Comments on
Western Regional Sanitary Landfill Placer County, California
Impact on Public Health, Groundwater Resources and the
Interests of Those Within the Sphere of Influence of the Landfill
G. Fred Lee & Associates
27298 E. El Macero Dr.
El Macero, California 95618-1005
Tel. (530) 753-9630 • Fax (530) 753-9956
e-mail gfredlee@aol.com
web site: http://www.gfredlee.com
Please note the new area code for telephone and fax has been changed to 530
February 3, 1997
Ed Schnabel, Chairman
Central Valley RWQCB
3443 Routier Road, Suite A
Sacramento, CA 95827-3098
Dear Chairman Schnabel:
I wish to respond to the January 10, 1997 "Notice Tentative Waste Discharge Requirements for Western Placer Waste Management Authority Western Regional Sanitary Landfill Facility Class II and III Landfills Placer County." The proposed WDRs for continued operation of the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill (WRSL) is another of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board's (CVRWQCB) landfills that will not comply with the performance standards set forth in Chapter 15 of protecting groundwaters from impaired use for as long as the wastes in the landfill will be a threat. It is clear from the pollution by the existing closed waste management units at this landfill that the site groundwaters are vulnerable to pollution by landfill leachate. The construction of a single composite liner, as proposed, obviously will, at best, do no more than postpone when further groundwater pollution occurs by the waste management units that are proposed to be constructed under the proposed WDRs. Further, the groundwater monitoring system of a few monitoring wells spaced hundreds of feet apart proposed for the continued operation of this landfill has little probability of detecting groundwater pollution before widespread pollution occurs off-site.
While at this time I have no personal interest in this landfill, I am highly concerned about protecting the future generations' groundwater resources in the Central Valley as well as elsewhere in California and the US. Previously, I have provided detailed comments to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board staff (A. Inouye) on the highly significant deficiencies in the approach that the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board's staff and Board have followed with respect to regulating the activities of the Placer County Department of Public Works for the design, operation, closure and post-closure care of the WRSL. These comments included an approximately 50-page report entitled, "Review of Regulatory Compliance of the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill Placer County, California," dated June 1995. I have also submitted to the CVRWQCB (Inouye) copies of back-up materials to that report which provide technical support for my conclusions regarding the highly significant deficiencies used by the CVRWQCB staff, Board and Placer County in the development, design, operation, closure and post-closure care for this landfill. The proposed WDRs show that the Board staff is continuing its and the Board's past policy of approving landfills that meet minimum prescriptive design requirements, even though it is obvious to the staff who understand landfill liner and groundwater monitoring issues, that minimum prescriptive design requirements which now include a single composite liner will not protect groundwaters from impaired use for as long as the wastes represent a threat at geologically unsuitable sites, such as the WRSL site, as required in Chapter 15. The permitting of the continued operation of this landfill as proposed will be another facade where the Board is perpetuating obviously technically invalid approaches that will ultimately be of significant harm to the highly important groundwater resources of the Central Valley region.
It is clear that the Board staff in developing the proposed WDRs has chosen to ignore the information that I have previously provided which presents detailed information from the literature documenting that the minimum Subtitle D liners and groundwater monitoring systems that the staff proposes to allow the Placer County Department of Public Works to use will not protect groundwaters from impaired use as required in Chapter 15. The staff are proposing to continue to perpetuate the highly unreliable, behind-the-scenes approach that was developed in the mid-1980s by the regional board staff throughout the state where they agreed to assume, without public review, that the minimum design requirements set forth in Chapter 15 would be equivalent to the independent minimum performance standards set forth for in these regulations for protecting groundwaters from impaired use for as long as the wastes in the landfill represent a threat. While the staff state in the draft WDRs for the continued operation of the WRSL on page 5, item 24b, that, "This order implements: b. The prescriptive standards and performance goals of Chapter 15, Division 3, Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, effective 24 November 1984, and subsequent revisions;". Such as statement is obviously technically invalid. The performance standards set forth in Chapter 15 are explicit in requiring protection of groundwaters from impaired use for as long as the wastes in the landfill represent a threat. Further, Chapter 15 and the Landfilling Policy adopted by the State Board on June 17, 1993 explicitly require protection of groundwaters from impaired use for as long as the wastes represent a threat. Further, Chapter 15 does not state or imply that the minimum prescriptive standards set forth in the Chapter or now Policy are equivalent to the minimum prescriptive design standards for landfill leachate containment systems.
It was obvious in the mid-1980s when the Regional Board staff agreed among themselves, without public review, to assume that the minimum prescriptive standards for landfill design were equivalent to the performance standards set forth in Chapter 15 that this assumption was obviously technically invalid to anyone who had even the most elementary understanding of Darcy's Law. At that time, the minimum prescriptive standards allowed at some sites the construction of a landfill that had a liner consisting of one foot of compacted soil with a maximum permeability of 1 x 10-6 cm/sec. A simply Darcy's Law calculation would have shown the staff that such a liner will be breached by landfill leachate in less than one year. The State Water Resources Control Board's updated SWAT information released in December 1995 has confirmed that landfills lined with that liner polluted groundwaters to the same degree as unlined landfills. This is exactly what would be expected. The incorporation of a single composite liner into the minimum prescriptive standards as occurred on June 17, 1993 only postpones for an additional period of time when groundwater pollution occurs; it will not prevent it.
As discussed in materials that I have provided to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board on the WRSL, the wastes in the WRSL will be a threat to groundwater quality forever. The liner systems, such as the single composite liner, have a finite period of time during which they can function effectively. I request that all previous correspondence that I submitted to the CVRWQCB, including my June 1995 report, "Review of Regulatory Compliance of the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill Placer County, California," and its appendices become part of the administrative record for this review of the adequacy of the CVRWQCB staff's proposed WDRs for the continued operation of the WRSL.
As you know, several individuals have contacted CALFED about the importance of including Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley groundwater quality protection as part of CALFED's water quality management program. While it is unclear as to what the CALFED program will consist of at this time, certainly it should consist of protecting groundwaters from impaired use by waste management activities for as long as the wastes in these waste management units are a threat.
This past week I agreed to assist the Sacramento River Watershed Toxics Control Program Toxics Subcommittee in initiating a groundwater quality protection component of this program. This program will likely include full enforcement of the requirements set forth in Chapter 15 of the protection of groundwater from impaired use for as long as the wastes in the landfill and other waste management units are a threat. It could also include the establishment of an independent body of stakeholders who are concerned about the management of surface and groundwater quality within the Sacramento River watershed who would work toward requiring the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board to fully comply with Chapter 15 requirements of protecting groundwaters from impaired use for as long as the wastes in landfills and other waste management units represent a threat. There certainly will be discussions about the inadequacy of the CVRWQCB's approaches towards permitting landfills since the adoption of Chapter 15 in 1984 and the WRCB's Landfilling Policy in 1993. The expanding interest in protecting groundwaters from pollution from various sources, including landfills, will likely cause general public recognition of the inadequacies of past and currently proposed Board activities in this area.
Last fall, in a highly similar situation, I filed a petition with the State Water Resources Control Board on the significant technical deficiencies in the CVRWQCB's Order No. 96-228 governing the proposed expansion of the University of California, Davis' campus landfill and the closure of the existing "west" campus landfill. I request that a copy of that petition be incorporated into the administrative record for the review of the proposed WDRs for the WRSL. With few exceptions, the issues raised on the technical deficiencies of Order No. 96-228 are directly applicable to the proposed continued operation of the WRSL as well as the closure of existing waste management units at this landfill.
I hope that this reconstituted Board will critically examine these issues and reject the staff's proposed approach of allowing this landfill to expand with its technically flawed approach for waste containment and groundwater monitoring. There are alternative approaches that are readily available that can be used to manage municipal solid wastes without inevitable groundwater pollution. It is time that this Board set a precedent for the Central Valley and, for that matter, the state in providing true protection of groundwaters from waste-derived constituents as required by Chapter 15.
