AQ-2017-002-RULE321-REPORTTOTHEBOARDOFSUPERVISORS-2022-09-28.PDF
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
404517 characters
Executive Summary of the Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Board Hearing Date:
Case Number/Title:
Agenda Item:
Supervisor Districts:
September 28, 2022
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321 (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills)
(Pending)
All Districts
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) complied with all statutory and county
policies throughout this rulemaking process. Per the Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program
(EROP) Policy: “In addition to the required staff report, an executive summary of the report including
an overview of stakeholder input and staff responses will be provided to the Board of Supervisors at
least one week prior to any Board of Supervisors’ public hearing.”
Overview of the Report to the Board of Supervisors:
MCAQD is proposing to revise Rule 321 to implement the federal municipal solid waste (MSW)
landfill emission guidelines promulgated August 29, 2016, and codified at Title 40 (Protection of
Environment) of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60 (Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources), Subpart Cf (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills). In addition, MCAQD is proposing to revise Rule 321 to implement Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for municipal solid waste landfills with installed
and operational gas collection and control systems that are not subject to the federal emission
guidelines. The proposed revisions to Rule 321 include the following:
•
Revising Section 102 (Applicability) to clarify that a MSW landfill that commenced
construction, reconstruction or modification on or before July 17, 2014 is subject to Rule 321
•
Revising Section 301 to implement the requirements in 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf
•
Adding Section 302 to codify RACT requirements for MSW landfills with installed and
operational landfill gas collection and control systems with non-methane organic compounds
emission rates below the federal thresholds in 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf
•
Revising Section 400 to clarify the administrative requirements for MSW landfills
•
Revising Section 500 to clarify the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements for MSW
landfills
Overview of Stakeholder Input and Staff Responses:
During the rulemaking process, MCAQD has received written feedback from four stakeholders.
One stakeholder expressed support for the proposed changes, two stakeholders expressed neither
support nor opposition, and one stakeholder initially expressed opposition on December 24, 2020,
but later changed their position to neutral on February 22, 2022. MCAQD representatives met with
all of the stakeholders who submitted comments and worked with stakeholders to address their
comments. The stakeholder comments and the MCAQD responses to the comments are included in
Section 9 of the attached Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking.
Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Board of Health Meeting Date:
July 25, 2022
Board Hearing Date:
September 28, 2022
Case Number/Title:
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321 (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills)
Agenda Item:
(Pending)
Supervisor Districts:
All Districts
Applicant:
Staff
Request:
Approve revisions to Maricopa County Air Pollution Control
Regulation, Rule 321 (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills).
The purpose of Rule 321 is to limit the emission of non-
methane organic compounds from municipal solid waste
(MSW) landfills. The Maricopa County Air Quality
Department (MCAQD) is proposing to revise Rule 321 to
implement the updated federal MSW landfill emission
guidelines and compliance times as promulgated August 29,
2016 and codified at 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf. In addition,
MCAQD is proposing to revise Rule 321 to implement
Reasonably Available Control Technology requirements for
MSW landfills with installed and operational gas collection
and control systems that are not subject to the federal
emission guidelines.
Support/Opposition:
During the rulemaking process, MCAQD has received
written feedback from four stakeholders. One stakeholder
expressed support for the proposed changes, two
stakeholders expressed neither support nor opposition, and
one stakeholder initially expressed opposition on December
24, 2020, but later changed their position to neutral on
February 22, 2022. MCAQD representatives met with all of
the stakeholders who submitted comments and worked with
stakeholders to address their comments. The stakeholder
comments and the MCAQD responses to the comments are
included in Section 9 of the attached Draft Notice of Final
Rulemaking.
Staff
Recommendation:
Approve
Board of Health
Recommendation:
Approve
Additional Comments:
This regulatory change is following the Enhanced Regulatory
Outreach Program (EROP) Policy and workflow process.
The County Manager briefed the Board of Supervisors
regarding this rulemaking in March 2017. Stakeholder
meetings and workshops were held on March 10, 2017, April
19, 2018, December 10, 2020, and February 28, 2022.
The Board of Health approved initiation of regulatory change
on February 25, 2019 and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
was posted on the EROP website on May 4, 2022. On July
25, 2022, the Board of Health made a recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors to approve the revisions to Rule 321.
A newspaper notice of the Board of Supervisors public
hearing will be published in the Arizona Business Gazette on
August 18, 2022 and August 25, 2022. This regulatory change
will take effect immediately upon approval by the Board of
Supervisors.
Presented By:
Philip A. McNeely, R.G., Director
Prepared By:
Planning and Analysis Division
Attachments:
Preamble required by Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 49-
471.07 (See the Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Summary of the proposed regulatory change (See Item 4 of
the Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Analysis of input received during the process and how that
input was responded to (See Item 9 of the Draft Notice of
Final Rulemaking)
Language of proposed regulatory change or amendment (See
the Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking)
Minutes from Board of Health meeting
Copies of all written and electronic Stakeholder input
Strikethrough/underlined version of Draft Rule 321
Clean version of draft Rule 321
DRAFT NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING
MARICOPA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 321: MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) is proposing to amend Rule 321
(Municipal Solid Waste Landfills). The Control Officer is posting this Draft Notice of Final
Rulemaking on the Maricopa County Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program (EROP) website as
part of the Report to the Board of Supervisors, as required by Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.)
§49-471.04. This notice includes the preamble, as prescribed in A.R.S. § 49-471.05, and the full
text of the rule, including the intended actions to make new sections or amend, repeal, or
renumber the sections of the rule. This notice also includes a list of all previous notices posted on
the Maricopa County EROP website addressing the proposed rule and the concise explanatory
statement prescribed in A.R.S. § 49-471.07, subsection B.
PREAMBLE
1.
Statutory authority for the rulemaking (A.R.S. § 49-471.05(1)):
A.R.S. §§ 49-112, 49-474, 49-479 and 49-480
2.
Name and address of department personnel with whom persons may communicate
regarding the rulemaking (A.R.S. § 49-471.05(2)):
Name:
Will Adrian or Kimberly Butler
Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Planning and Analysis Division
Address:
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 410
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone:
602-506-6010
Fax:
602-506-6179
Email:
AQPlanning@maricopa.gov
Online:
Submit a Comment
3.
Rulemaking process (A.R.S. § 49-471.05(3)):
This rulemaking is following procedures identified in state statutes and the Maricopa County
EROP Policy.
County Manager Briefing:
March 2017
Stakeholder Meetings and Workshops:
March 10, 2017
April 19, 2018
December 10, 2020
February 28, 2022
Board of Health Meeting to Initiate Regulatory Change:
February 25, 2019
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
May 4, 2022
Board of Health Meeting to Recommend Approval to
the Board of Supervisors:
July 25, 2022
Return to list of attachments
4.
Explanation of the rule, including the control officer's reasons for initiating the
rulemaking (A.R.S. § 49-471.05(4)):
On August 29, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated
emission guidelines for municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills under Clean Air Act (CAA)
Section 111(d). The emission guidelines set forth specific requirements for controlling
emissions of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC). The emission guidelines are
codified at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 60, Subpart Cf. Subpart
Cf requires States to submit a plan to the EPA to implement the emission guidelines. For the
purposes of the CAA Section 111(d) Plan, MCAQD is considered a “State”.
MCAQD is proposing to implement the 2016 emission guidelines through incorporation of
the guidelines into Rule 321. MCAQD originally drafted and adopted Rule 321 on May 14,
1997, in response to the issuance of the Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing Sources: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40
CFR 60, Subparts Cc and WWW, 61 FR 9905, March 12, 1996). Currently, Rule 321
implements the federal standards of performance set forth in 40 CFR 60, Subpart WWW
(Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills) and all accompanying
appendices, excluding 40 CFR 60.750, which were adopted and incorporated by reference.
MCAQD is proposing to remove the federal standards set forth in 40 CFR 60, Subpart
WWW from Rule 321 and replace them with the emission guidelines set forth in 40 CFR 60,
Subpart Cf.
In addition, MCAQD is proposing to revise Rule 321 to implement requirements for MSW
landfills with installed and operational gas collection and control systems (GCCS) that are
not subject to the federal emission guidelines. MSW landfills in Maricopa County that are
not subject to a federal emission standard or guideline but emit regulated air pollutants
above the MCAQD permitting thresholds in Rule 200 (Permit Requirements) must
implement reasonably available control technology (RACT) per Rule 241 (Minor New
Source Review). MCAQD has determined the continued use of an installed and operational
GCCS is RACT for these sources. Currently, Maricopa County does not have specific rule
requirements for the implementation of RACT for MSW landfills with emission rates below
federal thresholds but MCAQD does issue permits to these sources to implement RACT.
Adding RACT rule requirements into Rule 321 will standardize the requirements and ensure
consistent application of RACT for these sources.
The proposed revisions to Rule 321 include the following:
Revising Section 102 (Applicability) to clarify that a MSW landfill that commenced
construction, reconstruction or modification on or before July 17, 2014 is subject to
Rule 321
Revising Section 301 to implement the requirements in 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf
Adding Section 302 to codify RACT requirements for MSW landfills with installed
and operational landfill gas collection and control systems with NMOC emission
rates below the federal thresholds in 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf
Revising Section 400 to clarify the administrative requirements for MSW landfills
Revising Section 500 to clarify the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements for
MSW landfills
Return to list of attachments
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
September 28, 2022
Board of Supervisors Formal Meeting to Set
August 17, 2022
the Public Hearing:
5.
Studies relied on in the control officer's evaluation of or justification for the rule and
where the public may obtain or review the studies, all data underlying the studies,
any analysis of the studies and other supporting material (A.R.S. § 49-471.05(5)).
No studies were relied on in the control officer’s evaluation of the rule.
6.
An economic, small business and consumer impact statement (A.R.S. § 49-471.05(6)):
The following discussion addresses each of the elements required for an economic, small
business and consumer impact statement, as prescribed by A.R.S. §§ 41-1055(A), (B), and
(C), and 41-1035:
An identification of the proposed rulemaking, including all of the following (A.R.S. §
41-1055(A)(1)):
This rulemaking is proposing to revise Rule 321.
(a) The conduct and its frequency of occurrence that the rule is designed to change
(A.R.S. § 41-1055(A)(1)(a)).
MCAQD is proposing to revise Rule 321 to implement the federal emission guidelines
set forth in 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf. In addition, MCAQD is proposing to revise Rule
321 to implement RACT requirements for MSW landfills with installed and operational
gas collection and control systems that are not subject to the federal emission guidelines.
(b) The harm resulting from the conduct the rule is designed to change and the
likelihood it will continue to occur if the rule is not changed (A.R.S. § 41-
1055(A)(1)(b)).
If the rule is not changed, Title V MSW landfills will remain subject indefinitely to the
Federal Plan requirements in 40 CFR 62, Subpart OOO. In addition, RACT
requirements for Non-Title V MSW landfills will not be incorporated into the rule which
may lead to inconsistent implementation of RACT requirement into Non-Title V MSW
landfill permits.
(c) The estimated change in frequency of the targeted conduct expected from the
rule change (A.R.S. § 41-1055(A)(1)(c)).
Permitting and inspection frequencies will not change with this rule making.
A brief summary of the information included in the economic, small business and
consumer impact statement (A.R.S. § 41-1055(A)(2)).
The economic, small business, and consumer impact statement addresses each of the
elements required for an economic, small business and consumer impact statement, as
prescribed by A.R.S. §§ 41-1055(A), (B), and (C), and 41-1035.
Name and address of agency employees who may be contacted to submit or request
additional data on the information included in the economic, small business and
consumer impact statement (A.R.S. § 41-1055(A)(3)).
Name:
Will Adrian or Kimberly Butler
Maricopa County Air Quality Department
Planning and Analysis Division
Address:
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 410
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone:
602-506-6010
Fax:
602-506-6179
Email:
AQPlanning@maricopa.gov
Online:
Submit a Comment
An identification of the persons who will be directly affected by, bear the costs of or
directly benefit from the proposed rulemaking (A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(2)).
This rulemaking affects owners and operators of existing municipal solid waste landfills in
Maricopa County that have commenced construction, reconstruction or modification on or
before July 17, 2014.
A cost benefit analysis of the following:
(a) The probable costs and benefits to the implementing agency and other agencies
directly affected by the implementation and enforcement of the proposed
rulemaking (A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(3)(a)).
This rulemaking should not impose any new costs on MCAQD or on any other agencies
affected by the proposed rulemaking.
(b) The probable costs and benefits to a political subdivision of this state directly
affected by the implementation and enforcement of the proposed rulemaking
(A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(3)(b)).
This rulemaking should not impose any significant costs on political subdivisions of this
state affected by the proposed rulemaking. Existing Title V MSW landfills in Maricopa
County are currently subject to Federal Plan requirements in 40 CFR 62, Subpart OOO
(Federal Plan Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills That Commenced
Construction On or Before July 17, 2014 and Have Not Been Modified or
Reconstructed Since July 17, 2014). The Federal Plan was promulgated to implement the
2016 MSW landfill emission guidelines set forth in 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf. The
proposed rulemaking incorporates by reference the emission guidelines, 40 CFR 60,
Subpart Cf, for existing Title V MSW landfills in Maricopa County and thereby
introduces no new significant cost to a directly affected political subdivision of this state.
Existing Non-Title V MSW landfills in Maricopa County with an installed and
operational GCCS that are not subject to a federal emission guideline or standard but
emit regulated air pollutants above the MCAQD permitting thresholds in Rule 200 must
implement RACT. MCAQD has determined the continued use of an installed and
operational GCCS is RACT for these sources. Currently, Maricopa County does not
have specific rule requirements for the implementation of RACT for MSW landfills
below federal thresholds but does issue permits to these sources with specific RACT
requirements. Adding rule requirements for these sources into Rule 321 will provide
consistent implementation of RACT, but should not significantly impact these sources
financially. The addition of these provisions may actually benefit these sources by
providing standardized requirements for all Non-Title V MSW landfills in Maricopa
County.
(c) The probable costs and benefits to businesses directly affected by the proposed
rulemaking, including any anticipated effect on the revenues or payroll
expenditures of employers who are subject to the proposed rulemaking (A.R.S. §
41-1055(B)(3)(c)).
This rulemaking should not have a significant cost impact on businesses directly affected
by the rulemaking. Existing Title V MSW landfills in Maricopa County are currently
subject to Federal Plan requirements in 40 CFR 62, Subpart OOO (Federal Plan
Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills That Commenced Construction On
or Before July 17, 2014 and Have Not Been Modified or Reconstructed Since July 17,
2014). The Federal Plan was promulgated to implement the 2016 MSW landfill emission
guidelines set forth in 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf. The proposed rulemaking incorporates by
reference the emission guidelines, 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf, for existing Title V MSW
landfills in Maricopa County and thereby introduces no new significant costs on
businesses directly affected by the proposed rulemaking.
Existing Non-Title V MSW landfills in Maricopa County with an installed and
operational GCCS that are not subject to a federal emission guideline or standard but
emit regulated air pollutants above the MCAQD permitting thresholds in Rule 200 must
implement RACT. MCAQD has determined the continued use of an installed and
operational GCCS as RACT for these sources. Currently, Maricopa County does not
have specific rule requirements for the implementation of RACT for MSW landfills
below federal thresholds but does issue permits to these sources with specific RACT
requirements. Adding rule requirements for these sources into Rule 321 will provide
consistent implementation of RACT but should not significantly impact these sources
financially. The addition of these provisions may actually benefit these sources by
providing standardized requirements for all Non-Title V MSW landfills in Maricopa
County.
A general description of the probable impact on private and public employment in
businesses, agencies and political subdivisions of this state directly affected by the
proposed rulemaking (A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(4)).
This rulemaking should not have any impact on private and public employment in
businesses, agencies, or political subdivisions of this state.
A statement of the probable impact of the proposed rulemaking on small businesses.
The statement shall include:
(a) An identification of the small businesses subject to the proposed rulemaking
(A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(5)(a)).
There are no small businesses subject to this rulemaking.
(b) The administrative and other costs required for compliance with the proposed
rulemaking (A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(5)(b)).
There are no small businesses subject to this rulemaking.
(c) A description of the methods that the agency may use to reduce the impact on
small businesses (A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(5)(c)).
i.
Establish less stringent compliance or reporting requirements in the rule for
small businesses (A.R.S. § 41-1035(1)).
There are no small businesses subject to this rulemaking.
ii. Establish less stringent schedules or deadlines in the rule for compliance or
reporting requirements for small businesses (A.R.S. § 41-1035(2)).
There are no small businesses subject to this rulemaking.
iii. Consolidate or simplify the rule's compliance or reporting requirements for
small businesses (A.R.S. § 41-1035(3)).
There are no small businesses subject to this rulemaking.
iv. Establish performance standards for small businesses to replace design or
operational standards in the rule (A.R.S. § 41-1035(4)).
There are no small businesses subject to this rulemaking.
v. Exempt small businesses from any or all requirements of the rule (A.R.S. § 41-
1035(5)).
There are no small businesses subject to this rulemaking.
(d) The probable cost and benefit to private persons and consumers who are directly
affected by the proposed rulemaking (A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(5)(d)).
This rulemaking should not result in any significant costs for private persons and
consumers.
A statement of the probable effect on state revenues (A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(6)).
The rulemaking will not impose increased monetary or regulatory costs on other state
agencies, political subdivisions of this state, persons, or individuals so regulated. Without
costs to pass through to customers, there is no projected change in consumer purchase
patterns and, thus, no impact on state revenues from sales taxes.
A description of any less intrusive or less costly alternative methods of achieving the
purpose of the proposed rulemaking, including the monetizing of the costs and
benefits for each option and providing the rationale for not using nonselected
alternatives (A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(7)).
MCAQD is proposing to revise Rule 321 to implement the federal emission guidelines set
forth in 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf. In addition, MCAQD is proposing to revise Rule 321 to
implement requirements for MSW landfills with installed and operational gas collection and
control systems that are not subject to the federal emission guidelines.
A description of any data on which a rule is based with a detailed explanation of how
the data was obtained and why the data is acceptable data (A.R.S. § 41-1055(B)(8)).
Not applicable.
7.
The proposed effective date of the rule (A.R.S. § 49-471.05(7)):
The proposed effective date of this rulemaking is September 28, 2022.
8.
Such other matters as are prescribed by statute and that are applicable to the county
or to any specific rule or class of rules (A.R.S. § 49-471.05(8)):
Under A.R.S. § 49-479(C), a county may not adopt a rule or ordinance that is more stringent
than the rules adopted by the Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) for similar sources unless it demonstrates compliance with the applicable
requirements of A.R.S. § 49-112.
§ 49-112 County regulation; standards
§ 49-112(A)
When authorized by law, a county may adopt a rule, ordinance or regulation that is more
stringent than or in addition to a provision of this title or rule adopted by the director or any
board or commission authorized to adopt rules pursuant to this title if all of the following
requirements are met:
1.
The rule, ordinance or regulation is necessary to address a peculiar local condition.
2.
There is credible evidence that the rule, ordinance or regulation is either;
(a) Necessary to prevent a significant threat to public health or the environment that
results from a peculiar local condition and is technically and economically feasible.
(b) Required under a federal statute or regulation, or authorized pursuant to an
intergovernmental agreement with the federal government to enforce federal statutes
or regulations if the county rule, ordinance, or regulation is equivalent to federal
statutes or regulation.
3.
Any fee or tax adopted under the rule, ordinance or regulation does not exceed the
reasonable costs of the county to issue and administer the permit or plan approval
program.
§ 49-112(B)
When authorized by law, a county may adopt rules, ordinances or regulations in lieu of a
state program that are as stringent as a provision of this title or rule adopted by the director
or any board or commission authorized to adopt rules pursuant to this title if the county
demonstrates that the cost of obtaining permits or other approvals from the county will
approximately equal or be less than the fee or cost of obtaining similar permits or approvals
under this title or any rule adopted pursuant to this title. If the state has not adopted a fee or
tax for similar permits or approvals, the county may adopt a fee when authorized by law in
the rule, ordinance or regulation that does not exceed the reasonable costs of the county to
issue and administer that permit or plan approval program.
MCAQD is in compliance with A.R.S. §§ 49-112(A) and (B). Proposed rule provisions for
Title V sources in Rule 321 are no more stringent than those adopted by the State. Proposed
rule provisions for Non-Title V sources in Rule 321 are in addition to those adopted by the
State but are required by MCAQD Rule 241 (Minor New Source Review) which requires the
implementation of RACT. Rule 241 is part of MCAQD’s minor source rules which address
the peculiar local conditions in Maricopa County that address long-standing federal
requirements for nonattainment areas, including the implementation of RACT.
9.
List of all previous notices posted to the Maricopa County EROP website addressing
the proposed rule and a concise explanatory statement, as prescribed by A.R.S. § 49-
471.07, subsection B:
(a) List of all previous notices posted to the Maricopa County EROP website
addressing the proposed rule:
Notice
Date of Posting
Briefing Notification to County Manager:
March 10, 2017
Notice of Stakeholder Workshops:
April 4, 2018
November 25, 2020
February 11, 2022
Notice of Board of Health Meeting:
February 8, 2019
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
May 4, 2022
(b) The following discussion addresses each of the elements required for a concise
explanatory statement, as prescribed by A.R.S. § 49-471.07, subsection B:
i.
A description of any change between the proposed rule or ordinance, the final
rule or ordinance or notice of final supplemental rule or ordinance.
No changes were made after the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on
May 4, 2022.
ii. A summary of the comments and arguments for and against the notice and
the county’s response to the comments and arguments.
The following discussion evaluates the arguments for and against the rule and
includes responses to comments received on the proposed rule or the preamble in
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. MCAQD received written comments from four
stakeholders. All of the comments were reviewed and evaluated by MCAQD.
Comments #1 and #2 are duplicate comments received from two
stakeholders.
Comment #1: Section 200 – Please include the definations contained in Subpart
XXX §60.761. Referencing the definations in Rule 100 is fine.
Response #1: MCAQD incorporated by reference the definitions of 40 CFR 60,
Subpart Cf in lieu of adding all definitions into Rule 321.
Comment #2: 102 The statement “The provisions of this rule shall apply to major
and area sources” should be revised to match Subpart XXX §60.762. The landfill
either has a design capacity over 2.5 million megagrams and is subject to regulation
or it isn’t. Since an area source is defined as any stationary source that is not a major
source, the statement is basically saying the rule applys to all landfills, which is not
the intent of the Federal regulations.
Response #2: MCAQD removed the terms "major and area sources" from the
Applicability section of the draft rule and replaced the terms with the term “existing”
in order to clarify that this rule applies to all existing MSW landfills as specified in §§
102.2(a) and (b) and further clarified in §§ 301 and 302.
Comment #3: 302 This rule should apply to MSW landfills with NMOC emission
rates ABOVE the Federal threshold of 34 megagrams per year of NMOCs. Those
below the threshold do not need to install a GCCS, therefore 302.1 Operational
Requirements for the GCCS would not apply since there would be no GCCS.
Response #3: There is no requirement in the draft language for landfills subject to §
302 to install a GCCS, however, if such landfills already have a GCCS installed, the
requirements of § 302.1 pertain to maintaining operation of those systems. The draft
language in Rule 321 § 301 applies to all existing MSW landfills that are subject to 40
CFR 60, Subpart Cf. Existing MSW landfills with emission rates below those
specified in Subpart Cf but above the 17 megagrams (Mg) per year discontinuation
threshold that have a GCCS installed are subject to § 302 as this constitutes local
RACT requirements. Rule 241 requires implementation of RACT and MCAQD
interprets maintaining an existing active GCCS as RACT.
Comments #4 through #11 are duplicate comments received from two
stakeholders.
Return to list of attachments
Notice of Board of Health Meeting to Make a
Recommendation to the Board of Supervisors:
July 11, 2022
Comment #4: 302.1a(1) wants the GCCS installed in all areas that “warrants
control” which is open to interpretation. Subpart XXX §60.763 requires the GCCS
to be installed in areas where the waste has been in place for 5 years, or 2 years if the
area has been closed or is at final grade.
Response #4: Rule language referred to in this comment was removed.
Comment #5: 302.1b “The GCCS shall reduce….”, should be The GCCS control
device shall reduce NMOC by 98 weight percent…
Response #5: MCAQD revised § 302.1(b), and the reference in § 302.1(b)(2) to
NMOC reduction now states "a control system".
Comment #6: 302.1c(3) “At all times when the collected gas is routed to the
system” should be “At all times when the collected gas is routed to the control
device”.
Response #6: MCAQD revised this section to refer to "control device" instead of
"system".
Comment #7: 302.1c(4)(c) “Monitor any openings…” should be “Monitor any
penetrations…”. Penetrations are landfill gas well casings penetrating the surface of
the MSW cell. Note that Subpart XXX does not have a definition of penetration.
An enhancement would be to narrowly define penetration as a landfill gas well
casing. In discussions pertaining to draft Subpart XXX there was speculation that
penetrations could be defined broadly as fence T-posts, and other items, that do not
penetrate the intermediate soil cover layer.
Response #7: For this specific provision, Subpart Cf uses “openings”, but in other
parts of Subpart Cf “penetrations” is used. Neither of these terms are defined.
MCAQD maintained the language as currently written, as this is the way it is written
in Subpart Cf.
Comment #8: 302.2m Source test reports take more than 30 days to finalize.
Sometimes it takes 30 days just to get the laboratory results back with standard turn-
around times. We typically request 45 days, and the request is typically granted.
Please change to 45 days.
Response #8: Rule language referred to in this comment was removed. Rule 270 is
now referenced with regards to performance testing submissions.
Comment #9: 302.3a(2) “For the purposes of determining sufficient density of gas
collectors the owner or operator shall maintain a system of vertical wells, ..” should
be changed to “For the purposes of determining sufficient density of gas collectors
the owner or operator shall maintain a system of vertical or horizontal wells, ..”.
Response #9: MCAQD revised the draft language as follows: "For the purposes of
determining sufficient density of gas collectors, the owner or operator shall maintain
a system of vertical wells, horizontal collectors, or other collection devices consistent
with the approved GCCS design plan, capable of controlling and extracting gas from
all portions of the landfill sufficient to meet all operational and performance
standards."
Comment #10: 302.3a(3) Modern flare stations have a shutdown valve that is fail-
closed, which prevents venting of landfill gas to the atmosphere when an SSM event
occurs. Because venting of landfill gas cannot occur, the GCCS cannot operate if
the flare is down for an SSM event. Please delete “and shall not exceed 1 hour for
treatment or control devices.” An SSM event, such as a power outage, can occur at
any time. A landfill gas technician will typically wait until daylight to troubleshoot
the SSM issue and re-start the flare. Requiring that the flare be down for less than an
hour is a serious safety issue.
Response #10: Rule language referring to start-up, shutdown, or malfunction was
removed, and as per Subpart Cf, the provisions of Rule 321 apply at all times the
GCCS is in operation. Additionally, per Subpart Cf, language was added regarding
gas mover system shutdown and valve closure when the collection or control system
is not operating: "The gas mover system must be shut down and all valves in the
collection and control system contributing to venting of the gas to the atmosphere
must be closed within one hour of the collection or control system not operating.”
Comment #11: The text in Subpart XXX §60.767 Reporting Requirements should
be included.
Response #11: The reporting provisions in Cf (40 CFR 60.38f) are included in
Section 400 (Administrative Requirements) of the rule and are applicable to landfills
with NMOC emission rates above the federal threshold. Reporting requirements for
landfills with NMOC emission rates below the federal threshold are included in §
302 of the rule.
Comment #12: 302.6 Would like to see this list reduced. Example, 302.6 h can be
deleted since this cannot occur.
Response #12: For clarity, MCAQD revised the specified provision as follows:
"Description and duration of all periods when the GCCS was not operating and
length of time the GCCS was not operating, including periods of intermittent use of
the GCCS." Most of the remaining recordkeeping provisions are already required in
local air quality permits for landfills and also in 40 CFR 60 Subpart Cf.
Comment #13: 302.6e “Continuous combustion temperature of the flare as
recorded by a continuous temperature recorder.” Recording devices continuously
monitor temperature but do not continuously record temperature. Recording
devices can be set to record the temperature at specific intervals, i.e. every 15
minutes. The data file associated with monitoring the temperature every second
would be both huge and useless. Further, the temperature data is typically stored on
electronic media, which is sometimes problematic. It is impossible to have a
continuous monitoring record without having redundant recording devices.
Response #13: Specified provision moved to 302.5d and revised as follows: "A
record of the enclosed flare temperature recorded every 15 minutes or less by a
continuous temperature recorder."
Comments #14 through #21 are duplicate comments received from two
stakeholders.
Comment #14: The Draft Rule requires a Landfill to demonstrate that the
calculated non-methane organic compound (NMOC) emission rate is less than 1.5
tons per year (tpy) on three successive test dates to meet the GCCS removal criteria
in Section 302.7(a) of the Draft Rule. [Our Company] believes this standard is
unreasonable, unnecessary, and infeasible due to lack of available technology that
low, landfill gas (LFG) generation potential in arid climates, and the cost
effectiveness for implementation.
Response #14: MCAQD reevaluated the NMOC emission rate of 1.5 tons per year
(tpy) (1.4 Mg per year) as the GCCS removal criteria and revised it to 17 Mg per year.
Comment #15: Section 302.7(b) allows for removal of the GCCS if the landfill
demonstrates that continued use of the GCCS will create greater emissions of
regulated air pollutants that would be created by the removal of the GCCS.
However, it does not define which pollutants would be required to be demonstrated
as greater or define what greater is in this context. It is unclear if removal criteria
would require the total of all criteria pollutants or a single criteria pollutant.
Continuing to destroy LFG and supplemental fuel will not include fugitive
emissions, which cannot be measured directly but only modeled.
Response #15: The rule language referenced in the comment was removed from the
rule.
Comment #16: It does not appear that a feasibility study or cost effectiveness
analysis was completed in association with the proposed 1.5 tpy NMOC emissions
rate. Absent these analyses, a realistic and achievable NMOC threshold cannot be
set. It also does not appear that a cost per ton reduction effectiveness for the rule
was ever completed. The best available control technology (BACT) criteria in
MCAQD’s Permitting Handbook discusses the completion of cost effectiveness
analysis for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and other pollutants. [...] Based on
[Our Company’s] experience, without conducting a feasibility study, the current
threshold of 1.5 tpy NMOC is not technically feasible nor cost effective and would
fail any BACT cost analysis.
Response #16: MCAQD views the requirement to continue to use an already
installed GCCS under § 302 as the implementation of RACT, not BACT. As such,
the BACT criteria in MCAQD’s Permitting Handbook do not apply. In addition, as
mentioned above, the 1.5 tpy (1.4 Mg per year) GCCS removal threshold was revised
to 17 Mg per year.
Comment #17: Arid climates like Arizona significantly reduce the quantity of LFG
available for collection. It has been [Our Company’s] experience in Arizona that
when a landfill requires a GGCS due to the federal NSPS and EG rules, the EPA
landfill gas generation model (LandGEM) will predict LFG flow rates ten times
greater than what an operational GCCS demonstrates. [...] As the Draft Rule requires
a destruction device to be designed for the modeled maximum flow rate, a
significantly over sized destruction device would be required, which will not be able
to operate as designed when it is required to control NMOC emissions down to 1.5
tpy. [...] As proposed, this rule will result in oversized GCCS at all landfills, which
will likely have control system that have to be replaced multiple times after the
landfill is closed Dry climate landfills take longer to reach their peak LFG generation
but also longer to reach minimum levels due to slow waste degradation. This The
facility may also be forced to modify/redesign its controls and collection systems to
accommodate low gas quality and quantity. These operating scenarios create
operations and compliance issues and increased cost and fossil fuel emissions.
Response #17: Rule language regarding GCCS removal criteria was revised, and the
demonstrated NMOC emission rate for removal was increased to 17 Mg per year.
Comment #18: Closed landfills that meet the EG rule closure requirements (at 34
or 50 Mg/yr NMOC), typically no longer generate enough flow at a high enough
methane content to support continuous operations. This makes control below 1.5
tpy NMOC infeasible, and the use of supplemental fossil fuel would increase criteria
pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This creates a waiting game until
such time demonstrates that continued use of the GCCS will create greater emissions
of regulated air pollutants than those that would be created by the removal of the
GCCS per Section 302.7(b) of the Draft Rule.
Response #18: MCAQD reevaluated the NMOC emission rate of 1.5 tpy (1.4 Mg
per year) as the GCCS removal criteria and revised it to 17 Mg per year.
Comment #19: As previously discussed, the operating, monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting costs to maintain between 34 Mg (37.5 tpy) and 1.5 tpy NMOC as well
as the overall technical feasibility of meeting the proposed rule requirements have
not been assessed as part of this proposed rulemaking. This will make the problem
worse by requiring many more years of GCCS operation before 1.5 tpy can be met.
All of these costs should be included in a detailed cost effectiveness analysis as part
of his rulemaking. Additionally, the costs to monitor and subsequent reporting costs
for operation of the flare between 34 Mg and 1.5 tpy has not been assessed by this
proposed rule.
Response #19: MCAQD reevaluated the NMOC emission rate of 1.5 tpy (1.4 Mg
per year) as the GCCS removal criteria and revised it to 17 Mg per year.
Comment #20: Section 302.1(a)(1) of the Draft Rule states “The GCCS shall: Be
designed and operated to handle the maximum expected gas flow rate from the
entire area of the landfill…” for active and closed landfills in Arizona, this would
lead to designing and building significantly oversized LFG GCCS which would not
be able to sustain operations due to low LFG quality and quantity down to 1.5 tpy.
[...] Under the current EG rule, a closed landfill may need one flare replacement until
the closure criterial are meet. Under the Draft Rule, a landfill could require multiple
flare replacements after closure, resulting in millions of dollars of cost associated
with post closure. In addition, to the flare cost, new LG blowers would have to be
purchased, wells and pipping would have to be replaced, and many more years of
GCCS operations would be required.
Response #20: MCAQD reevaluated the NMOC emission rate of 1.5 tpy (1.4 Mg
per year) as the GCCS removal criteria and revised it to 17 Mg per year. Additionally,
landfills subject to Rule 321 are not required to use flares as the control device, they
may also use alternative control devices such as an activated carbon capture system
which may help reduce compliance costs.
Comment #21: The Draft Rule Section 302 states that “Each owner or operator of
an affected facility with annual NMOC emission rates that are below those specified
in 40 CFR 60.33f(a)(3) or 40 CFR 60.33f(a)(4) with an active landfill gas collection
and control system (GCCS) shall comply.” The agency must clarify the proposed rule
is prospective and does not apply retrospectively to landfills that already met
equipment removal criteria under 40 CFR 60 Subpart WWW, 40 CFR 62 Subpart
GGG or Maricopa Rule 321 regardless whether these landfills continue to operate
active GCCS. In addition, an existing landfill that becomes subject to the NSPS 40
CFR 60 Subpart XXX requirements due to a modification (e.g. landfill expansion), is
no longer subject to Rule 321 requirements including proposed Section 302.
Response #21: The rule revisions in § 302 will apply to any landfill with an installed
and operational GCCS and NMOC emissions below the federal threshold but above
17 Mg per year.
Comment #22: The California Air Resource Board (CARB) Landfill Methane Rule
(LMR) is the most stringent landfill rule in the US." […] "MCAQD’s proposed
threshold is about one third of the California threshold. The California LMR allows
additional analysis including completion of surface emission monitoring (SEM),
before controls are required, and the equipment removal criteria are based on 3.0
MMBtu/hr - much less stringent that 1.5 tpy NMOC. The technology for a flare to
operate at 35 scfm at 50 percent methane content is not available today.
Response #22: The MCAQD reevaluated the NMOC emission rate of 1.5 tpy (1.4
Mg per year) as the GCCS removal criteria and revised it to 17 Mg per year.
Comments #23 through #30 are duplicate comments received from two
stakeholders.
Comment #23: Per the MCAQD Permitting Handbook, dated November 2020,
BACT is only required for proposed modification to a source if the potential to emit
increases modified sources 40 tpy or more of VOCs. Closed landfill’s have declining
emissions, and yet by imposing a 1.5 tpy limit MCAQD will effectively enforce
BACT on these non-major sources without the ability to perform a determination if
it is required.
Response #23: The MCAQD reevaluated the NMOC emission rate of 1.5 tpy (1.4
Mg per year) as the GCCS removal criteria and revised it to 17 Mg per year.
Comment #24: A cost benefit analysis was discussed in the Draft Rule, and it is
unclear if one was completed as we did not see any such documentation.
MCAQCD’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Rule 323 Fuel Burning Equipment
from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Source conducted a full cost benefit
analysis which included the probable cost and benefits to businesses directly affected
by the proposed rulemaking, including any anticipated effect on the revenues or
payroll expenditures of employers who are subject to the proposed rulemaking.
There is no mention of cost benefit analysis in the Draft Rule, which appears to be a
departure from MCAQCD practices.
Response #24: MCAQD drafted an economic, small business and consumer impact
statement which was included in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Rule 321
and posted to the EROP website on May 4, 2022. In addition, the analysis is
included within this Draft Notice of Final Rulemaking under item #6.
Comment #25: Per Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations, Rule 100,
there is a permitting threshold for all stationary sources that have a potential to emit
0.5 tpy of VOC. Therefore, under Rule 100 almost all landfills would be required to
have a permit and the Draft Rule would not require any new or currently closed
landfills to be regulated. [...] Implementing a MCAQD specific landfill rule with new
and very stringent requirements such as those proposed, should be its own
rulemaking process and not part of the implementation of the federal EG rule. By
combining the two rules, this has not only caused confusion, but creates uncertainty
for EG landfills in the future. Once NSPS or EG landfills exit the Federal program,
they could still be potentially required to follow the Draft Rule once their emissions
drop below 34 Mg/yr if they still have an active GCCS due to odor control or
migration issues, and then would be required to follow more stringent requirements.
Response #25: MCAQD determined maintaining the requirements for all existing
landfills, above and below the federal emission thresholds, in one rule makes the
most sense. Keeping all the requirements for all existing landfills in one rule will
increase compliance, as landfill owners and operators will know exactly what
provisions they must comply with after falling below federal emission levels.
Currently, all landfills that fall below federal emission levels are required to continue
to operate an installed GCCS based on the RACT requirements in Rule 241, but
those requirements are enforced through MCAQD permits and not currently in any
rule. By including them in Rule 321, owners and operators of landfills will know
exactly what those requirements are.
Comment #26: This new rule would also eliminate any voluntary carbon credit
projects in Maricopa County. Under programs such as the Climate Action Reserve
(CAR) or the American Climate Registry (ACR), voluntary GHG offset credits to
projects who reduce GHG emission outside regulatory requirements. The most
common landfill protocol in the U.S. is the CAR Landfill Project Protocol, which has
a legal requirement test, which every landfill project must pass in order to qualify.
The adoption of Draft Rule, would eliminate any possibility to have a voluntary
carbon project, by installing a voluntary GCCS, and eliminate the incentive to install
a GCCS early to generate offset credits to sell in the voluntary market.
Response #26: The provisions of § 302 are already locally required through the
implementation of RACT and would therefore be precluded from being used for any
voluntary programs or emissions credit banking possibilities.
Comment #27: Many closed and small landfills were once in remote areas in
Maricopa County when the opened but are now surrounded by residential or
commercial properties. As such, these small closed landfills have existing odor and
migration systems to shield neighboring housing and commercial buildings.
Typically, these systems will be partial GCCS with tie in perimeter wells to stop
migration off of the landfill property or LFG odor concerns. A large fraction of
these facilities would not generate enough LFG for a destruction device, so they use
a carbon system to filter the gas for odors or prevent migration offsite, and vent the
gas directly to the atmosphere. There are landfills in Maricopa County, which have
been closed since the 1980 or 1990s and would be impacted by the Draft Rule. It is
unclear if closed landfills with an active GCCS for odor or migration issues, that
have exited the Federal EG rule due to meeting the Federal exit criteria or never
triggered the Federal rule in the first place would be required to be meet the Draft
Rule’s requirements under Section 302. If so, this would be extremely unreasonable
and would punish landfill for installing GCCS for other purposes by forcing them to
comply with a more stringent standard.
Response #27: Activated carbon capture systems are acceptable as a GCCS for
applicable landfills. If a MSW landfill (including closed and small facilities) is
currently using such a system, the landfill would only be required to maintain it as
described in § 302. No new GCCS system is required to be installed under § 302.
Comment #28: The Draft Rule only provides performance testing procedures for
enclosed flares and does not also include testing provisions for open flares consistent
with NESHAPs, NSPS and current NSPS and EG rules (see 40 CFR 60.18 and 40
CFR 63.19). This would impose more stringent requirements on landfills below the
Federal thresholds. In many Non-NSPS/EG landfills in arid climates, open flares or
carbon systems are needed for the low LFG conditions. Enclosed combustion
technology will fail or not meet stack testing requirements as they cannot maintain
combustion temperatures in declining or low flow / methane content conditions.
Enclosed flares are also significantly more expensive than open flares, which would
greatly increase compliance costs without significantly improving emission
reductions.
Response #28: The draft requirements in § 302 do not require sources to use a flare
(enclosed or non-enclosed). Sources can use enclosed or non-enclosed flares or other
systems such as a carbon system as long as they meet the operational requirements in
§ 302.1b. Additionally, MCAQD included language drawn from Subpart Cf, Section
60.18, regarding the use of non-enclosed ("open") flares within Operational
Requirements (302.1b(1)) and Monitoring of Operations (302.4b).
Comment #29: The more rigorous test methods and procedures, such as in
302.2(e), (h), (i) and (p), are excessive, again creating more stringent criteria for Non-
NSPS/EG landfills. It is unwarranted to require Non-NSPS/EG landfills perform
additional performance testing at the Control Officers request if one detail is missed
or if the test could not be conducted due to low flow or methane.
Response #29: Rule language regarding test methods and procedures such as in
302.2(e), (h), (i) and (p) were removed. Section 302.2 (Test Methods and Procedures)
was revised to include reference to Rule 270 (Performance Tests) regarding test
methods and procedures.
Comment #30: Section 302.4(c) allows for any closed Non-NSPS/EG landfills that
has no monitored exceedance in three consecutive quarterly monitoring events to
skip to annual monitoring. As this section of the Draft Rule applies to Non-
NSPS/EG landfills only, it should apply to all EG landfills as well NSPS/Landfills in
arid climates are likely to produce less LFG with a lower methane content and have
fewer to no surface emission exceedances.
Response #30: The same exemption from quarterly testing is also included in 40
CFR 60 Subparts Cf and XXX and is therefore available for landfills that are subject
to § 301 as well since all of the provisions of Subpart Cf are incorporated by
reference. Specifically, §60.37f (Monitoring of Operations) states that "Any closed
landfill that has no monitored exceedances of the operational standard in three
consecutive quarterly monitoring periods may skip to annual monitoring. Any
methane reading of 500 parts per million or more above background detected during
the annual monitoring returns the frequency for that landfill to quarterly
monitoring." However, given the fact that older landfills will more easily fall below
the 500 ppm requirement, MCAQD revised the draft language in § 302.4 to allow
sources who have qualified for annual testing to stop surface monitoring levels
completely after 3 years of consistent testing levels below 500 ppm.
Comment #31: It is our understanding that the MCAQD based the 1.5 tpy of
NMOC emissions as it correlates to 0.5 tpy of volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions, in which a facility no longer needs an air permit. We also understand that
MCAQD does not apply this threshold for VOCs to other permitted facilities in the
County, which is inconsistent. The MCAQD’s current VOC Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) threshold is $5,000 per ton of VOC; however, the
MCAQD has not performed a cost analysis of the proposed rule to determine if the
requirements of meeting compliance and operating a GCCS at these low NMOC
emissions levels would cost more than the current RACT threshold.
Response #31: MCAQD uniformly applies the permitting thresholds of all
regulated pollutants through Rule 200. All of the MCAQD's rules and ordinances are
applied to applicable sources (not only to landfills) within Maricopa County through
our air permits, whether they are Title V or Non-Title V sources. As specified in
Rule 241, sources shall implement RACT for each pollutant emitted for which the
increase in potential to emit is less than the BACT thresholds. MCAQD has
determined that the continued use of an installed and operational GCCS is the
current RACT standard. The RACT financial thresholds are implemented when
changes to facilities are made, however, these requirements are already enforced
locally through RACT determination. The draft rule does not require MSW landfills
to install a GCCS, but to maintain its use if they already have one in place.
Furthermore, the rule language regarding GCCS removal criteria was revised so that
the demonstrated NMOC emission rate for removal was increased to 17 Mg per
year.
