    [Senate Hearing 118-414]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-414

                     AVOIDING, DETECTING AND CAPTURING
                      METHANE EMISSIONS FROM LANDFILLS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                JANUARY 31, 2024

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                     __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    56-774                 WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
              SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member

    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         PKEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    ALEX PADILLA, California             LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
    JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania

                   Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                JANUARY 31, 2024

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     1
    Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
      Virginia.......................................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Frankiewicz, Tom, Subject Matter Expert, Waste Methane, Rocky
      Mountain Institute.............................................     6
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................    26
            Senator Boozman..........................................    32
    Scarpelli, Tia, Ph.D., Research Scientist and Waste Sector Lead
      Carbon
      Mapper.........................................................    33
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................    47
            Senator Boozman..........................................    51
    Germain, Anne, P.E., BCEE, Chief Operating Officer and SVP of
      Regulatory Affairs, National Waste and Recycling Association...    52
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................    61
            Senator Boozman..........................................    62

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Letter from American Biogas Council which outlines concerns and
      implications with the Inflation Reduction Act's Section 48
      expansion to include biogas as an eligible technology and the
      exclusion of cleaning and conditioning equipment...............    66
    Letter from Circular Economy Coalition to provide feedback on
      methane emissions from landfills and how to mitigate their harm
      to the environment.............................................    91
    Elsevier Research Paper: Landfill Gas Collection Efficiency:
      Categorization of Data From Existing In-Situ Measurements......    93
    GHGSat statement for the record..................................   102

       AVOIDING, DETECTING AND CAPTURING METHANE EMISSIONS FROM LANDFILLS

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 2024

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse,
    Merkley, Markey, Kelly, Padilla, Ricketts, Sullivan.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone. We are pleased to
    call this hearing to order.
        Today, as you know, we are going to be discussing a topic
    that is a priority for many of us on the Environment and Public
    Works Committee, and that is reducing methane emissions from
    landfills and how we can do that through deploying new and
    innovative technologies while improving waste management and
    increasing the use of existing solutions, like composting. We
    will also explore how addressing methane emissions can create
    new jobs, a lot of them, and provide new revenue streams for
    landfill operators.
        Over the past couple of centuries, methane concentrations
    in the atmosphere have more than doubled. Methane, as many of
    you know, is roughly 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas
    than carbon dioxide. As a result, this super-pollutant is
    responsible for roughly a third of the global warming our
    planet is currently experiencing. I am going to say that again:
    this super-pollutant is responsible for roughly a third of the
    global warming that our planet is currently experiencing, a
    third.
        This makes cleaning up methane emissions one of the fastest
    ways to mitigate global warming. In fact, according to the
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, strong, rapid, and
    sustained methane reductions are critical to limiting near-term
    warming.
        Two years ago, I traveled with some of our colleagues to
    Scotland for the United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference
    (COP26), and also with members of our staff. That is when the
    United States and the European Union launched the Global
    Methane Pledge. This agreement represents a collective effort
    to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30 percent over
    the next 10 years.
        Today, more than 150 countries have signed onto that
    pledge. One hundred fifty countries have signed onto that
    pledge. More recently, I attended COP28 in Dubai with a
    bipartisan delegation of our colleagues led by Senator Cardin.
    There, governments and private industries renewed their
    commitments to reduce methane emissions.
        As an original signatory of the Global Methane Pledge and
    significant contributor to global methane emissions, the United
    States must continue to do its part, our part, to drive
    domestic methane reductions. In short, we need to provide what
    I call, and what you probably call, leadership by example.
        So, why should we focus on reducing methane emissions? To
    answer that question, let me begin by sharing the age-old story
    of Willie Sutton, whom as many of you will recall and members
    of our committee have heard me say more than they want to
    remember, I suspect, but he was a notorious bank robber during
    the Great Depressions. In fact, he robbed a lot of banks.
        Finally, he was caught and taken to trial. They stood
    before the judge, and the judge famously asked him, ``Mr.
    Sutton, why do you rob banks?'' He replied, famously,
    ``Because, Your Honor, that is where the money is.'' We can
    apply the same logic to today's hearing. We have to go where
    the emissions are and then find ways to reduce them.
        The good news is that we are well on our way to doing just
    that. Thanks to the Methane Emissions Reductions Program in the
    Inflation Reduction Act, the United States is advancing
    technologies to detect and capture methane emissions from the
    oil and gas sector, as well.
        Not only will these investments help us reduce emissions,
    but they will also help us create jobs while recovering wasted
    energy, enough to power nearly seven million homes every year.
    Let me say that again: that is enough to power seven million
    homes every year. That is a win-win for our communities, and it
    is a win-win for our planet.
        For this hearing, though, we are going to focus on the next
    frontier of mitigating methane emissions, and that is
    landfills. In other words, we are going to, my staff wrote this
    out for me, they like this, we are going to talk trash. That is
    pretty good, isn't it?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. You may ask yourself, why are we concerned
    about methane emissions from landfills? Landfills and their
    emissions are largely out of sight and largely out of mind for
    most people. However, landfill methane emissions are the third,
    that is right, the third largest source of methane emissions in
    the United States and globally.
        So, where is the methane coming from? In the United States,
    we send more food waste to landfills than any other materials.
    When organic material, like food, breaks down in landfills, as
    you know, it creates methane. If a landfill is not equipped to
    capture that methane, it simply escapes into our atmosphere.
        As many of our colleagues know, I care deeply about finding
    meaningful ways to reduce our waste while promoting
    sustainability. To that end, I am working alongside Senator
    Boozman and Senator Capito to pass legislation that would
    strengthen our Nation's recycling and composting systems.
        While composting and waste diversion are important tools to
    reduce methane emissions from landfills, it is also important
    that our landfills are equipped with technology that is
    necessary to mitigate emissions for years to come.
        For example, in my home State of Delaware, where one of our
    witnesses has spent a little bit of time, a lot of time,
    actually, the Delaware Solid Waste Authority mitigates methane
    emissions from their landfills with collection systems. Local
    businesses then use the gas that is collected to power their
    operations. Many landfills across the Country use similar
    systems to capture what would otherwise be wasted energy.
        As members of our committee have oftentimes heard me say,
    we need to find out what works and do more of that. In this
    case, we also need to find ways to improve upon what is already
    working. Deploying innovative methods and technologies to limit
    methane leakage will go a long way toward reducing landfill
    emissions across the United States.
        Last, in order to fully address this problem, we must be
    able to identify where the largest releases of methane from
    landfills are occurring. In fact, over the last couple of
    years, new studies have begun to reveal the scale of that
    problem.
        Satellite monitoring, flyovers, and other enhanced
    emissions monitoring technologies are playing a growing role in
    identifying methane emissions from landfills. These newer
    detection technologies can help landfill operators quickly
    respond to large emission events. We will need diverse
    strategies to detect landfill emissions going forward, because
    traditional methods have been unable to produce accurate
    emissions data for landfills.
        Let me close by reminding everybody that if we take action
    to reduce landfill emissions, it would have an immediate
    positive impact on climate, on air quality, and on public
    health while also creating economic opportunity across our
    Country, especially in our rural areas.
        My hope is that today's hearing will help us further our
    committee's understanding of how we can better detect and
    capture methane emissions from landfills and what strategies
    can keep methane-generating organic waste out of landfills in
    the first place.
        Before we do that, I want to recognize our Ranking Member,
    Senator Capito, for her opening statement. Senator Capito, good
    morning.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Capito. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman,
    and thanks for holding the hearing. Welcome to our panel of
    witnesses, and thanks for your willingness to testify.
        As organic materials decompose in landfills, they produce
    landfill gas containing methane, as the Chairman talked about,
    the main compound found in natural gas. Due to the natural
    generation of methane in landfill gas, landfills are now the
    third largest source, I believe you said that, of methane
    emissions in the U.S. This may be an environmental problem, but
    it is also an economic one, as methane lost to the atmosphere
    could be used for energy or manufacturing.
        While there is more work to be done, and improvements can
    be made, I want to acknowledge that the U.S. has made a lot of
    progress in reducing emissions from landfills. Through
    innovation thanks to the realization of its monetary value, the
    landfill sector has significantly improved its capacity to
    collect and manage landfill gas.
        Since 1990, U.S. landfills have reduced their greenhouse
    gas emissions by 38 percent. Recycling rates are increasing,
    and composting programs are taking off nationwide, meaning less
    methane-producing materials are ending up in the landfills.
    Also, the number of landfills are decreasing due to increases
    in operational efficiencies and improved land use.
        In considering solutions to address landfill methane that
    benefit the environment and economic development, it is
    essential that any regulations are achievable and that
    incentives are targeted. This is not what we have seen in the
    approach of this Administration, particularly from the Air
    Office at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has
    pursued punitive regulations that are impossible to achieve,
    such as Clean Power Plan 2.0 and the misnamed Good Neighbor
    regulations.
        The Administration has also ladled our billions of funding
    for favored industries and causes which has been mired in red
    tape and have not delivered the promised results. We do not
    want to repeat those mistakes here, and it is important that
    Congress scrutinize proposed regulations coming out of the Air
    Office that deal with landfill methane.
        Natural gas derived from landfill methane can be used to
    generate reliable electricity or be used as transportation of
    industrial fuels, all of which promotes energy independence
    while reducing emissions. I am concerned that the landfill
    sector is facing the same approach that the Biden and the Obama
    administrations have taken with regard to fossil fuels, where
    the goal is to make then uneconomic, and then the EPA then
    works backward to achieve that with crushing regulations.
        For example, proposed changes to the Clean Air Act's New
    Source Review Program would create a burdensome regulatory
    landscape for landfills seeking to implement technology
    innovations to address fugitive methane emissions. Despite
    receiving increased enforcement scrutiny for methane emissions,
    landfills have not been able to access the emissions reductions
    tax credits by the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, and have
    been shut out from the EPA's implementation of the Renewable
    Fuel Standard.
        Did I say the Renewable Fuel Standard? This is an ongoing
    joke with Mr. Nebraska over here.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Capito. I am concerned this is the beginning and
    not the end of political targeting of an industry that is
    necessary for our economy, public health, and environmental
    risk management. Indeed, the EPA will be considering several
    burdensome rulemakings on landfills this year. The agency is
    currently evaluating multiple rules related to New Source
    Review to penalize fugitive emissions and require project
    emissions accounting in major permitting decisions.
        The waste sector already experiences needless permitting
    delays for deploying renewable energy projects that the
    Administration supports. These rulemakings will only exacerbate
    the sector's frequent permitting obstacles, we see this across
    industries, and aggravate the Biden Administration's stated
    goal of reducing methane emissions.
        The Administration will also need to review its New Source
    Performance Standards (NSPS) and Emission Guidelines for
    Municipal Solid Waste landfills under Section 111 of the Clean
    Air Act this year. Environmental groups are already petitioning
    the EPA to set more stringent air emissions standards on
    smaller municipal landfills.
        There are bipartisan solutions in front of us today. There
    is broad bipartisan agreement about the difficulties of
    monitoring and measuring methane emissions from landfills.
    Development of new technologies is underway and is essential to
    better detect and quantify emissions.
        Municipal landfills and local communities could benefit
    from additional support from the EPA to research and evaluate
    cutting edge technologies, but none of this will work if
    outdated regulations like New Source Review stymie those
    upgrades at existing facilities to recover methane and get it
    to the market.
        I urge my colleagues to continue to work with me on
    permitting reform and updating out-of-date environmental
    regulations, areas within this committee's jurisdiction, so we
    can ensure that emissions-reducing technologies can actually
    get out to the market and make a difference.
        Thank you again to the three witnesses here today. I look
    forward to our discussion.
        Senator Carper. Senator Capito, thanks for your statement.
        I want to thank both minority and majority staff for your
    work in putting this hearing together. It does not just happen
    by magic. This is going to be, I think, an especially valuable
    hearing, a timely hearing, and we are grateful for our
    witnesses, but also for our staff in helping to make it happen.
        Now, we are going to turn to our three witnesses. I am
    going to take a moment just to briefly introduce you. We are
    grateful, again, to all of you for helping us better understand
    and deal with what is an important challenge, but really a
    great opportunity as well.
        We are going to be hearing, in this order, from these three
    witnesses, leading off with Mr. Tom Frankiewicz. Tom is a
    Subject Matter Expert, I understand, on waste sector methane at
    the Rocky Mountain Institute, a research organization known as
    RMI. In this role, Tom leads RMI's work on methane emissions
    mitigation and waste management and coordinates the
    organization's work with the global methane hub.
        Before joining RMI, Mr. Frankiewicz worked in the Climate
    Change Division in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for
    over 16 years. He earned his M.B.A. from George Washington
    University School of Business, with a concentration in
    environmental and strategic management. Welcome.
        Our second witness is Tia Scarpelli, a Research Scientist
    and the Waste Sector Lead for Carbon Mapper, a nonprofit
    organization that uses remote sensing to detect and quantify
    methane emissions data. Dr. Scarpelli's research interests
    include investigating the characteristics of methane emissions
    at global landfills and dump sites and the role that satellite
    observation can play in informing the mitigation of waste
    sector emissions. She earned her Ph.D. in atmospheric chemistry
    at Harvard University, and she brings a wealth of knowledge of
    satellite observation and atmospheric modeling.
        Third, last but not least, we have Anne Germain, Chief
    Operating Officer and Senior Vice President of Regulatory
    Affairs for the National Waste and Recycling Association. She
    has worked in the field of resource conservation and materials
    management for more than 30 years and has been with the
    National Waste and Recycling Association since 2013. Prior to
    joining the National Waste and Recycling Association, Ms.
    Germain worked for the Delaware Solid Waste Authority for 19
    years, where she served as chief engineer.
        Where did you live, did you live in Delaware?
        Ms. Germain. I actually lived in Caroline County, Maryland
    while I was there.
        Senator Carper. Okay. She is a board-certified
    environmental engineer with a master's in civil engineering
    from the University of Delaware.
        I would just say to my colleagues, about a week ago, I
    happened to be visiting one of the Delaware solid waste
    facilities for environmental educational training for students.
    It is in Dover, and we have thousands of students that come
    every year. They learn about recycling, and actually, they
    learn about what we are talking about here today. It was just
    pure joy to be there. If your old colleagues had known that we
    were going to be with you today, I am sure they would all send
    their best.
        We thank you all again for appearing before our committee
    today. We will now begin with our witnesses' testimony. Mr.
    Frankiewicz, you are our lead-off hitter. Please proceed with
    your statement when you are ready. Thank you, and again,
    welcome to everybody.
        Welcome, especially, to Senator Markey. Please, go ahead.