Another significant deficiency in this proposed Order is the inadequacy of the approach that is being allowed for closing the waste management units at the WRSL. Again, the minimum Subtitle D, Chapter 15 approach is obviously technically flawed and will not protect groundwaters for as long as the wastes represent a threat. This issue is discussed in my petition to the State Water Resources Control Board on the deficiencies in the Board's Order No. 96-228. There are alternative approaches that can and should be required of Placer County in properly closing all of the existing waste management units so that the wastes in this landfill are not exposed to further percolation of precipitation through the cover which generates leachate and ultimately pollutes groundwater.
If any members of your staff, Placer County or consultants claim that the proposed landfill expansion or the proposed landfill closure approaches will protect groundwaters in accord with Chapter 15 requirements for as long as the wastes represent a threat, please establish a public peer review where these issues can be properly addressed. I am very confident that if experts in the field who do not have other agendas than proper solid waste management with groundwater quality protection review this issue they would conclude, as I have, that the proposed expansion of the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill should not be allowed as proposed in this draft Order. Those who advocate the "safety" of this landfill should be required to document in a public peer review arena that the liner system and groundwater monitoring systems that are proposed in the Order will conform to Chapter 15 minimum performance requirements.
If there are questions about these comments, please contact me. They are being submitted as an individual who is concerned about protecting future generations' groundwater quality.
Sincerely yours,
G. Fred Lee, PhD, DEE
Copy to w/o enclosures:
W. Bennett
J. Caffrey
W. Attwater
W. Pettit
L. Snow
GFL:oh
Enclosure
G. Fred Lee & Associates
27298 E. El Macero Dr.
El Macero, California 95618-1005
Tel. (530) 753-9630 • Fax (530) 753-9956
e-mail gfredlee@aol.com
web site: http://members.aol.com/gfredlee/gfl.htm
Please note the new area code for telephone and fax has been changed to 530
February 5, 1997
William Marshall, Chief
Waste Discharge to Land Unit
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
3443 Routier Road
Sacramento CA 95827
Dear Mr. Marshall:
In accord with your request, please find attached a set of the materials I wish to use as appendices to my January 27, 1997 comments sent to Ed Schnabel, Chairman, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, on the significant technical deficiencies in the "Notice Tentative Waste Discharge Requirements for Western Regional Placer Waste Management Authority Western Regional Sanitary Landfill Facility Class II and III Landfills Placer County." These appendices provide technical support for my findings that this landfill as proposed will ultimately pollute groundwaters with landfill leachate, rendering them unusable for domestic and some other purposes.
Since I have found that landfill proponents and their consultants typically try to discredit the technical validity of my statements by claiming that I have only cited Dr. Jones-Lee's and my work on landfill issues, I wish to point out that many of the attached papers and reports are review articles developed by us which discuss in detail the literature on the topic of the ultimate failure of minimum Subtitle D landfill liner systems in preventing leachate from passing through the liner into the underlying groundwater system for as long as the wastes in the landfill represent a threat. As documented in the enclosures, this is the performance standard that the proposed new waste management units for the WRSL must achieve if they are to conform to minimum Subtitle D requirements for groundwater quality protection. These performance standards cannot be achieved with the WRSL proposed design at the WRSL location.
It is time for the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board to stop permitting landfills that will obviously only postpone when groundwater pollution occurs. The Board should use the information that is readily available in the literature on the ultimate failure of the liner systems that are proposed for the WRSL and the inability of the proposed monitoring system to detect groundwater pollution before widespread pollution occurs. The enclosed appendices to my January 27, 1997 letter to Chairman Schnabel provide the technical back-up from the literature on this topic.
As I indicated, I stand willing to have these issues peer-reviewed by independent experts who do not have a financial interest in continuing to work for landfill companies in developing landfills. One of the enclosed papers ("Environmental Ethics: The Whole Truth") specifically addresses this issue. I urge that if the staff have any questions about the technical validity of my findings they request that the Board conduct a full, public peer review of the issues in which the landfill proponents are required to present the information that they claim supports the position that the landfill liner system proposed for the WRSL expansion will conform to Chapter 15 and the WRCB's Landfilling Policy requirements of protecting groundwaters from impaired use for as long as the wastes represent a threat.
If the landfill proponents claim that the wastes will only be a threat for 30 years or so, please have them explain what happens to the large amounts of salt, heavy metals and other constituents in a "dry tomb" type landfill which do not degrade and will be in the landfill effectively forever. Further, please have the landfill proponents who claim that the groundwater monitoring system that has been proposed for the WRSL involving a few vertical monitoring wells and a few lysimeters provide the Board with a proper evaluation of the reliability of this system in detecting leachate leakage through the liner. Chapter 15, Article 5 is explicit in requiring "... the best assurance of the detection of subsequent releases from the waste management unit." Also, it requires that a sufficient number of monitoring wells be located so they "...provide for the best assurance of the earliest possible detection of a release from a waste management unit." A proper analysis of this situation will show that the groundwater monitoring wells must be spaced no more than a few feet apart in order to comply with this requirement in order to detect leachate that has leaked through the liner at the point of compliance for monitoring.
I am confident that a proper peer review of these issues will show that a minimum Subtitle D landfill of the type that the staff propose to permit for the continued operation of the WRSL will demonstrate that it is only a matter of time until the landfill liner system fails to protect groundwater from impaired use.
As mentioned previously, these comments are submitted on behalf of future generations of Californians who wish to have available groundwaters that do not contain Placer County et al. solid waste leachate.
Please contact me if you have questions on these matters.
Sincerely yours,
G. Fred Lee, PhD, DEE
Copy to w/o encl.: E. Schnabel, Chairman, CVRWQCB
J. Caffrey, Chairman, WRCB
W. Attwater
GFL:oh
Enclosures
Review of Regulatory Compliance of the
by
G. Fred Lee, Ph.D., P.E., D.E.E.
G. Fred Lee & Associates
El Macero, California
February 1995
Executive Summary
This report provides the initial conclusions from a preliminary investigation of the regulatory compliance of the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill (WRSL or Landfill) Placer County, California.
This Landfill has been and is operating in violation of numerous regulatory requirements. It has been found that the WRSL is located on a site which is unsuitable for this landfill design and the type of disposal operation being conducted. It is being operated in such a manner as to pose a significant threat to public health, the environment, and the uses of adjacent and nearby properties. Without immediate correction, the WRSL will cause severe damage to the interests of those who own or use property within the sphere of influence of this Landfill. It should be required immediately to change its method of operation and to strictly comply with all regulatory requirements.
Water Pollution
The Landfill owner/operators, Placer County Board of Supervisors and Department of Public Works have developed an inappropriate design for this Landfill that will not comply with the State Water Resources Control Board's Chapter 15 regulations that have required since 1984 the landfilling of municipal solid wastes (MSW) in such a way as to prevent groundwater pollution - use impairment for as long as the wastes in this Landfill will be a threat. This Landfill is already polluting the groundwater aquifer systems associated with it. Further, the wastes in this Landfill will be a threat to cause water pollution forever, i.e. as long as the Landfill exists.
The groundwater monitoring program that has been allowed to be developed and used at this Landfill does not conform to the original Chapter 15, Article 5 requirements adopted in 1984, nor does it conform to the revised Article 5 requirements adopted in 1991. Widespread groundwater pollution by landfill leachate (garbage juice) can occur at this Landfill without being detected by the groundwater monitoring system in place at the Landfill. The Regional Water Quality Control Board's recently proposed Tentative WDR's which requires the addition of two groundwater monitoring wells in an attempt to try to improve the groundwater quality monitoring will, if implemented, still fall far short of conforming to Chapter 15, Article 5 requirements for a groundwater monitoring system at a landfill of this type.
Hazardous Gas Migration
Hazardous and otherwise deleterious gases have been allowed to migrate through the soil from the Landfill to adjacent properties.
Hazardous and Toxic Waste Materials
While this Landfill was "certified" by the County Board of Supervisors as not accepting hazardous or toxic materials, substantial amounts of these materials have been and will continue to be deposited as wastes in this Landfill.