Comment #32: Under draft Section 101 and 301, [Our Company] requests that
clarification be added to the purpose that defines “existing” MSW landfills. It is
unclear if the term “existing” is referencing active and closed landfills or what we
understand the regulation to be, which is for closed landfills. This also creates
confusion with the federal definition of existing under NSPS/Emission Guidelines
(EG).
Response #32: The term "existing" in the draft Rule 321 is meant to imply any
landfill that currently exists, whether it is active and holds a Title V permit or is
closed and still has an operational GCCS on site. The proposed § 301 is applicable to
landfills that emit more than 34 Mg NMOC if active or more than 50 Mg if closed,
similar to Subpart Cf. The proposed § 302 is applicable to landfills that have NMOC
emissions below the federal thresholds in Subpart Cf and have an installed and
operational GCCS in place at that landfill.
Comment #33: Under draft Section 301, [Our Company] requests that the Control
Officer be empowered to approve alternative test methods to determine the NMOC
emission rate. Proposed Section 301 of Rule 321 is MCAQD’s rule; therefore, it is
unclear why additional language has been added to remove the Control Officer’s
power.
Response #33: The language in § 301 is incorporated from Subpart Cf which
specifies that alternative test methods may only be approved by the EPA (the
Administrator) and not by MCAQD (the Control Officer). However, MCAQD can
approve alternative test methods for sources applicable to § 302.
Comment #34: Under draft Section 302, [Our Company] requests to add clarifying
language that the requirements for existing MSW landfills with NMOC emission
rates below federal thresholds shall apply to a facility with an installed and
operational GCCS.
Response #34: MCAQD revised the introductory language in § 302 to read: "Each
owner or operator of an affected facility with annual NMOC emission rates below
those specified in 40 CFR 60.33f(a)(3) or 40 CFR 60.33f(a)(4) with an installed and
operational landfill gas collection and control system (GCCS) shall comply with the
following requirements".
Comment #35: Under draft Section 302.1(a), the language recognizes that the
GCCS should be designed and operated to handle the expected gas flow rate when
the landfill is still generating landfill gas (LFG) in an upward curve. However, for
closed landfills on the declining side of the LFG generation curve, it will be more
difficult to meet the operational requirements set forth in Section 302.1(a). As such,
[Our Company] requests that clarification language be added to Section 302.1(a)(3)
that the GCCS shall collect gas at a rate sufficient to maintain a negative pressure at
all wellheads in the collection system without causing excessive air infiltration, except
when collected LFG flow rates are less than 500 standard cubic feet per minute
(scfm) and with methane quality under 40 percent (%). Note that maintaining a
negative pressure at all wellheads for landfills with low LFG flows may not be
possible. In addition, the life of the blower has no influence on maintaining
compliance without causing air infiltration and suggest this language be removed.
Response #35: With regards to the declining flow rate, MCAQD reevaluated the
NMOC emission rate of 1.5 tpy (1.4 Mg per year) as the GCCS removal criteria and
revised it to 17 Mg per year.
Comment #36: Under draft Section 302.1(b), [Our Company] requests to clarify the
control device language to note that both enclosed and other control devices would
meet the requirements of the rule, which would match the control devices allowed
further in the rule, including open flares and LFG treatment devices. Please note that
both open flares and LFG treatment systems are needed for most renewable energy
projects that utilize LFG.
Response #36: § 302 of this rule does not prescribe any one control method to be
used, and facilities may use enclosed flares, open flares, and other effective options -
including carbon absorption - in order to control the amount of emissions related to
the MSW landfill. Furthermore, MCAQD revised § 302.1(b) to include provisions
for non-enclosed flares and gas treatment systems.
Comment #37: Under draft Section 302.1(c), [Our Company] requests that language
be added to allow the facility to decommission or abandon wells as needed, which
will be reported in the subsequent reporting period.
Response #37: § 302 of this rule does not prohibit the decommissioning of a well,
when in compliance with all provisions of § 302. Decommissioning may be described
through the reporting process, and records must be kept and made available as
described in § 302.5.
Comment #38: Under draft Section 302.1(2)(e), [Our Company] requests that the
proposed language “approved by the Control Officer” be removed. If the use of a
passive venting system is included in the GCCS Design plan, there is language in the
federal Subpart Cf rule where the Administrator may not require anything more than
a copy of the GCCS Design Plan’s signature page.
Response #38: The MCAQD revised the language in § 302.1c(2)(e) to read: "When
using a passive venting system, as included in the approved GCCS design plan".
Comment #39: Under draft Section 302.1(c)(4), [Our Company] requests that
additional language reference to Section 302.4(c) is provided such that it is clear that
the requirement is based upon different frequencies depending on the status of the
landfill and previous monitoring results.
Response #39: The MCAQD revised the language in § 302.1(c)(4) to read: "So that
the methane concentration is less than 500 parts per million above background at the
surface of the landfill, as per the requirements and frequencies under § 302.4(c)".
Comment #40: Under draft Section 302.1(c)(4)(b), [Our Company] requests that
the proposed language “Thus, the owner or operator must monitor any openings
that are within an area of the landfill where waste has been placed and a gas
collection system is required” be removed. This language has been added and is
more stringent than the Cf rule.
Response #40: This language is from Subpart Cf (§60.34f(d)) so MCAQD will
maintain the language as proposed in the draft rule.
Comment #41: Under draft Section 302.2, [Our Company] requests that the owner
or operator shall conduct an initial performance test of LFG emissions from an
enclosed control device. Regular testing noted in the test methods and procedures
relate to an enclosed device and regular testing would be difficult for a landfill with
declining flows. The control device already monitors temperature to ensure proper
operation.
Response #41: The five year performance testing requirement is a minimum
standard in Maricopa County in order to demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of the control device.
Comment #42: Under draft Section 302.2(b), [Our Company] requests clarification
for the requirement for NMOC emission rate calculations every five (5) years and
what value does the calculation bring for a closed landfill with NMOC emissions
below 34 Mg. In addition, [Our Company] requests clarification if NMOC emission
rates are required every five (5) years, does this necessitate the landfill to perform a
new Tier 2 every five (5) years as well. For a closed landfill with declining emissions,
additional Tier 2 testing and NMOC reporting is not warranted every five years once
emissions are below 34 Mg/yr.
Response #42: MCAQD removed the requirement for the NMOC emission rate
calculation to be performed every 5 years and added the following language in
302.2(b)(3), "The NMOC emission rate for the landfill will be assumed to be greater
than 17 megagrams per year until the owner or operator calculates the NMOC rate
for the landfill to be less than 17 megagrams per year".
Comment #43: Under draft Section 302.2(b)(1), [Our Company] requests that the
flow rate of LFG shall be determined by measuring the total LFG flow rate at the
common header pipe that leads to the control device using a gas flow measuring
device calibrated according to the manufacturer recommendations. The reference to
using a gas flow measuring device calibrated to Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Method 2e is too stringent and unnecessary.
Response #43: MCAQD added the option to allow the use of manufacturer
specifications in lieu of following EPA Method 2e.
Comment #44: Under draft Section 302.2(d), [Our Company] requests that the
term “exhaust” be added to the condition as follows, “Exhaust sampling sites and
velocity traverse points…”.
Response #44: Rule language referenced in comment was removed.
Comment #45: Under draft Section 302.2(e), [Our Company] requests that the
language referencing an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) plan be removed and
the condition read as follows, “Performance tests shall be conducted under
representative operation conditions and all equipment shall be properly operating
during testing”.
Response #45: MCAQD removed § 302.2(e) and revised § 302.2 (Test Methods
and Procedures) to reference Rule 270 (Performance Tests) regarding many
performance test protocols.
Comment #46: Under draft Section 302.2(h) and (i), [Our Company] requests that
the language for chain of custody and packaging and shipping procedures be
removed. Chain of custodies will be properly completed per the laboratory
requirements and the latest packaging and shipping requirements under the
Department of Transportation will be followed, when necessary.
Response #46: MCAQD removed §§ 302.2(h) and 302.2(i) and revised § 302.2
(Test Methods and Procedures) to reference Rule 270 (Performance Tests) regarding
many performance test protocols.
Comment #47: Under draft Section 302.2(n), [Our Company] requests clarification
on what the MCAQD recommends if the test results do not demonstrate compliance
with the requirements of the rule because the landfill does not generate enough gas
to meet the testing and compliance requirements.
Response #47: Section 302.2(n) was removed from the draft rule and § 302.2 (Test
Methods and Procedures) was revised to reference Rule 270 (Performance Tests)
regarding many test protocols.
Comment #48: Under draft Section 302.3(a)(2), [Our Company] requests that for
the purposes of determining sufficient density of gas collectors, the owner or
operator shall maintain a system of vertical wells, horizontal collectors, or other
collections devices consistent with the GCCS Design Plan, which would be
satisfactory to the Control Officer. Therefore, [Our Company] requests the language
requiring the system be maintained that would be satisfactory to the Control Officer
be removed.
Response #48: MCAQD replaced the language “satisfactory to the Control
Officer” with "consistent with the approved GCCS design plan".
Comment #49: Under draft Section 302.3(a)(3), the reference to the provision of
302.3 applying at all times that the GCCS is in operation, except during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM), appears inaccurate. The requirement in
Subpart Cf is for the entire subpart, not just one section. Therefore, [Our Company]
requests to modify the language from Section 302.3 to Section 302. In addition, [Our
Company] requests that language be added to clarify that landfills operating
intermittently may not be subject to the SSM requirements when the GCCS is
scheduled to be non-operational.
Response #49: Section 302.3(a)(3) was revised as follows: "the provisions of this
rule apply at all times that the GCCS is in operation. The gas mover system must be
shut down and all valves in the collection and control system contributing to venting
of the gas to the atmosphere must be closed within one hour of the collection or
control system not operating."
Comment #50: Under draft Section 302.3(b), [Our Company] requests to add a
reference to frequency of monitoring for surface emissions monitoring (SEM) per
Section 302.4(c).
Response #50: MCAQD revised the language in § 302.3(b) to read: "The following
procedures must be used for compliance with the surface methane operational
requirements as provided in § 302.1 and frequencies as provided in § 302.4c:"
Comment #51: Under draft Section 302.3(b)(1), [Our Company] requests to add
language for the allowance of alternative technologies for conducting SEM if
approved by the Administrator/Control Officer.
Response #51: MCAQD revised the language in § 302.3(b)(1) to read: "After
startup of the GCCS, the owner or operator must monitor surface concentrations of
methane along the entire perimeter of the collection area and along a pattern that
traverses the landfill at no more than 30-meter intervals (or a site-specific established
spacing) for each collection area on a quarterly basis using an organic vapor analyzer,
flame ionization detector, or other portable monitor meeting the specifications
provided in paragraph b(6) of this section, or through the use of alternative
technologies if approved by the Control Officer."
Comment #52: Under draft Section 302.3(b)(5), [Our Company] requests an
alternative for reduced frequency of monitoring for cover integrity. [Our Company]
requests that closed landfills be allowed to follow the monitoring frequencies
required under SEM. Cover integrity would be performed on a quarterly basis and if
there are no cover issues identified for three consecutive quarterly monitoring
periods, then the landfill may skip to annual monitoring. If any closed landfill that
has skipped to annual monitoring has had no cover issues identified for three
consecutive years, they may stop monitoring for cover integrity. Please note that
monitoring for cover integrity is not required currently for existing closed landfills
and it does not appear that costs associated with monthly cover integrity monitoring,
and repairs, has been taken into consideration for a site that is unmanned.
Response #52: MCAQD revised the draft language in the rule to reflect this
suggestion. Landfills subject to § 302 will be required to conduct quarterly
inspections until they can demonstrate there are no cover integrity issues for 3
consecutive quarterly inspection periods and then may go to annual inspections. If
after 3 consecutive annual inspections there are still no cover integrity issues, the
facility may stop conducting inspections except for after extreme weather events,
including instances where 1" or more of rain is received in any 24 hour period, as
measured from the nearest Maricopa County Flood Control District rain gauge.
Comment #53: Under draft Section 302.4(a)(2)(b), [Our Company] requests that
language be added that notes that the owner or operator shall secure the bypass line
valve in a closed position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration, if
equipped. This condition should not apply to landfills that do not have a bypass line
valve.
Response #53: MCAQD revised the language in § 302.4(a)(2)(b) to read: "If
equipped, secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-seal or a lock-
and-key type configuration."
Comment #54: Under draft Section 302.5, [Our Company] requests that all
language referencing an O&M Plan and its requirements be removed from Rule 321.
O&M Plans are not required in any NSPS language. Landfills are already required to
maintain compliance through a GCCS Design Plan as well as meeting detailed
requirements under proposed Rule 321. Adding a third set of requirements not only
excessive but can complicate compliance by having multiple different documents
that must be followed. In addition, an O&M Plan is meant for a steady-state
operation that has operations that can be anticipated and maintained. A landfill and
its GCCS is not this type of operation. In fact, the minimum requirements in the
section reference adsorption temperature and effluent concentrations, neither of
which are associated with landfills.
Response #54: MCAQD removed the dedicated section on O&M plans (§ 302.5)
but has incorporated some of these requirements into the recordkeeping
requirements for maintaining a GCCS design plan.
Comment #55: Under draft Section 302.6, [Our Company] requests a reduction in
recordkeeping for landfills no longer subject to Title V (Part 70) from five years to
two years.
Response #55: MCAQD Rule 220 (§ 302.7) requires that all Non-Title V facilities
maintain records for a period of at least 5 years.
Comment #56: Under draft Section 302.6(a), maintaining records for the maximum
expected gas generation flow rate from performance tests or compliance
demonstrations for each control device for closed landfills with declining generation
rates is difficult to predict and would not provide value; therefore, [Our Company]
requests that the recordkeeping requirement be removed.
Response #56: MCAQD removed the requirement.
Comment #57: Under draft Section 302.6(b), [Our Company] requests that
maintaining data upon which the sufficient density of wells, horizontal collectors,
surface collectors, or other gas extraction devices and the gas mover equipment
sizing are based be excluded for closed landfills with declining flow rates. This
requirement is unnecessary for landfills that installed a GCCS prior to closure and
would have sufficient gas collection density since it was designed and built to meet
compliance for LFG flow rates higher than after closure.
Response #57: MCAQD removed the requirement.
Comment #58: Under draft Section 302.6(e), [Our Company] requests that the
reference to 40 CFR 60.13 be removed as this reference is for continuous stack
emissions monitoring equipment.
Response #58: MCAQD removed the reference to 40 CFR 60.13.
Comment #59: Under draft Section 302.6(g), [Our Company] requests that in
addition to maintaining records of the percent reduction of NMOC achieved by the
control device during performance tests, the section also reference the allowance for
meeting compliance by reducing the outlet NMOC concentration to less than 20
ppmv, dry basis as hexane at 3 percent oxygen, which is proven by monitoring
combustion temperature in the federal regulations.
Response #59: § 302.1(b) provides for compliance through the reduction of outlet
NMOC concentration as suggested.
Comment #60: [Our Company] suggests that Section 302.7 be removed from this
regulation since it is much stricter than any federal regulation. The cost to comply
with the regulation far exceeds the VOC RACT cost of $5,000 per ton of VOCs. By
making landfills with low LFG flows comply with all of the NSPS-like requirements,
it will inevitably result in sites being in a continuous state of non-compliance.
Furthermore, it is unfair to have this requirement apply to only currently open and
operated sites, and not for existing closed sites that may still be above the 1.5 tpy
NMOC criteria.
Response #60: § 302.7, now § 302.6, was revised to reflect a 17 Mg per year GCCS
removal threshold, but sources will continue to be required to maintain a permit as
long as they are emitting regulated pollutants above MCAQD's permitting
thresholds.
Comment #61: Comments 61.1 through 61.6 were submitted via email in an
attached strikethrough underline version of Rule 321. See strikethrough underline
Rule 321 provided by the commenter.
Response #61: Below is a response to each proposed revision in the strikethrough
underline Rule 321 provided by the commenter. Proposed revisions in the
commenter strikethrough underline Rule 321 are numbered in the right-hand margin
and a response to each numbered revision is listed below. Each response is linked to
the proposed revision it corresponds to in the commenter strikethrough underline
Rule 321.
61.1 Proposed language is not necessary as § 302 does not preclude intermittent
operations. Additionally, 302.5(g) describes recordkeeping for instances of
intermittent operations.
61.2 MCAQD revised the introduction to § 302.2 Test Methods and Procedures as
follows: “Each owner or operator of a control system described in §
302.1(b)(2) shall conduct a performance test of the control system at least
once every five years in accordance with Rule 270 of these regulations and the
provisions below”.
61.3 MCAQD removed the requirement for the NMOC emission rate calculation
to be performed every 5 years and added the following language in
302.2(b)(3), "The NMOC emission rate for the landfill will be assumed to be
greater than 17 megagrams per year until the owner or operator calculates the
NMOC rate for the landfill to be less than 17 megagrams per year".
61.4 § 302.1b revised to allow for non-enclosed flare compliance through design
and operation parameters of 40 CFR 60.18, as well as § 302.4b to allow
monitoring of non-enclosed flare by installation, calibration, maintenance, and
operation per manufacturer's specifications.
61.5 Provision 302.3(a)(3) was revised as follows, "the provisions of this rule apply
at all times that the GCCS is in operation. The gas mover system must be shut
down and all valves in the collection and control system contributing to
venting of the gas to the atmosphere must be closed within one hour of the
collection or control system not operating."
61.6 Provision 302.5(a)(3) was revised. The outline of O&M procedures for
control device(s) is no longer required to be included in the GCCS design
plan. The owner or operator shall maintain records of all control device
maintenance and additionally make available at all times either the control
device’s manufacturer written instructions for operation and maintenance or a
written maintenance schedule.
Comment #62: Comments 62.1 through 62.14 were submitted via email in an
attached strikethrough underline version of Rule 321. See strikethrough Rule 321
provided by the commenter.
Response #62: Below is a response to each proposed revision in the strikethrough
underline Rule 321 provided by the commenter. Proposed revisions in the
commenter strikethrough underline Rule 321 are numbered in the right-hand margin
and a response to each numbered revision is listed below. Each response is linked to
the proposed revision it corresponds to in the commenter strikethrough underline
Rule 321.
62.1
Proposed revisions have been incorporated into 302.1b with regards to
control system requirements:
b. All collected gas shall be routed to a control system that complies with
the requirements in either paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this section.
(1) A non-enclosed flare designed and operated in accordance with the
parameters established in 40 CFR 60.18; or
(2) A control system designed and operated to reduce NMOC by 98
weight percent, or, when an enclosed combustion device is used for
control, to either reduce NMOC by 98 weight percent or reduce the
outlet NMOC concentration to less than 20 parts per million (ppm)
by volume, dry basis as hexane at 3% oxygen. The reduction
efficiency or ppm by volume must be established by an initial
performance test to be completed no later than 180 days after the
initial startup of the approved control system using the test methods
specified in § 302.2(a). The performance test is not required for
boilers and process heaters with design heat input capacities equal to
or greater than 44 megawatts that burn landfill gas for compliance
with § 302.
(a) If a boiler or process heater is used as the control device, the
landfill gas stream must be introduced into the flame zone.
(b) The control device must be operated within the parameter ranges
established during the initial or most recent performance test.
The operating parameters to be monitored are specified in §
302.1(c);
(3) Route all the collected gas to a treatment system that processes the
collected gas for subsequent sale or beneficial use such as fuel for
combustion, production of vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas
for pipeline injection, or use as a raw material in a chemical
manufacturing process. Venting of treated landfill gas to the ambient
air is not allowed. If the treated landfill gas cannot be routed for
subsequent sale or beneficial use, then the treated landfill gas must be
controlled according to either paragraph (1) or (2) of this section.
(4) All emissions from any atmospheric vent from the gas treatment
system are subject to the requirements of paragraph (1) or (2) of this
section. For purposes of § 302, atmospheric vents located on the
condensate storage tank are not part of the treatment system and are
exempt from the requirements of paragraph (1) or (2) of this section.
62.2 Performance test parameter ranges addressed elsewhere in rule, MCAQD will
keep the language as proposed in the draft rule.
62.3 These definitions do not exist within Subpart Cf so, to avoid confusion,
MCAQD determined it best to not add them to the rule.
62.4 Rule language revised as suggested.
62.5 MCAQD removed the requirement for the NMOC emission rate calculation
to be performed every 5 years and added the following language in
302.2(b)(3), "The NMOC emission rate for the landfill will be assumed to be
greater than 17 megagrams per year until the owner or operator calculates the
NMOC rate for the landfill to be less than 17 megagrams per year".
62.6 MCAQD removed the requirement for the NMOC emission rate calculation
to be performed every 5 years and added the following language in
302.2(b)(3), "The NMOC emission rate for the landfill will be assumed to be
greater than 17 megagrams per year until the owner or operator calculates the
NMOC rate for the landfill to be less than 17 megagrams per year".
62.7 MCAQD revised § 302.3a(3) as follows: "The provisions of this rule apply at
all times that the GCCS is in operation. The gas mover system must be shut
down and all valves in the collection and control system contributing to
venting of the gas to the atmosphere must be closed within one hour of the
collection or control system not operating."
62.8 Provision 302.5(a)(3) was revised. The outline of O&M procedures for
control device(s) is no longer required to be included in the GCCS design
plan. The owner or operator shall maintain records of all control device
maintenance and additionally make available at all times either the control
device’s manufacturer written instructions for operation and maintenance or a
written maintenance schedule.
62.9 Rule provision referred to in comment was removed.
62.10 Per § 302.3b(4), any exceedance requires a re-monitor within 10 calendar days.
Upon compliant methane concentration measured at the 10-day re-
monitoring, an additional 1 month re-monitoring must also be taken to
demonstrate compliance. Higher than quarterly frequency checks are only
required upon location of a methane concentration exceedance.
62.11 Rule provision referred to in comment was removed.
62.12 Proposed language determined unnecessary as recordkeeping requirement is
in reference to § 302.1c(2)(c), and the suggested term is not mentioned within
the rule.
62.13 Rule language evaluated and revised to 40 CFR 60.36f(b).
62.14 Rule language referred to in comment was removed.
Comment #63: Comments 63.1 through 63.12 were submitted via email in an
attached strikethrough underline version of Rule 321. See strikethrough underline
Rule 321 provided by the commenter.
Response #63: Below is a response to each proposed revision in the strikethrough
underline Rule 321 provided by the commenter. Proposed revisions in the
commenter strikethrough underline Rule 321 are numbered in the right-hand margin
and a response to each numbered revision is listed below. Each response is linked to
the proposed revision it corresponds to in the commenter strikethrough underline
Rule 321.
63.1 MCAQD appreciates your support for the rule revision.
63.2 MCAQD appreciates your support for the rule revision.
63.3 Rule language was revised to include the suggested language. Section
302.1c(4)(b) states: "Conduct surface testing around the perimeter of the
collection area and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at no more than
30-meter intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated
concentrations of landfill gas, such as distressed vegetation and cracks or
seeps in the cover and all cover penetrations which extend into the waste
mass."
63.4 The requirement to calculate the NMOC emission rate every five (5) years in
conjunction with permit renewal was removed. The NMOC emission rate is
now assumed to be greater than 17 Mg per year until the owner or operator
determines it to be less than 17 Mg per year as described in § 302.6(c) of the
rule.
63.5 The flow rate of landfill gas, QLFG, should be determined when the NMOC
emission rate for the landfill is calculated.
63.6 Rule language revised as follows: "Actual flow data may be used instead of, or
in conjunction with, the equations in 40 CFR 60.36f(a)(1) to project the
expected gas generation flow rate."
63.7 Rule language revised as follows: "In the case of extreme weather events, such
as receiving 1 inch or more of rain over any 24 hour period as measured from
the nearest Flood Control District of Maricopa County rain gauge, all
necessary cover repairs must be made as soon as practical." Additionally
county rainfall data was reviewed to verify rainfall extreme weather value
appropriateness.
63.8 Rule language revised as follows: "Records shall be retained for 5 years, except
for the GCCS design plan which shall be kept and made available upon
request while the GCCS is in use."
63.9 302.5a(1) and (2) provide for the inclusion in the GCCS Design Plan of any
alternatives to the provisions of § 302 of this rule proposed by the owner or
operator, as well as any alterative provisions to 40 CFR 60.40f. If these
alternatives are present, they must be included in the GCCS Design Plan for a
complete inspection of the GCCS, but if no alternatives have been proposed
then there would be no requirement to modify the Design Plan.
63.10 § 302.5a(2) provides for the demonstration of alternative provision to 40 CFR
60.40f.
63.11 Rule language revised per suggestion to allow for maintenance per the
manufacturer's specifications.
63.12 Rule language referred to in comment was removed.
EXACT WORDING OF THE RULE
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 321
EXISTING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) LANDFILLS
INDEX
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101
PURPOSE
102
APPLICABILITY
103
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS
201
ADMINISTRATOR
202
201
AFFECTED FACILITY
203
202
COMMENCED
204
CONSTRUCTION
205
MODIFICATION
206
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL (MSW LANDFILL)
207
NMOC
208
OWNER OR OPERATOR
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW
LANDFILLS WITH NMOC EMISSION RATES AT OR ABOVE FEDERAL
THRESHOLDS
302
DELAYED APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW
LANDFILLS WITH NMOC EMISSION RATES BELOW FEDERAL
THRESHOLDS
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE)
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT APPLICABLE)
Return to list of attachments
Adopted 05/14/1997; Revised 03/01/2000; Revised 03/07/2001; Revised 11/19/2003; Revised
03/15/2006; Revised 12/17/2008; Revised 09/16/2009; Revised 07/07/2010; Revised 08/17/2011;
Revised 07/25/2012; Revised 03/26/2014; Revised 11/05/2014; Revised 11/18/2015; Revised
11/02/2016; Revised MM/DD/YYYY
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 321
EXISTING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) LANDFILLS
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101
PURPOSE: To limit the emissions of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) from
existing MSW landfills.
102
APPLICABILITY: The provisions of this rule shall apply to each municipal solid waste
landfill for which construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced prior to May 30,
1991, and which has accepted waste at any time since November 8, 1987 or has additional
design capacity available for future waste deposition. The provisions of this rule shall apply
to existing MSW landfills that:
102.1 Commenced construction, reconstruction or modification on or before July 17,
2014; and
102.2 Have accepted waste at any time since November 8, 1987 or have additional design
capacity available for future waste deposition.
103
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION: Copies of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW –
Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, are available as listed:
a. Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
b. Maricopa County Rules are available electronically at http://www.maricopa.gov/aq.
c. EPA documents are available electronically at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR.
d. ASTM standards are available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O.
Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, or from its website at www.astm.org.
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS: See Maricopa County Air Control Regulations, Rule 100
(General Provisions and Definitions) and 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf for definitions of terms that are
used but not specifically defined in this rule. For the purpose of this rule, the following definitions
shall apply, in addition to those definitions found in Rule 100 and 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf. In the
event of any inconsistency between any of the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations,
the definitions in this rule take precedence.
201
ADMINISTRATOR: The Control Officer, except that the Control Officer shall not be
empowered to approve alternative or equivalent test methods.
202
201
AFFECTED FACILITY: Any MSW landfill to which this rule is applicable.
203
202
COMMENCED: State or condition where an owner or operator has undertaken a
continuous program of construction; or where an owner or operator has entered into a
contractual obligation to undertake and complete such a program.
204
CONSTRUCTION: The fabrication, erection, or installation of an affected facility.
205
MODIFICATION: Any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, an
affected facility which would result in a change in actual emissions.
206
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL (MSW LANDFILL): An entire, publicly or
privately owned, disposal facility in a contiguous geographical space where household waste
is placed in or on land. Portions of a MSW landfill may be separated by access roads.
207
NMOC: Non-methane organic compound.
208
OWNER OR OPERATOR: Any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises
an affected facility.
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW
LANDFILLS WITH NMOC EMISSION RATES AT OR ABOVE FEDERAL
THRESHOLDS: The federal standards of performance for municipal solid waste landfills
set forth in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW is adopted as codified on July 1, 2016, and all
accompanying appendices, excluding 40 CFR 60.750, are adopted and incorporated by
reference with the amendments and revisions set forth in this section. This adoption by
reference includes no future editions or revisions. Each owner or operator of an affected
facility which reaches or exceeds the annual NMOC emission rates specified in 40 CFR
60.33f(a)(3) or 40 CFR 60.33f(a)(4) shall comply with all the requirements of 40 CFR 60,
Subpart Cf as adopted and, where applicable, revised herein. All references to the
Administrator in 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf shall be understood as the Control Officer, except
that the Control Officer shall not be empowered to approve alternative test methods to
determine the NMOC emission rate.
301.1 Collection and Control System Design Plan: 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(i) is amended to
read: “Submit a collection and control design plan prepared by a professional
engineer to the Administrator for approval not later than 12 months after submittal
of the initial NMOC emission rate report.”
301.2 Design Capacity Report: 40 CFR 60.757(a) is amended to read “Each owner or
operator of an affected facility shall submit an initial design capacity report to the
Administrator within 90 days from May 14, 1997.” 40 CFR 60.757(a)(1) is deleted.
301.3 NMOC Emission Rate Report: 40 CFR 60.757(b) is amended to read “Each owner
or operator of an affected facility shall submit an NMOC emission rate report to the
Administrator initially and annually thereafter, except as provided for in paragraphs
(b)(1)(ii) or (b)(3) of this section. The Administrator may request such additional
information as may be necessary to verify the reported NMOC emission rate.” 40
CFR 60.757(b)(1)(i) is amended to read: “The initial NMOC emission rate report
shall be submitted within 90 days from May 14, 1997 and may be combined with the
initial design capacity report required in paragraph (a) of this section. Subsequent
NMOC emission rate reports shall be submitted annually thereafter, except as
provided for in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(3) of this section.”
302
DELAYED APPLICABILITY: For an affected facility that first becomes subject to the
collection and control system requirement of 40 CFR 60.752 after May 14, 1997, the design
plan shall be due not later than 12 months after submittal or scheduled submittal of an
NMOC emission rate report of 50 megagrams (55.12 tons) per year or more.
302
REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW LANDFILLS WITH NMOC
EMISSION RATES BELOW FEDERAL THRESHOLDS: Each owner or operator of
an affected facility with annual NMOC emission rates below those specified in 40 CFR
60.33f(a)(3) or 40 CFR 60.33f(a)(4) with an installed and operational landfill gas collection
and control system (GCCS) shall comply with the following requirements:
302.1 Operational Requirements: Each owner or operator shall operate and maintain an
existing GCCS that meets the following requirements:
a. The GCCS shall:
(1) Be designed and operated to handle the expected gas flow rate;
(2) Contain extraction wells which shall be maintained in any number and
spacing necessary to maintain emission and migration control and to collect
gas from each area, cell, or group of cells in the landfill which are still
generating gas as determined by measures of performance set forth in this
rule;
(3) Collect gas at a rate sufficient to maintain a negative pressure at all wellheads
in the collection system without causing air infiltration, including any
wellheads connected to the system as a result of expansion or excess surface
emissions, for the life of the blower; and
(4) Be designed and operated to minimize off-site migration of subsurface gas
and potential offsite impacts.
b. All collected gas shall be routed to a control system that complies with the
requirements in either paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this section.
(1) A non-enclosed flare designed and operated in accordance with the
parameters established in 40 CFR 60.18; or
(2) A control system designed and operated to reduce NMOC by 98 weight
percent, or, when an enclosed combustion device is used for control, to
either reduce NMOC by 98 weight percent or reduce the outlet NMOC
concentration to less than 20 parts per million (ppm) by volume, dry basis as
hexane at 3% oxygen. The reduction efficiency or ppm by volume must be
established by an initial performance test to be completed no later than 180
days after the initial startup of the approved control system using the test
methods specified in § 302.2(a). The performance test is not required for
boilers and process heaters with design heat input capacities equal to or
greater than 44 megawatts that burn landfill gas for compliance with § 302.
(a) If a boiler or process heater is used as the control device, the landfill gas
stream must be introduced into the flame zone.
(b) The control device must be operated within the parameter ranges
established during the initial or most recent performance test. The
operating parameters to be monitored are specified in § 302.1(c);
(3) Route all the collected gas to a treatment system that processes the collected
gas for subsequent sale or beneficial use such as fuel for combustion,
production of vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas for pipeline injection,
or use as a raw material in a chemical manufacturing process. Venting of
treated landfill gas to the ambient air is not allowed. If the treated landfill gas
cannot be routed for subsequent sale or beneficial use, then the treated
landfill gas must be controlled according to either paragraph (1) or (2) of this
section.
(4) All emissions from any atmospheric vent from the gas treatment system are
subject to the requirements of paragraph (1) or (2) of this section. For
purposes of § 302, atmospheric vents located on the condensate storage tank
are not part of the treatment system and are exempt from the requirements
of paragraph (1) or (2) of this section.
c. The GCCS shall be operated:
(1) Within the parameter ranges established during the most recent performance
test.
(2) With negative pressure at each wellhead except under the following
conditions:
(a) A fire or increased well temperature. The owner or operator shall record
instances when positive pressure occurs in efforts to avoid a fire.
(b) Use of a geomembrane or synthetic cover. The owner or operator shall
develop acceptable pressure limits in the GCCS design plan.
(c) A decommissioned well. The owner or operator shall record any
decommissioning of wells.
(d) When the GCCS is not operating. The owner or operator shall record
instances when the GCCS is not operating or being used intermittently.
(e) When using a passive venting system, as included in the approved GCCS
design plan.
(3) At all times when the collected gas is routed to the control device.
(4) So that the methane concentration is less than 500 ppm above background at
the surface of the landfill, as per the requirements and frequencies under §
302.4(c). To determine if this level is exceeded, the owner or operator must:
(a) Conduct surface testing using an organic vapor analyzer, flame ionization
detector, or other portable monitor meeting the compliance
specifications in § 302.3(b).
(b) Conduct surface testing around the perimeter of the collection area and
along a pattern that traverses the landfill at no more than 30-meter
intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated concentrations
of landfill gas, such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the
cover and all cover penetrations which extend into the waste mass. Thus,
the owner or operator must monitor any openings that are within an area
of the landfill where waste has been placed and a gas collection system is
required. The owner or operator may establish an alternative traversing
pattern that ensures equivalent coverage.
(c) Develop a surface monitoring plan to be included in the design plan that
includes a topographical map with the monitoring route and the rationale
for any site-specific deviations from the 30-meter intervals. Areas with
steep slopes or other dangerous areas may be excluded from the surface
testing.
d. The owner or operator shall submit a revision to the most current GCCS design
plan whenever a change is made to the GCCS.
302.2 Test Methods and Procedures: Each owner or operator of a control system
described in § 302.1(b)(2) shall conduct a performance test of the control system at
least once every five years in accordance with Rule 270 of these regulations and the
provisions below:
a. Performance testing shall be conducted using the following test methods:
(1) EPA Method 25, 25C, or 18 shall be used to determine compliance with the
98 weight percent efficiency or the 20 ppm by volume outlet concentration
level requirement.
(a) In cases where the outlet concentration is less than 50 ppm NMOC as
carbon (8 ppm NMOC as hexane), EPA Method 25A should be used in
place of EPA Method 25.
(b) If using EPA Method 18, the minimum list of compounds to be tested
shall be those published in the most recent Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors (AP-42).
(2) The following equation shall be used to calculate control efficiency:
Control Efficiency = (NMOCin − NMOCout)/(NMOCin)
where,
NMOCin = mass of NMOC entering control device
NMOCout = mass of NMOC exiting control device
(3) EPA Method 3 or 3A shall be used to determine the oxygen content for
correcting the NMOC concentration as hexane to 3% oxygen. EPA Method
19 shall be used to determine the exhaust stream flowrate.
(4) EPA Method 7E shall be used to determine emissions of NOx and EPA
Method 10 shall be used to determine emissions of CO.
(5) If using an enclosed flare, the owner or operator shall record the combustion
chamber temperature and landfill gas flow rate during the performance test.
b. The NMOC emission rate for the landfill shall be calculated using the following
equation:
MNMOC = (1.89 × 10−3) × QLFG × CNMOC
where,
MNMOC = mass emission rate of NMOC, megagrams per year
QLFG = flow rate of landfill gas, cubic meters per minute
CNMOC = NMOC concentration, ppm by volume as hexane
(1) The flow rate of landfill gas, QLFG, shall be determined by measuring the total
landfill gas flow rate at the common header pipe that leads to the control
device using a gas flow measuring device calibrated according to the
provisions of section 10 of EPA Method 2E or according to manufacturer
recommendations.
(2) The average NMOC concentration, CNMOC, shall be determined by collecting
and analyzing landfill gas sampled from the common header pipe before the
gas moving or condensate removal equipment using the procedures in EPA
Methods 25C or 18. If using EPA Method 18, the minimum list of
compounds to be tested shall be those published most recently in AP-42.
The sample location on the common header pipe shall be before any
condensate removal or other gas refining units. The owner or operator shall
divide the NMOC concentration from EPA Method 25C by six to convert
from CNMOC as carbon to CNMOC as hexane.
(3) The NMOC emission rate for the landfill will be assumed to be greater than
17 megagrams per year until the owner or operator calculates the NMOC
rate for the landfill to be less than 17 megagrams per year as described in §
302.6(c).
302.3 Compliance: Each owner or operator shall utilize the following methods to
determine compliance with the operational requirements of § 302.1.
a. The following procedures must be used for compliance with the GCCS
operational requirements as provided in § 302.1:
(1) Actual flow data may be used instead of, or in conjunction with, the
equations in 40 CFR 60.36f(a)(1) to project the expected gas generation flow
rate.
(2) For the purposes of determining sufficient density of gas collectors, the
owner or operator shall maintain a system of vertical wells, horizontal
collectors, or other collection devices consistent with the approved GCCS
design plan, capable of controlling and extracting gas from all portions of the
landfill sufficient to meet all operational and performance standards.
(3) The provisions of this rule apply at all times that the GCCS is in operation.
The gas mover system must be shut down and all valves in the collection and
control system contributing to venting of the gas to the atmosphere must be
closed within one hour of the collection or control system not operating.
b. The following procedures must be used for compliance with the surface methane
operational requirements as provided in § 302.1 and frequencies as provided in §
302.4(c):
(1) After startup of the GCCS, the owner or operator must monitor surface
concentrations of methane along the entire perimeter of the collection area
and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at no more than 30-meter
intervals (or a site-specific established spacing) for each collection area on a
quarterly basis using an organic vapor analyzer, flame ionization detector, or
other portable monitor meeting the specifications provided in paragraph b(6)
of this section, or through the use of alternative technologies if approved by
the Control Officer.
(2) The background concentration must be determined by moving the probe
inlet upwind and downwind outside the boundary of the landfill at a distance
of at least 30 meters from the perimeter wells.
(3) Surface emission monitoring must be performed in accordance with EPA
Method 21, except that the probe inlet must be placed within 5 to 10
centimeters of the ground. Monitoring must be performed during typical
meteorological conditions.
(4) Any reading of 500 ppm or more above background at any location must be
recorded as a monitored exceedance and the below actions must be taken. As
long as the specified actions are taken, the exceedance is not a violation of
the operational requirements of § 302.1:
(a) The location of each monitored exceedance must be marked and the
location and concentration recorded. Location shall be recorded as
latitude and longitude coordinates using an instrument with an accuracy
of at least four meters. The coordinates must be in decimal degrees with
at least five decimal places.
(b) Cover maintenance or adjustments to the vacuum of the adjacent wells to
increase the gas collection in the vicinity of each exceedance must be
made and the location must be re-monitored within 10 calendar days of
detecting the exceedance.
(c) If the re-monitoring of the location shows a second exceedance,
additional corrective action must be taken and the location must be
monitored again within 10 days of the second exceedance. If the re-
monitoring shows a third exceedance for the same location, the action
specified in paragraph (b)(4)(e) of this section must be taken, and no
further monitoring of that location is required until the action specified
in paragraph (b)(4)(e) of this section has been taken.
(d) Any location that initially showed an exceedance but has a methane
concentration less than 500 ppm methane above background at the 10-
day re-monitoring specified in paragraph (b)(4)(b) or (c) of this section
must be re-monitored one month from the initial exceedance. If the one-
month re-monitoring shows a concentration less than 500 ppm above
background, no further monitoring of that location is required until the
next quarterly monitoring period. If the one-month re-monitoring shows
an exceedance, the actions specified in paragraph (b)(4)(c) or (e) of this
section must be taken.
(e) For any location where monitored methane concentration equals or
exceeds 500 ppm above background 3 times within a quarterly period, a
new well or other collection device must be installed within 120 calendar
days of the initial exceedance. An alternative remedy to the exceedance,
such as upgrading the blower, header pipes or control device, and a
corresponding timeline for installation may be submitted to the Control
Officer for approval.
(5) The owner or operator must implement a program to monitor for cover
integrity and implement cover repairs as necessary on a quarterly basis. If
there are no cover issues identified for three consecutive quarterly
monitoring periods, then the owner or operator may skip to annual
monitoring. Any closed landfill that has skipped to annual monitoring and
has had no cover issues identified for three consecutive years may stop
monitoring for cover integrity, except after extreme weather events. In the
case of extreme weather events, such as receiving 1 inch or more of rain over
any 24 hour period as measured from the nearest Flood Control District of
Maricopa County rain gauge, all necessary cover repairs must be made as
soon as practical.
(6) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the provisions in this section
must comply with the following instrumentation specifications and
procedures for surface emission monitoring devices:
(a) The portable analyzer must meet the instrument specifications provided
in section 6 of EPA Method 21, except that “methane” replaces all
references to “VOC”.
(b) The calibration gas must be methane, diluted to a nominal concentration
of 500 ppm in air.
(c) To meet the performance evaluation requirements in section 8.1 of EPA
Method 21, the instrument evaluation procedures of section 8.1 of EPA
Method 21 must be used.
(d) The calibration procedures provided in sections 8 and 10 of EPA
Method 21 must be followed immediately before commencing a surface
monitoring survey.
302.4 Monitoring of Operations: Each owner or operator shall monitor landfill
operations by complying with the following requirements, as applicable:
a. If using an enclosed combustor, it shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and
operated according to the manufacturer's specifications, including the following
equipment:
(1) A temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder and
having a minimum accuracy of +/- 1% of the temperature being measured
expressed in degrees Celsius or +/- 0.5 degrees Celsius, whichever is greater.
A temperature monitoring device is not required for boilers or process
heaters with design heat input capacity equal to or greater than 44 megawatts.
(2) A device that records flow to, or bypass of, the control device. The owner or
operator shall either:
(a) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring device that shall
record the flow to the control device at least every 15 minutes; or
(b) If equipped, secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-
seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the seal
or closure mechanism shall be performed at least once every month to
ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position and that the gas
flow is not diverted through the bypass line.
b. If using a non-enclosed flare, it shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and
operated according to the manufacturer's specifications, including the following
equipment:
(1) A heat sensing device, such as an ultraviolet beam sensor or thermocouple, at
the pilot light or the flame itself to indicate the continuous presence of a
flame.
(2) A device that records flow to the flare and bypass of the flare (if applicable).
The owner or operator must:
(a) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring device that
records the flow to the control device at least every 15 minutes; and
(b) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-seal or a
lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the seal or closure
mechanism must be performed at least once every month to ensure that
the valve is maintained in the closed position and that the gas flow is not
diverted through the bypass line.
c. Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with the 500 ppm
surface methane operational standard in § 302.1 must monitor surface
concentrations of methane according to the compliance procedures and
instrument specifications provided in § 302.3. In addition:
(1) Any closed landfill that has no monitored exceedances of the operational
standard in three consecutive quarterly monitoring periods may skip to
annual monitoring.
(2) Any methane reading of 500 ppm or more above background detected
during the annual monitoring returns the frequency for that landfill to
quarterly monitoring.
(3) Any closed landfill that has skipped to annual monitoring and has had no
monitored exceedances of the operational standard in three consecutive years
may stop monitoring surface methane emissions.
302.5 Recordkeeping: Each owner or operator shall maintain the following records and
make them available upon request. Records shall be retained for five years, except
for the GCCS design plan which shall be kept and made available upon request while
the GCCS is in use.
a. A GCCS design plan that meets the design requirements in 40 CFR 60.33f(b)
and 40 CFR 60.33f(c).
(1) The GCCS design plan must include any alternatives to the operational
standards, test methods, procedures, compliance measures, monitoring,
recordkeeping, or reporting provisions of § 302 proposed by the owner or
operator.
(2) The GCCS design plan must either conform to specifications for active
collection systems in 40 CFR 60.40f or include a demonstration to the
Control Officer’s satisfaction of the sufficiency of the alternative provisions
to 40 CFR 60.40f.
