of or compliance with the MSW
landfills Emission Guidelines.
Subpart WWW Procedures. Under the Emission Guidelines, the owner or
operator must use the tiered emission estimation procedure in § 60.754 of Subpart WWW to
determine whether the annual emission rate equals or exceeds the 50 Mg/yr NMOC cutoff and
whether the landfill must be controlled. The owner or operator must use the equations and Tier 1
default values provided in the NSPS and the Emission Guidelines to determine NMOC emissions
3-9
-------
or develop site-specific values using the Tier 2 or 3 procedures in § 60.754. If a MSW landfill
equals or exceeds the 50 Mg/yr cutoff using Tier 1 procedures, they can apply controls or collect
site-specific data and refine the emission estimates using Tier 2 or 3 procedures.
Computer Model for Calculating Emissions. A computer model is available to
calculate landfill emissions. It uses equations that are the same as those in the Emission
Guidelines and AP-42. The model contains default values from AP-42 that can be used to
estimate emissions for inventories and permitting purposes. It also contains default values from
the NSPS and Emission Guidelines that can be used to determine applicability of the Emission
Guidelines. Appendix D provides information on the computer model and how to obtain it.
3.4.2 Annual Emission Reporting
In addition to the initial emission inventory, States must submit annual progress
reports on implementation of the Emission Guidelines. These annual progress reports, described
in Section 3.10, must include updated NMOC emission rate data (per § 60.25(a), (e), and (f) of
Subpart B). To avoid duplication, these updated emission estimates must be included in the
annual State Implementation Plan (SIP) reports required by § 51.321. These annual reports must
update the emission inventory for those sources whose emissions have changed more than
5 percent from the most recently submitted emission data (as specified in §§ 51.321 through
51.323). If emissions from an MSW landfill have not changed more than 5 percent, then the
State must update the year of record of the previously reported emission data. This emission data
must be reported to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem (AFS) as
specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix D. AFS is a repository of emission information for
stationary sources that has now superseded the National Emissions Data System (NEDS)
described in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix D. A discussion of other types of information that must
be included in the annual progress reports is contained in Section 3.10.
3-10
-------
3.5 Emission Standards
3.5.1 Allowable Emission Rates and Control Requirements
The State plan must include emission standards that prescribe allowable emission
rates for existing MSW landfills. Subpart B [§ 60.24(c)] specifies that emission standards should
be "no less stringent than" the Subpart Cc Emission Guidelines, except as provided under
§ 60.24(f), discussed in Section 3.11.
The Emission Guidelines require control of emissions from existing MSW
landfills (that is, MSW landfills that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction
before May 30, 1991 and have not been modified or reconstructed since May 30, 1991 and have
accepted waste at any time since November 8, 1987 or have additional capacity for future waste
deposition) that:
have a design capacity greater than or equal to 2.5 million Mg and
2.5 million m3; and
have an NMOC emission rate of 50 Mg/year or more.
The level of control required by the Emission Guidelines for these landfills includes a collection
and control system. The collection system must meet certain design criteria. The control system
must either:
• achieve 98 percent NMOC reduction (by weight, determined by the
performance test procedures specified in the rule); or
• be an enclosed combustion device achieving an outlet NMOC
concentration of less than 20 ppmv (as hexane, dry basis at 3 percent
oxygen); or
• be an open flare meeting the design and operating specifications of § 60.18
of 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart A.
State plans must generally require this same level of control.
3-11
-------
Section 60.24(b)(l) of Subpart B specifies that Section 11 l(d) State plans should
include emission rates, or if these are impractical, State plans may contain equipment
specifications. The Emission Guidelines for existing MSW landfills provide a combination of
emission limits and design criteria. Emission limits (for example, 98 percent reduction) are
practical for most control devices and are included in the Emission Guidelines. However, it is
not practical to establish numerical limits or measure performance for landfill gas collection
systems and flares, so design criteria are provided for gas collection systems and flares. Thus, a
State plan that allows design criteria for gas collection systems and flares similar to the Emission
Guidelines will meet the requirements of § 60.24(b)(l).
Section 60.24(b)(l) further specifies that if emission standards prescribing
equipment specifications are established, the State plan must set forth to the degree possible the
emission reductions achievable by implementation of such specifications. The State plan may
permit compliance by the use of equipment determined by the State to be equivalent to that
prescribed. The Subpart Cc Emission Guidelines contain design criteria rather than prescriptive
equipment specifications. They also provide for submission of alternative collection system
design plans for systems that do not meet the design criteria for active collection systems and
they provide for approval of alternative collection systems and control devices. Therefore, State
plans that allow alternative equipment that meet the design criteria for active and passive
collection systems specified in the Emission Guidelines will fulfill the intent of § 60.24(b)(l).
Section 60.24(f) allows the State in certain case-by-case situations to provide for a less stringent
standard (see Section 3.11).
3.6 Process for Review of Design Plans
The Emissions Guidelines [§ 60.33c(b) of Subpart Cc] require State plans to
include a process for State review and approval of site-specific design plans for required gas
collection and control systems. If MSW landfill emissions equal or exceed 50 Mg/yr, the landfill
owner or operator must submit a site-specific design plan within 1 year. The plan must be
prepared by a professional engineer and must meet the design criteria in § 60.752(b)(2)(ii) of
Subpart WWW. The plan must also conform to design specifications for active collection
3-12
-------
systems in § 60.759 of Subpart WWW or include a demonstration of the sufficiency of
alternative provisions [see § 60.752(b)(2) of Subpart WWW]. Further information about the
design criteria and examples of alternative designs are contained in "Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills, Volume 1: Summary of the Requirements for the New Source Performance Standards
and Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills" (EPA-453/R-96-004).
The process that the State will use to review the gas collection and control system
design plan must be described in the State plan. The description of the process in the State plan
could include information on review responsibilities, schedules, and notification procedures such
as communication of reasons for disapproval. States are encouraged to review the design plans
expeditiously so that there is sufficient time after approval for the landfills to install controls
prior to the compliance date.
3.7 Compliance Schedules
To comply with the emission limits contained in the Section 11 l(d) State plan,
existing MSW landfills may need to install emission controls. The State plan must contain
schedules for controlling emissions from these landfills. The elements included in a compliance
schedule are listed in Table 3-2.
3.7.1 Compliance Times
The compliance schedules for MSW landfills are developed by the State air
pollution control agency considering input from the public and input from the MSW landfills
owners and operators. The Emission Guidelines place certain restrictions on these schedules.
The Emission Guidelines [§ 60.36(c)] specify that owners or operators must
accomplish specific tasks within 30 months after the Annual Emission Rate Report first shows
that emissions equal or exceed 50 Mg/yr of NMOC. These tasks include planning, awarding of
contracts, installing MSW landfill air emission collection and control equipment capable of
meeting the Emission Guidelines, and complying with the Emission Guidelines.
3-13
-------
Table 3-2. Schedule for MSW Landfill Compliance with
the Emission Guidelines
State plan submittal to EPA
EPA approval of State plan
Submit Design Capacity Report. Also submit
first Annual Emission Rate Report if design
capacity is greater than or equal to 2.5 million
Mg and 2.5 million m3
If not in compliance by this date, need
enforceable increments of progress for MSW
landfills
Submit a final control plan. (The final control
plan may be interpreted to be the same as the
site-specific collection and control system
design plan required by the Emission
Guidelines.)
Award contracts for gas collection and control
system
Initiate construction or installation of gas
collection and control system
Complete construction and installation of gas
collection and control system
Final compliance date for MSW landfill
Initial performance test for MSW landfill
control system
Reports of periodic monitoring results
December 12, 1996
April 12, 1997
A set date in State plan. For consistency with Subparts Cc and
WWW, 90 days after the effective date of the EPA's approval
of the State plan.
April 12, 1998
A set date in State plan. For consistency with Subparts Cc
and WWW, the collection and control system design plan
must be submitted within 1 year after the date of the landfill's
submittal of the first Annual Emission Rate Report that shows
that NMOC emissions first equal or exceed 50 Mg/yr of
NMOC
A set date in State plan
A set date in State plan
A set date in State plan. For consistency with Subpart Cc,
installation of a collection and control system capable of
achieving compliance with the Emission Guidelines must be
accomplished within 30 months after a landfill's annual
emission rate report first shows that emissions equal or exceed
50Mg/yrofNMOC.a
A set date in State plan. For consistency with Subpart Cc, the
collection and control system must be operating in compliance
with the Emission Guidelines within 30 months after a
landfill's annual emission rate report first shows that emissions
equal or exceed 50 Mg/yr of NMOC."
As scheduled in State plan and for consistency with the NSPS
general provisions, no later than 180 days after installation of
the collection and control system
Annually after compliance date
"On a case-by-case basis, the State may provide for a longer compliance schedule only if the State demonstrates in
the Section 11 l(d) State plan that the criteria in § 60.24(f) of Subpart B are met, and the EPA approves the
compliance schedule.
3-14
-------
States can require landfills to comply sooner than the dates specified in the
Emission Guidelines. In fact, § 60.24(c) specifies that State plans must require compliance as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the compliance times suggested in the Emission
Guidelines. The EPA believes that many landfills will need the compliance time specified in the
Emission Guidelines to design and install collection and control systems. A shorter compliance
time may be specified if a State determines more rapid compliance is reasonable for certain
landfills, or groups of landfills. States may provide for a longer compliance schedule on a case-
by-case basis (see Section 3.11.3).
3.7.2 Increments of Progress
Compliance schedules for MSW landfills with compliance dates that extend more
than 1 year beyond the date of State plan approval must include legally enforceable increments of
progress towards compliance as required by § 60.24(e) of Subpart B. Because the Emission
Guidelines allow 30 months after the first Annual Emission Rate Report shows NMOC
emissions equal or exceed 50 Mg/yr for compliance, State plans that are based on the Emission
Guidelines will need to include increments of progress. Each increment of progress in § 60.2l(h)
of Subpart B must have an enforceable compliance date in the Section 11 l(d) State plan that may
include such additional increments of progress as may be necessary for close and effective
supervision of progress toward final compliance.
The minimum five increments of progress required by § 60.2 l(h) of Subpart B for
each MSW landfill within a State are as follows:
Submitting a final control plan. The control plan may be interpreted to be
the same as the site-specific collection and control system design plan
required by the Emission Guidelines (see Section 3.6). If the State plan
uses the schedule in Subparts Cc and WWW, an Annual Emission Rate
Report is due 90 days after the effective date of EPA's approval of the
State plan and the control plan is due within 1 year of the date of the first
Annual Emission Report showing that the NMOC emission rate is
50 Mg/yr or greater. In this example, the date of the increment of progress
is tied to the date of the annual emission report;
3-15
-------
2. Awarding contracts for construction of collection and control systems or
orders for purchase of components;
3. Initiating on-site construction or installation of the collection and control
systems;
4. Completing on-site construction or installation of collection and control
systems; and
5. Final compliance.
All five increments of progress for MSW landfills can be fixed calendar dates or
floating dates (such as the example shown for increment No. 1). The floating dates can be tied to
the effective date of EPA's approval of the State plan or the date the Annual Emission Rate
Report shows that NMOC emissions equal or exceed 50 Mg/yr.
As previously discussed, Subpart Cc requires the fourth increment, the installation
of collection and control systems capable of meeting the Emission Guidelines to be completed
within 30 months after the date the first Annual NMOC Emission Rate Report shows NMOC
emissions equal or exceed 50 Mg/yr. The landfill must also be in compliance (increment 5) at
this time.
EPA strongly recommends that a date for the initial official performance test of
the control device be included in the Section 11 l(d) State plan. Following installation of the
collection and control system, a performance test must be completed within 180 days. In
addition, the Section 111 general provisions (40 CFR 60 Subpart A) require a 30-day notice
before a performance test. The report of the performance test results must be submitted within
60 days after the test is conducted. These test results are for demonstrating whether or not the
MSW landfill is in compliance with the emission standards after the controls are installed. This
performance test timing is consistent with other EPA air regulations for existing sources, such as
the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR 63 Subpart A). Note that the "initial" official
performance test denoted above does not mean the first ever test but rather the first official test
for determining compliance; that is, EPA would expect MSW landfill owners and operators to
conduct preliminary tests for their own use (similar to other industry owners and operators who
3-16
-------
typically conduct preliminary tests to tune equipment) at least two to three months before the
scheduled initial official performance test. Preliminary tests enable MSW landfill owners to
make any necessary "shakedown" adjustments and retest before the initial official performance
test. EPA does not have to be notified of the unofficial tests nor do they have to be on site for the
unofficial tests.
The Section 11 l(d) State plan may include one set of increments with compliance
dates applicable to all MSW landfills within the State or it may vary the compliance dates from
one MSW landfill to another to address specific issues relevant to individual landfills. In all
cases, the enforceable increments of progress must be arranged chronologically, and the
compliance dates must be set to ensure full compliance with the applicable requirements as
expeditiously as practicable [§ 60.24(c) of Subpart B]. For example, a State plan that requires a
MSW landfill to submit a final control plan no later than 2 years after the effective date of EPA's
approval of the State plan will likely be disapproved because the increment is too close to the end
of the compliance window, does not appear to ensure expeditious progress, and thus jeopardizes
timely compliance. Although there may be MSW landfill-specific reasons for other schedules,
EPA would expect the control plan to be submitted within 15 months of the effective date of
EPA's approval of the State plan (90 days for the first Annual Emission Rate Report plus 1 year
for the control plan if NMOC emissions equal or exceed 50 Mg/yr). EPA would expect contracts
to be awarded within about 20 months for landfills that must comply within 33 months (90 days
for the Annual Emission Rate Report plus 30 months for compliance, if NMOC emissions equal
or exceed 50 Mg/yr).
3.8 Testing. Monitoring. Recordkeeping. and Reporting
The Section 11 l(d) State plan must include requirements for the testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions from the Emission Guidelines.
3-17
-------
3.8.1 Requirements of the Emission Guidelines
The testing and monitoring provisions are specified in the MSW landfills
Emission Guidelines (§ 60.34c of Subpart Cc). They apply to landfills with design capacities
greater than or equal to 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3, and include, in particular:
• calculation of the MSW landfill NMOC emission rate using the
procedures in § 60.754 of Subpart WWW to determine whether the annual
emission rate equals or exceeds the emission rate cutoff of 50 Mg/yr;
• the operational standards in § 60.753 of Subpart WWW;
• the compliance provisions in § 60.755 of Subpart WWW; and
• the monitoring provisions in § 60.756 of Subpart WWW.
For landfills that emit 50 Mg/yr or more of NMOC, a performance test is required to demonstrate
that the control device achieves the specified emission limits. The operational standards,
compliance, and monitoring provisions require periodic monitoring of surface methane
concentration, wellhead temperature, and nitrogen or oxygen level. Details on the compliance
and monitoring requirements are contained in Subparts Cc and WWW (Appendix I). The
document, "Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Volume 1: Summary of the Requirements for the
New Source Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills" (EPA-453/R-96-004) further explains these requirements.
The recordkeeping and reporting provisions are specified in the MSW landfills
Emission Guidelines (§ 60.25c of Subpart Cc). For approval, the State plan must include:
• the reporting provisions in § 60.757 of Subpart WWW; and
• the recordkeeping provisions in § 60.758 of Subpart WWW.
The MSW landfill owner or operator must maintain records of the design capacity, performance
test, and monitoring data for five years. Certain records on collection and control system design
3-18
-------
and the initial performance test must be kept for the life of the control equipment. The MSW
landfill owner or operator must submit an initial design capacity report. If the design capacity is
greater than or equal to 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3, the landfill owner or operator must
submit Annual NMOC Emission Rate Reports.6 Both the design capacity report and the first
Annual Emission Rate Report are due within 90 days of the effective date of EPA's approval of
the State plan. If NMOC emissions are 50 Mg/yr or more, a collection and control system design
plan must be submitted. An initial test report and annual report of testing and monitoring results
are required after the collection and control system is installed. Closure reports are required
when the landfill closes. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are described in more
detail in the "Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Volume 1: Summary of the Requirements for the
New Source Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills" (EPA-453/R-96-004). The regulatory text of these requirements are contained in
Subpart Cc and Subpart WWW (Appendix I).
A State plan that incorporates the testing, monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements specified in Subpart Cc will be consistent with the State plan
requirements in Subpart B. Under § 60.25(b) of Subpart B, State plan requirements for
monitoring compliance must include the following:
• legally enforceable requirements for owners and operators to keep records
of the nature and amount of emissions and any other information that may
be necessary to enable the State to judge compliance. This information
must be reported periodically to the State (Subpart Cc requires such
records and reports);
• legally enforceable requirements that provide for periodic inspection and
testing (Subpart Cc requires periodic inspection and monitoring); and
• provisions for making reports of emission data, correlated with the
emission standards that apply, available to the general public. This would
include the Annual Emission Rate Reports, in Mg/yr, that must be
submitted for uncontrolled landfills. The reported annual emission rate
6If estimated NMOC emissions are less than 50 Mg/yr for each of the next 5 consecutive
years, the owner or operator may elect to submit a 5-year emission rate report instead of Annual
Emission Rate Reports per § 60.757(b) of Subpart WWW.
3-19
-------
would be compared to the 50 Mg/yr threshold to determine whether
controls must be installed.7
3.8.2 Provisions for Requirements Other Than Those in the Emission Guidelines
Requirements in State plans for compliance demonstration, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting must be at least as stringent as the Emission Guidelines. In
developing the Emission Guidelines, EPA sought to develop a system that would provide all the
information necessary to determine compliance, yet would not be burdensome to landfills or
generate unnecessary paperwork. However, a State can choose to require more frequent reports
or additional information. Test methods and procedures for determining compliance that are
different than those specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A may be specified in the plan as
allowed in § 60.24(b) of Subpart B. These alternatives must be shown to be "equivalent
methods," or acceptable "alternative methods" as defined in § 60.2 of Subpart A.
3.9 Public Hearings
Public participation, under the provisions of the CAA, is an important right and
responsibility of citizens in the State process of developing, adopting, and implementing
Section 11 l(d) State plans. As with State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for criteria pollutants,
EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B, make it clear that citizen input on Section 11 l(d)
State plans is encouraged in order to help define appropriate emission standards and compliance
schedules. Under Subpart B, some minimum public participation requirements are as follows:
1. Reasonable notice of opportunity for one or more public hearing(s) at least
30 days before the hearing.
7For landfills that require control, the emission standards are expressed in terms of design
criteria and operational requirements for the gas collection system and a percent reduction for the
control device, instead of emission rate limits. Therefore, the Subpart B requirement to
"correlate" the annual emission inventory information (in Mg/yr, discussed in Section 3.4) with
the landfill emission standards is not relevant for controlled landfills. The performance testing,
monitoring, and recordkeeping procedures in the Emission Guidelines are appropriate for
determining compliance with the percent reduction limit and collection system requirements.
3-20
-------
2. One or more public hearing(s) on the Section 11 l(d) State plan (or
revision) conducted at location(s) within the State, if requested.
3. Date, time, and place of hearing(s) prominently advertised in each region
affected.
4. Availability of draft Section 11 l(d) State plan for public inspection in at
least one location in each region to which it will apply.
5. Notice of hearing provided to:
a. EPA Regional Administrator
b. Local affected agencies
c. Other States affected
6. Certification that the public hearing, if held, was conducted in accordance
with Subpart B and State procedures.
7. Hearing records must be retained for a minimum of two years. These
records must include the list of commenters, their affiliation, summary of
each presentation and/or comments submitted, and the State's responses to
those comments.
3.10 State Progress Reports to EPA
States are required under § 60.25(e) and (f) to submit to EPA annual reports on
the progress of plan enforcement. These reports must be incorporated into the reports required
by 40 CFR § 51.321. Inclusion in this § 51.321 report is intended to avoid duplicative reporting.
The first progress report is due 1 year after plan approval or promulgation of a plan by EPA.
Section 60.25(f) applies to all regulated sources; however, MSW landfills and emissions from
MSW landfills are different from typical sources and emissions. The following list has been
modified to reflect how the progress report items specifically apply to MSW landfills.
1. Enforcement actions. The State must report enforcement actions initiated
against a MSW landfill during the reporting period. For example, the
State must report any enforcement actions taken in response to a
compliance schedule or emission limit violation.
2. Increments of progress. The State must report achievement of increments
of progress made by landfills such as submittal of a final control plan
3-21
-------
(design plan) or initiation of on-site construction of the collection and
control system.
3. Identification of MSW landfills that have closed and ceased to operate a
collection and control system. Landfills that have ceased to accept MSW
will continue to emit NMOC. Emission Guidelines require the control
system to be operated even after the landfill has closed. Control systems
may be removed after: a closure report has been submitted, the collection
and control system has been operated a minimum of 15 years, and NMOC
emissions are less than 50 Mg/yr. The State progress report should identify
closed MSW landfills that have met these criteria and have ceased to
operate their control systems.
4. Emission inventory for MSW landfills that were not in operation or were
not identified at the time of plan development. Except for MSW landfills
that were not identified in the State plan and were later determined to be
affected by the Emission Guidelines, most existing MSW landfills would
have been in operation at the time of plan development.
5. Updated information or emission data. The State must report updated
landfill information such as any increases in design capacity and newly
identified existing MSW landfills that were not included in the State plan.
In addition, emissions data must be reported for existing MSW landfills, if
the annual emission rate from the landfill has changed by more than
5 percent from the previous year, as discussed in Section 3.4.2. Emissions
must also be reported if the annual emission rate report submitted by a
MSW landfill shows that emissions have increased to 50 Mg/yr or more,
such that the landfill now requires control.
6. Test reports and concurrent data. Subpart B requires that the initial
performance test and concurrent process data be submitted with an annual
report. However, since MSW landfill emissions are not generated by a
manufacturing process, concurrent process data are not applicable;
therefore, control device operating conditions should be reported with the
performance test.
States may want to include additional information on periodic inspection and
testing activities, emission and parameter exceedances, QA/QC, outreach activities, Title V or
other permit condition compliance status, and compliance assistance activities. Some States and
EPA regional offices have developed more specific or tailored reporting and recordkeeping
procedures via Memoranda of Agreements, Program Specific Guidance for Section 105 Grants,
and the Timely and Appropriateness Guidance. For example, some EPA offices prefer that the
3-22
-------
States retain the performance test reports until EPA requests review as part of a compliance
determination or other action. The State and EPA will continue to have discretion on the format
of the annual reports. States should work with their EPA regional office to determine appropriate
reporting procedures for MSW landfill State plans.
3.11 State Flexibility
States may request an extension to the submittal date of their State plans or
prescribe less stringent emission standards or longer compliance schedules than the Emission
Guidelines. These case-by-case situations are described below.
3.11.1 Submittal of State Plan
Extension of Submittal of State Plan. Section 60.27(a) allows the EPA
Administrator to extend the period of submission of plans or revised plans if the Administrator
determines this to be necessary. If a State requests an extension, the State must demonstrate why
such an extension is necessary.
3.11.2 Emission Standards
States may prescribe more stringent emission standards than the Emission
Guidelines. States may prescribe less stringent emission standards only in unique situations.
These case-by-case less stringent standards must be justified in the State plan and are subject to
EPA approval. The provisions for allowing less stringent emission standards are provided in
§ 60.24(0 of Subpart B. This paragraph States that on a case-by-case basis for particular
designated facilities, or classes of facilities, States may provide for the application of less
stringent emission standards if certain criteria are met. These criteria are: (1) unreasonable cost
of control resulting from age, location, or design, (2) physical impossibility of installing
necessary control equipment, or (3) other factors specific to the MSW landfills that make
application of a less stringent standard significantly more reasonable. The State is responsible
for demonstrating the reason for any less stringent emission standards in its State plan.
3-23
-------
The MSW landfill Emission Guidelines are a health-based Section 11 l(d)
emission standard rather than a welfare-based standard as have been some previous
Section 11 l(d) standards. As a health-based standard, greater consideration should be given to
the health impacts of a less stringent emission standard during the development and evaluation of
State standards for MSW landfills. Any less stringent emission standards should be carefully
reviewed to assure that public health will not be adversely affected by MSW landfill emissions.
Public comments on the landfill NSPS and Emission Guidelines contain examples
of situations where a State might want to consider a less stringent standard. These public
comments are summarized in the background information document, "Air Emissions from
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills — Background Information for Final Standards and
Guidelines," (EPA-453/R-94-021). For example, an existing MSW landfill might already have
installed a 95 percent efficient combustion control device prior to proposal of the Emission
Guidelines. Engineering analysis might show that the existing control device cannot be upgraded
to achieve 98 percent. The State might judge the costs of replacing the control device to be
unreasonable in light of the 3 percent additional reduction that would be achieved. Another
example that might warrant special consideration would be a landfill that closed on or after
November 8, 1987, but before the May 1991 proposal date and that has no means of obtaining
funding for installation of a control system. A third situation would be a landfill that accepts
very little MSW and, because of the site-specific waste mixture and landfill design
characteristics, experiences unreasonable costs relative to typical landfills. It should be stressed
that the State must demonstrate that one or more of the criteria in § 60.24(f) are met and gain
EPA approval in order to apply a less stringent standard.
3.11.3 Compliance Schedules
States have the option of allowing longer compliance times for particular MSW
landfills or classes of MSW landfills on a case-by-case basis if certain criteria listed in § 60.24(f)
are met. These criteria are the same as the criteria for a less stringent standard. These criteria
allow States discretion in regulating individual MSW landfills. In the plan, the State must
demonstrate that one of these criteria apply when a less stringent compliance schedule is
3-24
-------
specified for a MSW landfill or class of MSW landfills. EPA approval is required for less
stringent control system schedules. As mentioned in Section 3.11.2, the MSW landfill Emission
Guidelines are a health-based standard rather than a welfare-based standard. As a health-based
standard, greater consideration should be given to the health impacts of any less stringent
compliance schedule during the development and evaluation of State plans for MSW landfills.
3-25
-------
4.0 ANSWERS TO SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION lll(D)
STATE PLANS
This section contains answers to some frequently asked questions about
development and submittal of Section 11 l(d) State plans. Additional questions and answers are
contained in the document "Municipal Solid Waste Landfill New Source Performance Standards
and Emission Guidelines—Questions and Answers," available on the TTN Web.
Question No. 1: If a State uses a SIP regulation as a basis for the enforceable mechanism in a
State plan, does the State need to demonstrate legal authority?
Answer: A State can select from a range of legal mechanisms as
described in this summary document provided that the State can
show it has adequate legal authority. A demonstration of legal
authority is required in all cases except for State rules. If a SIP rule
is used, citations, rather than copies of actual State legal authority
are adequate. The State must show that the SIP requirements are
adequate to meet the NMOC control requirements in the Emission
Guidelines. [See § 60.26(b) of Subpart B].
Question No. 2: Do emission limits in the State plan need to be the same as the emission limits
in the Subpart Cc Emission Guidelines?
Answer: The emission limits in the State plan must generally be
"no less stringent than" the Emission Guidelines, and EPA
recommends that the limits be presented in the same regulatory
format as the Emission Guidelines (for example, a percent
reduction or concentration limits for the control device and design
criteria for the gas collection system). If a regulatory format other
than that used in the Emission Guidelines is used in a State plan,
then the State must show how the format correlates to the format in
the Emission Guidelines and demonstrate that it is no less stringent
than the Emission Guidelines. In limited case-by-case situations, a
State plan may request approval of less stringent emission limits.
As described in Section 3.11.2, the State plan would need to
demonstrate that the criteria in § 60.24(f) of Subpart B are met and
EPA approval would be required.
4-1
-------
Question No. 3: Does the State plan need to address each MSW landfill located in the State in
the inventory?
Answer: Only existing MSW landfills that are subject to the
Emission Guidelines must be addressed by the State plan and
included in the inventory.
Question No. 4: Can a State plan identify only air pollution control equipment to be installed or
must it include emission limits?
Answer: A State plan must include emission standards that are no
less stringent than the Emission Guidelines, and they must apply
them to each MSW landfill that meets the applicability criteria in
the Emission Guidelines (see Section 3.5). The Emission
Guidelines include percent reduction and outlet concentration
standards for control devices. They also include design criteria for
gas collection systems and flares, because it was not feasible to
establish a numerical limit for these controls. Prescriptive
equipment specifications are not required, and alone are
unacceptable.
Question No. 5: Do reporting requirements in State plans apply to MSW landfill operators or
just State agencies?
Answer: There are requirements that apply to MSW landfill
operators and requirements that apply to State agencies. The State
has responsibilities to develop the State plan and to report
implementation progress to EPA. The MSW landfill owner or
operator must show expeditious progress on achieving compliance
by the dates set and then show continuing compliance with the
standard by a performance test and periodic monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting. Additional information on testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that apply
to MSW landfill owners or operators are contained in MSW
Landfills, Volume 1, (EPA-453/R-96-004), and in Subparts Cc and
WWW (see Appendix I).
4-2
-------
Question No. 6: Are fixed calendar dates required in increments of progress?
Answer: Either calendar dates or floating dates can be used for
these increments of progress. There are five mandatory increments
of compliance. These are: 1) submittal of a final control plan
(collection and control system design plan); 2) awarding of
contracts; 3) initiation of on-site construction of collection and
control systems; 4) completion of on-site installation of collection
and control systems; and 5) final compliance.
The State may submit a schedule that uses either all calendar dates
or a mix of calendar and floating dates, or a State could submit a
schedule with dates that all float. The dates may float from the
effective date of EPA's approval of the State plan or the date the
Annual Emission Rate Report shows that NMOC emissions equal
or exceed 50 Mg/yr.
For the fourth and fifth increments of progress, completion of
installation of collection and control systems and final compliance,
respectively, if a floating date is used, that date must be no later
than 30 months after the Annual Emission Rate Report first shows
that the landfill has reached or exceeded an annual NMOC
emission rate of 50 Mg/yr .
Question No. 7: Are public hearings required prior to submittal of a State plan?
Answer: Adequate opportunity for public hearings is required.
The requirements described in Section 3.9 of this document apply
and require the opportunity for public hearings on State plans prior
to submittal. If after adequate notice, no one requests a hearing,
the hearing is not required.
Question No. 8: Can the States incorporate the MSW landfill progress reports into their 40 CFR
Part 51, § 51.321 annual report for SIPs?
Answer: Yes, EPA encourages States/EPA coordination to work
with the EPA to minimize any potential duplication of reporting
requirements and to tailor the reports to ensure the most productive
compliance and enforcement activities.
4-3
-------
Appendix A
NSPS and Emission Guideline Fact Sheet (40 CFR 60 Subpart Cc)
-------
NSPS and Emission Guideline Fact Sheet (40 CFR 60 Subpart Cc)
Final Air Regulations for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
On March 1, 1996, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under authority of the
Clean Air Act, issued a final regulation controlling emissions of a variety of air pollutants from
new and existing large municipal solid waste landfills. This regulation was published in the
Federal Register on March 12, 1996. Landfills subject to EPA's regulation accept and handle
everyday household waste; they do not handle regulated hazardous waste. Currently, 60 percent
of municipal solid waste generated in the United States is landfilled; 16 percent is incinerated;
and 24 percent is recycled.
EPA worked in partnership with major stakeholders, including private industry, the
National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and the Solid Waste
Association of North America to develop the final rule.
What are the Health and Environmental Benefits?
As the waste in a landfill decomposes, it breaks down to form landfill gases, such as
methane, smog-causing volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and air toxics, pollutants known or
suspected of causing cancer and other serious health effects. Landfills are the largest
anthropogenic source of methane emissions in the United States. Methane is a potent greenhouse
gas that contributes to global warming.
EPA's final air rules for municipal solid waste landfills will achieve significant reductions
in emissions of VOCs and air toxics, such as benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and chloroform.
EPA's regulation will reduce emissions of VOCs, air toxics, and malodorous compounds from
existing and new landfills by over 90,000 tons annually (a 53 percent reduction from current
levels). This rulemaking will also result in significant reductions in emissions of methane, a
major constituent of landfill gas and a potent greenhouse gas. By reducing methane emissions,
EPA's regulation will also increase safety in and near landfills.
A-l
-------
How Does Today's Action Relate to the U.S. Climate Change Action Plan?
Landfills are the largest anthropogenic source of methane emissions in the United States,
constituting about 40 percent of these sources. Methane reductions of over 50 percent in the
year 2000, anticipated under this rulemaking, as well as reductions achieved by EPA's Landfill
Methane Outreach Program, are important components of the U.S. "Climate Change Action
Plan" to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The rule alone
will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 37.1 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (6.2
million tons of methane). When the outreach program is included as well, total reductions will
be 38.6 mmtce (6.8 million tons of methane).
This rulemaking and the EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) go hand-in-
hand to provide substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The new regulations will
cause many landfills across the country to assess their landfill gas emissions and the potential for
cost-effective recovery of energy from this gas. The LMOP will provide these landfills with
guidance on how to comply with the regulations, including how to evaluate energy recovery
options. Working together, these two cornerstone actions of the Climate Change Action Plan
will encourage many landfills to capture and use their landfill gas.
What are the Main Components of EPA's Final Rule?
EPA's final rule takes the form of new source performance standards for new landfills and
emission guidelines for existing landfills. States will adopt and enforce the emission guidelines
for existing landfills. The regulation will require large landfills that emit landfill gas in excess of
50 megagrams (Mg) per year to control emissions. In general, controlling emissions involves
drilling collection wells into the landfill and routing the gas to a suitable energy recovery system
or combustion device. Specifically, the regulations will require the following:
New and existing landfills designed to hold 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3 of
waste or more will be required to install gas collection systems or prove that the
A-2
-------
landfill emits less than 50 Mg per year of non-methane organic compounds,
including smog-causing VOCs and air toxics.
EPA's final rule provides the owner or operator of a landfill with a tier system for
determining if controls will be required. If the owner or operator initially
calculates the emissions to be above the 50 Mg per year threshold by using default
parameters provided in the regulation, the tier system provides the opportunity to
conduct sampling and determine site specific values to demonstrate that emissions
are below the emission threshold and that controls are not required.
If emissions controls are required, the rule provides flexibility to industry by
allowing landfill owners or operators to design their own gas collection and
control system to fit their unique circumstances. A control device may be a flare
or a device which utilizes the energy content of the gas, such as an internal
combustion engine, a turbine, or a boiler.
EPA's final rule contains an operational standard that requires a landfill's surface
methane concentration to be monitored on a quarterly basis. If the surface
concentration of methane is greater than 500 parts per million after three
consecutive measurements, the regulation requires system expansion to comply
with the rule.
The final rule will achieve substantial emission reductions without placing an undue
financial burden on municipalities, and will place no burden on small municipalities (since small
landfills are exempted from the regulation). Waste disposal costs will increase only about 20 to
40 cents per household. EPA anticipates that many landfills will use energy recovery systems,
further reducing costs per household.
Who Will be Affected bv EPA'S Final Rule?
Approximately 7000 landfills exist in the United States. However, over 90 percent of
these landfills have design capacities less than the 2.5 million Mg exemption in the regulation.
Thus, less than 10 percent are subject to the annual emission rate reports and/or control
requirements. Of this 10 percent, about 6 percent will have emissions less than 50 Mg/yr, so will
not be required to apply controls. The remaining 4 percent of the existing landfills nationwide
will have emissions over 50 Mg/yr and will be subject to the control requirements of the
Emission Guidelines.
A-3
-------
For Further Information...
Anyone with a computer and a modem can download the final rule from the Clean Air
Act Amendments bulletin board (look under "Recently Signed Rules") on EPA's electronic
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) by calling (919) 541-5742. For further information about
how to access the board, call (919) 541-5384. For technical questions about the rule, contact
Martha Smith of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards at (919) 541-2421. For
information on the EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), call the LMOP Hotline at
(202) 233-9042.
A-4
-------
Appendix B
MSW Landfills Implementation Timeline
-------
MSW Landfills Implementation Timeline
State plans must be submitted by December 12, 1996, unless the State receives an
extension. EPA has four months (that is, until April 12, 1997) to approve or disapprove the plan.
Figure B-l presents a timeline for submission and approval of Section 11 l(d) State plans to
implement the MSW landfill Emission Guidelines. If the state does not submit an approvable
plan, the EPA will promulgate a Federal Plan for the state.
The timeline for MSW landfill compliance as presented in Figure B-2 applies to existing
MSW landfills with design capacities equal to or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3.
(The compliance timeline for the NSPS is similar to the timeline for the Emission Guidelines,
except that it starts as of March 12, 1996 [the date of promulgation of the NSPS] instead of the
effective date of EPA's approval of the State plan.) The states must establish a compliance
schedule that is no less stringent than the schedule in the Emission Guidelines (Subpart Cc),
except in unusual case-by-case situations (see Section 3.11). As shown in Figure B-2, the first
reports are due 90 days after the effective date of EPA's approval of the State plan.
If a MSW landfill emits 50 Mg/yr or more of NMOC as of the effective date of EPA's
approval of the State plan, a site-specific collection and control system design plan must be
submitted within 1 year after the first Annual Emission Rate Report is due, if the source is
following the Emission Guidelines schedule. This Emission Rate Report is due within 90 days
of the effective date of EPA's approval of the State plan, so the design plan is due within 1 year
plus 90 days of the effective date of EPA's approval of the State plan. Installation of the
collection and control system must be completed and the system must be in compliance within
30 months after the Emission Rate Report shows NMOC emissions are > 50 Mg/yr (e.g., within
30 months and 90 days of the effective date of EPA's approval of the State plan).
B-l
-------
3/12/96
9 months
12/12/96
4 months
4/12/97
6/12/97
Emission Guidelines,
Subpart Cc Promulgated
Designated Facility Located
Within the State 60.23(b)
I
Yes
State Conducts
Public Hearings
60.23(c)-(f)
State Submits Plan
60.23(a)
Administrator Approves
State plan
60.27
1
Yes
State Implements
Plan
No
No
State Submits Negative
Declaration Letter
Exempting Themselves
from Submitting a State Plan
State Submits a corrected plan
the Administrator determines to
be approvable, or Administrator
promulgates a plan for the State,
60.27(d)
Figure B-1. State Plan Approval Process and Schedule
B-2
-------
Milestone
Compliance Schedule"
Design Capacity Report
NMOC Emission
Rate Report (if design capacity
> 2.5 million Mg and
2.5 million m^)
Collection and Control System
Design Plan
Installation of Collection and
Control System Completed (and
operating in compliance)
Initial Performance Test of
Collection and Control
System to Document
Compliance
Within 90 days after effective date
of EPA's approval of the State plan
Within 90 days after effective date
of EPA's approval of the State
plan, and then annually
Within 1 year after reporting
NMOC emissions > 50 Mg/yr
Within 30 months after reporting
NMOC emissionsiSO Mg/yr
Within 180 days of control system
startup
a The time frames specified in this example are based on the dates in section 60.757 of Subpart WWW.
Figure B-2. General Milestones for the Compliance Schedule for An
Existing MSW Landfill
B-3
-------
The compliance schedule is different for MSW landfills that have design capacities that
are > 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m^ and emit less than the 50 Mg/yr emission rate cutoff on
the effective date. Because landfill emissions increase over time as additional waste is deposited,
a landfill may emit less than 50 Mg/yr when the State plan takes effect, but emissions may
increase to greater than 50 Mg/yr in future years. The Emission Guidelines require such landfills
to submit Annual Emission Rate Reports. The collection and control system design plan must be
submitted within 1 year after the date of the first Annual Emission Rate Report shows that
emissions equal or exceed 50 Mg/yr of NMOC. Collection and control systems must be installed
within 30 months after the Emission Rate Report shows emissions of NMOC equal or exceed
50 Mg/yr. MSW Landfills, Volume 1 (EPA-453/R-96-004) presents additional information on
landfill compliance requirements.
B-4
-------
Appendix C
Contacts
Cl EPA Regional MSW Landfill Rule Contacts
C2 State MSW Landfill Rule Contacts
C3 Other Contacts
-------
Appendix Cl
EPA Regional MSW Landfill Rule Contacts
-------
EPA Regional MSW Landfill Rule Contacts
Regional Contact
Phone #
Fax#
Jeanne Cosgrove
U.S. EPA/CAQ
Region I (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont)
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203-001
617/565-9451
617/565-4940
Christine DeRosa
U.S. EPA/25th floor
Region U (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands)
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
212/637-4022
212/637-3901
James B. Topsale
U.S. EPA/3ATT22
Region UI (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
215/814-2190
215/814-2114
Scott Davis
U.S. EPA/APTMD
Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee)
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
404/562-9127
404/562-9095
Charles Hatten
U.S. EPA
Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Ohio, Wisconsin)
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
312/886-6031
312/886-0617
Mick Cote
U.S. EPA
Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas)
1445 Ross Av., Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
214/665-7219
214/665-7263
C-l
-------
EPA Regional MSW Landfill Rule Contacts
Regional Contact
Ward Burns
U.S. EPA/RME
Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska)
726 Minnesota Av./ARTDAPCO
Kansas City, KS 66101-2728
Lee Hanley
U.S. EPA
Region VIE (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, Wyoming)
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Patricia Bowlin
U.S. EPA/RM HAW/1721 1
Region IX (American Samoa, Arizona, California,
Guam, Hawaii, Nevada)
75 Hawthorne Street/Air-4
San Francisco, CA 94105
Catherine Woo
U.S. EPA
Region X (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington)
1200 Sixth Av.
Seattle, WA 98 101
Phone #
913/551-7960
303/312-6555
415/744-1188
206/553-1814
Fax#
913/551-7065
303/312-6409
415/744-1076
206/553-0404
C-2
-------
Appendix C2
State MSW Landfill Rule Contacts
-------
State Contacts
Contact
State
Phone #
Fax#
REGION I
Scott Koschwitz
Nancy Seidman
John Chandler
Don Anderson
Andy Bodnarik
Barbara Morin
Harold Garabedian
CT
MA
ME
ME
NH
RI
VT
860/424-3427
617/292-5593
207/287-2437
207/287-2437
603/271-1370
401/277-2808
802/241-3840
860/424-4063
617/556-1046
207/287-7641
207/287-7641
603/271-1381
401/277-2017
802/241-2590
REGION II
John Elston
Tom Lynch
Tom Christoffell
Eduardo Del Rio
NJ 609/292-6710
NY 518/457-2051
NY 518/457-7688
PR 787/767-8025
REGION III
Ron Amirikian
Ruben Deza
Carl York
Jayme Graham
John Slade
Kris Ramamurthy
Karen Sabasteanski
Lucy Pontiveros
DE
MD
MD
PA
Allegheny Co.
PA
PA
VA
WV
302/323-4542
410/631-3240
410/631-3234
412/578-8129
717/783-9476
717/787-9256
804/698-4426
304/558-1220
302/323-4561
410-631-3202
410-631-3202
412-578-8058
717/772-2303
717/772-2303
804-698-4510
304-558-1222
REGION IV
Jerold Griffies
Larry Brown
Venkata Panchakarla
Kent Pierce
Millie Ellis
Mark Wyatt
Tom Allen
Renee Shealy
AL
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
334/271-7861
334/271-7861
904/488-01 14
404/363-7103
502/573-3382
601/961-5367
919/733-1489
803/734-4750
334/271-7950
334/271-7950
904/922-6979
404/363-7100
502/573-3787
601/961-5742
919/715-7175
803/734-4556
C-l
-------
State Contacts
Contact
Malcolm Butler
Gene Bradley
State
TN
TN
Phone #
615/532-0600
615/532-0593
Fax#
615/532-0614
615/532-0614
REGION V
Dick Forbes
Pat Daniel
Jerry Trautman
Margaret McCourtney
Tammy Milkens
Steve Dunn
REGION VI
Mark McCorkle
Annette Sharp
Karen Blackmore
David Duran
Angel Martinez
Joyce Sheedy or
Cheryl Bradley
Gus Eghneim
IL
IN
MI
MN
OH
WI
AR
LA
LA
NM
NM
(Albuquerque)
OK
TX
217/785-1889
317/233-0429
517/373-7059
612/297-7894
614/644-3596
608/267-0566
501/682-0736
504/765-0914
504/765-0130
505/827-2950
505/768-1961
405/290-8247
512/239-1965
517-335-3122
612-297-8701
608-267-0560
405/962-2200
REGION VII
Catharine Fitsimmons
Chuck Layman
Paul Myers
Susan Fields
LA
KS
MO
NE
515/281-8034
913/296-1579
573/751-4817
402/471-0019
515/281-8895
913/296-1545
573/751-2706
402/471-2909
REGION VIII
Kirsten King
Dave Klemp
Tom Bachman
Jackie Flowers
Carol Neilson
Bernie Dailey
CO
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
303/692-3212
406/444-0286
701/328-5188
605/773-5708
801/536-4000
307/777-7345
303/782-0278
406/444-5275
701/328-5200
605/773-4068
801/536-4099
307/777-5616
C-2
-------
State Contacts
Contact
State
Phone #
Fax#
REGION IX
Renaldo Crooks
CA
916/327-5618
916/327-5621
REGION X
Bill Walker
Sue Richards
Kathleen Craig
Judy Geier
AK
ID
OR
WA
907/465-5124
208/334-5898
503/229-6833
360/407-6850
C-3
-------
Appendix C3
Other MSW Landfill Contacts
-------
Other MSW Landfill Contacts
Contact
Phone #
Fax#
For information concerning analyses performed in
developing the landfills rule, contact:
Michele Laur
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waste and Chemical Processes Group
Emission Standards Division (MD-13)
Research Triangle Park, NC 2771 1
919/541-5256
919/541-3470
For implementation issues, contact:
Mary Ann Warner
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Program Review Group
Information Transfer and Program Integration
Division (MD-12)
Research Triangle Park, NC 2771 1
919/541-1192
919/541-2664
For information on the Landfill Model, contact:
Susan Thorneloe
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division (MD-
63)
Research Triangle Park, NC 2771 1
thorneloe.susan@epamail.epa.gov
919/541-2382
For enforcement and compliance assurance
contact:
Zofia S. Kosim, P.E. (2242A)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air Enforcement Division/ Office of
Regulatory Enforcement
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
202/564-8733
202/564-0015
C-l
-------
Other MSW Landfill Contacts (Continued)
Contact
Phone #
Fax#
To order documents/receive general information
on the Landfill Methane Outreach Program,
contact:
LMOP Hotline
Home page: http://www.epa.gov/lmop
1-888/STAR
YES
703/934-3895
For more specific requests on landfill gas-to-
energy, contact:
EdCoe
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
501 Third Street, N.W.
Mail Code 6202J
Washington, DC 20001
202/564-8994
202/565-2077
For information on monitoring and sampling
methods contact:
Foston Curtis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Source Characterization Group
Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division
(MD-19)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
919/541-1063
919/541-1039
C-2
-------
Appendix D
Emission Estimation Procedures for State Plan
Emissions Inventory
-------
Emission Estimation Procedures for State Plan
Emissions Inventory
The pollutants emitted from municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills include methane,
carbon dioxide and non-methane organic compounds. The attached chapter from the EPA
document "Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42)"1 contains emission
estimation procedures and default values that can be used to calculate methane, carbon dioxide,
and NMOC emissions for MSW landfill emissions inventories and other purposes. Emissions
are calculated using equations (which are based on a first order decomposition model), as a
function of three variables: the NMOC concentration in landfill gas (C^oc)* me methane
generation rate constant (k); and the refuse methane generation potential (L0). The default values
for these variables presented in AP-42 are designed to provide typical, or average, estimates of
MSW landfill emissions and are appropriate for use in state emission inventories. An individual
MSW landfill may emit more or less than calculated based on site-specific factors. The AP-42
document also provides calculations for the use and adjustment of site-specific data, if it is
available (that is, to adjust measured NMOC concentration data for air infiltration). If site-
specific measured values are available, it is preferable to use these rather than the default values.
It should be stressed that the AP-42 default values should NOT be used to determine
applicability of or compliance with the MSW landfills Emission Guidelines. Under the Emission
Guidelines and the NSPS, the owner or operator must use the tiered emission estimation
procedure in § 60.754 of Subpart WWW or another method if it has been approved by the EPA
Administrator as provided in § 60.752(b)(2)(i)(B) to determine whether the annual emission rate
equals or exceeds the 50 Mg/yr cutoff and whether the MSW landfill must be controlled. The
owner or operator must use the equations and Tier 1 default values provided in the NSPS and the
Emission Guidelines to determine NMOC emissions or develop site-specific values using the
Tier 2 or 3 procedures in § 60.754. The equations in Subpart WWW are the same as the AP-42
equations. However, the Tier 1 default values for methane generation potential (L0) and methane
generation rate constant (k) provided in the NSPS and the Emission Guidelines are purposefully
conservative to protect human health, to encompass a wide range of MSW landfills, and to
encourage the use of site-specific data.
D-l
-------
For more information about the AP-42 emission factors and documentation of the
assumptions and calculations, see Chapter 2 in AP-42. The current version of AP-42 is included
in this appendix (November 1998). Because AP-42 is updated periodically, the AP-42 section in
this appendix should not be used for subsequent emission inventories unless verified to be
current. For current information in AP-42, check the TTN Web at http:www.epa.gov/ttn/chief.
A computer model is also available to calculate MSW landfill emissions. The "Landfill
Gas Emissions Model", utilizes a first-order decomposition model that is consistent with AP-42
and the NSPS and Emission Guidelines equations to estimate emissions of methane, carbon
dioxide, NMOC and other pollutants. The model combines user-entered landfill operating
characteristics with defaults derived from either the MSW landfills NSPS and Emission
Guidelines or AP-42 to provide yearly estimates of gaseous emissions. These estimates may be
displayed as text or in graphical depictions. The model also allows the user to replace internal
defaults with landfill specific parameters to refine the calculations for a specific site.
The model is consistent with the equations specified in the MSW landfill NSPS and
Emission Guidelines. MSW landfills using the model to calculate annual emission rates for
purposes of NSPS or Emission Guidelines applicability determination must use the NSPS default
values rather than the AP-42 default values. Those using the model for a state emissions
inventory or for NSR or PSD permitting purposes should use site-specific measured values, and
if these are not available, the AP-42 defaults.
A package with a diskette containing the model as well as the user's guide is available
under the title: "Landfill Gas Emissions Model, Users Manual," Version 2.01 and may be
purchased from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: (703) 487-4650
or:
accessed on the EPA TTN Web at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/products.html* software.
D-2
-------
Additionally, information or questions regarding the models and their operation may be obtained
from Susan A. Thorneloe, the EPA Project Officer overseeing its development. She may be
contacted at:
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Fax: (919)541-2382
thorneloe. susan @ epamail .epa. gov
REFERENCES
1. U.S. EPA. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 5th ed. (AP-42), Volume I:
Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 2.4: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,"
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, November, 1998.
D-3
-------
2.4 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
2.4.1 General'-4
A municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill unit is a discrete area of land or an excavation that
receives household waste, and that is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, injection
well, or waste pile. An MSW landfill unit may also receive other types of wastes, such as
commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, and industrial solid waste. The municipal solid
waste types potentially accepted by MSW landfills include (most landfills accept only a few of
the following categories):
• MSW,
• Household hazardous waste,
• Municipal sludge,
• Municipal waste combustion ash,
• Infectious waste,
• Waste tires,
• Industrial non-hazardous waste,
• Conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) hazardous waste,
• Construction and demolition waste,
• Agricultural wastes,
• Oil and gas wastes, and
• Mining wastes.
In the United States, approximately 57 percent of solid waste is landfilled, 16 percent is
incinerated, and 27 percent is recycled or composted. There were an estimated 2,500 active
MSW landfills in the United States in 1995. These landfills were estimated to receive 189
million megagrams (Mg) (208 million tons) of waste annually, with 55 to 60 percent reported as
household waste, and 35 to 45 percent reported as commercial waste.
2.4.2 Process Description2'5
There are three major designs for municipal landfills. These are the area, trench, and ramp
methods. All of these methods utilize a three step process, which includes spreading the waste,
compacting the waste, and covering the waste with soil. The trench and ramp methods are not
commonly used, and are not the preferred methods when liners and leachate collection systems
are utilized or required by law. The area fill method involves placing waste on the ground
surface or landfill liner, spreading it in layers, and compacting with heavy equipment. A daily
soil cover is spread over the compacted waste. The trench method entails excavating trenches
designed to receive a day's worth of waste. The soil from the excavation is often used for cover
material and wind breaks. The ramp method is typically employed on sloping land, where waste
is spread and compacted similar to the area method, however, the cover material obtained is
generally from the front of the working face of the filling operation.
11/98 Solid Waste Disposal 2.4-1
-------
Modern landfill design often incorporates liners constructed of soil (i.e., recompacted clay),
or synthetics (i.e., high density polyethylene), or both to provide an impermeable barrier to
leachate (i.e., water that has passed through the landfill) and gas migration from the landfill.
2.4.3 Control Technologyl'2-6
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D regulations promulgated
on October 9, 1991 require that the concentration of methane generated by MSW landfills not
exceed 25 percent of the lower explosive limit (LEL) in on-site structures, such as scale houses,
or the LEL at the facility property boundary.
The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Emission Guidelines for air emissions
from MSW landfills for certain new and existing landfills were published in the Federal Register
on March 1, 1996. The regulation requires that Best Demonstrated Technology (BDT) be used to
reduce MSW landfill emissions from affected new and existing MSW landfills emitting greater
than or equal to 50 Mg/yr (55 tons/yr) of non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs). The MSW
landfills that are affected by the NSPS/Emission Guidelines are each new MSW landfill, and
each existing MSW landfill that has accepted waste since November 8, 1987, or that has capacity
available for future use. The NSPS/Emission Guidelines [require control systems for] affect
landfills with a design capacity of 2.5 million Mg (2.75 million tons) [and 2.5 million cubic
meters (3.27 million cubic yards) that emit greater than or equal to 50 Mg/yr NMOCs]* of more.
Control systems require: (1) a well-designed and well-operated gas collection system, and (2) a
control device capable of reducing NMOCs in the collected gas by 98 weight-percent.
Landfill gas (LFG) collection systems are either active or passive systems. Active collection
systems provide a pressure gradient in order to extract LFG by use of mechanical blowers or
compressors. Passive systems allow the natural pressure gradient created by the increase in
pressure created by LFG generation within the landfill to mobilize the gas for collection.
LFG control and treatment options include (1) combustion of the LFG, and (2) purification of
the LFG. Combustion techniques include techniques that do not recover energy (i.e., flares and
thermal incinerators), and techniques that recover energy (i.e., gas turbines and internal
combustion engines) and generate electricity from the combustion of the LFG. Boilers can also
be employed to recover energy from LFG in the form of steam. Flares involve an open
combustion process that requires oxygen for combustion, and can be open or enclosed. Thermal
incinerators heat an organic chemical to a high enough temperature in the presence of sufficient
oxygen to oxidize the chemical to carbon dioxide (CO2) and water. Purification techniques can
also be used to process raw landfill gas to pipeline quality natural gas by using adsorption,
absorption, and membranes.
*[This clarification will be reflected in the next revision of AP-42.]
2.4.4 Emissions2'7
Methane (CH4) and CO2 are the primary constituents of landfill gas, and are produced by
microorganisms within the landfill under anaerobic conditions. Transformations of CH4 and CO2
2.4-2 EMISSION FACTORS 11/98
-------
are mediated by microbial populations that are adapted to the cycling of materials in anaerobic
environments. Landfill gas generation, including rate and composition, proceeds through four
phases. The first phase is aerobic [i.e., with oxygen (O2) available] and the primary gas produced
is CO2. The second phase is characterized by O2 depletion, resulting in an anaerobic
environment, where large amounts of CO2 and some hydrogen (H2) are produced. In the third
phase, CH4 production begins, with an accompanying reduction in the amount of CO2 produced.
Nitrogen (N2) content is initially high in landfill gas in the first phase, and declines sharply as the
landfill proceeds through the second and third phases. In the fourth phase, gas production of
CH4, CO2, and N2 becomes fairly steady. The total time and phase duration of gas generation
varies with landfill conditions (i.e., waste composition, design management, and anaerobic state).
Typically, LFG also contains a small amount of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC).
This NMOC fraction often contains various organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP), greenhouse
gases (GHG), and compounds associated with stratospheric ozone depletion. The NMOC
fraction also contains volatile organic compounds (VOC). The weight fraction of VOC can be
determined by subtracting the weight fractions of individual compounds that are non-
photochemically reactive (i.e., negligibly-reactive organic compounds as defined in
40CFR51.100).
Other emissions associated with MSW landfills include combustion products from LFG
control and utilization equipment (i.e., flares, engines, turbines, and boilers). These include
carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOJ, sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen chloride (HC1),
particulate matter (PM) and other combustion products (including HAPs). PM emissions can
also be generated in the form of fugitive dust created by mobile sources (i.e., garbage trucks)
traveling along paved and unpaved surfaces. The reader should consult AP-42 Volume I
Sections 13.2.1 and 13.2.2 for information on estimating fugitive dust emissions from paved and
unpaved roads.
The rate of emissions from a landfill is governed by gas production and transport
mechanisms. Production mechanisms involve the production of the emission constituent in its
vapor phase through vaporization, biological decomposition, or chemical reaction. Transport
mechanisms involve the transportation of a volatile constituent in its vapor phase to the surface
of the landfill, through the air boundary layer above the landfill, and into the atmosphere. The
three major transport mechanisms that enable transport of a volatile constituent in its vapor phase
are diffusion, convection, and displacement.
2.4.4.1 Uncontrolled Emissions — To estimate uncontrolled emissions of the various
compounds present in landfill gas, total landfill gas emissions must first be estimated.
Uncontrolled CH4 emissions may be estimated for individual landfills by using a theoretical first-
order kinetic model of methane production developed by the EPA.8 This model is known as the
Landfill Air Emissions Estimation model, and can be accessed from the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards Technology Transfer Network Website (OAQPS TTN Web) in the
Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emission Factors (CHIEF) technical area (URL
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief). The Landfill Air Emissions Estimation model equation is as
follows:
11/98 Solid Waste Disposal 2.4-3
-------
where:
QCH = Methane generation rate at time t, mVyr;
Lo = Methane generation potential, m3 CH4/Mg refuse;
R = Average annual refuse acceptance rate during active life, Mg/yr;
e = Base log, unitless;
k = Methane generation rate constant, yfl;
c = Time since landfill closure, yrs (c = 0 for active landfills); and
t = Time since the initial refuse placement, yrs.
It should be noted that the model above was designed to estimate LFG generation and not
LFG emissions to the atmosphere. Other fates may exist for the gas generated in a landfill,
including capture and subsequent microbial degradation within the landfill's surface layer.
Currently, there are no data that adequately address this fate. It is generally accepted that the
bulk of the gas generated will be emitted through cracks or other openings in the landfill surface.
Site-specific landfill information is generally available for variables R, c, and t. When refuse
acceptance rate information is scant or unknown, R can be determined by dividing the refuse in
place by the age of the landfill. If a facility has documentation that a certain segment (cell) of a
landfill received only nondegradable refuse, then the waste from this segment of the landfill can
be excluded from the calculation of R. Nondegradable refuse includes concrete, brick, stone,
glass, plaster, wallboard, piping, plastics, and metal objects. The average annual acceptance rate
should only be estimated by this method when there is inadequate information available on the
actual average acceptance rate. The time variable, t, includes the total number of years that the
refuse has been in place (including the number of years that the landfill has accepted waste and,
if applicable, has been closed).
