United States
         Environmental Protection
         Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA-456/R-99-OOIIX*
September 1999
FP/V    Municipal Solid Waste Landfills:
         Background Information Document for
         Federal Plan
         Public Comments and Responses
                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                   Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
                   77 West Jackson Bpulevard. 12th Floor
                   Chicago. IL  60604-3590

-------
         Municipal Solid Waste Landfills:
Background Information Document for Federal Plan
          Public Comments and Responses
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
               Office of Air and Radiation
        Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
       Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                  September 10, 1999

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

      Section                                                       Page


      1.0   LIST OF COMMENTERS  	1

      2.0   DISRUPTED LANDFILLS (§ 62.14351) 	2

      3.0   STATE PLAN INTERIM APPROVAL (§ 62.14252(b))	4

      4.0   INVENTORY OF LANDFILLS (§ 62.14355(a)(l)) 	8

      5.0   CALCULATING EMISSIONS RATE FOR INVENTORY	10

      6.0   DESIGN CAPACITY ESTIMATES AND REPORTS (§ 62.14355)	12

      7.0   CALCULATING EMISSIONS RATE FOR CONTROL APPLICABILITY
           (§ 62.14354(a))	14

      8.0   INCREMENTS OF PROGRESS (§§ 62.14351 AND 62.14355(b))	20

      9.0   DELEGATION	23
kamVF:\USER\MWARNER\PRG\FlNIJFP\tadfcom7.wpd            1U

-------
                                1.0 LIST OF COMMENTERS


             The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received comments from the

       following individuals on the proposed rule, "Federal Plan Requirements for Municipal

       Solid Waste Landfills That Commenced Construction Prior to May 30, 1991 and Have

       Not Been Modified or Reconstructed Since May 30, 1991" (63 FR 69364, December 16,

       1998). The docket number for this regulation is A-98-03.
        Docket number
Commenter and affiliation
        IV-D-01
C. A. James, Acting Director
Engineering and Technical Services Division
Bureau of Air Management
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Hartford, CT
        IV-D-02/IV-G-02
M.H. Naylor, Director
Clark County Health District
Las Vegas, NV
        IV-D-03
F.R. Caponi, Supervising Engineer
Solid Waste Management Department
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA
        IV-D-04
J.W. Brooks, Director
Bureau of Air Quality
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Augusta, ME
        IV-D-05
E.J. Skernolis, Director of Government Affairs
Waste Management
Washington, DC
        IV-G-01
B. Guzzone, Technical Divisions Manager
C. Voell, Director of Technical Services
Solid Waste Association of North America
Silver Springs, MD.
kam\F:\USER\MWARKER\PRG\FINLFTP\lndfcom7.wpd

-------
                          2.0 DISRUPTED LANDFILLS (§62.14351)

             Comment: One commenter (IV-D-01) requested that the final rule apply to
       landfills for which vertical or horizontal dimensions change, regardless of whether the
       change results in an increase or decrease in dimensions. (The commenter is describing the
       definition of "modification," as added to 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW; see the landfills
       direct final rule, 63 FR 32743, June 16, 1998.)  The commenter was concerned about
       cases where the landfill owner or operator disrupts the landfill by removing all or a portion
       of the disposed solid waste. Under this situation, the commenter stated that there is a
       potential for a significant increase in air pollutant emissions from the landfill with
       corresponding potential adverse effects on the environment and human health. The
       commenter requested that these emission increases be subject to the provisions of 40 CFR
       part 60, subparts Cc and WWW. (The proposed Federal plan, 40 CFR part 62, subpart
       GGG, has the same emission limits and control requirements as 40 CFR part 60, subparts
       Cc and WWW.)

             Response: The EPA is not revising 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc (emission
       guidelines), 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW (new source performance standards), nor
       40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG (Federal plan) to address reductions in a landfill's permitted
       horizontal or vertical dimensions. The comment period on subparts Cc  and WWW direct
       final rule clarifications ended on July 16, 1998.  The commenter submitted the same
       comment after the close of the comment period of the subparts Cc and WWW direct final
       rule (63 FR 32743, June 16, 1998). This response is consistent with EPA's memorandum
       dated September 16, 1998 and located in Docket No. A-98-03, Item No. IV-B-02.
             The EPA is aware of activities involving the removal of waste from municipal solid
       waste landfills conducted pursuant to Comprehensive Environmental Response,
 . .    Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act   "

