1

Proposed NSPS/EG RuleProposed NSPS/EG RuleWebinar/October 14, 2015Webinar/October 14, 2015

2

PanelPanel

• Pat Sullivan, Senior Vice President, SCS Pat Sullivan, Senior Vice President, SCS EngineersEngineers

• Niki Wuestenberg, Corporate Air Compliance Niki Wuestenberg, Corporate Air Compliance Manager, Republic ServicesManager, Republic Services

• Amy Banister, Senior Director of Air Quality, Amy Banister, Senior Director of Air Quality, Waste ManagementWaste Management

3

AgendaAgenda

• Background on RulemakingBackground on Rulemaking• ScheduleSchedule• ApplicabilityApplicability• Summary of Key IssuesSummary of Key Issues• Next StepsNext Steps• Implementation Issues to ConsiderImplementation Issues to Consider

4

NSPS/EG Proposals NSPS/EG Proposals

• August 27, 2015 published in Federal RegisterAugust 27, 2015 published in Federal Register

• Expect NSPS and EG to have same requirementsExpect NSPS and EG to have same requirements– Supplemental NSPS Subpart XXX (40 CFR Part 60)Supplemental NSPS Subpart XXX (40 CFR Part 60)

• Applies to New, Modified or Reconstructed landfills Applies to New, Modified or Reconstructed landfills afterafter July July 17, 201417, 2014

• Industry comments previously provided September 2014Industry comments previously provided September 2014

– Proposed EG Subpart Cf (40 CFR Part 60)Proposed EG Subpart Cf (40 CFR Part 60)• Replacing Subpart WWW & CcReplacing Subpart WWW & Cc• Applies to existing landfills accepted waste after 11-8-1987 and Applies to existing landfills accepted waste after 11-8-1987 and

began construction, reconstruction or modification began construction, reconstruction or modification beforebefore July July 17, 201417, 2014

5

ScheduleSchedule

• 60-day comment period ends October 26, 201560-day comment period ends October 26, 2015• Anticipate final NSPS/EG rule July 2016Anticipate final NSPS/EG rule July 2016• NSPS XXX when issued will be final and NSPS XXX when issued will be final and

effectiveeffective• For EG Cf, States have 9 months to submit For EG Cf, States have 9 months to submit

PlansPlans• EPA then has 4 months to review and approveEPA then has 4 months to review and approve• Waiting on EPA to propose Federal PlanWaiting on EPA to propose Federal Plan• Waiting on EPA to revise Subpart AAAA (Landfill Waiting on EPA to revise Subpart AAAA (Landfill

NESHAPs)NESHAPs)

6

Polling QuestionPolling Question

• Question for regulators: Given states have 9 months to submit revised state plans, how does your agency plan to implement the EG?  – Rely on federal plan – Submit revised state plan-incorporate XXX

requirements – Submit revised state plan-develop state-specific

rulemaking– Do nothing/negative declaration   

7

Thresholds for Installing Thresholds for Installing ControlsControls

• Design capacity threshold Design capacity threshold – Remain the same—2.5 million Mg and m3 Remain the same—2.5 million Mg and m3

• NMOC emission threshold NMOC emission threshold – Reduced from 50 Mg/year down to Reduced from 50 Mg/year down to 34 Mg/year34 Mg/year – Closed landfills remain at 50 Mg/year (Subcategory) Closed landfills remain at 50 Mg/year (Subcategory)

• Impact:Impact: – Results in active landfills triggering the requirement to Results in active landfills triggering the requirement to

install and operate a GCCS earlier install and operate a GCCS earlier – Extends operation of the GCCSExtends operation of the GCCS– Unsure of number of landfills impacted since landfills can Unsure of number of landfills impacted since landfills can

test out with Tier 2 or using surface emission monitoring test out with Tier 2 or using surface emission monitoring alternative (new Tier 4)alternative (new Tier 4)

8

Closed Landfill SubcategoryClosed Landfill Subcategory

• MSW Landfills closed on or before August 27, 2015 MSW Landfills closed on or before August 27, 2015 continue to be subject to 50 Mg/yr NMOC thresholdcontinue to be subject to 50 Mg/yr NMOC threshold

• Closed landfill defined as landfill that has submitted a closure Closed landfill defined as landfill that has submitted a closure report as specified by 40 CFR 60.38(f)report as specified by 40 CFR 60.38(f)

