| Action | Amendment 9 |
| Stage | Proposed |
| Comment Period | Ended on 5/16/2022 |
 |
| VSWMR Section | Comment to Proposed Language | Recommendation(s) |
| 9VAC20-81-10 | There is no term that specifically defines the area within the waste management boundary. | Add the term "Waste Management Area" to define that part of the facility located within the waste management boundary and approved in the Part A application for the disposal of solid waste and storage of leachate. |
| 9VAC20-81-98.B.4 | Clarification is needed on how an “appropriate container” discussed in 9VAC20-81-98 differs from “container” as stated in the definitions (PVAC20-81-10). Appropriate containers are only directly referenced in the regulations when describing activities that are conditionally exempt from being classified as solid waste, and for facilities that will compost only Class I feedstocks. The statement that appropriate containers should be leak proof will provide a large burden to the waste industry. Specifically, if roll-off boxes are considered an appropriate container, they will not meet this requirement and facilities would be required to modify and or purchase new containers. | |
| 9VAC20-81-120.J.2 | The set back requirement from airports is increased from 5 miles to 6 miles. There does not seem to be much back up for a small increase in setback like this, unless there is a safety provision or study regarding 6 miles we do not see the justification in this change. | Keep the previous language of "Owners or operators proposing to site new or expanded waste management boundaries for a sanitary landfill and expansions of an existing landfill within a five-mile radius of any airport runway..." |
| 9VAC20-81-120.A. | Referring to siting the waste management boundary is vague and not completely accurate. Siting should refer to the area within the waste management boundary - see proposed term above ("Waste Management Area"). | 1st sentence to read as follows: "The siting of the waste management area for all sanitary, CDD and industrial landfills shall be governed by the standards set forth in this section. |
| 9VAC20-81-120.B. | Same As Above | Revise to read: "Floodplains. No new or expanded waste management area shall be sited in a 100-year floodplain." |
| 9VAC20-81-120.C. | Same As Above | Revise to read: "Stable areas. New and expanded waste management areas shall be sited in geologically stable areas…" |
| 9VAC20-81-120.D.2. | Same As Above | Revise to read: "No new or expanded waste management area shall be sited or constructed..." |
| 9VAC20-81-120.D.3.a. | Same As Above | Revise to read: "No new or expanded waste management area for a sanitary landfill shall be sited or constructed:" |
| 9VAC20-81-120.D.3.b. | Same As Above | Revise to read: "No new or expanded waste management area for a sanitary landfill shall be sited or constructed:" |
| 9VAC20-81-120.E.1. | Same As Above | Revise to read: "No new or expanded waste management area shall be located in areas where groundwater monitoring…" |
| 9VAC20-81-120.F.1.a. | Same As Above | Revise to read: "New and expanded waste management areas for sanitary landfills other than those impacting..." |
| 9VAC20-81-120.F.2. | Same As Above | Revise to read: "New and expanded waste management areas for CDD or industrial landfills shall not be located in wetlands..." |
| 9VAC20-81-140.B.1 | Sites must be managed by a licensed operator in the state of Virginia. Getting qualified site personnel to become a licensed operator can be difficult and take time, especially for some facilities that may have been recently acquired through acquisitions. Having the facility operate under the supervision or oversight of a licensed operator should be just as protective. | Revise to read: “The facility shall operate under the supervision of a waste management facility operator licensed by the Board for Waste Management Facility Operators.” or “The facility shall operate under the oversight of a waste management facility operator licensed by the Board for Waste Management Facility Operators.” |
| 9VAC20-81-140.B.21 | The wording could be interpreted to require the survey be completed on the same day every year, or every other year, as applicable. This would be impractical. | Revise to read: "Each landfill with a permitted daily disposal limit of more than 300 tons per day shall perform a topographic survey of the active portion of the landfill once each calendar year and within 305 to 425 days from the previous survey. Each landfill with a permitted daily disposal limit of 300 tons per day or less shall perform a topographic survey of the active portion of the landfill on a biennial basis and within 670 and 790 days from the previous survey." |
| 9VAC20-81-140.B.21.C.(1).(c) | Surface water infiltration is now a component for approving alternate daily cover. Again, not a lot of back up and we think this addition should be removed or further justified. | Revise to read: "Daily cover consisting of at least six inches of compacted soil or other approved material shall be placed upon and maintained on all exposed solid waste prior to the end of each operating day, or at more frequent intervals if necessary, to control disease vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging." and "The use of an alternate daily cover shall cease if it is not effective in controlling disease vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging; if the use of the material results in nuisances; or if the material erodes and results in waste being exposed. |
| 9VAC20-81-200.C.5.b | The language that "probe casings shall be capped or locked to prevent tampering and to protect the probes from exposure to the elements" is left to interpretation. Several facilities have existing probes that are capped by means of a screw cap on PVC pipe or just bolts on flush mount covers. While these are capped, it could be interpreted that it is open to tampering if it is not locked. | Revise to read: “The probes shall be capped or locked to discourage tampering...” or “The probes shall be capped to discourage tampering...” |
