VWIA Comments on VA DEQ Air Guidance Memo No. ACG-016 and Waste Guidance Memo No. LPR-SW-2026-01

Early Detection and Management of Elevated Temperature Landfills

Executive Summary

VWIA respectfully requests that DEQ withdraw or substantially revise the ETLF guidance because it imposes substantive permitting, reporting, and financial assurance obligations that should be addressed through rulemaking; conflates air and solid waste requirements; applies broad requirements to landfills that are not experiencing ETLF conditions; and relies on temperature, methane/carbon dioxide ratio, leachate, and other indicators that can occur under non-ETLF conditions. VWIA recommends that any final guidance clearly distinguish air and solid waste authorities, limit applicability to defined affected areas, preserve case-by-case operational flexibility, and avoid financial assurance requirements outside the pending rulemaking process.

Legal Comments

VWIA believes the ETLF Guidance Document conflicts with state law and should not be exempt from rulemaking because it imposes substantive obligations beyond existing regulations, including permitting, reporting, operational, and financial assurance requirements that are not merely interpretive.

VWIA notes that a Notice of Intended Regulatory Action (NOIRA) to amend the Financial Assurance Regulations is already in process. Any additional ETLF-related financial assurance requirements should be addressed through that rulemaking, rather than imposed through guidance.

General Comments

• The document conflates air permitting and solid waste permitting requirements and guidance. As a result, it is often unclear which DEQ program should receive reports or notifications, which program will interpret the submitted information, and which program will enforce any resulting requirements.

• This guidance appears to respond to specific issues at a small set of landfills in Virginia. VWIA does not believe those site-specific conditions justify statewide guidance imposing additional obligations on the entire industry, particularly where the guidance does not distinguish between landfills with confirmed ETLF conditions and landfills operating within normal temperature and gas-quality variability.

• The guidance brings all owners up to a minimum standard but is punitive to the owners that go beyond state requirements to address the health of their landfill. Considering that each ETLF facility has its own dynamics, a one-size-fits-all approach will ultimately not correct these conditions for the majority of owners.

• The State’s cooperation is key to managing and resolving ETLF conditions. In the past, DEQ worked closely with the private sector by allowing experimental designs, implementation of unique collection devices, and quick turnarounds for needed HOVs. Any obstacle to timely collection and destruction of elevated-temperature gas would be counterproductive and could exacerbate site conditions.

• The VWIA members have been effectively and responsibly operating and managing ETLF’s and maintaining proper financial assurance for over 20 years, so VWIA believes new FA guidance is unnecessary.  

• The 145°F thresholds and 15-day/170°F windows do not recognize that normal deep-waste temperatures routinely exceed regulatory thresholds. Normal waste temperatures are typically higher than regulatory thresholds, and specifically 145°F conditions do not necessarily inhibit methanogens. The guidance should acknowledge that exceeding a wellhead temperature threshold is not itself evidence of ET conditions.  Not only should the guidance acknowledge this condition, but it should also not require sites with this condition to follow the guidance.

Section I Introduction and Scope

• Section I(B) last paragraph states that the DEQ Director will initiate permit modifications for “applicable landfill permits” to add “site-specific conditions consistent with this guidance document.”  VWIA believes that permits must comply with rules and regulations but that a guidance document should not be included in a permit.  Also, the terms “applicable landfill permits” and “site-specific conditions…” would appear to give the DEQ Director ability to selectively apply the guidance document.

• Section I(D) Category 1 landfills would be all landfills without elevated temperatures.  VWIA does not agree that ANY additional guidance or requirements such as those described in Section IV are warranted for Category 1.

• Section I(D) Category 2 landfills have HOV demonstration approvals between 150° F and 170° F.  There is a definition gap between Category 1 and Category 2 tiers (145-150° F).

• Section I(D) last paragraph claims that “Landfills in Category 3 are considered to be ETLFs.”  Category 3 are defined as having hydrogen greater than 5.0% or temperatures greater than 170° F.  This contradicts the Section III definition.  In addition, hydrogen can easily exceed 5% during the normal early stages of methanogenesis, so this is not a situation exclusive to ETLFs.

Section III Definitions

The definition for Elevated Temperature Landfill should be clarified. 