– Comments on alternative approach to expand closed Comments on alternative approach to expand closed subcategory to include landfills that close within 13 months subcategory to include landfills that close within 13 months after publication of final EGafter publication of final EG

• Impact:Impact: – Ensures existing closed landfills that are Ensures existing closed landfills that are notnot already already

subject to the rule are not pulled into the new rule subject to the rule are not pulled into the new rule

– Need to ensure current closed landfills have proper Need to ensure current closed landfills have proper documentation to support exemption documentation to support exemption

9

No Change to BSERNo Change to BSER

• BSER=Best System of Emission ReductionBSER=Best System of Emission Reduction– Well designed and operated GCCSWell designed and operated GCCS

• Open/Non-enclosed flaresOpen/Non-enclosed flares

• BMP’s (e.g., well dewatering, well bore seals, BMP’s (e.g., well dewatering, well bore seals, organics diversion, etc.)organics diversion, etc.)– Not considered BSERNot considered BSER– BMPs are not a one size fits allBMPs are not a one size fits all– BMPs are encouraged on a site level use where BMPs are encouraged on a site level use where

feasible feasible

• Impact:Impact:– Industry supports BSER remaining the sameIndustry supports BSER remaining the same

10

Wellhead StandardsWellhead Standards

• Monthly wellhead monitoring/recordkeeping still Monthly wellhead monitoring/recordkeeping still requiredrequired– Maintain negative pressureMaintain negative pressure

• Impact:Impact: – Enhances landfill gas collection with operational Enhances landfill gas collection with operational

flexibilityflexibility– Incentive for earlier gas collectionIncentive for earlier gas collection

11

Tier 4 Demonstration Tier 4 Demonstration (optional)(optional)

• Surface emissions monitoring (SEM) Surface emissions monitoring (SEM) demonstration - active & closeddemonstration - active & closed– 4 consecutive quarters below 500 ppmv does not 4 consecutive quarters below 500 ppmv does not

trigger GCCS install; Semi-annual testing thereaftertrigger GCCS install; Semi-annual testing thereafter– Monitor entire surface at Monitor entire surface at no moreno more than 30-meter than 30-meter

interval path; visual observations indicate elevated interval path; visual observations indicate elevated concentrations of landfill gasconcentrations of landfill gas

• Proposes Proposes AllAll cover penetrations & open areas cover penetrations & open areas

– Proposes wind speed requirementsProposes wind speed requirements• Wind speed determined by an onsite anemometerWind speed determined by an onsite anemometer

12

Tier 4 Demonstration (cont.) Tier 4 Demonstration (cont.)

• Impact:Impact: – Allows any existing landfill to demonstrate emissions Allows any existing landfill to demonstrate emissions

below NMOC threshold below NMOC threshold – Concerns regarding the ability to meet the wind Concerns regarding the ability to meet the wind

requirementsrequirements– Readings at or above 500 ppmv requires GCCS Readings at or above 500 ppmv requires GCCS

installation installation – Can NOT use Tier 1, 2 or 3 if Tier 4 failsCan NOT use Tier 1, 2 or 3 if Tier 4 fails

13

Capping/Removing GCCSCapping/Removing GCCS

• Alternative Criteria for Capping/Removal Alternative Criteria for Capping/Removal – Landfill is closed or an area of an active landfill is closedLandfill is closed or an area of an active landfill is closed

– GCCS has operated for at least 15 years or demonstrate GCCS has operated for at least 15 years or demonstrate unable to operate due to declining flowsunable to operate due to declining flows

– Demonstrate 4 consecutive SEM quarters below 500 ppmvDemonstrate 4 consecutive SEM quarters below 500 ppmv

– 1% criteria not changed 1% criteria not changed

• Impact:Impact: – Issues with implementation of approach Issues with implementation of approach

– Concept details demonstration to allow operational Concept details demonstration to allow operational flexibility to address low producing sectionsflexibility to address low producing sections

14

SEM – Routine EventsSEM – Routine Events

• Proposes all penetrations and open areas must Proposes all penetrations and open areas must be monitoredbe monitored

• GPS technologies GPS technologies – Requiring latitude and longitude coordinates Requiring latitude and longitude coordinates

– Instrument accuracy of at least +/- 3 meters Instrument accuracy of at least +/- 3 meters

– Coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at least Coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at least five decimal placefive decimal place