      STATEMENT OF TOM FRANKIEWICZ, SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT, WASTE
                   METHANE, ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE

        Mr. Frankiewicz. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member
    Capito, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity
    to appear before you today.
        Senator Carper. Can you hold for just a second? We all
    serve on different committees. One of my committees, the
    Homeland Security Committee, is meeting right now. They are
    voting. They need me to come and join them, so I leave you all
    in good hands, right here. Thanks.
        Senator Capito.
        [Presiding.] I got it.
        Senator Carper. I will be back.
        Mr. Frankiewicz. Thank you. I have three key messages for
    you today: one, landfill methane pollution is a major threat to
    our climate and communities; we have viable solutions to cut
    emissions today; and three, implementing these solutions will
    bring local benefits.
        Landfills are a major source of methane. Methane has about
    80 times the planet heating power of carbon dioxide over a 20
    year time period. Thanks to its relatively short atmospheric
    life, cutting methane today offers an immediate opportunity to
    slow global warming and is essential to void the worst effects
    of climate change.
        Each year, we send over 140 million tons of municipal solid
    waste to roughly 1,200 open landfills across the Country. The
    majority of the waste is organic, think banana peels and yard
    clippings, generating methane as it decomposes in the
    landfills. Some landfills capture their gas, but lots of
    methane still escapes into the atmosphere.
        In 2021, the methane released from U.S. landfills had the
    same near-term warming impacts as driving 66 million cars for a
    year. The true total is likely higher, as recent aerial surveys
    suggest. We have viable solutions to address landfill methane:
    strengthen landfill emission controls and reduce organic waste
    disposal. It is time we modernized air emissions regulations
    for landfills, expanding gas collection, more comprehensive
    monitoring, and other common sense improvements can limit the
    release of methane to the atmosphere and protect communities
    from other harmful co-pollutants.
        At the same time, we must invest in infrastructure to keep
    organics out of landfills. Waste prevention programs, food
    rescue, and composting all help to avoid future landfill
    methane generation and bring other local benefits.
        On both fronts, we have seen State and local leadership.
    Strong landfill emissions standards in three States, organic
    recycling policies in nine, and curbside composting in hundreds
    of communities across the Country, and new commitments from the
    private sector, as well. Federal action is needed to ensure
    that methane reductions are achieved at scale. The EPA is
    statutorily required to revisit its Clean Air Act regulations
    for landfills this year. The agency should meet the challenge
    with Section 111 standards that reflect the latest best
    practices in methane monitoring and control while encouraging
    organics diversion.
        Congress can also provide funds to catalyze landfill
    methane reductions. Building on the success of the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, additional
    grant programs could prioritize local waste prevention
    programs, organic recycling infrastructure, and landfill
    methane capture. The methane abatement potential here is
    significant.
        New EPA landfill standards can reduce emissions by amount
    one million metric tons of methane per year, or 80 million
    metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent. This is based on a
    preliminary analysis by the Environmental Integrity Project
    using EPA data. These efforts will help the U.S. meet its
    domestic climate goals while demonstrating global leadership.
        A more sustainable waste management system would bring
    local benefits. Landfills release toxic, smog-forming gases and
    odors that harm the health and well-being of nearby
    communities. More effective landfill methane controls would
    also address these co-pollutants, improving local air quality
    and life. Keeping organic waste out of landfills can bring
    further benefits, addressing food and security, creating job
    opportunities, and producing compost to improve soil health.
    For both stronger landfill emission controls and organics
    diversion programs, the cumulative benefits exceed the
    implementation costs.
        In closing, I would like to leave you these three points:
    landfills are a major source of methane pollution, but we have
    solutions to reduce these emissions today. By acting now,
    through stronger standards, we can limit near-term warming and
    bring real benefits to communities.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Frankiewicz follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Ms. Scarpelli.

    STATEMENT OF TIA SCARPELLI, PH.D., RESEARCH SCIENTIST AND WASTE
                       SECTOR LEAD, CARBON MAPPER

        Ms. Scarpelli. Good morning, Chairman Carper, Ranking
    Member Capito, and members of the committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to speak before you today.
        My name is Dr. Tia Scarpelli, and I am a Research Scientist
    and the Waste Sector Lead at Carbon Mapper. Carbon Mapper is a
    nonprofit organization with a mission to deliver actionable and
    transparent methane and CO2 emissions data that can
    be used to inform and accelerate emissions mitigation.
        Our work to use remote sensing to detect and quantify
    localized methane emissions is grounded in over a decade of
    methane research conducted by National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration (NASA) Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), as well
    as published in science-based literature.
        I have three messages that I would like to express today.
    No. 1, that landfills are a major source of methane emissions;
    No. 2, monitoring technologies show persistent large emissions
    at landfills related to specific processes and facility
    infrastructure; and No. 3, advanced monitoring is a critical
    tool in our current toolbox to guide mitigation and verify
    emissions reductions.
        Landfills are an important contributor to U.S. methane
    emissions. Through aerial surveys conducted since 2016, we have
    surveyed 300 of over 1,200 open landfills. It identified large
    methane emissions sources at over 200 sites. Over a third of
    these landfills have been observed emitting more than 1,000
    kilograms of methane per hour, with high methane concentrations
    sometimes extending kilometers in length away from the
    landfill. Per year, the emissions from this handful of
    landfills account for one-quarter of the U.S.'s waste sector
    methane emissions in 2021.
        Many of these large methane emissions come from two main
    sources. One is the landfill's surface, and the other is
    landfill gas infrastructure. Both can be mitigated using
    available technologies. These large methane sources often
    persist for days, months, and even years.
        For both of these categories, advanced monitoring
    technologies are readily available to help operators more
    efficiently monitor methane while also supporting more cost
    effective emissions management. There is an opportunity for
    data-driven methane mitigation at landfills.
        Remote sensing is an advanced monitoring technique that
    generates high resolution images of methane gas. In many cases,
    we are able to precisely determine where the source is located
    on the landfill. We have identified some of the highest
    emitting sources at U.S. landfills, enabling prioritization for
    mitigation.
        Studies have also shown discrepancies between observed and
    reported emissions. This indicates that many of these large,
    persistent landfill emissions are not included or are
    misrepresented in traditional emissions accounting methods.
    Given the dynamic nature of landfills, a routine and
    comprehensive monitoring system is critical for assessing
    emissions and verifying mitigation. At the Sunshine Canyon
    Landfill in California, for example, airborne monitoring showed
    large emissions from surface cover.
        In collaboration with the operator and local agencies, our
    observations informed improvements to cover material and the
    gas capture system, and followup monitoring verified that
    emissions were reduced. There is no single monitoring
    technology that can see all of the methane at the granularity
    that is needed at landfills. We need a portfolio of solutions
    that includes ground-based, aerial, and satellite technologies.
        Currently, walking surveys are done quarterly at landfills
    using handheld methane detectors. These traditional surveys
    only cover a portion of the landfill and do not cover dangerous
    areas, like the landfill workface. This is the area where new
    waste is added, which means that large emissions sources may be
    missed during the survey.
        Emerging technologies are already being deployed at
    landfills, including the use of drones for leak detection and
    the use of airborne and satellite remote sensing to identify
    high emitters. With more wide-scale adoption across U.S.
    landfills, these technologies can enable significant methane
    reductions.
        Increased monitoring in itself is not enough. There is an
    additional need for voluntary action by operators or
    regulations to address methane leaks once they are identified.
        In closing, I offer these key takeaways: No. 1, remote
    sensing technologies are making methane emissions visible and
    can help the waste sector identify large emissions sources,
    improve emissions estimate and support cost effective emissions
    management to minimize methane loss in the first place. No. 2,
    landfills are complex systems. They need comprehensive
    monitoring the leverages all the tools in our 21st century
    toolbox while giving operators flexibility to choose cost-
    effective methods that maximize mitigation potential or return
    on investment.
        I want to thank the committee for their work and the
    opportunity to share this research with you today. I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Scarpelli follows:]

                        Testimony of Dr. Tia Scarpelli,
                Research Scientist and Waste Lead, Carbon Mapper
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Capito. Thank you, and I apologize; I left the
    Doctor part out of your first name of your address, so I
    apologize for that.
        Ms. Scarpelli. No problem.
        Senator Capito. Ms. Germain.