• Section III defines ETLF as “a municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill that exhibits temperatures above regulatory thresholds due to abnormal reactions within the waste mass…”  This could include any landfill with a wellhead temperature greater than 145° F as the nature of reactions in a landfill are unknown at any particular time.

• Section I(D) last paragraph claims that “Landfills in Category 3 are considered to be ETLFs.”  Category 3 are defined as having hydrogen greater than 5.0% or temperatures greater than 170° F.  This contradicts the Section III definition.  In addition, hydrogen can easily exceed 5% during the normal early stages of methanogenesis, so this is not a situation exclusive to ETLFs.

• Typically, only a portion of the landfill, or a single unit exhibits elevated temperature conditions.  The definition of ETLF should consider limiting the applicability of requirements to a defined portion of the landfill exhibiting elevated temperature conditions. 

Section IV. Category 1

As previously stated, VWIA does not believe that any additional guidance or requirements is warranted for Category 1 landfills (because these sites have no issued HOVs above 145° F).  So stated, we have the additional comments on this section:

• Section IV(A) Notification within 30 days for gas wells that exhibit methane to carbon dioxide ratio below 0.9 is not practical.  Examining data from an operator with over 200 landfills across the country indicates that 98% of landfills have at least one gas well with a ratio of less than 0.9.  In addition, across the sites, approximately 26% of all gas wells have a ratio less than 0.9; therefore, the ratio alone is not an effective early detection parameter.  There are many reasons that a well may have a ratio of less than 0.9 including waste age, waste composition, moisture conditions, etc.  This requirement is unreasonable.

• Section IV(B) (1-3) – VWIA opposes this entire section.  This section contains voluminous and vague requirements for monitoring and reporting leachate generation rates, sampling and analysis of parameters beyond those required by disposal outlets, recordkeeping and reporting.  These requirements would be very susceptible to inadvertent errors or omissions on the owner/operator side due to the broad and vague nature of the guidelines.  In addition, there is no suggestion or direction regarding how or by whom the data will be used, evaluated, or interpreted.  Leachate volume is affected by many operational and climate factors. The requirement to record pump and haul volume for each truckload is burdensome and unnecessary.  Many sites don’t have flow meters.  At minimum, sites need the ability to track by weight as opposed to volume only. 

• Section IV(B)(4) This section requires notification to DEQ within 24 hours (verbally) and within 5 working days (written follow-up) of “any unusual condition that may endanger human health and the environment, such as when leachate constituents or leachate volumes are exceeding established thresholds for acceptance by the receiving WWTP or other leachate receiving facility.”  It is common for certain parameters to exceed WWTP limits and there are established procedures for correcting and addressing such as surcharges on parameters that exceed certain parameters.  VWIA does not believe that this constitutes an “unusual condition that may endanger human health and the environment” and that this notification requirement is unnecessary.  At the very most, VWIA members request this be changed to reporting to VA DEQ only when the POTW issues a Notice of Violation to the landfill.

• Section IV(C) Since Category 1 landfills are not exhibiting approved HOVs above regulatory thresholds and thus should not be subject to Sections IV (A-B), then no additional financial assurance is necessary.

Section V. Category 2

• Section V(A) second paragraph references monthly monitoring to be performed at the applicable collection device “starting the month after the effective date of this document.”  Yet, Section I(B) states that the Director will initiate permit modifications and then owners and operators are expected to implement standard in their permit immediately upon issuance.  These sections contradict each other.

• Section V(A) third paragraph, VWIA believes the oxygen monitoring requirement is a deviation from the MACT rule. 

• Section V(B) All comments related to Section IV(B), above pertain to this section as well.

• Section V(B)(2) VWIA strongly opposes sampling leachate quality at discrete sumps, cells, or landfill collection wells where no other corroborating evidence exists.  The leachate storage tanks should be the only location sampled as it represents the “process” of the landfill as an industrial facility.  The Category 2 constituents (acetone, benzene, and MEK) are not fully aligned with what the industry uses as early indicators of elevated temperature.  Leachate composition is a trailing/lagging indicator so it should not serve as a primary early-warning indicator.  Black goo and flubber can exist without ET conditions present. 

