National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Residual Risk and Technology Review, 17244-17282 [2020-04800]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
17244
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0047; FRL–10006–05–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AU18
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills Residual Risk
and Technology Review
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This action finalizes the
residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Municipal
Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills source
category regulated under national
emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we
are taking final action to correct and
clarify regulatory provisions related to
emissions during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM);
revise wellhead operational standards
and corrective action to improve
effectiveness and provide compliance
flexibility; reorganize rule text to
incorporate provisions from the new
source performance standards (NSPS)
within this subpart; and add
requirements for electronic reporting of
performance test results. The EPA is
also finalizing minor changes to the
MSW Landfills NSPS and Emission
Guidelines (EG) and Compliance Times
for MSW Landfills. Specifically, the
EPA is finalizing provisions to the most
recent MSW Landfills NSPS and EG that
would allow affected sources to
demonstrate compliance with landfill
gas control, operating, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements by following the
corresponding requirements in the
MSW Landfills NESHAP. These final
amendments will result in improved
compliance and implementation of the
rule.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
March 26, 2020. The incorporation by
reference (IBR) of certain publications
listed in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of
March 26, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has established
a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0047. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov/
website. Although listed, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard
copy at the EPA Docket Center, WJC
West Building, Room Number 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
(EST), Monday through Friday. The
telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about this final action, contact
Andrew Sheppard, Natural Resources
Group, Sector Policies and Programs
Division (E143–03), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
4161; fax number: (919) 541–0516; and
email address: Sheppard.Andrew@
epa.gov. For specific information
regarding the risk modeling
methodology, contact James Hirtz,
Health and Environmental Impacts
Division (C539–02), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541–
0881; fax number: (919) 541–0840; and
email address: Hirtz.James@epa.gov. For
information about the applicability of
the NESHAP to a particular entity,
contact Maria Malave, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, WJC South Building
(Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 564–7027; and
email address: Malave.Maria@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and
abbreviations. We use multiple
acronyms and terms in this preamble.
While this list may not be exhaustive, to
ease the reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, the EPA defines the
following terms and acronyms here:
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO carbon monoxide
EG emission guidelines
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
FEMA Federal Emergency Management
Agency
GCCS gas collection and control system
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HOV higher operating value
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference km
kilometer
LFG landfill gas
MACT maximum achievable control
technology
Mg/yr megagrams per year
MSW municipal solid waste
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
NARA National Archives and Records
Administration
NESHAP national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants
NMOC non-methane organic compounds
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ppmv parts per million by volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SOE subsurface oxidation event
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Background information. On July 29,
2019, the EPA proposed revisions to the
MSW Landfills NESHAP based on our
RTR. In this action, we are finalizing
decisions and revisions for the rule. We
summarize some of the more significant
comments we timely received regarding
the proposed rule and provide our
responses in this preamble. A summary
of all other public comments on the
proposal and the EPA’s responses to
those comments is available in the
Summary of Public Comments and the
EPA’s Responses for the Proposed Risk
and Technology Review and
Amendments for the Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills NESHAP, available in
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–
0047. A ‘‘track changes’’ version of the
regulatory language that incorporates
the changes in this action is available in
the docket.
Organization of this document. The
information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document
and other related information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this
action?
B. What is the MSW Landfills source
category and how does the NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions from the source
category?
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
C. What changes did we propose for the
MSW Landfills source category in our
July 29, 2019, RTR proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments
based on the risk review for the MSW
Landfills source category?
B. What are the final rule amendments
based on the technology review for the
MSW Landfills source category?
C. What are the final rule amendments
addressing emissions during periods of
SSM?
D. What other changes have been made to
the MSW Landfills NESHAP?
E. What are the effective and compliance
dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final
decisions and amendments for the MSW
Landfills source category?
A. Residual Risk Review for the MSW
Landfills Source Category
B. Technology Review for the MSW
Landfills Source Category
C. SSM for the MSW Landfills Source
Category
D. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and
Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice
did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children’s
environmental health did we conduct?
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Categories and
entities potentially regulated by this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
17245
any civil or criminal proceedings
brought by the EPA to enforce the
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL
SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY further provides that only an objection
to a rule or procedure which was raised
THIS FINAL ACTION
with reasonable specificity during the
1
period for public comment (including
NAICS
NESHAP and source category
code
any public hearing) may be raised
during judicial review. This section also
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ....
562212 provides a mechanism for the EPA to
Air and Water Resource and Solid
reconsider the rule if the person raising
Waste Management ..................
924110
an objection can demonstrate to the
State, Local, and Tribal Government Agencies ..........................
924110 Administrator that it was impracticable
to raise such objection within the period
1 North
American Industry Classification for public comment or if the grounds for
System.
such objection arose after the period for
Table 1 of this preamble is not
public comment (but within the time
intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
specified for judicial review) and if such
provide a guide for readers regarding
objection is of central relevance to the
entities likely to be affected by the final
outcome of the rule. Any person seeking
action for the source category listed. To
to make such a demonstration should
determine whether your facility is
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
affected, you should examine the
the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
applicability criteria in the appropriate
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building,
NESHAP. If you have any questions
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
regarding the applicability of any aspect Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to
of this NESHAP, please contact the
both the person(s) listed in the
appropriate person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate
CONTACT section of this preamble.
General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General
B. Where can I get a copy of this
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA,
document and other related
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
information?
Washington, DC 20460.
In addition to being available in the
II. Background
docket, an electronic copy of this final
action will also be available on the
A. What is the statutory authority for
internet. Following signature by the
this action?
EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a
copy of this final action at https://
two-stage regulatory process to address
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airemissions of hazardous air pollutants
pollution/municipal-solid-waste(HAP) from stationary sources. In the
landfills-national-emission-standards.
first stage, we must identify categories
Following publication in the Federal
of sources emitting one or more of the
Register, the EPA will post the Federal
HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and
Register version and key technical
then promulgate technology-based
documents at this same website.
Additional information is available on NESHAP for those sources. ‘‘Major
sources’’ are those that emit, or have the
the RTR website at https://
potential to emit, any single HAP at a
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airrate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more,
pollution/risk-and-technology-reviewor 25 tpy or more of any combination of
national-emissions-standardsHAP. For major sources, these standards
hazardous. This information includes
are commonly referred to as maximum
an overview of the RTR program and
achievable control technology (MACT)
links to project websites for the RTR
standards and must reflect the
source categories.
maximum degree of emission reductions
C. Judicial Review and Administrative
of HAP achievable (after considering
Reconsideration
cost, energy requirements, and non-air
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section
quality health and environmental
307(b)(1), judicial review of this final
impacts). In developing MACT
action is available only by filing a
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs
petition for review in the United States
the EPA to consider the application of
Court of Appeals for the District of
measures, processes, methods, systems,
Columbia Circuit (the court) by May 25, or techniques, including, but not limited
2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
to, those that reduce the volume of or
requirements established by this final
eliminate HAP emissions through
rule may not be challenged separately in process changes, substitution of
action are shown in Table 1 of this
preamble.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
17246
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
materials, or other modifications;
enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or
treat HAP when released from a process,
stack, storage, or fugitive emissions
point; are design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standards; or
any combination of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute
specifies certain minimum stringency
requirements, which are referred to as
MACT floor requirements, and which
may not be based on cost
considerations. See CAA section
112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT
floor cannot be less stringent than the
emission control achieved in practice by
the best-controlled similar source. The
MACT standards for existing sources
can be less stringent than floors for new
sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission
limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing
sources in the category or subcategory
(or the best-performing five sources for
categories or subcategories with fewer
than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider
control options that are more stringent
than the floor under CAA section
112(d)(2). We may establish standards
more stringent than the floor, based on
the consideration of the cost of
achieving the emissions reductions, any
non-air quality health and
environmental impacts, and energy
requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory
process, the CAA requires the EPA to
undertake two different analyses, which
we refer to as the technology review and
the residual risk review. Under the
technology review, we must review the
technology-based standards and revise
them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies)’’ no less
frequently than every 8 years, pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the
residual risk review, we must evaluate
the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based
standards and revise the standards, if
necessary, to provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health or to
prevent, taking into consideration costs,
energy, safety, and other relevant
factors, an adverse environmental effect.
The residual risk review is required
within 8 years after promulgation of the
technology-based standards, pursuant to
CAA section 112(f). In conducting the
residual risk review, if the EPA
determines that the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health, it is not necessary
to revise the MACT standards pursuant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
to CAA section 112(f).1 For more
information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 84 FR 36670 (July 29,
2019).
B. What is the MSW Landfills source
category and how does the NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions from the source
category?
The EPA promulgated the MSW
Landfills NESHAP on January 16, 2003
(68 FR 2227). The standards are codified
at 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. As
promulgated in 2003 and further
amended on April 20, 2006 (71 FR
20462), the NESHAP regulates HAP
emissions from MSW landfills that are
either major or area sources.
The NESHAP applies to MSW
landfills that have accepted waste since
November 8, 1987, or have additional
capacity for waste deposition and are
major sources, are collocated with major
sources, or are area source landfills with
a design capacity equal to or greater
than 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) and
2.5 million cubic meters (m3) and have
estimated uncontrolled emissions equal
to or greater than 50 megagrams per year
(Mg/yr) of non-methane organic
compounds (NMOC). The NESHAP also
applies to MSW landfills that have
accepted waste since November 8, 1987,
or have additional capacity for waste
deposition and include a bioreactor and
are major sources, are collocated with
major sources, or are area source
landfills with a design capacity equal to
or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5
million m3 that were not permanently
closed as of January 16, 2003.
The majority of HAP emissions at
MSW landfills come from the
continuous biodegradation of the MSW
in the landfill and the formation of
landfill gas (LFG) emissions. LFG
emissions contain methane, carbon
dioxide, and more than 100 different
NMOC. The HAP emitted by MSW
landfills include, but are not limited to,
vinyl chloride, ethyl benzene, toluene,
and benzene (61 FR 9906, March 12,
1996). The owner or operator of a
landfill may control the gas by routing
it to a non-enclosed flare, an enclosed
combustion device, or a treatment
system that processes the collected gas
for subsequent sale or beneficial use.
The NESHAP regulates HAP
emissions by requiring MSW landfills
that exceed the size and emission
thresholds to install and operate a
1 The court has affirmed this approach of
implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v.
EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA
determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an ‘ample margin of safety,’ then
the Agency is free to readopt those standards during
the residual risk rulemaking.’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
landfill gas collection and control
system (GCCS). The NESHAP achieves
emission reductions through a welldesigned and well-operated landfill
GCCS with a control device (i.e., nonenclosed flare, enclosed combustion
device, or treatment system) capable of
reducing NMOC by 98 percent by
weight. NMOC is a surrogate for LFG.
The GCCS must be installed within 30
months after an MSW landfill that
equals or exceeds the design capacity
threshold (2.5 million Mg and 2.5
million m3) reaches or exceeds an
NMOC emissions level of 50 Mg/yr. The
landfill must expand the system to
collect gas from each area, cell, or group
of cells in the landfill in which the
initial solid waste has been placed for
5 years or more if active; or 2 years or
more if closed or at final grade. The
collection and control system may be
capped or removed when the landfill is
closed, the system has operated 15
years, and NMOC emissions are below
50 Mg/yr.
In addition, the NESHAP requires
timely control of bioreactors. A
bioreactor is an MSW landfill or portion
of the landfill where any liquid other
than leachate is added to the waste mass
to reach a minimum average moisture
content of at least 40 percent by weight
to accelerate or enhance the
biodegradation of the waste. New
bioreactors must install the GCCS in the
bioreactor prior to initiating liquids
addition, regardless of whether the
landfill emissions rate equals or exceeds
the estimated uncontrolled emissions
rate; existing bioreactors must install the
GCCS before initiating liquids addition
and must begin operating the GCCS
within 180 days after initiating liquids
addition or within 180 days after
achieving a moisture content of 40
percent by weight, whichever is later.
Based on modeled emission estimates
in the 2016 NSPS/EG datasets, and
supplementary searching of the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program data
(located in 40 CFR part 98, subpart HH),
the EPA Landfill Methane Outreach
Program, Landfill and LFG Energy
Project Database, and selected permits,
as of 2014, there were between 664 and
709 MSW landfills subject to the LFG
collection and control requirements of
the NESHAP. The exact list of facilities
subject to the NESHAP is unknown
because many landfills collect sitespecific data for NMOC concentrations
using the Tier 2 provisions allowed
under the regulation to compute the
NMOC annual emission rates. A list of
facilities expected to be subject to the
NESHAP based on modeled emissions
and a default NMOC concentration of
595 parts per million by volume (ppmv)
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
is available in the RTR dataset.2 It is
estimated that these landfills emit
between 2,242 and 4,586 Mg/yr of HAP,
after considering current control
requirements. Most of these emissions
are fugitive emissions.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
C. What changes did we propose for the
MSW Landfills source category in our
July 29, 2019, RTR proposal?
On July 29, 2019, the EPA published
a proposed rule in the Federal Register
for the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR
part 63, subpart AAAA), that took into
consideration the RTR analyses (84 FR
36670). Based on the risk analysis, we
proposed to find that the risks from the
MSW Landfills source category are
acceptable. The risk analysis estimated
that the cancer risk to the individual
most exposed is below 10-in-1 million
from both actual and allowable
emissions (estimated cancer incidence
is 0.04 excess cancer cases per year, or
1 case every 20 years). The risk analysis
also estimated a maximum chronic
noncancer target organ-specific hazard
index (TOSHI) value below 1.
Our risk analysis indicated the risks
from this source category are low for
both cancer and noncancer health
effects, and, therefore, we proposed that
any risk reductions to further control
fugitive landfill emissions would result
in minimal health benefits (84 FR
36686, July 29, 2019). We also proposed
that the current NESHAP provides an
ample margin of safety to protect public
health (84 FR 36686, July 29, 2019). In
addition, pursuant to the technology
review for the MSW Landfills source
category, we proposed that no revisions
to the current standards are necessary
because, after analyzing the available
options, we determined that each is
either not technically feasible or the cost
is not justified for the level of emission
reduction achievable (84 FR 36689, July
29, 2019).
In addition to the proposed decisions
resulting from the RTR described above,
we proposed revisions to the NESHAP
to promote consistency between MSW
landfills regulations under CAA
sections 111 and 112. We also proposed
changes to the wellhead temperature
operating standards and associated
monitoring, corrective action, and
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for temperature. We
proposed to adjust provisions for GCCS
removal to provide additional flexibility
for landfill owners and operators. In
2 MSW Landfills NESHAP RTR Draft Emissions
Modeling File. May 2018. Available at: https://
www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/
municipal-solid-waste-landfills-national-emissionstandards.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
addition, we proposed updates to SSM
and electronic reporting requirements.
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action finalizes the EPA’s
determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the
MSW Landfills source category. This
action also finalizes other changes to the
MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part
63, subpart AAAA), including changes
to promote consistency between MSW
landfills regulations under CAA
sections 111 and 112 and changes to the
wellhead temperature operating
standards, including associated
monitoring, corrective action, and
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for temperature. This final
rule also provides additional flexibility
for landfill owners and operators by
adjusting the provisions for GCCS
removal. In addition, SSM and
electronic reporting requirements have
been updated. This action also reflects
several changes to the July 2019 RTR
proposal in consideration of comments
received during the public comment
period described in section IV of this
preamble.
A. What are the final rule amendments
based on the risk review for the MSW
Landfills source category?
This section introduces the final
amendments to the NESHAP being
promulgated pursuant to CAA section
112(f). The risks from this source
category are low for both cancer and
noncancer health effects and we
proposed that the risks are acceptable.
We received only comments in support
of the proposed determination. We are
finalizing our determination that risks
from this source category are acceptable
and that the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health
and prevent an adverse environmental
effect. Therefore, we are not finalizing
any revisions to the NESHAP based on
our analyses conducted under CAA
section 112(f). Section IV.A.3 of this
preamble provides a summary of key
comments we received regarding risk
review and our responses.
B. What are the final rule amendments
based on the technology review for the
MSW Landfills source category?
The technology review identified
three types of developments that could
lead to additional control of HAP from
MSW landfills. The three potential
developments are practices to reduce
HAP formation within a landfill, to
collect more LFG for control or
treatment, and to achieve a greater level
of HAP destruction in the collected
LFG. As stated in the proposal preamble
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17247
(84 FR 36686–36689, July 29, 2019)
none of these developments were
deemed to be cost effective. We are
finalizing our determination, as
proposed, that there are no
developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies that warrant
revisions to the MACT standards for this
source category. Therefore, we are not
finalizing revisions to the MACT
standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).
C. What are the final rule amendments
addressing emissions during periods of
SSM?
We are finalizing the proposed
amendments to the MSW landfills
standards to remove and revise
provisions related to SSM. Within its
2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA 551
F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the court
vacated portions of two provisions in
the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations
governing the emissions of HAP during
periods of SSM. Specifically, the court
vacated the SSM exemption contained
in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR
63.6(h)(1), holding that under section
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards
or limitations must be continuous in
nature and that the SSM exemption
violates the CAA’s requirement that
some CAA section 112 standards apply
continuously. As detailed in section
IV.D.8 of the proposal preamble (84 FR
36693–36697, July 29, 2019), we
proposed that the NESHAP standards
apply at all times (see 40 CFR
63.1930(b)), consistent with the court’s
decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.
3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The EPA is
finalizing the SSM provisions as
proposed with minimal changes.
We are finalizing a work practice
requirement that applies whenever the
GCCS is not operating. The work
practice requirement appears at 40 CFR
63.1958(e) and is explained in the
proposal preamble (84 FR 36695, July
29, 2019).
Further, the EPA is not setting
separate standards for malfunction
events. As discussed in the proposal
preamble (84 FR 36694, July 29, 2019),
the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as
not requiring emissions that occur
during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA
section 112 standards, although the EPA
has the discretion to set standards for
malfunctions where feasible. Although
we are not setting separate standards for
malfunction events, we are setting a
work practice standard for when the
GCCS is not operating, which could
include periods of malfunction.
Whenever a landfill operator is
complying with the work practice for
periods when the GCCS is not operating,
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
17248
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
it is unlikely that a malfunction would
result in a violation of the standards,
and no comments were submitted that
would suggest otherwise. Refer to 84 FR
36694 of the proposal preamble for
further discussion of the EPA’s rationale
for the decision not to set separate
standards for malfunctions, as well as a
discussion of the actions a source could
take in the unlikely event that a source
fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a
malfunction event. The administrative
and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully
recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and
can accommodate those situations,
including malfunction events.
We are also finalizing revisions to
Table 1 of subpart AAAA, part 63, titled
Applicability of NESHAP General
Provisions to Subpart AAAA, as
explained in more detail in the SSM
section of the proposal preamble (84 FR
36693, July 29, 2019), to eliminate
requirements that include rule language
providing an exemption for periods of
SSM. Additionally, we are finalizing our
proposal to eliminate language related
to SSM that treats periods of startup and
shutdown the same as periods of
malfunction.
The legal rationale and detailed
changes for SSM periods that we are
finalizing are set forth in the proposed
rule (84 FR 36693, July 29, 2019). As
discussed in section IV.C of this
preamble, the EPA is making it clear
that the semi-annual report must
describe the date, time, and duration of
periods during which an operating
standard was exceeded, as well as when
the GCCS was not operating. For more
information, see the response to
comments document, titled Summary of
Public Comments and the EPA’s
Responses for the Proposed Risk and
Technology Review and Amendments
for the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
NESHAP, which is available in the
docket for this action.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
D. What other changes have been made
to the MSW Landfills NESHAP?
This rule finalizes, as proposed,
revisions to several NESHAP
requirements that promote consistency
among MSW landfills regulations
developed under CAA sections 111 and
112. This rule also finalizes revisions to
the 2016 NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart
XXX) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart
Cf) to promote consistency among MSW
landfills regulations under the CAA.
Most of these changes are the same as
those proposed at 84 FR 36670 on July
29, 2019.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
This rule also finalizes minor changes
to other provisions of the NESHAP since
proposal. Specific changes made since
proposal are discussed in section IV.C of
this preamble. Revisions to the
NESHAP, NSPS, and EG include:
1. Reorganization of the NESHAP
We are finalizing the reorganization of
the NESHAP to incorporate the major
compliance provisions from the MSW
Landfills NSPS program directly into
the NESHAP, thus, minimizing crossreferencing to other subparts and
consolidating requirements between the
NSPS program and the NESHAP. With
the incorporation of the major
compliance provisions from the 2016
NSPS (subpart XXX), we, thus,
incorporated revisions to subpart XXX
that were finalized in 2016. In addition,
we clarified which of the reorganized
provisions apply no later than 18
months after publication of the final
rule.
2. Revisions to the 1996 NSPS (40 CFR
Part 60, Subparts WWW) and the 2016
NSPS and EG (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts
XXX and Cf)
The EPA is clarifying that subpart Cf
(once implemented via a state or federal
plan) supersedes subparts WWW and
Cc. The final rule revises the title and
applicability of subpart WWW (at 40
CFR 60.750(a)) to distinguish the
applicability dates from other landfills
subparts. We clarify that after the
effective date of an EPA-approved state
or tribal plan implementing subpart Cf,
or after the effective date of a federal
plan implementing subpart Cf, owners
and operators of MSW landfills must
comply with the approved and effective
state, tribal, or federal plan
implementing subpart Cf instead of
subpart WWW or the state or federal
plan implementing subpart Cc.
3. NSPS and EG (Subparts XXX and Cf)
Opt-In Provisions for NESHAP
We are finalizing minor edits to the
2016 NSPS and EG regulations allowing
MSW landfills affected by the NSPS and
EG to demonstrate compliance with the
‘‘major compliance provisions’’ of the
NESHAP in lieu of complying with the
analogous provisions in the NSPS and
EG. This change allows landfills to
follow one set of operational,
compliance, monitoring, and reporting
provisions for pressure and temperature.
The differences between the landfills
subparts are identified in the
memorandum titled Comparison of
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills
Regulations, which is available in the
docket for this action.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
4. Operational Standards for Wellheads
a. Nitrogen and Oxygen Concentrations
The EPA is finalizing the elimination
of the operational standards and the
corresponding corrective action for
nitrogen and oxygen concentrations in
the NESHAP for consistency with the
2016 NSPS and EG (subparts XXX and
Cf). The EPA concluded that nitrogen
and oxygen concentrations are not, by
themselves, effective indicators of
proper operation of the LFG collection
system (see 81 FR 59346, August 29,
2016).
b. Increased Wellhead Temperature
Operating Standard
The EPA is finalizing an increase of
temperature standard to 145 degrees
Fahrenheit (°F). The EPA is finalizing
the increased wellhead temperature
operating standard in the NESHAP to
reduce the burden on regulated entities
and delegated state, local, and tribal
agencies. This change is expected to
reduce the number of requests and
burden associated with submitting and
reviewing the requests for higher
operating values (HOVs) for
temperature, as well as reduce the
frequency of corrective actions for
exceeding the temperature limit. This
change provides landfill owners and
operators greater flexibility and
autonomy with regards to wellhead
monitoring and operations.
5. Corrective Action for Wellhead
Operating Standards
The EPA is finalizing the elimination
of the requirements for corrective action
for nitrogen and oxygen concentrations
in the NESHAP to maintain consistency
with the requirements in the 2016 NSPS
and EG (subparts XXX and Cf). The
operating standard for nitrogen and
oxygen has already been eliminated in
those rules. In the NESHAP, the EPA is
finalizing changes to the corrective
action procedures to address positive
pressure and elevated temperature to
provide flexibility to owners or
operators in determining the
appropriate remedy, as well as the
timeline for implementing the remedy.
The changes to the timeline and the
process for correcting for positive
pressure and elevated temperature make
the NESHAP requirements consistent
with the current requirements of the
NSPS and EG, except that the
requirements for corrective action
procedures being proposed in the
NESHAP are tied to the exceedance of
the 145 °F standard, instead of the
131 °F standard that still applies in the
NSPS and EG.
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
6. Enhanced Monitoring,
Recordkeeping, and Reporting for High
Wellhead Temperatures
The EPA is finalizing the addition of
enhanced wellhead monitoring and
visual inspection requirements for any
landfill with wellhead temperature
exceeding 145 °F. Enhanced monitoring
in the final rule involves weekly
observations for subsurface oxidation
events (SOE), as well as weekly
monitoring of wellhead temperature,
carbon monoxide (CO), oxygen, and
methane using an analyzer that meets
all quality assurance and quality control
requirements for EPA Methods 10, 3C,
or 18. Enhanced monitoring begins 7
days after the first reading exceeding
145 °F is recorded and continues until
the measured wellhead operating
temperature is 145 °F or less, or an HOV
is approved. The proposed rule required
a landfill to continue weekly enhanced
monitoring until an HOV was approved
or until the LFG temperature at the
wellhead reached less than or equal to
62.8 degrees Celsius (°C) (145 °F). In the
final rule, the EPA is allowing monthly
CO monitoring if the wellhead has CO
readings below 100 ppmv for four
consecutive weeks. If the CO level
exceeds 100 ppmv again, the landfill
must return to weekly monitoring (see
section IV.D of this preamble).
Consistent with our proposal, the final
rule requires enhanced monitoring data
to be submitted in the semi-annual
report and maintained as records. The
EPA is finalizing the enhanced
monitoring requirements as proposed
except for the following changes:
• The EPA is removing the proposed
requirement for an independent
laboratory analysis of each CO
measurement (see section IV.D of this
preamble).
• The EPA is finalizing the proposed
24-hour electronic report for any well
with highly elevated temperature
(76.7 °C or 170 °F) and CO readings (40
CFR 63.1981(k)). In the final rule, the
EPA reduced the CO threshold for the
24-hour electronic report from 1,500
ppmv to 1,000 ppmv (see section IV.D
of this preamble). The EPA adjusted the
corresponding corrective action for
wells that have any wellhead
temperature reading of 170 °F or above
and CO reading of 1,000 ppmv. The
report is not required for landfills that
have an HOV approved by the
Administrator.
• The EPA is finalizing the proposed
downwell monitoring. However, in the
final rule, downwell monitoring is
conducted annually, instead of weekly.
Additionally, the annual downwell
monitoring is only required for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
wellheads that have any temperature
reading of 165 °F or above (see section
IV.D of this preamble).
7. Criteria for Removing GCCS
The EPA is finalizing as proposed the
added flexibility to the NESHAP for
determining when it is appropriate to
cap, remove, or decommission a portion
of the GCCS (40 CFR 63.1957(b)). The
NESHAP requires three criteria to be
met to remove controls: (1) The landfill
is closed, (2) the calculated NMOC
emission rate at the landfill is less than
50 Mg/yr on three successive test dates,
and (3) the GCCS has operated for at
least 15 years. In this final rule, we
updated the third criterion to allow the
landfill owner or operator to choose
between the 15 years of GCCS operation
or demonstrate that the GCCS will be
unable to operate for 15 years due to
declining gas flows.
8. Definition of Cover Penetration
To clarify the implementation
concerns, the EPA is finalizing as
proposed the phrase, ‘‘. . . at all cover
penetrations’’ to the regulatory text of
the NESHAP (40 CFR 63.1958(d)),
consistent with this phrase in the 2016
NSPS and EG (subparts XXX and Cf).
We are also adding a definition of cover
penetration as proposed. At 40 CFR
63.1958(d), we are clarifying the surface
monitoring provisions by requiring
monitoring at any ‘‘cover penetrations’’
rather than at ‘‘any openings.’’ And we
are clarifying that the landfill owner or
operator must determine the latitude
and longitude coordinates ‘‘of each
exceedance.’’
9. Electronic Reporting
The EPA is requiring owners and
operators of new or modified MSW
landfills to electronically submit
required performance test reports,
NMOC Emission Rate Reports,
Bioreactor 40-percent moisture reports,
and semi-annual reports through the
EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX)
using the Compliance and Emissions
Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) (40
CFR 63.1981(l)). The final rule requires
that performance test results be
submitted using the Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT). Alternatively,
MSW landfills may submit an electronic
file consistent with the extensible
markup language (XML) schema listed
on the EPA’s ERT website. For more
details, see the Electronic Reporting
section of the proposal preamble (84 FR
36693, July 29, 2019). For NMOC
Emission Rate Reports, Bioreactor 40percent moisture reports, and semiannual reports, the final rule requires
that owners and operators use the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17249
appropriate spreadsheet template/forms
to submit information to CEDRI when it
becomes available on the CEDRI website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronicreporting-air-emissions/cedri). The
electronic submittal of the reports
addressed in this rulemaking will
increase the usefulness of the data
contained in those reports, is in keeping
with current trends in data availability
and transparency, will further assist in
the protection of public health and the
environment, will improve compliance
by facilitating the ability of regulated
facilities to demonstrate compliance
with requirements and by facilitating
the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and
the EPA to assess and determine
compliance, and will ultimately reduce
burden on regulated facilities, delegated
air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic
reporting also eliminates paper-based,
manual processes, thereby saving time
and resources, simplifying data entry,
eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data
quickly and accurately to the affected
facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the
public. For a more thorough discussion
of electronic reporting, see the
memorandum, Electronic Reporting
Requirements for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2002–0047.
10. Other Clarifications and Changes To
Conform With the NSPS
In 2016, the EPA finalized its review
of the 1996 NSPS (40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW) and made revisions (40
CFR part 60, subpart XXX) to simplify
and streamline implementation of the
rule. Note that some of the revisions
were proposed as early as 2002 and
2006. With the incorporation of
compliance provisions from the NSPS
into the NESHAP as part of this
rulemaking, we are likewise finalizing
the following provisions from the NSPS:
• Allowing the use of portable gas
composition analyzers to monitor the
oxygen level at a wellhead (40 CFR
63.1961(a)).
• Requiring owners and operators to
report more precise locational data for
each surface emissions exceedance to
provide a more robust and long-term
record of GCCS performance and more
easily locate and correct breaches in the
landfill cover (40 CFR 63.1961(f)).
• Refining the criteria for updating a
design plan by requiring landfill owners
or operators to submit an updated
design plan for approval based on the
following criteria: (1) Within 90 days of
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
17250
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
expanding operations to an area not
covered by the previously approved
design plan; and (2) before installing or
expanding the gas collection system in
a way that is not consistent to the
previous design plan (40 CFR
63.1981(e)).
• Clarifying that in addition to use as
a fuel for stationary combustion devices,
use of treated LFG also includes other
uses such as the production of vehicle
fuel, production of high-Btu gas for
pipeline injection, or use as a raw
material in a chemical manufacturing
process (40 CFR 63.1959(b)).
• Standardizing the terms ‘‘control
system’’ and ‘‘collection and control
system’’ in the NESHAP in order to use
consistent terminology throughout the
regulatory text.
• Exempting owners/operators of
boilers and process heaters with design
capacities of 44 megawatts or greater
from the requirement to conduct an
initial performance test since large
boilers and process heaters consistently
achieve the required level of control (67
FR 36478, May 23, 2002).
• Removing the term ‘‘combustion’’
from the requirement to monitor
temperature of enclosed combustors to
clarify that temperature could be
monitored at another location, as long as
the monitored temperature relates to
proper operation of the enclosed
combustor (71 FR 53276, September 8,
2006).
• Refining definitions to ensure
consistent use across federal landfills
regulations (40 CFR 63.1990) of the
terms: Treated landfill gas, Treatment
system, Modification, Household waste,
and Segregated yard waste.
11. Closed Areas
The EPA is maintaining the current
approach to closed areas so that
landfills subject to both the 2016 NSPS
The compliance dates remain the
same as proposed. The EPA is allowing
facilities up to 18 months after March
26, 2020, to begin complying with the
final rule. Affected MSW landfills must
continue to comply with the existing
requirements until they meet the new
requirements.
and EG and the NESHAP have a
streamlined set of requirements to
follow. The 2016 NSPS and EG allow
landfill owners or operators to model
NMOC emissions or take actual
measurements of NMOC emissions at
physically separated, closed areas of
open landfills. The EPA has not
expanded the term ‘‘closed area’’ to
include areas that are not physically
separated (e.g., separately lined).
12. Changes to Definitions
The EPA expanded the list of
definitions in the NESHAP to create a
list that improves consistency between
the 2016 NSPS, 1996 NSPS, and the
NESHAP. The changes fall into the
following categories:
• The 2003 MSW Landfills NESHAP
included eight definitions. Five of these
definitions remain the same. The EPA
made changes to two of the original
defined phrases. One of these phrases
also has had a definition change. The
original definition for ‘‘deviation’’ has
been refined to reflect the updated SSM
requirements.
• The EPA added a new definition for
‘‘cover penetration’’ based on public
comments.
• To address public comments about
definition consistency, the EPA
included an additional 32 definitions
that correspond to definitions in NSPS
subparts XXX, WWW, or both. The EPA
made minor updates to reflect current
regulation references.
E. What are the effective and
compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the MACT standards
being promulgated in this action are
effective on March 26, 2020.
The compliance date for existing
sources is January 16, 2004.
New sources must comply by January
16, 2003, or upon startup, whichever is
later.
IV. What is the rationale for our final
decisions and amendments for the
MSW Landfills source category?
For each issue, this section provides
a description of what we proposed and
what we are finalizing for the issue, the
EPA’s rationale for the final decisions
and amendments, and a summary of key
comments and responses. For all
comments not discussed in this
preamble, please see the comment
summaries and the EPA’s Response to
Comments document, which are
available in the docket.
A. Residual Risk Review for the MSW
Landfills Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to
CAA section 112(f) for the MSW
Landfills source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the
EPA conducted a residual risk review
and presented the results of this review,
along with our proposed decisions
regarding risk acceptability and ample
margin of safety, in the July 29, 2019,
proposed rule for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAA (84 FR 36670). The
results of the risk assessment are
presented briefly in Table 2 of this
preamble. More detail is in the residual
risk technical support document,
Residual Risk Assessment for the MSW
Landfills Source Category in Support of
the 2020 Risk and Technology Review
Final Rule, which is available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
TABLE 2—MSW LANDFILLS INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Maximum individual lifetime cancer risk
(in 1 million) 2
Number of
facilities 1
706 ............
Based on actual
emissions 3 . . .
Based on allowable
emissions . . .
10 (p-dichlorobenzene,
ethyl benzene, benzene).
10 (p-dichlorobenzene,
ethyl benzene, benzene).
Based on actual emissions
Estimated
population at
increased risk
of cance
≥1-in-1 million
Estimated
population at
increased risk
of cancer
≥10-in-1
million
Estimated
annual cancer
incidence
(cases per
year)
Maximum chronic
noncancer
TOSHI 4
18,300
11
0.04
0.1 (neuro-logical)
Maximum
screening acute
noncancer hazard
quotient
(HQ)
HQREL5 = 0.07
(chloroform).
1 Number
of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
facility emissions are equal to actual emissions and have the same risk.
4 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ systems with the highest TOSHI for the source category are neurological, with risk driven by emissions of trichloroethylene, mxylene, xylenes (mixed), and tetrachloroethene from fugitive emissions.
5 Reference Exposure Level (REL).
2 Maximum
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
3 Whole
The results of the chronic baseline
inhalation cancer risk assessment
indicate that, based on estimates of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:02 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
current actual, allowable, and whole
facility emissions under the NESHAP,
the maximum individual risk posed by
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the source category is 10-in-1 million.
The total estimated cancer incidence
based on actual emission levels is 0.04
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case
every 25 years. The total estimated
cancer incidence based on allowable
emission levels is 0.05 excess cancer
cases per year, or 1 case every 20 years.
Fugitive air emissions of benzene-based
pollutants contributed approximately 50
percent to the cancer incidence. The
population exposed to cancer risks
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million
based upon actual emissions is 18,300.
The population exposed to cancer risks
greater than or equal to 10-in-1 million
based upon actual emissions is 11. No
individuals or groups are exposed to a
chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than
1. The screening analysis for worst-case
acute impacts indicates that no
pollutants exceed an acute HQ value of
1 based upon the REL. Because none of
the screening HQs were greater than 1,
further refinement of the estimates was
not warranted. A separate assessment of
inhalation risk from facility-wide
emissions was unnecessary because
facility-wide emissions were the same
as source category emissions. The
multipathway risk screening assessment
resulted in a maximum Tier 2
noncancer screening value of less than
1 for mercury. Mercury was the only
persistent and bioaccumulative HAP
emitted by the source category. Based
on these results, we are confident that
the human-health noncancer risks are
below a level of concern. Mercury was
the only environmental HAP identified
from the category and the ecological risk
screening assessment indicated that all
modeled points were below the Tier 1
screening threshold. Therefore, we do
not expect an adverse environmental
effect as a result of HAP emissions from
this source category.
We weighed all human health risk
factors in our risk acceptability
determination, and we proposed that
the residual risks from the MSW
Landfills source category are acceptable.
We then considered whether the
NESHAP provides an ample margin of
safety to protect public health, and
whether more stringent standards were
necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect, by taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and
other relevant factors. In determining
whether the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health,
we examined the same risk factors that
we investigated for our acceptability
determination and also considered the
costs, technological feasibility, and
other relevant factors related to
emissions control options that might
reduce risk (or potential risks)
associated with emissions from the
source category. Our risk analysis
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
indicated the risks from this source
category are low for both cancer and
noncancer health effects, and, therefore,
any additional emissions reductions
would result in minimal health benefits
or reductions in risk. We note that
fugitive landfill emissions result in 84
percent of the cancer incidence for this
source category. Based upon results of
the risk analysis and our evaluation of
the technical feasibility and cost of the
option(s) to reduce landfill fugitive
emissions, we proposed that the current
NESHAP provides an ample margin of
safety to protect the public health. We
also proposed, based on the results of
our environmental screening
assessment, that more stringent
standards are not necessary to prevent
an adverse environmental effect.
2. How did the risk review change for
the MSW Landfills source category?
Since proposal, neither the risk
assessment nor our determinations
regarding risk acceptability, ample
margin of safety, or adverse
environmental effects have changed.
3. What key comments did we receive
on the risk review, and what are our
responses?
We received comments that were
generally supportive of the proposed
residual risk review and our
determination that no revisions were
warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2)
for the MSW Landfills source category.
Commenters stated that the EPA’s
residual risk review approach was
sufficiently conservative in its
assumptions relating to facility emission
profiles and supported the EPA’s
conclusion that the residual risk is
acceptable and provides an ample
margin of safety. One commenter stated
that the modeling includes conservative
features that is consistent with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
and conforms to many state programs
and that EPA appropriately considered
maximum exposed individuals, multipathway assessments, as well as specific
populations by census blocks near
actual facilities. The commenter also
stated the EPA’s emission factor data
used for the proposed NESHAP is
comprehensive considering the number
of facilities referenced and the number
of analytes assessed. However, another
commenter expressed concern regarding
the EPA’s use of emission factors
calculated using 2008 AP–42,3 Chapter
2.4. The commenter stated that the
3 U.S. EPA, AP–42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of
Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1:
Stationary Point and Area Sources. 1995. https://
www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17251
modeling inputs were based on use of
draft emission factors from an AP–42
section that was proposed in 2008 and
remains a draft. The commenter stated
that the use of a draft section creates
confusion regarding the information it
contains and sets an unclear precedent.
We disagree with the comment that
the use of draft AP–42 emission factors
introduces confusion or sets precedent
for using these factors in other
regulations. In the development of the
risk analysis, we documented the
rationale for using the emission factors
from 2008 AP–42 Chapter 2.4 in the
docketed memorandum, Residual Risk
Modeling File Documentation for the
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Source
Category.4 Specifically, the 2008 AP–42
draft emission factor data, with
subsequent adjustments made to reflect
comments received on the draft for the
risk analysis, represent the best
available data for HAP emissions from
landfills. The 1998 Final AP–42 chapter
had factors for only 23 HAP, whereas
the updated factors used in the risk
analysis cover 49 HAP derived from a
significantly larger dataset. By including
a larger number of HAP in the factors
used in the risk analysis, the analysis
was conservative. The EPA is not
suggesting in this preamble or in
background documentation that the
factors used are appropriate for other
permitting or regulatory uses.
After review of these comments, we
determined that no changes needed to
be made to the underlying risk
assessment methodology. The
comments and our specific responses
can be found in the response to
comments document titled Summary of
Public Comments and the EPA’s
Responses for the Proposed Risk and
Technology Review and Amendments
for the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
NESHAP, which is available in the
docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach and final decisions for the risk
review?
We evaluated all of the comments on
the EPA’s risk review and determined
that no changes to the review are
needed. For the reasons explained in the
proposed rule, we proposed that the
risks from the MSW Landfills source
category are acceptable, and the current
standards provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health and
prevent an adverse environmental
4 See Appendix 1, Section 7 to docket item,
Residual Risk Assessment for the Municipal Solid
Waste Landfill Source Category in Support of the
2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule.
May 2019. Docket ID Item No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2002–0047–0091.
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
17252
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
effect. Therefore, pursuant to CAA
section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing the
risk review as proposed.
B. Technology Review for the MSW
Landfills Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to
CAA section 112(d)(6) for the MSW
Landfills source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we
proposed to conclude that no revisions
to the current NESHAP are necessary
(section IV.C of the proposal preamble
84 FR 36686). In conducting the review,
we identified developments in work
practices and technologies to reduce
HAP formation, collect additional HAP,
and destroy additional HAP from MSW
landfills. We ruled out developments in
waste diversion programs, which can
reduce HAP formation, as technically
infeasible, because programs to ban or
recycle wastes instead of placing the
wastes in the landfill are not typically
under the control of landfill owners or
operators. We analyzed the costs and
emission reductions associated with
earlier gas collection strategies,
including a lower NMOC threshold and
shortening the time in which a GCCS is
required to expand into new areas of the
landfill. Based on these analyses, we
concluded that these options are not
cost effective for HAP. We also analyzed
the cost and emission reductions
associated with destroying additional
HAP in higher efficiency flares, and
based on these analyses, we concluded
that these options are not cost effective
for HAP.
2. How did the technology review
change for the MSW Landfills source
category?
We have not changed any aspect of
the technology review since the July 29,
2019, proposal for the MSW Landfills
source category.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
3. What key comments did we receive
on the technology review, and what are
our responses?
The comments received by the EPA
on the technology review were generally
supportive, with only one commenter
challenging the EPA’s findings
regarding GCCS installation lag times.
One commenter agreed that the EPA’s
findings regarding mandated source
separation, earlier LFG collection,
criteria, and timeframe for removing
GCCS, early installation of landfill cover
systems, enclosed flares, thermal
oxidizers, energy recovery projects, and
use of biocovers were infeasible, not
cost-effective, or did not result in
emissions reductions. Another
commenter noted the limited innovation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
in HAP-reducing technologies and
requested increased government
funding for research in this area. One
commenter challenged the EPA’s
determination that earlier gas collection,
via shorter expansion lag times, is not
economically feasible and asked the
EPA to reevaluate its determination.
The EPA has not revised the
technology review for the NESHAP to
analyze the costs of shorter expansion
lag times for certain landfills. The EPA
agrees with the commenter that shorter
lag times are commercially available.
However, the installation of well
components to achieve these shorter lag
times requires site-specific analysis. For
example, the timing of well installation
is affected by waste placement patterns
and annual acceptance rates. The EPA
explored shorter lag times as part of the
review for the 2016 NSPS and EG and
received several comments related to
site-specific costs and safety concerns
associated with reduced lag times,
urging the EPA to retain flexibility in
any lag-time adjustments. See 79 FR
41807 (July 17, 2014) and 80 FR 52121
(August 27, 2015) for more details. The
EPA has not received any comments
suggesting that the cost and safety
concerns brought forth as part of the
2016 rulemaking have changed, and as
a result, no changes to the lag times are
being finalized.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach for the technology review?
As explained in the proposal
preamble (84 FR 36686, July 29, 2019),
we conducted a technology review to
identify developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that
may warrant revisions to the current
NESHAP. We identified three types of
developments that could lead to
additional control of HAP from MSW
landfills, but we determined that there
are no cost-effective developments in
practices, processes, or control
technologies to warrant revisions to the
standards. We also evaluated the public
comments on the EPA’s technology
review and determined that no changes
to the review are needed. More
information concerning our technology
review is in the memorandum titled
CAA section 112(d)(6) Technology
Review for the MSW Landfills Source
Category, in the docket for this action,
and in the preamble to the proposed
rule (84 FR 36686–36689, July 29, 2019).
Therefore, pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6), we are finalizing the results of
the technology review as proposed.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
C. SSM for the MSW Landfills Source
Category
1. What did we propose for the MSW
Landfills source category?
We proposed amendments to the
NESHAP to remove and revise
provisions related to SSM that are not
consistent with the requirement that the
standards apply at all times. More
information concerning the elimination
of SSM provisions is in the preamble to
the proposed rule (84 FR 36693).
2. How did the SSM provisions change
for the MSW Landfills source category?
We are finalizing the SSM provisions
as proposed (84 FR 36693, July 29,
2019) with the minor changes described
in section IV.C.3 of this preamble.
3. What key comments did we receive
on the SSM provisions and what are our
responses?
We received two comments related to
our proposed revisions to the SSM
provisions. The first commenter agreed
that the NESHAP must apply at all
times and with the approach of applying
a work practice standard under CAA
section 112(h) during periods of SSM.
The second commenter requested that
the EPA clarify that SSM events be
reported as stated in the proposal
preamble (84 FR 36696, July 29, 2019).
A summary of the SSM comments on
the proposal and the EPA’s responses to
those comments is available in the
response to comments document titled
Summary of Public Comments and the
EPA’s Responses for the Proposed Risk
and Technology Review and
Amendments for the Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills NESHAP, which is
available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2002–0047.
The first commenter agreed that the
work practice requirements of proposed
40 CFR 63.1958(e) are appropriate and
consistent with a well-designed and
operated LFG collection system.
However, the commenter objected to the
EPA’s proposed preamble statements
and rule revisions that specify that
compliance with these provisions
during SSM does not necessarily
constitute compliance with the
NESHAP. The commenter stated that
these provisions are inconsistent with
prior EPA decisions about appropriate
landfill operation and are not compelled
by the Sierra Club v. EPA decision.
Landfill emissions are produced by a
continuous biological process that
cannot be stopped or restarted.
Therefore, the primary concern related
to SSM is with malfunction of the
landfill GCCS and associated
monitoring equipment, not with the
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
startup or shutdown of the entire
source. The SSM periods that are
covered by the proposed additional
work practice standard of 40 CFR
63.1958(e) are those periods when the
landfill GCCS and associated
monitoring equipment are not operating
for any reason. During such periods,
excess emissions to the atmosphere will
occur. This additional work practice
requires the owner or operator to shut
down all valves in the collection and
control system contributing to venting
of the gas to the atmosphere within 1
hour and to minimize the downtime for
making repairs to the collection and
control system. Although this additional
practice is necessary to reduce
emissions associated with a GCCS
outage, to minimize emissions also
requires actions to prevent the
shutdown of the GCCS. Although we
agree with the commenter that some
unavoidable circumstances may require
that the GCCS system be shut down for
short periods of time (e.g., for tying in
a system expansion, repair, and
preventative maintenance), the
frequency of shutdowns also can be
affected by carelessness, ineffective
operation and maintenance procedures,
failure to properly train landfill
operations staff, and other site-specific
factors. Actions to prevent the
shutdown of a GCCS may include a
preventative maintenance program,
expeditious repair or replacement of
equipment that frequently fails, the use
of valves and bypass systems to
segregate portions of the GCCS that are
undergoing expansion, maintenance, or
repairs from those portions that are
unaffected by the work, and the use of
redundant equipment and controls so
that the system can remain online even
if one component fails to operate
properly. Additional reasonable steps
include the controls of vehicular
equipment on the landfill to avoid
damage to the GCCS or crushed pipes.
This may include speed limits and
traffic routes that avoid passing over
buried ductwork or other equipment.
Another commenter requested the
EPA clarify that SSM events be reported
as stated in the proposal preamble (84
FR 36696, July 29, 2019) in order to
evaluate whether the general duty to
minimize emissions is being met. The
commenter stated that while the
preamble stated that reporting will be
required (84 FR 36696, July 29, 2019),
the rule only requires records of SSM
events.