    STATEMENT OF ANNE GERMAIN, P.E., BCEE, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
    AND SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS, NATIONAL WASTE
                       AND RECYCLING ASSOCIATION

        Ms. Germain. Thank you. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member
    Capito, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to
    testify today on opportunities to avoid, detect, and reduce
    landfill methane emissions.
        My name is Anne Germain, and I serve as the Chief Operating
    Officer and Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at the
    National Waste and Recycling Association. We are a trade
    association representing the private sector waste and recycling
    industry.
        Landfills protect the environment by responsibly managing
    society's waste. Our sector is subject to extensive Federal,
    State, and local requirements, including stringent design,
    operating, monitoring, closure, and post-closure standards
    established under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
    (RCRA) as well as landfill gas collection and control
    requirements under the Clean Air Act.
        Besides these regulatory obligations, we have made
    significant advancements in landfill gas capture and control
    systems that meet or exceed our regulatory requirements. We
    also closely monitor emissions from our landfills and engage in
    corrective actions swiftly and efficiently. We are actively
    deploying infrastructure that transforms yesterday's waste into
    renewable energy, which can power communities, fuel vehicles,
    and support progress in offsetting the impacts of climate
    change.
        Recently, a narrative has emerged that air emissions from
    landfills have increased. Based on data from the EPA, however,
    municipal solid waste landfills air emissions have declined by
    nearly 45 percent between 1990 and 2021. All the while,
    landfill waste volumes have increased by about five percent
    over that same period. We are proud of this progress, and we
    are not aware of any other industry that has achieved even
    remotely comparable improvements.
        However, we are committed to reducing climate impacts even
    further, consistent with the goals of the Global Methane Pledge
    and the Administration's commitment to reduce methane emissions
    from the waste sector by at least 15 percent by 2030. Achieving
    these goals necessitates the development of more accurate
    measurement and measurement methods to quantify emissions.
        Our members are actively assessing how various aerial and
    ground-based methane emission measurement methods developed for
    other sectors can be applied to landfills. Translating direct
    measurements to quantification of landfill methane is
    challenging because landfill emissions fluctuate frequently,
    sometimes even daily. It is influenced by the age and quantity
    of waste that is in place, the waste composition, the cover
    type, and location, landfill gas operations, waste placement
    activities, and even the weather. These dynamic conditions
    impact modelling assumptions and drive emissions estimates.
        Aerial emissions monitoring is gaining attention and
    encompasses a variety of technologies, including satellite
    imagery, aerial flights, and drones. Aerial emissions
    monitoring, however, has a limitation, as it is not continuous
    and only captures moments in time when emissions may be
    temporarily higher or lower than normal.
        One area where aerial monitoring and on-ground sampling can
    be used for immediate benefit is in identifying the location
    and concentration of any emissions. This enables site operators
    to take immediate action to investigate and correct suspected
    leaks. Further work will be necessary before these
    technologies, however, can be used to calculate landfill
    methane emissions accurately. We would all benefit from
    additional funding to support the acceleration and progress
    around emissions monitoring, calculations, and reporting.
        The oil and gas industry and agriculture industries have
    benefited from substantially greater levels of funding for
    their methane emissions reductions research and development in
    comparison to the solid waste sector, and we recommend that
    Congress recognize this disparity as EPA moves forward with
    rulemaking on landfills.
        We also wish to highlight certain policies that, if
    addressed, could incentivize landfills to capture greater
    amounts of landfill methane beyond mandated requirements. Of
    immediate consequence is the Department of the Treasury's
    proposed rule on the expanded investment tax credit for
    qualified biogas property under the Inflation Reduction Act.
        Our sector worked hard to advocate for this tax credit and
    has relied on its availability in planning multibillion-dollar
    investments in biogas processing infrastructure. We were
    surprised by Treasury's recent proposal to virtually eliminate
    landfill biogas processing facilities from credit eligibility,
    which would, in turn, disincentivize methane abatement
    solutions within our sector.
        We therefore ask your support in requesting that Treasury
    reverse course and return to Congress' initial goal of driving
    economy-wide investments consistent with the Administration's
    climate objectives.
        The landfill sector is also facing other threats to its
    plan to invest in technology and detect and capture landfill
    emissions. For example, although landfills are incentivized to
    capture methane emissions through EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard
    Program, the agency has received a petition to revisit the
    annual standards that it recently finalized. Granting the
    petition would disrupt the long-term stability needed for
    continued investment in landfill gas collection and renewable
    energy programs.
        Overcoming challenges such as this are among the most
    significant regulatory opportunities available to EPA to
    incentivize landfill operators to make capital investments in
    beneficial use infrastructure and capture greater levels of
    methane emissions, thereby supporting broader climate solutions
    and public policy objectives.
        We acknowledge that action to address climate crisis is
    necessary, and we look forward to working with Congress, the
    Administration, and other stakeholders in evaluating meaningful
    policy solutions to capture greater amounts of methane that
    result from our industry's provision of necessary and vital
    public services.
        I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this
    committee, and I look forward to any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Germain follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Capito. Thank you. Thanks to all three of you. In
    the absence of our Chairman, I will take my license and begin
    to ask the questions.
        Ms. Germain, I addressed in my opening statement some of
    the concerns from small municipal landfills. Just give me a lay
    of the land here, what is the percentage, if you looked at the
    whole numbers of landfills, what numbers of those are
    municipal, percentagewise, approximately?
        Ms. Germain. It is about 50/50.
        Senator Capito. 50/50.
        Ms. Germain. Tom said that there are about 1,200 landfills
    in the Country. About half of them are publicly owned, and
    about half of them are privately owned. If you look at the
    volume of material going into the landfills, however, it
    switches; about two-thirds of the waste goes to privately owned
    landfills, and about a third goes to publicly owned landfills.
    That shows you, basically, that the publicly owned landfills
    are significantly smaller than privately owned.
        Senator Capito. Okay, so let us get into what kind of, and
    we have heard a lot about some of the development of
    technologies of capturing, not just capturing, but also
    measuring and monitoring. What kind of challenges would that
    bring to a small municipal landfill? Are they already doing it
    if they are complying with the EPA regulations, which I am sure
    they would want to do?
        Ms. Germain. Right. The New Source Performance Standards
    (NSPS) does have size limitations, so landfills below a certain
    size threshold are not subject to the new source performance
    standards, so many of the smaller landfills may not be subject
    to those rules at all. Changing the rules to focus on extending
    it to smaller landfills would, of course, subject them to
    control and capture requirements that they might not currently
    be doing.
        Senator Capito. Okay.
        Tom, let me ask you a question, back to my first question.
    Percentagewise, kind of the lay of the land, then if you looked
    at total emissions going out from what you said, 1,200
    landfills, are more of them going out from the private, are the
    emissions equivalent, do you see what I am trying to ask? Are
    the emissions more at the small and municipals, or because
    maybe they have not made the provisions? Can you clarify that a
    little bit?
        Mr. Frankiewicz. Yes. On that exact percentage, I would
    have to get back to you.
        Senator Capito. It does not have to be exact.
        Mr. Frankiewicz. No, I can not speak to which percent has
    higher emissions. I can, just following up on, in terms of the
    types of technology for controls, things like gas collection,
    improved cover, best practices for operations and maintenance,
    the types of things that are required between gas collection
    and monitoring for the NSPS are generally tried and true
    technologies. Those technologies for controlling emissions at a
    site are not new technology and are deployed both at municipal
    and private landfills.
        Senator Capito. Right. I mean, they are obviously all at a
    cost, and I think that is in a lot of different ways.
        Is there an economic, Anne, I will go back to you, is there
    an economic incentive in capturing and selling methane, and
    what are some of the regulatory obstacles to that?
        Ms. Germain. It is very much dependent on the type of
    facility. Right now, the Section 48 tax credits that I referred
    to in the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) do provide some
    incentives for capturing outside of the regulation, and then
    basically utilizing.
        Depending on the landfill's location, they might be able to
    utilize the gas in some way, but many of them do not have any
    access to be able to create some energy from the gas, so they
    would have to make it pipeline quality. Currently, the way the
    Section 48 tax credit regulations are written by Treasury, they
    would disqualify gas upgrading equipment necessary to make it
    pipeline quality.
        Senator Capito. Yes. Okay, Senator Ricketts?
        Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I
    would like to ask for unanimous consent to enter a letter from
    the American Biogas Council, which outlines their concerns and
    implications with the Inflation Reduction Act's Section 48,
    just referenced here, expansion to include biogas as an
    eligible technology and the exclusion of cleaning and
    conditioning equipment.
        Senator Capito. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Ricketts. Nebraska has tremendous examples of
    utilizing methane from landfills to generate renewable energy.
    For over 20 years, the Elk City Station in Douglas County has
    utilized methane from the local landfill. That is about a six
    megawatt project.
        In 2014, the city of Lincoln and Lincoln Electric System
    had partnered on a landfill gas to energy project to harness
    the methane gas produced in the city of Lincoln's Bluff Road
    Landfill, and that is about a 4.8 megawatt project. The city of
    Lincoln utilizes about 80 megawatts annually, and so this is a
    great way to diversify their energy generation.
        But landfills are not the only opportunity. Our livestock
    producers are increasingly working toward capturing methane
    from their facilities to use for energy generation. The Federal
    Government needs to continue to support voluntary emissions
    reductions technologies to make sense for communities and
    producers and not penalize our critical utilities.
        Now, we talked about, you mentioned Section 48, Ms.
    Germain. Section 48 of the IRS code now provides for an
    investment tax credit to turn raw biogas captured from
    landfills and, of high importance to my State, created from
    animal and crop waste at farms and feedlots and food processing
    facilities into useful fuel. In fact, Nebraska has three times
    as many cattle as it does people, so this is kind of a big deal
    for us. We are the Beef State.
        This new provision targets biogas that is sold or otherwise
    use productively and excludes disposing of the raw biogas by
    burning it. The new language also adds that cleaning and
    conditioning equipment is covered by the new investment tax
    credit.
        This addition is vital, since raw biogas created from a
    farm or a feedlot, anaerobic digester, or collected from a
    landfill without cleaning and conditioning, as already pointed
    out, cannot be used in commercial fuel, put in a pipeline, or
    stored. It essentially must be burned onsite, and, of course,
    that is the very outcome the new provision is trying to avoid.
        Foolishly, the Department of the Treasury last month issued
    proposed rules for biogas investment tax credits that
    inexplicably exclude the cleaning and conditioning equipment
    necessary to upgrade raw biogas so that it can be stored,
    transported, and used as renewable fuel. Treasury is proposing
    to deny this tax credit to biogas cleaning and conditioning
    equipment needed to take the raw biogas and turn it into
    pipeline quality bio methane.
        This equipment is typically the most expensive part of
    turning raw landfill gas or raw biogas created from farm