Other Important Problems
A number of other important problems have occurred with this Landfill's operations. There have been at times severe problems with landfill odors, wind-blown litter - wastes, illegal roadside dumping of wastes, etc. Also, a number of regulatory compliance problems have occurred, including failure of the operator to properly provide daily and intermediate cover of the waste, thereby allowing increased escape of odorous, hazardous or deleterious gases and reducing the control of potential disease vectors and vermin such as rats, mice and birds from gaining access to the waste and transporting waste components from the Landfill site.
Regulatory Compliance
This Landfill has been allowed to operate in violation of its operating permits (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. 90-272 dated September 28, 1990) and the mitigation measures set forth in the various EIR's and their supplements that were certified by the Placer County Board of Supervisors as well as the conditions set forth in the Conditional Use Permits issued by the Placer County Planning Department.
Closure and Postclosure
Inadequate attention has been given by the County to the closure of Landfill modules as they have been filled and the eventual closure of this Landfill. The County has not made appropriate plans to provide for the long-term ad infinitum postclosure maintenance and remediation programs that will be required at this Landfill.
Adequacy of Documentation
The various documents such as the County Department of Public Works Environmental Impact Reports and their supplements as well as the County Solid Waste Management Plan have provided highly unreliable information to the County Board of Supervisors and the public on the past and proposed operations of this Landfill. This unreliable information has asserted that the Landfill would be operated in accord with strict regulatory requirements and would be a "good neighbor" to adjacent property owners/users. However, a review of the compliance record for this Landfill shows that there have been many problems with the operations of this Landfill which cause it to be adverse to the interests of those who own or use properties near the Landfill.
Needed Corrective Action
The Landfill should be operated in accord with strict regulatory compliance. If the Landfill owner/operator - County does not achieve strict regulatory compliance, then the Landfill should be closed and all wastes removed.
An intensive, comprehensive groundwater and unsaturated zone monitoring program needs to be initiated to determine the extent and degree of the pollution of the aquifer system that underlies the waste management modules. When the extent of pollution is known, corrective action should be initiated to prevent further pollution and to clean up the contaminated aquifer system to the maximum extent practicable.
All new Landfill modules should be constructed with a double composite liner in which the lower composite liner is part of the leak detection system for the upper composite liner. When uncontrollable leakage of leachate through the upper composite liner occurs that could pollute groundwater, impairing its use if the lower liner were not present, then the wastes must be removed from the Landfill and properly managed.
If it is not possible through the installation and maintenance of a landfill cover with reliable leak detection to prevent leachate generation in the Landfill modules, then the wastes in the Landfill module will have to be removed and properly managed.
A highly efficient, reliable gas monitoring and collection system should be installed, operated and maintained at this Landfill for as long as the wastes in the Landfill have the potential to produce landfill gas upon contact with moisture. The recently initiated landfill gas monitoring program is significantly deficient in reliably monitoring landfill gas releases and impacts at the WRSL.
Each day's deposited waste should be covered with no less than six inches of dirt.
There should be no increase in dust arising from Landfill operations at the property line of the adjacent property owners' lands. A reliable dust monitoring program should be installed and operated in perpetuity, focusing on total dust as well as PM 10 particles.
No wind-blown litter should be allowed to escape from the waste deposition areas.
No landfill odors should be present at the property line of adjacent properties.
The County should establish an illegal roadside dumping clean-up program that picks up fugitive waste along the highways within the sphere of influence of the Landfill so that at no time any such wastes are present along the roads for more than 12 hours.
Leachate generated in the Landfill should be transported via truck or pipeline for off-site treatment.
All surface runoff from the Landfill property that could contain any waste constituents should be impounded and tested for potentially hazardous or deleterious chemicals. Only if it is found to be of satisfactory quality, may it then be released to the natural watercourses.
All management of inert wastes at this Landfill should be in composite-lined and eventually double-composite-lined modules, unless the wastes are, in fact, shown to conform to Chapter 15 requirements of no leachable components above water quality objectives.
All Landfill modules that will not receive additional wastes for at least six months should be covered with a testable leak detection cover to prevent moisture from entering the wastes.
All Landfill modules that reach design final grade should be closed in accord with regulatory requirements which should include a leak detectable landfill cover.
The proposed plans for the development of the WRSL waste modules along Feddyment Road and to the south of module 13 should be curtailed since the development of these modules would involve placing wastes essentially on the property line which based on past operating experience would result in violation of a variety of regulatory requirements.
A dense, rapid-growing, vegetative screen should be planted and maintained to screen the view of the Landfill from adjacent properties.
A dedicated trust fund of sufficient magnitude to address all plausible contingencies associated with closed Landfill modules should be developed. The magnitude of this fund should be sufficient to exhume the wastes and manage them properly. It also should be of sufficient magnitude to provide for clean-up of leachate-contaminated soils and the aquifer system.
An amount of $100,000/year should be provided by the County for third-party independent monitoring of the Landfill operations. This monitoring activity should be done on behalf of the property owners within the sphere of potential influence of the Landfill.
Conclusion
It is concluded that if the WRSL comes into full regulatory compliance, and this compliance is vigorously maintained and the other provisions discussed in this report are implemented, then this Landfill will not be significantly adverse to those who own or use properties near the Landfill.
Introduction
This report provides the initial conclusions from a preliminary investigation of the regulatory compliance of the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill (WRSL or Landfill) Placer County, California. Also presented are recommendations on how this Landfill should be operated in the future so that it is within full strict regulatory compliance and not adverse to the health, environment, welfare and interests of those who own or use adjacent or nearby properties.
Investigation
The author's investigation of the WRSL included review of the operating permits, environmental impact reports and supplements, technical reports on the characteristics of the site, LEA and other agencies' site inspection reports and other documents and included a site inspection of the Landfill. A summary of key findings and issues pertinent to the deficiencies in the design, operation, closure and postclosure requirements is presented below.
Water Pollution
Municipal solid waste landfills are notorious for polluting groundwaters by leachate (garbage juice), rendering the groundwater unusable for domestic and many other water supply purposes. The WRSL at this time is polluting the underlying groundwater aquifer system which will lead to a loss of groundwater resources for use by this and future generations. This pollution arises from a wide variety of hazardous and/or deleterious chemicals present in municipal solid waste which, when in contact with water arising from rainfall entering the landfill, produce leachate. For unlined landfills, this leachate migrates out the bottom of the landfill into the underlying aquifer system. For soil-lined landfills, such as WRSL Modules 1, 2, 10 and part of 11, the liner, at best, only postpones for a few months to a couple of years when leachate passes out of the containment system for the module into the underlying groundwater aquifer system and therefore begins to threaten groundwater pollution, impairing its use. The state of California regulations (Water Resources Control Board's Chapter 15) governing the landfilling of wastes which were originally adopted in 1984 prohibit groundwater pollution by landfill leachate that impairs use of the groundwater for as long as the wastes present in a landfill represent a threat. The wastes in the WRSL will be a threat to groundwater pollution forever.
While various County Department of Public Works documents try to give the impression that there are significant amounts of low-permeability clays between the bottom of the Landfill and the groundwater located some 55-65 feet below it, it was recognized by the County Department of Public Works in 1977 through the County's EIR that the unsaturated area between the soil surface and the groundwater table was not impermeable to water passage through it. As indicated in this EIR in a discussion of the geology of the area, Mr. John Livingston, Consulting Geologist for Placer County, concluded that the Landfill site is underlain by "Victor Sandstone." It is stated in the 1977 EIR that,
"The Victor Sandstone has very low permeability and very low surface infiltration rates throughout the formation though it does serve as a recharge area for the Sacramento Valley groundwater basin. In some places the underlying formation surrounds sand and gravel filled channels which are very likely groundwater reservoirs of small capacity."
Since precipitation which infiltrates surface soils eventually recharges groundwater in the region, there is a hydraulic connection between the ground surface and the groundwater table. This hydraulic connection means that leachate developed in the Landfill can pass from the bottom of the Landfill through any liner system that has been developed thus far into the underlying, unsaturated aquifer, eventually reaching the water table, impairing the uses of the groundwater for domestic purposes. The Water Resources Control Board's Chapter 15 and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act requirements governing the land disposal of solid waste in Class III landfills require that landfills be sited, designed, constructed, operated, closed and maintained so that releases of waste-derived constituents do not impair or threaten to impair the uses of groundwater for as long as the wastes in the landfill represent a threat. This issue is discussed below.
