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?