    digesters into useful, renewable product envisioned by the
    amendments to Section 48. Without this support, many projects
    to transform waste biogas into valuable renewable fuel would be
    uneconomical, especially at those small and rural landfills.
        I would also point out the Administration is constantly
    doing things that are counter to the goal of reducing the
    impact to the environment. For example, since you mentioned the
    Renewable Fuels Standard, they have set Renewable Volume
    Obligations (RVO), for example, for biodiesel and renewable
    diesel below the industry's ability to actually produce that,
    what we are currently producing right now, thus creating havoc
    in that marketplace.
        Also, flex fuel vehicles, which burn higher percentages of
    ethanol, reduce the impact on the environment. They do not get
    the same tax credits as EVs and so forth, so we are constantly
    seeing that.
        Anyway, Ms. Germain, do you agree that without incentives
    for biogas cleanup equipment, many landfills will have an
    economic challenge in investing into the necessary and
    expensive equipment needed to process raw landfill gas into a
    commercial renewable gas?
        Ms. Germain. Yes. We definitely agree with that. That is
    one of the reasons why we submitted a letter to Treasury about
    changing the definition of qualified biogas property.
        Senator Ricketts. Great. In other words, the
    Administration's strained interpretation of the new biogas
    provisions will, in fact, strand this valuable fuel because it
    cannot be moved offsite and to homes, business, and industry
    that would welcome and pay a premium for renewable, natural gas
    or advanced electrical technologies.
        Ms. Germain, do you agree that, to ensure these waste
    streams can contribute to the Nation's energy needs, anaerobic
    digesters must be coupled with biogas upgrading equipment to
    turn raw biogas into a useful commercial fuel?
        Ms. Germain. The viability of anaerobic digesters are
    dependent on being able to utilize credits. That will
    incentivize those facilities to be able to be developed. We
    need the infrastructure if we are going to be looking at
    increased biogas production from anaerobic digesters.
        Senator Ricketts. Since the Administration is denying the
    investment tax credit to the key equipment to allow digester
    systems to create a useful and lucrative energy product, do you
    agree that the Administration's position will result in fewer
    digesters being built and, therefore, more organic material
    ending up in landfills?
        Ms. Germain. Yes.
        Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper.
        [Presiding.] Thanks. Thank you for chairing. How is it
    going? We all serve on different committees. Sometimes we are
    needed to be in two or three places at once. Thanks for bearing
    with me, and thank you, Senator Capito.
        I am going to ask a question of Dr. Scarpelli. This deals
    with uncovering landfill emissions. One of the reasons we know
    the scale of methane emissions from landfills is thanks to the
    extensive work that is done by researchers using NASA
    technology to detect and to quantify these emissions.
        For example, Dr. Scarpelli, your organization conducted, I
    am told, aerial surveys looking for methane sources in
    California and found that certain landfills were the largest
    observed emissions sources. Please describe for us how Carbon
    Mapper adapted this new technology for the purposes of
    detecting emissions, and talk with us, share with us some of
    the results of your studies that your organization and others
    have produced.
        Ms. Scarpelli. Thank you for the question, Senator. Thank
    you for the comments about the history of the technology.
    Carbon Mapper, the technology we use, was originally developed
    at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. We still interact with NASA
    Jet Propulsion Laboratory in a couple of different ways. As you
    mentioned, the aerial technology that we use includes the
    Airborne Visible Infrared Imaging Spectrometer--Next Generation
    (AVIRIS NG), which is an aircraft that was designed----
        Senator Carper. Say that again, the what?
        Ms. Scarpelli. It is AVIRIS NG. It is the name of the
    aircraft. It is a NASA JPL aircraft. That is what we fly.
        Senator Carper. JPL?
        Ms. Scarpelli. Jet Propulsion Laboratory. That is one of
    the aircraft that we fly. It has what we call an imaging
    spectrometer, that is the instrument on board, and that is also
    on the NASA Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation
    (EMIT) instrument on the International Space Station, it is
    also an imaging spectrometer. That is the technology that we
    use.
        When we go and fly on an aerial campaign, we work with the
    stakeholders as well, so that is where we are trying to extend,
    not just to develop the technology for research purposes, but
    also engage with the people that can use the data on the
    ground.
        Then, we are also part of a broader coalition of partners
    that includes NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory and our commercial
    partner, Planet Labs and other partners. This is part of a
    broader coalition to launch satellites.
        These satellites are actually developed, originally a new
    generation of these imaging spectrometers. The idea there is
    that eventually, we would have a satellite constellation that
    could do biweekly to daily revisits of sites globally across
    the world. Then, Carbon Mapper's goal is to get that data into
    the hands of people on the ground who can use it. We have had
    positive experiences, including in the State of California,
    where we have worked with stakeholders to get the information
    to the operators so they can take voluntary action to mitigate
    emissions.
        Senator Carper. I want you to go back on what you just
    said, and compress it into one paragraph, and just dumb it
    down. Just make it as clear as you can, please. Go ahead.
    Sometimes, I say, how would you explain this to your
    grandmother, or your grandfather? Go ahead.
        Ms. Scarpelli. Okay. The phrase we like to use is that you
    can not manage what you do not measure, for methane.
        Senator Carper. Yes, I have used that a few times, yes.
    That is a good one.
        Ms. Scarpelli. Yes. It is very accurate, I think, and it
    applies to landfills, as our goal is mitigation. At landfills,
    you can use it for beneficial use, as well. Anything that we
    can provide with these technologies to increase gas capture and
    to reduce leaks is what our goal is.
        Really, the key there is these technologies can provide
    technical assistance to operators. We just want to provide and
    get that into jurisdictions that maybe can not afford an aerial
    campaign on their own, so satellites, because they have this
    routine monitoring, provide that opportunity.
        Senator Carper. Let me followup with that. How do you
    validate the results of the satellite and the aerial surveys?
    In other words, how do we know whether the results accurately
    quantify the observed methane emissions?
        Ms. Scarpelli. We have participated with the technology in
    various what we call controlled release experiments. These are
    validation studies where you release a known amount of methane,
    and then different technologies can observe that release. Then
    you try to, you estimate it using your own processing steps.
    Then, you compare it to the known amount of methane that is
    being released and see if you can produce back that----
        Senator Carper. When you say ``you,'' who is ``you''?
        Ms. Scarpelli. Carbon Mapper would participate with an
    aircraft instrument, or you can also have different
    technologies all participate at the same time. Some of these
    are in the private sector. Some of these are academic
    institutions. The idea there is that we do not know the known
    release, and so we have seen that, in these experiments, we are
    able to reproduce the known release rates of methane.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Senator Markey, welcome. Good to see you.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In Massachusetts, we have a rule that any business or
    organization that generates more than half a ton of food waste
    a week can not put all that food in the garbage. The ban has
    not only reduced greenhouse gas emissions, but also saved space
    by keeping millions of pounds of food out of landfills.
    Thousands of Massachusetts businesses have begun donating
    unused food to shelters and to food banks across the State. Our
    State's food waste rule accomplished this win-win scenario
    while also creating over 500 jobs and generating $175 million
    in economic benefits during its first two years.
        Mr. Frankiewicz, can you elaborate on the community and
    economic benefits that organic waste prevention and organics
    recycling programs have had across the Country?
        Mr. Frankiewicz. Thank you, Senator Markey. Excellent
    question. We really look at organics diversion and landfill gas
    control as being a two-pronged approach. I know sometimes it
    might seem odd to talk about these two different things at one
    time, but you are basically working upstream and downstream to
    reduce landfill gas emissions.
        When it comes to organics diversion and food loss, food
    waste prevention, there are really, I think, several
    significant benefits. Of course, you have the climate benefit,
    which is global. Generally speaking, for every 6,000 tons of
    methane, there is 6,000 tons of methane that is avoided for
    every one million tons of food waste that is diverted.
        Senator Markey. Is Massachusetts' program a model?
        Mr. Frankiewicz. It is definitely a great example of a
    State----
        Senator Carper. That is a leading question. Strike that one
    from the record.
        Senator Markey. Your Honor, I am going to bring that up on
    appeal.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Frankiewicz. It is a great example of a State taking
    proactive action that both has global benefits with methane
    reductions, but most of those benefits are actually experienced
    locally. On average, Americans spend $1,300 a year for
    groceries that is just wasted. By avoiding that food loss, food
    waste, Americans are saving money on their monthly grocery
    bills.
        Senator Markey. Yes, absolutely. That is great. By the way,
    Delaware is the First State, but not in everything, Okay?
    Massachusetts can be first in something, maybe.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Markey. Mr. Frankiewicz, what role can the EPA play
    in scaling up similar organic waste prevention and recycling
    programs nationwide? What is the recommendation to the EPA that
    you have?
        Mr. Frankiewicz. As you know, or as you may know, EPA has
    done a lot of great work researching both the methane impacts
    from food loss, food waste, but also the community benefits.
    They currently have a strategy out right now that is out for
    comment, but EPA has shown great guidance in terms of
    researching best practices for this. This is something that is
    often implemented at the local level, at the community level,
    at the State level, there is a lot that can be done in terms of
    grant support and also technical capacity.
        There are grants out right now, the Society for Worldwide
    Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFR) grants that are
    supporting communities and implementing programs, but there is
    still a lot that can be done in terms of developing best
    practices and capacity building and technical assistance,
    because money is part of it.
        Senator Markey. We will work with the EPA on that.
        Mr. Frankiewicz. Yes.
        Senator Markey. That sounds like a great recommendation.
        Landfill operators in Massachusetts, like New Bedford's
    Landfill Gas-to-Energy Project, are showing that gas collection
    and monitoring systems are a cost effective way to reduce
    greenhouse gas emissions. LoCI Controls, a startup founded by
    two MIT alumni in Cambridge, has developed low cost lunchbox
    sized sensors that have reduced landfill emissions by four
    million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in just a few years.
    These Massachusetts projects and technologies prove it is
    feasible to do better than the status quo.
        Mr. Frankiewicz, again, what are some of the simple
    strategies that all landfill operators could use to reduce
    their methane emissions today?
        Mr. Frankiewicz. Senator Markey, I am glad you brought this
    up.
        When you talk about the costs of different technologies,
    not only are many of these technologies tried and true, having
    gas collection operation practices for soil cover, improving
    working face, having a smaller, tighter working face, but when
    it comes to gas collection and the relationship to energy
    projects, that is what you call a win-win solution.
        Because generally, using this improved technology for
    automated well-tuning, where currently it is typically done
    manually, you generally see recovery improvements of 10 to 20
    percent. That increased recovery of methane is increased
    revenue for an energy project and often pays for the cost of
    that collection system in about a year.
        Senator Markey. It would also reduce odors, as well.
        Mr. Frankiewicz. Yes, that is something I think that, we
    talk about odors, we talk about methane, we talk about toxics.
    Landfill gas is a stew of different carbon dioxide and water,
    hydrogen sulfide, a smog-forming compounds. When you reduce
    methane, you are reducing all of those other things, as well.
        Senator Markey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Frankiewicz, and
    thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Thanks for those questions.