Groundwater pollution is of importance to adjacent and nearby property owners to the WRSL from several perspectives. First, there are groundwater production wells located down groundwater gradient from this Landfill that are used today. Second, even though there are no known plans now for some of the adjacent property owners to use this groundwater for domestic water supply purposes, this resource may be important to future generations. Who can say that at some time in the future adjacent and nearby property owners will not want to use the groundwater that underlies their property for domestic water supply or other purposes? Such use is certainly appropriate and protected by law. It is for this reason that Chapter 15 and the current State Water Resources Control Board's Landfilling Policy require protection of groundwater from impaired use for as long as the wastes in the landfill represent a threat.
The transport of leachate from the WRSL into the groundwater under adjacent properties trespasses on the rights of adjacent property owners/users and represents a significant potential threat to public health, the environment and the property owners'/users' economic and other interests. The various documents that have been developed by the County Department of Public Works for their consultants and therefore approved by the Department of Public Works do not adequately or reliably describe the potential consequences of groundwater pollution by landfill leachate to future generations who may wish to use this water for domestic water supply purposes. Chapter 15 and the state's Landfilling Policy prohibit groundwater pollution by landfill leachate for as long as the wastes in the landfill represent a threat. Chapter 15 and the Porter-Cologne Act are clearly designed to unequivocally protect groundwater from pollution by landfill leachate for use by future generations.
Municipal solid waste leachate of the type generated at the WRSL contains a wide variety of chemical constituents that are hazardous to public health or, even though not hazardous in the regulatory sense, are highly deleterious to the use of the groundwater for domestic water supply purposes. Further, once a groundwater is polluted by municipal landfill leachate, it can never be cleaned up. Further, the area of the aquifer that has been polluted can never be cleaned up so it is again safe for domestic water supply purposes. As discussed in the enclosed papers by Jones-Lee and Lee (1993) as well as Lee and Jones-Lee (1994a), municipal landfill leachate of the type generated at WRSL-type landfills contains a wide variety of conventional pollutants, Priority Pollutants, and unregulated non-conventional pollutants whose hazard to public health and the environment is unknown. Over 95% of the organics in MSW leachate are non-conventional pollutants. Therefore, even if all the drinking water MCL's (maximum contaminant levels) are met for a groundwater that contains MSW leachate, it can never be assumed that this water is safe to consume since only about 100 to 200 of the chemicals out of the 60,000 chemicals that are used by society today are regulated. There is a vast arena of unregulated chemicals that can be detrimental to public health and the environment in municipal landfill leachate. This situation mandates that no pollution of groundwaters by municipal solid waste landfills be allowed.
It is well-known today that the presence of a groundwater pollution plume under a property derived from adjacent or nearby properties is a significant detriment to the property owners. A pollution plume under property adversely affects the value of that property, independent of whether there are plans to use the groundwater under the property for domestic water supply purposes. Few individuals will knowingly purchase a property at full market value which is underlain by a groundwater pollution plume of hazardous or deleterious chemicals.
It is, therefore, very important that the WRSL be required to operate within the environmental regulations (Chapter 15) which prohibit the impairment of use of groundwater at the edge of the waste management unit, i.e. the groundwater downgradient area where the wastes are deposited in the Landfill. The US EPA's Subtitle D regulations governing landfilling of wastes which were incorporated into the state of California's Landfilling Policy in June 1993, prohibit the spread of groundwater pollution derived from landfills to within no more than 150 meters (approximately 165 yards) of the edge of the waste management unit, and the point of compliance for groundwater monitoring shall be on the landfill owner's property.
The WRSL is located in an area that has a number of geological characteristics that make the area an unsuitable site for a landfill of this design. First and foremost, this Landfill is situated above high quality groundwater whose use can be readily impaired by small amounts of leachate derived from this Landfill. The Landfill permit application documents, such as the County's Environmental Impact Reports (EIR's) and their supplements, do not objectively evaluate the suitability of the site for this Landfill. They have failed to properly consider the long-term potential for leachate generated in this Landfill to reach the groundwater table, polluting these waters and thereby impairing their use. Such impairment is in violation of the state's Chapter 15 regulations and its Landfilling Policy.
The groundwater underlying this site is located about 55 to 65 feet below the ground surface (CVRWQCB Order No. 90-272, 1990). There are some low-permeability layers with permeabilities of 10-4 to 10-7 cm/sec between the bottom of the Landfill and the groundwater table. The "Periodic Site Review (Engineers Report), Western Regional Sanitary Landfill, Placer County, California" dated October 6, 1988 (EMCON, 1988a) well logs show that appreciable amounts of silts, sands, and gravel underlie the Landfill. Some of the County's documents try to portray the image that the natural geologic strata will protect groundwater from pollution by Landfill leachate. However, if the natural strata were a true barrier to leachate transport from the bottom of the Landfill to the groundwater table, there would be no need for a liner system to try to prevent leachate from leaving the Landfill and polluting groundwater. Chapter 15 allows the construction of landfills without liners at sites where the natural strata provide protection of groundwater resources. The WRSL site is certainly not a site of this type. The natural strata, at best, potentially postpone for only a few tens of years when the leachate that leaves the Landfill and enters the underlying groundwater aquifer system passes down through the unsaturated zone, reaching the groundwater table.
The CVRWQCB Order No. 90-272 required that a plastic sheeting liner be installed in the new Landfill modules. Further, the draft CVRWQCB Order No. (to be assigned) requires groundwater quality protection from impaired use by waste-derived constituents where it states on page 7, item 5, "The discharge of solid or liquid waste or leachate to surface waters, surface water drainage courses, or ground water is prohibited." This draft Order also specifies that these requirements are in effect for as long as the wastes represent a threat.
The strata below the WRSL will not prevent the transport of leachate through them for as long as the wastes placed in the WRSL will be a threat to the groundwater resources connected to this Landfill. Further, the high-permeability sand and gravel lenses which underlie this Landfill area will allow rapid transport of leachate away from the Landfill. In addition, the low-permeability layers likely contain cracks or areas of higher permeability (10-4 cm/sec or greater) which will allow more rapid transport of leachate from the Landfill to the saturated groundwater of the region. The County has attempted to reduce the transport of leachate through the sandy lenses by installing clay plugs where the lenses intersect the Landfill modules. The transport of leachate through the clay plugs and along the sandy lenses increases the total area through which this Landfill can pollute groundwater. Most landfills can only leak through the bottom of the landfill. In the WRSL, however, the sandy lenses provide an increased area through which transport of leachate can occur to the groundwater table. At this time, insufficient hydrogeologic investigation has been conducted at this site to reliably identify all the possible pathways through which leachate generated in the Landfill can be transported to the groundwater table. During the period of time that the wastes in the Landfill will be a threat, leachate from this Landfill can reach the groundwater table and then be transported in the groundwater under adjacent properties, impairing their uses.
Since the WRSL site does not provide natural protection of the groundwater in the vicinity of the Landfill from pollution by landfill leachate, a waste containment system (liner) is required. Three different approaches have been used at the WRSL in the development of waste management modules. Initially (prior to 1984), waste management modules were constructed without designated liners. Compacted soil formed the bottom of the Landfill. The compaction of this soil was not, however, to any specified degree such as that which occurred in 1984 where the then Subchapter 15 required compaction so that the maximum permeability of one foot of this material was less than 10-6 cm/sec. Subsequently, the County constructed waste management modules with a two-foot layer with the minimum compacted soil liner permitted under Subchapter 15. In 1990, the County began to use a plastic sheeting liner (FML). This liner, however, did not have a low permeability backing of this plastic sheeting layer of the type required today. As discussed below, this liner can, at best, only postpone when groundwater pollution occurs. Further, it can leak leachate at a high rate depending on the permeability of the soil layer on which it is placed.
