National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

Related Material

Other Related Documents

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: May 23, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 100)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36459-36473]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23my02-30]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-7215-5]
RIN 2060-AH13

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplement to proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action is a supplemental proposal to the national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for municipal
solid waste (MSW) landfills. On November 7, 2000, EPA proposed NESHAP
for MSW landfills and requested comments on bioreactors. Based on
comments to the proposed rule and additional information and analyses,
EPA is adding a definition of bioreactors to the proposed rule and is
proposing timely control for bioreactors located at MSW landfills with
a design capacity greater than or equal to 2.5 million megagrams (Mg)
and 2.5 million cubic meters (m3).

DATES: Comments. Comments are requested only on information and
proposed requirements for bioreactors presented in this action. Submit
comments on or before June 24, 2002. If a public hearing is held,
written comments must be received by July 8, 2002.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by June 3, 2002, a public hearing will be held on June
6, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-98-28, U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460. In person or by courier,
deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-98-28,
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests a
separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed below (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10
a.m. and will be held at EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium in
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or an alternate site nearby.
You should contact JoLynn Collins, Waste and Chemical Processes Group,
Emission Standard Division, U.S. EPA (C439-03), Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5671 to request a public hearing, to
request to speak at a public hearing, or to find out if a hearing will
be held.
Docket. Docket No. A-98-28 for this regulation and associated
Docket No. A-88-09 contain supporting information used in developing
the standards. These dockets are located at the U.S. EPA, 401 M Street
SW, Washington, DC 20460, in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor,
central mall), and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Copies of docket materials
may be obtained by request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-
7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Michele Laur at Waste and Chemical
Processes Group, Emission Standards Division (C439-03), Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5256, facsimile number (919) 541-
0246, electronic mail address
"laur.michele@epa.gov."

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted
by electronic mail (e-mail) to: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use
of special characters and encryption problems. Comments will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect file format. All comments and
data submitted in electronic form must note the docket number: (Docket
No. A-98-28). No confidential business information (CBI) should be
submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many
Federal Depository Libraries.
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it "Confidential Business
Information." Send submissions containing such proprietary
information directly to the following address, and not to the public
docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently
placed in the docket: Attention Ms. Michele Laur, c/o OAQPS Document
Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
The EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only to the
extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no
claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received
by the EPA, the information may be made available to the public without
further notice to the commenter.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms.
JoLynn Collins at the Emission Standards Division (C439-03), U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-5671,
at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons interested in
attending the public hearing must also call Ms. Collins to verify time,
date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing will provide
interested parties the opportunities to present data, views, or
arguments concerning this supplemental proposal.
Docket. The docket is an organized an complete file of all the
information considered by the EPA in the development of this
rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added
throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify
and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards
and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the
record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).) The regulatory text and other materials related
to this rulemaking are available for review in the docket, or copies
may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548.
A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's supplemental proposal will also be
available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
Following signature, a copy of today's supplemental proposal will be
posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various
areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN
is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action:

[[Page 36461]]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially regulated
Category NAICS code SIC code entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry: Air and water resource and 924110 9511 Solid waste landfills.
solid waste management.
Industry: Refuse systems-solid 562212 4953 Solid waste landfills.
waste landfills.
State, local, and Tribal government 562212 4953 Solid waste landfills; Air and
agencies. 924110 water resource and solid waste
management.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in
Sec.Sec. 63.1935 and 63.1940 of the landfills proposed rule. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Outline. The information presented in this supplemental proposal is
organized as follows:

I. Statutory Authority
A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
II. Background
III. Summary of Supplemental Proposed Requirements for Bioreactors
IV. Rationale for the Proposed Requirements for Bioreactors
A. Why is EPA proposing supplemental requirements for
bioreactors at MSW landfills?
B. How did EPA determine the bioreactor portion of the MSW
landfill MACT floor?
C. How did EPA consider beyond-the-floor options?
D. How did EPA determine the standard for bioreactor operations
at area source MSW landfills?
E. What is EPA's rationale for the specific requirements for
bioreactors?
F. What other issues did EPA consider?
V. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of the
Proposed Requirements for Bioreactors
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Statutory Authority

A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP), and to establish NESHAP for the listed source
categories and subcategories. The category of major sources covered by
today's supplemental proposal was on our initial list of HAP emission
source categories as published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992
(52 FR 31576). For "major" source MSW landfills (those that
have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) of any one HAP or 25
tpy of any combination of HAP), the CAA requires us to develop
standards that require the application of maximum achievable control
technology (MACT).
Under section 112(k) of the CAA, EPA developed a strategy to
control emissions of HAP from area sources in urban areas, identifying
33 HAP that present the greatest threat to public health in the largest
number of urban areas as the result of emissions from area sources.
Municipal solid waste landfills were listed as one of the 29 area
source categories on July 19, 1999 (64 FR 38706) because 13 of the
listed HAP are emitted from MSW landfills.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly
referred to as the MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT
floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emissions control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average
emissions 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, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
Finally, the CAA allows NESHAP to reflect an alternative standard
for area sources. The alternative standard provides for the use of
generally available control technologies (GACT) or management practices
to reduce emissions of HAP.

II. Background

On November 7, 2000, we proposed NESHAP for MSW landfills (65 FR
66680). When final, the rule will fulfill the requirements of section
112(d) of the CAA, which requires the Administrator to regulate
emissions of HAP, and help implement the Urban Air Toxics Strategy
developed under section 112(k) of the CAA.
In the November 7, 2000 proposed landfills NESHAP, we described
differences in emissions rates over time from landfills operated as
bioreactors as opposed to conventional landfills. We also requested
additional information on emissions from bioreactors. We solicited
comments on requiring installation of collection and control systems
sooner after waste is deposited in bioreactor cells.
We received five public comments addressing bioreactors. The
commenters agreed that because of the enhanced biodegradation of waste
in bioreactors, they generate landfill gas, including organic HAP, at
higher rates soon after waste placement. The industry commenters stated
that research is ongoing and there is insufficient information to
precisely estimate emissions from bioreactors. They recommended timely
collection and

[[Page 36462]]

control of bioreactors, but strongly suggested that EPA issue guidance
rather than rules until additional data are collected. Other commenters
representing State agencies commented that many bioreactors had
installed collection and control systems prior to initiating liquids
addition, and that the landfills NESHAP should require installation of
collection and control systems prior to initiating liquids addition for
all bioreactors, regardless of landfill size.
We reviewed the public comments and other recent literature. We
also gathered additional information on the number of bioreactors,
their control levels, and the timing of collection and control system
installation. This supplemental proposal describes the available
information, presents a supplement to the November 7, 2000 proposed
landfills NESHAP, and describes the rationale for the proposed
supplemental requirements. The additional information and analyses are
contained in Docket No. A-98-28.