        Senator Cardin, welcome. Good to see you.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        Before Senator Markey leaves, let me just quote from
    Maryland Code Environmental Article 9, Section 1724.1, our
    Maryland law: any person or business or cafeteria that produces
    more than two tons of food residual in a given week must ensure
    organic waste is separate and diverted from landfills.
        I just want you to know, Maryland is very much in the
    forefront here. Senator Carper joined me in a visit to the
    organic recycling facilities that we have in the State of
    Maryland that operate efficiently in reducing energy and
    producing safe fertilizer materials from organic waste.
        So I just wanted to underscore the point that Senator
    Markey has made. Landfills produce a lot of methane emissions,
    and we can do a better job of keeping things out of landfills,
    so thank you for your leadership on that issue in
    Massachusetts. We want you to know that Maryland and
    Massachusetts have more in common than just the first letter of
    our names.
        Let me also just point out the fact, which is pretty
    obvious, and that is, in my State of Maryland, landfills
    represent 40 percent of our methane emissions. That is a large
    amount.
        The other issue here, Mr. Chairman, that I think is very
    important, and I want to compliment our Chairman and Ranking
    Member, we have done a lot on methane emissions reductions.
    Thank you for what you have done, and the leadership on this
    committee was very instrumental in the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Package and the other bills that we have been
    able to pass, including the Inflation Reduction Act, that have
    dealt with methane reductions. I think we have a proud record
    in this committee.
        But this is also a matter of environmental justice. I know
    where landfills are located. These are traditionally
    underserved communities. They pay a heavier price because of
    the location of the landfill. Anything we can do to mitigate
    the damages caused by landfills or reduce the amount of
    material that needs to go into landfills helps communities that
    have traditionally been underserved.
        In my State, we have taken major steps. We have a strong
    regulatory system in regard to landfills. We do covering
    issues. We do a lot to mitigate the impact of landfills.
        I guess my question is, to the panel, we see States are
    doing good things. Is there a way that we can have stronger
    Federal policies that partner with the States, giving them the
    incentives they need in order to take more aggressive action to
    prevent the negative impacts of landfills as it relates not
    only to methane emissions, but to the other concerns that are
    raised? Why do not we just go right down the line?
        Mr. Frankiewicz. Sure. Senator Cardin, I want to commend
    Maryland on their efforts to lead, both on one thing, with
    Maryland and Washington State both, they have taken this dual-
    pronged approach of increasing stringency of landfill gas
    regulations while encouraging organics diversion, and that is
    really the best way to do these things.
        You mentioned landfills as an environmental justice issue.
    I think that is an important point. More than half of landfills
    are located within a mile of disadvantaged communities. I think
    that is also a reason, while some States have shown leadership
    in moving forward on these programs, not all have, and that is
    where you really need strong Federal standards, both for
    increased landfill gas control. As I mentioned, when you reduce
    landfill gas emissions, you are also reducing toxins, smog-
    forming pollution, and odor.
        Also, there is more that the Federal Government could do to
    support organics diversion and treatment. That is really where
    you see some of the greatest community benefits, as well, both
    in terms of avoided food loss and waste that impacts people's
    budgets, but also composting and composting facilities,
    generally speaking, create six jobs for every two and one job
    that is created for landfilling and incineration, respectively.
        Senator Cardin. Dr. Scarpelli.
        Ms. Scarpelli. Thank you for the question, Senator. We have
    heard here today that reducing methane emissions can help with
    community benefits, both in terms of odor and community health,
    because there is often the pollutants co-emitted with the
    methane. Speaking from a monitoring perspective, we have seen
    that these monitoring technologies can help find leaks and
    mitigate them quicker.
        In terms of Federal programs, I think the key here is we
    need to scale up the use of these technologies. Having public
    funded grants that are competitive for the technologies to be
    scaled up, and providing jurisdictions with access to those
    technologies and that technical assistance in jurisdictions
    where they would not necessarily be able to get that on their
    own. I think that, from a monitoring perspective, would really
    be key.
        Senator Cardin. I have a very generous Chairman. I am sure
    he would give me an extra few minutes, Ms. Germain, if you
    would like to make a response.
        Senator Carper. The Senator's time has expired. Not really.
    Go ahead.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Germain. Sure. One of the things to recognize when we
    are looking at some of these food waste diversions is to
    understand that we currently, the infrastructure that is in
    place for composting and anaerobic digestion facilities, there
    is just not enough of them to be able to take all the
    potentially diverted materials. We need to focus on what we can
    do to improve that infrastructure, and also to focus on the
    quality of the materials.
        One of the things some of our members own and operate are
    anaerobic digestion and composting facilities, and just like
    you are probably already aware with recycling, we are dealing
    with a lot of contamination in our composting and our anaerobic
    digestion facilities. We want to make a viable product that can
    be utilized as a soil amendment. In order to do that, we need
    to ensure that we have high quality material that is not
    contaminated with material that does not belong in there.
        We know that a lot of manufacturers are trying to take food
    contact packaging and claim that it compostable, but yet, a lot
    of this so-called compostable packaging really does not compost
    in our systems. It requires extra steps and a lot of effort to
    try and remove it and make a clean-looking product.
        We are recommending to EPA as part of our comments to their
    organic strategy that they really require not just lab
    standards, but field testing of any packaging that claims
    compostability, and that there should be some standardization
    on labeling before people can claim that their products and
    packaging can be composted.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Cardin. Thanks for your
    faithful attendance here and for helping to lead a good fight.
        I see a couple of other Senators, I think, are on their way
    trying to get here from other assignments. One of them is
    Senator Merkley. Before he gets here, I am going to ask another
    question or two, and when he shows up, we will recognize him.
        With that, Mr. Frankiewicz, I know you have talked about
    the interplay between efforts at the State and the Federal
    levels to reduce methane emissions from landfills. You
    mentioned in your testimony that EPA is required to revisit the
    Clean Air Act's Section 111 standards for municipal solid waste
    landfills in August of this year. Is it August of this year? I
    think it is. That is a question. Yes, take my word for it; it
    is August of this year.
        Mr. Frankiewicz. I believe it is August, but I might have
    to get back to you on that.
        Senator Carper. There you go.
        Let me ask a couple of questions that I think followup on
    your conversation with Senator Markey. Would you please expand
    on how both organic waste diversion and EPA's methane emission
    regulations work together to reduce the methane emissions
    associated with landfills?
        Mr. Frankiewicz. Yes, sure. Thank you, Senator Carper. That
    is an excellent question.
        As I mentioned earlier, I think Dr. Scarpelli and I have
    both mentioned this two-pronged approach, and that is because
    the methane comes from the organic matter that decomposes in
    the landfill. Once it is there, the way to control it is with
    gas collection systems, systems of wells and blowers that suck
    up the landfill gas and typically burn it then in a flare. The
    best way to control landfill gas emissions, ultimately, is to
    keep those organics out of the landfill. Once they are in
    there, they can decompose, creating methane for up to 50 years.
        It is not really a matter of doing one or the other. You
    really have to do both. That is why States that have kind of
    taken a two-pronged approach is a really practical way to do
    this, but implementation has been uneven. Really the best way
    to have a comprehensive approach is for EPA to take on both
    revisiting its landfill gas standards, the Section 111
    standards that you mentioned, this summer, but also really
    leaning into organics diversion in parallel.
        Senator Carper. Okay. We have been joined not by Senator
    Merkley, but by Senator Whitehouse. We are happy to turn it
    over to you. I have asked questions and Senator Capito has
    asked her questions, and if you are ready, Senator Whitehouse,
    you are recognized. Glad you are here.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very kindly. I crossed
    Senator Merkley; he was in my Budget hearing. Everybody has a
    lot going on today, but I am grateful for this hearing, and I
    appreciate the witnesses being here.
        Dr. Scarpelli, let me ask you particularly about the
    methane tracking and spotting technology that is out there now
    that we have satellites that can detect methane leaks and
    geolocate with great precision the sources of those leaks. Is
    there anything about a landfill that makes it harder to detect
    by satellite than say, a gas pipeline leak?
        Ms. Scarpelli. Thank you for the question, Senator.
    Landfills are complex engineered systems, and so one of the
    main differences in terms of detecting leaks is that it is a
    large area and there are many potential points that leaks could
    be coming from, whereas in an oil and gas well, there is
    specific infrastructure that are the leak points.
        So that is why it is really key to have comprehensive
    monitoring. You want to be able to see across the facility and
    also there are gas facilities that are maybe capturing the gas
    and sending it to pipeline. You can have leaks across different
    surfaces of the landfill, the actual wells collecting it on the
    landfill. There are all of these potential sources across a
    large area, so it is really important to map that whole area
    for potential leaks.
        Senator Whitehouse. You can at least identify that the leak
    is happening, and then turn to more ground-based detectors to
    figure out which kind of a leak it is if you are looking at a
    leaking landfill?
        Ms. Scarpelli. Yes, and that is why I think it is key to
    have a combination of technologies. Some are better at that
    really high accuracy, where is the leak coming from, versus the
    remote sensing technology, the key there is that we are seeing
    the large sources, and so in terms of prioritizing, we want to
    get the biggest ones first to get the most return on our
    investment and mitigation, and so it really helps prioritize
    and lets us get those big ones first, and then we will move on
    to the smaller leaks.
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes. Do you know what the current
    status is with the EPA folks about having regular and reliable
    access to satellite methane leak data?
        Ms. Scarpelli. I can not speak to EPA regulations. I know
    there has been, there are these fundings to looking into these
    different technologies, and the way that we can best combine
    them to get the most comprehensive view of the sites. We have
    seen that these technologies work, that we can identify leaks,
    and it helps operators mitigate. That has been our experience.
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes. Well, here is what I think is
    happening, and that is that EPA has systematically undercounted
    methane leaks for a very long time. Environmental Defense Fund
    (EDF) has done a far better job of tracking methane leakage, a
    private organization, and EDF thinks that its numbers are
    actually low, because there are some technical issues with
    trying to do really complete tracking. With the advent of
    better satellite methane leak imaging, that can all be
    resolved.
        But EPA having done this poorly for a very, very long time,
    it is my understanding, it has no direct contractual
    relationship with any satellite-providing entity so that it can
    deploy its efforts when a large methane leak appears, which is,
    to me, a little bit like the fire department not tracking where
    smoke is pouring out of buildings and going to respond to the
    problem.
        I just do not know why that has not happened yet. It seems
    like it is an incredibly obvious thing, when the technology is
    out there to access the technology. I understand that NASA has
    acquired a good deal of technology, and that some entities make
    it available for free, but maybe not for free and immediately
    at the same time. Obviously, if you are dealing with a leak,
    immediately is a pretty good value to be able to provide.
        We are hoping that the methane leak task force that has
    been set up will get access to that technology before too long