• Impact:Impact: – New monitoring equipment for GPS New monitoring equipment for GPS

– Additional resources required for monitoring Additional resources required for monitoring

– Confusion about what is a penetration/open areasConfusion about what is a penetration/open areas

15

GCCS Design PlanGCCS Design Plan

• GCCS design planGCCS design plan– Revise within 90 days of expanding operations to an area Revise within 90 days of expanding operations to an area

not covered by previously approved plannot covered by previously approved plan– Prior to installing or expanding the gas collection system in Prior to installing or expanding the gas collection system in

a manner other than one described in a previously a manner other than one described in a previously approved design planapproved design plan

– Requesting comment on third party certification program to Requesting comment on third party certification program to supplement or replace EPA/State review & approvalsupplement or replace EPA/State review & approval

• Impact:Impact: – Creates uncertainty for plans that are not already Creates uncertainty for plans that are not already

approved and that are not approved when amended approved and that are not approved when amended – A third party certification process will also create additional A third party certification process will also create additional

burden – both Agency and industryburden – both Agency and industry– Potential conflict with PE certification Potential conflict with PE certification

16

Polling QuestionPolling Question

• What are your thoughts about third party verification of Design Plans?  – Agree-supplement to agency approval – Agree-in place of agency approval – Disagree with verification option – I don’t have an opinion.

17

LFG TreatmentLFG Treatment• Treatment System DefinedTreatment System Defined

– System that System that filtersfilters, , de-watersde-waters and and compressescompresses landfill gas landfill gas for sale or beneficial end use of the gasfor sale or beneficial end use of the gas

• Beneficial use expanded; not limited to stationary Beneficial use expanded; not limited to stationary fuel combustion devices.fuel combustion devices.– Vehicle fuels, high BTU for pipeline injection, raw material Vehicle fuels, high BTU for pipeline injection, raw material

for chemical manufacturingfor chemical manufacturing

• Site-specific treatment monitoring plan required Site-specific treatment monitoring plan required – Monitoring parameters, methods, frequency and operating Monitoring parameters, methods, frequency and operating

ranges based on manufacturers recommendations or ranges based on manufacturers recommendations or engineering analysis for intended use of treated gasengineering analysis for intended use of treated gas

18

LFG Treatment (cont.)LFG Treatment (cont.)

• Impact:Impact: – Beneficial use dictates level of treatment; reflected in Beneficial use dictates level of treatment; reflected in

site-specific Monitoring Plansite-specific Monitoring Plan– Site-specific Monitoring Plan requires agency Site-specific Monitoring Plan requires agency

approval via Design Plan approval via Design Plan – End users of treated gas must follow applicable rules End users of treated gas must follow applicable rules

(i.e., JJJJ, ZZZZ) (i.e., JJJJ, ZZZZ) – Treated gas is not subject to landfill NSPS/EG control Treated gas is not subject to landfill NSPS/EG control

requirements for the end user’s equipmentrequirements for the end user’s equipment

19

Polling QuestionPolling Question

• Should EPA require agency approval of Should EPA require agency approval of treatment system monitoring plans or to maintain treatment system monitoring plans or to maintain plans on-site for agency inspection (like GHG plans on-site for agency inspection (like GHG monitoring plans or SSM Plans)?monitoring plans or SSM Plans)?– Agency approvalAgency approval– Maintain on siteMaintain on site

20

Startup Shutdown and Startup Shutdown and Malfunction (SSM)Malfunction (SSM)

20

• Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA is proposing Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA is proposing standards apply at all times, including periods of startup standards apply at all times, including periods of startup shutdown and malfunction. shutdown and malfunction.

– Propose to remove 5-day and 1-hour downtime limitationsPropose to remove 5-day and 1-hour downtime limitations

– Close valves/stop gas mover within 1-hour of shutdownClose valves/stop gas mover within 1-hour of shutdown

• MSW Landfills are a “continuous biological process that MSW Landfills are a “continuous biological process that cannot be stopped or restarted”; cannot be stopped or restarted”; thereforetherefore,,

• Focus on malfunction of the GCCS and monitoring equipmentFocus on malfunction of the GCCS and monitoring equipment

• Recent NSPS/NESHAPs rulemakings indicate EPA has Recent NSPS/NESHAPs rulemakings indicate EPA has tailored SSM to address continuous operations (i.e., tailored SSM to address continuous operations (i.e., alternative emission limits, work practice standards) alternative emission limits, work practice standards)