III. Summary of Supplemental Proposed Requirements for Bioreactors

We are proposing timely installation of collection and control
systems in bioreactors located at landfills with a total landfill
design capacity of greater than or equal to 2.5 million Mg and 2.5
million m\3\. These requirements would apply to bioreactors within
landfills at both major and area sources if the landfills meet the
design capacity criteria. The proposed supplemental control
requirements apply only to active landfills (i.e., existing and new
landfills that are still accepting waste as of the date of publication
of the final rule or have the capacity to accept additional waste and
are not permanently closed). The requirements would not apply to
bioreactors at permanently closed landfills.
The supplemental proposal would require the same level of control
for the bioreactor portions of landfills as would be required in the
proposed landfills NESHAP (65 FR 66680, November 7, 2000) for
conventional MSW landfills (i.e., a well-designed and operated gas
collection system and a control device achieving 98 percent reduction
or 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of nonmethane organic
compounds (NMOC) as is required in the final new source performance
standards/emission guidelines (NSPS/EG) at 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc
and WWW. However, if you own or operate a bioreactor at a landfill that
is a new affected source, then you would be required to install the gas
collection and control system in the bioreactor prior to initiating
liquids addition, regardless of whether the landfill emissions rate
equals or exceeds the 50 Mg/yr emissions rate criteria in the NSPS/EG.
Startup of the collection and control system would be required within
90 days after initiating liquids addition. If the bioreactor is located
at a landfill that is an existing affected source, then you must
install and begin operating a collection and control system for the
bioreactor within 3 years after publication of the final landfills
NESHAP unless earlier control is already required by the NSPS/EG. You
would be required to conduct a performance test and report the results
within 180 days after startup of the bioreactor collection and control
system.
The proposed timing for extending the collection and control system
into new cells or areas of the bioreactor is also different from
conventional landfills. Once control of your bioreactor is required,
you would need to install collection and control systems in new areas
or cells of the bioreactor prior to initiating liquids addition to that
area, cell, or group of cells. Under the supplemental proposal,
controls could be removed from the bioreactor portion of the landfill
either: (1) When the criteria for control removal specified in the
landfills NSPS/EG are met; or (2) when the bioreactor is permanently
closed, liquids addition has ceased, and liquids have not been added to
the bioreactor for at least 1 year.
At some landfills, a portion of the landfill is a bioreactor, and
the remainder is designed and operated as a conventional landfill. In
these situations, the control requirements and the timing of control
installation for the conventional portion of the landfill would not
change. We are not proposing to revise the NSPS/EG. Thus, you would
continue to use the equations and factors in the NSPS/EG to calculate
the annual uncontrolled NMOC emissions rate for your landfill as a
whole (including the total waste placed in the bioreactor area and the
conventional area). When your calculated uncontrolled NMOC emissions
equal or exceed 50 Mg/yr, then you would install a collection and
control system for the conventional portions of the landfill according
to the schedule in the NSPS, or the applicable State, Tribal, or
Federal plan that implements the EG.

IV. Rationale for the Proposed Requirements for Bioreactors

A. Why Is EPA Proposing Supplemental Requirements for Bioreactors at
MSW Landfills?

Based on review of public comments and other available information,
we have concluded that bioreactors are a distinct operation within MSW
landfills, and that the appropriate timing of control for bioreactors
is different from that for conventional landfills. The design and
method of operation of bioreactors is different from conventional
landfills, resulting in different emissions characteristics.
Conventional landfills are typically operated as "dry
tombs" by minimizing the infiltration of liquids into the
landfill. This can be accomplished by placement of bottom and side
liners and by placement of a low permeability final cap over the waste.
In addition, many sites install and operate leachate collection systems
to remove leachate and thus minimize groundwater contamination. That
method also results in a slower biodegradation process and a reduced
rate of landfill gas generation. Some conventional landfills
recirculate some or all of the collected leachate. A typical moisture
content of the waste in a conventional landfill is approximately 20
percent, but it may be lower in arid areas or where all collected
leachate is removed and infiltration is minimized.
A bioreactor is defined as an MSW landfill or portion of an MSW
landfill where any liquid other than leachate 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. The minimum 40 percent moisture
level is based on literature that suggests the moisture content of the
waste should remain in the range of 40 to 70 percent to optimize
bioreactor operation. Comments on the moisture level used in the
bioreactor definition are requested. The EPA also requests comments on
the proposed exclusion of the definition of landfills that recirculate
leachate but do not add any other liquids. If you know of situations
where leachate recirculation alone can reach a 40 percent moisture
level and start and sustain bioreactor operation, please provide
information.
The proposed definition of bioreactor includes hybrid bioreactors,
which are managed so that the waste undergoes a short (e.g., 60 day)
aerobic stage, after which the waste is covered over and operated as an
anaerobic bioreactor for

[[Page 36463]]

several years. The long-term operation, emissions pattern, and
applicable control techniques for hybrid bioreactors are similar to
anaerobic bioreactors. The rapid biodegradation of waste in a
bioreactor leads to more rapid generation of landfill gas compared to a
conventional landfill.
The vast majority of bioreactors are anaerobic or hybrid
bioreactors, with at least 24 operating as of 2001. The EPA expects a
large number of anaerobic bioreactors to start operation in the next
few years because of their economic benefits and potential
environmental benefits. For example, operating a landfill as a
bioreactor extends the use of current sites and reduces the need for
new sites, reducing land use and associated environmental impacts, and
land purchase costs. Preliminary information suggests that bioreactors
also improve the quality of leachate potentially resulting in reduced
environmental impacts if any groundwater contamination were to occur.
Economic benefits include avoiding the costs of leachate treatment,
transport, and disposal. In addition, bioreactors emit a similar total
amount of gas as conventional landfills but emit it more quickly over a
shorter amount of time, thus owners and operators can convert landfill
gas to energy more economically.
Because of the rapid biodegradation of waste, landfill gas
(including methane, NMOC, and organic HAP) is generated at a
significantly greater rate in the first couple of years after waste
placement in anaerobic and hybrid bioreactors compared to conventional
landfills. For example, one study indicates that in approximately 90
days, bioreactor landfills generate gas at a rate similar to what a
conventional MSW landfill generates at 2 years. Public comments and
published studies confirm the greater landfill gas generation rates
early in the life of anaerobic and hybrid bioreactors. Emissions rates
cited in the comments and literature range from 2 to 10 times as much
as conventional landfills. After peaking at a higher generation rate
near the time of landfill closure, bioreactor landfill gas generation
declines more rapidly than conventional landfill gas generation. The
total long-term amount of landfill gas from an anaerobic bioreactor is
expected to be approximately the same as from a conventional landfill
with the same amount of waste because the total potential landfill gas
generation depends primarily on the amount of material in the waste
that can eventually be decomposed. However, bioreactor landfill gas
generation is significantly higher than conventional landfill gas
generation prior to and shortly after closure and significantly lower
in the later years. References indicate that a bioreactor shortens the
period of waste degradation and stabilization, and thus the period of
most of the gas generation, from 30 to 50 years for a conventional
landfill to 5 to 10 years for an anaerobic bioreactor.
Because bioreactors generate significantly more landfill gas,
including organic HAP, earlier in their life than conventional
landfills, the methods used in the proposed rule to calculate
uncontrolled emissions and the required timing for collection and
control system installation that apply to conventional landfills are
not appropriate for bioreactors. The November 2000 proposed landfills
NESHAP, which refer to the NSPS control requirements, would require
landfills to estimate their NMOC emissions using specified equations
and procedures. After landfills reach or exceed 50 Mg/yr of NMOC, they
must install collection and control systems within 30 months. Gas
collection must then be extended into each cell or area within the
landfill within 2 years after waste is first placed in that cell or
area if the area is at final grade or within 5 years if the area is
still active.
For bioreactors, the 50 Mg/yr NMOC uncontrolled emissions rate
would be reached sooner than calculated by the procedures in the NSPS/
EG. Furthermore, because landfill gas generation rates from bioreactors
are significantly higher in the early years after waste placement,
allowing 30 months after uncontrolled estimated emissions reach 50 Mg/
yr to install controls would allow a much higher proportion of total
bioreactor emissions, including HAP, to be released uncontrolled.
Modeling of a landfill in a non-arid location with a design capacity of
2.5 million Mg and a 20-year life indicates that the NSPS/EG Tier 1
procedures would not require control installation for 5 years. In this
time, a bioreactor accepting the same amount of waste would have
potentially emitted a total of 130 Mg of HAP and 680 Mg of NMOC. (This
is based on a k value of 0.1 for the bioreactor, which may be
conservatively low, so bioreactor emissions could be higher.) If the
same landfill were in an arid climate, Tier 1 procedures would not
require control installation for 8 years. In this time, a bioreactor
accepting the same amount of waste would have potentially emitted 310
Mg of HAP and 1,600 Mg of NMOC. Due to the different emissions pattern
of bioreactors, it is appropriate to require control at the start of
bioreactor operation (initiation of liquids addition).
The timing of control system removal for conventional landfills
also may not be appropriate for bioreactor landfills. Because emissions
decline more rapidly, a bioreactor would require control for a shorter
length of time than a conventional landfill.
Because of the differences in technical design, operation, and
emissions pattern over time, we have examined bioreactors as a distinct
type of operation within an MSW landfill affected source, evaluated the
MACT floor and MACT for bioreactor operations within MSW landfills, and
are proposing supplemental requirements for bioreactors.

