![](media/image1.png)

June 16, 2005

Mark Friedrichs, PI-40

Office of Policy and International Affairs

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, DC 20585

Dear Mr. Friedrichs:

The National Solid Wastes Management Association's (NSWMA) Landfill
Institute is pleased to provide the Department of Energy (DOE) with
comments regarding its notice of availability and request for comments
on the draft Technical Guidelines for the revised Voluntary Reporting of
Greenhouse Gases Program as announced in the *Federal Register* on March
24, 2005 (70 FR 15164).

NSWMA is the trade association that represents the private waste
management industry. NSWMA's Landfill Institute is comprised of those
members that own or operate non-hazardous waste landfills including
municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs). Our members own or operate
some 800 MSWLFs, which represent almost 60 percent of the nation's
landfill capacity. The Institute's comments are presented by topic
below.

1.  [DOE's approach for carbon movement and emissions through the
    economy is inherently biased against waste management
    operations.]{.underline}

Throughout the draft technical guidance, DOE uses production models that
carry carbon forward in products until a facility emission occurs. Under
these modeling scenarios, emissions are continually transferred until an
inevitable emission occurs at a downstream facility. However, DOE has
not followed this model for wood products.

The draft Technical Guidelines assign the carbon sequestration in wood
products to the manufacturers of wood products and not the facility that
has ultimate control of how the wood products are managed downstream --
the waste management facilities. The wood product manufacturers do not
bear the responsibility for the carbon emission or sequestration of
their products during its lifecycle but receive the carbon credits.
Conversely, landfills are not entitled to the carbon storage credits
despite the waste management facility having the responsibility for the
wood product's final management and disposal.

If this logic is followed for other manufacturers, coal and oil
producers should be responsible for the carbon emissions of facilities
that use these energy sources. For example, the manufacturers of
heavy-duty vehicles powered by diesel engines (trucks, landfill
compactors, dozers, etc.) should be responsible for the carbon emissions
of these vehicles, rather then the purchaser, because they are directly
responsible for the engineering and fuel economy of vehicles they
produce. The purchaser does not have any control over the products
produced.

The apparent rationale for this logic is a policy desire to establish
accountability for all carbon emissions in a carbon inventory. However,
once DOE takes this course, DOE cannot arbitrarily choose winners and
losers in carbon accounting without considerable deliberation and
consideration of equity and responsibility for the carbon emissions. The
Landfill Institute does not believe that the mandate under 1605 (b)
authorizes DOE to establish ownership over carbon storage or reductions
that may clearly be in dispute. In addition, this does not seem to be
the case in DOE's approach to methane (CH~4~) emissions from landfills
and for assigning ownership of carbon storage.

In addition to the inequity above, the draft Technical Guidelines fail
to consider the waste management industry's role in managing
carbon-based materials used in our society, particularly the products
that will eventually be disposed of. For example, the DOE's guidelines
state that:

-   Landfill CH~4~ is not biogenic, but anthropogenic;

-   Landfill operators are accountable for the landfill's CH~4~
    emissions;

-   Landfill operators are not credited with carbon storage at the
    landfill; and

-   Product manufacturers can claim credit for the carbon storage in
    their products placed in a landfill, despite not having
    responsibility for the carbon emissions that occur from management
    of its products.

Under the draft guidelines, carbon dioxide (CO~2~) emissions occurring
during the lifecycle of carbon-based products are considered biogenic
(with exceptions for the combustion of fossil-fuel based products like
plastic), while CH~4~ emissions (i.e., the natural product of the
biodegradation of organic matter in the absence of oxygen) from MSWLFs
are anthropogenic. Inconsistently, DOE considers the CO~2~ produced
simultaneously with the CH~4~ during biodegradation of carbon-based
products as biogenic. Apparently DOE's decision point on biogenesis
versus anthropogenesis is based on the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of
the compound (i.e., the GWM of CH~4~ is approximately 20 times greater
than CO~2~). However, the GWP is only a relationship factor among
climate change gases and not relevant to determining the origin of the
emissions.