As required by Chapter 15 and the state's Landfilling Policy, the landfill containment system must be able to prevent the impaired use of the groundwater at the edge of the landfill, i.e. the point of compliance for groundwater monitoring, for as long as the wastes in the landfill represent a threat. As discussed by Jones-Lee and Lee (1993), wastes in this type of landfill ("dry-tomb" type) will be a threat to groundwater quality forever. Therefore, the natural strata plus any liner system that is used must be able to function as an effective barrier to transport of leachate from the Landfill to the groundwaters, forever.
A review of Chapter 15, Article 4, §2540 (WRCB, 1994) states under section (c),
"Class III landfills shall have containment structures which are capable of preventing degradation of waters of the state as a result of waste discharges to the landfills if site characteristics are inadequate."
Chapter 15 is explicit in requiring that the overall performance standard of prevention of groundwater impairment of use applies throughout the active life and postclosure period for landfills. The postclosure period for landfills is defined as the period of time that the wastes represent a threat (Chapter 15 §2580 (a)). This means that the overall performance standard for the existing as well as any expansion of the WRSL is one of prevention of all impaired use of groundwater in the vicinity of the Landfill for as long as the Landfill will exist. This is an explicit overall, over-riding performance standard set forth in Chapter 15 that must be met. As discussed below, the design for the current Landfill modules will not comply with the overall performance standard set forth in Article 4, §2540.(c) of protecting groundwaters from impaired use for as long as the wastes are a threat.
The overall groundwater quality protection requirements of Chapter 15 of preventing impaired use of groundwaters due to landfill-derived constituents for as long as the wastes represent a threat is a separate regulatory requirement that applies in addition to any minimum design requirements for liners, covers or other components of the containment system set forth in the Policy.
While some of the documents developed by the County in support of the WRSL discuss the so-called containment capabilities of the liner system, a critical review of this issue shows that the containment capabilities may occur at the time that the currently used composite liner is new, provided it is installed properly. The County Department of Public Works as well as the County's consultants have failed to reliably report on the potential long-term problems of the liner systems that have been used or are currently being used at this Landfill in preventing leachate from leaving this Landfill and entering into the underlying aquifer system.
Haxo and Haxo (1988) reported that the US EPA HWERL Ad Hoc Technical Committee concluded in a discussion of "Service in Landfills of Flexible Membrane Liners and Other Synthetic Polymeric Materials of Construction,"
"The polymers that were discussed and first-grade compounds based on these polymers should maintain their integrity in landfill environments for considerable lengths of time, probably in terms of 100's of years.
Nevertheless, when these polymers or compounds are used in products such as FML's, drainage nets, geotextiles, and pipe, they are subject to mechanical and combined mechanical and chemical stresses which may cause deterioration of some of the important properties of these polymeric products in shorter times."
In a discussion of "areas of concern," Haxo and Haxo state,
"The combined mechanical and chemical stresses under which the liner system functions may cause cracking and breaking of the components due to environmental stress-cracking or possibly mechanical fatigue under long service."
"Seams of FML's continue to be an area of concern, as none of the test methods truly assess the effects of long-term exposure in landfills."
"Clogging of drainage and detection systems continues to present a problem. The clogging can be by biological clogging due to growth or sedimentation or through precipitation of dissolved constituents."
The behavior of the plastic sheeting (FML) layer in the composite liner being used under part of Module 11 and all of Modules 12 and 13 is dependent on the integrity of the plastic sheeting. Holes, rips, tears, etc. and ultimately points of degradation of this liner govern its expected performance (Lee, 1994; Lee and Jones, 1993a; Lee and Jones-Lee, 1994b). No one knowledgeable in the properties of plastic sheeting liners claims that these materials will work perfectly forever. Anyone who does make this claim does not understand their properties.
It is generally agreed that, over time, the containment properties of both clay liners and plastic sheeting liners used individually or as a composite liner will deteriorate, eventually leading to widespread failure of the containment system. The US EPA (1988a), as part of developing Subtitle D regulations stated in the August 1988 Federal Register,
"First, even the best liner and leachate collection system will ultimately fail due to natural deterioration, and recent improvements in MSWLF (municipal solid waste landfill) containment technologies suggest that releases may be delayed by many decades at some landfills."
The US EPA Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (US EPA, 1988b) state:
"Once the unit is closed, the bottom layer of the landfill will deteriorate over time and, consequently, will not prevent leachate transport out of the unit."
The US EPA's discussion of the expected performance of MSW landfill liner systems permitted under Subtitle D is reliable. At best, these landfill liner systems only postpone for a period of time when groundwater pollution will occur; they will not prevent it. These are the types of liner systems that have been and are now being used at the WRSL. It should be noted that there about half a dozen states in the US that would not allow the liner systems that are used at the WRSL today (Module 13) for use in municipal solid waste landfills because of the well-known properties of only postponing when groundwater pollution occurs.
The long-term stability situation today for plastic sheeting liners is no different than in 1988. The same issues still exist. No one knowledgeable of the properties of these systems reports that the plastic sheeting liners of the types used today will function perfectly forever in a landfill environment. Since the liners are buried under many tens to hundreds of feet of garbage and are therefore not subject to inspection and repair, and since some components of the waste will be a threat forever, it is only a question of time until the liners fail to prevent leachate from passing through them and polluting groundwaters in the vicinity of the landfill. It is for this reason that Lee and Jones-Lee (1993b) in "Revisions of State MSW Landfill Regulations: Issues for Consideration for the Protection of Groundwater Quality," published in Environmental Management Review have recommended that all municipal solid waste landfills that operate with the "dry tomb" type landfilling approach use double-composite liners. When the landfill owner/operator cannot prevent leachate leakage through the upper composite liner, the wastes in the landfill must be removed and properly managed. Under this approach, the "dry tomb" type landfilling approach existing at the WRSL must be considered to be a temporary storage of the wastes where eventually if the owners/operators of this Landfill cannot - do not prevent moisture from entering the Landfill and generating leachate, then the wastes in this Landfill must be removed and properly managed. Failure to plan for this situation will result in groundwater pollution at the WRSL and, therefore, will result in a violation of Chapter 15's groundwater protection requirements.
While some of the documents that have been developed by or for the County claim the WRSL meets the minimum requirements set forth in Chapter 15 and now the Landfilling Policy, the facts are that the minimum landfill containment design and related requirements set forth by the state in Chapter 15 do not necessarily conform to the groundwater protection standards set forth in this regulation. Chapter 15, however, is explicit in requiring the protection of groundwaters from impaired use for as long as the wastes represent a threat regardless of the type of containment system employed. This is an overriding performance standard that must be met by all containment systems. The information provided by the County in support of the WRSL development and expansion is highly misleading on how this Landfill conforms to Chapter 15 requirements. There is no statement in Chapter 15 that says that meeting the minimum design requirements is adequate regulatory compliance to overall performance requirements of protecting groundwaters from impaired use for as long as the wastes represent a threat. Meeting the minimum liner design requirements of either Subtitle D or Chapter 15 will not protect groundwaters from pollution by landfill leachate in a WRSL setting.
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board has required through the waste discharge requirements (WDR's) that the County design, construct and maintain a landfill liner system that will meet the overall performance standards of Chapter 15. The information provided by the County on the properties of the landfill containment materials has been highly unreliable. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board acted on inadequate and unreliable information in approving the design for the expansion of the WRSL since the adoption of Subchapter 15 in 1984. This unreliable information has also misled the public into believing that this Landfill will protect the groundwater resources connected to the Landfill.