The EPA proposed to add
recordkeeping requirements for startup
and shutdown to 40 CFR 63.1983(c) (84
FR 36696, July 29, 2019). Because 40
CFR 63.1958(e) specifies a different
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
standard for periods when the GCCS is
not operating under normal conditions
(which would include periods of
startup, shutdown, and maintenance or
repair), we noted that it will be
important to know when such startup
and shutdown periods begin and end in
order to determine compliance with the
appropriate standard. Thus, we
proposed language in 40 CFR
63.1983(c)(6) to require that a landfill
owner or operator report the date, time,
and duration of each startup and
shutdown period. However, the
paragraphs we cited in the preamble
and revised in the rule require only the
records of such events.
The EPA agrees with the commenter
that recordkeeping and reporting for
SSM events needs to be clarified in the
final rule. Thus, the EPA revised 40 CFR
63.1981(h)(1) to make it clear that the
semi-annual report must describe the
date, time, and duration of periods
during which an operating standard was
exceeded, as well as when the GCCS
was not operating. The semi-annual
report in 40 CFR 63.1981(h) does not
require separate reporting of SSM
events, but every exceedance, including
when operating standards are exceeded
and when the GCCS is not operating,
must be reported including during SSM.
4. What is the rationale for our final
approach for the SSM provisions?
We evaluated the comments on the
EPA’s proposed amendments to the
SSM provisions. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule, we
determined that the proposed
amendments appropriately remove and
revise provisions related to SSM not
consistent with the requirement that the
standards apply at all times. More
information concerning the
amendments we are finalizing for SSM
is in the preamble to the proposed rule
(84 FR 36693, July 29, 2019). Therefore,
we are finalizing our approach for the
SSM provisions as proposed with the
clarifications described in section IV.C.3
of this preamble.
D. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
1. Enhanced Monitoring,
Recordkeeping, and Reporting for
Elevated Wellhead Temperature
Given concerns with fire risks from
elevated temperatures, and the fact that
parameters other than temperature can
be indicators of a SOE, we proposed
enhanced wellhead monitoring and
visual inspections for subsurface
oxidation events (40 CFR 63.1961(a)),
and in some cases more frequent
reporting (40 CFR 63.1981(k)), for any
landfill with wellhead temperature
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17253
exceeding 145 °F. The proposed
enhanced monitoring included weekly
monitoring of CO, oxygen, and methane.
For each CO measurement, the EPA
proposed to require an independent
laboratory analysis (84 FR 36691, July
29, 2019). As part of enhanced
monitoring, the EPA proposed weekly
temperature monitoring every 10
vertical feet down the well (downwell
monitoring).
Several commenters expressed
concerns with the requirement for
independent laboratory CO testing. One
commenter observed that laboratory
testing is expensive, and three
commenters stated that requiring
laboratory testing would extend the
response time and not provide timely
information that can help the landfill
owner or operator improve compliance.
One commenter also noted several
concerns with the logistics of
independent laboratory analysis,
including concerns with the proposed
test methods and sample transportation.
The EPA agrees with commenters that
independent laboratory analysis could
present logistical challenges and
potentially increase costs. Shipping
passivated canisters or multi-layer foil
gas sampling bags could require
specialized shipping and could delay
results that could improve operation of
the GCCS. Therefore, based on public
comments, the EPA is removing the
requirement for an independent
laboratory to analyze each CO
measurement. In the final rule, landfill
owners or operators have the option to
collect the sample and conduct analysis
on-site, using purchased or rented
equipment that meets the requirements
of EPA Method 10. This could generate
results quicker, enabling the owner or
operator to adjust the GCCS in a more
timely manner. Conducting the analysis
on-site would also prevent the need to
package and ship the canisters or bags,
thus, saving shipping costs and
eliminating the logistical concerns of
shipping the samples.
One commenter expressed concerns
with the indefinite term of the enhanced
monitoring. The commenter advised
that if CO readings are less than 1,500
ppmv, monitoring should not be
required indefinitely, but instead cease
after 3 consecutive months. The
commenter observed that this approach
is consistent with the requirements of
the consent decrees in the docket and
with historical HOV demonstrations.
Regarding when to stop enhanced CO
monitoring, the EPA agrees with
commenters because the weekly
enhanced monitoring is not intended to
continue indefinitely. In the proposal,
there were two means to stop enhanced
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
17254
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
weekly CO monitoring. Enhanced
monitoring could be stopped once an
HOV is approved, at which time the
monitoring provisions issued with the
HOV should be followed (40 CFR
63.1961(a)(5)(viii)). Alternatively, the
enhanced monitoring could stop once
the measurement of LFG temperature at
the wellhead is below 145 °F (40 CFR
63.1961(a)(5)(viii)). In the final rule, the
EPA is retaining these two means to
stop enhanced CO monitoring. The EPA
is also providing an opportunity to
reduce the frequency of monitoring in
the final rule while still maintaining
sufficient data availability of wellhead
parameters for those wells that
consistently operate at higher
temperatures. Specifically, the EPA is
extending the frequency of enhanced
monitoring. Enhanced monitoring must
be conducted on a weekly basis.
However, if four consecutive weekly CO
readings are below 100 ppmv, then
monitoring may be decreased to a
monthly basis. If the CO level exceeds
100 ppmv again, the landfill must return
to weekly monitoring. Additionally, the
EPA is specifically clarifying in the final
rule that HOVs that have been
previously approved under another
MSW Landfill NSPS or EG regulation
will not have to seek pre-approval for
that HOV under the provisions in the
NESHAP (40 CFR 63.1961(a)(5)).
One commenter expressed concern
with the proposed 1,500 ppmv
threshold for CO, asserting that 1,000
ppmv would be a more reasonable
upper limit for detecting or preventing
landfill fires. The EPA agrees with the
commenter. The EPA reexamined the
MSW Landfills consent decrees cited in
the proposed rule; documents from
CalRecycle, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, and the Solid
Waste Association of North America.
These documents (see Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0047) all cite a
1,000 ppmv CO concentration as an
indication of an underground landfill
fire, in combination with other factors.
Additionally, a guidance document
from the Ohio EPA for subsurface
heating events refers to the CO
concentration cited in the FEMA and
CalRecycle documents. Two of the
consent decrees, Forward and Central
Maui, require 24-hour electronic
notification to the delegated authority
for any CO reading of 1,000 ppmv or
above. For these reasons, the EPA is
reducing the reporting threshold for CO
from 1,500 ppmv to 1,000 ppmv in the
final rule.
One commenter expressed support for
the downwell temperature reading
requirement. However, another
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
commenter warned that the downwell
monitoring may not be achievable or
yield meaningful data, noting that
installation of thermocouples to
measure well temperature may not be
possible on a well that is already
constructed due to shifting in the well
as settlement occurs. The commenter
also noted that if wells have been raised
with solid pipe, or the boring log does
not provide accurate as-built
information, the data may not be
meaningful. Another commenter
requested that the EPA eliminate the
downwell temperature monitoring
requirement. The commenter observed
that the EPA claims that the proposed
enhanced monitoring for well
temperature is intended to facilitate the
detection of a subsurface fire, yet the
solid waste industry has long
recognized that subsurface fires occur
near the surface, require oxygen, are
visually recognizable, and are addressed
with known remedies. The commenter
asserted that weekly downwell
measurements could be counterproductive and inconsistent with the
GCCS best management practices or
challenging to implement.
The EPA reexamined the consent
decrees and supporting documents and
agrees with the commenters that weekly
downwell monitoring could be
potentially burdensome to implement.
Requirements for conducting downwell
temperature monitoring is in only the
referenced consent decrees and not
prescribed in the other supporting
documents. Although the 2009 Ohio
EPA best management practices
document 5 suggests that inter-well and
intra-well temperature data may be
useful, it does not require those data in
all cases. For these reasons, the EPA is
reducing the frequency of downwell
monitoring from weekly to annually.
Annual downwell temperature
monitoring will provide more robust
data on waste temperatures throughout
the radius of influence of the well. In
addition, the EPA is increasing the
wellhead temperature threshold that
triggers downwell monitoring. In the
final rule, downwell monitoring is
required for wellhead temperatures of
165 °F or greater rather than 145 °F. The
EPA believes the downwell monitoring
data to be critical for assessing the
operations of wells with these higher
temperatures in order to minimize fire
risks. The EPA expects that these
changes will reduce the burden and
5 Ohio EPA. Guidance Document for Higher
Operating Value Demonstrations. https://
web.epa.state.oh.us/eBusinessCenter/Agency/
DAPC/HOV%20Demonstration.doc.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
implementation challenges associated
with downwell monitoring.
Because the EPA has changed the
frequency of CO monitoring and
downwell temperature monitoring, the
EPA has modified the requirement to
include a well-specific summary trend
analysis in the semi-annual report (40
CFR 63.1981(h)(8)(ii)) to remove the
downwell temperature and recognizes
that CO monitoring may occur on a
monthly or weekly basis depending on
the level at the well. Additionally, the
EPA has removed the requirement to
submit a 24-hour high temperature
report if the well is subject to an
approved HOV for temperature (40 CFR
63.1981(k)).
The EPA has also adjusted the
enhanced monitoring provisions at 40
CFR 63.1961(a)(5) to remove the upper
bound limitation of 170 °F. Enhanced
monitoring should continue until both
this temperature level and a CO level of
1,000 ppmv have been reached, at
which point the provisions 40 CFR
63.1960(a)(4)(i)(D) and 63.1981(k) apply.
Consistent with the proposed preamble
(80 FR 36692, July 29, 2019), high
temperatures in combination with high
levels of CO are considered a positive
indication of an active underground fire.
The EPA has adjusted the requirements
for the records and reports associated
with these enhanced monitoring data to
remove the upper bound limitation.
2. Delegation of Authority
Commenters expressed concerns with
the EPA’s proposed delegation of
authority language (40 CFR 63.1985(c)).
The EPA proposed at 40 CFR 63.1985(c)
that the EPA will not delegate ‘‘approval
of alternatives to the standards’’ in 40
CFR 63.1955–63.1962, which the
commenters interpreted to include
authority to approve alternatives to
monitoring (i.e., HOVs). Thus, the
commenters contend that the language
restricts delegated state or local agencies
from approving or disapproving HOVs
and other alternatives that are needed to
reflect a source’s site-specific
conditions. The commenters claim that
the proposed provision will lead to
confusion in the compliance and
enforcement work of the delegated
states or create conflicts wherein a state
agency and the EPA disagree. One
commenter contended that the proposal
allows the EPA to approve an HOV by
incorporating additional monitoring
requirements. The commenter
questioned whether incorporation of
applicable NSPS-required limits and
corrective actions in the title V permits
would preclude the applicability of
flexibility outside these terms. Another
commenter was concerned that the
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
NESHAP was much more restrictive in
the items that could be delegated than
the NSPS and that this would create
conflict between the EPA and delegated
authorities.
The EPA disagrees that proposed 40
CFR 63.1985(c) includes authority to
approve HOVs. The EPA did not intend
to preclude state or local agencies from
approving or disapproving HOVs and
other alternatives that are needed to
reflect a source’s site-specific
conditions. The final NESHAP directly
incorporates the major compliance
provisions of the NSPS rules (subparts
WWW and XXX). Consistent with the
NSPS rules, the final NESHAP allows
owners or operators to establish an HOV
for temperature at a particular well (40
CFR 63.1958(c)(1)). The owner or
operator must submit a request for an
HOV, along with supporting data, to the
Administrator for approval. Also
consistent with the NSPS rules, the
collection and control system design
plan may include for Administrator
approval collection and control systems
that include any alternatives to the
operational standards, test methods,
procedures, compliance measures,
monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting
provisions. The Administrator or
delegated authority would review and
approve the HOV or design plan.
The EPA recognizes that proposed 40
CFR 63.1985(c) does not reflect its
intent and may have caused confusion.
In 40 CFR 63.1985(c), the EPA retains
authority to approve ‘‘alternatives to the
standards’’ in 40 CFR 63.1955–63.1962.
Commenters incorrectly interpreted that
the term ‘‘alternative emission
standards’’ includes authority to
approve HOVs. The term ‘‘emission
standards’’ is defined in 40 CFR 60.21(f)
as ‘‘a legally enforceable regulation
setting forth an allowable rate of
emissions into the atmosphere,
establishing an allowance system, or
prescribing equipment specifications for
control of air pollution emissions.’’ The
EPA intends the use of the phrase
‘‘alternative emission standards’’ to refer
to the ‘‘Standards’’ for MSW landfill
emissions in 40 CFR 63.1955–63.1962.
The EPA does not intend ‘‘alternative
emission standards’’ to include
alternatives for wellhead monitoring in
40 CFR 63.1958. The EPA also does not
intend to retain authority to review and
approve gas collection and control
design plans.
Thus, based on public comments, the
EPA is revising 40 CFR 63.1985(c) to
reflect the EPA’s intent, which is not to
preclude states or other delegated
authorities from approving HOVs and
design plans. The EPA will delegate
authority to approve HOVs and design
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
plans. However, consistent with the
NSPS, the final rule retains the EPA’s
authority to approve alternative
methods for determining the NMOC
concentration in 40 CFR 63.1959(a)(3)
and a site-specific methane generation
rate constant in 40 CFR 63.1959(a)(4).
3. Technical Corrections
Based on public comments, the EPA
made several technical corrections and
clarifications to make clear the
requirements of the regulation.
• 40 CFR 60.38f(k) and 60.767(j).
Clarified that if an MSW landfill owner
or operator is complying with the major
compliance provisions of the NESHAP,
then the owner or operator must follow
the corrective action and the
corresponding timeline reporting
requirements in the NESHAP (40 CFR
63.1981(j)) in lieu of the corresponding
timeline reporting requirements of the
EG or NSPS, respectively.
• 40 CFR 60.39f(e)(6). Corrected a
typographical error. Removed the word
‘‘you’’ and retained ‘‘owner or
operator.’’
• 40 CFR 60.750. Clarified that an
affected MSW landfill continues to
comply with 40 CFR part 60, subpart
WWW until it becomes subject to the
more stringent requirements in an
approved and effective state or federal
plan that implements 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cf of this part, or until it
modifies or reconstructs after July 17,
2014, and, thus, becomes subject to
subpart XXX.
• 40 CFR 60.768(e)(6). Corrected a
typographical error. Removed the word
‘‘you’’ and retained ‘‘owner or
operator.’’
• 40 CFR 63.1947(a)(2). Corrected
typographical error. Refer to 40 CFR
63.1982(c) and (d) instead of 40 CFR
63.1980(g) and (h) for moisture
calculations.
• 40 CFR 63.1955(a). Clarified that
alternatives to the operational
standards, test methods, procedures,
compliance measures, monitoring,
recordkeeping, or reporting provisions
that have already been approved under
40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX can be
used to comply with the NESHAP.
• 40 CFR 63.1960(a)(4)(i). Corrected
typographical error. Removed the
phrase, ‘‘for the purpose of identifying
whether excess air infiltration exists’’
because the phrase does not apply to
temperature.
• 40 CFR 63.1960(a)(4)(i)(D). Clarified
that if the LFG temperature measured at
either the wellhead or at any point in
the well is greater than or equal to 76.7
°C (170 °F) and the CO concentration
measured is greater than or equal to
1,000 ppmv, the owner or operator must
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17255
complete the corrective action(s) for the
wellhead temperature standard (62.8 °C
or 145 °F) within 15 days.
• 40 CFR 63.1960(e). Corrected
reference from 40 CFR 63.1958(c) to 40
CFR 63.1958(e) to refer to SSM
requirements.
• 40 CFR 63.1961(a)(5). Clarified that
landfills with previously approved
HOVs for temperature under various
landfills subparts are not required to
conduct enhanced monitoring.
• 40 CFR 63.1961(a)(5)(vii). Corrected
reference from paragraph (a)(4) to (a)(5)
to reference enhanced monitoring
requirements.
• 40 CFR 63.1981(h)(1), (h)(1)(i), and
(h)(1)(ii). Clarified that the semi-annual
report must include the date, time, and
duration of ‘‘each exceedance’’ of the
applicable monitoring parameters, not
‘‘each failure.’’
• 40 CFR 63.1983(e)(2)(i). Corrected
paragraph numbering to be (i), (ii), and
(iii) instead of (i), (i), and (ii) and
corrected cross-reference to the
enhanced monitoring provisions in 40
CFR 63.1961(a)(5).
• 40 CFR 63.1990. Definition of
controlled landfill. Clarified that the
landfill is a controlled landfill when a
collection and control system design
plan is submitted in compliance with 40
CFR 60.752(b)(2)(i) or in compliance
with 40 CFR 63.1959(b)(2)(i), regardless
of whether that submittal is within 18
months after date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register.
• Table 1 to subpart AAAA of part 63.
Expanded to indicate which initial
notifications apply before and which
notifications apply after the date 18
months after publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register. Added
‘‘Yes’’ entries for 40 CFR 63.6(i) and (j),
and 40 CFR 63.10(a) to show
applicability after the initial 18-month
timeframe. Added a ‘‘No’’ entry for 40
CFR 63.10(c).
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental,
and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
We anticipate that approximately 738
active or closed MSW landfills in the
United States and territories will be
affected by these final amendments in
the year 2023. This number is based on
all landfills that accepted waste after
November 8, 1987, that have a design
capacity of at least 2.5 million Mg and
2.5 million m3. In addition, this number
reflects the subset of landfills meeting
these two criteria with modeled
emission estimates of 50 Mg/yr NMOC
or greater that have installed controls on
or before 2023. While the EPA
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
17256
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
recognizes some uncertainty regarding
which landfills have actually exceeded
the emission threshold, given the
allowance of sites to estimate emissions
using Tiers 1, 2, or 3, and the sitespecific nature of NMOC
concentrations, the number of MSW
landfills that are collocated with major
sources and, therefore, also subject to
control requirements under this rule is
also unknown. Therefore, 738 is the best
estimate of the affected sources.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
B. What are the air quality impacts?
The final amendments are expected to
have a minimal impact on air quality.
While these amendments do not require
stricter control requirements or work
practice standards on landfills to
comply with the proposed amendments,
some landfills may find that the
adjustments made to the oxygen,
nitrogen, and temperature wellhead
standards finalized herein provide
enough operational flexibility to install,
expand, and operate additional
voluntary GCCS, which could reduce
emissions. The other proposed revisions
that affect testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting will
ensure that the GCCS equipment
continues to perform as expected and
provide reliable data from each facility
to be reported for compliance.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The EPA has estimated $0 compliance
costs for all new and existing sources
affected by this final rule, beyond what
is already required under the existing
NESHAP and what is already included
in the previously approved information
collection activities contained in the
existing NESHAP (Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) control
number 2060–0505), as described in
section VI.C of this preamble.
Furthermore, landfills accepting waste
after November 8, 1987, must comply
with the similar, yet, more stringent
requirements of the 2016 NSPS or a plan
implementing 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Cf. Many of the changes in these
amendments better align the NESHAP
with the requirements of the NSPS and
plans implementing subpart Cf. These
changes simplify compliance, which in
turn could reduce costs. For example,
elimination of the wellhead operating
standards for oxygen and nitrogen to
match requirements in the NSPS will
reduce the number of requests for
HOVs, which in turn could decrease
compliance costs.
The EPA maintains that final changes
to enhanced monitoring for wellhead
temperature are not estimated to incur
a cost. The EPA is finalizing a
temperature standard that is 14 °F
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
higher than the standard that currently
exists in the baseline regulations in
order to provide additional flexibility to
controlled landfills. However,
ultimately, the requirement in the final
NESHAP remains to install and operate
a well-designed and well-operated
GCCS. The EPA is not requiring
enhanced monitoring from all
controlled landfills, but this option is
being made available as a compliance
flexibility to the population of wells that
do not already have an approved HOV
and for which temperature cannot be
adjusted downward through routine
GCCS adjustments. Based on feedback
provided in public comments, over
6,000 HOV requests have been
submitted and reviewed by regulatory
agencies, and the enhanced monitoring
requirements would not apply to any of
the HOV requests that have received
approval. Furthermore, the concern that
the enhanced monitoring requirements
would continue in perpetuity is
unsubstantiated. First, landfills have up
to 7 days to adjust the well to achieve
a lower temperature before the
enhanced monitoring requirements are
triggered (40 CFR 63.1961(a)(5)(vii)).
Second, the enhanced monitoring can
stop once the well temperature drops
back to 145 °F or less. The EPA did not
receive any comments on the number of
wells that are operating above 145 °F
without an approved HOV, which
would have helped the EPA quantify
how many wells would be affected and
the corresponding costs. Additionally,
the EPA did not receive any data on
how long the wells without an approved
HOV typically exceed 145 °F. Given
insufficient data on the number and
length of each temperature exceedance
to make an estimate, the EPA has not
quantified any cost impacts for the
enhanced monitoring.
The EPA also contends that many of
the parameters required in the enhanced
monitoring are also parameters that are
required to obtain an approval of an
HOV request under the baseline
regulations and so these costs are not an
incremental cost that is not otherwise
happening outside of the NESHAP
amendments. For example, the Ohio
EPA already requires 6 months of
historical data, narrative discussion of
the visual evidence of fire, and CO
measurements using appropriate
laboratory techniques.6 Under the final
amendments, the EPA anticipates that
landfill operators will immediately
implement corrective actions to lower
6 Ohio EPA. Guidance Document for Higher
Operating Value Demonstrations. https://
web.epa.state.oh.us/eBusinessCenter/Agency/
DAPC/HOV%20Demonstration.doc.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
well temperatures, as well as
immediately file appeals for HOVs for
their wells, if appropriate. The EPA
anticipates that processing requests for
HOVs will be quicker because fewer
requests are expected to be submitted
due to the higher temperature standard
and elimination of the oxygen and
nitrogen standard.
The EPA also maintains that removal
of the requirement to prepare an SSM
plan and removal of the associated
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements will not result in
additional costs for new or modified
facilities, but instead result in a cost
savings. Owners or operators will not
incur the cost of preparing an SSM plan.
To meet their obligation under 40 CFR
63.1955(c) to minimize emissions
during collection or control system
downtime, owners or operators are
expected to rely on existing standard
operating procedures and safety
practices. The EPA expects that some
landfills may incorporate automated
controls that would shut down the gas
mover system and valves in the event of
detection of a collection or control
system malfunction. Such systems are
expected to have existing corresponding
written or automated standard operating
procedures and safety practices.
The recordkeeping and reporting
requirements will not result in
additional costs for new or modified
facilities. The final work practice
requirements mandate a shutdown of
the gas mover system and all valves
within the collection and control system
within 1 hour of the collection or
control system not operating and then
require repair efforts to proceed in a
way that keeps downtime to a minimum
(40 CFR 63.1958(e)(1)(i)–(ii)). A landfill
demonstrates compliance with these
requirements via recordkeeping as
specified in 40 CFR 63.1983(c)(6)–(7).
The work practice requirement to record
and report all instances of downtime
will not result in an increased
recordkeeping and reporting burden as
compared to the 2003 NESHAP. Via
cross-reference to the 1996 NSPS (40
CFR part 60, subpart WWW) to (40 CFR
63.1955(a)(1)), the 2003 NESHAP
already required landfill owners to keep
continuous records of the indication of
flow to the control device, report
periods when the control device was not
operating for a period exceeding 1 hour.
The records required by existing
regulations serve as the records of
system downtime.
Note that this work practice itself
does not add incremental cost to new or
modified landfills subject to the
proposed regulation because this
requirement already appears in the
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
NESHAP as promulgated in 2003 at 40
CFR 63.1955(a)(1), which says affected
landfills must comply with the
requirements of the 1996 NSPS. 40 CFR
60.753(e) already requires owners or
operators to shut down the gas mover
system and close all valves in the
collection and control system
contributing to venting of the gas to the
atmosphere within 1 hour.
Given that the costs for these
enhanced monitoring requirements
cannot be quantified, in addition to the
fact that there are some cost savings
previously documented to offset these
costs,7 the EPA concludes that the final
rule is best characterized as a no-cost
action.
consequences of a regulatory action.
Because there are no costs associated
with the final rule, no economic impacts
are anticipated.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The economic impact analysis is
designed to inform decision makers
about the potential economic
F. What analysis of environmental
justice did we conduct?
To examine the potential for any
environmental justice issues that might
E. What are the benefits?
As stated in section V.B of this
preamble, we were unable to quantify
the specific emissions reductions
associated with adjustments made to the
oxygen and nitrogen wellhead operating
standards, although this change has the
potential to reduce emissions. Any
reduction in HAP emissions would be
expected to provide health benefits in
the form of improved air quality and
less exposure to potentially harmful
chemicals.
17257
be associated with the MSW Landfills
source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an
assessment of risk to individual
demographic groups of the populations
living within 5 kilometers (km) and
within 50 km of the facilities. In the
analysis, we evaluated the distribution
of HAP-related cancer and noncancer
risk from the source category across
different demographic groups within the
populations living near facilities.8
The results of the demographic
analysis are summarized in Table 3 of
this preamble. These results, for various
demographic groups, are based on the
estimated risk from actual emissions
levels for the population living within
50 km of the facilities.
TABLE 3—MSW LANDFILLS SOURCE CATEGORY DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS
Population with
cancer risk greater
than or equal to
1 in 1 million
Nationwide
Total Population .........................................................................................................
Population with
hazard index
greater than 1
Source category
317,746,049
18,217
0
Race by Percent
White ..........................................................................................................................
All Other Races .........................................................................................................
62
38
58
42
0
0
Race by Percent
African American .......................................................................................................
Native American ........................................................................................................
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) .....................................................
Other and Multiracial .................................................................................................
12
0.8
18
7
13
0.1
20
8
0
0
0
0
Income by Percent
Below Poverty Level ..................................................................................................
Above Poverty Level ..................................................................................................
14
86
15
85
0
0
Education by Percent
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma ............................................................
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma .................................................................
14
86
17
83
0
0
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
Linguistically Isolated .................................................................................................
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
G. What analysis of children’s
environmental health did we conduct?
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
7 U.S. EPA, Cost Impacts of National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal
Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills Risk and Technology
Review, May 20, 2019, Docket ID Item No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2002–0047–0081.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
6
8
0
Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action’s health and risk
assessments are summarized in section
IV.A of this preamble and are further
documented in the report, Risk and
Technology Review-Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations
8 Demographic groups included in the analysis
are: White, African American, Native American,
other races and multiracial, Hispanic or Latino,
children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to 64
years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults
without a high school diploma, people living below
the poverty level, people living two times above the
poverty level, and linguistically isolated people.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
17258
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Living Near Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill Source Category Operations,
available in the docket for this action.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
VI. Incorporation by Reference
This action is considered an
Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. This final rule provides
meaningful burden reduction by
removing the requirements for SSM
plans and periodic SSM reports,
removing the oxygen and nitrogen
wellhead operating standards,
increasing the temperature wellhead
standard, revising the corrective action
timeline and procedures, providing
flexibility for landfills to remove
controls, and adding electronic
reporting.
In accordance with the requirements
of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing
regulatory text in 40 CFR
63.1961(a)(2)(ii) and (2)(iii)(B) that
includes the IBR of ASTM D6522–11—
Standard Test Method for Determination
of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide,
and Oxygen Concentrations in
Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired
Reciprocating Engines, Combustion
Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters
Using Portable Analyzers (Approved
December 1, 2011), as an alternative for
determining oxygen for wellhead
standards in 40 CFR 63.1961(a)(2). For
this test method, a gas sample is
continuously extracted from a duct and
conveyed to a portable analyzer for
determination of nitrogen oxides, CO,
and oxygen gas concentrations using
electrochemical cells. Analyzer design
specifications, performance
specifications, and test procedures are
provided to ensure reliable data. This
method is an alternative to EPA
methods and is consistent with the
methods already allowed under the
2016 NSPS and EG (subparts XXX and
Cf). The ASTM standards are available
from the American Society for Testing
and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive,
Post Office Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959. See
https://www.astm.org. You may inspect a
copy at the EPA Docket Center, WJC
West Building, Room Number 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC; phone number: (202)
566–1744; Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2019–0338. This IBR has been
approved by the Office of the Federal
Register and the method is federally
enforceable under the CAA as of the
effective date of this final rulemaking.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was, therefore, not
submitted to the OMB for review.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new
information collection burden under the
PRA. OMB has previously approved the
information collection activities
contained in the existing regulations
and has assigned OMB control number
2060–0505. The only burden associated
with the final rule is limited to affected
sources becoming familiar with the
changes in the final rule. The burden for
respondents to review rule requirements
each year is already accounted for in the
previously approved information
collection activities contained in the
existing regulations (40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAA), which were assigned
OMB control number 2060–0505.
Additionally, changes to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW, subpart XXX, and
subpart Cf only add clarifying language
for affected sources and provide
alternatives for any deviations from the
respective standards. These changes
would not increase any burden for
affected sources.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. In making this
determination, the impact of concern is
any significant adverse economic
impact on small entities. An agency may
certify that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities if
the rule relieves regulatory burden, has
no net burden, or otherwise has a
positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This action
is projected to affect 738 MSW landfills,
and approximately 60 of these facilities
are owned by a small entity. The small
entities subject to the requirements of
this final rule may include private small
business and small governmental
jurisdictions that own or operate
landfills, but the cost for complying
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with the final amendments is expected
to be $0. We have, therefore, concluded
that this action will have no net
regulatory burden for all directly
regulated small entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
While state, local, or tribal governments
own and operate landfills subject to
these final amendments, the impacts
resulting from this regulatory action are
far below the applicable threshold.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action has tribal implications.
However, it will neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
federally recognized tribal governments,
nor preempt tribal law. The database
used to estimate impacts of these final
amendments identified one tribe, the
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community, that owns three landfills
potentially subject to the NESHAP. Two
of these landfills are already controlling
emissions—the Salt River Landfill and
the Tri Cities Landfill. Although the
permits for these landfills indicate they
are subject to this subpart, these final
changes are not expected to increase the
costs. The other landfill, North Center
Street Landfill, is not estimated to
install controls under the NESHAP. The
EPA offered to consult with tribal
officials under the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes in the process of
developing this regulation to permit
them to have meaningful and timely
input into its development. A copy of
the letter offering consultation is in the
docket for this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
EPA does not believe the environmental
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action’s health and risk
assessments are contained in sections
III.A and IV.A of this preamble.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
part 51
This action involves technical
standards. The EPA has decided to use
voluntary consensus standards ASTM
D6522–11, ‘‘Standard Test Method for
the Determination of Nitrogen Oxides,
Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen
Concentrations in Emissions from
Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating
Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers,
and Process Heaters Using Portable
Analyzers,’’ as an acceptable alternative
to EPA Method 3A when used at the
wellhead before combustion. It is
advisable to know the flammability and
check the lower explosive limit of the
flue gas constituents prior to sampling,
in order to avoid undesired ignition of
the gas. The results of ASTM D6522–11
may be used to determine nitrogen
oxides and CO emission concentrations
from natural gas combustion at
stationary sources. This test method
may also be used to monitor emissions
during short-term emission tests or
periodically in order to optimize
process operation for nitrogen oxides
and CO control. The EPA’s review is
documented in the memorandum,
Voluntary Consensus Standard Results
for National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills Residual Risk and
Technology Review, in the docket for
this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OAR–2002–0047).
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing
regulatory text for 40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAA that includes IBR in
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5. Specifically, the EPA is
incorporating by reference ASTM
D6522–11. See section VI of this
preamble for information on the
availability of this material.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does
not have disproportionately high and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous
peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (58 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Our analysis of the demographics of
the population with estimated risks
greater than 1-in-1 million indicates
potential disparities in risks between
demographic groups, including the
African American, Hispanic or Latino,
Over 25 Without a High School
Diploma, and Below the Poverty Level
groups. In addition, the population
living within 50 km of MSW landfills
has a higher percentage of minority,
lower income, and lower education
people when compared to the
nationwide percentages of those groups.
However, acknowledging these potential
disparities, the risks for the source
category were determined to be
acceptable, and any emissions
reductions from the final revisions will
benefit these groups the most.
The documentation for this decision
is contained in section IV.B and C of
this preamble, and the technical report,
Risk and Technology Review—Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill Source Category Operations,
which is available in the docket for this
action.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 25, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR parts
60 and 63 as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
1. The authority citation for part 60
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Cf—Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Times for Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills
2. Section 60.34f is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
■
§ 60.34f Operational standards for
collection and control systems.
For approval, a state plan must
include provisions for the operational
standards in this section (as well as the
provisions in §§ 60.36f and 60.37f), or
the operational standards in § 63.1958 of
this chapter (as well as the provisions in
§§ 63.1960 of this chapter and 63.1961
of this chapter), or both as alternative
means of compliance, for an MSW
landfill with a gas collection and control
system used to comply with the
provisions of § 60.33f(b) and (c). Once
the owner or operator begins to comply
with the provisions of § 63.1958 of this
chapter, the owner or operator must
continue to operate the collection and
control device according to those
provisions and cannot return to the
provisions of this section. Each owner
or operator of an MSW landfill with a
gas collection and control system used
to comply with the provisions of
§ 60.33f(b) and (c) must:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 60.36f is amended by
revising the introductory text and
paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to read as follows:
§ 60.36f
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Sfmt 4700
17259
Compliance provisions.
For approval, a state plan must
include the compliance provisions in
this section (as well as the provisions in
§§ 60.34f and 60.37f), or the compliance
provisions in § 63.1960 of this chapter
(as well as the provisions in §§ 63.1958
of this chapter and 63.1961 of this
chapter), or both as alternative means of
compliance, for an MSW landfill with a
gas collection and control system used
to comply with the provisions of
§ 60.33f(b) and (c). Once the owner or
operator begins to comply with the
provisions of § 63.1960 of this chapter,
the owner or operator must continue to
operate the collection and control
device according to those provisions
and cannot return to the provisions of
this section.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
17260
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(ii) If corrective actions cannot be
fully implemented within 60 days
following the positive pressure or
elevated temperature measurement for
which the root cause analysis was
required, the owner or operator must
also conduct a corrective action analysis
and develop an implementation
schedule to complete the corrective
action(s) as soon as practicable, but no
more than 120 days following the
measurement of landfill gas temperature
greater than 55 degrees Celsius (131
degrees Fahrenheit) or positive pressure.
The owner or operator must submit the
items listed in § 60.38f(h)(7) as part of
the next annual report. The owner or
operator must keep records according to
§ 60.39f(e)(4).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Section 60.37f is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
§ 60.37f
Monitoring of operations.
For approval, a state plan must
include the monitoring provisions in
this section, (as well as the provisions
in §§ 60.34f and 60.36f) except as
provided in § 60.38f(d)(2), or the
monitoring provisions in § 63.1961 of
this chapter (as well as the provisions in
§§ 63.1958 of this chapter and 63.1960
of this chapter), or both as alternative
means of compliance, for an MSW
landfill with a gas collection and control
system used to comply with the
provisions of § 60.33f(b) and (c). Once
the owner or operator begins to comply
with the provisions of § 63.1961 of this
chapter, the owner or operator must
continue to operate the collection and
control device according to those
provisions and cannot return to the
provisions of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Section 60.38f is amended by
revising paragraphs (h) introductory,
(h)(7), and (k) introductory text and
adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:
§ 60.38f
Reporting guidelines.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Annual report. The owner or
operator of a landfill seeking to comply
with § 60.33f(e)(2) using an active
collection system designed in
accordance with § 60.33f(b) must submit
to the Administrator, following the
procedures specified in paragraph (j)(2)
of this section, an annual report of the
recorded information in paragraphs
(h)(1) through (7) of this section. The
initial annual report must be submitted
within 180 days of installation and
startup of the collection and control
system. The initial annual report must
include the initial performance test
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
report required under § 60.8, as
applicable, unless the report of the
results of the performance test has been
submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s
CDX. In the initial annual report, the
process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s)
tested and the date that such
performance test was conducted may be
submitted in lieu of the performance
test report if the report has been
previously submitted to the EPA’s CDX.
The initial performance test report must
be submitted, following the procedure
specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this
section, no later than the date that the
initial annual report is submitted. For
enclosed combustion devices and flares,
reportable exceedances are defined
under § 60.39f(c)(1). If complying with
the operational provisions of §§ 63.1958,
63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter, as
allowed at §§ 60.34f, 60.36f, and 60.37f,
the owner or operator must follow the
semi-annual reporting requirements in
§ 63.1981(h) of this chapter in lieu of
this paragraph.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) For any corrective action analysis
for which corrective actions are required
in § 60.36f(a)(3) or (5) and that take
more than 60 days to correct the
exceedance, the root cause analysis
conducted, including a description of
the recommended corrective action(s),
the date for corrective action(s) already
completed following the positive
pressure or elevated temperature
reading, and, for action(s) not already
completed, a schedule for
implementation, including proposed
commencement and completion dates.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) Corrective action and the
corresponding timeline. The owner or
operator must submit according to
paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this section.
If complying with the operational
provisions of §§ 63.1958, 63.1960, and
63.1961 of this chapter, as allowed at
§§ 60.34f, 60.36f, and 60.37f, the owner
or operator must follow the corrective
action and the corresponding timeline
reporting requirements in § 63.1981(j) of
this chapter in lieu of paragraphs (k)(1)
and (2) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(n) Each owner or operator that
chooses to comply with the provisions
in §§ 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of
this chapter, as allowed in §§ 60.34f,
60.36f, and 60.37f, must submit the 24hour high temperature report according
to § 63.1981(k) of this chapter.
■ 6. Section 60.39f is amended by
revising paragraph (e) introductory text
and adding paragraph (e)(6) to read as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
§ 60.39f
Recordkeeping guidelines.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Except as provided in
§ 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
must keep for at least 5 years up-to-date,
readily accessible records of the items in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this
section. Each owner or operator that
chooses to comply with the provisions
in §§ 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of
this chapter, as allowed in §§ 60.34f,
60.36f, and 60.37f, must keep the
records in paragraph (e)(6) of this
section and must keep records
according to § 63.1983(e)(1) through (5)
of this chapter in lieu of paragraphs
(e)(1) through (5) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Each owner or operator that
chooses to comply with the provisions
in §§ 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of
this chapter, as allowed in §§ 60.34f,
60.36f, and 60.37f, must keep records of
the date upon which the owner or
operator started complying with the
provisions in §§ 63.1958, 63.1960, and
63.1961.
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart WWW—Standards of
Performance for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills That Commenced
Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification on or after May 30, 1991,
but Before July 18, 2014
7. Section 60.750 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
■
§ 60.750 Applicability, designation of
affected facility, and delegation of authority.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
apply to each municipal solid waste
landfill that commenced construction,
reconstruction, or modification on or
after May 30, 1991, but before July 18,
2014.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) An affected municipal solid waste
landfill must continue to comply with
this subpart until it:
(1) Becomes subject to the more
stringent requirements in an approved
and effective state or federal plan that
implements subpart Cf of this part, or
(2) Modifies or reconstructs after July
17, 2014, and thus becomes subject to
subpart XXX of this part.
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart XXX—Standards of
Performance for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills That Commenced
Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification After July 17, 2014
8. Section 60.762 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(2)(iv) to read as
follows:
■
§ 60.762 Standards for air emissions from
municipal solid waste landfills.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Operation. Operate the collection
and control device installed to comply
with this subpart in accordance with the
provisions of §§ 60.763, 60.765, and
60.766; or the provisions of §§ 63.1958,
63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter.
Once the owner or operator begins to
comply with the provisions of
§§ 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this
chapter, the owner or operator must
continue to operate the collection and
control device according to those
provisions and cannot return to the
provisions of §§ 60.763, 60.765, and
60.766.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. Section 60.765 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii) to read as
follows:
§ 60.765
Compliance provisions.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) If corrective actions cannot be
fully implemented within 60 days
following the positive pressure or
elevated temperature measurement for
which the root cause analysis was
required, the owner or operator must
also conduct a corrective action analysis
and develop an implementation
schedule to complete the corrective
action(s) as soon as practicable, but no
more than 120 days following the
measurement of landfill gas temperature
greater than 55 degrees Celsius (131
degrees Fahrenheit) or positive pressure.
The owner or operator must submit the
items listed in § 60.767(g)(7) as part of
the next annual report. The owner or
operator must keep records according to
§ 60.768(e)(4).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. Section 60.767 is amended by
revising paragraphs (g) introductory
text, (g)(7, and (j) introductory text and
adding paragraph (m) to read as follows:
§ 60.767
Reporting requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Annual report. The owner or
operator of a landfill seeking to comply
with § 60.762(b)(2) using an active
collection system designed in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
accordance with § 60.762(b)(2)(ii) must
submit to the Administrator, following
the procedure specified in paragraph
(i)(2) of this section, annual reports of
the recorded information in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (7) of this section. The
initial annual report must be submitted
within 180 days of installation and
startup of the collection and control
system and must include the initial
performance test report required under
§ 60.8, as applicable, unless the report of
the results of the performance test has
been submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s
CDX. In the initial annual report, the
process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s)
tested, and the date that such
performance test was conducted may be
submitted in lieu of the performance
test report if the report has been
previously submitted to the EPA’s CDX.
For enclosed combustion devices and
flares, reportable exceedances are
defined under § 60.768(c). If complying
with the operational provisions of
§§ 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this
chapter, as allowed at § 60.762(b)(2)(iv),
the owner or operator must follow the
semi-annual reporting requirements in
§ 63.1981(h) of this chapter in lieu of
this paragraph.
*
*
*
*
*
(7) For any corrective action analysis
for which corrective actions are required
in § 60.765(a)(3) or (5) and that take
more than 60 days to correct the
exceedance, the root cause analysis
conducted, including a description of
the recommended corrective action(s),
the date for corrective action(s) already
completed following the positive
pressure or elevated temperature
reading, and, for action(s) not already
completed, a schedule for
implementation, including proposed
commencement and completion dates.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) Corrective action and the
corresponding timeline. The owner or
operator must submit according to
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section.
If complying with the operational
provisions of §§ 63.1958, 63.1960, and
63.1961 of this chapter, as allowed at
§ 60.762(b)(2)(iv), the owner or operator
must follow the corrective action and
the corresponding timeline
requirements in § 63.1981(j) of this
chapter in lieu of this paragraph.
*
*
*
*
*
(m) Each owner or operator that
chooses to comply with the provisions
in §§ 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961, as
allowed at § 60.762(b)(2)(iv), must
submit the 24-hour high temperature
report according to § 63.1981(k) of this
chapter.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17261
11. Section 60.768 is amended by
revising paragraph (e) introductory text
and adding paragraph (e)(6) to read as
follows:
■
§ 60.768
Recordkeeping requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Except as provided in
§ 60.767(c)(2), each owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
must keep for at least 5 years up-to-date,
readily accessible records of the items in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this
section. Each owner or operator that
chooses to comply with the provisions
in §§ 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of
this chapter, as allowed at
§ 60.762(b)(2)(iv), must keep the records
in paragraph (e)(6) of this section and
must keep records according to
§§ 63.1983(e)(1) through (5) of this
chapter in lieu of paragraphs (e)(1)
through (5) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Each owner or operator that
chooses to comply with the provisions
in §§ 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of
this chapter, as allowed at
§ 60.762(b)(2)(iv), must keep records of
the date upon which the owner or
operator started complying with the
provisions in §§ 63.1958, 63.1960, and
63.1961.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES
12. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
13. Section 63.14 is amended by
revising paragraph (h)(94) to read as
follows:
■
§ 63.14
Incorporations by reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(94) ASTM D6522–11 Standard Test
Method for Determination of Nitrogen
Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen
Concentrations in Emissions from
Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating
Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers,
and Process Heaters Using Portable
Analyzers, Approved December 1, 2011,
IBR approved for § 63.1961(a) and table
3 to subpart YYYY.
*
*
*
*
*
14. Subpart AAAA is revised to read
as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
17262
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart AAAA—National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
What This Subpart Covers
Sec.
63.1930 What is the purpose of this
subpart?
63.1935 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.1940 What is the affected source of this
subpart?
63.1945 When do I have to comply with
this subpart?
63.1947 When do I have to comply with
this subpart if I own or operate a
bioreactor?
63.1950 When am I no longer required to
comply with this subpart?
63.1952 When am I no longer required to
comply with the requirements of this
subpart if I own or operate a bioreactor?
Standards
63.1955 What requirements must I meet?
63.1957 Requirements for gas collection
and control system installation and
removal
63.1958 Operational standards for
collection and control systems
63.1959 NMOC calculation procedures
63.1960 Compliance provisions
63.1961 Monitoring of operations
63.1962 Specifications for active collection
systems
General and Continuing Compliance
Requirements
63.1964 How is compliance determined?
63.1965 What is a deviation?
63.1975 How do I calculate the 3-hour
block average used to demonstrate
compliance?
§ 63.1935
Notifications, Records, and Reports
63.1981 What reports must I submit?
63.1982 What records and reports must I
submit and keep for bioreactors or
liquids addition other than leachate?
63.1983 What records must I keep?
Other Requirements and Information
63.1985 Who enforces this subpart?
63.1990 What definitions apply to this
subpart?
Table 1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63—
Applicability of NESHAP General Provisions
to Subpart AAAA
Subpart AAAA—National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills
What This Subpart Covers
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
§ 63.1930
subpart?
What is the purpose of this
This subpart establishes national
emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants for existing and new
municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills.
(a) Before September 28, 2021, all
landfills described in § 63.1935 must
meet the requirements of 40 CFR part
60, subpart WWW, or an approved state
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
or federal plan that implements 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Cc, and requires timely
control of bioreactors and additional
reporting requirements. Landfills must
also meet the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM) requirements of the
general provisions as specified in Table
1 to Subpart AAAA of this part and
must demonstrate compliance with the
operating conditions by parameter
monitoring results that are within the
specified ranges. Specifically, landfills
must meet the following requirements of
this subpart that apply before September
28, 2021, as set out in: §§ 63.1955(a),
63.1955(b), 63.1965(a), 63.1965(c),
63.1975, 63.1981(a), 63.1981(b), and
63.1982, and the definitions of
‘‘Controlled landfill’’ and ‘‘Deviation’’
in § 63.1990.
(b) Beginning no later than September
27, 2021, all landfills described in
§ 63.1935 must meet the requirements of
this subpart. A landfill may choose to
meet the requirements of this subpart
rather than the requirements identified
in § 63.1930(a) at any time before
September 27, 2021. The requirements
of this subpart apply at all times,
including during periods of SSM, and
the SSM requirements of the General
Provisions of this part do not apply.
Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you
meet the criteria in paragraph (a) or (b)
of this section.
(a) You are subject to this subpart if
you own or operate an MSW landfill
that has accepted waste since November
8, 1987, or has additional capacity for
waste deposition and meets any one of
the three criteria in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (3) of this section:
(1) Your MSW landfill is a major
source as defined in § 63.2 of subpart A.
(2) Your MSW landfill is collocated
with a major source as defined in § 63.2
of subpart A.
(3) Your MSW landfill is an area
source landfill that has a design
capacity equal to or greater than 2.5
million megagrams (Mg) and 2.5 million
cubic meters (m3) and has estimated
uncontrolled emissions equal to or
greater than 50 megagrams per year (Mg/
yr) NMOC as calculated according to
§ 63.1959.
(b) You are subject to this subpart if
you own or operate an MSW landfill
that has accepted waste since November
8, 1987, or has additional capacity for
waste deposition, that includes a
bioreactor, as defined in § 63.1990, and
that meets any one of the criteria in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section:
(1) Your MSW landfill is a major
source as defined in § 63.2 of subpart A.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(2) Your MSW landfill is collocated
with a major source as defined in § 63.2
of subpart A.
(3) Your MSW landfill is an area
source landfill that has a design
capacity equal to or greater than 2.5
million Mg and 2.5 million m3 and that
is not permanently closed as of January
16, 2003.
§ 63.1940 What is the affected source of
this subpart?
(a) An affected source of this subpart
is an MSW landfill, as defined in
§ 63.1990, that meets the criteria in
§ 63.1935(a) or (b). The affected source
includes the entire disposal facility in a
contiguous geographic space where
household waste is placed in or on land,
including any portion of the MSW
landfill operated as a bioreactor.
(b) A new affected source of this
subpart is an affected source that
commenced construction or
reconstruction after November 7, 2000.
An affected source is reconstructed if it
meets the definition of reconstruction in
§ 63.2 of subpart A.
(c) An affected source of this subpart
is existing if it is not new.
§ 63.1945 When do I have to comply with
this subpart?
(a) If your landfill is a new affected
source, you must comply with this
subpart by January 16, 2003, or at the
time you begin operating, whichever is
later.
(b) If your landfill is an existing
affected source, you must comply with
this subpart by January 16, 2004.