B. How Did EPA Determine the Bioreactor Portion of the MSW Landfill
MACT Floor?

A landfill that is an affected source under the MSW landfills
NESHAP may include an area designed and operated as a bioreactor and an
area designed and operated as a conventional landfill. When there are
distinct operations that have different emissions characteristics
within an affected source, EPA often examines these operations
separately in determining the MACT floor for the source as a whole.
Details of the bioreactor analysis are contained in Docket No. A-98-28.
The conventional landfill component of the MACT floor for existing
landfills remains as described in the November 2000 proposed landfills
NESHAP.
First, we reviewed the information available to identify specific
bioreactors, determined which are located at major sources, and
determined the level of control and the timing of installation of
control systems at these bioreactors. We then determined the control
level for the average (or median) of the best-performing five
bioreactors, because there are fewer than 30 bioreactors at MSW
landfills that are major sources. Under the CAA, the MACT floor for
existing sources is based on the best performing 12 percent of sources
in a category, or the best five sources if there are fewer than 30
sources in the category.
Based on the available data, we identified 24 anaerobic
bioreactors. We used information from the landfills NESHAP database and
other data provided by contacts familiar with these landfills to
determine which of the bioreactors are located at landfills with
maximum uncontrolled emissions equal to or greater than major source
levels for HAP. We used the population of ten bioreactors to determine
the MACT floor for bioreactors. The population includes

[[Page 36464]]

both major and "synthetic area" sources. A synthetic area
source is a source which would otherwise be a major source, if not for
enforceable emissions controls that have been installed. For example,
some landfills with uncontrolled emissions above major source levels
have installed controls to comply with the landfills NSPS/EG. Synthetic
area sources are included in the population used to determine the MACT
floor because to exclude synthetic area sources from the MACT floor
determination would exclude the best-controlled sources in the
industry. The CAA does not suggest that we should exclude a control
technology from consideration in the MACT floor because it is so
effective that it reduces emissions from a source such that the source
is no longer a major source of HAP.
We identified the controls in use at the ten bioreactors with
uncontrolled emissions at major source levels and determined the
installation date for the controls. We found that all ten of the
bioreactors have gas collection and control systems meeting the control
levels in the NSPS/EG. We also found that at least five of the gas
collection and control systems were installed or are being installed
prior to initiating liquids addition to the bioreactors. The control
systems were installed in the bioreactors sooner than required by the
NSPS/EG. Therefore, we determined that the MACT floor level of control
for bioreactor operations within existing MSW landfills at major
sources is installation of a collection and control system that meets
NSPS/EG requirements, and that these controls be installed prior to
initiation of liquids addition.
Under the CAA, the new source MACT floor is based on the best-
controlled similar source. We reviewed the information to determine the
best control technology in use at the ten bioreactors at major and
synthetic area sources, and we looked at when the control systems were
installed. The best-controlled bioreactor installed a collection and
control system that meets NSPS/EG requirements prior to initiation of
liquids addition; therefore, this is the MACT floor level of control
for bioreactor operations within new MSW landfills at major sources.

C. How Did EPA Consider Beyond-the-Floor Options?

The NSPS/EG requirements for landfill gas collection and emissions
reductions are the best available control for organic HAP emissions
from bioreactors. Requiring control system installation before the
initiation of liquids addition to the bioreactor is the earliest
possible time to install these controls. Therefore, there were no
options to consider that were more stringent than the MACT floor. The
gas collection system required by the NSPS/EG (described in 40 CFR
60.753) is designed to capture as much landfill gas as possible and
requires several parameters to be monitored to ensure that capture,
including pressure, nitrogen or oxygen concentration, temperature, and
surface methane concentration. There are no data indicating that
collection systems are in use that are more effective than those
required by the NSPS/EG. Similarly, there are no known technologies
that can regularly achieve organic HAP reduction efficiencies greater
than those specified in the NSPS/EG. The NSPS/EG rules require 98
percent reduction efficiency for NMOC, or a maximum outlet
concentration of 20 ppmv if an enclosed combustion device is used. The
reduction efficiencies can be regularly achieved by several types of
control technologies with proper operation. Because there are no more
stringent collection and control technologies or other emissions
reduction techniques available, and this supplemental proposal requires
installation and operation of the floor level of control as soon as
possible, no options beyond-the-floor currently exist for new or
existing sources.

D. How Did EPA Determine the Standard for Bioreactor Operations at Area
Source MSW Landfills?

As described earlier in this preamble, MSW landfills were listed as
one of 29 area source categories under section 112(k) of the CAA. Area
sources can be controlled using MACT or GACT. In the proposed landfills
NESHAP (65 FR 66677, November 7, 2000), we concluded that GACT is the
same as MACT (the NSPS/EG level of control) for area source landfills
that meet the NSPS/EG design capacity and uncontrolled NMOC emissions
rate criteria. We also found that landfills below these criteria do not
warrant control.
For the supplemental proposal, we have examined what constitutes
GACT for area source bioreactors. We determined that for bioreactors at
landfills with design capacities greater than or equal to 2.5 million
Mg and 2.5 million m3, GACT is the same as MACT (i.e.,
timely installation of gas collection and control systems that meet
NSPS/EG requirements). In reaching GACT decisions, we considered the
control techniques that are generally available for area sources and
factors such as the emissions reductions, environmental impacts, and
costs of these controls. Since bioreactors generate landfill gas at a
faster rate, significant HAP emissions reductions will be achieved by
requiring timely control of bioreactor operations at MSW landfills with
design capacities greater than or equal to 2.5 million Mg and 2.5
million m3. The reductions in HAP will reduce health risks
and environmental impacts associated with the HAP present in landfill
gas.
The costs of requiring timely control for bioreactor operations at
area source landfills with design capacities equal to or greater than
2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3 were also considered in
reaching the decision that GACT is the same as MACT for these area
sources. These landfills would, at some point in their life, be
required to install controls required by the NSPS/EG because the
estimated uncontrolled NMOC emissions rates would reach the 50 Mg/yr
emissions rate criteria. Requiring timely control of bioreactor
operations means that costs will be incurred sooner and emissions
reductions benefits realized earlier. An analysis of net present value
(NPV) costs shows that timely control of bioreactors at a landfill with
a design capacity of 2.5 million Mg is generally not more costly than
controlling a conventional landfill according to the NSPS/EG schedule.
If the landfill gas is used for energy, the NPV control costs for
bioreactors are lower than for conventional landfills and result in
greater HAP emissions reductions. For these reasons, GACT for
bioreactor operations at area source landfills with design capacities
greater than or equal to 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3
was determined to be the same as MACT.
For bioreactor operations at area source landfills with design
capacities less than 2.5 million Mg or 2.5 million m3, EPA
determined that GACT does not require control. Requiring bioreactors at
landfills below the design capacity cutoff to install controls would
result in additional control costs because they are not otherwise
required to install control by the NSPS/EG. The 2.5 million Mg and 2.5
million m3 capacity exemption excludes those landfills that
can least afford the costs of collection and control systems, including
small businesses and, particularly, municipalities. Furthermore, the
analysis for the NSPS/EG found that a more stringent design capacity
exemption level would greatly increase the number of landfills required
to apply control while only achieving 25 percent additional emissions
reductions. The selected design capacity criteria required control

