Committee hears competing views on statewide landfill methane monitoring bill

Senate Bill 726 would direct the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission to adopt rules for surface emissions monitoring and mitigation of methane from municipal solid waste landfills, and supporters and industry representatives told the House Climate, Energy and Environment Committee on May 6 that current methods miss significant leaks and newer technologies are available — while landfill operators warned many monitoring technologies are not yet commercially reliable.

The bill matters because methane is a powerful, short‑term climate forcer and because advocates told the committee current manual monitoring can miss large emissions that harm nearby communities and public health. Supporters said SB 726 would give regulators tools to detect and fix leaks; industry witnesses said the state should move carefully and pilot alternative methods first.

“Methane gas emissions from landfills are a super greenhouse gas that … is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide in short‑term climate warming,” said Jim Shepke, testifying on behalf of 350 Salem. Shepke told the committee that after the ReWorld incinerator closed last December because of previous monitoring and enforcement actions, more waste has moved to Coffin Butte landfill near Salem, “which you have heard has a terrible problem with methane emissions.”

Craig Campbell, governmental affairs director for the Oregon Refuse and Recycling Association, said the industry does not oppose improved monitoring but raised technical concerns about many emerging detection methods. “The technology for this purpose is not yet there,” Campbell said, noting that most advanced remote sensing systems have not proven they can provide the point‑level accuracy required by DEQ or EPA reporting. He identified two existing federal methods — Method 21, the current on‑the‑ground sniffer approach, and OTM‑51, the alternative method that uses tethered “sniffer” robotics — and said only one company is currently approved to perform OTM‑51 in practice.

Lane County Public Works Director Dan Hurley, who described field experience using Method 21, said the older walking surveys are dangerous and can miss much of the active waste footprint. “It is time to move to a more updated method,” Hurley said, adding that satellite and drone surveys can identify broader emitting areas even if they do not always pinpoint a specific leak. Hurley told the committee that his county’s cost for the standard walking monitoring is about $6,000 per quarter and that satellite and sniffer drone options were in a similar price range.

Advocates pressed the committee with enforcement examples. “EPA inspections revealed chronic compliance issues with landfill emissions monitoring,” said Catherine Blauvelt, circular economy director for Industrious Labs, who quoted an EPA alert describing inspections that found missed monitoring areas, expired calibration gases and other procedural failures. Blauvelt and other advocates said advanced monitoring technologies — satellite data, fixed sensors, drone surveys and tethered sniffers — are already in use elsewhere and can both protect community health and help capture landfill gas for energy use.

Industry witnesses said a cautious transition is preferable. Campbell described a voluntary pilot approach in a draft dash‑4 amendment that would let willing landfills test alternative technologies with DEQ oversight and verify whether a small company offering sniffer robotics can scale to quarterly statewide monitoring. He also noted technical constraints: detection is affected by weather, the vacuum nature of landfill gas systems and the need to survey steep or otherwise unwalkable slopes.

Committee members questioned availability, accuracy and cost. Testimony referenced several Oregon sites by name, including Coffin Butte and Finley Buttes, and cited a FluxLab / St. Francis Xavier University study that compared remote detection technologies. Tom Frankewitz, a testifier who referenced a survey listing many detection products, said “there are 98 different technologies currently on the market,” but acknowledged that EPA approval of an alternative method does not mean all commercial systems meet federal reporting requirements.

The hearing included public testimony from county, environmental and industry representatives and closed after the committee heard the scheduled witnesses. No formal action or vote on the bill was taken at the hearing.

Background: supporters framed SB 726 as a way to modernize Oregon’s monitoring regime and reduce fugitive methane and hazardous air pollutant emissions; industry and landfill operators urged a phased, pilot‑based approach to avoid implementation problems and ensure reliable, reproducible data. The committee did not adopt any amendments or take a formal vote during the hearing.

The committee’s next scheduled work session on related landfill monitoring bills was moved to May 15.