(3) An owner or operator of a GCCS control device shall maintain records of all
GCCS control device’s maintenance (including the date when maintenance
was performed and the maintenance procedures that were performed). In
addition, one of the following documents shall be available at all times at the
facility where the GCCS control device is located:
(a) The manufacturer’s written instructions for operation and maintenance
of the GCCS control device; or
(b) A written maintenance schedule.
b. Records of subsequent tests or monitoring shall be maintained for a minimum of
five years.
c. Records of the control device vendor specifications shall be maintained until
removal of that control device.
d. A record of the enclosed flare temperature recorded every 15 minutes or less by
a continuous temperature recorder.
e. Records of any cover integrity monitoring and repair, as described in §
302.3(b)(5).
f. Records of any instance of wellhead positive pressure or insufficient pressure.
g. Description and duration of all periods when the GCCS was not operating and
length of time the GCCS was not operating, including periods of intermittent use
of the GCCS.
h. The calculation methodology used to estimate current emissions.
i. A schedule for the replacement of the carbon canisters and any filter replacement
for the leachate/condensate collection system, if applicable.
j. Records of the location of each exceedance of the 500 ppm methane
concentration as provided in § 302.3 and the concentration recorded at each
location for which an exceedance was recorded in the previous month. Location
shall be recorded as latitude and longitude coordinates using an instrument with
an accuracy of at least four meters. The coordinates must be in decimal degrees
with at least five decimal places.
k. Records of any wells that have been decommissioned.
l. Records of any supplemental fuel used in the operation of the GCCS.
m. An up-to-date plot map showing each existing and planned collector in the
system and providing a unique identification location label for each collector.
n. Records of the installation date and location of all newly installed collectors as
specified under 40 CFR 60.36f(b).
302.6 Discontinuation of the GCCS: An owner or operator subject to this rule may
submit a request to the Control Officer to cap, remove or decommission their GCCS
if all of the following requirements are met:
a. The landfill is a closed landfill, as defined in 40 CFR 60.41f;
b. A closure report is submitted to the Control Officer as provided in 40 CFR
60.38f(f); and
c. Following the procedures specified in 40 CFR 60.35f(b), the owner or operator
demonstrates that the calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill is less than
17 megagrams per year on 3 successive test dates. The test dates must be no less
than 90 days apart, and no more than 180 days apart and must be submitted to
the Control Officer within 60 days after the date of calculating the NMOC
emission rate.
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE): For the
purpose of this rule, sources subject to § 301 shall comply with the administrative requirements in 40
CFR 60.38f and 40 CFR 60.39f. Sources subject to § 302 shall comply with the administrative
requirements in § 302 of this rule.
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT APPLICABLE): For the purpose of
this rule, sources subject to § 301 shall comply with the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements
in 40 CFR 60.37f and 40 CFR 60.39f. Sources subject to § 302 shall comply with the monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements in § 302 of this rule.
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 321
EXISTING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) LANDFILLS
INDEX
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101
PURPOSE
102
APPLICABILITY
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS
201
AFFECTED FACILITY
202
COMMENCED
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301
REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW LANDFILLS WITH NMOC
EMISSION RATES AT OR ABOVE FEDERAL THRESHOLDS
302
REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW LANDFILLS WITH NMOC
EMISSION RATES BELOW FEDERAL THRESHOLDS
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS
Clean version of Draft Rule 321
Return to list of attachments
Adopted 05/14/1997; Revised 03/01/2000; Revised 03/07/2001; Revised 11/19/2003; Revised
03/15/2006; Revised 12/17/2008; Revised 09/16/2009; Revised 07/07/2010; Revised 08/17/2011;
Revised 07/25/2012; Revised 03/26/2014; Revised 11/05/2014; Revised 11/18/2015; Revised
11/02/2016; Revised MM/DD/YYYY
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 321
EXISTING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) LANDFILLS
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101
PURPOSE: To limit the emissions of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) from
existing MSW landfills.
102
APPLICABILITY: The provisions of this rule shall apply to existing MSW landfills that:
102.1 Commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification on or before July 17,
2014; and
102.2 Have accepted waste at any time since November 8, 1987 or have additional design
capacity available for future waste deposition.
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS: See Maricopa County Air Control Regulations, Rule 100
(General Provisions and Definitions) and 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf for definitions of terms that are
used but not specifically defined in this rule. For the purpose of this rule, the following definitions
shall apply, in addition to those definitions found in Rule 100 and 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf. In the
event of any inconsistency between any of the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations,
the definitions in this rule take precedence.
201
AFFECTED FACILITY: Any MSW landfill to which this rule is applicable.
202
COMMENCED: State or condition where an owner or operator has undertaken a
continuous program of construction; or where an owner or operator has entered into a
contractual obligation to undertake and complete such a program.
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301
REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW LANDFILLS WITH NMOC
EMISSION RATES AT OR ABOVE FEDERAL THRESHOLDS: Each owner or
operator of an affected facility which reaches or exceeds the annual NMOC emission rates
specified in 40 CFR 60.33f(a)(3) or 40 CFR 60.33f(a)(4) shall comply with all requirements of
40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf. All references to the Administrator in 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf shall
be understood as the Control Officer, except that the Control Officer shall not be
empowered to approve alternative test methods to determine the NMOC emission rate.
302
REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW LANDFILLS WITH NMOC
EMISSION RATES BELOW FEDERAL THRESHOLDS: Each owner or operator of
an affected facility with annual NMOC emission rates below those specified in 40 CFR
60.33f(a)(3) or 40 CFR 60.33f(a)(4) with an installed and operational landfill gas collection
and control system (GCCS) shall comply with the following requirements:
302.1 Operational Requirements: Each owner or operator shall operate and maintain an
existing GCCS that meets the following requirements:
a. The GCCS shall:
(1) Be designed and operated to handle the expected gas flow rate;
(2) Contain extraction wells which shall be maintained in any number and
spacing necessary to maintain emission and migration control and to collect
gas from each area, cell, or group of cells in the landfill which are still
generating gas as determined by measures of performance set forth in this
rule;
(3) Collect gas at a rate sufficient to maintain a negative pressure at all wellheads
in the collection system without causing air infiltration, including any
wellheads connected to the system as a result of expansion or excess surface
emissions, for the life of the blower; and
(4) Be designed and operated to minimize off-site migration of subsurface gas
and potential offsite impacts.
b. All collected gas shall be routed to a control system that complies with the
requirements in either paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this section.
(1) A non-enclosed flare designed and operated in accordance with the
parameters established in 40 CFR 60.18; or
(2) A control system designed and operated to reduce NMOC by 98 weight
percent, or, when an enclosed combustion device is used for control, to
either reduce NMOC by 98 weight percent or reduce the outlet NMOC
concentration to less than 20 parts per million (ppm) by volume, dry basis as
hexane at 3% oxygen. The reduction efficiency or ppm by volume must be
established by an initial performance test to be completed no later than 180
days after the initial startup of the approved control system using the test
methods specified in § 302.2(a). The performance test is not required for
boilers and process heaters with design heat input capacities equal to or
greater than 44 megawatts that burn landfill gas for compliance with § 302.
(a) If a boiler or process heater is used as the control device, the landfill gas
stream must be introduced into the flame zone.
(b) The control device must be operated within the parameter ranges
established during the initial or most recent performance test. The
operating parameters to be monitored are specified in § 302.1(c);
(3) Route all the collected gas to a treatment system that processes the collected
gas for subsequent sale or beneficial use such as fuel for combustion,
production of vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas for pipeline injection,
or use as a raw material in a chemical manufacturing process. Venting of
treated landfill gas to the ambient air is not allowed. If the treated landfill gas
cannot be routed for subsequent sale or beneficial use, then the treated
landfill gas must be controlled according to either paragraph (1) or (2) of this
section.
(4) All emissions from any atmospheric vent from the gas treatment system are
subject to the requirements of paragraph (1) or (2) of this section. For
purposes of § 302, atmospheric vents located on the condensate storage tank
are not part of the treatment system and are exempt from the requirements
of paragraph (1) or (2) of this section.
c. The GCCS shall be operated:
(1) Within the parameter ranges established during the most recent performance
test.
(2) With negative pressure at each wellhead except under the following
conditions:
(a) A fire or increased well temperature. The owner or operator shall record
instances when positive pressure occurs in efforts to avoid a fire.
(b) Use of a geomembrane or synthetic cover. The owner or operator shall
develop acceptable pressure limits in the GCCS design plan.
(c) A decommissioned well. The owner or operator shall record any
decommissioning of wells.
(d) When the GCCS is not operating. The owner or operator shall record
instances when the GCCS is not operating or being used intermittently.
(e) When using a passive venting system, as included in the approved GCCS
design plan.
(3) At all times when the collected gas is routed to the control device.
(4) So that the methane concentration is less than 500 ppm above background at
the surface of the landfill, as per the requirements and frequencies under §
302.4(c). To determine if this level is exceeded, the owner or operator must:
(a) Conduct surface testing using an organic vapor analyzer, flame ionization
detector, or other portable monitor meeting the compliance
specifications in § 302.3(b).
(b) Conduct surface testing around the perimeter of the collection area and
along a pattern that traverses the landfill at no more than 30-meter
intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated concentrations
of landfill gas, such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the
cover and all cover penetrations which extend into the waste mass. Thus,
the owner or operator must monitor any openings that are within an area
of the landfill where waste has been placed and a gas collection system is
required. The owner or operator may establish an alternative traversing
pattern that ensures equivalent coverage.
(c) Develop a surface monitoring plan to be included in the design plan that
includes a topographical map with the monitoring route and the rationale
for any site-specific deviations from the 30-meter intervals. Areas with
steep slopes or other dangerous areas may be excluded from the surface
testing.
d. The owner or operator shall submit a revision to the most current GCCS design
plan whenever a change is made to the GCCS.
302.2 Test Methods and Procedures: Each owner or operator of a control system
described in § 302.1(b)(2) shall conduct a performance test of the control system at
least once every five years in accordance with Rule 270 of these regulations and the
provisions below:
a. Performance testing shall be conducted using the following test methods:
(1) EPA Method 25, 25C, or 18 shall be used to determine compliance with the
98 weight percent efficiency or the 20 ppm by volume outlet concentration
level requirement.
(a) In cases where the outlet concentration is less than 50 ppm NMOC as
carbon (8 ppm NMOC as hexane), EPA Method 25A should be used in
place of EPA Method 25.
(b) If using EPA Method 18, the minimum list of compounds to be tested
shall be those published in the most recent Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors (AP-42).
(2) The following equation shall be used to calculate control efficiency:
Control Efficiency = (NMOCin − NMOCout)/(NMOCin)
where,
NMOCin = mass of NMOC entering control device
NMOCout = mass of NMOC exiting control device
(3) EPA Method 3 or 3A shall be used to determine the oxygen content for
correcting the NMOC concentration as hexane to 3% oxygen. EPA Method
19 shall be used to determine the exhaust stream flowrate.
(4) EPA Method 7E shall be used to determine emissions of NOx and EPA
Method 10 shall be used to determine emissions of CO.
(5) If using an enclosed flare, the owner or operator shall record the combustion
chamber temperature and landfill gas flow rate during the performance test.
b. The NMOC emission rate for the landfill shall be calculated using the following
equation:
MNMOC = (1.89 × 10−3)× QLFG × CNMOC
where,
MNMOC = mass emission rate of NMOC, megagrams per year
QLFG = flow rate of landfill gas, cubic meters per minute
CNMOC = NMOC concentration, ppm by volume as hexane
(1) The flow rate of landfill gas, QLFG, shall be determined by measuring the total
landfill gas flow rate at the common header pipe that leads to the control
device using a gas flow measuring device calibrated according to the
provisions of section 10 of EPA Method 2E or according to manufacturer
recommendations.
(2) The average NMOC concentration, CNMOC, shall be determined by collecting
and analyzing landfill gas sampled from the common header pipe before the
gas moving or condensate removal equipment using the procedures in EPA
Methods 25C or 18. If using EPA Method 18, the minimum list of
compounds to be tested shall be those published most recently in AP-42.
The sample location on the common header pipe shall be before any
condensate removal or other gas refining units. The owner or operator shall
divide the NMOC concentration from EPA Method 25C by six to convert
from CNMOC as carbon to CNMOC as hexane.
(3) The NMOC emission rate for the landfill will be assumed to be greater than
17 megagrams per year until the owner or operator calculates the NMOC
rate for the landfill to be less than 17 megagrams per year as described in §
302.6(c).
302.3 Compliance: Each owner or operator shall utilize the following methods to
determine compliance with the operational requirements of § 302.1.
a. The following procedures must be used for compliance with the GCCS
operational requirements as provided in § 302.1:
(1) Actual flow data may be used instead of, or in conjunction with, the
equations in 40 CFR 60.36f(a)(1) to project the expected gas generation flow
rate.
(2) For the purposes of determining sufficient density of gas collectors, the
owner or operator shall maintain a system of vertical wells, horizontal
collectors, or other collection devices consistent with the approved GCCS
design plan, capable of controlling and extracting gas from all portions of the
landfill sufficient to meet all operational and performance standards.
(3) The provisions of this rule apply at all times that the GCCS is in operation.
The gas mover system must be shut down and all valves in the collection and
control system contributing to venting of the gas to the atmosphere must be
closed within one hour of the collection or control system not operating.
b. The following procedures must be used for compliance with the surface methane
operational requirements as provided in § 302.1 and frequencies as provided in §
302.4(c):
(1) After startup of the GCCS, the owner or operator must monitor surface
concentrations of methane along the entire perimeter of the collection area
and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at no more than 30-meter
intervals (or a site-specific established spacing) for each collection area on a
quarterly basis using an organic vapor analyzer, flame ionization detector, or
other portable monitor meeting the specifications provided in paragraph b(6)
of this section, or through the use of alternative technologies if approved by
the Control Officer.
(2) The background concentration must be determined by moving the probe
inlet upwind and downwind outside the boundary of the landfill at a distance
of at least 30 meters from the perimeter wells.
(3) Surface emission monitoring must be performed in accordance with EPA
Method 21, except that the probe inlet must be placed within 5 to 10
centimeters of the ground. Monitoring must be performed during typical
meteorological conditions.
(4) Any reading of 500 ppm or more above background at any location must be
recorded as a monitored exceedance and the below actions must be taken. As
long as the specified actions are taken, the exceedance is not a violation of
the operational requirements of § 302.1:
(a) The location of each monitored exceedance must be marked and the
location and concentration recorded. Location shall be recorded as
latitude and longitude coordinates using an instrument with an accuracy
of at least four meters. The coordinates must be in decimal degrees with
at least five decimal places.
(b) Cover maintenance or adjustments to the vacuum of the adjacent wells to
increase the gas collection in the vicinity of each exceedance must be
made and the location must be re-monitored within 10 calendar days of
detecting the exceedance.
(c) If the re-monitoring of the location shows a second exceedance,
additional corrective action must be taken and the location must be
monitored again within 10 days of the second exceedance. If the re-
monitoring shows a third exceedance for the same location, the action
specified in paragraph (b)(4)(e) of this section must be taken, and no
further monitoring of that location is required until the action specified
in paragraph (b)(4)(e) of this section has been taken.
(d) Any location that initially showed an exceedance but has a methane
concentration less than 500 ppm methane above background at the 10-
day re-monitoring specified in paragraph (b)(4)(b) or (c) of this section
must be re-monitored one month from the initial exceedance. If the one-
month re-monitoring shows a concentration less than 500 ppm above
background, no further monitoring of that location is required until the
next quarterly monitoring period. If the one-month re-monitoring shows
an exceedance, the actions specified in paragraph (b)(4)(c) or (e) of this
section must be taken.
(e) For any location where monitored methane concentration equals or
exceeds 500 ppm above background 3 times within a quarterly period, a
new well or other collection device must be installed within 120 calendar
days of the initial exceedance. An alternative remedy to the exceedance,
such as upgrading the blower, header pipes or control device, and a
corresponding timeline for installation may be submitted to the Control
Officer for approval.
(5) The owner or operator must implement a program to monitor for cover
integrity and implement cover repairs as necessary on a quarterly basis. If
there are no cover issues identified for three consecutive quarterly
monitoring periods, then the owner or operator may skip to annual
monitoring. Any closed landfill that has skipped to annual monitoring and
has had no cover issues identified for three consecutive years may stop
monitoring for cover integrity, except after extreme weather events. In the
case of extreme weather events, such as receiving 1 inch or more of rain over
any 24 hour period as measured from the nearest Flood Control District of
Maricopa County rain gauge, all necessary cover repairs must be made as
soon as practical.
(6) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the provisions in this section
must comply with the following instrumentation specifications and
procedures for surface emission monitoring devices:
(a) The portable analyzer must meet the instrument specifications provided
in section 6 of EPA Method 21, except that “methane” replaces all
references to “VOC”.
(b) The calibration gas must be methane, diluted to a nominal concentration
of 500 ppm in air.
(c) To meet the performance evaluation requirements in section 8.1 of EPA
Method 21, the instrument evaluation procedures of section 8.1 of EPA
Method 21 must be used.
(d) The calibration procedures provided in sections 8 and 10 of EPA
Method 21 must be followed immediately before commencing a surface
monitoring survey.
302.4 Monitoring of Operations: Each owner or operator shall monitor landfill
operations by complying with the following requirements, as applicable:
a. If using an enclosed combustor, it shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and
operated according to the manufacturer's specifications, including the following
equipment:
(1) A temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder and
having a minimum accuracy of +/- 1% of the temperature being measured
expressed in degrees Celsius or +/- 0.5 degrees Celsius, whichever is greater.
A temperature monitoring device is not required for boilers or process
heaters with design heat input capacity equal to or greater than 44 megawatts.
(2) A device that records flow to, or bypass of, the control device. The owner or
operator shall either:
(a) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring device that shall
record the flow to the control device at least every 15 minutes; or
(b) If equipped, secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-
seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the seal
or closure mechanism shall be performed at least once every month to
ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position and that the gas
flow is not diverted through the bypass line.
b. If using a non-enclosed flare, it shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and
operated according to the manufacturer's specifications, including the following
equipment:
(1) A heat sensing device, such as an ultraviolet beam sensor or thermocouple, at
the pilot light or the flame itself to indicate the continuous presence of a
flame.
(2) A device that records flow to the flare and bypass of the flare (if applicable).
The owner or operator must:
(a) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring device that
records the flow to the control device at least every 15 minutes; and
(b) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-seal or a
lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the seal or closure
mechanism must be performed at least once every month to ensure that
the valve is maintained in the closed position and that the gas flow is not
diverted through the bypass line.
c. Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with the 500 ppm
surface methane operational standard in § 302.1 must monitor surface
concentrations of methane according to the compliance procedures and
instrument specifications provided in § 302.3. In addition:
(1) Any closed landfill that has no monitored exceedances of the operational
standard in three consecutive quarterly monitoring periods may skip to
annual monitoring.
(2) Any methane reading of 500 ppm or more above background detected
during the annual monitoring returns the frequency for that landfill to
quarterly monitoring.
(3) Any closed landfill that has skipped to annual monitoring and has had no
monitored exceedances of the operational standard in three consecutive years
may stop monitoring surface methane emissions.
302.5 Recordkeeping: Each owner or operator shall maintain the following records and
make them available upon request. Records shall be retained for five years, except
for the GCCS design plan which shall be kept and made available upon request while
the GCCS is in use.
a. A GCCS design plan that meets the design requirements in 40 CFR 60.33f(b)
and 40 CFR 60.33f(c).
(1) The GCCS design plan must include any alternatives to the operational
standards, test methods, procedures, compliance measures, monitoring,
recordkeeping, or reporting provisions of § 302 proposed by the owner or
operator.
(2) The GCCS design plan must either conform to specifications for active
collection systems in 40 CFR 60.40f or include a demonstration to the
Control Officer’s satisfaction of the sufficiency of the alternative provisions
to 40 CFR 60.40f.
(3) An owner or operator of a GCCS control device shall maintain records of all
GCCS control device’s maintenance (including the date when maintenance
was performed and the maintenance procedures that were performed). In
addition, one of the following documents shall be available at all times at the
facility where the GCCS control device is located:
(a) The manufacturer’s written instructions for operation and maintenance
of the GCCS control device; or
(b) A written maintenance schedule.
b. Records of subsequent tests or monitoring shall be maintained for a minimum of
five years.
c. Records of the control device vendor specifications shall be maintained until
removal of that control device.
d. A record of the enclosed flare temperature recorded every 15 minutes or less by
a continuous temperature recorder.
e. Records of any cover integrity monitoring and repair, as described in §
302.3(b)(5).
f.
Records of any instance of wellhead positive pressure or insufficient pressure.
g. Description and duration of all periods when the GCCS was not operating and
length of time the GCCS was not operating, including periods of intermittent use
of the GCCS.
h. The calculation methodology used to estimate current emissions.
i.
A schedule for the replacement of the carbon canisters and any filter replacement
for the leachate/condensate collection system, if applicable.
j.
Records of the location of each exceedance of the 500 ppm methane
concentration as provided in § 302.3 and the concentration recorded at each
location for which an exceedance was recorded in the previous month. Location
shall be recorded as latitude and longitude coordinates using an instrument with
an accuracy of at least four meters. The coordinates must be in decimal degrees
with at least five decimal places.
k. Records of any wells that have been decommissioned.
l.
Records of any supplemental fuel used in the operation of the GCCS.
m. An up-to-date plot map showing each existing and planned collector in the
system and providing a unique identification location label for each collector.
n. Records of the installation date and location of all newly installed collectors as
specified under 40 CFR 60.36f(b).
302.6 Discontinuation of the GCCS: An owner or operator subject to this rule may
submit a request to the Control Officer to cap, remove or decommission their GCCS
if all of the following requirements are met:
a. The landfill is a closed landfill, as defined in 40 CFR 60.41f;
b. A closure report is submitted to the Control Officer as provided in 40 CFR
60.38f(f); and
c. Following the procedures specified in 40 CFR 60.35f(b), the owner or operator
demonstrates that the calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill is less than
17 megagrams per year on 3 successive test dates. The test dates must be no less
than 90 days apart, and no more than 180 days apart and must be submitted to
the Control Officer within 60 days after the date of calculating the NMOC
emission rate.
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS: For the purpose of this rule,
sources subject to § 301 shall comply with the administrative requirements in 40 CFR 60.38f and 40
CFR 60.39f. Sources subject to § 302 shall comply with the administrative requirements in § 302 of
this rule.
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS: For the purpose of this rule, sources
subject to § 301 shall comply with the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 60.37f
and 40 CFR 60.39f. Sources subject to § 302 shall comply with the monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements in § 302 of this rule.
President Hughes called the meeting to order at 1:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present:
Members Not Present:
Don Cassano
Kristen Acton
Henri Cournand (via phone)
Robert MacMillan
Andrew Rascón
Nedra Halley
Don Hughes
Debra Baldauff
Bill Gates
Ex-Officio: Max Porter
CALL TO THE PUBLIC:
President Hughes announced that we have speaker slips for anyone wishing to speak on any action items. Speakers will
be called after the item is heard. Each speaker will have 2 minutes to speak.
No speaker slips were received.
President Hughes introduced our newest member to the Board of Health. Mr. Andrew Rascón, District 5 Board of
Supervisor Appointment. Mr. Rascón works for Southwest Center for HIV/AIDS and runs his own non-profit as well.
Welcome and congratulations Mr. Rascón on your appointment as our newest member.
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
1.
Approval of Minutes: President Hughes asked for a motion to approve the BOH finance committee minutes from
the BOH Meeting held on July 23, 2018. Motion was made by Mr. MacMillan to approve the BOH finance committee
minutes as presented. Motion was seconded by Mr. Cassano and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
Approval of Minutes: President Hughes asked for a motion to approve the BOH minutes from the BOH Meeting held
on July 23, 2018. Motion was made by Mr. Cassano to approve the BOH minutes as presented. Motion was seconded
by Ms. Halley and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
2.
Approval of FY20 OMB budget request
Mr. Scot Pitcairn
Mr. Scot Pitcairn presented Department of Public Health’s budget request for FY2020.
For Fiscal Year 2020 Public Health Department’s total base budget request for this year is $58,150,751, a decrease of 6.2%
from the FY19 Revised budget. This consists of no increase to the General Fund budget, this fund remaining flat and on
target, a 9.8% decrease in the Grant Fund budget, and 1% increase in the Special Revenue Fund budget.
MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MEETING MINUTES
Monday, February 25, 2019 at 1:00 pm
301 W. Jefferson Street, 10th Floor, Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Board of Supervisors Conference Room
Return to list of attachments
A summary of our base budget request is as follows:
General Fund
$ 12,868,622
Grants Fund
36,271,166
Special Revenue (Fee) Fund
9,010,963
TOTAL
$ 58,150,751
Operating Budget
General Fund
The general fund request is shown at target baseline level. No increases are being requested at this time. This is not
intended to imply that all service levels are being adequately met. In order to remain at baseline targets we have budgeted
100% vacancy savings for one division administrator position and our PIO position and have eliminated one program
coordinator position.
Fee Fund
The Fee Fund operating budget is submitted $322,248 below the FY19 Revised budget, reflecting a reduction in the
Childhood Immunization budget that keeps expenditures within anticipated revenues. (This budget will be supplemented
by non-recurring funding).
Grant Fund
The decrease of $4,159,112 in the Grant Fund results from the loss and reduction in several grants, including cuts to WIC,
moving the Ryan White Dental Program to the Ryan White Office, reductions to Healthy Start, and various other grant
losses or reductions.
Non-Recurring Budget
General Fund
The $237,775 in one-time funding in the FY19 budget for the replacement X-Ray equipment at our TB Clinic was removed
from the FY20 budget.
Grant Fund
For FY20 the grant carryover/non-recurring budget is $500,000, an increase of $215,000 over the FY19 budget. This
increase reflects additional carry forward from the Smoke Free Grant and the HPHC (Healthy People Healthy Communities)
integrated IGA grants.
Fee Fund
Following the model used last budget year, we have budgeted funds from our fee fund balance, increasing it from
$593,300 in the current year to $1,000,000 in FY20. Of this amount, $200,000 is budgeted for our policy group. This group
will use these funds for childhood vaccination advocacy and in addressing the opioid epidemic in our county. In addition,
Vital Registration is budgeted $125,000 for expanding the east valley office. The Refugee Medical Assistance Program is
budgeted to use $125,000 since they have run short in funding as a result of the current administration reducing the
number of refugees admitted to the country. The remaining $550,000 is being allocated to address needs in the STD
Control program, Childhood Immunization and other mandated areas.
CSCA and ISF
Last year we requested a review above baseline from the Board of Supervisors due to large deficiencies in our funding.
We are not requesting a review this year but there is a funding gap that the Budget Office and county management are
aware of due to the CSCA and ISF charges placed on the Department. Last year in order to balance our budget, $913,296
was used from our Fee Fund balance and $547,457 was designated from non-departmental funds in the event our indirect
collections were insufficient to cover expenses.
Due to two factors, first the reduction of grant receipts and second the increase over the last several years in CSCA and
Internal Service Charges, our indirect collections are not sufficient to cover our administrative costs, ISF charges and CSCA
charges combined. Over the past ten years we have internally reduced our administrative staff by 10 positions, saving
over $850,000. However, these reductions have increased the workload on existing staff to the point that we cannot
reduce internally further and still function properly. Our rent is a sizable part of our internal charges but we cannot reduce
that amount unless we are allowed to purchase a facility. Our current lease runs through 2023 and we are not certain
whether we will be able to legally get out of the lease obligation before the lease expires. This shortfall is projected in our
budget at $685,549. The solution to fill this gap is left open for further discussion before our budget recommendation is
finalized.
For this current fiscal year’s budget, the County Budget Office obligated $547,457 for this projected shortfall. We have
held positions and generated vacancy savings with our director’s position to help reduce the use of this commitment, but
those options will probably not exist in the next budget cycle. We also could tap further into our fee fund balance.
Regardless of the solution for this problem, both of these options are only a Band-Aid and will not solve the problem of
uncontrolled escalations of CSCA and ISF charges being pushed into limited grant funds. Further increases in our indirect
rates will only further decrease the delivery of services for mandated and other services that public health is expected to
provide to our community. Therefore, a more viable, longer-term solution needs to be researched.
We should also note with this budget submission that the base-level operating budget is likely unable to handle an
outbreak or emergency should one occur. The two items we see as likely are: 1) measles epidemiology responses and; 2)
the treatment of MDR or XDR Tuberculosis cases.
During this last year our community, along with large parts of the world, have dropped below the required vaccination
rates in our schools to accomplish the herd immunity effect for disease prevention of vaccine preventable diseases. The
most contagious of these is Measles. Measles outbreaks have occurred throughout Europe and other parts of the world
and have occurred in 26 states during 2018. Europe has been fighting this previously contained disease spread for over a
year. During last year, with a 93% vaccination rate (we are just under 95%) European nations had 64,000 cases of the
disease. The main cost of our response will be in the epidemiological tracking of the outbreak; the cost of these can range
from $50,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is why we have been so active in the work with the state to
decrease the personal exemptions being given out to parents who do not vaccinate their children with the school-required
immunizations. While the financial costs of these outbreaks are staggering, the risk of blindness, hearing impairment,
pneumonia and death (1-2 deaths out of every 1,000 cases) can have drastic consequences for children and families.
The second concern is one that we have seen during the last few budget years but the frequency seems to be escalating.
This is the occurrence of multi-drug resistant (MDR) and extreme drug resistant (XDR) Tuberculosis (TB). This strain of TB
is immune to the normal cost-effective drugs that we use to treat standard cases and requires two other types of drugs
that are extremely expensive. A single case can easily cost between $100,000 and $150,000 over the course of their 18-
month to 24-month treatment, and this does not include any surgically required responses. Non-compliant patients also
incur court costs and isolation costs. We cannot predict the number of cases we will have, but if they do occur we will
need to request additional funds as we have in the past.
Motion to approve the FY20 OMB budget request for Public Health was made by Ms. Halley, seconded by Mr. Cassano
and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously
3.
Approval of FY20 OMB budget request
Mr. Gus Martinez
Mr. Gus Martinez presented Department of Environmental Services’ budget request for FY2020.
FUND 100 (County General Fund)
Requested budget for Fund 100 operating is $247,221 in revenues and $9,459,591 in expenditures.
Revenues
Agency 880 is funded by the County General Fund subsidy. Environmental Services collects enforcement revenue from
non-permitted activities. These fines are associated with violations of the Environmental Health Code by persons and
organizations not subject to obtaining a permit. Requested budgeted revenues remain at $247,221 with no change
between FY2019 adopted and FY2020 requested.
In FY2019 Environmental Services acquired the waste resources department which is tasked with operating the counties
six transfer stations. These transfer stations collects approximately 220K in transfer station fees annually.
Expenditures
Environmental Services General Fund Agency recommended operating budget expenditures are $9,459,591 or .73%
increase from FY19 adopted.
Requested budget includes a slight increase in the amount of supplies and services by 2% or $103,140 for increased costs
in equipment repairs.
Non-Reoccurring Expenditures
The Departments recommended budget includes non-reoccurring expenses in Fund 100 in the amount of $100,003 for
the following:
IT Recommendations – $100,003
FUND 505 (County Grant Fund)
Requested budget for Fund 505 operating is $67,198 in revenues and $67,198 in expenditures.
Grant Funds
Agency 881 is a grant from the Food and Drug Administration Department of Health and Human Services. Environmental
Services was awarded the grant on September 10, 2015 in the amount of $67,198 for FY2020. The grant was approved by
the Board of Supervisors on October 21, 2015. The purpose of the grant is to advance conformance with the voluntary
national retail food regulatory program standards. The purpose of the grant is to advance conformance with the voluntary
national retail food regulatory program standards. This grant will serve in assessing foodborne illness risk factors in
Maricopa County and also provide permitted food operations with educational strategies to reduce the occurrence of
foodborne illness risk factors. In Year 2, Environmental Services is providing education to all Environmental Health staff
for implementing Active Managerial Control (AMC) principles during their inspections and train the operators to do the
same (Train the Trainer). This training is based on the results of the survey conducted in Year 1. Also, MCESD will develop
an AMC Toolbox, consisting of guidance documents, templates, logs, videos, and handouts on policies, training, and
verification. These materials will emphasize the shift to a population that learns through the oral and visual delivery of
information. Access to these materials will be streamlined via inspection reports, website design, and other mobile
platforms. AMC will be further incentivized by increasing public awareness of the Department’s voluntary AMC program:
the “Cutting Edge Food Safety Partnership.” Our Department will develop media to showcase Cutting Edge Program
participants.
Revenues
Revenues remain unchanged from FY2019 to FY2020 requested and are mandated by the terms of the grant.
Expenditures
Expenditures remain unchanged from FY2019 to FY2020 recommended and are mandated by the terms of the grant.
FUND 290 (Waste Tire Fund)
Requested budget for Fund 290 operating are $5,825,000 in revenues and $5,825,000 in expenditures.
Revenues
Revenues are received from the State of Arizona to fully cover the expenses to the county. These fees are not directly
collected by the county; they are collected through the purchase of a tire.
Expenditures
The Tire Fund expense budget has increased 14.97% from FY2019 to FY2020 to accommodate the increase tires received
at the tire recycling facility. Year over year, the fund has seen increased costs based on the number of registered vehicles
in Maricopa County.
FUND 506 (Environmental Fee Fund)
Requested budget for Fund 506 operating are $21,012,670 in revenues and $21,001,478 in expenditures.
Revenues
Requested budgeted revenues for Fund 506 are $21,012,670 or $540,701 (3%) above FY2019 adopted.
Pool, food permitting, and environmental plan review are all experiencing a higher than average permit and plan review
submittals resulting in above budgeted revenue. This is primarily due to an uptick in construction projects as the economy
improves.
As plan review in both the Water and Waste and Environmental Health division’s continue to rise, so do the number of
permits being added. Environmental Services expects these trends to continue through FY2020.
Expenditures
Requested budgeted expenses at $21,001,478 or $599,204 (2.85%) above FY19 adopted. Requested budget includes
overall increase in personnel services by $348,968 or 2% with reductions to personal savings to accommodate the
increased workloads. Supplies and services have been increased by $250,236 due to an increase in central services cost
allocations.
Non-Reoccurring Expenditures
The Departments recommended budget includes non-reoccurring expenses in Fund 506 in the amount of $2,117,426 for
the following:
Vehicles - $750,000
Overtime – $125,000
Rent – $93,954
Contracting Services - $350,000
IT Recommendations – $798,472
Motion to approve the FY20 OMB budget request for Environment Health was made by Mr. MacMillan, seconded by
Mr. Cassano and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously
4.
Fee Waiver Applications
Ms. Jeannie Taylor
Ms. Jeannie Taylor presented 60 fee waivers for review and consideration of approval. A summary sheet document was
provided.
Motion to approve the 60 fee waivers applications was made by Ms. Halley, seconded by Mr. Cassano and all were in
favor. The motion passed unanimously.
5.
Approval of initiation of regulatory change for the following rules:
Gregory Verkamp
Kimberly Butler
Gregory Verkamp and Kimberly Butler presented 9 Rules for approval of initiation of regulatory changes. Gregory
explained that all rules are the beginning/initiation process. 8 lf the 9 rules EPA is behind them and will ultimately have
to be approved by the EPA.
A. AQ-2017-002
Rule 321 (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills)
The Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) is proposing to revise Rule 321 to reflect the federal municipal
solid waste landfill emission guidelines as promulgated August 29, 2016 and codified at Title 40 (Protection of
Environment) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 60 (Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources),
Subpart Cf (Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills). In addition, the MCAQD is
proposing to incorporate changes recommended by stakeholders, and to make other changes to improve and clarify the
rule.
Motion to approve Rule 321 (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills) was made by Ms. Halley, seconded by Mr. MacMillan
and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
B. AQ-2017-007
Rule 322 (Power Plant Operations)
Rule 323 (Fuel Burning Equipment from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Sources)
Rule 324 (Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines)
The MCAQD is proposing to revise Rules 322, 323, and 324 to address rule approvability comments provided by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These changes are required in order for the EPA to approve these rules as
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for control of nitrogen oxides, which are precursors to ozone formation.
The MCAQD is also proposing changes to address rule improvement comments provided by the EPA, to incorporate
changes recommended by stakeholders, and to make other changes to improve and clarify the rules.
Motion to approve Rule 322 (Power Plan Operations), Rule 323 (Fuel Burning Equipment from
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Sources) and Rule 324 (Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines) was
made by Mr. Cassano, seconded by Ms. Halley, and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
C. AQ-2017-009
Rule 350 (Storage and Transfer of Organic Liquids (Non-Gasoline) at an Organic Liquid Distribution Facility)
Rule 351 (Storage and Loading of Gasoline at Bulk Gasoline Plants and Bulk Gasoline Terminals)
Rule 353 (Storage and Loading of Gasoline at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities)
MCAQD is proposing to revise Rules 350, 351, and 353 to address rule approvability comments provided by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These changes are required in order for the EPA to approve these rules as
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. The MCAQD is
also proposing changes to address rule improvement comments provided by the EPA, to incorporate changes
recommended by stakeholders, and to make other changes to improve and clarify the rules.
Motion to approve Rule 350 (Storage and Transfer of Organic Liquids (Non-Gasoline) at an Organic Liquid Distribution
Facility), Rule 351 (Storage and Loading of Gasoline at Bulk Gasoline Plants and Bulk Gasoline Terminals) and Rule 353
(Storage and Loading of Gasoline at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities) was made by Mr. MacMillan, seconded by Mr.
Cassano and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
D. AQ-2017-010
Rule 210 (Title V Permit Provisions)
The MCAQD is proposing to revise the MCAQD’s NSR rules in order to secure their approval as part of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) under the federal Clean Air Act. The MCAQD’s NSR rulemaking is comprised of seven (7) rules,
including Rule 210. All of the NSR rules, with the exception of Rule 210, were approved for the initiation of regulatory
change by the Board of Health at the July 23, 2018 meeting. Rule 210 was not initiated at that time because revisions to
the rule were not anticipated. However, upon review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s)
recommendations, the MCAQD is requesting approval for the initiation of regulatory change in order to revise Rule 210.
Motion to approve Rule 210 (Title V Permit Provisions) was made by Mr. Cassano, seconded by Dr. Baldauff and all
were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
E. AQ-2017-011
Rule 204 (Emission Reduction Credits for Use with the Arizona Emissions Bank)
The MCAQD is proposing to revise Rule 204 to add provisions for nontraditional sources of emission reduction credits.
Currently, the rule only allows for the generation, certification and utilization of emission reduction credits from permitted
sources. Proposed revisions include new provisions for the generation, certification, and utilization of emission reduction
credits from nontraditional sources that use truck stop electrification, electric standby equipped transport refrigeration
units, and electric onsite equipment. Revising the rule will provide additional sources of emission reduction credits that
will allow Maricopa County to move towards attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards while still allowing
industrial growth.
Motion to approve Rule 204 (Emission Reduction Credits for Use with the Arizona Emissions Bank) was made by Mr.
Cassano, seconded by Dr. Baldauff and all were in favor. The motion passed unanimously.
Discussion Items:
1.
Public Health Report
Max Porter
I.
Human Resources
II.
Communication
III. Infrastructure
IV. Strategic Planning
V. Programs
VI. Disease Update
VII. Future Topics
Max Porter presented the Director’s Public Health Report.
The budget isn’t quite as depressing as the picture that was presented to you. Yes we have some concerns when it comes
to our indirect balance, the central service cots, the ISF funds (administrative costs) that we’re hit with. This isn’t just a
concern for us, it’s a concern for all grant funded departments or any department that has a grant. Budget office is looking
into it and is looking for a solution. They understand that it’s not sustainable the way it’s going. We are working with
them. We have sufficient funds for this year to get through. We have a year to work through this and get to a solution.
Our department (Public Health) and Human Services are both heavily, heavily grant funded. We are both under the same
Assistant County Manager Lee Ann Bohn. She is dedicated to working through this year to try to find a solution for that
problem. We will get through this year. We will do what we always do and we will have a successful year. I do want you
to be aware that it’s not quite as bleak as the picture would look on paper. We are a viable department and we are doing
some wonderful things.
We are part of the Big Cities Health Coalition. We’re not a city, we’re a county but we are the 3rd largest Health jurisdiction
in the Country behind New York and LA. Majority of Health departments are run through the City organizations
throughout the Country, your large metropolis areas. Back in the 50’s it was consolidated that all to the Counties because
we could consolidate better across city borders if we did it all in one. We’re the 3rd largest. Part of being a part of this Big
Cities Health Coalition it allowed us to go back to the meetings this year and we meet with the head of the CDC. We
explained to them that part of the problem we are seeing in our Health Departments is that you’re (the CDC) is sending
funding from the federal government, majority of our funding comes from the federal government, to the State. The State
dictates how they will meet deliverables which often don’t work for an urban area like we are and rural areas. So the
funding they are sending down is going through another massaging at the State level. The State is taking out administrative
expenses and then it goes down to the County department level and fewer and fewer services after each one of these
things happen are reaching the people. The CDC heard us. So in three months from that meeting we received our first
notice from the CDC that they are sending out instead of a grant a cooperative agreement. It’s a guaranteed receipt of
funds. We will be getting a new addition of 2.5 million dollars directly from the CDC for OPIOID control. The OPIOID
Cooperative Agreement guaranteed funding will hit us in August. We are hoping that this will be a beginning of the way
grant funding will flow to us. It gives us a lot better ability to change direction when a new problem hits us. Rather than
waiting for the State to determine that it is a problem this will give us the ability to change a grant deliverable directly.
We’re hoping that, that will be a good change for the future of the way our funding comes in.
As part of the director’s report here, the big question that if you don’t have you should have is when are we going to get
a new director? We are moving towards that direction. We have some very viable candidates that are in, we have some
good resumes and we’re doing interviews now. So we are hopeful that by your next meeting you will have a real director
that will be giving you this report. We’re hopeful that someone will be here and if they’re not here we will at least have
the name and date of when they will be here.
Childhood Vaccinations
You’re seeing reports almost daily in the news about childhood vaccinations. There is a huge debate with a large amount
of anti-vaxxers, I shouldn’t say large, there is a loud contingency of anti-vaxxers that are in the community. You have to
remember that we lost our herd immunity with our childhood immunizations.
The majority of the population understand the importance of immunizations. They understand that they have to
participate if we’re going to protect the entire populous.
There are also 2-3% can’t get vaccinations, they are people that are under treatment for cancer or they are
immune suppressed.
The anti-vaxxers make up about 3% and they are extremely loud and they’re campaigning against vaccinations.
6 bills in legislature
o
3 of the bills could really damage our vaccinations
o
The anti-vaxxers are pushing harder and harder to give people personal exemptions for whatever reason.
o
With legislation we can’t lobby, all we can do is educate.
o
The Arizona Partnership for Immunization (TAPI),
Right now should be our peak of flu season
H1N1 is hitting again
Congenital Syphilis
Maricopa County Congenital Syphilis rates have doubled in the last 2 years.
We have been said to be #1 in the nation, we are actually #5
By statute – 1st trimester tested, 3rd trimester tested
o
While it’s horrible the fix is simple
Tested at delivery
AHCCCS is on board
Physicians reminded to test for syphilis in pregnant women
Community Health Survey
MaricopaHealthMatters.org
Why the Health Survey Matters
o
Every three years, Maricopa County Department of Public Health, in collaboration with health care
and community partners, conducts a Community Health Survey to develop a deeper understanding
from residents about issues that relate to quality of life, availability of services, physical and mental
health, and more.
o
The survey is part of a larger review of community health. This goes beyond individual health to look
at what is affecting the community overall, what health issues are affecting some communities more
than others, and what other factors contribute to those issues.
o
This research is supported by Synapse, a collaboration of healthcare partners, and the Health
Improvement Partnership of Maricopa County (HIPMC).
o
It is part of a broader review of the community’s health conducted in collaboration with seven
healthcare partners and over one hundred community organizations.
o
MCDPH needs this to remain an accredited health department.
o
Questions come from the National Association of County and City Health Organizations (NACCHO),
the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) and MCDPH staff, and are finalized for 2019.
o
Data from this survey and the countywide health review are used to target programs, funds, and
attention to health needs with the greatest potential for impact and improvement.
How the Survey is Being Conducted
o
Goal is 15,000 surveys countywide with representation from all cities and towns
o
Responses will be collected from March 1-May 31, 2019
o
Robust outreach plan developed with partner organizations assisting in data collection
What You Get and How You Can Help
What you can get
o
Access to de-identified data
o
More responses will allow for more segmentation in data analysis
How you can help
o
Take the survey as a county resident
o
Utilize MCDPH outreach toolkit to share the survey with your personal and professional networks
o
Possible partnership with MCDPH epidemiologists to clean and analyze data
Community Health Improvement Plan – Grant Opportunity
Shared Use - https://www.maricopa.gov/4386/Shared-Use
Opening doors to physical activity and healthy eating.