| 9VAC20-81-200.D.2.d | This states that “Within 10 days of detection, provide written notification of the compliance level exceedance to adjacent property owners and occupants of occupied structures within 500 feet of the exceeding probe or structure.” Does this only apply to adjacent properties or all properties within 500 feet of the exceeding probe. For some facilities located in more urban settings, there could be several properties and structures that are located with 500 feet but are not adjacent to the facility. We suggest revising the statement to be clear on which properties and occupants are to be notified. | Revise to read: “Within 10 days of detection, provide written notification of the compliance level exceedance to all property owners and occupants of occupied structures within 500 feet of the exceeding probe or structure.” or “Within 10 days of detection, provide written notification of the compliance level exceedance to only adjacent property owners and occupants of occupied structures within 500 feet of the exceeding probe or structure.” |
| 9VAC20-81-250.A.4.F | Is there a technical reason for prohibiting the use for dedicated bailers? Would you be able to provide clarification for this decision? | |
| 9VAC20-81-250.B.2.(1).(a) | It is not possible to collect eight (or more) independent samples during a semi-annual sampling period. | Revise to read: "For facilities that monitor groundwater on a semi-annual basis, a minimum of eight independent samples from each well (background and downgradient) shall be collected and analyzed for the Table 3.1 Columns A and C constituents prior to the facility becoming active through the first semi-annual sampling period." |
| 9VAC20-81-250.B.2.(1).(b) | It is not possible to collect four (or more) independent samples within a quarterly period. | Revise to read: "For facilities that monitor groundwater on a quarterly basis as a result of subdivision 1 e of this subsection, a minimum of four independent samples from each well (background and downgradient) shall be collected and analyzed for the Table 3.1 Columns A and C constituents prior to the facility becoming active through the first quarterly sampling period." |
| 9VAC20-81-250.B.2.a.(1).(a) and 9VAC20-81-250.C.2.b.(2) | Regulation does not specify if/when background calculations should be submitted to the department for Sanitary Landfills. 9VAC20-81-250.B.2.a(4) references the recalculation of site background. It is unclear if the initial background calculations and subsequent recalculations should be submitted independently or as part of Groundwater Monitoring Reports. | |
| 9VAC20-81-250.B.2.a.(4) | Is there a limitation on the age of the data from background wells that can be included in the recalculation of site background every four years? Is there a limit of the number of data points that can be included? We have received conflicting feedback from reviewers at the Department on these questions. | |
| 9VAC20-81-250.B.3.f and 9VAC20-81-250.C.3.f.(1) | The added language of "at all downgradient compliance wells" seems excessive, particularly at sites with large monitoring networks. There is a possibility that one or more wells in Assessment monitoring could show concentrations of all Table 3.1 Columns B and C constituents at or below background values for a long period of time before all of the downgradient compliance wells show similar concentrations. We have had requests approved in the past to move a single well from an Assessment subset of wells to a Detection subset of wells based on all Table 3.1 Columns B (and now C) constituents being detected at or below background values for two consecutive Table 3.1 Columns B and C sampling events. We request that the Department consider allowing the possibility for a well or wells be moved from an Assessment subset to a Detection subset. A longer period of sampling could be considered, such as four consecutive Table 3.1 Columns B and C sampling events showing constituents at or below background values vs. the current two consecutive events. | |
| 9VAC20-81-340.B.1 | Sites must be managed by a licensed operator in the state of Virginia. Getting qualified site personnel to become a licensed operator can be difficult and take time, especially for some facilities that may have been recently acquired through acquisitions. Having the facility operate under the supervision or oversight of a licensed operator should be just as protective. | Revise to read: “The facility shall operate under the supervision of a waste management facility operator licensed by the Board for Waste Management Facility Operators.” or “The facility shall operate under the oversight of a waste management facility operator licensed by the Board for Waste Management Facility Operators.” |
| 9VAC20-81-350.1 | Sites must conduct monthly inspections and document each. The inspections must be kept on site for 3 years and made available for review upon request. Currently it seems like the request response is immediate and downloading records may take some time. The time needed to be able to provide documents needs to be clarified. | |
| 9VAC20-81-350.2 & 9VAC20-81-350.4 | Sites must keep a log of all sampling and results that occur. All the information required is generally captured on a typical chain of custody, but this condition requires a log and the record to be kept on site for 3 years subject to review upon request. Currently it seems like the request response is immediate and downloading records may take some time. The time needed to be able to provide documents needs to be clarified. |