kam\F:\USER\MWAIWER\PRG\FINLFFPyndfcom7.wpd              ^

-------
        (RCRA), or State remedial actions.  As stated in § 60.750(c) of the subpart WWW,
        activities conducted pursuant to these programs do not by themselves trigger the
        applicability of the new source performance standards to these landfills. However, if the
        activities do not fall into the categories stated above, EPA would need to consider if
        emissions could increase in the situation described by the commenter.  The EPA believes
        that emissions would not increase under the conditions described because the mass of solid
        waste does not increase. Since the mass does not increase, the methane generation
        potential, L0, does not increase. Therefore, the EPA does not expect an increase of
        emissions. In addition, landfill emissions are typically generated in an anaerobic
        environment. Since the removal of waste will introduce oxygen into the landfill, anaerobic
        conditions will be retarded. Under these conditions, the potential for an increase in
        emissions is decreased rather than increased. Therefore, EPA concludes that activities to
        remove waste from a landfill should  not be regulated under the emission guidelines or new
        source performance standards. The  EPA is not revising the Federal plan because the
        Federal plan implements the emission guidelines and must be consistent with the emission
        guidelines.
kam\F:\USER\MWARNER\PRG\FINLFFP\hidfcom7.wpd

-------
                    3.0 STATE PLAN INTERIM APPROVAL (§ 62.14252(b))

              Comment: Two commenters (IV-G-01 and F/-D-03) suggested that EPA issue a
       final rulemaking to provide interim approval of State plans that have been submitted to
       EPA but have not yet been approved or disapproved, while retaining the right to amend
       these plans upon its final review.  These commenters suggested that if EPA approved
       State plans on an interim basis, the landfill owner or operator would be subject to only the
       State regulations without duplication of Federal requirements. Similarly, another
       commenter (IV-D-05) suggested that in order to avoid the costs and other burdens of
       duplicate or inconsistent regulation during the review period, EPA should defer to the
       provisions of State plans that have been submitted but not yet approved by EPA.  The
       commenters were concerned that some States that have submitted State plans already have
       existing State requirements that remain in effect while EPA is reviewing the plans.  If the
       EPA review is not completed before the final Federal plan takes effect, the Federal plan
       would also apply to landfills in these States. The MSW landfills in such States could then
       be subject to duplicative or inconsistent regulatory requirements.
              One of the commenters (IV-D-05) provided an example of the potential for
       concurrent or conflicting requirements.  Florida has had State regulations in place since
       the end of 1996 that are identical to the emission guidelines (40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc)
       for existing landfills. If the Federal plan is promulgated before the Florida State plan is
       approved, the commenter was concerned that these existing landfills may face Federal and
       State emission guidelines under two different time lines. He stated that these landfills
       should be allowed to follow the State's compliance deadlines and monitoring,
       recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
kam\F:\USER\MWARNER\PRG\FINLFFP\lndfcom7.wpd

-------
              One commenter (IV-G-01) stated that the interim approval approach would
       simplify rule compliance because only the State would review the site-specific design plan,
       rather than EPA first, followed by the State.  The commenter contended that 3 days
       (24 person-hours) is not enough time for EPA to review a design plan. Two commenters
       (TV-G-01 and IV-D-03) contended that the EPA has not committed the resources for
       adequate and comprehensive review of design plans. They stated that if EPA does not
       have time to review site-specific design plans that propose alternate designs or monitoring
       requirements, then the Federal plan may preclude landfill owners or operators from
       implementing simpler, less costly, and more effective alternatives on the local level. For
       example, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in California has
       implemented a rule to control active landfills.  The SCAQMD rule employs a route
       monitoring strategy in lieu of grid monitoring.  One of the commenters (IV-D-03) and
       many other landfill owners and operators undertook an extensive test program to show the
       equivalency of route monitoring. The commenter was concerned that if the proposed
       Federal plan is promulgated as is, landfill owners and operators could be faced with
       administering two separate monitoring programs that are redundant or conflicting. The
       commenters (IV-G-01 and IV-D-03) noted that States are more likely to be familiar with
       compelling site-specific issues requiring the need for suitable design plan alternatives and
       States have the resources to better verify the equivalency of alternatives.