    so that we can treat a methane leak properly, not just score
    that it happened months later or react after it has been
    spilling for weeks and weeks. To have on-time information that
    causes environmental protection officials, or even local
    lawyers, or the mayor, I do not care whom, to know that there
    is a methane leak going on in real time, and in real time,
    respond and try to get it shut down.
        It just seems unbelievably sloppy to not have that system
    in place. We are counting on that methane task force to cure
    those disabilities, those self-imposed disabilities that have
    been bedeviling EPA.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Thank you. Thanks for your vigilance and
    continued involvement in this issue. I know it comes from the
    heart.
        Senator Whitehouse. It is their vigilance that is where the
    issue is.
        Senator Carper. Yes.
        Mr. Frankiewicz. Senator Carper, may I add to that? Is that
    possible?
        Senator Carper. Go ahead.
        Mr. Frankiewicz. Thank you.
        Senator Whitehouse, thank you for raising that point. There
    has been a lot of discussion on technology, and the satellites
    are pretty amazing. The technology does not make the data
    available, and that is something that is really up for both
    State, local, and Federal Government to do.
        Carbon Mapper is one of the few organizations that makes
    all their data available. For years now, companies have been
    availing themselves of private satellite data to better inform
    their operations, but there is no obligation to make that data
    available.
        So that is one thing that we would really like to see, both
    at a State and Federal level, that in addition to this advanced
    monitoring, making sure that it is available in a timely way,
    because emissions transparency is just as important as the
    technology.
        Senator Whitehouse. Just to be clear, I am told that the
    Federal Government is now in procurement mode with regards to
    acquiring access to real time leak detection services. January
    2024, now in procurement mode with respect to acquiring access
    to these services. That kind of speaks for itself.
        Senator Carper. We have been joined by Senator Padilla.
    Senator Padilla, good to see you. How are you? Welcome.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Something that, if I have spoken on it in committee before,
    it has been a while, Mr. Chairman, but I am not sure if you
    knew that when I grew up, we lived not too far from a landfill.
        Senator Carper. Where was that?
        Senator Padilla. In the city of Los Angeles, the northeast
    corner of the San Fernando Valley, the once-upon-a-time
    infamous Lopez Canyon Landfill, to be precise, owned and
    operated by the city of Los Angeles.
        I share that to establish that when I say that living near
    a landfill is beyond just an annoyance, I speak from real world
    experience. It is in many ways a threat to our health, public
    health, individual health.
        It also prompted, Mr. Chairman, my environmental activism,
    because my mom, along with a group of neighbors and community
    leaders, would bring kids out to protest for the closure of the
    landfill. This was back when I was in high school. We bore the
    brunt of what landfills mean in all of the communities in which
    they are located. Too often, it is soil contamination, water
    impacts, diesel trucks driving through your neighborhoods
    emitting toxic exhaust, and on and on and on.
        In California, this is where I want to talk about equity
    for a second, people of color are more than twice as likely to
    live within a mile of a landfill compared to the rest of the
    population.
        Mr. Frankiewicz, can you discuss the health impacts of
    landfill emissions on nearby communities?
        Mr. Frankiewicz. Thank you for raising that really
    important point, because as important as the climate challenge
    is, the impacts of air pollution are felt on a daily basis. I
    mentioned earlier that landfill gases are a mix of a number of
    gases, so it is methane, water, carbon dioxide. It is also a
    long list of hazardous air pollutants, and also smog-forming
    ozone pollution. Those are immediately felt by the local
    community.
        When we talk about controlling methane or even enhanced
    methane recovery, what we are really talking about is reducing
    the amount of air pollution that is affecting local
    communities. One thing I will add to that, some of the
    strategies to improve gas collection, like automated well
    tuning, better cover, leak detection, these are things that
    have a direct impact on safety as well.
        One of the things that can be caused by improperly
    controlled landfill gas collection systems is intrusion of
    oxygen, and that is one thing that causes landfill fires. When
    you operate better, recover more gas and operate a better
    landfill gas collection system, you are reducing pollution and
    drastically improving safety.
        Senator Padilla. We know, as far as we have come in the
    last generation or two, liners to protect soil, groundwater,
    and gas collection systems, to your own point, we still have a
    lot more work to do. Just yesterday, the Los Angeles Times
    reported ``rivers of odorous waste'' erupting like a geyser
    from the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in Southern California.
    Carcinogens like benzene were eight times higher than the
    State's health limit, but these results were not shared with
    the public for weeks.
        To your point, Mr. Frankiewicz, how can EPA provide closer
    to real time information on air quality to the public to
    protect public health?
        Mr. Frankiewicz. I think this, again, comes down to
    emissions transparency, because the technology on its own does
    not put the information in the hands of people for action.
    There are actions that EPA could take, both in terms of grants
    and also provide funding. This would likely be within Congress'
    power to provide funding for both the satellites but also
    making that data available.
        There is some lag time for processing that data, but I
    think of EPA's Air Now portal, because there has been a system
    of air monitors around the Country for years, but it was not
    until Air Now and the Air Quality Index that information became
    accessible to citizens. I think something of that nature would
    really empower local citizens.
        Senator Padilla. Great. I want to connect some dots between
    monitoring, mapping, and remote sensing. I am pleased to see a
    witness today with the Carbon Mapper Project, which partners
    with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), based in California,
    a facility that I am particularly proud of. Their satellite
    will build off of JPL's EMIT instrument, which was launched in
    2022 and is currently operating on the International Space
    Station.
        Although EMIT, Mr. Chairman, was designed to measure dust,
    it is proven to also detect methane from landfills around the
    world at high spatial resolution.
        Dr. Scarpelli, can you elaborate on how Carbon Mapper's
    project builds on JPL technology for methane detection from
    space?
        Ms. Scarpelli. Thank you for that question, Senator.
        As you mentioned, these technologies are building off of
    each other. The NASA JPL has an airborne instrument as well,
    and they have the NASA EMIT instrument that you mentioned that
    is on the International Space Station.
        Our satellites will be the next generation. They have
    different capabilities, so the idea here is that we are seeing
    high emission sources, and we are getting the information into
    the hands of the operators on the ground who can take action to
    mitigate. We can provide the location of those sources, and so
    the operators know where to look on the ground.
        These are seeing, if we can see it, that means it is pretty
    big. Seeing it from space as well, that means it is pretty
    large. This ranges from 10 kilograms of methane per hour to
    hundreds to thousands of kilograms of methane per hour. As you
    mentioned, these can impact community health.
        We see methane plumes from the landfills that overlap
    surrounding communities. Being able to take that technology and
    get it into the hands of operators to achieve quick mitigation
    will really benefit the local communities.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you very much. My time is up. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Thanks so much for joining us.
        My colleague knows that my wife and I have a son who lives
    out in California, lives out in the Bay Area. Every now and
    then, when we are on a recess, I go out to California and visit
    technology companies to find folks that are doing things that
    are relevant to our jurisdiction as a committee.
        A year or two ago, or three years ago, I visited a company
    which was taking cow manure and food waste and anaerobic
    digesters and creating, if you will, a fuel for buses and
    trucks and all. If you fly into the San Francisco airport, you
    will notice, I think they do a better job on separating not
    just trash, stuff that is not recyclable, with recyclables, and
    with the food waste. They do a great job. You go throughout the
    SFO airport, and they have these three containers all
    throughout the airport facility. They do a good job.
        California has, as my colleague knows, a lot of cows, and
    they produce a lot of cow manure. In Delaware, we have some
    cows, but we really have a lot of chickens. For every person in
    Delaware, I think there are close to 300 chickens. We are sort
    of using the model that you have pioneered in California in
    DelMarVa, which includes Delaware and Maryland, Senator Cardin,
    have been using the same technology, a different source of
    fuel, not cows, but chickens, and it works pretty darn well.
        I like to say, one of the greatest compliments we can pay
    is copying what others are doing and hopefully making it at
    least as good, maybe better. We will see, but thank you very
    much.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Carper. Senator Merkley is on his way. He is going
    to join us.
        While he is on his way, I am going to ask a couple more
    questions. The first one is to go back with Dr. Scarpelli and
    touch on something we talked about a little bit earlier, and
    then, Ms. Germain, I have a question or two for you.
        Dr. Scarpelli, how can deploying comprehensive monitoring
    provide benefits for both landfill operators and the local
    communities?
        Ms. Scarpelli. Thank you for the question, Senator. I think
    I will split that into operators, then communities. Speaking to
    local communities, we have mentioned that these large methane
    sources can have co-emitted pollutants along with them, so by
    addressing the methane sources quickly, we are also reducing
    that co-emission of the pollutant.
        In addition, we have seen in examples, like for the
    Sunshine Canyon Landfill in California, for example, where by
    mitigating the methane, we also see a reduction in the number
    of odor complaints from the surrounding community at the
    landfill.
        Then speaking to benefits to operators, the key here is we
    want to capture more methane. If they have beneficial use at
    the site, this means more return on investment for the
    operator.
        We see it as technical assistance that the operators can
    take advantage of to go out and find the leak and fix it as
    quickly as possible, because landfills are complex, so knowing
    where to look on the landfill, where the leak is, it is not an
    easy task. Sometimes mitigation, it is engineering design, and
    so verifying that once you have made a change, the emissions
    actually were reduced, is also incredibly important and useful
    to the operator.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Ms. Germain, I will probably ask Mr. Frankiewicz to join
    you in answering this question, but I want to lead off with
    you, if we could.
        In addition to methane, landfill gas contains, as we have
    heard here today, hazardous air pollutants, odors, and other
    dangerous gases. They impact air quality, they impact health,
    and they impact our quality of life for neighboring
    communities, many of which are already vulnerable anyway.
        Ms. Germain, your organization is a national leader in
    landfill management policy and has a unique perspective in the
    community impacts related to this pollution. I oftentimes, and
    my colleagues would bear this out, but I oftentimes use the
    phrase, find out what works and do more of that. What we are
    trying to do is a little bit of that as we address this
    problem, this challenge, but I think it is an opportunity.
        Would you share an example or two of government or maybe
    corporate policies that are helping to reduce methane emissions
    from landfills through gas capture or organics diversion?
        Ms. Germain. Sure. One of the things that we have seen a
    lot of are, our members have made sustainability commitments.
    They have made them publicly, and so from a corporate
    initiative, looking at some of those corporate policies where
    they have made the sustainability commitments that encompasses
    methane reductions.
        So we collectively have been looking at a lot of the
    technologies that have been discussed already, not just
    satellite, but also aerial, drone, ground based. In fact,
    recently, collectively, we worked to, as an industry, to do a
    controlled release and tested out 14 different technologies.
        So there is a tremendous number of different technologies
    out there. Which one is the right one, which one is best, are
    they all good? We are not sure. We have not had the opportunity
    to really explore that. EPA has not had the funding to be able
    to conduct some of this research, so the industry collectively