Values for variables L0 and k must be estimated. Estimation of the potential CH4 generation
capacity of refuse (L0) is generally treated as a function of the moisture and organic content of the
refuse. Estimation of the CH4 generation constant (k) is a function of a variety of factors,
including moisture, pH, temperature, and other environmental factors, and landfill operating
conditions. Specific CH4 generation constants can be computed by the use of EPA Method 2E
(40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A).
The Landfill Air Emission Estimation model includes both regulatory default values and
recommended AP-42 default values for L0 and k. The regulatory defaults were developed for
compliance purposes (NSPS/Emission Guideline). As a result, the model contains conservative
L0 and k default values in order to protect human health, to encompass a wide range of landfills,
and to encourage the use of site-specific data. Therefore, different L0 and k values may be
appropriate in estimating landfill emissions for particular landfills and for use in an emissions
inventory.
2.4-4 EMISSION FACTORS 11/98
-------
Recommended AP-42 defaults include a k value of 0.04/yr for areas recieving 25 inches or
more of rain per year. A default k of 0.02/yr should be used in drier areas (<25 inches/yr). An L0
value of 100 mVMg (3,530 ftVton) refuse is appropriate for most landfills. Although the
recommended default k and L0 are based upon the best fit to 21 different landfills, the predicted
methane emissions ranged from 38 to 492% of actual, and had a relative standard deviation of
0.85. It should be emphasized that in order to comply with the NSPS/Emission Guideline, the
regulatory defaults for k and L0 must be applied as specified in the final rule.
When gas generation reaches steady state conditions, LFG consists of approximately
40 percent by volume CO2, 55 percent CH4, 5 percent N2 (and other gases), and trace amounts of
NMOCs. Therefore, the estimate derived for CH4 generation using the Landfill Air Emissions
Estimation model can also be used to represent CO2 generation. Addition of the CH4 and CO2
emissions will yield an estimate of total landfill gas emissions. If site-specific information is
available to suggest that the CH4 content of landfill gas is not 55 percent, then the site-specific
information should be used, and the CO2 emission estimate should be adjusted accordingly.
Most of the NMOC emissions result from the volatilization of organic compounds contained
in the landfilled waste. Small amounts may be created by biological processes and chemical
reactions within the landfill. The current version of the Landfill Air Emissions Estimation model
contains a proposed regulatory default value for total NMOC of 4,000 ppmv, expressed as
hexane. However, available data show that there is a range of over 4,400 ppmv for total NMOC
values from landfills. The proposed regulatory default value for NMOC concentration was
developed for regulatory compliance purposes and to provide the most cost-effective default
values on a national basis. For emissions inventory purposes, site-specific information should be
taken into account when determining the total NMOC concentration. In the absence of site-
specific information, a value of 2,420 ppmv as hexane is suggested for landfills known to have
co-disposal of MSW and non-residential waste. If the landfill is known to contain only MSW or
have very little organic commercial/industrial wastes, then a total NMOC value of 595 ppmv as
hexane should be used. In addition, as with the landfill model defaults, the regulatory default
value for NMOC content must be used in order to comply with the NSPS/Emission Guideline.
If a site-specific total pollutant concentration is available (i.e., as measured by EPA
Reference Method 25C), it must be corrected for air infiltration which can occur by two different
mechanisms: LFG sample dilution, and air intrusion into the landfill. These corrections require
site-specific data for the LFG CH4, CO2, nitrogen (N2), and oxygen (O2) content. If the ratio of
N2 to O2 is less than or equal to 4.0 (as found in ambient air), then the total pollutant
11/98 Solid Waste Disposal 2.4-5
-------
concentration is adjusted for sample dilution by assuming that CO2 and CH4 are the primary
(100 percent) constituents of landfill gas, and the following equation is used:
Cp (ppmv) (1 x 106)
Cp (ppmv) (corrected for air infiltration) =
co2 + CCH4
where:
Cp = Concentration of pollutant P in landfill gas (i.e., NMOC as hexane), ppmv;
concentration in landfill gas, ppmv-
CH4 Concentration in landfill gas, ppmv; and
1 x 106 = Constant used to correct concentration of P to units of ppmv.
If the ratio of N2 to O2 concentrations (i.e., CN , CQ ) is greater than 4.0, then the total
pollutant concentration should be adjusted for air intrusion into the landfill by using equation 2
and adding the concentration of N2 (i.e., CN ) to the denominator. Values for C^O , C^H ,
CN , CQ , can usually be found in the source test report for the particular landfill along with the
total pollutant concentration data.
To estimate emissions of NMOC or other landfill gas constituents, the following equation
should be used:
Qp = L82 Qc«- * F71*
where:
Qp = Emission rate of pollutant P (i.e. NMOC), mVyr;
QCH4 = CH4 generation rate, mVyr (from the Landfill Air Emissions Estimation
model);
Cp = Concentration of P in landfill gas, ppmv; and
1 .82 = Multiplication factor (assumes that approximately 55 percent of landfill
gas is CH4 and 45 percent is CO2, N2, and other constituents).
Uncontrolled mass emissions per year of total NMOC (as hexane), CO2, CH4, and speciated
organic and inorganic compounds can be estimated by the following equation:
MWP * 1 atm
UMP = Qp * p
(4)
(8.205xlO"5 m3-atm/gmol-°KX1000g/kg)(273 + T°K)
where:
UMp = Uncontrolled mass emissions of pollutant P (i.e., NMOC), kg/yr;
MWp = Molecular weight of P, g/gmol (i.e., 86.18 for NMOC as hexane);
Qp = NMOC emission rate of P, mVyr; and
T = Temperature of landfill gas, °C.
2.4-6 EMISSION FACTORS 11/98
-------
This equation assumes that the operating pressure of the system is approximately 1 atmosphere.
If the temperature of the landfill gas is not known, a temperature of 25°C (77°F) is recommended.
Uncontrolled default concentrations of speciated organics along with some inorganic
compounds are presented in Table 2.4-1. These default concentrations have already been
corrected for air infiltration and can be used as input parameters to equation 3 or the Landfill Air
Emission Estimation model for estimating speciated emissions from landfills when site-specific
data are not available. An analysis of the data, based on the co-disposal history (with non-
residential wastes) of the individual landfills from which the concentration data were derived,
indicates that for benzene, NMOC, and toluene, there is a difference in the uncontrolled
concentrations. Table 2.4-2 presents the corrected concentrations for benzene, NMOC, and
toluene to use based on the site's co-disposal history.
It is important to note that the compounds listed in Tables 2.4-1 and 2.4-2 are not the only
compounds likely to be present in LFG. The listed compounds are those that were identified
through a review of the available literature. The reader should be aware that additional
compounds are likely present, such as those associated with consumer or industrial products.
Given this information, extreme caution should be exercised in the use of the default VOC
weight fractions and concentrations given at the bottom of Table 2.4-2. These default VOC
values are heavily influenced by the ethane content of the LFG. Available data have shown that
there is a range of over 1,500 ppmv in LFG ethane content among landfills.
2.4.4.2 Controlled Emissions — Emissions from landfills are typically controlled by installing a
gas collection system, and combusting the collected gas through the use of internal combustion
engines, flares, or turbines. Gas collection systems are not 100 percent efficient in collecting
landfill gas, so emissions of CH4 and NMOC at a landfill with a gas recovery system still occur.
To estimate controlled emissions of CH4, NMOC, and other constituents in landfill gas, the
collection efficiency of the system must first be estimated. Reported collection efficiencies
typically range from 60 to 85 percent, with an average of 75 percent most commonly assumed.
Higher collection efficiencies may be achieved at some sites (i.e., those engineered to control gas
emissions). If site-specific collection efficiencies are available (i.e., through a comprehensive
surface sampling program), then they should be used instead of the 75 percent average.
Controlled emission estimates also need to take into account the control efficiency of the
control device. Control efficiencies based on test data for the combustion of CH4, NMOC, and
some speciated organics with differing control devices are presented in Table 2.4-3. Emissions
from the control devices need to be added to the uncollected emissions to estimate total
controlled emissions.
Controlled CH4, NMOC, and speciated emissions can be calculated with equation 5. It is
assumed that the landfill gas collection and control system operates 100 percent of the time.
Minor durations of system downtime associated with routine maintenance and repair (i.e., 5 to 7
percent) will not appreciably effect emission estimates. The first term in equation 5 accounts for
emissions from uncollected landfill gas, while the second term accounts for emissions of the
pollutant that were collected but not combusted in the control or utilization device:
11/98 Solid Waste Disposal 2.4-7
-------
CMp =
UMp *
1 -
100,
TTA/t
UM
c°l
-
100
1 -
lent
100,
(5)
where:
CMp
UMp
Icol
Controlled mass emissions of pollutant P, kg/yr;
Uncontrolled mass emissions of P, kg/yr (from equation 4 or the Landfill
Air Emissions Estimation Model);
Collection efficiency of the landfill gas collection system, percent; and
Control efficiency of the landfill gas control or utilization device, percent.
Emission factors for the secondary compounds, CO and NOX, exiting the control device
are presented in Tables 2.4-4 and 2.4-5. These emission factors should be used when equipment
vendor guarantees are not available.
Controlled emissions of CO2 and sulfur dioxide (SO2) are best estimated using site-specific
landfill gas constituent concentrations and mass balance methods.68 If site-specific data are not
available, the data in tables 2.4-1 through 2.4-3 can be used with the mass balance methods that
follow.
Controlled CO2 emissions include emissions from the CO2 component of landfill gas
(equivalent to uncontrolled emissions) and additional CO2 formed during the combustion of
landfill gas. The bulk of the CO2 formed during landfill gas combustion comes from the
combustion of the CH4 fraction. Small quantities will be formed during the combustion of the
NMOC fraction, however, this typically amounts to less than 1 percent of total CO2 emissions by
weight. Also, the formation of CO through incomplete combustion of landfill gas will result in
small quantities of CO2 not being formed. This contribution to the overall mass balance picture
is also very small and does not have a significant impact on overall CO2 emissions.
The following equation which assumes a 100 percent combustion efficiency for CH4 can be
used to estimate CO2 emissions from controlled landfills:
= UM
CO,
UM
CH,
100
2.75
(6)
where:
CMCQ2 =
UMC02 =
UMCH =
2.75 =
Controlled mass emissions of CO2, kg/yr;
Uncontrolled mass emissions of CO2, kg/yr (from equation 4 or the
Landfill Air Emission Estimation Model);
Uncontrolled mass emissions of CH4, kg/yr (from equation 4 on the
Landfill Air Emission Estimation Model);
Efficiency of the landfill gas collection system, percent; and
Ratio of the molecular weight of CO2 to the molecular weight of CH4.
To prepare estimates of SO2 emissions, data on the concentration of reduced sulfur
compounds within the landfill gas are needed. The best way to prepare this estimate is with site-
2.4-8
EMISSION FACTORS
11/98
-------
specific information on the total reduced sulfur content of the landfill gas. Often these data are
expressed in ppmv as sulfur (S). Equations 3 and 4 should be used first to determine the
uncontrolled mass emission rate of reduced sulfur compounds as sulfur. Then, the following
equation can be used to estimate SO2 emissions:
CM_n = UMS * — * 2.0 , . , (7)
so2 s
where:
Controlled mass emissions of SO2, kg/yr;
UM§ = Uncontrolled mass emissions of reduced sulfur compounds as sulfur, kg/yr
(from equations 3 and 4);
r)col = Efficiency of the landfill gas collection system, percent; and
2.0 = Ratio of the molecular weight of SO2 to the molecular weight of S.
The next best method to estimate SO2 concentrations, if site-specific data for total reduced
sulfur compounds as sulfur are not available, is to use site-specific data for speciated reduced
sulfur compound concentrations. These data can be converted to ppmv as S with equation 8.
After the total reduced sulfur as S has been obtained from equation 8, then equations 3, 4, and 7
can be used to derive SO2 emissions.
cs =
where:
C§ = Concentration of total reduced sulfur compounds, ppmv as S (for use in
equation 3);
Cp = Concentration of each reduced sulfur compound, ppmv;
Sp = Number of moles of S produced from the combustion of each reduced
sulfur compound (i.e., 1 for sulfides, 2 for disulfides); and
n = Number of reduced sulfur compounds available for summation.
If no site-specific data are available, a value of 46.9 ppmv can be assumed for Cs (for use in
equation 3). This value was obtained by using the default concentrations presented in Table 2.4-
1 for reduced sulfur compounds and equation 8.
Hydrochloric acid [Hydrogen Chloride (HC1)] emissions are formed when chlorinated
compounds in LFG are combusted in control equipment. The best methods to estimate emissions
are mass balance methods that are analogous to those presented above for estimating SO2
emissions. Hence, the best source of data to estimate HC1 emissions is site-specific LFG data on
total chloride [expressed in ppmv as the chloride ion (Cl~)]. If these data are not available, then
total chloride can be estimated from data on individual chlorinated species using equation 9
below. However, emission estimates may be underestimated, since not every chlorinated
11/98 Solid Waste Disposal 2.4-9
-------
compound in the LFG will be represented in the lal atory report (i.e., only those that the
analytical method specifies).
CC1 - -i CP * C1P (9)
where: ' *"**"
CQ = Concentration of total chloride, ppmv as Cl" (for use in equation 3);
Cp = Concentration of each chlorinated compound, ppmv;
Clp = Number of moles of Cl" produced from the combustion of each chlorinated
compound (i.e., 3 for 1,1,1-trichloroethane); and
n = Number of chlorinated comp\ ^ds available for summation.
After the total chloride concentration (CC1) has been estimated, equations 3 and 4 should be
used to determine the total uncontrolled mass emission rate of chlorinated compounds as chloride
ion (UMC1). This value is then used in equation 10 below to derive HC1 emission estimates:
CMHr, - UMr. * — * 1.03 *
HCI a 1QO
'cnt
100
(10)
where:
CMpjQ = Controlled mass emissions of HCI, kg/yr;
UMQ = Uncontrolled mass emissions of chlorinated compounds as chloride, kg/yr
(from equations 3 and 4);
T|col = Efficiency of the landfill gas collection system, percent;
1.03 = Ratio of the molecular weight of HCI to the molecular weight of Cl"; and
r|cnt = Control efficiency of the landfill gas control or utilization device, percent.
In estimating HCI emissions, it is assumed that all of the chloride ion from the combustion of
chlorinated LFG constituents is converted to HCI. If an estimate of the control efficiency, t|cnt, is
not available, then the high end of the control efficiency range for the equipment listed in Table 9
should be used. This assumption is recommended to assume that HCI emissions are not under-
estimated.
If site-specific data on total chloride or speciated chlorinated compounds are not available,
then a default value of 42.0 ppmv can be used for CC1. This value was derived from the default
LFG constituent concentrations presented in Table 2.4-1. As mentioned above, use of this
default may produce underestimates of HCI emissions since it is based only on those compounds
for which analyses have been performed. The constituents listed in Table 2.4-1 are likely not all
of the chlorinated compounds present in LFG.
The reader is referred to Sections 11.2-1 (Unpaved Roads, SCC 50100401), and 11-2.4
(Heavy Construction Operations) of Volume I, and Section II-7 (Construction Equipment) of
Volume n, of the AP-42 document for determination of associated fugitive dust and exhaust
emissions from these emission sources at MSW landfills.
2.4-10 EMISSION FACTORS 11/98
-------
2.4.5 Updates Since the Fifth Edition
The Fifth Edition was released in January 1995. Supplemnt D (8/98) is a major revision of
the text and recommended emission factors conained in the section. The most significant
revisions to this section since publication in the Fifth Edition are summarized below.
• The equations to calculate the CH4, CO2 and other constituents were simplified.
• The default L0 and k were revised based upon an expanded base of gas generation data.
• The default ratio of CO2 to CH4 was revised based upon averages observed in available
source test reports.
• The default concentrations of LFG constituents were revised based upon additional data.
• Additional control efficiencies were included and existing efficiencies were revised based
upon additional emission test data.
• Revised and expanded the recommended emission factors for secondary compounds
emitted from typical control devices.
Supplement E (11/98) includes correction in equation 10 and a very minor change in the
molecular weights for 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform), 1,1-Dichloroethane,
1,2-Dichloropropane and Trichloroethylene (trichloroethene) presented in Table 2.4-1 to agree
with values presented in Perry's Handbook.
11/98 Solid Waste Disposal 2.4-11
-------
Table 2.4-1. DEFAULT CONCENTRATIONS FOR LFG CONSTITUENTS3
(SCC 50100402, 50300603)
Compound
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)3
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethanea
1,1-Dichloroethane (ethylidene dichloride)"
1,1-Dichloroethene (vinylidene chloride)''
1,2-Dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride)"
1 ,2-Dichloropropane (propylene dichloride)"
2-Propanol (isopropyl alcohol)
Acetone
Acrylonitrile"
Bromodichloromethane
Butane
Carbon disulfide"
Carbon monoxide"
Carbon tetrachloridea
Carbonyl sulfided
Chlorobenzene"
Chlorodifluoromethane
Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)"
Chloroform"
Chloromethane
Dichlorobenzene1^
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Dichlorofluoromethane
Dichloromethane (methylene chloride)3
Dimethyl sulfide (methyl sulfide)
Ethane
Ethanol
Ethyl mercaptan (ethanethiol)
Ethylbenzene"
Ethylene dibromide
Fluorotrichloromethane
Hexaned
Hydrogen sulfide
Mercury (total)a>d
Molecular Weight
133.41
167.85
98.97
96.94
98.96
112.99
60.11
58.08
53.06
163.83
58.12
76.13
28.01
153.84
60.07
112.56
86.47
64.52
119.39
50.49
147
120.91
102.92
84.94
62.13
30.07
46.08
62.13
106.16
187.88
137.38
86.18
34.08
200.61
Default
Concentration
(ppmv)
0.48
1.11
2.35
0.20
0.41
0.18
50.1
7.01
6.33
3.13
5.03
0.58
141
0.004
0.49
0.25
1.30
1.25
0.03
1.21
0.21
15.7
2.62
14.3
7.82
889
27.2
2.28
4.61
0.001
0.76
6.57
35.5
2.92X10-4
Emission Factor
Rating
B
C
B
B
B
D
E
B
D
C
C
C
E
B
D
C
C
B
B
B
E
A
D
A
C
C
E
D
B
E
B
B
B
E
2.4-12
EMISSION FACTORS
11/98
-------
Table 2.4-1. (Concluded)
Compound
Methyl ethyl ketone"
Methyl isobutyl ketone"
Methyl mercaptan
Pentane
Perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene)a
Propane
t- 1 ,2-dichloroethene
Trichloroethylene (trichloroethene)"
Vinyl chloride3
Xylenes"
Molecular Weight
72.11
100.16
48.11
72.15
165.83
44.09
96.94
131.40
62.50
106.16
Default
Concentration
(ppmv)
7.09
1.87
2.49
3.29
3.73
11.1
2.84
2.82
7.34
12.1
Emission Factor
Rating
A
B
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
NOTE: This is not an all-inclusive list of potential LFG constituents, only those for which test data were available
at multiple sites. References 10-67. Source Classification Codes in parentheses.
d Hazardous Air Pollutants listed in Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
h Carbon monoxide is not a typical constituent of LFG, but does exist in instances involving landfill (underground)
combustion. Therefore, this default value should be used with caution. Of 18 sites where CO was measured, only 2
showed detectable levels of CO.
c Source tests did not indicate whether this compound was the para- or ortho- isomer. The para isomer is a Title
Ill-listed HAP.
d No data were available to speciate total Hg into the elemental and organic forms.
11/98
Solid Waste Disposal
2.4-13
-------
Table 2.4-2. DEFAULT CONCENTRATIONS OF BENZENE, NMOC, AND TOLUENE BASED ON WASTE
DISPOSAL HISTORY2
(SCC 50100402, 50300603)
Pollutant
Benzeneb
Co-disposal
No or Unknown co-disposal
NMOC (as hexane)c
Co-disposal
No or Unknown co-disposal
Toluene"
Co-disposal
No or Unknown co-disposal
Molecular
Weight
78.11
86.18
92.13
Default
Concentration
(ppmv)
11.1
1.91
2420
595
165
39.3
Emission Factor
Rating
D
B
D
B
D
A
a References 10-54. Source Classification Codes in parentheses.
b Hazardous Air Pollutants listed in Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
c For NSPS/Emission Guideline compliance purposes, the default concentration for NMOC as
specified in the final rule must be used. For purposes not associated with NSPS/Emission
Guideline compliance, the default VOC content at co-disposal sites = 85 percent by weight (2,060
ppmv as hexane); at No or Unknown sites = 39 percent by weight 235 ppmv as hexane).
2.4-14
EMISSION FACTORS
11/98
-------
Table 2.4-3. CONTROL EFFICIENCIES FOR LFG CONSTITUENTS3
Control Device
Boiler/Steam Turbine
(50100423)
Flare0
(50100410)
(50300601)
Gas Turbine
(50100420)
1C Engine
(50100421)
Constituent
NMOC
Halogenated Species
Non-Halogenated Species
NMOC
Halogenated Species
Non-Halogenated Species
NMOC
Halogenated Species
Non-Halogenated Species
NMOC
Halogenated Species
Non-Halogenated Species
Control Efficiency (%)
Typical Range Rating
98.0
99.6
99.8
99.2
98.0
99.7
94.4
99.7
98.2
97.2
93.0
86.1
96-99+
87-99+
67-99+
90-99+
91-99+
38-99+
90-99+
98-99+
97-99+
94-99+
90-99+
25-99+
D
D
D
B
C
C
E
E
E
E
E
E
d References 10-67. Source Classification Codes in parentheses.
b Halogenated species are those containing atoms of chlorine, bromine, fluorine, or iodine. For any
equipment, the control efficiency for mercury should be assumed to be 0. See section 2.4.4.2 for
methods to estimate emissions of SO2, CO2, and HC1.
c Where information on equipment was given in the reference, test data were taken from enclosed flares.
Control efficiencies are assumed to be equally representative of open flares.
11/98
Solid Waste Disposal
2.4-15
-------
Table 2.4-4. (Metric Units) EMISSION FACTORS FOR SECONDARY COMPOUNDS
EXITING CONTROL DEVICES3
Control Device
Flarec
(50100410)
(50300601)
1C Engine
(50100421)
Boiler/Steam Turbined
(50100423)
Gas Turbine
(50100420)
Pollutant"
Nitrogen dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Particulate matter
Nitrogen dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Particulate matter
Nitrogen dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Particulate matter
Nitrogen dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Particulate matter
kg/106dscm
Methane
650
12,000
270
4,000
7,500
770
530
90
130
1,400
3,600
350
Emission Factor
Rating
C
C
D
D
C
E
D
E
D
D
E
E
" Source Classification Codes in parentheses. Divide kg/106 dscm by 16,700 to obtain kg/hr/dscmm.
h No data on PM size distributions were available, however for other gas-fired combustion sources, most of the
paniculate matter is less than 2.5 microns in diameter. Hence, this emission factor can be used to provide
estimates of PM-10 or PM-2.5 emissions. See section 2.4.4.2 for methods to estimate CO2, SO2, and HC1.
c Where information on equipment was given in the reference, test data were taken from enclosed flares.
Control efficiencies are assumed to be equally representative of open flares.
d All source tests were conducted on boilers, however emission factors should also be representative of steam
turbines. Emission factors are representative of boilers equipped with low-NOx burners and flue gas
recirculation. No data were available for uncontrolled NO, emissions.
2.4-16
EMISSION FACTORS
11/98
-------
Table 2.4-5. (English Units) EMISSION RATES FOR SECONDARY COMPOUNDS
EXITING CONTROL DEVICES3
Control Device
Flarec
(50100410)
(50300601)
1C Engine
(50100421)
Boiler/Steam Turbined
(50100423)
Gas Turbine
(50100420)
Pollutant"
Nitrogen dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Paniculate matter
Nitrogen dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Paniculate matter
Nitrogen dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Paniculate matter
Nitrogen dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Paniculate matter
lb/106 dscf
Methane
40
750
17
250
470
48
33
5.7
8.2
87
230
22
Emission Factor
Rating
C
C
D
D
C
E
E
E
E
D
D
E
a Source Classification Codes in parentheses. Divide lb/106 dscf by 16,700 to obtain Ib/hr/dscfm.
b Based on data for other combustion sources, most of the paniculate matter will be less than 2.5
microns in diameter. Hence, this emission rate can be used to provide estimates of PM-10 or PM-2.5
emissions. See section 2.4.4.2 for methods to estimate CO2, SO2, and HC1.
c Where information on equipment was given in the reference, test data were taken from enclosed flares.
Control efficiencies are assumed to be equally representative of open flares.
d All source tests were conducted on boilers, however emission factors should also be representative of
steam turbines. Emission factors are representative of boilers equipped with low-NOx burners and flue
gas recirculation. No data were available for uncontrolled NO, emissions.
References for Section 2.4
1. "Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills," 40 CFR Part 258, Volume 56, No. 196,
October 9, 1991.
2. Air Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills - Background Information for
Proposed Standards and Guidelines, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
EPA-450/3-90-01 la, Chapters 3 and 4, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC, March 1991.
3. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1992 Update, Office of
Solid Waste, EPA-530-R-92-019, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
NTIS No. PB92-207-166, July 1992.
4. Eastern Research Group, Inc., List of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Prepared for the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Municipal and Industrial
Solid Waste Division, Washington, DC, September 1992.
5. Suggested Control Measures for Landfill Gas Emissions, State of California Air Resources
Board, Stationary Source Division, Sacramento, CA, August 1990.
11/98
Solid Waste Disposal
2.4-17
-------
6. "Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Guidelines for Control of
Existing Sources: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; Proposed Rule, Guideline, and Notice
of Public Hearing," 40 CFR Parts 51, 52, and 60, Vol. 56, No. 104, May 30, 1991.
7. S.W. Zison, Landfill Gas Production Curves: Myth Versus Reality, Pacific Energy, City of
Commerce, CA, [Unpublished]
8. R.L. Peer, et al., Memorandum Methodology Used to Revise the Model Inputs in the
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Input Data Bases (Revised), to the Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills Docket No. A-88-09, April 28, 1993.
9. A.R. Chowdhury, Emissions from a Landfill Gas-Fired Turbine/Generator Set, Source Test
Report C-84-33, Los Angeles County Sanitation District, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, June 28, 1984.
10. Engineering-Science, Inc., Report of Stack Testing at County Sanitation District Los Angeles
Puente Hills Landfill, Los Angeles County Sanitation District, August 15, 1984.
11. J.R. Manker, Vinyl Chloride (and Other Organic Compounds) Content of Landfill Gas
Vented to an Inoperative Flare, Source Test Report 84-496, David Price Company, South
Coast Air Quality Management District, November 30, 1984.
12. S. Mainoff, Landfill Gas Composition, Source Test Report 85-102, Bradley Pit Landfill,
South Coast Air Quality Management District, May 22, 1985.
13. J. Littman, Vinyl Chloride and Other Selected Compounds Present in A Landfill Gas
Collection System Prior to and after Flaring, Source Test Report 85-369, Los Angeles
County Sanitation District, South Coast Air Quality Management District, October 9, 1985.
14. W.A. Nakagawa, Emissions from a Landfill Exhausting Through a Flare System, Source
Test Report 85-461, Operating Industries, South Coast Air Quality Management District,
October 14, 1985.
15. S. Marinoff, Emissions from a Landfill Gas Collection System, Source Test Report 85-511.
Sheldon Street Landfill, South Coast Air Quality Management District, December 9, 1985.
16. W.A. Nakagawa, Vinyl Chloride and Other Selected Compounds Present in a Landfill Gas
Collection System Prior to and after Flaring, Source Test Report 85-592, Mission Canyon
Landfill, Los Angeles County Sanitation District, South Coast Air Quality Management
District, January 16, 1986.
17. California Air Resources Board, Evaluation Test on a Landfill Gas-Fired Flare at the BKK
Landfill Facility, West Covina, CA, ARB-SS-87-09, July 1986.
18. S. Marinoff, Gaseous Composition from a Landfill Gas Collection System and Flare, Source
Test Report 86-0342, Syufy Enterprises, South Coast Air Quality Management District,
August 21, 1986.
19. Analytical Laboratory Report for Source Test, Azusa Land Reclamation, June 30, 1983,
South Coast Air Quality Management District.
2.4-18 EMISSION FACTORS 11/98
-------
20. J.R. Manker, Source Test Report C-84-202, Bradley Pit Landfill, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, May 25, 1984.
21. S. Marinoff, Source Test Report 84-315, Puente Hills Landfill, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, February 6, 1985.
22. P.P. Chavez, Source Test Report 84-596, Bradley Pit Landfill, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, March 11, 1985.
23. S. Marinoff, Source Test Report 84-373, Los Angeles By-Products, South Coast air Quality
Management District, March 27, 1985.
24. J. Littman, Source Test Report 85-403, Palos Verdes Landfill, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, September 25, 1985.
25. S. Marinoff, Source Test Report 86-0234, Pacific Lighting Energy Systems, South Coast Air
Quality Management District, July 16, 1986.
26. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Evaluation Test on a Landfill Gas-Fired
Flare at the Los Angeles County Sanitation District's Puente Hills Landfill Facility,
[ARB/SS-87-06], Sacramento, CA, July 1986.
27. D.L. Campbell, et al., Analysis of Factors Affecting Methane Gas Recovery from Six
Landfills, Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, EPA-600/2-91-055, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1991.
28. Browning-Ferris Industries, Source Test Report, Lyon Development Landfill, August 21
1990.
29. X.V. Via, Source Test Report, Browning-Ferris Industries, Azusa Landfill.
30. M. Nourot, Gaseous Composition from a Landfill Gas Collection System and Flare Outlet.
Laidlaw Gas Recovery Systems, to J.R. Farmer, OAQPS:ESD, December 8, 1987.
31. D.A. Stringham and W.H. Wolfe, Waste Management of North America, Inc., to J.R.
Farmer, OAQPS:ESD, January 29, 1988, Response to Section 114 questionnaire.
32. V. Espinosa, Source Test Report 87-0318, Los Angeles County Sanitation District Calabasas
Landfill, South Coast Air Quality Management District, December 16, 1987.
33. C.S. Bhatt, Source Test Report 87-0329, Los Angeles County Sanitation District, Scholl
Canyon Landfill, South Coast Air Quality Management District, December 4, 1987.
34. V. Espinosa, Source Test Report 87-0391, Puente Hills Landfill, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, February 5, 1988.
35. V. Espinosa, Source Test Report 87-0376, Palos Verdes Landfill, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, February 9, 1987.
36. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Landfill Gas Characterization, Oakland, CA
1988.
H/98 Solid Waste Disposal 2.4-19
-------
37. Steiner Environmental, Inc., Emission Testing at BFI's Arbor Hills Landfill, Northville,
Michigan, September 22 through 25, 1992, Bakersfield, CA, December 1992.
38. PEI Associates, Inc., Emission Test Report - Performance Evaluation Landfill-Gas Enclosed
Flare, Browning Ferris Industries, Chicopee, MA, 1990.
39. Kleinfelder Inc., Source Test Report Boiler and Flare Systems, Prepared for Laidlaw Gas
Recovery Systems, Coyote Canyon Landfill, Diamond Bar, CA, 1991.
40. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, McGill Flare Destruction Efficiency Test
Report for Landfill Gas at the Durham Road Landfill, Oakland, CA, 1988.
41. San Diego Air Pollution Control District, Solid Waste Assessment for Otay Valley/Annex
Landfill. San Diego, CA, December 1988.
42. PEI Associates, Inc., Emission Test Report - Performance Evaluation Landfill Gas Enclosed
Flare, Rockingham, VT, September 1990.
43. Browning-Ferris Industries, Gas Flare Emissions Source Test for Sunshine Canyon Landfill.
Sylmar,CA, 1991.
44. Scott Environmental Technology, Methane and Nonmethane Organic Destruction Efficiency
Tests of an Enclosed Landfill Gas Flare, April 1992.
45. BCM Engineers, Planners, Scientists and Laboratory Services, Air Pollution Emission
Evaluation Report for Ground Flare at Browning Ferris Industries Greentree Landfill,
Kersey, Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh, PA, May 1992.
46. EnvironMETeo Services Inc., Stack Emissions Test Report for Ameron Kapaa Quarry,
Waipahu, HI, January 1994.
47. Waukesha Pearce Industries, Inc., Report of Emission Levels and Fuel Economies for Eight
Waukesha 12V-AT25GL Units Located at the Johnston, Rhode Island Central Landfill,
Houston TX, July 19, 1991.
48. Mostardi-Platt Associates, Inc., Gaseous Emission Study Performed for Waste Management
of North America, Inc., CID Environmental Complex Gas Recovery Facility, August 8,
1989. Chicago, IL, August 1989.
49. Mostardi-Platt Associates, Inc., Gaseous Emission Study Performed for Waste Management
of North America, Inc., at the CID Environmental Complex Gas Recovery Facility, July 12-
14, 1989. Chicago, IL, July 1989.
50. Browning-Ferris Gas Services, Inc., Final Report for Emissions Compliance Testing of One
Waukesha Engine Generator, Chicopee, MA, February 1994.
51. Browning-Ferris Gas Services, Inc., Final Report for Emissions Compliance Testing of
Three Waukesha Engine Generators, Richmond, VA, February 1994.
2.4-20 EMISSION FACTORS 11/98
-------
52. South Coast Environmental Company (SCEC), Emission Factors for Landfill Gas Flares at
the Arizona Street Landfill, Prepared for the San Diego Air Pollution Control District, San
Diego, CA, November 1992.
53. Carnot, Emission Tests on the Puente Hills Energy from Landfill Gas (PERG) Facility - Unit
400, September 1993, Prepared for County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County,
Tustin, CA, November 1993.
54. Pape & Steiner Environmental Services, Compliance Testing for Spadra Landfill Gas-to-
Energy Plant, July 25 and 26, 1990, Bakersfield, CA, November 1990.
55. AB2588 Source Test Report for Oxnard Landfill, July 23-27, 1990, by Petro Chem
Environmental Services, Inc., for Pacific Energy Systems, Commerce, CA, October 1990.
56. AB2588 Source Test Report for Oxnard Landfill, October 16, 1990, by Petro Chem
Environmental Services, Inc., for Pacific Energy Systems, Commerce, CA, November 1990.
57. Engineering Source Test Report for Oxnard Landfill, December 20, 1990, by Petro Chem
Environmental Services, Inc., for Pacific Energy Systems, Commerce, CA, January 1991.
58. AB2588 Emissions Inventory Report for the Salinas Crazy Horse Canyon Landfill, Pacific
Energy, Commerce, CA, October 1990.
59. Newby Island Plant 2 Site 1C Engine's Emission Test, February 7-8, 1990, Laidlaw Gas
Recovery Systems, Newark, CA, February 1990.
60. Landfill Methane Recovery Part II: Gas Characterization, Final Report, Gas Research
Institute, December 1982.
61. Letter from J.D. Thornton, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, to R. Myers, U.S. EPA,
February 1, 1996.
62. Letter and attached documents from M. Sauers, GSF Energy, to S. Thorneloe, U.S. EPA,
May 29, 1996.
63. Landfill Gas Paniculate and Metals Concentration and Flow Rate, Mountaingate Landfill
Gas Recovery Plant, Horizon Air Measurement Services, prepared for GSF Energy, Inc.,
May 1992.
64. Landfill Gas Engine Exhaust Emissions Test Report in Support of Modification to Existing
1C Engine Permit at Bakersfield Landfill Unit #1, Pacific Energy Services, December 4,
1990.
65. Addendum to Source Test Report for Superior Engine #1 at Otay Landfill, Pacific Energy
Services, April 2, 1991.
66. Source Test Report 88-0075 of Emissions from an Internal Combustion Engine Fueled by
Landfill Gas, Penrose Landfill, Pacific Energy Lighting Systems, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, February 24, 1988.
67. Source Test Report 88-0096 of Emissions from an Internal Combustion Engine Fueled by
Landfill Gas, Toyon Canyon Landfill, Pacific Energy Lighting Systems, March 8, 1988.
11/98 Solid Waste Disposal 2.4-21
-------
68. Letter and attached documents from C. Nesbitt, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, to
K. Brust, E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc., December 6, 1996.
69. Determination of Landfill Gas Composition and Pollutant Emission Rates at Fresh Kills
Landfill, revised Final Report, Radian Corporation, prepared for U.S. EPA, November 10,
1995.
70. Advanced Technology Systems, Inc., Report on Determination of Enclosed Landfill Gas
Flare Performance, Prepared for Y & S Maintenance, Inc., February 1995.
71. Chester Environmental, Report on Ground Flare Emissions Test Results, Prepared for
Seneca Landfill, Inc., October 1993.
72. Smith Environmental Technologies Corporation, Compliance Emission Determination of the
Enclosed Landfill Gas Flare and Leachate Treatment Process Vents, Prepared for Clinton
County Solid Waste Authority, April 1996.
73. AirRecon®, Division of RECON Environmental Corp., Compliance Stack Test Report for
the Landfill Gas FLare Inlet & Outlet at Bethlehem Landfill, Prepared for LEG Specialties
Inc., December 3, 1996.
74. ROJAC Environmental Services, Inc., Compliance Test Report, Hartford Landfill Flare
Emissions Test Program, November 19, 1993.
75. Normandeau Associates, Inc., Emissions Testing of a Landfill Gas Flare at Contra Costa
Landfill, Antioch, California, March 22, 1994 and April 22, 1994, May 17, 1994.
76. Roe, S.M., et. al., Methodologies for Quantifying Pollution Prevention Benefits from
Landfill Gas Control and Utilization, Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation,
Air and Energy Engineering Laboratory, EPA-600/R-95-089, July 1995.
2.4-22 EMISSION FACTORS 11/98
-------
Appendix E
New Source Review
-------
NEW SOURCE REVIEW
This appendix briefly discusses New Source Review (NSR) and is divided into the
following sections:
• Introduction
• Overview of the NSR Program
• The Pollution Control Project Exclusion
PSD Significance Level for NMOC
• References
• Memo: Pollution Control Projects and New Source Review Applicability
• Memo: Classification of Emissions from Landfills for NSR Applicability
Purposes
• Memo: Emissions from Landfills
[NOTE: The memos included in this appendix are replicas of the originals. New
electronic copies were generated for posting the memos on the EPA TTN.]
Introduction
A landfill, like any other stationary source, may need to undergo new source review
(NSR) preceding either its initial construction or its expansion (modification) of an existing site.
Both the amount of air pollution that a landfill releases and the location of a landfill will help
determine which type of NSR requirements will apply. This section describes the applicability of
landfills to the various NSR requirements and explains how a landfill which takes steps to reduce
the release of certain gases may qualify for an NSR exclusion as a pollution control project. It is
important to note that a landfill should be evaluated for its applicability to NSR independently
from its applicability to the relevant NSPS and Emission Guidelines.
E-l
-------
Compliance with the MSW Landfills Emission Guidelines will require the collection and
reduction of NMOC emissions from larger existing MSW landfills. The reduction of NMOC
emissions generally will be accomplished through the destruction of NMOC using a combustion
device. This device may or may not include some type of energy recovery. Concurrent with the
control of NMOC, these combustion devices generate emissions of other pollutants, such as
nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO). (Typically, emissions
of SO2 are minimal from controlled MSW landfills and would rarely trigger any action.) These
concurrent emission increases may trigger NSR regulatory requirements under Parts C or D of
Title I of the Act.
Overview of the NSR Program
The NSR program requires a preconstruction review for any major new source or major
modification. The type of preconstruction review required generally depends upon the
attainment status of the area in which a source will construct or modify. In an area designated as
attainment or unclassifiable for a particular criteria pollutant, the requirements under part C of
title I of the Act, (prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality) will apply if the
source is major for any regulated pollutant. In a nonattainment area, the requirements under part
D of title I of the Act (nonattainment NSR) will apply if the source is major specifically for the
nonattainment pollutant.
Regardless of the area designation, a source that does not emit major amounts of any
pollutant must undergo review in accordance with a State's minor source permit program. If,
however, an existing minor source expands in such a way that the expansion in itself would be
considered major, then the expansion is regarded as a major source and will be required to
undergo either PSD or nonattainment NSR according to the applicable area designation. Tables
E-l and E-2 will be helpful in understanding how the various NSR requirements apply to specific
pollutants. It is not EPA's intent that this appendix provide a complete description of the
applicable NSR programs. Instead, the reader should refer to the documents listed in the
References section to gain a better understanding of these NSR programs and when one might
apply to the source of interest.
E-2
-------
A MSW landfill located in an attainment area is considered to be a major PSD source if it
has the potential to emit 250 tpy or more of any regulated pollutant (e.g., VOC, NOx or CO). If
an existing major MSW landfill is modified, a PSD review is required if the potential emission
increase from the modification is greater than the significance level established for that pollutant
(for example, 40 tpy of NOX in an attainment area). Once considered major, other pollutant
emissions are also subject to review if the regulatory significance level for that pollutant will be
exceeded. (See Table E-1.)
If PSD is triggered, the facility must complete a review for each pollutant for which
emissions increase by more than its significance level. The review includes a control technology
review and an analysis of the air quality impacts of the new or modified source. The required
control level for sources in attainment areas is best available control technology (BACT). Refer
to reference 1 for a discussion of this term. As part of the air quality analysis, the facility must
also demonstrate that the proposed activity will not cause or contribute to a violation of any
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) or PSD increment (in attainment areas), or
adversely impact an air quality related value (AQRV) in a Class I area. To demonstrate that these
values are not exceeded, the facility may have to conduct some emission modelling.
In a nonattainment area, major source status occurs when a MSW landfill would release
at least 100 tpy of the pollutant for which the area is designated nonattainment. Table E-2
summarizes the emissions thresholds for relevant pollutants when determining whether an
expansion to an existing landfill will be subject to nonattainment NSR. Any increase in
emissions of a nonattainment pollutant for which the new source is major, or any significant
increase of the nonattainment pollutant from an existing major source of the nonattainment
pollutant must control to the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) and must be offset by
emission decreases from some other source.
Non-major (minor) landfills can also trigger either PSD or nonattainment NSR. That is,
when an existing landfill would expand to such extent that the amount of any new pollutant
released would equal or exceed the applicable major source threshold, then the expansion itself
would be treated as a major source. (See Tables E-l and E-2.) For example, in an attainment
area, a modification to a minor source would need to increase potential emissions of any
pollutant by at least 250 tpy before PSD is triggered. Tables E-l and E-2 summarize the NOX,
E-3
-------
CO, VOC, and NMOC increases that constitute a major modification in attainment and
nonattainment areas. The tables present NOX and CO because these are the pollutants most likely
to increase significantly when combustion devices are installed to reduce NMOC emissions from
landfills. (However, it should be noted that emissions of VOC, NMOC, SO2, and particulate
matter must also be assessed in determining whether a landfill or a modification to a landfill is
major.) Refer to references 1 and 2 for a more complete discussion of how to determine whether
NSR is triggered. Reference 2, an EPA memorandum on classification of landfill emissions for
NSR purposes, is included in this appendix.
There is an exclusion under NSR that may be available to an existing landfill that would
otherwise trigger NSR. This exclusion applies to existing sources undergoing a physical or
operational change for the primary purpose of reducing one or more air pollutants subject to
regulation under the Act (i.e., a pollution control project), even though some increase of another
air pollutant may occur. A pollution control project (PCP) must be, on balance, "environmentally
beneficial" to be eligible for the exclusion. While the source would still be required to go
through a minor NSR process, an eligible source would not be required to conduct a BACT or
LAER (control device) evaluation.
The following section discusses this potential exclusion from NSR; the exclusion is
available only to eligible existing landfills installing gas collection and control systems. Several
resources are available for assisting in emission estimation and the determination of the potential
emission increases,2'3'4'5 and are listed in the references section.
The Pollution Control Project (PCP) Exclusion
The following information is taken largely from EPA's July 1, 1994 guidance
memorandum (attached) entitled, "Pollution Control Projects and New Source Review (NSR)
Applicability."6 Nothing in this section is intended to override any statement made in that
memorandum; the memorandum remains the definitive guidance for this exclusion.
For several years, EPA has had a policy of excluding certain types of PCPs from the NSR
requirements on a case-by-case basis. The exclusion allows states to exempt a PCP from major
NSR if, as stated above, the PCP is, on balance, "environmentally beneficial." The guidance
E-4
-------
Table E-l. Attainment Area (PSD) Major Modification
Levels for NOX, CO, VOC, and Landfill NMOC Emissions
Pollutanta Modifications to an Existing Minor
Source are Considered Major if
Emission Increases Equal or Exceed
(in tpy)
Modifications to an Existing Major
Source are Considered Major if
Emission Increases Exceed (in tpy)
NOX
CO
VOC
NMOC
250
250
250
250
40
100
40
50
aThis table presents only NOX, CO, VOC, and NMOC. The NSR prevention of
significant deteriorations (PSD) rules also contain levels for SO2 and PM/PM10.
Table E-2. Nonattainment Area Major Modification
Levels for NOX, CO, and VOC Emissions
Pollutanta and
Nonattainment
Area Status
Modifications to an Existing Minor
Source are Considered Major if
Emission Increases Equal or Exceed:
(in tpy)
Modifications to an Existing
Major Source are Considered
Major if Emission Increases
Exceed: (in tpy)k
NOX and VOC
- Marginal
- Moderate
- Serious
- Severe
- Extreme
CO
- Moderate
- Serious
100
100
50
25
10
100
50
40
40
25C
25C
0
100
50
aThis table presents only NOX, VOC, and CO. The NSR rules also contain levels
for SO2 and PM/PM10. The NSR rules in nonattainment areas apply only to
criteria pollutants, so do not include levels for landfill gas NMOC.
t"The source must be a major source of the particular criteria pollutant which increases
significantly.
°Applies to contemporaneous net emission increases over a 5-year period.
E-5
-------
memorandum states that "unless information regarding a specific case indicates otherwise,"
projects such as the addition of combustion devices to comply with this rule, "can be assumed, by
their nature, to be environmentally beneficial." It should be noted that this exemption is still a
case-by-case determination; the deciding authority for such an exemption is the state.
Nevertheless, even though a landfill may avoid NSR because it qualifies for the PCP exclusion,
any resulting emission increase could change the source's status for future applicability to NSR
when additional changes are proposed.
The guidance provides additional safeguards for facilities that pass the "environmentally
beneficial" test. No PCP can "cause or contribute" to a violation of a NAAQS, or a PSD
increment, or adversely impact an AQRV in a class I area. (See reference 1 for a discussion of
these values.)
In addition to ensuring that the project will not cause any violations of a NAAQS, PSD
increment, or AQRV, the applicant must demonstrate that the increase in collateral emissions is
minimized. Minimization does not mean that the permitting agency should require a full
"BACT-type" review for~or prescribe add-on controls for-collateral emission increases. It is
also not intended to impact the selection of the control device used to meet the NSPS or
Emission Guidelines. Rather, it is intended to ensure that whatever device is selected to comply
with the NSPS or Emission Guidelines is operated in such a manner as to minimize any collateral
emission increase.
A landfill owner or operator wishing to apply for the PCP exclusion must obtain a
determination from the applicable state that the project qualifies for this exemption. This
includes a requirement for a public review of the proposed exemption (minor NSR, state
applicability determination, or similar process). As part of this approval, the state may, in some
cases, require some modelling to be conducted to demonstrate that none of the values discussed
in the previous paragraph are violated. Any project excluded from major NSR under this
exemption must still comply with all other applicable requirements under the Act (including
minor source permitting requirements) and under the state Implementation Plan (SIP). In the
case of nonattainment areas, the state or the source must provide offsetting emission reductions
for any significant increase in a nonattainment pollutant from the PCP. Under the PCP guidance,
E-6
-------
a one-to-one offset ratio is considered sufficient for a PCP; however, states have discretion to
require offset ratios greater than one-to-one.
PSD Significance Level for NMOC
The MSW Landfills NSPS and Emission Guidelines established "MSW landfill
emissions" as a new classification of pollutants subject to regulation under the Act. Concurrent
with promulgating the NSPS and Emission Guidelines, EPA established a PSD significance level
of 50 tpy, measured as NMOC. Therefore, PSD review requirements now apply to existing
MSW landfill major sources in attainment areas that undergo a modification resulting in
increases in landfill gas emissions greater than the 50 tpy NMOC significance level. This level
roughly corresponds to a VOC emission rate of 40 tpy, the PSD significance level for VOC.
Modified landfills below the 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3 design capacity exemption,
which are not required by the Emission Guidelines to install controls, may exceed the PSD
significance level for NMOC. In this case, the state will need to determine if controls should be
installed for purposes of PSD compliance. In addition, NSR will be required if a modification of
an existing landfill, which is a major source of VOC and is located in an ozone nonattainment
area, increases VOC emissions by more than the levels shown in Table E-2.
References
1. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. New Source Review Workshop Manual,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting. Draft. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. October
1990 Draft.
2. Memorandum. Seitz, John S., EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to EPA
Regions I through X Air Division Directors. Classification of Emissions from Landfills
for NSR Applicability Purposes. October 21, 1994.
3. Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory. Methodology for Quantifying
Pollution Prevention Benefits from Landfill Gas Control and Utilization. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA-600/R-95-089. July 1995.
E-7
-------
4. Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory. Landfill Gas Energy Utilization
Experience: Discussion of Technical and Non-Technical Issues, Solutions, and Trends.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA-600/R-95-035. March 1995.
5. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. AP-42. January 1995 (fifth edition). Section 2.4.
6. Memorandum. Seitz, John S., EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to
EPA Regions I through X Air Division Directors. Pollution Control Projects and New
Source Review (NSR) Applicability. July 1, 1994.
E-8
-------
July 1, 1994
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Pollution Control Projects and New Source
Review (NSR) Applicability
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX and X
This memorandum and attachment address issues involving the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) NSR rules and guidance
concerning the exclusion from major NSR of pollution control
projects at existing sources. The attachment provides a full
discussion of the issues and this policy, including illustrative
examples.
For several years, EPA has had a policy of excluding certain
pollution control projects from the NSR requirements of parts C
and D of title I of the Clean Air Act (Act) on a case-by-case
basis. In 1992, EPA adopted an explicit pollution control
project exclusion for electric utility generating units [see
57 FR 32314 (the "WEPCO rule" or the "WEPCO rulemaking")]. At
the time, EPA indicated that it would, in a subsequent
rulemaking, consider adopting a formal pollution control project
exclusion for other source categories [see 57 FR 32332] . In the
interim, EPA stated that individual pollution control projects
involving source categories other than utilities could continue
to be excluded from NSR by permitting authorities on a case-by-
case basis [see 57 FR at 32320]. At this time, EPA expects to
complete a rulemaking on a pollution control project exclusion
for other source categories in early 1996. This memorandum and
attachment provide interim guidance for permitting authorities on
the approvability of these projects pending EPA's final action on
a formal regulatory exclusion. The attachment to this memorandum
E-9
-------
outlines in greater detail the type of projects that may qualify
for a conditional exclusion from NSR as a pollution control
project, the safeguards that are to be met, and the procedural
steps that permitting authorities should follow in issuing an
exclusion. Projects that do not meet these safeguards and
procedural steps do not qualify for an exclusion from NSR under
this policy. Pollution control projects potentially eligible for
an exclusion (provided all applicable safeguards are met) include
the installation of conventional or innovative emissions control
equipment and projects undertaken to accommodate switching to an
inherently less-polluting fuel, such as natural gas. Under this
guidance, States may also exclude as pollution control projects
some material and process changes (e.g., the switch to a less
polluting coating, solvent, or refrigerant) and some other types
of pollution prevention projects undertaken to reduce emissions
of air pollutants subject to regulation under the Act.
The replacement of an existing emissions uni~ with a newer
or different one (albeit more efficient and less polluting) or
the reconstruction of an existing emissions unit does not qualify
as a pollution control project. Furthermore, this guidance only
applies to physical or operational changes whose primary function
is the reduction of air pollutants subject to regulation under
the Act at existing major sources. This policy does not apply to
air pollution controls and emissions associated with a proposed
new source. Similarly, the fabrication, manufacture or
production of pollution control/prevention equipment and
inherently less-polluting fuels or raw materials are not
pollution control projects under this policy (e.g., a physical or
operational change for the purpose of producing reformulated
gasoline at a refinery is not a pollution control project).
It is EPA's experience that many bona fide pollution control
projects are not subject to major NSR requirements for the simple
reason that they result in a reduction in annual emissions at the
source. In this way, these pollution control projects are
outside major NSR coverage in accordance with the general rules
for determining applicability of NSR to modifications at existing
sources. However, some pollution control projects could result
in significant potential or actual increases of some pollutants.
These latter projects comprise the subcategory of pollution
control projects that can benefit from this guidance.
A pollution control project must be, on balance,
"environmentally beneficial" to be eligible for an exclusion.
Further, an environmentally-beneficial pollution control project
may be excluded from otherwise applicable major NSR requirements
only under conditions that ensure that the project will not cause
or contribute to a violation of a national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS), prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
increment, or adversely affect visibility or other air quality
related value (AQRV). In order to assure that air quality
concerns with these projects are adequately addressed, there are
E-10
-------
two substantive and two procedural safeguards which are to be
followed by permitting authorities reviewing projects proposed
for exclusion.
First, the permitting authority must determine that the
proposed pollution control project, after consideration of the
reduction in the targeted pollutant and any collateral effects,
will be environmentally beneficial. Second, nothing in this
guidance authorizes any pollution control project which would
cause or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS, or PSD increment,
or adversely impact an AQRV in a class I area. Consequently, in
addition to this "environmentally-beneficial" standard, the
permitting authority must ensure that adverse collateral
environmental impacts from the project are identified, minimized,
and, where appropriate, mitigated. For example, the source or
the State must secure offsetting reductions in the case of a
project which will result in a significant increase in a
nonattainment pollutant. Where a significant collateral increase
in actual emissions is expected to result from a pollution
control project, the permitting authority must also assess
whether the increase could adversely affect any national ambient
air quality standard, PSD increment, or class I AQRV.
In addition to these substantive safeguards, EPA is
specifying two procedural safeguards which are to be followed.
First, since the exclusion under this interim guidance is only
available on a case-by-case basis, sources seeking exclusion from
major NSR requirements prior to the forthcoming EPA rulemaking on
a pollution control project exclusion must, before beginning
construction, obtain a determination by the permitting authority
that a proposed project qualifies for an exclusion from major NSR
requirements as a pollution control project. Second, in
considering this request, the permitting authority must afford
the public an opportunity to review and comment on the source's
application for this exclusion. It is also important to note
that any project excluded from major new source review as a
pollution control project must still comply with all otherwise
applicable requirements under the Act and the State
implementation plan (SIP), including minor source permitting.
This guidance document does not supersede existing Federal
or State regulations or approved SIP's. The policies set out in
this memorandum and attachment are intended as guidance to be
applied only prospectively (including those projects currently
under evaluation for an exclusion) during the interim period
until EPA takes action to revise its NSR rules, and do not
represent final Agency action. This policy statement is not ripe
for judicial review. Moreover, it is not intended, nor can it be
relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in
litigation with the United States. Agency officials may decide
to follow the guidance provided in this memorandum, or to act at
variance with the guidance, based on an analysis of specific
circumstances. The EPA also may change this guidance at any time
E-ll
-------
without public notice. The EPA presently intends to address the
matters discussed in this document in a forthcoming NSR
rulemaking regarding proposed changes to the program resulting
from the NSR Reform process and will take comment on these
matters as part of that rulemaking.
As noted above, a detailed discussion of the types of
projects potentially eligible for an exclusion from major NSR as
a pollution control project, as well as the safeguards such
projects must meet to qualify for the exclusion, is contained in
the attachment to this memorandum. The Regional Offices should
send this memorandum with the attachment to States within their
jurisdiction. Questions concerning specific issues and cases
should be directed to the appropriate EPA Regional Office.
Regional Office staff may contact David Solomon, Chief, New
Source Review Section, at (919) 541-5375, if they have any
questions.
Attachment
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
NSR Reform Subcommittee Members
E-12
-------
Attachment
GUIDANCE ON EXCLUDING POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS
FROM MAJOR NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR)
I. Purpose
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) presently expects
to complete a rulemaking on an exclusion from major NSR for
pollution control projects by early 1996. In the interim,
certain types of projects (involving source categories other than
utilities) may qualify on a case-by-case basis for an exclusion
from major NSR as pollution control projects. Prior to EPA's
final action on a regulatory exclusion, this attachment provides
interim guidance for permitting authorities on the types of
projects that may qualify on a case-by-case basis from major NSR
as pollution control projects, including the substantive and
procedural safeguards which apply.
II. Background
The NSR provisions of part C [prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD)] and part D (nonattainment requirements) of
title I of the Clean Air Act (Act) apply to both the construction
of major new sources and the modification of existing major
sources.1 The modification provisions of the NSR programs in
parts C and D are based on the broad definition of modification
in section 111(a)(4) of the Act. That section contemplates a
two-step test for determining whether activities at an existing
major facility constitute a modification subject to new source
requirements. In the first step, the reviewing authority
determines whether a physical or operational change will occur.
In the second step, the question is whether the physical or
operational change will result in any increase in emissions of
any regulated pollutant.
The definition of physical or operational change in
section 111(a)(4) could, standing alone, encompass the most
mundane activities at an industrial facility (even the repair or
replacement of a single leaky pipe, or a insignificant change in
the way that pipe is utilized). However, EPA has recognized that
Congress did not intend to make every activity at a source
subject to new source requirements under parts C and D. As a
result, EPA has by regulation limited the reach of the
modification provisions of parts C and D to only major
modifications. Under NSR, a "major modification" is generally a
physical change or change in the method of operation of a major
stationary source which would result in a significant net
xThe EPA's NSR regulations for nonattainment areas are set
forth, at 40 CFR 51.165, 52.24 and part 51, Appendix S. The PSD
program is set forth in 40 CFR 52.21 and 51.166.
E-13
-------
emissions increase in the emissions of any regulated pollutant
[see, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(i)]. A "net emissions increase"
is defined as the increase in "actual emissions" from the
particular physical or operational change together with any other
contemporaneous increases or decreases in actual emissions [see,
e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)(i)]. In order to trigger major new
source review, the net emissions increase must exceed specified
"significance" levels [see, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(i) and 40
CFR 52.2Kb) (23)] . The EPA has also adopted common-sense
exclusions from the "physical or operational change" component of
the definition of "major modification." For example, EPA's
regulations contain exclusions for routine maintenance, repair,
and replacement; for certain increases in the hours of operation
or in the production rate; and for certain types of fuel switches
[see, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(iii)].
In the 1992 "WEPCO" rulemaking [57 FR 32314], EPA amended
its PSD and nonattainment NSR regulations as they pertain to
utilities by adding certain pollution control projects to the
list of activities excluded from the definition of physical or
operational changes. In taking that action, EPA stated it was
largely formalizing an existing policy under which it had been
excluding individual pollution control projects where it was
found that the project "would be environmentally beneficial,
taking into account ambient air quality" [57 FR at 32320; see
also id., n. 15].2
The EPA has provided exclusions for pollution control
projects in the form of "no action assurances" prior to
November 15, 1990 and nonapplicability determinations based on
Act changes as of November 15, 1990 (1990 Amendments).
Generally, these exclusions addressed clean coal technology
projects and fuel switches at electric utilities.