The initial waste disposal modules at WRSL were constructed without a low-permeability liner. Therefore, there is no engineered containment system for these modules which would enable the collection of at least part of the leachate generated within the module. All of the leachate generated within these modules (Modules 1 and 2) has been passing through the bottom of the Landfill into the unsaturated zone below the Landfill on its way to the groundwater table. Further, for those modules for which a leachate collection and removal system was provided (Modules 10, 11, 12 and 13) part of the leachate generated within the Landfill has been passing through this liner system into the unsaturated zone below the Landfill. The Porter-Cologne Act provides authority to the regional boards to require that landfill owners/operators investigate the potential for groundwater pollution from landfill modules that were constructed without liners or with liners that have limited ability to prevent leachate passage through them. This authority is set forth in §13304(a)-(e) where it is stipulated that any condition that threatens with a substantial probability of harm the pollution of groundwaters shall be regulated as though groundwater pollution was occurring. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board should immediately require that Placer County initiate a comprehensive monitoring program under the modules that have been constructed without low-permeability liners, including those that have compacted soil liners and those modules with a plastic sheeting liner to determine if landfill leachate is in the unsaturated zone below the Landfill modules. If, as expected, it is found there, then Placer County must initiate the provisions of Article 5, Chapter 15 which ultimately leads to the clean-up of the area of the unsaturated zone and any groundwaters that are found to contain leachate.
The current groundwater monitoring system consisting of a couple of wells spaced about 2,000 feet apart along the property line is grossly deficient in detecting leachate migration from these modules. There is a very low probability that the groundwater monitoring wells downgradient from the unlined Landfill modules would detect groundwater pollution by landfill leachate before it trespasses under adjacent property owners' lands. The most likely path for rapid leachate transport from the existing modules is laterally through the sandy lenses and then in zones of higher permeability through the lower permeability natural strata. This makes monitoring of leakage from the modules very difficult to achieve with any degree of reliability. It is therefore suggested that the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board should immediately require that Placer County conduct horizontal drilling at various depths and locations under the existing modules to detect the transport of leachate from the modules toward the water table and within the groundwater. Failure to follow this approach could readily result in significant pollution of groundwaters by landfill leachate from these modules without detection by the current monitoring system.
The requirement that the groundwater resources of the state must be protected from further pollution by landfill leachate for as long as the wastes represent a threat is explicitly stated as a performance standard in Subchapter 15. The State Water Resources Control Board in June 1993 reaffirmed that it is the Board's position that all on-land waste disposal in the state shall be conducted in such a manner as to protect the groundwater resources of the state from pollution (impaired use) by leachates derived from the wastes for as long as the wastes are a threat. Those familiar with leachate transport and compacted clay liners as well as natural strata know from a simple Darcy's Law calculation that one foot of 1 x 10-6 cm/sec clay will be breached by water or leachate in a period of less than one year. Therefore, the compacted soil liners that are present under WRSL modules which have as a liner one or two feet of 1 x 10-6 cm/sec soil will allow leachate to pass through the liner on its way toward pollution of groundwaters under the Landfill in much the same way as the modules which do not have low-permeability liners. While there may be small amounts of attenuation of certain chemicals in the soil liner, eventually as leachate passes through it the attenuation capacity will be exceeded. Further, there are large numbers of constituents in MSW leachate which are not attenuated.
A similar situation exists with the approach taken by the County for addressing the transport of leachate through a sandy lens that intersects a waste module. The County adopted the approach of plugging these sandy lenses at the point where they enter the waste module with two feet of clay - soil that has a permeability less than 1 x 10-6 cm/sec. Such a plug will only slow down for a few years the transport of leachate along the sandy lens. This plugging approach is obviously an ineffective approach towards dealing with the unsuitable geological strata under the Landfill where sandy lenses are in contact with the bottom of the Landfill. As discussed above, these sandy lenses, even plugged sandy lenses, will serve as a conduit for rapid transport of leachate away from the Landfill and enhance the opportunity for vertical transport of leachate through the natural strata to the groundwater table.
The soil-lined modules which are part of the WRSL can leak leachate at high rates, compared to those needed to pollute groundwaters. The pollution of groundwaters by landfill leachate, impairing their uses for domestic water supply can occur when leakage rates are above about 1 to 5 gallons/acre/day. The one foot of 1 x 10-6 cm/sec soil liner under several of the Landfill modules has a design leakage rate, under one foot of head, of 1,200 gallons per acre of landfill area per day (Daniel, 1990). Further, according to Workman and Keeble (1989), under one foot of head, the leachate can pass through one foot of soil compacted to a maximum permeability of 1 x 10-6 cm/sec in less than one year. It is, therefore, evident that the 1 x 10-6 cm/sec landfill liner under several of the WRSL modules will not prevent groundwater pollution by landfill leachate. It does reduce the extent of the pollution to the extent that leachate is transported to a leachate collection and removal system. However, even for Module 10 and part of Module 11 where there is a leachate collection and removal system, under low rates of leachate generation, the leachate can readily pass through the liner and never reach the collection sump.
The leakage of leachate through the soil-lined modules will not be uniform across the bottom, but will occur in some areas to a greater extent than in others. This will lead to leachate finger-like plumes of a few feet to a few tens of feet in width. The groundwater monitoring system that the County has developed for the WRSL involving a couple of vertical wells monitoring groundwaters at the edge of the property is highly unreliable in detecting groundwater pollution by landfill leachate. To remedy this situation, it is recommended that a combination of vertical monitoring wells and horizontal wells be used in both a saturated and unsaturated monitoring program to detect when sufficient leachate has left the Landfill on its way toward the groundwater table to potentially impair the use of the groundwaters under the Landfill.
In 1990, the County adopted an approach involving the use of a single plastic sheeting layer as a liner at the WRSL. This layer is not necessarily backed by a low-permeability layer in intimate contact with it. According to Daniel (1990), a plastic sheeting liner without a low-permeability backing with two 1 cm2 holes per acre can leak leachate under one foot of head at a rate of 3,300 gal/acre/day. The WRSL plastic sheeting-lined modules would be expected to leak at a rate lower than this because they are backed to some extent with lower permeability, but not necessarily low-permeability, soils. Even when new, plastic sheeting liners of this type typically have more than two 1 cm2 holes per acre. Over time the number of holes in this liner will increase, allowing even more transport of leachate through it. Such a liner is not an effective barrier to leachate transport through it for as long as the wastes in the Landfill will be a threat.
Because of the inevitable groundwater pollution by the waste modules that contain only the soil liner and the plastic sheeting liner, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board should require that Placer County immediately undertake a comprehensive horizontal drilling program to determine the extent and degree of pollution of the unsaturated aquifer system that has occurred under these modules. If leachate has reached the water table under the unlined modules or the soil-lined or plastic sheeting-lined modules, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board should order Placer County to immediately start pump and treat operations to collect all groundwater polluted by leachate to prevent its spread from its current location on the Landfill property.
The horizontal drilling should include a set of horizontal wells that can detect incipient movement of leachate through unsaturated as well as saturated flow from the bottom of the Landfill toward the water table. If Placer County cannot stop leachate generation in these modules which can lead to groundwater pollution, then the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board should require that Placer County exhume the wastes in these modules and properly manage them so they comply with the requirements of Chapter 15.
Since several of the modules at the WRSL have a single composite liner under them, it is possible that if these modules were constructed properly that the pollution of the groundwaters by leachate generated in these modules will be postponed for a number of years, i.e. until the plastic sheeting liner deteriorates to the point where significant amounts of leachate that could cause water pollution pass through the liner system into the underlying aquifer system.
One of the most significant problems with plastic sheeting- lined and single composite-lined landfills is that they create an almost impossible situation for reliably monitoring the inevitable failure of the composite liner. Enclosed is a paper that was published in the December 1994 issue of Environmental Science & Technology that reviews the problems with trying to monitor single composite-lined landfills for liner leakage in accord with regulatory requirements (Lee and Jones-Lee, 1994c). The ES&T summary paper is based on much more extensive discussion of the topic (Lee and Jones-Lee, 1992a). This paper and the back-up report are based on the work of Cherry (1990) who first demonstrated the inadequacy of the groundwater monitoring systems that are being used at lined landfills. Such systems have very low probabilities of detecting leachate-polluted groundwater before widespread pollution occurs. Currently, there are a couple of monitoring wells located about 2,000 feet apart along the down groundwater gradient side of the landfill as the groundwater monitoring system for the WRSL. However, vertical monitoring wells spaced more than a few feet apart for plastic sheeting-lined and compacted soil-lined landfills cannot comply with the Chapter 15, Article 5 requirements. Article 5, Chapter 15, §2550.7(C)1. states,
"a sufficient number of monitoring points installed at appropriate locations and depths to yield ground water samples from the uppermost aquifer that represent the quality of ground water passing the point of compliance and at other locations in the uppermost aquifer to provide the data needed to evaluate changes in water quality due to the release from the waste management unit;"
Recently, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board has issued revised Tentative WDR's that includes the addition of one additional upgradient and one additional downgradient vertical monitoring well. This will mean that there will be three monitoring wells downgradient of the Landfill. Such a monitoring approach has a very low probability of detecting groundwater pollution by landfill leachate in accord with Chapter 15 requirements.