• Section V(B)(5) requires cessation of leachate recirculation at the landfill in Category 2.  This section states that “leachate recirculation should be terminated in impacted areas until such time as potential ETLF conditions are adequately controlled.”  There is no definition provided for a “potential ETLF” and by guidance definition, an ETLF does not exist until Category 3.  So, applicability of this guideline for a Category 2 site is unclear.

Section VI. Category 3

Since DEQ previously defined Category3 landfills as ETLFs, this section specifies that any landfill with a gas well temperature > 170° F or H2 > 5% is automatically an ETLF that “experience numerous issues” (language from Section 1(C) of the guidance document).  VWIA believes that this is an unreasonable categorization of an ETLF that results in substantial burden to the industry.

This category requires a significant increase of effort from the owner/operator.  As such, the requirements may have unintended consequences.  As gas temperatures increase, it is essential that every effort be made to recover the warm gas which will require an HOV greater than 170° F.  However, since obtaining an HOV greater than 170° F is accompanied by a significant burden (requiring an amended GCCS Design Plan within 120 days from the day of exceedance), it is possible that an owner/operator could “tune down” a gas well, reducing the volume of flow which will result in gas cooling as it rises through the gas well casing, thereby thwarting the need for an HOV.  In addition, the proposed guidance may lead to the owner/operator to not put a pump in a gas well, knowing that lower liquid levels will result in higher gas temperatures as the depth of gas extraction increases. 

The title of this section references “…Wells Exhibiting Hydrogen (H₂) Greater than 5% or Temperatures Greater than 170° F which cannot be corrected within 15 days.”  Generally, we would advise against attempting to correct a well exhibiting these characteristics. 

• VI(A) The H? > 5% trigger conflates an early-phase signal with a more advanced condition. The science indicates H? is an early indicator (its detection suggests methanogenic inhibition is beginning), but H? also has multiple benign or non-ET sources. Thus, routing any well with H? > 5% straight into the most severe category may misclassify sites that are geochemically early or experiencing a transient condition. 

• The overall hydrogen content where the LFG is being combusted (flare outlet) is a more useful metric than the content at individual wells. Technicians do not tune to hydrogen.

• VI(A) VWIA strongly recommends not cancelling previously approved HOVs > 170° F, let alone doing so within 6 months of the date of this document.  Sites that currently have HOVs > 170° F may be engaged in a necessary and effective mitigation.  HOVs above 170°F that expire after six months may force operators to choose between compliance and the extraction needed to prevent worsening conditions, as it is quite possible that an approved GCCS Design Plan and minor permit modification cannot be accomplished in that time frame. Since heat and pressure removal via gas extraction is a primary management tool, HOVs above 170°F should remain available under an approved GCCS, Corrective Action Plan, and minor permit modification exist rather than expiring categorically after six months.

• VI(C) We are not opposed to the concept of a required Corrective Action Plan (CAP).  However, requiring one with one gas well > 170° F or H₂ > 5% may be counterproductive.  In addition, a static CAP is not possible; site conditions change and corrective and mitigative measures must be flexible to accommodate changing conditions.  If an owner/operator submits a CAP, it is quite likely that by the time it is incorporated in an approved minor solid waste permit modification, site conditions will be quite different and not applicable to the CAP requirements.  Rather than prescriptive CAP requirements, the operator should develop a flexible plan to focus on the goal of extracting heat from the landfill using enhanced gas and liquid removal.  This strategy needs to be flexible to allow the owner to direct effort and resources on mitigating the situation rather than focusing on continued assessment.

• VI(C) VWIA recommends that when a CAP and minor permit application are approved, that allows the owner/operator to operate all wells covered by the CAP without an upper temperature limit.  This will facilitate appropriate early implementation of mitigative measures without the potential delay of seeking individual well temperature limits.

• VI(C) VWIA strongly opposes sampling leachate quality at discrete sumps, cells, or landfill collection wells.  The leachate storage tanks should be the only location sampled as it represents the “process” of the landfill as an industrial facility. 