              Response: The EPA will not approve State plans on an interim basis for two
       reasons: (1) there is no legal basis for interim approval and  (2) overlapping requirements
       are not likely. Subpart B of 40 CFR part 60, which was promulgated under authority of
       section 11 l(d) of the Clean Air Act, requires States with existing MSW landfills to submit
       State plans to EPA within 9 months of EPA's adoption of the emission guidelines.  The
       EPA only has the authority to approve or disapprove a State plan based on whether it is
       consistent with subparts B and Cc. While section 502 of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR
       70.4(d) specifically authorize interim approval for title V permit programs, neither subpart
       B nor section 11 l(d) of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to grant similar interim
       approval of State or Tribal plans. The EPA will continue to accept and review State plans
                                                                                     * *i
       according to the criteria for State plans that are described in "Municipal 3olid Waste

kam\F:\USER\MWARNER\PRG\FINLFFPJDdfcom7.wpd               *

-------
       Landfill, Volume 2: Summary of the Requirements for Section 11 l(d) State Plans for
       Implementing the Municipal Solid Waste Emission Guidelines" (guidance document).
             In addition, the EPA does not expect landfill owners or operators to be subject to
       duplicate or inconsistent regulation. The EPA expects that State plans that were
       submitted by December 1998 (when the Federal plan was proposed) will be approved or
       disapproved before the landfills Federal plan becomes effective.  Once the State plan is
       approved and becomes effective, the owner or operator of a landfill covered by the State
       plan will not be subject to the Federal plan.  If, as expected, State plans become effective
       prior to promulgation of the Federal plan, owners or operators of landfills in those States
       will have to comply only with the State plans and will not be subject to two different time
       lines or other inconsistent requirements. States like Florida and California that submitted
       State plans and are prepared to implement the emission guidelines will not be penalized.
             Regarding review of design plans, the EPA expects that  State plans will certainly
       be in effect before it is time to review site-specific  design plans.  Therefore, the State will
       in all likelihood be the only reviewer. Site-specific design plans are due within 1 year of
       first reporting NMOC emissions of 50 megagrams per year or more. For a landfill subject
       to the Federal plan, the earliest this date could be is 1 year and 90 days after the effective
       date of the Federal plan, or the fall of 2000. The EPA expects that State plans that have
       been submitted would have become effective well before this time.
             If a State does not submit a State plan and EPA reviews the site-specific design
       plan, it will commit the necessary resources to ensure an expeditious review. The EPA
       has increased the estimate of the time required to review site-specific design plans to
       30 hours.  (See the revised Information Collection Request, ICRNo. 1893.01 and
       Docket No. A-98-03, Item No. IV-B-04). The EPA did further analysis and determined
       that increasing the time allocated for reviewing and approving the design plan to 30 hours
       would be appropriate. The EPA based this estimate on a survey of EPA Regional Offices
       and several States. The EPA will fully consider simpler, less costly, and more effective
       alternatives at the local level as proposed in the site-specific  design plans. The EPA
       intends to review design plans as expeditiously as possible so that there is sufficient time
       after approval of the plans for the landfills to install controls prior to the compliance date. t,
                                                                                   *      " •*
       •(See63-FR6937S.)             ''  • — •   "   • •  *  '   '
kam\F:\USER\MWARNER\PRG\nNLFFFandfcom7.wpd

-------
              The EPA has designed the landfills Federal plan to facilitate the transfer of
       authority from EPA to States, Tribes, and local agencies.  Parts of the Federal plan
       enforcement can be delegated to the State, including review of the design plans if a State
       requests delegation of that authority and demonstrates that it meets the criteria for
       delegation.
kam\F:\USER\MWAKNER\PRG\FINLFFP\tadf6om7.wpd

-------
                      4.0 INVENTORY OF LANDFILLS (§ 62.14355(a)(l))

              Comment: One commenter (IV-D-04) stated that one purpose of the Federal plan
       appears to be to create a database of MSW landfills in order to estimate emissions.  The
       commenter stated that the vast majority of small, closed landfills in Maine will never be
       able to be assessed due to lack of information. The commenter stated that the remaining
       operational landfills could keep records from this time forward, and where feasible,
       calculate their existing fill; however, there is little or nothing to be gained.  The
       commenter provided a list of 396 landfills in Maine that are subject to the emission
       guidelines.