In accord with requirements set forth in Chapter 15, the County has installed an unsaturated monitoring system to provide an early warning of leachate migration through the liner system into the underlying aquifer system. Chapter 15, Article 5 §2550.7 requires for an unsaturated zone detection monitoring program,
"(A) a sufficient number of monitoring points established at appropriate locations and depths to yield soil-pore liquid samples or soil-pore liquid measurements that represent the quality of soil-pore liquid that has not been affected by a release from the waste management unit;"
(B) for a detection monitoring program under Section 2550.8 of this article, a sufficient number of monitoring points established at appropriate locations and depths to yield soil-pore liquid samples or soil-pore liquid measurements that provide the best assurance of the earliest possible detection of a release from the waste management unit;"
The unsaturated monitoring system that has been installed at the WRSL falls far short of meeting these requirements. The limited area sampled by the lysimeters that have been used and the limited area that will be polluted by the initial leakage through the liner mandates that many more unsaturated monitoring devices be used to comply with Chapter 15, Article 5 requirements than the County has installed at the WRSL.
The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board should immediately order Placer County to develop a groundwater monitoring system that will have at least a 95% probability of detecting the pollution of groundwaters, including the unsaturated zone under the Landfill, at the earliest possible time, i.e. in order to comply with the current regulatory requirements of Chapter 15.
Since the WRSL has a number of modules that are not yet constructed, Placer County should be required that if it wishes to continue to dispose of municipal solid wastes at this Landfill that it should, as a minimum, construct a double composite-lined module in which the lower composite liner is the bottom part of leak detection system for the upper composite liner. This is the approach that the state of Michigan has adopted in Rule 641. As discussed in the enclosed paper, Lee and Jones-Lee (1994c), this approach enables a fairly reliable monitoring of the inevitable failure of the single composite-lined landfill liner system.
The Placer County Board of Supervisors and Department of Public Works should understand that it will be necessary to exhume the wastes in the double composite-lined modules when it becomes clear that the Landfill operator cannot operate this Landfill in such a way that controls leachate generation rates to those below the rate that could lead to groundwater pollution under the Landfill.
In order to ensure that the County will, in fact, address the failure of the compacted soil-lined and plastic sheeting and Subtitle D composite-lined modules as well as double composite-lined modules in an appropriate, timely manner, the County should be required to establish a dedicated trust fund of sufficient magnitude so that if it at any time in the future the County cannot stop leachate generation in any of the closed modules through the development of appropriate covers, then the County would be required to exhume the wastes from those modules and properly manage them. In developing the magnitude of the dedicated trust fund, a plausible worst-case failure scenario should be assumed. It is suggested that this dedicated trust fund be generated from increased disposal fees for those that are currently using the Landfill. It is largely those generators of the waste, i.e. the public, who have for years been getting by with solid waste disposal in Placer County at less than real cost, who should now pay for the inappropriate approaches that have been adopted by the County for MSW management. The time has come for the County to start to face up to paying the true costs for all future solid waste disposal as well as for making up for the cost of inappropriate approaches that have been used in the past.
It may be attempted to be argued by some that the County in designing, constructing and operating the WRSL was simply complying with existing regulations. Such an argument is fallacious since at least since 1984 with the adoption of Subchapter 15, now Chapter 15, this regulation mandates the prevention of groundwater use impairment. The basic problem that occurred is that the County either knowingly or should have known through its staff or consultants that the proposed design and operation of the Landfill was not in accord with regulatory requirements. It is ultimately the County Board of Supervisors and the people of Placer County who are responsible and who must pay for the significant mistakes that have been made in developing this Landfill and in conducting its operations.
In summary, the WRSL is sited at a geologically unsuitable site for such a landfill due to the fact that there are high quality groundwaters located below the Landfill. The natural strata between the water table and the base of the Landfill and the Landfill liner containment systems that have been developed thus far will not prevent leachate from moving from the Landfill down into the groundwater, leading to groundwater pollution and impairment of use. Such impairment of use represents a violation of Chapter 15's requirements for design, operation, and closure of a Class III municipal solid waste landfill.
The compacted soil-lined modules at the WRSL are already polluting the aquifer system beneath the Landfill with landfill leachate. The plastic sheeting-lined and composite-lined modules will, if they are not already polluting the aquifer system (unsaturated zone), at some time in the future while the wastes remain a threat will pollute this system. Since this pollution is in violation of Chapter 15 and Porter-Cologne Act requirements, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board should issue orders to Placer County to immediately take steps to more reliably monitor leachate migration from the Landfill through a significantly increased number of vertical monitoring wells appropriately placed and an extensive network of horizontally drilled wells under the Landfill to detect leachate migration through both the saturated and unsaturated parts of the aquifer. For all Landfill modules that are no longer accepting wastes, a landfill cover which will prevent moisture from entering the Landfill and thereby generating leachate, should be constructed and maintained. This cover could be of the Robinson type with a built-in leak detection system which will indicate when the cover no longer maintains its integrity.
If the County at any time in the future cannot operate the Landfill so that it prevents leachate from continuing to be generated in the Landfill modules once the module is closed, then the County must remove the wastes from the Landfill and properly manage them so that the Landfill complies with the requirements set forth in the state's regulations. In order to ensure that the County will provide the necessary funds to meet regulatory requirements, the County should be required to set up a dedicated trust fund of sufficient magnitude to maintain the cover of the Landfill for as long as the wastes are a threat. When leachate generation in the Landfill is not prevented, then the County should be required to exhume the wastes and properly manage them.
The adoption of this or a similar approach will ensure that in the future the WRSL will conform to Chapter 15 requirements of protection of groundwater resources hydraulically connected to the Landfill for as long as the wastes in the Landfill represent a threat to these resources' potential uses.
The key to the continued use of the currently filled WRSL waste storage modules will be the ability of the County to install and maintain a cover on the closed modules that will prevent moisture from entering the Landfill through the surface. On page 11, item 19, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board in the proposed revised Tentative WDR's for the WRSL specifies that,
"At closure, each landfill unit shall receive a final cover which is designed and constructed to function with minimum maintenance and consists, at a minimum, of a two-foot thick foundation layer which may contain waste materials, overlain by a one-foot thick clay liner, and finally by a one-foot thick vegetative soil layer. Lined landfill modules, or portions thereof, shall be covered with a barrier layer having a permeability of at least as low as the liner."
This proposed cover, while conforming to minimum cover design requirements set forth in Chapter 15 and the Landfilling Policy, will not be an effective barrier in preventing moisture from entering the Landfill and generating leachate. A one-foot thick clay liner in the cover with the same permeability as the module bottom liner that has been used in the modules which do not contain a plastic sheeting layer as a liner will, after installation, quickly become only partially effective in preventing moisture that penetrates the vegetative layer from entering the Landfill. This clay layer will soon contain numerous desiccation and differential settling-caused cracks through which moisture can penetrate into the Landfill. In a study of landfill covers conducted by the state of Wisconsin (Montgomery and Parsons, 1989), it was found that a four-foot thick compacted clay cover after three years had cracks up to one half-inch wide that extended 35-40 inches into the clay. Roots had penetrated 8-10 inches into the clay. This experimental cover was on a stable base not subject to the differential settling and some of the other problems associated with the construction of a compacted clay cover on a landfill.