Because the WEPCO rulemaking was directed at the utility
industry which faced "massive industry-wide undertakings of
pollution control projects" to comply with the acid rain
provisions of the Act [57 FR 32314], EPA limited the types of
projects eligible for the exclusion to add-on controls and fuel
switches at utilities. Thus, pollution control projects under
the WEPCO rule are defined as:
any activity or project undertaken at an
existing electric utility steam generating
unit for purposes of reducing emissions from
such unit. Such activities or projects are
limited to:
2This guidance pertains only to source categories other than
electric utilities, and EPA does not intend for this guidance to
affect the WEPCO rulemaking in any way.
E-14
-------
(A) The installation of conventional or
innovative pollution control technology,
including but not limited to advanced flue
gas desulfurization, sorbent injection for
sulfur dioxide (S02) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) controls and electrostatic
precipitators;
(B) An activity or project to accommodate
switching to a fuel which is less polluting
than the fuel in use prior to the activity or
project . . .
[40 CFR 51.165 (a) (1) (xxv) (emphasis added)].
The definition also includes certain clean coal technology
demonstration projects. Id.
The EPA built two safeguards into the exclusion in the
rulemaking. First, a project that meets the definition of
pollution control project will not qualify for the exclusion
wh -e the "reviewing authority determines that (the proposed
project) renders the unit less environmentally beneficial ..."
[see, e.g., 51.165 (a) (1) (v) (C) (8) ] . In the WEPCO rule, EPA did
not provide any specific definition of the environmentally-
beneficial standard, although it did indicate that the pollution
control project provision "provides for a case-by-case assessment
of the pollution control project's net emissions and overall
impact on the environment" [57 FR 32321]. This provision is
buttressed by a second safeguard that directs permitting
authorities to evaluate the air quality impacts of pollution
control projects that could--through collateral emissions
increases or changes in utilization patterns—adversely impact
local air quality [see 57 FR 32322] . This provision generally
authorizes, as appropriate, a permitting authority to require
modelling of emissions increases associated with a pollution
control project. Id. More fundamentally, it explicitly states
that no pollution control project under any circumstances may
cause or contribute to violation of a national ambient air
E-15
-------
quality standard (NAAQS), PSD increment, or air quality related
value (AQRV) in a class I area. Id.3
As noted, the WEPCO rulemaking was expressly limited to
existing electric utility steam generating units [see, e.g., 40
CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(8) and 51.165(a)(1)(xx)]. The EPA limited
the rulemaking to utilities because of the impending acid rain
requirements under title IV of the Act, EPA's extensive
experience with new source applicability issues for electric
utilities, the general similarity of equipment, and the public
availability of utility operating projections. The EPA indicated
it would consider adopting a formal NSR pollution control project
exclusion for other source categories as part of a separate NSR
rulemaking. The rulemaking in question is now expected to be
finalized by early 1996. On the other hand, the WEPCO rulemaking
also noted that EPA's existing policy was, and would continue to
be, to allow permitting authorities to exclude pollution control
projects in other source categories on a case-by-case basis.
III. Case-By-Case Pollution Control Project Determinations
The following sections describe the type of projects that
may be considered by permitting authorities for exclusion from
major NSR as pollution control projects and two safeguards that
permitting authorities are to use in evaluating such projects--
the environmentally-beneficial test and an air quality impact
assessment. To a large extent, these requirements are drawn from
the WEPCO rulemaking. However, because the WEPCO rule was
designed for a single source category, electric utilities, it
cannot and does not serve as a complete template for this
guidance. Therefore, the following descriptions expand upon the
WEPCO rule in the scope of qualifying projects and in the
specific elements inherent in the safeguards. These changes
reflect the far more complicated task of evaluating pollution
3The WEPCO rule refers specifically to "visibility
limitation" rather than "air quality related values." However,
EPA clearly stated in the preamble to the final rule that
permitting agencies have the authority to "solicit the views of
others in taking any other appropriate remedial steps deemed
necessary to protect class I areas. . .. The EPA emphasizes that
all environmental impacts, including those on class I areas, can
be considered. . .." [57 FR 32322]. Further, the statutory
protections in section 165(d) plainly are intended to protect
against any "adverse impact on the AQRV of such [class I] lands
(including visibility)." Based on this statutory provision, EPA
believes that the proper focus of any air quality assessment for
a pollution control project should be on visibility and any other
relevant AQRV's for any class I areas that may be affected by the
proposed project. Permitting authorities should notify Federal
Land Managers where appropriate concerning pollution control
projects which may adversely affect AQRV's in class I areas.
E-16
-------
control projects at a wide variety of sources facing a myriad of
Federal, State, and local clean air requirements.
Since the safeguards are an integral component of the
exclusion, States must have the authority to impose the
safeguards in approving an exclusion from major NSR under this
policy. Thus, State or local permitting authorities in order to
use this policy should provide statements to EPA describing and
affirming the basis for its authority to impose these safeguards
absent major NSR. Sources that obtain exclusions from permitting
authorities that have not provided this affirmation of authority
are at risk in seeking to rely on the exclusion issued by the
permitting agency, because EPA may subsequently determine that
the project does not qualify as a pollution control project under
this policy.
A. Types of Projects Covered
1. Add-On Controls and Fuel Switches
In the WEPCO rulemaking, EPA found that both add-on
emissions control projects and fuel switches to less-polluting
fuels could be considered to be pollution control projects. For
the purposes of today's guidance, EPA affirms that these types of
projects are appropriate candidates for a case-by-case exclusion
as well. These types of projects include:
the installation of conventional and advanced flue gas
desulfurization and sorbent injection for S02;
electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, high efficiency
multiclones, and scrubbers for particulate or other
pollutants;
flue gas recirculation, low-NOx burners, selective non-
catalytic reduction and selective catalytic reduction for
NOX; and
regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO), catalytic
oxidizers, condensers, thermal incinerators, flares and
carbon adsorbers for volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and toxic air pollutants.
Projects undertaken to accommodate switching to an
inherently less-polluting fuel such as natural gas can also
qualify for the exclusion. Any activity that is necessary to
accommodate switching to a inherently less-polluting fuel is
considered to be part of the pollution control project. In some
instances, where the emissions unit's capability would otherwise
be impaired as a result of the fuel switch, this may involve
certain necessary changes to the pollution generating equipment
(e.g., boiler) in order to maintain the normal operating
capability of the unit at the time of the project.
E-17
-------
2. Pollution Prevention Projects
It is EPA's policy to promote pollution prevention
approaches and to remove regulatory barriers to sources seeking
to develop and implement pollution prevention solutions to the
extent allowed under the Act. For this reason, permitting
authorities may also apply this exclusion to switches to
inherently less-polluting raw materials and processes and certain
other types of "pollution prevention" projects.4 For instance,
many VOC users will be making switches to water-based or powder-
paint application systems as a strategy for meeting reasonably
available control technology (RACT) or switching to a non-toxic
VOC to comply with maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
requirements.
Accordingly, under today's guidance, permitting authorities
may consider excluding raw material substitutions, process
changes and other pollution prevention strategies where the
pollution control aspects of the project are clearly evident and
will result in substantial emissions reductions per unit of
output for one or more pollutants. In judging whether a
pollution prevention project can be considered for exclusion as a
pollution control project, permitting authorities may also
consider as a relevant factor whether a project is being
undertaken to bring a source into compliance with a MACT, RACT,
or other Act requirement.
Although EPA is supportive of pollution control and
prevention projects and strategies, special care must be taken in
classifying a project as a pollution control project and in
evaluating a project under a pollution control project exclusion.
Virtually every modernization or upgrade project at an existing
industrial facility which reduces inputs and lowers unit costs
has the concurrent effect of lowering an emissions rate per unit
of fuel, raw material or output. Nevertheless, it is clear that
these major capital investments in industrial equipment are the
very types of projects that Congress intended to address in the
new source modification provisions [see Wisconsin Electric Power
Co. v. Reillv. 893 F.2d 901, 907-10 (7th Cir. 1990) (rejecting
contention that utility life extension project was not a physical
4For purposes of this guidance, pollution prevention means
any activity that through process changes, product reformulation
or redesign, or substitution of less polluting raw materials,
eliminates or reduces the release of air pollutants and other
pollutants to the environment (including fugitive emissions)
prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal; it does not mean
recycling (other than certain "in-process recycling" practices),
energy recovery, treatment, or disposal [see Pollution Prevention
Act of 1990 section 6602(b) and section 6603(5)(A) and (B); see
also "EPA Definition of 'Pollution Prevention,'" memorandum from
F. Henry Habicht II, May 28, 1992] .
E-18
-------
or operational change); Puerto Rican Cement Co., Inc. v. EPA. 889
F.2d 292, 296-98 (1st Cir. 1989) (NSR applies to modernization
project that decreases emissions per unit of output, but
increases economic efficiency such that utilization may increase
and result in net increase in actual emissions)]. Likewise, the
replacement of an existing emissions unit with a newer or
different one (albeit more efficient and less polluting) or the
reconstruction of an existing emissions unit would not qualify as
a pollution control project. Adopting a policy that
automatically excludes from NSR any project that, while lowering
operating costs or improving performance, coincidentally lowers a
unit's emissions rate, would improperly exclude almost all
modifications to existing emissions units, including those that
are likely to increase utilization and therefore result in
overall higher levels of emissions.
In order to limit this exclusion to the subset of pollution
prevention projects that will in fact lower annual emissions at a
source, permitting authorities should not exclude as pollution
control projects any pollution prevention project that can be
reasonably expected to result in an increase in the utilization
of the affected emissions unit(s). For example, projects which
significantly increase capacity, decrease production costs, or
improve product marketability can be expected to affect
utilization patterns. With these changes, the environment may or
may not see a reduction in overall source emissions; it depends
on the source's operations after the change, which cannot be
predicted with any certainty.5 This is not to say that these
types of projects are necessarily subject to major NSR
requirements, only that they should not be excluded as pollution
control projects under this guidance. The EPA may consider
different approaches to excluding pollution prevention projects
from major NSR requirements in the upcoming NSR rulemaking.
Under this guidance, however, permitting authorities should
carefully review proposed pollution prevention projects to
evaluate whether utilization of the source will increase as a
result of the project.
Furthermore, permitting authorities should have the
authority to monitor utilization of an affected emissions unit or
source for a reasonable period of time subsequent to the project
to verify what effect, if any, the project has on utilization.
In cases where the project has clearly caused an increase in
utilization, the permitting authority may need to reevaluate the
5This is in marked contrast to the addition of pollution
control equipment which typically does not, in EPA's experience,
result in any increase in the source's utilization of the
emission unit in question. In the few instances where this
presumption is not true, the safeguards discussed in the next
section should provide adequate environmental protections for
these additions of pollution control equipment.
E-19
-------
basis for the original exclusion to verify that an exclusion is
still appropriate and to ensure that all applicable safeguards
are being met.
B. Safeguards
The following safeguards are necessary to assure that
projects being considered for an exclusion qualify as
environmentally beneficial pollution control projects and do not
have air quality impacts which would preclude the exclusion.
Consequently, a project that does not meet these safeguards does
not qualify for an exclusion under this policy.
1. Environmentally-Beneficial Test
Projects that meet the definition of a pollution control
project outlined above may nonetheless cause collateral emissions
increases or have other adverse impacts. For instance, a large
VOC incinerator, while substantially eliminating VOC emissions,
may generate sizeable NOX emissions well in excess of
significance levels. To protect against these sorts of problems,
EPA in the WEPCO rule provided for an assessment of the overall
environmental impact of a project and the specific impact, if
any, on air quality. The EPA believes that this safeguard is
appropriate in this policy as well.
Unless information regarding a specific case indicates
otherwise, the types of pollution control projects listed in
III. A. 1. above can be presumed, by their nature, to be
environmentally beneficial. This presumption arises from EPA's
experience that historically these are the very types of
pollution controls applied to new and modified emissions units.
The presumption does not apply, however, where there is reason to
believe that 1) the controls will not be designed, operated or
maintained in a manner consistent with standard and reasonable
practices; or 2) collateral emissions increases have not been
adequately addressed as discussed below.
In making a determination as to whether a project is
environmentally beneficial, the permitting authority must
consider the types and quantity of air pollutants emitted before
and after the project, as well as other relevant environmental
factors. While because of the case-by-case nature of projects
it is not possible to list all factors which should be considered
in any particular case, several concerns can be noted.
First, pollution control projects which result in an
increase in non-targeted pollutants should be reviewed to
determine that the collateral increase has been minimized and
will not result in environmental harm. Minimization here does
not mean that the permitting agency should conduct a BACT-type
review or necessarily prescribe add-on control equipment to
E-20
-------
treat the collateral increase. Rather, minimization means that,
within the physical configuration and operational standards
usually associated with such a control device or strategy, the
source has taken reasonable measures to keep any collateral
increase to a minimum. For instance, the permitting authority
could require that a low-NOx burner project be subject to
temperature and other appropriate combustion standards so that
carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are kept to a minimum, but would
not review the project for a CO catalyst or other add-on type
options. In addition, a State's RACT or MACT rule may have
explicitly considered measures for minimizing a collateral
increase for a class or category of pollution control projects
and requires a standard of best practices to minimize such
collateral increases. In such cases, the need to minimize
collateral increase from the covered class or category of
pollution control projects can be presumed to have been
adequately addressed in the rule.
In addition, a project which would result in an unacceptable
increased risk due to the release of air toxics should not be
considered environmentally beneficial. It is EPA's experience,
however, that most projects undertaken to reduce emissions,
especially add-on controls and fuel switches, result in
concurrent reductions in air toxics. The EPA expects that many
pollution control projects seeking an exclusion under this
guidance will be for the purpose of complying with MACT
requirements for reductions in air toxics. Consequently, unless
there is reason to believe otherwise, permitting agencies may
presume that such projects by their nature will result in reduced
risks from air toxics.
2. Additional Air Quality Impacts Assessments
(a) General
Nothing in the Act or EPA's implementing regulations would
allow a permitting authority to approve a pollution control
project resulting in an emissions increase that would cause or
contribute to a violation of a NAAQS or PSD increment, or
adversely impact visibility or other AQRV in a class I area [see,
e.g., Act sections 110(a)(2)(C), 165, 169A(b), 173].
Accordingly, this guidance is not intended to allow any project
to violate any of these air quality standards.
As discussed above, it is possible that a pollution control
project—either through an increase in an emissions rate of a
collateral pollutant or through a change in utilization—will
cause an increase in actual emissions, which in turn could cause
or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS or increment or
adversely impact AQRV's. For this reason, in the WEPCO rule the
EPA required sources to address whenever 1) the proposed change
would result in a significant net increase in actual emissions of
any criteria pollutant over levels used for that source in the
E-21
-------
most recent air quality impact analysis; and 2) the permitting
authority has reason to believe that such an increase would cause
or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS, increment or visibility
limitation. If an air quality impact analysis indicates that the
increase in emissions will cause or contribute to a violation of
any ambient standard, PSD increment, or AQRV, the pollution
control exclusion does not apply.
The EPA believes that this safeguard needs to be applied
here as well. Thus, where a pollution control project will
result in a significant increase in emissions and that increased
level has not been previously analyzed for its air quality impact
and raises the possibility of a NAAQS, increment, or AQRV
violation, the permitting authority is to require the source to
provide an air quality analysis sufficient to demonstrate the
impact of the project. The EPA will not necessarily require that
the increase be modeled, but the source must provide sufficient
data to satisfy the permitting authority that the new levels of
emissions will not cause a NAAQS or increment violation and will
not adversely impact the AQRV's of nearby potentially affected
class I areas.
In the case of nonattainment areas, the State or the source
must provide offsetting emissions reductions for any significant
increase in a nonattainment pollutant from the pollution control
project. In other words, if a significant collateral increase of
a nonattainment pollutant resulting from a pollution control
project is not offset on at least a one-to-one ratio then the
pollution control project would not qualify as environmentally
beneficial.6 However, rather than having to apply offsets on a
case-by-case basis, States may consider adopting (as part of
their attainment plans) specific control measures or strategies
for the purpose of generating offsets to mitigate the projected
collateral emissions increases from a class or category of
pollution control projects.
(b) Determination of Increase in Emissions
The question of whether a proposed project will result in an
emissions increase over pre-modification levels of actual
emissions is both complicated and contentious. It is a question
that has been debated by the New Source Review Reform
Subcommittee of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee and is
expected to be revisited by EPA in the same upcoming rulemaking
that will consider adopting a pollution control project
exclusion. In the interim, EPA is adopting a simplified approach
6Regardless of the severity of the classification of the
nonattainment area, a one-to-one offset ratio will be considered
sufficient under this policy to mitigate a collateral increase
from a pollution control project. States may, however, require
offset ratios that are greater than one-to-one.
E-22
-------
to determining whether a pollution control project will result in
increased emissions.
The approach in this policy is premised on the fact that EPA
does not expect the vast majority of these pollution control
projects to change established utilization patterns at the
source. As discussed in the previous section, it is EPA's
experience that add-on controls do not impact utilization, and
pollution prevention projects that could increase utilization may
not be excluded under this guidance. Therefore, in most cases it
will be very easy to calculate the emissions after the change:
the product of the new emissions rate times the existing
utilization rate. In the case of a pollution control project
that collaterally increases a non-targeted pollutant, the actual
increase (calculated using the new emissions rate and current
utilization pattern) would need to be analyzed to determine its
air quality impact.
The permitting authority may presume that projects meeting
the definition outlined in section III (AMI) will not change
utilization patterns. However, the permitting authority is to
reject this presumption where there is reason to believe that the
project will result in debottlenecking, loadshifting to take
advantage of the control equipment, or other meaningful increase
in the use of the unit above current levels. Where the project
will increase utilization and emissions, the associated emissions
increases are calculated based on the post-modification potential
to emit of the unit considering the application of the proposed
controls. In such cases the permitting agency should consider
the projected increase in emissions as collateral to the project
and determine whether, notwithstanding the emissions increases,
the project is still environmentally beneficial and meets all
applicable safeguards.
In certain limited circumstances, a permitting agency may
take action to impose federally-enforceable limits on the
magnitude of a projected collateral emissions increase to ensure
that all safeguards are met. For example, where the data used to
assess a projected collateral emissions increase is questionable
and there is reason to believe that emissions in excess of the
projected increase would violate an applicable air quality
standard or significantly exceed the quantity of offsets
provided, restrictions on the magnitude of the collateral
increase may be necessary to ensure compliance with the
applicable safeguards.
IV. Procedural Safeguards
Because EPA has not yet promulgated regulations governing a
generally applicable pollution control project exclusion from
major NSR (other than for electric utilities), permitting
authorities must consider and approve requests for an exclusion
on a case-by-case basis, and the exclusion is not self-executing.
E-23
-------
Instead, sources must receive case-by-case approval from the
permitting authority pursuant to a minor NSR permitting process,
State nonapplicability determination or similar process.
[Nothing in this guidance voids or creates an exclusion from any
applicable minor source preconstruction review requirement in any
SIP that has been approved pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C) and
40 CFR 51.160-164.] This process should also provide that the
application for the exclusion and the permitting agency's
proposed decision thereon be subject to public notice and the
opportunity for public and EPA written comment. In those limited
cases where the applicable SIP already exempts a class or
category of pollution controls project from the minor source
permitting public notice and comment requirements, and where no
collateral increases are expected (e.g., the installation of a
baghouse) and all otherwise applicable environmental safeguards
are complied with, public notice and comment need not be provided
for such projects. However, even in such circumstances, the
permitting agency should provide advance notice to EPA when it
applies this policy to provide an exclusion. For standard-wide
applications to groups of sources (e.g., RACT or MACT), the
notice may be provided to EPA at the time the permitting
authority intends to issue a pollution control exclusion for the
class or category of sources and thereafter notice need not be
given to EPA on an individual basis for sources within the
noticed group.
V. Emission Reduction Credits
In general, certain pollution control projects which have
been approved for an exclusion from major NSR may result in
emission reductions which can serve as NSR offsets or netting
credits. All or part of the emission reductions equal to the
difference between the pre-modification actual and post-
modification potential emissions for the decreased pollutant may
serve as credits provided that 1) the project will not result in
a significant collateral increase in actual emissions of any
criteria pollutant, 2) the project is still considered
environmentally beneficial, and 3) all otherwise applicable
criteria for the crediting of such reductions are met (e.g.,
quantifiable, surplus, permanent, and enforceable). Where an
excluded pollution control project results in a significant
collateral increase of a criteria pollutant, emissions reduction
credits from the pollution control project for the controlled
pollutant may still be granted provided, in addition to 2) and 3)
above, the actual collateral increase is reduced below the
applicable significance level, either through contemporaneous
reductions at the source or external offsets. However, neither
the exclusion from major NSR nor any credit (full or partial) for
emission reductions should be granted by the permitting authority
where the type or amount of the emissions increase which would
result from the use of such credits would lessen the
environmental benefit associated with the pollution control
E-24
-------
project to the point where the project would not have initially
qualified for an exclusion.
IV. Illustrative Examples
The following examples illustrate some of the guiding
principles and safeguards discussed above in reviewing proposed
pollution control projects for an exclusion from major NSR.
Example 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A chemical manufacturing facility in
an attainment area for all pollutants is proposing to install a
RTO to reduce VOC emissions (including emissions of some
hazardous pollutants) at the plant by about 3000 tons per year
(tpy). The emissions reductions from the RTO are currently
voluntary, but may be necessary in the future for title III MACT
compliance. Although the RTO has been designed to minimize NOX
emissions, it will produce 200 tpy of new NOX emissions due to
the unique composition of the emissions stream. There is no
information about the project to rebut a presumption that the
project will not change utilization of the source. Aside from
the NOX increase there are no other environmental impacts known
to be associated with the project.
EVALUATION: As a qualifying add-on control device, the
project may be considered a pollution control project and may be
considered for an exclusion. The permitting agency should:
1) verify that the NOX increase has been minimized to the extent
practicable, 2) confirm (through modeling or other appropriate
means) that the actual significant increase in NOX emissions does
not violate the applicable NAAQS,7 PSD increment, or adversely
impact any Class I area AQRV, and 3) apply all otherwise
applicable SIP and minor source permitting requirements,
including opportunity for public notice and comment.
Example 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A source proposes to replace an
existing coal-fired boiler with a gas-fired turbine as part of a
cogeneration project. The new turbine is an exact replacement
for the energy needs supplied by the existing boiler and will
emit less of each pollutant on an hourly basis than the boiler
did.
EVALUATION: The replacement of an existing emissions unit
with a new unit (albeit more efficient and less polluting) does
7If the source were located in an area in which
nonattainment NSR applied to NOX emissions increases, 200
tons of NOX offset credits would be required for the project
to be eligible for an exclusion.
E-25
-------
not qualify for an exclusion as a pollution control project. The
company can, however, use any otherwise applicable netting
credits from the removal of the existing boiler to seek to net
the new unit out of major NSR.
Example 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A source plans to physically renovate
and upgrade an existing process line by making certain changes to
the existing process, including extensive modifications to
emissions units. Following the changes, the source will expand
production and manufacture and market a new product line. The
project will cause an increase in the economic efficiency of the
line. The renovated line will also be less polluting on a per-
product basis than the original configuration.
EVALUATION: The change is not eligible for an exclusion as
a pollution control project. On balance, the project does not
have clearly evident pollution control aspects, and the resultant
decrease in the per-product emissions rate (or factor) is
incidental to the project. The project is a physical change or
change in the method of operation that will increase efficiency
and productivity.
Example 4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In response to the phaseout of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) under title VI of the Act, a major
source is proposing to substitute a less ozone-depleting
substance (e.g., HCFC-141b) for one it currently uses that has a
greater ozone depleting potential (e.g., CFC-11). A larger
amount of the less-ozone depleting substance will have to be
used. No other changes are proposed.
EVALUATION: The project may be considered a pollution
control project and may be considered for an exclusion. The
permitting agency should verify that 1) actual annual emissions
of HCFC-141b after the proposed switch will cause less
stratospheric ozone depletion than current annual emissions of
CFC-11; 2) the proposed switch will not change utilization
patterns or increase emissions of any other pollutant which would
impact a NAAQS, PSD increment, or AQRV and will not cause any
cross-media harm, including any unacceptable increased risk
associated with toxic air pollutants; and 3) apply all otherwise
applicable SIP and minor source permitting requirements,
including opportunity for public notice and comment.
Example 5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An existing landfill proposes to
install either flares or energy recovery equipment [i.e.,
turbines or internal combustion (1C) engines]. The reductions
from the project are estimated at over 1000 tpy of VOC and are
E-26
-------
currently not necessary to meet Act requirements, but may be
necessary some time in the future. In case A the project is the
replacement of an existing flare or energy system and no increase
in NOX emissions will occur. In case B, the equipment is a first
time installation and will result in a 100 tpy increase in NOX.
In case C, the equipment is an addition to existing equipmentx
which will accommodate additional landfill gas (resulting from
increased gas generation and/or capture consistent with the
current permitted limits for growth at the landfill) and will
result in a 50 tpy increase in NOX.
EVALUATION: Projects A, B, and C may be considered
pollution control projects and may be considered for an
exclusion; however, in cases B and C, if the landfill is located
in an area required to satisfy nonattainment NSR for NOX
emissions, the source would be required to obtain NOX offsets at
a ratio of at least 1:1 for the project to be considered for an
exclusion. [NOTE: VOC-NOX netting and trading for NSR purposes
may be discussed in the upcoming NSR rulemaking, but it is beyond
the scope of this guidance.] Although neither turbines or 1C
engines are listed in section III.A.I as add-on control devices
and would normally not be considered pollution control projects,
in this specific application they serve the same function as a
flare, namely to reduce VOC emissions at the landfill with the
added incidental benefit of producing useful energy in the
process.8
The permitting agency should: 1) verify that the NOX
increase has been minimized to the extent practicable; 2) confirm
(through modeling or other appropriate means) that the actual
significant increase in NOX emissions will not violate the
applicable NAAQS, PSD increment, or adversely impact any AQRV;
and 3) apply all otherwise applicable SIP and minor source and,
as noted above, in cases B and C ensures that NOX offsets are
provided in an area in which nonattainment review applies to NOX
emissions increases, permitting requirements, including
opportunity for public notice and comment.
8The production of energy here is incidental to the project
and is not a factor in qualifying the project for an exclusion as
a pollution control project. In addition, any supplemental or
co-firing of non-landfill gas fuels (e.g., natural gas, oil)
would disqualify the project from being considered a pollution
control project. The fuels would be used to maximize any
economic benefit from the project and not for the purpose of
pollution control at the landfill. However, the use of an
alternative fuel solely as a backup fuel to be used only during
brief and infrequent start-up or emergency situations would not
necessarily disqualify an energy recovery project from being
considered a pollution control project.
E-27
-------
October 21, 1994
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Classification of Emissions from Landfills for
NSR Applicability Purposes
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division.
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX and S
The EPA has recently received several inquiries regarding
the treatment of emissions from landfills for purposes of major
NSR applicability. The specific issue raised is whether the
Agency still considers landfills gas emissions which are not
collected to be fugitive for NSR applicability purposes.
The EPA's NSR regulations define "fugitive emissions" to
mean "those emissions which could not reasonably pass through a
stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally-equivalent opening"
(40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)). In general, where a facility is not
subject to national standards requiring collection, the technical
question of whether the emissions at a particular site could
"reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other
functionally-equivalent opening" is a factual determination to be
made by the permitting authority, on a case-by-case basis. In
determining whether emissions could reasonably be collected (or
if any emissions source could reasonably pass through a stack,
etc.) "reasonableness" should be construed broadly. The
existence of collection technology in use by other sources in the
E-28
-------
source category creates a presumption that collection is
reasonable. Furthermore, in certain circumstances, the
collection of emissions from a specific pollutant emitting
activity can create a presumption that collection is reasonable
for a similar pollutant-emitting activity, even if that activity
is located within a different source category.
In 1987, EPA addressed whether landfill gas emissions should
be considered as fugitive.1 The Agency explained that for
landfills constructed or proposed to be constructed with gas
collection systems, the collected landfill gas would not qualify
as fugitive. Also, the Agency understood at the time that, with
some exceptions, landfills, were not constructed with such gas
collection systems. The EPA explained that "[t]he preamble to
the 1980 NSR regulations characterizes nonfugitive emissions as
"... emissions which would ordinarily be collected and
discharged through stacks or other functionally equivalent
openings'" (see 45 FR 52693, Aug. 7, I960).2 Based on the
"understanding that landfills are not ordinarily constructed
with gas collection systems." the Agency concluded that
emissions from existing or proposed landfills without gas
collection systems are to be considered fugitive emissions." The
Agency also made clear, however, that the applicant's decision on
whether to collect emissions is not the deciding factor. Rather,
it is the reviewing authority that makes the decision regarding
memorandum entitled "Emissions from Landfills," from
Gerald A. Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, to David P. Howekamp, Director, Air Management
Division, Region IX, dated October 6, 1987 (attached). It is
important to note that the interpretation contained in this
memorandum was only applicable to landfills.
2In fact, the 1980 preamble language recognized the concern
that sources could avoid NSR by calling emissions fugitives, even
if the source could capture those emissions. The EPA's
originally-proposed definition of fugitive emissions was changed
in the final 1980 regulations to "ensure that sources will not
discharge as fugitive emissions those emissions which would
ordinarily be collected and discharged through stacks or other
functionally equivalent openings, and will eliminate
disincentives for the construction of ductwork and stacks for the
collection of emission." Id.
E-29
-------
which emissions can reasonably be collected and therefore not
considered fugitive.
The EPA believes its 1987 interpretation of the 1980
preamble may have been misunderstood, and in any case that its
factual conclusions at that time are now outdated. Continued
misunderstanding or application of this outdated view could
discourage those constructing new landfills from utilizing
otherwise environmentally- or economically-desirable gas
collection and mitigation measures in order to avoid major NSR
applicability.
Specifically with regard to landfill gas emissions, gas
collection and mitigation technologies have evolved significantly
since 1987, and use of these systems has become much more common.
Increasingly, landfills are constructed or retrofitted with gas
collection systems for purposes of energy recovery and in order
to comply with State and Federal regulatory requirements designed
to address public health and welfare concerns. In addition, EPA
has proposed performance standards for new landfills under
section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act and has proposed guidelines
for existing landfills under section lll(d) that, when
promulgated, will require gas collection systems for existing and
new landfills that are above a certain size and gas production
level (see 56 FR 24468, May 30, 1991). Under these requirements,
EPA estimates that between 500 and 700 medium and large landfills
will have to collect and control landfill gas. The EPA believes
this proposal created a presumption at that time that the
proposed gas collection systems, at a minimum, are reasonable for
landfills that would be subject to such control under the
proposal.
Thus, EPA believes it is no longer appropriate to conclude
generally that landfill gas could not reasonably be collected at
a proposed landfill project that does not include a gas
collection system. The fact that a proposed landfill project
does not include a collection system in its proposed design is
not determinative of whether emissions from a landfill are
fugitive. To quantify the amount of landfill gas which could
otherwise be collected at a proposed landfill for NSR
applicability purposes, the air pollution control authority
should assume the use of a collection system which has been
designed to maximize, to the greatest extent possible, the
capture of air pollutants from the landfill.
In summary, the use of collection technology by other
landfill sources, whether or not subject to EPA's proposed
requirements or to State implementation plan or permit
requirements, creates a presumption that collection of the
emissions is reasonable at other similar sources. If such a
system can reasonably be designed to collect the landfill's gas
E-30
-------
emissions, then the emissions are not fugitive and should be
considered in determining whether a major NSR permit is required.
Today's guidance is applicable to the construction of a new
landfill or the expansion of an existing landfill beyond its
currently-permitted capacity. To avoid any confusion regarding
the applicability of major NSR to existing landfills, EPA does
not plan to reconsider or recommend that States reconsider the
major NSR status of any existing landfill based on the issues
discussed in this memorandum. Also, nothing in this guidance
voids or creates an exclusion from any otherwise applicable
requirement under the Clean Air Act and the State implementation
plan, including minor source review.
The Regional Offices should send this memorandum, including
the attachment, to States within their jurisdiction. Questions
concerning specific issues and cases should be directed to the
appropriate Regional Office. Regional Office staff may contact
Mr. David Solomon, Chief, New Source Review Section, at (919)
541-5375, if they have any questions.
Attachment
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
NSR Contacts, Regions I-X and Headquarters
E-31
-------
October 6, 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Emissions from Landfills
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Director Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standard (MD-10)
TO: David P. Howekamp, Director
Air Management Division, Region IX
This is in response to your September 1, 1987, memorandum
requesting clarification regarding how landfill emissions should
be considered for the purpose of determining nonattainment new
source review (NSR) applicability under 40 CFR 51.18.
As you are aware, a landfill is subject to NSR if its
potential to emit, excluding fugitive emissions, exceeds the
100 tons per year applicable major source cutoff for the
pollutant for which the area is nonattainment. Fugitive
emissions are defined in 40 CFR (j)(1)(ix) as ". . . those
emissions which could not reasonably pass through a stack,
chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening."
Landfill emissions that could reasonably be collected and vented
are therefore not considered fugitive emissions and must be
included in calculating a source's potential to emit.
For various reasons, (e.g., oder and public health concerns,
local regulatory requirements, economic incentives), many
landfills are constructed with gas collection systems. Collected
landfill gas may be flared, vented to the atmosphere, or
processed into useful energy end products such as high-Btu gas,
steam, or electricity. In these cases, for either an existing or
proposed landfill, it is clear that the collected landfill gas
does not qualify as fugitive emissions and must be included in
the source's potential to emit when calculating NSR
applicability.
The preamble to the 1980 NSR regulations characterizes
nonfugitive emissions as "... those emissions which would
ordinarily be collected and discharged through stacks or other
functionally equivalent openings." Although there are some
exceptions, it is our understanding that landfills are not
ordinarily constructed with gas collection systems. Therefore,
emissions from existing or proposed landfills without gas
collection systems are to be considered fugitive emissions and
are not included in the NSR applicability determination. This
does not mean that the applicant's decision on whether to collect
emissions is the deciding factor; in fact, the reviewing
authority makes the decision on which emissions would ordinarily
be collected and which therefore are not considered fugitive
emissions.
E-32
-------
It should be noted that NSR applicability is pollutant
specific. Therefore, where the landfill gas is flared or
otherwise combusted or processed before release to the
atmosphere, it is the pollutant released which counts toward NSR
applicability. As an example, landfill gas is composed mostly of
volatile organic compounds, but when this gas is burned in a
flare, it is the type and quantity of pollutants in the exhaust
gas (e.g., nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide) that are used in
the NSR applicability determination.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact Gary McCutchen, Chief, New Source Review Section, at
FTS 629-5592.
cc: Chief, Air Branch
Regions I-X
E-33
-------
Appendix F
Title V Operating Permits White Paper Number 2
-------
March 5, 1996
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: White Paper Number 2 for Improved Implementation of The
Part 70 Operating Permits Program
FROM: Lydia N. Wegman, Deputy Director /s/
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Region I
Director, Environmental Planning and Protection
Division, Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, Region IV
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V
Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division,
Region VI
Director, Air, RCRA and TSCA Division, Region VII
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Pollution
Prevention, State and Tribal Assistance, Region VIII
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Region IX
Director, Office of Air, Region X
Please find attached White Paper Number 2 for improved
implementation of part 70 operating permits programs. This
guidance is intended to enable State and local agencies to take
further steps to reduce the complexity and preparation costs of
part 70 permit applications and of the part 70 permits
themselves. It is intended to supplement, not obviate, the
guidance provided in EPA's "White Paper for Streamlined
Development of part 70 Permit Applications" (July 10, 1995).
This guidance is consistent with and furthers the goals of the
Presidential initiatives to streamline and reinvent government.
The attached guidance is divided into five sections as
follows:
II. A. Streamlining Multiple Applicable Requirements On The
Same Emissions Unit(s).
II. B. Development Of Applications And Permits For Outdated
SIP Requirements.
-------
II. C. Treatment Of Insignificant Emissions Units.
II. D. Use Of Major Source And Applicable Requirement
Stipulation.
II. E. Referencing Of Existing Information In Part 70
Permit Applications And Permits.
Streamlining will lead to substantial reductions in
permitting burdens and improved part 70 implementation by
allowing for the first time multiple applicable emissions limits
and work practices expressed in different forms and averaging
times to be reduced to a single set of requirements (which can be
an alternative to all those requirements being subsumed). It
will also allow various monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements that are not critical to assuring compliance with
the streamlined (most stringent) limit to be subsumed in the
permit. Any such streamlining must provide that compliance with
the streamlined limit would assure compliance with all applicable
requirements. In addition, substantial reductions in burden are
expected to result from the reduced confusion and cost where
locally adopted rules differ from the EPA-approved State
implementation plan, the streamlined treatment of insignificant
emissions units, the use of stipulations by sources as to which
regulations apply, and the cross referencing rather than
repetition of certain existing information.
There is an immediate need for the implementation of this
guidance. A large number of sources have filed complete part 70
applications, and increasing numbers of these submittals are
being processed for permit issuance. I strongly encourage you to
work with your States to effect near-term use of this guidance.
Substantial contributions to this White Paper have come from
the California Title V Implementation Working Group. I want to
thank you and your staff for your support and Region IX in
particular for their leadership and considerable efforts in
developing and completing this paper. I invite your suggestions
on what additional guidance is needed to improve further the
initial implementation of title V. If you should have any
questions regarding the attached guidance, please contact Michael
Trutna at (919) 541-5345, Ginger Vagenas of Region IX at (415)
744-1252, or Roger Powell at (919) 541-5331.
Attachment
cc: M. Trutna (MD-12)
G. Vagenas (Region IX)
R. Powell (MD-12)
A. Schwartz (2344)
F-2
-------
WHITE PAPER NUMBER 2 FOR IMPROVED IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE PART 70 OPERATING PERMITS PROGRAM
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
March 5, 1996
Contacts: Michael A. Trutna (919) 541-5345
Ginger Vagenas (415) 744-1252
Roger Powell (919) 541-5331
-------
WHITE PAPER NUMBER 2 FOR IMPROVED IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE PART 70 OPERATING PERMITS PROGRAM
March 5, 1996
I. OVERVIEW.
This guidance is intended to enable State and local agencies
to take further steps to reduce the complexity and preparation
costs of part 70 permit applications and of the part 70 permits
themselves and to remove unintended barriers and administrative
costs. It is also intended to build on and expand the guidance
provided in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "White
Paper for Streamlined Development of Part 70 Permit Applications"
(July 10, 1995). White Paper Number 2 supplements, not obviates,
the first White Paper. Both papers should be consulted for
guidance in improving the implementation of title V of the Clean
Air Act (Act) (i.e., part 70 operating permits programs). In
particular, White Paper Number 2 is designed to simplify the
treatment of overlapping regulatory requirements and
insignificant emissions units and to clarify the use of citations
and incorporation by reference in the part 70 permitting process.
This effort is consistent with and furthers the goals of the
Presidential initiatives to streamline and reinvent government.
Substantial contributions to this White Paper have come
from the California Title V Implementation Working Group (Working
Group). The California Air Resources Board and several
California air districts and industries which (together with EPA)
make up the Working Group have decades of experience with
operating permits. These operating permits programs are
generally just one component of air programs that, in many
districts, also include local emissions standards (often with
associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements), monitoring
requirements, inspections, source testing, and new source review
(NSR). The EPA has found the insights and recommendations of the
Working Group extremely useful in integrating these various
requirements using the part 70 permitting process. While much of
the guidance contained herein addresses situations arising in
California, it is available for use nationwide.
This guidance is divided into five sections and two
attachments which are generally summarized as follows (the reader
is, however, referred to the applicable main sections of the
guidance for more detailed information):
Section II. A. Streamlining Multiple Applicable
Requirements On The Same Emissions Unit(s).
The EPA and States have developed different and often
overlapping applicable requirements governing the same
emissions units to serve the purposes of different air
programs. As a result, emissions units at a stationary
-------
source may be subject to several parallel sets of
requirements. This can result in some of the requirements
being redundant and unnecessary as a practical matter, even
though the requirements still legally apply to the source.
In cases where compliance with a single set of requirements
effectively assures compliance with all requirements,
compliance with all elements of each of the overlapping
requirements may be unnecessary and could needlessly consume
resources. For example, a source could be subject to
overlapping standards that result in two or more different
emissions limits for the same pollutant and two or more
source monitoring requirements for instrumentation,
recordkeeping, and reporting.
Today's guidance describes how a source may propose
streamlining to distill or "streamline" multiple overlapping
requirements into one set that will assure compliance with
all requirements. According to the guidance, multiple
emissions limits may be streamlined into one limit if that
limit is at least as stringent as the most stringent limit.
(Limitations that apply to the streamlining of acid rain
requirements are described in the main section of this
guidance.) If no one requirement is unambiguously more
stringent than the others, the applicant may synthesize the
conditions of all the applicable requirements into a single
new permit term that will assure compliance with all
requirements. The streamlined monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements would generally be those
associated with the most stringent emissions limit,
providing they would assure compliance to the same extent as
any subsumed monitoring. Thus, monitoring, recordkeeping,
or reporting to determine compliance with subsumed limits
would not be required where the source implements the
streamlined approach.
It is important to emphasize that while streamlining
may be initiated by either the applicant or the permitting
authority, it can only be implemented where the permit
applicant consents to its use.
Section II. B. Development Of Applications And Permits For
Outdated SIP Requirements.
Historically, long periods of time have been required
to review and approve (or disapprove) SIP revisions. The
EPA has undertaken a number of reforms to its SIP approval
process and is continuing to make significant progress in
reducing the amount of time required for taking action on
SIP revisions. Despite the progress we have made to date,
there are many local rules now pending EPA review and
approval for inclusion in the SIP. The gap between the
approved SIP and the State rules is of concern because
States and local agencies enforce their current rules (which
-------
are usually more stringent than the approved SIP rules) and
often, as a practical matter, no longer enforce the
superseded and outdated rules in the SIP. On the other
hand, EPA only recognizes and can only enforce the SIP-
approved rules. This situation can cause confusion and
uncertainty because some sources are effectively subject to
two different versions of the same rules. Part 70's
application, certification, and permit content requirements
highlight this longstanding concern.
The most problematic situation arising from the gap
between the approved SIP and the State rules is where a
technology-forcing rule that has been approved into the SIP
is found by the State to be impossible to meet. Under these
circumstances, the State would generally adopt a relaxation
of this rule and submit it to EPA as a SIP revision. Until
EPA is able to take action on the submitted relaxation,
sources remain subject to a rule that is impossible to meet.
This section of the guidance largely addresses the
problem by authorizing permitting authorities and their
sources to base permit applications on State and local rules
that have been submitted for SIP approval, rather than on
the potentially obsolete approved SIP provisions that they
would replace. Such reliance on pending State and local
rules is proper when the permitting authority has concluded
that the pending rule will probably be approved, or when the
source believes it can show that the pending rule is more
stringent than the rule it would replace. However, if the
pending rule is not more stringent than the rule it would
replace, the permit cannot be issued until the pending rule
is approved.
Section II. C. Treatment Of Insignificant Emissions Units.
This section provides for the streamlined treatment of
generally applicable requirements that apply to
"insignificant" emissions units (lEU's). It is intended to
address current concerns that resources will be
unnecessarily consumed by matters of trivial environmental
importance.
The guidance clarifies that the permitting authority
has broad discretion to tailor the permit application and
permit for small equipment and activities as long as
compliance with Federal requirements is assured. For both
the permit application and the permit, information on lEU's
may be generically grouped and listed without emissions
estimates, unless emissions estimates are needed for another
purpose such as determining the amount of permit fees that
are calculated using total source emissions. This approach
would utilize standard permit conditions with minimal or no
reference to any specific emissions unit or activity,
-------
provided that the scope of the requirement and its
enforcement are clear.
The EPA also believes that for lEU's, a responsible
official's initial compliance certification may be based on
available information and the latest cycle of required
information.
The guidance further provides that the permitting
authority can use broad discretion in determining the nature
of any required periodic monitoring. The EPA's policy on
IEU's is based on the belief that these emissions points are
typically associated with inconsequential environmental
impacts.
Section II. D. Use Of Major Source And Applicable
Requirement Stipulation.
There have been concerns expressed that extensive new
emissions data would be needed to verify major source status
or the applicability of Federal requirements. White Paper
Number 2 clarifies that for applicability purposes, a source
familiar to the permitting authority may simply stipulate in
its application that it is major or that Federal
requirements apply as specified in the application. The
paper clarifies that there is no need to prepare and submit
extensive information about the source that "proves" it is
subject to any requirements that it stipulates are
applicable. This does not affect the requirement to provide
information that is otherwise required by part 70.
Section II. E. Referencing Of Existing Information In
Part 70 Permit Applications And Permits.
Concerns have been raised that a source must re-prepare
and resubmit information that is readily available, or that
the permitting authority already has, to complete part 70
permit applications. In addition, similar concerns have
been voiced regarding the large and potentially unnecessary
burden of developing permits which repeat rather than
reference certain types of regulatory requirements that
apply to the source (e.g., monitoring and testing
protocols). The guidance clarifies that, in general, the
permitting authority may allow information to be cited or
cross-referenced in both permits and applications if the
information is current and readily available to the
permitting agency and to the public. The citations and
references must be clear and unambiguous and be enforceable
from a practical standpoint. After permits specify which
emissions limits apply to identified emissions units, cross-
referencing can be authorized for other requirements (e.g.,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting).
-------
Attachment A provides guidance on using the part 70 permit
process to establish alternative test methods, while Attachment B
provides example SIP language that could be used by both part 70
and non-part 70 sources to establish alternative requirements
without the need for a prior source-specific SIP revision. This
guidance should be particularly useful to those seeking greater
certainty or to establish alternative test methods to those now
approved by EPA. [Note that Sections III. and beyond in
Attachment B are currently in draft form.]
Streamlining will lead to substantial reductions in
permitting burdens by allowing for the first time multiple
applicable emissions limits and work practices expressed in
different forms and averaging times to be reduced to a single set
of requirements. It will also lower current burden levels by
allowing various monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements that are not critical to assuring compliance with
the streamlined (most stringent) limit to be subsumed in the
permit. In addition, substantial reductions in burden are
expected to result from the reduced confusion and cost where
locally adopted rules differ from the EPA-approved SIP, the
streamlined treatment of insignificant emissions units, and the
use of stipulations and the cross-referencing rather than
repetition of certain existing information in part 70
applications and permits.
The EPA believes that the guidance contained herein may be
implemented by permitting authorities and sources without
revisions to part 70 programs, unless a provision is specifically
prohibited by State regulations. In some situations, EPA will be
proceeding in parallel to issue clarifying rules. The EPA
strongly encourages States to allow sources to take advantage of
the streamlining opportunities provided in this guidance. The
Agency also suggests the permitting authority develop information
about permits issued with successful streamlining and make it
available to other similar sources to help avoid repetitive
costs.
Sources are advised to consult with their permitting
authority to understand how the policies of this White Paper will
be implemented. In several situations (particularly those where
sources have already filed complete applications), permitting
authorities may choose to propose streamlining options and, if
mutually agreeable, work with the source to support a draft
permit containing a streamlined limit. Where EPA is the
permitting authority pursuant to part 71 regulations, the Agency
will implement both White Papers to the extent possible and
promote similar implementation where EPA delegates responsibility
for the part 71 program to a State.
The policies set out in this paper are intended solely as
guidance, do not represent final Agency action, and cannot be
relied upon to create any rights enforceable by any party.
-------
II. ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ON STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT OF PART 70
PERMITS AND APPLICATIONS.
A. Streamlining Multiple Applicable Requirements1 On The Same
Emissions Unit(s).2
1. Issue.
Can multiple redundant or conflicting requirements
(emissions limits, monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting
requirements) on the same emissions unit(s) be streamlined into a
single set of understandable and enforceable permit conditions?
May an applicant propose to minimize or consolidate applicable
requirements? May a permitting authority develop such a
proposal? How would a permit application with a streamlining
proposal satisfy compliance certification requirements?
2. Guidance.
A source, at its option, may propose in its application to
streamline multiple applicable requirements into a single set of
permit terms and conditions3. The overall objective would be to
•"Title IV applicable requirements are an exception to this
general rule. As set out in § 72.70(b), to the extent that any
requirements of part 72 and part 78 are inconsistent with the
requirements of part 70, part 72 and part 78 will take precedence
and will govern the issuance, denial, revision, reopening, renewal,
and appeal of the acid rain portion of an operating permit. The
subsequent descriptions of streamlining therefore apply to
requirements under parts 72 and 78 only to the extent that such
requirements are, at the option of the applicant, used as
streamlining requirements because they are the most stringent
applicable requirements.
2Emissions unit(s) means any part or activity of a stationary
source that emits or has the potential to emit any regulated air
pollutant (as defined in section 70.2) or any pollutant listed
under section 112 (b) of the Act. It is used in this paper to
include specifically a grouping of emissions units at a stationary
source that shares the same applicable requirement and compliance
demonstration method for a given pollutant.
3The EPA recognizes that the described streamlining process
may not be allowed by all State regulations or be warranted or
desired for all applicable requirements. Similarly, partial
streamlining (i.e., the streamlining of some, but not all,
applicable requirements that apply to the same emissions units) may
be most cost effective where difficult comparisons or correlations
are needed for streamlining the other remaining applicable
requirements. In addition, there is no barrier to more extensive
-------
determine the set of permit terms and conditions that will assure
compliance with all applicable requirements for an emissions
point or group of emissions points so as to eliminate redundant
or conflicting requirements. Otherwise applicable requirements
that are subsumed in the streamlined requirements could then be
identified in a permit shield. The process would be carried out
in conjunction with the submittal and review of a part 70 permit
application, as an addendum to an application, or as an
application for a significant revision to the part 70 permit
(unless EPA in its revisions to part 70 authorizes permitting
authorities to use a less extensive permit revision process).
The EPA plans to revise part 70 to provide that the compliance
certification required with initial application submittals may be
based on the proposed streamlined applicable requirement where
there is sufficient source compliance information on which to
base such a certification.
The permitting authority, at its option, may evaluate
multiple applicable requirements for a source category and
predetermine an acceptable streamlining approach. Such
evaluations should be made readily available to applicants. It
is up to the applicant, however, to request in its application
that such streamlined requirements be contained in the part 70
permit. Where streamlining would be of mutual interest, the
permitting authority and the source could work together during
the permit development stage to establish a basis for a
streamlined limit prior to the issuance of a draft permit. This
cooperative activity must result in a record consistent with this
guidance which supports the draft permit containing the
streamlined requirement. The approach might be particularly
useful where a source has already submitted a complete part 70
permit application and the permitting authority does not want to
require the source to submit a formal amendment to its
application. Any streamlining demonstration must be promptly
submitted to EPA upon its availability and in advance of draft
permit issuance unless EPA has previously agreed with the
permitting authority not to require it (e.g., the proposed
streamlining is of a simple and/or familiar type with no new
concerns).
In addition, general permits could be useful to allow the
transfer of streamlined requirements from the first source to be
covered by them to other similar sources or emissions units. The
information development and review conducted as part of
streamlining for an individual source can be used by the
permitting authority to generate a general permit for similar
sources or portions of sources. If a general permit were used,
EPA and public review beyond that needed to issue the general
permit would not be necessary when sources subsequently applied
for the streamlined permit conditions established under the
streamlining occurring in the future.
7
-------
general permit. Even where a general permit is not issued, the
availability of information obtained from the streamlining of one
source may be useful as a model for future streamlining actions
involving other similar sources.
Streamlined permit terms should be covered by a permit
shield. The permit shield will result in an essential degree of
certainty by providing that when the source complies with the
streamlined requirement, the source will be considered to be in
compliance with all of the applicable requirements subsumed under
the streamlined requirement. Where the program does not now
provide for a permit shield, the permit containing streamlined
requirements should clarify this understanding (See section
II.A.3. discussion). Permitting authorities without provisions
for permit shields are encouraged to add a permit shield
provision at the first opportunity, if they wish to realize fully
the benefits of streamlining.
Sources that opt for the streamlining of applicable
requirements must demonstrate the adequacy of their proposed
streamlined requirements. The following principles should govern
their streamlining demonstrations:
a. The most stringent of multiple applicable emissions
limitations for a specific regulated air pollutant on a
particular emissions unit must be determined taking into
account4'5:
o Emissions limitation formats (emissions limits in
different forms must be converted to a common format
and/or units of measure or a correlation established
among different formats prior to comparisons);
o Effective dates of compliance (to the extent
different);
Applicable requirements mean those requirements recognized by
EPA, as defined in § 70.2. State and local permitting authorities
may modify, eliminate, or streamline "State-only" requirements
based on existing State or local law and procedures.
5Sources may, in the interest of greater uniformity, opt to
expand the scope of an applicable requirement to more emissions
units so that the same requirements would apply over a larger
section of the plant or its entirety, provided compliance with all
applicable requirements is assured. Though a permit may through
streamlining expand the scope of applicable requirements to include
new emissions units, it may not change the basis on which
compliance is determined (e.g., emissions unit by emissions unit,
if that is the intent of the applicable requirement).
8
-------
o Transfer or collection efficiencies (to the extent
relevant);
o Averaging times6; and
o Test methods prescribed in the applicable
requirements7.
Limitations for specific pollutants can be subsumed by
limitations on classes of pollutants providing the applicant can
show that the streamlined limit will regulate the same set of
pollutants to the same extent as the underlying applicable
requirements. For example, a volatile organic compound (VOC)
limitation could effectively subsume an organic hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) limitation for a constituent such as hexane,
provided the VOC limit is at least as stringent as the hexane
limitation. Where a single VOC limit subsumes multiple HAP
limits, the permit must be written to assure that each of the
subsumed limits will not be exceeded. However, a limit for a
single or limited number of compounds cannot be used to subsume a
limit for a broader class (e.g., a hexane limit for a VOC limit)
because this would effectively deregulate any of the class that
are not covered by the more limited group.
b. Work practice requirements must be treated as follows:
o Supporting An Emissions Limit. A work practice
requirement directly supporting an emissions limit
6While the streamlining of requirements with varying averaging
times is viable under this policy, in no event can requirements
which are specifically designed to address a particular health
concern (including those with short term averaging times) be
subsumed into a requirement which is any less protective.
7The predominant case is expected to involve test methods
which have been EPA approved either as part of the SIP or as part
of a Federal section 111 or 112 standard. If a permitting
authority is seeking to base a streamlined limit on an alternative
or new test method relative to the ones already approved by EPA for
the SIP or a section 111, or section 112 standard, some additional
steps are needed to complete the proposed streamlining. As
described in more detail in Attachment A, permitting authorities
may only implement streamlining which involves alternative or new
test methods within the flexibility granted by the SIP and any
delegation of authority from EPA (where section 111/112 standards
are involved). With respect to SIP requirements, the ability for
a permitting authority to authorize use of a different test method
depends on the governing language contained in the SIP. Attachment
B contains example SIP language which provides a mechanism that can
establish an alternative applicable requirement in such cases
without the need for source specific SIP revisions.
-------
(i.e., applying to the same emissions point(s) covered
by the emissions limit) is considered inseparable from
the emissions limit for the purposes of streamlining
emissions limits. The proposed streamlined emissions
limit must include its directly supporting work
practices, but need not include any work practice
standards that are associated with and directly support
the subsumed limit(s);
o Not Supporting An Emissions Limit. Similar work
practice requirements which apply to the same emissions
or emissions point but which do not directly support an
emissions limit may be streamlined (e.g., different
leak detection and repair (LDAR8) programs). The
streamlined work practice requirement may be composed
of provisions/elements (e.g., frequency of inspection,
recordkeeping) from one or more of the similar work
practice requirements, provided that the resulting
composite work practice requirement has the same base
elements/provisions as the subsumed work practice
requirements (e.g. has a frequency of inspection or has
recordkeeping if the subsumed work practice
requirements have these elements/provisions).
Multiple work practice requirements which apply to
different emissions or emissions points cannot be
streamlined.
c. Monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements
should not be used to determine the relative stringency of
the applicable requirements to which they are applicable.
d. Where the preceding guidance does not allow sufficient
streamlining or where it is difficult to determine a single
8For LDAR programs, stringency comparisons likely will be
based on the aggregate requirements of each LDAR program (screening
levels, frequency of inspection, repair periods, etc,) and the
resultant overall actual emissions reduction expected from the
affected equipment. In cases where a convincing demonstration
cannot be made based on existing information or the regulations
themselves have not clearly defined the expected emissions
reduction, verifying test data may be required. Alternatively, the
applicant, the permitting authority, and EPA can work together to
devise a method consistent with the principles of EPA's "Protocol
For Equipment Leak Emissions Estimation" (EPA-453/R-95-017,
November 1995) for determining relative stringency. Where a
demonstration of the relative stringency of LDAR programs as
applied to the affected equipment is not feasible, sources may
modify elements of a particular LDAR program to produce a program
that clearly (i.e., without further analysis) assures compliance
with the other applicable LDAR programs.
10
-------
most stringent applicable emissions limit by comparing all
the applicable emissions limits with each other, sources may
perform any or all the following activities to justify
additional or different streamlining:
o Construct an alternative or hybrid emissions limit9
that is at least as stringent as any applicable
requirement;
o Use a previously "State-only" requirement as the
streamlined requirement when it is at least as
stringent as any applicable Federal requirement it
would subsume (this requirement would then become a
federally-enforceable condition in the part 70 permit);
o Use a more accurate and precise test method than the
one applicable (see footnote number 7) to eliminate
doubt in the stringency determination; or
o Conduct detailed correlations to prove the relative
stringency of each applicable requirement.
e. The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements associated with the most stringent emissions
requirement are presumed appropriate for use with the
streamlined emissions limit, unless reliance on that
monitoring would diminish the ability to assure compliance
with the streamlined requirements.10 To evaluate this
presumption, compare whether the monitoring proposed would
assure compliance with the streamlined limit to the same
extent as would the monitoring applicable to each subsumed
limit. If not, and if the monitoring associated with the
subsumed limit is also relevant to and technically feasible
for the streamlined limit, then monitoring associated with a
subsumed limit (or other qualifying monitoring11) would be
9Title V allows for the establishment of a streamlined
requirement, provided that it assures compliance with all
applicable requirements it subsumes. However, EPA recognizes that
construction of such hybrid or alternative limits can be more
complicated than the situation where the streamlined limit is one
of the applicable emissions limits. Accordingly, sources and
States may need more time to agree on acceptable demonstrations and
may wish to defer such streamlining until after issuance of the
initial part 70 permit.
10Quality assurance requirements pertaining to continuous
monitoring systems should be evaluated using the same approach.
applicant may propose alternative monitoring of equal
rigor. Permitting authorities may only implement streamlining
which involves alternative or new monitoring methods within the
11
-------
included in the permit.12 The recordkeeping and reporting
associated with the selected monitoring approach may be
presumed to be appropriate for use with the streamlined
limit13'14'15.
f. Permitting authorities must include citations to any
subsumed requirements in the permit's specification of the
origin and authority of permit conditions. In addition, the
part 70 permit must include any additional terms and
conditions as necessary to assure compliance with the
streamlined requirement. In all instances, the proposed
permit terms and conditions must be enforceable as a
practical matter.
3. Process.
flexibility granted by the SIP and any delegation of authority from
EPA (where section 111/112 standards are involved).
12Permitting authorities and sources should presume that
existing monitoring equipment [such as continuous emissions
monitors (CEMs)] required and/or currently employed at the source
should be retained. A permitting authority or applicant would have
the opportunity to demonstrate that retention of such monitoring
equipment is inappropriate, such as when the monitoring equipment
is no longer relevant or is technically infeasible (e.g., the
source has switched to a closed loop process without emissions or
the streamlined limit corresponds to levels too low for a monitor
to measure, such as S02 emissions from a boiler firing pipeline
quality natural gas.)