Opportunities for physical activity and access to healthy food are essential for health at all ages and stages
of life.
Many neighborhoods throughout Maricopa County have limited access to spaces for children, youth, adults,
and seniors to easily choose to be active and to eat more nutritious food.
By opening doors and expanding access to existing facilities, we can improve health and well-being across the
community.
Maricopa County Department of Public Health (MCDPH) is offering grant funding up to $5000, per site, to
increase the number of spaces in under-served areas, so those community residents can: play exercise and
take part in recreational activities, grow healthy food and participate in nutrition related activities.
Goal 100 schools opened
$100,000 ($1500 - $5000 increments)
School, Church or any public access
Grant open until June 30th or until funding is gone
Interested candidates must submit their response either by mail or email no later than May 31, 2019. For full
details, a copy of the request for quote (RFQ), or to submit a response, please visit: bit.ly/opendoorsgrant
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CURRENT EVENTS
Next Meeting – April 22, 2019
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Ms. Halley, seconded by
Mr. Cassano and motion was passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned.
MARICOPA COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MEETING MINUTES
Monday, July 25, 2022, at 3:00 PM
(Pending)
From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2020 3:13 PM
To: PND Regulatory <PNDRegulatory@maricopa.gov>; Kathy Semder (COA) <Kathy.Semder@Maricopa.Gov>; Andy
Linton (COA) <Andy.Linton@Maricopa.Gov>; Bill Leal (FCD) <Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov>; Kathryn Garcia (PND)
<Kathryn.Garcia@Maricopa.Gov>; Blanca Caballero (ENV) <Blanca.Caballero@Maricopa.gov>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments
Citizen Comments
Each Regulatory Department is committed to providing opportunities for
stakeholder input regarding the adoption and amendment of all regulatory
requirements. Your input will be collected and forwarded to the appropriate
department. You will receive a written response from the applicable department
within two business days. We appreciate your comments and your time.
Case Number/Rule
AQ-2017-002 Rule 321 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills/111d
Plan
Department
Air Quality
I would like to
Other
First Name
Keith
Last Name
Johnson
Organization
Tetra Tech, Inc.
City
Phoenix
Zip
85034
Email
keith.johnson@tetratech.com
Phone Number
6024026958
Phone Type
Mobile
Would you like someone to
contact you?
Field not completed.
Comments
Field not completed.
If applicable, attach
supporting documentation
Comments on MCAQD Rule 321.docx
associated with your
comment. The only file
types supported are MS
Office and Adobe Acrobat.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
Copies of all written and electronic Stakeholder input
Return to list of attachments
December 17, 2020
Tetra Tech BAS
3822 E. University Drive | Phoenix, AZ 85034
Tel. 602.267.0336 Fax: 602.267.0446 www.tetratech.com
Comments on MCAQD Draft Rule 321
My general sense is that Maricopa County was trying to make Rule 321 compact, however this
draft rule is brevity at the expense of clarity. As an example, SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS,
please include the definations contained in Subpart XXX §60.761. Referencing the definations
in Rule 100 is fine.
102 – APPLICABILITY
Comment 1: The statement “The provisions of this rule shall apply to major and area sources”
should be revised to match Subpart XXX §60.762. The landfill either has a design capacity
over 2.5 million megagrams and is subject to regulation or it isn’t. Since an area source is
defined as any stationary source that is not a major source, the statement is basically saying
the rule applys to all landfills, which is not the intent of the Federal regulations.
302 – REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW LANDFILL WITH NMOC EMISSION RATES BELOW
FEDERAL THRESHOLDS
Comment 2: This must be a typo. This rule should apply to MSW landfills with NMOC
emission rates ABOVE the Federal threshold of 34 megagrams per year of NMOCs. Those
below the threshold do not need to install a GCCS, therefore 302.1 Operational Requirements
for the GCCS would not apply since there would be no GCCS.
Comment 3: Assuming the typo, 302.1 a (1) wants the GCCS installed in all areas that
“warrants control” which is open to interpretation. Subpart XXX §60.763 requires the GCCS to
be installed in areas where the waste has been in place for 5 years, or 2 years if the area has
been closed or is at final grade.
Comment 4: 302.1 b “The GCCS shall reduce….”, should be The GCCS control device shall
reduce NMOC by 98 weight percent…
Comment 5: 302.1 c (3) “At all times when the collected gas is routed to the system” should
be “At all times when the collected gas is routed to the control device”.
Comment 6: 302.1 c (4(c) “Monitor any openings…” should be “Monitor any penetrations…”.
Penetrations are landfill gas well casings penetrating the surface of the MSW cell. Note that
Subpart XXX does not have a definition of penetration. An enhancement would be to
narrowly define penetration as a landfill gas well casing. In discussions pertaining to draft
Subpart XXX there was speculation that penetrations could be defined broadly as fence T‐
posts, and other items, that do not penetrate the intermediate soil cover layer.
Comment #1 - Return to Response #1
Comment #2 - Return to Response #2
Comment #3 - Return to Response #3
Comment #4 - Return to Response #4
Comment #5 - Return to Response #5
Comment #6 - Return to Response #6
Comment #7 - Return to Response #7
Comments on MCAQD Draft Rule 321
December 17, 2020
Page 2
Comment 7: 302.2 m Source test reports take more than 30 days to finalize. Sometimes it
takes 30 days just to get the laboratory results back with standard turn‐around times. We
typically request 45 days, and the request is typically granted. Please change to 45 days.
Comment 8: 302.3 a (2) “For the purposes of determining sufficient density of gas collectors
the owner or operator shall maintain a system of vertical wells, ..” should be changed to “For
the purposes of determining sufficient density of gas collectors the owner or operator shall
maintain a system of vertical or horizontal wells, ..”.
Comment 9: 302.3 a (3) Modern flare stations have a shutdown valve that is fail‐closed,
which prevents venting of landfill gas to the atmosphere when an SSM event occurs. Because
venting of landfill gas cannot occur, the GCCS cannot operate if the flare is down for an SSM
event. Please delete “and shall not exceed 1 hour for treatment or control devices.” An SSM
event, such as a power outage, can occur at any time. A landfill gas technician will typically
wait until daylight to troubleshoot the SSM issue and re‐start the flare. Requiring that the
flare be down for less than an hour is a serious safety issue.
Comment 10: The text in Subpart XXX §60.767 Reporting Requirements should be included.
Comment 11: 302.6 Recordkeeping Would like to see this list reduced. Example, 302.6 h can
be deleted since this cannot occur.
Comment 11: 302.6 e “Continuous combustion temperature of the flare as recorded by a
continuous temperature recorder.” Recording devices continuously monitor temperature but
do not continuously record temperature. Recording devices can be set to record the
temperature at specific intervals, i.e. every 15 minutes. The data file associated with
monitoring the temperature every second would be both huge and useless. Further, the
temperature data is typically stored on electronic media, which is sometimes problematic. It
is impossible to have a continuous monitoring record without having redundant recording
devices.
Comment #8 - Return to Response #8
Comment #9 - Return to Response #9
Comment #10 - Return to Response #10
Comment #11 - Return to Response #11
Comment #12 - Return to Response #12
Comment #13 - Return to Response #13
From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 4:56 PM
To: PND Regulatory <PNDRegulatory@maricopa.gov>; Kathy Semder (COA) <Kathy.Semder@Maricopa.Gov>; Andy
Linton (COA) <Andy.Linton@Maricopa.Gov>; Bill Leal (FCD) <Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov>; Kathryn Garcia (PND)
<Kathryn.Garcia@Maricopa.Gov>; Blanca Caballero (ENV) <Blanca.Caballero@Maricopa.gov>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments
Citizen Comments
Each Regulatory Department is committed to providing opportunities for
stakeholder input regarding the adoption and amendment of all regulatory
requirements. Your input will be collected and forwarded to the appropriate
department. You will receive a written response from the applicable department
within two business days. We appreciate your comments and your time.
Case Number/Rule
AQ-2017-002 Rule 321 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills/111d
Plan
Department
Air Quality
I would like to
Express support
First Name
Matthew
Last Name
Potzler
Organization
City of Phoenix
City
Phoenix
Zip
85003
Email
matthew.potzler@phoenix.gov
Phone Number
6025341776
Phone Type
Work
Would you like someone to
contact you?
Yes
Comments
Comments on MCAQD Draft Rule 321
While we understand the intent of making the rule efficient, we
believe this brevity is at the expense of clarity. For example, in
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS, definitions should not be
outright deleted as proposed in Subpart XXX §60.761.
Referencing definitions in Rule 100 would be beneficial in
proving consistency.
102 – APPLICABILITY
The statement “The provisions of this rule shall apply to major
and area sources” should be revised to match Subpart XXX
§60.762. The landfill either has a design capacity over 2.5
million megagrams and is subject to regulation or it isn’t. Since
an area source is defined as any stationary source that is not a
major source, the statement is basically saying the rule applies
to all landfills, which is not the intent of the Federal regulations.
302 – REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW LANDFILL
WITH NMOC EMISSION RATES BELOW FEDERAL
THRESHOLDS
Section 302.1 a (1) requires GCCS be installed in all areas that
“warrants control” which is subjective and is open to
interpretation. Please provide clarity by referencing or mirroring
language in Subpart XXX §60.763 that requires the GCCS to
be installed in areas where the waste has been in place for 5
years, or 2 years if the area has been closed or is at final
grade.
302.1 b “The GCCS shall reduce….”, should be The GCCS
control device shall reduce NMOC by 98 weight percent…
302.1 c (3) “At all times when the collected gas is routed to the
system” should be “At all times when the collected gas is
routed to the control device”.
302.1 c (4(c) “Monitor any openings…” should be “Monitor any
penetrations…”. Penetrations are landfill gas well casings
penetrating the surface of the MSW cell. Note that Subpart
XXX does not have a definition of penetration. An
enhancement would be to narrowly define penetration as a
landfill gas well casing. In discussions pertaining to draft
Subpart XXX there was speculation that penetrations could be
defined broadly as fence T-posts, and other items, that do not
penetrate the intermediate soil cover layer.
302.2 m Source test reports take more than 30 days to finalize.
Usually, it takes 30 days just to get the laboratory results back
with standard turn-around times. Please consider extending the
timeline to at least 45 days for finalized reports.
302.3 a (2) “For the purposes of determining sufficient density
of gas collectors the owner or operator shall maintain a system
of vertical wells, ..” should be changed to “For the purposes of
determining sufficient density of gas collectors the owner or
operator shall maintain a system of vertical or horizontal wells,
..”.
302.3 a (3) Modern flare stations have a shutdown valve that is
fail-closed, which prevents venting of landfill gas to the
atmosphere when an SSM event occurs. Because venting of
landfill gas cannot occur, the GCCS cannot operate if the flare
is down for an SSM event. Please delete “and shall not exceed
1 hour for treatment or control devices.” An SSM event, such
as a power outage, can occur at any time. A landfill gas
technician will typically wait until daylight to troubleshoot the
SSM issue and re-start the flare. Requiring that the flare be
down for less than an hour is a serious safety/maintenance
issue.
The text in Subpart XXX §60.767 Reporting Requirements
should be included.
If applicable, attach
supporting documentation
associated with your
comment. The only file
types supported are MS
Office and Adobe Acrobat.
Field not completed.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
From: "Bearden, David" <dbearde2@wm.com>
Date: December 24, 2020 at 7:05:04 AM MST
To: "Kimberly Butler (AQD)" <Kimberly.Butler@maricopa.gov>
Cc: "Thorley, David" <dthorley@wm.com>
Subject: Landfill Rule Comments ‐ Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments
Hi Kimberly,
We submitted our comments on the proposed Rule 327 using the EROP system.
However in follow up to the workshop meeting we wanted to provide you a copy your review.
Happy Holidays, and we will talk with you in the New Year.
Dave Bearden
Senior Environmental Protection Manager
Waste Management
222 S. Mill Ave., Suite 300
Tempe, AZ 85281
602‐708‐9815
From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2020 6:17 AM
To: Bearden, David <dbearde2@wm.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments
Citizen Comments
Each Regulatory Department is committed to providing opportunities for
stakeholder input regarding the adoption and amendment of all regulatory
requirements. Your input will be collected and forwarded to the appropriate
department. You will receive a written response from the applicable department
within two business days. We appreciate your comments and your time.
Case Number/Rule
AQ-2017-002 Rule 321 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills/111d
Plan
Department
Air Quality
I would like to
Express opposition
First Name
Dave
Last Name
Bearden
Organization
Waste Management
City
Phoenix
Zip
Field not completed.
Email
dbearde2@wm.com
Phone Number
602-708-9815
Phone Type
Mobile
Would you like someone to
contact you?
Yes
Comments
comments provided on the attached file
If applicable, attach
supporting documentation
associated with your
comment. The only file
types supported are MS
Office and Adobe Acrobat.
WM MCAQCD Rule 321 12-24-2020 final.pdf
Recycling is a good thing. Please recycle any printed emails.
David Bearden
Waste Management
222 S. Mill Avenue, Suite 333
Tempe, Arizona 85281
Phone: 602-708-9815
dbearde2@wm.com
December 24, 2020
Maricopa County Air Quality Department
3800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Submitted Electronically: Maricopa County Enhanced Regulatory Outreach Program (EROP)
Re:
Comments on Maricopa County’s Draft Rule 321/Clean Air Act Section 111(d) Plan for Existing
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
To Whom It May Concern:
Waste Management (WM) is pleased to provide comments to the Maricopa County Air Quality
Department (MCAQD) on the proposed Draft Rule 321 for Existing Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Landfills (Draft Rule) to implement the emission guidelines (EG) under Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 111(d)
as well as implement requirements for MSW landfills with active gas collection and control systems
(GCCS) that are not subject to the EG.
WM agrees with MCAQD’s adoption of the most recent version of Federal EG rule (40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 60, Subpart Cf) as applicable to MSW landfills. However, MCAQD’s Draft Rule
Section 302 attempts to create a more stringent rule than the Federal EG rule, which would regulate
MSW landfills with NMOC emission rates below Federal thresholds to a significantly more stringent
standard. We have serious concerns with this proposal as detailed in this letter.
Below, are general and specific comments for the MCAQD proposed Rule 321, which we may revise or
supplement in the future as more detailed information is developed. Since MCAQD has provided a very
short comment period for such a significant rule change, we have provided initial comments with an
intent to update them later if needed.
COMMENTS ON DRAFT RULE 321
GCCS Removal Criteria
The Draft Rule requires a Landfill to demonstrate that the calculated non-methane organic compound
(NMOC) emission rate is less than 1.5 tons per year (tpy) on three successive test dates to meet the
GCCS removal criteria in Section 302.7(a) of the Draft Rule. WM believes this standard is unreasonable,
unnecessary, and infeasible due to lack of available technology that low, landfill gas (LFG) generation
potential in arid climates, and the cost effectiveness for implementation.
Section 302.7(b) allows for removal of the GCCS if the landfill demonstrates that continued use of the
GCCS will create greater emissions of regulated air pollutants that would be created by the removal of
the GCCS. However, it does not define which pollutants would be required to be demonstrated as
greater or define what greater is in this context. It is unclear if removal criteria would require the total
of all criteria pollutants or a single criteria pollutant. Continuing to destroy LFG and supplemental fuel
will not include fugitive emissions, which cannot be measured directly but only modeled. Modeled
emissions will overestimate fugitives from arid landfill as discussed in the sections below.
Comment #14 - Return to Response #14
Comment #15 - Return to Response #15
Technically Feasible and Cost Effective
It does not appear that a feasibility study or cost effectiveness analysis was completed in association
with the proposed 1.5 tpy NMOC emissions rate. Absent these analyses, a realistic and achievable
NMOC threshold cannot be set. The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) proposed rulemaking
published in the Federal Register under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart XXX on July 17, 2014 initially proposed
several NMOC and design capacity thresholds, in which they compared the 40 CFR 60 Subpart WWW
emission rate of 50 Mg/yr (55 tpy) and 2.5 million Mg design capacity. In the study, they found that the
incremental annual net cost of decreasing the NMOC emissions rate from 50 Mg/yr to 40 Mg/yr (44 tpy),
with the same design capacity threshold, was $471,000 annually. In addition, when the EPA published
the proposed 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cf Emission Guideline (EG) rules, they evaluated more stringent
NMOC emissions standards of 34 and 40 Mg/yr based on their cost effectiveness analysis. EPA finalized
the EG rule with an NMOC threshold of 34 Mg/yr for active sites and retained the 50 Mg/yr threshold for
closed sites. Therefore, the proposed threshold of 1.5 tpy is dramatically lower than the 34 Mg/yr (37.5
tpy) NMOC threshold the EPA established for 40 CFR 60 Subpart XXX and Cf in 2016, which the EPA
determined feasible and attainable based on current technology and fiscal impact. In fact, it can be
implied that EPA determined a threshold this low to be cost effective.
Most recently, EPA completed its Risk and Technology Review (RTR) for the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for MSW Landfills (see 40 CFR 63 Subpart AAAA) which upheld
the 50 Mg/yr NMOC threshold. The final NESHAP rule published March 2020 retained the 50 Mg/yr
NMOC threshold.
EPA never considered an NMOC threshold lower than 34 Mg/yr in its technical review of the NSPS/EG or
NESHAP standards. Therefore, there is no technical feasibility or cost benefit data to support a
threshold lower than 34 Mg/yr NMOC. The Agency cannot issue a rule that is technically infeasible and
would result in non-compliance.
It also does not appear that a cost per ton reduction effectiveness for the rule was ever completed. The
best available control technology (BACT) criteria in MCAQD’s Permitting Handbook discusses the
completion of cost effectiveness analysis for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and other pollutants.
For example, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) uses $17,500 per ton as a BACT
cost threshold for VOCs, and MCQQD references BAAQMD in its Handbook for acceptable BACT
guidance. How does the cost of emissions controls compare for landfills at 1.5 tpy NMOC? From our
initial review, we would expect these costs to be significantly higher than what is considered BACT.
Based on WM experience, without conducting a feasibility study, the current threshold of 1.5 tpy NMOC
is not technically feasible nor cost effective and would fail any BACT cost analysis. The below comments
are based on the feasibility of operating a GCCS system at an MSW landfill.
Arizona Climate Impact on LFG/Declining LFG Flow
Arid climates like Arizona significantly reduce the quantity of LFG available for collection. It has been
WM experience in Arizona that when a landfill requires a GGCS due to the federal NSPS and EG rules,
the EPA landfill gas generation model (LandGEM) will predict LFG flow rates ten times greater than what
an operational GCCS demonstrates.
Comment #16 - Return to Response #16
Comment #17 - Return to Response #17
For example, a LandGEM model for an Arizona site predicted total LFG recovery at 2,000 standard cubic
feet per minute (scfm) and presumes 50% methane content for the maximum LFG flow which was
twenty-years in the future (20 years is the expected lifespan of a flare). However, the GCCS actually
measures LFG flow rates of approximately 45 scfm at 43% methane and operates 5 days a week for
approximately 5 hours a day. As the Draft Rule requires a destruction device to be designed for the
modeled maximum flow rate, a significantly over sized destruction device would be required, which will
not be able to operate as designed when it is required to control NMOC emissions down to 1.5 tpy.
LFG generation and recovery are modeled in a bell curve, with the maximum expected LFG
generation/recovery to be the first year after closure. Therefore, the requirement to operate a GCCS
until the NMOC emissions rate is less than 1.5 tpy in addition to operate a GCCS that is sized for
maximum expected LFG flow is not feasible. This is due to organic material generating the majority of
emissions during the first 10 years after disposal in the landfill. For active sites with long lifespans (e.g.
over 80 years), designing a GCCS for the maximum LFG decades in the future will create oversized GCCS
that will not be functional. Once these landfills cease waste acceptance and close, LFG generation will
decline year over year further exacerbating operational issues. Limited LFG generation usually requires
supplemental fossil fuel (which creates more emissions) to sustain GCCS operations and/or intermittent
operations of the GCCS is necessary. As proposed, this rule will result in oversized GCCS at all landfills,
which will likely have control system that have to be replaced multiple times after the landfill is closed
Dry climate landfills take longer to reach their peak LFG generation but also longer to reach minimum
levels due to slow waste degradation. This The facility may also be forced to modify/redesign its
controls and collection systems to accommodate low gas quality and quantity.
These operating scenarios create operations and compliance issues and increased cost and fossil fuel
emissions.
Methane Content
Landfills with declining LFG flow, such as closed landfills, typically have lower methane content. LFG at
an active landfill is typically between 40 and 50 percent, however once a landfill stops accepting waste,
not only does the LFG generation decrease over time but the methane percentage declines as well. This
issue is exasperated due to the arid climate conditions in Arizona, and the decline in organic compound
degradation as well as due to increased organics diversion. Current destruction device operations (e.g.
flares) as well as federal regulatory requirements (40 CFR 60.18) specify a minimum methane content of
20 percent. Closed landfills that meet the EG rule closure requirements (at 34 or 50 Mg/yr NMOC),
typically no longer generate enough flow at a high enough methane content to support continuous
operations. This makes control below 1.5 tpy NMOC infeasible, and the use of supplemental fossil fuel
would increase criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This creates a waiting game until
such time demonstrates that continued use of the GCCS will create greater emissions of regulated air
pollutants than those that would be created by the removal of the GCCS per Section 302.7(b) of the
Draft Rule.
GCCS Operational Requirements
LFG flares require a gas stream of at least 20 percent methane, and they typically have a turn down ratio
which allows the flare to operate at a lower capacity. A landfill with declining LFG flow, which has sized
its GCCS to handle the maximum expected flow rate for the entire landfill will have a flare that is
Comment #18 -
Return to
Response #18
oversized. Sites like this will reach a point where methane content is too low for combustion before the
NMOC equipment removal threshold can be demonstrated where supplemental fossil fuel (e.g.
propane) will be required to sustain GCCS operations. As previously discussed, the operating,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs to maintain between 34 Mg (37.5 tpy) and 1.5 tpy
NMOC as well as the overall technical feasibility of meeting the proposed rule requirements have not
been assessed as part of this proposed rulemaking.
This will make the problem worse by requiring many more years of GCCS operation before 1.5 tpy can
be met. All of these costs should be included in a detailed cost effectiveness analysis as part of his
rulemaking. Additionally, the costs to monitor and subsequent reporting costs for operation of the flare
between 34 Mg and 1.5 tpy has not been assessed by this proposed rule.
Size of Flares and Replacement
LFG flares have a typical lifespan of 20 years. In addition, each flare in unique and has its own turn down
ratio, which will vary based on the maximum heat input capacity. In addition, Section 302.1(a)(1) of the
Draft Rule states “The GCCS shall: Be designed and operated to handle the maximum expected gas flow
rate from the entire area of the landfill…” for active and closed landfills in Arizona, this would lead to
designing and building significantly oversized LFG GCCS which would not be able to sustain operations
due to low LFG quality and quantity down to 1.5 tpy.
Non-enclosed LFG flare replacement currently costs between $200,000 and $500,000 depending on the
size of the flare. Under the current EG rule, a closed landfill may need one flare replacement until the
closure criterial are meet. Under the Draft Rule, a landfill could require multiple flare replacements
after closure, resulting in millions of dollars of cost associated with post closure. In addition, to the flare
cost, new LG blowers would have to be purchased, wells and pipping would have to be replaced, and
many more years of GCCS operations would be required.
Landfills Which Met NSPS/EG Equipment Removal Criteria
The Draft Rule Section 302 states that “Each owner or operator of an affected facility with annual NMOC
emission rates that are below those specified in 40 CFR 60.33f(a)(3) or 40 CFR 60.33f(a)(4) with an active
landfill gas collection and control system (GCCS) shall comply.” The agency must clarify the proposed
rule is prospective and does not apply retrospectively to landfills that already met equipment removal
criteria under 40 CFR 60 Subpart WWW, 40 CFR 62 Subpart GGG or Maricopa Rule 321 regardless
whether these landfills continue to operate active GCCS. In addition, an existing landfill that becomes
subject to the NSPS 40 CFR 60 Subpart XXX requirements due to a modification (e.g. landfill expansion),
is no longer subject to Rule 321 requirements including proposed Section 302.
Comparison to California Landfill Methane Rule
The California Air Resource Board (CARB) Landfill Methane Rule (LMR) is the most stringent landfill rule
in the US. Under Section 95463(b)(2) of the CARB LMR, if LFG has a heat input capacity greater than or
equal to 3.0 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr), the landfill is required to meet the
requirements of the rule. The 3.0 MMBtu/hr threshold equates to approximately 100 scfm. MCAQD’s
proposed threshold is about one third of the California threshold, which confirms that MCAQD has
proposed a threshold that is infeasible. The technology for a flare to operate at 35 scfm at 50 percent is
not readily available and would leave all current landfills having to incur high cost of multiple
Comment #19 -
Return to
Response #19
Comment #20 -
Return to
Response #20
Comment #21 - Return to Response #21
Comment #22 - Return to Response #22
replacements for the costliest not yet developed technology. The California LMR allows additional
analysis including completion of surface emission monitoring (SEM), before controls are required, and
the exit criteria are much less stringent that 1.5 tpy NMOCs. Therefore, it can be shown that the
proposed MCAQD rule is more stringent than the California rule without any justification for this
stringency.
For the Draft Rule, we calculated flow rate using EPA’s AP-42 Table 2.4-2 default NMOC concentration of
595 parts per million volume (ppmv), the molecular weight for NMOCs as hexane, and conversion factors
to calculate a total flow of approximately 43.6 scfm. Assuming only 75 percent of total LFG generated is
considered collectable, a landfill with an NMOC emission rate of 1.5 tpy would collect an expected LFG
flow of 35 scfm at 50 percent methane. This flow rate is significantly lower than the 100 scfm threshold
in the most stringent landfill methane rule in the US. CARB set their threshold at the lowest heat rate
that was expected to be combustible in a flare - assuming 50% methane content. MCAQD’s proposed
threshold is about one third of the California threshold. The California LMR allows additional analysis
including completion of surface emission monitoring (SEM), before controls are required, and the
equipment removal criteria are based on 3.0 MMBtu/hr - much less stringent that 1.5 tpy NMOC. The
technology for a flare to operate at 35 scfm at 50 percent methane content is not available today.
MCAQD BACT
Per the MCAQD Permitting Handbook, dated November 2020, BACT is only required for proposed
modification to a source if the potential to emit increases modified sources 40 tpy or more of VOCs.
Closed landfill’s have declining emissions, and yet by imposing a 1.5 tpy limit MCAQD will effectively
enforce BACT on these non-major sources without the ability to perform a determination if it is
required.
Cost Benefit Analysis
A cost benefit analysis was discussed in the Draft Rule, and it is unclear if one was completed as we did
not see any such documentation. MCAQCD’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Rule 323 Fuel Burning
Equipment from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Source conducted a full cost benefit analysis
which included the probable cost and benefits to businesses directly affected by the proposed
rulemaking, including any anticipated effect on the revenues or payroll expenditures of employers who
are subject to the proposed rulemaking. There is no mention of cost benefit analysis in the Draft Rule,
which appears to be a departure from MCAQCD practices.
Note, landfill operation and maintenance costs will significantly increase when they are controlling LFG
at reduced flows as the economies of scale are foregone and actual reductions are much lower.
Therefore, a cost analysis must be based on the time period between 34 Mg/yr and 1.5 tpy and not just
the costs as they exist today.
Regulatory Necessity
Per Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations, Rule 100, there is a permitting threshold for all
stationary sources that have a potential to emit 0.5 tpy of VOC. Therefore, under Rule 100 almost all
landfills would be required to have a permit and the Draft Rule would not require any new or currently
closed landfills to be regulated.
Comment #23 - Return to Response #23
Comment #24 - Return to Response #24
Comment #25 - Return to Response #25
To demonstrate how there is no regulatory necessity to create such stringent removal criteria, the LFG
flow, which was calculated as a comparison to demonstrate how insignificant LFG flow would be at 1.5
tpy, was used to calculate the total VOC emission as well. Using the AP-42 defaults discussed above, and
AP-42 Table 2.4-2 Note C, a total VOC content of 0.28 tpy was calculated. As you can see the total
calculated VOC content for a landfill with a NMOC emissions rate of 1.5 tpy is less than the 0.5 tpy
permitting requirement for a landfill.
Implementing a MCAQD specific landfill rule with new and very stringent requirements such as those
proposed, should be its own rulemaking process and not part of the implementation of the federal EG
rule. By combining the two rules, this has not only caused confusion, but creates uncertainty for EG
landfills in the future. Once NSPS or EG landfills exit the Federal program, they could still be potentially
required to follow the Draft Rule once their emissions drop below 34 Mg/yr if they still have an active
GCCS due to odor control or migration issues, and then would be required to follow more stringent
requirements.
Remove GHG/Carbon Opportunities
This new rule would also eliminate any voluntary carbon credit projects in Maricopa County. Under
programs such as the Climate Action Reserve (CAR) or the American Climate Registry (ACR), voluntary
GHG offset credits to projects who reduce GHG emission outside regulatory requirements. The most
common landfill protocol in the U.S. is the CAR Landfill Project Protocol, which has a legal requirement
test, which every landfill project must pass in order to qualify. The adoption of Draft Rule, would
eliminate any possibility to have a voluntary carbon project, by installing a voluntary GCCS, and
eliminate the incentive to install a GCCS early to generate offset credits to sell in the voluntary market.
Existing Odor and Migration Systems
Many closed and small landfills were once in remote areas in Maricopa County when the opened but are
now surrounded by residential or commercial properties. As such, these small closed landfills have
existing odor and migration systems to shield neighboring housing and commercial buildings. Typically,
these systems will be partial GCCS with tie in perimeter wells to stop migration off of the landfill
property or LFG odor concerns. A large fraction of these facilities would not generate enough LFG for a
destruction device, so they use a carbon system to filter the gas for odors or prevent migration offsite,
and vent the gas directly to the atmosphere. There are landfills in Maricopa County, which have been
closed since the 1980 or 1990s and would be impacted by the Draft Rule.
It is unclear if closed landfills with an active GCCS for odor or migration issues, that have exited the
Federal EG rule due to meeting the Federal exit criteria or never triggered the Federal rule in the first
place would be required to be meet the Draft Rule’s requirements under Section 302. If so, this would
be extremely unreasonable and would punish landfill for installing GCCS for other purposes by forcing
them to comply with a more stringent standard.
Testing Requirements Eliminate Open Flares
In Arizona, it is very common for GCCS to have non-enclosed (aka candlestick or open) flares and EPA as
part of its recent NSPS review and NESHAP RTR reconfirmed non-enclosed flare technology as best
demonstrated technology. These flares traditionally operate best at landfills in arid climates with low
flow conditions, as they can have larger turndown ratios compared to enclosed flares. The Draft Rule
Comment #26 - Return to Response #26
Comment #27 - Return to Response #27
Comment #28 - Return to Response #28
only provides performance testing procedures for enclosed flares and does not also include testing
provisions for open flares consistent with NESHAPs, NSPS and current NSPS and EG rules (see 40 CFR
60.18 and 40 CFR 63.19). This would impose more stringent requirements on landfills below the Federal
thresholds. In many Non-NSPS/EG landfills in arid climates, open flares or carbon systems are needed for
the low LFG conditions. Enclosed combustion technology will fail or not meet stack testing
requirements as they cannot maintain combustion temperatures in declining or low flow / methane
content conditions. Enclosed flares are also significantly more expensive than open flares, which would
greatly increase compliance costs without significantly improving emission reductions.
More Stringent Operation and Testing Requirements
The Draft Rule implements more stringent and expensive operating and testing requirements than the
Federal NSPS, EG and NESHAP rules. Landfills not subject to the federal requirements are small or old
sites that generate less emissions. As such, more stringent requirements for federally exempt sites
especially ones in arid climate, is excessive. As such, this Draft Rule is not expected to achieve significant
or measurable reductions in emissions.
In addition, the more rigorous test methods and procedures, such as in 302.2(e), (h), (i) and (p), are
excessive, again creating more stringent criteria for Non-NSPS/EG landfills. It is unwarranted to require
Non-NSPS/EG landfills perform additional performance testing at the Control Officers request if one
detail is missed or if the test could not be conducted due to low flow or methane.
Section 302.4(c) allows for any closed Non-NSPS/EG landfills that has no monitored exceedance in three
consecutive quarterly monitoring events to skip to annual monitoring. As this section of the Draft Rule
applies to Non-NSPS/EG landfills only, it should apply to all EG landfills as well NSPS/Landfills in arid
climates are likely to produce less LFG with a lower methane content and have fewer to no surface
emission exceedances.
We would be interested in discussing with MCAQD. We also look forward to providing input for a
detailed cost-effectiveness analysis and reviewing that analysis, which is clearly a necessity in this case.
CLOSING
WM appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Rule 321. Due the short window for
comments, WM may have additional comments on Section 302 of the Draft Rule. We would be
interested in discussing our comments with you, and we will request a meeting early next year. Should
you have questions, please contact Dave Bearden at dbearde2@wm.com.
Sincerely,
Dave Bearden
Senior Environmental Projection Manager
Waste Management
cc: David Thorley and Amy Banister, WM
Comment #28 (cont.) - Return to Response #28
Comment #29 - Return to Response #29
Comment #30 - Return to Response #30
From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2020 2:44 PM
To: PND Regulatory <PNDRegulatory@maricopa.gov>; Kathy Semder (COA) <Kathy.Semder@Maricopa.Gov>; Andy
Linton (COA) <Andy.Linton@Maricopa.Gov>; Bill Leal (FCD) <Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov>; Kathryn Garcia (PND)
<Kathryn.Garcia@Maricopa.Gov>; Blanca Caballero (ENV) <Blanca.Caballero@Maricopa.gov>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments
Citizen Comments
Each Regulatory Department is committed to providing opportunities for
stakeholder input regarding the adoption and amendment of all regulatory
requirements. Your input will be collected and forwarded to the appropriate
department. You will receive a written response from the applicable department
within two business days. We appreciate your comments and your time.
Case Number/Rule
AQ-2017-002 Rule 321 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills/111d
Plan
Department
Air Quality
I would like to
Other
First Name
Gian
Last Name
Muniz
Organization
Southwest Regional Landfill
City
Buckeye
Zip
85326
Email
GMuniz@republicservices.com
Phone Number
408-202-2491
Phone Type
Mobile
Would you like someone to
contact you?
Yes
Comments
Southwest Regional Landfill (SWRL) is pleased to provide
comments to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department
(MCAQD) on the proposed Draft Rule 321 for Existing
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills (Draft Rule) to
implement the emission guidelines (EG) under Clean Air Act
(CAA) Section 111(d) as well as implement requirements for
MSW landfills with active gas collection and control systems
(GCCS) that are not subject to the EG.
If applicable, attach
supporting documentation
associated with your
comment. The only file
types supported are MS
Office and Adobe Acrobat.