    conducted some of this research back in November. We just got
    the results in earlier this year, and we anticipate presenting
    it at a conference at the end of February. This will give us
    additional information on which of the technologies will be
    most useful so that we can utilize that going forward in our
    efforts to use best practices in reducing our methane emission
    from our sites.
        Senator Carper. Good. I do not know if either of our other
    witnesses would like to add to that or add their thoughts on
    that last question, but the question I was asking Ms. Germain
    was to share an example or two of corporate policies that are
    helping to reduce methane emissions from landfills through gas
    capture or organics diversion. Would either of you want to add
    to that?
        Ms. Scarpelli. I would like to add something to that. I
    just want to reiterate the importance of doing these controlled
    release experiments. This really does help technologies both
    determine and improve their own methodologies and validate the
    technology.
        One of the important things is that I know it is not easy
    to do a controlled release. We are seeing these very large
    emission sources from some landfills. Being able to release an
    accurate amount of methane that reflects that, so that the
    technologies can really be tested on those large releases is
    really important.
        Senator Carper. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Germain, go ahead.
        Ms. Germain. Yes. As we, and thanks, Tia, for saying that,
    because we think it is really important to continue on with
    these controlled release studies.
        We did have to conduct this controlled release study in
    Canada because the length of time for us to be able to get
    authorization to do it in the U.S., due to the length of time
    for us to get the permitting, was going to be very time
    consuming. We also have received interest from the Canadian
    government to help support ongoing research in this area, and
    we would certainly appreciate some of those similar efforts in
    the U.S.
        Senator Carper. Good. Let me come back to Mr. Frankiewicz,
    if I could, but would you, Mr. Frankiewicz, please provide for
    us some examples of the additional benefits that promote the
    health and well-being of nearby communities with the kind of
    technology we are talking about here today?
        Mr. Frankiewicz. Thank you, Senator, I am happy to. There
    are really a multitude of benefits.
        When you are talking about landfill gas control, as I have
    mentioned a couple times now, you are controlling gases across
    the board, and so there is immediate air quality benefits. Also
    something that is not mentioned often, but is a significant
    issue, is odor. Not all landfills cause odors. A well-managed
    gas system certainly prevents it, but odor is probably the No.
    1 issue that local communities will complain of. Things that
    you do to improve gas collection, reduce leaks, have bio-
    covers, all reduce odors and hazardous air pollutants that
    impact communities.
        I will give the example of Wake County in North Carolina.
    They were under an enforcement action for odor problems, and
    the way that they remedied it was through a combination of
    monitoring, finding and fixing leaks, and improving cover,
    intermediate cover and daily cover for their site. It had an
    immediate impact.
        Then, also, the other part of this two-pronged approach we
    keep talking about, when it comes to organics diversion, and
    not just diversion, but avoiding food loss and food waste, that
    is a food security issue. There are plenty of families that are
    food insecure, yet at the same time, we are throwing away food
    each year. Things to reduce food loss, food waste, getting that
    food into food banks improves food security.
        Last, we all talk about the benefits of composting. I think
    there is pretty strong support for that, but one of the things
    that I think is not mentioned often enough, one of the key
    reasons for composting organic waste is that you are able to
    actually recover those nutrients that are in soil. All those
    nutrients that go into growing food, when that organic waste
    goes into a landfill, it is locked there. When you actually
    compost the food waste, that compost and those nutrients go
    back to the farms.
        So people always talk about, without farms, there is no
    food. Well, without healthy soil, there is no farms, and so it
    is really important to close that loop.
        Senator Carper. One of my friends likes to say that
    composting is the gift that keeps on giving, and there is
    actually a lot of truth to that.
        I have maybe one more question for Ms. Germain and for Mr.
    Frankiewicz. My colleagues hear me say some things over and
    over again that I think bear repeating. I have often said that
    recycling is a win-win solution. That is because diverting
    waste is not only good for our environment; it is also good for
    the economy; it is good for job creation. I am always looking
    for win-wins.
        There is so much that we are doing to protect our
    environment, to address climate change, that actually does
    create a lot of jobs. Jeff, welcome.
        Would each of you just take a moment while Senator Merkley
    is settling in, would each of you, Ms. Germain and Mr.
    Frankiewicz, share some more information, with us, if you will,
    on how organics waste diversion can increase employment rates
    and contribute to economic growth? Do you want to lead us off
    on that?
        Ms. Germain. With respect to organics, obviously, as Tom
    already said, there are a lot of benefits to organics
    composting or anaerobic digestion. You have soil amendment.
    With anaerobic digestion, you have the opportunity to gain
    energy from that.
        The issue right now is that we do not have adequate
    infrastructure, so we would need to ensure that we buildup the
    infrastructure. We definitely, I will go back to, I know I am
    repeating myself, but I will go back to the labeling issue,
    where we really need to focus on ensuring that the product that
    we create is usable as an end product.
        So we really need to focus on the contamination issues
    related to that, because everybody wants to be able to claim
    that their packaging is compostable, and it is just not the
    case with a lot of it. We really need to be thoughtful and
    mindful as we move forward with diverting materials.
        As far as the comment about reducing our food waste,
    certainly, I agree. We want to ensure that the hierarchy that
    EPA has established, we want to feed hungry people, we want to
    feed hungry animals first, but recognize that a lot of our food
    waste, if it is a banana peel, that is not going to be feeding
    anybody. We are going to want to end up managing that in a
    different way, and so that is going to end up in the waste
    system.
        Senator Carper. I might add, my colleagues, Senator Capito
    and our colleague from Arkansas as well, Senator Boozman, are
    very much involved in the Recycling Caucus, leading it. One of
    the things we have done here, I believe in leadership by
    example, and one of the things we have done here on Capitol
    Hill, in our office, and I hope in every Senate office and
    hopefully in every House office, right in our offices is the
    opportunity for our employees to recycle plastics, metal,
    aluminum metal, whatever, glass. We have composting capability,
    as well.
        We are a pretty faithful, pretty good at it. I am very
    proud. We can always do better, but I am proud.
        Mr. Frankiewicz, I want to come back to you with the same
    question, and then I am going to kick it over to Senator
    Merkley. Again, what are some specific jobs associated with
    organics recycling and waste diversion? And then Senator
    Merkley.
        Mr. Frankiewicz. Ms. Germain talked about the importance of
    moving up the waste hierarchy. One of the things you see in
    moving up the waste hierarchy is, the farther up you go, the
    more jobs that are created. Roughly speaking, for every $10
    million invested in waste management, there are 21.4 full time
    jobs created in composting, while landfilling supports 8.4 to
    incineration's 1.6. Certainly, money invested in waste
    management creates jobs, but the farther up you go up the waste
    hierarchy, the more jobs that are created.
        Senator Carper. Good.
        Senator Merkley, welcome. Good to see you again, twice in
    one day. We showed up for work together, and here we are,
    together again.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you all for bringing your expertise to the hearing
    today. I wanted to understand a little bit more about the
    monitoring of methane emissions. Mr. Frankiewicz, the
    traditional monitoring approach is, whether it is modeling
    based on assumptions or ground-based monitoring, and I think
    that is primarily done through an infrared technology, but
    perhaps you can clarify. Are those adequate to inform our
    approaches to methane emissions?
        Mr. Frankiewicz. I am sorry, I did not quite hear the last
    part.
        Senator Merkley. Are the traditional approaches, either
    just modeling based on preexisting assumptions, or kind of
    ground-based monitoring sufficient to understand really the
    amount of methane that is emerging from different settings?
        Mr. Frankiewicz. They are not adequate, and we see two ways
    that technology can improve those estimates. Generally
    speaking, the kind of landscape of the technology that you
    have, some of it overlaps, but generally speaking, you have
    technology that is maybe more focused on emissions
    quantification and others that are better at detection.
        When it comes to quantification, the observations that are
    done through a network of satellites can both ground truth and
    improve the modeling methodology. It is not in a place to
    replace it, but it could certainly improve the measurements
    that are used for both modeling and inventory purposes.
        When it comes to detection, the current methodology is
    highly subjective. There are technologies that are drone-
    assisted, but still operated by people that drastically improve
    the chances of detecting and fixing those leaks.
        Senator Merkley. As we have brought these technologies to
    bear, satellite monitoring, drone monitoring, have we found
    that our original estimates of methane were on target, or were
    they significantly lower than what we are discovering?
        Mr. Frankiewicz. They found that they are significantly
    lower, and in fact, EPA came out with a report recently on its
    Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program that generally found that the
    inventory underreported based on current modeling-based
    methodology.
        Senator Merkley. Let me turn specifically to landfills. Do
    we spot super emitters like landfills better in terms of using
    satellite or drone technology? Is it helping us understand the
    large scope of the problem?
        Mr. Frankiewicz. They are, and I will certainly defer to
    Dr. Scarpelli on this specific technology. One of the things
    that EMIT and other technology has shown is that you can detect
    these from space. When it comes to pinpointing those leaks,
    that is where it is helpful to use kind of a matrix approach to
    pinpoint these leaks, but you absolutely can see these super
    plumes from space.
        Senator Merkley. Dr. Scarpelli, do you want to amplify on
    that?
        Ms. Scarpelli. Yes, I agree with Mr. Frankiewicz's
    comments. We can use these technologies to see these large
    emissions sources. One of the benefits of remote sensing, and
    we have seen this in practice working with State governments,
    is that you get a view across the facility. You do not
    necessarily need to know where the leak is coming from to see
    it, because we are seeing all the full facility, and we can
    quickly survey multiple sites.
        These satellites are circling the Earth, so it can see
    across the U.S. It is not just one drone at one facility, and
    so having a combination of these different scaled technologies
    is really important for identifying those high emitters.
        Senator Merkley. I have heard that the EPA has kind of
    dragged its feet on contracting for satellite based methane
    contracting. What is that all about?
        Ms. Scarpelli. I can not speak to EPA's contracting. I
    would say there is a need to have Federal support to help scale
    up these technologies and provide access to the data quickly.
    The feedback we have gotten from operators is that it is really
    important to get the data quickly and have the data be
    transparent so that they can quickly fix leaks. That is one of
    the roles that the Federal Government can play.
        Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, this is something that
    perhaps we can followup on, because if we have this high value
    satellite technology that EPA has been funded to contract for
    but has not contracted for, then maybe we can help accelerate
    that process to try to help tackle this challenge.
        Once we identify the particularly significant sites, and I
    was surprised to come to understand how significant landfills
    are, do we have, really, the affordable technologies to be able
    to capture that methane out of landfills? Do we have the
    funding to tackle that challenge? It is going to take more
    Federal help?
        Ms. Scarpelli. I can speak to the monitoring perspective on
    that. We do have monitoring technologies that can help find
    these leaks, and these are being deployed at landfills. Really,
    the key here is we just need to scale up the use of these
    technologies. I defer to others in terms of the availability of
    actual design changes that can be made to achieve the
    mitigation.
        Mr. Frankiewicz. Yes, the control technology is proven. It