[[Page 36465]]

of less than 5 percent of all landfills (at the time of the NSPS/EG
promulgation), but reduced NMOC emissions by approximately 53 percent.
While bioreactors have a significantly increased landfill gas
generation rate early in their life, it is expected that their overall
lifetime total landfill gas generation potential would not be
significantly greater than that of a conventional landfill accepting
the same amount of waste. Therefore, the previous analyses of potential
long-term emissions reductions from control of small landfills would
also apply to bioreactors based on data currently available on
bioreactor operations. We request comment on exemption of small/area
source landfills with bioreactor operations from this supplemental
proposal. If information is submitted that shows these small/area
source landfills with bioreactor operations have emission
characteristics that are significantly different than conventional
small/area source landfills, the data will be considered.
Other reasons for exempting small landfills are described in the
proposed landfills NESHAP (65 FR 66677, November 7, 2000), and they
also apply to bioreactors. For example, most existing area source
landfills are closed, and their emissions are already declining. Most
newer landfills are much larger than the design capacity cutoff and
would be subject to the GACT control requirements. Therefore, requiring
timely control of bioreactor operations at these large, open landfills
would achieve significant HAP reductions at those landfills where it
will be most cost effective.

E. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Specific Requirements for
Bioreactors?

1. How Did EPA Select the Affected Source?
Selection of the affected source defines the boundary of the unit
to which a proposed rule applies. This definition is used in
combination with the date "construction" or
"reconstruction" is "commenced," as defined in
40 CFR 63.2, to determine whether an affected source is an existing
source or a new source.
The supplemental proposal would not substantially alter the
affected source definition in the November 7, 2000 proposed landfills
NESHAP. The affected source for the proposed landfills NESHAP remains
the entire municipal solid waste landfill. The bioreactor is not a
separate affected source, but is an operation within the affected
source (the landfill). Defining the affected source broadly maintains
consistency with the NSPS/EG and the proposed landfills NESHAP. As
defined in section 112 of the CAA, a new source is one that commences
construction or reconstruction after the Administrator first proposes
NESHAP applicable to a source. Therefore, a bioreactor is subject to
the new source requirements if the landfill where it is located
commences construction or reconstruction after November 7, 2000, the
date of the original proposal. A bioreactor is subject to the existing
source requirements if the landfill where it is located commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before that date. The definition
of new and existing source is consistent with the definition in the
November 7, 2000 proposed landfills NESHAP. Note that the control
requirements for bioreactors at new and existing sources are the same,
but the initial compliance date is different.
2. How Did EPA Determine When Collection and Control Systems Must Be
Installed and When They Must Start Operation?
For bioreactors that are located at landfills that are new affected
sources, the proposed changes would require gas collection and control
systems to be installed in the bioreactor prior to liquids addition
because this has been determined to be the MACT and GACT level of
control for bioreactors at landfills with design capacities greater
than or equal to 2.5 million Mg and 2.5 million m3. However,
it may not be feasible to begin operation of the control system on the
day that liquids addition begins. It can take a few weeks for the
biodegradation process to generate large amounts of gas, for the gas
flow and composition to stabilize, to tune the gas collection system,
and to achieve stable operation of a combustion control device. In
recognition of this time period, we propose to require that bioreactor
gas collection and control systems begin operation within 90 days after
the first date of liquids addition. Bioreactors have been able to begin
operation of control systems on this schedule. Furthermore, studies
indicate that after 90 days of operation, a bioreactor may generate as
much landfill gas as a conventional landfill does in 2 years of
operation. The NSPS/EG and the November 7, 2000 proposed landfills
NESHAP require gas collection and control systems to be installed and
begin operation in new cells or areas of a controlled conventional
landfill within 2 years after waste is first placed in that cell or
area for areas that are at final grade (5 years for active areas that
are still accepting waste). Since bioreactors may reach similar gas
flows in 90 days, it is consistent to require the control system in the
bioreactor to begin operation within 90 days of liquids addition.
Bioreactors that are located at landfills that are existing
affected sources will need time to design and install a control system.
For these bioreactors, we propose to allow 3 years from the date the
final landfills NESHAP are published to install and begin operating a
collection and control system. This allows time for the bioreactor
owner/operator to design, install, and begin operating the gas
collection and control system. The 3-year period is consistent with the
maximum time section 112 of the CAA allows for existing sources to
achieve compliance with NESHAP. Note that if an existing source
landfill is required by the NSPS/EG to install control in a bioreactor
before the 3-year date, the supplemental proposal would not change the
control installation date.
If an existing source landfill installs and begins to operate a
bioreactor at a date later than 3 years after the final landfills
NESHAP are published, then a collection and control system for the
bioreactor would be required to be installed before the initiation of
liquids addition. The control system would be required to begin
operation within 90 days after the first date of liquids addition. The
control system installation date is consistent with the CAA section 112
requirements that existing sources must be in compliance by 3 years
after the effective date of the rule and must maintain continuous
compliance after that date. It is also consistent with the findings of
the MACT floor determination that the best performing existing sources
control bioreactors from the time they initiate liquids addition. It is
also reasonable because existing source landfills that choose to begin
operating bioreactors more than 3 years in the future will know the
bioreactor control requirements and will have sufficient time to plan
for compliance by the date they initiate liquids addition. The
requirement to begin operating the bioreactor control system within 90
days of initiating liquids addition is based on the rationale described
in the previous paragraph for new sources.
An initial performance test to demonstrate compliance with the
emissions limits would be conducted, and the results submitted within
180 days after the date the collection and control system must begin
operation. This 180-day time period is generally consistent with the
performance test requirements for conventional landfills

[[Page 36466]]