• VI(C) Pausing waste placement and placing cap material in the affected area could be considered in a Corrective Action Plan, but this should not be required by default.  It would be difficult to provide an accurate schedule for corrective actions if the State’s guidance is to cease waste placement in an area where ETLF conditions are seen. Such prescriptive action by the DEQ could constitute a “taking” in legal terms.  What is the process for reclaiming the taken airspace when conditions are appropriate?  What conditions would be considered appropriate? 

WM of Virginia Comments to DEQs Air Guidance Memo No. ACG-016 and Waste Guidance Memo No. LPR-SW-2026-01: Early Detection and Management of Elevated Temperature Landfills dated June 8, 2026.

Section I and Throughout

Overall, please consider allowances to handle areas within landfills differently and not lump them into one ET category.

Section 1.A notes that “The generation of this gas, while a normal part of decomposition, can become out of control if a subsurface reaction results in higher temperatures in the landfill.”  For clarity and accuracy, recommend this sentence be revised to read “The generation of this gas, while a normal part of decomposition, can change considerably if a subsurface reaction results in higher temperatures in the landfill.”

Section 1.D: The use of HOV’s for categorization may create some problems with implementation and result in unintended consequences:

• As written, a single HOV approval between 150F and 170F would subject the entire site to Category 2 requirements.  This can be partly remedied by including provisions to address specific areas of the landfill differently (see comment above).  But this may also incentivize an operator to reduce flow in a high-temperature well (or wells) to avoid Category 2 classification, when the desired outcome is for the operator to remove heat and pressure from that location.
• As written, there may be gaps in applicability.  Would a facility with HOV approvals for only a range of 145F-149F not be subject to any category?
• Better approach may be to establish categories for areas of the landfill based on observed well temperatures in those areas, to better inform evaluations of future HOV requests and allow more focused implementation of remedial measures.
• Cat. 2 and 3 – only mentions AAAA HOV Demonstrations, what about XXX etc.
• Cat. 1 and 2 – What about sites with HOV’s >145f but <150f?

Section III Definitions

The definition for Elevated Temperature Landfill should be reconsidered and modified.  Typically, a portion of the landfill exhibits ET conditions.  It isn’t always the case that the entire landfill would exhibit those characteristics. Consider something more like ET event within a landfill. 

Section IV

IV.A comments:

• Monthly electronic reporting of methane, carbon dioxide, and CH4:CO2 ratio to DEQ on a monthly basis seems excessive and would result in a LOT of data for DEQ review. Recommend more focused approach that utilizes the semi-annual reports (see additional bullets below).
• A ratio below 0.9 requires notification to DEQ within 30 days.  On its own this would provide more focused notification to DEQ than the monthly data dump.  But the notification requires an evaluation of the reason for the ratio; this timing may not be sufficient to allow for a thorough evaluation of what is happening, resulting in speculation and/or evaluations that need to be revised as more data become available.
• Recommend that the semi-annual report required under 63.1981(h) be used as the reporting vehicle for ratios below 0.9.  This would be frequent enough to keep DEQ informed of the status of these wells, while still allowing for multiple months of data to be evaluated so that the reason for the ratio can be better characterized, and also assess the effectiveness of remedial measures (additional tuning, GCCS construction, etc.)

IV.B comments:

• The reference to “geysers” with no context seems unnecessary, recommend that sentence be revised to read “Potential ETLFs may exhibit increasing volumes of leachate, which can lead to leachate seeps, leachate head exceedances on the bottom liner, slope instability, leachate discharges to surface water, pressurized leachate encountered during drilling (geysers), inefficiencies in landfill gas collection systems, and increased costs to manage and dispose of leachate.”
• The frequency of recording leachate volumes is inconsistent - it first notes that volumes should be recorded at a “regular frequency (daily, weekly, monthly, or per discharge)” but then requires tracking monthly totals on a 60-month rolling basis.  Recommend revising the first sentence of IV.B.1 to read “Owners and operators of all Category 1 landfills should record leachate volumes sent to the WWTP, or other approved treatment facility, at a frequency of at least monthly.”
• Reiterating comment suggesting areas in a landfill be handled differently rather than applying all requirements sitewide.  A limited ET area may result in increased leachate volumes observed at a single sump, but that trend may not be apparent when evaluating sitewide leachate generation.
• This requirement in IV.B.3.f should be narrowed for clarity: “A listing of all WWTPs or other leachate receiving facilities that have received the landfill’s leachate along with their criteria for leachate acceptance (established thresholds for leachate constituent concentrations and leachate volumes), and an indication of whether the landfill has exceeded any of those thresholds.” Recommend limiting this listing be limited to the 60-month period being evaluated.
• IV.B.4 – these notifications will require a lot of speculation (the anticipated time it is expected to continue?).  Leachate characteristics are hard to change quickly (even with pretreatment” so the requirement to include “steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the circumstances resulting in an unusual condition or noncompliance” might more appropriately include a discussion of alternative disposal options.