§ 63.1947 When do I have to comply with
this subpart if I own or operate a
bioreactor?
You must comply with this subpart by
the dates specified in § 63.1945(a) or (b).
If you own or operate a bioreactor
located at a landfill that is not
permanently closed as of January 16,
2003, and has a design capacity equal to
or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5
million m3, then you must install and
operate a collection and control system
that meets the criteria in § 63.1959(b)(2)
according to the schedule specified in
paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section.
(a) If your bioreactor is at a new
affected source, then you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(2) of this section:
(1) Install the gas collection and
control system for the bioreactor before
initiating liquids addition.
(2) Begin operating the gas collection
and control system within 180 days
after initiating liquids addition or
within 180 days after achieving a
moisture content of 40 percent by
weight, whichever is later. If you choose
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
to begin gas collection and control
system operation 180 days after
achieving a 40-percent moisture content
instead of 180 days after liquids
addition, use the procedures in
§§ 63.1982(c) and (d) to determine when
the bioreactor moisture content reaches
40 percent.
(b) If your bioreactor is at an existing
affected source, then you must install
and begin operating the gas collection
and control system for the bioreactor by
January 17, 2006, or by the date your
bioreactor is required to install a gas
collection and control system under 40
CFR part 60, subpart WWW; a federal
plan; or an EPA-approved and effective
state plan or tribal plan that applies to
your landfill, whichever is earlier.
(c) If your bioreactor is at an existing
affected source and you do not initiate
liquids addition to your bioreactor until
later than January 17, 2006, then you
must meet the requirements in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) Install the gas collection and
control system for the bioreactor before
initiating liquids addition.
(2) Begin operating the gas collection
and control system within 180 days
after initiating liquids addition or
within 180 days after achieving a
moisture content of 40 percent by
weight, whichever is later. If you choose
to begin gas collection and control
system operation 180 days after
achieving a 40-percent moisture content
instead of 180 days after liquids
addition, use the procedures in
§ 63.1980(e) and (f) to determine when
the bioreactor moisture content reaches
40 percent.
§ 63.1950 When am I no longer required to
comply with this subpart?
You are no longer required to comply
with the requirements of this subpart
when your landfill meets the collection
and control system removal criteria in
§ 63.1957(b).
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
§ 63.1952 When am I no longer required to
comply with the requirements of this
subpart if I own or operate a bioreactor?
If you own or operate a landfill that
includes a bioreactor, you are no longer
required to comply with the
requirements of this subpart for the
bioreactor provided you meet the
conditions of either paragraph (a) or (b)
of this section.
(a) Your affected source meets the
control system removal criteria in
§ 63.1950 or the bioreactor meets the
criteria for a nonproductive area of the
landfill in § 63.1962(a)(3)(ii).
(b) The bioreactor portion of the
landfill is a closed landfill as defined in
§ 63.1990, you have permanently ceased
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
adding liquids to the bioreactor, and
you have not added liquids to the
bioreactor for at least 1 year. A closure
report for the bioreactor must be
submitted to the Administrator as
provided in § 63.1981(g).
Standards
§ 63.1955
What requirements must I meet?
(a) Before September 28, 2021, if
alternatives to the operational
standards, test methods, procedures,
compliance measures, monitoring,
recordkeeping, or reporting provisions
have already been approved under 40
CFR part 60, subpart WWW; subpart
XXX; a federal plan; or an EPAapproved and effective state or tribal
plan, these alternatives can be used to
comply with this subpart, except that all
affected sources must comply with the
SSM requirements in subpart A of this
part as specified in Table 1 of this
subpart and all affected sources must
submit compliance reports every 6
months as specified in § 63.1981(h),
including information on all deviations
that occurred during the 6-month
reporting period. Deviations for
continuous emission monitors or
numerical continuous parameter
monitors must be determined using a
3-hour monitoring block average.
Beginning no later than September 28,
2021, the collection and control system
design plan may include for approval
collection and control systems that
include any alternatives to the
operational standards, test methods,
procedures, compliance measures,
monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting
provisions, as provided in
§ 63.1981(d)(2).
(b) If you own or operate a bioreactor
that is located at an MSW landfill that
is not permanently closed and has a
design capacity equal to or greater than
2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3, then
you must meet the requirements of this
subpart, including requirements in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) You must comply with this
subpart starting on the date you are
required to install the gas collection and
control system.
(2) You must extend the collection
and control system into each new cell
or area of the bioreactor prior to
initiating liquids addition in that area.
(c) At all times, beginning no later
than September 27, 2021, the owner or
operator must operate and maintain any
affected source, including associated air
pollution control equipment and
monitoring equipment, in a manner
consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions. The general duty
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17263
to minimize emissions does not require
the owner or operator to make any
further efforts to reduce emissions if the
requirements of this subpart have been
achieved. Determination of whether a
source is operating in compliance with
operation and maintenance
requirements will be based on
information available to the
Administrator which may include, but
is not limited to, monitoring results,
review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and
maintenance records, and inspection of
the source.
§ 63.1957 Requirements for gas collection
and control system installation and
removal.
(a) Operation. Operate the collection
and control device in accordance with
the provisions of §§ 63.1958, 63.1960,
and 63.1961.
(b) Removal criteria. The collection
and control system may be capped,
removed, or decommissioned if the
following criteria are met:
(1) The landfill is a closed landfill (as
defined in § 63.1990). A closure report
must be submitted to the Administrator
as provided in § 63.1981(f);
(2) The gas collection and control
system has been in operation a
minimum of 15 years or the landfill
owner or operator demonstrates that the
gas collection and control system will
be unable to operate for 15 years due to
declining gas flow; and
(3) Following the procedures
specified in § 63.1959(c), the calculated
NMOC emission rate at the landfill is
less than 50 Mg/yr on three successive
test dates. The test dates must be no less
than 90 days apart, and no more than
180 days apart.
§ 63.1958 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 § 63.1957 must:
(a) Operate the collection system such
that gas is collected from each area, cell,
or group of cells in the MSW landfill in
which solid waste has been in place for:
(1) 5 years or more if active; or
(2) 2 years or more if closed or at final
grade;
(b) Operate the collection system with
negative pressure at each wellhead
except under the following conditions:
(1) A fire or increased well
temperature. The owner or operator
must record instances when positive
pressure occurs in efforts to avoid a fire.
These records must be submitted with
the semi-annual reports as provided in
§ 63.1981(h);
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
monitoring design plan must be
developed that includes a topographical
map with the monitoring route and the
rationale for any site-specific deviations
from the 30-meter intervals. Areas with
steep slopes or other dangerous areas
may be excluded from the surface
testing.
(2) Beginning no later than September
27, 2021, the owner or operator must:
(i) Conduct surface testing using an
organic vapor analyzer, flame ionization
detector, or other portable monitor
meeting the specifications provided in
§ 63.1960(d).
(ii) Conduct surface testing at all
cover penetrations. Thus, the owner or
operator must monitor any cover
penetrations that are within an area of
the landfill where waste has been
placed and a gas collection system is
required.
(iii) Determine the latitude and
longitude coordinates of each
exceedance using an instrument with an
accuracy of at least 4 meters. The
coordinates must be in decimal degrees
with at least five decimal places.
(e) Operate the system as specified in
§ 60.753(e) of this chapter, except:
(1) Beginning no later than September
27, 2021, operate the system in
accordance to § 63.1955(c) such that all
collected gases are vented to a control
system designed and operated in
compliance with § 63.1959(b)(2)(iii). In
the event the collection or control
system is not operating:
(i) The gas mover system must be shut
down and all valves in the collection
and control system contributing to
venting of the gas to the atmosphere
must be closed within 1 hour of the
collection or control system not
operating; and
(ii) Efforts to repair the collection or
control system must be initiated and
completed in a manner such that
downtime is kept to a minimum, and
the collection and control system must
be returned to operation.
Where:
MNMOC = Total NMOC emission rate from the
landfill, Mg/yr.
k = Methane generation rate constant,
year¥1.
Lo = Methane generation potential, m3/Mg
solid waste.
Mi = Mass of solid waste in the ith section,
Mg.
ti = Age of the ith section, years.
CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, ppmv as
hexane.
3.6 × 10¥9 = Conversion factor.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
(B) The mass of nondegradable solid
waste may be subtracted from the total
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(2) [Reserved]
(f) Operate the control system at all
times when the collected gas is routed
to the system.
(g) If monitoring demonstrates that the
operational requirements in paragraph
(b), (c), or (d) of this section are not met,
corrective action must be taken as
specified in § 63.1960(a)(3) and (5) or
(c). If corrective actions are taken as
specified in § 63.1960, the monitored
exceedance is not a deviation of the
operational requirements in this section.
§ 63.1959
NMOC calculation procedures.
(a) Calculate the NMOC emission rate
using the procedures specified in
§ 60.754(a) of this chapter, except:
(1) NMOC emission rate. Beginning no
later than September 27, 2021 the
landfill owner or operator must
calculate the NMOC emission rate using
either Equation 1 provided in paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of this section or Equation 2
provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this
section. Both Equation 1 and Equation
2 may be used if the actual year-to-year
solid waste acceptance rate is known, as
specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this
section, for part of the life of the landfill
and the actual year-to-year solid waste
acceptance rate is unknown, as
specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this
section, for part of the life of the
landfill. The values to be used in both
Equation 1 and Equation 2 are 0.05 per
year for k, 170 cubic meters per
megagram (m3/Mg) for LO, and 4,000
parts per million by volume (ppmv) as
hexane for the CNMOC. For landfills
located in geographical areas with a 30year annual average precipitation of less
than 25 inches, as measured at the
nearest representative official
meteorologic site, the k value to be used
is 0.02 per year.
(i)(A) Equation 1 must be used if the
actual year-to-year solid waste
acceptance rate is known.
mass of solid waste in a particular
section of the landfill when calculating
the value for Mi if documentation of the
nature and amount of such wastes is
maintained.
(ii)(A) Equation 2 must be used if the
actual year-to-year solid waste
acceptance rate is unknown.
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
ER26MR20.011</GPH>
(2) Use of a geomembrane or synthetic
cover. The owner or operator must
develop acceptable pressure limits in
the design plan;
(3) A decommissioned well. A well
may experience a static positive
pressure after shut down to
accommodate for declining flows. All
design changes must be approved by the
Administrator as specified in
§ 63.1981(d)(2);
(c) Operate each interior wellhead in
the collection system as specified in
§ 60.753(c), except:
(1) Beginning no later than September
27, 2021, operate each interior wellhead
in the collection system with a landfill
gas temperature less than 62.8 degrees
Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit).
(2) The owner or operator may
establish a higher operating temperature
value at a particular well. A higher
operating value demonstration must be
submitted to the Administrator for
approval and must include supporting
data demonstrating that the elevated
parameter neither causes fires nor
significantly inhibits anaerobic
decomposition by killing methanogens.
The demonstration must satisfy both
criteria in order to be approved (i.e.,
neither causing fires nor killing
methanogens is acceptable).
(d)(1) Operate the collection system so
that the methane concentration is less
than 500 parts per million (ppm) above
background at the surface of the landfill.
To determine if this level is exceeded,
the owner or operator must conduct
surface testing around the perimeter of
the collection area and along a pattern
that traverses the landfill at no more
than 30-meter intervals and where
visual observations indicate elevated
concentrations of landfill gas, such as
distressed vegetation and cracks or
seeps in the cover. The owner or
operator may establish an alternative
traversing pattern that ensures
equivalent coverage. A surface
ER26MR20.007</GPH>
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
17264
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
Where:
MNMOC = Mass emission rate of NMOC, Mg/
yr.
Lo = Methane generation potential, m3/Mg
solid waste.
R = Average annual acceptance rate, Mg/yr.
k = Methane generation rate constant, year¥1.
t = Age of landfill, years.
CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, ppmv as
hexane.
c = Time since closure, years; for active
landfill c=0 and e¥kc = 1.
3.6 × 10¥9 = Conversion factor.
(B) The mass of nondegradable solid
waste may be subtracted from the total
mass of solid waste in a particular
section of the landfill when calculating
the value of R, if documentation of the
nature and amount of such wastes is
maintained.
(2) Tier 1. The owner or operator must
compare the calculated NMOC mass
emission rate to the standard of 50 Mg/
yr.
(i) If the NMOC emission rate
calculated in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section is less than 50 Mg/yr, then the
landfill owner or operator must submit
an NMOC emission rate report
according to § 63.1981(c) and must
recalculate the NMOC mass emission
rate annually as required under
paragraph (b) of this section.
(ii) If the calculated NMOC emission
rate as calculated in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section is equal to or greater than
50 Mg/yr, then the landfill owner must
either:
(A) Submit a gas collection and
control system design plan within 1
year as specified in § 63.1981(d) and
install and operate a gas collection and
control system within 30 months of the
first annual report in which the NMOC
emission rate equals or exceeds 50 Mg/
yr, according to paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and
(iii) of this section;
(B) Determine a site-specific NMOC
concentration and recalculate the
NMOC emission rate using the Tier 2
procedures provided in paragraph (a)(3)
of this section; or
(C) Determine a site-specific methane
generation rate constant and recalculate
the NMOC emission rate using the Tier
3 procedures provided in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section.
(3) Tier 2. The landfill owner or
operator must determine the sitespecific NMOC concentration using the
following sampling procedure. The
landfill owner or operator must install
at least two sample probes per hectare,
evenly distributed over the landfill
surface that has retained waste for at
least 2 years. If the landfill is larger than
25 hectares in area, only 50 samples are
required. The probes should be evenly
distributed across the sample area. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
sample probes should be located to
avoid known areas of nondegradable
solid waste. The owner or operator must
collect and analyze one sample of
landfill gas from each probe to
determine the NMOC concentration
using EPA Method 25 or 25C of
appendix A–7 to part 60. Taking
composite samples from different
probes into a single cylinder is allowed;
however, equal sample volumes must be
taken from each probe. For each
composite, the sampling rate, collection
times, beginning and ending cylinder
vacuums, or alternative volume
measurements must be recorded to
verify that composite volumes are equal.
Composite sample volumes should not
be less than one liter unless evidence
can be provided to substantiate the
accuracy of smaller volumes. Terminate
compositing before the cylinder
approaches ambient pressure where
measurement accuracy diminishes. If
more than the required number of
samples are taken, all samples must be
used in the analysis. The landfill owner
or operator must divide the NMOC
concentration from EPA Method 25 or
25C of appendix A–7 to part 60 by 6 to
convert from CNMOC as carbon to CNMOC
as hexane. If the landfill has an active
or passive gas removal system in place,
EPA Method 25 or 25C samples may be
collected from these systems instead of
surface probes provided the removal
system can be shown to provide
sampling as representative as the two
sampling probe per hectare requirement.
For active collection systems, samples
may be collected from the common
header pipe. The sample location on the
common header pipe must be before any
gas moving, condensate removal, or
treatment system equipment. For active
collection systems, a minimum of three
samples must be collected from the
header pipe.
(i) Within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test (as
defined in § 63.7 of subpart A), the
owner or operator must submit the
results according to § 63.1981(i).
(ii) The landfill owner or operator
must recalculate the NMOC mass
emission rate using Equation 1 or
Equation 2 provided in paragraph
(a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section and use the
average site-specific NMOC
concentration from the collected
samples instead of the default value
provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
(iii) If the resulting NMOC mass
emission rate is less than 50 Mg/yr, then
the owner or operator must submit a
periodic estimate of NMOC emissions in
an NMOC emission rate report
according to § 63.1981(c) and must
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17265
recalculate the NMOC mass emission
rate annually as required under
paragraph (b) of this section. The sitespecific NMOC concentration must be
retested every 5 years using the methods
specified in this section.
(iv) If the NMOC mass emission rate
as calculated using the Tier 2 sitespecific NMOC concentration is equal to
or greater than 50 Mg/yr, the landfill
owner or operator must either:
(A) Submit a gas collection and
control system design plan within 1
year as specified in § 63.1981(d) and
install and operate a gas collection and
control system within 30 months
according to paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and
(iii) of this section; or
(B) Determine a site-specific methane
generation rate constant and recalculate
the NMOC emission rate using the sitespecific methane generation rate using
the Tier 3 procedures specified in
paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(4) Tier 3. The site-specific methane
generation rate constant must be
determined using the procedures
provided in EPA Method 2E of
appendix A–1 to part 60 of this chapter.
The landfill owner or operator must
estimate the NMOC mass emission rate
using Equation 1 or Equation 2 in
paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section
and using a site-specific methane
generation rate constant, and the sitespecific NMOC concentration as
determined in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section instead of the default values
provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section. The landfill owner or operator
must compare the resulting NMOC mass
emission rate to the standard of 50 Mg/
yr.
(i) If the NMOC mass emission rate as
calculated using the Tier 2 site-specific
NMOC concentration and Tier 3 sitespecific methane generation rate is
equal to or greater than 50 Mg/yr, the
owner or operator must:
(A) Submit a gas collection and
control system design plan within 1
year as specified in § 63.1981(e) and
install and operate a gas collection and
control system within 30 months of the
first annual report in which the NMOC
emission rate equals or exceeds 50 Mg/
yr, according to paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and
(iii) of this section.
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) If the NMOC mass emission rate
is less than 50 Mg/yr, then the owner or
operator must recalculate the NMOC
mass emission rate annually using
Equation 1 or Equation 2 in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section and using the sitespecific Tier 2 NMOC concentration and
Tier 3 methane generation rate constant
and submit a periodic NMOC emission
rate report as provided in § 63.1981(c).
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
The calculation of the methane
generation rate constant is performed
only once, and the value obtained from
this test must be used in all subsequent
annual NMOC emission rate
calculations.
(5) Other methods. The owner or
operator may use other methods to
determine the NMOC concentration or a
site-specific methane generation rate
constant as an alternative to the
methods required in paragraphs (a)(3)
and (4) of this section if the method has
been approved by the Administrator.
(b) Each owner or operator of an
affected source having a design capacity
equal to or greater than 2.5 million Mg
and 2.5 million m3 must either comply
with paragraph (b)(2) of this section or
calculate an NMOC emission rate for the
landfill using the procedures specified
in paragraph (a) of this section. The
NMOC emission rate must be
recalculated annually, except as
provided in § 63.1981(c)(1)(ii)(A).
(1) If the calculated NMOC emission
rate is less than 50 Mg/yr, the owner or
operator must:
(i) Submit an annual NMOC emission
rate emission report to the
Administrator, except as provided for in
§ 63.1981(c)(1)(ii); and
(ii) Recalculate the NMOC emission
rate annually using the procedures
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section until such time as the calculated
NMOC emission rate is equal to or
greater than 50 Mg/yr, or the landfill is
closed.
(A) If the calculated NMOC emission
rate, upon initial calculation or annual
recalculation required in paragraph (b)
of this section, is equal to or greater than
50 Mg/yr, the owner or operator must
either: comply with paragraph (b)(2) of
this section or calculate NMOC
emissions using the next higher tier in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(B) If the landfill is permanently
closed, a closure report must be
submitted to the Administrator as
provided for in § 63.1981(f).
(2) If the calculated NMOC emission
rate is equal to or greater than 50 Mg/
yr using Tier 1, 2, or 3 procedures, the
owner or operator must either:
(i) Submit a collection and control
system design plan prepared by a
professional engineer to the
Administrator within 1 year as specified
in § 63.1981(d) or calculate NMOC
emissions using the next higher tier in
paragraph (a) of this section. The
collection and control system must meet
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)
and (iii) of this section.
(ii) Collection system. Install and start
up a collection and control system that
captures the gas generated within the
landfill as required by paragraphs
(b)(2)(ii)(B) or (C) and (b)(2)(iii) of this
section within 30 months after:
(A) The first annual report in which
the NMOC emission rate equals or
exceeds 50 Mg/yr, unless Tier 2 or Tier
3 sampling demonstrates that the NMOC
emission rate is less than 50 Mg.
(B) An active collection system must:
(1) Be designed to handle the
maximum expected gas flow rate from
the entire area of the landfill that
warrants control over the intended use
period of the gas control system
equipment;
(2) Collect gas from each area, cell, or
group of cells in the landfill in which
the initial solid waste has been placed
for a period of 5 years or more if active;
or 2 years or more if closed or at final
grade;
(3) Collect gas at a sufficient
extraction rate; and
(4) Be designed to minimize off-site
migration of subsurface gas.
(C) A passive collection system must:
(1) Comply with the provisions
specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(B)(1),
(2), and (3) of this section; and
(2) Be installed with liners on the
bottom and all sides in all areas in
which gas is to be collected. The liners
must be installed as required under
§ 258.40 of this chapter.
(iii) Control system. Route all the
collected gas to a control system that
complies with the requirements in
either paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A), (B), or (C)
of this section.
(A) A non-enclosed flare designed and
operated in accordance with the
parameters established in § 63.11(b)
except as noted in paragraph (f) of this
section; or
(B) A control system designed and
operated to reduce NMOC by 98 weightpercent, or, when an enclosed
combustion device is used for control,
to either reduce NMOC by 98 weightpercent or reduce the outlet NMOC
concentration to less than 20 ppmv, dry
basis as hexane at 3-percent oxygen. The
reduction efficiency or ppmv must be
established by an initial performance
test to be completed no later than 180
days after the initial startup of the
approved control system using the test
methods specified in paragraph (e) of
this section. The performance test is not
required for boilers and process heaters
with design heat input capacities equal
to or greater than 44 megawatts that
burn landfill gas for compliance with
this subpart.
(1) If a boiler or process heater is used
as the control device, the landfill gas
stream must be introduced into the
flame zone.
(2) The control device must be
operated within the parameter ranges
established during the initial or most
recent performance test. The operating
parameters to be monitored are
specified in §§ 63.1961(b) through (e);
(C) A treatment system that processes
the collected gas for subsequent sale or
beneficial use such as fuel for
combustion, production of vehicle fuel,
production of high-British thermal unit
(Btu) gas for pipeline injection, or use as
a raw material in a chemical
manufacturing process. Venting of
treated landfill gas to the ambient air is
not allowed. If the treated landfill gas
cannot be routed for subsequent sale or
beneficial use, then the treated landfill
gas must be controlled according to
either paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) or (B) of
this section.
(D) All emissions from any
atmospheric vent from the gas treatment
system are subject to the requirements
of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) or (B) of this
section. For purposes of this subpart,
atmospheric vents located on the
condensate storage tank are not part of
the treatment system and are exempt
from the requirements of paragraph
(b)(2)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section.
(c) After the installation and startup of
a collection and control system in
compliance with this subpart, the owner
or operator must calculate the NMOC
emission rate for purposes of
determining when the system can be
capped, removed, or decommissioned as
provided in § 63.1957(b)(3), using
Equation 3:
Where:
MNMOC = Mass emission rate of NMOC, Mg/
yr.
QLFG = Flow rate of landfill gas, m3 per
minute.
CNMOC = Average NMOC concentration,
ppmv as hexane.
1.89 × 10¥3 = Conversion factor.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(1) The flow rate of landfill gas, QLFG,
must be determined by measuring the
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
ER26MR20.009</GPH>
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
17266
(3) The owner or operator may use
another method to determine landfill
gas flow rate and NMOC concentration
if the method has been approved by the
Administrator.
(i) Within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test (as
defined in § 63.7), the owner or operator
must submit the results of the
performance test, including any
associated fuel analyses, according to
§ 63.1981(i).
(ii) [Reserved]
(d) For the performance test required
in § 63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(B), EPA Method
25 or 25C (EPA Method 25C of appendix
A–7 to part 60 of this chapter may be
used at the inlet only) of appendix A of
this part must be used to determine
compliance with the 98 weight-percent
efficiency or the 20- ppmv outlet
concentration level, unless another
method to demonstrate compliance has
been approved by the Administrator as
provided by § 63.1981(d)(2). EPA
Method 3, 3A, or 3C of appendix A–7
to part 60 must be used to determine
oxygen for correcting the NMOC
concentration as hexane to 3 percent. In
cases where the outlet concentration is
less than 50 ppm NMOC as carbon (8
ppm NMOC as hexane), EPA Method
25A should be used in place of EPA
Method 25. EPA Method 18 may be
used in conjunction with EPA Method
25A on a limited basis (compound
specific, e.g., methane) or EPA Method
3C may be used to determine methane.
The methane as carbon should be
subtracted from the EPA Method 25A
total hydrocarbon value as carbon to
give NMOC concentration as carbon.
The landowner or operator must divide
the NMOC concentration as carbon by 6
to convert from the CNMOC as carbon to
CNMOC as hexane. Equation 4 must be
used to calculate efficiency:
Where:
NMOCin = Mass of NMOC entering control
device.
NMOCout = Mass of NMOC exiting control
device.
(f) The performance tests required in
§§ 63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(A) and (B), must be
conducted under such conditions as the
Administrator specifies to the owner or
operator based on representative
performance of the affected source for
the period being tested. Representative
conditions exclude periods of startup
and shutdown unless specified by the
Administrator. The owner or operator
may not conduct performance tests
during periods of malfunction. The
owner or operator must record the
process information that is necessary to
document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an
explanation to support that such
conditions represent normal operation.
Upon request, the owner or operator
shall make available to the
Administrator such records as may be
necessary to determine the conditions of
performance tests.
(a) Except as provided in
§ 63.1981(d)(2), the specified methods
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this
section must be used to determine
whether the gas collection system is in
compliance with § 63.1959(b)(2)(ii).
(1) For the purposes of calculating the
maximum expected gas generation flow
rate from the landfill to determine
compliance with
§ 63.1959(b)(2)(ii)(C)(1), either Equation
5 or Equation 6 must be used. The
owner or operator may use another
method to determine the maximum gas
generation flow rate, if the method has
been approved by the Administrator.
The methane generation rate constant
(k) and methane generation potential
(Lo) kinetic factors should be those
published in the most recent
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors (AP–42) or other site-specific
values demonstrated to be appropriate
and approved by the Administrator. If k
has been determined as specified in
§ 63.1959(a)(4), the value of k
determined from the test must be used.
A value of no more than 15 years must
be used for the intended use period of
the gas mover equipment. The active life
of the landfill is the age of the landfill
plus the estimated number of years until
closure.
(i) For sites with unknown year-toyear solid waste acceptance rate:
Lo = Methane generation potential, m3/Mg
solid waste.
R = Average annual acceptance rate, Mg/yr.
k = Methane generation rate constant, year¥1.
t = Age of the landfill at equipment
installation plus the time the owner or
operator intends to use the gas mover
equipment or active life of the landfill,
Where:
Qm = Maximum expected gas generation
flow rate, m3/yr.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
§ 63.1960
PO 00000
Compliance provisions.
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
ER26MR20.013</GPH>
total landfill gas flow rate at the
common header pipe that leads to the
control system using a gas flow
measuring device calibrated according
to the provisions of section 10 of EPA
Method 2E of appendix A–1 of part 60.
(2) The average NMOC concentration,
CNMOC, must be determined by
collecting and analyzing landfill gas
sampled from the common header pipe
before the gas moving or condensate
removal equipment using the
procedures in EPA Method 25 or 25C of
appendix A–7 to part 60 of this chapter.
The sample location on the common
header pipe must be before any
condensate removal or other gas refining
units. The landfill owner or operator
must divide the NMOC concentration
from EPA Method 25 or 25C of
appendix A–7 to part 60 by 6 to convert
from CNMOC as carbon to CNMOC as
hexane.
(e) For the performance test required
in § 63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(A), the net heating
value of the combusted landfill gas as
determined in § 63.11(b)(6)(ii) is
calculated from the concentration of
methane in the landfill gas as measured
by EPA Method 3C of appendix A to
part 60 of this chapter. A minimum of
three 30-minute EPA Method 3C
samples are determined. The
measurement of other organic
components, hydrogen, and carbon
monoxide is not applicable. EPA
Method 3C may be used to determine
the landfill gas molecular weight for
calculating the flare gas exit velocity
under § 63.11(b)(7) of subpart A.
(1) Within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test (as
defined in § 63.7), the owner or operator
must submit the results of the
performance tests, including any
associated fuel analyses, required by
§ 63.1959(c) or (e) according to
§ 63.1981(i).
(2) [Reserved]
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
17267
ER26MR20.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
whichever is less. If the equipment is
installed after closure, t is the age of the
landfill at installation, years.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
Where:
Qm = Maximum expected gas generation
flow rate, m3/yr.
k = Methane generation rate constant, year¥1.
Lo = Methane generation potential, m3/Mg
solid waste.
Mi = Mass of solid waste in the ith section,
Mg.
ti = Age of the ith section, years.
(iii) If a collection and control system
has been installed, actual flow data may
be used to project the maximum
expected gas generation flow rate
instead of, or in conjunction with,
Equation 5 or Equation 6 in paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. If the
landfill is still accepting waste, the
actual measured flow data will not
equal the maximum expected gas
generation rate, so calculations using
Equation 5 or Equation 6 in paragraph
(a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section or other
methods must be used to predict the
maximum expected gas generation rate
over the intended period of use of the
gas control system equipment.
(2) For the purposes of determining
sufficient density of gas collectors for
compliance with
§ 63.1959(b)(2)(ii)(B)(2), the owner or
operator must design a system of
vertical wells, horizontal collectors, or
other collection devices, satisfactory to
the Administrator, capable of
controlling and extracting gas from all
portions of the landfill sufficient to meet
all operational and performance
standards.
(3) For the purpose of demonstrating
whether the gas collection system flow
rate is sufficient to determine
compliance with
§ 63.1959(b)(2)(ii)(B)(3), the owner or
operator must measure gauge pressure
in the gas collection header applied to
each individual well monthly. Any
attempted corrective measure must not
cause exceedances of other operational
or performance standards. An
alternative timeline for correcting the
exceedance may be submitted to the
Administrator for approval. If a positive
pressure exists, follow the procedures as
specified in § 60.755(a)(3), except:
(i) Beginning no later than September
27, 2021, if a positive pressure exists,
action must be initiated to correct the
exceedance within 5 days, except for the
three conditions allowed under
§ 63.1958(b).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
c = Time since closure, years (for an active
landfill c = 0 and e¥kc = 1).
2 = Constant.
(ii) For sites with known year-to-year
solid waste acceptance rate:
(A) If negative pressure cannot be
achieved without excess air infiltration
within 15 days of the first measurement
of positive pressure, the owner or
operator must conduct a root cause
analysis and correct the exceedance as
soon as practicable, but no later than 60
days after positive pressure was first
measured. The owner or operator must
keep records according to
§ 63.1983(e)(3).
(B) If corrective actions cannot be
fully implemented within 60 days
following the positive pressure
measurement for which the root cause
analysis was required, the owner or
operator must also conduct a corrective
action analysis and develop an
implementation schedule to complete
the corrective action(s) as soon as
practicable, but no more than 120 days
following the positive pressure
measurement. The owner or operator
must submit the items listed in
§ 63.1981(h)(7) as part of the next semiannual report. The owner or operator
must keep records according to
§ 63.1983(e)(5).
(C) If corrective action is expected to
take longer than 120 days to complete
after the initial exceedance, the owner
or operator must submit the root cause
analysis, corrective action analysis, and
corresponding implementation timeline
to the Administrator, according to
§ 63.1981(j). The owner or operator must
keep records according to
§ 63.1983(e)(5).
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) Where an owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
seeks to demonstrate compliance with
the temperature and nitrogen or oxygen
operational standards in introductory
paragraph § 63.1958(c), for the purpose
of identifying whether excess air
infiltration into the landfill is occurring,
the owner or operator must follow the
procedures as specified in § 60.755(a)(5)
of this chapter, except:
(i) Once an owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart seeks to
demonstrate compliance with the
operational standard for temperature in
§ 63.1958(c)(1), the owner or operator
must monitor each well monthly for
temperature. If a well exceeds the
operating parameter for temperature as
provided in § 63.1958(c)(1), action must
be initiated to correct the exceedance
within 5 days. Any attempted corrective
measure must not cause exceedances of
other operational or performance
standards.
(A) If a landfill gas temperature less
than or equal to 62.8 degrees Celsius
(145 degrees Fahrenheit) cannot be
achieved within 15 days of the first
measurement of landfill gas temperature
greater than 62.8 degrees Celsius (145
degrees Fahrenheit), the owner or
operator must conduct a root cause
analysis and correct the exceedance as
soon as practicable, but no later than 60
days after a landfill gas temperature
greater than 62.8 degrees Celsius (145
degrees Fahrenheit) was first measured.
The owner or operator must keep
records according to § 63.1983(e)(3).
(B) If corrective actions cannot be
fully implemented within 60 days
following the temperature measurement
for which the root cause analysis was
required, the owner or operator must
also conduct a corrective action analysis
and develop an implementation
schedule to complete the corrective
action(s) as soon as practicable, but no
more than 120 days following the
measurement of landfill gas temperature
greater than 62.8 degrees Celsius (145
degrees Fahrenheit). The owner or
operator must submit the items listed in
§ 63.1981(h)(7) as part of the next semiannual report. The owner or operator
must keep records according to
§ 63.1983(e)(4).
(C) If corrective action is expected to
take longer than 120 days to complete
after the initial exceedance, the owner
or operator must submit the root cause
analysis, corrective action analysis, and
corresponding implementation timeline
to the Administrator, according to
§ 63.1981(h)(7) and (j). The owner or
operator must keep records according to
§ 63.1983(e)(5).
(D) If a landfill gas temperature
measured at either the wellhead or at
any point in the well is greater than or
equal to 76.7 degrees Celsius (170
degrees Fahrenheit) and the carbon
monoxide concentration measured,
according to the procedures in
§ 63.1961(a)(5)(vi) is greater than or
equal to 1,000 ppmv the corrective
action(s) for the wellhead temperature
standard (62.8 degrees Celsius or 145
degrees Fahrenheit) must be completed
within 15 days.
(5) An owner or operator seeking to
demonstrate compliance with
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
ER26MR20.008</GPH>
17268
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
§ 63.1959(b)(2)(ii)(B)(4) through the use
of a collection system not conforming to
the specifications provided in § 63.1962
must provide information satisfactory to
the Administrator as specified in
§ 63.1981(c)(3) demonstrating that offsite migration is being controlled.
(b) For purposes of compliance with
§ 63.1958(a), each owner or operator of
a controlled landfill must place each
well or design component as specified
in the approved design plan as provided
in § 63.1981(b). Each well must be
installed no later than 60 days after the
date on which the initial solid waste has
been in place for a period of:
(1) 5 years or more if active; or
(2) 2 years or more if closed or at final
grade.
(c) The following procedures must be
used for compliance with the surface
methane operational standard as
provided in § 63.1958(d).
(1) After installation and startup of
the gas collection system, the owner or
operator must monitor surface
concentrations of methane along the
entire perimeter of the collection area
and along a pattern that traverses the
landfill at 30 meter intervals (or a sitespecific established spacing) for each
collection area on a quarterly basis
using an organic vapor analyzer, flame
ionization detector, or other portable
monitor meeting the specifications
provided in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(2) The background concentration
must be determined by moving the
probe inlet upwind and downwind
outside the boundary of the landfill at
a distance of at least 30 meters from the
perimeter wells.
(3) Surface emission monitoring must
be performed in accordance with
section 8.3.1 of EPA Method 21 of
appendix A–7 of part 60 of this chapter,
except that the probe inlet must be
placed within 5 to 10 centimeters of the
ground. Monitoring must be performed
during typical meteorological
conditions.
(4) Any reading of 500 ppm or more
above background at any location must
be recorded as a monitored exceedance
and the actions specified in paragraphs
(c)(4)(i) through (v) of this section must
be taken. As long as the specified
actions are taken, the exceedance is not
a violation of the operational
requirements of § 63.1958(d).
(i) The location of each monitored
exceedance must be marked and the
location and concentration recorded.
Beginning no later than September 27,
2021, the location must be recorded
using an instrument with an accuracy of
at least 4 meters. The coordinates must
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
be in decimal degrees with at least five
decimal places.
(ii) Cover maintenance or adjustments
to the vacuum of the adjacent wells to
increase the gas collection in the
vicinity of each exceedance must be
made and the location must be remonitored within 10 days of detecting
the exceedance.
(iii) If the re-monitoring of the
location shows a second exceedance,
additional corrective action must be
taken and the location must be
monitored again within 10 days of the
second exceedance. If the re-monitoring
shows a third exceedance for the same
location, the action specified in
paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section must
be taken, and no further monitoring of
that location is required until the action
specified in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this
section has been taken.
(iv) Any location that initially showed
an exceedance but has a methane
concentration less than 500 ppm
methane above background at the 10day re-monitoring specified in
paragraph (c)(4)(ii) or (iii) of this section
must be re-monitored 1 month from the
initial exceedance. If the 1-month remonitoring shows a concentration less
than 500 ppm above background, no
further monitoring of that location is
required until the next quarterly
monitoring period. If the 1-month remonitoring shows an exceedance, the
actions specified in paragraph (c)(4)(iii)
or (v) of this section must be taken.
(v) For any location where monitored
methane concentration equals or
exceeds 500 ppm above background
three times within a quarterly period, a
new well or other collection device
must be installed within 120 days of the
initial exceedance. An alternative
remedy to the exceedance, such as
upgrading the blower, header pipes or
control device, and a corresponding
timeline for installation may be
submitted to the Administrator for
approval.
(5) The owner or operator must
implement a program to monitor for
cover integrity and implement cover
repairs as necessary on a monthly basis.
(d) Each owner or operator seeking to
comply with the provisions in
paragraph (c) of this section must
comply with the following
instrumentation specifications and
procedures for surface emission
monitoring devices:
(1) The portable analyzer must meet
the instrument specifications provided
in section 6 of EPA Method 21 of
appendix A of part 60 of this chapter,
except that ‘‘methane’’ replaces all
references to ‘‘VOC’’.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17269
(2) The calibration gas must be
methane, diluted to a nominal
concentration of 500 ppm in air.
(3) To meet the performance
evaluation requirements in section 8.1
of EPA Method 21 of appendix A of part
60 of this chapter, the instrument
evaluation procedures of section 8.1 of
EPA Method 21 of appendix A of part
60 must be used.
(4) The calibration procedures
provided in sections 8 and 10 of EPA
Method 21 of appendix A of part 60 of
this chapter must be followed
immediately before commencing a
surface monitoring survey.
(e)(1) Where an owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
seeks to demonstrate compliance with
the operational standards in
introductory paragraph § 63.1958(e), the
provisions of this subpart apply at all
times, except during periods of SSM,
provided that the duration of SSM does
not exceed 5 days for collection systems
and does not exceed 1 hour for
treatment or control devices. You must
comply with the provisions in Table 1
to subpart AAAA that apply before
September 28, 2021.
(2) Once an owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart seeks to
demonstrate compliance with the
operational standard in § 63.1958(c)(1),
the provisions of this subpart apply at
all times, including periods of SSM.
During periods of SSM, you must
comply with the work practice
requirement specified in § 63.1958(e) in
lieu of the compliance provisions in
§ 63.1960.
§ 63.1961
Monitoring of operations.
Except as provided in § 63.1981(d)(2):
(a) Each owner or operator seeking to
comply with § 63.1959(b)(2)(ii)(B) for an
active gas collection system must install
a sampling port and a thermometer,
other temperature measuring device, or
an access port for temperature
measurements at each wellhead and:
(1) Measure the gauge pressure in the
gas collection header on a monthly basis
as provided in § 63.1960(a)(3); and
(2) Monitor nitrogen or oxygen
concentration in the landfill gas on a
monthly basis as follows:
(i) The nitrogen level must be
determined using EPA Method 3C of
appendix A–2 to part 60 of this chapter,
unless an alternative test method is
established as allowed by
§ 63.1981(d)(2).
(ii) Unless an alternative test method
is established as allowed by
§ 63.1981(d)(2), the oxygen level must
be determined by an oxygen meter using
EPA Method 3A or 3C of appendix A–
2 to part 60 of this chapter or ASTM
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
17270
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
D6522–11 (incorporated by reference,
see § 63.14). Determine the oxygen level
by an oxygen meter using EPA Method
3A or 3C of appendix A–2 to part 60 or
ASTM D6522–11 (if sample location is
prior to combustion) except that:
(A) The span must be set between 10and 12-percent oxygen;
(B) A data recorder is not required;
(C) Only two calibration gases are
required, a zero and span;
(D) A calibration error check is not
required; and
(E) The allowable sample bias, zero
drift, and calibration drift are ±10
percent.
(iii) A portable gas composition
analyzer may be used to monitor the
oxygen levels provided:
(A) The analyzer is calibrated; and
(B) The analyzer meets all quality
assurance and quality control
requirements for EPA Method 3A of
appendix A–2 to part 60 of this chapter
or ASTM D6522–11 (incorporated by
reference, see § 63.14).
(3) Where an owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
seeks to demonstrate compliance with
the temperature and nitrogen or oxygen
operational standards in introductory
paragraph § 63.1958(c), the owner or
operator must follow the procedures as
specified in § 60.756(a)(2) and (3) of this
chapter. Monitor temperature of the
landfill gas on a monthly basis as
provided in § 63.1960(a)(4). The
temperature measuring device must be
calibrated annually using the procedure
in Section 10.3 of EPA Method 2 of
appendix A–1 to part 60 of this chapter.
(4) Where an owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
seeks to demonstrate compliance with
the operational standard for temperature
in § 63.1958(c)(1), monitor temperature
of the landfill gas on a monthly basis as
provided in § 63.1960(a)(4). The
temperature measuring device must be
calibrated annually using the procedure
in Section 10.3 of EPA Method 2 of
appendix A–1 to part 60 of this chapter.
Keep records specified in § 63.1983(e).
(5) Where an owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
seeks to demonstrate compliance with
the operational standard for temperature
in § 63.1958(c)(1), unless a higher
operating temperature value has been
approved by the Administrator under
this subpart or under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW; 40 CFR part 60, subpart
XXX; or a federal plan or EPA-approved
and effective state plan or tribal plan
that implements either 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cc or 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Cf, you must initiate enhanced
monitoring at each well with a
measurement of landfill gas temperature
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
greater than 62.8 degrees Celsius (145
degrees Fahrenheit) as follows:
(i) Visual observations for subsurface
oxidation events (smoke, smoldering
ash, damage to well) within the radius
of influence of the well.
(ii) Monitor oxygen concentration as
provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section;
(iii) Monitor temperature of the
landfill gas at the wellhead as provided
in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(iv) Monitor temperature of the
landfill gas every 10 vertical feet of the
well as provided in paragraph (a)(6) of
this section.
(v) Monitor the methane
concentration with a methane meter
using EPA Method 3C of appendix A–
6 to part 60, EPA Method 18 of
appendix A–6 to part 60 of this chapter,
or a portable gas composition analyzer
to monitor the methane levels provided
that the analyzer is calibrated and the
analyzer meets all quality assurance and
quality control requirements for EPA
Method 3C or EPA Method 18.
(vi) Monitor carbon monoxide
concentrations, as follows:
(A) Collect the sample from the
wellhead sampling port in a passivated
canister or multi-layer foil gas sampling
bag (such as the Cali-5-Bond Bag) and
analyze that sample using EPA Method
10 of appendix A–4 to part 60 of this
chapter, or an equivalent method with
a detection limit of at least 100 ppmv of
carbon monoxide in high concentrations
of methane; and
(B) Collect and analyze the sample
from the wellhead using EPA Method 10
of appendix A–4 to part 60 to measure
carbon monoxide concentrations.
(vii) The enhanced monitoring this
paragraph (a)(5) must begin 7 days after
the first measurement of landfill gas
temperature greater than 62.8 degrees
Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit); and
(viii) The enhanced monitoring in this
paragraph (a)(5) must be conducted on
a weekly basis. If four consecutive
weekly carbon monoxide readings are
under 100 ppmv, then enhanced
monitoring may be decreased to
monthly. However, if carbon monoxide
readings exceed 100 ppmv again, the
landfill must return to weekly
monitoring.
(ix) The enhanced monitoring in this
paragraph (a)(5) can be stopped once a
higher operating value is approved, at
which time the monitoring provisions
issued with the higher operating value
should be followed, or once the
measurement of landfill gas temperature
at the wellhead is less than or equal to
62.8 degrees Celsius (145 degrees
Fahrenheit).
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(6) For each wellhead with a
measurement of landfill gas temperature
greater than or equal to 73.9 degrees
Celsius (165 degrees Fahrenheit),
annually monitor temperature of the
landfill gas every 10 vertical feet of the
well. This temperature can be
monitored either with a removable
thermometer, or using temporary or
permanent thermocouples installed in
the well.
(b) Each owner or operator seeking to
comply with § 63.1959(b)(2)(iii) using
an enclosed combustor must calibrate,
maintain, and operate according to the
manufacturer’s specifications, the
following equipment:
(1) A temperature monitoring device
equipped with a continuous recorder
and having a minimum accuracy of ±1
percent of the temperature being
measured expressed in degrees Celsius
or ±0.5 degrees Celsius, whichever is
greater. A temperature monitoring
device is not required for boilers or
process heaters with design heat input
capacity equal to or greater than 44
megawatts.
(2) A device that records flow to the
control device and bypass of the control
device (if applicable). The owner or
operator must:
(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a
gas flow rate measuring device that
must record the flow to the control
device at least every 15 minutes; and
(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the
closed position with a car-seal or a lockand-key type configuration. A visual
inspection of the seal or closure
mechanism must be performed at least
once every month to ensure that the
valve is maintained in the closed
position and that the gas flow is not
diverted through the bypass line.
(c) Each owner or operator seeking to
comply with § 63.1959(b)(2)(iii) using a
non-enclosed flare must install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate
according to the manufacturer’s
specifications the following equipment:
(1) A heat sensing device, such as an
ultraviolet beam sensor or
thermocouple, at the pilot light or the
flame itself to indicate the continuous
presence of a flame; and
(2) A device that records flow to the
flare and bypass of the flare (if
applicable). The owner or operator
must:
(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a
gas flow rate measuring device that
records the flow to the control device at
least every 15 minutes; and
(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the
closed position with a car-seal or a lockand-key type configuration. A visual
inspection of the seal or closure
mechanism must be performed at least
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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
§ 63.1959(b)(2)(iii) using a device other
than a non-enclosed flare or an enclosed
combustor or a treatment system must
provide information satisfactory to the
Administrator as provided in
§ 63.1981(d)(2) describing the operation
of the control device, the operating
parameters that would indicate proper
performance, and appropriate
monitoring procedures. The
Administrator must review the
information and either approve it, or
request that additional information be
submitted. The Administrator may
specify additional appropriate
monitoring procedures.
(e) Each owner or operator seeking to
install a collection system that does not
meet the specifications in § 63.1962 or
seeking to monitor alternative
parameters to those required by
§§ 63.1958 through 63.1961 must
provide information satisfactory to the
Administrator as provided in
§ 63.1981(d)(2) and (3) describing the
design and operation of the collection
system, the operating parameters that
would indicate proper performance, and
appropriate monitoring procedures. The
Administrator may specify additional
appropriate monitoring procedures.
(f) Each owner or operator seeking to
demonstrate compliance with the 500ppm surface methane operational
standard in § 63.1958(d) must monitor
surface concentrations of methane
according to the procedures in
§ 63.1960(c) and the instrument
specifications in § 63.1960(d). If you are
complying with the 500-ppm surface
methane operational standard in
§ 63.1958(d)(2), for location, you must
determine the latitude and longitude
coordinates of each exceedance using an
instrument with an accuracy of at least
4 meters and the coordinates must be in
decimal degrees with at least five
decimal places. In the semi-annual
report in 63.1981(i), you must report the
location of each exceedance of the 500ppm methane concentration as provided
in § 63.1958(d) and the concentration
recorded at each location for which an
exceedance was recorded in the
previous month. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
frequency for that landfill to quarterly
monitoring.
(g) Each owner or operator seeking to
demonstrate compliance with
§ 63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(C) using a landfill
gas treatment system must calibrate,
maintain, and operate according to the
manufacturer’s specifications a device
that records flow to the treatment
system and bypass of the treatment
system (if applicable). Beginning no
later than September 27, 2021, each
owner or operator must maintain and
operate all monitoring systems
associated with the treatment system in
accordance with the site-specific
treatment system monitoring plan
required in § 63.1983(b)(5)(ii). The
owner or operator must:
(1) Install, calibrate, and maintain a
gas flow rate measuring device that
records the flow to the treatment system
at least every 15 minutes; and
(2) Secure the bypass line valve in the
closed position with a car-seal or a lockand-key type configuration. A visual
inspection of the seal or closure
mechanism must be performed at least
once every month to ensure that the
valve is maintained in the closed
position and that the gas flow is not
diverted through the bypass line.