13Where recordkeeping is the means of determining compliance
(e.g., in the miscellaneous metal parts and products coating rules,
the typical role of monitoring is fulfilled by recordkeeping), the
appropriate recordkeeping would be determined in the same manner
described for monitoring.
14Where a standard includes recordkeeping associated with a
limit in addition to recordkeeping linked to a monitoring device
(e.g., a coating facility that has recordkeeping requirements
pertaining to coating usage, as well as recordkeeping for
monitoring associated with an add-on control), both types of
recordkeeping must be incorporated into the permit.
15The result offers considerable potential to reduce the
different reporting burdens associated with different applicable
requirements well beyond what was previously available (e.g.,
synchronizing the required reporting cycles from different
applicable requirements to coincide with the most stringent one
beginning at the earliest required date). (See also Final General
Provisions, § 63.10(a)(5), March 16, 1994.)
12
-------
Streamlining may be accomplished through an applicant
proposing to streamline multiple requirements applicable to a
source, the permitting authority developing streamlining options
for sources or source categories that would be subsequently
accepted at the election of permittees, or the applicant working
in agreement with the permitting authority after filing an
initial complete application. The first six of the following
actions wuld be taken by the source or, as appropriate, by the
permitting authority. The level of effort to complete these
actions will depend on the relative complexity of the
streamlining situation. The permitting authority would then
perform steps seven and eight.
Step One - Provide a side-by-side comparison of all
requirements included in the streamlining proposal that are
currently applicable and effective for the specific
emissions units of a source16. Distinguish between
requirements which are emissions and/or work practice
standards, and monitoring and compliance demonstration
provisions.
Step Two - Determine the most stringent emissions and/or
performance standard (or any hybrid or alternative limits as
appropriate) consistent with the above streamlining
principles and provide the documentation relied upon to make
this determination. This process should be repeated for
each emissions unit pollutant combination for which the
applicant is proposing a streamlined requirement.
Step Three - Propose one set of permit terms and conditions
(i.e., the streamlined requirements) to include the most
stringent emissions limitations and/or standards,
appropriate monitoring and its associated recordkeeping and
reporting (see section II.A.2.e.), and such other conditions
as are necessary to assure compliance with all applicable
requirements.
16A future applicable requirement (e.g., MACT standard newly
promulgated under section 112 with a compliance date 3 years in the
future) may be determined to be the most stringent applicable
requirement if compliance with it would assure compliance with less
stringent but currently applicable requirements. In such a case,
the source may propose either a streamlined requirement based on
immediate compliance with the future applicable requirement or it
may opt for a phased approach where the permit would contain two
separate time-sensitive requirements. Under the latter approach,
one streamlined requirement addressing all currently applicable
requirements would be defined to be effective until the future
applicable requirement became effective. The permit would also
contain a second streamlined requirement which also addressed the
future applicable requirement and would become the new streamlined
requirement after expiration of the first streamlined requirement.
13
-------
Step Four - Certify compliance (applicant only) with
applicable requirements. The EPA is planning to revise its
part 70 regulations to provide that a source may certify
compliance with only the proposed streamlined limit. Until
this is accomplished, EPA recommends that a source
certifying compliance only with the streamlined limit
indicate this in an attachment to the certification, so that
it is clear that the certification is being made with
respect to a set of terms and conditions that the source
believes "assure compliance" with all applicable
requirements. In any event, a source may only certify
compliance with a streamlined limit if there is source
compliance data on which to base such a certification.
(Such data should be available where the streamlined
requirement is itself an applicable requirement and may be
available if the streamlined limit is an alternative limit,
e.g., a previously State-only emissions limitation). If
there is not, then certifications must instead be made
relative to each of the applicable requirements judged to be
less stringent and must be based on data otherwise required
under them to make this point clear.
Step Five - Develop a compliance schedule to implement any
new monitoring/compliance approach relevant to the
streamlined limit if the source is unable to comply with it
upon permit issuance. The recordkeeping, monitoring, and
reporting requirements of the applicable requirements being
subsumed would continue to apply in the permit (as would the
requirement for the source to operate in compliance with
each of its emissions limits) until the new streamlined
compliance approach becomes operative.
Step Six - Indicate in the application submittal that
streamlining of the listed applicable requirements under a
permit shield (where available) is being proposed and
propose the establishment of a permit shield which would
state that compliance with the streamlined limit assures
compliance with the listed applicable requirements. All
emission and/or performance standards not subsumed by the
streamlined requirements must be separately addressed in the
part 70 permit application.
Step Seven - Evaluate the adequacy of the proposal and its
supporting documentation. The EPA recommends that the
permitting authority communicate its findings to the
applicant and provide reasonable opportunity for the
applicant to accept the findings or propose a resolution of
the differences before issuance of a draft permit for public
review. Where the permitting authority determines that the
streamlining proposal is inadequate, the source, to retain
its application shield, must expeditiously resolve any
problems identified by the permitting authority or update
14
-------
its prior application based on the individual applicable
requirements previously proposed for streamlining.
Step Eight - Note the use of this process in any required
transmittal of a part 70 application, application summary,
or revised application to EPA and include the streamlining
demonstration and supporting documentation in the public
record. When the source is required to provide a copy of
the application (or summary) directly to EPA, it must note
the proposed use of streamlining. A copy of the
streamlining demonstration must be submitted promptly to EPA
along with the required copy of the application or
application summary (where a summary may be submitted to EPA
in lieu of the entire part 70 permit application) unless EPA
has previously agreed with the permitting authority not to
require it (e.g., the proposed streamlining is of a simple
and/or familiar type with no new concerns).
4. Enforcement.
All terms and conditions of a part 70 permit are enforceable
by EPA and citizens, unless certain terms are designated as being
only State (or locally) enforceable. In addition, a source
violating a streamlined emissions limitation in the part 70
permit may be subject to enforcement action for violation of one
(or more) of the subsumed applicable emissions limits to the
extent that a violation of the subsumed emissions limit(s) is
documented.
Upon receiving a part 70 permit, a source implementing the
streamlined approach would not be subject to an EPA enforcement
action for any failure to meet monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements that are subsumed within the streamlined
requirement and specified under the permit shield. These
requirements would no longer be independently enforceable once
the permit has been issued, provided that the source attempts in
good faith to implement the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements specified in the permit.
If subsequently the permitting authority or EPA determines
that the permit does not assure compliance with applicable
requirements, the permit will be reopened and revised.
5. Discussion.
As sources subject to title V identify all applicable
requirements for inclusion in part 70 permit applications, they
may find that multiple applicable requirements affect the same
pollutant or performance parameter for a particular emissions
unit. Likewise, the requirements of federally-enforceable terms
and conditions in preconstruction or operating permits may
overlap with the requirements of other federally-enforceable
rules and regulations.
15
-------
In these instances, a source may be in compliance with the
overall emissions limit of each of the applicable requirements,
but be required to comply with a multitude of redundant or
conflicting monitoring, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements.
For example, a source owner faced with two emissions limits for
the same pollutant at a specific emissions point may be required
to install separate monitoring instrumentation and submit
separate monitoring reports for each, even though one monitor can
effectively assure compliance with both emissions limits.
Furthermore, the recordkeeping and reporting associated with the
unnecessary instrumentation may create an administrative burden
for both the facility and the implementing agency without an
associated gain in compliance assurance. Prior to title V there
has been no federally-enforceable means to resolve this
situation.
The EPA encourages permitting authorities to allow use by
the permit applicant of the part 70 permit issuance process to
streamline multiple applicable requirements to the extent the
conditions of this policy can be met. In this way, the part 70
process with its procedural safeguards can be used to focus all
concerned parties on providing for compliance with a single set
of permit terms that assure compliance with multiple applicable
requirements instead of maintaining the costs of multiple sets of
controls, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting approaches.
The legal basis for streamlining multiple applicable
requirements relies on section 504(a), which requires that
title V permits contain emissions limits/standards and other
terms as needed to assure compliance with applicable
requirements. This section notably does not require repetition
of all terms and conditions of an applicable requirement when
another applicable requirement or part 70 permit condition (i.e.,
streamlined requirement) could be fashioned to otherwise assure
compliance with that applicable requirement.
Section 504(f) lends additional certainty to permit
streamlining. It specifically provides that the permitting
authority may authorize that compliance with the permit may be
deemed to be compliance with the Act provided that the permit
includes all applicable requirements. Thus, this section allows
the permitting authority to issue a permit containing a shield
which protects a source against a claim that it is violating any
applicable requirements listed in the permit shield as being
subsumed under the streamlined requirement, provided that the
source meets the permit terms and conditions that implement the
streamlined requirement.
Part 70 is also receptive to the issuance of streamlined
permits. It contains parallel language to the statute for
emissions limits and for permit shields in §§ 70.6(a)(1) and (f).
Although language in § 70.6(a)(3) may appear to restrict
streamlining by requiring that all "applicable" monitoring,
16
-------
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements be placed in the
permit, EPA did not intend for these provisions to preclude
streamlining. Instead, the Agency believes that the provisions
should be consistent with the flexibility for streamlining
provided in section 504(a) of the Act and in § 70.6(a)(1). To
require otherwise would be anomalous and could frustrate
legitimate streamlining efforts. The EPA intends to revise
part 70 to reflect this understanding in a future rulemaking.
Streamlining may be limited in cases where an applicable
requirement defines specific monitoring requirements as the
exclusive means of compliance with an applicable emissions limit.
Some interpret these cases to require that only one set of
monitoring requirements may be used to determine compliance and
that only these requirements may appear in the part 70 permit.
The EPA believes instead that section 504(a) supersedes any need
for such exclusive monitoring, but nonetheless recommends that
States address any potential concerns by adopting certain SIP
language in the future. States that choose to revise their
existing SIP's to contain authorizing language to overcome any
SIP exclusivity problems may use the example language in
Attachment B. The EPA believes that similar flexibility should
be provided to non-part 70 sources as well. To that end,
Attachment B also provides a SIP process (currently in draft
form) which would allow similar flexibility for non-part 70
sources.
With respect to NSR, States can process, in parallel with
the part 70 permit issuance process, a revision to an existing
NSR permit as necessary to resolve any exclusivity concerns
within existing NSR permits (See first White Paper).
Currently the implementing regulations for section 112(1) at
40 CFR part 63, subpart E represent an additional constraint on
the streamlining of applicable requirements in part 70 permits
but only where a State or local agency has accepted a delegation
of authority for a particular maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standard by virtue of its commitment to replace
the Federal section 112 emissions standard with the State's own
standard or program during the part 70 permit issuance process
and using the procedures established in the Subpart E rule at
§63.94.. In § 63.94, EPA has specified the criteria for
approving such alternative limits and controls to meet an
otherwise applicable section 112 requirement. These criteria
must be satisfied to ensure that, after a State accepts
delegation under § 63.94, any change to the Federal rule results
in permit requirements that, among other things:
o Reflect applicability criteria no less stringent than
those in the otherwise applicable Federal standards or
requirements;
17
-------
o Require levels of emissions control for each affected
source and emissions point no less stringent than those
contained in the Federal standards or requirements;
o Require compliance and enforcement measures for each
affected source and emissions point no less stringent than
those in the Federal standards or requirements;
o Express levels of control and compliance and enforcement
measures in the same form and units of measure as the
Federal standard or requirement for § 63.94 program
substitutions;
o Assure compliance by each affected source no later than
would be required by the Federal standard or requirement.
Thus, when a State or local agency, after receiving § 63.94
delegation, seeks to replace a Federal section 112 emissions
standard with requirements arising from its own air toxics
standard or program (such as a toxics NSR program) during the
part 70 permit issuance process, streamlining must take place by
meeting both the criteria of § 63.94 and, except where
contradictory, the criteria of this guidance. However, because
most States are planning to take straight delegation of Federal
emissions standards through subpart E procedures that do not rely
on the part 70 permit issuance process, the EPA believes that the
subpart E criteria for streamlining applicable requirements will
be necessary only in a minority of instances. In the majority of
cases, where a State takes delegation of a Federal standard
(e.g., through straight delegation), the applicable section 112
requirements could be streamlined by following only the criteria
outlined in section A.2., above. Where there are a large number
of sources in the same category subject to a MACT standard for
which the State has a regulation with equivalent requirements,
EPA recommends that the State explore delegation options under
§ 63.93 to best utilize available resources.
It should be noted that the current subpart E rule may be
subject to change as a result of pending litigation. Currently,
EPA intends to revise the rule within the parameters of the
Court's decision to allow greater flexibility for approving State
air toxics standards and programs and to minimize or remove (as
appropriate) any constraint that subpart E might impose on the
streamlining of applicable requirements in part 70 permits.
Finally, States are strongly encouraged to adopt regulatory
provisions allowing permitting authorities to grant the permit
shield where they cannot now do so. The permit shield is an
effective means to clarify that for applicable requirements
listed as subsumed under the streamlined requirements, compliance
with the streamlined requirements is deemed to also be compliance
with the subsumed requirements. Such an understanding is
essential to support and defend the issuance of any permit which
18
-------
provides for the streamlined treatment of multiple applicable
requirements.
If a permit shield is not available, a permittee can still
be afforded significant enforcement protection by an explicit
agency finding that in its judgment the streamlined permit term
indeed provides for full compliance with all the permit limits
that is subsumes. In such a case, it is imperative that the
permit contain language that lists the applicable requirements
being subsumed into the streamlined requirement and states that
compliance with the streamlined requirement will be deemed
compliance with the listed requirements.
B. Development Of Applications And Permits For Outdated SIP
Requirements.
1. Issue.
Can sources file part 70 permit applications on the basis of
locally adopted rules pending EPA SIP approval rather than the
current SIP requirements? Can sources certify their compliance
status on the same basis? Under what circumstances can
permitting authorities issue and/or later revise part 70 permits
based on such locally adopted rules?
2. Guidance.
a. General. In the first White Paper (section II.B.6.),
EPA described a mechanism for simplifying permits where a source
is subject to both a State adopted rule that is pending SIP
approval and the approved SIP version of that rule. Under that
approach, the pending SIP requirements would be incorporated into
the State-only portion of the permit and would become federally
enforceable upon EPA approval of the SIP. The EPA believes that
in most instances, the approach described in the first White
Paper adequately addresses the described problem. In some areas
(most notably California), however, a sizable backlog of pending
SIP revisions exists, and a more far-reaching solution is needed.
In today's guidance, therefore, another approach that may be used
by EPA and permitting authorities to address this situation is
described.
Under this new alternative, the permitting authority may
allow that application completeness initially be based on locally
adopted rules including those which would relax current (i.e.,
federally-approved) SIP requirements, provided that (1) the local
rule has been submitted to EPA as a SIP revision, and (2) the
permitting authority reasonably believes that the local rule (not
the current SIP rule) will be the basis for the part 70 permit.
19
-------
Where the permitting authority or the source has
demonstrated to EPA's satisfaction17 that the local rule is more
stringent and therefore assures compliance with the current SIP
for all subject sources, a permit application relying on the
local rule may be deemed to be complete and a permit containing
the requirements of the local rule rather than the current SIP
could be issued for part 70 purposes. That is, consistent with
section 504(a) of the Act, the part 70 permit need only contain
emissions limits and other terms and conditions (i.e., the more
stringent local rule) as needed to assure compliance with the
applicable requirement (i.e., the current SIP regulation).
An EPA finding that a submitted rule assures compliance with
the approved SIP rule would be a preliminary indication of EPA's
belief that a part 70 permit incorporating the terms of the
submitted rule would also assure compliance with the approved
SIP. Such a finding would not equate to rulemaking, and so would
not constitute a revision of the SIP. Therefore, a preliminary
finding would not necessarily ensure that the proposed revision
would ultimately be approved by EPA, nor would it protect a
source from enforcement of the approved SIP.18 Further, such a
finding would not predetermine the outcome of the part 70 permit
proceeding. Reviewers would have the ability to evaluate any
proposed permit terms or conditions based on pending SIP
revisions to determine whether the permit assures compliance with
applicable requirements, i.e., the approved SIP. However, EPA
believes that a finding of this nature should provide the source
and the permitting authority sufficient assurance to proceed with
the issuance of a permit that reflects the terms of the submitted
local rule rather than the approved SIP. Note that a part 70
permit can be based on a local rule even if the local rule is
subsequently disapproved by EPA for SIP purposes (e.g., measure
is more stringent than the current SIP but fails to meet SIP
requirements for reasonably available control technology and/or
to make reasonable further progress), provided: (1) a permit
based on the local rule would assure compliance with all
applicable requirements (including the approved SIP); and (2) the
permit meets all part 70 requirements.
17Where resources allow and the situation calls for it, EPA
will go on record with a letter to the permitting authority with a
list of rules that it has preliminarily determined will assure
compliance with the corresponding SIP approved rule.
18If a part 70 permit is issued based upon a pending SIP
revision and a permit shield is incorporated in the permit,
compliance with the permit would be deemed to be compliance with
all applicable requirements. If EPA or the permitting authority
later discovers that the permit terms do not assure compliance with
all applicable requirements, including the applicable SIP, the
permit would have to be reopened and revised.
20
-------
Where the local rule submitted to EPA as a SIP revision
represents a relaxation of the current SIP requirement (e.g., the
local rule would replace an existing technology forcing rule that
has been determined to be unachievable in practice), a part 70
source may propose in its permit application to base its permit
on the local rule in anticipation of EPA approval. However, a
permit based on the local rule could not be issued prior to EPA
approval of the rule. This is because a permit based on the
relaxed requirements of the local rule could not assure
compliance with the more stringent applicable requirement (the
approved SIP), as required by section 504 of the Act. Similarly,
a part 70 source may be subject to pending SIP revisions that may
tighten certain current SIP obligations and relax others for
sources in that source category. Here again the permitting
authority could allow initial application completeness to be
determined relying on the locally adopted rule, but the permit
could not be issued without the current SIP requirements unless a
source opted to demonstrate that the submitted rule represents,
for that specific source, a more stringent requirement than the
current SIP. In such a case, the part 70 permit could
subsequently be issued for that source on the basis of the local
rule, since the permit terms would assure compliance with the
approved SIP.
b. Initial actions by EPA and permitting authorities. The
EPA is committed to working with States within available
resources to assure that the timetable for overall permit
issuance is not adversely affected by pending SIP revisions that
are not straightforward tightenings. The extent of the problem,
however, will vary greatly and, in some cases, may require a
specific plan of action between EPA and certain States to
expedite SIP processing where the problem is substantial.
In California, where this problem is believed to be most
extensive, EPA, the districts, and the California Air Resources
Board are in the process of identifying rules in the SIP backlog
that are not straightforward tightenings or are relaxations of
the currently approved SIP, and will target them for expeditious
processing. These rules will be identified within a specified
timeframe, generally within 1 year of the effective date of a
district's part 70 program. The EPA's Region IX will enter into
formal agreements with affected districts and will commit to take
action on this "targeted" portion of the SIP backlog before
comprehensive permit issuance for sources affected by the backlog
would be required, provided this is consistent with the
transition plan19 (as it may be revised). Other EPA Regional
Offices will determine the need and resources available for this
type of exercise on a case-by-case basis. Region IX will also
commit to process expeditiously any similar rules submitted or
"Transition plan refers to the 3-year transition strategy for
initial part 70 permit issuance described in § 70.4(b)(11).
21
-------
identified after the period of the formal agreement, although
such processing would not necessarily occur before permits must
be issued to sources affected by these rules.
Under Region IX's formal agreements, permitting authorities
in the districts need not issue the portion of the part 70 permit
covering emissions units affected by the targeted backlog until
the rule adoption or change identified in the formal agreement
has been acted on by EPA, consistent with the flexibility allowed
in the permit issuance transition plan in the permitting
authority's program. This should in most cases allow permitting
authorities to delay issuing permits to sources to the extent
they are affected by the targeted SIP backlog until EPA completes
its review action on the pending SIP revisions. Where a
transition plan contains a permit issuance schedule that would
not allow postponing permit issuance until EPA has acted on the
proposed SIP revisions, appropriate changes to the plan can still
be made to defer permit issuance until EPA action on the targeted
SIP backlog. Such changes would be made following the same
approach described for changing application forms in EPA's first
White Paper. Within these constraints, a permitting authority
may allow for issuance of part 70 permits to the facility in
phases such that permits covering those emissions units of the
facility affected by the targeted SIP revision are issued later.
This result is also consistent with the flexibility contained in
§ 70.2 (see definition of "Part 70 permit") for the permitting
authority to issue multiple permits to one part 70 source if it
makes sense to do so. Alternatively, the permitting authority
could issue the permit in its entirety based on the current SIP.
The EPA agrees that delays in permit issuance described
above will not be cause for an EPA finding of failure by the
permitting authority to adequately administer or enforce its
part 70 program. Any initial permit issued under a phased
approach (i.e., the first phase involves all emissions units
unaffected by the SIP backlog targeted by EPA), however, does not
shield the source from the enforceability of the requirements
excluded in the first phase permit and the obligation to obtain
permit conditions covering the excluded emissions units after EPA
has acted on the relevant SIP rule backlog.
c. Ongoing actions. The preceding guidance should address
the most significant problems associated with the development of
part 70 permit applications and the subsequent issuance of
part 70 permits that result from the existence of a SIP backlog.
The EPA recognizes, however, that areas experiencing the most
significant start-up problems with respect to pending SIP rules
may well require an ongoing program to manage the potential SIP
backlog so as to prevent significant problems of this nature from
occurring in the future. In some situations it may be
appropriate on a continuing basis for EPA to determine
preliminarily whether a submitted rule can be listed as one which
would assure compliance with the SIP rule it seeks to replace.
22
-------
This would enable the permitting authority to adjust its
priorities for requiring application updates and for
accomplishing permit issuance and revision.
For post application submittal, a source that has filed a
complete application may opt to, or be required to, update its
current application as a result of changes or pending changes to
the SIP. The likelihood of these changes occurring will vary
from area to area, and are most likely to affect sources
scheduled later in the transition period for initial permit
issuance. For example:
o A local rule previously relied upon may be amended by the
State or district.
o Where a local rule that was previously listed in the
formal agreement for expeditious SIP processing (because the
rule is not a straightforward strengthening) is disapproved
by EPA and the source has relied on that rule in preparing
its application, the applicant must file an application
update that either demonstrates that compliance with the
local rule would assure compliance with the current SIP or
demonstrates direct compliance with the current SIP.
o The adoption and submission to EPA of a more stringent
local rule after an applicant has filed its application may
present a new and desired opportunity for streamlining. If
so, the applicant could opt to file an application update to
shift the compliance focus of its current application to the
newly adopted local rule, which is pending SIP approval,
provided it meets the streamlining criteria described in
section II.A. above.
For post permit issuance, sources may also encounter changes
to rule situations after initial permit issuance that could lead
them to request a permit revision. For example, sources may
propose a revision to an issued part 70 permit where a newly
adopted local rule would present a desirable streamlining
opportunity. The significant permit revision process would be
required under the current part 70 to accomplish this change.
Note that EPA in its revisions to part 70 may authorize
permitting authorities to use a less extensive permit revision
process.
To initiate the permit revision, the source must file an
application to revise the permit to contain the requirements of
local rule instead of the current SIP. This application must
meet the previously defined and applicable streamlining criteria.
In response, the permitting authority may subsequently
revise the permit based on the local rule in lieu of the current
SIP where (1) the rule is listed by the EPA as one where
compliance with it would assure compliance with the relevant
23
-------
portions of the current SIP, or (2) the applicant has provided a
source specific demonstration consistent with the streamlining
criteria in section II.A.2. that assures this result. A permit
shield or similar permit condition should be issued for purposes
of certainty. In the absence of a shield or similar permit
condition, all aspects of the approved SIP remain enforceable,
regardless of the source's compliance status with respect to the
permit. The EPA encourages permitting authorities currently
without provisions for incorporating permit shields to add them
at their first opportunity.
3. Process.
a. Initial Applications. An applicant proposing to submit
its part 70 permit application based on a local rule that has
been submitted for EPA approval rather than the current SIP would
take one of two courses of actions depending on the status of the
local rule with EPA and/or the permitting authority:
The first course of action would be appropriate for local
rules that (1) have been previously demonstrated to EPA's
satisfaction to be at least as stringent as the approved SIP rule
so as to assure compliance with it for all subject sources, (2)
are otherwise authorized by the permitting authority based on its
judgement that such rules will likely be the basis for the
part 70 permit (e.g. EPA approval of the rule is imminent), or
(3) have been specifically identified in a formal agreement
between the permitting authority and EPA for expeditious SIP
processing, i.e., the "targeted backlog." Rules listed in a
formal agreement will typically involve local rules pending SIP
approval which do or could represent full or partial relaxations
of the current SIP. Where they choose to use this approach, the
permitting authority and EPA will maintain an up-to-date list of
local rules which meet any of these criteria.
In preparing initial part 70 permit applications with
respect to such local rules the applicant:
Step One - Will indicate in its application that it has
opted for this approach, list or cross-reference all
requirements from applicable local rules that are eligible
for this approach, and refer to the list maintained for this
purpose by the permitting authority.
Step Two - Will identify in the permit application the
current SIP requirements that the pending SIP revision would
replace.
Step Three - May choose to certify compliance with the
requirement(s) of the pending local rule in lieu of the
current SIP if there is sufficient source compliance data on
which to base such a certification. (The EPA is proposing
24
-------
to revise its part 70 regulations to provide that such a
certification would meet the requirements of § 70.5 (c) (10) .)
Step Four - May propose that a permit shield would be in
effect upon permit issuance. For those listed local rules
which are recognized by EPA as being able to assure
compliance with the current SIP rule, the applicant would
indicate in the application that a permit shield (or
alternatively, other similar language where authority for a
permit shield is not available) is being proposed to be
incorporated into the permit to confirm this understanding.
The second course of action would be appropriate where the
criteria specified above have not been met for a particular rule
and an applicant still wants to base its initial part 70
application on such local rules pending SIP approval. In this
instance, the process would be essentially the same but the
source would have to demonstrate that compliance with the local
rule would assure compliance with the current SIP (i.e., make an
adequate demonstration consistent with the streamlining criteria
described in section II.A.2. above.) and submit it with the
permit application in step one. Again, if a part 70 permit
application has already been submitted without streamlining but
the source agrees to subsequently pursue this option, the
permitting authority may work with the source to support
streamlining requirements during the permit development process.
b. Initial Permit Issuance Process. After receiving a
complete application, the permitting authority must note where
the applicant has proposed use of the approaches described above
in section II.B.3.a. The note would be placed in the application
summary, the application, or the revised application. Copies of
the application summary, the application, or the revised
application containing such proposals must be submitted promptly
to EPA (unless EPA has agreed that the demonstration is of a type
not required for advance submittal to EPA).
Where the rule is listed by EPA as one where compliance with
it would assure compliance with the relevant portions of the
current SIP, or the applicant has provided a source specific
demonstration consistent with the streamlining outlined in
section II.A.2., the permitting authority may proceed to issue
the permit based on the local rule in lieu of the current SIP. A
permit shield or similar permit condition which confirms this
understanding should be issued for purposes of certainty.
If an applicant chooses to demonstrate that a local rule
assures compliance with the applicable SIP for all affected
emissions units, the permitting authority will evaluate this
proposal and any supporting documentation. Upon completion of
this evaluation and prior to releasing a draft permit public
notice, the permitting authority is advised to communicate any
concerns to the applicant and provide reasonable opportunity for
25
-------
the applicant to accept the findings or propose a resolution of
the differences. This may cause some revisions to the
application as originally filed.
If the permitting authority or EPA are not satisfied that
the local rule (as it applies to the applicant's facility)
assures compliance with the applicable SIP rule, the applicant
must revise its application to rely on the SIP rule. All
required application updates must be submitted on or before the
reasonable deadline required by the permitting authority for the
source to maintain its application shield.
Consistent with the flexibility allowed in the permit
issuance transition plan (as it may be revised), the permitting
authority may delay issuance of those portions of a source's
permit that are covered by a rule identified in a Region IX type
formal agreement, which targets certain SIP rules for expeditious
processing, until EPA has acted on the relevant rule(s).
Alternatively, comprehensive permits may be issued to such a
source prior to the time that EPA has acted on the rule provided
that they are based on the current SIP (unless the source has
provided an adequate streamlining demonstration).
4. Enforcement.
All terms and conditions of the part 70 permit are
enforceable by EPA and by citizens. In addition, a source
violating the emissions limitation in the part 70 permit is also
subject to enforcement action for violation of the current SIP
emissions limits if a violation of this limit can be documented.
Upon issuance of a part 70 permit based on the local rule,
the permit terms and conditions implementing the local rule would
become federally enforceable. A source would not be subject to
an EPA enforcement action for any failure to meet monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that are required under
the currently approved SIP, if such an understanding has been
specified in the permit. These requirements would no longer be
independently enforceable, provided the source attempts in good
faith to implement the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
approach required under the local rule.
If subsequently the permitting authority or EPA determines
that the permit does not assure compliance with applicable
requirements, the permit must be reopened and revised.
5. Discussion.
Sources in California districts currently are subject to
several locally adopted rules which are pending before EPA as
proposed SIP revisions. The majority of these local rules have
been determined by the districts to be more stringent than the
SIP rules that they seek to replace, although some of these rules
26
-------
would relax the current SIP requirements for certain affected
sources. In some cases, technology-forcing SIP rules have been
found to be infeasible to achieve and, instead of seeking to
enforce them, districts have adopted achievable local rules.
Until the local rules are approved into the SIP, sources are
subject to both the local rule and the federally-approved version
of the rule.
The resulting "outdated SIP" presents special problems to
sources which must file a part 70 permit application. In
particular, questions arise as to whether sources must complete
their applications and certify compliance based on SIP rules
which have been superseded by more stringent local rules or by
rules that have been relaxed where, for example, the permitting
authority has found the current SIP rules to be unachievable.
Those problems, while most apparent in their effect on the start-
up of a part 70 program, are also ongoing in nature and may
create a need to update initially complete permit applications
and to revise issued permits. The EPA believes that these
problems with outdated SIP rules are most extensive in California
but are not unique to that State.
The EPA strongly believes that implementation of title V to
the extent possible should complement, not complicate, the
implementation of other titles, including title I, the purpose of
which is to assure adoption of programs that will attain and
maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) .20
Accordingly, the Agency is providing this guidance which will
allow sources and permitting authorities to rely on more
stringent local rules for permit issuance. The overall strategy
for sensitizing the SIP revision process to part 70 concerns
presented in this guidance will allow sources to focus more on
current air quality requirements in all aspects of part 70 permit
application development and update, permit issuance, and permit
revision.
The legal basis for recognizing a local rule pending SIP
approval in lieu of the current, but less stringent, SIP
requirement or for streamlining multiple applicable requirements
is identical to the basis for adopting a streamlined emissions
limit to replace multiple applicable requirements (see discussion
in section II.A.5.). The opportunities for shifting to the more
stringent local rule are correspondingly affected by the
limitations previously described for the streamlining of
applicable requirements.
20This guidance is designed primarily to alleviate situations
where the SIP backlog is both large and longstanding. It is not to
be used as a means of anticipating the outcome of pending
attainment status redesignations.
27
-------
C. Treatment Of Insignificant Emissions Units.
1. Issue.
How must sources address insignificant emissions units
(lEU's) subject to at least one applicable requirement?21
(Insignificant emissions units are in most cases not directly
regulated, and therefore could be left off the permit entirely,
were it not for the presence of certain generic or facility-wide
requirements that apply to all emissions units.) Must the
application and the subsequent permit address each IEU
individually and require periodic monitoring where it is not
otherwise provided by a generically applicable requirement? On
what basis can the initial and future compliance certifications
be made for lEU's with generally applicable requirements?
2. Guidance.
The EPA interprets part 70 to allow considerable discretion
to the permitting authority in tailoring the amount and quality
of information required in permit applications and permits as
they relate to lEU's. In general, permit applications must
contain sufficient information to support the drafting of the
part 70 permit (including certain information for lEU's subject
to only generally applicable requirements) and to determine
compliance status with all applicable requirements. The EPA,
however, interprets part 70 to allow permitting authorities
considerable discretion as to the format and content of permits,
provided that compliance with all applicable requirements,
including those for lEU's, is assured. The Agency believes that
the clarifications contained herein afford permitting authorities
sufficient flexibility to treat lEU's in a manner commensurate
with the environmental benefits that may be gained from their
inclusion in the permit.
a. Permit Applications - Information. With regard to
part 70 requirements to describe and list IEU's in applications
and permits, the permitting authority can use the generic
grouping approach for emissions units and activities as discussed
in the first White Paper. In addition, the requirement to
identify all applicable requirements, as it related to lEU's
subject to generally applicable requirements, can normally be
addressed by standard or generic permit conditions with minimal
21An emissions unit can be an IEU for one applicable
requirement and not for another. However, such a unit may be
eligible for treatment as an IEU only with respect to those
pollutants not emitted in significant amounts. The term
"significant" as used in this policy statement does not have the
meaning as used in § 52.21 (e.g., 15 tpy PM-10, 40 tpy VOC) but
rather means that the emissions unit does not qualify for treatment
in the application as an insignificant emissions unit.
28
-------
or no reference to any specific emissions unit or activity. The
EPA has reviewed and acquiesced in the issuance of permits
wherein generally applicable requirements are incorporated
through the use of tables describing a tiered compliance regime
for these requirements as they affect different sizes of
emissions units, including a distinct and more streamlined
compliance regime for lEU's. Different generic permit tables may
be necessary to cover the situation for a particular type of IEU
which is governed by different applicable requirements.
Similarly, the first White Paper provides that no emissions
estimates need be provided for even regulated emissions streams
where it would serve no useful purpose to do so. This should be
the case for lEU's where the amount of emissions from a unit is
not relevant to determining applicability of, or compliance with,
the requirement. Except where the contributions of lEU's would
need, to be more precisely known to resolve issues of
applicability or major source status would the permitting
authority need to request emissions estimates for part 70
purposes.
b. Permit Applications - Initial Compliance Certifications.
Section 70.5(c)(9) requires complete part 70 applications to
contain a certification of compliance with all applicable
requirements by a responsible official and a statement of the
methods used for determining compliance. This certification must
be based on a "reasonable inquiry" by the responsible official.
The EPA believes that, for the generally applicable or facility-
wide requirements applying to an IEU, reasonable inquiry for
initial certifications need only be based on available
information, which would include any information required to be
generated by the applicable requirement. Regarding the latter,
and as is true for any applicable requirement, the initial
certification can be based on only the latest cycle of required
information (e.g., a source could generally rely on a
demonstration of compliance resulting from the most recent
required monitoring, notwithstanding the existence of prior
monitoring indicating non-compliance at a previous point in
time). Where an applicable requirement (generally applicable or
otherwise) does not require monitoring, the § 70.5(c)(9)
requirement to certify compliance does not itself require that
monitoring be done to support a certification. Similarly, there
is no need to perform an emissions test to support this
compliance certification if none is required by the applicable
requirement itself. The EPA interprets § 70.5(c)(9) to allow for
a certification of compliance where there is no required
monitoring and, despite a "reasonable inquiry" to uncover other
existing information, the responsible official has no information
to the contrary.
c. Permit Content - Applicable Requirements. With regard
to part 70 obligations to include all applicable requirements in
the permit, the permitting authority can also use the generic
grouping approach for emissions units and activities as discussed
29
-------
in the first White Paper. That is, generally applicable
requirements can normally be adequately addressed in the part 70
permit by standard permit conditions with minimal or no reference
to any specific emissions unit or activity, provided that the
scope of the requirement and the manner of its enforcement are
clear. As noted above, different generic permit provisions may
be necessary to cover the situation for which different types of
lEU's are governed by different applicable requirements.
d. Permit Content - Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting. Section 70.6(a)(3)(i) requires all applicable
requirements for monitoring and analysis procedures or test
methods to be contained in part 70 permits. In addition, where
the applicable requirement does not require periodic testing or
monitoring (which may consist of recordkeeping designed to serve
as monitoring), the permitting authority must prescribe periodic
monitoring sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant
time period that are representative of the source's compliance
with the permit. Many of the generically applicable requirements
for lEU's have a related test method, but relatively few have a
specific regimen of required periodic testing or monitoring.
The EPA believes that the permitting authority in general
has broad discretion in determining the nature of any required
periodic monitoring. The need for this discretion is
particularly evident in the case of generally applicable
requirements, which tend to cover lEU's as well as significant
emissions units. The requirement to include in a permit testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance
certification sufficient to assure compliance does not require
the permit to impose the same level of rigor with respect to all
emissions units and applicable requirement situations. It does
not require extensive testing or monitoring to assure compliance
with the applicable requirements for emissions units that do not
have significant potential to violate emissions limitations or
other requirements under normal operating conditions. In
particular, where the establishment of a regular program of
monitoring would not significantly enhance the ability of the
permit to assure compliance with the applicable requirement, the
permitting authority can provide that the status quo (i.e., no
monitoring) will meet § 70.6(a)(3)(i). For IEU's subject to a
generally applicable requirement for which the permitting
authority believes monitoring is needed, a streamlined approach
to periodic monitoring, such as an inspection program to assure
the proper operation and maintenance of emissions activities
(e.g., valves and flanges), should presumptively be appropriate.
The EPA's policy on IEU monitoring needs is based on its
belief that lEU's typically are associated with inconsequential
environmental impacts and present little potential for violations
of generically applicable requirements, and so may be good
candidates for a very streamlined approach to periodic
monitoring. As EPA noted in the first White Paper, generally
30
-------
applicable requirements typically reside in the SIP. Permitting
authorities therefore not only have the best sense of which
requirements qualify as generally applicable, but also where it
is appropriate to conclude that periodic monitoring is not
necessary for lEU's subject to these requirements. Where the
source ascertains that the permitting authority will not require
periodic monitoring for lEU's, it can of course omit a periodic
monitoring proposal from the application.
e. Permit Content - Compliance Certifications. Section
70.6(c) (5) requires in part that each permitted source submit no
less frequently than annually a certification of its compliance
status with all the terms and conditions of the permit. This
certification will be based on available information, including
monitoring and/or other compliance terms required in the permit.
Where a particular emissions unit presents little or no potential
for violation of a certain applicable requirement, the
"reasonable inquiry" required by title V can be abbreviated.
Since it can be determined in the abstract that violation of the
requirement by these emissions units is highly improbable, it is
reasonable in that instance to limit the search for information
to what is readily available. As noted above, EPA believes that
an IEU subject to a generally applicable requirement typically
presents little or no potential for violation of those
requirements. It follows that where, for instance, a permit does
not require monitoring for lEU's subject to a generally
applicable requirement, and there were no observed, documented,
or known instances of non-compliance, an annual certification of
compliance is presumptively appropriate. Similarly, where
monitoring is required, an annual certification of compliance is
also appropriate when no violations are monitored and there were
no observed, documented, or known instances of non-compliance.
3. Discussion.
Many of the concerns expressed to EPA regarding the
treatment of lEU's in the application and permit arise because
lEU's are in most cases not directly regulated, and therefore
could be left off the permit entirely, were it not for the
presence of certain generic requirements that apply to all
emissions units. Though the focus of concern is the
applicability of the generic requirements to lEU's, response to
these concerns derive primarily from the flexibility that exists
in part 70 for dealing with generically applicable requirements.
In implementing this flexibility, it may be appropriate for the
permitting authority to further distinguish between units that
have been designated as insignificant and those that have not.
This is so because the relative size of a unit can be an
important factor in deciding how to fashion permit terms even for
a generically applicable requirement, and State-established lEU's
normally define the smallest emissions points. However, EPA
notes that, as a matter of part 70 interpretation, whether a unit
31
-------
has been designated as insignificant is not necessarily critical
to its treatment in the part 70 permit.
Concerns have been expressed that addressing in part 70
permits the relatively trivial portion of emissions attributable
to lEU's will consume a disproportionate share of the total
resources available to issue part 70 permits. That is, according
to their understanding of part 70, applicants and permitting
authorities will expend greater resources than warranted to
determine the specific applicability of requirements to lEU's,
how compliance with them will be assured, and the basis on which
the certification of compliance status of the source with respect
to these lEU's would be made.
The EPA believes that the policy described for addressing
generically applicable requirements in applications and permits
as they apply to lEU's allows permitting authorities sufficient
flexibility to streamline the required administrative effort
commensurate to the environmental significance of the varying
types of IEU situations. This should prevent the potentially
high but unintended level of costs identified by certain sources
and permitting authorities from occurring in the future with
respect to lEU's.
D. Use Of Major Source And Applicable Requirement Stipulation.
1. Issue.
When an applicant stipulates that it is a major source and
subject to specific applicable requirements, how much, if any,
additional information related to applicability is necessary in
the part 70 permit application?
2. Guidance.
If an applicant stipulates that it is a major source22 and
subject to specific applicable requirements, it need not provide
additional information in its application to demonstrate
applicability with respect to those requirements, provided that
(1) the permitting authority has had previous review experience
with a particular source (e.g., issued it a permit), or (2)
otherwise has an adequate level of familiarity with the source's
operation (e.g., current emissions inventory information). This
does not affect the requirement to provide information for other
purposes under part 70, such as to support a compliance
certification or a request for a permit shield or to describe the
emissions activities of its site (see first White Paper).
22If an applicant stipulates it is a major source, it must list
all pollutants for which it is major.
32
-------
Accordingly, permitting authorities may allow the applicant
to stipulate that:
o Its facility is a major source and subject to part 70
permitting, without providing any additional information for
the applicability determination;
o It is subject to specific applicable requirements, to be
included in its part 70 permit, without providing additional
information to establish applicability for stipulated
requirements; or
o It is subject to only portions of an applicable
requirement and state that it is not subject to other
portions. Such a stipulation must explicitly state which
portion of the rule applies and which does not and an
explanation must be provided for this conclusion.
Stipulation by a source to major source status or specific
applicable requirements in a part 70 application does not
preclude the permitting authority from requesting additional
information from the applicant for establishing the applicability
of non-stipulated requirements or for verifying a stipulation
that certain requirements are not applicable.
3. Discussion.
In general, part 70 requires that applications contain
information to the extent needed to determine major source
status, to verify the applicability of part 70 or applicable
requirements, and to compute a permit fee (as necessary).
Section 70.5(c) requires the application to describe emissions of
all regulated air pollutants for each emissions unit.
In the first White Paper, EPA indicated a substantial degree
of discretion for permitting authorities in this area. It
indicates that States may adopt different approaches to meet the
minimum program requirements established by the part 70
regulations depending on local needs. In many instances, a
qualitative description of emissions will satisfy this standard.
However, the applicant may need to provide more detailed
information for purposes other than determining applicability and
to foster efficiency in the permitting program.
For the purpose of determining the applicability of part 70
or other specific requirements, the information required in an
application should be streamlined for the mutual benefit of the
applicant and the permitting authority. An applicant that
stipulates it is a major source subject to part 70 and to other
applicable requirements should not be required to provide any
additional information to verify those facts in its part 70
application. However, the applicant must provide sufficient
information to allow the permitting authority to impose the
33
-------
applicable requirement. In addition, the resulting application
streamlining would not relieve the applicant from submitting, or
the permitting authority from reviewing, emissions or other data
for part 70 purposes other than determining applicability.
In the case where there is no dispute that a stationary
source is subject to part 70, and the applicant stipulates that
the source is a part 70 source in the application, no further
information would be required for applicability determination.
An example would be a source which is currently operating under a
prevention of significant deterioration permit because it is
major for PM-10. Both the source and the permitting authority
agree that the source is subject to the State's part 70 program.
A source may also streamline the part 70 permit process by
stipulating that specific applicable requirements apply. This
does not relieve the source of its obligation to identify all
applicable requirements or preclude the permitting authority from
requesting additional information, including information
pertaining to the applicability of requirements not covered in
the stipulation. For example, a stationary source may stipulate
it is subject to a SIP rule. However, the permitting authority
may suspect that the source is also subject to a New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS), but may need more information for
confirmation. In this case, the permitting authority would
request additional information related to the applicability of
the NSPS.
Similarly, an applicant may stipulate that it is subject to
only portions of an applicable requirement and state that it is
not subject to other portions. In such case, the permitting
authority may request the applicant to provide additional
information to demonstrate that it is not subject to requirements
in question. However, if a source requests a permit shield,
additional information to demonstrate the non-applicability of
these requirements must be submitted.
E. Referencing Of Existing Information In Part 70 Permit
Applications And Permits.
1. Issue.
Can an applicant in its permit application, and can the
permit itself, reference existing information that is available
at the permitting authority? Also, can the permit application_
and the permit reference applicable requirements through citation
rather than by a complete reprinting of the requirements
themselves in the part 70 permit application or permit?
2. Guidance.
a. General. Information that would be cited or cross
referenced in the permit application and incorporated by
34
-------
reference into the issued permit must first be currently
applicable and available to the permitting authority and
public23. The information need not be restated in the part 70
application. Standardized citation formats should be established
by the permitting authority to facilitate appropriate use of this
mechanism.
Referenced documents must also be specifically identified.
Descriptive information such as the title or number of the
document and the date of the document must be included so that
there is no ambiguity as to which version of which document is
being referenced. Citations, cross references, and
incorporations by reference must be detailed enough that the
manner in which any referenced material applies to a facility is
clear and is not reasonably subject to misinterpretation. Where
only a portion of the referenced document applies, applications
and permits must specify the relevant section of the document.
Any information cited, cross referenced, or incorporated by
reference must be accompanied by a description or identification
of the current activities, requirements, or equipment for which
the information is referenced.
b. Permit Applications. The applicant and the permitting
authority should work together to determine the extent to which
part 70 permit applications may cross reference agency-issued
rules, regulations, permits, and published protocols, and
existing information generated by the applicant. To facilitate
referencing existing information, permitting authorities should
identify the general types of information available for this
purpose. To the extent that such information exists and is
readily available to the public, the following types of
information may be cited or cross referenced (as allowed by the
permitting authority)24:
o Rules, regulations, and published protocols.
o Criteria pollutant and HAP emission inventories and
supporting calculations.
o Emission monitoring reports, compliance reports, and
source tests.
"Referenced documents must be made available (1) as part of
the public docket on the permit action or (2) as information
available in publicly accessible files located at the permitting
authority, unless they are published or are readily available
(e.g., regulations printed in the Code of Federal Regulations or
its State equivalent).
24Use of cross-referencing does not shift any burden of
reproducing or otherwise acquiring information to the permitting
authority.
35
-------
o Annual emissions statements.
o Process and abatement equipment lists and descriptions.
o Current operating and preconstruction permit terms.
o Permit application materials previously submitted.
o Other materials with the approval of the permitting
authority.
Applicants are obligated to correct and supplement
inaccurate or incomplete permitting authority records relied upon
for the purposes of part 70 permit applications. The responsible
official must certify, consistent with § 70.5(d), to the truth,
accuracy, and completeness of all information referenced.
c. Permits. Incorporation by reference in permits may be
appropriate and useful under several circumstances. Appropriate
use of incorporation by reference in permits includes referencing
of test method procedures, inspection and maintenance plans, and
calculation methods for determining compliance. One of the key
objectives Congress hoped to achieve in creating title V,
however, was the issuance of comprehensive permits that clarify
how sources must comply with applicable requirements. Permitting
authorities should therefore balance the streamlining benefits
achieved through use of incorporation by reference with the need
to issue comprehensive, unambiguous permits useful to all
affected parties, including those engaged in field inspections.
Permitting authorities may, after listing all applicable
emissions limits for all applicable emissions units in the
part 70 permit, provide for referencing the details of those
limits, rather than reprinting them in permits to the extent that
(1) applicability issues and compliance obligations are clear,
and (2) the permit includes any additional terms and conditions
sufficient to assure compliance with all applicable
requirements25.
Where the cited applicable requirement provides for
different and independent compliance options (e.g., boilers
subject to an NSPS promulgated under section 111 may comply by
use of low sulfur fuel or through add-on of a control device),
the permitting authority generally should require that the
part 70 permit contain (or incorporate by reference) the specific
25In the case of a merged permit program, i.e., where a State
has merged its NSR and operating permits programs, previous NSR
permits expire. This leaves the part 70 permit as the sole
repository of the relevant prior terms and conditions of the NSR
permit. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to
incorporate by reference the expired NSR permits.
36
-------
option(s) selected by the source. Alternatively, the permit
could incorporate by reference the entire applicable requirement
provided that (1) such reference is unambiguous in its
applicability and requirements, (2) the permit contains
obligations to certify compliance and report compliance
monitoring data reflecting the chosen control approach, and (3)
the permitting authority determines that the relevant purposes of
title V would be met through such referencing. The alternative
approach would not be allowable if changing from one compliance
option to another would trigger the need for a prior review by
the permitting authority or EPA (e.g. NSR), unless prior approval
is incorporated into the part 70 permit (i.e., advance NSR).
The EPA does not recommend that permitting authorities
incorporate into part 70 permits certain other types of
information such as the part 70 permit application (see first
White Paper).
3. Discussion.
Title V and part 70 do not define when citation or cross-
referencing in permit applications would be appropriate, although
it obviously would not be allowed where such citations or cross-
references would not support subsequent development of the
part 70 permit. The EPA's first White Paper states that a
permitting authority may streamline part 70 applications by
allowing the applicant to cross-reference a variety of documents
including permits and Federal, State, and local rules. This
guidance further provides that where an emissions estimate is
needed for part 70 purposes but is otherwise available (e.g.,
recent submittal of emissions inventory) the permitting authority
can allow the source to cross-reference this information for
part 70 purposes.
Permitting authorities' files and databases often include
information submitted by the applicant which can also be required
by part 70. Development and review of part 70 permit
applications could be streamlined if information already held by
the permitting authority and the public is referenced or cited in
part 70 permit applications rather than restated in its entirety.
Similarly, specific citations to regulations that are unambiguous
in their applicability and requirements as they apply to a
particular source will reduce the burden associated with
application development.
Incorporation by reference can be similarly effective in
streamlining the content of part 70 permits. The potential
benefits of permit development based on an incorporation by
reference approach include reduced cost and administrative
complexity, and continued compliance flexibility as enforceably
allowed by the underlying applicable requirements.
37
-------
Expectations for referencing with respect to permit content
are somewhat better defined than for permit applications.
Section 504(a) states that each permit "shall include enforceable
emissions limitations and standards" and "such other conditions
as are necessary to assure compliance with the applicable
requirements." In addition, section 504(c) requires each permit
to "set forth inspection, entry, monitoring, compliance
certification, and reporting requirements to assure compliance
with the permit terms and conditions." Analogous provisions are
contained in §§ 70.6(a)(l) and (3). The EPA interprets these
provisions to place limits on the type of information that may be
referenced in permits. Although this material may be
incorporated into the permit by reference, that may only be done
to the extent that its manner of application is clear.
Accordingly, after all applicable emissions limits are
placed in the part 70 permit and attached to the emissions unit
to which they apply, the permitting authority may allow
referencing where it is specific enough to define how the
applicable requirement applies and where using this approach
assures compliance with all applicable requirements. This
approach is a desirable option where the referenced material is
unambiguous in how it applies to the permitted facility, and it
provides for enforceability from a practical standpoint. On the
other hand, it is generally not acceptable to use a combination
of referencing certain provisions of an applicable requirement
while paraphrasing other provisions of that same applicable
requirement. Such a practice, particularly if coupled with a
permit shield, could create dual requirements and potential
confusion.
Even where the referenced requirement allows for compliance
options, the permitting authority may issue the permit with
incorporation of the applicable requirement provided that the
compliance options of the source are enforceably defined under
available control options, appropriate records are kept and
reports made, and any required revisions to update the permit
with respect to specific performance levels are made. This
treatment would be analogous to the flexibility provided to
sources through the use of alternative scenarios.
38
-------
Attachment A
Approval of Alternative Test Methods
The part 63 general provisions, as well as other EPA air
regulations implementing sections 111 and 112 of the Act, allow
only EPA-approved test methods to implement emissions standards
that are established by States to meet Federal requirements.
Accordingly, streamlining cannot result in any requirement
relying on a State-only test method unless and until EPA, or the
permitting authority acting as EPA's delegated agency, approves
it as an appropriate method for purposes of complying with that
streamlined standard. Currently, all States may be delegated
authority to make decisions regarding minor revisions to EPA
approved test methods (i.e., minor changes are those that have
isolated consequences, affect a single source, and do not affect
the stringency of the emissions limitation or standard). The EPA
is exploring options for defining where delegation to States is
appropriate for reviewing major revisions or new test methods,
and for expediting the approval process where the Agency retains
final sign-off authority. The EPA recognizes that its approval
must generally occur in a timeframe consistent with the time
constraints of the part 70 permit issuance process. Until
further guidance on this subject is issued, States must obtain
EPA approval for all State-only test methods which represent
major changes or alternatives to EPA-approved test methods prior
to or within the 45-day EPA review period of the proposed permit
seeking to streamline requirements.
With respect to SIP requirements, the ability for a
permitting authority to authorize use of a different test method
depends on the governing language contained in the SIP. For
example, some SIP'S expressly connect a test method with a
particular emissions limit but allow for the use of an equally
stringent method. Other SIP'S contain a more exclusive linkage
between an emissions limit and its required test method (i.e.,
limit A as measured by test method B). The SIP-approved test
method can be changed only through a SIP revision unless the SIP
contains provisions for establishing alternative test methods.
Attachment B contains example SIP language which provides a
mechanism that can establish an alternative applicable
requirement in such cases without the need for a source-specific
SIP revision.
Permitting authorities may implement streamlining which
involves alternative or new test methods within the flexibility
granted by the SIP and any delegation of authority granted by EPA
(where section 111/112 standards are involved). Permit
applications containing a request for a streamlined requirement
based on an alternative or new test method must, to be complete,
demonstrate that the alternative or new test method would
determine compliance at the same or higher stringency as the
otherwise applicable method. The EPA expects to receive
-------
expeditiously (i.e., well in advance of any draft permit
issuance) those portions of an application dealing with a
proposal for streamlining, including any demonstration of test
method adequacy. Any required EPA approval of an alternative or
new test method need not be obtained as a precondition for filing
a complete application, but it must be secured before the final
part 70 permit can be issued. As mentioned previously, EPA
intends to structure its approval process to comport reasonably
with the timelines for part 70 permit issuance.
-------
Attachment B
SIP Provisions For Establishing
Alternative Requirements
I. Overview.
States may revise their SIP'S to provide for establishing
equally stringent alternatives to specific requirements set forth
in the SIP without the need for additional source-specific SIP
revisions. To allow alternatives to the otherwise-applicable SIP
requirements (i.e., emissions limitations, test methods,
monitoring, and recordkeeping) the State would include language
in SIP's to provide substantive criteria governing the State's
exercise of the alternative requirement authority.
II. Example Language For Part 70 Sources To Establish
Alternative SIP Requirements.
The following is an example of enabling language that could
be used to provide flexibility in the SIP for allowing
alternative requirements to be established for part 70 sources.
In lieu of the requirements imposed pursuant to
(reference specific applicable sections(s) or range of
sections to be covered), a facility owner may comply with
alternative requirements, provided the requirements are
established pursuant to the part 70 permit issuance,
renewal, or significant permit revision process and are
consistent with the streamlining procedures and guidelines
set forth in section II.A. of White Paper Number 2.
For sources subject to an approved part 70 program, an
alternative requirement is approved for the source by EPA if
it is incorporated in an issued part 70 permit to which EPA
has not objected. Where the public comment period precedes
the EPA review period, any public comments concerning the
alternative shall be transmitted to EPA with the proposed
permit. If the EPA and public comment periods run
concurrently, public comments shall be transmitted to EPA no
later than 5 working days after the end of the public
comment period. The Director's [permitting authority's]
determination of approval is not binding on EPA.
Noncompliance with any provision established by this
rule constitutes a violation of this rule.
III. Example Language For Non-Part 70 Sources To Establish
Alternative SIP Requirements.
[NOTE: This section is a draft that EPA expects to finalize
after appropriate revisions in the near future.]
For sources not subject to an approved part 70 program, the
following is an example of enabling language that States may use
-------
to revise/submit SIP rules which would provide flexibility in the
SIP for allowing alternative requirements to be established.
A. Procedures.
1. General. In lieu of the requirements imposed pursuant
to [reference applicable sections] of this plan, a source
owner may comply with an alternative requirement, provided
that the Director approves it consistent with the procedures
of this paragraph and the criteria of paragraph B.
2. State Review Procedure. The Director may establish an
alternative requirement in [a review process defined by the
State], provided that the requirements of this paragraph are
met for EPA and public review and for notification and
access are met. The Director's determination of approval is
not binding on EPA.
3. Public Review. The Director shall subject any proposed
alternative to adequate public review but may vary the
procedures for, and the timing of, public review in light of
the environmental significance of the action. For the
following types of changes [add list of de minimis actions
subject to EPA review], no public review shall be necessary
for the approval of the alternative.
4. EPA Review. The Director shall submit any proposed
alternative to the Administrator through the appropriate
Regional Office, except for the following types of changes
[add list of de minimis actions subject to EPA review] no
EPA review shall be necessary for the approval of the
alternative. Until the specific alternative SIP requirement
has completed EPA review, the otherwise applicable SIP
provisions will continue to apply.
5. Periodic Notification And Public Access. For all
actions taken by the State to establish an alternative
requirement, the Director shall provide in a general manner
for periodic notification to the public on at least a
quarterly basis and for public access to the records
regarding established alternatives and relevant supporting
documentation.
6. Enforcement. Noncompliance with any alternative
established by this provision constitutes a violation of
this rule. The EPA and the public may challenge such an
alternative limit on the basis that it does not meet the
criteria contained in the SIP for establishing such an
alternative. In addition, EPA and the public can take
enforcement action against a source that fails to comply
with an applicable alternative requirement.
-------
B. General Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives.
1. Applicability. The unit(s) to which the requirements
apply must be specified in the underlying SIP and in the
permit/alternative. If percentage reductions are required
from the source, the baseline must be clearly set. The SIP
must require the submission of all the information necessary
to establish the baseline, and the alternative requirement
must achieve the reduction called for in the SIP.
2. Time. The alternative must specify the effective date
of the alternative requirement. The underlying requirement
of the SIP shall remain in effect until the effective date
of the alternative. The alternative must clearly specify
any future-effective dates or any compliance schedules that
apply to the source under regulations in effect at the time
of issuance. For instance, a source may be due to comply
with requirements promulgated before the permit/alternative
was issued, but which are effective prior to the expiration
of the permit/alternative.
3. Effect of changed conditions. If alternative emissions
limitations or other requirements are allowed in the
underlying SIP, the associated documentation with the
changed conditions must clearly demonstrate the alternative
requirement is no less stringent than the original SIP
requirement.
4. Standard of conduct. The alternative proposal must
clearly state what requirements the source must meet. For
example, the SIP must specify the emissions limit and what
alternatives are acceptable. The alternative proposal must
contain limits, averaging times, test methods, etc., that
are no less stringent and must address how they are no less
stringent than the underlying SIP requirements. The
alternative proposal must also show whether it applies on a
per-source or per-line basis or is facility-wide.
5. Transfer Efficiency. Any SIP allowing alternative
emissions limits and using transfer efficiency in
determining compliance must explicitly state the
circumstances under which a source may use improved transfer
efficiency as a substitute for meeting the SIP limit. The
improvement should be demonstrated through testing and an
appropriate baseline and test method should be specified.1
See draft "Guidelines for determining capture efficiencies"
for criteria for evaluating alternative capture efficiency
requirements.