Section V

“Black goo and Flubber” is mentioned Category 2, however this can exist without ET conditions present.

V.5. – The guidance’s perspective on leachate recirculation and the continuance of landfilling solids/residuals generated from leachate concentrations should be reevaluated.  Adding liquids back into ET conditions is not recommended but should not be further restricted in non-ET areas.

It is unclear why oxygen levels >= 2% require weekly monitoring.

See Section IV.A comment regarding monthly reporting of wellhead monitoring data to DEQ, this is better included as a summary in the semi-annual report.

Same comments on leachate sampling/notifications/recordkeeping as those listed in Section IV above.

Section VI

We support DEQ’s recommendation that wells with temps >170F be managed via alternatives in an updated GCCS Design Plan rather than through the AAAA enhanced monitoring process.

It’s unclear if DEQ intends to manage wells between 150F-170F exclusively as Category 2, with Category 3 requirements kicking in only when temps are above 170F.  If an ET area of a Facility is identified, there may be benefit in including all affected wells (some may still have temps <170) as part of the alternative operating process.  Recommend that the management of wells with H2>5% allow for management of additional wells in this manner, not just wells with temperatures >170.

Guidance sections: IV.B (p. 7–9), V.B (p. 10–11), VI.C (p. 13). However, this theme applies across the whole document.

VA program is monitoring focused with no provisions for proactive, vertical drainage-based systems or Waste Acceptance issues. The guidance repeatedly mentions proactive management, but its actual mechanisms are almost entirely monitoring and reporting, not engineered liquid drainage or waste acceptance.  The guidance as it stands is not proactive but rather appears to be reactive requiring increased monitoring and response as conditions worsen. Potential Regulatory Approach: Offer an alternative where a permittee could develop a proactive plan to facilitate drainage and avoid exothermic wastes as an alternative to the VA monitoring.  This could be done as part of permitting or via another mechanism. The carrot for the plan would be to avoid some of the monitoring and FA requirements so it could be added into the guidance as an option for development of a proactive plan involving the following elements. 

Landfill Liquids The guidance treats liquid as something to sample, not something to drain. Across Sections IV–VI, leachate appears almost exclusively as a monitoring constituent to be graphed and reported. The science of ET conditions and WM’s experience frame liquid accumulation and stagnation as a primary driver of heat accumulation. The guidance should state that maintaining free vertical drainage to the LCRS is an important preventive measure.

An increase in leachate generation rate does not necessarily indicate an ET condition, there are many other factors that could increase generation rate.  Language should be included for Category 1 landfills to evaluate and determine before having to comply with the monthly reporting and record keeping outlined in IV.B.3.  Recording and tracking should be something all are doing.

Guidance sections: IV.A (p. 6–7), V.A (p. 9–10), VI.A (p. 12), and the Category definitions.

The CH?:CO? < 0.9 wellhead trigger is not a reliable stand-alone indicator. For example, Krause et al. documented an ETLF (steel-slag alternative daily cover) that sustained elevated temperatures while CH?:CO? stayed greater than 1:1.  This is because slag carbonation consumed CO?. The ratio should be framed as one indicator within an integrated, trend-based analysis, not a standalone numeric threshold.  Overall, a better more integrated monitoring program is needed that involves parameters beyond gas to include settlement, temperature, etc., and focuses on trends.   