Response Letter MCAQCD Rule 321 12.24.2020.pdf
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϰ͕ϮϬϮϬ
DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂŽƵŶƚLJŝƌYƵĂůŝƚLJĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
ϭϬϬϭE͘ĞŶƚƌĂůǀĞŶƵĞ͕ηϭϮϱ
WŚŽĞŶŝdž͕ϴϱϬϬϰ
^ƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚ ůĞĐƚƌŽŶŝĐĂůůLJ͗DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂŽƵŶƚLJ ŶŚĂŶĐĞĚZĞŐƵůĂƚŽƌLJKƵƚƌĞĂĐŚWƌŽŐƌĂŵ; ZKWͿ
ZĞ͗
ŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŽŶDĂƌŝĐŽƉĂŽƵŶƚLJ͛ƐƌĂĨƚZƵůĞϯϮϭͬůĞĂŶŝƌĐƚ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϭϭϭ;ĚͿWůĂŶĨŽƌ džŝƐƚŝŶŐ
DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů^ŽůŝĚtĂƐƚĞ>ĂŶĚĨŝůůƐ
dŽtŚŽŵ/ƚDĂLJŽŶĐĞƌŶ͗
^ŽƵƚŚǁĞƐƚZĞŐŝŽŶĂů>ĂŶĚĨŝůů;^tZ>ͿŝƐƉůĞĂƐĞĚƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐƚŽƚŚĞDĂƌŝĐŽƉĂŽƵŶƚLJŝƌYƵĂůŝƚLJ
ĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ;DYͿŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌĂĨƚZƵůĞϯϮϭĨŽƌ džŝƐƚŝŶŐDƵŶŝĐŝƉĂů^ŽůŝĚtĂƐƚĞ;D^tͿ>ĂŶĚĨŝůůƐ;ƌĂĨƚ
ZƵůĞͿƚŽŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚƚŚĞĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐ; 'ͿƵŶĚĞƌůĞĂŶŝƌĐƚ;Ϳ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϭϭϭ;ĚͿĂƐǁĞůůĂƐŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚ
ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌD^tůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐǁŝƚŚĂĐƚŝǀĞŐĂƐĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĐŽŶƚƌŽůƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ;'^ͿƚŚĂƚĂƌĞŶŽƚƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞ
'͘
^tZ>ĂŐƌĞĞƐǁŝƚŚDY͛ƐĂĚŽƉƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŵŽƐƚƌĞĐĞŶƚǀĞƌƐŝŽŶŽĨ&ĞĚĞƌĂů 'ƌƵůĞ;ϰϬŽĚĞŽĨ&ĞĚĞƌĂů
ZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ;&ZͿWĂƌƚϲϬ͕^ƵďƉĂƌƚĨͿĂƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞƚŽD^tůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕DY͛ƐƌĂĨƚZƵůĞ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϬϮ
ĂƚƚĞŵƉƚƐƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞĂŵŽƌĞƐƚƌŝŶŐĞŶƚƌƵůĞƚŚĂŶƚŚĞ&ĞĚĞƌĂů 'ƌƵůĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚǁŽƵůĚƌĞŐƵůĂƚĞD^tůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐǁŝƚŚ
EDKĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƌĂƚĞƐďĞůŽǁ&ĞĚĞƌĂůƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚƐƚŽĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJŵŽƌĞƐƚƌŝŶŐĞŶƚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ͘tĞŚĂǀĞƐĞƌŝŽƵƐ
ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĂƐĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚŝŶƚŚŝƐůĞƚƚĞƌ͘
ĞůŽǁ͕ĂƌĞŐĞŶĞƌĂůĂŶĚƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƚŚĞDYƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚZƵůĞϯϮϭ͕ǁŚŝĐŚǁĞŵĂLJƌĞǀŝƐĞŽƌ
ƐƵƉƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶƚŚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĂƐŵŽƌĞĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚ͘^ŝŶĐĞDYŚĂƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĂǀĞƌLJƐŚŽƌƚ
ĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƉĞƌŝŽĚĨŽƌƐƵĐŚĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚƌƵůĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͕ǁĞŚĂǀĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝŶŝƚŝĂůĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐǁŝƚŚĂŶŝŶƚĞŶƚƚŽƵƉĚĂƚĞ
ƚŚĞŵůĂƚĞƌŝĨŶĞĞĚĞĚ͘
KDD Ed^KEZ&dZh> ϯϮϭ
'^ZĞŵŽǀĂůƌŝƚĞƌŝĂ
dŚĞƌĂĨƚZƵůĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐĂ>ĂŶĚĨŝůůƚŽĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĐĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚŶŽŶͲŵĞƚŚĂŶĞŽƌŐĂŶŝĐĐŽŵƉŽƵŶĚ;EDKͿ
ĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƌĂƚĞŝƐůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶϭ͘ϱƚŽŶƐƉĞƌLJĞĂƌ;ƚƉLJͿŽŶƚŚƌĞĞƐƵĐĐĞƐƐŝǀĞƚĞƐƚĚĂƚĞƐƚŽŵĞĞƚƚŚĞ'^ƌĞŵŽǀĂů
ĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂŝŶ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϬϮ͘ϳ;ĂͿŽĨƚŚĞƌĂĨƚZƵůĞ͘^tZ>ďĞůŝĞǀĞƐƚŚŝƐƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŝƐƵŶƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞ͕ƵŶŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJ͕ĂŶĚ
ŝŶĨĞĂƐŝďůĞĚƵĞƚŽůĂĐŬŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJƚŚĂƚůŽǁ͕ůĂŶĚĨŝůůŐĂƐ;>&'ͿŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůŝŶĂƌŝĚĐůŝŵĂƚĞƐ͕
ĂŶĚƚŚĞĐŽƐƚĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞŶĞƐƐĨŽƌŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘
^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϬϮ͘ϳ;ďͿĂůůŽǁƐĨŽƌƌĞŵŽǀĂůŽĨƚŚĞ'^ŝĨƚŚĞůĂŶĚĨŝůůĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞĚƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞ'^ǁŝůů
ĐƌĞĂƚĞŐƌĞĂƚĞƌĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐŽĨƌĞŐƵůĂƚĞĚĂŝƌƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚƐƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚďĞĐƌĞĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞƌĞŵŽǀĂůŽĨƚŚĞ'^͘
,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ŝƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĚĞĨŝŶĞǁŚŝĐŚƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚƐǁŽƵůĚďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽďĞĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞĚĂƐŐƌĞĂƚĞƌŽƌĚĞĨŝŶĞǁŚĂƚ
ŐƌĞĂƚĞƌŝƐŝŶƚŚŝƐĐŽŶƚĞdžƚ͘/ƚŝƐƵŶĐůĞĂƌŝĨƌĞŵŽǀĂůĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂǁŽƵůĚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůŽĨĂůůĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚƐŽƌĂ
ƐŝŶŐůĞĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚ͘ŽŶƚŝŶƵŝŶŐƚŽĚĞƐƚƌŽLJ>&'ĂŶĚƐƵƉƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂůĨƵĞůǁŝůůŶŽƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĨƵŐŝƚŝǀĞĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐ͕
ǁŚŝĐŚĐĂŶŶŽƚďĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞĚĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJďƵƚŽŶůLJŵŽĚĞůĞĚ͘DŽĚĞůĞĚĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐǁŝůůŽǀĞƌĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĨƵŐŝƚŝǀĞƐĨƌŽŵĂƌŝĚ
ůĂŶĚĨŝůůĂƐĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐďĞůŽǁ͘
dĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůůLJ&ĞĂƐŝďůĞĂŶĚŽƐƚ ĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞ
/ƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĂƉƉĞĂƌƚŚĂƚĂĨĞĂƐŝďŝůŝƚLJƐƚƵĚLJŽƌĐŽƐƚĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞŶĞƐƐĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐǁĂƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚŝŶĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚϭ͘ϱƚƉLJEDKĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐƌĂƚĞ͘ďƐĞŶƚƚŚĞƐĞĂŶĂůLJƐĞƐ͕ĂƌĞĂůŝƐƚŝĐĂŶĚĂĐŚŝĞǀĂďůĞEDKƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚ
ĐĂŶŶŽƚďĞƐĞƚ͘dŚĞh^ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶŐĞŶĐLJ͛Ɛ; W͛ƐͿƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌƵůĞŵĂŬŝŶŐƉƵďůŝƐŚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ&ĞĚĞƌĂů
ZĞŐŝƐƚĞƌƵŶĚĞƌϰϬ&ZWĂƌƚϲϬ͕^ƵďƉĂƌƚyyyŽŶ:ƵůLJϭϳ͕ϮϬϭϰŝŶŝƚŝĂůůLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐĞǀĞƌĂůEDKĂŶĚĚĞƐŝŐŶ
ĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚƐ͕ŝŶǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞLJĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŚĞϰϬ&ZϲϬ^ƵďƉĂƌƚtttĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƌĂƚĞŽĨϱϬDŐͬLJƌ;ϱϱƚƉLJͿ
ĂŶĚϮ͘ϱŵŝůůŝŽŶDŐĚĞƐŝŐŶĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ͘/ŶƚŚĞƐƚƵĚLJ͕ƚŚĞLJĨŽƵŶĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝŶĐƌĞŵĞŶƚĂůĂŶŶƵĂůŶĞƚĐŽƐƚŽĨĚĞĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐ
ƚŚĞEDKĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐƌĂƚĞĨƌŽŵϱϬDŐͬLJƌƚŽϰϬDŐͬLJƌ;ϰϰƚƉLJͿ͕ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐĂŵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚ͕ǁĂƐ
Ψϰϳϭ͕ϬϬϬĂŶŶƵĂůůLJ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ǁŚĞŶƚŚĞ WƉƵďůŝƐŚĞĚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚϰϬ&ZWĂƌƚϲϬ͕^ƵďƉĂƌƚĨ ŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ
'ƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞ; 'ͿƌƵůĞƐ͕ƚŚĞLJĞǀĂůƵĂƚĞĚŵŽƌĞƐƚƌŝŶŐĞŶƚEDKĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐŽĨϯϰĂŶĚϰϬDŐͬLJƌďĂƐĞĚŽŶ
ƚŚĞŝƌĐŽƐƚĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞŶĞƐƐĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐ͘ WĨŝŶĂůŝnjĞĚƚŚĞ 'ƌƵůĞǁŝƚŚĂŶEDKƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚŽĨϯϰDŐͬLJƌĨŽƌĂĐƚŝǀĞƐŝƚĞƐ
ĂŶĚƌĞƚĂŝŶĞĚƚŚĞϱϬDŐͬLJƌƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚĨŽƌĐůŽƐĞĚƐŝƚĞƐ͘dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚŽĨϭ͘ϱƚƉLJŝƐ
ĚƌĂŵĂƚŝĐĂůůLJůŽǁĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞϯϰDŐͬLJƌ;ϯϳ͘ϱƚƉLJͿEDKƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚƚŚĞ WĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚĨŽƌϰϬ&ZϲϬ^ƵďƉĂƌƚyyy
ĂŶĚĨŝŶϮϬϭϲ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞ WĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚĨĞĂƐŝďůĞĂŶĚĂƚƚĂŝŶĂďůĞďĂƐĞĚŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJĂŶĚĨŝƐĐĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚ͘
/ŶĨĂĐƚ͕ŝƚĐĂŶďĞŝŵƉůŝĞĚƚŚĂƚ WĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚĂƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚƚŚŝƐůŽǁƚŽďŽƚďĞĐŽƐƚĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞ͘
DŽƐƚƌĞĐĞŶƚůLJ͕ WĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚŝƚƐZŝƐŬĂŶĚdĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJZĞǀŝĞǁ;ZdZͿĨŽƌƚŚĞEĂƚŝŽŶĂů ŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĨŽƌ
,ĂnjĂƌĚŽƵƐŝƌWŽůůƵƚĂŶƚƐ;E ^,WͿĨŽƌD^t>ĂŶĚĨŝůůƐ;ƐĞĞϰϬ&Zϲϯ^ƵďƉĂƌƚͿǁŚŝĐŚƵƉŚĞůĚƚŚĞϱϬDŐͬLJƌ
EDKƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚ͘dŚĞĨŝŶĂůE ^,WƌƵůĞƉƵďůŝƐŚĞĚDĂƌĐŚϮϬϮϬƌĞƚĂŝŶĞĚƚŚĞϱϬDŐͬLJƌEDKƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚ͘
WŶĞǀĞƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚĂŶEDKƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚůŽǁĞƌƚŚĂŶϯϰDŐͬLJƌŝŶŝƚƐƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨƚŚĞE^W^ͬ 'Žƌ
E ^,WƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůĨĞĂƐŝďŝůŝƚLJŽƌĐŽƐƚďĞŶĞĨŝƚĚĂƚĂƚŽƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĂƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚůŽǁĞƌ
ƚŚĂŶϯϰDŐͬLJƌEDK͘dŚĞŐĞŶĐLJĐĂŶŶŽƚŝƐƐƵĞĂƌƵůĞƚŚĂƚŝƐƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůůLJŝŶĨĞĂƐŝďůĞĂŶĚǁŽƵůĚƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶŶŽŶͲ
ĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ͘
/ƚĂůƐŽĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĂƉƉĞĂƌƚŚĂƚĂĐŽƐƚƉĞƌƚŽŶƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞŶĞƐƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƌƵůĞǁĂƐĞǀĞƌĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚ͘dŚĞďĞƐƚ
ĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJ;dͿĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂŝŶDY͛ƐWĞƌŵŝƚƚŝŶŐ,ĂŶĚŬĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĞƐƚŚĞĐŽŵƉůĞƚŝŽŶŽĨĐŽƐƚ
ĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞŶĞƐƐĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĨŽƌǀŽůĂƚŝůĞŽƌŐĂŶŝĐĐŽŵƉŽƵŶĚƐ;sKƐͿĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚƐ͘&ŽƌĞdžĂŵƉůĞ͕ƚŚĞĂLJƌĞĂ
ŝƌYƵĂůŝƚLJDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ;YDͿƵƐĞƐΨϭϳ͕ϱϬϬƉĞƌƚŽŶĂƐĂdĐŽƐƚƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚĨŽƌsKƐ͕ĂŶĚ
DYYƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐYDŝŶŝƚƐ,ĂŶĚŬĨŽƌĂĐĐĞƉƚĂďůĞdŐƵŝĚĂŶĐĞ͘,ŽǁĚŽĞƐƚŚĞĐŽƐƚŽĨĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐ
ĐŽŶƚƌŽůƐĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĨŽƌůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐĂƚϭ͘ϱƚƉLJEDK͍&ƌŽŵŽƵƌŝŶŝƚŝĂůƌĞǀŝĞǁ͕ǁĞǁŽƵůĚĞdžƉĞĐƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽƐƚƐƚŽďĞ
ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJŚŝŐŚĞƌƚŚĂŶǁŚĂƚŝƐĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚd͘
ĂƐĞĚŽŶ^tZ>ĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ͕ǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĐŽŶĚƵĐƚŝŶŐĂĨĞĂƐŝďŝůŝƚLJƐƚƵĚLJ͕ƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚŽĨϭ͘ϱƚƉLJEDKŝƐŶŽƚ
ƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůůLJĨĞĂƐŝďůĞŶŽƌĐŽƐƚĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞĂŶĚǁŽƵůĚĨĂŝůĂŶLJdĐŽƐƚĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐ͘dŚĞďĞůŽǁĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞďĂƐĞĚŽŶ
ƚŚĞĨĞĂƐŝďŝůŝƚLJŽĨŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĂ'^ƐLJƐƚĞŵĂƚĂŶD^tůĂŶĚĨŝůů͘
ƌŝnjŽŶĂůŝŵĂƚĞ/ŵƉĂĐƚŽŶ>&'ͬĞĐůŝŶŝŶŐ>&'&ůŽǁ
ƌŝĚĐůŝŵĂƚĞƐůŝŬĞƌŝnjŽŶĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞƋƵĂŶƚŝƚLJŽĨ>&'ĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶ͘/ƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶ^tZ>
ĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞŝŶƌŝnjŽŶĂƚŚĂƚǁŚĞŶĂůĂŶĚĨŝůůƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐĂ''^ĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞĨĞĚĞƌĂůE^W^ĂŶĚ 'ƌƵůĞƐ͕ƚŚĞ WůĂŶĚĨŝůů
ŐĂƐŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŵŽĚĞů;>ĂŶĚ' DͿǁŝůůƉƌĞĚŝĐƚ>&'ĨůŽǁƌĂƚĞƐƚĞŶƚŝŵĞƐŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚŚĂŶǁŚĂƚĂŶŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂů'^
ĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞƐ͘
&ŽƌĞdžĂŵƉůĞ͕Ă>ĂŶĚ' DŵŽĚĞůĨŽƌĂŶƌŝnjŽŶĂƐŝƚĞƉƌĞĚŝĐƚĞĚƚŽƚĂů>&'ƌĞĐŽǀĞƌLJĂƚϮ͕ϬϬϬƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚĐƵďŝĐĨĞĞƚƉĞƌ
ŵŝŶƵƚĞ;ƐĐĨŵͿĂŶĚƉƌĞƐƵŵĞƐϱϬйŵĞƚŚĂŶĞĐŽŶƚĞŶƚĨŽƌƚŚĞŵĂdžŝŵƵŵ>&'ĨůŽǁǁŚŝĐŚǁĂƐƚǁĞŶƚLJͲLJĞĂƌƐŝŶƚŚĞ
ĨƵƚƵƌĞ;ϮϬLJĞĂƌƐŝƐƚŚĞĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚůŝĨĞƐƉĂŶŽĨĂĨůĂƌĞͿ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞ'^ĂĐƚƵĂůůLJŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐ>&'ĨůŽǁƌĂƚĞƐŽĨ
ĂƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJϰϱƐĐĨŵĂƚϰϯйŵĞƚŚĂŶĞĂŶĚŽƉĞƌĂƚĞƐϱĚĂLJƐĂǁĞĞŬĨŽƌĂƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJϱŚŽƵƌƐĂĚĂLJ͘ƐƚŚĞ
ƌĂĨƚZƵůĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐĂĚĞƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĚĞǀŝĐĞƚŽďĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞŵŽĚĞůĞĚŵĂdžŝŵƵŵĨůŽǁƌĂƚĞ͕ĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJŽǀĞƌ
ƐŝnjĞĚĚĞƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĚĞǀŝĐĞǁŽƵůĚďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚǁŝůůŶŽƚďĞĂďůĞƚŽŽƉĞƌĂƚĞĂƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚǁŚĞŶŝƚŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽ
ĐŽŶƚƌŽůEDKĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐĚŽǁŶƚŽϭ͘ϱƚƉLJ͘
>&'ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƌĞĐŽǀĞƌLJĂƌĞŵŽĚĞůĞĚŝŶĂďĞůůĐƵƌǀĞ͕ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŵĂdžŝŵƵŵĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚ>&'ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶͬƌĞĐŽǀĞƌLJ
ƚŽďĞƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚLJĞĂƌĂĨƚĞƌĐůŽƐƵƌĞ͘dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƚŽŽƉĞƌĂƚĞĂ'^ƵŶƚŝůƚŚĞEDKĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐƌĂƚĞŝƐ
ůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶϭ͘ϱƚƉLJŝŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽŽƉĞƌĂƚĞĂ'^ƚŚĂƚŝƐƐŝnjĞĚĨŽƌŵĂdžŝŵƵŵĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚ>&'ĨůŽǁŝƐŶŽƚĨĞĂƐŝďůĞ͘dŚŝƐ
ŝƐĚƵĞƚŽŽƌŐĂŶŝĐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĞŵĂũŽƌŝƚLJŽĨĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚϭϬLJĞĂƌƐĂĨƚĞƌĚŝƐƉŽƐĂůŝŶƚŚĞ
ůĂŶĚĨŝůů͘&ŽƌĂĐƚŝǀĞƐŝƚĞƐǁŝƚŚůŽŶŐůŝĨĞƐƉĂŶƐ;Ğ͘Ő͘ŽǀĞƌϴϬLJĞĂƌƐͿ͕ĚĞƐŝŐŶŝŶŐĂ'^ĨŽƌƚŚĞŵĂdžŝŵƵŵ>&'ĚĞĐĂĚĞƐ
ŝŶƚŚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞǁŝůůĐƌĞĂƚĞŽǀĞƌƐŝnjĞĚ'^ƚŚĂƚǁŝůůŶŽƚďĞĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶĂů͘KŶĐĞƚŚĞƐĞůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐĐĞĂƐĞǁĂƐƚĞĂĐĐĞƉƚĂŶĐĞ
ĂŶĚĐůŽƐĞ͕>&'ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶǁŝůůĚĞĐůŝŶĞLJĞĂƌŽǀĞƌLJĞĂƌĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĞdžĂĐĞƌďĂƚŝŶŐŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůŝƐƐƵĞƐ͘>ŝŵŝƚĞĚ>&'
ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƵƐƵĂůůLJƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƐƵƉƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂůĨŽƐƐŝůĨƵĞů;ǁŚŝĐŚĐƌĞĂƚĞƐŵŽƌĞĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐͿƚŽƐƵƐƚĂŝŶ'^ŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ
ĂŶĚͬŽƌŝŶƚĞƌŵŝƚƚĞŶƚŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞ'^ŝƐŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJ͘ƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ͕ƚŚŝƐƌƵůĞǁŝůůƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶŽǀĞƌƐŝnjĞĚ'^Ăƚ
ĂůůůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚǁŝůůůŝŬĞůLJŚĂǀĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůƐLJƐƚĞŵƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞƚŽďĞƌĞƉůĂĐĞĚŵƵůƚŝƉůĞƚŝŵĞƐĂĨƚĞƌƚŚĞůĂŶĚĨŝůůŝƐ
ĐůŽƐĞĚƌLJĐůŝŵĂƚĞůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐƚĂŬĞůŽŶŐĞƌƚŽƌĞĂĐŚƚŚĞŝƌƉĞĂŬ>&'ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶďƵƚĂůƐŽůŽŶŐĞƌƚŽƌĞĂĐŚŵŝŶŝŵƵŵ
ůĞǀĞůƐĚƵĞƚŽƐůŽǁǁĂƐƚĞĚĞŐƌĂĚĂƚŝŽŶ͘dŚŝƐdŚĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJŵĂLJĂůƐŽďĞĨŽƌĐĞĚƚŽŵŽĚŝĨLJͬƌĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŝƚƐĐŽŶƚƌŽůƐĂŶĚ
ĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶƐLJƐƚĞŵƐƚŽĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞůŽǁŐĂƐƋƵĂůŝƚLJĂŶĚƋƵĂŶƚŝƚLJ͘
dŚĞƐĞŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽƐĐƌĞĂƚĞŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞŝƐƐƵĞƐĂŶĚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚĐŽƐƚĂŶĚĨŽƐƐŝůĨƵĞůĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐ͘
DĞƚŚĂŶĞŽŶƚĞŶƚ
>ĂŶĚĨŝůůƐǁŝƚŚĚĞĐůŝŶŝŶŐ>&'ĨůŽǁ͕ƐƵĐŚĂƐĐůŽƐĞĚůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐ͕ƚLJƉŝĐĂůůLJŚĂǀĞůŽǁĞƌŵĞƚŚĂŶĞĐŽŶƚĞŶƚ͘>&'ĂƚĂŶĂĐƚŝǀĞ
ůĂŶĚĨŝůůŝƐƚLJƉŝĐĂůůLJďĞƚǁĞĞŶϰϬĂŶĚϱϬƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌŽŶĐĞĂůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐƚŽƉƐĂĐĐĞƉƚŝŶŐǁĂƐƚĞ͕ŶŽƚŽŶůLJĚŽĞƐƚŚĞ
>&'ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĚĞĐƌĞĂƐĞŽǀĞƌƚŝŵĞďƵƚƚŚĞŵĞƚŚĂŶĞƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞƐĂƐǁĞůů͘dŚŝƐŝƐƐƵĞŝƐĞdžĂƐƉĞƌĂƚĞĚĚƵĞ
ƚŽƚŚĞĂƌŝĚĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƌŝnjŽŶĂ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞŝŶŽƌŐĂŶŝĐĐŽŵƉŽƵŶĚĚĞŐƌĂĚĂƚŝŽŶĂƐǁĞůůĂƐĚƵĞƚŽ
ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚŽƌŐĂŶŝĐƐĚŝǀĞƌƐŝŽŶ͘ƵƌƌĞŶƚĚĞƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĚĞǀŝĐĞŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ;Ğ͘Ő͘ĨůĂƌĞƐͿĂƐǁĞůůĂƐĨĞĚĞƌĂůƌĞŐƵůĂƚŽƌLJ
ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ;ϰϬ&ZϲϬ͘ϭϴͿƐƉĞĐŝĨLJĂŵŝŶŝŵƵŵŵĞƚŚĂŶĞĐŽŶƚĞŶƚŽĨϮϬƉĞƌĐĞŶƚ͘ůŽƐĞĚůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐƚŚĂƚŵĞĞƚƚŚĞ
'ƌƵůĞĐůŽƐƵƌĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ;ĂƚϯϰŽƌϱϬDŐͬLJƌEDKͿ͕ƚLJƉŝĐĂůůLJŶŽůŽŶŐĞƌŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĞŶŽƵŐŚĨůŽǁĂƚĂŚŝŐŚ
ĞŶŽƵŐŚŵĞƚŚĂŶĞĐŽŶƚĞŶƚƚŽƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĐŽŶƚŝŶƵŽƵƐŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘dŚŝƐŵĂŬĞƐĐŽŶƚƌŽůďĞůŽǁϭ͘ϱƚƉLJEDKŝŶĨĞĂƐŝďůĞ͕
ĂŶĚƚŚĞƵƐĞŽĨƐƵƉƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂůĨŽƐƐŝůĨƵĞůǁŽƵůĚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚĂŶĚŐƌĞĞŶŚŽƵƐĞŐĂƐ;','ͿĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐ͘
dŚŝƐĐƌĞĂƚĞƐĂǁĂŝƚŝŶŐŐĂŵĞƵŶƚŝůƐƵĐŚƚŝŵĞĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞĚƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞ'^ǁŝůůĐƌĞĂƚĞŐƌĞĂƚĞƌ
ĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐŽĨƌĞŐƵůĂƚĞĚĂŝƌƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚƐƚŚĂŶƚŚŽƐĞƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚďĞĐƌĞĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞƌĞŵŽǀĂůŽĨƚŚĞ'^ƉĞƌ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶ
ϯϬϮ͘ϳ;ďͿŽĨƚŚĞƌĂĨƚZƵůĞ͘
'^KƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ
>&'ĨůĂƌĞƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĂŐĂƐƐƚƌĞĂŵŽĨĂƚůĞĂƐƚϮϬƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŵĞƚŚĂŶĞ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞLJƚLJƉŝĐĂůůLJŚĂǀĞĂƚƵƌŶĚŽǁŶƌĂƚŝŽǁŚŝĐŚ
ĂůůŽǁƐƚŚĞĨůĂƌĞƚŽŽƉĞƌĂƚĞĂƚĂůŽǁĞƌĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ͘ůĂŶĚĨŝůůǁŝƚŚĚĞĐůŝŶŝŶŐ>&'ĨůŽǁ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĂƐƐŝnjĞĚŝƚƐ'^ƚŽ
ŚĂŶĚůĞƚŚĞŵĂdžŝŵƵŵĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚĨůŽǁƌĂƚĞĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞůĂŶĚĨŝůůǁŝůůŚĂǀĞĂĨůĂƌĞƚŚĂƚŝƐŽǀĞƌƐŝnjĞĚ͘^ŝƚĞƐůŝŬĞƚŚŝƐ
ǁŝůůƌĞĂĐŚĂƉŽŝŶƚǁŚĞƌĞŵĞƚŚĂŶĞĐŽŶƚĞŶƚŝƐƚŽŽůŽǁĨŽƌĐŽŵďƵƐƚŝŽŶďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞEDKĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚƌĞŵŽǀĂů
ƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚĐĂŶďĞĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞĚǁŚĞƌĞƐƵƉƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂůĨŽƐƐŝůĨƵĞů;Ğ͘Ő͘ƉƌŽƉĂŶĞͿǁŝůůďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽƐƵƐƚĂŝŶ'^
ŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘ƐƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐůLJĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĞĚ͕ƚŚĞŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ͕ŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ͕ƌĞĐŽƌĚŬĞĞƉŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚƌĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚƐƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶ
ďĞƚǁĞĞŶϯϰDŐ;ϯϳ͘ϱƚƉLJͿĂŶĚϭ͘ϱƚƉLJEDKĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůĨĞĂƐŝďŝůŝƚLJŽĨŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ
ƌƵůĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚďĞĞŶĂƐƐĞƐƐĞĚĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌƵůĞŵĂŬŝŶŐ͘
dŚŝƐǁŝůůŵĂŬĞƚŚĞƉƌŽďůĞŵǁŽƌƐĞďLJƌĞƋƵŝƌŝŶŐŵĂŶLJŵŽƌĞLJĞĂƌƐŽĨ'^ŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶďĞĨŽƌĞϭ͘ϱƚƉLJĐĂŶďĞŵĞƚ͘
ůůŽĨƚŚĞƐĞĐŽƐƚƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶĂĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚĐŽƐƚĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞŶĞƐƐĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨŚŝƐƌƵůĞŵĂŬŝŶŐ͘
ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůůLJ͕ƚŚĞĐŽƐƚƐƚŽŵŽŶŝƚŽƌĂŶĚƐƵďƐĞƋƵĞŶƚƌĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐĐŽƐƚƐĨŽƌŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĨůĂƌĞďĞƚǁĞĞŶϯϰDŐĂŶĚ
ϭ͘ϱƚƉLJŚĂƐŶŽƚďĞĞŶĂƐƐĞƐƐĞĚďLJƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌƵůĞ͘
^ŝnjĞŽĨ&ůĂƌĞƐĂŶĚZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚ
>&'ĨůĂƌĞƐŚĂǀĞĂƚLJƉŝĐĂůůŝĨĞƐƉĂŶŽĨϮϬLJĞĂƌƐ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ĞĂĐŚĨůĂƌĞŝŶƵŶŝƋƵĞĂŶĚŚĂƐŝƚƐŽǁŶƚƵƌŶĚŽǁŶƌĂƚŝŽ͕
ǁŚŝĐŚǁŝůůǀĂƌLJďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞŵĂdžŝŵƵŵŚĞĂƚŝŶƉƵƚĐĂƉĂĐŝƚLJ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϬϮ͘ϭ;ĂͿ;ϭͿŽĨƚŚĞƌĂĨƚZƵůĞ
ƐƚĂƚĞƐ͞dŚĞ'^ƐŚĂůů͗ĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚĂŶĚŽƉĞƌĂƚĞĚƚŽŚĂŶĚůĞƚŚĞŵĂdžŝŵƵŵĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚŐĂƐĨůŽǁƌĂƚĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ
ĞŶƚŝƌĞĂƌĞĂŽĨƚŚĞůĂŶĚĨŝůů͙͟ĨŽƌĂĐƚŝǀĞĂŶĚĐůŽƐĞĚůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐŝŶƌŝnjŽŶĂ͕ƚŚŝƐǁŽƵůĚůĞĂĚƚŽĚĞƐŝŐŶŝŶŐĂŶĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJŽǀĞƌƐŝnjĞĚ>&''^ǁŚŝĐŚǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞĂďůĞƚŽƐƵƐƚĂŝŶŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐĚƵĞƚŽůŽǁ>&'ƋƵĂůŝƚLJĂŶĚ
ƋƵĂŶƚŝƚLJĚŽǁŶƚŽϭ͘ϱƚƉLJ͘
EŽŶͲĞŶĐůŽƐĞĚ>&'ĨůĂƌĞƌĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJĐŽƐƚƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶΨϮϬϬ͕ϬϬϬĂŶĚΨϱϬϬ͕ϬϬϬĚĞƉĞŶĚŝŶŐŽŶƚŚĞƐŝnjĞŽĨ
ƚŚĞĨůĂƌĞ͘hŶĚĞƌƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ 'ƌƵůĞ͕ĂĐůŽƐĞĚůĂŶĚĨŝůůŵĂLJŶĞĞĚŽŶĞĨůĂƌĞƌĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚƵŶƚŝůƚŚĞĐůŽƐƵƌĞĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂů
ĂƌĞŵĞĞƚ͘hŶĚĞƌƚŚĞƌĂĨƚZƵůĞ͕ĂůĂŶĚĨŝůůĐŽƵůĚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵƵůƚŝƉůĞĨůĂƌĞƌĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚƐĂĨƚĞƌĐůŽƐƵƌĞ͕ƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶŐŝŶ
ŵŝůůŝŽŶƐŽĨĚŽůůĂƌƐŽĨĐŽƐƚĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚƉŽƐƚĐůŽƐƵƌĞ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŽƚŚĞĨůĂƌĞĐŽƐƚ͕ŶĞǁ>'ďůŽǁĞƌƐǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞ
ƚŽďĞƉƵƌĐŚĂƐĞĚ͕ǁĞůůƐĂŶĚƉŝƉƉŝŶŐǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞƚŽďĞƌĞƉůĂĐĞĚ͕ĂŶĚŵĂŶLJŵŽƌĞLJĞĂƌƐŽĨ'^ŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐǁŽƵůĚ
ďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͘
>ĂŶĚĨŝůůƐtŚŝĐŚDĞƚE^W^ͬ ' ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚZĞŵŽǀĂůƌŝƚĞƌŝĂ
dŚĞƌĂĨƚZƵůĞ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϬϮƐƚĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚ͞ ĂĐŚŽǁŶĞƌŽƌŽƉĞƌĂƚŽƌŽĨĂŶĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJǁŝƚŚĂŶŶƵĂůEDK
ĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƌĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞďĞůŽǁƚŚŽƐĞƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚŝŶϰϬ&ZϲϬ͘ϯϯĨ;ĂͿ;ϯͿŽƌϰϬ&ZϲϬ͘ϯϯĨ;ĂͿ;ϰͿǁŝƚŚĂŶĂĐƚŝǀĞůĂŶĚĨŝůů
ŐĂƐĐŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĐŽŶƚƌŽůƐLJƐƚĞŵ;'^ͿƐŚĂůůĐŽŵƉůLJ͘͟dŚĞĂŐĞŶĐLJŵƵƐƚĐůĂƌŝĨLJƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌƵůĞŝƐƉƌŽƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞ
ĂŶĚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĂƉƉůLJƌĞƚƌŽƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞůLJƚŽůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐƚŚĂƚĂůƌĞĂĚLJŵĞƚĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚƌĞŵŽǀĂůĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂƵŶĚĞƌϰϬ&ZϲϬ
^ƵďƉĂƌƚttt͕ϰϬ&ZϲϮ^ƵďƉĂƌƚ'''ŽƌDĂƌŝĐŽƉĂZƵůĞϯϮϭƌĞŐĂƌĚůĞƐƐǁŚĞƚŚĞƌƚŚĞƐĞůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽ
ŽƉĞƌĂƚĞĂĐƚŝǀĞ'^͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐůĂŶĚĨŝůůƚŚĂƚďĞĐŽŵĞƐƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞE^W^ϰϬ&ZϲϬ^ƵďƉĂƌƚyyy
ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĚƵĞƚŽĂŵŽĚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ;Ğ͘Ő͘ůĂŶĚĨŝůůĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶͿ͕ŝƐŶŽůŽŶŐĞƌƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽZƵůĞϯϮϭƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϬϮ͘
DYd
WĞƌƚŚĞDYWĞƌŵŝƚƚŝŶŐ,ĂŶĚŬ͕ĚĂƚĞĚEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϬ͕dŝƐŽŶůLJƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨŽƌƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŵŽĚŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ
ƚŽĂƐŽƵƌĐĞŝĨƚŚĞƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůƚŽĞŵŝƚŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐŵŽĚŝĨŝĞĚƐŽƵƌĐĞƐϰϬƚƉLJŽƌŵŽƌĞŽĨsKƐ͘ůŽƐĞĚůĂŶĚĨŝůů͛ƐŚĂǀĞ
ĚĞĐůŝŶŝŶŐĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐ͕ĂŶĚLJĞƚďLJŝŵƉŽƐŝŶŐĂϭ͘ϱƚƉLJůŝŵŝƚDYǁŝůůĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞůLJĞŶĨŽƌĐĞdŽŶƚŚĞƐĞŶŽŶͲ
ŵĂũŽƌƐŽƵƌĐĞƐǁŝƚŚŽƵƚƚŚĞĂďŝůŝƚLJƚŽƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĂƚŝŽŶŝĨŝƚŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͘
ŽƐƚĞŶĞĨŝƚŶĂůLJƐŝƐ
ĐŽƐƚďĞŶĞĨŝƚĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐǁĂƐĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƌĂĨƚZƵůĞ͕ĂŶĚŝƚŝƐƵŶĐůĞĂƌŝĨŽŶĞǁĂƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚĂƐǁĞĚŝĚŶŽƚƐĞĞ
ĂŶLJƐƵĐŚĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘DY͛ƐEŽƚŝĐĞŽĨWƌŽƉŽƐĞĚZƵůĞŵĂŬŝŶŐĨŽƌZƵůĞϯϮϯ&ƵĞůƵƌŶŝŶŐ ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚĨƌŽŵ
/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂůͬŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůͬ/ŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶĂů;//Ϳ^ŽƵƌĐĞĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚĂĨƵůůĐŽƐƚďĞŶĞĨŝƚĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐǁŚŝĐŚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚƚŚĞ
ƉƌŽďĂďůĞĐŽƐƚĂŶĚďĞŶĞĨŝƚƐƚŽďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌƵůĞŵĂŬŝŶŐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĂŶLJĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚ
ĞĨĨĞĐƚŽŶƚŚĞƌĞǀĞŶƵĞƐŽƌƉĂLJƌŽůůĞdžƉĞŶĚŝƚƵƌĞƐŽĨĞŵƉůŽLJĞƌƐǁŚŽĂƌĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌƵůĞŵĂŬŝŶŐ͘dŚĞƌĞ
ŝƐŶŽŵĞŶƚŝŽŶŽĨĐŽƐƚďĞŶĞĨŝƚĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐŝŶƚŚĞƌĂĨƚZƵůĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉĞĂƌƐƚŽďĞĂĚĞƉĂƌƚƵƌĞĨƌŽŵDY
ƉƌĂĐƚŝĐĞƐ͘
EŽƚĞ͕ůĂŶĚĨŝůůŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞĐŽƐƚƐǁŝůůƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞǁŚĞŶƚŚĞLJĂƌĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůůŝŶŐ>&'Ăƚ
ƌĞĚƵĐĞĚĨůŽǁƐĂƐƚŚĞĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĞƐŽĨƐĐĂůĞĂƌĞĨŽƌĞŐŽŶĞĂŶĚĂĐƚƵĂůƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶƐĂƌĞŵƵĐŚůŽǁĞƌ͘dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ĂĐŽƐƚ
ĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐŵƵƐƚďĞďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞƚŝŵĞƉĞƌŝŽĚďĞƚǁĞĞŶϯϰDŐͬLJƌĂŶĚϭ͘ϱƚƉLJĂŶĚŶŽƚũƵƐƚƚŚĞĐŽƐƚƐĂƐƚŚĞLJĞdžŝƐƚ
ƚŽĚĂLJ͘
ZĞŐƵůĂƚŽƌLJEĞĐĞƐƐŝƚLJ
WĞƌDĂƌŝĐŽƉĂŽƵŶƚLJŝƌWŽůůƵƚŝŽŶŽŶƚƌŽůZĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ZƵůĞϭϬϬ͕ƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂƉĞƌŵŝƚƚŝŶŐƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚĨŽƌĂůů
ƐƚĂƚŝŽŶĂƌLJƐŽƵƌĐĞƐƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞĂƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůƚŽĞŵŝƚϬ͘ϱƚƉLJŽĨsK͘dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ƵŶĚĞƌZƵůĞϭϬϬĂůŵŽƐƚĂůůůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐ
ǁŽƵůĚďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽŚĂǀĞĂƉĞƌŵŝƚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĂĨƚZƵůĞǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĂŶLJŶĞǁŽƌĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJĐůŽƐĞĚůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐƚŽ
ďĞƌĞŐƵůĂƚĞĚ͘
dŽĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞŚŽǁƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽƌĞŐƵůĂƚŽƌLJŶĞĐĞƐƐŝƚLJƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞƐƵĐŚƐƚƌŝŶŐĞŶƚƌĞŵŽǀĂůĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂ͕ƚŚĞ>&'ĨůŽǁ͕
ǁŚŝĐŚǁĂƐĐĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚĂƐĂĐŽŵƉĂƌŝƐŽŶƚŽĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞŚŽǁŝŶƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚ>&'ĨůŽǁǁŽƵůĚďĞĂƚϭ͘ϱƚƉLJ͕ǁĂƐƵƐĞĚ
ƚŽĐĂůĐƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůsKĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĂƐǁĞůů͘hƐŝŶŐƚŚĞWͲϰϮĚĞĨĂƵůƚƐĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͕ĂŶĚWͲϰϮdĂďůĞϮ͘ϰͲϮ
EŽƚĞ͕ĂƚŽƚĂůsKĐŽŶƚĞŶƚŽĨϬ͘ϮϴƚƉLJǁĂƐĐĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚ͘ƐLJŽƵĐĂŶƐĞĞƚŚĞƚŽƚĂůĐĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚsKĐŽŶƚĞŶƚĨŽƌĂ
ůĂŶĚĨŝůůǁŝƚŚĂEDKĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐƌĂƚĞŽĨϭ͘ϱƚƉLJŝƐůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶƚŚĞϬ͘ϱƚƉLJƉĞƌŵŝƚƚŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚĨŽƌĂůĂŶĚĨŝůů͘
/ŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐĂDYƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐůĂŶĚĨŝůůƌƵůĞǁŝƚŚŶĞǁĂŶĚǀĞƌLJƐƚƌŝŶŐĞŶƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐƐƵĐŚĂƐƚŚŽƐĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ͕
ƐŚŽƵůĚďĞŝƚƐŽǁŶƌƵůĞŵĂŬŝŶŐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐĂŶĚŶŽƚƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĨĞĚĞƌĂů 'ƌƵůĞ͘LJĐŽŵďŝŶŝŶŐ
ƚŚĞƚǁŽƌƵůĞƐ͕ƚŚŝƐŚĂƐŶŽƚŽŶůLJĐĂƵƐĞĚĐŽŶĨƵƐŝŽŶ͕ďƵƚĐƌĞĂƚĞƐƵŶĐĞƌƚĂŝŶƚLJĨŽƌ 'ůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐŝŶƚŚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞ͘KŶĐĞ
E^W^Žƌ 'ůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐĞdžŝƚƚŚĞ&ĞĚĞƌĂůƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͕ƚŚĞLJĐŽƵůĚƐƚŝůůďĞƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůůLJƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽĨŽůůŽǁƚŚĞƌĂĨƚZƵůĞ
ŽŶĐĞƚŚĞŝƌĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐĚƌŽƉďĞůŽǁϯϰDŐͬLJƌŝĨƚŚĞLJƐƚŝůůŚĂǀĞĂŶĂĐƚŝǀĞ'^ĚƵĞƚŽŽĚŽƌĐŽŶƚƌŽůŽƌŵŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ
ŝƐƐƵĞƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞŶǁŽƵůĚďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽĨŽůůŽǁŵŽƌĞƐƚƌŝŶŐĞŶƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘
ZĞŵŽǀĞ','ͬĂƌďŽŶKƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ
dŚŝƐŶĞǁƌƵůĞǁŽƵůĚĂůƐŽĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚĞĂŶLJǀŽůƵŶƚĂƌLJĐĂƌďŽŶĐƌĞĚŝƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝŶDĂƌŝĐŽƉĂŽƵŶƚLJ͘hŶĚĞƌƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ
ƐƵĐŚĂƐƚŚĞůŝŵĂƚĞĐƚŝŽŶZĞƐĞƌǀĞ;ZͿŽƌƚŚĞŵĞƌŝĐĂŶůŝŵĂƚĞZĞŐŝƐƚƌLJ;ZͿ͕ǀŽůƵŶƚĂƌLJ','ŽĨĨƐĞƚĐƌĞĚŝƚƐ
ƚŽƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐǁŚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞ','ĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŽƵƚƐŝĚĞƌĞŐƵůĂƚŽƌLJƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘dŚĞŵŽƐƚĐŽŵŵŽŶůĂŶĚĨŝůůƉƌŽƚŽĐŽůŝŶ
ƚŚĞh͘^͘ŝƐƚŚĞZ>ĂŶĚĨŝůůWƌŽũĞĐƚWƌŽƚŽĐŽů͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĂƐĂůĞŐĂůƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƚĞƐƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĞǀĞƌLJůĂŶĚĨŝůůƉƌŽũĞĐƚŵƵƐƚ
ƉĂƐƐŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽƋƵĂůŝĨLJ͘dŚĞĂĚŽƉƚŝŽŶŽĨƌĂĨƚZƵůĞǁŽƵůĚĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚĞĂŶLJƉŽƐƐŝďŝůŝƚLJƚŽŚĂǀĞĂǀŽůƵŶƚĂƌLJĐĂƌďŽŶ
ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ďLJŝŶƐƚĂůůŝŶŐĂǀŽůƵŶƚĂƌLJ'^͕ĂŶĚĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚĞƚŚĞŝŶĐĞŶƚŝǀĞƚŽŝŶƐƚĂůůĂ'^ĞĂƌůLJƚŽŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞŽĨĨƐĞƚ
ĐƌĞĚŝƚƐƚŽƐĞůůŝŶƚŚĞǀŽůƵŶƚĂƌLJŵĂƌŬĞƚ͘
džŝƐƚŝŶŐKĚŽƌĂŶĚDŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ^LJƐƚĞŵƐ
DĂŶLJĐůŽƐĞĚĂŶĚƐŵĂůůůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐǁĞƌĞŽŶĐĞŝŶƌĞŵŽƚĞĂƌĞĂƐŝŶDĂƌŝĐŽƉĂŽƵŶƚLJǁŚĞŶƚŚĞŽƉĞŶĞĚďƵƚĂƌĞŶŽǁ
ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚĞĚďLJƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůŽƌĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐ͘ƐƐƵĐŚ͕ƚŚĞƐĞƐŵĂůůĐůŽƐĞĚůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐŚĂǀĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŽĚŽƌĂŶĚ
ŵŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶƐLJƐƚĞŵƐƚŽƐŚŝĞůĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŝŶŐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĂŶĚĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͘dLJƉŝĐĂůůLJ͕ƚŚĞƐĞƐLJƐƚĞŵƐǁŝůůďĞ
ƉĂƌƚŝĂů'^ǁŝƚŚƚŝĞŝŶƉĞƌŝŵĞƚĞƌǁĞůůƐƚŽƐƚŽƉŵŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĨŽĨƚŚĞůĂŶĚĨŝůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽƌ>&'ŽĚŽƌĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ͘
ůĂƌŐĞĨƌĂĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐĞĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĞŶŽƵŐŚ>&'ĨŽƌĂĚĞƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĚĞǀŝĐĞ͕ƐŽƚŚĞLJƵƐĞĂĐĂƌďŽŶ
ƐLJƐƚĞŵƚŽĨŝůƚĞƌƚŚĞŐĂƐĨŽƌŽĚŽƌƐŽƌƉƌĞǀĞŶƚŵŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĨƐŝƚĞĂŶĚǀĞŶƚƚŚĞŐĂƐĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJƚŽƚŚĞĂƚŵŽƐƉŚĞƌĞ͘
dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐŝŶDĂƌŝĐŽƉĂŽƵŶƚLJ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĐůŽƐĞĚƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞϭϵϴϬŽƌϭϵϵϬƐĂŶĚǁŽƵůĚďĞŝŵƉĂĐƚĞĚ
ďLJƚŚĞƌĂĨƚZƵůĞ͘
/ƚŝƐƵŶĐůĞĂƌŝĨĐůŽƐĞĚůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐǁŝƚŚĂŶĂĐƚŝǀĞ'^ĨŽƌŽĚŽƌŽƌŵŝŐƌĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƐƵĞƐ͕ƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞĞdžŝƚĞĚƚŚĞ&ĞĚĞƌĂů '
ƌƵůĞĚƵĞƚŽŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƚŚĞ&ĞĚĞƌĂůĞdžŝƚĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂŽƌŶĞǀĞƌƚƌŝŐŐĞƌĞĚƚŚĞ&ĞĚĞƌĂůƌƵůĞŝŶƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚƉůĂĐĞǁŽƵůĚďĞ
ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽďĞŵĞĞƚƚŚĞƌĂĨƚZƵůĞ͛ƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐƵŶĚĞƌ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϬϮ͘/ĨƐŽ͕ƚŚŝƐǁŽƵůĚďĞĞdžƚƌĞŵĞůLJ
ƵŶƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞĂŶĚǁŽƵůĚƉƵŶŝƐŚůĂŶĚĨŝůůĨŽƌŝŶƐƚĂůůŝŶŐ'^ĨŽƌŽƚŚĞƌƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐďLJĨŽƌĐŝŶŐƚŚĞŵƚŽĐŽŵƉůLJǁŝƚŚĂ
ŵŽƌĞƐƚƌŝŶŐĞŶƚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚ͘
dĞƐƚŝŶŐZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ ůŝŵŝŶĂƚĞKƉĞŶ&ůĂƌĞƐ
/ŶƌŝnjŽŶĂ͕ŝƚŝƐǀĞƌLJĐŽŵŵŽŶĨŽƌ'^ƚŽŚĂǀĞŶŽŶͲĞŶĐůŽƐĞĚ;ĂŬĂĐĂŶĚůĞƐƚŝĐŬŽƌŽƉĞŶͿĨůĂƌĞƐĂŶĚ WĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨ
ŝƚƐƌĞĐĞŶƚE^W^ƌĞǀŝĞǁĂŶĚE ^,WZdZƌĞĐŽŶĨŝƌŵĞĚŶŽŶͲĞŶĐůŽƐĞĚĨůĂƌĞƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJĂƐďĞƐƚĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞĚ
ƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJ͘dŚĞƐĞĨůĂƌĞƐƚƌĂĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůůLJŽƉĞƌĂƚĞďĞƐƚĂƚůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐŝŶĂƌŝĚĐůŝŵĂƚĞƐǁŝƚŚůŽǁĨůŽǁĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĂƐƚŚĞLJ
ĐĂŶŚĂǀĞůĂƌŐĞƌƚƵƌŶĚŽǁŶƌĂƚŝŽƐĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽĞŶĐůŽƐĞĚĨůĂƌĞƐ͘dŚĞƌĂĨƚZƵůĞŽŶůLJƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞƚĞƐƚŝŶŐ
ƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐĨŽƌĞŶĐůŽƐĞĚĨůĂƌĞƐĂŶĚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĂůƐŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚĞƐƚŝŶŐƉƌŽǀŝƐŝŽŶƐĨŽƌŽƉĞŶĨůĂƌĞƐĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚ
E ^,WƐ͕E^W^ĂŶĚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚE^W^ĂŶĚ 'ƌƵůĞƐ;ƐĞĞϰϬ&ZϲϬ͘ϭϴĂŶĚϰϬ&Zϲϯ͘ϭϵͿ͘dŚŝƐǁŽƵůĚŝŵƉŽƐĞŵŽƌĞ
ƐƚƌŝŶŐĞŶƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽŶůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐďĞůŽǁƚŚĞ&ĞĚĞƌĂůƚŚƌĞƐŚŽůĚƐ͘/ŶŵĂŶLJEŽŶͲE^W^ͬ 'ůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐŝŶĂƌŝĚĐůŝŵĂƚĞƐ͕
ŽƉĞŶĨůĂƌĞƐŽƌĐĂƌďŽŶƐLJƐƚĞŵƐĂƌĞŶĞĞĚĞĚĨŽƌƚŚĞůŽǁ>&'ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͘ ŶĐůŽƐĞĚĐŽŵďƵƐƚŝŽŶƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJǁŝůůĨĂŝů
ŽƌŶŽƚŵĞĞƚƐƚĂĐŬƚĞƐƚŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƐƚŚĞLJĐĂŶŶŽƚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĐŽŵďƵƐƚŝŽŶƚĞŵƉĞƌĂƚƵƌĞƐŝŶĚĞĐůŝŶŝŶŐŽƌůŽǁ
ĨůŽǁͬŵĞƚŚĂŶĞĐŽŶƚĞŶƚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͘ ŶĐůŽƐĞĚĨůĂƌĞƐĂƌĞĂůƐŽƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJŵŽƌĞĞdžƉĞŶƐŝǀĞƚŚĂŶŽƉĞŶĨůĂƌĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚ
ǁŽƵůĚŐƌĞĂƚůLJŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞĐŽƐƚƐǁŝƚŚŽƵƚƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJŝŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶƐ͘
DŽƌĞ^ƚƌŝŶŐĞŶƚKƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚdĞƐƚŝŶŐZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ
dŚĞƌĂĨƚZƵůĞŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚƐŵŽƌĞƐƚƌŝŶŐĞŶƚĂŶĚĞdžƉĞŶƐŝǀĞŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƚĞƐƚŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐƚŚĂŶƚŚĞ&ĞĚĞƌĂů
E^W^͕ 'ĂŶĚE ^,WƌƵůĞƐ͘>ĂŶĚĨŝůůƐŶŽƚƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞĨĞĚĞƌĂůƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞƐŵĂůůŽƌŽůĚƐŝƚĞƐƚŚĂƚ
ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞůĞƐƐĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐ͘ƐƐƵĐŚ͕ŵŽƌĞƐƚƌŝŶŐĞŶƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌĨĞĚĞƌĂůůLJĞdžĞŵƉƚƐŝƚĞƐĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJŽŶĞƐŝŶĂƌŝĚ
ĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ŝƐĞdžĐĞƐƐŝǀĞ͘ƐƐƵĐŚ͕ƚŚŝƐƌĂĨƚZƵůĞŝƐŶŽƚĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚƚŽĂĐŚŝĞǀĞƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚŽƌŵĞĂƐƵƌĂďůĞƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶƐŝŶ
ĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐ͘
/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŚĞŵŽƌĞƌŝŐŽƌŽƵƐƚĞƐƚŵĞƚŚŽĚƐĂŶĚƉƌŽĐĞĚƵƌĞƐ͕ƐƵĐŚĂƐŝŶϯϬϮ͘Ϯ;ĞͿ͕;ŚͿ͕;ŝͿĂŶĚ;ƉͿ͕ĂƌĞĞdžĐĞƐƐŝǀĞ͕
ĂŐĂŝŶĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐŵŽƌĞƐƚƌŝŶŐĞŶƚĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂĨŽƌEŽŶͲE^W^ͬ 'ůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐ͘/ƚŝƐƵŶǁĂƌƌĂŶƚĞĚƚŽƌĞƋƵŝƌĞEŽŶͲE^W^ͬ '
ůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞƚĞƐƚŝŶŐĂƚƚŚĞŽŶƚƌŽůKĨĨŝĐĞƌƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŝĨŽŶĞĚĞƚĂŝůŝƐŵŝƐƐĞĚŽƌŝĨƚŚĞ
ƚĞƐƚĐŽƵůĚŶŽƚďĞĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚĚƵĞƚŽůŽǁĨůŽǁŽƌŵĞƚŚĂŶĞ͘
^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϬϮ͘ϰ;ĐͿĂůůŽǁƐĨŽƌĂŶLJĐůŽƐĞĚEŽŶͲE^W^ͬ 'ůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐƚŚĂƚŚĂƐŶŽŵŽŶŝƚŽƌĞĚĞdžĐĞĞĚĂŶĐĞŝŶƚŚƌĞĞ
ĐŽŶƐĞĐƵƚŝǀĞƋƵĂƌƚĞƌůLJŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĞǀĞŶƚƐƚŽƐŬŝƉƚŽĂŶŶƵĂůŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ͘ƐƚŚŝƐƐĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƌĂĨƚZƵůĞĂƉƉůŝĞƐ
ƚŽEŽŶͲE^W^ͬ 'ůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐŽŶůLJ͕ŝƚƐŚŽƵůĚĂƉƉůLJƚŽĂůů 'ůĂŶĚĨŝůůƐĂƐǁĞůůE^W^ͬ>ĂŶĚĨŝůůƐŝŶĂƌŝĚĐůŝŵĂƚĞƐĂƌĞůŝŬĞůLJƚŽ
ƉƌŽĚƵĐĞůĞƐƐ>&'ǁŝƚŚĂůŽǁĞƌŵĞƚŚĂŶĞĐŽŶƚĞŶƚĂŶĚŚĂǀĞĨĞǁĞƌƚŽŶŽƐƵƌĨĂĐĞĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞdžĐĞĞĚĂŶĐĞƐ͘
tĞǁŽƵůĚďĞŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚĞĚŝŶĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŶŐǁŝƚŚDY͘tĞĂůƐŽůŽŽŬĨŽƌǁĂƌĚƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐŝŶƉƵƚĨŽƌĂĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚĐŽƐƚͲ
ĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞŶĞƐƐĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĂŶĚƌĞǀŝĞǁŝŶŐƚŚĂƚĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĐůĞĂƌůLJĂŶĞĐĞƐƐŝƚLJŝŶƚŚŝƐĐĂƐĞ͘
>K^/E'
^tZ>ĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞƐƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŽŶƚŚĞƌĂĨƚZƵůĞϯϮϭ͘ƵĞƚŚĞƐŚŽƌƚǁŝŶĚŽǁĨŽƌ
ĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐ͕^tZ>ŵĂLJŚĂǀĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŽŶ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϯϬϮŽĨƚŚĞƌĂĨƚZƵůĞ͘tĞǁŽƵůĚďĞŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚĞĚŝŶ
ĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŶŐŽƵƌĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐǁŝƚŚLJŽƵ͕ĂŶĚǁĞǁŝůůƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĂŵĞĞƚŝŶŐĞĂƌůLJŶĞdžƚLJĞĂƌ͘^ŚŽƵůĚLJŽƵŚĂǀĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ͕
ƉůĞĂƐĞĐŽŶƚĂĐƚ'ŝĂŶDƵŶŝnjĂƚ'DƵŶŝnjΛƌĞƉƵďůŝĐƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͘ĐŽŵ͘
^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůLJ͕
'ŝĂŶDƵŶŝnj
ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůDĂŶĂŐĞƌ
^ŽƵƚŚǁĞƐƚZĞŐŝŽŶĂů>ĂŶĚĨŝůů
ĐĐ͗DŝĐŚĂĞůĂƌŶĞůůĂŶĚEŝŬŝtƵĞƐƚĞŶďĞƌŐ͕^tZ>
From:
Bearden, David <dbearde2@wm.com>
Sent:
Friday, 30 April, 2021 01:47 PM
To:
Laura Jardieanu (AQD); Muniz Guzman, Gian
Cc:
Kimberly Butler (AQD); Gregory Verkamp (AQD); Thorley, David
Subject:
RE: Revised Rule 321 Language - comments
Attachments:
Comments on Maricopa County Rule 321_4-30-21 (Final).pdf
Hello All,
WM has reviewed the revised proposed rule along with your comments, and has prepared additional comments with a
corresponding redline version of the proposed rule for your review.