    is gas collection, soil cover, finding and fixing leaks, these
    are things that landfills have been doing for a long time. With
    advanced monitoring and doing it in tandem, they are actually
    able to design these systems better and operate them better.
        Ms. Germain. I just wanted to clarify that as we talk about
    finding the leaks, and certainly, that is one of the things we
    are really interested in deploying these technologies for, is
    to be able to find the leaks and repair them as quickly as
    possible, the subtext seems to be that all the landfills have
    leaks. A lot of the measurements have been non-detects, so most
    landfills have no detectable leaks, and I do not know that is
    coming across during this conversation. As some of these
    flyovers and detections are occurring, most of the landfills do
    not have any leaks, but the landfills that do can have
    significant leaks that, if they are told about quickly, can be
    immediately repaired.
        Senator Merkley. I know I have run over my time, so you can
    interrupt me, Mr. Chairman. My impression has been that when
    you have landfills that have been filled with gravel or soil,
    it is one thing, but when you have garbage and other things
    that are decomposing, it is quite another that is the place
    where you have landfills with really high methane emissions.
        Why do some landfills have, as you pointed out, little
    methane, but are significant emitters?
        Ms. Germain. It is usually a function of the collection
    system, so even the municipal solid waste landfills that take
    all the organic matter, they have those landfills that have
    shown to have no leaks.
        Senator Merkley. It is attributed to the effectiveness of
    the technology?
        Ms. Germain. Right, and so, as we have been talking about,
    if you can go rapidly, fix the leak, correct it, then it can be
    confirmed on the next flyover. They can confirm that there is
    no more leak from that facility.
        Senator Merkley. Doctor?
        Ms. Scarpelli. It is true that we do, speaking to how many
    emitters we see, we have surveyed about 300 landfills in the
    U.S., and we have seen 200 of those landfills have high
    emissions. It is not necessarily that the biggest ones are the
    ones with the biggest emissions, and the emissions do vary by
    site.
        We find that the landfill workface is a major source of
    emissions, and then the landfill gas capture system is also,
    and this can be if the wells are flooded, they potentially
    would have methane leak out of those wells.
        We have seen it with the flare stacks. If the flare is down
    for a period of time, you can have methane leaking out of that.
    We have seen these varied emissions sources across the
    landfill. We have had examples, as well, where we have
    identified the methane leak from surface cover, for example,
    and then the operator has gone in, made adjustments to the
    cover, we have flown it again, and we have seen the leaks have
    actually been reduced. We have used the technology to verify
    that.
        Senator Merkley. Well, that is very effective.
        To the degree that there is organic matter in the landfill,
    do we see cities going, we will reduce the methane leak by
    having separate organic digesters to essentially produce
    methane and maybe put it into the fossil gas system, or in
    other words, keep it out of the landfill to begin with?
        Mr. Frankiewicz. Keeping it out of the landfill is
    definitely the right approach. That will, in the long term,
    reduce overall methane emissions from landfills, but because
    you mentioned the waste in place, right, that decomposes for
    upwards of 50 years. Unfortunately, you do have to do both at
    the same time.
        Just to put a finer point on Dr. Scarpelli's point about
    detecting leaks from space, I think some of these large super
    emitters, you can see from space, and for sure, that should be
    an area of focus. That should not be the rule of thumb, right,
    only control what you see from space, and that is where near
    aerial observations and drone based observations are important,
    because then you could look at, and we advocate for lowering
    the detection threshold from 500 ppm to something closer to 200
    ppm. Just because you can not see it from space does not mean
    you might not have a large, diffuse area of source emissions
    across the cover. That is where things like using bio-covers
    and autotuning of wells to better control your gas can reduce
    those leaks that you may not see.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you all very much, again. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Thanks very much for joining us, Senator
    Merkley, and for your consistent and excellent leadership.
        We have a vote underway. I need to run and vote before time
    runs out.
        Before that, I am going to telegraph my pitch. In baseball,
    you want to pitch in a way that we can see how the pitcher
    holds the ball before he releases the ball to the plate, figure
    out if they are going to throw a spitball or a screwball, a
    hanging curveball, you can tell by the way they telegraph their
    pitch. I am going to telegraph my pitch.
        I am going to telegraph and say that I am going to tell a
    quick story, and then I am going to come back to each of you
    and ask you to take maybe a minute and just tell us where you
    think there is really important common ground that we have
    heard here in this hearing. It has been an excellent hearing,
    and we are grateful for that, but just be thinking about that.
    Now, I will tell you a story.
        I have been a naval flight officer in the Vietnam War and
    spent half my time in Southeast Asia with my squadron and half
    of our time flying out of Moffett Field Naval Air Station,
    which is right on Route 101, across from Mountain View,
    California, about halfway between San Jose and San Francisco. I
    mentioned earlier some of the things that I have learned by
    going back to that part of the world and about, among other
    things, anaerobic digestion. The first time I ever learned
    about it was back out there to see one of our sons.
        When I left California and moved to Delaware to get an MBA,
    I continued to fly with the Navy in the Reserves for another
    almost 20 years, but my first week or two in Delaware, I met, I
    got instated in an MBA program.
        We had to find, one of our assignments in this one course
    was to find a company in Delaware that was always in the news
    for getting in trouble with the Delaware Department of Natural
    Resources or with EPA, and then do a study of that and report
    back.
        I found out that I did not know much about Delaware, but I
    found that they had an oil refinery called Getty Refinery, as
    in J. Paul Getty, right at the Delaware River in Delaware City.
    I decided I was going to do my research project on that
    refinery, which was one of the worst polluters on the East
    Coast. I found out that the person I should talk to about their
    violations was actually a Deputy Attorney General down in
    Dover, Delaware, and that if I could track him or her down, I
    could really get a lot of help on my assignment.
        I drove in my Volkswagen Karmann Ghia with a rebuilt engine
    from Newark, Delaware, where the university was, to Dover,
    Delaware. I found Dover, Delaware. I found the Department of
    Natural Resources and Environmental Control. I found the
    building where the Deputy Attorney General for that agency was
    working, and I found him on the second floor of that building.
        His name was Mike Parkowski. He could not have been more
    helpful. He welcomed me warmly. I had been in Delaware a couple
    weeks. He welcomed me warmly, provided access, he had filing
    cabinet after filing cabinet of violations from the Getty
    Refinery. He gave me access to that, a desk to work in.
        I worked, and I would come back week after week and do my
    research and all. His wife offered to type my research paper
    for me. I did not need any help, but I certainly appreciated
    all the help that he provided.
        Mike Parkowski has a son, and I think you might know the
    son, Anne. His name is also Mike Parkowski. What does he do
    today? Can you turn on your mic and tell us what he does?
        Ms. Germain. Mike is responsible for a lot of the outreach
    and government affairs and policy work for the Delaware Solid
    Waste Authority.
        Senator Carper. Just last week, my staff and I visited the
    educational facility that they have in Dover, Delaware, where
    thousands, probably tens of thousands of students come every
    year and learn about recycling and our planet and so forth, and
    he does a great job. It is nice to see that one generation
    follows another.
        I am going to ask, again, each of you to take just a moment
    now and just share with us the common ground that I mentioned
    earlier. Tom, if you want to lead off, that would be great.
    Just briefly.
        Mr. Frankiewicz. Thank you, Senator Carper, for that story.
        Senator Carper. Isn't that a great story? I just made it
    up, so.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Not really.
        Mr. Frankiewicz. Well, I appreciate the time. It allowed me
    to get my thoughts together.
        Senator Carper. There you go. That was the idea.
        Mr. Frankiewicz. I think, hopefully, what you can see here
    by the different points we are making, they do not differ very
    much. I think we agree on more than we disagree on.
        Since 2016, the last update of the NSPS standards for
    landfill gas, the technology has advanced rapidly. There is
    technology that we could use to better find and fix leaks,
    identify super emitters, and better inform models and
    inventory.
        We are already collaborating with the waste industry in
    identifying some of these solutions. We would like to continue
    that, and we would like to see EPA join us in this effort by
    incorporating these advances into stronger Section 111
    standards.
        Senator Carper. Great. Thanks.
        Dr. Scarpelli?
        Ms. Scarpelli. Yes, just to second that, and we have seen
    here today that landfills are large methane emitters. Not all
    landfills are large emitters, and there is huge potential for
    mitigation. The role of advanced monitoring is to guide
    mitigation practices to identify the leaks, help the operator
    go through, and also verify that once the mitigation has taken
    place, that emissions are actually reduced.
        There is also a role for accounting for emissions, and this
    will play a role for climate policy, that we need to know, our
    models need to be accurate. Using the data as well to help
    inform models and inventories will also be important.
        Senator Carper. Thank you. Ms. Germain?
        Ms. Germain. We have made tremendous progress over the last
    30 years, as I stated in my opening remarks. We have reduced
    our methane emissions by about 45 percent since 1990. However,
    that still means that we have a long way to go, and we
    recognize that. We are committed to meeting the global methane
    pledge made by the Administration of reducing our methane
    emissions by another 15 percent by 2030. We are committed to
    using technology to help support those efforts.
        Senator Carper. Great. Thank you.
        I am going to wrap it up here, but in wrapping it up, I
    just want to thank each of our witnesses for your preparation
    and for taking the time to join us today. I want to thank you
    for what you do with your lives.
        There are a lot of important issues that we consider in the
    Senate and in this room, but I do not think anything is more
    important than what we have discussed here today. As we have
    heard, we have the tools at our disposal to really, I will
    notsay quickly, but expeditiously reduce methane emissions from
    landfills. We are doing it, we can, as we said earlier, we can
    always do better.
        New technologies to detect and quantify emissions, when
    combined with techniques to avoid and capture methane
    emissions, not only drastically or dramatically reduce
    emissions, but can also create new jobs, new jobs
    opportunities. I am always about, how do we do good things for
    our planet and create jobs at the same time, and they actually
    can work together.
        Implementing these tools effectively can improve the health
    of our communities and slow the progression of climate change,
    a true win-win situation. I look forward to working with my
    colleagues, Democrat and Republican, on this committee, and in
    the full Senate to continue this conversation, and make real
    progress in reducing landfill methane emissions.
        Before we adjourn, just a little bit of housekeeping.
    Senators may submit questions for the record until the close of
    business on Wednesday, February 14th. When is Valentine's Day?
    Is that Valentine's Day? What a day to remember. We will
    compile those questions and send them to our witnesses. We will
    ask our witnesses to reply by Wednesday, February 28th.
        Before I adjourn, I just want to say to our staff members
    on both the Republican and Democratic sides, majority and
    minority, how much we appreciate, on behalf of my colleagues
    and Senator Capito, how much we appreciate the work that went
    into making this hearing occur. It has been a great hearing
    and, I think, an encouraging hearing.
        In the world that we live in, there is a lot to be worried
    about, concerned about, and this is one, certainly climate
    change is a big one, but there is good work that is being done,
    important work that is being done, and we have heard about how
    we can do that even better going forward.
        With that, it is a wrap. This hearing is adjourned. Thank
    you all very, very much.
        [Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                      [all]