              Response: The EPA will continue to require States that develop State plans to
       submit an inventory of existing landfills that accepted waste after November 8, 1987,
       consistent with 40 CFR 60.25, subpart B.  The purpose of the inventory is to provide a
       record to the public of the existing MSW landfills in a State or Indian country.  As part of
       the Federal plan, EPA prepared an inventory of landfills in States without State plans.  The
       updated inventory can be found in Docket No. A-98-03, Item No. IV-B-03, supplemented
       by Item Nos. IV-J-04 and IV-J-15. The EPA appreciates the commenter's information on
       landfills in Maine.  The information provided by the commenter is a useful supplement to
       EPA's inventory.  The EPA is encouraging States to continue work on State plans,
       including inventories.
               The EPA believes it is reasonable to expect States to know what landfills are in
       their geographic area and to provide this information in their State plans. While the
       inventory should list landfills of all sizes,  it does not necessarily need to include estimated
       emissions for landfills with design capacities less than 2.5jnillion megagrams of 2.5 million- '•••
 '^.      r      __;;	»	 -.'; ' _ _ ^    .  "...    .-  	 ---	

k«m\F:\USER\MWAR>IER\PRa\F7NLFFP\hidfcom7.wpd               °

-------
       cubic meters where it may be unreasonable or impractical.  This determination is explained
       in a memorandum from Bruce C. Jordan, Director of the Emission Standards Division,
       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA. The January 27, 1997
       memorandum allows States, in limited circumstances, to submit emission inventories as
       part of State plans without requiring in all cases, that States develop emissions data for
       smaller landfills, if development of such data is unreasonable or impractical. For example,
       it may be unreasonable or impractical for a State to estimate emissions for an MSW
       landfill below 2.5 million megagrams or 2.5 million cubic meters when the landfill is closed
       and there are no records of waste in place. The memo is available on the EPA
       Technology Transfer Website (TTN Web) at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatwAandfill/
       landflpg.html or in Docket No. A-98-03, Item No. IV-B-1).
kam\F:\USER\MWA!WER\PRG\FINIJTrFandfcom7.wpd

-------
                   5.0  CALCULATING EMISSIONS RATE FOR INVENTORY

              Comment: One commenter (IV-D-04) contended that volatile organic compounds
       (VOC) cannot reliably or meaningfully be estimated from Maine municipal solid waste
       landfills and that there are likely other rural States with the same situation. (The landfills
       regulations measure emissions of landfill gas as nonmethane organic compounds or
       NMOC.) The commenter claimed that calculations to estimate the amount of future VOC
       emissions from Maine's landfills will be inaccurate and misleading because in many
       landfills the carbon has been driven off by legal and illegal open burning. The commenter
       stated that the "dumps" and then the small landfills in rural Maine had most of their trash
       burned during the 1980s and even in the early 1990s.  The commenter stated that even
       after the State prohibited open burning of municipal solid waste in 1989, after-hour
       visitors commonly ignited trash on their own. The commenter also cited an article, "A
       Dirty Business," concluding that much of the wood and paper placed in landfills never
       decomposes, so emissions may be less than estimated. A copy of the article, which
       appeared in the January 23, 1999 edition of "New Scientist," was attached.

             Response:  States or EPA must develop inventories of landfills and their emissions
       as part of State plans or the Federal plan. The States should use whatever information is
       available to develop a reasonable estimate of emissions, and document the basis of the
       estimate. As explained in Section 4.0, under certain circumstances, States do not need to
       estimate emissions from small landfills in their inventory.

             The EPA appreciates the article, "A Dirty Business."  The article, which addresses
       the decomposition of paper and wood in landfills, .however, is not relevant to thisFederal- .
km\FAUSER\MWAIWER\PRG\FINLFFP\Indfcom7.wpd               ™

-------
       plan rulemaking. This Federal plan rulemaking implements, but does not revise, the
       emission guidelines.
kam\F:\USER\MWAKNER\PRG\F»OTT\liMtfcom7.wpd

-------
               6.0  DESIGN CAPACITY ESTIMATES AND REPORTS (§ 62.14355)

             Comment: One commenter (IV-D-04) contended that it is a meaningless task for
       towns to create design capacity reports based on uncertain data and where the landfills are
       no longer operating. Many of the small towns of Maine do not know and cannot
       determine the design capacity of their landfills. The commenter provided limited data on
       the 400 landfills in Maine: name, closure date, acreage, and population served.  However,
       the height and density, which would be used to calculate the design capacity, are not
       available. The commenter stated that there is no way to recreate the history needed to get
       the height or density.  However, based on the landfill acreage, the waste would need to be
       36 to 4000 feet deep to reach the 2.5 million cubic meter design capacity cutoff. The
       commenter stated that there is at least one existing (and closed) landfill that would be
       covered by this rule. Most of the landfills are much smaller than the design capacity
       cutoff. In addition, most of Maine's landfills have been closed and have no additional
       capacity for future waste disposal. The commenter estimates that by the end of the  year,
       358 of Maine's 400 landfills will be closed.
             The commenter (IV-D-04) also stated that in the final emission guidelines,
       municipalities were required to report regularly. The commenter stated that in this
       proposed rule, that reporting requirement is dropped.