Thanks for the opportunity to continue to work with you on this draft rule.
Dave Bearden
Senior Environmental Protection Manager
Waste Management
222 S. Mill Ave., Suite 333
Tempe, AZ 85281
602‐708‐9815
David Bearden
Waste Management
222 S. Mill Avenue, Suite 333
Tempe, Arizona 85281
Phone: 602-708-9815
dbearde2@wm.com
April 30, 2021
Ms. Laura Jarieanu
Senior Planner
Air Quality Division
Maricopa County Environmental Services Department
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Subject:
Comments on Maricopa County Air Quality Department Working Draft Rule 321
Dear Ms. Jarieanu:
Waste Management of Arizona, Inc. (WMA) hereby provides a summary of comments on the Maricopa
County Air Quality Department’s (MCAQD’s) working draft Rule 321 (Existing Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) Landfills). Proposed language for draft Rule 321 based on the comments below is attached.
General Comments
It is our understanding that Section 302 has been developed for existing and future closed landfills with
NMOC emission rates less than 34 megagrams (Mg) per year (between 1.5 and 37.5 tons per year (tpy)).
The stringent regulations proposed would require an owner or operator who installed a voluntary gas
collection and control system (GCCS) to follow the same stringent requirements of a landfill under the
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). This would effectively eliminate voluntary systems that
would aid in odor control or gas migration or could generate carbon credits. In addition, a landfill would
not be allowed to remove or discontinue operating the GCCS until it reaches as low as 1.5 tpy of non-
methane organic compound (NMOC) emissions, which is more stringent than federal or California
regulations. This level required would virtually never be achieved, even in the arid environment of
Arizona, thus requiring a GCCS to be operated in perpetuity.
It is our understanding that the MCAQD based the 1.5 tpy of NMOC emissions as it correlates to 0.5 tpy
of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, in which a facility no longer needs an air permit. We also
understand that MCAQD does not apply this threshold for VOCs to other permitted facilities in the County,
which is inconsistent. The MCAQD’s current VOC Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
threshold is $5,000 per ton of VOC; however, the MCAQD has not performed a cost analysis of the
proposed rule to determine if the requirements of meeting compliance and operating a GCCS at these
low NMOC emissions levels would cost more than the current RACT threshold. WMA estimated the total
annualized operational costs to operate a closed landfill is $ 169,300. Below is a detailed cost breakdown.
Please note that these estimates do not include the capital costs for major repairs, replacement flares and
collection wells, which would only increase the annualized cost.
Technician Labor/Truck/PPE/Tools/Laptop
$95,400
Well Head/Gas Monitoring Instrument/Calibration/Service
$12,800
Flare Maint/Repairs/Source Testing
$23,200
Surface Emissions Monitoring/Cover Repairs
$25,900
Well Field & Condensate System Minor Repairs
$12,300
Comment #31 - Return to Response #31
Ms. Laura Jarieanu
Page 2
April 30, 2021
Rule-Specific Comments
Comment No. 1
Under draft Section 101 and 301, WMA requests that clarification be added to the purpose that defines
“existing” MSW landfills. It is unclear if the term “existing” is referencing active and closed landfills or what
we understand the regulation to be, which is for closed landfills. This also creates confusion with the
federal definition of existing under NSPS/Emission Guidelines (EG).
Comment No. 2
Under draft Section 301, WMA requests that the Control Officer be empowered to approve alternative test
methods to determine the NMOC emission rate. Proposed Section 301 of Rule 321 is MCAQD’s rule;
therefore, it is unclear why additional language has been added to remove the Control Officer’s power.
Comment No. 3
Under draft Section 302, WMA requests to add clarifying language that the requirements for existing
MSW landfills with NMOC emission rates below federal thresholds shall apply to a facility with an installed
and operational GCCS.
Comment No. 4
Under draft Section 302.1(a), the language recognizes that the GCCS should be designed and operated
to handle the expected gas flow rate when the landfill is still generating landfill gas (LFG) in an upward
curve. However, for closed landfills on the declining side of the LFG generation curve, it will be more
difficult to meet the operational requirements set forth in Section 302.1(a). As such, WMA requests that
clarification language be added to Section 302.1(a)(3) that the GCCS shall collect gas at a rate sufficient
to maintain a negative pressure at all wellheads in the collection system without causing excessive air
infiltration, except when collected LFG flow rates are less than 500 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm)
and with methane quality under 40 percent (%). Note that maintaining a negative pressure at all
wellheads for landfills with low LFG flows may not be possible. In addition, the life of the blower has no
influence on maintaining compliance without causing air infiltration and suggest this language be
removed.
Comment No. 5
Under draft Section 302.1(b), WMA requests to clarify the control device language to note that both
enclosed and other control devices would meet the requirements of the rule, which would match the
control devices allowed further in the rule, including open flares and LFG treatment devices. Please note
that both open flares and LFG treatment systems are needed for most renewable energy projects that
utilize LFG.
Comment No. 6
Under draft Section 302.1(c), WMA requests that language be added to allow the facility to decommission
or abandon wells as needed, which will be reported in the subsequent reporting period.
Comment No. 7
Under draft Section 302.1(2)(e), WMA requests that the proposed language “approved by the Control
Officer” be removed. If the use of a passive venting system is included in the GCCS Design plan, there is
language in the federal Subpart Cf rule where the Administrator may not require anything more than a
copy of the GCCS Design Plan’s signature page.
Comment #32 - Return to Response #32
Comment #33 - Return to Response #33
Comment #34 - Return to Response #34
Comment #35 - Return to Response #35
Comment #36 - Return to Response #36
Comment #37 - Return to Response #37
Comment #38 - Return to Response #38
Ms. Laura Jarieanu
Page 3
April 30, 2021
Comment No. 8
Under draft Section 302.1(c)(4), WMA requests that additional language reference to Section 302.4(c) is
provided such that it is clear that the requirement is based upon different frequencies depending on the
status of the landfill and previous monitoring results.
Comment No. 9
Under draft Section 302.1(c)(4)(b), WMA requests that the proposed language “Thus, the owner or
operator must monitor any openings that are within an area of the landfill where waste has been placed
and a gas collection system is required” be removed. This language has been added and is more
stringent than the Cf rule.
Comment No. 10
Under draft Section 302.2, WMA requests that the owner or operator shall conduct an initial performance
test of LFG emissions from an enclosed control device. Regular testing noted in the test methods and
procedures relate to an enclosed device and regular testing would be difficult for a landfill with declining
flows. The control device already monitors temperature to ensure proper operation.
Comment No. 11
Under draft Section 302.2(b), WMA requests clarification for the requirement for NMOC emission rate
calculations every five (5) years and what value does the calculation bring for a closed landfill with NMOC
emissions below 34 Mg. In addition, WMA requests clarification if NMOC emission rates are required
every five (5) years, does this necessitate the landfill to perform a new Tier 2 every five (5) years as well.
For a closed landfill with declining emissions, additional Tier 2 testing and NMOC reporting is not
warranted every five years once emissions are below 34 Mg/yr.
Comment No. 12
Under draft Section 302.2(b)(1), WMA requests that the flow rate of LFG shall be determined by
measuring the total LFG flow rate at the common header pipe that leads to the control device using a gas
flow measuring device calibrated according to the manufacturer recommendations. The reference to
using a gas flow measuring device calibrated to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 2e is too
stringent and unnecessary.
Comment No. 13
Under draft Section 302.2(d), WMA requests that the term “exhaust” be added to the condition as follows,
“Exhaust sampling sites and velocity traverse points…”.
Comment No. 14
Under draft Section 302.2(e), WMA requests that the language referencing an Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) plan be removed and the condition read as follows, “Performance tests shall be
conducted under representative operation conditions and all equipment shall be properly operating during
testing.”
Comment No. 15
Under draft Section 302.2(h) and (i), WMA requests that the language for chain of custody and packaging
and shipping procedures be removed. Chain of custodies will be properly completed per the laboratory
Comment #39 - Return to Response #39
Comment #40 - Return to Response #40
Comment #41 - Return to Response #41
Comment #42 - Return to Response #42
Comment #43 - Return to Response #43
Comment #44 - Return to Response #44
Comment #45 - Return to Response #45
Comment #46 - Return to Response #46
Ms. Laura Jarieanu
Page 4
April 30, 2021
requirements and the latest packaging and shipping requirements under the Department of
Transportation will be followed, when necessary.
Comment No. 16
Under draft Section 302.2(n), WMA requests clarification on what the MCAQD recommends if the test
results do not demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the rule because the landfill does not
generate enough gas to meet the testing and compliance requirements.
Comment No. 17
Under draft Section 302.3(a)(2), WMA requests that for the purposes of determining sufficient density of
gas collectors, the owner or operator shall maintain a system of vertical wells, horizontal collectors, or
other collections devices consistent with the GCCS Design Plan, which would be satisfactory to the
Control Officer. Therefore, WMA requests the language requiring the system be maintained that would be
satisfactory to the Control Officer be removed.
Comment No. 18
Under draft Section 302.3(a)(3), the reference to the provision of 302.3 applying at all times that the
GCCS is in operation, except during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM), appears
inaccurate. The requirement in Subpart Cf is for the entire subpart, not just one section. Therefore, WMA
requests to modify the language from Section 302.3 to Section 302. In addition, WMA requests that
language be added to clarify that landfills operating intermittently may not be subject to the SSM
requirements when the GCCS is scheduled to be non-operational.
Comment No. 19
Under draft Section 302.3(b), WMA requests to add a reference to frequency of monitoring for surface
emissions monitoring (SEM) per Section 302.4(c).
Comment No. 20
Under draft Section 302.3(b)(1), WMA requests to add language for the allowance of alternative
technologies for conducting SEM if approved by the Administrator/Control Officer.
Comment No. 21
Under draft Section 302.3(b)(5), WMA requests an alternative for reduced frequency of monitoring for
cover integrity. WMA requests that closed landfills be allowed to follow the monitoring frequencies
required under SEM. Cover integrity would be performed on a quarterly basis and if there are no cover
issues identified for three consecutive quarterly monitoring periods, then the landfill may skip to annual
monitoring. If any closed landfill that has skipped to annual monitoring has had no cover issues identified
for three consecutive years, they may stop monitoring for cover integrity. Please note that monitoring for
cover integrity is not required currently for existing closed landfills and it does not appear that costs
associated with monthly cover integrity monitoring, and repairs, has been taken into consideration for a
site that is unmanned.
Comment No. 22
Under draft Section 302.4(a)(2)(b), WMA requests that language be added that notes that the owner or
operator shall secure the bypass line valve in a closed position with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type
configuration, if equipped. This condition should not apply to landfills that do not have a bypass line valve.
Comment #47 - Return to Response #47
Comment #48 - Return to Response #48
Comment #49 - Return to Response #49
Comment #50 - Return to Response #50
Comment #51 - Return to Response #51
Comment #52 - Return to Response #52
Comment #53 - Return to Response #53
Ms. Laura Jarieanu
Page 5
April 30, 2021
Comment No. 23
Under draft Section 302.5, WMA requests that all language referencing an O&M Plan and its
requirements be removed from Rule 321. O&M Plans are not required in any NSPS language. Landfills
are already required to maintain compliance through a GCCS Design Plan as well as meeting detailed
requirements under proposed Rule 321. Adding a third set of requirements not only excessive but can
complicate compliance by having multiple different documents that must be followed. In addition, an O&M
Plan is meant for a steady-state operation that has operations that can be anticipated and maintained. A
landfill and its GCCS is not this type of operation. In fact, the minimum requirements in the section
reference adsorption temperature and effluent concentrations, neither of which are associated with
landfills.
Comment No. 24
Under draft Section 302.6, WMA requests a reduction in recordkeeping for landfills no longer subject to
Title V (Part 70) from five years to two years.
Comment No. 25
Under draft Section 302.6(a), maintaining records for the maximum expected gas generation flow rate
from performance tests or compliance demonstrations for each control device for closed landfills with
declining generation rates is difficult to predict and would not provide value; therefore, WMA requests that
the recordkeeping requirement be removed.
Comment No. 26
Under draft Section 302.6(b), WMA requests that maintaining data upon which the sufficient density of
wells, horizontal collectors, surface collectors, or other gas extraction devices and the gas mover
equipment sizing are based be excluded for closed landfills with declining flow rates. This requirement is
unnecessary for landfills that installed a GCCS prior to closure and would have sufficient gas collection
density since it was designed and built to meet compliance for LFG flow rates higher than after closure.
Comment No. 27
Under draft Section 302.6(e), WMA requests that the reference to 40 CFR 60.13 be removed as this
reference is for continuous stack emissions monitoring equipment.
Comment No. 28
Under draft Section 302.6(g), WMA requests that in addition to maintaining records of the percent
reduction of NMOC achieved by the control device during performance tests, the section also reference
the allowance for meeting compliance by reducing the outlet NMOC concentration to less than 20 ppmv,
dry basis as hexane at 3 percent oxygen, which is proven by monitoring combustion temperature in the
federal regulations.
Comment No. 29
WMA suggests that Section 302.7 be removed from this regulation since it is much stricter than any
federal regulation. The cost to comply with the regulation far exceeds the VOC RACT cost of $5,000 per
ton of VOCs. By making landfills with low LFG flows comply with all of the NSPS-like requirements, it will
inevitably result in sites being in a continuous state of non-compliance. Furthermore, it is unfair to have
this requirement apply to only currently open and operated sites, and not for existing closed sites that
may still be above the 1.5 tpy NMOC criteria.
Comment #54 - Return to Response #54
Comment #55 - Return to Response #55
Comment #56 - Return to Response #56
Comment #57 - Return to Response #57
Comment #58 - Return to Response #58
Comment #59 - Return to Response #59
Comment #60 - Return to Response #60
Ms. Laura Jarieanu
Page 6
April 30, 2021
Closing
Please let me know if you have any questions or if a meeting would be preferred to further discuss the
comments. Please feel free to contact me directly at (602) 708-9815 or by e-mail at dbearde2@wm.com.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
David Bearden
Senior Environmental Protection Manager
Waste Management
Attachment
cc
Eric DiEsposti, Waste Management of Arizona, Inc.
Dave Thorley, Waste Management
Gabrielle Stephens, SCS Engineers
Patrick Sullivan, SCS Engineers
Attachment
Working Draft Rule 321 in Track/Edit Changes
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule for Stakeholder Workshop
December 10, 2020
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 321
EXISTING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) LANDFILLS
INDEX
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101
PURPOSE
102
APPLICABILITY
103
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS
201
ADMINISTRATOR
202
201
AFFECTED FACILITY
203
202
COMMENCED
204
CONSTRUCTION
205
MODIFICATION
206
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL (MSW LANDFILL)
207
NMOC
208
OWNER OR OPERATOR
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW
LANDFILLS WITH NMOC EMISSION RATES AT OR ABOVE FEDERAL
THRESHOLDS
302
DELAYED APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW
LANDFILLS WITH NMOC EMISSION RATES BELOW FEDERAL
THRESHOLDS
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE)
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT APPLICABLE)
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule for Stakeholder Workshop
December 10, 2020
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Adopted 05/14/1997; Revised 03/01/2000; Revised 03/07/2001; Revised 11/19/2003; Revised
03/15/2006; Revised 12/17/2008; Revised 09/16/2009; Revised 07/07/2010; Revised 08/17/2011;
Revised 07/25/2012; Revised 03/26/2014; Revised 11/05/2014; Revised 11/18/2015; Revised
11/02/2016; Revised MM/DD/YYYY
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 321
EXISTING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) LANDFILLS
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101
PURPOSE: To limit the emissions of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) from
existing municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills.
102
APPLICABILITY: The provisions of this rule shall apply to each municipal solid waste
landfill for which construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced prior to May 30,
1991, and which has accepted waste at any time since November 8, 1987 or has additional
design capacity available for future waste deposition. The provisions of this rule shall apply
to existing MSW landfills that commenced construction, reconstruction or modification on
or before July 17, 2014.
103
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION: Copies of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW –
Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, are available as listed:
a.
Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
b. Maricopa County Rules are available electronically at http://www.maricopa.gov/aq.
c.
EPA documents are available electronically at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR.
d. ASTM standards are available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O.
Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, or from its website at www.astm.org.
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS: See Rule 100 of these rules and 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf for
definitions of terms that are used but not specifically defined in this rule. For the purpose of this
rule, the following definitions shall apply, in addition to those definitions found in Rule 100 (General
Provisions and Definitions) of these rules and 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf. In the event of any
inconsistency between any of the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Rules, the definitions in
this rule take precedence.
201
ADMINISTRATOR: The Control Officer, except that the Control Officer shall not be
empowered to approve alternative or equivalent test methods.
202
201
AFFECTED FACILITY: Any municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill to which this rule is
applicable.
Commented [LJ1]: Propose to delete, not
used in the rule. Added to Section 301 instead
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule for Stakeholder Workshop
December 10, 2020
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
203
202
COMMENCED: State or condition where an owner or operator has undertaken a
continuous program of construction; or where an owner or operator has entered into a
contractual obligation to undertake and complete such a program.
204
CONSTRUCTION: The fabrication, erection, or installation of an affected facility.
205
MODIFICATION: Any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, an
affected facility which would result in a change in actual emissions.
206
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL (MSW LANDFILL): An entire, publicly or
privately owned, disposal facility in a contiguous geographical space where household waste
is placed in or on land. Portions of a MSW landfill may be separated by access roads.
207
NMOC: Non-methane organic compound.
208
OWNER OR OPERATOR: Any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises
an affected facility.
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW
LANDFILLS WITH NMOC EMISSION RATES AT OR ABOVE FEDERAL
THRESHOLDS: The federal standards of performance for municipal solid waste landfills
set forth in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW is adopted as codified on July 1, 2016, and all
accompanying appendices, excluding 40 CFR 60.750, are adopted and incorporated by
reference with the amendments and revisions set forth in this section. This adoption by
reference includes no future editions or revisions. Each owner or operator of an affected
facility which reaches or exceeds the annual NMOC emission rates specified in 40 CFR
60.33f(a)(3) or 40 CFR 60.33f(a)(4) shall comply with all the requirements of 40 CFR Part
60, Subpart WWW Cf as adopted and, where applicable, revised herein. All references to the
Administrator in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cf shall be understood as the Control Officer,
except that the Control Officer shall not be empowered to approve alternative test methods
to determine the NMOC emission rate.
301.1 Collection and Control System Design Plan: 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(i) is amended to
read: “Submit a collection and control design plan prepared by a professional
engineer to the Administrator for approval not later than 12 months after submittal
of the initial NMOC emission rate report.”
301.2 Design Capacity Report: 40 CFR 60.757(a) is amended to read “Each owner or
operator of an affected facility shall submit an initial design capacity report to the
Administrator within 90 days from May 14, 1997.” 40 CFR 60.757(a)(1) is deleted.
301.3 NMOC Emission Rate Report: 40 CFR 60.757(b) is amended to read “Each owner
or operator of an affected facility shall submit an NMOC emission rate report to the
Administrator initially and annually thereafter, except as provided for in paragraphs
(b)(1)(ii) or (b)(3) of this section. The Administrator may request such additional
information as may be necessary to verify the reported NMOC emission rate.” 40
Commented [LJ2]: Propose to delete,
redundant with Rule 100 and Cf definition
Commented [LJ3]: Propose to delete,
redundant with Rule 100 and Cf definition
Commented [LJ4]: Propose to delete,
redundant with Cf
Commented [LJ5]: Propose to delete,
redundant with Cf and also defined in Section
100 (Purpose)
Commented [LJ6]: Propose to delete,
redundant with Rule 100 definition
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule for Stakeholder Workshop
December 10, 2020
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
CFR 60.757(b)(1)(i) is amended to read: “The initial NMOC emission rate report
shall be submitted within 90 days from May 14, 1997 and may be combined with the
initial design capacity report required in paragraph (a) of this section. Subsequent
NMOC emission rate reports shall be submitted annually thereafter, except as
provided for in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(3) of this section.”
302
DELAYED APPLICABILITY: For an affected facility that first becomes subject to the
collection and control system requirement of 40 CFR 60.752 after May 14, 1997, the design
plan shall be due not later than 12 months after submittal or scheduled submittal of an
NMOC emission rate report of 50 megagrams (55.12 tons) per year or more.
302
REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW LANDFILLS WITH NMOC
EMISSION RATES BELOW FEDERAL THRESHOLDS: Each owner or operator of
an affected facility with annual NMOC emission rates below those specified in 40 CFR
60.33f(a)(3) or 40 CFR 60.33f(a)(4) with an installed and operational landfill gas collection
and control system (GCCS) shall comply with the following requirements:
302.1 Operational Requirements: Each owner or operator shall operate and maintain an
existing GCCS that meets the following requirements:
a. The GCCS shall:
(1) Be designed and operated to handle the expected gas flow rate;
(2) Contain extraction wells which shall be maintained in any number and
spacing necessary to maintain emission and migration control and to collect
gas from each area, cell, or group of cells in the landfill which are still
generating gas as determined by measures of performance set forth in this
rule;
(3) Collect gas at a rate sufficient to maintain a negative pressure at all wellheads
in the collection system without causing excessive air infiltration, including
any wellheads connected to the system as a result of expansion or excess
surface emissions, for the life of the blower, except when collected LFG flow
rates are less than 500 scfm and with methane quality under 40 percent; and
(4) Be designed and operated to minimize off-site migration of subsurface gas,
and potential offsite impacts.
b. The control device shall reduce NMOC by 98 weight percent for non-enclosed
combustion devices or LFG treatment devices; or when an enclosed combustion
device is used for control, to either reduce NMOC by 98 weight percent or
reduce the outlet NMOC concentration to less than 20 parts per million by
volume, dry basis as hexane at 3 percent oxygen.
c. The GCCS shall be operated:
(1) Within the parameter ranges established during the most recent performance
test.
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule for Stakeholder Workshop
December 10, 2020
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(2) With negative pressure at each wellhead except under the following
conditions:
(a) A fire or increased well temperature. The owner or operator shall record
instances when positive pressure occurs in efforts to avoid a fire.
(b) Use of a geomembrane or synthetic cover. The owner or operator shall
develop acceptable pressure limits in the design plan.
(c) A decommissioned or abandoned well, determined by the owner or
operator as needed, or a well that is experiencing declining gas flow or
methane quality. The owner or operator shall record any
decommissioning or abandoning of wells, and wells with declining gas
flow or methane quality.
(d) When the GCCS is not operating. The owner or operator shall record
instances when the GCCS is not operating or being used intermittently.
(e) When using a passive venting system, as included in the GCCS Design
Plan approved by the Control Officer.
(3) At all times when the collected gas is routed to the control device.
(4) So that the methane concentration is less than 500 parts per million above
background at the surface of the landfill, as per the requirements and
frequencies under Section 302.4c. To determine if this level is exceeded, the
owner or operator must:
(a) Conduct surface testing using an organic vapor analyzer, flame ionization
detector, or other portable monitor meeting the compliance
specifications in Section 302.3.b.
(b) Conduct surface testing around the perimeter of the collection area and
along a pattern that traverses the landfill at no more than 30-meter
intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated concentrations
of landfill gas, such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the
cover and all cover penetrations. Thus, the owner or operator must
monitor any openings that are within an area of the landfill where waste
has been placed and a gas collection system is required. The owner or
operator may establish an alternative traversing pattern that ensures
equivalent coverage.
(c) Develop a surface monitoring design plan that includes a topographical
map with the monitoring route and the rationale for any site-specific
deviations from the 30-meter intervals. Areas with steep slopes or other
dangerous areas may be excluded from the surface testing.
302.2 Test Methods and Procedures: Each owner or operator shall conduct regular, 5-
yearan initial performance testing of landfill gas emissions as described below, and
where applicable depending on the type of control device:
a. Performance testing shall be conducted using the following test methods:
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule for Stakeholder Workshop
December 10, 2020
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(1) EPA Test Method 25, 25C, or 18 shall be used to determine compliance with
the 98 weight-percent efficiency or the 20 ppmv outlet concentration level
requirement.
(a) In cases where the outlet concentration is less than 50 ppm NMOC as
carbon (8 ppm NMOC as hexane), EPA Test Method 25A should be
used in place of EPA Test Method 25.
(b) If using EPA Test Method 18, the minimum list of compounds to be
tested shall be those published in the most recent Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42).
(2) The following equation shall be used to calculate control efficiency:
Control Efficiency = (NMOCin − NMOCout)/(NMOCin)
where,
NMOCin = mass of NMOC entering control device
NMOCout = mass of NMOC exiting control device
(3) EPA Test Method 3 or 3A shall be used to determine the O2 content for
correcting the NMOC concentration as hexane to 3% O2. EPA Test Method
19 shall be used to determine the exhaust stream flowrate.
(4) EPA Test Method 7E and CO testing in accordance with EPA Test Method
10 shall be used to conduct NOx testing.
(5) If using an enclosed flare, the owner or operator shall record the combustion
chamber temperature and landfill gas flow rate during the performance test.
b. The NMOC emission rate for the landfill shall also be calculated every five (5)
years using the following equation:
MNMOC = 1.89 × 10−3 QLFG × CNMOC
where,
MNMOC = mass emission rate of NMOC, megagrams per year
QLFG = flow rate of landfill gas, cubic meters per minute
CNMOC = NMOC concentration, parts per million by volume as hexane
(1) The flow rate of landfill gas, QLFG, shall be determined by measuring the total
landfill gas flow rate at the common header pipe that leads to the control
device using a gas flow measuring device calibrated according to the
provisions of Section 10 of EPA Test Method 2Emanufacturer
recommendations.
(2) The average NMOC concentration, CNMOC, shall be determined by collecting
and analyzing landfill gas sampled from the common header pipe before the
gas moving or condensate removal equipment using the procedures in EPA
Test Methods 25C or 18. If using EPA Test Method 18, the minimum list of
compounds to be tested shall be those published in the most recent
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42). The sample location
on the common header pipe shall be before any condensate removal or other
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule for Stakeholder Workshop
December 10, 2020
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
gas refining units. The owner or operator shall divide the NMOC
concentration from EPA Test Method 25C by six to convert from CNMOC
as carbon to CNMOC as hexane.
c. Performance tests shall be conducted and data shall be reduced in accordance
with the test methods and procedures specified in this section unless otherwise
specified by the Control Officer.
d. Exhaust sSampling sites and velocity traverse points shall be selected in
accordance with EPA Test Method 1or 1A. The gas volumetric flow rate shall be
measured in accordance with EPA Test Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G or 19.
The dry molecular weight shall be determined in accordance with EPA Test
Method 3, 3A or 3B. The stack gas moisture shall be determined in accordance
with EPA Test Method 4. These methods must be performed, as applicable,
during each test run.
e. Performance tests shall be conducted under representative operating conditions
and all equipment shall be properly operated operating during testing in
accordance with the most recently approved O&M Plan or according to its
operations manual if no O&M Plan is required.
f.
The owner or operator shall make available to the Control Officer any records
necessary to determine appropriate conditions for performance tests. Operations
during periods of startup, shutdown, and equipment malfunction shall not
constitute representative conditions for performance tests unless otherwise
specified.
g. The owner or operator shall record all process and control equipment
information that are necessary to document operating conditions during the test
and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. Operational
parameters shall be monitored and recorded at least once every 30 minutes
during each of the required test runs and documented in the test report. The
operational parameters monitored shall be capable of indicating that the
equipment is operating within the permitted limits, both during and after the
performance tests.
h. The chain of custody procedures in ASTM D4840-99 “Standard Guide for
Sampling Chain-of-Custody Procedures” shall be followed for all samples.
i.
Procedures in ASTM D6911-15 “Standard Guide for Packaging and Shipping
Environmental Samples for Laboratory Analysis” shall be followed for all
samples, where appropriate.
j.
The Control Officer shall be notified in writing at least two weeks in advance of
the actual date and time of each performance test, unless otherwise specified, so
that the Control Officer may have a representative attend.
k. The owner or operator shall install any and all sample ports or platforms
necessary to conduct the performance tests, provide safe access to any platforms,
and provide the necessary utilities for testing equipment.
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule for Stakeholder Workshop
December 10, 2020
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
l.
Each performance test shall consist of three separate test runs with each test run
being at least one hour in duration unless otherwise specified. Performance tests
may only be stopped for good cause, which includes forced shutdown, failure of
an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, extreme meteorological conditions,
or other circumstances beyond the owner or operator’s control. Termination of a
performance test without good cause after the first test run has commenced shall
constitute a failure of the performance test.
m. A separate test report for each performance test shall be submitted to the
Control Officer within 45 days after the completion of testing unless otherwise
specified. The Control Officer may extend the performance testing report
deadline upon the request of the owner or operator. The test protocol shall be
prepared in accordance with the most recent version of the Department’s “Air
Quality Performance Test Guidelines for Compliance Determination in
Maricopa County.”
n. If test results do not demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this rule,
the owner or operator shall make the necessary repairs and/or adjustments to the
equipment, or shall make operational changes, such as intermittent collection
system operation, and demonstrate compliance through retesting. In addition to
compliance demonstrations, test results shall be used for annual emissions
inventory purposes if the owner or operator is required to complete an emissions
inventory survey.
o. All test extension requests, test protocols, test date notifications, and test reports
shall be submitted to the Control Officer and addressed to the attention of the
Performance Test Evaluation Supervisor.
p. The above testing requirements represent the minimum level of testing to
monitor for compliance with the emission limits in this rule. Nothing in this
section shall prevent the Control Officer from requiring additional performance
testing as deemed necessary to ensure compliance and protection of the public
health and welfare.
302.3 Compliance: Each owner or operator shall utilize the following methods to
determine compliance with the operational requirements of Section 302.1.
a. The following procedures must be used for compliance with the GCCS
operational requirements as provided in Section 302.1:
(1) Actual flow data may be used instead of, or in conjunction with, the
equations in 40 CFR 60.36f(a)(1) to project the maximum expected gas
generation flow rate.
(2) For the purposes of determining sufficient density of gas collectors, the
owner or operator shall maintain a system of vertical wells, horizontal
collectors, or other collection devices satisfactory to the Control
Officerconsistent with the GCCS Design Plan, capable of controlling and
extracting gas from all portions of the landfill sufficient to meet all
operational and performance standards.
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule for Stakeholder Workshop
December 10, 2020
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(3) The provisions of Section 302.3 apply at all times that the GCCS is in
operation, except during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction,
provided that the duration of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction shall not
exceed 5 days for collection systems and shall not exceed 1 hour for
treatment or control devices, except during intermittent operation.
b. The following procedures must be used for compliance with the surface methane
operational requirements as provided in Section 302.1 and frequencies as
provided in Section 302.4c:
(1) After startup of the GCCS, the owner or operator must monitor surface
concentrations of methane along the entire perimeter of the collection area
and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at no more than 30-meter
intervals (or a site-specific established spacing) for each collection area on a
quarterly basis using an organic vapor analyzer, flame ionization detector, or
other portable monitor meeting the specifications provided in paragraph b(6)
of this section, or through the use of alternative technologies if approved by
the Control Officer..
(2) The background concentration must be determined by moving the probe
inlet upwind and downwind outside the boundary of the landfill at a distance
of at least 30 meters from the perimeter wells.
(3) Surface emission monitoring must be performed in accordance with EPA
Test Method 21, except that the probe inlet must be placed within 5 to 10
centimeters of the ground. Monitoring must be performed during typical
meteorological conditions.
(4) Any reading of 500 parts per million or more above background at any
location must be recorded as a monitored exceedance and the below actions
must be taken. As long as the specified actions are taken, the exceedance is
not a violation of the operational requirements of Section 302.1:
(a) The location of each monitored exceedance must be marked and the
location and concentration recorded. For location, you must determine
the latitude and longitude coordinates using an instrument with an
accuracy of at least 4 meters. The coordinates must be in decimal degrees
with at least five decimal places.
(b) Cover maintenance or adjustments to the vacuum of the adjacent wells to
increase the gas collection in the vicinity of each exceedance must be
made and the location must be re-monitored within 10 calendar days of
detecting the exceedance.
(c) If the re-monitoring of the location shows a second exceedance,
additional corrective action must be taken and the location must be
monitored again within 10 days of the second exceedance. If the re-
monitoring shows a third exceedance for the same location, the action
specified in paragraph (b)(4)(e) of this section must be taken, and no
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule for Stakeholder Workshop
December 10, 2020
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
further monitoring of that location is required until the action specified
in paragraph (b)(4)(e) of this section has been taken.
(d) Any location that initially showed an exceedance but has a methane
concentration less than 500 parts per million methane above background
at the 10-day re-monitoring specified in paragraph (b)(4)(b) or (c) of this
section must be re-monitored 1 month from the initial exceedance. If the
1-month re-monitoring shows a concentration less than 500 parts per
million above background, no further monitoring of that location is
required until the next quarterly monitoring period. If the 1-month re-
monitoring shows an exceedance, the actions specified in paragraph
(b)(4)(c) or (e) of this section must be taken.
(e) For any location where monitored methane concentration equals or
exceeds 500 parts per million above background three times within a
quarterly period, a new well or other collection device must be installed
within 120 calendar days of the initial exceedance. An alternative remedy
to the exceedance, such as upgrading the blower, header pipes or control
device, and a corresponding timeline for installation may be submitted to
the Control Officer for approval.
(5) The owner or operator must implement a program to monitor for cover
integrity and implement cover repairs as necessary on a monthly quarterly
basis. If there are no cover issues identified for three consecutive monitoring
periods, then owner or operator may skip to annual monitoring. If any closed
landfill that has skipped to annual monitoring has had no cover issues
identified for three consecutive years may stop monitoring for cover
integrity.
(6) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the provisions in this section
must comply with the following instrumentation specifications and
procedures for surface emission monitoring devices:
(a) The portable analyzer must meet the instrument specifications provided
in section 6 of EPA Test Method 21, except that “methane” replaces all
references to “VOC”.
(b) The calibration gas must be methane, diluted to a nominal concentration
of 500 parts per million in air.
(c) To meet the performance evaluation requirements in section 8.1 of EPA
Test Method 21, the instrument evaluation procedures of section 8.1 of
EPA Test Method 21 must be used.
(d) The calibration procedures provided in sections 8 and 10 of EPA Test
Method 21 must be followed immediately before commencing a surface
monitoring survey.
302.4 Monitoring of Operations: Each owner or operator shall monitor landfill
operations by complying with the following requirements, as applicable:
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule for Stakeholder Workshop
December 10, 2020
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
a. If using an enclosed combustor, it shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and
operated according to the manufacturer's specifications, including the following
equipment:
(1) A temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder and
having a minimum accuracy of ±1 percent of the temperature being
measured expressed in degrees Celsius or ±0.5 degrees Celsius, whichever is
greater. A temperature monitoring device is not required for boilers or
process heaters with design heat input capacity equal to or greater than 44
megawatts.
(2) A device that records flow to, or bypass of, the control device. The owner or
operator shall either:
(a) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring device that shall
record the flow to the control device at least every 15 minutes; or
(b) If equipped, sSecure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a
car-seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the
seal or closure mechanism shall be performed at least once every month
to ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position and that the
gas flow is not diverted through the bypass line.
b. If using a non-enclosed flare, it shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and
operated according to the manufacturer's specifications, including the following
equipment:
(1) A heat sensing device, such as an ultraviolet beam sensor or thermocouple, at
the pilot light or the flame itself to indicate the continuous presence of a
flame.
(2) A device that records flow to the flare and bypass of the flare (if applicable).
The owner or operator must:
(a) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring device that
records the flow to the control device at least every 15 minutes; and
(b) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-seal or a
lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the seal or closure
mechanism must be performed at least once every month to ensure that
the valve is maintained in the closed position and that the gas flow is not
diverted through the bypass line.
c. Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with the 500 parts
per million surface methane operational standard in Section 302.1 must monitor
surface concentrations of methane according to the compliance procedures and
instrument specifications provided in Section 302.3. In addition:
(1) Any closed landfill that has no monitored exceedances of the operational
standard in three consecutive quarterly monitoring periods may skip to
annual monitoring.
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule for Stakeholder Workshop
December 10, 2020
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(2) Any methane reading of 500 parts per million or more above background
detected during the annual monitoring returns the frequency for that landfill
to quarterly monitoring.
(3) Any closed landfill that has skipped to annual monitoring and has had no
monitored exceedances of the operational standard in three consecutive years
may stop monitoring surface methane emissions.
302.5 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan Requirements: Each owner or
operator shall comply with the approved O&M Plan for the GCCS, as follows:
a. O&M Plans shall be revised upon the request of the Control Officer and
whenever substantive changes are made to the equipment or plan.
b. The O&M Plan shall specify key system operating parameters, such as
temperatures, pressures and/or flow rates, necessary to determine compliance
and describe in detail procedures to maintain the approved emission control
system and flow meter(s). The owner or operator shall monitor, operate and
maintain the equipment in accordance with the device’s approved O&M Plan. At
a minimum the plan shall include: combustion temperature, landfill gas flowrate,
adsorption temperature, and effluent concentrations.
c. Changes to an existing O&M Plan shall be made by submitting a complete,
revised O&M Plan along with a cover letter identifying all changes and the
reason for such changes. The owner or operator may implement the changes
addressed in the revised O&M Plan after it submits the revision to the Control
Officer. Unless disapproved in writing by the Control Officer, the owner or
operator shall continue to operate in accordance with the revised O&M Plan.
d. If any control device is found to be operating outside a specified range, the
owner or operator shall immediately take corrective action to bring the device
back into the specified operating range or shut down the device and the
associated equipment vented to it.
e. If a pattern of non-compliance, as determined by the Control Officer, of
operation outside the specified operating range develops, the owner or operator
shall submit for Control Officer approval a Corrective Action Plan to bring the
devices back into the specified operating range.
302.6 Recordkeeping: Each owner or operator shall maintain the following records and
make them available upon request. Records shall be retained for 5 years for landfills
subject to Title V (Part 70) and 2 years for landfills not subject to Title V:
a. The maximum expected gas generation flow rate for each performance test or
compliance demonstration calculated shall be maintained for each control device.
Another method may be used to determine the maximum gas generation flow
rate if approved in writing by the Control Officer.
b. Data upon which the sufficient density of wells, horizontal collectors, surface
collectors, or other gas extraction devices and the gas mover equipment sizing
are based, except for landfills with declining flow rates.