(h) The monitoring requirements of
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (g) of
this section apply at all times the
affected source is operating, except for
periods of monitoring system
malfunctions, repairs associated with
monitoring system malfunctions, and
required monitoring system quality
assurance or quality control activities. A
monitoring system malfunction is any
sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable failure of the monitoring
system to provide valid data.
Monitoring system failures that are
caused in part by poor maintenance or
careless operation are not malfunctions.
You are required to complete
monitoring system repairs in response
to monitoring system malfunctions and
to return the monitoring system to
operation as expeditiously as
practicable. Where an owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
seeks to demonstrate compliance with
the temperature and nitrogen or oxygen
operational standards in introductory
paragraph § 63.1958(c)(1), (d)(2), and
(e)(1), the standards apply at all times.
§ 63.1962 Specifications for active
collection systems.
(a) Each owner or operator seeking to
comply with § 63.1959(b)(2)(i) must site
active collection wells, horizontal
collectors, surface collectors, or other
extraction devices at a sufficient density
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17271
throughout all gas producing areas using
the following procedures unless
alternative procedures have been
approved by the Administrator as
provided in § 63.1981(d)(2) and (3):
(1) The collection devices within the
interior must be certified to achieve
comprehensive control of surface gas
emissions by a professional engineer.
The following issues must be addressed
in the design: Depths of refuse, refuse
gas generation rates and flow
characteristics, cover properties, gas
system expandability, leachate and
condensate management, accessibility,
compatibility with filling operations,
integration with closure end use, air
intrusion control, corrosion resistance,
fill settlement, resistance to the refuse
decomposition heat, and ability to
isolate individual components or
sections for repair or troubleshooting
without shutting down entire collection
system.
(2) The sufficient density of gas
collection devices determined in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section must
address landfill gas migration issues and
augmentation of the collection system
through the use of active or passive
systems at the landfill perimeter or
exterior.
(3) The placement of gas collection
devices determined in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section must control all gas
producing areas, except as provided by
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this
section.
(i) Any segregated area of asbestos or
nondegradable material may be
excluded from collection if documented
as provided under § 63.1983(d). The
documentation must provide the nature,
date of deposition, location and amount
of asbestos or nondegradable material
deposited in the area and must be
provided to the Administrator upon
request.
(ii) Any nonproductive area of the
landfill may be excluded from control,
provided that the total of all excluded
areas can be shown to contribute less
than 1 percent of the total amount of
NMOC emissions from the landfill. The
amount, location, and age of the
material must be documented and
provided to the Administrator upon
request. A separate NMOC emissions
estimate must be made for each section
proposed for exclusion, and the sum of
all such sections must be compared to
the NMOC emissions estimate for the
entire landfill.
(A) The NMOC emissions from each
section proposed for exclusion must be
computed using Equation 7:
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
Where:
Qi = NMOC emission rate from the ith
section, Mg/yr.
k = Methane generation rate constant, year
¥1.
Lo = Methane generation potential, m3/Mg
solid waste.
Mi = Mass of the degradable solid waste in
the ith section, Mg.
ti = Age of the solid waste in the ith section,
years.
CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, ppmv.
3.6 × 10¥9 = Conversion factor.
(B) If the owner/operator is proposing
to exclude, or cease gas collection and
control from, nonproductive physically
separated (e.g., separately lined) closed
areas that already have gas collection
systems, NMOC emissions from each
physically separated closed area must
be computed using either Equation 3 in
§ 63.1959(c) or Equation 7 in paragraph
(a)(3)(ii)(A) of this section.
(iii) The values for k and CNMOC
determined in field testing must be used
if field testing has been performed in
determining the NMOC emission rate or
the radii of influence (the distance from
the well center to a point in the landfill
where the pressure gradient applied by
the blower or compressor approaches
zero). If field testing has not been
performed, the default values for k, Lo
and CNMOC provided in § 63.1959(a)(1)
or the alternative values from
§ 63.1959(a)(5) must be used. The mass
of nondegradable solid waste contained
within the given section may be
subtracted from the total mass of the
section when estimating emissions
provided the nature, location, age, and
amount of the nondegradable material is
documented as provided in paragraph
(a)(3)(i) of this section.
(b) Each owner or operator seeking to
comply with § 63.1959(b)(2)(ii) must
construct the gas collection devices
using the following equipment or
procedures:
(1) The landfill gas extraction
components must be constructed of
polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high density
polyethylene (HDPE) pipe, fiberglass,
stainless steel, or other nonporous
corrosion resistant material of suitable
dimensions to: Convey projected
amounts of gases; withstand
installation, static, and settlement
forces; and withstand planned
overburden or traffic loads. The
collection system must extend as
necessary to comply with emission and
migration standards. Collection devices
such as wells and horizontal collectors
must be perforated to allow gas entry
without head loss sufficient to impair
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
performance across the intended extent
of control. Perforations must be situated
with regard to the need to prevent
excessive air infiltration.
(2) Vertical wells must be placed so as
not to endanger underlying liners and
must address the occurrence of water
within the landfill. Holes and trenches
constructed for piped wells and
horizontal collectors must be of
sufficient cross-section so as to allow for
their proper construction and
completion including, for example,
centering of pipes and placement of
gravel backfill. Collection devices must
be designed so as not to allow indirect
short circuiting of air into the cover or
refuse into the collection system or gas
into the air. Any gravel used around
pipe perforations should be of a
dimension so as not to penetrate or
block perforations.
(3) Collection devices may be
connected to the collection header pipes
below or above the landfill surface. The
connector assembly must include a
positive closing throttle valve, any
necessary seals and couplings, access
couplings and at least one sampling
port. The collection devices must be
constructed of PVC, HDPE, fiberglass,
stainless steel, or other nonporous
material of suitable thickness.
(c) Each owner or operator seeking to
comply with § 63.1959(b)(2)(iii) must
convey the landfill gas to a control
system in compliance with
§ 63.1959(b)(2)(iii) through the
collection header pipe(s). The gas mover
equipment must be sized to handle the
maximum gas generation flow rate
expected over the intended use period
of the gas moving equipment using the
following procedures:
(1) For existing collection systems, the
flow data must be used to project the
maximum flow rate. If no flow data
exists, the procedures in paragraph
(c)(2) of this section must be used.
(2) For new collection systems, the
maximum flow rate must be in
accordance with § 63.1960(a)(1).
General and Continuing Compliance
Requirements
§ 63.1964
How is compliance determined?
Compliance is determined using
performance testing, collection system
monitoring, continuous parameter
monitoring, and other credible
evidence. In addition, continuous
parameter monitoring data collected
under § 63.1961(b)(1), (c)(1), and (d) are
used to demonstrate compliance with
the operating standards for control
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
systems. If a deviation occurs, you have
failed to meet the control device
operating standards described in this
subpart and have deviated from the
requirements of this subpart.
(a) Before September 28, 2021, you
must develop a written SSM plan
according to the provisions in
§ 63.6(e)(3) of subpart A. A copy of the
SSM plan must be maintained on site.
Failure to write or maintain a copy of
the SSM plan is a deviation from the
requirements of this subpart.
(b) After September 27, 2021, the SSM
provisions of § 63.6(e) of subpart A no
longer apply to this subpart and the
SSM plan developed under paragraph
(a) of this section no longer applies.
Compliance with the emissions
standards and the operating standards of
§ 63.1958 of this subpart is required at
all times.
§ 63.1965
What is a deviation?
A deviation is defined in § 63.1990.
For the purposes of the landfill
monitoring and SSM plan requirements,
deviations include the items in
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section.
(a) A deviation occurs when the
control device operating parameter
boundaries described in § 63.1983(c)(1)
are exceeded.
(b) A deviation occurs when 1 hour or
more of the hours during the 3-hour
block averaging period does not
constitute a valid hour of data. A valid
hour of data must have measured values
for at least three 15-minute monitoring
periods within the hour.
(c) Before September 28, 2021, a
deviation occurs when a SSM plan is
not developed or maintained on site and
when an affected source fails to meet
any emission limitation, (including any
operating limit), or work practice
requirement in this subpart during SSM,
regardless of whether or not such failure
is permitted by this subpart.
§ 63.1975 How do I calculate the 3-hour
block average used to demonstrate
compliance?
Before September 28, 2021, averages
are calculated in the same way as they
are calculated in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW (§ 60.758(b)(2)(i) for
average combustion temperature and
§ 60.758(c) for 3-hour average
combustion temperature for enclosed
combustors), except that the data
collected during the events listed in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section
are not to be included in any average
computed under this subpart. Beginning
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
ER26MR20.010</GPH>
17272
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
no later than September 27, 2021,
averages are calculated according to
§§ 63.1983(b)(2)(i) and 63.1983(c)(1)(i)
and the data collected during the events
listed in paragraphs (a) through (d) of
this section are included in any average
computed under this subpart.
(a) Monitoring system breakdowns,
repairs, calibration checks, and zero
(low-level) and high-level adjustments.
(b) Startups.
(c) Shutdowns.
(d) Malfunctions.
Notifications, Records, and Reports
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
§ 63.1981
What reports must I submit?
You must submit the reports specified
in this section and the reports specified
in Table 1 to this subpart. If you have
previously submitted a design capacity
report, amended design capacity report,
initial NMOC emission rate report,
initial or revised collection and control
system design plan, closure report,
equipment removal report, or initial
performance test under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW; 40 CFR part 60, subpart
XXX; or a federal plan or EPA-approved
and effective state plan or tribal plan
that implements either 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cc or 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Cf, then that submission constitutes
compliance with the design capacity
report in paragraph (a) of this section,
the amended design capacity report in
paragraph (b) of this section, the initial
NMOC emission rate report in
paragraph (c) of this section, the initial
collection and control system design
plan in paragraph (d) of this section, the
revised design plan in paragraph (e) of
this section, the closure report in
paragraph (f) of this section, the
equipment removal report in paragraph
(g) of this section, and the initial
performance test report in paragraph (i)
of this section. You do not need to resubmit the report(s). However, you must
include a statement certifying prior
submission of the respective report(s)
and the date of submittal in the first
semi-annual report required in this
section.
(a) Initial design capacity report. The
initial design capacity report must
contain the information specified in
§ 60.757(a)(2) of this chapter, except
beginning no later than September 28,
2021, the report must contain:
(1) A map or plot of the landfill,
providing the size and location of the
landfill, and identifying all areas where
solid waste may be landfilled according
to the permit issued by the state, local,
or tribal agency responsible for
regulating the landfill.
(2) The maximum design capacity of
the landfill. Where the maximum design
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
capacity is specified in the permit
issued by the state, local, or tribal
agency responsible for regulating the
landfill, a copy of the permit specifying
the maximum design capacity may be
submitted as part of the report. If the
maximum design capacity of the landfill
is not specified in the permit, the
maximum design capacity must be
calculated using good engineering
practices. The calculations must be
provided, along with the relevant
parameters as part of the report. The
landfill may calculate design capacity in
either Mg or m3 for comparison with the
exemption values. If the owner or
operator chooses to convert the design
capacity from volume to mass or from
mass to volume to demonstrate its
design capacity is less than 2.5 million
Mg or 2.5 million m3, the calculation
must include a site-specific density,
which must be recalculated annually.
Any density conversions must be
documented and submitted with the
design capacity report. The state, tribal,
local agency or Administrator may
request other reasonable information as
may be necessary to verify the
maximum design capacity of the
landfill.
(b) Amended design capacity report.
An amended design capacity report
must be submitted to the Administrator
providing notification of an increase in
the design capacity of the landfill,
within 90 days of an increase in the
maximum design capacity of the landfill
to meet or exceed 2.5 million Mg and
2.5 million m3. 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 § 63.1983(f).
(c) NMOC emission rate report. Each
owner or operator subject to the
requirements of this subpart must
submit a copy of the latest NMOC
emission rate report that was submitted
according to § 60.757(b) of this chapter
or submit an NMOC emission rate report
to the Administrator initially and
annually thereafter, except as provided
for in paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(A) of this
section. The Administrator may request
such additional information as may be
necessary to verify the reported NMOC
emission rate. If you have submitted an
annual report under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW; 40 CFR part 60, subpart
XXX; or a Federal plan or EPA-approved
and effective state plan or tribal plan
that implements either 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cc or 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Cf, then that submission constitutes
compliance with the annual NMOC
emission rate report in this paragraph.
You do not need to re-submit the annual
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17273
report for the current year. Beginning no
later than September 27, 2021, the
report must meet the following
requirements:
(1) The NMOC emission rate report
must contain an annual or 5-year
estimate of the NMOC emission rate
calculated using the formula and
procedures provided in § 63.1959(a) or
(b), as applicable.
(i) The initial NMOC emission rate
report must be submitted no later than
90 days after the date of commenced
construction, modification, or
reconstruction for landfills that
commence construction, modification,
or reconstruction on or after March 12,
1996.
(ii) Subsequent NMOC emission rate
reports must be submitted annually
thereafter, except as provided for in
paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(A) of this section.
(A) If the estimated NMOC emission
rate as reported in the annual report to
the Administrator is less than 50 Mg/yr
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 must include the current
amount of solid waste-in-place and the
estimated waste acceptance rate for each
year of the 5 years for which an NMOC
emission rate is estimated. All data and
calculations upon which this estimate is
based must be provided to the
Administrator. This estimate must be
revised at least once every 5 years. If the
actual waste acceptance rate exceeds the
estimated waste acceptance rate in any
year reported in the 5-year estimate, a
revised 5-year estimate must be
submitted to the Administrator. The
revised estimate must cover the 5-year
period beginning with the year in which
the actual waste acceptance rate
exceeded the estimated waste
acceptance rate.
(B) The report must be submitted
following the procedure specified in
paragraph (l)(2) of this section.
(2) The NMOC emission rate report
must include all the data, calculations,
sample reports and measurements used
to estimate the annual or 5-year
emissions.
(3) Each owner or operator subject to
the requirements of this subpart is
exempted from the requirements to
submit an NMOC emission rate report,
after installing a collection and control
system that complies with
§ 63.1959(b)(2), during such time as the
collection and control system is in
operation and in compliance with
§§ 63.1958 and 63.1960.
(d) Collection and control system
design plan. Each owner or operator
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
17274
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
subject to the provisions of
§ 63.1959(b)(2) must submit a collection
and control system design plan to the
Administrator for approval according to
§ 60.757(c) of this chapter and the
schedule in § 60.757(c)(1) and (2).
Beginning no later than September 27,
2021, each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of § 63.1959(b)(2) must
submit a collection and control system
design plan to the Administrator
according to paragraphs (d)(1) through
(6) of this section. The collection and
control system design plan must be
prepared and approved by a
professional engineer.
(1) The collection and control system
as described in the design plan must
meet the design requirements in
§ 63.1959(b)(2).
(2) The collection and control system
design plan must include any
alternatives to the operational
standards, test methods, procedures,
compliance measures, monitoring,
recordkeeping or reporting provisions of
§§ 63.1957 through 63.1983 proposed by
the owner or operator.
(3) The collection and control system
design plan must either conform with
specifications for active collection
systems in § 63.1962 or include a
demonstration to the Administrator’s
satisfaction of the sufficiency of the
alternative provisions to § 63.1962.
(4) Each owner or operator of an MSW
landfill affected by this subpart must
submit a collection and control system
design plan to the Administrator for
approval within 1 year of becoming
subject to this subpart.
(5) The landfill owner or operator
must notify the Administrator that the
design plan is completed and submit a
copy of the plan’s signature page. The
Administrator has 90 days to decide
whether the design plan should be
submitted for review. If the
Administrator chooses to review the
plan, the approval process continues as
described in paragraph (d)(6) of this
section. In the event that the design plan
is required to be modified to obtain
approval, the owner or operator must
take any steps necessary to conform any
prior actions to the approved design
plan and any failure to do so could
result in an enforcement action.
(6) Upon receipt of an initial or
revised design plan, the Administrator
must review the information submitted
under paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of
this section and either approve it,
disapprove it, or request that additional
information be submitted. Because of
the many site-specific factors involved
with landfill gas system design,
alternative systems may be necessary. A
wide variety of system designs are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
possible, such as vertical wells,
combination horizontal and vertical
collection systems, or horizontal
trenches only, leachate collection
components, and passive systems.
(e) Revised design plan. Beginning no
later than September 27, 2021, the
owner or operator who has already been
required to submit a design plan under
paragraph (d) of this section must
submit a revised design plan to the
Administrator for approval as follows:
(1) At least 90 days before expanding
operations to an area not covered by the
previously approved design plan.
(2) Prior to installing or expanding the
gas collection system in a way that is
not consistent with the design plan that
was submitted to the Administrator
according to paragraph (d) of this
section.
(f) Closure report. Each owner or
operator of a controlled landfill must
submit a closure report to the
Administrator within 30 days of 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
§ 258.60 of this chapter. 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 § 63.9(b) of subpart A.
(g) Equipment removal report. Each
owner or operator of a controlled
landfill must submit an equipment
removal report as provided in
§ 60.757(e) of this chapter. Each owner
or operator of a controlled landfill must
submit an equipment removal report to
the Administrator 30 days prior to
removal or cessation of operation of the
control equipment.
(1) Beginning no later than September
27, 2021, the equipment removal report
must contain all of the following items:
(i) A copy of the closure report
submitted in accordance with paragraph
(f) of this section;
(ii) A copy of the initial performance
test report demonstrating that the 15year minimum control period has
expired, or information that
demonstrates that the gas collection and
control system will be unable to operate
for 15 years due to declining gas flows.
In the equipment removal report, the
process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s)
tested, and the date that such
performance test was conducted may be
submitted in lieu of the performance
test report if the report has been
previously submitted to the EPA’s
Central Data Exchange (CDX); and
(iii) Dated copies of three successive
NMOC emission rate reports
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
demonstrating that the landfill is no
longer producing 50 Mg or greater of
NMOC per year. If the NMOC emission
rate reports have been previously
submitted to the EPA’s CDX, a statement
that the NMOC emission rate reports
have been submitted electronically and
the dates that the reports were
submitted to the EPA’s CDX may be
submitted in the equipment removal
report in lieu of the NMOC emission
rate reports.
(2) The Administrator may request
such additional information as may be
necessary to verify that all of the
conditions for removal in § 63.1957(b)
have been met.
(h) Semi-annual report. The owner or
operator of a landfill seeking to comply
with § 63.1959(b)(2) using an active
collection system designed in
accordance with § 63.1959(b)(2)(ii) must
submit to the Administrator semiannual reports. Beginning no later than
September 27, 2021, you must submit
the report, following the procedure
specified in paragraph (l) of this section.
The initial report must be submitted
within 180 days of installation and
startup of the collection and control
system and must include the initial
performance test report required under
§ 63.7 of subpart A, as applicable. In the
initial report, the process unit(s) tested,
the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that
such performance test was conducted
may be submitted in lieu of the
performance test report if the report has
been previously submitted to the EPA’s
CDX. For enclosed combustion devices
and flares, reportable exceedances are
defined under § 63.1983(c). The semiannual reports must contain the
information in paragraphs (h)(1) through
(8) of this section.
(1) Number of times that applicable
parameters monitored under
§ 63.1958(b), (c), and (d) were exceeded
and when the gas collection and control
system was not operating under
§ 63.1958(e), including periods of SSM.
For each instance, report the date, time,
and duration of each exceedance.
(i) Where an owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart seeks to
demonstrate compliance with the
temperature and nitrogen or oxygen
operational standards in introductory
paragraph § 63.1958(c), provide a
statement of the wellhead operational
standard for temperature and oxygen
you are complying with for the period
covered by the report. Indicate the
number of times each of those
parameters monitored under
§ 63.1961(a)(3) were exceeded. For each
instance, report the date, time, and
duration of each exceedance.
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(ii) Where an owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
seeks to demonstrate compliance with
the operational standard for temperature
in § 63.1958(c)(1), provide a statement
of the wellhead operational standard for
temperature and oxygen you are
complying with for the period covered
by the report. Indicate the number of
times each of those parameters
monitored under § 63.1961(a)(4) were
exceeded. For each instance, report the
date, time, and duration of each
exceedance.
(iii) Beginning no later than
September 27, 2021, number of times
the parameters for the site-specific
treatment system in § 63.1961(g) were
exceeded.
(2) Description and duration of all
periods when the gas stream was
diverted from the control device or
treatment system through a bypass line
or the indication of bypass flow as
specified under § 63.1961.
(3) Description and duration of all
periods when the control device or
treatment system was not operating and
length of time the control device or
treatment system was not operating.
(4) All periods when the collection
system was not operating.
(5) The location of each exceedance of
the 500-ppm methane concentration as
provided in § 63.1958(d) and the
concentration recorded at each location
for which an exceedance was recorded
in the previous month. Beginning no
later than September 27, 2021, for
location, you record the latitude and
longitude coordinates of each
exceedance using an instrument with an
accuracy of at least 4 meters. The
coordinates must be in decimal degrees
with at least five decimal places.
(6) The date of installation and the
location of each well or collection
system expansion added pursuant to
§ 63.1960(a)(3) and (4), (b), and (c)(4).
(7) For any corrective action analysis
for which corrective actions are required
in § 63.1960(a)(3)(i) or (a)(5) and that
take more than 60 days to correct the
exceedance, the root cause analysis
conducted, including a description of
the recommended corrective action(s),
the date for corrective action(s) already
completed following the positive
pressure or high temperature reading,
and, for action(s) not already completed,
a schedule for implementation,
including proposed commencement and
completion dates.
(8) Each owner or operator required to
conduct enhanced monitoring in
§§ 63.1961(a)(5) and (6) must include
the results of all monitoring activities
conducted during the period.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
(i) For each monitoring point, report
the date, time, and well identifier along
with the value and units of measure for
oxygen, temperature (wellhead and
downwell), methane, and carbon
monoxide.
(ii) Include a summary trend analysis
for each well subject to the enhanced
monitoring requirements to chart the
weekly readings over time for oxygen,
wellhead temperature, methane, and
weekly or monthly readings over time,
as applicable for carbon monoxide.
(iii) Include the date, time, staff
person name, and description of
findings for each visual observation for
subsurface oxidation event.
(i) Initial performance test report.
Each owner or operator seeking to
comply with § 63.1959(b)(2)(iii) must
include the following information with
the initial performance test report
required under § 63.7 of subpart A:
(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;
(5) The provisions for increasing gas
mover equipment capacity with
increased gas generation flow rate, if the
present gas mover equipment is
inadequate to move the maximum flow
rate expected over the life of the
landfill; and
(6) The provisions for the control of
off-site migration.
(j) Corrective action and the
corresponding timeline. The owner or
operator must submit information
regarding corrective actions according to
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) For corrective action that is
required according to § 63.1960(a)(3) or
(4) and is not completed within 60 days
after the initial exceedance, you must
submit a notification to the
Administrator as soon as practicable but
no later than 75 days after the first
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17275
measurement of positive pressure or
temperature exceedance.
(2) For corrective action that is
required according to § 63.1960(a)(3) or
(4) and is expected to take longer than
120 days after the initial exceedance to
complete, you must submit the root
cause analysis, corrective action
analysis, and corresponding
implementation timeline to the
Administrator as soon as practicable but
no later than 75 days after the first
measurement of positive pressure or
temperature monitoring value of 62.8
degrees Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit)
or above. The Administrator must
approve the plan for corrective action
and the corresponding timeline.
(k) 24-hour high temperature report.
Where an owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart seeks to
demonstrate compliance with the
operational standard for temperature in
§ 63.1958(c)(1) and a landfill gas
temperature measured at either the
wellhead or at any point in the well is
greater than or equal to 76.7 degrees
Celsius (170 degrees Fahrenheit) and the
carbon monoxide concentration
measured is greater than or equal to
1,000 ppmv, then you must report the
date, time, well identifier, temperature
and carbon monoxide reading via email
to the Administrator within 24 hours of
the measurement unless a higher
operating temperature value has been
approved by the Administrator for the
well under this subpart or under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart WWW; 40 CFR part 60,
subpart XXX; or a Federal plan or EPA
approved and effective state plan or
tribal plan that implements either 40
CFR part 60, subpart Cc or 40 CFR part
60, subpart Cf.
(l) Electronic reporting. Beginning no
later than September 27, 2021, the
owner or operator must submit reports
electronically according to paragraphs
(l)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test
required by this subpart, you must
submit the results of the performance
test following the procedures specified
in paragraphs (l)(1)(i) through (iii) of
this section.
(i) Data collected using test methods
supported by the EPA’s Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the
EPA’s ERT website (https://
www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert)
at the time of the test. Submit the results
of the performance test to the EPA via
the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can
be accessed through the EPA’s CDX
(https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be
submitted in a file format generated
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
17276
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
through the use of the EPA’s ERT.
Alternatively, you may submit an
electronic file consistent with the
extensible markup language (XML)
schema listed on the EPA’s ERT
website.
(ii) Data collected using test methods
that are not supported by the EPA’s ERT
as listed on the EPA’s ERT website at
the time of the test. The results of the
performance test must be included as an
attachment in the ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA’s ERT
website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via
CEDRI.
(iii) Confidential business information
(CBI). If you claim some of the
information submitted under paragraph
(a) of this section is CBI, you must
submit a complete file, including
information claimed to be CBI, to the
EPA. The file must be generated through
the use of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA’s ERT
website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly
used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail
the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention:
Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd.,
Durham, NC 27703. The same file with
the CBI omitted must be submitted to
the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described
in paragraph (l)(1)(i) of this section.
(2) Each owner or operator required to
submit reports following the procedure
specified in this paragraph must submit
reports to the EPA via CEDRI. CEDRI
can be accessed through the EPA’s CDX.
The owner or operator must use the
appropriate electronic report in CEDRI
for this subpart or an alternate
electronic file format consistent with the
XML schema listed on the CEDRI
website (https://www.epa.gov/
electronic-reporting-air-emissions/
compliance-and-emissions-datareporting-interface-cedri). Once the
spreadsheet template upload/forms for
the reports have been available in
CEDRI for 90 days, the owner or
operator must begin submitting all
subsequent reports via CEDRI. The
reports must be submitted by the
deadlines specified in this subpart,
regardless of the method in which the
reports are submitted. The NMOC
emission rate reports, semi-annual
reports, and bioreactor 40-percent
moisture reports should be
electronically reported as a spreadsheet
template upload/form to CEDRI. If the
reporting forms specific to this subpart
are not available in CEDRI at the time
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
that the reports are due, the owner or
operator must submit the reports to the
Administrator at the appropriate
address listed in § 63.13 of subpart A.
(m) Claims of EPA system outage.
Beginning no later than September 27,
2021, if you are required to
electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, you may
assert a claim of EPA system outage for
failure to comply timely with the
reporting requirement. To assert a claim
of EPA system outage, you must meet
the following requirements:
(1) You must have been or will be
precluded from accessing CEDRI and
submitting a required report within the
time prescribed due to an outage of
either the EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred
within the period of time beginning 5
business days prior to the date that the
submission is due.
(3) The outage may be planned or
unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to
the Administrator in writing as soon as
possible following the date you first
knew, or through due diligence should
have known, that the event may cause
or has caused a delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the
Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX
or CEDRI was accessed and the system
was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the
delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to
minimize the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to
report, or if you have already met the
reporting requirement at the time of the
notification, the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim
of EPA system outage and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is
solely within the discretion of the
Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report
must be submitted electronically as
soon as possible after the outage is
resolved.
(n) Claims of force majeure. Beginning
no later than September 2, 2021, if you
are required to electronically submit a
report through CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX,
you may assert a claim of force majeure
for failure to comply timely with the
reporting requirement. To assert a claim
of force majeure, you must meet the
following requirements:
(1) You may submit a claim if a force
majeure event is about to occur, occurs,
or has occurred or there are lingering
effects from such an event within the
period of time beginning 5 business
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
days prior to the date the submission is
due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an
event that will be or has been caused by
circumstances beyond the control of the
affected facility, its contractors, or any
entity controlled by the affected facility
that prevents you from complying with
the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period
prescribed. Examples of such events are
acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes,
earthquakes, or floods), acts of war or
terrorism, or equipment failure or safety
hazard beyond the control of the
affected facility (e.g., large scale power
outage).
(2) You must submit notification to
the Administrator in writing as soon as
possible following the date you first
knew, or through due diligence should
have known, that the event may cause
or has caused a delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the
Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force
majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the
delay in reporting beyond the regulatory
deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to
minimize the delay in reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to
report, or if you have already met the
reporting requirement at the time of the
notification, the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim
of force majeure and allow an extension
to the reporting deadline is solely
within the discretion of the
Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting
must occur as soon as possible after the
force majeure event occurs.
§ 63.1982 What records and reports must
I submit and keep for bioreactors or liquids
addition other than leachate?
Submit reports as specified in this
section and § 63.1981. Keep records as
specified in this section and § 63.1983.
(a) For bioreactors at new affected
sources you must submit the initial
semi-annual compliance report and
performance test results described in
§ 63.1981(h) within 180 days after the
date you are required to begin operating
the gas collection and control system by
§ 63.1947(a)(2).
(b) If you must submit a semi-annual
compliance report for a bioreactor as
well as a semi-annual compliance report
for a conventional portion of the same
landfill, you may delay submittal of a
subsequent semi-annual compliance
report for the bioreactor according to
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section so that the reports may be
submitted on the same schedule.
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
(1) After submittal of your initial
semi-annual compliance report and
performance test results for the
bioreactor, you may delay submittal of
the subsequent semi-annual compliance
report for the bioreactor until the date
the initial or subsequent semi-annual
compliance report is due for the
conventional portion of your landfill.
(2) You may delay submittal of your
subsequent semi-annual compliance
report by no more than 12 months after
the due date for submitting the initial
semi-annual compliance report and
performance test results described in
§ 63.1981(h) for the bioreactor. The
report must cover the time period since
the previous semi-annual report for the
bioreactor, which would be a period of
at least 6 months and no more than 12
months.
(3) After the delayed semi-annual
report, all subsequent semi-annual
reports for the bioreactor must be
submitted every 6 months on the same
date the semi-annual report for the
conventional portion of the landfill is
due.
(c) If you add any liquids other than
leachate in a controlled fashion to the
waste mass and do not comply with the
bioreactor requirements in §§ 63.1947,
63.1955(b), and paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section, you must keep a record of
calculations showing that the percent
moisture by weight expected in the
waste mass to which liquid is added is
less than 40 percent. The calculation
must consider the waste mass, moisture
content of the incoming waste, mass of
water added to the waste including
leachate recirculation and other liquids
addition and precipitation, and the mass
of water removed through leachate or
other water losses. Moisture level
sampling or mass balances calculations
can be used. You must document the
calculations and the basis of any
assumptions. Keep the record of the
calculations until you cease liquids
addition.
(d) If you calculate moisture content
to establish the date your bioreactor is
required to begin operating the
collection and control system under
§ 63.1947(a)(2) or (c)(2), keep a record of
the calculations including the
information specified in paragraph (e) of
this section for 5 years. Within 90 days
after the bioreactor achieves 40-percent
moisture content, report the results of
the calculation, the date the bioreactor
achieved 40-percent moisture content
by weight, and the date you plan to
begin collection and control system
operation to the Administrator.
Beginning no later than September 27,
2021, the reports should be submitted
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
following the procedure specified in
§ 63.1981(l)(2).
§ 63.1983
What records must I keep?
You must keep records as specified in
this subpart. You must also keep records
as specified in the general provisions of
40 CFR part 63 as shown in Table 1 to
this subpart.
(a) Except as provided in
§ 63.1981(d)(2), each owner or operator
of an MSW landfill subject to the
provisions of § 63.1959(b)(2)(ii) and (iii)
of this chapter must keep for at least 5
years up-to-date, readily accessible, onsite records of the design capacity report
that triggered § 63.1959(b), the current
amount of solid waste in-place, and the
year-by-year waste acceptance rate. Offsite records may be maintained if they
are retrievable within 4 hours. Either
paper copy or electronic formats are
acceptable.
(b) Except as provided in
§ 63.1981(d)(2), each owner or operator
of a controlled landfill must keep up-todate, readily accessible records for the
life of the control system equipment of
the data listed in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (5) of this section as measured
during the initial performance test or
compliance determination. Records of
subsequent tests or monitoring must be
maintained for a minimum of 5 years.
Records of the control device vendor
specifications must be maintained until
removal.
(1) Where an owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
seeks to demonstrate compliance with
§ 63.1959(b)(2)(ii):
(i) The maximum expected gas
generation flow rate as calculated in
§ 63.1960(a)(1).
(ii) The density of wells, horizontal
collectors, surface collectors, or other
gas extraction devices determined using
the procedures specified in
§ 63.1962(a)(1) and (2).
(2) Where an owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
seeks to demonstrate compliance with
§ 63.1959(b)(2)(iii) through use of an
enclosed combustion device other than
a boiler or process heater with a design
heat input capacity equal to or greater
than 44 megawatts:
(i) The average temperature measured
at least every 15 minutes and averaged
over the same time period of the
performance test.
(ii) The percent reduction of NMOC
determined as specified in
§ 63.1959(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
§ 63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(B)(1) through use of a
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17277
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
§ 63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(A) through use of a
non-enclosed flare, the flare type (i.e.,
steam-assisted, air-assisted, or
nonassisted), all visible emission
readings, heat content determination,
flow rate or bypass flow rate
measurements, and exit velocity
determinations made during the
performance test as specified in § 63.11;
continuous records of the flare pilot
flame or flare flame monitoring and
records of all periods of operations
during which the pilot flame or the flare
flame is absent.
(5) Where an owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
seeks to demonstrate compliance with
§ 63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(C) through use of a
landfill gas treatment system:
(i) Bypass records. Records of the flow
of landfill gas to, and bypass of, the
treatment system.
(ii) Site-specific treatment monitoring
plan. Beginning no later than September
27, 2021, the owner or operator must
prepare a site-specific treatment
monitoring plan to include:
(A) Monitoring records of parameters
that are identified in the treatment
system monitoring plan and that ensure
the treatment system is operating
properly for each intended end use of
the treated landfill gas. At a minimum,
records should include records of
filtration, de-watering, and compression
parameters that ensure the treatment
system is operating properly for each
intended end use of the treated landfill
gas.
(B) Monitoring methods, frequencies,
and operating ranges for each monitored
operating parameter based on
manufacturer’s recommendations or
engineering analysis for each intended
end use of the treated landfill gas.
(C) Documentation of the monitoring
methods and ranges, along with
justification for their use.
(D) List of responsible staff (by job
title) for data collection.
(E) Processes and methods used to
collect the necessary data.
(F) Description of the procedures and
methods that are used for quality
assurance, maintenance, and repair of
all continuous monitoring systems
(CMS).
(c) Except as provided in
§ 63.1981(d)(2), each owner or operator
of a controlled landfill subject to the
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
17278
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
provisions of this subpart must keep for
5 years up-to-date, readily accessible
continuous records of the equipment
operating parameters specified to be
monitored in § 63.1961 as well as up-todate, readily accessible records for
periods of operation during which the
parameter boundaries established
during the most recent performance test
are exceeded.
(1) The following constitute
exceedances that must be recorded and
reported under § 63.1981(h):
(i) For enclosed combustors except for
boilers and process heaters with design
heat input capacity of 44 megawatts
(150 million Btu per hour) or greater, all
3-hour periods of operation during
which the average temperature was
more than 28 degrees Celsius (82
degrees Fahrenheit) below the average
combustion temperature during the
most recent performance test at which
compliance with § 63.1959(b)(2)(iii) was
determined.
(ii) For boilers or process heaters,
whenever there is a change in the
location at which the vent stream is
introduced into the flame zone as
required under paragraph (b)(3) of this
section.
(2) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart must keep
up-to-date, readily accessible
continuous records of the indication of
flow to the control system and the
indication of bypass flow or records of
monthly inspections of car-seals or lockand-key configurations used to seal
bypass lines, specified under
§ 63.1961(b)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(ii), and (g)(2).
(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
§ 63.1959(b)(2)(iii) must keep an up-todate, readily accessible record of all
periods of operation of the boiler or
process heater. Examples of such
records could include records of steam
use, fuel use, or monitoring data
collected pursuant to other state, local,
tribal, or federal regulatory
requirements.
(4) Each owner or operator seeking to
comply with the provisions of this
subpart by use of a non-enclosed flare
must keep up-to-date, readily accessible
continuous records of the flame or flare
pilot flame monitoring specified under
§ 63.1961(c), and up-to-date, readily
accessible records of all periods of
operation in which the flame or flare
pilot flame is absent.
(5) Each owner or operator of a
landfill seeking to comply with
§ 63.1959(b)(2) using an active
collection system designed in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
accordance with § 63.1959(b)(2)(ii) must
keep records of periods when the
collection system or control device is
not operating.
(6) Where an owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
seeks to demonstrate compliance with
the operational standard in
§ 63.1958(e)(1), the date, time, and
duration of each startup and/or
shutdown period, recording the periods
when the affected source was subject to
the standard applicable to startup and
shutdown.
(7) Where an owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
seeks to demonstrate compliance with
the operational standard in
§ 63.1958(e)(1), in the event that an
affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard, record the information below
in this paragraph:
(i) For each failure record the date,
time and duration of each failure and
the cause of such events (including
unknown cause, if applicable).
(ii) For each failure to meet an
applicable standard; record and retain a
list of the affected sources or equipment.
(iii) Record actions taken to minimize
emissions in accordance with the
general duty of § 63.1955(c) and any
corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual
manner of operation.
(8) Beginning no later than September
27, 2021, in lieu of the requirements
specified in § 63.8(d)(3) of subpart A
you must keep the written procedures
required by § 63.8(d)(2) on record for
the life of the affected source or until
the affected source is no longer subject
to the provisions of this part, to be made
available for inspection, upon request,
by the Administrator. If the performance
evaluation plan is revised, you must
keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions
of the performance evaluation plan on
record to be made available for
inspection, upon request, by the
Administrator, for a period of 5 years
after each revision to the plan. The
program of corrective action should be
included in the plan required under
§ 63.8(d)(2).
(d) Except as provided in
§ 63.1981(d)(2), each owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
must keep for the life of the collection
system an up-to-date, readily accessible
plot map showing each existing and
planned collector in the system and
providing a unique identification
location label for each collector.
(1) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart must keep
up-to-date, readily accessible records of
the installation date and location of all
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
newly installed collectors as specified
under § 63.1960(b).
(2) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart must keep
readily accessible documentation of the
nature, date of deposition, amount, and
location of asbestos-containing or
nondegradable waste excluded from
collection as provided in
§ 63.1962(a)(3)(i) as well as any
nonproductive areas excluded from
collection as provided in
§ 63.1962(a)(3)(ii).
(e) Except as provided in
§ 63.1981(d)(2), each owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
must keep for at least 5 years up-to-date,
readily accessible records of the
following:
(1) All collection and control system
exceedances of the operational
standards in § 63.1958, the reading in
the subsequent month whether or not
the second reading is an exceedance,
and the location of each exceedance.
(2) Each owner or operator subject to
the control provisions of this subpart
must keep records of each wellhead
temperature monitoring value of greater
than 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees
Fahrenheit), each wellhead nitrogen
level at or above 20 percent, and each
wellhead oxygen level at or above 5
percent, except:
(i) When an owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart seeks to
demonstrate compliance with the
compliance provisions for wellhead
temperature in § 63.1958(c)(1), but no
later than September 27, 2021, the
records of each wellhead temperature
monitoring value of 62.8 degrees Celsius
(145 degrees Fahrenheit) or above
instead of values greater than 55 degrees
Celsius (131 degrees Fahrenheit).
(ii) Each owner or operator required to
conduct the enhanced monitoring
provisions in § 63.1961(a)(5), must also
keep records of all enhanced monitoring
activities.
(iii) Each owner or operator required
to submit the 24-hour high temperature
report in § 63.1981(k), must also keep a
record of the email transmission.
(3) For any root cause analysis for
which corrective actions are required in
§ 63.1960(a)(3)(i)(A) or (a)(4)(i)(A), keep
a record of the root cause analysis
conducted, including a description of
the recommended corrective action(s)
taken, and the date(s) the corrective
action(s) were completed.
(4) For any root cause analysis for
which corrective actions are required in
§ 63.1960(a)(3)(i)(B) or (a)(4)(i)(B), keep
a record of the root cause analysis
conducted, the corrective action
analysis, the date for corrective action(s)
already completed following the
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
positive pressure reading or high
temperature reading, and, for action(s)
not already completed, a schedule for
implementation, including proposed
commencement and completion dates.
(5) For any root cause analysis for
which corrective actions are required in
§ 63.1960(a)(3)(i)(C) or (a)(4)(i)(C), keep
a record of the root cause analysis
conducted, the corrective action
analysis, the date for corrective action(s)
already completed following the
positive pressure reading or high
temperature reading, for action(s) not
already completed, a schedule for
implementation, including proposed
commencement and completion dates,
and a copy of any comments or final
approval on the corrective action
analysis or schedule from the
Administrator.
(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 Mg or 2.5 million m3, as
provided in the definition of ‘‘design
capacity,’’ must keep readily accessible,
on-site records of the annual
recalculation of site-specific density,
design capacity, and the supporting
documentation. Off-site records may be
maintained if they are retrievable within
4 hours. Either paper copy or electronic
formats are acceptable.
(g) Except as provided in
§ 63.1981(d)(2), each owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
must keep for at least 5 years up-to-date,
readily accessible records of all
collection and control system
monitoring data for parameters
measured in § 63.1961(a)(1) through (5).
(h) Where an owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
seeks to demonstrate compliance with
the operational standard for temperature
in § 63.1958(c)(1), you must keep the
following records.
(1) Records of the landfill gas
temperature on a monthly basis as
monitored in § 63.1960(a)(4).
(2) Records of enhanced monitoring
data at each well with a measurement of
landfill gas temperature greater than
62.8 degrees Celsius (145 degrees
Fahrenheit) as gathered in
§ 63.1961(a)(5) and (6).
(i) Any records required to be
maintained by this subpart that are
submitted electronically via the EPA’s
CEDRI may be maintained in electronic
format. This ability to maintain
electronic copies does not affect the
requirement for facilities to make
records, data, and reports available
upon request to a delegated air agency
or the EPA as part of an on-site
compliance evaluation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
(ii) [Reserved]
Other Requirements and Information
§ 63.1985
Who enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented
and enforced by the EPA, or a delegated
authority such as the applicable state,
local, or tribal agency. If the EPA
Administrator has delegated authority to
a state, local, or tribal agency, then that
agency as well as the EPA has the
authority to implement and enforce this
subpart. Contact the applicable EPA
Regional office to find out if this subpart
is delegated to a state, local, or tribal
agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and
enforcement authority of this subpart to
a state, local, or tribal agency under
subpart E of this part, the authorities
contained in paragraph (c) of this
section are retained by the EPA
Administrator and are not transferred to
the state, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that will not be
delegated to state, local, or tribal
agencies are as follows. Approval of
alternatives to the standards in
§§ 63.1955 through 63.1962. Where this
subpart references 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW, the cited provisions will
be delegated according to the delegation
provisions of 40 CFR part 60, subpart
WWW. For this subpart, the EPA also
retains the authority to approve
methods for determining the NMOC
concentration in § 63.1959(a)(3) and the
method for determining the site-specific
methane generation rate constant k in
§ 63.1959(a)(4).
§ 63.1990
subpart?
What definitions apply to this
Terms used in this subpart are
defined in the Clean Air Act, 40 CFR
part 60, subparts A, Cc, Cf, WWW, and
XXX; 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG, and
subpart A of this part, and this section
that follows:
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.
Bioreactor means an MSW landfill or
portion of an MSW landfill where any
liquid other than leachate (leachate
includes landfill gas condensate) is
added in a controlled fashion into the
waste mass (often in combination with
recirculating leachate) to reach a
minimum average moisture content of at
least 40 percent by weight to accelerate
or enhance the anaerobic (without
oxygen) biodegradation of the waste.
Closed area means a separately lined
area of an MSW landfill in which solid
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
17279
waste is no longer being placed. If
additional solid waste is placed in that
area of the landfill, that landfill area is
no longer closed. The area must be
separately lined to ensure that the
landfill gas does not migrate between
open and closed areas.
Closed landfill means a landfill in
which solid waste is no longer being
placed, and in which no additional
solid wastes will be placed without first
filing a notification of modification as
prescribed under § 63.9(b). Once a
notification of modification has been
filed, and additional solid waste is
placed in the landfill, the landfill is no
longer closed.
Closure means that point in time
when a landfill becomes a closed
landfill.
Commercial solid waste means all
types of solid waste generated by stores,
offices, restaurants, warehouses, and
other nonmanufacturing activities,
excluding residential and industrial
wastes.
Controlled landfill means any landfill
at which collection and control systems
are required under this subpart as a
result of the nonmethane organic
compounds emission rate. The landfill
is considered controlled at the time a
collection and control system design
plan is submitted in compliance with
§ 60.752(b)(2)(i) of this chapter or in
compliance with § 63.1959(b)(2)(i).
Corrective action analysis means a
description of all reasonable interim and
long-term measures, if any, that are
available, and an explanation of why the
selected corrective action(s) is/are the
best alternative(s), including, but not
limited to, considerations of cost
effectiveness, technical feasibility,
safety, and secondary impacts.
Cover penetration means a wellhead,
a part of a landfill gas collection or
operations system, and/or any other
object that completely passes through
the landfill cover. The landfill cover
includes that portion which covers the
waste, as well as the portion which
borders the waste extended to the point
where it is sealed with the landfill liner
or the surrounding land mass. Examples
of what is not a penetration for purposes
of this subpart include but are not
limited to: Survey stakes, fencing
including litter fences, flags, signs,
utility posts, and trees so long as these
items do not pass through the landfill
cover.
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
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
17280
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
for in the most recent permit. If the
owner or operator chooses to convert
the design capacity from volume to
mass or from mass to volume to
demonstrate its design capacity is less
than 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3,
the calculation must include a sitespecific density, which must be
recalculated annually.
Deviation before September 28, 2021,
means any instance in which an affected
source subject to this subpart, or an
owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or
obligation established by this subpart,
including, but not limited to, any
emissions limitation (including any
operating limit) or work practice
requirement;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition
that is adopted to implement an
applicable requirement in this subpart
and that is included in the operating
permit for any affected source required
to obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission
limitation, (including any operating
limit), or work practice requirement in
this subpart during SSM, regardless of
whether or not such failure is permitted
by this subpart.
Deviation beginning no later than
September 27, 2021, means any instance
in which an affected source subject to
this subpart or an owner or operator of
such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or
obligation established by this subpart
including but not limited to any
emission limit, or operating limit, or
work practice requirement; or
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition
that is adopted to implement an
applicable requirement in this subpart
and that is included in the operating
permit for any affected source required
to obtain such a permit.
Disposal facility means all contiguous
land and structures, other
appurtenances, and improvements on
the land used for the disposal of solid
waste.
Emissions limitation means any
emission limit, opacity limit, operating
limit, or visible emissions limit.
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.
EPA approved State plan means a
State plan that EPA has approved based
on the requirements in 40 CFR part 60,
subpart B to implement and enforce 40
CFR part 60, subparts Cc or Cf. An
approved state plan becomes effective
on the date specified in the document
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
published in the Federal Register
announcing EPA’s approval.
EPA approved Tribal plan means a
plan submitted by a tribal authority
pursuant to 40 CFR parts 9, 35, 49, 50,
and 81 to implement and enforce 40
CFR part 60, subpart Cc or subpart Cf.
Federal plan means the EPA plan to
implement 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc
or Cf for existing MSW landfills located
in states and Indian country where state
plans or tribal plans are not currently in
effect. On the effective date of an EPA
approved state or tribal plan, the
Federal Plan no longer applies. The
Federal Plan implementing 40 CFR part
60, subpart Cc is found at 40 CFR part
62, subpart GGG.
Flare means an open combustor
without enclosure or shroud.
Gas mover equipment means the
equipment (i.e., fan, blower,
compressor) used to transport landfill
gas through the header system.
Household waste means any solid
waste (including garbage, trash, and
sanitary waste in septic tanks) derived
from households (including, but not
limited to, single and multiple
residences, hotels and motels,
bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew
quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds,
and day-use recreation areas).