             Response: The emission guidelines require owners and operators subject to the
       Federal plan to submit design capacity reports, regardless of the size of the landfill.  The
       Federal plan must be as stringent as the emission guidelines, therefore, the requirement to
       submit a design capacity report remains in the final Federal plan.  The purpose of the
       design capacity report is to help determine which landfills may be subject to the.
       j •  *           f             • '        ' *     > *      "'          •
       . i     m,       *
kam\F:\USER\MWARNER\PRG\FINlFFP\lndfcom7.wpd

-------
       requirement to install a collection and control system. Closed landfills that accepted waste
       since 1987 are included because landfills continue to emit NMOC years after they have
       closed and are subject to the emission guidelines that are implemented by the Federal plan.
              If data are not available on waste acceptance rates, then owners and operators
       should estimate their landfill's design capacity based on the best information available.
       For example, if owners or operators know the acreage of their landfills (the commenter
       provided the acreage for 396 landfills in the State), they could estimate the depth of waste
       based on available information, and document their assumption on depth.  Then they could
       calculate the approximate volumetric design capacity of the landfill and  submit the report.
       If capacity is clearly below 2.5 million cubic meters (or 2.5 million megagrams) no further
       action is required. Based on the data provided by Maine, it appears that most of the
       landfills in Maine would fall well below the design capacity cutoff for installing controls.
       For the larger landfills, the owner or operator would estimate NMOC emissions to
       determine whether a collection and control system would need to be installed.
              Regarding the commenter's belief that the reporting requirements are not the same
       as the final emission guidelines, the EPA intended to and believes it has incorporated all of
       the requirements of the emission guidelines in the Federal plan, including reporting
       requirements.
kara\F:\USER^MWAR^ER\PRG\FI^JLFFP\lndfcom7.wpd

-------
                                7.0  CALCULATING EMISSIONS RATE FOR
                                 CONTROL APPLICABILITY (§ 62.14354(a))
                    Comment: One commenter (IV-D-02/TV-G-02) suggested that the nonmethane
              organic compound (NMOC) emissions at the Sunrise Mountain Landfill may not be as
              high as the emissions calculated using EPA methodology. The commenter noted that
              because of Nevada's dry climate, the actual emissions may be closer to the 50 metric tons
              (50 megagrams) threshold for installing a collection and control system, rather than the
              calculated amount of 859 megagrams per year. However, the commenter noted that as
              the installation of the collection system proceeds, a better estimate will accrue.

                    Response: It is unlikely that dry climate alone would result in a difference of
              emissions from 859 megagrams to 50 megagrams.  However, EPA recognizes that
              landfills in dry climates have lower emission rates.  The recent amendments to the landfill
              new source performance standards and emission guidelines (63 FR 32743, June 16, 1998)
              include a separate default methane generation rate (k) value to be used to calculate the
              NMOC emission rate in arid areas (those with 30-year average annual precipitation of less
              than 25 inches as measured at the nearest representative meteorological site).  The arid (k)
              value is also included in the  proposed and final Federal plan. The arid (k) value accounts
              for the slower decomposition rate of waste in those areas. The Federal plan includes a
              3-tier procedure to calculate NMOC emission rates to determine whether a landfill is
              required to install controls.  The commenter does not specify which "EPA methodology"
              they used to calculate emissions of 859 megagrams per year and whether or not they used
              the arid (k) value if they performed Tier 1 calculations. Tier 1 calculations, which the
              commenter may have used, tend to overstate NMOC emission rates for most landfills and
• -*'  JL-J..1'-  .are intended .to.intiicate':the-need to install a colle'ctioirarid"control system or perform a

                                                     14
      -kam\F:\USER\MWARNER\PRG\FINLFFP\lndfcom7.wpd               *

-------
      more detailed Tier 2 analysis.  Many factors can influence site-specific emissions.  Tier 2
      or 3 emission estimation procedures allow any owner or operator to measure and use site-
      specific values instead of Tier 1 default values for NMOC concentration and (k).  The site-
      specific values would reflect any unique characteristics that would affect the emission rate
      of NMOC for that particular landfill. Tier 3 testing is, however, expensive, so if a landfill
      is well above 50 megagrams per year under Tier 2, they will want to consider whether to
      do Tier 3 testing or simply install controls.