in the November 7, 2000 proposed landfills NESHAP and the NSPS/EG.
As with conventional landfills, as one area of the bioreactor is
filled to capacity, waste will be placed in new cells or areas of the
bioreactor over time. Conventional landfills must extend collection and
control systems into new cells or areas of the landfill within 2 years
of when waste is first placed in that area for areas that are at final
grade, or within 5 years of when the waste is first placed in that area
for active areas that are still accepting waste. For bioreactors, we
propose that starting on the date control of your bioreactor is
required, collection and control be extended into each new cell or area
of the bioreactor prior to initiating liquids addition in that area.
Timely control of each area within the bioreactor is necessary to
control the higher HAP emission rates in the first 2 to 5 years of
bioreactor operation. As previously noted, a bioreactor cell can very
quickly (within about 90 days of operation) reach the same gas
generation rate as a conventional landfill cell does in 2 years of
operation. A bioreactor shortens the time of waste degradation and
stabilization and, thus, the period of most of the gas generation, from
30 to 50 years for a conventional landfill to a period of 5 to 10 years
for a bioreactor. Since significantly greater emissions occur in the
first 5 years of bioreactor operation, controls should be extended into
new bioreactor areas more quickly than in new areas of conventional
landfills. This requirement is consistent with the way bioreactors are
designed. Typically, horizontal gas collection systems are installed in
the same area as the leachate recirculation system as the bioreactor is
being filled. When the waste has been placed in the area and the
leachate recirculation is started, the gas collection system will
already be in place and can begin operation.
3. Why Are There Different Criteria for When Collection and Control
Systems Can Be Removed From Bioreactors?
We propose to allow more timely removal of controls from bioreactor
operations because bioreactor emissions rates decline more rapidly
after closure than conventional landfill emissions rates. The NSPS/EG
and proposed landfills NESHAP allow capping or removal of the
collection and control system from a conventional landfill after it
meets three criteria: The landfill is permanently closed, measured
uncontrolled emissions are less than 50 Mg/yr, and the control system
has been in place for at least 15 years, as contained in 40 CFR
60.752(b)(5). The NSPS/EG and proposed landfills NESHAP also allow for
nonproductive areas of a landfill to be excluded from control if these
areas contribute less than 1 percent of the total amount of NMOC
emissions from the landfill, as described in 40 CFR 63.759(a)(3).
We are proposing that you can choose to cap or remove controls from
the bioreactor when either (1) the criteria in the NSPS/EG are met; or
(2) the bioreactor is permanently closed (as defined in the NSPS/EG),
liquids addition to the bioreactor has permanently ceased, and no
liquids have been added to the bioreactor for at least 1 year. We are
proposing this option because the 15-year control period may not be
appropriate for bioreactors because bioreactor emissions are highest
during the period of liquids addition, which generally stops when most
biodegradation has occurred and the waste is stabilized. After this
point, gas generation declines rapidly. As gas flows and HAP emissions
rates decline, methane concentrations may also decline, thus requiring
supplemental fuel to combust landfill gas. Waiting to remove controls
until 1 year after liquids addition has ceased will ensure that the
period of maximum emissions is controlled.
Our analyses show that even allowing timely removal, the total mass
of emissions controlled from a bioreactor will be greater than from a
conventional landfill accepting the same amount of waste. Improved
control of landfill gas emissions will occur because the requirement
for timely installation of controls in bioreactors is concurrent with
the period when bioreactor emissions are concentrated over a shorter
period of time. The timing of this requirement results in a higher
proportion of emissions being collected, which allows for better
control of landfill gas emissions.
If a bioreactor complies with the requirements for collection and
control system removal in the proposed landfills NESHAP, it will also
be considered in compliance with the NSPS or the Federal plan that
implements the EG. This will avoid conflicting requirements where the
proposed landfills NESHAP allow timely removal of control systems from
bioreactors, whereas the NSPS or Federal plan requirements include the
15-year criterion for all landfills and could appear to continue to
require bioreactor control for a longer period of time than the
proposed landfills NESHAP.
4. How Did EPA Determine When the Initial Semiannual Compliance Report
for Bioreactors Must Be Submitted?
The date for submittal of the initial semiannual compliance report
including performance test results depends on the date that control
system startup is required. For conventional landfills, the first
report must be submitted within 180 days of installation and startup of
the collection and control system per 40 CFR 60.757(f). For
conventional landfills, the date of installation and startup are the
same date. For bioreactors at new sources, and bioreactors that begin
operating at existing sources after the 3-year compliance date, the
proposed bioreactor provisions specify that the collection and control
system must be installed by the date of liquids addition. However, the
control system would not be required to start operation on the date of
liquids addition. The control system must start operation within 90
days after the date liquids addition begins. The first semiannual
compliance report containing the performance test results is therefore
due within 180 days of the required date for control system startup
(i.e., 270 days after the initiation of liquids addition). This allows
the same 180-day period from the date of control system startup that is
allowed for other landfills. It also allows time for the source to gain
familiarity with operating the new control device, schedule and conduct
a performance test, receive the analytical results, and prepare a
report. After the initial report, semiannual reports will be submitted
every 6 months, the same as proposed for conventional landfills.
For bioreactors at existing sources, the landfill has 3 years from
the date the final rule is published to install and begin operating a
gas collection and control system. For these bioreactors, the proposed
date for control system installation and startup are the same date, so
the initial compliance report including performance test results is due
within 180 days of installation and startup of the collection and
control system. This is the same as required for conventional landfills
under 40 CFR 60.757(f).
The date for submitting the initial semiannual compliance report
for some bioreactors is different for conventional versus bioreactor
landfills, however, an owner or operator may elect to streamline
subsequent semiannual reporting. The EPA expects that a number of
owners or operators may be required to submit semiannual reports for
both the bioreactor and the conventional portion of their landfill.

[[Page 36467]]

To streamline reporting for such owners or operators, EPA is proposing
to allow them to delay submitting the subsequent semiannual report for
the bioreactor until the initial or subsequent semiannual report is due
for the conventional portion of the landfill. The owner or operator
cannot delay submittal of the subsequent semiannual report for the
bioreactor by more than 12 months after submittal of the initial
semiannual report. For example, if the initial compliance report for
the bioreactor were submitted on December 30, 2002, then the subsequent
semiannual report for the bioreactor would be due on June 30, 2003.
Suppose the semiannual report for the conventional portion of the
landfill is due on September 30, 2003 (but no later than December 30,
2003). The owner or operator may delay submitting the semiannual report
for the bioreactor from June 30 until September 30, when the report is
due for the conventional portion of the landfill. Subsequent semiannual
reporting for the bioreactor and the conventional portion of the
landfill would be on the same schedule.
5. Why Are Moisture Content Records Needed and How Can Percent Moisture
Be Determined?
To be considered a bioreactor, a liquid other than leachate must be
added, and the waste must have a minimum average moisture content of 40
percent by weight. We expect that most landfills where liquid other
than leachate is added will meet the definition of a bioreactor. If a
landfill owner and/or operator complies with the bioreactor control
requirements, they do not need to keep records of percent moisture
content. If a landfill owner and/or operator adds liquid other than
leachate but the portion of the landfill into which the liquid is added
does not meet the 40 percent moisture criterion, they do not need to
comply with the bioreactor control requirements. They must, however,
keep a record of their percent moisture calculation to show that the
landfill is not a bioreactor.
The proposed landfills NESHAP allow landfills to use site-specific
procedures to calculate moisture content, rather than prescribing one
specific method. Because of differences in climate, rainfall, waste
composition, bioreactor design, and other factors, a single calculation
method would not be appropriate for all landfills. Furthermore,
allowing site-specific approaches minimizes the recordkeeping burden by
allowing landfills to use calculations they already have available,
assuming the procedures and assumptions are documented and appropriate.
A range of appropriate methods for calculation of landfill moisture
content exists. For example, a simplified mass balance approach can be
used. A landfill can track the amount of incoming waste, estimate the
incoming moisture content of the waste, track the amount of liquids
added, and the water removed as leachate. They would then calculate the
in-situ moisture content based on the initial moisture content plus the
liquids added minus the liquids removed. In some cases, a more complex
mass balance that considers the addition of moisture from rain and snow
and the loss of moisture from evaporation is used. For example, a more
complex mass balance would be appropriate where rainfall is high and
the landfill cover and drainage system is not designed to prevent rain
from penetrating into the waste.
Another estimation option for existing landfills that are already
adding liquids includes measuring the moisture content of the waste in
the landfill. However, given the heterogeneity of the waste, sampling
in only one or a small number of locations may not provide a
representative moisture level. For this reason, some sites may use a
more intricate method of estimation, such as taking a large number of
moisture content samples from throughout the landfill and analyzing
them using a computer software package such as Geographical Information
System. A statistical analysis of the results could provide an average
percent moisture for the portion of the landfill to which liquid is
added. However, it is expected that in most cases, a mass balance
approach will be adequate to determine whether moisture content is
below 40 percent, and comprehensive sampling will not be needed. For a
landfill that has not yet started liquids addition, the sampling
approach is not possible so a mass balance approach would be used.
6. Why Don't the Proposed Bioreactor Provisions Apply to Landfills That
Are Closed?
It is unlikely that bioreactors would be created in landfills that
are already closed. If a bioreactor were built in such a landfill, the
NSPS/EG should already require control of the entire landfill,
including the bioreactor if the landfill is larger than 2.5 million Mg
and 2.5 million m3, because landfills larger than the design
capacity cutoff would reach 50 Mg/yr NMOC emissions before their
closure date based on emissions calculation procedures in the NSPS/EG.
Because these closed landfills will already have installed or be in the
process of installing controls for the NSPS/EG, it is not necessary to
require more timely control of bioreactors. In the less likely event
that a closed landfill meeting the design capacity criteria never
reached 50 Mg/yr uncontrolled NMOC emissions and never had to install
controls, its emissions are already in decline so the bioreactor
control provisions are not warranted.