The H? > 5% trigger conflates an early-phase signal with a more advanced condition. The science and our experience indicate H? is an early indicator (its detection suggests methanogenic inhibition is beginning), and H? has multiple benign or non-ET sources. Thus, routing any well with H? > 5% straight into the most severe category may misclassify sites that are geochemically early or experiencing a transient condition. Recommend H? exceedances trigger investigation and trend confirmation including looking at other metrics rather than automatic top-tier classification. 

The 145°F thresholds and 15-day / 170°F windows do not recognize that normal deep-waste temperatures routinely exceed regulatory thresholds. WM field data show normal waste temperatures are typically higher than regulatory thresholds, and specifically 145°F conditions do not necessarily inhibit methanogens. The guidance should acknowledge that exceeding a wellhead temperature threshold is not itself evidence of ET conditions, and that short fixed correction windows are poorly matched to a phenomenon that develops and resolves over years but understand their intent to bring in metrics that identify conditions early and then intervene so more comprehensive metrics are needed as stated previously.

Guidance sections: I.A (p. 3, “not a landfill fire” clause), VI.A (p. 12), and Definitions.

Guidance sections: V.B.5 (p. 11, recirculation), IV.B.2 / V.B.2 (leachate constituents), IV.B / V.B (monitoring scope), and the Financial Assurance subsections.

Reconcile the leachate-recirculation prohibition with drainage. Clarify that the goal is reducing added liquid and not reducing drainage, so the two concepts are not read as contradictory.

The leachate quality monitoring portion. We have not seen good correlation with leachate monitoring and conditions higher up in the waste mass.  The Category 2 constituents (acetone, benzene, MEK, phenol, BOD:COD ratio, declining pH) are not aligned with what WM uses, especially phenol and pH.  Leachate composition is a trailing/lagging indicator so it should not serve as the primary early-warning trigger; gas and temperature trends will be way ahead. 

Financial-assurance provisions should credit proactive drainage. The FA sections load costs onto reactive monitoring and corrective action. WM notes that proactive measures would mitigate any increased closure and post closure costs so facilities that submit a proactive approach to elevated temperature mitigation would not be subject to increased FAs other than normal.

SPSA supports reasonable, scientifically based measures to identify and address actual elevated-temperature conditions. However, we believe the proposed guidance is overly broad, prescriptive, punitive, and would disproportionately impose substantial monitoring, permitting, operational, and financial burdens without adequately connecting those requirements to demonstrated environmental risk.

SPSA’s principal concerns are that the draft functions as regulation through guidance, provides no meaningful implementation period, and relies on overly broad ETLF classification criteria.

Comments on Regulation through Guidance

• DEQ should not establish binding regulatory requirements through guidance. Although the draft states that it does not impose requirements beyond existing law, it directs staff to require substantive actions including permit modifications, added monitoring and reporting, management and corrective-action plans, expiration of approved HOVs, cessation of waste placement, capping, and increased financial assurance.

These provisions go beyond interpreting existing statutes and regulations. If DEQ believes statewide requirements are necessary, they should be adopted through formal rulemaking under the Virginia Administrative Process Act, supported by a technical basis, regulatory impact analysis, stakeholder participation, and consideration of reasonable alternatives.

• The guidance appears to respond to serious but unusual conditions at a limited number of landfills. Site-specific issues may warrant site-specific action, but DEQ should justify imposing substantial new requirements on compliant facilities that have not exhibited comparable conditions.

Comments on Effective Date

• The proposed effective date does not allow meaningful consideration of public comments or reasonable implementation. The comment period closes August 12, 2026, and the guidance would become effective the next day. DEQ should delay implementation, respond to significant comments, and establish a phased schedule so facilities can revise plans and permits, procure needed services, budget appropriately, and coordinate with GCCS operators.