             Comment: One commenter (IV-D-05) recommended that the landfills Federal plan
      defer to alternative emission estimation methods, particularly State-approved methods.
      This would ensure that consistent and accurate emissions estimates are used in
      determining actions under the emission guidelines and new source performance standards
      (40  CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW) and related State programs, such as Title V
      permitting and New Source Review. Under the Federal plan as proposed, the EPA
      Administrator retains the authority to approve alternative methods to determine site-
      specific NMOC concentrations (and does not transfer this authority to the State or Tribe
      upon delegation of authority to implement and enforce the Federal plan).  The commenter
      stated that facilities should be allowed to employ the most accurate emissions estimates.
             The commenter also expressed concern that EPA may rely on default estimates
      based on AP-42 estimation methodology while States are using more recent and
      sophisticated emission methods that are proving more accurate. The commenter included
      a document on landfill emissions prepared by the Illinois Environmental Protection
      Agency.  The document highlights the potential differences between methods of
      calculating landfill emissions.
             The commenter also suggested that emission estimation procedures in AP-42,
      "Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors," as well as tiered estimation procedures
      in 40 CFR 60.754 be modified to establish more precise default values and calculation
      methods. (The landfills Federal plan, 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG cross references the
      emission estimation procedures in 40 CFR 60.754.) Also, the commenter suggested that
      new scientific methods must be agreed upon and used in the guidance document and the
      regulation.              -

kam\F:\USER\MWARNER\PRG\FINLFFP\lndfcom7.wpd               ^

-------
              The commenter (IV-D-05) made the following points and recommendations:

              •       Develop better gas generation rate estimates for MSW.
              •       Give credit to reduction in emissions already achieved by existing gas
                     collection and control systems. Once an appropriate gas generation model
                     is chosen, then the gas collection and control system reductions in
                     emissions can be more appropriately used in calculating potential net
                     emissions.
              •       Recognize that the reduction of gas constituents occurs within the landfill
                     and the soil cover and/or capping materials.
              •       The 1:1 correlation of methane generation and NMOCs has not been
                     observed.
              •       There are temporal and spatial differences in gas generation rates and
                     emissions even within the same landfill.
              Response: The emission guidelines require the MSW landfill owner or operator to
       use the tiered calculation procedure described in 40 CFR 60.754 of subpart WWW to
       determine the eventual need for controls. The guidelines do not allow the use of AP-42
       emission factors to determine whether a landfill must install controls.  The tier calculation
       procedure was established during development of the new source performance standards
       and emission guidelines.  The Federal plan implements the emission guidelines and must
       therefore use the same procedure. The EPA is not revising the new source performance
       standards or emission guidelines as part of this Federal plan rulemaking. The appropriate
       time to comment on the tier calculation procedure was during the public comment period
       for these regulations.
              The tiered calculation procedure involves the calculation of the NMOC emission
       rate from a landfill. If the emission rate equals or exceeds a specified threshold (50 Mg
       NMOC/yr), the landfill owner or operator must install a gas collection and control system.
              The first tier of the tiered calculation procedure is purposefully conservative to
       ensure that landfill emissions are controlled as appropriate. Tiers 2 and 3 allow site-
       specific measurements to determine emissions more accurately. Tier 2 calculations are
       based .on site-specific measured NMOC concentrations (C^^c) and yield a morelaccurate
kam\F:\USERVMWARNER\PRGNFDJLFFP\tadfcom7.wpd               *"

-------
       estimate of the NMOC emission rate. Tier 3 calculations are based on both site-specific
       NMOC concentrations and a site-specific methane generation rate constant (k) and
       provide the most accurate NMOC emission rate estimate using the tiered procedures.
              In addition, the Federal plan allows flexibility for States and landfill owners and
       operators to apply to use other more accurate methods to determine the NMOC
       concentration or a site-specific (k) as an alternative to the methods required in the
       regulation (§ 62.14354(b)). Section 60.754(b)(3) of subpart WWW (which is cross-
       referenced by § 62.14354 of Subpart GGG) allows an alternative method if the method
       has been approved by the Administrator.  The EPA provides the mechanism for approving
       alternatives (§ 62.14350(b)). The landfill owner or operator can use the approved
       alternative methods to provide a better estimate of emissions for a particular landfill.
              To ensure national consistency, the Administrator is retaining the authority to
       approve alternative methods to determine site-specific NMOC concentrations and methane
       generation rate constants and is not transferring this authority to the State or Tribe upon
       delegation of authority to implement and enforce the Federal plan. The EPA will review
       and consider any applications for site-specific methods that it receives.
              For estimating emissions for State inventories and related State programs, such as
       Title V permitting and New Source Review, a State may use its own procedures. Tier 1
       default values are not recommended for inventories because they tend to overestimate
       emissions from many landfills.  As mentioned previously, the default values are purposely
       conservative because they serve as an indicator of the need to install a collection and
       control system.
              Although AP-42 emission factors are not allowed in the calculations for
       determining the need for controls, the Federal plan, emission guidelines, and guidance
       document recommend using AP-42, which has values that are more typical than Tier 1
       defaults, for permitting and inventories. AP-42 is referenced in the Federal plan, emission
       guidelines and new source performance standards in two cases.  First, § 60.764(c) of the
       new source performance standards (which is referenced by the Federal plan and emission
       guidelines), states that when calculating emissions for Prevention of Significant
       Deteriorization (PSD) permitting purposes, AP-42 or other approved procedures should.  _>
                                                           >,,»•  -.           /
       be'used.  Second,' § 60.755(a)(l) states that AP-42 default values for (k) and L0 or site-
                                               17
kam\F:\USER\MWARNER\PRG\F!NLFFP\lndfcom7.wpd               L '