Household waste does not include fully
segregated yard waste. Segregated yard
waste means vegetative matter resulting
exclusively from the cutting of grass, the
pruning and/or removal of bushes,
shrubs, and trees, the weeding of
gardens, and other landscaping
maintenance activities. Household
waste does not include construction,
renovation, or demolition wastes, even
if originating from a household.
Industrial solid waste means solid
waste generated by manufacturing or
industrial processes that is not a
hazardous waste regulated under
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, 40 CFR parts 264 and
265. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Interior well means any well or
similar collection component located
inside the perimeter of the landfill
waste. A perimeter well located outside
the landfilled waste is not an interior
well.
Landfill means an area of land or an
excavation in which wastes are placed
for permanent disposal, and that is not
a land application unit, surface
impoundment, injection well, or waste
pile as those terms are defined under
§ 257.2 of this chapter.
Lateral expansion means a horizontal
expansion of the waste boundaries of an
existing MSW landfill. A lateral
expansion is not a modification unless
it results in an increase in the design
capacity of the landfill.
Leachate recirculation means the
practice of taking the leachate collected
from the landfill and reapplying it to the
landfill by any of one of a variety of
methods, including pre-wetting of the
waste, direct discharge into the working
face, spraying, infiltration ponds,
vertical injection wells, horizontal
gravity distribution systems, and
pressure distribution systems.
Modification means an increase in the
permitted volume design capacity of the
landfill by either lateral or vertical
expansion based on its permitted design
capacity after November 7, 2000.
Modification does not occur until the
owner or operator commences
construction on the lateral or vertical
expansion.
Municipal solid waste landfill or
MSW landfill means an entire disposal
facility in a contiguous geographical
space where household waste is placed
in or on land. An MSW landfill may
also receive other types of RCRA
Subtitle D wastes (§ 257.2 of this
chapter) 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 § 63.1959.
Nondegradable waste means any
waste that does not decompose through
chemical breakdown or microbiological
activity. Examples are, but are not
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
limited to, concrete, municipal waste
combustor ash, and metals.
Passive collection system means a gas
collection system that solely uses
positive pressure within the landfill to
move the gas rather than using gas
mover equipment.
Root cause analysis means an
assessment conducted through a process
of investigation to determine the
primary cause, and any other
contributing causes, of an exceedance of
a standard operating parameter at a
wellhead.
Segregated yard waste means
vegetative matter resulting exclusively
from the cutting of grass, the pruning
and/or removal of bushes, shrubs, and
trees, the weeding of gardens, and other
landscaping maintenance activities.
Sludge means the term sludge as
defined in § 258.2 of this chapter.
Solid waste means the term solid
waste as defined in § 258.2 of this
chapter.
Sufficient density means any number,
spacing, and combination of collection
system components, including vertical
wells, horizontal collectors, and surface
collectors, necessary to maintain
emission and migration control as
determined by measures of performance
set forth in this subpart.
Sufficient extraction rate means a rate
sufficient to maintain a negative
pressure at all wellheads in the
collection system without causing air
infiltration, including any wellheads
connected to the system as a result of
expansion or excess surface emissions,
for the life of the blower.
Treated landfill gas means landfill gas
processed in a treatment system as
defined in this subpart.
17281
Treatment system means a system that
filters, de-waters, and compresses
landfill gas for sale or beneficial use.
Untreated landfill gas means any
landfill gas that is not treated landfill
gas.
Work practice requirement means any
design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard, or combination
thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to
section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.
Table 1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63—
Applicability of NESHAP General
Provisions to Subpart AAAA
As specified in this subpart, you must
meet each requirement in the following
table that applies to you. The owner or
operator may begin complying with the
provisions that apply no later than
September 27, 2021, any time before
that date.
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART AAAA OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF NESHAP GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART AAAA
Applicable
to subpart
AAAA
no later
than
September
27, 2021
Part 63 citation
Description
§ 63.1(a) .....................
Applicability:
General
applicability
of
NESHAP in this part.
Applicability determination for stationary
sources.
Applicability after a standard has been set ...
Applicability of permit program before relevant standard is set.
Definitions .......................................................
Units and abbreviations .................................
Prohibited activities and circumvention ..........
Construction/reconstruction ............................
Requirements for existing, newly constructed, and reconstructed sources.
Application for approval of construction or reconstruction.
Approval of construction and reconstruction
Compliance with standards and maintenance
requirements—applicability.
Compliance dates for new, reconstructed,
and existing sources.
Operation and maintenance requirements ....
Yes ...........
Yes.
Yes ...........
Yes.
No 1 ..........
Yes ...........
Yes.
Yes.
Yes ...........
No 1 ..........
Yes ...........
No 1 ..........
Yes ...........
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No 1 ..........
Yes.
No 1 ..........
No 1 ..........
Yes.
Yes.
No 1 ..........
Yes.
Yes ...........
No ............
SSM plan ........................................................
Exemption of nonopacity emission standards
during SSM.
Compliance with nonopacity emission standards.
Use of an alternative nonopacity standard ....
Compliance with opacity and visible emission
standards.
Extension of compliance with emission
standards.
Exemption from compliance with emission
standards.
Performance testing .......................................
Conditions for performing performance tests
Yes ...........
Yes ...........
No.
No.
Yes ...........
Yes.
No 1 ..........
No 1 ..........
Yes.
No ............
No 1 ..........
Yes.
No 1 ..........
Yes.
No 1 ..........
No 1 ..........
Yes.
No ............
Monitoring requirements—Applicability and
conduct of monitoring.
Operation and Maintenance of continuous
emissions monitoring system.
No 1 ..........
Yes.
No 1 ..........
Yes.
§ 63.1(b) .....................
§ 63.1(c) .....................
§ 63.1(e) .....................
§ 63.2 .........................
§ 63.3 .........................
§ 63.4 .........................
§ 63.5(a) .....................
§ 63.5(b) .....................
§ 63.5(d) .....................
§ 63.5(e) and (f) .........
§ 63.6(a) .....................
§ 63.6(b) and (c) ........
§ 63.6(e)(1)(i)–(ii) .......
63.6(e)(3)(i)–(ix) .........
63.6(f)(1) ....................
§ 63.6(f)(2) and (3) .....
§ 63.6(g) .....................
§ 63.6(h) .....................
§ 63.6(i) ......................
§ 63.6(j) ......................
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
Applicable
to subpart
AAAA
before
September
28, 2021
§ 63.7 .........................
§ 63.7(e)(1) .................
§ 63.8(a) and (b) ........
§ 63.8(c)(1) .................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Explanation
See § 63.1955(c) for general duty requirements.
Subpart AAAA does not prescribe opacity or
visible emission standards.
40 CFR 63.1959(f) specifies the conditions
for performing performance tests.
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
17282
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART AAAA OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF NESHAP GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART AAAA—
Continued
Applicable
to subpart
AAAA
no later
than
September
27, 2021
Part 63 citation
Description
Applicable
to subpart
AAAA
before
September
28, 2021
§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) ..............
Operation and Maintenance Requirements ...
No 1 ..........
No ............
§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) .............
§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ............
§ 63.8(c)(2)–(8) ..........
§ 63.8(d)(1) .................
§ 63.8(d)(2) .................
§ 63.8(d)(3) .................
§ 63.9(a), (c), and (d)
§ 63.9(b) .....................
§ 63.9(e) .....................
§ 63.9(f) ......................
Operation and Maintenance Requirements ...
SSM plan for monitors ...................................
Monitoring requirements ................................
Quality control for monitors ............................
Quality control for monitors ............................
Quality control records ...................................
Notifications ....................................................
Initial notifications ...........................................
Notification of performance test .....................
Notification of visible emissions/opacity test ..
No 1
No 1
No 1
No 1
No 1
No 1
No 1
No 1
No 1
No 1
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No ............
Yes.
Yes 2.
Yes 2.
No ............
§ 63.9(g) .....................
§ 63.9(h) .....................
§ 63.9(i) ......................
§ 63.9(j) ......................
§ 63.10(a) ...................
§ 63.10(b)(1) ...............
§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) ...........
Notification when using CMS .........................
Notification of compliance status ...................
Adjustment of submittal deadlines .................
Change in information already provided ........
Recordkeeping and reporting—general .........
General recordkeeping ...................................
Startup and shutdown records .......................
No 1 ..........
No 1 ..........
No 1 ..........
No 1 ..........
No 1 ..........
No 1 ..........
Yes ...........
Yes 2.
Yes 2.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No ............
§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ...........
Recordkeeping of failures to meet a standard
Yes ...........
No ............
§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ..........
Yes ...........
Yes.
Yes ...........
No ............
No 1 ..........
No 1 ..........
Yes.
Yes.
No 1 ..........
No ............
No 1
No 1
No 1
No 1
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
§ 63.10(d)(5) ...............
Recordkeeping of maintenance on air pollution control equipment.
Actions taken to minimize emissions during
SSM.
Recordkeeping for CMS malfunctions ...........
Other Recordkeeping of compliance measurements.
Additional recordkeeping for sources with
CMS.
General reporting ...........................................
Reporting of performance test results ...........
Reporting of visible emission observations ...
Progress reports for compliance date extensions.
SSM reporting ................................................
Yes ...........
No ............
§ 63.10(e) ...................
§ 63.10(f) ....................
§ 63.11 .......................
Additional reporting for CMS systems ...........
Recordkeeping/reporting waiver ....................
Control device requirements/flares ................
No 1 ..........
No 1 ..........
No 1 ..........
Yes.
Yes.
Yes ...........
§ 63.12(a) ...................
§ 63.12(b)–(c) .............
§ 63.13 .......................
§ 63.14 .......................
§ 63.15 .......................
State authority ................................................
State delegations ...........................................
Addresses ......................................................
Incorporation by reference .............................
Availability of information and confidentiality
Yes ...........
No 1 ..........
No 1 ..........
No 1 ..........
Yes ...........
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv)–(v) ...
§ 63.10(b)(vi) ..............
§ 63.10(b)(vii)–(xiv) ....
§ 63.10(c) ...................
§ 63.10(d)(1)
§ 63.10(d)(2)
§ 63.10(d)(3)
§ 63.10(d)(4)
...............
...............
...............
...............
..........
..........
..........
..........
Explanation
Unnecessary due to the requirements of
§ 63.8(c)(1) and the requirements for a
quality control plan for monitoring equipment in § 63.8(d)(2).
See § 63.1983(c)(8).
Subpart AAAA does not prescribe opacity or
visible emission standards.
See § 63.1983(c)(6) for recordkeeping for periods of startup and shutdown.
See § 63.1983(c)(6)–(7) for recordkeeping for
any exceedance of a standard.
See § 63.1983(c)(7) for recordkeeping of corrective actions to restore compliance.
See § 63.1983 for required CMS recordkeeping.
All exceedances must be reported in the
semi-annual
report
required
by
§ 63.1981(h).
§ 60.18 is required before September 27,
2021. However, § 60.18 and 63.11 are
equivalent.
lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with RULES3
1 Before September 28, 2021, this subpart requires affected facilities to follow 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, which incorporates the General
Provisions of 40 CFR part 60.
2 If an owner or operator has complied with the requirements of this paragraph under either 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW or subpart XXX,
then additional notification is not required.
[FR Doc. 2020–04800 Filed 3–25–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:46 Mar 25, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\26MRR3.SGM
26MRR3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 59 (Thursday, March 26, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17244-17282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04800]
[[Page 17243]]
Vol. 85
Thursday,
No. 59
March 26, 2020
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills Residual Risk and Technology Review; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 59 / Thursday, March 26, 2020 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 17244]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0047; FRL-10006-05-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU18
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Residual Risk and Technology Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills source
category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final action to correct
and clarify regulatory provisions related to emissions during periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); revise wellhead
operational standards and corrective action to improve effectiveness
and provide compliance flexibility; reorganize rule text to incorporate
provisions from the new source performance standards (NSPS) within this
subpart; and add requirements for electronic reporting of performance
test results. The EPA is also finalizing minor changes to the MSW
Landfills NSPS and Emission Guidelines (EG) and Compliance Times for
MSW Landfills. Specifically, the EPA is finalizing provisions to the
most recent MSW Landfills NSPS and EG that would allow affected sources
to demonstrate compliance with landfill gas control, operating,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements by following the
corresponding requirements in the MSW Landfills NESHAP. These final
amendments will result in improved compliance and implementation of the
rule.
DATES: This final rule is effective on March 26, 2020. The
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March
26, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0047. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday.
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and
the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Andrew Sheppard, Natural Resources Group, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-4161; fax
number: (919) 541-0516; and email address: [email protected]. For
specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact
James Hirtz, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-0881; fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email
address: [email protected]. For information about the applicability
of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Maria Malave, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, WJC South Building (Mail Code 2227A), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW, Washington DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-7027; and email
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO carbon monoxide
EG emission guidelines
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GCCS gas collection and control system
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HOV higher operating value
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference km kilometer
LFG landfill gas
MACT maximum achievable control technology
Mg/yr megagrams per year
MSW municipal solid waste
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NARA National Archives and Records Administration
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NMOC non-methane organic compounds
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
ppmv parts per million by volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SOE subsurface oxidation event
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Background information. On July 29, 2019, the EPA proposed
revisions to the MSW Landfills NESHAP based on our RTR. In this action,
we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize
some of the more significant comments we timely received regarding the
proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of
all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to
those comments is available in the Summary of Public Comments and the
EPA's Responses for the Proposed Risk and Technology Review and
Amendments for the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills NESHAP, available in
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0047. A ``track changes'' version of the
regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is
available in the docket.
Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is the MSW Landfills source category and how does the
NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
[[Page 17245]]
C. What changes did we propose for the MSW Landfills source
category in our July 29, 2019, RTR proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the MSW Landfills source category?
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the MSW Landfills source category?
C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of SSM?
D. What other changes have been made to the MSW Landfills
NESHAP?
E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the MSW Landfills source category?
A. Residual Risk Review for the MSW Landfills Source Category
B. Technology Review for the MSW Landfills Source Category
C. SSM for the MSW Landfills Source Category
D. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.
Table 1--Neshap and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS \1\
NESHAP and source category code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.............................. 562212
Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management............ 924110
State, Local, and Tribal Government Agencies................. 924110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/municipal-solid-waste-landfills-national-emission-standards. Following
publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal
Register version and key technical documents at this same website.
Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites
for the RTR source categories.
C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the court) by May 25, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources''
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly
referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards
and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques,
including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
[[Page 17246]]
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination
of the above.
For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 84 FR 36670 (July 29, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What is the MSW Landfills source category and how does the NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
The EPA promulgated the MSW Landfills NESHAP on January 16, 2003
(68 FR 2227). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
AAAA. As promulgated in 2003 and further amended on April 20, 2006 (71
FR 20462), the NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from MSW landfills that
are either major or area sources.
The NESHAP applies to MSW landfills that have accepted waste since
November 8, 1987, or have additional capacity for waste deposition and
are major sources, are collocated with major sources, or are area
source landfills with a design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5
million megagrams (Mg) and 2.5 million cubic meters (m\3\) and have
estimated uncontrolled emissions equal to or greater than 50 megagrams
per year (Mg/yr) of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC). The NESHAP
also applies to MSW landfills that have accepted waste since November
8, 1987, or have additional capacity for waste deposition and include a
bioreactor and are major sources, are collocated with major sources, or
are area source landfills with a design capacity equal to or greater
than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\ that were not permanently
closed as of January 16, 2003.
The majority of HAP emissions at MSW landfills come from the
continuous biodegradation of the MSW in the landfill and the formation
of landfill gas (LFG) emissions. LFG emissions contain methane, carbon
dioxide, and more than 100 different NMOC. The HAP emitted by MSW
landfills include, but are not limited to, vinyl chloride, ethyl
benzene, toluene, and benzene (61 FR 9906, March 12, 1996). The owner
or operator of a landfill may control the gas by routing it to a non-
enclosed flare, an enclosed combustion device, or a treatment system
that processes the collected gas for subsequent sale or beneficial use.
The NESHAP regulates HAP emissions by requiring MSW landfills that
exceed the size and emission thresholds to install and operate a
landfill gas collection and control system (GCCS). The NESHAP achieves
emission reductions through a well-designed and well-operated landfill
GCCS with a control device (i.e., non-enclosed flare, enclosed
combustion device, or treatment system) capable of reducing NMOC by 98
percent by weight. NMOC is a surrogate for LFG. The GCCS must be
installed within 30 months after an MSW landfill that equals or exceeds
the design capacity threshold (2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\)
reaches or exceeds an NMOC emissions level of 50 Mg/yr. The landfill
must expand the system to collect gas from each area, cell, or group of
cells in the landfill in which the initial solid waste has been placed
for 5 years or more if active; or 2 years or more if closed or at final
grade. The collection and control system may be capped or removed when
the landfill is closed, the system has operated 15 years, and NMOC
emissions are below 50 Mg/yr.
In addition, the NESHAP requires timely control of bioreactors. A
bioreactor is an MSW landfill or portion of the landfill where any
liquid other than leachate is added to the waste mass to reach a
minimum average moisture content of at least 40 percent by weight to
accelerate or enhance the biodegradation of the waste. New bioreactors
must install the GCCS in the bioreactor prior to initiating liquids
addition, regardless of whether the landfill emissions rate equals or
exceeds the estimated uncontrolled emissions rate; existing bioreactors
must install the GCCS before initiating liquids addition and must begin
operating the GCCS within 180 days after initiating liquids addition or
within 180 days after achieving a moisture content of 40 percent by
weight, whichever is later.
Based on modeled emission estimates in the 2016 NSPS/EG datasets,
and supplementary searching of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
data (located in 40 CFR part 98, subpart HH), the EPA Landfill Methane
Outreach Program, Landfill and LFG Energy Project Database, and
selected permits, as of 2014, there were between 664 and 709 MSW
landfills subject to the LFG collection and control requirements of the
NESHAP. The exact list of facilities subject to the NESHAP is unknown
because many landfills collect site-specific data for NMOC
concentrations using the Tier 2 provisions allowed under the regulation
to compute the NMOC annual emission rates. A list of facilities
expected to be subject to the NESHAP based on modeled emissions and a
default NMOC concentration of 595 parts per million by volume (ppmv)
[[Page 17247]]
is available in the RTR dataset.\2\ It is estimated that these
landfills emit between 2,242 and 4,586 Mg/yr of HAP, after considering
current control requirements. Most of these emissions are fugitive
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ MSW Landfills NESHAP RTR Draft Emissions Modeling File. May
2018. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/municipal-solid-waste-landfills-national-emission-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What changes did we propose for the MSW Landfills source category in
our July 29, 2019, RTR proposal?
On July 29, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register for the MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA),
that took into consideration the RTR analyses (84 FR 36670). Based on
the risk analysis, we proposed to find that the risks from the MSW
Landfills source category are acceptable. The risk analysis estimated
that the cancer risk to the individual most exposed is below 10-in-1
million from both actual and allowable emissions (estimated cancer
incidence is 0.04 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 20
years). The risk analysis also estimated a maximum chronic noncancer
target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) value below 1.
Our risk analysis indicated the risks from this source category are
low for both cancer and noncancer health effects, and, therefore, we
proposed that any risk reductions to further control fugitive landfill
emissions would result in minimal health benefits (84 FR 36686, July
29, 2019). We also proposed that the current NESHAP provides an ample
margin of safety to protect public health (84 FR 36686, July 29, 2019).
In addition, pursuant to the technology review for the MSW Landfills
source category, we proposed that no revisions to the current standards
are necessary because, after analyzing the available options, we
determined that each is either not technically feasible or the cost is
not justified for the level of emission reduction achievable (84 FR
36689, July 29, 2019).
In addition to the proposed decisions resulting from the RTR
described above, we proposed revisions to the NESHAP to promote
consistency between MSW landfills regulations under CAA sections 111
and 112. We also proposed changes to the wellhead temperature operating
standards and associated monitoring, corrective action, and reporting
and recordkeeping requirements for temperature. We proposed to adjust
provisions for GCCS removal to provide additional flexibility for
landfill owners and operators. In addition, we proposed updates to SSM
and electronic reporting requirements.
III. What is included in this final rule?
This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the MSW Landfills source category.
This action also finalizes other changes to the MSW Landfills NESHAP
(40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA), including changes to promote
consistency between MSW landfills regulations under CAA sections 111
and 112 and changes to the wellhead temperature operating standards,
including associated monitoring, corrective action, and reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for temperature. This final rule also
provides additional flexibility for landfill owners and operators by
adjusting the provisions for GCCS removal. In addition, SSM and
electronic reporting requirements have been updated. This action also
reflects several changes to the July 2019 RTR proposal in consideration
of comments received during the public comment period described in
section IV of this preamble.
A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
MSW Landfills source category?
This section introduces the final amendments to the NESHAP being
promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The risks from this source
category are low for both cancer and noncancer health effects and we
proposed that the risks are acceptable. We received only comments in
support of the proposed determination. We are finalizing our
determination that risks from this source category are acceptable and
that the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, we are
not finalizing any revisions to the NESHAP based on our analyses
conducted under CAA section 112(f). Section IV.A.3 of this preamble
provides a summary of key comments we received regarding risk review
and our responses.
B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the MSW Landfills source category?
The technology review identified three types of developments that
could lead to additional control of HAP from MSW landfills. The three
potential developments are practices to reduce HAP formation within a
landfill, to collect more LFG for control or treatment, and to achieve
a greater level of HAP destruction in the collected LFG. As stated in
the proposal preamble (84 FR 36686-36689, July 29, 2019) none of these
developments were deemed to be cost effective. We are finalizing our
determination, as proposed, that there are no developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions
to the MACT standards for this source category. Therefore, we are not
finalizing revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).
C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of SSM?
We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the MSW landfills
standards to remove and revise provisions related to SSM. Within its
2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the
court vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM.
Specifically, the court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 302(k) of
the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in
nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's requirement that
some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously. As detailed in
section IV.D.8 of the proposal preamble (84 FR 36693-36697, July 29,
2019), we proposed that the NESHAP standards apply at all times (see 40
CFR 63.1930(b)), consistent with the court's decision in Sierra Club v.
EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The EPA is finalizing the SSM
provisions as proposed with minimal changes.
We are finalizing a work practice requirement that applies whenever
the GCCS is not operating. The work practice requirement appears at 40
CFR 63.1958(e) and is explained in the proposal preamble (84 FR 36695,
July 29, 2019).
Further, the EPA is not setting separate standards for malfunction
events. As discussed in the proposal preamble (84 FR 36694, July 29,
2019), the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions
that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into
development of CAA section 112 standards, although the EPA has the
discretion to set standards for malfunctions where feasible. Although
we are not setting separate standards for malfunction events, we are
setting a work practice standard for when the GCCS is not operating,
which could include periods of malfunction. Whenever a landfill
operator is complying with the work practice for periods when the GCCS
is not operating,
[[Page 17248]]
it is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of the
standards, and no comments were submitted that would suggest otherwise.
Refer to 84 FR 36694 of the proposal preamble for further discussion of
the EPA's rationale for the decision not to set separate standards for
malfunctions, as well as a discussion of the actions a source could
take in the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event. The administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations, including malfunction events.
We are also finalizing revisions to Table 1 of subpart AAAA, part
63, titled Applicability of NESHAP General Provisions to Subpart AAAA,
as explained in more detail in the SSM section of the proposal preamble
(84 FR 36693, July 29, 2019), to eliminate requirements that include
rule language providing an exemption for periods of SSM. Additionally,
we are finalizing our proposal to eliminate language related to SSM
that treats periods of startup and shutdown the same as periods of
malfunction.
The legal rationale and detailed changes for SSM periods that we
are finalizing are set forth in the proposed rule (84 FR 36693, July
29, 2019). As discussed in section IV.C of this preamble, the EPA is
making it clear that the semi-annual report must describe the date,
time, and duration of periods during which an operating standard was
exceeded, as well as when the GCCS was not operating. For more
information, see the response to comments document, titled Summary of
Public Comments and the EPA's Responses for the Proposed Risk and
Technology Review and Amendments for the Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills NESHAP, which is available in the docket for this action.
D. What other changes have been made to the MSW Landfills NESHAP?
This rule finalizes, as proposed, revisions to several NESHAP
requirements that promote consistency among MSW landfills regulations
developed under CAA sections 111 and 112. This rule also finalizes
revisions to the 2016 NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) and EG (40 CFR
part 60, subpart Cf) to promote consistency among MSW landfills
regulations under the CAA. Most of these changes are the same as those
proposed at 84 FR 36670 on July 29, 2019.
This rule also finalizes minor changes to other provisions of the
NESHAP since proposal. Specific changes made since proposal are
discussed in section IV.C of this preamble. Revisions to the NESHAP,
NSPS, and EG include:
1. Reorganization of the NESHAP
We are finalizing the reorganization of the NESHAP to incorporate
the major compliance provisions from the MSW Landfills NSPS program
directly into the NESHAP, thus, minimizing cross-referencing to other
subparts and consolidating requirements between the NSPS program and
the NESHAP. With the incorporation of the major compliance provisions
from the 2016 NSPS (subpart XXX), we, thus, incorporated revisions to
subpart XXX that were finalized in 2016. In addition, we clarified
which of the reorganized provisions apply no later than 18 months after
publication of the final rule.
2. Revisions to the 1996 NSPS (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts WWW) and the
2016 NSPS and EG (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts XXX and Cf)
The EPA is clarifying that subpart Cf (once implemented via a state
or federal plan) supersedes subparts WWW and Cc. The final rule revises
the title and applicability of subpart WWW (at 40 CFR 60.750(a)) to
distinguish the applicability dates from other landfills subparts. We
clarify that after the effective date of an EPA-approved state or
tribal plan implementing subpart Cf, or after the effective date of a
federal plan implementing subpart Cf, owners and operators of MSW
landfills must comply with the approved and effective state, tribal, or
federal plan implementing subpart Cf instead of subpart WWW or the
state or federal plan implementing subpart Cc.
3. NSPS and EG (Subparts XXX and Cf) Opt-In Provisions for NESHAP
We are finalizing minor edits to the 2016 NSPS and EG regulations
allowing MSW landfills affected by the NSPS and EG to demonstrate
compliance with the ``major compliance provisions'' of the NESHAP in
lieu of complying with the analogous provisions in the NSPS and EG.
This change allows landfills to follow one set of operational,
compliance, monitoring, and reporting provisions for pressure and
temperature. The differences between the landfills subparts are
identified in the memorandum titled Comparison of Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) Landfills Regulations, which is available in the docket for this
action.
4. Operational Standards for Wellheads
a. Nitrogen and Oxygen Concentrations
The EPA is finalizing the elimination of the operational standards
and the corresponding corrective action for nitrogen and oxygen
concentrations in the NESHAP for consistency with the 2016 NSPS and EG
(subparts XXX and Cf). The EPA concluded that nitrogen and oxygen
concentrations are not, by themselves, effective indicators of proper
operation of the LFG collection system (see 81 FR 59346, August 29,
2016).
b. Increased Wellhead Temperature Operating Standard
The EPA is finalizing an increase of temperature standard to 145
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F). The EPA is finalizing the increased
wellhead temperature operating standard in the NESHAP to reduce the
burden on regulated entities and delegated state, local, and tribal
agencies. This change is expected to reduce the number of requests and
burden associated with submitting and reviewing the requests for higher
operating values (HOVs) for temperature, as well as reduce the
frequency of corrective actions for exceeding the temperature limit.
This change provides landfill owners and operators greater flexibility
and autonomy with regards to wellhead monitoring and operations.
5. Corrective Action for Wellhead Operating Standards
The EPA is finalizing the elimination of the requirements for
corrective action for nitrogen and oxygen concentrations in the NESHAP
to maintain consistency with the requirements in the 2016 NSPS and EG
(subparts XXX and Cf). The operating standard for nitrogen and oxygen
has already been eliminated in those rules. In the NESHAP, the EPA is
finalizing changes to the corrective action procedures to address
positive pressure and elevated temperature to provide flexibility to
owners or operators in determining the appropriate remedy, as well as
the timeline for implementing the remedy. The changes to the timeline
and the process for correcting for positive pressure and elevated
temperature make the NESHAP requirements consistent with the current
requirements of the NSPS and EG, except that the requirements for
corrective action procedures being proposed in the NESHAP are tied to
the exceedance of the 145 [deg]F standard, instead of the 131 [deg]F
standard that still applies in the NSPS and EG.
[[Page 17249]]
6. Enhanced Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting for High Wellhead
Temperatures
The EPA is finalizing the addition of enhanced wellhead monitoring
and visual inspection requirements for any landfill with wellhead
temperature exceeding 145 [deg]F. Enhanced monitoring in the final rule
involves weekly observations for subsurface oxidation events (SOE), as
well as weekly monitoring of wellhead temperature, carbon monoxide
(CO), oxygen, and methane using an analyzer that meets all quality
assurance and quality control requirements for EPA Methods 10, 3C, or
18. Enhanced monitoring begins 7 days after the first reading exceeding
145 [deg]F is recorded and continues until the measured wellhead
operating temperature is 145 [deg]F or less, or an HOV is approved. The
proposed rule required a landfill to continue weekly enhanced
monitoring until an HOV was approved or until the LFG temperature at
the wellhead reached less than or equal to 62.8 degrees Celsius
([deg]C) (145 [deg]F). In the final rule, the EPA is allowing monthly
CO monitoring if the wellhead has CO readings below 100 ppmv for four
consecutive weeks. If the CO level exceeds 100 ppmv again, the landfill
must return to weekly monitoring (see section IV.D of this preamble).
Consistent with our proposal, the final rule requires enhanced
monitoring data to be submitted in the semi-annual report and
maintained as records. The EPA is finalizing the enhanced monitoring
requirements as proposed except for the following changes:
The EPA is removing the proposed requirement for an
independent laboratory analysis of each CO measurement (see section
IV.D of this preamble).
The EPA is finalizing the proposed 24-hour electronic
report for any well with highly elevated temperature (76.7 [deg]C or
170 [deg]F) and CO readings (40 CFR 63.1981(k)). In the final rule, the
EPA reduced the CO threshold for the 24-hour electronic report from
1,500 ppmv to 1,000 ppmv (see section IV.D of this preamble). The EPA
adjusted the corresponding corrective action for wells that have any
wellhead temperature reading of 170 [deg]F or above and CO reading of
1,000 ppmv. The report is not required for landfills that have an HOV
approved by the Administrator.
The EPA is finalizing the proposed downwell monitoring.
However, in the final rule, downwell monitoring is conducted annually,
instead of weekly. Additionally, the annual downwell monitoring is only
required for wellheads that have any temperature reading of 165 [deg]F
or above (see section IV.D of this preamble).
7. Criteria for Removing GCCS
The EPA is finalizing as proposed the added flexibility to the
NESHAP for determining when it is appropriate to cap, remove, or
decommission a portion of the GCCS (40 CFR 63.1957(b)). The NESHAP
requires three criteria to be met to remove controls: (1) The landfill
is closed, (2) the calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill is
less than 50 Mg/yr on three successive test dates, and (3) the GCCS has
operated for at least 15 years. In this final rule, we updated the
third criterion to allow the landfill owner or operator to choose
between the 15 years of GCCS operation or demonstrate that the GCCS
will be unable to operate for 15 years due to declining gas flows.
8. Definition of Cover Penetration
To clarify the implementation concerns, the EPA is finalizing as
proposed the phrase, ``. . . at all cover penetrations'' to the
regulatory text of the NESHAP (40 CFR 63.1958(d)), consistent with this
phrase in the 2016 NSPS and EG (subparts XXX and Cf). We are also
adding a definition of cover penetration as proposed. At 40 CFR
63.1958(d), we are clarifying the surface monitoring provisions by
requiring monitoring at any ``cover penetrations'' rather than at ``any
openings.'' And we are clarifying that the landfill owner or operator
must determine the latitude and longitude coordinates ``of each
exceedance.''
9. Electronic Reporting
The EPA is requiring owners and operators of new or modified MSW
landfills to electronically submit required performance test reports,
NMOC Emission Rate Reports, Bioreactor 40-percent moisture reports, and
semi-annual reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) (40 CFR
63.1981(l)). The final rule requires that performance test results be
submitted using the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). Alternatively, MSW
landfills may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible
markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. For more
details, see the Electronic Reporting section of the proposal preamble
(84 FR 36693, July 29, 2019). For NMOC Emission Rate Reports,
Bioreactor 40-percent moisture reports, and semi-annual reports, the
final rule requires that owners and operators use the appropriate
spreadsheet template/forms to submit information to CEDRI when it
becomes available on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri). The electronic submittal of the reports
addressed in this rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data
contained in those reports, is in keeping with current trends in data
availability and transparency, will further assist in the protection of
public health and the environment, will improve compliance by
facilitating the ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate
compliance with requirements and by facilitating the ability of
delegated state, local, tribal, and territorial air agencies and the
EPA to assess and determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce
burden on regulated facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA.
Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes,
thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating
redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data
quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the
EPA, and the public. For a more thorough discussion of electronic
reporting, see the memorandum, Electronic Reporting Requirements for
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0047.
10. Other Clarifications and Changes To Conform With the NSPS
In 2016, the EPA finalized its review of the 1996 NSPS (40 CFR part
60, subpart WWW) and made revisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX) to
simplify and streamline implementation of the rule. Note that some of
the revisions were proposed as early as 2002 and 2006. With the
incorporation of compliance provisions from the NSPS into the NESHAP as
part of this rulemaking, we are likewise finalizing the following
provisions from the NSPS:
Allowing the use of portable gas composition analyzers to
monitor the oxygen level at a wellhead (40 CFR 63.1961(a)).
Requiring owners and operators to report more precise
locational data for each surface emissions exceedance to provide a more
robust and long-term record of GCCS performance and more easily locate
and correct breaches in the landfill cover (40 CFR 63.1961(f)).
Refining the criteria for updating a design plan by
requiring landfill owners or operators to submit an updated design plan
for approval based on the following criteria: (1) Within 90 days of
[[Page 17250]]
expanding operations to an area not covered by the previously approved
design plan; and (2) before installing or expanding the gas collection
system in a way that is not consistent to the previous design plan (40
CFR 63.1981(e)).
Clarifying that in addition to use as a fuel for
stationary combustion devices, use of treated LFG also includes other
uses such as the production of vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas
for pipeline injection, or use as a raw material in a chemical
manufacturing process (40 CFR 63.1959(b)).
Standardizing the terms ``control system'' and
``collection and control system'' in the NESHAP in order to use
consistent terminology throughout the regulatory text.
Exempting owners/operators of boilers and process heaters
with design capacities of 44 megawatts or greater from the requirement
to conduct an initial performance test since large boilers and process
heaters consistently achieve the required level of control (67 FR
36478, May 23, 2002).
Removing the term ``combustion'' from the requirement to
monitor temperature of enclosed combustors to clarify that temperature
could be monitored at another location, as long as the monitored
temperature relates to proper operation of the enclosed combustor (71
FR 53276, September 8, 2006).
Refining definitions to ensure consistent use across
federal landfills regulations (40 CFR 63.1990) of the terms: Treated
landfill gas, Treatment system, Modification, Household waste, and
Segregated yard waste.
11. Closed Areas
The EPA is maintaining the current approach to closed areas so that
landfills subject to both the 2016 NSPS and EG and the NESHAP have a
streamlined set of requirements to follow. The 2016 NSPS and EG allow
landfill owners or operators to model NMOC emissions or take actual
measurements of NMOC emissions at physically separated, closed areas of
open landfills. The EPA has not expanded the term ``closed area'' to
include areas that are not physically separated (e.g., separately
lined).
12. Changes to Definitions
The EPA expanded the list of definitions in the NESHAP to create a
list that improves consistency between the 2016 NSPS, 1996 NSPS, and
the NESHAP. The changes fall into the following categories:
The 2003 MSW Landfills NESHAP included eight definitions.
Five of these definitions remain the same. The EPA made changes to two
of the original defined phrases. One of these phrases also has had a
definition change. The original definition for ``deviation'' has been
refined to reflect the updated SSM requirements.
The EPA added a new definition for ``cover penetration''
based on public comments.
To address public comments about definition consistency,
the EPA included an additional 32 definitions that correspond to
definitions in NSPS subparts XXX, WWW, or both. The EPA made minor
updates to reflect current regulation references.
E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on March 26, 2020.
The compliance date for existing sources is January 16, 2004.
New sources must comply by January 16, 2003, or upon startup,
whichever is later.
The compliance dates remain the same as proposed. The EPA is
allowing facilities up to 18 months after March 26, 2020, to begin
complying with the final rule. Affected MSW landfills must continue to
comply with the existing requirements until they meet the new
requirements.
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the MSW Landfills source category?
For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, please
see the comment summaries and the EPA's Response to Comments document,
which are available in the docket.
A. Residual Risk Review for the MSW Landfills Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the MSW
Landfills source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk
review and presented the results of this review, along with our
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of
safety, in the July 29, 2019, proposed rule for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
AAAA (84 FR 36670). The results of the risk assessment are presented
briefly in Table 2 of this preamble. More detail is in the residual
risk technical support document, Residual Risk Assessment for the MSW
Landfills Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology
Review Final Rule, which is available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
Table 2--MSW Landfills Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual lifetime cancer Based on actual emissions
risk (in 1 million) \2\ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------- Estimated Estimated Estimated
Number of facilities \1\ population at population at annual cancer Maximum chronic Maximum
Based on actual Based on increased risk increased risk incidence noncancer TOSHI screening acute
emissions \3\ . . allowable of cance >=1- of cancer >=10- (cases per \4\ noncancer hazard
. emissions . . . in-1 million in-1 million year) quotient (HQ)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
706........................... 10 (p- 10 (p- 18,300 11 0.04 0.1 (neuro- HQREL\5\ = 0.07
dichlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, logical). (chloroform).
ethyl benzene, ethyl benzene,
benzene). benzene).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis.
\2\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\3\ Whole facility emissions are equal to actual emissions and have the same risk.
\4\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ systems with the highest TOSHI for the source category are neurological, with risk driven by emissions of
trichloroethylene, m-xylene, xylenes (mixed), and tetrachloroethene from fugitive emissions.
\5\ Reference Exposure Level (REL).
The results of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk
assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current actual,
allowable, and whole facility emissions under the NESHAP, the maximum
individual risk posed by the source category is 10-in-1 million. The
total estimated cancer incidence based on actual emission levels is
0.04
[[Page 17251]]
excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 25 years. The total
estimated cancer incidence based on allowable emission levels is 0.05
excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 20 years. Fugitive air
emissions of benzene-based pollutants contributed approximately 50
percent to the cancer incidence. The population exposed to cancer risks
greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million based upon actual emissions is
18,300. The population exposed to cancer risks greater than or equal to
10-in-1 million based upon actual emissions is 11. No individuals or
groups are exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The
screening analysis for worst-case acute impacts indicates that no
pollutants exceed an acute HQ value of 1 based upon the REL. Because
none of the screening HQs were greater than 1, further refinement of
the estimates was not warranted. A separate assessment of inhalation
risk from facility-wide emissions was unnecessary because facility-wide
emissions were the same as source category emissions. The multipathway
risk screening assessment resulted in a maximum Tier 2 noncancer
screening value of less than 1 for mercury. Mercury was the only
persistent and bioaccumulative HAP emitted by the source category.
Based on these results, we are confident that the human-health
noncancer risks are below a level of concern. Mercury was the only
environmental HAP identified from the category and the ecological risk
screening assessment indicated that all modeled points were below the
Tier 1 screening threshold. Therefore, we do not expect an adverse
environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions from this source
category.
We weighed all human health risk factors in our risk acceptability
determination, and we proposed that the residual risks from the MSW
Landfills source category are acceptable. We then considered whether
the NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health,
and whether more stringent standards were necessary to prevent an
adverse environmental effect, by taking into consideration costs,
energy, safety, and other relevant factors. In determining whether the
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health,
we examined the same risk factors that we investigated for our
acceptability determination and also considered the costs,
technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to
emissions control options that might reduce risk (or potential risks)
associated with emissions from the source category. Our risk analysis
indicated the risks from this source category are low for both cancer
and noncancer health effects, and, therefore, any additional emissions
reductions would result in minimal health benefits or reductions in
risk. We note that fugitive landfill emissions result in 84 percent of
the cancer incidence for this source category. Based upon results of
the risk analysis and our evaluation of the technical feasibility and
cost of the option(s) to reduce landfill fugitive emissions, we
proposed that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to
protect the public health. We also proposed, based on the results of
our environmental screening assessment, that more stringent standards
are not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect.
2. How did the risk review change for the MSW Landfills source
category?
Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse
environmental effects have changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
We received comments that were generally supportive of the proposed
residual risk review and our determination that no revisions were
warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2) for the MSW Landfills source
category. Commenters stated that the EPA's residual risk review
approach was sufficiently conservative in its assumptions relating to
facility emission profiles and supported the EPA's conclusion that the
residual risk is acceptable and provides an ample margin of safety. One
commenter stated that the modeling includes conservative features that
is consistent with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
conforms to many state programs and that EPA appropriately considered
maximum exposed individuals, multi-pathway assessments, as well as
specific populations by census blocks near actual facilities. The
commenter also stated the EPA's emission factor data used for the
proposed NESHAP is comprehensive considering the number of facilities
referenced and the number of analytes assessed. However, another
commenter expressed concern regarding the EPA's use of emission factors
calculated using 2008 AP-42,\3\ Chapter 2.4. The commenter stated that
the modeling inputs were based on use of draft emission factors from an
AP-42 section that was proposed in 2008 and remains a draft. The
commenter stated that the use of a draft section creates confusion
regarding the information it contains and sets an unclear precedent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. EPA, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. 1995.
https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree with the comment that the use of draft AP-42 emission
factors introduces confusion or sets precedent for using these factors
in other regulations. In the development of the risk analysis, we
documented the rationale for using the emission factors from 2008 AP-42
Chapter 2.4 in the docketed memorandum, Residual Risk Modeling File
Documentation for the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Source
Category.\4\ Specifically, the 2008 AP-42 draft emission factor data,
with subsequent adjustments made to reflect comments received on the
draft for the risk analysis, represent the best available data for HAP
emissions from landfills. The 1998 Final AP-42 chapter had factors for
only 23 HAP, whereas the updated factors used in the risk analysis
cover 49 HAP derived from a significantly larger dataset. By including
a larger number of HAP in the factors used in the risk analysis, the
analysis was conservative. The EPA is not suggesting in this preamble
or in background documentation that the factors used are appropriate
for other permitting or regulatory uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Appendix 1, Section 7 to docket item, Residual Risk
Assessment for the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Source Category in
Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule. May
2019. Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0047-0091.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After review of these comments, we determined that no changes
needed to be made to the underlying risk assessment methodology. The
comments and our specific responses can be found in the response to
comments document titled Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's
Responses for the Proposed Risk and Technology Review and Amendments
for the Municipal Solid Waste Landfills NESHAP, which is available in
the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's risk review and
determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule, we proposed that the risks from the MSW
Landfills source category are acceptable, and the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent
an adverse environmental
[[Page 17252]]
effect. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing
the risk review as proposed.
B. Technology Review for the MSW Landfills Source Category
1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the MSW
Landfills source category?
Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we proposed to conclude that no
revisions to the current NESHAP are necessary (section IV.C of the
proposal preamble 84 FR 36686). In conducting the review, we identified
developments in work practices and technologies to reduce HAP
formation, collect additional HAP, and destroy additional HAP from MSW
landfills. We ruled out developments in waste diversion programs, which
can reduce HAP formation, as technically infeasible, because programs
to ban or recycle wastes instead of placing the wastes in the landfill
are not typically under the control of landfill owners or operators. We
analyzed the costs and emission reductions associated with earlier gas
collection strategies, including a lower NMOC threshold and shortening
the time in which a GCCS is required to expand into new areas of the
landfill. Based on these analyses, we concluded that these options are
not cost effective for HAP. We also analyzed the cost and emission
reductions associated with destroying additional HAP in higher
efficiency flares, and based on these analyses, we concluded that these
options are not cost effective for HAP.
2. How did the technology review change for the MSW Landfills source
category?
We have not changed any aspect of the technology review since the
July 29, 2019, proposal for the MSW Landfills source category.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
The comments received by the EPA on the technology review were
generally supportive, with only one commenter challenging the EPA's
findings regarding GCCS installation lag times. One commenter agreed
that the EPA's findings regarding mandated source separation, earlier
LFG collection, criteria, and timeframe for removing GCCS, early
installation of landfill cover systems, enclosed flares, thermal
oxidizers, energy recovery projects, and use of biocovers were
infeasible, not cost-effective, or did not result in emissions
reductions. Another commenter noted the limited innovation in HAP-
reducing technologies and requested increased government funding for
research in this area. One commenter challenged the EPA's determination
that earlier gas collection, via shorter expansion lag times, is not
economically feasible and asked the EPA to reevaluate its
determination.
The EPA has not revised the technology review for the NESHAP to
analyze the costs of shorter expansion lag times for certain landfills.
The EPA agrees with the commenter that shorter lag times are
commercially available. However, the installation of well components to
achieve these shorter lag times requires site-specific analysis. For
example, the timing of well installation is affected by waste placement
patterns and annual acceptance rates. The EPA explored shorter lag
times as part of the review for the 2016 NSPS and EG and received
several comments related to site-specific costs and safety concerns
associated with reduced lag times, urging the EPA to retain flexibility
in any lag-time adjustments. See 79 FR 41807 (July 17, 2014) and 80 FR
52121 (August 27, 2015) for more details. The EPA has not received any
comments suggesting that the cost and safety concerns brought forth as
part of the 2016 rulemaking have changed, and as a result, no changes
to the lag times are being finalized.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
As explained in the proposal preamble (84 FR 36686, July 29, 2019),
we conducted a technology review to identify developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that may warrant revisions to the
current NESHAP. We identified three types of developments that could
lead to additional control of HAP from MSW landfills, but we determined
that there are no cost-effective developments in practices, processes,
or control technologies to warrant revisions to the standards. We also
evaluated the public comments on the EPA's technology review and
determined that no changes to the review are needed. More information
concerning our technology review is in the memorandum titled CAA
section 112(d)(6) Technology Review for the MSW Landfills Source
Category, in the docket for this action, and in the preamble to the
proposed rule (84 FR 36686-36689, July 29, 2019). Therefore, pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are finalizing the results of the
technology review as proposed.
C. SSM for the MSW Landfills Source Category
1. What did we propose for the MSW Landfills source category?
We proposed amendments to the NESHAP to remove and revise
provisions related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement
that the standards apply at all times. More information concerning the
elimination of SSM provisions is in the preamble to the proposed rule
(84 FR 36693).
2. How did the SSM provisions change for the MSW Landfills source
category?
We are finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed (84 FR 36693, July
29, 2019) with the minor changes described in section IV.C.3 of this
preamble.
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions and what are
our responses?
We received two comments related to our proposed revisions to the
SSM provisions. The first commenter agreed that the NESHAP must apply
at all times and with the approach of applying a work practice standard
under CAA section 112(h) during periods of SSM. The second commenter
requested that the EPA clarify that SSM events be reported as stated in
the proposal preamble (84 FR 36696, July 29, 2019). A summary of the
SSM comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments
is available in the response to comments document titled Summary of
Public Comments and the EPA's Responses for the Proposed Risk and
Technology Review and Amendments for the Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills NESHAP, which is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-
0047.
The first commenter agreed that the work practice requirements of
proposed 40 CFR 63.1958(e) are appropriate and consistent with a well-
designed and operated LFG collection system. However, the commenter
objected to the EPA's proposed preamble statements and rule revisions
that specify that compliance with these provisions during SSM does not
necessarily constitute compliance with the NESHAP. The commenter stated
that these provisions are inconsistent with prior EPA decisions about
appropriate landfill operation and are not compelled by the Sierra Club
v. EPA decision.