F. What Other Issues Did EPA Consider?

The proposed bioreactor requirements apply to only those areas
within a landfill that are being operated as anaerobic (including
hybrid) bioreactors. The landfill continues to be subject to the NSPS
or the applicable State, Tribal, or Federal plan that implements the EG
and would also be subject to the landfills NESHAP requirements proposed
on November 7, 2000 when they become final. This means that landfills
would continue to comply with the NSPS/EG by calculating their annual
NMOC emissions rates and installing collection and control systems in
the conventional portions of a landfill within 30 months of the first
annual emissions rate report showing that uncontrolled emissions have
reached the 50 Mg/yr NMOC emissions rate cutoff.
To calculate annual emission rates for the NSPS/EG and the proposed
landfills NESHAP and determine when to install control in the
conventional portion of the landfill, the landfill should continue to
include the entire mass of waste accepted in the landfill (including
the bioreactor and the conventional areas of the landfill) when using
the NSPS/EG emissions equations. This is the procedure currently
required under the NSPS/EG, and it is not our intent to change the
NSPS/EG requirements or to change the timing of when the conventional
portions of a landfill would require control.
We considered two other options. The first option would be to
require a landfill that includes both bioreactor and conventional areas
to use a higher k value for the bioreactor or to measure uncontrolled
emissions from the bioreactor and add them to emissions from the
conventional portion of the landfill when calculating NSPS/EG control
applicability. This would cause the landfill as a whole to reach 50 Mg/
yr uncontrolled emissions sooner than calculated by the NSPS/EG
procedures. It would, therefore, have the effect of requiring the
conventional portion of the landfill to control emissions before the
NSPS/EG would require control, thus penalizing landfills that use
bioreactors in combination with

[[Page 36468]]

conventional areas. Therefore, this option was rejected. By requiring
the bioreactor at such a landfill to install controls at the start of
liquids addition and by not changing the emissions calculation
procedure in the NSPS/EG, the proposed procedures address the problem
of the increased landfill gas generation rate from the bioreactor
without affecting when the conventional portion of the landfill is
required to install controls.
The second option was to exclude the bioreactor from the annual
NMOC emissions rate calculations required by the NSPS/EG. This would
have the effect of changing the number of landfills that require
control and the emissions reduction expected under the NSPS/EG. For
example, a large landfill where half the area was operated as a
bioreactor and half as a conventional landfill could escape control
because emissions estimates from the amount of waste placed in just the
conventional portion might not reach 50 Mg/yr NMOC, whereas emission
estimates from the landfill as a whole would be well above 50 Mg/yr
NMOC. The NSPS/EG envisioned controlling such landfills, and their
control has been shown to be reasonable and cost effective. Therefore,
the proposed landfills NESHAP provisions for bioreactors do not change
the calculation procedures in the NSPS/EG and will have no effect on
which landfills require control by the NSPS/EG, or the date that
controls must be installed in the conventional portions of a landfill.
Aerobic bioreactors are a relatively new concept, and EPA knows of
no full scale aerobic bioreactors in operation in the United States. A
limited amount of information is available. In aerobic bioreactors, air
and liquids promote aerobic decomposition of waste. The waste
decomposes rapidly due to the presence of oxygen and moisture. The
aerobic decomposition produces large amounts of gases including carbon
dioxide. Compared to conventional landfills, the increased temperature
and increased air flow through the waste may result in increased
emissions rates of organic compounds (including organic HAP) soon after
the aerobic bioreactor begins operation. However, aerobic landfill data
are insufficient to characterize HAP emissions from this type of
operation. In addition, the gas composition from a landfill operated
only as aerobic bioreactor is expected to have higher levels of carbon
dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen, and significantly lower levels of
methane. This may result in the gas being more difficult to safely
combust, unless it is combined with a large flow of higher-methane gas
from anaerobic areas of the landfill or with other fuels.
The EPA is not expecting a significant number of aerobic
bioreactors to be built in the next several years (in contrast to the
trend for anaerobic bioreactors). Concerns over the increased potential
for landfill fires and added power costs have deterred use of aerobic
bioreactor technology. Some pilot projects have created odor concerns
and in some cases are no longer being operated. Given the fact that EPA
knows of no full scale aerobic bioreactors in operation in the United
States and that very few pilot projects are in operation or expected to
startup in the near future, EPA has concluded that it is not necessary
for the supplemental proposal to address aerobic bioreactors.
Portions of a landfill that are operated as aerobic bioreactors
would continue to be subject to the NSPS/EG and the proposed landfills
NESHAP requirements. If a landfill that includes an aerobic bioreactor
meets the design capacity and uncontrolled NMOC emissions rate criteria
in the NSPS/EG, a collection and control system must be installed in
the landfill, including the aerobic bioreactor area, according to the
schedule in the NSPS/EG. Landfills with pilot scale aerobic bioreactors
have had some success in routing emissions from the aerobic bioreactor
with other landfill area emissions for control in flares.
Section 112(f) of the CAA requires EPA to evaluate residual risks
and promulgate standards to address residual risks within 8 years of
promulgation of the NESHAP. At that time, we will consider any new
information on the prevalence and emissions of aerobic bioreactors and
determine if any additional requirements are appropriate.

V. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of the
Proposed Requirements for Bioreactors