1Implied improvements noted by the NSPS auto coating transfer
efficiency table cannot be accepted at face value.
-------
6. Averaging Time. Both the SIP and the alternative
proposal must explicitly contain the averaging time
associated with each emissions limit (e.g., instantaneous,
three hour average, daily, monthly, or longer). The time
must be sufficient to protect the applicable NAAQS. The
alternative proposal must demonstrate that the averaging
time and the emissions limit in the alternative are as
stringent as those in the original SIP requirements.
7. Monitoring and Recordkeepina. The alternative proposal
must state how the source will monitor compliance with the
emissions requirement, and detail how the proposed method
compares in accuracy, precision, and timeliness to the SIP-
approved method. Records and monitoring data must be
retained for at least the same period of time as required by
the SIP. The method must enable compliance determinations
consistent with the averaging time of the emissions
standard.
8. Test Methods. The alternative proposal must detail how
the proposed test method in association with its particular
emissions requirement (or rule) is at least as stringent as
the approved method in association with its emissions limit
(or rule) considering the accuracy, reliability,
reproducibility, and timeliness of each test method taken in
combination with its emissions limit. The application or
proposal must also address how the change affects
measurement sensitivity and representativeness, describe the
need for the change, and indicate if the change is needed
for unique conditions related only to the source in
question. The method must enable a compliance determination
consistent with the averaging time of the emissions standard
associated with it.
9. Act Requirements. The alternative must meet the all
applicable Act requirements (e.g., for reasonably available
control technology, 15% VOC reduction, etc.) and must not
interfere with any requirements of the Act, including any
regarding the SIP'S attainment demonstration and
requirements for reasonable further progress.
10. Production Level. The emissions are no greater than
the SIP allowable emissions at the same production level.
Pre-1990 production/operation scenarios cannot be used as
part of any demonstration that the alternative requirements
are as stringent as those in the SIP. Also, the
demonstration must be performed using an EPA-approved test
methods.
-------
Appendix G
Clean Air Act Section lll(d)
-------
Clean Air Act Section lll(d)
(d)(l) The Administrator shall prescribe regulations which shall establish a procedure similar
to that provided by section 110 under which each State shall submit to the Administrator a plan
which (A) establishes standards of performance for any existing source for any air pollutant (i)
for which air quality criteria have not been issued or which is not included on a list published
under section 108(a) or 112(b)(l)(A) but (ii) to which a standard of performance under this
section would apply if such existing source were a new source, and (B) provides for the
implementation and enforcement of such standards of performance. Regulations of the
Administrator under this paragraph shall permit the State in applying a standard of performance
to any particular source under a plan submitted under this paragraph to take into consideration,
among other factors, the remaining useful life of the existing source to which such standard
applies.
(2) The Administrator shall have the same authority—
(A) to prescribe a plan for a State in cases where the State fails to submit a satisfactory plan as
he would have under section 110(c) in the case of failure to submit an implementation plan, and
(B) to enforce the provisions of such plan in cases where the State fails to enforce them as he
would have under sections 113 and 114 with respect to an implementation plan. In promulgating
a standard of performance under a plan prescribed under this paragraph, the Administrator shall
take into consideration, among other factors, remaining useful lives of the sources in the category
of sources to which such standard applies.
G-l
-------
Appendix H
40 CFR 60 Subpart B
-------
APPENDIX H--40 CFR 60 SUBPART B WITH 12/19/95 INSERTS
Subpart B -- Adoption and Submittal of State Plans
for Designated Facilities
60.20 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart apply to States upon publication
of a final guideline document under section 60.22(a).
60.21 Definitions.
Terms used but not defined in this subpart shall have the
meaning given them in the Act and in Subpart A:
(a) "Designated pollutant" means any air pollutant, emissions
of which are subject to a standard of performance for new
stationary sources but for which air quality criteria have not
been issued, and which is not included on a list published under
section 108(a) or section 112(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
(b) "Designated facility" means any existing facility (see
section 60.2(aa)) which emits a designated pollutant and which
would be subject to a standard of performance for that pollutant
if the existing facility were an affected facility (see section
60.2).
(c) "Plan" means a plan under section 111(d) of the Act which
establishes emission standards for designated pollutants from
designated facilities and provides for the implementation and
enforcement of such emission standards.
(d) "Applicable plan" means the plan, or most recent revision
thereof, which has been approved under section 60.27(b) or
promulgated under section 60.27(d).
(e) "Emission guideline" means a guideline set forth in
Subpart C of this part, or in a final guideline document
published under section 60.22(a), which reflects the degree of
emission reduction achievable through the application of the best
system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost
of such reduction) the Administrator has determined has been
adequately demonstrated for designated facilities.
(f) "Emission standard" means a legally enforceable regulation
setting forth an allowable rate of emissions into the atmosphere,
or prescribing equipment specifications for control of air
pollution emissions.
(g) "Compliance schedule" means a legally enforceable schedule
specifying a date or dates by which a source or category of
sources must comply with specific emission standards contained in
a plan or with any increments of progress to achieve such
compliance.
(h) "Increments of progress" means steps to achieve compliance
which must be taken by an owner or operator of a designated
facility, including:
H-l
-------
(1) Submittal of a final control plan for the designated
facility to the appropriate air pollution control agency;
(2) Awarding of contracts for emission control systems or for
process modifications, or issuance of orders for the purchase of
component parts to accomplish emission control or process
modification;
(3) Initiation of on-site construction or installation of
emission control equipment or process change;
(4) Completion of on-site construction or installation of
emission control equipment or process change; and
(5) Final compliance.
(i) "Region" means an air quality control region designated
under section 107 of the Act and described in Part 81 of this
chapter.
(j) "Local agency" means any local governmental agency.
60.22 Publication of guideline documents, emission guidelines,
and final compliance times.
(a) Concurrently upon or after proposal of standards of
performance for the control of a designated pollutant from
affected facilities, the Administrator will publish a draft
guideline document containing information pertinent to control of
the designated pollutant from designated facilities. Notice of
the availability of the draft guideline document will be
published in the FEDERAL REGISTER and public comments on its
contents will be invited. After consideration of Public comments
and upon or after promulgation of standards of performance for
control of a designated pollutant from affected facilities, a
final guideline document will be published and notice of its
availability will be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER.
(b) Guideline documents published under this section will
provide information for the development of State plans, such as:
(1) Information concerning known or suspected endangerment of
public health or welfare caused, or contributed to, by the
designated pollutant.
(2) A description of systems of emission reduction which, in
the judgment of the Administrator, have been adequately
demonstrated.
(3) Information on the degree of emission reduction which is
achievable with each system, together with information on the
costs and environmental effects of applying each system to
designated facilities.
(4) Incremental periods of time normally expected to be
necessary for the design, installation, and startup of identified
control systems.
(5) An emission guideline that reflects the application of the
best system of emission reduction (considering the cost of such
reduction) that has been adequately demonstrated for designated
facilities, and the time within which compliance with emission
standards of equivalent stringency can be achieved. The
Administrator will specify different emission guidelines or
H-2
-------
compliance times or both for different sizes, types, and classes
of designated facilities when costs of control, physical
limitations, geographical location, or similar factors make
subcategorization appropriate.
(6) Such other available information as the Administrator
determines may contribute to the formulation of State plans.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section,
the emission guidelines and compliance times referred to in
paragraph (b)(5) of this section will be proposed for comment
upon publication of the draft guideline document, and after
consideration of comments will be promulgated in Subpart C of
this part with such modifications as may be appropriate.
(d)(1) If the Administrator determines that a designated
pollutant may cause or contribute to endangerment of public
welfare, but that adverse effects on public health have not been
demonstrated, he will include the determination in the draft
guideline document and in the FEDERAL REGISTER notice of its
availability. Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section, paragraph (c) of this section shall be inapplicable in
such cases.
(2) If the Administrator determines at any time on the basis
of new information that a prior determination under paragraph
(d)(1) of this section is incorrect or no longer correct, he will
publish notice of the determination in the FEDERAL REGISTER,
revise the guideline document as necessary under paragraph (a) of
this section, and propose and promulgate emission guidelines and
compliance times under paragraph (c) of this section.
60.23 Adoption and submittal of State plans; public hearings.
(a)(1) Unless otherwise specified in the applicable subpart,
within 9 months after notice of the availability of a final
guideline document is published under section 60.22a), each State
shall adopt and submit to the Administrator, in accordance with
section 60.4 of subpart A of this part, a plan for the control of
the designated pollutant to which the guideline document applies.
(2) Within nine months after notice of the availability of a
final revised guideline document is published as provided in
section 60.22(d)(2), each State shall adopt and submit to the
Administrator any plan revision necessary to meet the
requirements of this subpart.
(b) If no designated facility is located within a State, the
State shall submit a letter of certification to that effect to
the Administrator within the time specified in paragraph (a) of
this section. Such certification shall exempt the State from the
requirements of this subpart for that designated pollutant.
(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of
this section, the State shall, prior to the adoption of any plan
or revision thereof, conduct one or more public hearings within
the State on such plan or plan revision.
(2) No hearinr 11 be required for any change to an
increment of pro in an approved compliance schedule unless
H-3
-------
the change is likely to cause the facility to be unable to comply
with the final compliance date in the schedule.
(3) No hearing shall be required on an emission standard in
effect prior to the effective date of this subpart if it was
adopted after a public hearing and is at least as stringent as
the corresponding emission guideline specified in the applicable
guideline document published under section 60.22(a).
(d) Any hearing required by paragraph (c) of this section
shall be held only after reasonable notice. Notice shall be
given at least 30 days prior to the date of such hearing and
shall include:
(1) Notification to the public by prominently advertising the
date, time, and place of such hearing in each region affected;
(2) Availability, at the time of public announcement, of each
proposed plan or revision thereof for public inspection in at
least one location in each region to which it will apply;
(3) Notification to the Administrator;
(4) Notification to each local air pollution control agency in
each region to which the plan or revision will apply; and
(5) In the case of an interstate region, notification to any
other State included in the region.
(e) The State shall prepare and retain, for a minimum of 2
years, a record of each hearing for inspection by any interested
party. The record shall contain, as a minimum, a list of
witnesses together with the text of each presentation.
(f) The State shall submit with the plan or revision:
(1) Certification that each hearing required by paragraph (c)
of this section was held in accordance with the notice required
by paragraph (d) of this section; and
(2) A list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations,
if any, appearing at the hearing and a brief written summary of
each presentation or written submission.
(g) Upon written application by a State agency (through the
appropriate Regional Office), the Administrator may approve State
procedures designed to insure public participation in the matters
for which hearings are required and public notification of the
opportunity to participate if, in the judgment of the
Administrator, the procedures, although different from the
requirements of this subpart, in fact provide for adequate notice
to and participation of the public. The Administrator may impose
such conditions on his approval as he deems necessary.
Procedures approved under this section shall be deemed to satisfy
the requirements of this subpart regarding procedures for public
hearings.
60.24 Emission standards and compliance schedules.
(a) Each plan shall include emission standards and compliance
schedules.
(b)(1) Emission standards shall prescribe allowable rates of
emissions except when it is clearly impracticable. Such cases
will be identified in the guideline documents issued under
H-4
-------
section 60.22. Where emission standards prescribing equipment
specifications are established, the plan shall, to the degree
possible, set forth the emission reductions achievable by
implementation of such specifications, and may permit compliance
by the use of equipment determined by the State to be equivalent
to that prescribed.
(2) Test methods and procedures for determining compliance
with the emission standards shall be specified in the plan.
Methods other than those specified in Appendix A to this part may
be specified in the plan if shown to be equivalent or alternative
methods as defined in section 60.2(t) and (u).
(3) Emission standards shall apply to all designated
facilities within the State. A plan may contain emission
standards adopted by local jurisdictions provided that the
standards are enforceable by the State.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, where
the Administrator has determined that a designated pollutant may
cause or contribute to endangerment of public health, emission
standards shall be no less stringent than the corresponding
emission guideline(s) specified in Subpart C of this part, and
final compliance shall be required as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than the compliance times specified in
Subpart C of this part.
(d) Where the Administrator has determined that a designated
that a designated pollutant may cause or contribute to
endangerment of public welfare but that adverse effects on public
health have not been demonstrated, States may balance the
emission guidelines, compliance times, and other information
provided in the applicable guideline document against other
factors of public concern in establishing emission standards,
compliance schedules, and variances. Appropriate consideration
shall be given to the factors specified in section 60.22(b) and
to information presented at the public hearing(s) conducted under
section 60.23(c) .
(e)(1) Any compliance schedule extending more than 12 months
from the date required for submittal of the plan shall include
legally enforceable increments of progress to achieve compliance
for each designated facility or category of facilities.
Increments of progress shall include, where practicable, each
increment of progress specified in section 60.21(h) and shall
include such additional increments of progress as may be
necessary to permit close and effective supervision of progress
toward final compliance.
(2) A plan may provide that compliance schedules for
individual sources or categories of sources will be formulated
after plan submittal. Any such schedule shall be the subject of
a public hearing held according to section 60.23 and shall be
submitted to the Administrator within 60 days after the date of
adoption of the schedule but in no case later than the date
prescribed for submittal of the first semiannual report required
by section 60.25(e).
(f) Unless otherwise specified in the applicable subpart on a
case-by-case basis for particular designated facilities or
H-5
-------
classes of facilities, States may provide for the application of
less stringent emissions standards or longer compliance schedules
than those otherwise required by paragraph (c) of this section,
provided that the State demonstrates with respect to each such
facility (or class of facilities):
(1) Unreasonable cost of control resulting from plant age,
location, or basic process design;
(2) Physical impossibility of installing necessary control
equipment; or
(3) Other factors specific to the facility (or class of
facilities) that make application of a less stringent standard or
final compliance time significantly more reasonable.
(g) Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to preclude any
State or political subdivision thereof from adopting or enforcing
(1) emission standards more stringent than emission guidelines
specified in Subpart C of this part or in applicable guideline
documents or
(2) compliance schedules requiring final compliance at earlier
times than those specified in Subpart C or in applicable
guideline documents.
60.25 Emission inventories, source surveillance, reports.
(a) Each plan shall include an inventory of all designated
facilities, including emission data for the designated pollutants
and information related to emissions as specified in Appendix D
to this part. Such data shall be summarized in the plan, and
emission rates of designated pollutants from designated
facilities shall be correlated with applicable emission
standards. As used in this subpart, "correlated" means presented
in such a manner as to show the relationship between measured or
estimated amounts of emissions and the amounts of such emissions
allowable under applicable emission standards.
(b) Each plan shall provide for monitoring the status of
compliance with applicable emission standards. Each plan shall,
as a minimum, provide for:
(1) Legally enforceable procedures for requiring owners or
operators of designated facilities to maintain records and
periodically report to the State information on the nature and
amount of emissions from such facilities, and/or such other
information as may be necessary to enable the State to determine
whether such facilities are in compliance with applicable
portions of the plan.
(2) Periodic inspection and, when applicable, testing of
designated facilities.
(c) Each plan shall provide that information obtained by the
State under paragraph (b) of this section shall be correlated
with applicable emission standards (see section 60.25(a)) and
made available to the general public.
(d) The provisions referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section shall be specifically identified. Copies of such
provisions shall be submitted with the plan unless:
H-6
-------
(1) They have been approved as portions of a preceding plan
submitted under this subpart or as portions of an implementation
plan submitted under section 110 of the Act, and
(2) The State demonstrates:
(i) That the provisions are applicable to the designated
pollutant(s) for which the plan is submitted, and
(ii) That the requirements of section 60.26 are met.
(e) The State shall submit reports on progress in plan
enforcement to the Administrator on an annual (calendar year)
basis, commencing with the first full report period after
approval of a plan or after promulgation of a plan by the
Administrator. Information required under this paragraph must be
included in the annual report required by section 51.321 of this
chapter.
(f) Each progress report shall include:
(1) Enforcement actions initiated against designated
facilities during the reporting period, under any emission
standard or compliance schedule of the plan.
(2) Identification of the achievement of any increment of
progress required by the applicable plan during the reporting
period.
(3) Identification of designated facilities that have ceased
operation during the reporting period.
(4) Submission of emission inventory data as described in
paragraph (a) of this section for designated facilities that were
not in operation at the time of plan development but began
operation during the reporting period.
(5) Submission of additional data as necessary to update the
information submitted under paragraph (a) of this section or in
previous progress reports.
(6) Submission of copies of technical reports on all
performance testing on designated facilities conducted under
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, complete with concurrently
recorded process data.
60.26 Legal authority.
(a) Each plan shall show that the State has legal authority to
carry out the plan, including authority to:
(1) Adopt emission standards and compliance schedules
applicable to designated facilities.
(2) Enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards, and
compliance schedules, and seek injunctive relief.
(3) Obtain information necessary to determine whether
designated facilities are in compliance with applicable laws,
regulations, standards, and compliance schedules, including
authority to require recordkeeping and to make inspections and
conduct tests of designated facilities.
(4) Require owners or operators of designated facilities to
install, maintain, and use emission monitoring devices and to
make periodic reports to the State on the nature and amounts of
emissions from such facilities; also authority for the State to
H-7
-------
make such data available to the public as reported and as
correlated with applicable emission standards.
(b) The provisions of law or regulations which the State
determines provide the authorities required by this section shall
be specifically identified. Copies of such laws or regulations
shall be submitted with the plan unless:
(1) They have been approved as portions of a preceding plan
submitted under this subpart or as portions of an implementation
plan submitted under section 110 of the Act, and
(2) The State demonstrates that the laws or regulations are
applicable to the designated pollutant(s) for which the plan is
submitted.
(c) The plan shall show that the legal authorities specified
in this section are available to the State at the time of
submission of the plan. Legal authority adequate to meet the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section may be
delegated to the State under section 114 of the Act.
(d) A State governmental agency other than the State air
pollution control agency may be assigned responsibility for
carrying out a portion of a plan if the plan demonstrates to the
Administrator's satisfaction that the State governmental agency
has the legal authority necessary to carry out that portion of
the plan.
(e) The State may authorize a local agency to carry out a
plan, or portion thereof, within the local agency's jurisdiction
if the plan demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction that
the local agency has the legal authority necessary to implement
the plan or portion thereof, and that the authorization does not
relieve the State of responsibility under the Act for carrying
out the plan or portion thereof.
60.27 Actions by the Administrator.
(a) The Administrator may, whenever he determines necessary,
extend the period for submission of any plan or plan revision or
portion thereof.
(b) After receipt of a plan or plan revision, the
Administrator will propose the plan or revision for approval or
disapproval. The Administrator will, within four months after
the date required for submission of a plan or plan revision,
approve or disapprove such plan or revision or each portion
thereof.
(c) The Administrator will, after consideration of any State
hearing record, promptly prepare and publish proposed regulations
setting forth a plan, or portion thereof, for a State if:
(1) The State fails to submit a plan within the time
prescribed;
(2) The State fails to submit a plan revision required by
section 60.23(a)(2) within the time prescribed; or
(3) The Administrator disapproves the State plan or plan
revision or any portion thereof, as unsatisfactory because the
requirements of this subpart have not been met.
H-8
-------
(d) The Administrator will, within six months after the date
required for submission of a plan or plan revision, promulgate
the regulations proposed under paragraph (c) of this section with
such modifications as may be appropriate unless, prior to such
promulgation, the State has adopted and submitted a plan or plan
revision which the Administrator determines to be approvable.
(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section,
regulations proposed and promulgated by the Administrator under
this section will prescribe emission standards of the same
stringency as the corresponding emission guideline(s) specified
in the final guideline document published under section 60.22(a)
and will require final compliance with such standards as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than the times
specified in the guideline document.
(2) Upon application by the owner or operator of a designated
facility to which regulations proposed and promulgated under this
section will apply, the Administrator may provide for the
application of less stringent emission standards or longer
compliance schedules than those otherwise required by this
section in accordance with the criteria specified in section
60.24(f).
(f) If a State failed to hold a public hearing as required by
section 60.23(c), the Administrator will provide opportunity for
a hearing within the State prior to promulgation of a plan under
paragraph (d) of this section.
60.28 Plan revisions by the State.
(a) Plan revisions which have the effect of delaying
compliance with applicable emission standards or increments of
progress or of establishing less stringent emission standards
shall be submitted to the Administrator within 60 days after
adoption in accordance with the procedures and requirements
applicable to development and submission of the original plan.
(b) More stringent emission standards, or orders which have
the effect of accelerating compliance, may be submitted to the
Administrator as plan revisions in accordance with the procedures
and requirements applicable to development and submission of the
original plan.
(c) A revision of a plan, or any portion thereof, shall not be
considered part of an applicable plan until approved by the
Administrator in accordance with this subpart.
60.29 Plan revisions by the Administrator.
After notice and opportunity for public hearing in each
affected State, the Administrator may revise any provision of an
applicable plan if:
(a) The provision was promulgated by the Administrator, and
_ (b) The plan, as revised, will be consistent with the Act and
with the requirements of this subpart.
H-9
-------
APPENDIX I
EMISSION GUIDELINES (SUBPART Cc) AND NEW SOURCE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (SUBPART WWW), AMENDMENTS
TO SUBPARTS Cc AND WWW AND APPENDIX A - REFERENCE
METHODS (METHOD 2E, METHOD 3C, AND METHOD 25C)
II Subparts Cc and WWW of 40 CFR Part 60 can be found as published in the Federal
Register on March 12, 1996 (61 FR 9905) or on the internet at
http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/1996/March
12 Amendments to Subparts Cc and WWW appeared as a direct final notice in the Federal
Register on June 16, 1998 (63 FR 32743) and can also be found on the internet at
http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/1998/June
K\01(X,\(X)I\(KI2\VOLUME 2\APPEND1X I
-------
APPENDIX II
Subparts Cc and WWW of 40 CFR Part 60 can be found as published in the Federal
Register on March 12, 1996 (61 FR 9905) or on the internet at
http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/1996/March
K \0106\(Xm2\VOLUME 2\APPEND1X.I
-------
FederaJ Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
9905
§ 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of
the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and
33 U.S.C. 1605.
TABLE FIVE
Masthead
lights not
over all
other
Vessel No. lights and
obstruc-
tions.
annex I,
sec. 2(f)
Forward
masthead
light not
in forward
quarter of
ship.
annex I,
sec. 3(a)
After
masthead
light less
than V2
ship's
length aft
of for-
ward
masthead
light.
annex I,
sec. 3(a)
Percentage
horizontal
separation
attained
USS PAUL HAMILTON DDG 60
20.4
Dated: February 25. 1996.
R. R. Pixa,
Captain, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant
Judge Advocate General (Admiralty).
[FR Doc. 96-5837 Filed 3-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 51, 52, and 60
[AD-FRL-5437-8]
RIN 2060-AC42
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Guidelines for
Control of Existing Sources: Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule and guideline.
SUMMARY: This action adds subparts
WWW and Cc to 40 CFR part 60 by
promulgating standards of performance
for new municipal solid waste landfills
and emission guidelines for existing
municipal solid waste landfills. This
action also adds the source category
"municipal solid waste landfills" to the
priority list in 40 CFR Part 60, § 60.16,
for regulation under section 111 of the
Clean Air Act. These standards and
emission guidelines implement section
111 of the Clean Air Act and are based
on the Administrator's determination
that municipal solid waste landfills
cause, or contribute significantly to, air
pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. The emissions of concern are
non-methane organic compounds
(NMOC) and methane. NMOC include
volatile organic compounds (VOC),
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), and
odorous compounds. VOC emissions
contribute to ozone formation which
can result in adverse effects to human
health and vegetation. Ozone can
penetrate into different regions of the
respiratory tract and be absorbed
through the respiratory system. The
health effects of exposure to HAPs can
include cancer, respiratory irritation,
and damage to the nervous system.
Methane emissions contribute to global
climate change and can result in fires or
explosions when they accumulate in
structures on or off the landfill site. The
intended effect of the standards and
guidelines is to require certain
municipal solid waste landfills to
control emissions to the level achievable
by the best demonstrated system of
continuous emission reduction,
considering costs, nonair quality health,
and environmental and energy impacts.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective on March 12,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Background Information
Document. The background information
document for the promulgated
standards may be obtained from the U.S.
EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to
"Air Emissions from Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills—Background
Information for Final Standards and
Emission Guidelines," EPA-453/R-94-
021. The Background Information
Document contains: (1) A summary of
all the public comments made on the
proposed standards and the Notice of
Data Availability as well as the
Administrator's response to these
comments, (2) a summary of the changes
made to the standards since proposal,
and (3) the final Environmental Impact
Statement, which summarizes the
impacts of the standards.
Docket. Docket No. A-88-09,
containing supporting information used
in developing the promulgated
standards, is available for public
inspection and copying between 8:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except for Federal holidays at
the following address: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air
and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (MC-6102), 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460 [phone: (202)
260-7548]. The docket is located at the
above address in Room M-1500,
Waterside Mall (ground floor). A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information on the regulation of
municipal solid waste landfills, contact
Ms. Martha Smith, Waste and Chemical
Processes Group, Emission Standards
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-2421.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(l) of the Clean
Air Act, judicial review of the actions
taken by this notice is available only by
the filing of a petition for review in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit within 60 days of
today's publication of this rule. Under
section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act,
the requirements that are the subject of
today's notice may not be challenged
-------
9906
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought by the EPA to enforce these
requirements.
The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in the
introductory text (preamble) to the final
standards.
I. Acronyms, Abbreviations, and
Measurement Units
A. Acronyms
B. Abbreviations and Measurement Units
C. Conversion Factors and Commonly Used
Units
II. Background
HI. Summary of Considerations in
Developing the Standards and Emission
Guidelines
A. Purpose of the Regulation
B. Technical Basis of the Regulation
C. Stakeholders and Public Involvement
IV. Summary of the Standards, Emission
Guidelines, and Methods
V. Impacts of the Standards and Emission
Guidelines
A. Environmental Impacts
B. Cost and Economic Impacts
VI. Significant Changes to the Proposed
Standards and Emission Guidelines
A. Design Capacity Exemption
B. Emission Rate Cutoff
C. Collection System Design Specifications
D. Timing for Well Placement
E. Operational Standards
F. Surface Emission Monitoring
G. Model Default Values
VII. Permitting
A. New Source Review Permits
B. Operating Permits
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Executive Order 12866
D. Executive Order 12875
E. Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
G. Miscellaneous
I. Acronyms, Abbreviations, and
Measurement Units
The following definitions, acronyms,
and measurement units are provided to
clarify the preamble to the final rule.
A. Acronyms
BDT—best demonstrated technology
BID—background information
document
CAA—Clean Air Act
CERCLA—Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
EG—emission guideline (s)
EPA—Environmental Protection Agency
FR—Federal Register
HAP—hazardous air pollutant
LFG—landfill gas
MSW—municipal solid waste
NMOC—nonmethane organic
compounds
NPV—net present value
NSPS—new source performance
standards
NSR—new source review
OMB—Office of Management and
Budget
PSD—prevention of significant
deterioration
RCRA—Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
VOC—volatile organic compound(s)
B. Abbreviations and Measurement
Units
J/scm—joules per standard cubic meter
m—meter
Mg—megagram
mm—millimeter
ppm—parts per million
ppmv—parts per million by volume
tpy—tons per year
yr—year
C. Conversion Factors and Commonly
Used Units
1 meter = 3.2808 feet
1 megagram = 1.1023 tons = 2204.6
pounds
1 cubic meter = 35.288 cubic feet =
1.3069 cubic yards
1 cubic meter = 0.0008101 acre-feet
Degrees Celsius = (degrees Fahrenheit -
32)/1.8
II. Background
The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) originally
considered regulating MSW landfill
emissions under a RCRA subtitle D
rulemaking. However, the Administrator
decided to regulate MSW landfill
emissions under the authority of the
CAA, and announced the decision in
the Federal Register on August 30, 1988
(53 FR 33314). The EPA decided to
propose regulation of new MSW
landfills under section 111 (b) of the
CAA and to propose EG for existing
MSW landfills under section 111 (d).
The EPA published a proposal of this
NSPS and EG in the Federal Register on
May 30, 1991 (56 FR 24468).
Following the receipt of new data and
changes in the modeling techniques, the
EPA published a Notice of Data
Availability in the Federal Register on
June 21, 1993 (56 FR 33790).
Under the authority of section
11 l(b)(l)(A) of the CAA, today's notice
adds the source category MSW landfills
to the priority list in 40 CFR 60.16
because, in the judgement of the
Administrator, it contributes
significantly to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health and welfare. Further
rationale for this finding is contained in
section 1.1.1 of the promulgation BID
(EPA-453/R-94-021).
Today's notice promulgates the final
NSPS and EG for MSW landfills. The
promulgation BID "Air Emissions from
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills—
Background Information for Final
Standards and Guidelines" (EPA 453/R-
94-021) summarizes all public
comments on the proposed NSPS and
EG and the EPA responses. For further
discussion of stakeholder and public
involvement in the development of the
rules see section III.C. of this preamble.
Recent information suggests that
mercury might be emitted from
landfills. The EPA is still looking at the
possibility and will take action as
appropriate in the future under the
landfill national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants.
III. Summary of Considerations in
Developing the Standards and Emission
Guidelines
A. Purpose of the Regulation
Landfill gas emissions contain
methane, carbon dioxide, and more than
100 different NMOC, such as vinyl
chloride, toluene, and benzene. Studies
indicate that MSW landfill gas
emissions can at certain levels have
adverse effects on both public health
and welfare. The EPA presented
concerns with the health and welfare
effects of landfill gases in the preamble
to the proposed regulations (56 FR
24468).
Briefly, specific health and welfare
effects from LFG emissions are as
follows: NMOC contribute to ozone
formation; some NMOC are known or
suspected carcinogens, or cause other
noncancer health effects; NMOC can
cause an odor nuisance; methane
emissions present a well-documented
danger of fire and explosion on-site and
off-site, and contribute to global climate
change as a major greenhouse gas.
Today's rules will serve to significantly
reduce these potential problems
associated with LFG emissions.
B, Technical Basis of the Regulation
Today's regulations are based on
extensive data analysis and
consideration of several alternatives.
Prior to proposal, the EPA developed an
extensive data base, using survey
information from approximately 1,200
landfills, along with emissions
information from literature, State and
local agencies, and industry test reports.
The preamble to the proposed
regulations presented a detailed
discussion of the data used to develop
the rule and the regulatory alternatives
considered (56 FR 24476).
After proposal, the EPA continued to
gather new information and received
new data through public comments. The
EPA published this new information in
a Notice of Data Availability on June 21,
1993 (56 FR 33790). In addition to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 9907
public comments, the EPA held
consultations with industry under the
authority of Executive Order 12875 (See
section VIII of this document for a
detailed discussion of the Executive
Order).
Based on the new information, the
EPA re-assessed the impacts of the
alternatives and made changes to the
final regulation. The most significant
changes to the regulation are
summarized in section VI of this
preamble. Detailed rationales for these
changes as well as more minor changes
are provided in the final BID (EPA 453/
R-94-021).
In keeping with the EPA's common
sense initiative, several of the changes
were made to streamline the rule and to
provide flexibility. Examples of this
streamlining and increased flexibility
include focusing control on the largest
landfills, removing the gas collection
system prescriptive design
specifications, and more reasonable
timing for the installation of collection
wells. All of these changes are discussed
further in section VI of this preamble.
C. Stakeholders and Public Involvement
Prior to proposal, in accordance with
section 117 of the CAA, the EPA had
consultations with appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts,
Federal departments and agencies. In
addition, numerous discussions were
held with industry representatives and
trade associations.
After proposal, the EPA provided
interested persons the opportunity to
comment at a public hearing and
through a written comment period.
Comment letters were received from 60
commenters including industry
representatives, governmental entities,
environmental groups, and private
citizens. A public hearing was held in
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
on July 2, 1991. This hearing was open
to the public and five persons presented
oral testimony on the proposed NSPS
and EG.
On June 21, 1993, a supplemental
notice of data availability to the May 30,
1991 proposal appeared in the Federal
Register (58 FR 33790). The notice
announced the availability of additional
data and information on changes in the
EPA's modelling methodology being
used in the development of the final
NSPS and EG for MSW landfills. Public
comments were requested on the new
data and comment letters were received
from seven commenters.
Since the Notice of Data Availability,
the EPA has held several consultations
with State, local, and industry
representatives in accordance with the
October 26, 1993 Executive Order 12875
on Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership.
Major concerns expressed by
participants in the consultations were
identified by the EPA. These concerns
included: the design capacity exemption
level, collection system design and
monitoring flexibility, and timing of
well placement. These concerns and
others raised at proposal and clarified in
the consultations were addressed by
revising the rule as described in section
VI of this preamble.
IV. Summary of the Standards,
Emission Guidelines, and Methods
The affected facility under the NSPS
is each new MSW landfill. MSW
landfills are also subject to the
requirements of RCRA (40 CFR 257 and
258). A new MSW landfill is a landfill
for which construction, modification, or
reconstruction commences on or after
the proposal date of May 30, 1991 or
that began accepting waste on or after
that date.
The EG require control for certain
existing MSW landfills. An existing
MSW landfill is a landfill for which
construction commenced prior to May
30, 1991. An existing MSW landfill may
be active, i.e., currently accepting waste,
or have additional capacity available to
accept waste, or may be closed, i.e., no
longer accepting waste nor having
available capacity for future waste
deposition. The designated facility
under the EG is each existing MSW
landfill that has accepted waste since
November 8, 1987.
The final rules (both the NSPS and
EG) require affected and designated
MSW landfills having design capacities
below 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million
cubic meters to file a design capacity
report. Affected and designated MSW
landfills having design capacities
greater than or equal to 2.5 million Mg
or 2.5 million cubic meters are subject
to the additional provisions of the
standards or EG.
The final standards and EG for MSW
landfill emissions require the periodic
calculation of the annual NMOC
emission rate at each affected or
designated facility with a maximum
design capacity greater than or equal to
2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million cubic
meters. Those that emit more than 50
Mg/yr are required to install controls.
The final rules provide a tier system
for calculating whether the NMOC
emission rate is less than or greater than
50 Mg/yr, using a first order
decomposition rate equation. The tier
system does not need to be used to
model the emission rate if an owner or
operator has or intends to install
controls that would achieve compliance.
Chapter 1 of the promulgation BID (EPA
453/R-94-021) presents a complete
discussion of the components of the tier
system.
The BDT for both the NSPS and the
EG requires the reduction of MSW
landfill emissions from new and
existing MSW landfills emitting 50 Mg/
yr of NMOC or more with: (1) A well-
designed and well-operated gas
collection system and (2) a control
device capable of reducing NMOC in the
collected gas by 98 weight-percent.
A well-designed and well-operated
collection system would, at a minimum:
(1) Be capable of handling the maximum
expected gas generation rate; (2) have a
design capable of monitoring and
adjusting the operation of the system;
and (3) be able to collect gas effectively
from all areas of the landfill that warrant
control. Over time, new areas of the
landfill will require control, so
collection systems should be designed
to allow expansion by the addition of
further collection system components to
collect gas, or separate collections
systems will need to be installed as the
new areas require control.
The BDT control device is a
combustion device capable of reducing
NMOC emissions by 98 weight-percent.
While energy recovery is strongly
recommended, the cost analysis is based
on open flares because they are
applicable to all affected and designated
facilities regulated by the standards and
EG. If an owner or operator uses an
enclosed combustor, the device must
demonstrate either 98-percent NMOC
reduction or an outlet NMOC
concentration of 20 ppmv or less.
Alternatively, the collected gas may be
treated for subsequent sale or use,
provided that all emissions from any
atmospheric vent from the treatment
system are routed to a control device
meeting either specification above.
The standards and EG require that
three conditions be met prior to capping
or removal of the collection and control
system: (1) The landfill must be
permanently closed under the
requirements of 40 CFR 258.60; (2) the
collection and control system must have
been in continuous operation a
minimum of 15 years; and (3) the
annual NMOC emission rate routed to
the control device must be less than the
emission rate cutoff on three successive
dates, between 90 and 180 days apart,
based upon the site-specific landfill gas
flow rate and average NMOC
concentration.
Section VI.E. of this preamble
describes a new section of the NSPS,
§60.753, "Operational Standards for
Collection and Control Systems." The
EG also refer to this section. The
-------
9908
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
provisions in this section include: (1)
Collection of gas from each area, cell or
group of cells in which non-asbestos
degradable solid waste has been placed
for a period of 5 years or more for active
areas or 2 years or more for closed areas;
(2) operation of the collection system
with each wellhead under negative
pressure, with a nitrogen level less than
or equal to 20 percent (revised from 1
percent in the proposal, based on public
comments) or an oxygen level less than
or equal to 5 percent (a new provision);
(3) operation with a landfill gas
temperature less than 55 °C (a new
provision) at each well transporting the
collected gases to a treatment or control
device designed and operated in
compliance with § 60.752(b)(2)(iii) of
the NSPS and operated at all times
when the collected gas is vented to it;
and (4) a requirement that the collection
system be operated to limit the surface
methane concentration to 500 ppm or
less over the landfill as determined
according to a specified monitoring
pattern.
Owners and operators must determine
compliance with the standards for the
collection systems and control devices
according to §60.755. Changes made to
the final compliance determination and
monitoring procedures as a result of
comments are discussed in detail in the
BID (EPA 453/R-94-021). The §§60.757
and 60.758 of the NSPS and § 60.35(c)
of the EG contain recordkeeping and
reporting requirements. Changes have
been made to the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements to allow for
consistency with the final compliance
requirements.
V. Impacts of the Standards and
Emission Guidelines
A. Environmental Impacts of
Promulgated Action
The estimated environmental impacts
have changed somewhat from those
presented in the preamble to the
proposed regulations as a result of
changes in the final rules and changes
in the estimation methodology. These
changes were made in response to
public comments. Additional data were
also incorporated and are described in
the supplemental Notice of Data
Availability (56 FR 33790). The analysis
of environmental impacts presented in
this document, along with the proposal
and promulgation BID's, and
memoranda in the docket constitute the
Environmental Impact Statement for the
final standards and guidelines.
For most NSPS, emission reductions
and costs are expressed in annual terms.
In the case of the NSPS and EG for
landfills, the final regulations require
controls at a given landfill only after the
increasing NMOC emission rate reaches
the level of the regulatory cutoff. The
controls are applied when the emissions
exceed the threshold, and they must
remain in place until the emissions drop
below the cutoff. However, this process
could take as long as 50 to 100 hundred
years for some landfills. During the
control period, costs and emission
reductions will vary from year to year.
Therefore, the annualized numbers for
any impact will change from year to
year. Because of the variability of
emission reductions and costs of the
final standards and EG over time, the
EPA judged that the NPV of an impact
is a more valuable tool in the decision
process for landfills and has used NPV
in the development of both the proposal
and final nationwide impacts. The NPV
is computed by discounting the capital
and operating costs and emission
reductions that will be incurred
throughout the control periods to arrive
at a measure of their current value. In
this way, the NPV accounts for the
unique emission patterns of landfills
when evaluating nationwide costs and
benefits over different discrete time
periods for individual sources. Thus,
the impacts presented include both
annualized estimates and estimates
expressed in terms of NPV in 1992.
1. Air Emissions
The methodology for estimating the
impacts of the NSPS and EG is
discussed in the proposal BID and in
memoranda in the docket. The analysis
of impacts for the NSPS is based on new
landfills (beginning construction after
May 30, 1991) that are projected to
begin accepting waste over the first 5
years of the standards. The NPV of the
emission reduction achieved by the
final standards is estimated to be 79,300
Mg, which reflects a 50 percent
reduction from the NPV of the baseline
emissions of 160,000 Mg. Substantial
reduction of methane emissions is also
achieved. Table 1 presents the emission
reductions of the final NSPS in
annualized values as well as NPV.
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTION AND COST IMPACTS FOR THE NSPS
Baseline NMOC Emissions a (Mg) ... .
NMOC Emission Reductions (Mg) ..
% NMOC Emission Reduction
Methane Emission Reduction b (Mg)
% Methane Emission Reduction ••
Cost (Million $)
NPV
160,000
79,300
50%
10,600,000
3,890,000
37%
97
Annualized
13,400
4,860
36%
899,000
193,000
21%
4
•In the absence of an NSPS. This does not include landfills closed prior to November 8, 1987.
*>This does not enclude landfills expected to undertake profitable energy recovery.
For existing landfills, the NPV of the
NMOC emission reduction achieved by
the final EG is estimated to be 1.1
million Mg, or a 53 percent reduction
from a baseline of 2.07 million Mg
(NPV). The NPV of the methane
reduction is estimated to be 47 million
Mg. Table 2 presents the emission
reductions of the final EG in annualized
values as well as NPV. Note that the
baseline methane emissions do not
include landfills closed prior to
November 8, 1987, and that methane
reductions shown in Tables 1 and 2 do
not include landfills expected to
undertake profitable energy recovery.
Total methane reductions are
anticipated to be on the order of 7
million megagrams in the year 2000.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
9909
TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTION AND COST IMPACTS FOR THE EMISSION GUIDELINES
Baseline NMOC Emissions' (Mg)
NMOC Emission Reductions (Mg)
% NMOC Emission Reduction
Baseline Methane Emissions'" (Mg)
Methane Emission Reduction (Mg)
% Methane Emission Reduction
Cost (Million $)
NPV
2,070 000
1 1 00 000
53%
120000000
47 000 000
39%
1 278
Annualized
145 000
77 600
54%
8 440 000
3 370 000
40%
90
aln the absence of EG. This does not include landfills closed prior to November 8, 1987.
bThis does not enclude landfills expected to undertake profitable energy recovery.
As existing landfills are filled, closed,
and replaced by new landfills, the
actual annual emissions reductions
achieved by the guidelines will
decrease, while the reductions achieved
by the standards will increase.
Certain by-product emissions, such as
NOx, CO, SOx, and particulates, may be
generated by the combustion devices
used to reduce air emissions from MSW
landfills. The types and quantities of
these by-product emissions vary
depending on the control device.
However, by-product emissions are very
low compared to the achievable NMOC
and methane emission reductions.
Chapters 4 and 6 of the proposal BID
(EPA-450/3-90-011a) present
additional information about the
magnitude of potential secondary air
impacts.
2. Water
Landfill leachate is the primary
potential source of water pollution from
a landfill. Although there is no data on
the effect of gas collection on leachate
composition, the amount of water
pollution present as NMOC in the
leachate may be reduced under these
standards and guidelines.
When LFG is collected, organics and
water are condensed inside the header
pipes of the gas collection system. This
waste also contains NMOC and various
toxic substances present in the LFG. The
pH of this condensate is normally
adjusted by adding caustic at the
landfill and then routing it to a public
treatment works where it would be
treated and discharged. At this time,
there is insufficient data available to
quantify the effects of the rule on
leachate.
3. Solid Waste
The final NSPS and EG will likely
have little impact on the quantity of
solid waste generated nationwide. Aside
from the disposal of the collection and
control system equipment once it can be
removed from the landfill, no other
solid wastes are expected to be
generated by the required controls. The
increased cost of landfill operation
resulting from the control requirements
may cause greater use of waste recycling
and other alternatives to landfill
disposal, leading to a decrease in
landfill use. However, quantification of
such an impact is not possible at this
time.
4. Superfund Sites
Municipal solid waste landfill sites
comprise approximately 20 percent of
the sites placed by the EPA on the
national priorities list. Often, remedial
actions selected at these sites include
venting methane and volatile organic
contaminants, which would be
controlled as necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
The final NSPS and EG may affect
remedial actions under Superfund for
MSW landfills. Section 121 (d) (2) of
CERCLA requires compliance with the
substantive standards of applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARAR) of certain provisions in other
environmental laws when selecting and
implementing on-site remedial actions.
"Applicable" requirements specifically
address a hazardous substance,
pollutant, contaminant, remedial action,
location, or other circumstance at a
Superfund site. "Relevant and
appropriate" requirements are not
legally applicable, but may address
problems or situations sufficiently
similar to those encountered so that
their use is well suited to a particular
site. See 40 CFR 300.5 (55 FR 8814,
8817, March 8, 1990).
These air emission rules will apply to
new MSW landfills, as well as to those
facilities that have accepted waste since
November 8, 1987, or that have capacity
available for future use. For CERCLA
municipal landfill remediations, these
requirements would be potential ARAR
for all Records of Decision signed after
the date of promulgation. These NSPS
and EG will be applicable for those
MSW landfill sites on the national
priorities list that accepted waste on or
after November 8, 1987, or that are
operating and have capacity for future
use. These standards may also be
determined relevant and appropriate for
sites that accepted wastes prior to
November 8, 1987. The determination of
relevance and appropriateness is made
on a site-specific basis pursuant to 40
CFR 300.400(g) (55 FR 8841, March 8,
1990). Because the NSPS and EG apply
only to landfills with design capacities
greater than or equal to 2.5 million Mg
or 2.5 million cubic meters, the
collection and control requirements may
not be relevant and appropriate for
smaller landfills.
Given the significant public policy
benefits that result from the collection
and processing of landfill gas, Congress,
as part of the 1986 SARA Amendments,
enacted CERCLA Section 124 to provide
broad liability protection for companies
engaged in landfill gas recovery or
processing. Landfill gas emissions, in
addition to being a significant source of
air pollution, can leach underground
and cause explosions in nearby
residences. If recovered, landfill gas
could supply as much as 1 percent of
the U.S. energy requirements.
CERCLA Section 124 states that
owners or operators of equipment
installed "for the recovery or processing
(including recirculation of condensate)
of methane" shall not be liable as a
CERCLA "owner or operator" under
CERCLA Section 101 (20) nor shall they
be deemed "to have arranged for
disposal or treatment of any hazardous
substance* * *" pursuant to CERCLA
Section 107. Exceptions are provided (1)
where a release is primarily caused by
activities of the landfill gas owner/
operator or (2) where such owner/
operator would be otherwise liable due
to activities unrelated to methane
recovery.
Since passage of CERCLA section 124,
methane emissions have been targeted
by the EPA as a large contributor to
global warming (18 percent) and
landfills are one of the largest source of
methane emissions (36 percent).
Because of this, the EPA's Atmospheric
Pollution Prevention Division has
initiated the Landfill Methane Outreach
Program to promote landfill gas
-------
9910 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
collection projects at the 750 landfills
where methane could profitably be
recovered. Methane recovery, as
compared with collection and flaring of
landfill gas without recovery, results in
significantly less emissions. It also can
greatly reduce the financial burden on
local governments (as well as taxpayers)
since the energy recovered can be sold
to utilities or other consumers and
thereby create a revenue stream that
may cover the costs of collection and
recovery.
The EPA is aware that the standards
and guidelines promulgated today for
control of emissions at municipal solid
waste landfills may change the focus of
the landfill gas collection and
processing for methane recovery. The
landfill gas owner/operator will now
need to consider how the collection and
recovery of methane will impact on
controlling the MSW landfill emissions.
It is also likely that the landfill gas
owner/operator will be asked to advise
and in some cases help implement the
MSW landfill's compliance obligations.
These related objectives, the control of
emissions at municipal solid waste
landfills in order to comply with the
Clean Air Act Amendments and the
reduction of methane emissions in order
to mitigate global warming, will need to
be coordinated in carrying out common
activities such as laying a system of
collection piping at a given landfill.
In promulgating today's standards and
guidelines, the EPA wants to promote
the policy incorporated in CERCLA
Section 124. Recognizing the chilling
effect that potential CERCLA liability
might otherwise have on landfill gas
collection or processing activities, the
EPA interprets CERCLA Section 124 in
a manner that will encourage the
beneficial recovery of methane.
Specifically, EPA believes that Congress
intended Section 124 to provide liability
protection to owners and operators of
equipment for the recovery or
processing of methane with respect to
all phases involved in landfill gas
collection and methane processing. This
includes any assistance (related to
recovery or processing of methane)
provided by the landfill gas equipment
owner or operator to the landfill owner/
operator for achieving compliance with
the emission standards promulgated
today or similar Federal, State, or local
controls on landfill emissions. In
general, Section 124 will be interpreted
in a manner to provide owners and
operators of equipment for the recovery
or processing of methane with
comprehensive protection from
CERCLA liability, unless the release or
threatened release was primarily caused
by activities of the owners and operators
of the equipment, or unless such owners
or operators would be otherwise liable
under CERCLA.
B. Energy and Economic Impacts of
Promulgated Action
The energy and economic impacts are
summarized in chapter 1 and fully
discussed in chapter 3 and appendix A
of the promulgation BID (EPA-453/R-
94-021). The estimated impacts have
changed somewhat as a result of
changes in the final rules and changes
in the impacts estimation methodology
made in response to public comments.
1. Energy Impacts
Affected and designated landfills with
NMOC emission rates of 50 Mg/yr or
more are required to install a gas
collection system and control device.
The gas collection system would require
a relatively small amount of energy to
run the blowers and the pumps. If a
flare is used for control, auxiliary fuel
should not be necessary because of the
high heat content of LFG, commonly
1.86 x 10 7 J/scm or more. If a recovery
device such as an internal combustion
(I.C.) engine or a gas turbine is used, an
energy savings would result.
The EPA evaluated the overall energy
impacts resulting from the use of flares,
I.C. engines, or gas turbines for control
of collected emissions at all affected
landfills. The least cost control option
was identified by taking the NPV costs
of the three control options (flares, I.C.
engines, and turbines), including any
cost savings from the use of recovered
landfill gas, and determining the option
that costs the least. If landfills use the
least cost control device, it is estimated
that the NSPS will produce $170
million of energy revenue as NPV in
1992. The EG are estimated to generated
$1.5 billion of energy revenue as NPV in
1992, if the least cost control device is
used.
2. Control Costs and Economic Impacts
Nationwide annualized costs for
collection and control of air emissions
from new MSW landfills are estimated
to be $4 million. The nationwide cost of
the EG would be approximately $90
million. These values are annualized
costs. Tables 1 and 2 present costs in
both annualized and NPV values. In
comparison to other solid waste-related
rules, the nationwide costs of the
recently promulgated RCRA Subtitle D
(40 CFR 257 and 258) rule are estimated
to be $300 million per year and the
estimated nationwide costs of the MWC
rules promulgated in 1991 are estimated
to be $ 170 million per year for new
combustors and $302 million per year
for existing combustors (56 FR 5488 and
5514).
The incremental costs and benefits of
the different options are presented in
tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 in section VIII.E. For
NMOC, the average cost effectiveness is
approximately $l,200/Mg for both the
NSPS and the EG. Preliminary economic
analysis indicates that the annual cost of
waste disposal may increase by an
average of approximately $0.60 per Mg
for the NSPS and $1.30 per Mg for the
EG. Costs per household would increase
approximately $2.50 to $5.00 per year,
when the household is served by a new
or existing landfill, respectively.
Additionally, less than 10 percent of the
households would face annual increases
of $ 15 or more per household as a result
of the final EG. However, the EPA
anticipates that many landfills will elect
to use energy recovery systems, and
costs per household for those areas
would be less. The EPA has concluded
that households would not incur severe
economic impacts. For additional
information, please refer to the
regulatory impact analysis (Docket No.
A-88-09, Item No. IV-A-7) and chapter
3 of the promulgation BID (EPA-453/R-
94-021).
VI. Significant Changes to the Proposed
Standards and Emission Guidelines
All of the significant public comments
received on the proposed standards and
EG and the Notice of Data Availability
are addressed in the promulgation BID
(EPA-453/R-94-021). This section of
the preamble reviews the major changes
to the standards and EG resulting from
public comments. A more detailed
rationale for these changes is provided
in chapters 1 and 2 of the promulgation
BID (EPA-453/R-94-021).
A. Design Capacity Exemption
A design capacity exemption of
100,000 Mg was included in the
proposed NSPS and EG to relieve
owners and operators of small landfills
that the EPA considered unlikely to
emit NMOC above the emission rate
cutoff requiring control from undue
recordkeeping and reporting
responsibilities. Commenters indicated
that the exemption level was too low,
and would still impact many small
businesses and municipalities. In
response to these comments and as a
result of changes to the nationwide
impacts analysis, the design capacity
exemption in the final NSPS was
revised to 2.5 million Mg. The 2.5
million Mg exemption level would
exempt 90 percent of the existing
landfills while only losing 15 percent of
the total NMOC emission reduction.
Most of the exempt landfills are owned
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 9911
by municipalities. The 2.5 million Mg
level was chosen to relieve as many
small businesses and municipalities as
possible from the regulatory
requirements while still maintaining
significant emission reduction.
This cutoff excludes those landfills
who would be least able to afford the
costs of a landfill gas collection and
control system and are less likely to
have successful energy recovery
projects. However, depending on site-
specific factors including landfill gas
characteristics and local markets, some
landfills smaller than the design
capacity exemption level may be able to
make a profit by installing collection
and control systems that recover energy.
While the rule does not require control
of landfills smaller than 2.5 million Mg,
the EPA encourages energy recovery in
cases where it is profitable. The EPA has
developed a Landfill Methane Outreach
Program to encourage more widespread
utilization of landfill gas as an energy
source. Information can be obtained by
calling the Landfill Methane Outreach
Program Hotline at (202) 233-9042.
Available publications are identified in
section 1.2.1 of the promulgation BID.
Since some landfills record waste by
volume and have their design capacities
calculated in volume, the EPA also
established an equivalent design
capacity exemption of 2.5 million m3 of
waste. The density of solid waste within
different landfills varies depending on
several factors, including the
compaction practices. Any landfill that
reports waste by volume and wishes to
establish a mass design capacity must
document the basis for their density
calculation.
B. Emission Rate Cutoff
Some commenters asserted that the
proposed emission rate cutoff of 150
Mg/yr should be made more stringent,
while others favored the proposal cutoff
or higher. The commenters favoring the
more stringent level indicated that the
EPA's data on NMOC concentration, the
benefits of energy recovery and reduced
global warming, and the reduced health
risks all supported an increased
stringency level.
The Climate Change Action Plan,
signed by the President in October,
1993, calls for EPA to promulgate a
"tough" landfill gas rule as soon as
possible. This initiative also supports a
more stringent emission rate cutoff that
will achieve greater emission reduction.
Due to the small-size exemption, only
landfills with design capacities greater
than 2.5 million Mg of waste or 2.5
million cubic meters of waste will be
affected by this rule. It is estimated that
a landfill of 2.5 million Mg design
capacity corresponds to cities greater
than about 125,000 people. On the
whole, large landfills service areas with
large population. A reasonable
assumption is that many of these large
landfills are in the 400 counties that
have been designated as urban ozone
nonattainment areas and are developing
plans to address ozone nonattainment.
Finally, the new data and modeling
methodologies, which were published
in the Notice of Data Availability on
June 21, 1993, significantly reduced the
emission reduction and corresponding
effectiveness of the rule. Therefore, a
more stringent emission rate cutoff
would achieve similar emission
reductions at similar cost effectiveness
to the proposed rule.
Based on all of these reasons, the EPA
reevaluated the stringency level and
chose an emission rate cutoff of 50 Mg/
yr of NMOC for the final rules. This
revision would affect more landfills
than the proposal value of 150 Mg/yr of
NMOC; however, the 50 Mg/yr of
NMOC will only affect less than 5
percent of all landfills and is estimated
to reduce NMOC emissions by
approximately 53 percent and methane
emissions by 39 percent. The 150 Mg/
yr emission rate cutoff would have
reduced NMOC emissions by 45 percent
and methane emissions by 24 percent.
The incremental cost effectiveness of
control of going from a 150 Mg/yr cutoff
level to a 50 Mg/yr cutoff level is
$2,900/Mg NMOC reduction for new
landfills and $3,300/Mg for existing
landfills.
The values for NMOC cost
effectiveness do not include any credit
for the benefits for toxics, odor,
explosion control, or the indirect benefit
of methane control. A revised cost
effectiveness could be calculated with
an assumed credit value for one or more
of the other benefits. As an example,
assuming a $30/Mg credit for the
methane emission reduction, the
incremental cost effectiveness from the
proposal cutoff of 150 Mg/yr to the final
cutoff of 50 Mg/yr would be reduced to
$660/Mg NMOC.
C. Collection System Design
Specifications
Commenters indicated that the
proposed design specifications for the
collection system were overly
prescriptive, discouraged innovation,
and did not prevent off-site migration of
LFG. In the new §60.759 for design
specifications, certain criteria still
require proper landfill gas collection;
however, the proposed design
specifications for the LFG collection
system were removed from the final
regulations. Instead, the final rule
allows sources to design their own
collection systems. Design plans must
meet certain requirements and be signed
by a registered professional engineer,
and are subject to agency approval.
These changes were made to provide
flexibility and encourage technological
innovation.
D. Timing for Well Placement
The proposed regulations required the
installation of collection wells at
applicable landfills within 2 years of
initial waste placement. Commenters
indicated that the installation of wells
within 2 years was not practiced at
many landfills, because many cells were
still active (receiving waste) 2 years after
initial placement. Collection wells
installed at these cells would have to be
covered over, which would decrease the
operational life of the well and be costly
and inefficient.
The proposed timing for the
placement of collection wells has been
revised to reduce costs and better
coincide with common operational
practices at MSW landfills. The final
regulation allows for well installation
up to 5 years from initial waste
placement for active cells. An area that
reaches Final grade or closure must
install collection wells within 2 years of
initial waste placement.
E. Operational Standards
In response to commenters concerns
about the operation of collection
systems, the final NSPS contains a new
section, §60.753, "Operational
Standards for Collection and Control
Equipment." Various operational
provisions that had previously been
located throughout the proposed rule
have been organized under this one
section, and new provisions on
collection and control systems have
been added. The new section addresses
the following areas: (1) Collection of gas
from active areas containing solid waste
older than 5 years (changed from 2 years
at proposal); (2) operation of the
collection system with negative pressure
at each wellhead (except as noted in the
rule); (3) operation of the collection
system with a landfill temperature less
than 55° (or a higher established
temperature) and either an N2 level less
than or equal to 20 percent or an O2
level less than or equal to 5 percent; (4)
operation of the collection system with
a surface concentration less than 500
ppm methane; (5) venting all collected
gases to a treatment or control device;
and (6) operation of the treatment or
control device at all times when the
collected gas is routed to the control
device. The numerical requirements (for
the N2 or 02 levels, landfill temperature,
-------
9912 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
and surface concentration) are new
requirements that will verify that the
system is being adequately operated and
maintained. In conjunction with the
new operational provisions, the
compliance, testing and monitoring
sections were revised to reference and
support these new or relocated
provisions.
F. Surface Emission Monitoring
Numerous commenters asserted that
the proposed rules did not address
surface methane emissions resulting
from insufficient well spacing or from
breaks in the cover material. The
commenters recommended that
monitoring of surface emissions be
required to ensure the proper operation
of collection system equipment. Upon
further analysis, the EPA decided to
require surface emission monitoring and
the maintenance of negative pressure at
all wells, except under specified
conditions, to ensure proper collection
system design and operation. Based on
information submitted by commenters, a
maximum surface concentration of 500
ppm methane should be demonstrated
to indicate proper operation of the
collection system. Monitoring is to be
done quarterly, with provisions for
increasing monitoring and corrective
procedures if readings above 500 ppm
are detected. Instrumentation
specifications, monitoring frequencies,
and monitoring patterns have been
structured to provide clear and straight-
forward procedures that are the
minimum necessary to assure
compliance.
G. Model Default Values
The EPA received additional data
after proposal on the model defaults that
were included in the tier system
calculations. These default values are
used to calculate whether the NMOC
concentration is above the cutoff level
for control requirements of 50 Mg/yr.