The mistaken definition of landfill CH~4~ as anthropogenic is compounded
in the draft guidelines by proposing that the landfill operator is
directly accountable for the landfill's CH~4~ emissions for purposes of
entity reporting. A landfill operator does not have direct control over
the waste's content generated by customers or over the biological
processes within the landfill that determines emissions. The design and
operation of a modern MSWLF are dictated in federal regulations (40 CFR
Part 258) developed by the Environmental Protection Agency. These rules
contemplated the anaerobic biodegradation (i.e., degradation by
microorganisms) of the organic matter in the landfill, resulting in a
biogenic source of CH~4~. In short, the landfill operator does not
produce CH~4~ by chance or choice; it occurs naturally. Operators of
MSWLFs can only control or recover CH~4~ (either voluntary or by EPA
regulation for non-methane organic constituents at larger landfills).

The Landfill Institute believes that holding MSWLF operators
participating in the 1605(b) Program accountable (as entity reporters)
for CH~4~ emissions is inequitable. In fact, the 1605(b) program does
not require (in law or good policy) that all emissions identified in GHG
inventories must be assigned to individual facilities. That concession
has already been made in DOE's consideration of CO~2~ emissions from the
use and disposal of carbon-based products where such emissions are
considered part of the natural carbon cycle. A similar consideration can
be made for CH~4~ from the landfilling of carbon-based products.

The Landfill Institute recommends that DOE adopt the course of the Kyoto
Protocol, Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism, Chicago Climate Exchange
(CCX), Government of Canada, Massachusetts program for CO~2~ reductions,
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and California Climate Action
Registry (CCAR) where;

-   MSWLFs are defined as carbon neutral because of the biogenic nature
    of landfill methane;

-   Carbon storage is offset by the landfilling of carbon-based
    materials; and

-   Landfill operators are treated equally under the guidelines.

The Landfill Institute believes that all voluntary reductions of
landfill CH~4~ should be considered net reductions in CH~4~ regardless
of its associated global warming potential.

Although not recommended by the Institute, two other alternatives may
provide equity. The first would require product manufacturers (e.g.,
forest products, food, and other biodegradable items) that become waste
to be accountable for both carbon storage and CH~4~ and CO~2~ emissions.
This approach would establish a complete climate change stewardship for
products containing carbon that is disposed of in landfills. The second
would be to establish an intensity factor for waste management based on
a ratio of total waste managed to the total carbon emission over time.
The intensity value will always trend toward zero as carbon stored in
the landfill increases while the CH~4~ generation potential of the waste
mass decreases over time. However, this method does not provide an
indicator of active efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of the waste
management unit and is a function of business-as-usual.

Important to note is that landfill operators do not gain a free pass
under a carbon neutral approach. Reportable methane reductions would
require a significant capital investment, and the installation and
operation of CH~4~ collection and control equipment in order to generate
reductions. Other policy criteria can be applied to address issues of
additionality (e.g., regulatory requirements) in any future mandatory
program or trading program for carbon reductions.

2.  [Landfills emissions are significantly different than other
    industrial production facilities.]{.underline}

Unlike other industries that may choose their fuel and materials to
reduce emissions, the landfill operator cannot choose the materials that
go into the landfill. The landfill only accepts wastes generated by his
customers. The fact that society generates large amounts of carbon-based
wastes (e.g., paper and other forest products, plastics, food, etc.) is
out of the control of the landfill operator. Although carbon-based
wastes can also be recycled, composted, or combusted, these management
choices may be limited by external factors such as commodity markets,
facility availability, and market and customer cost constraints that are
beyond the waste manager's control. The landfill operator's
accountability is limited to operating the facility in compliance with
federal and state environmental, health, and safety regulations, and
best management practices.

The temporal emissions profile of MSWLFs demonstrates the inequity of
the draft Technical Guidelines for CH~4~ and carbon storage. Under all
other climate change control schemes, CH~4~ destruction and recovery
from MSWLFs is considered an offset to carbon emissions from sources
external to the landfill. Given the internal offset of carbon storage at
the landfill and the biogenic nature of the CH~4~, this is a reasonable
policy.