Landfill emissions are produced by a continuous biological process
that cannot be stopped or restarted. Therefore, the primary concern
related to SSM is with malfunction of the landfill GCCS and associated
monitoring equipment, not with the
[[Page 17253]]
startup or shutdown of the entire source. The SSM periods that are
covered by the proposed additional work practice standard of 40 CFR
63.1958(e) are those periods when the landfill GCCS and associated
monitoring equipment are not operating for any reason. During such
periods, excess emissions to the atmosphere will occur. This additional
work practice requires the owner or operator to shut down all valves in
the collection and control system contributing to venting of the gas to
the atmosphere within 1 hour and to minimize the downtime for making
repairs to the collection and control system. Although this additional
practice is necessary to reduce emissions associated with a GCCS
outage, to minimize emissions also requires actions to prevent the
shutdown of the GCCS. Although we agree with the commenter that some
unavoidable circumstances may require that the GCCS system be shut down
for short periods of time (e.g., for tying in a system expansion,
repair, and preventative maintenance), the frequency of shutdowns also
can be affected by carelessness, ineffective operation and maintenance
procedures, failure to properly train landfill operations staff, and
other site-specific factors. Actions to prevent the shutdown of a GCCS
may include a preventative maintenance program, expeditious repair or
replacement of equipment that frequently fails, the use of valves and
bypass systems to segregate portions of the GCCS that are undergoing
expansion, maintenance, or repairs from those portions that are
unaffected by the work, and the use of redundant equipment and controls
so that the system can remain online even if one component fails to
operate properly. Additional reasonable steps include the controls of
vehicular equipment on the landfill to avoid damage to the GCCS or
crushed pipes. This may include speed limits and traffic routes that
avoid passing over buried ductwork or other equipment.
Another commenter requested the EPA clarify that SSM events be
reported as stated in the proposal preamble (84 FR 36696, July 29,
2019) in order to evaluate whether the general duty to minimize
emissions is being met. The commenter stated that while the preamble
stated that reporting will be required (84 FR 36696, July 29, 2019),
the rule only requires records of SSM events.
The EPA proposed to add recordkeeping requirements for startup and
shutdown to 40 CFR 63.1983(c) (84 FR 36696, July 29, 2019). Because 40
CFR 63.1958(e) specifies a different standard for periods when the GCCS
is not operating under normal conditions (which would include periods
of startup, shutdown, and maintenance or repair), we noted that it will
be important to know when such startup and shutdown periods begin and
end in order to determine compliance with the appropriate standard.
Thus, we proposed language in 40 CFR 63.1983(c)(6) to require that a
landfill owner or operator report the date, time, and duration of each
startup and shutdown period. However, the paragraphs we cited in the
preamble and revised in the rule require only the records of such
events.
The EPA agrees with the commenter that recordkeeping and reporting
for SSM events needs to be clarified in the final rule. Thus, the EPA
revised 40 CFR 63.1981(h)(1) to make it clear that the semi-annual
report must describe the date, time, and duration of periods during
which an operating standard was exceeded, as well as when the GCCS was
not operating. The semi-annual report in 40 CFR 63.1981(h) does not
require separate reporting of SSM events, but every exceedance,
including when operating standards are exceeded and when the GCCS is
not operating, must be reported including during SSM.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
We evaluated the comments on the EPA's proposed amendments to the
SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we
determined that the proposed amendments appropriately remove and revise
provisions related to SSM not consistent with the requirement that the
standards apply at all times. More information concerning the
amendments we are finalizing for SSM is in the preamble to the proposed
rule (84 FR 36693, July 29, 2019). Therefore, we are finalizing our
approach for the SSM provisions as proposed with the clarifications
described in section IV.C.3 of this preamble.
D. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
1. Enhanced Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting for Elevated
Wellhead Temperature
Given concerns with fire risks from elevated temperatures, and the
fact that parameters other than temperature can be indicators of a SOE,
we proposed enhanced wellhead monitoring and visual inspections for
subsurface oxidation events (40 CFR 63.1961(a)), and in some cases more
frequent reporting (40 CFR 63.1981(k)), for any landfill with wellhead
temperature exceeding 145 [deg]F. The proposed enhanced monitoring
included weekly monitoring of CO, oxygen, and methane. For each CO
measurement, the EPA proposed to require an independent laboratory
analysis (84 FR 36691, July 29, 2019). As part of enhanced monitoring,
the EPA proposed weekly temperature monitoring every 10 vertical feet
down the well (downwell monitoring).
Several commenters expressed concerns with the requirement for
independent laboratory CO testing. One commenter observed that
laboratory testing is expensive, and three commenters stated that
requiring laboratory testing would extend the response time and not
provide timely information that can help the landfill owner or operator
improve compliance. One commenter also noted several concerns with the
logistics of independent laboratory analysis, including concerns with
the proposed test methods and sample transportation.
The EPA agrees with commenters that independent laboratory analysis
could present logistical challenges and potentially increase costs.
Shipping passivated canisters or multi-layer foil gas sampling bags
could require specialized shipping and could delay results that could
improve operation of the GCCS. Therefore, based on public comments, the
EPA is removing the requirement for an independent laboratory to
analyze each CO measurement. In the final rule, landfill owners or
operators have the option to collect the sample and conduct analysis
on-site, using purchased or rented equipment that meets the
requirements of EPA Method 10. This could generate results quicker,
enabling the owner or operator to adjust the GCCS in a more timely
manner. Conducting the analysis on-site would also prevent the need to
package and ship the canisters or bags, thus, saving shipping costs and
eliminating the logistical concerns of shipping the samples.
One commenter expressed concerns with the indefinite term of the
enhanced monitoring. The commenter advised that if CO readings are less
than 1,500 ppmv, monitoring should not be required indefinitely, but
instead cease after 3 consecutive months. The commenter observed that
this approach is consistent with the requirements of the consent
decrees in the docket and with historical HOV demonstrations.
Regarding when to stop enhanced CO monitoring, the EPA agrees with
commenters because the weekly enhanced monitoring is not intended to
continue indefinitely. In the proposal, there were two means to stop
enhanced
[[Page 17254]]
weekly CO monitoring. Enhanced monitoring could be stopped once an HOV
is approved, at which time the monitoring provisions issued with the
HOV should be followed (40 CFR 63.1961(a)(5)(viii)). Alternatively, the
enhanced monitoring could stop once the measurement of LFG temperature
at the wellhead is below 145 [deg]F (40 CFR 63.1961(a)(5)(viii)). In
the final rule, the EPA is retaining these two means to stop enhanced
CO monitoring. The EPA is also providing an opportunity to reduce the
frequency of monitoring in the final rule while still maintaining
sufficient data availability of wellhead parameters for those wells
that consistently operate at higher temperatures. Specifically, the EPA
is extending the frequency of enhanced monitoring. Enhanced monitoring
must be conducted on a weekly basis. However, if four consecutive
weekly CO readings are below 100 ppmv, then monitoring may be decreased
to a monthly basis. If the CO level exceeds 100 ppmv again, the
landfill must return to weekly monitoring. Additionally, the EPA is
specifically clarifying in the final rule that HOVs that have been
previously approved under another MSW Landfill NSPS or EG regulation
will not have to seek pre-approval for that HOV under the provisions in
the NESHAP (40 CFR 63.1961(a)(5)).
One commenter expressed concern with the proposed 1,500 ppmv
threshold for CO, asserting that 1,000 ppmv would be a more reasonable
upper limit for detecting or preventing landfill fires. The EPA agrees
with the commenter. The EPA reexamined the MSW Landfills consent
decrees cited in the proposed rule; documents from CalRecycle, the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the Solid Waste Association of North America. These
documents (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0047) all cite a 1,000
ppmv CO concentration as an indication of an underground landfill fire,
in combination with other factors. Additionally, a guidance document
from the Ohio EPA for subsurface heating events refers to the CO
concentration cited in the FEMA and CalRecycle documents. Two of the
consent decrees, Forward and Central Maui, require 24-hour electronic
notification to the delegated authority for any CO reading of 1,000
ppmv or above. For these reasons, the EPA is reducing the reporting
threshold for CO from 1,500 ppmv to 1,000 ppmv in the final rule.
One commenter expressed support for the downwell temperature
reading requirement. However, another commenter warned that the
downwell monitoring may not be achievable or yield meaningful data,
noting that installation of thermocouples to measure well temperature
may not be possible on a well that is already constructed due to
shifting in the well as settlement occurs. The commenter also noted
that if wells have been raised with solid pipe, or the boring log does
not provide accurate as-built information, the data may not be
meaningful. Another commenter requested that the EPA eliminate the
downwell temperature monitoring requirement. The commenter observed
that the EPA claims that the proposed enhanced monitoring for well
temperature is intended to facilitate the detection of a subsurface
fire, yet the solid waste industry has long recognized that subsurface
fires occur near the surface, require oxygen, are visually
recognizable, and are addressed with known remedies. The commenter
asserted that weekly downwell measurements could be counter-productive
and inconsistent with the GCCS best management practices or challenging
to implement.
The EPA reexamined the consent decrees and supporting documents and
agrees with the commenters that weekly downwell monitoring could be
potentially burdensome to implement. Requirements for conducting
downwell temperature monitoring is in only the referenced consent
decrees and not prescribed in the other supporting documents. Although
the 2009 Ohio EPA best management practices document \5\ suggests that
inter-well and intra-well temperature data may be useful, it does not
require those data in all cases. For these reasons, the EPA is reducing
the frequency of downwell monitoring from weekly to annually. Annual
downwell temperature monitoring will provide more robust data on waste
temperatures throughout the radius of influence of the well. In
addition, the EPA is increasing the wellhead temperature threshold that
triggers downwell monitoring. In the final rule, downwell monitoring is
required for wellhead temperatures of 165 [deg]F or greater rather than
145 [deg]F. The EPA believes the downwell monitoring data to be
critical for assessing the operations of wells with these higher
temperatures in order to minimize fire risks. The EPA expects that
these changes will reduce the burden and implementation challenges
associated with downwell monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ohio EPA. Guidance Document for Higher Operating Value
Demonstrations. https://web.epa.state.oh.us/eBusinessCenter/Agency/DAPC/HOV%20Demonstration.doc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the EPA has changed the frequency of CO monitoring and
downwell temperature monitoring, the EPA has modified the requirement
to include a well-specific summary trend analysis in the semi-annual
report (40 CFR 63.1981(h)(8)(ii)) to remove the downwell temperature
and recognizes that CO monitoring may occur on a monthly or weekly
basis depending on the level at the well. Additionally, the EPA has
removed the requirement to submit a 24-hour high temperature report if
the well is subject to an approved HOV for temperature (40 CFR
63.1981(k)).
The EPA has also adjusted the enhanced monitoring provisions at 40
CFR 63.1961(a)(5) to remove the upper bound limitation of 170 [deg]F.
Enhanced monitoring should continue until both this temperature level
and a CO level of 1,000 ppmv have been reached, at which point the
provisions 40 CFR 63.1960(a)(4)(i)(D) and 63.1981(k) apply. Consistent
with the proposed preamble (80 FR 36692, July 29, 2019), high
temperatures in combination with high levels of CO are considered a
positive indication of an active underground fire. The EPA has adjusted
the requirements for the records and reports associated with these
enhanced monitoring data to remove the upper bound limitation.
2. Delegation of Authority
Commenters expressed concerns with the EPA's proposed delegation of
authority language (40 CFR 63.1985(c)). The EPA proposed at 40 CFR
63.1985(c) that the EPA will not delegate ``approval of alternatives to
the standards'' in 40 CFR 63.1955-63.1962, which the commenters
interpreted to include authority to approve alternatives to monitoring
(i.e., HOVs). Thus, the commenters contend that the language restricts
delegated state or local agencies from approving or disapproving HOVs
and other alternatives that are needed to reflect a source's site-
specific conditions. The commenters claim that the proposed provision
will lead to confusion in the compliance and enforcement work of the
delegated states or create conflicts wherein a state agency and the EPA
disagree. One commenter contended that the proposal allows the EPA to
approve an HOV by incorporating additional monitoring requirements. The
commenter questioned whether incorporation of applicable NSPS-required
limits and corrective actions in the title V permits would preclude the
applicability of flexibility outside these terms. Another commenter was
concerned that the
[[Page 17255]]
NESHAP was much more restrictive in the items that could be delegated
than the NSPS and that this would create conflict between the EPA and
delegated authorities.
The EPA disagrees that proposed 40 CFR 63.1985(c) includes
authority to approve HOVs. The EPA did not intend to preclude state or
local agencies from approving or disapproving HOVs and other
alternatives that are needed to reflect a source's site-specific
conditions. The final NESHAP directly incorporates the major compliance
provisions of the NSPS rules (subparts WWW and XXX). Consistent with
the NSPS rules, the final NESHAP allows owners or operators to
establish an HOV for temperature at a particular well (40 CFR
63.1958(c)(1)). The owner or operator must submit a request for an HOV,
along with supporting data, to the Administrator for approval. Also
consistent with the NSPS rules, the collection and control system
design plan may include for Administrator approval collection and
control systems that include any alternatives to the operational
standards, test methods, procedures, compliance measures, monitoring,
recordkeeping, or reporting provisions. The Administrator or delegated
authority would review and approve the HOV or design plan.
The EPA recognizes that proposed 40 CFR 63.1985(c) does not reflect
its intent and may have caused confusion. In 40 CFR 63.1985(c), the EPA
retains authority to approve ``alternatives to the standards'' in 40
CFR 63.1955-63.1962. Commenters incorrectly interpreted that the term
``alternative emission standards'' includes authority to approve HOVs.
The term ``emission standards'' is defined in 40 CFR 60.21(f) as ``a
legally enforceable regulation setting forth an allowable rate of
emissions into the atmosphere, establishing an allowance system, or
prescribing equipment specifications for control of air pollution
emissions.'' The EPA intends the use of the phrase ``alternative
emission standards'' to refer to the ``Standards'' for MSW landfill
emissions in 40 CFR 63.1955-63.1962. The EPA does not intend
``alternative emission standards'' to include alternatives for wellhead
monitoring in 40 CFR 63.1958. The EPA also does not intend to retain
authority to review and approve gas collection and control design
plans.
Thus, based on public comments, the EPA is revising 40 CFR
63.1985(c) to reflect the EPA's intent, which is not to preclude states
or other delegated authorities from approving HOVs and design plans.
The EPA will delegate authority to approve HOVs and design plans.
However, consistent with the NSPS, the final rule retains the EPA's
authority to approve alternative methods for determining the NMOC
concentration in 40 CFR 63.1959(a)(3) and a site-specific methane
generation rate constant in 40 CFR 63.1959(a)(4).
3. Technical Corrections
Based on public comments, the EPA made several technical
corrections and clarifications to make clear the requirements of the
regulation.
40 CFR 60.38f(k) and 60.767(j). Clarified that if an MSW
landfill owner or operator is complying with the major compliance
provisions of the NESHAP, then the owner or operator must follow the
corrective action and the corresponding timeline reporting requirements
in the NESHAP (40 CFR 63.1981(j)) in lieu of the corresponding timeline
reporting requirements of the EG or NSPS, respectively.
40 CFR 60.39f(e)(6). Corrected a typographical error.
Removed the word ``you'' and retained ``owner or operator.''
40 CFR 60.750. Clarified that an affected MSW landfill
continues to comply with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW until it becomes
subject to the more stringent requirements in an approved and effective
state or federal plan that implements 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf of
this part, or until it modifies or reconstructs after July 17, 2014,
and, thus, becomes subject to subpart XXX.
40 CFR 60.768(e)(6). Corrected a typographical error.
Removed the word ``you'' and retained ``owner or operator.''
40 CFR 63.1947(a)(2). Corrected typographical error. Refer
to 40 CFR 63.1982(c) and (d) instead of 40 CFR 63.1980(g) and (h) for
moisture calculations.
40 CFR 63.1955(a). Clarified that alternatives to the
operational standards, test methods, procedures, compliance measures,
monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting provisions that have already
been approved under 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX can be used to comply
with the NESHAP.
40 CFR 63.1960(a)(4)(i). Corrected typographical error.
Removed the phrase, ``for the purpose of identifying whether excess air
infiltration exists'' because the phrase does not apply to temperature.
40 CFR 63.1960(a)(4)(i)(D). Clarified that if the LFG
temperature measured at either the wellhead or at any point in the well
is greater than or equal to 76.7 [deg]C (170 [deg]F) and the CO
concentration measured is greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmv, the
owner or operator must complete the corrective action(s) for the
wellhead temperature standard (62.8 [deg]C or 145 [deg]F) within 15
days.
40 CFR 63.1960(e). Corrected reference from 40 CFR
63.1958(c) to 40 CFR 63.1958(e) to refer to SSM requirements.
40 CFR 63.1961(a)(5). Clarified that landfills with
previously approved HOVs for temperature under various landfills
subparts are not required to conduct enhanced monitoring.
40 CFR 63.1961(a)(5)(vii). Corrected reference from
paragraph (a)(4) to (a)(5) to reference enhanced monitoring
requirements.
40 CFR 63.1981(h)(1), (h)(1)(i), and (h)(1)(ii). Clarified
that the semi-annual report must include the date, time, and duration
of ``each exceedance'' of the applicable monitoring parameters, not
``each failure.''
40 CFR 63.1983(e)(2)(i). Corrected paragraph numbering to
be (i), (ii), and (iii) instead of (i), (i), and (ii) and corrected
cross-reference to the enhanced monitoring provisions in 40 CFR
63.1961(a)(5).
40 CFR 63.1990. Definition of controlled landfill.
Clarified that the landfill is a controlled landfill when a collection
and control system design plan is submitted in compliance with 40 CFR
60.752(b)(2)(i) or in compliance with 40 CFR 63.1959(b)(2)(i),
regardless of whether that submittal is within 18 months after date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
Table 1 to subpart AAAA of part 63. Expanded to indicate
which initial notifications apply before and which notifications apply
after the date 18 months after publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. Added ``Yes'' entries for 40 CFR 63.6(i) and (j), and
40 CFR 63.10(a) to show applicability after the initial 18-month
timeframe. Added a ``No'' entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c).
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected facilities?
We anticipate that approximately 738 active or closed MSW landfills
in the United States and territories will be affected by these final
amendments in the year 2023. This number is based on all landfills that
accepted waste after November 8, 1987, that have a design capacity of
at least 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\. In addition, this number
reflects the subset of landfills meeting these two criteria with
modeled emission estimates of 50 Mg/yr NMOC or greater that have
installed controls on or before 2023. While the EPA
[[Page 17256]]
recognizes some uncertainty regarding which landfills have actually
exceeded the emission threshold, given the allowance of sites to
estimate emissions using Tiers 1, 2, or 3, and the site-specific nature
of NMOC concentrations, the number of MSW landfills that are collocated
with major sources and, therefore, also subject to control requirements
under this rule is also unknown. Therefore, 738 is the best estimate of
the affected sources.
B. What are the air quality impacts?
The final amendments are expected to have a minimal impact on air
quality. While these amendments do not require stricter control
requirements or work practice standards on landfills to comply with the
proposed amendments, some landfills may find that the adjustments made
to the oxygen, nitrogen, and temperature wellhead standards finalized
herein provide enough operational flexibility to install, expand, and
operate additional voluntary GCCS, which could reduce emissions. The
other proposed revisions that affect testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting will ensure that the GCCS equipment
continues to perform as expected and provide reliable data from each
facility to be reported for compliance.
C. What are the cost impacts?
The EPA has estimated $0 compliance costs for all new and existing
sources affected by this final rule, beyond what is already required
under the existing NESHAP and what is already included in the
previously approved information collection activities contained in the
existing NESHAP (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number
2060-0505), as described in section VI.C of this preamble. Furthermore,
landfills accepting waste after November 8, 1987, must comply with the
similar, yet, more stringent requirements of the 2016 NSPS or a plan
implementing 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. Many of the changes in these
amendments better align the NESHAP with the requirements of the NSPS
and plans implementing subpart Cf. These changes simplify compliance,
which in turn could reduce costs. For example, elimination of the
wellhead operating standards for oxygen and nitrogen to match
requirements in the NSPS will reduce the number of requests for HOVs,
which in turn could decrease compliance costs.
The EPA maintains that final changes to enhanced monitoring for
wellhead temperature are not estimated to incur a cost. The EPA is
finalizing a temperature standard that is 14 [deg]F higher than the
standard that currently exists in the baseline regulations in order to
provide additional flexibility to controlled landfills. However,
ultimately, the requirement in the final NESHAP remains to install and
operate a well-designed and well-operated GCCS. The EPA is not
requiring enhanced monitoring from all controlled landfills, but this
option is being made available as a compliance flexibility to the
population of wells that do not already have an approved HOV and for
which temperature cannot be adjusted downward through routine GCCS
adjustments. Based on feedback provided in public comments, over 6,000
HOV requests have been submitted and reviewed by regulatory agencies,
and the enhanced monitoring requirements would not apply to any of the
HOV requests that have received approval. Furthermore, the concern that
the enhanced monitoring requirements would continue in perpetuity is
unsubstantiated. First, landfills have up to 7 days to adjust the well
to achieve a lower temperature before the enhanced monitoring
requirements are triggered (40 CFR 63.1961(a)(5)(vii)). Second, the
enhanced monitoring can stop once the well temperature drops back to
145 [deg]F or less. The EPA did not receive any comments on the number
of wells that are operating above 145 [deg]F without an approved HOV,
which would have helped the EPA quantify how many wells would be
affected and the corresponding costs. Additionally, the EPA did not
receive any data on how long the wells without an approved HOV
typically exceed 145 [deg]F. Given insufficient data on the number and
length of each temperature exceedance to make an estimate, the EPA has
not quantified any cost impacts for the enhanced monitoring.
The EPA also contends that many of the parameters required in the
enhanced monitoring are also parameters that are required to obtain an
approval of an HOV request under the baseline regulations and so these
costs are not an incremental cost that is not otherwise happening
outside of the NESHAP amendments. For example, the Ohio EPA already
requires 6 months of historical data, narrative discussion of the
visual evidence of fire, and CO measurements using appropriate
laboratory techniques.\6\ Under the final amendments, the EPA
anticipates that landfill operators will immediately implement
corrective actions to lower well temperatures, as well as immediately
file appeals for HOVs for their wells, if appropriate. The EPA
anticipates that processing requests for HOVs will be quicker because
fewer requests are expected to be submitted due to the higher
temperature standard and elimination of the oxygen and nitrogen
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ohio EPA. Guidance Document for Higher Operating Value
Demonstrations. https://web.epa.state.oh.us/eBusinessCenter/Agency/DAPC/HOV%20Demonstration.doc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also maintains that removal of the requirement to prepare
an SSM plan and removal of the associated recordkeeping and reporting
requirements will not result in additional costs for new or modified
facilities, but instead result in a cost savings. Owners or operators
will not incur the cost of preparing an SSM plan. To meet their
obligation under 40 CFR 63.1955(c) to minimize emissions during
collection or control system downtime, owners or operators are expected
to rely on existing standard operating procedures and safety practices.
The EPA expects that some landfills may incorporate automated controls
that would shut down the gas mover system and valves in the event of
detection of a collection or control system malfunction. Such systems
are expected to have existing corresponding written or automated
standard operating procedures and safety practices.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements will not result in
additional costs for new or modified facilities. The final work
practice requirements mandate a shutdown of the gas mover system and
all valves within the collection and control system within 1 hour of
the collection or control system not operating and then require repair
efforts to proceed in a way that keeps downtime to a minimum (40 CFR
63.1958(e)(1)(i)-(ii)). A landfill demonstrates compliance with these
requirements via recordkeeping as specified in 40 CFR 63.1983(c)(6)-
(7). The work practice requirement to record and report all instances
of downtime will not result in an increased recordkeeping and reporting
burden as compared to the 2003 NESHAP. Via cross-reference to the 1996
NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW) to (40 CFR 63.1955(a)(1)), the 2003
NESHAP already required landfill owners to keep continuous records of
the indication of flow to the control device, report periods when the
control device was not operating for a period exceeding 1 hour. The
records required by existing regulations serve as the records of system
downtime.
Note that this work practice itself does not add incremental cost
to new or modified landfills subject to the proposed regulation because
this requirement already appears in the
[[Page 17257]]
NESHAP as promulgated in 2003 at 40 CFR 63.1955(a)(1), which says
affected landfills must comply with the requirements of the 1996 NSPS.
40 CFR 60.753(e) already requires owners or operators to shut down the
gas mover system and close all valves in the collection and control
system contributing to venting of the gas to the atmosphere within 1
hour.
Given that the costs for these enhanced monitoring requirements
cannot be quantified, in addition to the fact that there are some cost
savings previously documented to offset these costs,\7\ the EPA
concludes that the final rule is best characterized as a no-cost
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. EPA, Cost Impacts of National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills Risk
and Technology Review, May 20, 2019, Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2002-0047-0081.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. What are the economic impacts?
The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers
about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action.
Because there are no costs associated with the final rule, no economic
impacts are anticipated.
E. What are the benefits?
As stated in section V.B of this preamble, we were unable to
quantify the specific emissions reductions associated with adjustments
made to the oxygen and nitrogen wellhead operating standards, although
this change has the potential to reduce emissions. Any reduction in HAP
emissions would be expected to provide health benefits in the form of
improved air quality and less exposure to potentially harmful
chemicals.
F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the MSW Landfills source category, we
performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5
kilometers (km) and within 50 km of the facilities. In the analysis, we
evaluated the distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risk
from the source category across different demographic groups within the
populations living near facilities.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living two times above the poverty level, and linguistically
isolated people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 3
of this preamble. These results, for various demographic groups, are
based on the estimated risk from actual emissions levels for the
population living within 50 km of the facilities.
Table 3--MSW Landfills Source Category Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population with
cancer risk Population with
greater than or hazard index
equal to 1 in 1 greater than 1
million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Source category
--------------------------------------------------------
Total Population....................................... 317,746,049 18,217 0
--------------------------------------------------------
Race by Percent
--------------------------------------------------------
White.................................................. 62 58 0
All Other Races........................................ 38 42 0
--------------------------------------------------------
Race by Percent
--------------------------------------------------------
African American....................................... 12 13 0
Native American........................................ 0.8 0.1 0
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)....... 18 20 0
Other and Multiracial.................................. 7 8 0
--------------------------------------------------------
Income by Percent
--------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.................................... 14 15 0
Above Poverty Level.................................... 86 85 0
--------------------------------------------------------
Education by Percent
--------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.............. 14 17 0
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma................. 86 83 0
--------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated by Percent
--------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated................................ 6 8 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are summarized in
section IV.A of this preamble and are further documented in the report,
Risk and Technology Review-Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations
[[Page 17258]]
Living Near Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Source Category Operations,
available in the docket for this action.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are
finalizing regulatory text in 40 CFR 63.1961(a)(2)(ii) and (2)(iii)(B)
that includes the IBR of ASTM D6522-11--Standard Test Method for
Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen
Concentrations in Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating
Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using
Portable Analyzers (Approved December 1, 2011), as an alternative for
determining oxygen for wellhead standards in 40 CFR 63.1961(a)(2). For
this test method, a gas sample is continuously extracted from a duct
and conveyed to a portable analyzer for determination of nitrogen
oxides, CO, and oxygen gas concentrations using electrochemical cells.
Analyzer design specifications, performance specifications, and test
procedures are provided to ensure reliable data. This method is an
alternative to EPA methods and is consistent with the methods already
allowed under the 2016 NSPS and EG (subparts XXX and Cf). The ASTM
standards are available from the American Society for Testing and
Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See https://www.astm.org. You may inspect a
copy at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC; phone number: (202) 566-
1744; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0338. This IBR has been approved by
the Office of the Federal Register and the method is federally
enforceable under the CAA as of the effective date of this final
rulemaking.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to the OMB for review.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. This final rule provides meaningful burden reduction by
removing the requirements for SSM plans and periodic SSM reports,
removing the oxygen and nitrogen wellhead operating standards,
increasing the temperature wellhead standard, revising the corrective
action timeline and procedures, providing flexibility for landfills to
remove controls, and adding electronic reporting.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0505. The only burden associated with the final
rule is limited to affected sources becoming familiar with the changes
in the final rule. The burden for respondents to review rule
requirements each year is already accounted for in the previously
approved information collection activities contained in the existing
regulations (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA), which were assigned OMB
control number 2060-0505. Additionally, changes to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW, subpart XXX, and subpart Cf only add clarifying language
for affected sources and provide alternatives for any deviations from
the respective standards. These changes would not increase any burden
for affected sources.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This action is projected to affect 738
MSW landfills, and approximately 60 of these facilities are owned by a
small entity. The small entities subject to the requirements of this
final rule may include private small business and small governmental
jurisdictions that own or operate landfills, but the cost for complying
with the final amendments is expected to be $0. We have, therefore,
concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all
directly regulated small entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While state, local,
or tribal governments own and operate landfills subject to these final
amendments, the impacts resulting from this regulatory action are far
below the applicable threshold.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The database used to
estimate impacts of these final amendments identified one tribe, the
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, that owns three landfills
potentially subject to the NESHAP. Two of these landfills are already
controlling emissions--the Salt River Landfill and the Tri Cities
Landfill. Although the permits for these landfills indicate they are
subject to this subpart, these final changes are not expected to
increase the costs. The other landfill, North Center Street Landfill,
is not estimated to install controls under the NESHAP. The EPA offered
to consult with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribes in the process of developing this
regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its
development. A copy of the letter offering consultation is in the
docket for this action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental
[[Page 17259]]
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and risk
assessments are contained in sections III.A and IV.A of this preamble.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
part 51
This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to
use voluntary consensus standards ASTM D6522-11, ``Standard Test Method
for the Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen
Concentrations in Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating
Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using
Portable Analyzers,'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3A
when used at the wellhead before combustion. It is advisable to know
the flammability and check the lower explosive limit of the flue gas
constituents prior to sampling, in order to avoid undesired ignition of
the gas. The results of ASTM D6522-11 may be used to determine nitrogen
oxides and CO emission concentrations from natural gas combustion at
stationary sources. This test method may also be used to monitor
emissions during short-term emission tests or periodically in order to
optimize process operation for nitrogen oxides and CO control. The
EPA's review is documented in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus
Standard Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Residual Risk and
Technology Review, in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0047).
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text for 40 CFR part
63, subpart AAAA that includes IBR in accordance with requirements of 1
CFR 51.5. Specifically, the EPA is incorporating by reference ASTM
D6522-11. See section VI of this preamble for information on the
availability of this material.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (58 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Our analysis of the demographics of the population with estimated
risks greater than 1-in-1 million indicates potential disparities in
risks between demographic groups, including the African American,
Hispanic or Latino, Over 25 Without a High School Diploma, and Below
the Poverty Level groups. In addition, the population living within 50
km of MSW landfills has a higher percentage of minority, lower income,
and lower education people when compared to the nationwide percentages
of those groups. However, acknowledging these potential disparities,
the risks for the source category were determined to be acceptable, and
any emissions reductions from the final revisions will benefit these
groups the most.
The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.B
and C of this preamble, and the technical report, Risk and Technology
Review--Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Source Category Operations, which is
available in the docket for this action.
L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: February 25, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR
parts 60 and 63 as follows:
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Cf--Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills
0
2. Section 60.34f is amended by revising the introductory text to read
as follows:
Sec. 60.34f Operational standards for collection and control systems.
For approval, a state plan must include provisions for the
operational standards in this section (as well as the provisions in
Sec. Sec. 60.36f and 60.37f), or the operational standards in Sec.
63.1958 of this chapter (as well as the provisions in Sec. Sec.
63.1960 of this chapter and 63.1961 of this chapter), or both as
alternative means of compliance, for an MSW landfill with a gas
collection and control system used to comply with the provisions of
Sec. 60.33f(b) and (c). Once the owner or operator begins to comply
with the provisions of Sec. 63.1958 of this chapter, the owner or
operator must continue to operate the collection and control device
according to those provisions and cannot return to the provisions of
this section. Each owner or operator of an MSW landfill with a gas
collection and control system used to comply with the provisions of
Sec. 60.33f(b) and (c) must:
* * * * *
0
3. Section 60.36f is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.36f Compliance provisions.
For approval, a state plan must include the compliance provisions
in this section (as well as the provisions in Sec. Sec. 60.34f and
60.37f), or the compliance provisions in Sec. 63.1960 of this chapter
(as well as the provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1958 of this chapter and
63.1961 of this chapter), or both as alternative means of compliance,
for an MSW landfill with a gas collection and control system used to
comply with the provisions of Sec. 60.33f(b) and (c). Once the owner
or operator begins to comply with the provisions of Sec. 63.1960 of
this chapter, the owner or operator must continue to operate the
collection and control device according to those provisions and cannot
return to the provisions of this section.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
[[Page 17260]]
(ii) If corrective actions cannot be fully implemented within 60
days following the positive pressure or elevated temperature
measurement for which the root cause analysis was required, the owner
or operator must also conduct a corrective action analysis and develop
an implementation schedule to complete the corrective action(s) as soon
as practicable, but no more than 120 days following the measurement of
landfill gas temperature greater than 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees
Fahrenheit) or positive pressure. The owner or operator must submit the
items listed in Sec. 60.38f(h)(7) as part of the next annual report.
The owner or operator must keep records according to Sec.
60.39f(e)(4).
* * * * *
0
4. Section 60.37f is amended by revising the introductory text to read
as follows:
Sec. 60.37f Monitoring of operations.
For approval, a state plan must include the monitoring provisions
in this section, (as well as the provisions in Sec. Sec. 60.34f and
60.36f) except as provided in Sec. 60.38f(d)(2), or the monitoring
provisions in Sec. 63.1961 of this chapter (as well as the provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1958 of this chapter and 63.1960 of this chapter), or
both as alternative means of compliance, for an MSW landfill with a gas
collection and control system used to comply with the provisions of
Sec. 60.33f(b) and (c). Once the owner or operator begins to comply
with the provisions of Sec. 63.1961 of this chapter, the owner or
operator must continue to operate the collection and control device
according to those provisions and cannot return to the provisions of
this section.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 60.38f is amended by revising paragraphs (h) introductory,
(h)(7), and (k) introductory text and adding paragraph (n) to read as
follows:
Sec. 60.38f Reporting guidelines.
* * * * *
(h) Annual report. The owner or operator of a landfill seeking to
comply with Sec. 60.33f(e)(2) using an active collection system
designed in accordance with Sec. 60.33f(b) must submit to the
Administrator, following the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(2)
of this section, an annual report of the recorded information in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section. The initial annual
report must be submitted within 180 days of installation and startup of
the collection and control system. The initial annual report must
include the initial performance test report required under Sec. 60.8,
as applicable, unless the report of the results of the performance test
has been submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX. In the initial annual
report, the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested and the
date that such performance test was conducted may be submitted in lieu
of the performance test report if the report has been previously
submitted to the EPA's CDX. The initial performance test report must be
submitted, following the procedure specified in paragraph (j)(1) of
this section, no later than the date that the initial annual report is
submitted. For enclosed combustion devices and flares, reportable
exceedances are defined under Sec. 60.39f(c)(1). If complying with the
operational provisions of Sec. Sec. 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of
this chapter, as allowed at Sec. Sec. 60.34f, 60.36f, and 60.37f, the
owner or operator must follow the semi-annual reporting requirements in
Sec. 63.1981(h) of this chapter in lieu of this paragraph.
* * * * *
(7) For any corrective action analysis for which corrective actions
are required in Sec. 60.36f(a)(3) or (5) and that take more than 60
days to correct the exceedance, the root cause analysis conducted,
including a description of the recommended corrective action(s), the
date for corrective action(s) already completed following the positive
pressure or elevated temperature reading, and, for action(s) not
already completed, a schedule for implementation, including proposed
commencement and completion dates.
* * * * *
(k) Corrective action and the corresponding timeline. The owner or
operator must submit according to paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this
section. If complying with the operational provisions of Sec. Sec.
63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter, as allowed at Sec. Sec.
60.34f, 60.36f, and 60.37f, the owner or operator must follow the
corrective action and the corresponding timeline reporting requirements
in Sec. 63.1981(j) of this chapter in lieu of paragraphs (k)(1) and
(2) of this section.
* * * * *
(n) Each owner or operator that chooses to comply with the
provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter,
as allowed in Sec. Sec. 60.34f, 60.36f, and 60.37f, must submit the
24-hour high temperature report according to Sec. 63.1981(k) of this
chapter.
0
6. Section 60.39f is amended by revising paragraph (e) introductory
text and adding paragraph (e)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.39f Recordkeeping guidelines.
* * * * *
(e) Except as provided in Sec. 60.38f(d)(2), each owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must keep for at
least 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible records of the items in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section. Each owner or operator
that chooses to comply with the provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1958,
63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter, as allowed in Sec. Sec. 60.34f,
60.36f, and 60.37f, must keep the records in paragraph (e)(6) of this
section and must keep records according to Sec. 63.1983(e)(1) through
(5) of this chapter in lieu of paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this
section.
* * * * *
(6) Each owner or operator that chooses to comply with the
provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter,
as allowed in Sec. Sec. 60.34f, 60.36f, and 60.37f, must keep records
of the date upon which the owner or operator started complying with the
provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961.
* * * * *
Subpart WWW--Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills That Commenced Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification on or after May 30, 1991, but Before July 18, 2014
0
7. Section 60.750 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.750 Applicability, designation of affected facility, and
delegation of authority.
(a) The provisions of this subpart apply to each municipal solid
waste landfill that commenced construction, reconstruction, or
modification on or after May 30, 1991, but before July 18, 2014.
* * * * *
(d) An affected municipal solid waste landfill must continue to
comply with this subpart until it:
(1) Becomes subject to the more stringent requirements in an
approved and effective state or federal plan that implements subpart Cf
of this part, or
(2) Modifies or reconstructs after July 17, 2014, and thus becomes
subject to subpart XXX of this part.
[[Page 17261]]
Subpart XXX--Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills That Commenced Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification After July 17, 2014
0
8. Section 60.762 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2)(iv) to read
as follows:
Sec. 60.762 Standards for air emissions from municipal solid waste
landfills.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Operation. Operate the collection and control device installed
to comply with this subpart in accordance with the provisions of
Sec. Sec. 60.763, 60.765, and 60.766; or the provisions of Sec. Sec.
63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter. Once the owner or
operator begins to comply with the provisions of Sec. Sec. 63.1958,
63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter, the owner or operator must
continue to operate the collection and control device according to
those provisions and cannot return to the provisions of Sec. Sec.
60.763, 60.765, and 60.766.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 60.765 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(5)(ii) to read
as follows:
Sec. 60.765 Compliance provisions.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) If corrective actions cannot be fully implemented within 60
days following the positive pressure or elevated temperature
measurement for which the root cause analysis was required, the owner
or operator must also conduct a corrective action analysis and develop
an implementation schedule to complete the corrective action(s) as soon
as practicable, but no more than 120 days following the measurement of
landfill gas temperature greater than 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees
Fahrenheit) or positive pressure. The owner or operator must submit the
items listed in Sec. 60.767(g)(7) as part of the next annual report.
The owner or operator must keep records according to Sec.
60.768(e)(4).
* * * * *
0
10. Section 60.767 is amended by revising paragraphs (g) introductory
text, (g)(7, and (j) introductory text and adding paragraph (m) to read
as follows:
Sec. 60.767 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(g) Annual report. The owner or operator of a landfill seeking to
comply with Sec. 60.762(b)(2) using an active collection system
designed in accordance with Sec. 60.762(b)(2)(ii) must submit to the
Administrator, following the procedure specified in paragraph (i)(2) of
this section, annual reports of the recorded information in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (7) of this section. The initial annual report must be
submitted within 180 days of installation and startup of the collection
and control system and must include the initial performance test report
required under Sec. 60.8, as applicable, unless the report of the
results of the performance test has been submitted to the EPA via the
EPA's CDX. In the initial annual report, the process unit(s) tested,
the pollutant(s) tested, and the date that such performance test was
conducted may be submitted in lieu of the performance test report if
the report has been previously submitted to the EPA's CDX. For enclosed
combustion devices and flares, reportable exceedances are defined under
Sec. 60.768(c). If complying with the operational provisions of
Sec. Sec. 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter, as allowed at
Sec. 60.762(b)(2)(iv), the owner or operator must follow the semi-
annual reporting requirements in Sec. 63.1981(h) of this chapter in
lieu of this paragraph.
* * * * *
(7) For any corrective action analysis for which corrective actions
are required in Sec. 60.765(a)(3) or (5) and that take more than 60
days to correct the exceedance, the root cause analysis conducted,
including a description of the recommended corrective action(s), the
date for corrective action(s) already completed following the positive
pressure or elevated temperature reading, and, for action(s) not
already completed, a schedule for implementation, including proposed
commencement and completion dates.
* * * * *
(j) Corrective action and the corresponding timeline. The owner or
operator must submit according to paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this
section. If complying with the operational provisions of Sec. Sec.
63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter, as allowed at Sec.
60.762(b)(2)(iv), the owner or operator must follow the corrective
action and the corresponding timeline requirements in Sec. 63.1981(j)
of this chapter in lieu of this paragraph.
* * * * *
(m) Each owner or operator that chooses to comply with the
provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961, as allowed at
Sec. 60.762(b)(2)(iv), must submit the 24-hour high temperature report
according to Sec. 63.1981(k) of this chapter.
0
11. Section 60.768 is amended by revising paragraph (e) introductory
text and adding paragraph (e)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.768 Recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(e) Except as provided in Sec. 60.767(c)(2), each owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must keep for at
least 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible records of the items in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section. Each owner or operator
that chooses to comply with the provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1958,
63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter, as allowed at Sec.
60.762(b)(2)(iv), must keep the records in paragraph (e)(6) of this
section and must keep records according to Sec. Sec. 63.1983(e)(1)
through (5) of this chapter in lieu of paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of
this section.
* * * * *
(6) Each owner or operator that chooses to comply with the
provisions in Sec. Sec. 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961 of this chapter,
as allowed at Sec. 60.762(b)(2)(iv), must keep records of the date
upon which the owner or operator started complying with the provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1958, 63.1960, and 63.1961.
* * * * *
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
12. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
13. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(94) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(94) ASTM D6522-11 Standard Test Method for Determination of
Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in
Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion
Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers,
Approved December 1, 2011, IBR approved for Sec. 63.1961(a) and table
3 to subpart YYYY.
* * * * *
0
14. Subpart AAAA is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 17262]]
Subpart AAAA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
What This Subpart Covers
Sec.
63.1930 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.1935 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.1940 What is the affected source of this subpart?
63.1945 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
63.1947 When do I have to comply with this subpart if I own or
operate a bioreactor?
63.1950 When am I no longer required to comply with this subpart?
63.1952 When am I no longer required to comply with the requirements
of this subpart if I own or operate a bioreactor?
Standards
63.1955 What requirements must I meet?
63.1957 Requirements for gas collection and control system
installation and removal
63.1958 Operational standards for collection and control systems
63.1959 NMOC calculation procedures
63.1960 Compliance provisions
63.1961 Monitoring of operations
63.1962 Specifications for active collection systems
General and Continuing Compliance Requirements
63.1964 How is compliance determined?
63.1965 What is a deviation?
63.1975 How do I calculate the 3-hour block average used to
demonstrate compliance?
Notifications, Records, and Reports
63.1981 What reports must I submit?
63.1982 What records and reports must I submit and keep for
bioreactors or liquids addition other than leachate?
63.1983 What records must I keep?
Other Requirements and Information
63.1985 Who enforces this subpart?
63.1990 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Table 1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63--Applicability of NESHAP General
Provisions to Subpart AAAA
Subpart AAAA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.1930 What is the purpose of this subpart?
This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants for existing and new municipal solid waste (MSW)
landfills.
(a) Before September 28, 2021, all landfills described in Sec.
63.1935 must meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, or
an approved state or federal plan that implements 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cc, and requires timely control of bioreactors and additional
reporting requirements. Landfills must also meet the startup, shutdown,
and malfunction (SSM) requirements of the general provisions as
specified in Table 1 to Subpart AAAA of this part and must demonstrate
compliance with the operating conditions by parameter monitoring
results that are within the specified ranges. Specifically, landfills
must meet the following requirements of this subpart that apply before
September 28, 2021, as set out in: Sec. Sec. 63.1955(a), 63.1955(b),
63.1965(a), 63.1965(c), 63.1975, 63.1981(a), 63.1981(b), and 63.1982,
and the definitions of ``Controlled landfill'' and ``Deviation'' in
Sec. 63.1990.
(b) Beginning no later than September 27, 2021, all landfills
described in Sec. 63.1935 must meet the requirements of this subpart.
A landfill may choose to meet the requirements of this subpart rather
than the requirements identified in Sec. 63.1930(a) at any time before
September 27, 2021. The requirements of this subpart apply at all
times, including during periods of SSM, and the SSM requirements of the
General Provisions of this part do not apply.
Sec. 63.1935 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you meet the criteria in
paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an MSW
landfill that has accepted waste since November 8, 1987, or has
additional capacity for waste deposition and meets any one of the three
criteria in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) Your MSW landfill is a major source as defined in Sec. 63.2 of
subpart A.
(2) Your MSW landfill is collocated with a major source as defined
in Sec. 63.2 of subpart A.
(3) Your MSW landfill is an area source landfill that has a design
capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) and 2.5
million cubic meters (m\3\) and has estimated uncontrolled emissions
equal to or greater than 50 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) NMOC as
calculated according to Sec. 63.1959.
(b) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an MSW
landfill that has accepted waste since November 8, 1987, or has
additional capacity for waste deposition, that includes a bioreactor,
as defined in Sec. 63.1990, and that meets any one of the criteria in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section:
(1) Your MSW landfill is a major source as defined in Sec. 63.2 of
subpart A.
(2) Your MSW landfill is collocated with a major source as defined
in Sec. 63.2 of subpart A.
(3) Your MSW landfill is an area source landfill that has a design
capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\
and that is not permanently closed as of January 16, 2003.
Sec. 63.1940 What is the affected source of this subpart?
(a) An affected source of this subpart is an MSW landfill, as
defined in Sec. 63.1990, that meets the criteria in Sec. 63.1935(a)
or (b). The affected source includes the entire disposal facility in a
contiguous geographic space where household waste is placed in or on
land, including any portion of the MSW landfill operated as a
bioreactor.
(b) A new affected source of this subpart is an affected source
that commenced construction or reconstruction after November 7, 2000.
An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the definition of
reconstruction in Sec. 63.2 of subpart A.
(c) An affected source of this subpart is existing if it is not
new.
Sec. 63.1945 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) If your landfill is a new affected source, you must comply with
this subpart by January 16, 2003, or at the time you begin operating,
whichever is later.
(b) If your landfill is an existing affected source, you must
comply with this subpart by January 16, 2004.
Sec. 63.1947 When do I have to comply with this subpart if I own or
operate a bioreactor?
You must comply with this subpart by the dates specified in Sec.
63.1945(a) or (b). If you own or operate a bioreactor located at a
landfill that is not permanently closed as of January 16, 2003, and has
a design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5
million m\3\, then you must install and operate a collection and
control system that meets the criteria in Sec. 63.1959(b)(2) according
to the schedule specified in paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this
section.
(a) If your bioreactor is at a new affected source, then you must
meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) Install the gas collection and control system for the
bioreactor before initiating liquids addition.
(2) Begin operating the gas collection and control system within
180 days after initiating liquids addition or within 180 days after
achieving a moisture content of 40 percent by weight, whichever is
later. If you choose
[[Page 17263]]
to begin gas collection and control system operation 180 days after
achieving a 40-percent moisture content instead of 180 days after
liquids addition, use the procedures in Sec. Sec. 63.1982(c) and (d)
to determine when the bioreactor moisture content reaches 40 percent.
(b) If your bioreactor is at an existing affected source, then you
must install and begin operating the gas collection and control system
for the bioreactor by January 17, 2006, or by the date your bioreactor
is required to install a gas collection and control system under 40 CFR
part 60, subpart WWW; a federal plan; or an EPA-approved and effective
state plan or tribal plan that applies to your landfill, whichever is
earlier.
(c) If your bioreactor is at an existing affected source and you do
not initiate liquids addition to your bioreactor until later than
January 17, 2006, then you must meet the requirements in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) Install the gas collection and control system for the
bioreactor before initiating liquids addition.
(2) Begin operating the gas collection and control system within
180 days after initiating liquids addition or within 180 days after
achieving a moisture content of 40 percent by weight, whichever is
later. If you choose to begin gas collection and control system
operation 180 days after achieving a 40-percent moisture content
instead of 180 days after liquids addition, use the procedures in Sec.
63.1980(e) and (f) to determine when the bioreactor moisture content
reaches 40 percent.
Sec. 63.1950 When am I no longer required to comply with this
subpart?
You are no longer required to comply with the requirements of this
subpart when your landfill meets the collection and control system
removal criteria in Sec. 63.1957(b).