-------
specific values demonstrated to be appropriate and approved by the Administrator should

be used for calculating the maximum expected gas generation flow rate in preparing the

design plan for collection system equipment.
                                        10
                                        lo

-------
               8.0  INCREMENTS OF PROGRESS (§§ 62.14351 AND 62.14355(b))
             Comment: One commenter (IV-D-05) stated that the proposed Federal plan
      increments of progress are more stringent than the emission guidelines for existing landfills
      and the new source performance standards for new landfills.  The commenter contended
      that the proposed Federal plan would impose a more burdensome regulatory requirement
      on existing landfills above and beyond that which is included in the emission guidelines.
      The commenter recommended eliminating the increments of progress and in their place
      requiring owners or operators to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting provisions
      of the new source performance standards.  The commenter stated that existing landfills
      should be given the same flexibility for achieving compliance with Federal plan emission
      guidelines as are new landfills under the new source performance standards.

             Response:  The requirements for existing landfills under the emission guidelines
      and the Federal plan are essentially the same as the requirements for new landfills under
      the new  source performance standards. For existing MSW landfills, five increments of
      progress are required by 40 CFR part  60, subpart B. These five increments of progress
      are:
             (1) Submit final control plan (collection and control system design plan);
             (2) Award contracts;
                 Begin-cpnstoiction;  ~   • • • : .
                                              19
kam\F:\USER\MWARNER\PRG\FINLIiFP\todfcom7.wpd              * *

-------
                 (4)  Complete construction, and
                 (5)  Reach final compliance.
                 Increments 1, 4, and 5 are also required by the emission guidelines for existing
          landfills.  For new MSW landfills, three increments of progress are required by the new
          source performance standards. These three increments of progress are:
                 • Submit final control plan;
                 • Complete construction; and
                 • Reach final compliance.
                 Subpart B does not apply to new landfills, thus, the increments to award contracts
          and begin construction are not required for new landfills.1 Although these two increments
          of progress do apply to existing landfills, there is flexibility in the dates for meeting them.
          Unlike the compliance time periods for increments 1, 4, and 5, which are specified in the
          emission guidelines, no time periods are specified for increments 2 and 3 in  either
          subpart B or the emission guidelines. Thus, the Federal plan allows the State, local or
          Tribal authority, or the landfill owner or operator to request different time periods for
          these increments versus the generic time periods specified in the Federal plan.
                 The EPA believes  the proposed interim dates for increments 2 and 3 are
          achievable, but the landfill owner or operator also has the flexibility to submit alternative
          interim dates under § 62.14356(d) of the Federal plan.  This option (option 3) is discussed
          in detail in the proposal preamble (see 63 FR 69374).

                 Comment: One commenter (FV-D-05) suggested that the final control plan
          (collection and control system design plan or design plan) should be consistent with the
          new source performance standards.  The commenter noted that the last sentence of the
          definition of final control plan in § 62.14351 could be deleted without consequence. That
          1While subpart B does not apply to new MSW landfills, the general provisions (40 CFR
   60.7) do and they require owners or operators of affected facilities (which include new MSW
   landfills) to provide notification to EPA of certain actions they plan to take or have taken.  One of
 >  these actions is when they begin construction. This notificationiequiremeht for new MSW
""Tandfills is notTaltered~byTiFA's promulgation of the MSW landfills Federal plan.
                                                 20
   km\F:\USER\MWARNER\PRG\F!NLFFP\lndfcom7.wpd

-------
       sentence reads: "The final control plan also must include the same information that will be
       used to solicit bids to install the collection and control system."
              The commenter (IV-D-05) stated that this requirement is inconsistent with the
       commenter's conversations with EPA in 1997 during negotiations over technical
       corrections to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc and WWW. The commenter says that those
       conversations clarified that the new source performance standards design plans should
       show the gas collection system for sites at final grade only.
              The commenter provided the following reasons for deleting the bid information in
       the design plan.