We expect a positive environmental impact and negligible economic
impacts from the requirements of the supplemental proposal. One reason
for the small economic impact is that the supplemental proposal would
require gas collection and control for only the same landfills that are
already required to install collection and control systems under the
NSPS/EG and the proposed landfills NESHAP. It will not change the
number of landfills that must apply controls.
In the previous analyses for the NSPS/EG and proposed landfills
NESHAP, it was assumed that all landfills are conventional landfills
and install and remove control systems according to the schedule in the
NSPS/EG. To see if the supplemental proposal would increase emissions
reductions, environmental, cost and economic impacts relative to those
previously calculated, we compared the emissions reductions and costs
for timely control of a bioreactor according to the schedule proposed
in the supplemental proposal with the emissions reductions and costs
for controlling a conventional landfill that accepts the same amount of
waste and installs controls according to the NSPS/EG schedule. We found
that greater emissions reductions are achieved by timely control of the
bioreactor landfill. A bioreactor landfill with a design capacity of
2.5 million Mg achieves an emissions reduction of 1,770 Mg of HAP over
the period of control, compared to 1,630 Mg of HAP reduction for a
conventional landfill receiving the same amount of waste. The
bioreactor is controlled for 13 years less than the conventional
landfill, yet achieves greater emissions reductions. Similarly, a
bioreactor landfill with a design capacity of 10 million Mg achieves
emissions reductions of 7,300 Mg of HAP, compared to 7,040 Mg of HAP
reductions for a conventional landfill receiving the same amount of
waste. The bioreactor is controlled for 30 years less than the
conventional landfill, yet achieves greater emissions reductions. This
analysis leads to the conclusion that implementation of the
supplemental proposal would achieve additional HAP emissions
reductions, which will minimize any health impacts from exposure to HAP
in landfill gas emissions and lead to other environmental benefits
associated with reduction of other landfill gas constituents including
NMOC, which contribute to photochemical formation of smog, and methane,
a potent greenhouse gas. Odor problems will also be minimized.
The energy impacts of the supplemental proposal would be positive.
Many bioreactors are expected to comply with the proposed rules by
recovering landfill gas to generate energy. Our analysis shows that a
bioreactor with a design capacity of 2.5 million Mg can generate a
greater profit than a similar conventional landfill from sale of
landfill gas for direct use (such as combustion in nearby boilers to
provide steam to an industrial process or to heat a building).
Similarly, using a combustion control device, such as an internal
combustion engine, that generates electricity from the landfill gas is
profitable for a 10 million Mg bioreactor, where it may not be

[[Page 36469]]

profitable for a similar size conventional landfill. The number of
landfill gas direct use and electricity generation projects has grown
in recent years, and industry commenters stated in the public comments
that bioreactors provide an opportunity for economically feasible use
of landfill gas to generate energy. To the extent that these energy
recovery options are used instead of flares to comply with the
supplemental proposal, this will result in the generation of additional
electricity, offset the use of fossil fuels, and have a beneficial
energy impact.
To determine if the cost of the supplemental proposal would
increase the control costs previously predicted for the NSPS/EG and
proposed landfills NESHAP, we analyzed the cost of control for
bioreactors installing controls according to the schedule in the
supplemental proposal compared to the costs for control of conventional
landfills according to the schedule in the NSPS/EG. We examined costs
for flares and energy generation options. The costs included capital,
operating, and maintenance costs. For energy recovery options, revenues
from the sale of landfill gas or electricity were included. Costs were
expressed on a NPV basis because the costs of the landfill gas
collection and control systems are highly variable over the life of the
landfill. In addition, the timing of control system installation and
the length of the control period will vary greatly based on landfill
size, design, landfill gas flow rates, and gas composition. For
fluctuating costs over a variable but long life of the landfill control
system, this cost analysis compares the costs between various landfills
and control options based on a NPV analysis. The NPV analysis removes
the effects of the varying costs and lifetimes by converting them into
a single present cost that is equal to the string of costs that the
landfill would experience over its full lifetime.
For the flare control options, the NPV costs to control the
bioreactor were slightly greater than the costs to control a
conventional landfill. This is because the bioreactor would have to
install control sooner, and the NPV calculation weighs earlier
expenditures more heavily to account for the time value of money.
However, the bioreactor NPV control cost is only about 10 percent
greater than the conventional landfill control cost for all but one of
the smaller landfill cases examined. For example, a bioreactor landfill
with a design capacity of 2.5 million Mg, the NPV costs for a gas
collection and flare system were estimated to be $1.5 million, compared
to $1.3 million for a conventional landfill with the same design
capacity. Furthermore, bioreactors experience cost savings compared to
conventional landfills due to factors such as the reduced amount of
land space needed to hold the same mass of waste, and reduced leachate
treatment, transportation, and disposal costs. When such differences
are considered, it is significantly less costly to build a bioreactor,
even with the more timely control requirements, than to build a
conventional landfill. This was true for all cases examined.
The examination of energy recovery NPV costs showed that the
bioreactors are less costly, or more profitable, to control than
conventional landfills in all of the cases examined. In many cases,
timely control of a bioreactor using an energy generation option will
result in a net profit rather than a net cost. For a bioreactor
landfill with a design capacity of 10 million Mg that controls
emissions by using an internal combustion engine that generates
electricity for sale to the power grid, the revenues from the sale of
electricity balance the costs of the gas collection and control system
resulting in an estimated NPV cost savings (or net revenue) of
approximately $0.1 million. A conventional landfill with the same
design capacity is estimated to incur an NPV cost of approximately $5
million. Smaller bioreactors that can control emissions by collecting
landfill gas and delivering it to a nearby industry, commercial
establishment, or institution for direct use in a boiler, process
heater, or other energy recovery system can also realize a greater net
revenue than similar size conventional landfills.
Given these results, we conclude that the supplemental proposal
would not increase the costs of control for most landfills compared to
the previous cost analyses, and some landfills with bioreactors will
experience reduced control costs. We expect the number of bioreactors
to increase over the next few years given their potential environmental
and economic benefits and pending regulatory clarifications. Overall,
the supplemental proposal would have minimal economic impacts and may
in fact have an overall beneficial economic impact. Additional
information on this analysis, including additional cases examined, HAP
emissions reductions, and NMOC emissions reductions are contained in
Docket No. A-98-28.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is
"significant," and therefore, subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Executive Order defines "significant
regulatory action" as one that is likely to result in a rule that
may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that the supplemental proposal is not a "significant
regulatory action" because it will not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled "Federalism" (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process
to ensure "meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications." "Policies that have federalism
implications" are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that 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."
Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that
has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue

[[Page 36470]]

a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State
law unless EPA consults with State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed regulation.
The supplemental proposal for MSW landfills will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. The EPA has concluded that the
supplemental proposal may create a mandate on a number of city and
county governments, and the Federal government would not provide the
funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by these city and
county governments in complying with the mandate. However, the
supplemental proposal does not impose any additional control costs or
result in any additional control requirements above those considered
during promulgation of the 1996 EG/NSPS. In developing the 1996 EG/
NSPS, EPA consulted extensively with State and local governments to
enable them to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of that rulemaking. Because the control requirements of the
supplemental proposal are substantially the same as those developed in
1996, these previous consultations still apply. For a discussion of
EPA's consultations with State and local governments, the nature of the
governments' concerns, and EPA's position supporting the need for the
specific control requirements included in both the EG/NSPS and the
supplemental proposal, see the preamble to the 1996 EG/NSPS (60 FR
9918, March 12, 1996). Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the
Executive Order do not apply to the supplemental proposal.

C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled "Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" (59 FR 22951,
November 6, 2000) took effect on January 6, 2001, after publication of
the proposed landfills NESHAP. Executive Order 13175 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications. "Policies that have tribal
implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have "substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes."
The supplemental proposal does not have tribal implications. It
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to the
supplemental proposal.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments,
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on the supplemental
proposal from tribal officials.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be "economically
significant" as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2)
concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to
believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the
regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children
and explain why the planned rule is preferable to other potentially
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation.
The supplemental proposal is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it is based on technology performance and not on health or
safety risks. No children's risk analysis was performed because no
alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at
a reasonable cost. Furthermore, the supplemental proposal has been
determined to be not "economically significant" as defined
under Executive Order 12866.