Sec. 63.1952 When am I no longer required to comply with the
requirements of this subpart if I own or operate a bioreactor?
If you own or operate a landfill that includes a bioreactor, you
are no longer required to comply with the requirements of this subpart
for the bioreactor provided you meet the conditions of either paragraph
(a) or (b) of this section.
(a) Your affected source meets the control system removal criteria
in Sec. 63.1950 or the bioreactor meets the criteria for a
nonproductive area of the landfill in Sec. 63.1962(a)(3)(ii).
(b) The bioreactor portion of the landfill is a closed landfill as
defined in Sec. 63.1990, you have permanently ceased adding liquids to
the bioreactor, and you have not added liquids to the bioreactor for at
least 1 year. A closure report for the bioreactor must be submitted to
the Administrator as provided in Sec. 63.1981(g).
Standards
Sec. 63.1955 What requirements must I meet?
(a) Before September 28, 2021, if alternatives to the operational
standards, test methods, procedures, compliance measures, monitoring,
recordkeeping, or reporting provisions have already been approved under
40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW; subpart XXX; a federal plan; or an EPA-
approved and effective state or tribal plan, these alternatives can be
used to comply with this subpart, except that all affected sources must
comply with the SSM requirements in subpart A of this part as specified
in Table 1 of this subpart and all affected sources must submit
compliance reports every 6 months as specified in Sec. 63.1981(h),
including information on all deviations that occurred during the 6-
month reporting period. Deviations for continuous emission monitors or
numerical continuous parameter monitors must be determined using a 3-
hour monitoring block average. Beginning no later than September 28,
2021, the collection and control system design plan may include for
approval collection and control systems that include any alternatives
to the operational standards, test methods, procedures, compliance
measures, monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting provisions, as
provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2).
(b) If you own or operate a bioreactor that is located at an MSW
landfill that is not permanently closed and has a design capacity equal
to or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\, then you must
meet the requirements of this subpart, including requirements in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) You must comply with this subpart starting on the date you are
required to install the gas collection and control system.
(2) You must extend the collection and control system into each new
cell or area of the bioreactor prior to initiating liquids addition in
that area.
(c) At all times, beginning no later than September 27, 2021, the
owner or operator must operate and maintain any affected source,
including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring
equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to
minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make any
further efforts to reduce emissions if the requirements of this subpart
have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in
compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on
information available to the Administrator which may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection
of the source.
Sec. 63.1957 Requirements for gas collection and control system
installation and removal.
(a) Operation. Operate the collection and control device in
accordance with the provisions of Sec. Sec. 63.1958, 63.1960, and
63.1961.
(b) Removal criteria. The collection and control system may be
capped, removed, or decommissioned if the following criteria are met:
(1) The landfill is a closed landfill (as defined in Sec.
63.1990). A closure report must be submitted to the Administrator as
provided in Sec. 63.1981(f);
(2) The gas collection and control system has been in operation a
minimum of 15 years or the landfill owner or operator demonstrates that
the gas collection and control system will be unable to operate for 15
years due to declining gas flow; and
(3) Following the procedures specified in Sec. 63.1959(c), the
calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill is less than 50 Mg/yr on
three successive test dates. The test dates must be no less than 90
days apart, and no more than 180 days apart.
Sec. 63.1958 Operational standards for collection and control
systems.
Each owner or operator of an MSW landfill with a gas collection and
control system used to comply with the provisions of Sec. 63.1957
must:
(a) Operate the collection system such that gas is collected from
each area, cell, or group of cells in the MSW landfill in which solid
waste has been in place for:
(1) 5 years or more if active; or
(2) 2 years or more if closed or at final grade;
(b) Operate the collection system with negative pressure at each
wellhead except under the following conditions:
(1) A fire or increased well temperature. The owner or operator
must record instances when positive pressure occurs in efforts to avoid
a fire. These records must be submitted with the semi-annual reports as
provided in Sec. 63.1981(h);
[[Page 17264]]
(2) Use of a geomembrane or synthetic cover. The owner or operator
must develop acceptable pressure limits in the design plan;
(3) A decommissioned well. A well may experience a static positive
pressure after shut down to accommodate for declining flows. All design
changes must be approved by the Administrator as specified in Sec.
63.1981(d)(2);
(c) Operate each interior wellhead in the collection system as
specified in Sec. 60.753(c), except:
(1) Beginning no later than September 27, 2021, operate each
interior wellhead in the collection system with a landfill gas
temperature less than 62.8 degrees Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit).
(2) The owner or operator may establish a higher operating
temperature value at a particular well. A higher operating value
demonstration must be submitted to the Administrator for approval and
must include supporting data demonstrating that the elevated parameter
neither causes fires nor significantly inhibits anaerobic decomposition
by killing methanogens. The demonstration must satisfy both criteria in
order to be approved (i.e., neither causing fires nor killing
methanogens is acceptable).
(d)(1) Operate the collection system so that the methane
concentration is less than 500 parts per million (ppm) above background
at the surface of the landfill. To determine if this level is exceeded,
the owner or operator must conduct surface testing around the perimeter
of the collection area and along a pattern that traverses the landfill
at no more than 30-meter intervals and where visual observations
indicate elevated concentrations of landfill gas, such as distressed
vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover. The owner or operator may
establish an alternative traversing pattern that ensures equivalent
coverage. A surface monitoring design plan must be developed that
includes a topographical map with the monitoring route and the
rationale for any site-specific deviations from the 30-meter intervals.
Areas with steep slopes or other dangerous areas may be excluded from
the surface testing.
(2) Beginning no later than September 27, 2021, the owner or
operator must:
(i) Conduct surface testing using an organic vapor analyzer, flame
ionization detector, or other portable monitor meeting the
specifications provided in Sec. 63.1960(d).
(ii) Conduct surface testing at all cover penetrations. Thus, the
owner or operator must monitor any cover penetrations that are within
an area of the landfill where waste has been placed and a gas
collection system is required.
(iii) Determine the latitude and longitude coordinates of each
exceedance using an instrument with an accuracy of at least 4 meters.
The coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at least five decimal
places.
(e) Operate the system as specified in Sec. 60.753(e) of this
chapter, except:
(1) Beginning no later than September 27, 2021, operate the system
in accordance to Sec. 63.1955(c) such that all collected gases are
vented to a control system designed and operated in compliance with
Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(iii). In the event the collection or control system
is not operating:
(i) The gas mover system must be shut down and all valves in the
collection and control system contributing to venting of the gas to the
atmosphere must be closed within 1 hour of the collection or control
system not operating; and
(ii) Efforts to repair the collection or control system must be
initiated and completed in a manner such that downtime is kept to a
minimum, and the collection and control system must be returned to
operation.
(2) [Reserved]
(f) Operate the control system at all times when the collected gas
is routed to the system.
(g) If monitoring demonstrates that the operational requirements in
paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this section are not met, corrective
action must be taken as specified in Sec. 63.1960(a)(3) and (5) or
(c). If corrective actions are taken as specified in Sec. 63.1960, the
monitored exceedance is not a deviation of the operational requirements
in this section.
Sec. 63.1959 NMOC calculation procedures.
(a) Calculate the NMOC emission rate using the procedures specified
in Sec. 60.754(a) of this chapter, except:
(1) NMOC emission rate. Beginning no later than September 27, 2021
the landfill owner or operator must calculate the NMOC emission rate
using either Equation 1 provided in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section
or Equation 2 provided in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section. Both
Equation 1 and Equation 2 may be used if the actual year-to-year solid
waste acceptance rate is known, as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of
this section, for part of the life of the landfill and the actual year-
to-year solid waste acceptance rate is unknown, as specified in
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, for part of the life of the
landfill. The values to be used in both Equation 1 and Equation 2 are
0.05 per year for k, 170 cubic meters per megagram (m\3\/Mg) for
LO, and 4,000 parts per million by volume (ppmv) as hexane
for the CNMOC. For landfills located in geographical areas
with a 30-year annual average precipitation of less than 25 inches, as
measured at the nearest representative official meteorologic site, the
k value to be used is 0.02 per year.
(i)(A) Equation 1 must be used if the actual year-to-year solid
waste acceptance rate is known.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26MR20.007
Where:
MNMOC = Total NMOC emission rate from the landfill, Mg/
yr.
k = Methane generation rate constant, year-1.
Lo = Methane generation potential, m\3\/Mg solid waste.
Mi = Mass of solid waste in the ith section, Mg.
ti = Age of the ith section, years.
CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, ppmv as hexane.
3.6 x 10-9 = Conversion factor.
(B) The mass of nondegradable solid waste may be subtracted from
the total mass of solid waste in a particular section of the landfill
when calculating the value for Mi if documentation of the
nature and amount of such wastes is maintained.
(ii)(A) Equation 2 must be used if the actual year-to-year solid
waste acceptance rate is unknown.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26MR20.011
[[Page 17265]]
Where:
MNMOC = Mass emission rate of NMOC, Mg/yr.
Lo = Methane generation potential, m\3\/Mg solid waste.
R = Average annual acceptance rate, Mg/yr.
k = Methane generation rate constant, year-1.
t = Age of landfill, years.
CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, ppmv as hexane.
c = Time since closure, years; for active landfill c=0 and
e-kc = 1.
3.6 x 10-9 = Conversion factor.
(B) The mass of nondegradable solid waste may be subtracted from
the total mass of solid waste in a particular section of the landfill
when calculating the value of R, if documentation of the nature and
amount of such wastes is maintained.
(2) Tier 1. The owner or operator must compare the calculated NMOC
mass emission rate to the standard of 50 Mg/yr.
(i) If the NMOC emission rate calculated in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section is less than 50 Mg/yr, then the landfill owner or operator
must submit an NMOC emission rate report according to Sec. 63.1981(c)
and must recalculate the NMOC mass emission rate annually as required
under paragraph (b) of this section.
(ii) If the calculated NMOC emission rate as calculated in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section is equal to or greater than 50 Mg/yr,
then the landfill owner must either:
(A) Submit a gas collection and control system design plan within 1
year as specified in Sec. 63.1981(d) and install and operate a gas
collection and control system within 30 months of the first annual
report in which the NMOC emission rate equals or exceeds 50 Mg/yr,
according to paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section;
(B) Determine a site-specific NMOC concentration and recalculate
the NMOC emission rate using the Tier 2 procedures provided in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section; or
(C) Determine a site-specific methane generation rate constant and
recalculate the NMOC emission rate using the Tier 3 procedures provided
in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(3) Tier 2. The landfill owner or operator must determine the site-
specific NMOC concentration using the following sampling procedure. The
landfill owner or operator must install at least two sample probes per
hectare, evenly distributed over the landfill surface that has retained
waste for at least 2 years. If the landfill is larger than 25 hectares
in area, only 50 samples are required. The probes should be evenly
distributed across the sample area. The sample probes should be located
to avoid known areas of nondegradable solid waste. The owner or
operator must collect and analyze one sample of landfill gas from each
probe to determine the NMOC concentration using EPA Method 25 or 25C of
appendix A-7 to part 60. Taking composite samples from different probes
into a single cylinder is allowed; however, equal sample volumes must
be taken from each probe. For each composite, the sampling rate,
collection times, beginning and ending cylinder vacuums, or alternative
volume measurements must be recorded to verify that composite volumes
are equal. Composite sample volumes should not be less than one liter
unless evidence can be provided to substantiate the accuracy of smaller
volumes. Terminate compositing before the cylinder approaches ambient
pressure where measurement accuracy diminishes. If more than the
required number of samples are taken, all samples must be used in the
analysis. The landfill owner or operator must divide the NMOC
concentration from EPA Method 25 or 25C of appendix A-7 to part 60 by 6
to convert from CNMOC as carbon to CNMOC as
hexane. If the landfill has an active or passive gas removal system in
place, EPA Method 25 or 25C samples may be collected from these systems
instead of surface probes provided the removal system can be shown to
provide sampling as representative as the two sampling probe per
hectare requirement. For active collection systems, samples may be
collected from the common header pipe. The sample location on the
common header pipe must be before any gas moving, condensate removal,
or treatment system equipment. For active collection systems, a minimum
of three samples must be collected from the header pipe.
(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test (as defined in Sec. 63.7 of subpart A), the owner or operator
must submit the results according to Sec. 63.1981(i).
(ii) The landfill owner or operator must recalculate the NMOC mass
emission rate using Equation 1 or Equation 2 provided in paragraph
(a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section and use the average site-specific
NMOC concentration from the collected samples instead of the default
value provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(iii) If the resulting NMOC mass emission rate is less than 50 Mg/
yr, then the owner or operator must submit a periodic estimate of NMOC
emissions in an NMOC emission rate report according to Sec. 63.1981(c)
and must recalculate the NMOC mass emission rate annually as required
under paragraph (b) of this section. The site-specific NMOC
concentration must be retested every 5 years using the methods
specified in this section.
(iv) If the NMOC mass emission rate as calculated using the Tier 2
site-specific NMOC concentration is equal to or greater than 50 Mg/yr,
the landfill owner or operator must either:
(A) Submit a gas collection and control system design plan within 1
year as specified in Sec. 63.1981(d) and install and operate a gas
collection and control system within 30 months according to paragraphs
(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section; or
(B) Determine a site-specific methane generation rate constant and
recalculate the NMOC emission rate using the site-specific methane
generation rate using the Tier 3 procedures specified in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section.
(4) Tier 3. The site-specific methane generation rate constant must
be determined using the procedures provided in EPA Method 2E of
appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter. The landfill owner or operator
must estimate the NMOC mass emission rate using Equation 1 or Equation
2 in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section and using a site-
specific methane generation rate constant, and the site-specific NMOC
concentration as determined in paragraph (a)(3) of this section instead
of the default values provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The
landfill owner or operator must compare the resulting NMOC mass
emission rate to the standard of 50 Mg/yr.
(i) If the NMOC mass emission rate as calculated using the Tier 2
site-specific NMOC concentration and Tier 3 site-specific methane
generation rate is equal to or greater than 50 Mg/yr, the owner or
operator must:
(A) Submit a gas collection and control system design plan within 1
year as specified in Sec. 63.1981(e) and install and operate a gas
collection and control system within 30 months of the first annual
report in which the NMOC emission rate equals or exceeds 50 Mg/yr,
according to paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section.
(B) [Reserved]
(ii) If the NMOC mass emission rate is less than 50 Mg/yr, then the
owner or operator must recalculate the NMOC mass emission rate annually
using Equation 1 or Equation 2 in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and
using the site-specific Tier 2 NMOC concentration and Tier 3 methane
generation rate constant and submit a periodic NMOC emission rate
report as provided in Sec. 63.1981(c).
[[Page 17266]]
The calculation of the methane generation rate constant is performed
only once, and the value obtained from this test must be used in all
subsequent annual NMOC emission rate calculations.
(5) Other methods. The owner or operator may use other methods to
determine the NMOC concentration or a site-specific methane generation
rate constant as an alternative to the methods required in paragraphs
(a)(3) and (4) of this section if the method has been approved by the
Administrator.
(b) Each owner or operator of an affected source having a design
capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\
must either comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section or calculate
an NMOC emission rate for the landfill using the procedures specified
in paragraph (a) of this section. The NMOC emission rate must be
recalculated annually, except as provided in Sec.
63.1981(c)(1)(ii)(A).
(1) If the calculated NMOC emission rate is less than 50 Mg/yr, the
owner or operator must:
(i) Submit an annual NMOC emission rate emission report to the
Administrator, except as provided for in Sec. 63.1981(c)(1)(ii); and
(ii) Recalculate the NMOC emission rate annually using the
procedures specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section until such
time as the calculated NMOC emission rate is equal to or greater than
50 Mg/yr, or the landfill is closed.
(A) If the calculated NMOC emission rate, upon initial calculation
or annual recalculation required in paragraph (b) of this section, is
equal to or greater than 50 Mg/yr, the owner or operator must either:
comply with paragraph (b)(2) of this section or calculate NMOC
emissions using the next higher tier in paragraph (a) of this section.
(B) If the landfill is permanently closed, a closure report must be
submitted to the Administrator as provided for in Sec. 63.1981(f).
(2) If the calculated NMOC emission rate is equal to or greater
than 50 Mg/yr using Tier 1, 2, or 3 procedures, the owner or operator
must either:
(i) Submit a collection and control system design plan prepared by
a professional engineer to the Administrator within 1 year as specified
in Sec. 63.1981(d) or calculate NMOC emissions using the next higher
tier in paragraph (a) of this section. The collection and control
system must meet the requirements in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (iii) of
this section.
(ii) Collection system. Install and start up a collection and
control system that captures the gas generated within the landfill as
required by paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(B) or (C) and (b)(2)(iii) of this
section within 30 months after:
(A) The first annual report in which the NMOC emission rate equals
or exceeds 50 Mg/yr, unless Tier 2 or Tier 3 sampling demonstrates that
the NMOC emission rate is less than 50 Mg.
(B) An active collection system must:
(1) Be designed to handle the maximum expected gas flow rate from
the entire area of the landfill that warrants control over the intended
use period of the gas control system equipment;
(2) Collect gas from each area, cell, or group of cells in the
landfill in which the initial solid waste has been placed for a period
of 5 years or more if active; or 2 years or more if closed or at final
grade;
(3) Collect gas at a sufficient extraction rate; and
(4) Be designed to minimize off-site migration of subsurface gas.
(C) A passive collection system must:
(1) Comply with the provisions specified in paragraphs
(b)(2)(ii)(B)(1), (2), and (3) of this section; and
(2) Be installed with liners on the bottom and all sides in all
areas in which gas is to be collected. The liners must be installed as
required under Sec. 258.40 of this chapter.
(iii) Control system. Route all the collected gas to a control
system that complies with the requirements in either paragraph
(b)(2)(iii)(A), (B), or (C) of this section.
(A) A non-enclosed flare designed and operated in accordance with
the parameters established in Sec. 63.11(b) except as noted in
paragraph (f) of this section; or
(B) A control system designed and operated to reduce NMOC by 98
weight-percent, or, when an enclosed combustion device is used for
control, to either reduce NMOC by 98 weight-percent or reduce the
outlet NMOC concentration to less than 20 ppmv, dry basis as hexane at
3-percent oxygen. The reduction efficiency or ppmv must be established
by an initial performance test to be completed no later than 180 days
after the initial startup of the approved control system using the test
methods specified in paragraph (e) of this section. The performance
test is not required for boilers and process heaters with design heat
input capacities equal to or greater than 44 megawatts that burn
landfill gas for compliance with this subpart.
(1) If a boiler or process heater is used as the control device,
the landfill gas stream must be introduced into the flame zone.
(2) The control device must be operated within the parameter ranges
established during the initial or most recent performance test. The
operating parameters to be monitored are specified in Sec. Sec.
63.1961(b) through (e);
(C) A treatment system that processes the collected gas for
subsequent sale or beneficial use such as fuel for combustion,
production of vehicle fuel, production of high-British thermal unit
(Btu) gas for pipeline injection, or use as a raw material in a
chemical manufacturing process. Venting of treated landfill gas to the
ambient air is not allowed. If the treated landfill gas cannot be
routed for subsequent sale or beneficial use, then the treated landfill
gas must be controlled according to either paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) or
(B) of this section.
(D) All emissions from any atmospheric vent from the gas treatment
system are subject to the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) or
(B) of this section. For purposes of this subpart, atmospheric vents
located on the condensate storage tank are not part of the treatment
system and are exempt from the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A)
or (B) of this section.
(c) After the installation and startup of a collection and control
system in compliance with this subpart, the owner or operator must
calculate the NMOC emission rate for purposes of determining when the
system can be capped, removed, or decommissioned as provided in Sec.
63.1957(b)(3), using Equation 3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26MR20.009
Where:
MNMOC = Mass emission rate of NMOC, Mg/yr.
QLFG = Flow rate of landfill gas, m\3\ per minute.
CNMOC = Average NMOC concentration, ppmv as hexane.
1.89 x 10-3 = Conversion factor.
(1) The flow rate of landfill gas, QLFG, must be
determined by measuring the
[[Page 17267]]
total landfill gas flow rate at the common header pipe that leads to
the control system using a gas flow measuring device calibrated
according to the provisions of section 10 of EPA Method 2E of appendix
A-1 of part 60.
(2) The average NMOC concentration, CNMOC, must be
determined by collecting and analyzing landfill gas sampled from the
common header pipe before the gas moving or condensate removal
equipment using the procedures in EPA Method 25 or 25C of appendix A-7
to part 60 of this chapter. The sample location on the common header
pipe must be before any condensate removal or other gas refining units.
The landfill owner or operator must divide the NMOC concentration from
EPA Method 25 or 25C of appendix A-7 to part 60 by 6 to convert from
CNMOC as carbon to CNMOC as hexane.
(3) The owner or operator may use another method to determine
landfill gas flow rate and NMOC concentration if the method has been
approved by the Administrator.
(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test (as defined in Sec. 63.7), the owner or operator must submit the
results of the performance test, including any associated fuel
analyses, according to Sec. 63.1981(i).
(ii) [Reserved]
(d) For the performance test required in Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(B), EPA Method 25 or 25C (EPA Method 25C of appendix
A-7 to part 60 of this chapter may be used at the inlet only) of
appendix A of this part must be used to determine compliance with the
98 weight-percent efficiency or the 20- ppmv outlet concentration
level, unless another method to demonstrate compliance has been
approved by the Administrator as provided by Sec. 63.1981(d)(2). EPA
Method 3, 3A, or 3C of appendix A-7 to part 60 must be used to
determine oxygen for correcting the NMOC concentration as hexane to 3
percent. In cases where the outlet concentration is less than 50 ppm
NMOC as carbon (8 ppm NMOC as hexane), EPA Method 25A should be used in
place of EPA Method 25. EPA Method 18 may be used in conjunction with
EPA Method 25A on a limited basis (compound specific, e.g., methane) or
EPA Method 3C may be used to determine methane. The methane as carbon
should be subtracted from the EPA Method 25A total hydrocarbon value as
carbon to give NMOC concentration as carbon. The landowner or operator
must divide the NMOC concentration as carbon by 6 to convert from the
CNMOC as carbon to CNMOC as hexane. Equation 4
must be used to calculate efficiency:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26MR20.012
Where:
NMOCin = Mass of NMOC entering control device.
NMOCout = Mass of NMOC exiting control device.
(e) For the performance test required in Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(A), the net heating value of the combusted landfill
gas as determined in Sec. 63.11(b)(6)(ii) is calculated from the
concentration of methane in the landfill gas as measured by EPA Method
3C of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. A minimum of three 30-
minute EPA Method 3C samples are determined. The measurement of other
organic components, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide is not applicable.
EPA Method 3C may be used to determine the landfill gas molecular
weight for calculating the flare gas exit velocity under Sec.
63.11(b)(7) of subpart A.
(1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test (as defined in Sec. 63.7), the owner or operator must submit the
results of the performance tests, including any associated fuel
analyses, required by Sec. 63.1959(c) or (e) according to Sec.
63.1981(i).
(2) [Reserved]
(f) The performance tests required in Sec. Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(A) and (B), must be conducted under such conditions
as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on
representative performance of the affected source for the period being
tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and
shutdown unless specified by the Administrator. The owner or operator
may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The
owner or operator must record the process information that is necessary
to document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
Sec. 63.1960 Compliance provisions.
(a) Except as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2), the specified
methods in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section must be used
to determine whether the gas collection system is in compliance with
Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(ii).
(1) For the purposes of calculating the maximum expected gas
generation flow rate from the landfill to determine compliance with
Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(ii)(C)(1), either Equation 5 or Equation 6 must be
used. The owner or operator may use another method to determine the
maximum gas generation flow rate, if the method has been approved by
the Administrator. The methane generation rate constant (k) and methane
generation potential (Lo) kinetic factors should be those
published in the most recent Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors (AP-42) or other site-specific values demonstrated to be
appropriate and approved by the Administrator. If k has been determined
as specified in Sec. 63.1959(a)(4), the value of k determined from the
test must be used. A value of no more than 15 years must be used for
the intended use period of the gas mover equipment. The active life of
the landfill is the age of the landfill plus the estimated number of
years until closure.
(i) For sites with unknown year-to-year solid waste acceptance
rate:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26MR20.013
Where:
Qm = Maximum expected gas generation flow rate, m\3\/yr.
Lo = Methane generation potential, m\3\/Mg solid waste.
R = Average annual acceptance rate, Mg/yr.
k = Methane generation rate constant, year-1.
t = Age of the landfill at equipment installation plus the time the
owner or operator intends to use the gas mover equipment or active
life of the landfill,
[[Page 17268]]
whichever is less. If the equipment is installed after closure, t is
the age of the landfill at installation, years.
c = Time since closure, years (for an active landfill c = 0 and
e-kc = 1).
2 = Constant.
(ii) For sites with known year-to-year solid waste acceptance rate:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26MR20.008
Where:
Qm = Maximum expected gas generation flow rate, m\3\/yr.
k = Methane generation rate constant, year-1.
Lo = Methane generation potential, m\3\/Mg solid waste.
Mi = Mass of solid waste in the ith section, Mg.
ti = Age of the ith section, years.
(iii) If a collection and control system has been installed, actual
flow data may be used to project the maximum expected gas generation
flow rate instead of, or in conjunction with, Equation 5 or Equation 6
in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. If the landfill is
still accepting waste, the actual measured flow data will not equal the
maximum expected gas generation rate, so calculations using Equation 5
or Equation 6 in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section or other
methods must be used to predict the maximum expected gas generation
rate over the intended period of use of the gas control system
equipment.
(2) For the purposes of determining sufficient density of gas
collectors for compliance with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(ii)(B)(2), the owner
or operator must design a system of vertical wells, horizontal
collectors, or other collection devices, satisfactory to the
Administrator, capable of controlling and extracting gas from all
portions of the landfill sufficient to meet all operational and
performance standards.
(3) For the purpose of demonstrating whether the gas collection
system flow rate is sufficient to determine compliance with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(ii)(B)(3), the owner or operator must measure gauge
pressure in the gas collection header applied to each individual well
monthly. Any attempted corrective measure must not cause exceedances of
other operational or performance standards. An alternative timeline for
correcting the exceedance may be submitted to the Administrator for
approval. If a positive pressure exists, follow the procedures as
specified in Sec. 60.755(a)(3), except:
(i) Beginning no later than September 27, 2021, if a positive
pressure exists, action must be initiated to correct the exceedance
within 5 days, except for the three conditions allowed under Sec.
63.1958(b).
(A) If negative pressure cannot be achieved without excess air
infiltration within 15 days of the first measurement of positive
pressure, the owner or operator must conduct a root cause analysis and
correct the exceedance as soon as practicable, but no later than 60
days after positive pressure was first measured. The owner or operator
must keep records according to Sec. 63.1983(e)(3).
(B) If corrective actions cannot be fully implemented within 60
days following the positive pressure measurement for which the root
cause analysis was required, the owner or operator must also conduct a
corrective action analysis and develop an implementation schedule to
complete the corrective action(s) as soon as practicable, but no more
than 120 days following the positive pressure measurement. The owner or
operator must submit the items listed in Sec. 63.1981(h)(7) as part of
the next semi-annual report. The owner or operator must keep records
according to Sec. 63.1983(e)(5).
(C) If corrective action is expected to take longer than 120 days
to complete after the initial exceedance, the owner or operator must
submit the root cause analysis, corrective action analysis, and
corresponding implementation timeline to the Administrator, according
to Sec. 63.1981(j). The owner or operator must keep records according
to Sec. 63.1983(e)(5).
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the temperature and
nitrogen or oxygen operational standards in introductory paragraph
Sec. 63.1958(c), for the purpose of identifying whether excess air
infiltration into the landfill is occurring, the owner or operator must
follow the procedures as specified in Sec. 60.755(a)(5) of this
chapter, except:
(i) Once an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the operational standard
for temperature in Sec. 63.1958(c)(1), the owner or operator must
monitor each well monthly for temperature. If a well exceeds the
operating parameter for temperature as provided in Sec. 63.1958(c)(1),
action must be initiated to correct the exceedance within 5 days. Any
attempted corrective measure must not cause exceedances of other
operational or performance standards.
(A) If a landfill gas temperature less than or equal to 62.8
degrees Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit) cannot be achieved within 15
days of the first measurement of landfill gas temperature greater than
62.8 degrees Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit), the owner or operator
must conduct a root cause analysis and correct the exceedance as soon
as practicable, but no later than 60 days after a landfill gas
temperature greater than 62.8 degrees Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit)
was first measured. The owner or operator must keep records according
to Sec. 63.1983(e)(3).
(B) If corrective actions cannot be fully implemented within 60
days following the temperature measurement for which the root cause
analysis was required, the owner or operator must also conduct a
corrective action analysis and develop an implementation schedule to
complete the corrective action(s) as soon as practicable, but no more
than 120 days following the measurement of landfill gas temperature
greater than 62.8 degrees Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit). The owner
or operator must submit the items listed in Sec. 63.1981(h)(7) as part
of the next semi-annual report. The owner or operator must keep records
according to Sec. 63.1983(e)(4).
(C) If corrective action is expected to take longer than 120 days
to complete after the initial exceedance, the owner or operator must
submit the root cause analysis, corrective action analysis, and
corresponding implementation timeline to the Administrator, according
to Sec. 63.1981(h)(7) and (j). The owner or operator must keep records
according to Sec. 63.1983(e)(5).
(D) If a landfill gas temperature measured at either the wellhead
or at any point in the well is greater than or equal to 76.7 degrees
Celsius (170 degrees Fahrenheit) and the carbon monoxide concentration
measured, according to the procedures in Sec. 63.1961(a)(5)(vi) is
greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmv the corrective action(s) for the
wellhead temperature standard (62.8 degrees Celsius or 145 degrees
Fahrenheit) must be completed within 15 days.
(5) An owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with
[[Page 17269]]
Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(ii)(B)(4) through the use of a collection system
not conforming to the specifications provided in Sec. 63.1962 must
provide information satisfactory to the Administrator as specified in
Sec. 63.1981(c)(3) demonstrating that off-site migration is being
controlled.
(b) For purposes of compliance with Sec. 63.1958(a), each owner or
operator of a controlled landfill must place each well or design
component as specified in the approved design plan as provided in Sec.
63.1981(b). Each well must be installed no later than 60 days after the
date on which the initial solid waste has been in place for a period
of:
(1) 5 years or more if active; or
(2) 2 years or more if closed or at final grade.
(c) The following procedures must be used for compliance with the
surface methane operational standard as provided in Sec. 63.1958(d).
(1) After installation and startup of the gas collection system,
the owner or operator must monitor surface concentrations of methane
along the entire perimeter of the collection area and along a pattern
that traverses the landfill at 30 meter intervals (or a site-specific
established spacing) for each collection area on a quarterly basis
using an organic vapor analyzer, flame ionization detector, or other
portable monitor meeting the specifications provided in paragraph (d)
of this section.
(2) The background concentration must be determined by moving the
probe inlet upwind and downwind outside the boundary of the landfill at
a distance of at least 30 meters from the perimeter wells.
(3) Surface emission monitoring must be performed in accordance
with section 8.3.1 of EPA Method 21 of appendix A-7 of part 60 of this
chapter, except that the probe inlet must be placed within 5 to 10
centimeters of the ground. Monitoring must be performed during typical
meteorological conditions.
(4) Any reading of 500 ppm or more above background at any location
must be recorded as a monitored exceedance and the actions specified in
paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (v) of this section must be taken. As long
as the specified actions are taken, the exceedance is not a violation
of the operational requirements of Sec. 63.1958(d).
(i) The location of each monitored exceedance must be marked and
the location and concentration recorded. Beginning no later than
September 27, 2021, the location must be recorded using an instrument
with an accuracy of at least 4 meters. The coordinates must be in
decimal degrees with at least five decimal places.
(ii) Cover maintenance or adjustments to the vacuum of the adjacent
wells to increase the gas collection in the vicinity of each exceedance
must be made and the location must be re-monitored within 10 days of
detecting the exceedance.
(iii) If the re-monitoring of the location shows a second
exceedance, additional corrective action must be taken and the location
must be monitored again within 10 days of the second exceedance. If the
re-monitoring shows a third exceedance for the same location, the
action specified in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section must be taken,
and no further monitoring of that location is required until the action
specified in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section has been taken.
(iv) Any location that initially showed an exceedance but has a
methane concentration less than 500 ppm methane above background at the
10-day re-monitoring specified in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) or (iii) of this
section must be re-monitored 1 month from the initial exceedance. If
the 1-month re-monitoring shows a concentration less than 500 ppm above
background, no further monitoring of that location is required until
the next quarterly monitoring period. If the 1-month re-monitoring
shows an exceedance, the actions specified in paragraph (c)(4)(iii) or
(v) of this section must be taken.
(v) For any location where monitored methane concentration equals
or exceeds 500 ppm above background three times within a quarterly
period, a new well or other collection device must be installed within
120 days of the initial exceedance. An alternative remedy to the
exceedance, such as upgrading the blower, header pipes or control
device, and a corresponding timeline for installation may be submitted
to the Administrator for approval.
(5) The owner or operator must implement a program to monitor for
cover integrity and implement cover repairs as necessary on a monthly
basis.
(d) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the provisions in
paragraph (c) of this section must comply with the following
instrumentation specifications and procedures for surface emission
monitoring devices:
(1) The portable analyzer must meet the instrument specifications
provided in section 6 of EPA Method 21 of appendix A of part 60 of this
chapter, except that ``methane'' replaces all references to ``VOC''.
(2) The calibration gas must be methane, diluted to a nominal
concentration of 500 ppm in air.
(3) To meet the performance evaluation requirements in section 8.1
of EPA Method 21 of appendix A of part 60 of this chapter, the
instrument evaluation procedures of section 8.1 of EPA Method 21 of
appendix A of part 60 must be used.
(4) The calibration procedures provided in sections 8 and 10 of EPA
Method 21 of appendix A of part 60 of this chapter must be followed
immediately before commencing a surface monitoring survey.
(e)(1) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the operational standards
in introductory paragraph Sec. 63.1958(e), the provisions of this
subpart apply at all times, except during periods of SSM, provided that
the duration of SSM does not exceed 5 days for collection systems and
does not exceed 1 hour for treatment or control devices. You must
comply with the provisions in Table 1 to subpart AAAA that apply before
September 28, 2021.
(2) Once an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the operational standard
in Sec. 63.1958(c)(1), the provisions of this subpart apply at all
times, including periods of SSM. During periods of SSM, you must comply
with the work practice requirement specified in Sec. 63.1958(e) in
lieu of the compliance provisions in Sec. 63.1960.
Sec. 63.1961 Monitoring of operations.
Except as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2):
(a) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(ii)(B) for an active gas collection system must install a
sampling port and a thermometer, other temperature measuring device, or
an access port for temperature measurements at each wellhead and:
(1) Measure the gauge pressure in the gas collection header on a
monthly basis as provided in Sec. 63.1960(a)(3); and
(2) Monitor nitrogen or oxygen concentration in the landfill gas on
a monthly basis as follows:
(i) The nitrogen level must be determined using EPA Method 3C of
appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter, unless an alternative test
method is established as allowed by Sec. 63.1981(d)(2).
(ii) Unless an alternative test method is established as allowed by
Sec. 63.1981(d)(2), the oxygen level must be determined by an oxygen
meter using EPA Method 3A or 3C of appendix A-2 to part 60 of this
chapter or ASTM
[[Page 17270]]
D6522-11 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14). Determine the
oxygen level by an oxygen meter using EPA Method 3A or 3C of appendix
A-2 to part 60 or ASTM D6522-11 (if sample location is prior to
combustion) except that:
(A) The span must be set between 10- and 12-percent oxygen;
(B) A data recorder is not required;
(C) Only two calibration gases are required, a zero and span;
(D) A calibration error check is not required; and
(E) The allowable sample bias, zero drift, and calibration drift
are 10 percent.
(iii) A portable gas composition analyzer may be used to monitor
the oxygen levels provided:
(A) The analyzer is calibrated; and
(B) The analyzer meets all quality assurance and quality control
requirements for EPA Method 3A of appendix A-2 to part 60 of this
chapter or ASTM D6522-11 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14).
(3) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the temperature and
nitrogen or oxygen operational standards in introductory paragraph
Sec. 63.1958(c), the owner or operator must follow the procedures as
specified in Sec. 60.756(a)(2) and (3) of this chapter. Monitor
temperature of the landfill gas on a monthly basis as provided in Sec.
63.1960(a)(4). The temperature measuring device must be calibrated
annually using the procedure in Section 10.3 of EPA Method 2 of
appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter.
(4) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the operational standard
for temperature in Sec. 63.1958(c)(1), monitor temperature of the
landfill gas on a monthly basis as provided in Sec. 63.1960(a)(4). The
temperature measuring device must be calibrated annually using the
procedure in Section 10.3 of EPA Method 2 of appendix A-1 to part 60 of
this chapter. Keep records specified in Sec. 63.1983(e).
(5) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the operational standard
for temperature in Sec. 63.1958(c)(1), unless a higher operating
temperature value has been approved by the Administrator under this
subpart or under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW; 40 CFR part 60, subpart
XXX; or a federal plan or EPA-approved and effective state plan or
tribal plan that implements either 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc or 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Cf, you must initiate enhanced monitoring at each well
with a measurement of landfill gas temperature greater than 62.8
degrees Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit) as follows:
(i) Visual observations for subsurface oxidation events (smoke,
smoldering ash, damage to well) within the radius of influence of the
well.
(ii) Monitor oxygen concentration as provided in paragraph (a)(2)
of this section;
(iii) Monitor temperature of the landfill gas at the wellhead as
provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(iv) Monitor temperature of the landfill gas every 10 vertical feet
of the well as provided in paragraph (a)(6) of this section.
(v) Monitor the methane concentration with a methane meter using
EPA Method 3C of appendix A-6 to part 60, EPA Method 18 of appendix A-6
to part 60 of this chapter, or a portable gas composition analyzer to
monitor the methane levels provided that the analyzer is calibrated and
the analyzer meets all quality assurance and quality control
requirements for EPA Method 3C or EPA Method 18.
(vi) Monitor carbon monoxide concentrations, as follows:
(A) Collect the sample from the wellhead sampling port in a
passivated canister or multi-layer foil gas sampling bag (such as the
Cali-5-Bond Bag) and analyze that sample using EPA Method 10 of
appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter, or an equivalent method with a
detection limit of at least 100 ppmv of carbon monoxide in high
concentrations of methane; and
(B) Collect and analyze the sample from the wellhead using EPA
Method 10 of appendix A-4 to part 60 to measure carbon monoxide
concentrations.
(vii) The enhanced monitoring this paragraph (a)(5) must begin 7
days after the first measurement of landfill gas temperature greater
than 62.8 degrees Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit); and
(viii) The enhanced monitoring in this paragraph (a)(5) must be
conducted on a weekly basis. If four consecutive weekly carbon monoxide
readings are under 100 ppmv, then enhanced monitoring may be decreased
to monthly. However, if carbon monoxide readings exceed 100 ppmv again,
the landfill must return to weekly monitoring.
(ix) The enhanced monitoring in this paragraph (a)(5) can be
stopped once a higher operating value is approved, at which time the
monitoring provisions issued with the higher operating value should be
followed, or once the measurement of landfill gas temperature at the
wellhead is less than or equal to 62.8 degrees Celsius (145 degrees
Fahrenheit).
(6) For each wellhead with a measurement of landfill gas
temperature greater than or equal to 73.9 degrees Celsius (165 degrees
Fahrenheit), annually monitor temperature of the landfill gas every 10
vertical feet of the well. This temperature can be monitored either
with a removable thermometer, or using temporary or permanent
thermocouples installed in the well.
(b) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii) using an enclosed combustor must calibrate,
maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications,
the following equipment:
(1) A temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous
recorder and having a minimum accuracy of 1 percent of the
temperature being measured expressed in degrees Celsius or 0.5 degrees Celsius, whichever is greater. A temperature
monitoring device is not required for boilers or process heaters with
design heat input capacity equal to or greater than 44 megawatts.
(2) A device that records flow to the control device and bypass of
the control device (if applicable). The owner or operator must:
(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring
device that must record the flow to the control device at least every
15 minutes; and
(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a
car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of
the seal or closure mechanism must be performed at least once every
month to ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position and
that the gas flow is not diverted through the bypass line.
(c) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii) using a non-enclosed flare must install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's specifications
the following equipment:
(1) A heat sensing device, such as an ultraviolet beam sensor or
thermocouple, at the pilot light or the flame itself to indicate the
continuous presence of a flame; and
(2) A device that records flow to the flare and bypass of the flare
(if applicable). The owner or operator must:
(i) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring
device that records the flow to the control device at least every 15
minutes; and
(ii) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a
car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of
the seal or closure mechanism must be performed at least
[[Page 17271]]
once every month to ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed
position and that the gas flow is not diverted through the bypass line.
(d) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with
Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(iii) using a device other than a non-enclosed flare
or an enclosed combustor or a treatment system must provide information
satisfactory to the Administrator as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2)
describing the operation of the control device, the operating
parameters that would indicate proper performance, and appropriate
monitoring procedures. The Administrator must review the information
and either approve it, or request that additional information be
submitted. The Administrator may specify additional appropriate
monitoring procedures.
(e) Each owner or operator seeking to install a collection system
that does not meet the specifications in Sec. 63.1962 or seeking to
monitor alternative parameters to those required by Sec. Sec. 63.1958
through 63.1961 must provide information satisfactory to the
Administrator as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2) and (3) describing the
design and operation of the collection system, the operating parameters
that would indicate proper performance, and appropriate monitoring
procedures. The Administrator may specify additional appropriate
monitoring procedures.
(f) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with
the 500-ppm surface methane operational standard in Sec. 63.1958(d)
must monitor surface concentrations of methane according to the
procedures in Sec. 63.1960(c) and the instrument specifications in
Sec. 63.1960(d). If you are complying with the 500-ppm surface methane
operational standard in Sec. 63.1958(d)(2), for location, you must
determine the latitude and longitude coordinates of each exceedance
using an instrument with an accuracy of at least 4 meters and the
coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at least five decimal
places. In the semi-annual report in 63.1981(i), you must report the
location of each exceedance of the 500-ppm methane concentration as
provided in Sec. 63.1958(d) and the concentration recorded at each
location for which an exceedance was recorded in the previous month.
Any closed landfill that has no monitored exceedances of the
operational standard in three consecutive quarterly monitoring periods
may skip to annual monitoring. Any methane reading of 500 ppm or more
above background detected during the annual monitoring returns the
frequency for that landfill to quarterly monitoring.
(g) Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with
Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(C) using a landfill gas treatment system must
calibrate, maintain, and operate according to the manufacturer's
specifications a device that records flow to the treatment system and
bypass of the treatment system (if applicable). Beginning no later than
September 27, 2021, each owner or operator must maintain and operate
all monitoring systems associated with the treatment system in
accordance with the site-specific treatment system monitoring plan
required in Sec. 63.1983(b)(5)(ii). The owner or operator must:
(1) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring
device that records the flow to the treatment system at least every 15
minutes; and
(2) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-
seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the
seal or closure mechanism must be performed at least once every month
to ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position and that
the gas flow is not diverted through the bypass line.
(h) The monitoring requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d),
and (g) of this section apply at all times the affected source is
operating, except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions,
repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and required
monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities. A
monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data.
Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance
or careless operation are not malfunctions. You are required to
complete monitoring system repairs in response to monitoring system
malfunctions and to return the monitoring system to operation as
expeditiously as practicable. Where an owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the
temperature and nitrogen or oxygen operational standards in
introductory paragraph Sec. 63.1958(c)(1), (d)(2), and (e)(1), the
standards apply at all times.
Sec. 63.1962 Specifications for active collection systems.
(a) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(i) must site active collection wells, horizontal
collectors, surface collectors, or other extraction devices at a
sufficient density throughout all gas producing areas using the
following procedures unless alternative procedures have been approved
by the Administrator as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2) and (3):
(1) The collection devices within the interior must be certified to
achieve comprehensive control of surface gas emissions by a
professional engineer. The following issues must be addressed in the
design: Depths of refuse, refuse gas generation rates and flow
characteristics, cover properties, gas system expandability, leachate
and condensate management, accessibility, compatibility with filling
operations, integration with closure end use, air intrusion control,
corrosion resistance, fill settlement, resistance to the refuse
decomposition heat, and ability to isolate individual components or
sections for repair or troubleshooting without shutting down entire
collection system.
(2) The sufficient density of gas collection devices determined in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section must address landfill gas migration
issues and augmentation of the collection system through the use of
active or passive systems at the landfill perimeter or exterior.
(3) The placement of gas collection devices determined in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section must control all gas producing areas, except as
provided by paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) Any segregated area of asbestos or nondegradable material may
be excluded from collection if documented as provided under Sec.
63.1983(d). The documentation must provide the nature, date of
deposition, location and amount of asbestos or nondegradable material
deposited in the area and must be provided to the Administrator upon
request.
(ii) Any nonproductive area of the landfill may be excluded from
control, provided that the total of all excluded areas can be shown to
contribute less than 1 percent of the total amount of NMOC emissions
from the landfill. The amount, location, and age of the material must
be documented and provided to the Administrator upon request. A
separate NMOC emissions estimate must be made for each section proposed
for exclusion, and the sum of all such sections must be compared to the
NMOC emissions estimate for the entire landfill.
(A) The NMOC emissions from each section proposed for exclusion
must be computed using Equation 7:
[[Page 17272]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26MR20.010
Where:
Qi = NMOC emission rate from the ith section, Mg/yr.
k = Methane generation rate constant, year -1.
Lo = Methane generation potential, m\3\/Mg solid waste.
Mi = Mass of the degradable solid waste in the ith
section, Mg.
ti = Age of the solid waste in the ith section, years.
CNMOC = Concentration of NMOC, ppmv.
3.6 x 10-9 = Conversion factor.
(B) If the owner/operator is proposing to exclude, or cease gas
collection and control from, nonproductive physically separated (e.g.,
separately lined) closed areas that already have gas collection
systems, NMOC emissions from each physically separated closed area must
be computed using either Equation 3 in Sec. 63.1959(c) or Equation 7
in paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(A) of this section.
(iii) The values for k and CNMOC determined in field
testing must be used if field testing has been performed in determining
the NMOC emission rate or the radii of influence (the distance from the
well center to a point in the landfill where the pressure gradient
applied by the blower or compressor approaches zero). If field testing
has not been performed, the default values for k, Lo and
CNMOC provided in Sec. 63.1959(a)(1) or the alternative
values from Sec. 63.1959(a)(5) must be used. The mass of nondegradable
solid waste contained within the given section may be subtracted from
the total mass of the section when estimating emissions provided the
nature, location, age, and amount of the nondegradable material is
documented as provided in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section.
(b) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(ii) must construct the gas collection devices using the
following equipment or procedures:
(1) The landfill gas extraction components must be constructed of
polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe,
fiberglass, stainless steel, or other nonporous corrosion resistant
material of suitable dimensions to: Convey projected amounts of gases;
withstand installation, static, and settlement forces; and withstand
planned overburden or traffic loads. The collection system must extend
as necessary to comply with emission and migration standards.
Collection devices such as wells and horizontal collectors must be
perforated to allow gas entry without head loss sufficient to impair
performance across the intended extent of control. Perforations must be
situated with regard to the need to prevent excessive air infiltration.
(2) Vertical wells must be placed so as not to endanger underlying
liners and must address the occurrence of water within the landfill.
Holes and trenches constructed for piped wells and horizontal
collectors must be of sufficient cross-section so as to allow for their
proper construction and completion including, for example, centering of
pipes and placement of gravel backfill. Collection devices must be
designed so as not to allow indirect short circuiting of air into the
cover or refuse into the collection system or gas into the air. Any
gravel used around pipe perforations should be of a dimension so as not
to penetrate or block perforations.
(3) Collection devices may be connected to the collection header
pipes below or above the landfill surface. The connector assembly must
include a positive closing throttle valve, any necessary seals and
couplings, access couplings and at least one sampling port. The
collection devices must be constructed of PVC, HDPE, fiberglass,
stainless steel, or other nonporous material of suitable thickness.
(c) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii) must convey the landfill gas to a control system in
compliance with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(iii) through the collection header
pipe(s). The gas mover equipment must be sized to handle the maximum
gas generation flow rate expected over the intended use period of the
gas moving equipment using the following procedures:
(1) For existing collection systems, the flow data must be used to
project the maximum flow rate. If no flow data exists, the procedures
in paragraph (c)(2) of this section must be used.