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule for Stakeholder Workshop
December 10, 2020
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
c. Records of subsequent tests or monitoring shall be maintained for a minimum of
5 years.
d. Records of the control device vendor specifications shall be maintained until
removal of that control device.
e. A record of the enclosed flare temperature recorded every 15 minutes or less by
a continuous temperature recorder, as described in 40 CFR § 60.13.
f.
Records of the average combustion temperature of the flare during the
performance tests measured at least every 15 minutes and averaged over the
same time period of the performance test.
g. Records of the percent reduction or outlet concentration of NMOC achieved by
the control device during each performance test.
h. Records of any times when the collection system or control device is not
operating, including during intermittent use of the GCCS.
i.
The calculation methodology used to estimate current emissions.
j.
A schedule for the replacement of the carbon canisters and any filter replacement
for the leachate/condensate collection system, if applicable.
k. Monitoring and maintenance records specified in the O&M Plan:
(1) Monitoring Records shall consist of an operations log sheet to be completed
monthly. Operations log sheets shall, at a minimum, contain the following
information: equipment identification; date and time of readings;
identification of the individual recording the data; operating parameters to be
monitored including units of measure, operating limits (upper and lower
limits), and locations for recording measurements; measurement frequency;
and if applicable, corrective action taken. An explanation shall be recorded
for any periods of operation when the control device was not operating,
including intermittent use of the GCCS.
(2) Maintenance Records shall, at a minimum, contain the following
information: equipment identification; date; identification of the individual
performing the maintenance check; procedures to be performed including
frequency of occurrence; results of inspection (acceptable, nozzle plugged,
belt cracked, etc.); and corrective action taken (none, cleaned nozzle,
replaced belt, etc.).
l.
Whenever the O&M Plan requires that maintenance be performed, a record shall
be made of the maintenance actions taken within 72 hours of maintenance
completion.
m. An explanation shall be recorded for any scheduled maintenance that is not
performed during the period designated in the O&M Plan.
n. Records of the location of each exceedance of the 500 parts per million methane
concentration as provided in Section 302.3 and the concentration recorded at
each location for which an exceedance was recorded in the previous month. For
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule for Stakeholder Workshop
December 10, 2020
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
location, you must determine the latitude and longitude coordinates using an
instrument with an accuracy of at least 4 meters. The coordinates must be in
decimal degrees with at least five decimal places.
o. Records of all collection and control system exceedances of the operational
standards in Section 302.1, the reading in the subsequent month whether or not
the second reading is an exceedance, and the location of each exceedance.
p. Records of any wells that have been decommissioned.
q. Records of any supplemental fuel used in the operation of the GCCS.
302.7 GCCS Removal Criteria: An owner or operator subject to this rule may submit a
request to the Control Officer to cap, remove or decommission their GCCS if the
landfill is a closed landfill (as defined in 40 CFR 60.41f), a closure report is submitted
to the Control Officer as provided in 40 CFR 60.38f(f), and if one of the following
requirements is met:
a. Following the procedures specified in 40 CFR 60.35f(b), the owner or operator
demonstrates that the calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill is less than
1.5 tons per year on three successive test dates. The test dates must be no less
than 90 days apart, and no more than 180 days apart and must be submitted to
the Control Officer within 60 days after the date of calculating the NMOC
emission rate.
b. The owner or operator demonstrates that continued use of the GCCS will create
greater emissions of regulated air pollutants than those that would be created by
the removal of the GCCS.
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE): For the
purpose of this rule, sources subject to Section 301 shall comply with the administrative
requirements in 40 CFR 60.38f and 40 CFR 60.39f. Sources subject to Section 302 shall comply with
the administrative requirements in Section 302 of this rule.
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT APPLICABLE): For the purpose of
this rule, sources subject to Section 301 shall comply with the monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements in 40 CFR 60.37f and 40 CFR 60.39f. Sources subject to Section 302 shall comply with
the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in Section 302 of this rule.
Commented [LJ7]: This section to be further
revised.
From:
Bearden, David <dbearde2@wm.com>
Sent:
Friday, 10 September, 2021 03:13 PM
To:
William Adrian (AQD)
Subject:
FW: Maricopa County - AQ proposed LF Rule - next comments -
Attachments:
Working Draft Rule 321 7 27 2021 DB 9 3 2021.docx
Will,
Dave Thorley WM AQ Director wasn’t available to review or add his comments this week.
But here’s my comments to review, then Dave T’s will follow next week.
DB
From: Bearden, David
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:47 AM
To: Thorley, David <dthorley@wm.com>
Subject: Maricopa County ‐ AQ proposed LF Rule ‐ next comments
Hi Dave,
Here’s my latest round of comments & edits following their visit to NW Regional last Thursday.
You can compare with yours, and overwrite as needed.
Dave Bearden
Senior Environmental Protection Manager
Waste Management
222 S. Mill Ave., Suite 333
Tempe, AZ 85281
602‐708‐9815
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 321
EXISTING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) LANDFILLS
INDEX
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101
PURPOSE
102
APPLICABILITY
103
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS
201
ADMINISTRATOR
202
201
AFFECTED FACILITY
203
202
COMMENCED
204
CONSTRUCTION
205
MODIFICATION
206
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL (MSW LANDFILL)
207
NMOC
208
OWNER OR OPERATOR
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW
LANDFILLS WITH NMOC EMISSION RATES AT OR ABOVE FEDERAL
THRESHOLDS
302
DELAYED APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW
LANDFILLS WITH NMOC EMISSION RATES BELOW FEDERAL
THRESHOLDS
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE)
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT APPLICABLE)
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Adopted 05/14/1997; Revised 03/01/2000; Revised 03/07/2001; Revised 11/19/2003; Revised
03/15/2006; Revised 12/17/2008; Revised 09/16/2009; Revised 07/07/2010; Revised 08/17/2011;
Revised 07/25/2012; Revised 03/26/2014; Revised 11/05/2014; Revised 11/18/2015; Revised
11/02/2016; Revised MM/DD/YYYY
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 321
EXISTING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) LANDFILLS
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101
PURPOSE: To limit the emissions of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) from
existing municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills.
102
APPLICABILITY: The provisions of this rule shall apply to each municipal solid waste
landfill for which construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced prior to May 30,
1991, and which has accepted waste at any time since November 8, 1987 or has additional
design capacity available for future waste deposition. The provisions of this rule shall apply
to existing MSW landfills that commenced construction, reconstruction or modification on
or before July 17, 2014.
103
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION: Copies of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW –
Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, are available as listed:
a.
Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
b. Maricopa County Rules are available electronically at http://www.maricopa.gov/aq.
c.
EPA documents are available electronically at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR.
d. ASTM standards are available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O.
Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, or from its website at www.astm.org.
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS: See Rule 100 of these rules and 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf for
definitions of terms that are used but not specifically defined in this rule. For the purpose of this
rule, the following definitions shall apply, in addition to those definitions found in Rule 100 (General
Provisions and Definitions) of these rules and 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf. In the event of any
inconsistency between any of the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Rules, the definitions in
this rule take precedence.
201
ADMINISTRATOR: The Control Officer, except that the Control Officer shall not be
empowered to approve alternative or equivalent test methods.
202
201
AFFECTED FACILITY: Any municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill to which this rule is
applicable.
Commented [BD1]: this would regulate
closed sites, is this your intent?
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
203
202
COMMENCED: State or condition where an owner or operator has undertaken a
continuous program of construction; or where an owner or operator has entered into a
contractual obligation to undertake and complete such a program.
204
CONSTRUCTION: The fabrication, erection, or installation of an affected facility.
205
MODIFICATION: Any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, an
affected facility which would result in a change in actual emissions.
206
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL (MSW LANDFILL): An entire, publicly or
privately owned, disposal facility in a contiguous geographical space where household waste
is placed in or on land. Portions of a MSW landfill may be separated by access roads.
207
NMOC: Non-methane organic compound.
208
OWNER OR OPERATOR: Any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises
an affected facility.
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW
LANDFILLS WITH NMOC EMISSION RATES AT OR ABOVE FEDERAL
THRESHOLDS: The federal standards of performance for municipal solid waste landfills
set forth in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW is adopted as codified on July 1, 2016, and all
accompanying appendices, excluding 40 CFR 60.750, are adopted and incorporated by
reference with the amendments and revisions set forth in this section. This adoption by
reference includes no future editions or revisions. Each owner or operator of an affected
facility which reaches or exceeds the annual NMOC emission rates specified in 40 CFR
60.33f(a)(3) or 40 CFR 60.33f(a)(4) shall comply with all the requirements of 40 CFR Part
60, Subpart WWW Cf as adopted and, where applicable, revised herein. All references to the
Administrator in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cf shall be understood as the Control Officer,
except that the Control Officer shall not be empowered to approve alternative test methods
to determine the NMOC emission rate.
301.1 Collection and Control System Design Plan: 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(i) is amended to
read: “Submit a collection and control design plan prepared by a professional
engineer to the Administrator for approval not later than 12 months after submittal
of the initial NMOC emission rate report.”
301.2 Design Capacity Report: 40 CFR 60.757(a) is amended to read “Each owner or
operator of an affected facility shall submit an initial design capacity report to the
Administrator within 90 days from May 14, 1997.” 40 CFR 60.757(a)(1) is deleted.
301.3 NMOC Emission Rate Report: 40 CFR 60.757(b) is amended to read “Each owner
or operator of an affected facility shall submit an NMOC emission rate report to the
Administrator initially and annually thereafter, except as provided for in paragraphs
(b)(1)(ii) or (b)(3) of this section. The Administrator may request such additional
information as may be necessary to verify the reported NMOC emission rate.” 40
Commented [BD2]: Can't the County
approve alternatives
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
CFR 60.757(b)(1)(i) is amended to read: “The initial NMOC emission rate report
shall be submitted within 90 days from May 14, 1997 and may be combined with the
initial design capacity report required in paragraph (a) of this section. Subsequent
NMOC emission rate reports shall be submitted annually thereafter, except as
provided for in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(3) of this section.”
302
DELAYED APPLICABILITY: For an affected facility that first becomes subject to the
collection and control system requirement of 40 CFR 60.752 after May 14, 1997, the design
plan shall be due not later than 12 months after submittal or scheduled submittal of an
NMOC emission rate report of 50 megagrams (55.12 tons) per year or more.
302
REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW LANDFILLS WITH NMOC
EMISSION RATES BELOW FEDERAL THRESHOLDS: Each owner or operator of
an affected facility with annual NMOC emission rates below those specified in 40 CFR
60.33f(a)(3) or 40 CFR 60.33f(a)(4) with an installed and operational landfill gas collection
and control system (GCCS) shall comply with the following requirements:
302.1 Operational Requirements: Each owner or operator shall operate and maintain an
existing GCCS that meets the following requirements:
a. The GCCS shall:
(1) Be designed and operated to handle the expected gas flow rate;
(2) Contain extraction wells which shall be maintained in any number and
spacing necessary to maintain emission and migration control and to collect
gas from each area, cell, or group of cells in the landfill which are still
generating gas as determined by measures of performance set forth in this
rule;
(3) Collect gas at a rate sufficient to maintain a negative pressure at all wellheads
in the collection system without causing air infiltration, including any
wellheads connected to the system as a result of expansion or excess surface
emissions, for the life of the blower unless the well is in declining flow
conditions, an abandoned well or operating on an intermittent or passive
basis; and
(4) Be designed and operated to minimize off-site migration of subsurface gas
and potential offsite impacts.
b. The control device shall reduce NMOC by 98 weight percent or reduce the
outlet NMOC concentration to less than 20 parts per million by volume, dry
basis as hexane at 3 percent oxygen.
c. The GCCS shall be operated:
(1) Within the parameter ranges established during the most recent performance
test.
(2) With negative pressure at each wellhead except under the following
conditions:
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(a) A fire or increased well temperature. The owner or operator shall record
instances when positive pressure occurs in efforts to avoid a fire.
(b) Use of a geomembrane or synthetic cover. The owner or operator shall
develop acceptable pressure limits in the GCCS design plan.
(c) A decommissioned well. The owner or operator shall record any
decommissioning of wells.
(d) When the GCCS is not operating. The owner or operator shall record
instances when the GCCS is not operating or being used intermittently.
(e) When using a passive venting system, as included in the approved GCCS
Design Plan.
(3) At all times when the collected gas is routed to the control device; however,
the GCCS may be operated intermittently when the monitoring in (4)
demonstrates that the GCCS is adequately and without repetitive surface
monitoring exceedances.
(4) So that the methane concentration is less than 500 parts per million above
background at the surface of the landfill, as per the requirements and
frequencies under Section 302.4c. To determine if this level is exceeded, the
owner or operator must:
(a) Conduct surface testing using an organic vapor analyzer, flame ionization
detector, or other portable monitor meeting the compliance
specifications in Section 302.3.b.
(b) Conduct surface testing around the perimeter of the collection area and
along a pattern that traverses the landfill at no more than 30-meter
intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated concentrations
of landfill gas, such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the
cover and all cover penetrations. Thus, the owner or operator must
monitor any openings that are within an area of the landfill where waste
has been placed and a gas collection system is required. The owner or
operator may establish an alternative traversing pattern that ensures
equivalent coverage.
(c) Develop a surface monitoring design plan that includes a topographical
map with the monitoring route and the rationale for any site-specific
deviations from the 30-meter intervals. Areas with steep slopes or other
dangerous areas may be excluded from the surface testing.
302.2 Test Methods and Procedures: Each owner or operator shall conduct regular, 5-
year performance testing of landfill gas emissions as described below:
a. Regular 5 year pPerformance testing shall be conducted using the following test
methods:
Commented [WA(3]: Proposed revision 61.1
Commented [WA(4]: Proposed revision 61.2
Return to Response #61.1
Return to Response #61.2
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(1) EPA Test Method 25, 25C, or 18 shall be used to determine compliance with
the 98 weight-percent efficiency or the 20 ppmv outlet concentration level
requirement.
(a) In cases where the outlet concentration is less than 50 ppm NMOC as
carbon (8 ppm NMOC as hexane), EPA Test Method 25A should be
used in place of EPA Test Method 25.
(b) If using EPA Test Method 18, the minimum list of compounds to be
tested shall be those published in the most recent Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42).
(2) The following equation shall be used to calculate control efficiency:
Control Efficiency = (NMOCin − NMOCout)/(NMOCin)
where,
NMOCin = mass of NMOC entering control device
NMOCout = mass of NMOC exiting control device
(3) EPA Test Method 3 or 3A shall be used to determine the O2 content for
correcting the NMOC concentration as hexane to 3% O2. EPA Test Method
19 shall be used to determine the exhaust stream flowrate.
(4) EPA Test Method 7E and CO testing in accordance with EPA Test Method
10 shall be used to conduct NOx testing.
(5) If using an enclosed flare, the owner or operator shall record the combustion
chamber temperature and landfill gas flow rate during the performance test.
b. The NMOC emission rate for the landfill shall also be calculated every five (5)
years using the following equation:
MNMOC = 1.89 × 10−3 QLFG × CNMOC
where,
MNMOC = mass emission rate of NMOC, megagrams per year
QLFG = flow rate of landfill gas, cubic meters per minute
CNMOC = NMOC concentration, parts per million by volume as hexane
(1) The flow rate of landfill gas, QLFG, shall be determined by measuring the total
landfill gas flow rate at the common header pipe that leads to the control
device using a gas flow measuring device calibrated according to the
provisions of Section 10 of EPA Test Method 2E or according to
manufacturer recommendations.
(2) The average NMOC concentration, CNMOC, shall be determined by collecting
and analyzing landfill gas sampled from the common header pipe before the
gas moving or condensate removal equipment using the procedures in EPA
Test Methods 25C or 18. If using EPA Test Method 18, the minimum list of
compounds to be tested shall be those published in the most recent
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42). The sample location
on the common header pipe shall be before any condensate removal or other
Commented [BD5]: Should bve amended to
be only applicable when the NMOC rate is
greater than 17 Mg/yr
Commented [WA(6]: Proposed revision 61.3
Return to Response #61.3
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
gas refining units. The owner or operator shall divide the NMOC
concentration from EPA Test Method 25C by six to convert from CNMOC
as carbon to CNMOC as hexane.
c. Performance tests shall be conducted and data shall be reduced in accordance
with the test methods and procedures specified in this section unless otherwise
specified by the Control Officer.
d. Sampling sites and velocity traverse points shall be selected in accordance with
EPA Test Method 1or 1A. The gas volumetric flow rate shall be measured in
accordance with EPA Test Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G or 19. The dry
molecular weight shall be determined in accordance with EPA Test Method 3,
3A or 3B. The stack gas moisture shall be determined in accordance with EPA
Test Method 4. These methods must be performed, as applicable, during each
test run.
e. Performance tests shall be conducted under representative operating conditions
and all equipment shall be operated during testing in accordance with the most
recently approved GCCS design plan or according to its operations manual.
f.
The owner or operator shall make available to the Control Officer any records
necessary to determine appropriate conditions for performance tests. Operations
during periods of startup, shutdown, and equipment malfunction shall not
constitute representative conditions for performance tests unless otherwise
specified.
g. The owner or operator shall record all process and control equipment
information that are necessary to document operating conditions during the test
and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. Operational
parameters shall be monitored and recorded at least once every 30 minutes
during each of the required test runs and documented in the test report. The
operational parameters monitored shall be capable of indicating that the
equipment is operating within the permitted limits, both during and after the
performance tests.
h. The Control Officer shall be notified in writing at least two weeks in advance of
the actual date and time of each performance test, unless otherwise specified, so
that the Control Officer may have a representative attend.
i.
The owner or operator shall install any and all sample ports or platforms
necessary to conduct the performance tests, provide safe access to any platforms,
and provide the necessary utilities for testing equipment.
j.
Each performance test shall consist of three separate test runs with each test run
being at least one hour in duration unless otherwise specified. Performance tests
may only be stopped for good cause, which includes forced shutdown, failure of
an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, extreme meteorological conditions,
or other circumstances beyond the owner or operator’s control. Termination of a
performance test without good cause after the first test run has commenced shall
constitute a failure of the performance test.
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
k. A separate test report for each performance test shall be submitted to the
Control Officer within 45 days after the completion of testing unless otherwise
specified. The Control Officer may extend the performance testing report
deadline upon the request of the owner or operator. The test protocol shall be
prepared in accordance with the most recent version of the Department’s “Air
Quality Performance Test Guidelines for Compliance Determination in
Maricopa County.”
l.
If test results do not demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this rule,
the owner or operator shall make the necessary repairs and/or adjustments to the
equipment, or shall make operational changes, such as intermittent collection
system operation, and demonstrate compliance through retesting. In addition to
compliance demonstrations, test results shall be used for annual emissions
inventory purposes if the owner or operator is required to complete an emissions
inventory survey.
m. All test extension requests, test protocols, test date notifications, and test reports
shall be submitted to the Control Officer and addressed to the attention of the
Performance Test Evaluation Supervisor.
n. The above testing requirements represent the minimum level of testing to
monitor for compliance with the emission limits in this rule. Nothing in this
section shall prevent the Control Officer from requiring additional performance
testing as deemed necessary to ensure compliance and protection of the public
health and welfare.
o. Open flare combustion devices shall be tested initially in accordance with 40
CFR 60.18.
Permittee shall observe visible emissions from the open flare using Method 22.
The presence of a flare pilot flame shall be monitored using a thermocouple or
any other equivalent device to detect the presence of a flame.
The gas composition and flow will be monitored to determine the gas heat
content.
Flare exist velocity will be calculated and compared to the standards in 40 CFR
60.18 to confirm design combustion standards.
302.3 Compliance: Each owner or operator shall utilize the following methods to
determine compliance with the operational requirements of Section 302.1.
a. The following procedures must be used for compliance with the GCCS
operational requirements as provided in Section 302.1:
(1) Actual flow data may be used instead of, or in conjunction with, the
equations in 40 CFR 60.36f(a)(1) to project the maximum expected gas
generation flow rate.
(2) For the purposes of determining sufficient density of gas collectors, the
owner or operator shall maintain a system of vertical wells, horizontal
Commented [WA(7]: Proposed revision 61.4
Return to Response #61.4
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
collectors, or other collection devices consistent with the approved GCCS
design plan, capable of controlling and extracting gas from all portions of the
landfill sufficient to meet all operational and performance standards.
(3) The provisions of Section 302.3 apply at all times that the GCCS is in
operation, except during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction,
provided that the duration of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction shall not
exceed 5 days for collection systems and shall not exceed 1 hour for
treatment or control devices, except during intermittent operation.
b. The following procedures must be used for compliance with the surface methane
operational requirements as provided in Section 302.1 and frequencies as
provided in Section 302.4c:
(1) After startup of the GCCS, the owner or operator must monitor surface
concentrations of methane along the entire perimeter of the collection area
and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at no more than 30-meter
intervals (or a site-specific established spacing) for each collection area on a
quarterly basis using an organic vapor analyzer, flame ionization detector, or
other portable monitor meeting the specifications provided in paragraph b(6)
of this section, or through the use of alternative technologies if approved by
the Control Officer.
(2) The background concentration must be determined by moving the probe
inlet upwind and downwind outside the boundary of the landfill at a distance
of at least 30 meters from the perimeter wells.
(3) Surface emission monitoring must be performed in accordance with EPA
Test Method 21, except that the probe inlet must be placed within 5 to 10
centimeters of the ground. Monitoring must be performed during typical
meteorological conditions.
(4) Any reading of 500 parts per million or more above background at any
location must be recorded as a monitored exceedance and the below actions
must be taken. As long as the specified actions are taken, the exceedance is
not a violation of the operational requirements of Section 302.1:
(a) The location of each monitored exceedance must be marked and the
location and concentration recorded. For location, you must determine
the latitude and longitude coordinates using an instrument with an
accuracy of at least 4 meters. The coordinates must be in decimal degrees
with at least five decimal places.
(b) Cover maintenance or adjustments to the vacuum of the adjacent wells to
increase the gas collection in the vicinity of each exceedance must be
made and the location must be re-monitored within 10 calendar days of
detecting the exceedance.
(c) If the re-monitoring of the location shows a second exceedance,
additional corrective action must be taken and the location must be
monitored again within 10 days of the second exceedance. If the re-
Commented [BD8]: remove to allow
intermittent operations
Commented [WA(9]: Proposed revision 61.5
Return to Response #61.5
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
monitoring shows a third exceedance for the same location, the action
specified in paragraph (b)(4)(e) of this section must be taken, and no
further monitoring of that location is required until the action specified
in paragraph (b)(4)(e) of this section has been taken.
(d) Any location that initially showed an exceedance but has a methane
concentration less than 500 parts per million methane above background
at the 10-day re-monitoring specified in paragraph (b)(4)(b) or (c) of this
section must be re-monitored 1 month from the initial exceedance. If the
1-month re-monitoring shows a concentration less than 500 parts per
million above background, no further monitoring of that location is
required until the next quarterly monitoring period. If the 1-month re-
monitoring shows an exceedance, the actions specified in paragraph
(b)(4)(c) or (e) of this section must be taken.
(e) For any location where monitored methane concentration equals or
exceeds 500 parts per million above background three times within a
quarterly period, a new well or other collection device must be installed
within 120 calendar days of the initial exceedance. An alternative remedy
to the exceedance, such as upgrading the blower, header pipes or control
device, and a corresponding timeline for installation may be submitted to
the Control Officer for approval.
(5) The owner or operator must implement a program to monitor for cover
integrity and implement cover repairs as necessary on a quarterly basis. If
there are no cover issues identified for three consecutive quarterly
monitoring periods, then the owner or operator may skip to annual
monitoring. Any closed landfill that has skipped to annual monitoring and
has had no cover issues identified for three consecutive years may stop
monitoring for cover integrity, except for immediately after extreme weather
events such as receiving 1’ or more of rain over any 24 hour period, as
measured from the nearest Maricopa County Flood Control District rain
gauge.
(6) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the provisions in this section
must comply with the following instrumentation specifications and
procedures for surface emission monitoring devices:
(a) The portable analyzer must meet the instrument specifications provided
in section 6 of EPA Test Method 21, except that “methane” replaces all
references to “VOC”.
(b) The calibration gas must be methane, diluted to a nominal concentration
of 500 parts per million in air.
(c) To meet the performance evaluation requirements in section 8.1 of EPA
Test Method 21, the instrument evaluation procedures of section 8.1 of
EPA Test Method 21 must be used.
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(d) The calibration procedures provided in sections 8 and 10 of EPA Test
Method 21 must be followed immediately before commencing a surface
monitoring survey.
302.4 Monitoring of Operations: Each owner or operator shall monitor landfill
operations by complying with the following requirements, as applicable:
a. If using an enclosed combustor, it shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and
operated according to the manufacturer's specifications, including the following
equipment:
(1) A temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder and
having a minimum accuracy of ±1 percent of the temperature being
measured expressed in degrees Celsius or ±0.5 degrees Celsius, whichever is
greater. A temperature monitoring device is not required for boilers or
process heaters with design heat input capacity equal to or greater than 44
megawatts.
(2) A device that records flow to, or bypass of, the control device. The owner or
operator shall either:
(a) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring device that shall
record the flow to the control device at least every 15 minutes; or
(b) If equipped, secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-
seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the seal
or closure mechanism shall be performed at least once every month to
ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position and that the gas
flow is not diverted through the bypass line.
b. If using a non-enclosed flare, it shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and
operated according to the manufacturer's specifications, including the following
equipment:
(1) A heat sensing device, such as an ultraviolet beam sensor or thermocouple, at
the pilot light or the flame itself to indicate the continuous presence of a
flame.
(2) A device that records flow to the flare and bypass of the flare (if applicable).
The owner or operator must:
(a) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring device that
records the flow to the control device at least every 15 minutes; and
(b) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-seal or a
lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the seal or closure
mechanism must be performed at least once every month to ensure that
the valve is maintained in the closed position and that the gas flow is not
diverted through the bypass line.
c. Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with the 500 parts
per million surface methane operational standard in Section 302.1 must monitor
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
surface concentrations of methane according to the compliance procedures and
instrument specifications provided in Section 302.3. In addition:
(1) Any closed landfill that has no monitored exceedances of the operational
standard in three consecutive quarterly monitoring periods may skip to
annual monitoring.
(2) Any methane reading of 500 parts per million or more above background
detected during the annual monitoring returns the frequency for that landfill
to quarterly monitoring.
(3) Any closed landfill that has skipped to annual monitoring and has had no
monitored exceedances of the operational standard in three consecutive years
may stop monitoring surface methane emissions.
302.5 Recordkeeping: Each owner or operator shall maintain the following records and
make them available upon request. Records shall be retained for 5 years:
a. A GCCS design plan that meets the design requirements in §60.33f(b) and (c).
(1) The GCCS design plan must include any alternatives to the operational
standards, test methods, procedures, compliance measures, monitoring,
recordkeeping, or reporting provisions of Section 302 proposed by the
owner or operator.
(2) The GCCS design plan must either conform to specifications for active
collection systems in §60.40f or include a demonstration to the Control
Officer’s satisfaction of the sufficiency of the alternative provisions to
§60.40f.
(3) The GCCS design plan must include an addendum that outlines the
operation and maintenance (O&M) procedures for the control device(s).
O&M maintenance records shall, at a minimum, contain the following
information: equipment identification; date of activity; identification of the
individual performing the maintenance check; procedures to be performed
including frequency of occurrence; results of inspection; and corrective
action taken. An explanation shall be recorded for any scheduled
maintenance that is not performed during the period designated in the design
plan addendum.
b. Records of subsequent tests or monitoring shall be maintained for a minimum of
5 years.
c. Records of the control device vendor specifications shall be maintained until
removal of that control device.
d. A record of the enclosed flare temperature recorded every 15 minutes or less by
a continuous temperature recorder.
e. Records of the average combustion temperature of the flare during the
performance tests measured at least every 15 minutes and averaged over the
same time period of the performance test.
Commented [BD11]: The LFG flare systems
are simplistic and an additional O&M plan
should be needed as the existing regulations are
adequeate to ensure compliance.
Commented [WA(10]: Proposed revision
61.6
Return to Response #61.6
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
f.
Records of the percent reduction or outlet concentration of NMOC achieved by
the control device during each performance test.
g. Records of any times when the collection system or control device is not
operating, including during intermittent use of the GCCS.
h. The calculation methodology used to estimate current emissions.
i.
A schedule for the replacement of the carbon canisters and any filter replacement
for the leachate/condensate collection system, if applicable.
j.
Records of the location of each exceedance of the 500 parts per million methane
concentration as provided in Section 302.3 and the concentration recorded at
each location for which an exceedance was recorded in the previous month. For
location, you must determine the latitude and longitude coordinates using an
instrument with an accuracy of at least 4 meters. The coordinates must be in
decimal degrees with at least five decimal places.
k. Records of all collection and control system exceedances of the operational
standards in Section 302.1, the reading in the subsequent month whether or not
the second reading is an exceedance, and the location of each exceedance.
l.
Records of any wells that have been decommissioned.
m. Records of any supplemental fuel used in the operation of the GCCS.
n. An up-to-date plot map showing each existing and planned collector in the
system and providing a unique identification location label for each collector.
o. Records of the installation date and location of all newly installed collectors as
specified under §60.755(b).
302.6 Discontinuation of the GCCS: An owner or operator subject to this rule may
submit a request to the Control Officer to cap, remove or decommission their GCCS
if all of the following requirements are met:
a. The landfill is a closed landfill, as defined in 40 CFR 60.41f;
b. A closure report is submitted to the Control Officer as provided in 40 CFR
60.38f(f); and
c. Following the procedures specified in 40 CFR 60.35f(b), the owner or operator
demonstrates that the calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill is less than
17 megagrams (Mg) per year on three successive test dates. The test dates must
be no less than 90 days apart, and no more than 180 days apart and must be
submitted to the Control Officer within 60 days after the date of calculating the
NMOC emission rate.
d. In addition, the owner or operator of the MSW landfill must also demonstrate
that no odors from any regulated air pollutant will be discharged into the
atmosphere which may:
(1) Cause damage to property; or
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(2) Unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property of
a substantial part of a community.
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE): For the
purpose of this rule, sources subject to Section 301 shall comply with the administrative
requirements in 40 CFR 60.38f and 40 CFR 60.39f. Sources subject to Section 302 shall comply with
the administrative requirements in Section 302 of this rule.
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT APPLICABLE): For the purpose of
this rule, sources subject to Section 301 shall comply with the monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements in 40 CFR 60.37f and 40 CFR 60.39f. Sources subject to Section 302 shall comply with
the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in Section 302 of this rule.
From:
Thorley, David <dthorley@wm.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, 15 September, 2021 07:39 PM
To:
William Adrian (AQD); Richard Sumner (AQD); Kimberly Butler (AQD); Gregory Verkamp (AQD); Bearden,
David
Subject:
RE: R321 Comments follow-up
Attachments:
Working Draft Rule 321 7 27 2021 DB 9 3 2021 dgt.docx
Here are my additions to the rules. I have some comments in the rules to discuss too in order to better clarify the intent
of some of the regulations. Lastly, a definition of decommissioning and abandoned wells may be a great addition to this
rule.
We will talk tomorrow,
Dave
‐‐‐‐‐Original Appointment‐‐‐‐‐
From: William Adrian (AQD) <William.Adrian@maricopa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, September 2, 2021 5:16 PM
To: William Adrian (AQD); Richard Sumner (AQD); Kimberly Butler (AQD); Gregory Verkamp (AQD); Thorley, David;
Bearden, David
Subject: R321 Comments follow‐up
When: Thursday, September 16, 2021 1:00 PM‐2:00 PM (UTC‐07:00) Arizona.
Where:
________________________________________________________________________________
Microsoft Teams meeting
Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to join the meeting
Join with a video conferencing device
708137873@t.plcm.vc
Video Conference ID: 112 307 996 0
Alternate VTC instructions
Learn More | Meeting options
________________________________________________________________________________
Recycling is a good thing. Please recycle any printed emails.
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 321
EXISTING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) LANDFILLS
INDEX
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101
PURPOSE
102
APPLICABILITY
103
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS
201
ADMINISTRATOR
202
201
AFFECTED FACILITY
203
202
COMMENCED
204
CONSTRUCTION
205
MODIFICATION
206
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL (MSW LANDFILL)
207
NMOC
208
OWNER OR OPERATOR
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW
LANDFILLS WITH NMOC EMISSION RATES AT OR ABOVE FEDERAL
THRESHOLDS
302
DELAYED APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW
LANDFILLS WITH NMOC EMISSION RATES BELOW FEDERAL
THRESHOLDS
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE)
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT APPLICABLE)
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Adopted 05/14/1997; Revised 03/01/2000; Revised 03/07/2001; Revised 11/19/2003; Revised
03/15/2006; Revised 12/17/2008; Revised 09/16/2009; Revised 07/07/2010; Revised 08/17/2011;
Revised 07/25/2012; Revised 03/26/2014; Revised 11/05/2014; Revised 11/18/2015; Revised
11/02/2016; Revised MM/DD/YYYY
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 321
EXISTING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) LANDFILLS
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101
PURPOSE: To limit the emissions of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) from
existing municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills.
102
APPLICABILITY: The provisions of this rule shall apply to each municipal solid waste
landfill for which construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced prior to May 30,
1991, and which has accepted waste at any time since November 8, 1987 or has additional
design capacity available for future waste deposition. The provisions of this rule shall apply
to existing MSW landfills that commenced construction, reconstruction or modification on
or before July 17, 2014.
103
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION: Copies of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW –
Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, are available as listed:
a.
Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
b. Maricopa County Rules are available electronically at http://www.maricopa.gov/aq.
c.
EPA documents are available electronically at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR.
d. ASTM standards are available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O.
Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, or from its website at www.astm.org.
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS: See Rule 100 of these rules and 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf for
definitions of terms that are used but not specifically defined in this rule. For the purpose of this
rule, the following definitions shall apply, in addition to those definitions found in Rule 100 (General
Provisions and Definitions) of these rules and 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf. In the event of any
inconsistency between any of the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Rules, the definitions in
this rule take precedence.
201
ADMINISTRATOR: The Control Officer, except that the Control Officer shall not be
empowered to approve alternative or equivalent test methods.
202
201
AFFECTED FACILITY: Any municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill to which this rule is
applicable.
Commented [BD1]: this would regulate
closed sites, is this your intent?
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
203
202
COMMENCED: State or condition where an owner or operator has undertaken a
continuous program of construction; or where an owner or operator has entered into a
contractual obligation to undertake and complete such a program.
204
CONSTRUCTION: The fabrication, erection, or installation of an affected facility.
205
MODIFICATION: Any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, an
affected facility which would result in a change in actual emissions.
206
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL (MSW LANDFILL): An entire, publicly or
privately owned, disposal facility in a contiguous geographical space where household waste
is placed in or on land. Portions of a MSW landfill may be separated by access roads.
207
NMOC: Non-methane organic compound.
208
OWNER OR OPERATOR: Any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises
an affected facility.
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW
LANDFILLS WITH NMOC EMISSION RATES AT OR ABOVE FEDERAL
THRESHOLDS: The federal standards of performance for municipal solid waste landfills
set forth in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW is adopted as codified on July 1, 2016, and all
accompanying appendices, excluding 40 CFR 60.750, are adopted and incorporated by
reference with the amendments and revisions set forth in this section. This adoption by
reference includes no future editions or revisions. Each owner or operator of an affected
facility which reaches or exceeds the annual NMOC emission rates specified in 40 CFR
60.33f(a)(3) or 40 CFR 60.33f(a)(4) shall comply with all the requirements of 40 CFR Part
60, Subpart WWW Cf as adopted and, where applicable, revised herein. All references to the
Administrator in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cf shall be understood as the Control Officer,
except that the Control Officer shall not be empowered to approve alternative test methods
to determine the NMOC emission rate. for Subpart Cf
301.1 Collection and Control System Design Plan: 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(i) is amended to
read: “Submit a collection and control design plan prepared by a professional
engineer to the Administrator for approval not later than 12 months after submittal
of the initial NMOC emission rate report.”
301.2 Design Capacity Report: 40 CFR 60.757(a) is amended to read “Each owner or
operator of an affected facility shall submit an initial design capacity report to the
Administrator within 90 days from May 14, 1997.” 40 CFR 60.757(a)(1) is deleted.
301.3 NMOC Emission Rate Report: 40 CFR 60.757(b) is amended to read “Each owner
or operator of an affected facility shall submit an NMOC emission rate report to the
Administrator initially and annually thereafter, except as provided for in paragraphs
(b)(1)(ii) or (b)(3) of this section. The Administrator may request such additional
information as may be necessary to verify the reported NMOC emission rate.” 40
Commented [BD2]: Can't the County
approve alternatives
Commented [TD3R2]: The County should
be allowed to approve an alternative test
method once the site is out of Federal
Requirements, and only in the County ones (is
below 34 Mg).
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
CFR 60.757(b)(1)(i) is amended to read: “The initial NMOC emission rate report
shall be submitted within 90 days from May 14, 1997 and may be combined with the
initial design capacity report required in paragraph (a) of this section. Subsequent
NMOC emission rate reports shall be submitted annually thereafter, except as
provided for in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(3) of this section.”
302
DELAYED APPLICABILITY: For an affected facility that first becomes subject to the
collection and control system requirement of 40 CFR 60.752 after May 14, 1997, the design
plan shall be due not later than 12 months after submittal or scheduled submittal of an
NMOC emission rate report of 50 megagrams (55.12 tons) per year or more.
302
REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW LANDFILLS WITH NMOC
EMISSION RATES BELOW FEDERAL THRESHOLDS: Each owner or operator of
an affected facility with annual NMOC emission rates below those specified in 40 CFR
60.33f(a)(3) or 40 CFR 60.33f(a)(4) with an installed and operational landfill gas collection
and control system (GCCS) shall comply with the following requirements:
302.1 Operational Requirements: Each owner or operator shall operate and maintain an
existing GCCS that meets the following requirements:
a. The GCCS shall:
(1) Be designed and operated to handle the expected gas flow rate;
(2) Contain extraction wells which shall be maintained in any number and
spacing necessary to maintain emission and migration control and to collect
gas from each area, cell, or group of cells in the landfill which are still
generating gas as determined by measures of performance set forth in this
rule;
(3) Collect gas at a rate sufficient to maintain a negative pressure at all wellheads
in the collection system without causing air infiltration, including any
wellheads connected to the system as a result of expansion or excess surface
emissions, for the life of the blower unless the well is in declining flow
conditions, an abandoned well, or operating on an intermittent or passive
basis; and
(4) Be designed and operated to minimize off-site migration of subsurface gas
and potential offsite impacts.
b. Control system. Route all the collected gas to a control system that complies
with the requirements in either paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this section.
(1) A non-enclosed flare designed and operated in accordance with the
parameters established in §60.18 except as noted in 302.2(a); or
(2) A control system designed and operated to reduce NMOC by 98 weight-
percent, or, when an enclosed combustion device is used for control, to either
reduce NMOC by 98 weight percent or reduce the outlet NMOC
concentration to less than 20 parts per million by volume, dry basis as hexane
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.25"
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
at 3 percent oxygen. The reduction efficiency or parts per million by volume
must be established by an initial performance test to be completed no later
than 180 days after the initial startup of the approved control system using the
test methods specified in 302.2(a). The performance test is not required for
boilers and process heaters with design heat input capacities equal to or
greater than 44 megawatts that burn landfill gas for compliance with this
subpart.
(a) If a boiler or process heater is used as the control device, the landfill
gas stream must be introduced into the flame zone.
(b) The control device must be operated within the parameter ranges
established during the initial or most recent performance test. The
operating parameters to be monitored are specified in 302.1(c);
(3) Route the collected gas to a treatment system that processes the collected
gas for subsequent sale or beneficial use such as fuel for combustion,
production of vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas for pipeline injection,
or use as a raw material in a chemical manufacturing process. Venting of
treated landfill gas to the ambient air is not allowed. If the treated landfill gas
cannot be routed for subsequent sale or beneficial use, then the treated landfill
gas must be controlled according to either paragraph (1) or (2) of this section.
(4) All emissions from any atmospheric vent from the gas treatment system
are subject to the requirements of paragraph (1) or (2) of this section. For
purposes of this subpart, atmospheric vents located on the condensate storage
tank are not part of the treatment system and are exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (1) or (2) of this section.
The control device shall reduce NMOC by 98 weight percent or reduce the outlet
NMOC concentration to less than 20 parts per million by volume, dry basis as
hexane at 3 percent oxygen.
c. The GCCS shall be operated:
(1) Within the parameter ranges established during the most recent performance
test, if applicable.
(2) With negative pressure at each wellhead except under the following
conditions:
(a) A fire or increased well temperature. The owner or operator shall record
instances when positive pressure occurs in efforts to avoid a fire.
(b) Use of a geomembrane or synthetic cover. The owner or operator shall
develop acceptable pressure limits in the GCCS design plan.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.25"
Commented [WA(4]: Proposed revision 62.1
Commented [WA(5]: Proposed revision 62.2
Return to Response #62.1
Return to Response #62.2
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(c) A decommissioned well. The owner or operator shall record any
decommissioning of wells.
(d) When the GCCS is not operating. The owner or operator shall record
instances when the GCCS is not operating or being used intermittently.
(e) When using a passive venting system, as included in the approved GCCS
Design Plan.
(3) At all times when the collected gas is routed to the control device; however,
the GCCS may be operated intermittently when the monitoring in (4)
demonstrates that the GCCS is adequately and without repetitive surface
monitoring exceedances.
(4) So that the methane concentration is less than 500 parts per million above
background at the surface of the landfill, as per the requirements and
frequencies under Section 302.4c. To determine if this level is exceeded, the
owner or operator must:
(a) Conduct surface testing using an organic vapor analyzer, flame ionization
detector, or other portable monitor meeting the compliance
specifications in Section 302.3.b.
(b) Conduct surface testing around the perimeter of the collection area and
along a pattern that traverses the landfill at no more than 30-meter
intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated concentrations
of landfill gas, such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the
cover and all cover penetrations. Thus, the owner or operator must
monitor any openings that are within an area of the landfill where waste
has been placed and a gas collection system is required. The owner or
operator may establish an alternative traversing pattern that ensures
equivalent coverage.
(c) Develop a surface monitoring design plan to be included in the design
plan that includes a topographical map with the monitoring route and the
rationale for any site-specific deviations from the 30-meter intervals.
Areas with steep slopes or other dangerous areas may be excluded from
the surface testing.
302.2 Test Methods and Procedures: Each owner or operator shall conduct regular, 5-
year performance testing of landfill gas emissions as described below:
a. Regular 5 year pPerformance testing shall be conducted using the following test
methods:
(1) EPA Test Method 25, 25C, or 18 shall be used to determine compliance with
the 98 weight-percent efficiency or the 20 ppmv outlet concentration level
requirement.
(a) In cases where the outlet concentration is less than 50 ppm NMOC as
carbon (8 ppm NMOC as hexane), EPA Test Method 25A should be
used in place of EPA Test Method 25.
Commented [TD6]: Do we want a definition
of decommission and abandon well?
Commented [WA(7]: Proposed revision 62.3
Commented [WA(8]: Proposed revision 62.4
Return to Response #62.3
Return to Response #62.4
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(b) If using EPA Test Method 18, the minimum list of compounds to be
tested shall be those published in the most recent Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42).
(2) The following equation shall be used to calculate control efficiency:
Control Efficiency = (NMOCin − NMOCout)/(NMOCin)
where,
NMOCin = mass of NMOC entering control device
NMOCout = mass of NMOC exiting control device
(3) EPA Test Method 3 or 3A shall be used to determine the O2 content for
correcting the NMOC concentration as hexane to 3% O2. EPA Test Method
19 shall be used to determine the exhaust stream flowrate.
(4) EPA Test Method 7E and CO testing in accordance with EPA Test Method
10 shall be used to conduct NOx testing.
(5) If using an enclosed flare, the owner or operator shall record the combustion
chamber temperature and landfill gas flow rate during the performance test.
b. The NMOC emission rate for the landfill shall also be calculated every five (5)
yearsannually using the following equation:
MNMOC = 1.89 × 10−3 QLFG × CNMOC
where,
MNMOC = mass emission rate of NMOC, megagrams per year
QLFG = flow rate of landfill gas, cubic meters per minute
CNMOC = NMOC concentration, parts per million by volume as hexane
(1) The flow rate of landfill gas, QLFG, shall be determined by measuring the total
landfill gas flow rate at the common header pipe that leads to the control
device using a gas flow measuring device calibrated according to the
provisions of Section 10 of EPA Test Method 2E or according to
manufacturer recommendations.