E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

The supplemental proposal is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
"Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because
it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with "Federal
mandates" that may result in expenditures by State, local, and
tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least-costly, most cost
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that the supplemental proposal does not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The EPA expects the
requirements in the supplemental proposal to have a negligible economic
impact. Thus, the supplemental proposal is not subject to the
requirements of section 202 and 205 of

[[Page 36471]]

the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined that the supplemental
proposal contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments because the burden is small and
the supplemental proposal does not unfairly apply to small governments.
Therefore, the supplemental proposal is not subject to the requirements
of section 203 of the UMRA.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) As Amended By the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's supplemental
proposal on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business that is primarily engaged in the collection and disposal of
refuse in a landfill operation as defined by NAICS codes 562212 and
924110 with annual receipts less than 10 million dollars; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district, or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's supplemental
proposal for MSW landfills on small entities, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities (SISNOSE). The supplemental proposal will not
impose any requirements on small entities. In gathering available data
on the owners of the ten bioreactor projects that are the population of
sources used to identify the MACT floor for the supplemental proposal,
we found that none of the ten projects were owned by small entities
that met the SBA definition. Given that the landfill capacity of no
other bioreactor project from the available data was identified to be
larger than the landfill capacity exemptions, these data provide
evidence to support the determination that there is no SISNOSE
associated with this action.
Although no small entities were identified, the supplemental
proposal would impose minimal economic impact on small entities because
controls for bioreactor operations would be applied sooner than under
the NSPS/EG. In addition, there may be cost savings for most of the
sources that install bioreactors as compared to using conventional
landfill operations. Also, the design capacity exemptions of 2.5
million Mg and 2.5 million m\3\ excludes smaller landfills that can
least afford the costs of collection and control systems, which will
include many landfills owned by small businesses and small
municipalities.
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
supplemental proposal on small entities and welcome comments on issues
related to such impacts. For more information on potential impacts to
small entities, please consult the economic impact analysis for the
proposed landfills NESHAP in the public docket.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared
for the November 7, 2000 proposed landfills NESHAP by EPA (ICR No.
1938.01) and submitted to OMB for approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. A copy may be obtained from Sandy
Farmer by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection
Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by
calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the Internet
at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
Burden means total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, all Federal
agencies are required to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in
their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The
NTTAA requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual
reports to the OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use
available and applicable VCS.
The supplemental proposal uses the same technical standards as the
proposed rule and does not introduce new standards. Therefore, the
requirements of the NTTAA do not apply to the supplemental proposal.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 16, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:

PART 63-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart AAAA-National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

2. Section 63.1935, as proposed at 65 FR 66683 on November 7, 2000,
is amended by designating the existing paragraph in this section as
paragraph (a) and adding new paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1935 Am I subject to this subpart?

* * * * *
(b) If you own or operate a major or area source MSW landfill with
a design capacity greater than or equal to 2.5

[[Page 36472]]

million Mg and 2.5 million m3 that includes a bioreactor, as
defined in Sec. 63.1990, then you are subject to this subpart.
3. Subpart AAAA, as proposed at 65 FR 66684 on November 7, 2000, is
amended by adding Sec. 63.1947 to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1947 When do I have to comply with this subpart if I own or
operate a bioreactor?

If you own or operate a bioreactor located at a landfill that is
not permanently closed as of the date of publication of the final rule
in the Federal Register 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 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2), subpart WWW; the Federal plan; or EPA-
approved and effective State plan according to the schedule specified
in paragraph (a) or (b) 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 90
days after initiating liquids addition.
(b) If your bioreactor is at an existing affected source and your
bioreactor is not already required to install a gas collection and
control system under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW; the Federal plan; or
EPA-approved and effective State plan, then you must install and begin
operating the gas collection and control system for the bioreactor
within 3 years after the date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register.
(c) If your bioreactor is at an existing affected source and you do
not initiate liquids addition to your bioreactor until later than 3
years after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register, 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 90
days after initiating liquids addition.
4. Subpart AAAA, as proposed at 65 FR 66684 on November 7, 2000, is
amended by adding Sec. 63.1952 to read as follows:

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 bioreactor, you are no longer required to
comply with the requirements of this subpart 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 40 CFR 60.752(b)(v), subpart WWW, or the bioreactor meets the
criteria for a nonproductive area of the landfill in 40 CFR
60.759(a)(3)(ii), subpart WWW.
(b) The bioreactor portion of the landfill is a closed landfill as
defined in 40 CFR 60.751, subpart WWW, 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 40 CFR 60.757(d),
subpart WWW.
(c) Compliance with the bioreactor control removal provisions in
this section constitute compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW, or
the Federal plan, whichever applies to your bioreactor.
5. Section 63.1955, as proposed at 65 FR 66684 on November 7, 2000,
is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1955 What requirements must I meet?

* * * * *
(c) 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 paragraph (a) and the additional
requirements in paragraphs (c)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(i) You must comply with the general provisions specified in Table
1 of this subpart and in Sec. 63.1960 through Sec. 63.1985 starting
on the date you are required to install the gas collection and control
system.
(ii) 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 instead of the schedule in 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(ii)(A)(2).
6. Section 63.1980, as proposed at 65 FR 66684 on November 7, 2000,
is amended by adding new paragraphs (c) through (g) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1980 What records and reports must I keep and submit?

* * * * *
(c) For bioreactors at new affected sources, you must submit the
initial semiannual compliance report and performance test results
described in 40 CFR 60.757(f), subpart WWW, within 180 days after the
date you are required to begin operating the gas collection and control
system by Sec. 63.1947(a)(2).
(d) For bioreactors at existing affected sources, you must submit
the initial semiannual compliance report and performance test results
described in 40 CFR 60.757(f), subpart WWW, within 180 days after the
compliance date specified in Sec. 63.1947(b), unless you have
previously submitted a compliance report for the bioreactor required by
40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW; the Federal plan; or an EPA-approved and
effective State plan.
(e) For bioreactors that are located at existing affected sources
but do not initiate liquids addition until later than the compliance
date in Sec. 63.1947(b), you must submit the initial semiannual
compliance report and performance tests results described in 40 CFR
60.757(f), subpart WWW, within 180 days after the date you are required
to begin operating the gas collection and control system by Sec.
63.1947(c) of this subpart.
(f) If you must submit a semiannual compliance report for a
bioreactor as well as a semiannual compliance report for a conventional
portion of the same landfill, you may delay submittal of a subsequent
semiannual compliance report for the bioreactor according to paragraphs
(f)(1) through (3) of this section so that the reports may be submitted
on the same schedule.
(1) After submittal of your initial semiannual compliance report
and performance test results for the bioreactor, you may delay
submittal of the subsequent semiannual compliance report for the
bioreactor until the date the initial or subsequent semiannual
compliance report is due for the conventional portion of your landfill.
(2) You may delay submittal of your subsequent semiannual
compliance report by no more than 12 months after the due date for
submitting the initial semiannual compliance report and performance
test results described in 40 CFR 60.757(f), subpart WWW, for the
bioreactor. The report shall cover the time period since the previous
semiannual report for the bioreactor, which would be a period of at
least 6 months and no more than 12 months.
(3) After the delayed semiannual report, all subsequent semiannual
reports for the bioreactor must be submitted every 6 months on the same
date the semiannual report for the conventional portion of the landfill
is due.

[[Page 36473]]

(g) If you add any liquids other than leachate in a controlled
fashion to the waste mass, and you do not comply with the bioreactor
requirements in Sec.Sec. 63.1947, 63.1955(c) and 63.1980(c) through
(f), 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
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.
7. Section 63.1990, as proposed at 65 FR 66685 on November 7, 2000,
is amended by adding in alphabetical order the definition of
"bioreactor" as follows:

Sec. 63.1990 What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
Bioreactor means a municipal solid waste landfill or portion of a
municipal solid waste landfill where any liquid other than leachate is
added in a controlled fashion into the waste mass (often in combination
with recirculating leachate) to reach a minimum average moisture
content of 40 percent by weight or greater.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-12845 Filed 5-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

Related Material

Local Navigation