The new information received lead the
EPA to revise the default values for the
site-specific methane generation rate
constant (k), the methane generation
potential (L0), and the NMOC
concentration (CNMOC)- In the absence of
site-specific data, the landfill owner or
operator would use the default values
for k, L0, and CNMOC in order to estimate
the annual NMOC emission rate. More
information on the model defaults may
be found in the final BID (EPA-453/R-
94-021) and the memorandum
"Documentation of Small-Size
Exemption Cutoff Level and Tier 1
Default Values (Revised)," October 21,
1993, (Docket No. A-88-09, Item No.
IV-B-5).
The Tier 1 default values of k. Lo, and
CNMOC tend to overstate NMOC
emission rates for most landfills, and are
intended to be used to indicate the need
to install a collection and control system
or perform a more detailed Tier 2
analysis. It is recommended that these
default values not be used for estimating
landfill emissions for purposes other
than the NSPS and EG. The EPA
document "Compilation of Air Pollution
Emission Factors" (AP-42) provides
emission estimation procedures and
default values that can be used for
emissions inventories and other
purposes.
VII. Permitting
A. New Source Review Permits
Today's rulemaking under section
111 (b) establishes a new classification of
pollutants subject to regulation under
the CAA: "MSW landfill emissions."
Therefore, PSD rules now apply to all
subject stationary sources which have
increases in landfill gas above the
significance level, 50 tpy or more of
NMOC. Landfills below the 2.5 million
Mg design capacity exemption, which
are not required by the regulations to
install controls, may exceed this
significance level. In this case, the State
will need to determine if controls
should be installed for purposes of PSD
or NSR compliance.
The proposed significance level for
MSW landfill emissions of 40 tpy of
NMOC was changed to 50 tpy after
consideration of public comments. The
PSD significance level for VOC
emissions is 40 tpy. At proposal, the
landfill gas emission level was set at 40
tpy of NMOC to be consistent with the
40 tpy level for VOC. However, NMOC
contains organic compounds that are
not VOC. An NMOC emission rate of
roughly 50 tpy corresponds to a VOC
emission rate of 40 tpy.
The components of MSW landfill
emissions that are regulated as
pollutants or precursors of an air
pollutant listed under section 108 of the
CAA are also regulated by other
provisions of CAA as applicable. For
example, the components of MSW
landfill emissions that are emitted as
photochemically reactive VOCs are
regulated, as applicable, under the
nonattainment provisions for ozone
contained in part D of title I of the CAA.
B. Operating Permits
Section 502 of the CAA and § 70.3(a)
require any source subject to standards
or regulations under section 111 of the
CAA to obtain part 70 operating
permits. However, landfills below 2.5
million Mg design capacity are not
subject to standards under section 111
because they are not required to put on
controls and are not subject to emission
limits. These landfills are subject to a
reporting requirement under the section
111 rule; however, this requirement
determines applicability of the standard
and does not make them "subject" for
the purposes of part 70. Consequently,
landfills below 2.5 million Mg design
capacity are not subject to part 70,
provided they are not major sources;
and this is stated in § 60.752(a) of the
rule. If landfills below 2.5 million Mg
design capacity are major sources, they
must obtain a part 70 permit under the
same deadlines and requirements that
apply to any other major source. States
may request additional information to
verify whether landfills have the
potential to emit at major source levels.
For landfills above the 2.5 million Mg
design capacity exemption, part 70
operating permits are required. These
landfills are subject to emission limits
and will most often be major sources.
Since landfill emissions increase over
time, a landfill over 2.5 million Mg may
not be major in the beginning; however,
as the landfill progresses to capacity, it
may become major. Many of the
landfills above the 2.5 million Mg
exemption will be required to collect
and control the gas under the regulation.
The issuance of a permit will also help
enforce and implement the standard.
Therefore, the EPA has decided to
require permits for all landfills with
design capacities above 2.5 million Mg,
whether or not the landfill will be
required to install a collection and
control system.
The regulation also provides for
termination of operating permits.
Landfill emissions, unlike emissions
from other source categories, decrease
over time after the landfill is closed. If
a landfill has closed and a control
system was never required or the
conditions for control system removal
specified in the regulation have been
met, an operating permit is no longer
necessary.
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A, Docket
The docket (Docket No. A-88-09) is
an organized and complete file of all the
information considered by the EPA in
the development of this rulemaking.
The docket is a dynamic file, since
material is added throughout the
rulemaking development. The docketing
system is intended to allow members of
the public and industries involved to
readily identify and locate documents
so that they can effectively participate
in the rulemaking process. Along with
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 9913
the statement of basis and purpose of
the proposed and promulgated
standards and the EPA responses to
significant comments, the contents of
the docket, except for interagency
review materials, will serve as the
record in case of judicial review [section
307(d)(7)(A)].
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. An Information Collection
Request (ICR) document has been
prepared by the EPA (ICR No. 1557.03)
and a copy may be obtained from Sandy
Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2137); 401 M St., S.W.;
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling
(202) 260-2740. The information
requirements are not effective until
OMB approves them.
The information required to be
collected by this rule is necessary to
identify the regulated entities who are
subject to the rule and to ensure their
compliance with the rule. The
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are mandatory and are
being established under authority of
section 114 of the Act. All information
submitted as part of a report to the
Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be
safeguarded according to the Agency
policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1,
part 2, subpart B—Confidentiality of
Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41
FR 36902, September 1, 1976, amended
by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43
FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR
17674, March 23, 1979).
The total annual reporting and
rerordkeeping burden for this
collection, averaged over the first 3
years of the NSPS applicability to new
MSW landfills, is estimated to be 3,379
person hours per year. This is the
estimated burden for 299 respondents
(e.g., MSW landfill owners/operators)
per year, at an estimated annual
reporting and recordkeeping burden
averaging 11.3 hours per respondent.
The rule requires an initial one-time
notification of landfill design capacity.
If the landfill is larger than the design
capacity cutoff, annual reports are
required. The capital cost to purchase
required monitoring equipment is
$8,100 per monitor. The total
annualized capital and startup costs for
purchase of monitoring equipment are
$80,250. The total national annual cost
burden including all labor costs and
annualized capital costs for
recordkeeping and reporting is
$188,850.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
C. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR
51735 (October 4, 1993)) the EPA must
determine whether the regulatory action
is "significant" and therefore subject to
OMB review and the requirements of
the Executive Order. The Order defines
"significant regulatory action" as one
that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $ 100 million or more or
adversely effect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the
budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights
and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
met forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866, this action was submitted
to OMB for review. Changes made in
response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations are documented in
the public record.
D. Executive Order 12875
To reduce the burden of Federal
regulations on States and small
governments, the President issued E.O.
12875 on October 26, 1993. Under E.O.
12875, the EPA is required to consult
with representatives of affected State,
local, and tribal governments. Because
this regulatory action imposes costs to
the private sector and government
entities in excess of $100 million per
year, the EPA pursued the preparation
of an unfunded mandates statement,
consultations, and other requirements of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
The requirements are met as presented
under the following unfunded mandates
section (section VIII.E of this notice).
E. Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed
into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA
must prepare a statement to accompany
any rule where the estimated costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to
the private sector, will be $100 million
or more per year. Section 203 requires
the Agency to establish a plan for
informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly
or uniquely affected by the rule. Section
204 requires that the Agency "to the
extent permitted in law, develop an
effective process to permit elected
officers of State, local, and tribal
governments * * * to provide
meaningful and timely input in the
development of regulatory proposals
containing significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates". Under
section 205(a), the EPA must select the
"least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objectives of the rule" and is
consistent with statutory requirements.
The unfunded mandates statement
under section 202 must include: (1) A
citation of the statutory authority under
which the rule is proposed, (2) an
assessment of the costs and benefits of
the rule including the effect of the
mandate on health, safety and the
environment, and the Federal resources
available to defray the costs, (3) where
feasible, estimates of future compliance
costs and disproportionate impacts
upon particular geographic or social
segments of the nation or industry, (4)
where relevant, an estimate of the effect
on the national economy, and (5) a
description of the EPA's consultation
with State, local, and tribal officials.
Because this rule is estimated to
impose costs to the private sector and
governments entities in excess of $ 100
million per year (based on tenth or
fifteenth year annualized values), it is
considered a significant regulatory
action.
The EPA has thus prepared the
following statement with respect to
sections 202 through 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Act.
1. Statutory Authority
As discussed in section II of this
preamble, the statutory authority for this
rulemaking is section 111 of the CAA.
The rule establishes emission guidelines
-------
9914 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
for existing MSW landfills and
standards of performance for new MSW
landfills. Section lll(a)(l) of the
requires that standards of performance
for new sources reflect the—
* * * degree of emission limitation and
the percentage reduction achievable through
application of the best technological system
of continuous emission reduction which
(taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, any
nonair quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated.
Section 111 (d) requires emission
guidelines for existing sources to reflect
a similar degree of emission reduction.
These systems are referred to as BDT
for new and existing sources.
Properly operated gas collection and
control systems achieving 98 percent
emission reduction have been
demonstrated on landfills of the size
affected by the standards and EG, and
represent BDT. Control technologies and
their performance are discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rules (56 FR
24476, May 30, 1991).
In selecting BDT, the EPA also
considered which landfills should be
required to apply collection and control
systems. A range of landfill design
capacity and emission rate cutoffs were
evaluated, as described below in section
2.b "Regulatory Alternatives
Considered." The promulgated
standards contain a design capacity
exemption of 2.5 million Mg or 2.5
million cubic meters and an emission
rate cutoff of 50 Mg NMOC/yr.
The EPA considered emission
reduction, costs, and energy
requirements, as required by the
statutory language of section 111 of the
CAA, in selecting the promulgated
standards and EG. The promulgated
standards represent BDT. They achieve
significant reductions in landfill gas
emissions—a 53 percent reduction in
NMOC emissions, and a 39 percent
reduction in methane reduction
emissions nationwide. The cost impacts
of the standards are presented in section
V.B and in section VII.E.2 (below). The
public entities and affected industries
who were consulted, as required by the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act,
understand the cost impacts and
support the final rules (see Section 4,
"Consultation with Government
Officials" below). The energy impacts
are discussed in section V.B of this
notice. To the extent energy recovery
devices are used to comply with the
rules, the rules will result in a net
energy savings (production of energy).
Compliance with section 205(a):
Regarding the EPA's compliance with
section 205(a), the EPA did identify and
consider a reasonable number of
alternatives, and presents a summary of
these below. The EPA has chosen to
adopt the alternative with a size cutoff
of 2.5 million Mg capacity, and 50 Mg/
yr emissions. The incremental cost
effectiveness of this 50 Mg/yr option is
$6,250 per ton of NMOC reduced
(versus the less stringent 75 Mg/yr
option). This cost effectiveness is much
higher than is typical for NMOC (or
VOC) controls in NSPSs. However, the
EPA also considers the reductions in
methane achieved by this 50 Mg/yr
option as necessary to "achieve the
objectives" of section 111. The
additional methane reductions achieved
by this option are also an important part
of the total carbon reductions identified
under the Administration's 1993
Climate Change Action Plan. The EPA
thus concludes that the chosen
alternative is the most cost-effective to
achieve the objectives of section 111, as
called for in section 205(a).
2. Social Costs and Benefits
This assessment of the cost and
benefits to State, local, and tribal
governments of the guidelines is based
on EPA's "Economic Impact Analysis
for Proposed Emission Standards and
Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills" and updates to the analysis
contained in "Air Emissions from
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills—
Background Information for Final
Standards and Guidelines" (EPA-453/
R-94-021). Measuring the social costs of
the guidelines requires identification of
the affected entities by ownership
(public or private), consideration of
regulatory alternatives, calculation of
the regulatory compliance costs for each
affected entity, and assessment of the
market implications of the additional
pollution control costs. Considering the
social benefits of the guidelines requires
estimating the anticipated reductions in
emissions at MSW landfills due to
regulation and identifying the harmful
effects of exposure to MSW landfill
emissions. Quantitative valuation of the
expected benefits to society was not
done for this rule.
a. Affected Entities. The standards of
performance for new sources will
require control of approximately 43 new
landfills constructed in the first 5 years
the standards are in effect. The EG will
require control of approximately 312
existing landfills. This represents less
than 5 percent of the total number of
landfills in the U.S.
Of the landfills required to install
controls, about 30 percent of the
existing landfills and 20 percent of the
new landfills are privately owned. The
remainder are publicly owned. (These
percentages are taken from section 3.2.1
of the promulgation BID (EPA-453/R-
94-021). While that analysis used a
design capacity exemption level of 1
million Mg rather than the 2.5 million
Mg exemption level contained in the
final rule, the percentage of private
versus publicly owned landfills would
be similar.
b. Regulatory Alternatives Considered.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded
Mandates Act, the Agency must identify
and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule for which a
budgetary impact statement must be
prepared. The Agency must select from
those alternatives the least costly, most
cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule, unless the Agency explains
why this alternative is not selected or
the selection of this alternative is
inconsistent with the law.
A number of alternatives were
considered. These included design
capacity exemption levels of 1, 2.5, and
3 million Mg and emission rate cutoffs
of 50, 75, 100, and 150 Mg/year. Table
3 presents the impacts of alternative
design capacity exemption levels for
existing landfills. Table 4 presents the
impacts of alternative emission rate
cutoffs for existing landfills. Tables 5
and 6 present alternative design
capacity exemption levels and emission
rate cutoffs for new landfills.
TABLE 3.—ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CAPACITY EXEMPTION LEVEL OPTIONS FOR THE EMISSION GUIDELINES^
Small size cutoff (millions Mg)
Baseline *
3.000.000
Number land-
fills affected
273
Annual c
NMOC emis-
sion reduc-
tion (Mg/yr)
73.356
Annuald
methane
emission re-
duction
(Mg/yr)
3.220,000
Annual cost
(million $/yr)
84
NMOC aver-
age cost eff.
($/Mg)
1,145
NMOC Incre-
mental cost
eff. ($/Mg)
1,145
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 9915
TABLE 3.—ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CAPACITY EXEMPTION LEVEL OPTIONS FOR THE EMISSION GUIDELINES «•«>—Continued
Small size cutoff (millions Mg)
2500000
1 000000
No cutoff
Number land-
fills affected
312
572
7299
Annual =
NMOC emis-
sion reduc-
tion (Mg/yr)
77 600
97600
142000
Annuald
methane
emission re-
duction
(Mg/yr)
3 370 000
3 990 000
8 270 000
Annual cost
(million $/yr)
89
119
719
NMOC aver-
age cost eff.
($/Mg)
1 147
1 219
5063
NMOC Incre-
mental cost
eff. ($/Mg)
1 178
1 500
13 514
1 Emission rate cutoff level of 50 Mg NMOC/yr.
bAII values are fifth year annualized.
cNMOC emission reductions are from a baseline of 145,000 Mg NMOC/yr.
d Methane emission reductions are from a baseline of 8,400,000 Mg methane/yr.
e In the absence of an emission guidelines.
fNo emission rate cutoff and no design capacity exemption level.
TABLE 4.—ALTERNATIVE NMOC EMISSION RATE STRINGENCY LEVEL OPTIONS FOR THE EMISSION GUIDELINES
Emission rate cutoff (Mg NMOC/yr)
Baseline e.
150
100
75
50
No cutoff f
Number land-
fills affected
142
201
250
312
7,299
Annual c
NMOC emis-
sion reduc-
tion (Mg/yr)
66 600
72700
76000
77 600
142.000
Annual d
methane
emission re-
duction (Mg/
y)
2 210 000
2 720 000
3 080 000
3 370 000
8.270.000
Annual cost
(million $/yr)
51
66
79
89
719
NMOC aver-
age cost eff.
($/Mg)
766
908
1 039
1 147
5.063
NMOC Incre-
mental cost
eff. ($/Mg)
766
2459
3 939
6 250
9.783
»Design capacity exemption level of 2,500,000 Mg of refuse.
bAII values are fifth year annualized.
CNMOC emission reductions are from a baseline of 145,000 Mg NMOC/yr.
d Methane emission reductions are from a baseline of 8,400,000 Mg methane/yr.
e In the absence of an emission guidelines.
fNo emission rate cutoff and no design capacity exemption level.
TABLE 5.—ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CAPACITY EXEMPTION LEVEL OPTIONS FOR THE NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS3-15
Small size cutoff (millions Mgr)
Baselines.
3,000,000
2500000 ..
1 000,000
No cutoff1
Number land-
fills affected
41
43
89
872
Annual c
NMOC emis-
sion reduc-
tion (Mg/yr)
4,900
4 900
4900
13.115
Annual d
methane
emission re-
duction (Mg/
y)
1 93 000
1 93 000
1 93 000
881.000
Annual e cost
(million $/yr)
4
4
4
81
NMOC aver-
age cost eff.
($/Mg)
816
816
816
6.176
NMOC f In-
cremental
cost eff.
($/Mg)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
'Emission rate cutoff level of 50 Mg NMOC/yr.
b All values are fifth year annualized.
CNMOC emission reductions are from a baseline of 13,400 Mg NMOC/yr.
d Methane emission reductions are from a baseline of 899,000 Mg methane/yr.
<= Due to rounding off to the nearest million dollar, cost values do not appear to change for each option. However, actual costs are slightly less
for a less stringent option.
f Because the annual cost does not change enough to show a different cost from one option to the next, incremental cost effectiveness values
are not applicable.
i In the absence of a standard.
h No emission rate cutoff and no design capacity exemption level.
TABLE 6.—ALTERNATIVE NMOC EMISSION RATE STRINGENCY LEVEL OPTIONS FOR THE NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS a-b
Emission rate cutoff (Mg NMOC/yr)
Baseline h.
150
100
75
Number land-
fills affected
14
25
33
Annual c-d
NMOC emis-
sion reduc-
tion (Mg/yr)
5 200
5 100
5.000
Annual <=•«
methane
emission re-
duction (Mg/
y)
1 87 000
203 000
194.000
Annual f cost
(million $/yr)
4
4
4
NMOC aver-
age cost eff.
($/Mg)
769
784
800
NMOC e In-
cremental
cost eff. ($/
Mg)
NA
NA
NA
-------
9916 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 6.—ALTERNATIVE NMOC EMISSION RATE STRINGENCY LEVEL OPTIONS FOR THE NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS a-b—Continued
Emission rate cutoff (Mg NMOC/yr)
50 ...
No Cutoff1 .
Number land-
fills affected
43
872
Annual ^
NMOC emis-
sion reduc-
tion (Mg/yr)
4900
13 115
Annual «
methane
emission re-
duction (Mg/
yr)
1 93 000
881 000
Annual f cost
(million $/yr)
4
81
NMOC aver-
age cost eff.
($/Mg)
816
6 176
NMOC s In-
cremental
cost eff. ($/
Mg)
NA
NA
* Design capacity exemption level of 2,500,000 Mg of refuse.
" All values are fifth year annualized.
«Because of the small number of landfills and the longer time period of control for a given landfill at a more stringent option, the average an-
nual emission reduction appears to decrease for a more stringent option. However, the emission reduction for a given year increase for more
stringent options.
dNMOC emission reductions are from a baseline of 13,400 Mg NMOC/yr.
e Methane emission reductions are from a baseline of 899,000 Mg NMOC/yr.
f Due to rounding off to the nearest million dollar, cost values do not appear to change for each option. However, actual costs are slightly less
for a less stringent option.
«Because the annual cost does not change enough to show a different cost from one option to the next, incremental cost effectiveness values
are not applicable.
6 In the absence of a standard.
1 No emission rate cutoff and no design capacity exemption level.
The design capacity cutoff of 2.5
million Mg or 2.5 million cubic meters
was chosen as a result of changes to the
nationwide impacts analysis and to
relieve as many small businesses and
municipalities as possible from the
regulatory requirements while still
maintaining significant emission
reduction. The 2.5 million Mg cutoff
level exempts landfills that serve
populations of less than about 125,000
people from periodic reporting and
control requirements. This cutoff
excludes those landfills who would be
least able to afford the costs of a landfill
gas collection and control system. A less
stringent design capacity exemption
level (e.g., 3 million Mg) was not
selected because it would result in less
emissions reductions. A more stringent
design capacity exemption level (e.g., 1
million Mg) was not selected because it
would increase the number of landfills
required to apply control by over 80
percent (572 vs. 312 existing landfills)
while only achieving an additional 25
percent NMOC emission reduction (see
table 3). It would also increase national
costs and subject smaller government
entities to the regulatory requirements,
since smaller governments typically
operate smaller landfills.
The emission rate cutoff of 50 Mg/yr
of NMOC was chosen because, in
conjunction with the 2.5 million Mg
design capacity cutoff, it will require
control of less than 5 percent of all
landfills, yet is estimated to reduce
NMOC emissions by approximately 53
percent and methane emissions by 39
percent. The Climate Change Action
Plan, signed by the President in October
1993, calls for the EPA to promulgate a
"tough" landfill gas rule as soon as
possible.
The average cost effectiveness is about
$l,150/Mg NMOC (see table 4). While
the incremental cost effectiveness for
NMOC control of going from a cutoff of
75 Mg/yr to a 50 Mg/yr cutoff is high
($6,250/Mg NMOC), this value does not
include any credit for the benefits of
toxics, odor, explosion control, or the
indirect benefit of methane control. The
economic analysis indicated that the
final rule (including the 50 Mg/yr cutoff
level) would cause a relatively small
increase in waste disposal costs
compared to the current costs and
would not result in severe economic
impacts on households (see section C.
"Social Costs" below).
A more stringent option (e.g., no
cutoff) was not chosen because the
average and incremental cost and cost
effectiveness was not reasonable (see
table 4). Less stringent emission rate
cutoff levels were not chosen because
they result in less NMOC and methane
reduction, and would not be consistent
with the section 111 statutory
requirement to base emission standards
on BDT.
The public entities with whom the
EPA consulted understood the EPA's
concerns regarding the loss of emission
reductions by changing the proposed
capacity exemption level from 100,000
Mg to 5 million Mg and agreed that 2.5
million relieved 90 percent of the
landfills from the burden of regulation
and was reasonable.
c. Social Costs. The regulatory
compliance costs of reducing air
emissions from MSW landfills include
the total and annualized capital costs;
operating and maintenance costs;
monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping,
and reporting costs; and total annual
costs. The annualized capital cost is
calculated using a 7 percent discount
rate. The total annual cost is calculated
as the sum of the annualized capital
cost; operating and maintenance costs;
and the monitoring, inspection,
recordkeeping, and reporting costs.
The total nationwide annualized cost
for collection and control of air
emissions from new MSW landfills are
estimated to be $4 million. The
nationwide costs of the EG for existing
landfills is estimated to be about $90
million. The annual cost of waste
disposal is estimated to increase by an
average of $0.60/Mg for the NSPS and
$1.30/Mg for the EG. Costs per
household would increase by
approximately $2.50 to $5.00 per year
for households served by a new or
existing landfill, respectively, that is
required to install a collection and
control system. Because the rule
requires control of only about 5 percent
of the landfills in the U.S. many
households would experience no
increase in disposal costs. Furthermore,
if affected landfills choose to use energy
recovery systems, the cost per
household in those areas would be less.
The EPA has concluded that households
would not incur severe economic
impacts. For additional information,
please refer to the regulatory impacts
analysis (Docket No. A-88-09, Item IV-
A-7) and chapter 3 of the promulgation
BID (EPA-453/R-94-021). There are no
Federal funds available to assist State
and local governments in meeting these
costs.
d. Social Benefits. Society will benefit
from the NSPS and EG through the
reduction of landfill gas emissions,
including NMOC and methane
reductions. The total nationwide
annualized emission reduction of the
EG is estimated to be 77,600 Mg/yr of
NMOC and 3,370,000 Mg/yr of methane.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 9917
The total nationwide annualized
emission reduction for the NSPS is
about 4,900 Mg/yr of NMOC and
881,000 Mg/yr of methane.
The NMOC's present several hazards
to human health. The NMOC's
participate in chemical reactions
leading to the formation of ozone, which
causes health effects. Also, certain
NMOC's have cancer risks and cause
noncancer health effects.
Ozone is created by sunlight acting on
NOX and NMOC's in ambient air. Ozone
leads to alterations in pulmonary
function, aggravation of pre-existing
respiratory disease, damage to lung
structure, and adverse effects on blood
enzymes, the central nervous system,
and endocrine systems. Ozone also
warrants control due to its welfare
effects, specifically, reduced plant
growth, decreased crop yield, necrosis
of plant tissue, and deterioration of
certain synthetic materials such as
rubber (Docket No. A-88-09, Item Nos.
II-A-26, II-I-16, etc.).
There is also concern about cancer
risks from landfill NMOC emissions. In
reviewing limited emissions data from
MSW landfills, EPA identified both
known and suspected carcinogens such
as benzene, carbon tetrachloride,
chloroform, ethylene dichloride,
methylene dichloride,
perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene,
vinyl chloride, and vinylidene chloride.
Prior to proposal, the EPA attempted to
apply statistical methods to the limited
data to generate the average annual
increased cancer incidence and the
maximum individual risk (MIR). In
evaluating the result of the calculations
for annual incidence and MIR, the EPA
could not determine reasonable
estimates of either an annual incidence
or the MIR. The EPA concluded, at
proposal, that the uncertainties in the
database are too great to calculate
credible estimates of the cancer risks
associated with MSW landfills.
Another benefit of the NSPS and EG
is reduced fire explosion hazard through
reduction of methane emissions. The
EPA has documented many cases of
acute injury and death caused by
explosions and fires related to
municipal landfill gas emissions. In
addition to these health effects, the
associated property damage is a welfare
effect. Furthermore, when the migration
of methane and the ensuring hazard are
identified, adjacent property values can
be adversely affected (Docket No. A-88-
09, Item Nos. H-I-6, II-I-7, etc.)
Another aspect of MSW landfill
emissions is the offensive odor
associated with landfills. While the
nature of the wastes themselves
contribute to the problem of odor, the
gaseous decomposition products are
often characteristically malodorous and
unpleasant. Various welfare effects may
be associated with odors, but due to the
subjective nature of the impact and
perception of odor, it is difficult to
quantify these effects. Studies indicate
that unpleasant odors can discourage
capital investment and lower the
socioeconomic status of an area. Odors
have been shown to interfere with daily
activities, discourage facility use, and
lead to a decline in property values, tax
revenues, and payroll (Docket No. A-
88-09, Item Nos. H-I-6, II-I-7, etc.)
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. This is due to the
radiative characteristics of methane and
other effects methane has on
atmospheric chemistry. 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.
In conclusion, while the social
benefits of the rule have not been
quantified, significant health and
welfare benefits are expected to result
from the reduction in landfill gas
emissions caused by the rule.
3. Effects on the National Economy
The Unfunded Mandates Act requires
that the EPA estimate "the effect" of this
rule—
"on the national economy, such as the
effect on productivity, economic growth, full
employment, creation of productive jobs, and
international competitiveness of the U.S.-
goods and services, if and to the extent that
the EPA in its sole discretion determines that
accurate estimates are reasonably feasible
and that such effect is relevant and material."
As stated in the Unfunded Mandates
Act, such macroeconomic effects tend to
be measurable, in nationwide
econometric models, only if the
economic impact of the regulation
reaches 0.25 to 0.5 percent of gross
domestic product (in the range of $1.5
billion to $3 billion). A regulation with
a smaller aggregate effect is highly
unlikely to have any measurable impact
in macroeconomic terms unless it is
highly focused on a particular
geographic region or economic sector.
For this reason, no estimate of this rule's
effect on the national economy has been
conducted.
4. Consultation with Government
Officials
The Unfunded Mandates Act requires
that the EPA describe the extent of the
EPA's consultation with affected State,
local, and tribal officials, summarize the
officials' comments or concerns, and
summarize the EPA's response to those
comments or concerns. These goals
were addressed through meetings held
with a number of public entities over
the course of six months. Those entities
included the US Conference of Mayors,
the National League of Cities, the
National Governor's Association, the
National Association of Counties, and
the Solid Waste Association of North
America (SWANA). Through these
meetings, these entities were informed
of the rule, educated about it, and
advised as to whether or not they would
be impacted by it. These initial
education and information sharing
meetings were followed by meetings in
which consultations and analysis of
various alternatives took place.
Documentation of all meetings and
public comments can be found in
Docket A-88-09.
Various concerns were discussed
during the meetings. These concerns
included: (1) The design capacity cutoff;
(2) collection wells, their costing and
installation requirements; (3) design
specifications for collection systems; (4)
well head nitrogen measurement of 20
percent; and (5) the surface monitoring
requirements.
As a result of these consultations, the
EPA decided to modify the final
regulatory package to address these
concerns. In the final regulatory package
promulgated today: (1) The design
capacity cutoff has been raised from the
proposed level of 100,000 to 2.5 million
Mg; (2) Changes were made to the way
the costing algorithm calculates the
number of vertical collection wells. The
rule was also changed to require active
areas to install wells 5 years from initial
waste placement instead of 2 years.
Closed areas or areas at final grade must
install a collection system within 2
years; (3) Prescriptive design
specifications have been removed from
the rule and replaced with general
criteria. The EPA is developing an
Enabling Document to assist State and
local permitting agencies in their review
of designs; (4) Well head pressure
monitoring can meet either 20 percent
nitrogen or 5 percent oxygen; (5) Surface
monitoring is to be done quarterly
instead of monthly, not to exceed 500
ppm methane above background.
These changes were made in response
to consultations held regarding burden
of the regulation and as a result of new
-------
9918 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
data presented by the entities with
whom the EPA met. A letter from the
Solid Waste Management of North
America and SWAC to the EPA
demonstrates their support of this
decision. Detailed summaries of the
meetings and the letter can be obtained
from the Docket A-88-09.
Documentation of the EPA's
consideration of comments on the
proposed standards and guidelines is
provided in the BID's for the proposed
and final standards and guidelines.
Refer to the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for information on how to
acquire copies of these documents.
The final rule reflects a minimization
of burden on small landfills and does
not create an unreasonable burden for
large public entities. The EPA has
considered the purpose and intent of the
Unfunded Mandate Act and has
determined the landfill NSPS and EG
are needed.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the EPA to
give special consideration to the impact
of regulation on small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
units. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
specifies that EPA must prepare an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis if a
regulation will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Pursuant to section 605 (b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
The final NSPS and Eg exempt small
landfills that have a design capacity
below 2.5 million Mg of MSW. This
design capacity exemption will exempt
landfills that serve communities of
125,000 people or less, assuming the
typical waste generation rate of 5 Ib of
waste per person per day and an average
landfill age of 20 years. Section 601 of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act defines a
"small governmental jurisdiction" as
governments of cities, counties, towns,
or other districts with a population less
than 50,000. The design capacity
exemption will exempt landfills that
serve small governmental jurisdictions.
Therefore, the landfills NSPS and EG
will have no impact on small entities.
The NSPS and EG will require
periodic emissions calculations or
control of emissions from only the
largest 10 percent of landfills in the U.S.
By controlling these large landfills, the
rules will significantly reduce landfill
gas emissions, which have adverse
effects on human health and welfare,
contribute to global warming, and can
create odors and explosion hazards. In
consideration of the potential regulatory
burden on small entities and in
response to public comment, the landfill
design capacity in the proposed rule
was raised to 2.5 million Mg/yr, thereby
exempting small entities.
G. Miscellaneous
The effective date of this regulation is
March 12, 1996. Section lll(b)(l)(B) of
the CAA provides that standards of
performance or revisions thereof
become effective upon promulgation
and apply to affected facilities of which
the construction or modification was
commenced after the date of proposal,
May 31, 1991.
As prescribed by section 111, the
promulgation of these standards was
preceded by the Administrator's
determination that MSW landfills
contribute significantly to air pollution
that may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. In
accordance with section 117 of the
CAA, publication of these promulgated
standards was preceded by consultation
with appropriate advisory committees,
independent experts, and Federal
departments and agencies.
This regulation will be reviewed 4
years from the date of promulgation as
required by the CAA. This review will
include an assessment of such factors as
the need for integration with other
programs, the existence of alternative
methods, enforceability, improvements
in emission control technology, and
reporting requirements.
Section 317 of the CAA requires the
Administrator to prepare an economic
impact assessment for any NSPS
promulgated under section 111 (b) of the
CAA. An economic impact assessment
was prepared for this regulation and for
other regulatory alternatives. All aspects
of the assessment were considered in
the formulation of the standards to
ensure that cost was carefully
considered in determining the BDT. The
economic impact assessment is
included in the BID for the proposed
standards and in Chapter 3 of the
promulgation BID.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 51
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control.
40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control.
40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Municipal solid waste
landfills, Municipal solid waste.
Dated: March 1, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter 1, parts 51,
52 and 60 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR
PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND
SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 51
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7401-7671q.
2. Section 51.166(b)(23)(i) is amended
by adding an entry to the end of the
Pollutant and Emission Rate list to read
as follows:
§51.166 Prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality.
*****
(b) * * *
(23) * * *
(i) * * * Municipal solid waste
landfill emissions (measured as
nonmethane organic compounds): 45
megagrams per year (50 tons per year)
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
3. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
4. Section 52.21(b)(23)(i) is amended
by adding an entry to the end of the
Pollutant and Emission Rate list to read
as follows:
§52.21 Prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality.
*****
(b) * * *
(23) * * *
(i) * * * Municipal solid waste
landfills emissions (measured as
nonmethane organic compounds): 45
megagrams per year (50 tons per year)
PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
5. The authority citation for part 60
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414,
7416, and 7601.
6. Section 60.16 of subpart A is
amended by adding an entry to the end
to read under Other Source Categories
as follows:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 9919
§60.16 Priority list.
*****
Other Source Categories
*****
Municipal solid waste landfills.4
*****
7. Section 60.30 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
§60.30 Scope.
*****
(c) Subpart Cc—Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills.
8. Part 60 is further amended by
adding the Subpart Cc to read as
follows:
Subpart Cc—Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Times for Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills
Sec.
60.30c Scope.
60.31c Definitions.
60.32c Designated facilities.
60.33c Emission guidelines for municipal
solid waste landfill emissions.
60.34c Test methods and procedures.
60.35c Reporting and recordkeeping
guidelines.
60.36c Compliance times.
Subpart Cc—Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Times for Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills
§60.30c Scope.
This subpart contains emission
guidelines and compliance times for the
control of certain designated pollutants
from certain designated municipal solid
waste landfills in accordance with
section 111 (d) of the Act and subpart B.
§ 60.31 c Definitions.
Terms used but not defined in this
subpart have the meaning given them in
the Act and in subparts A, B, and WWW
of this part.
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 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.
4 Not prioritized, since an NSPS for this major
source category has already been promulgated.
§60.32c Designated facilities.
(a) The designated facility to which
the guidelines apply is each existing
MSW landfill for which construction,
reconstruction or modification was
commenced before May 30, 1991.
(b) Physical or operational changes
made to an existing MSW landfill solely
to comply with an emission guideline
are not considered a modification or
reconstruction and would not subject an
existing MSW landfill to the
requirements of subpart WWW [see
§60.750 of Subpart WWW].
§60.33c Emission guidelines for municipal
solid waste landfill emissions.
(a) For approval, a State plan shall
include control of MSW landfill
emissions at each MSW landfill meeting
the following three conditions:
(1) The landfill has accepted waste at
any time since November 8, 1987, or has
additional design capacity available for
future waste deposition;
(2) The landfill has a design capacity
greater than or equal to 2.5 million
megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters.
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; and
(3) The landfill has a nonmethane
organic compound emission rate of 50
megagrams per year or more.
(b) For approval, a State plan shall
include the installation of a collection
and control system meeting the
conditions provided in §60.752(b)(2)(ii)
of this part at each MSW landfill
meeting the conditions in paragraph (a)
of this section. The State plan shall
include a process for State review and
approval of the site-specific design
plans for the gas collection and control
system(s).
(c) For approval, a State plan shall
include provisions for the control of
collected MSW landfill emissions
through the use of control devices
meeting the requirements of paragraph
(c)(l), (2), or (3) of this section, except
as provided in §60.24.
(1) An open flare designed and
operated in accordance with the
parameters established in §60.18; or
(2) A control system designed and
operated to reduce NMOC by 98 weight
percent; or
(3) An enclosed combustor designed
and operated to reduce the outlet NMOC
concentration to 20 parts per million as
hexane by volume, dry basis at 3
percent oxygen, or less.
§60.34c Test methods and procedures.
For approval, a State plan shall
include provisions for: the calculation
of the landfill NMOC emission rate
listed in §60.754, as applicable, to
determine whether the landfill meets
the condition in §60.33c(a)(3); the
operational standards in § 60.753; the
compliance provisions in § 60.755; and
the monitoring provisions in § 60.756.
§ 60.35c Reporting and recordkeeping
guidelines.
For approval, a State plan shall
include the recordkeeping and reporting
provisions listed in §§60.757 and
60.758, as applicable, except as
provided under §60.24.
§60.36c Compliance times.
(a) Except as provided for under
paragraph (b) of this section, planning,
awarding of contracts, and installation
of MSW landfill air emission collection
and control equipment capable of
meeting the emission guidelines
established under § 60.33c shall be
accomplished within 30 months after
the effective date of a State emission
standard for MSW landfills.
(b) For each existing MSW landfill
meeting the conditions in §60.33c(a)(l)
and § 60.33c(a)(2) whose NMOC
emission rate is less than 50 megagrams
per year on the effective date of the
State emission standard, installation of
collection and control systems capable
of meeting emission guidelines in
§ 60.33c shall be accomplished within
30 months of the date when the
condition in §60.33c(a)(3) is met (i.e.,
the date of the first annual nonmethane
organic compounds emission rate which
equals or exceeds 50 megagrams per
year).
9. Part 60 is amended by adding a
new subpart WWW to read as follows:
Subpart WWW—Standards of Performance
for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Sec.
60.750 Applicability, designation of
affected facility, and delegation of
authority.
60.751 Definitions.
60.752 Standards for air emissions from
municipal solid waste landfills.
60.753 Operational standards for collection
and control systems.
60.754 Test methods and procedures.
60.755 Compliance provisions.
60.756 Monitoring of operations.
60.757 Reporting requirements.
60.758 Recordkeeping requirements.
60.759 Specifications for active collection
systems.
Subpart WWW—Standards of
Performance for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills
§60.750 Applicability, designation of
affected facility, and delegation of authority.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
apply to each municipal solid waste
-------
9920
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
landfill that commenced construction,
reconstruction or modification or began
accepting waste on or after May 30,
1991. Physical or operational changes
made to an existing MSW landfill solely
to comply with Subpart Cc 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: None.
§60.751 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 §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. A landfill is considered
closed after meeting the criteria of
§258.60 of this title.
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
either
(1) A notification of intent to install
a collection and control system or
(2) A collection and control system
design plan is submitted in compliance
with§60.752(b)(2)(i).
Design capacity means the maximum
amount of solid waste a landfill can
accept, as specified in the construction
or operating permit issued by the State,
local, or Tribal agency responsible for
regulating the landfill.
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).
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. A
perimeter well located outside the
landfilled waste is not an interior well.
Landfill means an area of land or an
excavation in which wastes are placed
for permanent disposal, and that is not
a land application unit, surface
impoundment, injection well, or waste
pile as those terms are defined under
§ 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.
Municipal solid waste landfill or
MSW landfill means an entire disposal
facility in a contiguous geographical
space where household waste is placed
in or on land. An MSW landfill may
also receive other types of RCRA
Subtitle D wastes (§257.2 of this title)
such as commercial solid waste,
nonhazardous sludge, conditionally
exempt small quantity generator waste,
and industrial solid waste. Portions of
an MSW landfill may be separated by
access roads. An MSW landfill may be
publicly or privately owned. An MSW
landfill may be a new MSW landfill, an
existing MSW landfill, or a lateral
expansion.
Municipal solid waste landfill
emissions or MSW landfill emissions
means gas generated by the
decomposition of organic waste
deposited in an MSW landfill or derived
from the evolution of organic
compounds in the waste.
NMOC means nonmethane organic
compounds, as measured according to
the provisions of § 60.754.
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.
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 201 letseq.).
Sufficient density means any number,
spacing, and combination of collection
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday. March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 9921
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) (A),(B) and (C) 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 a collection and control
system within 18 months of the
submittal of the design plan under
paragraph (b) (2) (i) of this section that
effectively captures the gas generated
within the landfill.
(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 or treatment
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 (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
§258.40 of this title.
(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 open flare designed and
operated in accordance with § 60.18;
(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, required under § 60.8
using the test methods specified in
§ 60.754 (d).
(1) If a boiler or process heater is used
as the control device, the landfill gas
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.
§ 60.752 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 §60.757(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. For purposes of part 70
permitting, a landfill with a design
capacity less than 2.5 million
megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters
does not require an operating permit
under part 70 of this chapter. Submittal
of the initial design capacity report shall
fulfill the requirements of this subpart
except as provided for in paragraphs
(a)(l) 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 §60.757(a)(3), when
there is any increase in the design
capacity of a landfill subject to the
provisions of this subpart, whether the
increase results from an increase in the
area or depth of the landfi'1, a change
in the operating procedures of the
landfill, or any other means.
(2) If any increase in the maximum
design capacity of a landfill exempted
from the provisions of § 60.752(b)
through § 60.759 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 or 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
or 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 § 60.754. The NMOC
emission rate shall be recalculated
annually, except as provided in
§60.757(b)(l)(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 or 2.5 million cubic
meters is subject to part 70 permitting
requirements. When a landfill is closed,
and either never needed control or
meets the conditions for control system
removal specified in §60.752(b)(2)(v) of
this subpart, a part 70 operating permit
is no longer required.
(1) If the calculated NMOC emission
rate is less than 50 megagrams per year,
the owner or operator shall:
(i) Submit an annual emission report
to the Administrator, except as provided
forin§60.757(b)(l)(ii);and
(ii) Recalculate the NMOC emission
rate annually using the procedures
specified in §60.754(a) (1) until such
time as the calculated NMOC emission
rate is equal to or greater than 50
megagrams per year, or the landfill is
closed.
(A) If the NMOC emission rate, upon
recalculation required in paragraph
(b)(l)(ii) of this section, is equal to or
greater than 50 megagrams per year, the
owner or operator shall install 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 § 60.757(d).
(2) If the calculated NMOC emission
rate is equal to or greater than 50
megagrams per year, the owner or
operator shall:
(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
§§60.753 through 60.758 proposed by
the owner or operator.
(C) The collection and control system
design plan shall either conform with
specifications for active collection
systems in § 60.759 or include a
demonstration to the Administrator's
satisfaction of the sufficiency of the
alternative provisions to §60.759.
(D) The Administrator shall review
the information submitted under
-------
9922 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
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 §60.756;
(C) Route the collected gas to a
treatment system that processes the
collected gas for subsequent sale or use.
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.
(iv) Operate the collection and control
device installed to comply with this
subpart in accordance with the
provisions of §§60.753, 60.755 and
60.756.
(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 no longer
accepting solid waste and be
permanently closed under the
requirements of § 258.60 of this title. A
closure report shall be submitted to the
Administrator as provided in
§60.757(d);
(B) The collection and control system
shall have been in operation a minimum
of 15 years; and
(C) Following the procedures
specified in §60.754(b) of this subpart,
the calculated NMOC gas produced by
the landfill shall be less than 50
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.
§ 60.753 Operational standards for
collection and control systems.
Each owner or operator of an MSW
landfill gas collection and control
system used to comply with the
provisions of §60.752(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
§60.757(f)(l);
(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 °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 shall show
supporting data that the elevated
parameter does not cause fires or
significantly inhibit anaerobic
decomposition by killing methanogens.
(1) The nitrogen level shall be
determined using Method 3C, unless an
alternative test method is established as
allowed by §60.752(b)(2)(i) of this
subpart.
(2) Unless an alternative test method
is established as allowed by
§60.752(b)(2)(i) of this subpart, the
oxygen shall be determined by an
oxygen meter using Method 3A 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 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. 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 §60.752(b)(2)(iii). In
the event the collection or control
system is inoperable, 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 or treatment
system at all times when the collected
gas is routed to the system.
(g) If monitoring demonstrates that the
operational requirement in paragraphs
(b), (c), or (d) of this section are not met,
corrective action shall be taken as
specified in §60.752(a) (3) through (5)
or § 60.755(c) of this subpart. If
corrective actions are taken as specified
in §60.755, the monitored exceedance is
not a violation of the operational
requirements in this section.
§60.754 Test methods and procedures.
(a)(l) The landfill owner or operatoi
shall calculate the NMOC emission rate
using either the equation provided in
paragraph (a)(l)(i) of this section or the
equation provided in paragraph (a)(l)(ii)
of this section. 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 CNMOO
(i) The following equation shall be
used if the actual year-to-year solid
waste acceptance rate is known.
MNMOC = £2 k L0M,(e-kIi)(CNMOC)(3.6x 10-9)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 9923
where,
MNMoc=Total NMOC emission rate from the
landfill, megagrams per year
k=methane generation rate constant, year-'
Lo=methane generation potential, cubic
meters per megagram solid waste
M,=mass of solid waste in the 1th section,
megagrams
t,=age of the i1*1 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 M, if
the documentation provisions of
§60.758(d)(2) are followed.
(ii) The following equation shall be
used if the actual year-to-year solid
waste acceptance rate is unknown.
MNMoc=2L0R (e-"c - e~*t) (CNMOC) (3.6 x
10-")
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~'
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-^=l
3.6 x 10~9=conversion factor
The mass of nondegradable solid waste
may be subtracted from the average annual
acceptance rate when calculating a value for
R, if the documentation provisions of
§60.758(d)(2) are followed.
(2) Tier 1. The owner or operator shall
compare the calculated NMOC mass
emission rate to the standard of 50
megagrams per year.
(i) If the NMOC emission rate
calculated in paragraph (a)(l) of this
section is less than 50 megagrams per
year, then the landfill owner shall
submit an emission rate report as
provided in §60.757(b)(l), and shall
recalculate the NMOC mass emission
rate annually as required under
§60.752(b)(l).
(ii) If the calculated NMOC emission
rate is equal to or greater than 50
megagrams per year, then the landfill
owner shall either comply with
§60.752(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 25C of appendix A of this
part or Method 18 of appendix A of this
part. If using Method 18 of appendix A
of this part, the minimum list of
compounds to be tested shall be those
published in the most recent
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors (AP-42). If composite sampling
is used, equal volumes shall be taken
from each sample probe. If more than
the required number of samples are
taken, all samples shall be used in the
analysis. The landfill owner or operator
shall divide the NMOC concentration
from Method 25C of appendix A of this
part by six to convert from CNMOC as
carbon to CNMOC as hexane.
(i) The landfill owner or operator
shall recalculate the NMOC mass
emission rate using the equations
provided in paragraph (a)(l)(i) or
(a)(l)(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)(l) of this section.
(ii) If the resulting mass emission rate
calculated using the site-specific NMOC
concentration is equal to or greater than
50 megagrams per year, then the landfill
owner or operator shall either comply
with §60.752(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.
(iii) If the resulting NMOC mass
emission rate is less than 50 megagrams
per year, the owner or operator shall
submit a periodic estimate of the
emission rate report as provided in
§60.757(b)(l) 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)(l)(i) or (a)(l)(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)(l) of this
section. The landfill owner or operator
shall compare the resulting NMOC mass
emission rate to the standard of 50
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 50 megagrams per year, the
owner or operator shall comply with
§ 60.752 (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 §60.757(b)(l) and shall
recalculate the NMOC mass emission
rate annually, as provided in
§60.757(b)(l) using the equations in
paragraph (a)(l) 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 is 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 as provided in
§60.752(b)(2)(i)(B).
(b) After the installation of a
collection and control system in
compliance with § 60.755, the owner or
operator shall calculate the NMOC
emission rate for purposes of
determining when the system can be
removed as provided in
§60.752(b)(2)(v), using the following
equation:
MNMOC= 1-89 x 10~3 QLFG CNMOC
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 device 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
-------
9924 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
removal equipment using the
procedures in Method 25C or Method 18
of appendix A of this part. If using
Method 18 of appendix A of this part,
the minimum list of compounds to be
tested shall be those published in the
most recent Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42). 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
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 as provided in
§ 60.752 (b) (2) (i)(B).
(c) 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
§§51.166 or 52.21 of this chapter using
AP-42 or other approved measurement
procedures. If a collection system,
which complies with the provisions in
§60.752(b)(2) is already installed, the
owner or operator shall estimate the
NMOC emission rate using the
procedures provided in paragraph (b) of
this section.
(d) For the performance test required
in §60.752(b)(2)(iii)(B), Method 25 or
Method 18 of appendix A of this part
shall be used to determine compliance
with 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
§60.752(b)(2)(i)(B). If using Method 18
of appendix A of this part, the minimum
list of compounds to be tested shall be
those published in the most recent
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors (AP-42). The following equation
shall be used to calculate efficiency.
Control Efficiency = (NMOCln - NMOC0J/
(NMOCJ
where,
NMOCln = mass of NMOC entering control
device
NMOCOU1 = mass of NMOC exiting control
device
§60.755 Compliance provisions.
(a) Except as provided in
§ 60.752(b)(2) (i)(B), the specified
methods in paragraphs (a)(l) through
(a) (6) of this section shall be used to
determine whether the gas collection
system is in compliance with
§60.752(b)(2)(ii).
(1) For the purposes of calculating the
maximum expected gas generation flow
rate from the landfill to determine
compliance with §60.752(b)(2)(ii)(A)U),
one of the following equations shall be
used. The k and L0 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 § 60.754(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 = 2L0R(e->«= -e-")
where,
Qra = 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"'
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 6-^= 1)
(ii) For sites with known year-to-year
solid waste acceptance rate:
QM=£2kL0M,(e-kti)
1=1
where,
QM=maximum expected gas generation flow
rate, cubic meters per year
k=methane generation rate constant, year ~'
L0=methane generation potential, cubic
meters per megagram solid waste
Mi=mass of solid waste in the ith section,
megagrams
t,=age of the i* 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)(l) (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)(l) (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 §60.752(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 §60.752(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 § 60.753(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.
(4) Owners or operators are not
required to install additional wells as
required in paragraph (a) (3) of this
section during the first 180 days after
gas collection system start-up.
(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 § 60.753(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, the gas collection system
shall be expanded to correct the
exceedance within 120 days of the
initial exceedance. Any attempted
corrective measure shall not cause
exceedances of other operational or
performance standards.
(6) An owner or operator seeking to
demonstrate compliance with
§60.752(b)(2)(ii)(A)(4) through the use
of a collection system not conforming to
the specifications provided in §60.759
shall provide information satisfactory to
the Administrator as specified in
§60.752(b)(2)(i)(C) demonstrating that
off-site migration is being controlled.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 9925
(b) For purposes of compliance with
§ 60.753(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
§ 60.752(b)(2)(i). Each well shall be
installed within 60 days of the date in
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 §60.753(d).
(1) After installation of the collection
system, the owner or operator shall
monitor surface concentrations of
methane along the entire perimeter of
the collection area and along a
serpentine pattern spaced 30 meters
apart (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 4.3.1 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 §60.753(d).
(i) The location of each monitored
exceedance shall be marked and the
location 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) 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)
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, except during periods
of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction,
provided that the duration of start-up,
shutdown, or malfunction shall not
exceed 5 days for collection systems and
shall not exceed 1 hour for treatment or
control devices.
§ 60.756 Monitoring of operations.
Except as provided in
§60.752(b)(2)(i)(B),
(a) Each owner or operator seeking to
comply with §60.752(b)(2)(ii)(A) for an
active gas collection system shall install
a sampling port and a thermometer or
other temperature measuring device at
each wellhead and:
(1) Measure the gauge pressure in the
gas collection header on a monthly basis
as provided in §60.755(a)(3); and
(2) Monitor nitrogen or oxygen
concentration in the landfill gas on a
monthly basis as provided in
§60.755(a)(5);and
(3) Monitor temperature of the landfill
gas on a monthly basis as provided in
§60.755(a)(5).
(b) Each owner or operator seeking to
comply with §60.752(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 an accuracy of ±1 percent of
the temperature being measured
expressed in degrees Celsius or ±0.5 °C,
whichever is greater. A temperature
monitoring device is not required for
boilers or process heaters with design
heat input capacity greater than 44
megawatts.
(2) A gas flow rate measuring device
that provides a measurement of gas flow
to or bypass of the control device. The
owner or operator shall either:
(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; or
(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 § 60.752(b)(2)(iii) using an
open 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
-------
9926 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
thermocouple, at the pilot light or the
flame itself to indicate the continuous
presence of a flame.
(2) A device that records flow to or
bypass of the flare. The owner or
operator shall either:
(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; or
(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
§ 60.752(b)(2)(iii) using a device other
than an open flare or an enclosed
combustor shall provide information
satisfactory to the Administrator as
provided in §60.752(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 § 60.759 or
seeking to monitor alternative
parameters to those required by § 60.753
through § 60.756 shall provide
information satisfactory to the
Administrator as provided in
§60.752(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
§60.755(c), shall monitor surface
concentrations of methane according to
the instrument specifications and
procedures provided in §60.755(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.
§60.757 Reporting requirements.
Except as provided in
§60.752(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 under
§ 60.7(a)(l) and shall be submitted no
later than the earliest day from the
following:
(i) 90 days of the issuance of the State,
Local, Tribal, or RCRA construction or
operating permit; or
(ii) 30 days of the date of construction
or reconstruction as defined under
§60.15; or
(iii) 30 days of the initial acceptance
of solid waste.
(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 provisions of the State, local,
Tribal, or RCRA construction or
operating permit;
(ii) The maximum design capacity of
the landfill. Where the maximum design
capacity is specified in the State or local
construction or RCRA permit, 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 such parameters as depth of solid
waste, solid waste acceptance rate, and
compaction practices 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
any increase in the design capacity of
the landfill, whether the increase results
from an increase in the permitted area
or depth of the landfill, a change in the
operating procedures, or any other
means which results in an increase in
the maximum design capacity of the
landfill above 2.5 million megagrams or
2.5 million cubic meters. The amended
design capacity report shall be
submitted within 90 days of the
issuance of an amended construction or
operating permit, or the placement of
waste in additional land, or the change
in operating procedures which will
result in an increase in maximum
design capacity, whichever occurs first.
(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)(l)(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 §60.754(a) or
(b), as applicable.
(i) The initial NMOC emission rate
report shall be submitted within 90 days
of the date waste acceptance
commences and may be combined with
the initial design capacity report
required in paragraph (a) of this section.
Subsequent NMOC emission rate reports
shall be submitted annually thereafter,
except as provided for in paragraphs
(b)(l)(ii) and (b)(3) of this section.
(ii) If the estimated NMOC emission
rate as reported in the annual report to
the Administrator is less than 50
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)(l) and (2) of this section,
after the installation of a collection and
control system in compliance with
§ 60.752(b)(2), during such time as the
collection and control system is in
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 9927
operation and in compliance with
§§60.753 and 60.755.
(c) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of §60.75 2 (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 exceeds 50 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 §60.754 (a) (3)
and the resulting rate is less than 50
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
50 megagrams per year or the landfill is
closed. The revised NMOC emission
rate report, with the recalculated
emission rate based on NMOC sampling
and analysis, shall be submitted within
180 days of the first calculated
exceedance of 50 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 §60.754(a)(4), and
the resulting NMOC emission rate is less
than 50 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 § 60.754(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 50 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 § 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:
(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
(hi) Dated copies of three successive
NMOC emission rate reports
demonstrating that the landfill is no
longer producing 50 megagrams or
greater of NMOC per year.
(2) The Administrator may request
such additional information as may be
necessary to verify that all of the
conditions for removal in
§60.752(b)(2)(v) have been met.
(f) Each owner or operator of a landfill
seeking to comply with §60.752(b)(2)
using an active collection system
designed in accordance with
§60.752(b)(2)(ii) shall submit to the
Administrator annual reports of the
recorded information in (0(1) through
(0(6) of this paragraph. The initial
annual report shall be submitted within
180 days of installation and start-up of
the collection and control system, and
shall include the initial performance
test report required under §60.8. For
enclosed combustion devices and flares,
reportable exceedances are defined
under §60.758(c).
(1) Value and length of time for
exceedance of applicable parameters
monitored under §60.756(a), (b), (c),
and (d).
(2) Description and duration of all
periods when the gas stream is diverted
from the control device through a
bypass line or the indication of bypass
flow as specified under § 60.756.
(3) Description and duration of all
periods when the control device was not
operating for a period exceeding 1 hour
and length of time the control device
was not operating.
(4) All periods when the collection
system was not operating in excess of 5
days.
(5) The location of each exceedance of
the 500 parts per million methane
concentration as provided in § 60.753(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
§60.755.
(g) Each owner or operator seeking to
comply with § 60.752(b)(2)(i) shall
include the following information with
the initial performance test report
required under § 60.8:
(1) A diagram of the collection system
showing collection system positioning
including all wells, horizontal
collectors, surface collectors, or other
gas extraction devices, including the
locations of any areas excluded from
collection and the proposed sites for the
future collection system expansion;
(2) The data upon which the sufficient
density of wells, horizontal collectors,
surface collectors, or other gas
extraction devices and the gas mover
equipment sizing are based;
(3) The documentation of the
presence of asbestos or nondegradable
material for each area from which
collection wells have been excluded
based on the presence of asbestos or
nondegradable material;
(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.
§ 60.758 Recordkeeping requirements.
Except as provided in
§60.752(b)(2)(i)(B),
(a) Each owner or operator of an MSW
landfill subject to the provisions of
§60.752(b) shall keep for at least 5 years
up-to-date, readily accessible, on-site
records of the maximum design
capacity, 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) Each owner or operator of a
controlled landfill shall keep up-to-date,
readily accessible records for the life of
the control equipment of the data listed
in paragraphs (b)(l) through (b)(4) 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
§60.752(b)(2)(ii):
(i) The maximum expected gas
generation flow rate as calculated in
§60.755(a)(l). The owner or operator
may use another method to determine
the maximum gas generation flow rate.
-------
9928
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
if the method has been approved by the
Administrator.
(ii) The density of wells, horizontal
collectors, surface collectors, or other
gas extraction devices determined using
the procedures specified in
§60.759(a)(l).
(2) Where an owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
seeks to demonstrate compliance with
§60.752(b)(2)(iii) through use of an
enclosed combustion device other than
a boiler or process heater with a design
heat input capacity greater than 44
megawatts:
(i) The average combustion
temperature measured at least every 15
minutes and averaged over the same
time period of the performance test.
(ii) The percent reduction of NMOC
determined as specified in
§60.752(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
§ 60.752(b)(2) (iii)(B)(J) through use of a
boiler or process heater of any size: a
description of the location at which the
collected gas vent stream is introduced
into the boiler or process heater over the
same time period of the performance
testing.
(4) Where an owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
seeks to demonstrate compliance with
§60.752(b)(2)(iii)(A) through use of an
open 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 § 60.18;
continuous records of the flare pilot
flame or flare flame monitoring and
records of all periods of operations
during which the pilot flame of the flare
flame is absent.
(c) 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 § 60.756 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 § 60.757(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
combustion temperature was more than
28 oC below the average combustion
temperature during the most recent
performance test at which compliance
with §60.752(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)(i) of this
section.
(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 device or 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 §60.756.
(3) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart who uses
a boiler or process heater with a design
heat input capacity of 44 megawatts or
greater to comply with § 60.752(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 an open flare shall
keep up-to-date, readily accessible
continuous records of the flame or flare
pilot flame monitoring specified under
§60.756(c), and up-to-date, readily
accessible records of all periods of
operation in which the flame or flare
pilot flame is absent.