(2) The average NMOC concentration, CNMOC, shall be tested for at a minimum
of every 5 years. The average NMOC concentration, CNMOC, shall be
determined by collecting and analyzing landfill gas sampled from the
common header pipe before the gas moving or condensate removal
equipment using the procedures in EPA Test Methods 25C or 18. If using
EPA Test Method 18, the minimum list of compounds to be tested shall be
those published in the most recent Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors (AP-42). The sample location on the common header pipe shall be
before any condensate removal or other gas refining units. The owner or
operator shall divide the NMOC concentration from EPA Test Method 25C
by six to convert from CNMOC as carbon to CNMOC as hexane.
Commented [WA(9]: Proposed revision 62.5
Commented [BD10]: Should bve amended to
be only applicable when the NMOC rate is
greater than 17 Mg/yr
Commented [TD11R10]: Yes, and we can
calculate annually if the site wants, but the
NMOC value should be tested once every 5
years until the site is below 17 Mg.
Commented [WA(12]: Proposed revision
62.6
Return to Response #62.5
Return to Response #62.6
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
c. Performance tests shall be conducted and data shall be reduced in accordance
with the test methods and procedures specified in this section unless otherwise
specified by the Control Officer.
d. Sampling sites and velocity traverse points shall be selected in accordance with
EPA Test Method 1or 1A. The gas volumetric flow rate shall be measured in
accordance with EPA Test Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G or 19. The dry
molecular weight shall be determined in accordance with EPA Test Method 3,
3A or 3B. The stack gas moisture shall be determined in accordance with EPA
Test Method 4. These methods must be performed, as applicable, during each
test run.
e. Performance tests shall be conducted under representative operating conditions
and all equipment shall be operated during testing in accordance with the most
recently approved GCCS design plan or according to its operations manual.
f.
The owner or operator shall make available to the Control Officer any records
necessary to determine appropriate conditions for performance tests. Operations
during periods of startup, shutdown, and equipment malfunction shall not
constitute representative conditions for performance tests unless otherwise
specified.
g. The owner or operator shall record all process and control equipment
information that are necessary to document operating conditions during the test
and explain why the conditions represent normal operation. Operational
parameters shall be monitored and recorded at least once every 30 minutes
during each of the required test runs and documented in the test report. The
operational parameters monitored shall be capable of indicating that the
equipment is operating within the permitted limits, both during and after the
performance tests.
h. The Control Officer shall be notified in writing at least two weeks in advance of
the actual date and time of each performance test, unless otherwise specified, so
that the Control Officer may have a representative attend.
i.
The owner or operator shall install any and all sample ports or platforms
necessary to conduct the performance tests, provide safe access to any platforms,
and provide the necessary utilities for testing equipment.
j.
Each performance test shall consist of three separate test runs with each test run
being at least one hour in duration unless otherwise specified. Performance tests
may only be stopped for good cause, which includes forced shutdown, failure of
an irreplaceable portion of the sample train, extreme meteorological conditions,
or other circumstances beyond the owner or operator’s control. Termination of a
performance test without good cause after the first test run has commenced shall
constitute a failure of the performance test.
k. A separate test report for each performance test shall be submitted to the
Control Officer within 45 days after the completion of testing unless otherwise
specified. The Control Officer may extend the performance testing report
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
deadline upon the request of the owner or operator. The test protocol shall be
prepared in accordance with the most recent version of the Department’s “Air
Quality Performance Test Guidelines for Compliance Determination in
Maricopa County.”
l.
If test results do not demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this rule,
the owner or operator shall make the necessary repairs and/or adjustments to the
equipment, or shall make operational changes, such as intermittent collection
system operation, and demonstrate compliance through retesting. In addition to
compliance demonstrations, test results shall be used for annual emissions
inventory purposes if the owner or operator is required to complete an emissions
inventory survey.
m. All test extension requests, test protocols, test date notifications, and test reports
shall be submitted to the Control Officer and addressed to the attention of the
Performance Test Evaluation Supervisor.
n. The above testing requirements represent the minimum level of testing to
monitor for compliance with the emission limits in this rule. Nothing in this
section shall prevent the Control Officer from requiring additional performance
testing as deemed necessary to ensure compliance and protection of the public
health and welfare.
o. Open flare combustion devices shall be tested initially in accordance with 40
CFR 60.18.
Permittee shall observe visible emissions from the open flare using Method 22.
The presence of a flare pilot flame shall be monitored using a thermocouple or
any other equivalent device to detect the presence of a flame.
The gas composition and flow will be monitored to determine the gas heat
content.
Flare exist velocity will be calculated and compared to the standards in 40 CFR
60.18 to confirm design combustion standards.
302.3 Compliance: Each owner or operator shall utilize the following methods to
determine compliance with the operational requirements of Section 302.1.
a. The following procedures must be used for compliance with the GCCS
operational requirements as provided in Section 302.1:
(1) Actual flow data may be used instead of, or in conjunction with, the
equations in 40 CFR 60.36f(a)(1) to project the maximum expected gas
generation flow rate.
(2) For the purposes of determining sufficient density of gas collectors, the
owner or operator shall maintain a system of vertical wells, horizontal
collectors, or other collection devices consistent with the approved GCCS
design plan, capable of controlling and extracting gas from all portions of the
landfill sufficient to meet all operational and performance standards.
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(3) The provisions of Section 302.3 apply at all times that the GCCS is in
operation, except during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction,
provided that the duration of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction shall not
exceed 5 days for collection systems In the event the collection or control
system is inoperable, the gas mover system shall be shut down and all valves
in the collection and control system contributing to venting of the gas to the
atmosphere shall be closed within 1 hour;and shall not exceed 1 hour for
treatment or control devices, except during intermittent operation.
b. The following procedures must be used for compliance with the surface methane
operational requirements as provided in Section 302.1 and frequencies as
provided in Section 302.4c:
(1) After startup of the GCCS, the owner or operator must monitor surface
concentrations of methane along the entire perimeter of the collection area
and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at no more than 30-meter
intervals (or a site-specific established spacing) for each collection area on a
quarterly basis using an organic vapor analyzer, flame ionization detector, or
other portable monitor meeting the specifications provided in paragraph b(6)
of this section, or through the use of alternative technologies if approved by
the Control Officer.
(2) The background concentration must be determined by moving the probe
inlet upwind and downwind outside the boundary of the landfill at a distance
of at least 30 meters from the perimeter wells.
(3) Surface emission monitoring must be performed in accordance with EPA
Test Method 21, except that the probe inlet must be placed within 5 to 10
centimeters of the ground. Monitoring must be performed during typical
meteorological conditions.
(4) Any reading of 500 parts per million or more above background at any
location must be recorded as a monitored exceedance and the below actions
must be taken. As long as the specified actions are taken, the exceedance is
not a violation of the operational requirements of Section 302.1:
(a) The location of each monitored exceedance must be marked and the
location and concentration recorded. For location, you must determine
the latitude and longitude coordinates using an instrument with an
accuracy of at least 4 meters. The coordinates must be in decimal degrees
with at least five decimal places.
(b) Cover maintenance or adjustments to the vacuum of the adjacent wells to
increase the gas collection in the vicinity of each exceedance must be
made and the location must be re-monitored within 10 calendar days of
detecting the exceedance.
(c) If the re-monitoring of the location shows a second exceedance,
additional corrective action must be taken and the location must be
monitored again within 10 days of the second exceedance. If the re-
Formatted: Font: Garamond
Commented [BD13]: remove to allow
intermittent operations
Commented [WA(14]: Proposed revision
62.7
Return to Response #62.7
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
monitoring shows a third exceedance for the same location, the action
specified in paragraph (b)(4)(e) of this section must be taken, and no
further monitoring of that location is required until the action specified
in paragraph (b)(4)(e) of this section has been taken.
(d) Any location that initially showed an exceedance but has a methane
concentration less than 500 parts per million methane above background
at the 10-day re-monitoring specified in paragraph (b)(4)(b) or (c) of this
section must be re-monitored 1 month from the initial exceedance. If the
1-month re-monitoring shows a concentration less than 500 parts per
million above background, no further monitoring of that location is
required until the next quarterly monitoring period. If the 1-month re-
monitoring shows an exceedance, the actions specified in paragraph
(b)(4)(c) or (e) of this section must be taken.
(e) For any location where monitored methane concentration equals or
exceeds 500 parts per million above background three times within a
quarterly period, a new well or other collection device must be installed
within 120 calendar days of the initial exceedance. An alternative remedy
to the exceedance, such as upgrading the blower, header pipes or control
device, and a corresponding timeline for installation may be submitted to
the Control Officer for approval.
(5) The owner or operator must implement a program to monitor for cover
integrity and implement cover repairs as necessary on a quarterly basis. If
there are no cover issues identified for three consecutive quarterly
monitoring periods, then the owner or operator may skip to annual
monitoring. Any closed landfill that has skipped to annual monitoring and
has had no cover issues identified for three consecutive years may stop
monitoring for cover integrity, except for immediately after extreme weather
events such as receiving 1’ or more of rain over any 24 hour period, as
measured from the nearest Maricopa County Flood Control District rain
gauge.
(6) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the provisions in this section
must comply with the following instrumentation specifications and
procedures for surface emission monitoring devices:
(a) The portable analyzer must meet the instrument specifications provided
in section 6 of EPA Test Method 21, except that “methane” replaces all
references to “VOC”.
(b) The calibration gas must be methane, diluted to a nominal concentration
of 500 parts per million in air.
(c) To meet the performance evaluation requirements in section 8.1 of EPA
Test Method 21, the instrument evaluation procedures of section 8.1 of
EPA Test Method 21 must be used.
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(d) The calibration procedures provided in sections 8 and 10 of EPA Test
Method 21 must be followed immediately before commencing a surface
monitoring survey.
302.4 Monitoring of Operations: Each owner or operator shall monitor landfill
operations by complying with the following requirements, as applicable:
a. If using an enclosed combustor, it shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and
operated according to the manufacturer's specifications, including the following
equipment:
(1) A temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder and
having a minimum accuracy of ±1 percent of the temperature being
measured expressed in degrees Celsius or ±0.5 degrees Celsius, whichever is
greater. A temperature monitoring device is not required for boilers or
process heaters with design heat input capacity equal to or greater than 44
megawatts.
(2) A device that records flow to, or bypass of, the control device. The owner or
operator shall either:
(a) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring device that shall
record the flow to the control device at least every 15 minutes; or
(b) If equipped, secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-
seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the seal
or closure mechanism shall be performed at least once every month to
ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position and that the gas
flow is not diverted through the bypass line.
b. If using a non-enclosed flare, it shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and
operated according to the manufacturer's specifications, including the following
equipment:
(1) A heat sensing device, such as an ultraviolet beam sensor or thermocouple, at
the pilot light or the flame itself to indicate the continuous presence of a
flame.
(2) A device that records flow to the flare and bypass of the flare (if applicable).
The owner or operator must:
(a) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring device that
records the flow to the control device at least every 15 minutes; and
(b) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-seal or a
lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the seal or closure
mechanism must be performed at least once every month to ensure that
the valve is maintained in the closed position and that the gas flow is not
diverted through the bypass line.
c. Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with the 500 parts
per million surface methane operational standard in Section 302.1 must monitor
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
surface concentrations of methane according to the compliance procedures and
instrument specifications provided in Section 302.3. In addition:
(1) Any closed landfill that has no monitored exceedances of the operational
standard in three consecutive quarterly monitoring periods may skip to
annual monitoring.
(2) Any methane reading of 500 parts per million or more above background
detected during the annual monitoring returns the frequency for that landfill
to quarterly monitoring.
(3) Any closed landfill that has skipped to annual monitoring and has had no
monitored exceedances of the operational standard in three consecutive years
may stop monitoring surface methane emissions.
302.5 Recordkeeping: Each owner or operator shall maintain the following records and
make them available upon request. Records shall be retained for 5 years:
a. A GCCS design plan that meets the design requirements in §60.33f(b) and (c).
(1) The GCCS design plan must include any alternatives to the operational
standards, test methods, procedures, compliance measures, monitoring,
recordkeeping, or reporting provisions of Section 302 proposed by the
owner or operator.
(2) The GCCS design plan must either conform to specifications for active
collection systems in §60.40f or include a demonstration to the Control
Officer’s satisfaction of the sufficiency of the alternative provisions to
§60.40f.
(3) The GCCS design plan must include an addendum that outlines the
operation and maintenance (O&M) procedures for the control device(s).
O&M maintenance records shall, at a minimum, contain the following
information: equipment identification; date of activity; identification of the
individual performing the maintenance check; procedures to be performed
including frequency of occurrence; results of inspection; and corrective
action taken. An explanation shall be recorded for any scheduled
maintenance that is not performed during the period designated in the design
plan addendum.
b. Records of subsequent tests or monitoring shall be maintained for a minimum of
5 years.
c. Records of the control device vendor specifications shall be maintained until
removal of that control device.
d. A record of the enclosed flare temperature recorded every 15 minutes or less by
a continuous temperature recorder.
e. Records of the average combustion temperature of the flare during the
performance tests measured at least every 15 minutes and averaged over the
same time period of the performance test.
Commented [BD15]: The LFG flare systems
are simplistic and an additional O&M plan
should be needed as the existing regulations are
adequeate to ensure compliance.
Commented [WA(16]: Proposed revision
62.8
Return to Response #62.8
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
f.
Records of the percent reduction or outlet concentration of NMOC achieved by
the control device during each performance test or compliance with 20 ppm
NMOC.
g. Records of any times when the collection system or control device is not
operating, including during intermittent use of the GCCS.
h. The calculation methodology used to estimate current emissions.
i.
A schedule for the replacement of the carbon canisters and any filter replacement
for the leachate/condensate collection system, if applicable.
j.
Records of the location of each exceedance of the 500 parts per million methane
concentration as provided in Section 302.3 and the concentration recorded at
each location for which an exceedance was recorded in the previous
monthmonitoring event. For location, you must determine the latitude and
longitude coordinates using an instrument with an accuracy of at least 4 meters.
The coordinates must be in decimal degrees with at least five decimal places.
k. Records of all collection and control system exceedances of the operational
standards in Section 302.1, the reading in the subsequent month whether or not
the second reading is an exceedance, and the location of each exceedance.
l.
Records of any wells that have been decommissioned or abandoned.
m. Records of any supplemental fuel used in the operation of the GCCS.
n. An up-to-date plot map showing each existing and planned collector in the
system and providing a unique identification location label for each collector.
o. Records of the installation date and location of all newly installed collectors as
specified under §60.755(b).
302.6 Discontinuation of the GCCS: An owner or operator subject to this rule may
submit a request to the Control Officer to cap, remove or decommission their GCCS
if all of the following requirements are met:
a. The landfill is a closed landfill, as defined in 40 CFR 60.41f;
b. A closure report is submitted to the Control Officer as provided in 40 CFR
60.38f(f); and
c. Following the procedures specified in 40 CFR 60.35f(b), the owner or operator
demonstrates that the calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill is less than
17 megagrams (Mg) per year on three successive test dates. The test dates must
be no less than 90 days apart, and no more than 180 days apart and must be
submitted to the Control Officer within 60 days after the date of calculating the
NMOC emission rate.
d. In addition, the owner or operator of the MSW landfill must also demonstrate
that no odors from any regulated air pollutant will be discharged into the
atmosphere which may:
(1) Cause damage to property; or
Commented [WA(17]: Proposed revision
62.9
Commented [TD18]: In this rule, it goes
from quarterly to even less
Commented [WA(19]: Proposed revision
62.10
Commented [TD20]: What is the intent here?
Commented [WA(21]: Proposed revision
62.11
Commented [WA(22]: Proposed revision
62.12
Commented [TD23]: Change to County
citation
Commented [WA(24]: Proposed revision
62.13
Commented [TD25]: How does the site have
to demonstrate this?
Commented [WA(26]: Proposed revision
62.14
Return to Response #62.9
Return to Response #62.10
Return to Response #62.11
Return to Response #62.12
Return to Response #62.13
Return to Response #62.14
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
3800 N. Central Ave. Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(2) Unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property of
a substantial part of a community.
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE): For the
purpose of this rule, sources subject to Section 301 shall comply with the administrative
requirements in 40 CFR 60.38f and 40 CFR 60.39f. Sources subject to Section 302 shall comply with
the administrative requirements in Section 302 of this rule.
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT APPLICABLE): For the purpose of
this rule, sources subject to Section 301 shall comply with the monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements in 40 CFR 60.37f and 40 CFR 60.39f. Sources subject to Section 302 shall comply with
the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in Section 302 of this rule.
From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 9:05 AM
To: PND Regulatory <PNDRegulatory@maricopa.gov>; Kathy Semder (COA) <Kathy.Semder@Maricopa.Gov>; Andy
Linton (OBM) <Andy.Linton@Maricopa.Gov>; Bill Leal (FCD) <Bill.Leal@Maricopa.Gov>; Kathryn Garcia (PND)
<Kathryn.Garcia@Maricopa.Gov>; Blanca Caballero (ENV) <Blanca.Caballero@Maricopa.gov>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Citizen Comments
Citizen Comments
Each Regulatory Department is committed to providing opportunities for
stakeholder input regarding the adoption and amendment of all regulatory
requirements. Your input will be collected and forwarded to the appropriate
department. You will receive a written response from the applicable department
within two business days. We appreciate your comments and your time.
Case Number/Rule
AQ-2017-002 Rule 321 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills/111d
Plan
Department
Air Quality
I would like to
Other
First Name
Dave
Last Name
Bearden
Organization
WM
City
Phoenix
Zip
85020
Email
dbearde2@wm.com
Phone Number
16027089815
Phone Type
Mobile
Would you like someone to
contact you?
No
Comments
Thanks for the hard work on the draft landfill rule. David
Thorley and I put together a few final comments for you to
consider.
If applicable, attach
supporting documentation
associated with your
comment. The only file
types supported are MS
Office and Adobe Acrobat.
Working Draft Rule 321_13Dec21 DB (002) dgt 2 22 22.docx
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
301 W. Jefferson St. Ste. 410
Phoenix, AZ 85003
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 321
EXISTING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) LANDFILLS
INDEX
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101
PURPOSE
102
APPLICABILITY
103
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS
201
ADMINISTRATOR
202
201
AFFECTED FACILITY
203
202
COMMENCED
204
CONSTRUCTION
205
MODIFICATION
206
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL (MSW LANDFILL)
207
NMOC
208
OWNER OR OPERATOR
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW
LANDFILLS WITH NMOC EMISSION RATES AT OR ABOVE FEDERAL
THRESHOLDS
302
DELAYED APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW
LANDFILLS WITH NMOC EMISSION RATES BELOW FEDERAL
THRESHOLDS
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE)
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT APPLICABLE)
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
301 W. Jefferson St. Ste. 410
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Adopted 05/14/1997; Revised 03/01/2000; Revised 03/07/2001; Revised 11/19/2003; Revised
03/15/2006; Revised 12/17/2008; Revised 09/16/2009; Revised 07/07/2010; Revised 08/17/2011;
Revised 07/25/2012; Revised 03/26/2014; Revised 11/05/2014; Revised 11/18/2015; Revised
11/02/2016; Revised MM/DD/YYYY
MARICOPA COUNTY
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
REGULATION III – CONTROL OF AIR CONTAMINANTS
RULE 321
EXISTING MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) LANDFILLS
SECTION 100 – GENERAL
101
PURPOSE: To limit the emissions of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) from
existing municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills.
102
APPLICABILITY: The provisions of this rule shall apply to each municipal solid waste
landfill for which construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced prior to May 30,
1991, and which has accepted waste at any time since November 8, 1987 or has additional
design capacity available for future waste deposition.
The provisions of this rule shall apply to existing MSW landfills that:
a. Commenced construction, reconstruction or modification on or before July 17,
2014; and
b. Have accepted waste at any time since November 8, 1987 or has additional
design capacity available for future waste deposition.
103
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION: Copies of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW –
Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, are available as listed:
a.
Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
b. Maricopa County Rules are available electronically at http://www.maricopa.gov/aq.
c.
EPA documents are available electronically at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR.
d. ASTM standards are available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O.
Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, or from its website at www.astm.org.
SECTION 200 – DEFINITIONS: See Rule 100 of these rules and 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf for
definitions of terms that are used but not specifically defined in this rule. For the purpose of this
rule, the following definitions shall apply, in addition to those definitions found in Rule 100 (General
Provisions and Definitions) of these rules and 40 CFR 60, Subpart Cf. In the event of any
inconsistency between any of the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Rules, the definitions in
this rule take precedence.
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
301 W. Jefferson St. Ste. 410
Phoenix, AZ 85003
201
ADMINISTRATOR: The Control Officer, except that the Control Officer shall not be
empowered to approve alternative or equivalent test methods.
202
201
AFFECTED FACILITY: Any municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill to which this rule is
applicable.
203
202
COMMENCED: State or condition where an owner or operator has undertaken a
continuous program of construction; or where an owner or operator has entered into a
contractual obligation to undertake and complete such a program.
204
CONSTRUCTION: The fabrication, erection, or installation of an affected facility.
205
MODIFICATION: Any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, an
affected facility which would result in a change in actual emissions.
206
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILL (MSW LANDFILL): An entire, publicly or
privately owned, disposal facility in a contiguous geographical space where household waste
is placed in or on land. Portions of a MSW landfill may be separated by access roads.
207
NMOC: Non-methane organic compound.
208
OWNER OR OPERATOR: Any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises
an affected facility.
SECTION 300 – STANDARDS
301
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW
LANDFILLS WITH NMOC EMISSION RATES AT OR ABOVE FEDERAL
THRESHOLDS: The federal standards of performance for municipal solid waste landfills
set forth in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW is adopted as codified on July 1, 2016, and all
accompanying appendices, excluding 40 CFR 60.750, are adopted and incorporated by
reference with the amendments and revisions set forth in this section. This adoption by
reference includes no future editions or revisions. Each owner or operator of an affected
facility which reaches or exceeds the annual NMOC emission rates specified in 40 CFR
60.33f(a)(3) or 40 CFR 60.33f(a)(4) shall comply with all the requirements of 40 CFR Part
60, Subpart WWW Cf as adopted and, where applicable, revised herein. All references to the
Administrator in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Cf shall be understood as the Control Officer,
except that the Control Officer shall not be empowered to approve alternative test methods
to determine the NMOC emission rate.
301.1 Collection and Control System Design Plan: 40 CFR 60.752(b)(2)(i) is amended to
read: “Submit a collection and control design plan prepared by a professional
engineer to the Administrator for approval not later than 12 months after submittal
of the initial NMOC emission rate report.”
301.2 Design Capacity Report: 40 CFR 60.757(a) is amended to read “Each owner or
operator of an affected facility shall submit an initial design capacity report to the
Administrator within 90 days from May 14, 1997.” 40 CFR 60.757(a)(1) is deleted.
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
301 W. Jefferson St. Ste. 410
Phoenix, AZ 85003
301.3 NMOC Emission Rate Report: 40 CFR 60.757(b) is amended to read “Each owner
or operator of an affected facility shall submit an NMOC emission rate report to the
Administrator initially and annually thereafter, except as provided for in paragraphs
(b)(1)(ii) or (b)(3) of this section. The Administrator may request such additional
information as may be necessary to verify the reported NMOC emission rate.” 40
CFR 60.757(b)(1)(i) is amended to read: “The initial NMOC emission rate report
shall be submitted within 90 days from May 14, 1997 and may be combined with the
initial design capacity report required in paragraph (a) of this section. Subsequent
NMOC emission rate reports shall be submitted annually thereafter, except as
provided for in paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(3) of this section.”
302
DELAYED APPLICABILITY: For an affected facility that first becomes subject to the
collection and control system requirement of 40 CFR 60.752 after May 14, 1997, the design
plan shall be due not later than 12 months after submittal or scheduled submittal of an
NMOC emission rate report of 50 megagrams (55.12 tons) per year or more.
302
REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING MSW LANDFILLS WITH NMOC
EMISSION RATES BELOW FEDERAL THRESHOLDS: Each owner or operator of
an affected facility with annual NMOC emission rates below those specified in 40 CFR
60.33f(a)(3) or 40 CFR 60.33f(a)(4) with an installed and operational landfill gas collection
and control system (GCCS) shall comply with the following requirements:
302.1 Operational Requirements: Each owner or operator shall operate and maintain an
existing GCCS that meets the following requirements:
a. The GCCS shall:
(1) Be designed and operated to handle the expected gas flow rate;
(2) Contain extraction wells which shall be maintained in any number and
spacing necessary to maintain emission and migration control and to collect
gas from each area, cell, or group of cells in the landfill which are still
generating gas as determined by measures of performance set forth in this
rule;
(3) Collect gas at a rate sufficient to maintain a negative pressure at all wellheads
in the collection system without causing air infiltration, including any
wellheads connected to the system as a result of expansion or excess surface
emissions, for the life of the blower; and
(4) Be designed and operated to minimize off-site migration of subsurface gas
and potential offsite impacts.
b. All collected gas shall be routed to a control system that complies with the
requirements in either paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this section.
(1) A non-enclosed flare designed and operated in accordance with the
parameters established in 40 CFR 60.18; or
(2) A control system designed and operated to reduce NMOC by 98 weight
percent, or, when an enclosed combustion device is used for control, to
Commented [BD1]: doesn't use maximum,
OK
Commented [WA(2]: Proposed revision 63.1
Return to Response #63.1
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
301 W. Jefferson St. Ste. 410
Phoenix, AZ 85003
either reduce NMOC by 98 weight or reduce the outlet NMOC
concentration to less than 20 parts per million by volume, dry basis as hexane
at three percent oxygen. The reduction efficiency or parts per million by
volume must be established by an initial performance test to be completed
no later than 180 days after the initial startup of the approved control system
using the test methods specified in Section 302.2a. The performance test is
not required for boilers and process heaters with design heat input capacities
equal to or greater than 44 megawatts that burn landfill gas for compliance
with Section 302.
(a) If a boiler or process heater is used as the control device, the landfill gas
stream must be introduced into the flame zone.
(b) The control device must be operated within the parameter ranges
established during the initial or most recent performance test. The
operating parameters to be monitored are specified in section 302.1c;
(3) Route all the collected gas to a treatment system that processes the collected
gas for subsequent sale or beneficial use such as fuel for combustion,
production of vehicle fuel, production of high-Btu gas for pipeline injection,
or use as a raw material in a chemical manufacturing process. Venting of
treated landfill gas to the ambient air is not allowed. If the treated landfill gas
cannot be routed for subsequent sale or beneficial use, then the treated
landfill gas must be controlled according to either paragraph (1) or (2) of this
section.
(4) All emissions from any atmospheric vent from the gas treatment system are
subject to the requirements of paragraph (1) or (2) of this section. For
purposes of Section 302, atmospheric vents located on the condensate
storage tank are not part of the treatment system and are exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (1) or (2) of this section.
c. The GCCS shall be operated:
(1) Within the parameter ranges established during the most recent performance
test.
(2) With negative pressure at each wellhead except under the following
conditions:
(a) A fire or increased well temperature. The owner or operator shall record
instances when positive pressure occurs in efforts to avoid a fire.
(b) Use of a geomembrane or synthetic cover. The owner or operator shall
develop acceptable pressure limits in the GCCS design plan.
(c) A decommissioned well. The owner or operator shall record any
decommissioning of wells.
(d) When the GCCS is not operating. The owner or operator shall record
instances when the GCCS is not operating or being used intermittently.
Commented [BD3]: good
Commented [WA(4]: Proposed revision 63.2
Return to Response #63.2
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
301 W. Jefferson St. Ste. 410
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(e) When using a passive venting system, as included in the approved GCCS
Design Plan.
(3) At all times when the collected gas is routed to the control device.
(4) So that the methane concentration is less than 500 parts per million above
background at the surface of the landfill, as per the requirements and
frequencies under Section 302.4c. To determine if this level is exceeded, the
owner or operator must:
(a) Conduct surface testing using an organic vapor analyzer, flame ionization
detector, or other portable monitor meeting the compliance
specifications in Section 302.3.b.
(b) Conduct surface testing around the perimeter of the collection area and
along a pattern that traverses the landfill at no more than 30-meter
intervals and where visual observations indicate elevated concentrations
of landfill gas, such as distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the
cover and all cover penetrations which extend into the waste mass. Thus,
the owner or operator must monitor any openings that are within an area
of the landfill where waste has been placed and a gas collection system is
required. The owner or operator may establish an alternative traversing
pattern that ensures equivalent coverage.
(c) Develop a surface monitoring plan to be included in the design plan that
includes a topographical map with the monitoring route and the rationale
for any site-specific deviations from the 30-meter intervals. Areas with
steep slopes or other dangerous areas may be excluded from the surface
testing.
d. The owner or operator shall submit a revision to the most current GCCS Design
Plan whenever a change is made to the GCCS.
302.2 Test Methods and Procedures: Each owner or operator of a control system
described in Section 302.1(b)(2) shall conduct a performance test of the control
system at least once every 5 years in accordance with Rule 270 of these rules and the
provisions below:
a. Performance testing shall be conducted using the following test methods:
(1) EPA Test Method 25, 25C, or 18 shall be used to determine compliance with
the 98 weight-percent efficiency or the 20 ppmv outlet concentration level
requirement.
(a) In cases where the outlet concentration is less than 50 ppm NMOC as
carbon (8 ppm NMOC as hexane), EPA Test Method 25A should be
used in place of EPA Test Method 25.
(b) If using EPA Test Method 18, the minimum list of compounds to be
tested shall be those published in the most recent Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42).
Commented [TD5]: What about the
exemptions such as survey stakes and signs?
Commented [WA(6]: Proposed revision 63.3
Return to Response #63.3
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
301 W. Jefferson St. Ste. 410
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(2) The following equation shall be used to calculate control efficiency:
Control Efficiency = (NMOCin − NMOCout)/(NMOCin)
where,
NMOCin = mass of NMOC entering control device
NMOCout = mass of NMOC exiting control device
(3) EPA Test Method 3 or 3A shall be used to determine the O2 content for
correcting the NMOC concentration as hexane to 3% O2. EPA Test Method
19 shall be used to determine the exhaust stream flowrate.
(4) EPA Test Method 7E shall be used to determine emissions of NOx and
EPA Test Method 10 shall be used to determine emissions of CO.
(5) If using an enclosed flare, the owner or operator shall record the combustion
chamber temperature and landfill gas flow rate during the performance test.
b. The NMOC emission rate for the landfill shall also be calculated at a minimum
of every five (5) years in” conjunction with permit renewal, using the following
equation, until the NMOC emission rate is calculated to be less than 17
megagrams (Mg) per year according to section 302.6c of this rule:
MNMOC = 1.89 × 10−3 QLFG × CNMOC
where,
MNMOC = mass emission rate of NMOC, megagrams per year
QLFG = flow rate of landfill gas, cubic meters per minute
CNMOC = NMOC concentration, parts per million by volume as hexane
(1) The flow rate of landfill gas, QLFG, shall be determined by measuring the total
landfill gas flow rate at the common header pipe that leads to the control
device using a gas flow measuring device calibrated according to the
provisions of Section 10 of EPA Test Method 2E or according to
manufacturer recommendations.
(2) The average NMOC concentration, CNMOC, shall be determined by collecting
and analyzing landfill gas sampled from the common header pipe before the
gas moving or condensate removal equipment using the procedures in EPA
Test Methods 25C or 18. If using EPA Test Method 18, the minimum list of
compounds to be tested shall be those published in the most recent
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42). The sample location
on the common header pipe shall be before any condensate removal or other
gas refining units. The owner or operator shall divide the NMOC
concentration from EPA Test Method 25C by six to convert from CNMOC
as carbon to CNMOC as hexane.
302.3 Compliance: Each owner or operator shall utilize the following methods to
determine compliance with the operational requirements of Section 302.1.
a. The following procedures must be used for compliance with the GCCS
operational requirements as provided in Section 302.1:
Commented [TD7]: Once a site is in, leave it
up to the site to test and determine when they
can get to 17 Mg instead of having the site be
required to calculate to be less than 17 Mg.
Otherwise, this is a lot of testing, calculations,
and money to just demonstrate that a site is still
required to operate.
Commented [BD8]: "with permit renewal"
isn't consistent with current practice and would
re-set the 5 yr. 5 yr used above in 302.2
Commented [WA(9]: Proposed revision 63.4
Commented [TD10]: Do you want this at the
time of testing?
Commented [WA(11]: Proposed revision
63.5
Return to Response #63.4
Return to Response #63.5
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
301 W. Jefferson St. Ste. 410
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(1) Actual flow data may be used instead of, or in conjunction with, the
equations in 40 CFR 60.36f(a)(1) to project the maximum expected gas
generation flow rate.
(2) For the purposes of determining sufficient density of gas collectors, the
owner or operator shall maintain a system of vertical wells, horizontal
collectors, or other collection devices consistent with the approved GCCS
design plan, capable of controlling and extracting gas from all portions of the
landfill sufficient to meet all operational and performance standards.
(3) The provisions of this rule apply at all times that the GCCS is in operation.
The gas mover system must be shut down and all valves in the collection and
control system contributing to venting of the gas to the atmosphere must be
closed within 1 hour of the collection or control system not operating.
b. The following procedures must be used for compliance with the surface methane
operational requirements as provided in Section 302.1 and frequencies as
provided in Section 302.4c:
(1) After startup of the GCCS, the owner or operator must monitor surface
concentrations of methane along the entire perimeter of the collection area
and along a pattern that traverses the landfill at no more than 30-meter
intervals (or a site-specific established spacing) for each collection area on a
quarterly basis using an organic vapor analyzer, flame ionization detector, or
other portable monitor meeting the specifications provided in paragraph b(6)
of this section, or through the use of alternative technologies if approved by
the Control Officer.
(2) The background concentration must be determined by moving the probe
inlet upwind and downwind outside the boundary of the landfill at a distance
of at least 30 meters from the perimeter wells.
(3) Surface emission monitoring must be performed in accordance with EPA
Test Method 21, except that the probe inlet must be placed within 5 to 10
centimeters of the ground. Monitoring must be performed during typical
meteorological conditions.
(4) Any reading of 500 parts per million or more above background at any
location must be recorded as a monitored exceedance and the below actions
must be taken. As long as the specified actions are taken, the exceedance is
not a violation of the operational requirements of Section 302.1:
(a) The location of each monitored exceedance must be marked and the
location and concentration recorded. For location, you must determine
the latitude and longitude coordinates using an instrument with an
accuracy of at least 4 meters. The coordinates must be in decimal degrees
with at least five decimal places.
(b) Cover maintenance or adjustments to the vacuum of the adjacent wells to
increase the gas collection in the vicinity of each exceedance must be
Commented [BD12]: on the decline side of
the curver determining the maxium isnt
practical use expected as in 302.1.a(1)
Commented [WA(13]: Proposed revision
63.6
Return to Response #63.6
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
301 W. Jefferson St. Ste. 410
Phoenix, AZ 85003
made and the location must be re-monitored within 10 calendar days of
detecting the exceedance.
(c) If the re-monitoring of the location shows a second exceedance,
additional corrective action must be taken and the location must be
monitored again within 10 days of the second exceedance. If the re-
monitoring shows a third exceedance for the same location, the action
specified in paragraph (b)(4)(e) of this section must be taken, and no
further monitoring of that location is required until the action specified
in paragraph (b)(4)(e) of this section has been taken.
(d) Any location that initially showed an exceedance but has a methane
concentration less than 500 parts per million methane above background
at the 10-day re-monitoring specified in paragraph (b)(4)(b) or (c) of this
section must be re-monitored 1 month from the initial exceedance. If the
1-month re-monitoring shows a concentration less than 500 parts per
million above background, no further monitoring of that location is
required until the next quarterly monitoring period. If the 1-month re-
monitoring shows an exceedance, the actions specified in paragraph
(b)(4)(c) or (e) of this section must be taken.
(e) For any location where monitored methane concentration equals or
exceeds 500 parts per million above background three times within a
quarterly period, a new well or other collection device must be installed
within 120 calendar days of the initial exceedance. An alternative remedy
to the exceedance, such as upgrading the blower, header pipes or control
device, and a corresponding timeline for installation may be submitted to
the Control Officer for approval.
(5) The owner or operator must implement a program to monitor for cover
integrity and implement cover repairs as necessary on a quarterly basis. If
there are no cover issues identified for three consecutive quarterly
monitoring periods, then the owner or operator may skip to annual
monitoring. Any closed landfill that has skipped to annual monitoring and
has had no cover issues identified for three consecutive years may stop
monitoring for cover integrity, except for immediately after extreme weather
events such as receiving 1’inch or more of rain over any 24 hour period, as
measured from the nearest Flood Control District of Maricopa County rain
gauge.
(6) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with the provisions in this section
must comply with the following instrumentation specifications and
procedures for surface emission monitoring devices:
(a) The portable analyzer must meet the instrument specifications provided
in section 6 of EPA Test Method 21, except that “methane” replaces all
references to “VOC”.
(b) The calibration gas must be methane, diluted to a nominal concentration
of 500 parts per million in air.
Commented [TD14]: So how long after a rain
event would a landfill have to do this additional
testing – also note, that repairs cannot be made
until the landfill has dried out.
How often does Maricopa County get an inch
of rain?
Commented [WA(15]: Proposed revision
63.7
Return to Response #63.7
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
301 W. Jefferson St. Ste. 410
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(c) To meet the performance evaluation requirements in section 8.1 of EPA
Test Method 21, the instrument evaluation procedures of section 8.1 of
EPA Test Method 21 must be used.
(d) The calibration procedures provided in sections 8 and 10 of EPA Test
Method 21 must be followed immediately before commencing a surface
monitoring survey.
302.4 Monitoring of Operations: Each owner or operator shall monitor landfill
operations by complying with the following requirements, as applicable:
a. If using an enclosed combustor, it shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and
operated according to the manufacturer's specifications, including the following
equipment:
(1) A temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder and
having a minimum accuracy of ±1 percent of the temperature being
measured expressed in degrees Celsius or ±0.5 degrees Celsius, whichever is
greater. A temperature monitoring device is not required for boilers or
process heaters with design heat input capacity equal to or greater than 44
megawatts.
(2) A device that records flow to, or bypass of, the control device. The owner or
operator shall either:
(a) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring device that shall
record the flow to the control device at least every 15 minutes; or
(b) If equipped, secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-
seal or a lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the seal
or closure mechanism shall be performed at least once every month to
ensure that the valve is maintained in the closed position and that the gas
flow is not diverted through the bypass line.
b. If using a non-enclosed flare, it shall be installed, calibrated, maintained, and
operated according to the manufacturer's specifications, including the following
equipment:
(1) A heat sensing device, such as an ultraviolet beam sensor or thermocouple, at
the pilot light or the flame itself to indicate the continuous presence of a
flame.
(2) A device that records flow to the flare and bypass of the flare (if applicable).
The owner or operator must:
(a) Install, calibrate, and maintain a gas flow rate measuring device that
records the flow to the control device at least every 15 minutes; and
(b) Secure the bypass line valve in the closed position with a car-seal or a
lock-and-key type configuration. A visual inspection of the seal or closure
mechanism must be performed at least once every month to ensure that
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
301 W. Jefferson St. Ste. 410
Phoenix, AZ 85003
the valve is maintained in the closed position and that the gas flow is not
diverted through the bypass line.
c. Each owner or operator seeking to demonstrate compliance with the 500 parts
per million surface methane operational standard in Section 302.1 must monitor
surface concentrations of methane according to the compliance procedures and
instrument specifications provided in Section 302.3. In addition:
(1) Any closed landfill that has no monitored exceedances of the operational
standard in three consecutive quarterly monitoring periods may skip to
annual monitoring.
(2) Any methane reading of 500 parts per million or more above background
detected during the annual monitoring returns the frequency for that landfill
to quarterly monitoring.
(3) Any closed landfill that has skipped to annual monitoring and has had no
monitored exceedances of the operational standard in three consecutive years
may stop monitoring surface methane emissions.
302.5 Recordkeeping: Each owner or operator shall maintain the following records and
make them available upon request. Records shall be retained for 5 years:
a. A GCCS design plan that meets the design requirements in §60.33f(b) and (c).
(1) The GCCS design plan must include any alternatives to the operational
standards, test methods, procedures, compliance measures, monitoring,
recordkeeping, or reporting provisions of Section 302 proposed by the
owner or operator.
(2) The GCCS design plan must either conform to specifications for active
collection systems in §60.40f or include a demonstration to the Control
Officer’s satisfaction of the sufficiency of the alternative provisions to
§60.40f.
(3) The GCCS design plan must include an addendum that outlines the
operation and maintenance (O&M) procedures for the control device(s).
O&M maintenance records shall, at a minimum, contain the following
information: equipment identification; date of activity; identification of the
individual performing the maintenance check; procedures to be performed
including frequency of occurrence; results of inspection; and corrective
action taken. An explanation shall be recorded for any scheduled
maintenance that is not performed during the period designated in the design
plan addendum.
b. Records of subsequent tests or monitoring shall be maintained for a minimum of
5 years.
c. Records of the control device vendor specifications shall be maintained until
removal of that control device.
Commented [TD16]: I think you want a
Design Plan for greater than 5 years.
Commented [WA(17]: Proposed revision
63.8
Commented [TD18]: Currently, Legacy
Controlled landfills under Cf/OOO don’t have
to modify the previous Design Plan – what is
the intent here?
Commented [WA(19]: Proposed revision
63.9
Commented [TD20]: What about passive
systems?
Commented [WA(21]: Proposed revision
63.10
Commented [TD22]: This is overkill and
should be removed. A landfill is not static like
a factory. Instead, the requirement should be
to maintain per manufacture specifications
Commented [WA(23]: Proposed revision
63.11
Return to Response #63.8
Return to Response #63.9
Return to Response #63.10
Return to Response #63.11
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
301 W. Jefferson St. Ste. 410
Phoenix, AZ 85003
d. A record of the enclosed flare temperature recorded every 15 minutes or less by
a continuous temperature recorder.
e. Records of any cover integrity monitoring and repair, as described in Section
302.3b(5).
f.
Records of any instance of wellhead positive pressure or insufficient pressure.
g. Records of any times when the collection system or control device is not
operating, including during intermittent use of the GCCS.
h. The calculation methodology used to estimate current emissions.
i.
A schedule for the replacement of the carbon canisters and any filter replacement
for the leachate/condensate collection system, if applicable.
j.
Records of the location of each exceedance of the 500 parts per million methane
concentration as provided in Section 302.3 and the concentration recorded at
each location for which an exceedance was recorded in the previous month. For
location, you must determine the latitude and longitude coordinates using an
instrument with an accuracy of at least 4 meters. The coordinates must be in
decimal degrees with at least five decimal places.
k. Records of all collection and control system malfunctions and the corrective
actions taken.
l.
Records of any wells that have been decommissioned.
m. Records of any supplemental fuel used in the operation of the GCCS.
n. An up-to-date plot map showing each existing and planned collector in the
system and providing a unique identification location label for each collector.
o. Records of the installation date and location of all newly installed collectors as
specified under 40 CFR 60.36f(b).
302.6 Discontinuation of the GCCS: An owner or operator subject to this rule may
submit a request to the Control Officer to cap, remove or decommission their GCCS
if all of the following requirements are met:
a. The landfill is a closed landfill, as defined in 40 CFR 60.41f;
b. A closure report is submitted to the Control Officer as provided in 40 CFR
60.38f(f); and
c. Following the procedures specified in 40 CFR 60.35f(b), the owner or operator
demonstrates that the calculated NMOC emission rate at the landfill is less than
17 megagrams (Mg) per year on three successive test dates. The test dates must
be no less than 90 days apart, and no more than 180 days apart and must be
submitted to the Control Officer within 60 days after the date of calculating the
NMOC emission rate.
Commented [TD24]: Where did this come
from? Looks like from expired regulations.
Commented [WA(25]: Proposed revision
63.12
Return to Response #63.12
AQ-2017-002-Rule 321
Draft Rule
Maricopa County Air Quality Dept.
Planning & Analysis Division
301 W. Jefferson St. Ste. 410
Phoenix, AZ 85003
SECTION 400 – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (NOT APPLICABLE): For the
purpose of this rule, sources subject to Section 301 shall comply with the administrative
requirements in 40 CFR 60.38f and 40 CFR 60.39f. Sources subject to Section 302 shall comply with
the administrative requirements in Section 302 of this rule.
SECTION 500 – MONITORING AND RECORDS (NOT APPLICABLE): For the purpose of
this rule, sources subject to Section 301 shall comply with the monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements in 40 CFR 60.37f and 40 CFR 60.39f. Sources subject to Section 302 shall comply with
the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in Section 302 of this rule.