21

Polling QuestionPolling Question

• Should EPA retain the 5-day collection system Should EPA retain the 5-day collection system and 1-hour control device downtime provisions and 1-hour control device downtime provisions for SSM?for SSM?– YesYes– NoNo

22

Household Waste/ Household Waste/ Segregated Yard WasteSegregated Yard Waste

• ““Household Waste” and “Segregated Yard Household Waste” and “Segregated Yard Waste” – clarification proposed in definitionWaste” – clarification proposed in definition– Original definition was not intended to apply to Original definition was not intended to apply to

landfills that accept only segregated yard waste or a landfills that accept only segregated yard waste or a combination of segregated yard waste and non-combination of segregated yard waste and non-household waste such as construction and demolition household waste such as construction and demolition waste waste

• Impact:Impact: – The clarification in the definition ensures the NSPS/EG The clarification in the definition ensures the NSPS/EG

does not unintentionally apply to C&D landfills that accept does not unintentionally apply to C&D landfills that accept yard or C&D wastes that originated from a household yard or C&D wastes that originated from a household

23

Electronic ReportingElectronic Reporting

• Propose e-reporting for performance tests, NMOC Propose e-reporting for performance tests, NMOC reports and annual reports reports and annual reports – Will apply to methods/reports supported by the Electronic Will apply to methods/reports supported by the Electronic

Reporting Tool (ERT) Reporting Tool (ERT) – Maintain only electronic copies of the records to satisfy Maintain only electronic copies of the records to satisfy

federal recordkeeping requirementsfederal recordkeeping requirements

• Impact:Impact: – Requires EPA to develop new procedures and tools to Requires EPA to develop new procedures and tools to

support electronic submittals support electronic submittals – Requires sites to periodically monitor ERT website for new Requires sites to periodically monitor ERT website for new

reporting tools/requirementsreporting tools/requirements– Emission factors updated periodicallyEmission factors updated periodically

24

Alternative TimelinesAlternative Timelines

• EPA seeks comment on submitting corrective EPA seeks comment on submitting corrective action timeline requests where:action timeline requests where:– Cannot restore negative pressure within 15 days andCannot restore negative pressure within 15 days and– Unable to or do not plan to expand gas collection Unable to or do not plan to expand gas collection

within 120 days within 120 days

• No schedule proposed in rule due to site specific No schedule proposed in rule due to site specific conditionsconditions– Want to ensure sufficient time to diagnose and Want to ensure sufficient time to diagnose and

complete corrective actioncomplete corrective action

25

Polling questionPolling question

• In your opinion, what is sufficient time to In your opinion, what is sufficient time to diagnose and correct a wellhead exceedance?diagnose and correct a wellhead exceedance?– 0-15 days0-15 days– 0-60 days0-60 days– 0-120 days0-120 days– Other_____________Other_____________

26

Next StepsNext Steps

• Complete comments by October 26, 2015 Complete comments by October 26, 2015 deadlinedeadline• SWANA/NW&RA preparing comment letterSWANA/NW&RA preparing comment letter

• Work with EPA as they review/address Work with EPA as they review/address commentscomments

• Be prepared for rule issuance July 2016Be prepared for rule issuance July 2016• Go back and check records/assess statusGo back and check records/assess status

• Communicate with EPA on implementation Communicate with EPA on implementation issuesissues

27

Implementation Issues to ConsiderImplementation Issues to Consider

• What rule (s) will apply to my site(s) and when? What rule (s) will apply to my site(s) and when? • When/how will XXX compliance requirements When/how will XXX compliance requirements

apply to modified landfills with existing GCCS?apply to modified landfills with existing GCCS?• When to update Title V permit requirements? When to update Title V permit requirements? • How will a facility demonstrate compliance with How will a facility demonstrate compliance with

multiple rules that may conflict (WWW and XXX multiple rules that may conflict (WWW and XXX and Subpart AAAA)?and Subpart AAAA)?

• How will state/local agencies implement the EG? How will state/local agencies implement the EG?

28

Q&A and Contact InformationQ&A and Contact Information

• Pat SullivanPat Sullivan– psullivan@scsengineers.com

• Niki WuestenbergNiki Wuestenberg– nwuestenberg@republicservices.com

• Amy BanisterAmy Banister– abaniste@wm.com