In addition, the biodegradation process at a landfill for any period of
time is a function of many factors (e.g., amount of water in the waste,
temperature, biodegradability rate of waste placed, etc.) and makes
relatively detailed emissions profiles problematic. The only exception
is the amount of landfill gas collected for purposes of flaring or
energy recovery. Gas generation rates from year to year always vary and
can change significantly. When a landfill first starts up, CH~4~
generation rates are low, reach a peak at some future time, and then
decrease once the landfill ceases taking waste.

However, the draft guidelines propose that a landfill operator choosing
to participate in the program account and take ownership for CH~4~
generation and include the amount potentially generated in its
inventory. Because CH~4~ generation will always be greater than CH~4~
destruction (despite collection efficiency rates reaching 95 percent or
greater), the landfill will always be a net generator of greenhouse
gases (GHG). Therefore, landfill operators will never be able to
participate in 1605(b) program because a year-to-year reduction will
never occur.

The Landfill Institute recommends that the only method to account for
CH~4~ emissions at landfills is to allow landfill operators to used the
amount collected and destroyed, not the potential CH~4~ generation rates
minus the collection rates.

3.  [A single technical guideline is not suited for all
    facilities/industries.]{.underline}

Many of the general guidelines appear to be constructed for smokestack
industries with easily monitored emission points. For example,
transportation-based services will have to spend considerably more per
unit of carbon inventoried than would a power plant or manufacturing
operation with far fewer locations where carbon can be monitored,
controlled, or emitted because of the ordinal rating system used for
estimating emissions for registering reductions. As a result, fuel use
at a power plant is more easily monitored than in a fleet of thousand
trucks and estimation methods have different values in DOE's rating
system. The choice for the trucking entity is to choose readily
available estimation methods (e.g., such as fuel costs from general
ledgers) or to incur considerable costs to identify actual fuel usage
among a wide variety of vehicles and translate that into an estimated
GHG emission.

Another example is the guidelines dealing with establishing reductions
against a set baseline of production. As indicted above, the concept of
baseline production is not relevant for MSWLF emissions when compared to
a power plant or automobile manufacturing plant. Methane emissions and
reductions will increase or decrease regardless of changes in volume of
waste managed on an annual basis, and emissions per unit of waste
managed is not a reasonably obtained value that will make sense to
regulators or the public.

The Landfill Institute recommends that DOE work with waste management
industry representatives to develop sector specific general guidelines
for reporting that take into account the unique elements its carbon
footprint and the its ability to collect and collate information that is
useful to developing public policy on controlling GHG. The value of
verifiable reductions should be secondary to the value of information
regarding emission inventories and the opportunities for reduction
through application of technology or other reduction techniques

4.  [Entity wide reporting requirements for large national companies is
    a disincentive to program participation.]{.underline}

Large national service companies that consist of hundreds of facilities
serving local markets have centralized financial accounting systems.
However, much of the data used in calculations that are used in an
inventory for GHG emissions is not available in centralized locations
that would make data gathering and collation time-consuming and
expensive. For large waste management companies, the costs of data
collection and compilation must be evaluated against any benefit gained
by reporting inventory and reductions. The Landfill Institute is
concerned with the distinction between registered reductions, which
require an entity wide inventory, and reported reductions, which do not.
The accounting system appears to be biased against the waste service
industries where GHG emissions are disbursed widely and do not have a
reason or capability to transfer emissions from one facility to another
and inappropriately claim reductions.

The Landfill Institute recommends that DOE allow project reductions to
be "registered", despite the absence of entity-wide reporting, if the
entity responsible for the reduction can certify that the reduction did
not occur as a consequence of transferring production from one facility
to another.

The Landfill Institute thanks the department for the opportunity to
comment on the draft Technical Guidelines for the revised Voluntary
Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program. The Institute and its members are
prepared to assist the department as it addresses these comments and
develops the final guidance. If you have any questions or concerns about
our comments, please contact me at 202-364-3773 or erepa@envasns.org.

Sincerely,

#### **Edward W. Repa**

Edward W. Repa, Ph.D.

Director, Environmental Programs