              •      The requirement is more stringent than the new source performance
                    standards requirement.
              •      Bid information in the design plan would not be practical for sites that still
                    have  several additional years of life, and whose gas systems will be installed
                    in multiple phases.
              •      Bid information would have to be prepared before the design plan is
                    approved, therefore the  bid information might have to be redone if EPA
                    disapproves the plan.
              •      It was not the intent of the new source performance standards to utilize the
                    design plan as a tool for bidding purposes. Rather, the design plan is a
                    technical document with the  specific purpose of demonstrating that the
                    landfill gas collection system planned for the facility will meet the control
                    requirements of the regulations.

              Response: The EPA agrees that it is appropriate  to delete the last sentence from
       the proposed definition of final control  plan to make the definition consistent with the
       emission guidelines and the guidance document. However, other requirements for
       submitting the final control plan remain the same. The owner or operator must submit the
       final control plan within 1 year after the NMOC emission rate first equals or exceeds 50
       megagrams per year.
              The design plan must cover the area to be controlled over the intended period of
       use (lifetime) of the gas control system, not just areas at final grade.  As specified in
       § 60.752(b)(2)(ii), the collection system must be designed to handle the maximum"  .'  -
                                               21
kamVFAUSERVMWARNERVPRCJVFINlJFPtodfcomT.wpd               ^x

-------
       expected gas generation rate from the entire area of the landfill that warrants control over
       the intended period of use of the gas control or treatment system. Active areas in which
       the initial waste has been in place 5 years and closed or final grade areas where the initial
       waste has been in place 2 years must be controlled. As the landfill expands, the collection
       system must be expanded into areas that meet these criteria. Thus, if a control system is
       expected to last 15 years (for example), the design plan must take into account all active
       areas of the landfill that are expected to meet the 2-year/5-year criteria within the next
       15 years, given the expected waste acceptance rate. The design plan should include the
       initial design and plans for system expansion.
                                                 22
kam\F:\USER\MWARNER\PRG\FINLFFP\lndfcom7.wpd                ^

-------
                                      9.0 DELEGATION

             Comment: One commenter (IV-D-04) recommended that States should not be the
       enforcement agent under the Federal plan. The commenter, a State agency, noted that it
       did not want to take delegation of the Federal plan, especially if it requires collection of
       design capacity reports from hundreds of rural towns with small, closed landfills.

             Response:  A State is not obligated to take delegation of the Federal plan.
       However, the EPA believes that the State, Tribal, and local agencies are in the best
       position to design, adopt, and implement the control programs needed to meet the
       requirements of the MSW landfills Federal plan in their jurisdictions. This is consistent
       with Congress' overarching intent that the primary responsibility for air pollution control
       rests with State and local agencies. See 63 FR 69375, December 16, 1998 and the Clean
       Air Act section 101(a)(3).
             The EPA continues to strongly encourage States, Tribes, and local agencies to
       submit approvable State plans. For States that are unable to submit plans, the EPA
       strongly encourages them to request delegation of the Federal plan, if feasible. The EPA
       has designed the Federal plan to facilitate the transfer of authority from EPA to States,
       Tribes, and local  agencies.
                                               23
bm\F:\USER\MWARNER\PRG\FINLFFPMndfcom7.wpd

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
I REPORT NO 2.
EPA-456/R-99-001
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills: Background Information
Document for Federal Plan
Public Comments and Responses
7 AUTHOR(S)
Mary Ann Warner, EPA/OAQPS/ITPID/PIRG
Joe Fanjoy, Eastern Research Group
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO
5. REPORT DATE
September 1999
6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
No
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This document addresses the comments that EPA received on the proposed Federal Plan for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills, published December 16, 1998. The final Federal Plan was published November 8,
1999.
1 7 KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a DESCRIPTORS b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COSATI Field/Group
Air pollution Air Pollution control
Municipal solid waste landfill
Public comments
Federal plan
18 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
Unclassified 23
Release Unlimited 20. SECURITY CLASS f^ .-, ' ,22. PRICE
Unclassified
LASPAbid.wpd
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE

-------