Classification Criteria Comments

• The Category 1 requirements are not risk-based. Facilities complying with the federal temperature standard and without HOVs above 145°F should not automatically be subject to additional gas evaluations, leachate sampling, five-year trending, monthly electronic reporting, permit modifications, and increased financial assurance absent demonstrated risk.
• The proposed methane-to-carbon-dioxide ratio of 0.9 may create false indications, particularly in older waste, low-production wells, perimeter wells, or areas affected by normal biological changes or air intrusion. A formal evaluation should be triggered only by a confirmed, sustained trend considering gas concentrations, oxygen, temperature, balance gas, and operating history.
• Previously approved HOVs should not automatically expire or create punitive classifications. Existing HOVs were approved through site-specific demonstrations allowed under MACT AAAA and should remain effective unless DEQ makes an individualized technical determination otherwise. At a minimum, facilities should be allowed to demonstrate the continued adequacy of an existing HOV.
• The “ETLF” label should be based on a comprehensive, weight-of-evidence evaluation, not a single temperature, hydrogen result, or approved HOV. Category 3 criteria should instead initiate confirmatory monitoring and site-specific evaluation of sustained temperature trends, gas composition, leachate conditions, settlement, odors, seeps, and other corroborating indicators. The guidance should also provide confirmation procedures and criteria for returning to a lower category.
• Waste-placement cessation and temporary or final capping should not automatically follow Category 3 classification, particularly given the one-off nature of triggering Category 3 status. These measures could eliminate permitted capacity, disrupt approved filling sequences, require redesign, and increase costs. They should be required only when supported by a site-specific engineering evaluation.
• DEQ should provide clarification of how the inability to obtain HOVs above 170°F per the guidance document would affect the established corrective action timelines and reporting, such as the enhanced monitoring requirements, Root Cause Analysis, Corrective Action and Implementation Timeline, etc.

Other General Comments

• Monthly electronic reporting would duplicate existing MACT AAAA and Title V monitoring and reporting. Unless a confirmed condition presents an immediate risk, additional data should be maintained in the facility’s operating record and submitted through existing reporting mechanisms.
• The leachate sampling location requirements are overly prescriptive and may not produce representative data. Sampling from individual sump risers may be unsafe, impracticable, or unrepresentative where cells are not hydraulically independent. DEQ should allow site-specific sampling locations coordinated with receiving-facility requirements and establish analytical methods, quality-control requirements, baselines, trend criteria, and actionable thresholds before requiring additional sampling.
• Exceeding a receiving facility’s leachate acceptance criterion should not automatically be treated as an unusual condition requiring notice within 24 hours. Notification should be required only after results are validated and when the condition causes an unauthorized discharge, violates an enforceable permit requirement, or creates an actual or imminent environmental risk.
• Financial assurance adjustments should be limited to closure, post-closure care, and groundwater corrective action. Routine operating costs should not be added based solely on category status or possession of an HOV. Any adjustment should be tied to a documented, site-specific deficiency in an existing cost estimate.
• The guidance should recognize that third-party operation of a GCCS is a lawful and common arrangement. The statement recommending that landfill owners avoid contracting or selling gas system operational rights is unnecessary and intrudes into legitimate contractual relationships.

SPSA asks DEQ to delay implementation, withdraw or substantially revise the guidance, and use formal rulemaking if these provisions are intended to operate as mandatory requirements. DEQ should also convene a technical stakeholder group and publish the technical basis and anticipated cost of each proposed threshold and requirement.

A more reasonable framework would retain existing requirements for normally operating facilities, use investigation levels for sustained or corroborated indicators, and reserve ETLF classification and corrective action for conditions confirmed through a site-specific, weight-of-evidence evaluation.

IV.B.4 and V.B.4

Leachate Notifications (referencing 9VAC20-81-530.C.3)

Comment:  The requirement to notify DEQ within 24 hours and then follow up with a five-day letter is an unnecessary burden, duplicative for some permit holders, and does not apply to landfills that discharge into out-of-state waters.  The City of Bristol, Virginia discharges directly to a POTW in another state (Tennessee).  The out-of-state POTW has its own requirements for reporting non-compliance.  Non-compliance does not affect Virginia state waters; therefore, this clause is not applicable for direct discharges to out-of-state POTW’s.

In addition, there is no notification section, or reference to previous notification sections, for Category 3 landfills.

V.B.2 (Sampling Locations)

Comment: The process of identifying which locations to test should take into account the landfill's specific location.  Sampling every well in a small landfill may not provide useful information and could be an onerous testing plan (including expensive).  Larger landfills will likely benefit from localized testing to determine where the high temperature and reactions are occurring.  Sampling should not be a one-size-fits-all solution for ETLFs.