(2) For new collection systems, the maximum flow rate must be in
accordance with Sec. 63.1960(a)(1).
General and Continuing Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.1964 How is compliance determined?
Compliance is determined using performance testing, collection
system monitoring, continuous parameter monitoring, and other credible
evidence. In addition, continuous parameter monitoring data collected
under Sec. 63.1961(b)(1), (c)(1), and (d) are used to demonstrate
compliance with the operating standards for control systems. If a
deviation occurs, you have failed to meet the control device operating
standards described in this subpart and have deviated from the
requirements of this subpart.
(a) Before September 28, 2021, you must develop a written SSM plan
according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of subpart A. A copy of
the SSM plan must be maintained on site. Failure to write or maintain a
copy of the SSM plan is a deviation from the requirements of this
subpart.
(b) After September 27, 2021, the SSM provisions of Sec. 63.6(e)
of subpart A no longer apply to this subpart and the SSM plan developed
under paragraph (a) of this section no longer applies. Compliance with
the emissions standards and the operating standards of Sec. 63.1958 of
this subpart is required at all times.
Sec. 63.1965 What is a deviation?
A deviation is defined in Sec. 63.1990. For the purposes of the
landfill monitoring and SSM plan requirements, deviations include the
items in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
(a) A deviation occurs when the control device operating parameter
boundaries described in Sec. 63.1983(c)(1) are exceeded.
(b) A deviation occurs when 1 hour or more of the hours during the
3-hour block averaging period does not constitute a valid hour of data.
A valid hour of data must have measured values for at least three 15-
minute monitoring periods within the hour.
(c) Before September 28, 2021, a deviation occurs when a SSM plan
is not developed or maintained on site and when an affected source
fails to meet any emission limitation, (including any operating limit),
or work practice requirement in this subpart during SSM, regardless of
whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
Sec. 63.1975 How do I calculate the 3-hour block average used to
demonstrate compliance?
Before September 28, 2021, averages are calculated in the same way
as they are calculated in 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW (Sec.
60.758(b)(2)(i) for average combustion temperature and Sec. 60.758(c)
for 3-hour average combustion temperature for enclosed combustors),
except that the data collected during the events listed in paragraphs
(a) through (d) of this section are not to be included in any average
computed under this subpart. Beginning
[[Page 17273]]
no later than September 27, 2021, averages are calculated according to
Sec. Sec. 63.1983(b)(2)(i) and 63.1983(c)(1)(i) and the data collected
during the events listed in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section
are included in any average computed under this subpart.
(a) Monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and
zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments.
(b) Startups.
(c) Shutdowns.
(d) Malfunctions.
Notifications, Records, and Reports
Sec. 63.1981 What reports must I submit?
You must submit the reports specified in this section and the
reports specified in Table 1 to this subpart. If you have previously
submitted a design capacity report, amended design capacity report,
initial NMOC emission rate report, initial or revised collection and
control system design plan, closure report, equipment removal report,
or initial performance test under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW; 40 CFR
part 60, subpart XXX; or a federal plan or EPA-approved and effective
state plan or tribal plan that implements either 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cc or 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, then that submission
constitutes compliance with the design capacity report in paragraph (a)
of this section, the amended design capacity report in paragraph (b) of
this section, the initial NMOC emission rate report in paragraph (c) of
this section, the initial collection and control system design plan in
paragraph (d) of this section, the revised design plan in paragraph (e)
of this section, the closure report in paragraph (f) of this section,
the equipment removal report in paragraph (g) of this section, and the
initial performance test report in paragraph (i) of this section. You
do not need to re-submit the report(s). However, you must include a
statement certifying prior submission of the respective report(s) and
the date of submittal in the first semi-annual report required in this
section.
(a) Initial design capacity report. The initial design capacity
report must contain the information specified in Sec. 60.757(a)(2) of
this chapter, except beginning no later than September 28, 2021, the
report must contain:
(1) A map or plot of the landfill, providing the size and location
of the landfill, and identifying all areas where solid waste may be
landfilled according to the permit issued by the state, local, or
tribal agency responsible for regulating the landfill.
(2) The maximum design capacity of the landfill. Where the maximum
design capacity is specified in the permit issued by the state, local,
or tribal agency responsible for regulating the landfill, a copy of the
permit specifying the maximum design capacity may be submitted as part
of the report. If the maximum design capacity of the landfill is not
specified in the permit, the maximum design capacity must be calculated
using good engineering practices. The calculations must be provided,
along with the relevant parameters as part of the report. The landfill
may calculate design capacity in either Mg or m\3\ for comparison with
the exemption values. If the owner or operator chooses to convert the
design capacity from volume to mass or from mass to volume to
demonstrate its design capacity is less than 2.5 million Mg or 2.5
million m\3\, the calculation must include a site-specific density,
which must be recalculated annually. Any density conversions must be
documented and submitted with the design capacity report. The state,
tribal, local agency or Administrator may request other reasonable
information as may be necessary to verify the maximum design capacity
of the landfill.
(b) Amended design capacity report. An amended design capacity
report must be submitted to the Administrator providing notification of
an increase in the design capacity of the landfill, within 90 days of
an increase in the maximum design capacity of the landfill to meet or
exceed 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\. This increase in design
capacity may result from an increase in the permitted volume of the
landfill or an increase in the density as documented in the annual
recalculation required in Sec. 63.1983(f).
(c) NMOC emission rate report. Each owner or operator subject to
the requirements of this subpart must submit a copy of the latest NMOC
emission rate report that was submitted according to Sec. 60.757(b) of
this chapter or submit an NMOC emission rate report to the
Administrator initially and annually thereafter, except as provided for
in paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. The Administrator may
request such additional information as may be necessary to verify the
reported NMOC emission rate. If you have submitted an annual report
under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW; 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX; or a
Federal plan or EPA-approved and effective state plan or tribal plan
that implements either 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc or 40 CFR part 60,
subpart Cf, then that submission constitutes compliance with the annual
NMOC emission rate report in this paragraph. You do not need to re-
submit the annual report for the current year. Beginning no later than
September 27, 2021, the report must meet the following requirements:
(1) The NMOC emission rate report must contain an annual or 5-year
estimate of the NMOC emission rate calculated using the formula and
procedures provided in Sec. 63.1959(a) or (b), as applicable.
(i) The initial NMOC emission rate report must be submitted no
later than 90 days after the date of commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction for landfills that commence
construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after March 12,
1996.
(ii) Subsequent NMOC emission rate reports must be submitted
annually thereafter, except as provided for in paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(A)
of this section.
(A) If the estimated NMOC emission rate as reported in the annual
report to the Administrator is less than 50 Mg/yr 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 must include the current amount of
solid waste-in-place and the estimated waste acceptance rate for each
year of the 5 years for which an NMOC emission rate is estimated. All
data and calculations upon which this estimate is based must be
provided to the Administrator. This estimate must be revised at least
once every 5 years. If the actual waste acceptance rate exceeds the
estimated waste acceptance rate in any year reported in the 5-year
estimate, a revised 5-year estimate must be submitted to the
Administrator. The revised estimate must cover the 5-year period
beginning with the year in which the actual waste acceptance rate
exceeded the estimated waste acceptance rate.
(B) The report must be submitted following the procedure specified
in paragraph (l)(2) of this section.
(2) The NMOC emission rate report must include all the data,
calculations, sample reports and measurements used to estimate the
annual or 5-year emissions.
(3) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this
subpart is exempted from the requirements to submit an NMOC emission
rate report, after installing a collection and control system that
complies with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2), during such time as the collection
and control system is in operation and in compliance with Sec. Sec.
63.1958 and 63.1960.
(d) Collection and control system design plan. Each owner or
operator
[[Page 17274]]
subject to the provisions of Sec. 63.1959(b)(2) must submit a
collection and control system design plan to the Administrator for
approval according to Sec. 60.757(c) of this chapter and the schedule
in Sec. 60.757(c)(1) and (2). Beginning no later than September 27,
2021, each owner or operator subject to the provisions of Sec.
63.1959(b)(2) must submit a collection and control system design plan
to the Administrator according to paragraphs (d)(1) through (6) of this
section. The collection and control system design plan must be prepared
and approved by a professional engineer.
(1) The collection and control system as described in the design
plan must meet the design requirements in Sec. 63.1959(b)(2).
(2) The collection and control system design plan must include any
alternatives to the operational standards, test methods, procedures,
compliance measures, monitoring, recordkeeping or reporting provisions
of Sec. Sec. 63.1957 through 63.1983 proposed by the owner or
operator.
(3) The collection and control system design plan must either
conform with specifications for active collection systems in Sec.
63.1962 or include a demonstration to the Administrator's satisfaction
of the sufficiency of the alternative provisions to Sec. 63.1962.
(4) Each owner or operator of an MSW landfill affected by this
subpart must submit a collection and control system design plan to the
Administrator for approval within 1 year of becoming subject to this
subpart.
(5) The landfill owner or operator must notify the Administrator
that the design plan is completed and submit a copy of the plan's
signature page. The Administrator has 90 days to decide whether the
design plan should be submitted for review. If the Administrator
chooses to review the plan, the approval process continues as described
in paragraph (d)(6) of this section. In the event that the design plan
is required to be modified to obtain approval, the owner or operator
must take any steps necessary to conform any prior actions to the
approved design plan and any failure to do so could result in an
enforcement action.
(6) Upon receipt of an initial or revised design plan, the
Administrator must review the information submitted under paragraphs
(d)(1) through (3) of this section and either approve it, disapprove
it, or request that additional information be submitted. Because of the
many site-specific factors involved with landfill gas system design,
alternative systems may be necessary. A wide variety of system designs
are possible, such as vertical wells, combination horizontal and
vertical collection systems, or horizontal trenches only, leachate
collection components, and passive systems.
(e) Revised design plan. Beginning no later than September 27,
2021, the owner or operator who has already been required to submit a
design plan under paragraph (d) of this section must submit a revised
design plan to the Administrator for approval as follows:
(1) At least 90 days before expanding operations to an area not
covered by the previously approved design plan.
(2) Prior to installing or expanding the gas collection system in a
way that is not consistent with the design plan that was submitted to
the Administrator according to paragraph (d) of this section.
(f) Closure report. Each owner or operator of a controlled landfill
must submit a closure report to the Administrator within 30 days of
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 Sec. 258.60 of this
chapter. If a closure report has been submitted to the Administrator,
no additional wastes may be placed into the landfill without filing a
notification of modification as described under Sec. 63.9(b) of
subpart A.
(g) Equipment removal report. Each owner or operator of a
controlled landfill must submit an equipment removal report as provided
in Sec. 60.757(e) of this chapter. Each owner or operator of a
controlled landfill must submit an equipment removal report to the
Administrator 30 days prior to removal or cessation of operation of the
control equipment.
(1) Beginning no later than September 27, 2021, the equipment
removal report must contain all of the following items:
(i) A copy of the closure report submitted in accordance with
paragraph (f) of this section;
(ii) A copy of the initial performance test report demonstrating
that the 15-year minimum control period has expired, or information
that demonstrates that the gas collection and control system will be
unable to operate for 15 years due to declining gas flows. In the
equipment removal report, the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s)
tested, and the date that such performance test was conducted may be
submitted in lieu of the performance test report if the report has been
previously submitted to the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX); and
(iii) Dated copies of three successive NMOC emission rate reports
demonstrating that the landfill is no longer producing 50 Mg or greater
of NMOC per year. If the NMOC emission rate reports have been
previously submitted to the EPA's CDX, a statement that the NMOC
emission rate reports have been submitted electronically and the dates
that the reports were submitted to the EPA's CDX may be submitted in
the equipment removal report in lieu of the NMOC emission rate reports.
(2) The Administrator may request such additional information as
may be necessary to verify that all of the conditions for removal in
Sec. 63.1957(b) have been met.
(h) Semi-annual report. The owner or operator of a landfill seeking
to comply with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2) using an active collection system
designed in accordance with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(ii) must submit to the
Administrator semi-annual reports. Beginning no later than September
27, 2021, you must submit the report, following the procedure specified
in paragraph (l) of this section. The initial report must be submitted
within 180 days of installation and startup of the collection and
control system and must include the initial performance test report
required under Sec. 63.7 of subpart A, as applicable. In the initial
report, the process unit(s) tested, the pollutant(s) tested, and the
date that such performance test was conducted may be submitted in lieu
of the performance test report if the report has been previously
submitted to the EPA's CDX. For enclosed combustion devices and flares,
reportable exceedances are defined under Sec. 63.1983(c). The semi-
annual reports must contain the information in paragraphs (h)(1)
through (8) of this section.
(1) Number of times that applicable parameters monitored under
Sec. 63.1958(b), (c), and (d) were exceeded and when the gas
collection and control system was not operating under Sec. 63.1958(e),
including periods of SSM. For each instance, report the date, time, and
duration of each exceedance.
(i) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the temperature and
nitrogen or oxygen operational standards in introductory paragraph
Sec. 63.1958(c), provide a statement of the wellhead operational
standard for temperature and oxygen you are complying with for the
period covered by the report. Indicate the number of times each of
those parameters monitored under Sec. 63.1961(a)(3) were exceeded. For
each instance, report the date, time, and duration of each exceedance.
[[Page 17275]]
(ii) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the operational standard
for temperature in Sec. 63.1958(c)(1), provide a statement of the
wellhead operational standard for temperature and oxygen you are
complying with for the period covered by the report. Indicate the
number of times each of those parameters monitored under Sec.
63.1961(a)(4) were exceeded. For each instance, report the date, time,
and duration of each exceedance.
(iii) Beginning no later than September 27, 2021, number of times
the parameters for the site-specific treatment system in Sec.
63.1961(g) were exceeded.
(2) Description and duration of all periods when the gas stream was
diverted from the control device or treatment system through a bypass
line or the indication of bypass flow as specified under Sec. 63.1961.
(3) Description and duration of all periods when the control device
or treatment system was not operating and length of time the control
device or treatment system was not operating.
(4) All periods when the collection system was not operating.
(5) The location of each exceedance of the 500-ppm methane
concentration as provided in Sec. 63.1958(d) and the concentration
recorded at each location for which an exceedance was recorded in the
previous month. Beginning no later than September 27, 2021, for
location, you record the latitude and longitude coordinates of each
exceedance using an instrument with an accuracy of at least 4 meters.
The coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at least five decimal
places.
(6) The date of installation and the location of each well or
collection system expansion added pursuant to Sec. 63.1960(a)(3) and
(4), (b), and (c)(4).
(7) For any corrective action analysis for which corrective actions
are required in Sec. 63.1960(a)(3)(i) or (a)(5) and that take more
than 60 days to correct the exceedance, the root cause analysis
conducted, including a description of the recommended corrective
action(s), the date for corrective action(s) already completed
following the positive pressure or high temperature reading, and, for
action(s) not already completed, a schedule for implementation,
including proposed commencement and completion dates.
(8) Each owner or operator required to conduct enhanced monitoring
in Sec. Sec. 63.1961(a)(5) and (6) must include the results of all
monitoring activities conducted during the period.
(i) For each monitoring point, report the date, time, and well
identifier along with the value and units of measure for oxygen,
temperature (wellhead and downwell), methane, and carbon monoxide.
(ii) Include a summary trend analysis for each well subject to the
enhanced monitoring requirements to chart the weekly readings over time
for oxygen, wellhead temperature, methane, and weekly or monthly
readings over time, as applicable for carbon monoxide.
(iii) Include the date, time, staff person name, and description of
findings for each visual observation for subsurface oxidation event.
(i) Initial performance test report. Each owner or operator seeking
to comply with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(iii) must include the following
information with the initial performance test report required under
Sec. 63.7 of subpart A:
(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;
(5) The provisions for increasing gas mover equipment capacity with
increased gas generation flow rate, if the present gas mover equipment
is inadequate to move the maximum flow rate expected over the life of
the landfill; and
(6) The provisions for the control of off-site migration.
(j) Corrective action and the corresponding timeline. The owner or
operator must submit information regarding corrective actions according
to paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) For corrective action that is required according to Sec.
63.1960(a)(3) or (4) and is not completed within 60 days after the
initial exceedance, you must submit a notification to the Administrator
as soon as practicable but no later than 75 days after the first
measurement of positive pressure or temperature exceedance.
(2) For corrective action that is required according to Sec.
63.1960(a)(3) or (4) and is expected to take longer than 120 days after
the initial exceedance to complete, you must submit the root cause
analysis, corrective action analysis, and corresponding implementation
timeline to the Administrator as soon as practicable but no later than
75 days after the first measurement of positive pressure or temperature
monitoring value of 62.8 degrees Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit) or
above. The Administrator must approve the plan for corrective action
and the corresponding timeline.
(k) 24-hour high temperature report. Where an owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart seeks to demonstrate
compliance with the operational standard for temperature in Sec.
63.1958(c)(1) and a landfill gas temperature measured at either the
wellhead or at any point in the well is greater than or equal to 76.7
degrees Celsius (170 degrees Fahrenheit) and the carbon monoxide
concentration measured is greater than or equal to 1,000 ppmv, then you
must report the date, time, well identifier, temperature and carbon
monoxide reading via email to the Administrator within 24 hours of the
measurement unless a higher operating temperature value has been
approved by the Administrator for the well under this subpart or under
40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW; 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX; or a Federal
plan or EPA approved and effective state plan or tribal plan that
implements either 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc or 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Cf.
(l) Electronic reporting. Beginning no later than September 27,
2021, the owner or operator must submit reports electronically
according to paragraphs (l)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the
performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs
(l)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA's
CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a file format
generated
[[Page 17276]]
through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit an
electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML)
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
(ii) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the
test. The results of the performance test must be included as an
attachment in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with
the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT
generated package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(iii) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under paragraph (a) of this section is CBI,
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as
described in paragraph (l)(1)(i) of this section.
(2) Each owner or operator required to submit reports following the
procedure specified in this paragraph must submit reports to the EPA
via CEDRI. CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX. The owner or
operator must use the appropriate electronic report in CEDRI for this
subpart or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the XML
schema listed on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri). Once the spreadsheet template upload/forms for the
reports have been available in CEDRI for 90 days, the owner or operator
must begin submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. The reports
must be submitted by the deadlines specified in this subpart,
regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted. The NMOC
emission rate reports, semi-annual reports, and bioreactor 40-percent
moisture reports should be electronically reported as a spreadsheet
template upload/form to CEDRI. If the reporting forms specific to this
subpart are not available in CEDRI at the time that the reports are
due, the owner or operator must submit the reports to the Administrator
at the appropriate address listed in Sec. 63.13 of subpart A.
(m) Claims of EPA system outage. Beginning no later than September
27, 2021, if you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for
failure to comply timely with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the following requirements:
(1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
(2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
(3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
(4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description
identifying:
(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the
system was unavailable;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion
of the Administrator.
(7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
(n) Claims of force majeure. Beginning no later than September 2,
2021, if you are required to electronically submit a report through
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for
failure to comply timely with the reporting requirement. To assert a
claim of force majeure, you must meet the following requirements:
(1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such
an event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to
the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility,
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods),
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
(2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a
delay in reporting.
(3) You must provide to the Administrator:
(i) A written description of the force majeure event;
(ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
(iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in
reporting; and
(iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification,
the date you reported.
(4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of
the Administrator.
(5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
Sec. 63.1982 What records and reports must I submit and keep for
bioreactors or liquids addition other than leachate?
Submit reports as specified in this section and Sec. 63.1981. Keep
records as specified in this section and Sec. 63.1983.
(a) For bioreactors at new affected sources you must submit the
initial semi-annual compliance report and performance test results
described in Sec. 63.1981(h) within 180 days after the date you are
required to begin operating the gas collection and control system by
Sec. 63.1947(a)(2).
(b) If you must submit a semi-annual compliance report for a
bioreactor as well as a semi-annual compliance report for a
conventional portion of the same landfill, you may delay submittal of a
subsequent semi-annual compliance report for the bioreactor according
to paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section so that the reports
may be submitted on the same schedule.
[[Page 17277]]
(1) After submittal of your initial semi-annual compliance report
and performance test results for the bioreactor, you may delay
submittal of the subsequent semi-annual compliance report for the
bioreactor until the date the initial or subsequent semi-annual
compliance report is due for the conventional portion of your landfill.
(2) You may delay submittal of your subsequent semi-annual
compliance report by no more than 12 months after the due date for
submitting the initial semi-annual compliance report and performance
test results described in Sec. 63.1981(h) for the bioreactor. The
report must cover the time period since the previous semi-annual report
for the bioreactor, which would be a period of at least 6 months and no
more than 12 months.
(3) After the delayed semi-annual report, all subsequent semi-
annual reports for the bioreactor must be submitted every 6 months on
the same date the semi-annual report for the conventional portion of
the landfill is due.
(c) If you add any liquids other than leachate in a controlled
fashion to the waste mass and do not comply with the bioreactor
requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.1947, 63.1955(b), and paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section, you must keep a record of calculations showing
that the percent moisture by weight expected in the waste mass to which
liquid is added is less than 40 percent. The calculation must consider
the waste mass, moisture content of the incoming waste, mass of water
added to the waste including leachate recirculation and other liquids
addition and precipitation, and the mass of water removed through
leachate or other water losses. Moisture level sampling or mass
balances calculations can be used. You must document the calculations
and the basis of any assumptions. Keep the record of the calculations
until you cease liquids addition.
(d) If you calculate moisture content to establish the date your
bioreactor is required to begin operating the collection and control
system under Sec. 63.1947(a)(2) or (c)(2), keep a record of the
calculations including the information specified in paragraph (e) of
this section for 5 years. Within 90 days after the bioreactor achieves
40-percent moisture content, report the results of the calculation, the
date the bioreactor achieved 40-percent moisture content by weight, and
the date you plan to begin collection and control system operation to
the Administrator. Beginning no later than September 27, 2021, the
reports should be submitted following the procedure specified in Sec.
63.1981(l)(2).
Sec. 63.1983 What records must I keep?
You must keep records as specified in this subpart. You must also
keep records as specified in the general provisions of 40 CFR part 63
as shown in Table 1 to this subpart.
(a) Except as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2), each owner or
operator of an MSW landfill subject to the provisions of Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this chapter must keep for at least 5
years up-to-date, readily accessible, on-site records of the design
capacity report that triggered Sec. 63.1959(b), the current amount of
solid waste in-place, and the year-by-year waste acceptance rate. Off-
site records may be maintained if they are retrievable within 4 hours.
Either paper copy or electronic formats are acceptable.
(b) Except as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2), each owner or
operator of a controlled landfill must keep up-to-date, readily
accessible records for the life of the control system equipment of the
data listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section as
measured during the initial performance test or compliance
determination. Records of subsequent tests or monitoring must be
maintained for a minimum of 5 years. Records of the control device
vendor specifications must be maintained until removal.
(1) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(ii):
(i) The maximum expected gas generation flow rate as calculated in
Sec. 63.1960(a)(1).
(ii) The density of wells, horizontal collectors, surface
collectors, or other gas extraction devices determined using the
procedures specified in Sec. 63.1962(a)(1) and (2).
(2) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(iii)
through use of an enclosed combustion device other than a boiler or
process heater with a design heat input capacity equal to or greater
than 44 megawatts:
(i) The average temperature measured at least every 15 minutes and
averaged over the same time period of the performance test.
(ii) The percent reduction of NMOC determined as specified in Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(B) achieved by the control device.
(3) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(B)(1) through use of a boiler or process heater of
any size: A description of the location at which the collected gas vent
stream is introduced into the boiler or process heater over the same
time period of the performance testing.
(4) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(A) through use of a non-enclosed flare, the flare
type (i.e., steam-assisted, air-assisted, or nonassisted), all visible
emission readings, heat content determination, flow rate or bypass flow
rate measurements, and exit velocity determinations made during the
performance test as specified in Sec. 63.11; continuous records of the
flare pilot flame or flare flame monitoring and records of all periods
of operations during which the pilot flame or the flare flame is
absent.
(5) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(C) through use of a landfill gas treatment system:
(i) Bypass records. Records of the flow of landfill gas to, and
bypass of, the treatment system.
(ii) Site-specific treatment monitoring plan. Beginning no later
than September 27, 2021, the owner or operator must prepare a site-
specific treatment monitoring plan to include:
(A) Monitoring records of parameters that are identified in the
treatment system monitoring plan and that ensure the treatment system
is operating properly for each intended end use of the treated landfill
gas. At a minimum, records should include records of filtration, de-
watering, and compression parameters that ensure the treatment system
is operating properly for each intended end use of the treated landfill
gas.
(B) Monitoring methods, frequencies, and operating ranges for each
monitored operating parameter based on manufacturer's recommendations
or engineering analysis for each intended end use of the treated
landfill gas.
(C) Documentation of the monitoring methods and ranges, along with
justification for their use.
(D) List of responsible staff (by job title) for data collection.
(E) Processes and methods used to collect the necessary data.
(F) Description of the procedures and methods that are used for
quality assurance, maintenance, and repair of all continuous monitoring
systems (CMS).
(c) Except as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2), each owner or
operator of a controlled landfill subject to the
[[Page 17278]]
provisions of this subpart must keep for 5 years up-to-date, readily
accessible continuous records of the equipment operating parameters
specified to be monitored in Sec. 63.1961 as well as up-to-date,
readily accessible records for periods of operation during which the
parameter boundaries established during the most recent performance
test are exceeded.
(1) The following constitute exceedances that must be recorded and
reported under Sec. 63.1981(h):
(i) For enclosed combustors except for boilers and process heaters
with design heat input capacity of 44 megawatts (150 million Btu per
hour) or greater, all 3-hour periods of operation during which the
average temperature was more than 28 degrees Celsius (82 degrees
Fahrenheit) below the average combustion temperature during the most
recent performance test at which compliance with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii) was determined.
(ii) For boilers or process heaters, whenever there is a change in
the location at which the vent stream is introduced into the flame zone
as required under paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(2) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart must keep up-to-date, readily accessible continuous records of
the indication of flow to the control system and the indication of
bypass flow or records of monthly inspections of car-seals or lock-and-
key configurations used to seal bypass lines, specified under Sec.
63.1961(b)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(ii), and (g)(2).
(3) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart who uses a boiler or process heater with a design heat input
capacity of 44 megawatts or greater to comply with Sec.
63.1959(b)(2)(iii) must keep an up-to-date, readily accessible record
of all periods of operation of the boiler or process heater. Examples
of such records could include records of steam use, fuel use, or
monitoring data collected pursuant to other state, local, tribal, or
federal regulatory requirements.
(4) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the provisions of
this subpart by use of a non-enclosed flare must keep up-to-date,
readily accessible continuous records of the flame or flare pilot flame
monitoring specified under Sec. 63.1961(c), and up-to-date, readily
accessible records of all periods of operation in which the flame or
flare pilot flame is absent.
(5) Each owner or operator of a landfill seeking to comply with
Sec. 63.1959(b)(2) using an active collection system designed in
accordance with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(ii) must keep records of periods
when the collection system or control device is not operating.
(6) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the operational standard
in Sec. 63.1958(e)(1), the date, time, and duration of each startup
and/or shutdown period, recording the periods when the affected source
was subject to the standard applicable to startup and shutdown.
(7) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the operational standard
in Sec. 63.1958(e)(1), in the event that an affected unit fails to
meet an applicable standard, record the information below in this
paragraph:
(i) For each failure record the date, time and duration of each
failure and the cause of such events (including unknown cause, if
applicable).
(ii) For each failure to meet an applicable standard; record and
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment.
(iii) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
the general duty of Sec. 63.1955(c) and any corrective actions taken
to return the affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(8) Beginning no later than September 27, 2021, in lieu of the
requirements specified in Sec. [thinsp]63.8(d)(3) of subpart A you
must keep the written procedures required by Sec. [thinsp]63.8(d)(2)
on record for the life of the affected source or until the affected
source is no longer subject to the provisions of this part, to be made
available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the
performance evaluation plan is revised, you must keep previous (i.e.,
superseded) versions of the performance evaluation plan on record to be
made available for inspection, upon request, by the Administrator, for
a period of 5 years after each revision to the plan. The program of
corrective action should be included in the plan required under Sec.
[thinsp]63.8(d)(2).
(d) Except as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2), each owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must keep for the
life of the collection system an up-to-date, readily accessible plot
map showing each existing and planned collector in the system and
providing a unique identification location label for each collector.
(1) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart must keep up-to-date, readily accessible records of the
installation date and location of all newly installed collectors as
specified under Sec. 63.1960(b).
(2) Each owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart must keep readily accessible documentation of the nature, date
of deposition, amount, and location of asbestos-containing or
nondegradable waste excluded from collection as provided in Sec.
63.1962(a)(3)(i) as well as any nonproductive areas excluded from
collection as provided in Sec. 63.1962(a)(3)(ii).
(e) Except as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2), each owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must keep for at
least 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible records of the following:
(1) All collection and control system exceedances of the
operational standards in Sec. 63.1958, the reading in the subsequent
month whether or not the second reading is an exceedance, and the
location of each exceedance.
(2) Each owner or operator subject to the control provisions of
this subpart must keep records of each wellhead temperature monitoring
value of greater than 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees Fahrenheit), each
wellhead nitrogen level at or above 20 percent, and each wellhead
oxygen level at or above 5 percent, except:
(i) When an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the compliance provisions
for wellhead temperature in Sec. 63.1958(c)(1), but no later than
September 27, 2021, the records of each wellhead temperature monitoring
value of 62.8 degrees Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit) or above instead
of values greater than 55 degrees Celsius (131 degrees Fahrenheit).
(ii) Each owner or operator required to conduct the enhanced
monitoring provisions in Sec. 63.1961(a)(5), must also keep records of
all enhanced monitoring activities.
(iii) Each owner or operator required to submit the 24-hour high
temperature report in Sec. 63.1981(k), must also keep a record of the
email transmission.
(3) For any root cause analysis for which corrective actions are
required in Sec. 63.1960(a)(3)(i)(A) or (a)(4)(i)(A), keep a record of
the root cause analysis conducted, including a description of the
recommended corrective action(s) taken, and the date(s) the corrective
action(s) were completed.
(4) For any root cause analysis for which corrective actions are
required in Sec. 63.1960(a)(3)(i)(B) or (a)(4)(i)(B), keep a record of
the root cause analysis conducted, the corrective action analysis, the
date for corrective action(s) already completed following the
[[Page 17279]]
positive pressure reading or high temperature reading, and, for
action(s) not already completed, a schedule for implementation,
including proposed commencement and completion dates.
(5) For any root cause analysis for which corrective actions are
required in Sec. 63.1960(a)(3)(i)(C) or (a)(4)(i)(C), keep a record of
the root cause analysis conducted, the corrective action analysis, the
date for corrective action(s) already completed following the positive
pressure reading or high temperature reading, for action(s) not already
completed, a schedule for implementation, including proposed
commencement and completion dates, and a copy of any comments or final
approval on the corrective action analysis or schedule from the
Administrator.
(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 Mg or 2.5 million m\3\, as provided
in the definition of ``design capacity,'' must keep readily accessible,
on-site records of the annual recalculation of site-specific density,
design capacity, and the supporting documentation. Off-site records may
be maintained if they are retrievable within 4 hours. Either paper copy
or electronic formats are acceptable.
(g) Except as provided in Sec. 63.1981(d)(2), each owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this subpart must keep for at
least 5 years up-to-date, readily accessible records of all collection
and control system monitoring data for parameters measured in Sec.
63.1961(a)(1) through (5).
(h) Where an owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
subpart seeks to demonstrate compliance with the operational standard
for temperature in Sec. 63.1958(c)(1), you must keep the following
records.
(1) Records of the landfill gas temperature on a monthly basis as
monitored in Sec. 63.1960(a)(4).
(2) Records of enhanced monitoring data at each well with a
measurement of landfill gas temperature greater than 62.8 degrees
Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit) as gathered in Sec. 63.1961(a)(5) and
(6).
(i) Any records required to be maintained by this subpart that are
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.
(ii) [Reserved]
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.1985 Who enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the EPA, or a
delegated authority such as the applicable state, local, or tribal
agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a state,
local, or tribal agency, then that agency as well as the EPA has the
authority to implement and enforce this subpart. Contact the applicable
EPA Regional office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a
state, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a state, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are
retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the state,
local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to state, local, or
tribal agencies are as follows. Approval of alternatives to the
standards in Sec. Sec. 63.1955 through 63.1962. Where this subpart
references 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, the cited provisions will be
delegated according to the delegation provisions of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW. For this subpart, the EPA also retains the authority to
approve methods for determining the NMOC concentration in Sec.
63.1959(a)(3) and the method for determining the site-specific methane
generation rate constant k in Sec. 63.1959(a)(4).
Sec. 63.1990 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, 40 CFR
part 60, subparts A, Cc, Cf, WWW, and XXX; 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG,
and subpart A of this part, and this section that follows:
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.
Bioreactor means an MSW landfill or portion of an MSW landfill
where any liquid other than leachate (leachate includes landfill gas
condensate) is added in a controlled fashion into the waste mass (often
in combination with recirculating leachate) to reach a minimum average
moisture content of at least 40 percent by weight to accelerate or
enhance the anaerobic (without oxygen) biodegradation of the waste.
Closed area means a separately lined area of an MSW landfill in
which solid waste is no longer being placed. If additional solid waste
is placed in that area of the landfill, that landfill area is no longer
closed. The area must be separately lined to ensure that the landfill
gas does not migrate between open and closed areas.
Closed landfill means a landfill in which solid waste is no longer
being placed, and in which no additional solid wastes will be placed
without first filing a notification of modification as prescribed under
Sec. 63.9(b). Once a notification of modification has been filed, and
additional solid waste is placed in the landfill, the landfill is no
longer closed.
Closure means that point in time when a landfill becomes a closed
landfill.
Commercial solid waste means all types of solid waste generated by
stores, offices, restaurants, warehouses, and other nonmanufacturing
activities, excluding residential and industrial wastes.
Controlled landfill means any landfill at which collection and
control systems are required under this subpart as a result of the
nonmethane organic compounds emission rate. The landfill is considered
controlled at the time a collection and control system design plan is
submitted in compliance with Sec. 60.752(b)(2)(i) of this chapter or
in compliance with Sec. 63.1959(b)(2)(i).
Corrective action analysis means a description of all reasonable
interim and long-term measures, if any, that are available, and an
explanation of why the selected corrective action(s) is/are the best
alternative(s), including, but not limited to, considerations of cost
effectiveness, technical feasibility, safety, and secondary impacts.
Cover penetration means a wellhead, a part of a landfill gas
collection or operations system, and/or any other object that
completely passes through the landfill cover. The landfill cover
includes that portion which covers the waste, as well as the portion
which borders the waste extended to the point where it is sealed with
the landfill liner or the surrounding land mass. Examples of what is
not a penetration for purposes of this subpart include but are not
limited to: Survey stakes, fencing including litter fences, flags,
signs, utility posts, and trees so long as these items do not pass
through the landfill cover.
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
[[Page 17280]]
for in the most recent permit. If the owner or operator chooses to
convert the design capacity from volume to mass or from mass to volume
to demonstrate its design capacity is less than 2.5 million Mg or 2.5
million m\3\, the calculation must include a site-specific density,
which must be recalculated annually.
Deviation before September 28, 2021, means any instance in which an
affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of
such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including, but not limited to, any emissions limitation
(including any operating limit) or work practice requirement;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation, (including any operating
limit), or work practice requirement in this subpart during SSM,
regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
Deviation beginning no later than September 27, 2021, means any
instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart or an
owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart including but not limited to any emission limit, or operating
limit, or work practice requirement; or
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit.
Disposal facility means all contiguous land and structures, other
appurtenances, and improvements on the land used for the disposal of
solid waste.
Emissions limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit,
operating limit, or visible emissions limit.
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.
EPA approved State plan means a State plan that EPA has approved
based on the requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B to implement and
enforce 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc or Cf. An approved state plan
becomes effective on the date specified in the document published in
the Federal Register announcing EPA's approval.
EPA approved Tribal plan means a plan submitted by a tribal
authority pursuant to 40 CFR parts 9, 35, 49, 50, and 81 to implement
and enforce 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc or subpart Cf.
Federal plan means the EPA plan to implement 40 CFR part 60,
subparts Cc or Cf for existing MSW landfills located in states and
Indian country where state plans or tribal plans are not currently in
effect. On the effective date of an EPA approved state or tribal plan,
the Federal Plan no longer applies. The Federal Plan implementing 40
CFR part 60, subpart Cc is found at 40 CFR part 62, subpart GGG.
Flare means an open combustor without enclosure or shroud.
Gas mover equipment means the equipment (i.e., fan, blower,
compressor) used to transport landfill gas through the header system.
Household waste means any solid waste (including garbage, trash,
and sanitary waste in septic tanks) derived from households (including,
but not limited to, single and multiple residences, hotels and motels,
bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic
grounds, and day-use recreation areas). Household waste does not
include fully segregated yard waste. Segregated yard waste means
vegetative matter resulting exclusively from the cutting of grass, the
pruning and/or removal of bushes, shrubs, and trees, the weeding of
gardens, and other landscaping maintenance activities. Household waste
does not include construction, renovation, or demolition wastes, even
if originating from a household.
Industrial solid waste means solid waste generated by manufacturing
or industrial processes that is not a hazardous waste regulated under
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 40 CFR parts
264 and 265. Such waste may include, but is not limited to, waste
resulting from the following manufacturing processes: Electric power
generation; fertilizer/agricultural chemicals; food and related
products/by-products; inorganic chemicals; iron and steel
manufacturing; leather and leather products; nonferrous metals
manufacturing/foundries; organic chemicals; plastics and resins
manufacturing; pulp and paper industry; rubber and miscellaneous
plastic products; stone, glass, clay, and concrete products; textile
manufacturing; transportation equipment; and water treatment. This term
does not include mining waste or oil and gas waste.
Interior well means any well or similar collection component
located inside the perimeter of the landfill waste. A perimeter well
located outside the landfilled waste is not an interior well.
Landfill means an area of land or an excavation in which wastes are
placed for permanent disposal, and that is not a land application unit,
surface impoundment, injection well, or waste pile as those terms are
defined under Sec. 257.2 of this chapter.
Lateral expansion means a horizontal expansion of the waste
boundaries of an existing MSW landfill. A lateral expansion is not a
modification unless it results in an increase in the design capacity of
the landfill.
Leachate recirculation means the practice of taking the leachate
collected from the landfill and reapplying it to the landfill by any of
one of a variety of methods, including pre-wetting of the waste, direct
discharge into the working face, spraying, infiltration ponds, vertical
injection wells, horizontal gravity distribution systems, and pressure
distribution systems.
Modification means an increase in the permitted volume design
capacity of the landfill by either lateral or vertical expansion based
on its permitted design capacity after November 7, 2000. Modification
does not occur until the owner or operator commences construction on
the lateral or vertical expansion.
Municipal solid waste landfill or MSW landfill means an entire
disposal facility in a contiguous geographical space where household
waste is placed in or on land. An MSW landfill may also receive other
types of RCRA Subtitle D wastes (Sec. 257.2 of this chapter) such as
commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, conditionally exempt small
quantity generator waste, and industrial solid waste. Portions of an
MSW landfill may be separated by access roads. An MSW landfill may be
publicly or privately owned. An MSW landfill may be a new MSW landfill,
an existing MSW landfill, or a lateral expansion.
Municipal solid waste landfill emissions or MSW landfill emissions
means gas generated by the decomposition of organic waste deposited in
an MSW landfill or derived from the evolution of organic compounds in
the waste.
NMOC means nonmethane organic compounds, as measured according to
the provisions of Sec. 63.1959.
Nondegradable waste means any waste that does not decompose through
chemical breakdown or microbiological activity. Examples are, but are
not
[[Page 17281]]
limited to, concrete, municipal waste combustor ash, and metals.
Passive collection system means a gas collection system that solely
uses positive pressure within the landfill to move the gas rather than
using gas mover equipment.
Root cause analysis means an assessment conducted through a process
of investigation to determine the primary cause, and any other
contributing causes, of an exceedance of a standard operating parameter
at a wellhead.
Segregated yard waste means vegetative matter resulting exclusively
from the cutting of grass, the pruning and/or removal of bushes,
shrubs, and trees, the weeding of gardens, and other landscaping
maintenance activities.
Sludge means the term sludge as defined in Sec. 258.2 of this
chapter.
Solid waste means the term solid waste as defined in Sec. 258.2 of
this chapter.
Sufficient density means any number, spacing, and combination of
collection system components, including vertical wells, horizontal
collectors, and surface collectors, necessary to maintain emission and
migration control as determined by measures of performance set forth in
this subpart.
Sufficient extraction rate means a rate sufficient to maintain a
negative pressure at all wellheads in the collection system without
causing air infiltration, including any wellheads connected to the
system as a result of expansion or excess surface emissions, for the
life of the blower.
Treated landfill gas means landfill gas processed in a treatment
system as defined in this subpart.
Treatment system means a system that filters, de-waters, and
compresses landfill gas for sale or beneficial use.
Untreated landfill gas means any landfill gas that is not treated
landfill gas.
Work practice requirement means any design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is
promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.
Table 1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63--Applicability of NESHAP General
Provisions to Subpart AAAA
As specified in this subpart, you must meet each requirement in the
following table that applies to you. The owner or operator may begin
complying with the provisions that apply no later than September 27,
2021, any time before that date.
Table 1 to Subpart AAAA of Part 63--Applicability of NESHAP General Provisions to Subpart AAAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable to
Applicable to subpart AAAA no
Part 63 citation Description subpart AAAA later than Explanation
before September September 27,
28, 2021 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)................ Applicability: Yes............. Yes.............
General
applicability of
NESHAP in this part.
Sec. 63.1(b)................ Applicability Yes............. Yes.............
determination for
stationary sources.
Sec. 63.1(c)................ Applicability after a No \1\.......... Yes.............
standard has been
set.
Sec. 63.1(e)................ Applicability of Yes............. Yes.............
permit program
before relevant
standard is set.
Sec. 63.2................... Definitions.......... Yes............. Yes.............
Sec. 63.3................... Units and No \1\.......... Yes.............
abbreviations.
Sec. 63.4................... Prohibited activities Yes............. Yes.............
and circumvention.
Sec. 63.5(a)................ Construction/ No \1\.......... Yes.............
reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(b)................ Requirements for Yes............. Yes.............
existing, newly
constructed, and
reconstructed
sources.
Sec. 63.5(d)................ Application for No \1\.......... Yes.............
approval of
construction or
reconstruction.
Sec. 63.5(e) and (f)........ Approval of No \1\.......... Yes.............
construction and
reconstruction.
Sec. 63.6(a)................ Compliance with No \1\.......... Yes.............
standards and
maintenance
requirements--applic
ability.
Sec. 63.6(b) and (c)........ Compliance dates for No \1\.......... Yes.............
new, reconstructed,
and existing sources.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)-(ii)..... Operation and Yes............. No.............. See Sec. 63.1955(c)
maintenance for general duty
requirements. requirements.
63.6(e)(3)(i)-(ix)............ SSM plan............. Yes............. No..............
63.6(f)(1).................... Exemption of Yes............. No..............
nonopacity emission
standards during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2) and (3)..... Compliance with Yes............. Yes.............
nonopacity emission
standards.
Sec. 63.6(g)................ Use of an alternative No \1\.......... Yes.............
nonopacity standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)................ Compliance with No \1\.......... No.............. Subpart AAAA does not
opacity and visible prescribe opacity or
emission standards. visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.6(i)................ Extension of No \1\.......... Yes.............
compliance with
emission standards.
Sec. 63.6(j)................ Exemption from No \1\.......... Yes.............
compliance with
emission standards.
Sec. 63.7................... Performance testing.. No \1\.......... Yes.............
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)............. Conditions for No \1\.......... No.............. 40 CFR 63.1959(f)
performing specifies the
performance tests. conditions for
performing
performance tests.
Sec. 63.8(a) and (b)........ Monitoring No \1\.......... Yes.............
requirements--Applic
ability and conduct
of monitoring.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)............. Operation and No \1\.......... Yes.............
Maintenance of
continuous emissions
monitoring system.
[[Page 17282]]
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i).......... Operation and No \1\.......... No.............. Unnecessary due to
Maintenance the requirements of
Requirements. Sec. 63.8(c)(1)
and the requirements
for a quality
control plan for
monitoring equipment
in Sec.
63.8(d)(2).
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)......... Operation and No \1\.......... No..............
Maintenance
Requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)........ SSM plan for monitors No \1\.......... No..............
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(8)......... Monitoring No \1\.......... Yes.............
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(d)(1)............. Quality control for No \1\.......... Yes.............
monitors.
Sec. 63.8(d)(2)............. Quality control for No \1\.......... Yes.............
monitors.
Sec. 63.8(d)(3)............. Quality control No \1\.......... No.............. See Sec.
records. 63.1983(c)(8).
Sec. 63.9(a), (c), and (d).. Notifications........ No \1\.......... Yes.............
Sec. 63.9(b)................ Initial notifications No \1\.......... Yes \2\.........
Sec. 63.9(e)................ Notification of No \1\.......... Yes \2\.........
performance test.
Sec. 63.9(f)................ Notification of No \1\.......... No.............. Subpart AAAA does not
visible emissions/ prescribe opacity or
opacity test. visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)................ Notification when No \1\.......... Yes \2\.........
using CMS.
Sec. 63.9(h)................ Notification of No \1\.......... Yes \2\.........
compliance status.
Sec. 63.9(i)................ Adjustment of No \1\.......... Yes.............
submittal deadlines.
Sec. 63.9(j)................ Change in information No \1\.......... Yes.............
already provided.
Sec. 63.10(a)............... Recordkeeping and No \1\.......... Yes.............
reporting--general.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)............ General recordkeeping No \1\.......... Yes.............
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)......... Startup and shutdown Yes............. No.............. See Sec.
records. 63.1983(c)(6) for
recordkeeping for
periods of startup
and shutdown.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)........ Recordkeeping of Yes............. No.............. See Sec.
failures to meet a 63.1983(c)(6)-(7)
standard. for recordkeeping
for any exceedance
of a standard.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)....... Recordkeeping of Yes............. Yes.............
maintenance on air
pollution control
equipment.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v).... Actions taken to Yes............. No.............. See Sec.
minimize emissions 63.1983(c)(7) for
during SSM. recordkeeping of
corrective actions
to restore
compliance.
Sec. 63.10(b)(vi)........... Recordkeeping for CMS No \1\.......... Yes.............
malfunctions.
Sec. 63.10(b)(vii)-(xiv).... Other Recordkeeping No \1\.......... Yes.............
of compliance
measurements.
Sec. 63.10(c)............... Additional No \1\.......... No.............. See Sec. 63.1983
recordkeeping for for required CMS
sources with CMS. recordkeeping.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)............ General reporting.... No \1\.......... Yes.............
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)............ Reporting of No \1\.......... Yes.............
performance test
results.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)............ Reporting of visible No \1\.......... Yes.............
emission
observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)............ Progress reports for No \1\.......... Yes.............
compliance date
extensions.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)............ SSM reporting........ Yes............. No.............. All exceedances must
be reported in the
semi-annual report
required by Sec.
63.1981(h).
Sec. 63.10(e)............... Additional reporting No \1\.......... Yes.............
for CMS systems.
Sec. 63.10(f)............... Recordkeeping/ No \1\.......... Yes.............
reporting waiver.
Sec. 63.11.................. Control device No \1\.......... Yes............. Sec. 60.18 is
requirements/flares. required before
September 27, 2021.
However, Sec.
60.18 and 63.11 are
equivalent.
Sec. 63.12(a)............... State authority...... Yes............. Yes.............
Sec. 63.12(b)-(c)........... State delegations.... No \1\.......... Yes.............
Sec. 63.13.................. Addresses............ No \1\.......... Yes.............
Sec. 63.14.................. Incorporation by No \1\.......... Yes.............
reference.
Sec. 63.15.................. Availability of Yes............. Yes.............
information and
confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Before September 28, 2021, this subpart requires affected facilities to follow 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW,
which incorporates the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 60.
\2\ If an owner or operator has complied with the requirements of this paragraph under either 40 CFR part 60,
subpart WWW or subpart XXX, then additional notification is not required.
[FR Doc. 2020-04800 Filed 3-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