(d) 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
snowing 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 §60.755(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
§60.759(a)(3)(i) as well as any
nonproductive areas excluded from
collection as provided in
§60.759(a)(3)(ii).
(e) 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 § 60.753, the
reading in the subsequent month
whether or not the second reading is an
exceedance, and the location of each
exceedance.
§ 60.759 Specifications for active
collection systems.
(a) Each owner or operator seeking to
comply with §60.752(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 §60.752(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 expandibility, 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)(l) 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)(l)
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 § 60.758(d). The
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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 9929
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. Emissions from each
section shall be computed using the
following equation:
Q, = 2 k Lo M, (e-"i) (CNMOC) (3.6 x 10-')
where,
Q, = NMOC emission rate from the i* section,
megagrams per year
k = methane generation rate constant, year~'
L0 = methane generation potential, cubic
meters per megagram solid waste
M, = mass of the degradable solid waste in
the ith section, megagram
t, = age of the solid waste in the i* section,
years
CNMOC = concentration of nonmethane
organic compounds, parts per million by
volume
3.6 x 10"9 = conversion factor
(iii) The values for k, L0, 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. If field testing
has not been performed, the default
values for k, L0 and CNMOC provided in
§ 60.754(a)(l) 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 §60.752(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 (HOPE) 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, HOPE, fiberglass,
stainless steel, or other nonporous
material of suitable thickness.
(c) Each owner or operator seeking to
comply with §60.752(b)(2)(i)(A) shall
convey the landfill gas to a control
system in compliance with
§60.752(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 §60.755(a)(l).
10. Part 60 is further amended by
adding Methods 2E, 3C and 25C to
appendix A as follows:
Appendix A—Reference Methods
Method 2E—Determination of Landfill Gas;
Gas Production Flow Rate
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the measurement of landfill gas (LFG)
production flow rate from municipal solid
waste (MSW) landfills and is used to
calculate the flow rate of nonmethane organic
compounds (NMOC) from landfills. This
method also applies to calculating a site-
specific k value as provided in §60.754 (a) (4).
It is unlikely that a site-specific k value
obtained through Method 2E testing will
lower the annual emission estimate below 50
Mg/yr NMOC unless the Tier 2 emission
estimate is only slightly higher than 50 Mg/
yr NMOC. Dry, arid regions may show a more
significant difference between the default
and calculated k values than wet regions.
1.2 Principle. Extraction wells are
installed either in a cluster of three or at five
locations dispersed throughout the landfill. A
blower is used to extract LFG from the
landfill. LFG composition, landfill pressures
near the extraction well, and volumetric flow
rate of LFG extracted from the wells are
measured and the landfill gas production
flow rate is calculated.
2. Apparatus
2.1 Well Drilling Rig. Capable of boring a
0.6 meters diameter hole into the landfill to
a minimum of 75 percent of the landfill
depth. The depth of the well shall not exceed
the bottom of the landfill or the liquid level.
2.2 Gravel. No fines. Gravel diameter
should be appreciably larger than
perforations stated in sections 2.10 and 3.2 of
this method.
2.3 Bentonite.
2.4 Backfill Material. Clay, soil, and
sandy loam have been found to be
acceptable.
2.5 Extraction Well Pipe. Polyvinyl
chloride (PVC). high density polyethylene
(HOPE), fiberglass, stainless steel, or other
suitable nonporous material capable of
transporting landfill gas with a minimum
diameter of 0.075 meters and suitable wall-
thickness.
2.6 Wellhead Assembly. Valve capable of
adjusting gas flow at the wellhead and outlet,
and a flow measuring device, such as an in-
line orifice meter or pilot tube. A schematic
of the wellhead assembly is shown in figure
1.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
9930
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Outlet Sample
Pat
;Well Head
ontrol Valve
Orifice
iieter
Figure 1, Schematic of abova ground wall haad assanbly.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 9931
2.7 Cap. PVC, HOPE, fiberglass, stainless
steel, or other suitable nonporous material
capable of transporting landfill gas with a
suitable wall-thickness.
2.8 Header Piping. PVC, HOPE, fiberglass,
stainless steel, or other suitable nonporous
material capable of transporting landfill gas
with a suitable wall-thickness.
2.9 Auger. Capable of boring a 0.15 to
0.23 meters diameter hole to a depth equal
to the top of the perforated section of the
extraction well, for pressure probe
installation.
2.10 Pressure Probe. PVC or stainless
steel (316), 0.025 meters. Schedule 40 pipe.
Perforate the bottom two thirds. A minimum
requirement for perforations is slots or holes
with an open area equivalent to four 6.0
millimeter diameter holes spaced 90° apart
every 0.15 meters.
2.11 Blower and Flare Assembly. A water
knockout, flare or incinerator, and an
explosion-proof blower, capable of extracting
LFG at a flow rate of at least 8.5 cubic meters
per minute.
2.12 Standard Pitot Tube and Differential
Pressure Gauge for Flow Rate Calibration
with Standard Pitot. Same as Method 2,
sections 2.1 and 2.8.
2.13 Gas flow measuring device.
Permanently mounted Type S pilot tube or
an orifice meter.
2.14 Barometer. Same as Method 4,
section 2.1.5.
2.15 Differential Pressure Gauge. Water-
filled U-tube manometer or equivalent,
capable of measuring within 0.02 mm Hg, for
measuring the pressure of the pressure
probes.
3. Procedure
3.1 Placement of Extraction Wells. The
landfill owner or operator shall either install
a single cluster of three extraction wells in
a test area or space five wells over the
landfill. The cluster wells are recommended
but may be used only if the composition, age
of the solid waste, and the landfill depth of
the test area can be determined. CAUTION:
Since this method is complex, only
experienced personnel should conduct the
test. Landfill gas contains methane, therefore
explosive mixtures may exist at or near the
landfill. It is advisable to take appropriate
safety precautions when testing landfills,
such as installing explosion-proof equipment
and refraining from smoking.
3.1.1 Cluster Wells. Consult landfill site
records for the age of the solid waste, depth,
and composition of various sections of the
landfill. Select an area near the perimeter of
the landfill with a depth equal to or greater
than the average depth of the landfill and
with the average age of the solid waste
between 2 and 10 years old. Avoid areas
known to contain nondecomposable
materials, such as concrete and asbestos.
Locate wells as shown in figure 2.
Because the age of the solid waste in a test
area will not be uniform, calculate a
weighted average to determine the average
age of the solid waste as follows.
where,
Aavg=average age of the solid waste tested,
year
f,=fraction of the solid waste in the 1th section
A,=age of the 1th fraction, year
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
9932 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Figure 2. Location of Cluster Wells
BILUNG CODE 6560-50-P
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 9933
3.1.2 Equal Volume Wells. This
procedure is used when the composition, age
of solid waste, and landfill depth are not well
known. Divide the portion of the landfill that
has had waste for at least 2 years into five
areas representing equal volumes. Locate an
extraction well near the center of each area.
Avoid areas known to contain
nondecomposable materials, such as concrete
and asbestos.
3.2 Installation of Extraction Wells. Use a
well drilling rig to dig a 0.6 meters diameter
hole in the landfill to a minimum of 75
percent of the landfill depth, not to exceed
the bottom of the landfill or the water table.
Perforate the bottom two thirds of the
extraction well pipe. Perforations shall not be
closer than 6 meters from the cover.
Perforations shall be holes or slots with an
open area equivalent to 1.0 centimeter
diameter holes spaced 90 degrees apart every
0.1 to 0.2 meters. Place the extraction well in
the center of the hole and backfill with 2.0
to 7.5 centimeters gravel to a level 0.3 meters
above the perforated section. Add a layer of
backfill material 1.2 meters thick. Add a layer
of bentonite 1.0 meter thick, and backfill the
remainder of the hole with cover material or
material equal in permeability to the existing
cover material. The specifications for
extraction well installation are shown in
figure 3.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
9934 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday. March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
PVC 01 HOPE
Cap. OJOTSm («in) Dia.
PVC or HOPE Pip*,
OJ07S* (Bin) Dia.
Existing Cow
Hal«fial
Banienil* S*al
Perforate
an or Pip*
Langih
Gravti.no FIIMS
0.02 • to 0.075*
PVC or HOPE
Plp«
79ft ofth*
Landlll Otplh
PVC « HOPE
CapJO.79* (Bin) Dla.
8
Figura 3. Gas extraction wall
BILUNG CODE 6560-50-C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 9935
3.3 Pressure Probes. Shallow pressure
probes are used in the check for infiltration
of air into the landfill, and deep pressure
probes are used to determine the radius of
influence. Locate the deep pressure probes
along three radial arms approximately 120
degrees apart at distances of 3, 15, 30, and
45 meters from the extraction well. The tester
has the option of locating additional pressure
probes at distances every 15 meters beyond
45 meters. Example placements of probes are
shown in figure 4.
The probes located 15, 30, and 45 meters
from each well, and any additional probes
located along the three radial arms (deep
probes), shall extend to a depth equal to the
top of the perforated section of the extraction
wells. Locate three shallow probes at a
distance of 3 m from the extraction well.
Shallow probes shall extend to a depth equal
to half the depth of the deep probes.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
9936 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
ASm.
.ifira.
...—,
30m
(A)
15m
* *.
/
/ 45m '••-.
* "
30m
^
k«^—W
o »StMlowProb«
x
i I
Figure 4. Cluster well configuration.
BILUNG CODE 6560-50-C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 9937
Use an auger to dig a hole, approximately
0.15 to 0.23 meters in diameter, for each
pressure probe. Perforate the bottom two
thirds of the pressure probe. Perforations
shall be holes or slots with an open area
equivalent to four 6.0 millimeter diameter
holes spaced 90 degrees apart every 0.15
meters. Place the pressure probe in the center
of the hole and backfill with gravel to a level
0.30 meters above the perforated section.
Add a layer of backfill material at least 1.2
meters thick. Add a layer of bentonite at least
0.3 meters thick, and backfill the remainder
of the hole with cover material or material
equal in permeability to the existing cover
material. The specifications for pressure
probe installation are shown in figure 5.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
9938 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
Connect
<-—O.oeSmCap
.025m Pipe
BcntoniM
Oovir
or Eqdvatant
0.15m to 0.23m Bore Hole
Sandy Loam or
Appropriate
Oov«r
<3r»v«l
5.
prob«,
BILUNG CODE 6560-50-C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 9939
3.4 LFG Flow Rate Measurement.
Determine the flow rate of LFG from the test
wells continuously during testing with an
orifice meter. Alternative methods to
measure the LFG flow rate may be used with
approval of the Administrator. Locate the
orifice meter as shown in figure 1. Attach the
wells to the blower and flare assembly. The
individual wells may be ducted to a common
header so that a single blower and flare
assembly and flow meter may be used. Use
the procedures in section 4.1 to calibrate the
flow meter.
3.5 Leak Check. A leak check of the above
ground system is required for accurate flow
rate measurements and for safety. Sample
LFG at the wellhead sample port and at a
point downstream of the flow measuring
device. Use Method 3C to determine nitrogen
(Nz) concentrations. Determine the difference
by using the formula below.
Difference=C0 — Cw
where,
C0=concentration of N2 at the outlet, ppmv
Cw=concentration of Nz at the wellhead,
ppmv
The system passes the leak check if the
difference is less than 10,000 ppmv. If the
system fails the leak check, make the
appropriate adjustments to the above ground
system and repeat the leak check.
3.6 Static Testing. The purpose of the
static testing is to determine the initial
conditions of the landfill. Close the control
valves on the wells so that there is no flow
of landfill gas from the well. Measure the
gauge pressure (Pg) at each deep pressure
probe and the barometric pressure (Pbar)
every 8 hours for 3 days. Convert the gauge
pressure of each deep pressure probe to
absolute pressure by using the following
equation. Record as P,.
P,=Pbar+Pg
where,
Pbar=Atmospheric pressure, mm Hg
Pg=Gauge pressure of the deep probes, mm
Hg
P1=Initial absolute pressure of the deep
probes during static testing, mm Hg
3.6.1 For each probe, average all of the 8
hr deep pressure probe readings and record
as Pla. The P,a is used in section 3.7.6 to
determine the maximum radius of influence.
3.6.2 Measure the LFG temperature and
the static flow rate of each well once during
static testing using a flow measurement
device, such as a Type S pilot tube and
measure the temperature of the landfill gas.
The flow measurements should be made
either just before or just after the
measurements of the probe pressures and are
used in determining the initial flow from the
extraction well during the short term testing.
The temperature measurement is used in the
check for infiltration.
3.7 Short Term Testing. The purpose of
short term testing is to determine the
maximum vacuum that can be applied to the
wells without infiltration of air into the
landfill. The short term testing is done on
one well at a time. During the short term
testing, burn LFG with a flare or incinerator.
3.7.1 Use the blower to extract LFG from
a single well at a rate at least twice the static
flow rate of the respective well measured in
section 3.6.2. If using a single blower and
flare assembly and a common header system,
close the control valve on the wells not being
measured. Allow 24 hours for the system to
stabilize at this flow rate.
3.7.2 Check for infiltration of air into the
landfill by measuring the temperature of the
LFG at the wellhead, the gauge pressures of
the shallow pressure probes, and the LFG Nj
concentration by using Method 3C.
CAUTION: Increased vacuum at the wellhead
may cause infiltration of air into the landfill,
which increases the possibility of a landfill
fire. Infiltration of air into the landfill may
occur if any of the following conditions are
met: the LFG Nz concentration is more than
20 percent, any of the shallow probes have
a negative gauge pressure, or the temperature
has increased above 55°C or the maximum
established temperature during static testing.
If infiltration has not occurred, increase the
blower vacuum by 4 mm Hg, wait 24 hours,
and repeat the infiltration check. If at any
time, the temperature change exceeds the
limit, stop the test until it is safe to proceed.
Continue the above steps of increasing
blower vacuum by 4 mm Hg, waiting 24
hours, and checking for infiltration until the
concentration of N2 exceeds 20 percent or
any of the shallow probes have a negative
gauge pressure, at which time reduce the
vacuum at the wellhead so that the N2
concentration is less than 20 percent and the
gauge pressures of the shallow probes are
positive. This is the maximum vacuum at
which infiltration does not occur.
3.7.3 At this maximum vacuum, measure
Pbar every 8 hours for 24 hours and record the
LFG flow rate as Qs and the probe gauge
pressures for all of the probes as Pf. Convert
the gauge pressures of the deep probes to
absolute pressures for each 8-hour reading at
Qs as follows:
P=Pbar+Pf
where,
Pbar=Atmospheric pressure, mm Hg
Pf=Final absolute pressure of the deep probes
during short term testing, mm Hg
P=Pressure of the deep probes, mm Hg
3.7.4 For each probe, average the 8-hr
deep pressure probe readings and record as
Pfa.
3.7.5 For each probe, compare the initial
average pressure (Pia) from section 3.6.1 to
the final average pressure (Pfa). Determine the
furthermost point from the wellhead along
each radial arm where Pfa < P,a. This distance
is the maximum radius of influence (ROI),
which is the distance from the well affected
by the vacuum. Average these values to
determine the average maximum radius of
influence (Rma).
The average R™ may also be determined by
plotting on semi-log paper the pressure
differentials (Pfa-P,a) on the y-axis (abscissa)
versus the distances (3, 15, 30 and 45 meters)
from the wellhead on the x-axis (ordinate).
Use a linear regression analysis to determine
the distance when the pressure differential is
zero. Additional pressure probes may be used
to obtain more points on the semi-long plot
of pressure differentials versus distances.
3.7.6 Calculate the depth (Dsl) affected by
the extraction well during the short term test
as follows. If the computed value of Dsl
exceeds the depth of the landfill, set Ds, equal
to the landfill depth.
Dsl=WD + RM2
where,
DSi=depth, m
WD=well depth, m
Rma=maximum radius of influence, m
3.7.7 Calculate the void volume for the
extraction well (V) as follows.
V=0.40 n Rma2 Dst
where,
V=void volume of test well, m3
Rma=maximum radius of influence, m
Dst=depth, m
3.7.8 Repeat the procedures in section 3.7
for each well.
3.8 Calculate the total void volume of the
test wells (Vv) by summing the void volumes
(V) of each well.
3.9 Long Term Testing. The purpose of
long term testing is to determine the methane
generation rate constant, k. Use the blower to
extract LFG from the wells. If a single blower
and flare assembly and common header
system are used, open all control valves and
set the blower vacuum equal to the highest
stabilized blower vacuum demonstrated by
any individual well in section 3.7. Every 8
hours, sample the LFG from the wellhead
sample port, measure the gauge pressures of
the shallow pressure probes, the blower
vacuum, the LFG flow rate, and use the
criteria for infiltration in section 3.7.2 and
Method 3C to check for infiltration. If
infiltration is detected, do not reduce the
blower vacuum, but reduce the LFG flow rate
from the well by adjusting the control valve
on the wellhead. Adjust each affected well
individually. Continue until the equivalent of
two total void volumes (Vv) have been
extracted, or until Vt=2 Vv.
3.9.1 Calculate V,, the total volume of
LFG extracted from the wells, as follows.
Vt=£60Q,tvl
1=1
where,
V,=total volume of LFG extracted from wells,
Q,=LFG flow rate measured at orifice meter
at the i"1 interval, cubic meters per
minute
tvi=time of the 1th interval, hour (usually 8)
3.9.2 Record the final stabilized flow rate
as Qf. If, during the long term testing, the
flow rate does not stabilize, calculate Qf by
averaging the last 10 recorded flow rates.
3.9.3 For each deep probe, convert each
gauge pressure to absolute pressure as in
section 3.7.4. Average these values and
record as PM. For each probe, compare Pla to
Psa. Determine the furthermost point from the
wellhead along each radial arm where Psa <
P,a. This distance is the stabilized radius of
influence. Average these values to determine
the average stabilized radius of influence
3.10 Determine the NMOC mass emission
rate using the procedures in section 5.
3.11 Deactivation of pressure probe holes.
Upon completion of measurements, if
pressure probes are removed, restore the
-------
9940
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
integrity of the landfill cover by backfilling
and sealing to prevent venting of LFG to the
atmosphere or air infiltration.
4. Calibrations
Gas Flow Measuring Device Calibration
Procedure. Locate a standard pilot tube in
line with a gas flow measuring device. Use
the procedures in Method 2D, section 4, to
calibrate the orifice meter. Method 3C may be
used to determine the dry molecular weight.
It may be necessary to calibrate more than
one gas flow measuring device to bracket the
landfill gas flow rates. Construct a calibration
curve by plotting the pressure drops across
the gas flow measuring device for each flow
rate versus the average dry gas volumetric
flow rate in cubic meters per minute of the
gas. Use this calibration curve to determine
the volumetric flow from the wells during
testing.
5. Calculations
5.1 Nomenclature.
Aavg=average age of the solid waste tested,
year
A,=age of solid waste in the ith fraction, year
A=age of landfill, year
Ar=acceptance rate, megagrams per year
CNMOC=NMOC concentration, ppmv as
hexane (CNMOc=C,/6)
Ct=NMOC concentration, ppmv (carbon
equivalent) from Method 25C
D = depth affected by the test wells, m
Dsv=depth affected by the test wells in the
short term test, m
DLF=landfill depth, m
f = fraction of decomposable solid waste in
the landfill
f,=fraction of the solid waste in the ith section
k=methane generation rate constant, year''
L0=methane generation potential, cubic
meters per megagram
L0=revised methane generation potential to
account for the amount of
nondecomposable material in the
landfill, cubic meters per megagram
M,=mass of solid waste of the 1th section,
megagrams
Mr=mass of decomposable solid waste
affected by the test well, megagrams
Mw=number of wells
Pbar=atmospheric pressure, mm Hg
Pg=gauge pressure of the deep pressure
probes, mm Hg
P,=initial absolute pressure of the deep
pressure probes during static testing, mm
Hg
Pla=average initial absolute pressure of the
deep pressure probes during static
testing, mm Hg
Pt=final absolute pressure of the deep
pressure probes during short term
testing, mm Hg
Pfa=average final absolute pressure of the
deep pressure probes during short term
testing, mm Hg
Ps=final absolute pressure of the deep
pressure probes during long term testing,
mm Hg
Psa=average final absolute pressure of the
deep pressure probes during long term
testing, mm Hg
QB=required blow flow rate, cubic meters per
minute
Qf=final stabilized flow rate, cubic meters per
minute
Q,=LFG flow rate measured at orifice meter
during the i111 interval, cubic meters per
minute
Qs=maximum LFG flow rate at each well
determined by short term test, cubic
meters per minute
Qt=NMOC mass emission rate, cubic meters
per minute
Rm=maximum radius of influence, m
Rma=average maximum radius of influence, m
Rs=stabilized radius of influence for an
individual well, m
Rsa=average stabilized radius of influence, m
t,=age of section i, year
tt=total time of long term testing, year
V=void volume of test well, m3
Vr=volume of solid waste affected by the test
well, m3
Vt=total volume of solid waste affected by the
long term testing, m3
Vv=total void volume affected by test wells,
m3
WD=well depth, m
p=solid waste density, m3 (Assume 0.64
megagrams per cubic meter if data are
unavailable)
5.2 Use the following equation to
calculate the depth affected by the test well.
If using cluster wells, use the average depth
of the wells for WD. If the value of D is
greater than the depth of the landfill, set D
equal to the landfill depth.
D=WD+Rsa
5.3 Use the following equation to
calculate the volume of solid waste affected
by the test well.
Vr=Rsaz it D
5.4 Use the following equation to
calculate the mass affected by the test well.
Mr=Vrp
5.5 Modify L0 to account for the
nondecomposable solid waste in the landfill.
L0'=fL0
5.6 In the following equation, solve for k
by iteration. A suggested procedure is to
select a value for k, calculate the left side of
the equation, and if not equal to zero, select
another value for k. Continue this process
until the left hand side of the equation equals
zero, #0.001.
Qf
= 0
5.7 Use the following equation to
determine landfill NMOC mass emission rate
if the yearly acceptance rate of solid waste
has been consistent (±10 percent) over the
life of the landfill.
Q, = 2 Lo' Ar (1 - e~k A) CNMOC / (5.256 x
10")
5.8 Use the following equation to
determine landfill NMOC mass emission rate
if the acceptance rate has not been consistent
over the life of the landfill.
0 =
Qt
(5.256X10")
-kt.
,e i
6. Bibliography
I. Same as Method 2, appendix A, 40 CFR
part 60.
2. Emcon Associates. Methane Generation
and Recovery from Landfills. Ann Arbor
Science, 1982.
3. The Johns Hopkins University, Brown
Station Road Testing and Gas Recovery
Projections. Laurel, Maryland: October 1982.
4. Mandeville and Associates, Procedure
Manual for Landfill Gases Emission Testing.
5. Letter and attachments from Briggum, S.,
Waste Management of North America, to
Thorneloe, S., EPA. Response to July 28,
1988 request for additional information.
August 18,1988.
6. Letter and attachments from Briggum, S.,
Waste Management of North America, to
Wyatt, S., EPA. Response to December 7,
1988 request for additional information.
January 16, 1989.
Method 3C—Determination of Carbon
Dioxide, Methane, Nitrogen, and Oxygen
From Stationary Sources
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the analysis of carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), nitrogen (N2), and oxygen
(O2) in samples from municipal solid waste
landfills and other sources when specified in
an applicable subpart.
1.2 Principle. A portion of the sample is
injected into a gas chromatograph (GC) and
the CO2, CH4, N2, and O2 concentrations are
determined by using a thermal conductivity
detector (TCD) and integrator.
2. Range and Sensitivity
2.1 Range. The range of this method
depends upon the concentration of samples.
The analytical range of TCD's is generally
between approximately 10 ppmv and the
upper percent range.
2.2 Sensitivity. The sensitivity limit for a
compound is defined as the minimum
detectable concentration of that compound,
or the concentration that produces a signal-
to-noise ratio of three to one. For CO?, CH4,
N2, and O2, the sensitivity limit is in the low
ppmv range.
3. Interferences
Since the TCD exhibits universal response
and detects all gas components except the
carrier, interferences may occur. Choosing
the appropriate GC or shifting the retention
times by changing the column flow rate may
help to eliminate resolution interferences.
To assure consistent detector response,
helium is used to prepare calibration gases.
Frequent exposure to samples or carrier gas
containing oxygen may gradually destroy
filaments.
4. Apparatus
4.1 Gas Chromatograph. GC having at
least the following components:
4.1.1 Separation Column. Appropriate
column(s) to resolve CO2, CH4, N2, O2, and
other gas components that may be present in
the sample.
4.1.2 Sample Loop. Teflon or stainless
steel tubing of the appropriate diameter.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 9941
Note: Mention of trade names or specific
products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation by the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
4.1.3 Conditioning System. To maintain
the column and sample loop at constant
temperature.
4.1.4 Thermal Conductivity Detector.
4.2 Recorder. Recorder with linear strip
chart. Electronic integrator (optional) is
recommended.
4.3 Teflon Tubing. Diameter and length
determined by connection requirements of
cylinder regulators and the GC.
4.4 Regulators. To control gas cylinder
pressures and flow rates.
4.5 Adsorption Tubes. Applicable traps to
remove any 62 from the carrier gas.
5. Reagents
5.1 Calibration and Linearity Gases.
Standard cylinder gas mixtures for each
compound of interest with at least three
concentration levels spanning the range of
suspected sample concentrations. The
calibration gases shall be prepared in helium.
5.2 Carrier Gas. Helium, high-purity.
6. Analysis
6.1 Sample Collection. Use the sample
collection procedures described in Methods
3 or 25C to collect a sample of landfill gas
(LFG).
6.2 Preparation of GC. Before putting the
GC analyzer into routine operation, optimize
the operational conditions according to the
manufacturer's specifications to provide good
resolution and minimum analysis time.
Establish the appropriate carrier gas flow and
set the detector sample and reference cell
flow rates at exactly the same levels. Adjust
the column and detector temperatures to the
recommended levels. Allow sufficient time
for temperature stabilization. This may
typically require 1 hour for each change in
temperature.
6.3 Analyzer Linearity Check and
Calibration. Perform this test before sample
analysis. Using the gas mixtures in section
5.1, verify the detector linearity over the
range of suspected sample concentrations
with at least three points per compound of
interest. This initial check may also serve as
the initial instrument calibration. All
subsequent calibrations may be performed
using a single-point standard gas provided
the calibration point is within 20 percent of
the sample component concentration. For
each instrument calibration, record the
carrier and detector flow rates, detector
filament and block temperatures, attenuation
factor, injection time, chart speed, sample
loop volume, and component concentrations.
Plot a linear regression of the standard
concentrations versus area values to obtain
the response factor of each compound.
Alternatively, response factors of uncorrected
component concentrations (wet basis) may be
generated using instrumental integration.
Note: Peak height may be used instead of
peak area throughout this method.
6.4 Sample Analysis. Purge the sample
loop with sample, and allow to come to
atmospheric pressure before each injection.
Analyze each sample in duplicate, and
calculate the average sample area (A). The
results are acceptable when the peak areas for
two consecutive injections agree within 5
percent of their average. If they do not agree,
run additional samples until consistent area
data are obtained. Determine the tank sample
concentrations according to section 7.2.
7. Calculations
Carry out calculations retaining at least one
extra decimal figure beyond that of the
acquired data. Round off results only after
the final calculation.
7.1 Nomenclature.
A = average sample area
Bw = moisture content in the sample, fraction
C = component concentration in the sample,
dry basis, ppmv
C, = calculated NMOC concentration, ppmv
C equivalent
C,m = measured NMOC concentration, ppmv
C equivalent
Pbar = barometric pressure, mm Hg
Pu = gas sample tank pressure after
evacuation, mm Hg absolute
Pt = gas sample tank pressure after sampling,
but before pressurizing, mm Hg absolute
Ptf = final gas sample tank pressure after
pressurizing, mm Hg absolute
Pw = vapor pressure of H2O (from table 3C-
1), mm Hg
Tu = sample tank temperature before
sampling, °K
T, = sample tank temperature at completion
of sampling, "K
Tlf = sample tank temperature after
pressurizing, °K
r = total number of analyzer injections of
sample tank during analysis (where j =
injection number, 1 . . . r)
R = Mean calibration response factor for
specific sample component, area/ppmv
TABLE 3C-1 .—MOISTURE
CORRECTION
Temperature °C
4
6
8
10
12
14 ...
16
18
20
22
24 ....
26
28
30
Vapor Pres-
sure of
H2O, mm
Hg
6.1
70
8.0
92
10 5
120
13 6
155
175
19.8
224
252
283
31 8
7.2 Concentration of Sample
Components. Calculate C for each compound
using Equations 3C-1 and 3C-2. Use the
temperature and barometric pressure at the
sampling site to calculate Bw. If the sample
was diluted with helium using the
procedures in Method 25C, use Equation 3C-
3 to calculate the concentration.
B _ W
Bw
"bar
c =
R(I-BW)
c =
p p / \
^L_i R(1-BW)
3C-1
3C-2
3C-3
T T
1t l
8. Bibliography
1. McNair, H.M., and E.J. Bonnelli. Basic
Gas Chromatography. Consolidated Printers,
Berkeley, CA. 1969.
Method 25C— Determination of Nonmethane
Organic Compounds (NMOC) in MSW
Landfill Gases
1. Applicability and Principle
1 . 1 Applicability. This method is
applicable to the sampling and measurement
of nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC)
as carbon in MSW landfill gases.
1.2 Principle. A sample probe that has
been perforated at one end is driven or
augered to a depth of 1.0 meter below the
bottom of the landfill cover. A sample of the
landfill gas is extracted with an evacuated
cylinder. The NMOC content of the gas is
determined by injecting a portion of the gas
into a gas chromatographic column to
separate the NMOC from carbon monoxide
(CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane
(CH4); the NMOC are oxidized to CO2,
reduced to CH4, and measured by a flame
ionization detector (FID). In this manner, the
variable response of the FID associated with
different types of organics is eliminated.
2. Apparatus
2.1 Sample Probe. Stainless steel, with
the bottom third perforated. The sample
probe shall be capped at the bottom and shall
have a threaded cap with a sampling
attachment at the top. The sample probe shall
be long enough to go thruugh and extend no
less than 1 .0 meter below the landfill cover.
If the sample probe is to be driven into the
landfill, the bottom cap should be designed
to facilitate driving the probe into the
landfill.
2.2 Sampling Train.
2.2.1 Rotameter with Flow Control Valve.
Capable of measuring a sample flow rate of
500 ml/min or less (30.5±3.1 mVmin). The
control valve shall be made of stainless steel.
2.2.2 Sampling Valve. Stainless steel.
2.2.3 Pressure Gauge. U-tube mercury
manometer, or equivalent, capable of
measuring pressure to within 1 mm Hg in the
range of 0 to 1 , 100 mm Hg.
2.2.4 Sample Tank. Stainless steel or
aluminum cylinder, with a minimum volume
of 4 liters and equipped with a stainless steel
sample tank valve.
2.3 Vacuum Pump. Capable of evacuating
to an absolute pressure of 10 mm Hg.
2.4 Purging Pump. Portable, explosion
proof, and suitable for sampling NMOC.
-------
9942 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
2.5 Pilot Probe Procedure. The following
are needed only if the tester chooses to use
the procedure described in section 4.2.1.
2.5.1 Pilot Probe. Tubing of sufficient
strength to withstand being driven into the
landfill by a post driver and an outside
diameter of at least 6.0 millimeters smaller
than the sample probe. The pilot probe shall
be capped on both ends and long enough to
go through the landfill cover and extend no
less than 1.0 meter into the landfill.
2.5.2 Post Driver and Compressor.
Capable of driving the pilot probe and the
sampling probe into the landfill.
2.6 Auger Procedure. The following are
needed only if the tester chooses to use the
procedure described in section 4.2.2.
2.6.1 Auger. Capable of drilling through
the landfill cover and to a depth of no less
than 0.9 meters into the landfill.
2.6.2 Pea Gravel.
2.6.3 Bentonite.
2.7 NMOC Analyzer, Barometer,
Thermometer, and Syringes. Same as in
sections 2.3, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.4, respectively,
of Method 25.
3. Reagents
3.1 NMOC Analysis. Same as in Method
25, section 3.2.
3.2 Calibration. Same as in Method 25,
section 3.4, except omit section 3.4.3.
4. Procedure
4.1 Sample Tank Evacuation and Leak
Check. Conduct the sample tank evacuation
and leak check either in the laboratory or the
field. Connect the pressure gauge and
sampling valve to the sample tank. Evacuate
the sample tank to 10 mm Hg absolute
pressure or less. Close the sampling valve,
and allow the tank to sit for 60 minutes. The
tank is acceptable if no change is noted.
Include the results of the leak check in the
test report.
4.2 Sample Probe Installation. The tester
may use the procedure in sections 4.2.1 or
4.2.2. CAUTION: Since this method is
complex, only experienced personnel should
perform this test. LFG contains methane,
therefore explosive mixtures may exist on or
near the landfill. It is advisable to take
appropriate safety precautions when testing
landfills, such as refraining from smoking
and installing explosion-proof equipment.
4.2.1 Pilot Probe Procedure. Use the post
driver to drive the pilot probe at least 1.0
meter below the landfill cover. Alternative
procedures to drive the probe into the
landfill may be used subject to the approval
of the Administrator.
Remove the pilot probe and drive the
sample probe into the hole left by the pilot
probe. The sample probe shall extend not
less than 1.0 meter below the landfill cover
and shall protrude about 0.3 meters above the
landfill cover. Seal around the sampling
probe with bentonite and cap the sampling
probe with the sampling probe cap.
4.2.2 Auger Procedure. Use an auger to
drill a hole through the landfill cover and to
at least 1.0 meter below the landfill cover.
Place the sample probe in the hole and
backfill with pea gravel to a level 0.6 meters
from the surface. The sample probe shall
protrude at least 0.3 meters above the landfill
cover. Seal the remaining area around the
probe with bentonite. Allow 24 hours for the
landfill gases to equilibrate inside the
augered probe before sampling.
4.3 Sample Train Assembly. Prepare the
sample by evacuating and filling the sample
tank with helium three times. After the third
evacuation, charge the sample tank with
helium to a pressure of approximately 325
mm Hg. Record the pressure, the ambient
temperature, and the barometric pressure.
Assemble the sampling probe purging system
as shown in figure 1.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Sampling
Flow Control
Va»w
Sampling
Probe
Sample Probe
Cap
Landfill Cover Surface
Vent
Purge Pump
Figur* 1. Schematic of sampling prob* purging
4.4 Sampling Procedure. Open the
sampling valve and use the purge pump and
the flow control valve to evacuate at least two
sample probe volumes from the system at a
flow rate of 500 ml/min or less (30.5±3.1 m3/
min). Close the sampling valve and replace
the purge pump with the sample tank
apparatus as shown in figure 2. Open the
sampling valve and the sample tank valves
and, using the flow control valve, sample at
a flow rate of 500 mVmin or less (30.5±3.1
m3/min) until the sample tank gauge pressure
is zero. Disconnect the sampling tank
apparatus and use the carrier gas bypass
valve to pressurize the sample cylinder to
approximately 1,060 mm Hg absolute
pressure with helium and record the final
pressure. Alternatively, the sample tank may
be pressurized in the lab. If not analyzing for
N2, the sample cylinder may be pressurized
with zero air. Use Method 3C to determine
the percent Na in the sample. Presence of N2
indicates infiltration of ambient air into the
gas sample. The landfill sample is acceptable
if the concentration of N2 is less than 20
percent.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 9943
Sampling
Valve
Vacuum Gauge
Sampling
Probe
duck Disconnect
Sample Tank Valve
Sample Probe
Cap
Landfill Cover Surface
Sample Tank
A.
(-
«C
O
e
Figura 2, Schematic of stapling train.
4.5 Analysis. The oxidation, reduction,
and measurement of NMOC is similar to
Method 25. Before putting the NMOC
analyzer into routine operation, conduct an
initial performance test. Start the analyzer,
and perform all the necessary functions to
put the analyzer into proper working order.
Conduct the performance test according to
the procedures established in section 5.1.
Once the performance test has been
successfully completed and the NMOC
calibration response factor has been
determined, proceed with sample analysis as
follows:
4.5.1 Daily Operations and Calibration
Checks. Before and immediately after the
analysis of each set of samples or on a daily
basis (whichever occurs first), conduct a
calibration test according to the procedures
established in section 5,2. If the criteria of the
daily calibration test cannot be met, repeat
the NMOC analyzer performance test (section
5.1) before proceeding.
4.5.2 Operating Conditions. Same as in
Method 25, section 4.4.2.
4.5.3 Analysis of Sample Tank. Purge the
sample loop with sample, and then inject the
sample. Under the specified operating
conditions, the COa in the sample will elute
in approximately 100 seconds. As soon as the
detector response returns to baseline
following the CO2 peak, switch the carrier gas
flow to backflush, and raise the column oven
temperature to 195 °C as rapidly as possible.
A rate of 30 °C/min has been shown to be
adequate. Record the value obtained for any
measured NMOC. Return the column oven
temperature to 85 °C in preparation for the
next analysis. Analyze each sample in
triplicate, and report the average as Cun.
4.6 Audit Samples. Same as in Method
25, section 4.5.
4.7 Deactivation of Sample Probe Holes.
Once sampling has taken place, either plug
the sampling probes with a cap or remove the
probes and refill the hole with cover
material.
5. Calibration and Operational Checks
Maintain a record of performance of each
item.
5.1 Initial NMOC Analyzer Performance
Test. Same as in Method 25, section 5.2,
except omit the linearity checks for CO2
standards.
5.2 NMOC Analyzer Daily Calibration.
NMOC response factors, same as in Method
25, section 5.3.2.
6. Calculations
All equations are written using absolute
pressure; absolute pressures are determined
by adding the measured barometric pressure
to the measured gauge of manometer
pressure.
6.1 Nomenclature.
Bw=moisture content in the sample, fraction
CN2=measured N2 concentration, fraction
Ct=calculated NMOC concentration, ppmv C
equivalent
Ctm=measured NMOC concentration, ppmv C
equivalent
Pb=barometric pressure, mm Hg
Pu=gas sample tank pressure before sampling,
mm Hg absolute
P,=gas sample tank pressure at completion of
sampling, but before pressurizing, mm
Hg absolute
Pi/=final gas sample tank pressure after
pressurizing, mm Hg absolute
Pw=vapor pressure of H2O (from table 25C-
1), mm Hg
T,,=sample tank temperature before sampling,
°K
T,=sample tank temperature at completion of
sampling, but before pressuring, °K
Ttt=sample tank temperature after
pressurizing, °K
r=total number of analyzer injections of
sample tank during analysis (where
j=injection number, 1. . .r)
6.2 Water Correction. Use table 25C-1,
the LFG temperature, and barometric
pressure at the sampling site to calculate Bw.
TABLE 25C-1.—MOISTURE
CORRECTION
Temperature, °C
4
6
8
1
12
14 ..
16 .
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Vapor Pres-
sure of H2O,
mm Hg
6 1
7.0
80
9.2
105
120
136
155
175
198
22.4
25.2
28.3
31.8
6.3 NMOC Concentration. Use the
following equation to calculate the
concentration of NMOC for each sample tank.
-------
9944 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations
£<__£«. (l-Bw-CN2)rJ=1
0)
7. Bibliography
1. Salon, Albert E., Samuel Wltz, and
Robert D. MacPhee. Determination of Solvent
Vapor Concentrations by Total Combustion
Analysis: A Comparison of Infrared with
Flame lonization Detectors. Paper No. 75-
33.2. (Presented at the 68th Annual Meeting
of the Air Pollution Control Association.
Boston, Massachusetts. June 15-20, 1975.) p.
14.
2. Salon. Albert E., William L. Oaks, and
Robert D. MacPhee. Measuring the Organic
Carbon Content of Source Emissions for Air
Pollution Control. Paper No. 74-190.
(Presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the
Air Pollution Control Association. Denver,
Colorado. June 9-13, 1974.) p. 25.
[FR Doc. 96-5529 Filed 3-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
46 CFR Part 501
The Federal Maritime Commission—
General
AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime
Commission is revising its statement of
delegations of authorities to include
new authority delegated to the Director
of the Bureau of Economics and
Agreement Analysis to grant or deny
applications for waivers of certain
regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 12, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Austin L. Schmitt, Director, Bureau of
Economics and Agreement Analysis,
Federal Maritime Commission, 800
North Capitol Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20573-0001, (202) 523-5787.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Docket
No. 94-31, Information Form and Post-
Effective Reporting Requirements for
Agreements Among Ocean Common
Carriers Subject to the Shipping Act of
1984, the Federal Maritime Commission
("Commission") has amended its
regulations set forth in 46 CFR Part 572
governing the filing, processing and
review of agreements among ocean
common carriers subject to the Shipping
Act of 1984. The amended regulations
provide that, upon a showing of good
cause, the Commission may waive any
part of their requirements, and set forth
procedures and standards governing
applications for a waiver.
This rule amends the Commission's
statement of delegations of authorities
in 46 CFR Part 501 to include a new
delegation to the Director of the
Commission's Bureau of Economics and
Agreement Analysis to grant or deny
applications for waivers of the
agreement regulations. Review of the
Director's grant or denial of a waiver is
available under the procedures already
in effect pursuant to 46 CFR 501.21(f).
Notice and opportunity for public
comment were not necessary prior to
issuance of this rule and because it
deals solely with matters of agency
organization and procedure. 5 U.S.C.
553.
List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 501
Administrative practice and
procedure; authority delegations;
organization and functions; seals and
insignia.
Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 551-
557, 701-706, 2903 and 6304; 31 U.S.C.
3721; 41 U.S.C. 414 and 418; 44 U.S.C.
501-520 and 3501-3520; 46 U.S.C. app.
801-848, 876, 1111 and 1701-1720;
Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961, 26
FR 7315, August 12, 1961; Pub. L. 89-
56, 79 Stat. 195; and 5 CFR Part 2638,
Part 501 of Title 46, Code of Federal
Regulations, is amended to read as
follows:
PART 501—THE FEDERAL MARITIME
COMMISSION—GENERAL
1. The authority citation for Part 501
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551-557, 701-706,
2903 and 6304; 31 U.S.C. 3721; 41 U.S.C. 414
and 418; 44 U.S.C. 501-520 and 3501-3520:
46 U.S.C. app. 801-848, 876, 1111 and 1701-
1720; Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961, 26
FR 7315, August 12, 1961; Pub. L. 89-56, 79
Stat. 195; 5 CFR Part 2638.
2. In section 501.26, paragraph (f) is
amended by changing the reference to
"572.404" to "572.406," and by
changing the references to "572.501 and
572.502" to "572.404 and 572.405;"
paragraphs (g) through (m) are
redesignated (i) through (o); newly
redesignated (i) (6) is removed; and new
paragraphs (g) and (h) are added, as
follows:
§ 501.26 Delegation to the Director, Bureau
of Economics and Agreement Analysis.
*****
(g) Authority to grant or deny
applications filed under §572.505 of
this chapter for waiver of the
information form requirements of
§§572.503 and 572.504 of this chapter.
By the Commission.
(h) Authority to grant or deny
applications filed under § 572.709 of
this chapter for waiver of the reporting
and record retention requirements of
§§572.701, 572.702, 572.703, 572.704,
572.705, 572.706. 572.707 and 572.708
of this chapter.
*****
By the Commission.
Ronald D. Murphy,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-5807 Filed 3-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILUNG CODE 6730-01-M
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR PART 25
[CC Docket No. 92-166; FCC 96-54]
Mobile Satellite Service in the 1610-
1626.5/2483.5-2500 MHz Frequency
Band
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule: petition for
reconsideration.
SUMMARY: The Commission has adopted,
upon reconsideration, changes to the
rules and policies establishing service
and licensing rules for the Mobile
Satellite Service in the 1610-1626.5/
2483.5-2500 MHz Frequency Band.
Specifically, we conclude that the
"interim plan," designed to avoid
interference between the Big LEO
systems and the Russian Global
Navigation Satellite System
("GLONASS"), is unnecessary at this
time. We also clarify our views
concerning position determination
capabilities in Big LEO earth terminals,
and modifications to feeder link
proposals. In order to ensure that United
States licensees do not engage in
practices that are contrary to the goal of
competitive markets world-wide, we
also adopt a rule concerning exclusive
arrangements for provision of Big LEO
service. We also clarify our "two-tiered"
processing scheme for financial
qualifications. In addition, we make a
number of minor editorial and clarifying
changes to our technical rules.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 11, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl
Kensinger, International Bureau,
Satellite and Radiocommunication
Division, Satellite Policy Branch, (202)
418-0773.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission's
Memorandum Opinion and Order in CC
Docket No. 92-166; FCC 96-54, adopted
February 12, 1996 and released
February 15, 1996. The complete text of
this Memorandum Opinion and Order is
-------
APPENDIX 12
Amendments to Subparts Cc and WWW appeared as a direct final notice
in the Federal Register on June 16, 1998 (63 FR 32743) and can also be found
on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/1998/June
K \01(X)\001\(X>2\VOLUME 2WPENDIX I
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 115/Tuesday, June 16, 1998/Rules and Regulations
32743
transiting the ICW once the last tall ship
in the parade clears the Savannah River
and Fields Cut junction.
(3) From 2 p.m. until 5 p.m. EDT on
July 3, 1998, and from 8 a.m. until 11
a.m. EDT on July 6, 1998, all waters
bounded by the south bank of the
Savannah River to the center of the
Savannah River Channel, from the
Talmadge Bridge to position 32-04.45,
081-04.45W. During these times no
vessel shall be allowed to enter these
safety zones unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port.
(4) From 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. EDT on
July 4, 1998, a 300 foot radius around
a fireworks staging area in approximate
position 32-05N, 081-05W. During this
time no vessel shall be allowed to enter
this safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port.
(5) From 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. EDT on July
6, 1998, the center 300 feet of the
Savannah River channel from the
Talmadge Bridge to the entrance of
Bloody Point Range. Vessels that cannot
safely navigate outside of this safety
zone and desire to depart the port of
Savannah on July 6, 1998, would be
required to begin the outbound transit
in sufficient time to clear the Savannah
Riverfront area prior to 8 a.m. Vessels
that cannot safely navigate outside of
this safety zone and desire to enter the
port of Savannah on July 6, 1998, would
be required to clear the Savannah
Riverfront area prior to 8 a.m. If unable
to clear the Savannah Riverfront area by
8 a.m., these vessels would be required
to start the inbound transit after 2 p.m.
The Captain of the Port will allow vessel
traffic to resume outbound transits
utilizing the entire navigational channel
when the last tall ship in the parade
clears longitude 080-51W. Vessels using
the ICW will not be allowed to cross the
Savannah River at the junction of the
Fields Cut once the parade approaches
within one (1) nautical mile of this area.
Vessels will be allowed to resume
transiting the ICW once the last tall ship
in the parade clears the Savannah River
and Fields Cut junction.
(6) From 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. EDT on
July 6, 1998, an area bounded by 32-
00.19N, 080-44.07W, 31-59.35N, 080-
43.08W, 32-00.59N, 080-41.32W, and
32-01.43N, 080-42.28W. During this
time no vessel shall be allowed to enter
this safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port.
Note: The regulations specified in
paragraphs (a)(l) and (a) (6) apply only within
the navigable waters of the United States. In
the waters within the offshore staging area
and pre-race staging area that are outside the
navigable waters of the United States, the
following nonobligatory guidelines apply.
(i) All unaffiliated Americas' Sail
vessels should remain clear of the
staging area and pre-race staging area
and avoid interfering with any
Americas' Sail participant or Coast
Guard vessel. Interference with
anchoring or race activities may
constitute a safety hazard warranting
cancellation or termination of all or part
of the Americas' Sail activities by the
Captain of the Port.
(ii) Any unauthorized entry into these
zones by unaffiliated vessels constitutes
a risk to the safety of marine traffic.
Such entry will constitute a factor to be
considered in determining whether a
person has operated a vessel in a
negligent manner in violation of 46
U.S.C. 2302.
(b) Regulations. In accordance with
the general regulations in § 165.23 of
this part, entry into these safety zones
is subject to the following requirements:
(1) These safety zones are closed to all
non-participating vessels, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port
or a representative of the Captain of the
Port.
(2) The "representative of the Captain
of the Port" is any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer
who has been designated by the Captain
of the Port, Savannah, GA, to act on his
behalf. The representative of the Captain
of the Port will be aboard either a Coast
Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.
(3) Non-participating vessel operators
desiring to enter or operate within the
safety zone shall contact the Captain of
the Port or his representative to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators
given permission to enter or operate in
the safety zone shall comply with all
directions given them by the Captain of
the Port or his representative.
(4) The Captain of the Port may be
contacted by telephone via the
Command Duty Officer at (912) 652-
4353. Vessels assisting in the
enforcement of the safety zone may be
contacted on VHF-FM channel 16.
Vessel operators may determine the
restrictions in effect for the safety zone
by coming alongside a Coast Guard
vessel patrolling the perimeter of the
safety zone.
(5) The Captain of the Port Savannah
will issue a Marine Safety Information
Broadcast Notice to Mariners to notify
the maritime community of the safety
zones and restrictions imposed.
(c) Dates. This section becomes
effective at 9 a.m., Eastern Daylight
Time (EDT) on July 2, 1998, and
terminates at 2 p.m., EDT on July 6,
1998.
Dated June 3, 1998
R.E. Seebald,
Commander, U S Coast Guard. Captain of
the Port, Savannah, Georgia
[FR Doc. 98-15965 Filed 6-15-98, 8'45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[AD-FRL-6106-8]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Guidelines for
Control of Existing Sources: Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
SUMMARY: This action amends, corrects
errors, and clarifies regulatory text of
the "Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and Guidelines for
Control of Existing Sources: Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills," which was
issued as a final rule and guideline on
March 12, 1996.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become
effective August 17, 1998 without
further notice unless the Agency
receives relevant adverse comment by
July 16, 1998. Should the Agency
receive such comments, it will publish
a timely document withdrawing this
rule.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center (MC-6102), Attn:
Docket No. A-88-09/Category V-D, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
The EPA request that a separate copy
also be sent to the contact person listed
below. Refer to SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for information regarding
electronic submittal of comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information concerning this notice and
analyses performed in developing this
rule, contact Ms. Michele Laur, Waste
and Chemical Processes Group,
Emission Standards Division (MD-13),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-
5256. For implementation issues,
contact Mary Ann Warner, Program
Review Group, Information Transfer and
Program Integration Division (MD-12),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-
1192. For information on the Landfill
-------
32744
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 115/Tuesday, June 16, 1998/Rules and Regulations
Model, contact Susan Thorneloe
through the internet at:
thorneloe.susan@epamail.epa.gov. For
information concerning applicability
and rule determinations, contact the
appropriate regional representative:
Region I
Greg Roscoe, Air Programs Compliance
Branch Chief, U.S. EPA/ASO, Region
I, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA
02203, (617) 565-3221
Region II
Christine DeRosa, U.S. EPA, Region II,
290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4022
Region III
James Topsale, U.S. EPA/3AP22, Region
III, 841 Chestnut Building,
Philadelphia, PA 10107, (215) 566-
2190
Region IV
R. Douglas Neeley, Chief, Air and
Radiation Technology Branch, U.S.
EPA, Region IV, 61 Forsyth St., SW.,
Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 562-9105
Region V
George T. Czerniak, Jr., Air Enforcement
Branch Chief, U.S. EPA/5AE-26,
Region V, 77 West Jackson Street,
Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353-2088
Region VI
John R. Hepola, Air Enforcement Branch
Chief, U.S. EPA, Region VI, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX
75202-2733, (214) 655-7220
Region VII
Ward Burns, U.S. EPA/RME, Region VII,
726 Minnesota Avenue/ARTDAPCO,
Kansas City, KS 66101-2728, (913)
551-7960
Region VIII
Vicki Stamper, U.S. EPA, Region VIII,
999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO
80202-2466, (303) 312-6445
Region IX
Patricia Bowlin, U.S. EPA/RM HAN/
17211, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street/AIR-4, San Francisco, CA,
(415) 744-1188
Region X
Catherine Woo, U.S. EPA, Region X,
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-1814
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A
companion proposal to this final rule is
being published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register and
is identical to this direct final rule. Any
comments on this direct final rule
should address the companion proposal.
The proposal provides information on
addresses for submittal of comments. If
relevant adverse comments are timely
received, such comments will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. A document
informing the public that the direct final
rule did not take effect will be
published. If no relevant adverse
comments are timely filed on any
provision of this direct final rule, then
the entire direct final rule will become
effective 60 days from today's Federal
Register document and no further action
will be taken on the companion
proposal published today.
Background
On March 12, 1996 (60 FR 9918), the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) promulgated in the Federal
Register standards of performance for
new sources (NSPS) for municipal solid
waste landfills and emission guidelines
for existing municipal solid waste
landfills. These regulations and
guidelines were promulgated as
subparts WWW and Cc of 40 CFR part
60.
This document revises the wording of
the applicability sections of subparts
WWW and Cc and related definitions to
clarify the intent regarding which
landfills are subject to subpart WWW
versus subpart Cc. This notice also
corrects typographical and cross
referencing errors. A few editorial
modifications are also being made to
clarify the intent of certain provisions
and correct inconsistencies between
different sections of subpart WWW.
These changes do not significantly
modify the requirements of the
regulation.
I. Description of Changes
A. Definitions
The NSPS applies to landfills that
commence construction, modification,
or reconstruction on or after May 30,
1991. A definition of "modification" is
being added. The definition is specific
to landfills but is consistent with the
intent of section 60.14 of the NSPS
General Provisions. Application of the
NSPS General Provisions to landfills is
problematic due to the fact that a
landfill is not a typical production or
manufacturing facility for which the
General Provisions originally were
written. The following discussion
demonstrates the considerations made
to apply the NSPS General Provisions to
landfills. This limited definition of
modification is uniquely appropriate for
landfills, and EPA does not believe at
this time that such a rationale could be
extended outside the landfill context.
As stated in 40 CFR 60.14(a),
modifications are physical or
operational changes to an existing
facility that result in an increase in the
emissions of any pollutant to which a
standard applies. However, with respect
to landfills, the concept of a physical or
operational change leading to an
increase in emissions is of limited
application, since unlike more
traditional sources of air pollution,
increased emissions at landfills are
based on the amount and character of
waste placed in the landfill, rather than
through physical or operational changes
to equipment or production methods.
Equipment at a landfill is essentially the
landfill itself and while production can
be roughly equated to the amount of
waste placed in the landfill, total
"production" for the entire life of the
facility is controlled through the amount
of design capacity specified in the
permit. Although the amount and
character of waste present at any given
time may vary within the design
capacity constraints set forth in the
permit, emissions over the total life of
the facility depend on the amount of
waste a landfill can accept pursuant to
its permitted design capacity.
Accordingly, for landfills, it makes
sense to consider only those physical or
operational changes that increase the
size of the landfill beyond its permitted
capacity as modifications subjecting an
existing facility to the NSPS. Therefore,
if the design capacity of a landfill
increases, a change leading to an
increase in emissions is assumed to
have occurred. For purposes of this
NSPS, a landfill is considered modified
and subject to the NSPS if its design
capacity has been increased after May
30, 1991.
Operational changes at landfills, such
as increasing the moisture content of the
waste, increasing the physical
compaction on the surface, changing the
cover material or thickness of daily
cover, and changing bailing or
compaction practices, can typically be
accomplished without a capital
expenditure. Consequently, the landfill
definition of modification does not
include such operational changes.
Existing landfills that make an
operational change but do not increase
the horizontal or vertical dimensions of
the landfill continue to be subject to the
emission guidelines rather than the
NSPS. Therefore, for landfills, the only
change which would constitute a
modification is an increase in design
capacity caused by an increase in the
permitted horizontal or vertical
dimensions of the landfill.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 115/Tuesday, June 16, 1998/Rules and Regulations
32745
Reconstructions are unlikely for
landfills. As specified in the NSPS
General Provisions, reconstructions are
"the replacement of components of an
existing facility [landfill] to such an
extent that: the fixed capital cost of the
new components exceeds 50 percent of
the fixed capital cost of a comparable
entirely new facility [landfill] * * *."
The Agency knows of no situation
where this would occur at a landfill.
The definition of "design capacity" is
being amended to clarify that the design
capacity is determined by 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 that permit.
This clarification addresses cases where
a landfill may have multiple permits. It
makes sense to use the most recent
permitted design capacity to determine
whether a landfill exceeds the design
capacity exemption level. The words
"construction or operating" permit have
also been deleted and substituted with
the word "permit." The use of the term
"operating permit" could be
misinterpreted to mean a title V permit.
The permit intended was the State,
local, or Tribal agency permit that
establishes the design capacity.
The definition of design capacity is
also being clarified to state that a permit
may express design capacity on a
volumetric or a mass basis. The revised
definition also states that the owner or
operator may choose to convert the
design capacity from volume to mass or
from mass to volume, using a site-
specific density, in order to demonstrate
that the design capacity is less than 2.5
million Mg or 2.5 million m3. If the
density changes, the design capacity
changes. Therefore, an owner or
operator who converts from volume to
mass or mass to volume must annually
calculate the site-specific density. These
revisions to the definition are
clarifications that do not change the
intent of the NSPS and emission
guidelines as promulgated on March 12,
1996.
Under the NSPS and emission
guidelines, design capacity is used to
determine whether or not a landfill is
below the design capacity cutoff. If die
design capacity in the permit is below
either 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) or 2.5
million cubic meters (m3), the landfill is
exempt (except for design capacity
reporting requirements). A landfill with
a volumetric permit may choose to
calculate design capacity on a mass
basis (or vice versa) based on a site-
specific density. The initial design
capacity report must provide supporting
documentation of this calculation. If
such a conversion is made, records must
also be kept of the annual recalculation
of the site-specific density and design
capacity with supporting
documentation.
For example, a landfill may have a
permitted design capacity greater than
2.5 million m3 by volume; but the
landfill may have documented
calculations showing that, based on the
actual waste density, the design
capacity is less than 2.5 million Mg by
mass. Because the design capacity is
less than 2.5 million Mg, the landfill is
below the design capacity cutoff. If such
a landfill changes its compaction
practices such that the density of the
waste placed in the landfill increases,
the calculated design capacity could
become greater than 2.5 million Mg, and
the landfill would then need to submit
an amended design capacity report. If
the revised design capacity is over 2.5
million m3 and 2.5 million Mg, the
landfill must estimate emissions and
must install controls if emissions are
greater than or equal to 50 Mg/yr.
If an existing landfill makes an
operational change (such as a change in
compaction practices), this is not a
"modification" (see the previous
discussion on the definition of
"modification"). Such a landfill will
continue to be subject to the emission
guidelines rather than becoming subject
to the NSPS. The emission guidelines
require the landfill to report any
increase in design capacity that results
in a capacity equal to or greater than 2.5
million Mg and 2.5 million m3. The
control requirements of the emission
guidelines will apply if the design
capacity increases to over 2.5 million
Mg and 2.5 million m3 due to an
operational change and not due to
modification as defined by this rule.
The definition of "closed landfill"
and wording in section 60.752(b) are
being revised to delete references to
section 258.60. This reference is not
appropriate for all landfills because
some landfills closed prior to the
October 1993 effective date of part 258
and are not subject to part 258. Section
60.75 2 (b) (2) (v) (A) is being revised for
clarification to refer to the definition of
"closed landfill" in section 60.751
instead of the requirements of section
258.60.
The definition of "interior well" is
being revised to clarify that an interior
well is located inside the perimeter of
the landfilled waste.
The definition of "radii of influence"
is being added parenthetically in section
60.759(a)(3)(ii) for clarification. This
definition makes it clear that the radii
of influence is the distance from the
well center to a point in the landfill
where the pressure gradient applied by
the blower or compressor approaches
zero.
B. Designation of Affected Facility
Section 60.750(a) of subpart WWW is
being revised slightly to clarify which
landfills are subject to the NSPS. The
promulgated rule stated that "the
provisions of this subpart apply to each
municipal solid waste landfill that
commenced construction,
reconstruction, or modification or began
accepting waste on or after May 30,
1991. The words "or began accepting
waste" have been deleted. This change
makes the applicability consistent with
both the definition of "new source" in
section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
and the applicability of the emission
guidelines in section 60.32c of subpart
Cc. As stated in section 60.32c(a), the
emission guidelines apply to landfills
that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction before
May 30, 1991. A landfill that
commenced construction before May 30,
1991, but began accepting waste after
May 1991 should be subject to the
emission guidelines rather than the
NSPS. The change being made
accomplishes this objective and is
consistent with the CAA. The
definitions of "commenced" and
"construction" are contained in section
60.2 of the NSPS General Provisions
(subpart A). A definition for
"modification" is being added to
subpart WWW, and "reconstruction" is
described in section 60.15 of the NSPS
General Provisions.
Section 60.750(b) of subpart WWW is
being revised to clarify that authority for
test methods are retained by the
Administrator and shall not be
transferred to the State. This is
consistent with EPA's historical
position on test methods.
Under applicability, we are also
clarifying that activities conducted as
part of CERCLA remedial actions or
RCRA corrective actions are not
considered construction, modification,
or reconstruction and would not make
a landfill subject to the NSPS. This is
consistent with the provisions that
changes made to an existing landfill
solely to comply with the emission
guidelines do not make the landfill
subject to the NSPS. It is also consistent
with the exemption of facilities subject
to a CERCLA remedial action from
permitting requirements. This provision
is being added to section 60.750 of
subpart WWW as paragraph (c).
Regarding applicability and the
design capacity exemption, the wording
"or" in several places in section 60.752
has been changed to "and" to clarify
that if a landfill design capacity is less
-------
32746
Federal Register /Vol. 63, No. 115/Tuesday, June 16, 1998/Rules and Regulations
than either 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million
m3, the landfill is exempt from all
provisions except the design capacity
report; whereas if the capacity is equal
to or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5
million m3, the additional requirements
of the rule apply. As previously
discussed under the definition of design
capacity, a landfill may calculate design
capacity on either a mass or volume
basis to determine if it qualifies for the
design capacity exemption.
C. Compliance Dates
The compliance time in section
60.752(b)(2)(ii) is being revised to make
it clear that landfills have 30 months to
install a collection and control system
once the landfill becomes affected (i.e.,
the annual report shows NMOC
emissions equal to or greater than 50
Mg/yr). Section 60.752(b)(2)(ii) stated
that a landfill has 18 months to install
a collection and control system after
submitting a design plan to the
Administrator. Section 60.752(b)(2)(i)
requires landfills to submit a design
plan within 1 year of the annual report
showing NMOC emissions equal to or
greater than 50 Mg/yr. Therefore, the
previous language in the rule would
require landfills that submitted a design
plan earlier than 1 year after becoming
affected to install a collection and
control system sooner than landfills that
waited the full 1 year to submit the
design plan. The intent was to allow
landfills 30 months after the first report
showing NMOC emissions equal to or
greater than 50 Mg/yr to install controls.
Similarly, in the emission guidelines,
section 60.36c(a) is revised to specify
that installation of collection and
control systems shall be accomplished
within 30 months of the initial report
showing NMOC emissions equal or
exceed 50 Mg/yr rather than within 30
months of the effective date of the State
rule. This is consistent with the timing
in the NSPS, which allows 90 days to
submit an initial report, and 30 months
to install controls if the report shows
that emissions equal or exceed 50 Mg/
yr.
Section 60.755 (b) is being revised to
clarify that an affected landfill must
install each well no later than 60 days
after the date on which the initial solid
waste has been in place (1) for five years
or more if the area is active or (2) two
years or more if the area is closed or at
final grade. The only change is to
specify "no later than 60 days after"
instead of "within 60 days."
D. Clarification of Title VPermitting
Requirements
The paragraphs on part 70 permitting
requirements are being revised to refer
to both part 70 and 71. In States with
approved part 70 operating permit
programs, sources will apply for part 70
permits; in States without approved part
70 permit programs, EPA will
implement the federal operating permits
program under part 71.
Section 502 (a) of the Act requires title
V operating permits for a number of
sources, including, but not limited to,
major sources and sources (including
nonmajor sources) which are subject to
standards or regulations under section
111 or 112. Section 502(a) also states
that the Administrator may exempt
source categories (in whole or in part)
from permitting requirements if the
Administrator determines that
compliance with such requirements is
impracticable, infeasible, or
unnecessarily burdensome on such
categories, but not major sources.
At promulgation of this NSPS and EG
(61 FR9905, March 12, 1996), landfills
with a design capacity less than 2.5
million Mg in mass or 2.5 million m3 in
volume were exempted from part 70
operating permit requirements based on
the above provisions. Although these
landfills are required to submit a design
capacity report under this NSPS and EG,
no control is required for landfills of
this size. As a result, EPA believes that
it would be unnecessarily burdensome
for landfills, which are not major
sources and which have design
capacities less than 2.5 million Mg or
2.5 million m3, to apply for a title V
permit when the NSPS or EG does not
establish any emission limits or control
requirements for such landfills.
If a MSW landfill is subject to title V
permitting (40 CFR part 70 or part 71)
as a result of this NSPS or EG standard
(i.e., a source which meets or exceeds
the design capacity of 2.5 million Mg
and 2.5 million m3) it is not subject to
the requirement to apply for a title V
permit until 90 days after the earlier of
the following dates: (1) the effective date
of this NSPS (March 12, 1996); (2) the
effective date of EPA's approval of a
state's 111 (d) plan; or (3) the date of
commenced construction, modification,
or reconstruction for landfills that
commence construction, modification,
or reconstruction on or after March 12,
1996, even if the design capacity report
is submitted prior to the relevant
deadline. Sentences have been added to
section 60.752 and section 60.32c(c) to
clarify the date the landfill becomes
subject to title V. These dates for
triggering title V applicability are
consistent with the dates that NSPS
sources are required to file design
capacity reports. To maintain
consistency between NSPS sources and
EG sources, EG sources will not become
subject to the requirement to apply for
a title V permit until 90 days after the
effective date of EPA's approval of a
state's lll(d) plan.
The permit provisions originally
included as sentences within
paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 60.752
have been moved to separate paragraphs
(c) and (d) so that the detailed permit
provisions are in one location. The
wording has also been revised to clarify
that landfills smaller than 2.5 million
Mg or 2.5 million m3 do not require a
part 70 or 71 operating permit unless
they are subject to part 70 or 71 for some
other reason. A landfill of this size
could be a major source, and, if so,
would need to apply for a permit. This
situation was discussed in the preamble
to the promulgated rule (61 FR 9912,
March 12, 1996). Also, a landfill of this
size could be subject to title V for some
other reason, e.g., subject to another
NSPS or NESHAP.
Sources subject to the title V
permitting program under parts 70 or 71
are required to file applications within
12 months after becoming subject to the
program. Landfills which are subject to
the title V permitting program as a result
of being subject to this NSPS or EG are
required to file title V applications
within 12 months following the
deadline to submit a design capacity
report (which indicates that the landfill
in question is equal to, or greater than,
2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3). In
that the designation of size in the report
triggers title V applicability, EPA
believes that it is appropriate that the
deadline for filing this report initiates
the 12 month time frame for submitting
a title V application. As provided in
section 503 (c) of the Act, permitting
authorities may establish earlier
deadlines, prior to the 12 month
deadline, for submitting title V
applications. If more than one
requirement causes a source to be
subject to title V permitting, the time
frame for filing a title V application will
be triggered by the requirement which
first caused the source to be subject to
title V.
Section 60.752(d) (formerly the last
sentence in section 60.752(b)) is being
revised. This paragraph stated that after
a landfill is closed and either never
required a control system or has met the
criteria for control system removal, a
title V permit is no longer needed. The
phrase "if the landfill is not otherwise
subject to the requirements of either part
70 or 71" has been added. As previously
discussed, if a landfill is a major source
or is subject to title V for some other
reason (e.g., subject to another NSPS or
NESHAP), it will still require a permit.
Other format changes to this paragraph
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 115/Tuesday, June 16, 1998/Rules and Regulations
32747
are to improve clarity and do not change
the intent.
Subpart Cc is being amended by
adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to section
60.32c. These paragraphs, which cover
when existing MSW landfills require
part 70 or 71 operating permits, were
excluded from the promulgated
emission guidelines through an
oversight. Part 70 permit provisions
were included in the NSPS, but the
Emission Guidelines inadvertently did
not reference this section of the NSPS.
The inclusion of these paragraphs
makes subpart Cc consistent with
subpart WWW with respect to part 70 or
71 operating permits. Specifically,
paragraph (c) clarifies that an existing
landfill smaller than 2.5 million Mg or
2.5 million m3 does not require a part
70 or 71 operating permit unless it is
subject to part 70 or 71 for some other
reason. Paragraph (c) also clarifies that
an existing landfill equal to or greater
than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3
is subject to part 70 or 71 permitting
requirements whether it is a major
source or not. In addition, paragraph (d)
clarifies that closed landfills that are
only required to have title V permits
due to 40 CFR part 60, subparts WWW
or Cc and are not required to have a
control system or meet the conditions
for control system removal are not
required to have part 70 or 71 operating
permits, if they are not otherwise
subject to title V permitting
requirements. As with 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cc, the deadline for submitting
a design capacity report initiates the
time frame for submitting a title V
application. Permitting authorities may,
however, establish earlier dates by
which applications are required from
these title V sources.
E. Equations
Section 60.754(a)(l) is being revised
to clarify that both the equation in
section 60.754(a)(l)(i) and the equation
in section 60.754(a)(l)(ii) may be used
when the actual year-to-year solid waste
acceptance rate is known for only part
of the life of the landfill. This is the
technically correct way to calculate
emissions and was the intent of the rule.
Section 60.754(a)(l) is being amended
by the addition of the methane
generation rate constant (k) for
geographical areas with low
precipitation. A k value of 0.02 per year
is provided for the tier 1 calculation 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. Landfills
located in geographical areas with low
precipitation experience slower
decomposition of their waste than
landfills located in geographical areas
with moderate to high rainfall.
Consequently, the gas production rate at
landfills located in drier areas is
reduced. Rather than burden these
landfills with pursuing tier 3 Method 2E
testing and analysis for a site-specific k
value, it is reasonable to allow an
alternative default k value. In reviewing
the information used to estimate the
impacts of the final rule (Docket A-88-
09, Item IV-M-4), a k value of 0.02 per
year for landfills that meet this
description is a reasonably conservative
value consistent with the intent of the
tier 1 analysis.
Sections 60.754(a) (l)(i) and (ii) are
also being revised to clarify that only
documentation of the nature and
amount of nondegradable waste needs
to be maintained when subtracting the
mass of nondegradable waste from the
total mass of waste when calculating the
NMOC emission rate. The previous
language specified that the
documentation provisions of section
60.758(d)(2) were to be followed;
however, these provisions are related to
segregated areas within the landfill
excluded from collection pursuant to
section 60.759(a)(3)(i) or (ii) because
asbestos or other nondegradable wastes
were disposed in those areas or because
the area is nonproductive. For the
purposes of estimating emissions, only
documentation of the nature and
amount of nondegradable waste needs
to be maintained to justify the
subtraction of the mass of
nondegradable waste.
F. Test Methods and Procedures
Section 60.754 (a) (4) (ii) is revised to
clarify that the site-specific methane
generation rate constant is calculated
only once and that this value is to be
used in all subsequent annual NMOC
emission rate calculations.
Section 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(B) is being
revised to clarify that the initial
performance test required under section
60.8 must be completed no later than
180 days after the initial startup of the
approved control system. The
promulgated regulation already required
under section 60.757(f) that the initial
performance test report must be
submitted within 180 days of start-up of
the collection system. This is being
reiterated in section 60.752(b)(2)(iii)(B)
for clarification.
Section 60.759(a)(3)(ii), which
required the use of the values of k and
CNMOC determined by field testing, if
performed to determine the NMOC
emission rate or radii of influence, is
being revised to also refer to alternative
means for determining k or CNMOC
allowed by section 60.754(a)(5). The
reference to using L0 values from testing
is deleted because it was incorrect. The
tier procedures do not include testing
for L0. As previously mentioned, the
definition of radii of influence is being
added parenthetically for clarity.
G. Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Determination
Section 60.754(c) is being revised to
clarify that the intent of this provision
was to establish the method by which
prevention of significant deterioration
determinations should be made, not to
require a PSD determination. The
original wording could have been
misinterpreted to require PSD-related
actions. PSD is a separate permit
program that applies to new and
modified sources. The PSD regulations,
not this NSPS, establish whether a PSD
determination is needed. New sources
may be subject to PSD review.
In a July 1, 1994 guidance
memorandum issued by the EPA
(available on the Technology Transfer
Network; see "Pollution Control Projects
(PCP) and New Source Review (NSR)
Applicability" from John S. Seitz,
Director, OAQPS to EPA Regional Air
Division Directors), the EPA provided
guidance for permitting authorities on
the approvability of PCP exclusions for
source categories other than electric
utilities. In the guidance, the EPA
indicated that add-on controls and fuel
switches to less polluting fuels meet the
definition of a PCP and, provided
certain safeguards are met, may qualify
for an exclusion from major NSR. To be
eligible to be excluded from otherwise
applicable major NSR requirements, a
PCP must, on balance, be
"environmentally beneficial," and the
permitting authority must ensure that
the project will not cause or contribute
to a violation of a national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) or PSD
increment, or adversely affect visibility
or other air quality related value
(AQRV).
A potential exclusion available under
PSD is discussed here for informational
purposes. In the July 1, 1994 guidance
memorandum, the EPA specifically
identified the installation of controls
pursuant to the NSPS and EG rules as
an example of add-on controls that
could be considered a PCP and an
appropriate candidate for a case-by-case
exclusion from major NSR. The EPA
considers installation of controls
pursuant to the NSPS and EG rules for
the control of landfill gases a PCP
because the controls are installed to
comply with the NSPS and will reduce
emissions of NMOC. The EPA also
-------
32748
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 115/Tuesday. June 16, 1998/Rules and Regulations
considers the reduction of these
pollutants to represent an
environmental benefit. However, EPA
recognizes that the incidental formation
of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide
due to the destruction of landfill gas
will occur. Consistent with the 1994
guidance, the permitting authority
should confirm that in each case that
the resultant increase in nitrogen oxides
and carbon monoxide would not cause
or contribute to a violation of the
NAAQS and PSD increment or
adversely affect an AQRV.
Finally, the 1994 guidance did not
void or create an exclusion from any
applicable minor source preconstruction
review requirements in an approved
State Implementation Plan (SIP). Any
minor NSR permitting requirements in a
SIP would continue to apply, regardless
of any exclusion from major NSR that
might be approved for a source under
the PCP exclusion policy.
H. Monitoring
Section 60.756 (a) is being revised to
clarify that a temperature measuring
device does not need to be permanently
installed at each wellhead. It is common
for wellheads to have an access port for
temperature measurements so that a
temperature measuring device can be
shared across wellheads for the monthly
temperature monitoring requirement. As
long as the temperature is monitored
monthly, the intent of the regulation is
met.
Section 60.756(b)(2) is also being
revised to clarify that the device for
monitoring gas flow need only record
the flow or bypass, not necessarily
measure the rate at which gas is flowing
to the control device.
/. Compliance Provisions
Section 60.755(a) (3) is being revised
to allow an alternative timeline to be
proposed for correcting an exceedance
in collection header pressure at each
well. Consistent with section
60.755(c)(4)(v), a sentence is being
added to sections 60.755(a)(3) and
60.755(a)(5) to allow an alternate
timeline to be proposed to the
Administrator for correcting an
exceedance. This revision makes the
sections consistent. Depending on the
remedy selected to correct the problem,
a different timeline may be needed, but
any timeline extending more than 120
days must be approved by the regulatory
agency.
Section 60.755(c)(l) is being revised
slightly to indicate that surface
monitoring of methane shall be
performed along the entire perimeter of
the collection area and along a pattern
that traverses the landfill at 30-meter
intervals. This change makes the
wording consistent with other sections
of the rule (e.g., section 60.753(d)).
/ Recordkeeping and Reporting
Sections 60.757(a)(l) and (b)(l)(i) are
being revised to clarify that subject
landfills that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction after
May 30, 1991 (date of proposal) but
before the date of promulgation had
until June 10, 1996 (90 days from the
promulgation date) to submit an initial
design capacity report and an initial
NMOC emission rate report to the
Administrator. The previous language
was not clear as to when landfills that
commenced construction, modification,
or reconstruction between proposal and
promulgation would be required to
submit an initial design capacity report
or NMOC emission rate report.
However, it is obvious that the reports
could not be required prior to
promulgation of the regulation.
Therefore, instead of submitting the
reports 90 days after commencing
construction, landfills that were
constructed before promulgation have
90 days after the promulgation date to
submit the reports.
Also paragraphs (a)(l)(i) and (ii) in the
promulgated rule were somewhat
repetitive and contradictory. Paragraph
(a)(l)(iii) reflected an unrealistic
scenario in that this date would always
occur later than the date in paragraphs
(a)(l)(i) and (ii). For this reason, the
previous paragraph (a)(l)(iii) was
unnecessary and confusing. Therefore,
that paragraph has been deleted, and
paragraphs (a)(l)(i) and (ii) have been
revised to state that the report is due on
June 10, 1996 or within 90 days after the
date of commencement of construction,
modification, or reconstruction,
depending on when the construction,
modification, or reconstruction
commenced.
The wording of section 60.757(a)(2)(ii)
is being revised to require calculation of
design capacity submitted as part of the
design capacity report to include
"relevant parameters" rather than the
specific list of parameters in the
promulgated rule. Some of the
previously listed parameters (e.g.,
compaction practices) would not apply
to landfills that calculate design
capacity on a volumetric rather than
mass basis. Other parameters that were
not listed will be needed to perform the
calculation in some cases.
The wording of section 60.757 (a) (3),
which requires amended design
capacity reports, is being revised for
clarity and consistency with the
definitions of modification and design
capacity discussed under I. A. It also
clarifies that a report is required only if
capacity increases above 2.5 million Mg
and 2.5 million m3. This was the
original intent, but the original wording
was confusing.
Several paragraphs in section 60.758
are being revised to clarify that the
recordkeeping requirements in
paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) do not
apply if an alternative to the operational
standards, test methods, procedures,
compliance measures, monitoring, or
reporting provisions has been submitted
with the design plan and approved by
the Administrator.
II. Cross-Referencing and
Typographical Errors
Errors in cross-referencing one section
to another within subpart WWW are
being corrected. Typographical errors
are also being corrected.
III. Corrections to Promulgation
Preamble
Tables 3 and 5 in the promulgation
preamble contained typographical
errors. The units for the small size cutoff
(column 1) are stated to be in millions
of megagrams (millions Mg); however,
the values presented are actually in
megagrams. These tables are corrected
and provided below for clarification.
TABLE 3.—ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CAPACITY EXEMPTION LEVEL OPTIONS FOR THE EMISSION GUIDELINES^
Small size cutoff
(mg)
3000000 .
2500000 .
1.000.000
Number
landfills af-
fected
273
312
572
Annual c
NMOC
emission
reduction
(Mg/yr)
73,356
77,600
97,600
Annual d
methane
emission
reduction
(Mg/yr)
3,220,000
3,370,000
3,990,000
Annual cost
(million $/yr)
84
89
119
NMOC av-
erage cost
eff.
($/Mg)
1,145
1,147
1,219
NMOC in-
cremental
cost eff.
($/Mg)
1,145
1,178
1,500
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 115/Tuesday, June 16. 1998/Rules and Regulations
32749
TABLE 3.—ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CAPACITY EXEMPTION LEVEL OPTIONS FOR THE EMISSION GUIDELINES ab—Continued
Small size cutoff
(mg)
No cutoff f
Number
landfills af-
fected
7.299
Annual c
NMOC
emission
reduction
(Mg/yr)
142,000
Annual d
methane
emission
reduction
(Mg/yr)
8.270.000
Annual cost
(million $/yr)
719
NMOC av-
erage cost
eff.
($/Mg)
5.063
NMOC in-
cremental
cost eff.
($/Mg)
13.514
a Emission rate cutoff level of 50 Mg NMOC/yr.
b All values are fifth year annualized.
c NMOC emission reductions are from a baseline of 145,000 Mg NMOC/yr.
d Methane emission reductions are from a baseline of 8,400,000 Mg methane/yr.
e In the absence of an emission guidelines.
fNo emission rate cutoff and no design capacity exemption level.
TABLE 5.—ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CAPACITY EXEMPTION LEVEL OPTIONS FOR THE NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDSab
Small size cutoff
(mg)
Baselines
3000000
2500000
1 000,000
No cutoff h
Number
landfills af-
fected
41
43
89
872
Annual c
NMOC
emission
reduction
(Mg/yr)
4,900
4,900
4,900
13,115
Annual d
methane
emission
reduction
(Mg/yr)
193000
193000
193,000
881.000
Annual e cost
(million $/yr)
4
4
4
81
MNOC av-
erage cost
eff.
($/Mg)
816
816
816
6.176
MNOC f in-
cremental
cost eff.
($/Mg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
a Emission rate cutoff level of 50 Mg NMOC/yr.
b All values are fifth year annualized.
= NMOC emission reductions are from a baseline of 13,400 Mg NMOC/yr.
d Methane emission reductions are from a baseline of 899,000 Mg methane/yr.
e Due to rounding off to the nearest million dollar, cost values do not appear to change for each option. However, actual costs are slightly less
for a less stringent option.
f Because the annual cost does not change enough to show a different cost from one option to the next, incremental cost effectiveness values
are not applicable.
sin the absence of a standard.
hNo emission rate cutoff and no design capacity exemption level.
IV. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(l) of the CAA,
judicial review of the actions taken by
this final rule is available only on the
filing of a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit within 60 days of
today's publication of this action. Under
section 307 (b) (2) of the CAA, the
requirements that are subject to today's
document may not be challenged later
in civil or criminal proceedings brought
by EPA to enforce these requirements.
V. Administrative
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements of the previously
promulgated NSPS were submitted to
and approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). A copy
of this Information Collection Request
(ICR) document (OMB control number
1557.03) may be obtained from Sandy
Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2137); 401 M Street, SW;
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling
(202) 260-2740.
Today's changes to the NSPS should
have no impact on the information
collection burden estimates made
previously. The changes consist of new
definitions and clarifications of
requirements; not additional
requirements. Consequently, the ICR has
not been revised.
B. Executive Order 12866 Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether a regulatory
action is "significant" and therefore
subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and the
requirements of this Executive Order.
The Order defines "significant
regulatory action" as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs, or the rights and
obligation of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866, it has been determined
that this action is not "significant"
because none of the listed criteria apply
to this action. Consequently, this action
was not submitted to OMB for review
under Executive Order 12866.
C. Regulatory Flexibility
EPA has determined that it is not
necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with
this direct final rule. EPA has also
determined that this direct final rule
amendment will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Today's action
clarifies the applicability of control
requirements in the Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources
and Guidelines for Control of Existing
Sources: Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills and does not include any
-------
32750
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 115/Tuesday, June 16. 1998/Rules and Regulations
provisions that create a burden for any
of the regulated entities.
The changes in today's action do not
increase the stringency of the rule or
add additional control requirements.
Nor is the scope of the rule changed so
as to bring any entities not previously
subject to the rule within its scope or
coverage. Today's action does not alter
control, monitoring, recordkeeping, or
reporting requirements of the
promulgated rule.
D. Submission to Congress
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. This rule is not a
"major rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
E. Executive Order 12875 and Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act
Under the executive order EPA must
consult with representatives of affected
State, local, and Tribal governments.
Under the unfunded mandates reform
act, EPA must prepare a statement to
accompany any rule where the
estimated costs to State, local, or Tribal
governments, or to the private sector,
will be $100 million or more per year.
The EPA held consultations and
prepared such a statement at the time of
promulgation of subpart Cc and WWW
(61 FR 9913, March 12, 1996). Today's
changes consist of new definitions and
clarifications and do not impose costs
on government entities or the private
sector. Consequently, a new unfunded
mandates statement has not been
prepared.
F. Children 's Health Protection
This direct final rule is not subject to
E.O. 13045, entitled "Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it does not
involve decisions on environmental
health risks or safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection. Municipal
solid waste landfills. Air pollution
control.
Dated May 28. 1998
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter 1, part 60 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
1. The authority citation for part 60
continued to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414,
7416, 7429, and 7601.
Subpart Cc—[Amended]
2. Amend § 60.32c by adding
paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
§60.32c Designated facilities.
*****
(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
on the effective date of EPA approval of
the State's program under section 11 l(d)
of the Act, and not otherwise subject to
either part 70 or 71, becomes subject to
the requirements of §§ 70.5(a) (1) (i) or
71.5(a)(l)(i) of this chapter 90 days after
the effective date of such 111 (d)
program approval, even if the design
capacity report is submitted earlier.
(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 § 60.33c(c) of this subpart; or
(2) The owner or operator meets the
conditions for control system removal
specified in §60.752 (b) (2) (v) of subpart
WWW.
3. Amend § 60.33c by removing in
paragraph (a)(2) the phrase "2.5 million
megagrams or 2 5 million cubic meters"
and adding, in its place "2.5 million
megagrams and 2.5 million cubic
meters."
4. Amend § 60 36c by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§60.36c Compliance times.
(a) Except as provided for under
paragraph (b) of this section, planning,
awarding of contracts, and installation
of MSW landfill air emission collection
and control equipment capable of
meeting the emission guidelines
established under § 60.33c shall be
accomplished within 30 months after
the date the initial NMOC emission rate
report shows NMOC emissions equal or
exceed 50 megagrams per year.
Subpart WWW
5. Amend § 60.750 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), remove the words
"or began accepting waste".
b. In paragraph (b), remove the word
"None" and add, in its place
"§60.754(a)(5)".
c. Add paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
§60.750 Applicability, designation of
affected facility, and delegation of authority.
*****
(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.
6. Amend § 60.751 as follows:
a. Remove the last sentence in the
definition of "closed landfill."
b. Revise the definitions of
"controlled landfill," "design capacity,"
and "interior well" and add a definition
of "modification" to read as follows:
§60.751 Definitions.
*****
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
§ 60.752 (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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 115/Tuesday, June 16, 1998/Rules and Regulations
32751
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.
*****
Interior well means any well or
similar collection component located
inside the perimeter of the landfill
waste. A perimeter well located outside
the landfilled waste is not an interior
well.
*****
Modification means an increase in the
permitted volume design capacity of the
landfill by either horizontal or vertical
expansion based on its permitted design
capacity as of May 30, 1991.
7. Amend §60.752 by revising
paragraph (a), the introductory text of
paragraph (b), paragraphs (b) (2) (ii),
(b)(2)(iii)(B), and (b)(2)(v)(A). and
adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as
follows:
§ 60.752 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 § 60.757(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)(l) 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 §60.757(a)(3).
(2) When an increase in the maximum
design capacity of a landfill exempted
from the provisions of § 60.752(b)
through § 60.759 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 § 60.754. The
NMOC emission rate shall be
recalculated annually, except as
provided in § 60.757(b)(l)(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) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Install 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 50 megagrams per year, unless
Tier 2 or Tier 3 sampling demonstrates
that the emission rate is less than 50
megagrams per year, as specified in
§60.757(c)(l)or(2).
*****
(iii) * * *
(A) * * *
(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
§ 60.754 (d).
*****
(v) * * *
(A) The landfill shall be a closed
landfill as defined in § 60.751 of this
subpart. A closure report shall be
submitted to the Administrator as
provided in §60.757(d);
*****
(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 §§ 70.5 (a) (1) (i) or
71.5(a)(l)(i) of this chapter, regardless of
when the design capacity report is
actually submitted, no later than:
(1) June 10, 1996 for MSW landfills
that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction on or
after May 30, 1991 but before March 12,
1996:
(2) Ninety days after the date of
commenced construction, modification,
or reconstruction for MSW landfills that
commence construction, modification,
or reconstruction on or after March 12,
1996.
(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.
8. Amend § 60.753 by revising the
introductory text of § 60.753 and the
second sentence of paragraph (d) and
the first sentence of paragraph (g) to
read as follows:
§60.753 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 § 60.752(b) (2) (ii) of this
subpart shall: * * *
(d) * * * 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. * * *
*****
(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 §60.755(a) (3) through (5) or
§ 60.755(c) of this subpart. * * *
9. Amend § 60.754 as follows:
a. In the last sentences of paragraph
(a)(l)(i) and (a)(l)(ii) remove the phrase
"if the documentation provisions of
§60.758(d)(2) are followed" and add, in
-------
32752 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 115/Tuesday, June 16, 1998/Rules and Regulations
its place, "if documentation of the
nature and amount of such wastes is
maintained";
b. In paragraph (a)(4)(ii) remove the
last sentence and add in its place, "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.";
c. In paragraphs (a) (5) and (b)(3)
remove the phrase "as provided in
§60.752(b)(2)(i)(B)";
d. In paragraph (d), remove the words
"Method 25" and add, in its place
"Method 25C";
e. Revise the introductory text of
paragraph (a)(l) and revise paragraph (c)
to read as follows:
§60.754 Test methods and procedures.
(a)(l) The landfill owner or operator
shall calculate the NMOC emission rate
using either the equation provided in
paragraph (a)(l)(i) of this section or the
equation provided in paragraph (a)(l)(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)(l)(i), 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), 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.
* * * * *
(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 §§ 51.166 or 52.21
of this chapter using AP-42 or other
approved measurement procedures.
*****
10. Amend §60.755 as follows:
a. In paragraphs (a) (3) and (a) (5), add
a sentence at the end of each paragraph
reading "An alternative timeline for
correcting the exceedance may be
submitted to the Administrator for
approval.";
b. Revise paragraph (a) (4) to read as
follows:
§60.755 Compliance provisions.
(a) * * *
(4) Owners or operators are not
required to expand the system as
required in paragraph (a) (3) of this
section during the first 180 days after
gas collection system startup.
*****
c. In paragraph (b) introductory text,
in the last sentence, remove the phrase
"within 60 days of the date in which"
and add in its place, "no later than 60
days after the date on which";
d. In paragraph (c)(l), delete the
phrase "and along a serpentine pattern
spaced 30 meters apart (or a site-specific
established spacing)" and add in its
place, "and along a pattern that
traverses the landfill at 30 meter
intervals (or a site-specific established
spacing)".
11. Amend § 60.756 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a) introductory text,
remove the phrase "or other
temperature measuring device" and
add, in its place, "other temperature
measuring device, or an access port for
temperature measurements";
b. In paragraph (b)(l), remove the
phrase "an accuracy of and add in its
place, "a minimum accuracy of;
c. In paragraph (b)(2), introductory
text, remove the phrase "A gas flow rate
measuring device that provides a
measurement of gas flow" and add, in
its place, "A device that records flow";
12. Amend § 60.757 by revising
paragraphs (a)(l), (a)(2), (a)(3), (b)(l)(i)
and (g) introductory text to read as
follows:
§60.757 Reporting requirements.
*****
(a) * * *
(1) The initial design capacity report
shall fulfill the requirements of the
notification of the date construction is
commenced as required by §60.7(a)(l)
and shall be submitted no later than:
(i) June 10, 1996, for landfills that
commenced construction, modification,
or reconstruction on or after May 30,
1991 but before March 12, 1996 or
(ii) Ninety days after the date of
commenced construction, modification,
or reconstruction for landfills that
commence construction, modification,
or reconstruction on or after March 12,
1996.
(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
§60.758(f).
(b) * * *
M\ * * *
(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)(l)(i)(A) and (B) of this
section. Subsequent NMOC emission
rate reports shall be submitted annually
thereafter, except as provided for in
paragraphs (b)(l)(ii) and (b)(3) of this
section.
(A) June 10, 1996, for landfills that
commenced construction, modification,
or reconstruction on or after May 30,
1991, but before March 12, 1996, or
(B) Ninety days after the date of
commenced construction, modification,
or reconstruction for landfills that
commence construction, modification,
or reconstruction on or after March 12,
1996.
*****
(g) Each owner or operator seeking to
comply with §60.752(b) (2)(iii) shall
include the following information with
the initial performance test report
required under § 60.8:
*****
13. Amend § 60.758 as follows:
a. Remove the introductory text;
b. At the beginning of paragraphs (a),
(b) introductory text, (c) introductory
text, (d) introductory text, and (e), add
the phrase "Except as provided in
§60.752(b)(2)(i)(B).";
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 115/Tuesday, June 16, 1998/Rules and Regulations
32753
c. In paragraph (a), remove the phrase
"on-slte records of the maximum design
capacity" and add, in its place "on-site
records of the design capacity report
which triggered § 60.752(b)";
d. Add paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
§60.758 Recordkeeping Requirements.
*****
(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.
14. Amend § 60.759 as follows:
a. In paragraph (a) (3) (iii), remove the
sentence "The values for k, Lo, 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."
and add, in its place, the sentence "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 (the distance from the well
center to a point in the landfill where
the pressure gradient applied by the
blower or compressor approaches
zero)."
b. In paragraph (a)(3)(iii), remove the
sentence "If field testing has not been
performed, the default values for k, LO,
and CNMOC provided in §60.754 (a) (1)
shall be used" and add, in its place, the
sentence "If field testing has not been
performed, the default values for k, Lo
and CNMOC provided in §60.754(a)(l)
or the alternative values from
§60.754(a) (5) shall be used.
|FR Doc. 98-15007 Filed 6-15-98: 8'45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 180,185 and 186
[OPP-300663; FRL-5793-5]
RIN 2070-AB78
Quizalofop-p ethyl ester; Pesticide
Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes
tolerances for combined residues of
quizalofop-p ethyl ester [ethyl (R)-(2-{4-
((6-chloroquinoxalin-2-yl)oxy)phenoxyl]
propanoate), and its acid metabolite
quizalofop-p [(fl)-(2-[4-((6-
chloroquinoxalin-2-
yl)oxy)phenoxyl]propionate) and the S
enantiomers of the ester and the acid, all
expressed as quizalofop-p ethyl ester in
or on canola seed, canola meal,
peppermint tops and spearmint tops.
DuPont Agricultural Products requested
the tolerances for canola and the
Interregional Research Project Number 4
(IR-4) requested the tolerances for
peppermint and spearmint. These
tolerances were requested under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
as amended by the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-170).
DATES: This regulation is effective June
16, 1998. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received by EPA on or
before August 17, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and
hearing requests, identified by the
docket control number, [OPP-300663],
must be submitted to: Hearing Clerk
(1900), Environmental Protection
Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Fees
accompanying objections and hearing
requests shall be labeled "Tolerance
Petition Fees" and forwarded to: EPA
Headquarters Accounting Operations
Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box
360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy
of any objections and hearing requests
filed with the Hearing Clerk identified
by the docket control number, [OPP-
300663), must also be submitted to:
Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch, Information Resources
and Services Division (7502C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring
a copy of objections and hearing
requests to Rm. 119. CM #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.
A copy of objections and hearing
requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
may also be submitted electronically by
sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: opp-
docket@epamail.epa.gov. Copies of
objections and hearing requests must be
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form
of encryption. Copies of objections and
hearing requests will also be accepted
on disks in WordPerfect 5.1/6.1 file
format or ASCII file format. All copies
of objections and hearing requests in
electronic form must be identified by
the docket control number [OPP-
300663]. No Confidential Business
Information (CBI) should be submitted
through e-mail. Electronic copies of
objections and hearing requests on this
rule may be filed online at many Federal
Depository Libraries.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By
mail: Sidney Jackson, Registration
Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Office location, telephone
number, and e-mail address: Crystal
Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,
Arlington, VA, (703) 305-7610; e-mail:
jackson.sidney@epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Federal Register published on October
29, 1997 (62 FR 56176 (mint)) (FRL-
5749-7) and December 17, 1997, 62 FR
66080 (canola)) (FRL-5758-3), EPA,
issued notices pursuant to section 408
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e)
announcing the filing of pesticide
petitions (PP) 6E4652 and 5F4545 for
tolerances by the IR-4 and DuPont
Agricultural Products, Wilmington,
Delaware. These notices included a
summary of the petitions prepared by
DuPont Agricultural Products,
Wilmington, Delaware, the registrant.
There were no comments received in
response to these notices of filing.
The petitions requested that 40 CFR
180.441 be amended by establishing
tolerances for combined residues of the
herbicide quizalofop-p ethyl ester [ethyl
(R) - (2- [4- ((6-chloroquinoxalin-2-
yl)oxy)phenoxyl] propanoate), and its
acid metabolite quizalofop-p [(R)-(2-[4-
((6-chloroquinoxalin-2-yl)oxy)phenoxyl]
propionate) and the S enantiomers of
the ester and the acid, all expressed as
quizalofop-p ethyl ester, in or on canola
seed at 1.0 part per million (ppm),
canola meal at 1.5 ppm, and peppermint
tops and spearmint tops at 2.0 ppm. .
I. Risk Assessment and Statutory
Findings
New section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the
FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide
chemical residue in or on a food) only
if EPA determines that the tolerance is
"safe." Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines
"safe" to mean that "there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue, including
all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is
reliable information." This includes
exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section
408 (b) (2) (C) requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and
-------
Appendix J
Key Elements of an Acceptable Section lll(d) State Plan
-------
Key Elements of an Acceptable Section lll(d) State Plan
States must submit to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) State Plans to
implement and enforce the Emission Guidelines promulgated for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
landfills pursuant to Section 11 l(d) of the Act. Section 11 l(d) requires that the state submit the
State Plan not later than 9 months after EPA promulgates the Emission Guidelines. EPA
promulgated the Emission Guidelines (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cc) on March 12, 1996, thus, the
State Plans are due no later than December 12, 1996.
States must adopt their State Plans according to state procedures prior to official
submittal to EPA. [60.23 (a)] The official procedures for adopting and submitting State Plans
are codified in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B. EPA promulgated the original provisions on
November 17, 1975, and then amended them on December 19, 1995, to incorporate changes
specific to solid waste incineration. These changes, which were necessary to conform with the
solid waste incineration requirements under Section 129 of the Act, are not relevant to MSW
landfills. Thus, the procedures described in the original provisions for adopting and submitting
State Plans still apply to MSW landfills and are reflected in the key elements given below.
The following pages include information about legal authority, emission inventories,
emission standards and other emission limitations, process for review of design plans,
compliance schedules, public participation, source surveillance, compliance assurance,
enforcement, as required by 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts B and Cc. In addition, cross-references to
relevant sections of the subparts are provided.
A. Legal Authority [60.26(a)J
1. The State Plan shall include demonstration of the state's legal authority to:
(a) adopt emission standards (enforceable conditions) and compliance
schedules applicable to the designated facilities and designated pollutants
for which the State Plan is submitted
(b) enforce applicable laws, regulations, standards, and compliance schedules,
and seek injunctive relief
(c) obtain information necessary to determine compliance
(d) require recordkeeping, make inspections, and conduct tests
(e) require the use of monitors and require emission reports of owners or
operators
(f) make emission data publicly available [60.26(a)J
J-l
-------
2. The state must specifically identify the provisions above and include copies of the
provisions of the law establishing such legal authority unless they have been
approved as a portion of a previous Section 11 l(d) State Plan or SEP. To facilitate
its review of State Plans, EPA encourages states to submit an opinion by the
state's Attorney General as part of the demonstration required above. States may
use previously submitted Attorney General opinions (for example, under Title V)
to the extent those documents specifically address the requirements of
Section 60.26 as they apply to the designated facilities and the designated
pollutants. [60.26(b)J
3. The legal authority shown must be in effect at time of State Plan submission.
[60.26(c)J
4. The state may authorize another state governmental agency to carry out a portion
of the State Plan, provided the state demonstrates that the state governmental
agency has adequate authority. [60.26(e)J
5. The state may authorize a local agency to carry out a portion of the State Plan
provided that the state demonstrates that the local agency has adequate legal
authority to implement that portion of the State Plan and the state is not relieved
of responsibility. [60.26(e)J
If earlier demonstrations of legal authority by the state meet the requirements of § 60.26,
the state will simply need to include copies of such demonstrations in the State Plan.
B. Source and Emission Inventories
The State Plan must include a complete source inventory of existing MSW landfills in the
state that are regulated by the Emission Guidelines. [60.25(a)J The inventory must include the
name and location of all existing landfills, whether open or closed, that have accepted waste
since November 8, 1987 or have additional capacity for future waste acceptance. Landfills with
design capacities both above and below the 2.5 million Mg/yr or 2.5 million M3/yr design
capacity cutoffs must be included. New landfills (i.e., those that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction on or after May 30, 1991) do not have to be included in the
inventory.
For each landfill in the source inventory, the State Plan must include emission data for the
designated pollutants (MSW landfill emissions, measured as NMOC). [60.25(a)J Emission data
must be included where available, but emission estimates can be used if emission data is not
available. States can use emission estimation procedures from AP-42, "Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors" to estimate landfill NMOC emission rates for the state inventory.
(AP-42 procedures should not be used to determine applicability of, or compliance with, the
Emission Guidelines.)
J-2
-------
In addition to the initial inventory, updates are required. [60.25(f)(5] The updated
information is required to be submitted annually in the 51.321 reports. [60.24(e)(l)J The
emission data should be submitted to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS)
[51.321-51.323]
C. Emission Standards
1. The emission standards shall be no less stringent than the Emission Guidelines.
[60.24(c)J
However, under certain limited conditions and on a case-by-case basis, states may
apply less stringent emission standards or longer compliance schedules. This
reduced stringency is allowed if the state demonstrates with respect to the
designated facility or class of facilities that:
a. the cost of control would be unreasonable because of plant age, location,
or basic process design;
b. it would be physically impossible to install necessary control equipment;
or
c. there are other factors specific to the facility or class of facilities that make
application of a less stringent standard or final compliance time
significantly more reasonable. [60.24/J
NOTE: Nothing in the Clean Air Act nor the CFR restricts the state from having standards
and schedules more stringent than the Emission Guidelines. [60.24(g)J
2. The State Plan shall include the specific emission limitations, preferably cross-
referenced to the specific Emission Guideline requirements. [60.24(a)J
3. Test methods and procedures for determining compliance shall be specified.
[60.24(b)2]
4. If the methods and procedures are not identical to those in Sections 60.34c,
60.755, and 60.756, the state must demonstrate equivalence or request EPA
approval of acceptable alternatives per current EPA method review procedures.
[60.24(bX2)]
5. If emission standards are adopted by local agencies or other state agencies, they
must also be included in the State Plan and if not identical to the Emission
Guidelines, then the state must show that they are at least as protective as the
emission guidelines except as specified in "1," above. [60.24(a)J
D. Process for Review of Design Plans
Subpart Cc requires site-specific design plans for the required gas collection and control
systems. The State Plan must also include a process for state review and approval of design
J-3
-------
plans. These landfill State Plan requirements are unique to landfills because they are required by
Subpart Cc, rather than Subpart B.
The design plan must be prepared by a professional engineer, must meet the design
criteria in Section 60.752(b)(2)(ii) of Subpart WWW, and must be submitted to the state for
approval. For further information about the design criteria and for examples of alternative
designs, refer to "Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Volume 1: Summary of the Requirements for
the New Source Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills" (EPA-453/R-96-004).
1. For approval, a State Plan shall include the installation of a collection and control
system meeting the conditions provided in Section 60.752(b)(2)(ii) of Subpart Cc
at each MSW landfill meeting the conditions of Section 60.33c(a). [60.33c(b)]
2. The State Plan shall include a process for state review and approval of the site-
specific design plans for the gas collection and control system(s). [60.3'3c(b)]
The description of the process in the State Plan could include information on
review responsibilities, schedules, and notification procedures such as
communication of reasons for disapproval.
E. Compliance Schedules
1. Compliance schedules must match the Cc and B specifications except as specified
above in "1" under Emission Standards. [Subpart Cc,60.36c]
2. For compliance schedules for MSW landfills extending more than 12 months
beyond the date required for submittal of the plan (December 12, 1996), the
compliance schedule must include legally enforceable increments of progress
towards compliance for that MSW landfill. Each increment of progress in
Section 60.2 l(h) of Subpart B must have a compliance date and must be included
as an enforceable date in the State Plan. The State Plan may include such
additional increments of progress as may be necessary to permit close and
effective supervision of progress towards final compliance. [60.24(e)(l), &
60.21(h)]
The minimum increments of progress are as follows:
(a) Submittal of Final Control Plan (Design Plan); [60.21(h)(l)] For
landfills, the design must include the information specified in
§ 60.752(b)(2) of Subpart WWW.
(b) Awarding of contracts for controls systems or process modifications or
orders for purchase of components; [60.21(h)(2)J
J-4
-------
(c) Initiation of on-site construction or installation of the air pollution control
device(s) or process changes; [60.21(h)(3)J
(d) Completion of on-site construction or installation of control equipment or
process changes; [60.21(h)(4)J
(e) Final compliance. [60.21(h)(5)J
These increments of progress can be set as calendar dates or floating dates tied to the
effective date of EPA's approval of the State plan for MSW landfills or the date of the first
Annual Emission Rate Report that shows that NMOC emissions equal to or exceeding 50 Mg/yr.
For example, the date for submitting a final control plan (design plan) could be set as 1 year after
the date of the first Annual Emission Rate Report showing that the NMOC emission rate is
50 Mg/yr or greater. This timing is consistent with Subparts Cc and WWW.
3. The State Plan may include one set of increments with compliance dates
applicable to all MSW landfills, or the State Plan may vary the compliance dates
to address specific issues relevant to individual landfills. However, the
enforceable increments of progress must be arranged chronologically and the
compliance dates must be set to ensure full compliance with the applicable
requirements as expeditiouslv as practicable. [60.24(c)J For example, a State
Plan that requires an MSW landfill to "submit a final control plan (design plan) no
later than 24 months after the effective date of a State emission standard" will be
closely examined to determine whether the state is requiring the MSW landfill to
comply as expeditiously as practicable.
F. Public Participation
Public participation, under the Clean Air Act, is an important right and responsibility of
citizens in the state process of developing, adopting, and implementing the required
Section 11 l(d) State Plans. Under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart B, the minimum requirements for
the state to conduct public hearings on the adoption of State Plans and any revisions thereof are
as follows:
1. Reasonable notice of one or more public hearing(s) at least 30 days prior to the
hearing(s). [60.23(d)J
2. One or more public hearing(s) on the State Plan (or revisions) conducted in
location(s) within the state. [60.23(c)(l)J
3. Date, time and place of hearing(s) prominently advertised in each region affected.
[60.23(d)(l)J "Region" is defined as "air quality control region". [60.21(i)J
4. Availability of draft State Plan for public inspection in at least one location in
each region to which it will apply. [60.23(d)(2)J
J-5
-------
5. Notice of hearing provided to: (a) EPA Regional Administrator, (b) local affected
agencies, and (c) other states affected. [60.23(d)(3),(4),&(5)J
6. Retention of hearing records (for example, list of commenters and their affiliation
and summary of each presentation and comments submitted and the state's
responses to those comments) for at least 2 years. [60.23(e) and (f)J
7. Certification that public participation was conducted in accordance with
Subpart B and state procedures. [60.23(f)] Upon written application by the state
agency, EPA may (expected only for limited special cases) approve different
procedures provided that they ensure adequate public participation. [60.23(g)J
No hearing is required on a state or local emission standard in effect prior to March 12,
1996, the effective date of Subpart Cc, if it was adopted after a public hearing and is at least as
stringent as the Emission Guidelines. [60.23(c)(3)]
Similarly, no public hearing is required for any change to an increment of progress unless
the change is likely to cause the facility to be unable to comply with the final compliance date.
[60.23(c)(2)J
G. Source Surveillance. Compliance Assurance & Enforcement
The State Plan must provide for monitoring the status of compliance. As a minimum, the
State Plan shall include:
1. Provisions for legally enforceable procedures to:
(a) require recordkeeping on nature and amount of emissions and reports to
the state. [60.25(b)(l)]
(b) require any additional information to judge compliance. [60.25(b)(l)]
2. Provisions for periodic inspection and testing, if necessary. [60.25(b)(2)]
3. Provisions for emission data and other compliance monitoring information to be
correlated with applicable emission standards and be made available to the public.
"Correlated" means showing the relationship between the measured or estimated
amounts of emissions and the amounts of such emissions allowable. For example,
the emissions should be in the same units and averaging times. This would
include the annual emission rate reports, in Mg/yr, that must be submitted by
uncontrolled landfills. The reported annual emission rate would be compared to
J-6
-------
the 50 Mg/yr threshold to determine whether controls must be installed.1
[60.25(a) and (c)]
4. MSW landfill requirements for Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting that are identical to those specified in 60.34c, 60.35c [Subpart Cc], and
60.755, 60.756, 60.757, 60.758. [Subpart WWW, referred to by Subpart Cc]
5. Specific identification of the provisions in 1 through 4 above. Copies of such
provisions should be included unless they have been approved as portions of a
preceding Section 11 l(d) State Plan or State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the
state demonstrates that the provisions are applicable and the requirements of 60.26
(legal authorities) are met. [60.25(d)J
6. Commitment to submit reports on progress in plan enforcement to the EPA
Regional Administrator on an annual basis and include it in the reports required
by 51.321. [60.25(e) and(f)] Each progress report shall include: enforcement
actions, achievement of increments of progress, identification of sources that have
ceased operation, emission inventory information for sources that were not in
operation at the time of plan development, updated emission inventory and
compliance information, and copies of technical reports on all performance
testing, including concurrent process data. [60.25(f)(l) through 60.25(f)(6)]
Note: Some states and regions have developed more specific or tailored reporting and
recordkeeping procedures via Memoranda of Agreements, Program Specific Guidance for
Section 105 Grants, and the Timely and Appropriateness Guidance that should also be followed.
For example, some regions prefer that the state retain the performance test report until the region
needs to review it as part of a compliance determination or other action.
'For landfills that require control, the emission standards are expressed in terms of design
criteria and operational requirements for the gas collection system and a percent reduction for the
control device, instead of emission rate limits. Therefore, the Subpart B requirement to
"correlate" the annual emission inventory information (in Mg/yr, discussed in Section 3.4) with
the MSW landfill emission standards is not helpful for controlled MSW landfills. Thus, the
more appropriate correlation is to the NMOC threshold in Mg/yr. The performance testing,
monitoring, and recordkeeping procedures in the Emission Guidelines are appropriate for
determining compliance with the percent reduction limit and collection system requirements.
J-7
-------
Appendix K
Memo: Emission Inventory for MSWLF State Plans
-------
January 27, 1997
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Emission Inventories for Existing Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Landfills with Design Capacities below 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3
FROM: Bruce C. Jordan, Director
Emission Standards Division (MD-13)
Robert G. Kellam, Acting Director
Information Transfer and Program Integration Division (MD-12)
TO: Regional Air Directors, Regions I-X
Introduction
The States are required to prepare and submit State plans for existing MSW landfills
[landfills that have accepted waste since November 8, 1987 or have the capacity to accept future
waste and are not new; i.e., not subject to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW, new source
performance standards (NSPS)]. This State plan is required under 40 CFR 60, Subparts B and
Cc [Emission Guidelines (EG's)]. The plan will state the requirements that existing MSW
landfills will need to comply with to meet the EG's. Also, as part of the State plan, 40 CFR
60.25 requires the States to include "an inventory of all designated facilities, including emissions
data for the designated pollutants." Id.
In addition to the requirement for State plans, owners and operators of MSW landfills
with design capacities of less than 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3 are required to submit a
design capacity report under the EG's and NSPS [40 CFR 60.752 (a), 60.757. See also.
40 CFR 60.35(c)]. However, unlike owners and operators of larger MSW landfills who must
also submit a nonmethane organic compound (NMOC) emissions rate report and possibly install
gas collection and controls, no additional requirements apply to landfills with design capacities
of less than 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3. As noted in the preamble to the
-------
final rule, "small landfills below 2.5 million Mg design capacity are not subject to (emission)
standards under section 111 because they are not subject to controls and are not subject to
emission limits," 61 FR 9905, 9912 (March 12, 1996).
Summary
In view of the limited requirements of the EG and NSPS on landfill owners and operators
of MSW landfills below 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) will allow States, in limited circumstances, to submit emission inventories as part of State
plans without requiring that, in all cases, that States develop emissions data for MSW landfills
below 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3 where development of such data would be unreasonable
and impractical. However, where accurate data are already available, or can reasonably be
generated without undue expense or effort, States should require and include such data in their
State plans. Example situations of "reasonable and practical" are given below in the section,
Requirements of State Plans: Emissions Data. This easing of the NMOC emission inventory
requirement, however, does not relieve States of the obligation to provide, as part of their State
plan, an inventory of all existing MSW landfills within the State.
The EPA believes that allowing States to provide emissions data for such MSW landfills
with design capacities below 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3 only where accurate and
reasonably available information can be generated, is reasonable given that the applicable NSPS
and the EG simply require a design capacity report and do not require additional emissions
monitoring or controls. The EPA also believes that requiring such information in all cases will
either lead to the submission of inaccurate, misleading and provisional information or to
additional and costly testing inconsistent with EPA's previous determination to only require
design capacity reports for such landfills. [See e.g.. 61 FR 9905, 9916
(March 12, 1996), which states that "The design capacity cutoff of 2.5 million Mg or
2.5 million cubic meters was chosen ... to relieve as many small businesses and municipalities
as possible from the regulatory requirements while still maintaining significant emission
reduction."
This guidance memo does not, however, preclude States from including emissions
information from these existing MSW landfills in their State plans and in their annual reporting
of emissions to EPA if they choose to do so. As noted previously, it also does not relieve States
from the requirement to provide an inventory of existing landfills in State plans.
The EPA reserves the right to request emissions information under section 114(a) of the
Clean Air Act, if it determines that such information can be obtained reasonably and practically.
-------
Requirements of State Plans: Emissions Data
In summary of the previous discussion, States need not include NMOC emissions from
MSW landfills with a design capacity below 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3 from the State plan
emission inventory where the estimation of these emissions is unreasonable and impractical.
This section addresses specific situations of "unreasonable and impractical" and "reasonable and
practical."
It may be unreasonable and impractical for an MSW landfill below 2.5 million Mg or 2.5
million m3 to estimate NMOC emissions when a landfill is closed and there are no records of
waste in place. However, States should require emissions data when it is reasonable and
practical to obtain the information needed to calculate NMOC emissions, for example, when the
amount of waste deposited and age of the waste can be reasonably obtained. If waste has been
recently deposited such that this information would be reasonably expected to be available, then
these NMOC emissions should be included in the emission inventory. Also, if a landfill has a
design capacity below but close to 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3, greater consideration
should be given before a decision is made to not require NMOC emissions in the emission
inventory because the public may have more interest in the environmental impact of the
emissions from such a landfill.
In the situation where an MSW landfill is subject to title V operating permits because it is
a major source or because of another reason [e.g., subject to another NSPS or national emission
standard for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)], this landfill should comply with the emission
inventory requirement even if the landfill is below 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3 in design
capacity. The reason is that emissions from title V permitted landfills must be reported under
title V and thus, it would be reasonable to include these emissions estimates in the emission
inventory for the State plan.
In addition to the requirement to report NMOC emissions in the State plan, 40 CFR 60.25
also requires the annual reporting of emissions by States to EPA for existing landfills whose
emissions have changed more than 5 percent from the most recently submitted emissions data.
For States with landfills with design capacities below 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3 for which
emissions data were not initially reported, this emissions reporting requirement would not
necessarily be reasonable or practical and, thus, States are not required to meet this reporting
requirement for such landfills. However, where a State previously did not require emissions data
for a landfill close to or at the 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3 cutoff, and there is reason to
believe emissions may have increased by greater than 5 percent, a State may want to reconsider
whether emissions data should be required.
The allowance for exclusion of NMOC emissions from certain landfills below 2.5 million
Mg or 2.5 million m3 from the emission inventory does not affect the requirement for States to
submit an inventory of existing MSW landfills with the State plans. The 40 CFR
-------
60.25 requires such an inventory of landfills in the State plan and this memo does not modify this
requirement. It is reasonable to expect States to know what landfills are in their geographic area
and to provide this information in their State plans.
If you have any questions on this guidance, please feel free to contact Mary Ann Warner at
(919)541-1192.
cc: Patricia Bowlin, R-DC
Valerie Broadwell, OAQPS (MD-12)
Ward Burns, R-VH
Jeanne Cosgrove, R-I
Mick Cote, R-VI
Renaldo Crooks, Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA
Eric Crump, OAQPS (MD-15)
John Dale, R-VEI
Scott Davis, R-IV
Christine DeRosa, R-JJ
Gus Eghneim, Natural Resources Conserv. Comm., Austin, TX
Allen Geswein, OSW (2306W)
Michael Goo, OGC (2344)
Charles Hatten, R-V
K.C. Hustvedt, OAQPS (MD-13)
Tom Kerr, OAP (6202J)
Zofia Kosim, OECA (2242A)
Scott Koschwitz, Bureau of Air Mgmt., Hartford, CT
Margaret McCourtney, Min. Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN
John Seitz, OAQPS (MD-10)
Racqueline Shelton, OAQPS (MD-12)
Martha Smith, OAQPS (MD-13)
James Topsale, R-JH
Mary Ann Warner, OAQPS (MD-12)
Lydia Wegman, OAQPS (MD-10)
Catherine Woo, R-X
OAQPS:ITPID:MWarner:JClevenger:l-1192:MD-12:1/17/97
C:\JULIE\WARNER\INDF-EI
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
1 REPORT NO
EPA 456/R/98-009
3 RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NO
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, Volume 2: Summary of
the Requirements for Section 11 l(d) State Plans for
Implementing the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Emission
Guidelines
5 REPORT DATE
November 1998
6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
Mary Ann Warner, EPA/OAQPS/TTPID/PIRG
Joe Fanjoy, Eastern Research Group
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
NO
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
13 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer is Mary Wilkins, Mail Drop 12 (919-541-5229)
Work Assignment Manager is Mary Ann Warner, Mail Drop 12 (919-541-1192)
16 ABSTRACT
This document summarizes the requirements for section 11 l(d) State plans for municipal solid
waste (MSW) landfills. The March 12, 1996 Emission guidelines required States to submit
State plans that explain how they will implement and enforce the guidelines for existing MSW
landfills. This document explains the required content of State plans, outlines the time line
and responsibilities for developing and submitting State plans, and answers general questions
about how to prepare State plans.
17
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air pollution
Municipal solid waste landfill
Emission guidelines
Section lll(d)
Clean Air Act
Nonmethane organic
compounds
Methane
State plan
Implementation guidance
Existing municipal1
waste landfills
18 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19 SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
21 NO OF
PAGES 272
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/landfill/landflpg.html
20 SECURITY CLASS (Page)
Unclassified
22 PRICE
LASTPAGE
------- |