While it is sometimes advocated that if problems develop in the integrity of the landfill cover that these will be repaired, as discussed by Lee and Jones (1993) such assertions can be misleading in that in the typical landfill cover, including one that meets the current minimum regulatory design requirements, the low-permeability layer is located below a one-foot thick vegetative soil layer. Visual inspection of this layer will not necessarily reveal desiccation or differential settling-associated cracks in the low-permeability layer. The vegetative soil layer could appear to be in good condition, yet the low-permeability clay layer underlaying it could have numerous cracks which would allow rapid transport of moisture through the layer into the Landfill.
For the waste storage modules that have a plastic sheeting liner, the cover will have to contain at least an equivalent plastic sheeting layer. That plastic sheeting layer will have holes in it at the time of construction. Over time the number of holes will increase due to the deterioration of the properties of the plastic sheeting. This layer will also be subject to many stresses which can lead to failure. While depending on the type of plastic used such a layer can better withstand differential settling-associated stresses, differential settling can lead to increased rates of failure of the plastic sheeting over longer periods of time. This plastic sheeting layer will also not be available for visual inspection since it will be buried under the vegetative layer.
In a discussion of the approach that the states should use to revise their MSW landfill regulations to achieve minimum Subtitle D requirements, Lee and Jones-Lee (1993b) discussed the fact that "dry tomb" landfills of the WRSL type will require continuous maintenance and periodic low-permeability layer cover replacement for as long as the landfill exists, i.e. in perpetuity. Since it is not possible to reliably detect with the approaches used today failure of the low-permeability layer of a landfill cover except by its generation of leachate which at some WRSL modules may only be detected by groundwater pollution of adjacent or nearby property owners' production wells, Lee and Jones-Lee recommend that a different approach has to be taken for the construction and maintenance of a "dry tomb" landfill cover. Lee and Jones-Lee discuss the Robertson (1990) testable liner system for use in a landfill cover. This system, if properly installed and maintained in perpetuity, can be an effective barrier to preventing moisture from entering the landfill. It is strongly recommended that the WRSL modules that have been filled to capacity and will not receive further wastes in the next year or more be covered with a Robertson-type testable cover layer. The County should be required to operate a highly effective cover testing program and to maintain this cover to ensure that no moisture enters the closed Landfill modules for as long as they exist. Part of the dedicated trust fund discussed in this report should be used to provide funds in perpetuity for testing and maintenance, including periodic replacement of the low-permeability cover for the Landfill.
In addition to the pollution of the groundwaters in the vicinity of the Landfill, surface water pollution of downstream watercourses can occur by precipitation runoff that becomes contaminated with waste materials. Municipal solid waste landfills are recognized as being potentially significant sources of hazardous or otherwise deleterious chemicals in the surface runoff from the landfill properties. It is important that the County be required to manage the surface runoff from this Landfill in such a way as to prevent any hazardous or otherwise deleterious chemicals associated with the Landfill's operations from leaving the Landfill property. The current approach set forth in the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board's proposed revised Tentative WDR's for monitoring surface water runoff is highly deficient compared to that needed to protect the public health and environmental interests of those who own properties downstream of the surface runoff from the Landfill property. It is recommended that the County be required to operate the Landfill in such a way as to minimize all runoff from the landfilling areas that have direct contact with the wastes. Further, since it is virtually impossible to prevent waste-derived constituents from entering surface runoff from the Landfill properties, it is recommended that all surface runoff from the Landfill property that has any possibility of contact with wastes be collected and stored on the Landfill property until chemical analyses and toxicity measurements can be made of this runoff water. This water should be released only when it has been found that there are no hazardous or otherwise deleterious chemicals in it.
Gas Monitoring and Control
The WRSL has a serious landfill gas migration problem that has not been and is still not being adequately addressed. Potentially significant explosive public health and environmental hazards are present at the WRSL and at the property line with some adjacent properties due to the County's failure to properly evaluate and manage landfill gas produced at the WRSL.
Municipal solid waste landfills can emit significant amounts of landfill gases which typically contain 45-55% methane and 40-50% carbon dioxide and trace but highly significant amounts of a wide variety of potentially hazardous gases. As discussed by Lee and Jones-Lee (1994c) in the Cal EPA Comparative Risk Project report, landfill gases can represent threats to personal safety through explosions, cause highly obnoxious odors, present significant public health threats to those who own or use properties near the landfill through the presence of hazardous chemicals including potential carcinogens, and damage vegetation in the vicinity of the landfill.
The WRSL has been allowed to operate with essentially no landfill gas monitoring. The very few measurements that have been made by regulatory agencies over the years have indicated, as would be expected, that the landfill gas that is produced in the waste modules is migrating beneath the soil surface toward adjacent properties. At this time there is no landfill gas control program at the WRSL. While the County's various EIR's and their supplements claim that if landfill gas migration problems are encountered, a gas collection system will be installed, the facts are, as is demonstrated by the County of Placer Department of Health and Medical Services "Stipulated Agreement," issued in July 1994 (DHMS, 1994) that this Landfill has been allowed to operate for years without adequate gas control. This County Department of Health's "Stipulated Agreement" on page two, item four, under "Explosive Gas Control" states,
"Preliminary filed
[sic] monitoring by the CIWMB and LEA on May 19, 1994, using a Gas Tech Landfill Gas Meter and a sampling probe driven to 9 feet then withdrawn approximately one foot, revealed landfill gas one foot from the east fence line, 85 feet north of the 2nd leachate collection pipe, at 32% methane by volume in the air. Landfill gas at the site perimeter shall not exceed 5%."Landfill gas at the concentrations reported in this "Stipulated Agreement" represent essentially undiluted landfill gas. This is a potentially very serious landfill gas problem and points to the highly inappropriate approach that the County and, for that matter, the regulatory agencies have followed over the years in addressing what was obviously going to be a problem.
In addition to the Air Resources Control Board's and Integrated Waste Management Board's requirements for proper management of landfill gas, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. 90-272 (dated September 28, 1990) is explicit in requiring landfill gas management. On page eight and nine, item 18, the Order requires:
"The migration of methane gas from the landfill unit shall be controlled as necessary to prevent nuisance conditions or the impairment of beneficial uses of waters. Methane and other landfill gases shall be adequately vented, removed from the landfill, or otherwise controlled in order to prevent danger of explosion or health effects due to migration through the vadose (unsaturated) zone."
Landfill gas is also of concern because of its potential to damage vegetation. It is well-known that landfill gas migration in the soil can severely hamper the growth and in some situations kill terrestrial plants. While no mention has thus far been made of this issue in the various reports on the WRSL gas migration issue, it is highly likely that vegetation on adjacent properties has been damaged by the County's failure to properly control landfill gas migration at the WRSL.
In response to the DHMS "Stipulated Agreement" (DHMS, 1994), Placer County's Western Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA) finally began to conduct a limited-scope landfill gas migration monitoring program in the fall of 1994. Lawrence & Associates (1994b) reported on the first round of sampling of the perimeter gas monitoring wells. While they had significant problems in the handling of some of the samples and the field blank which raises questions about the reliability of the results reported, they did find that methane was detected in all perimeter gas probes at concentrations of 5-74%. Lawrence & Associates (1994b) concluded,
"It is probable that landfill gas containing greater that 5% methane has migrated past the northern property boundary, from the northeast corner to as far west as the entrance gate, and past the eastern property boundary, from the northeast corner to as far south as Module 12."
Basically what has been found is exactly what would be expected, and the reason why the County should have established and conducted a proper gas monitoring program many years ago. Landfill gas at the concentrations found in the soils at the landfill property line represents a significant explosive hazard to any structures into which the gas migrates. Any time landfill gas methane concentrations are above 5% methane there is a potential for explosion. Landfill gas concentrations at the levels reported are in violation of various regulatory agencies' requirements. This is yet another example of the inappropriate operations that have been allowed to take place at this Landfill. The Local Enforcement Authority should have forced Placer County into a highly reliable landfill gas collection system years ago when it first became clear that landfill gas migration was occurring.
Not only is there concern about landfill gas causing explosions due to its methane content, there is also a significant potential for public health impacts due to landfill gas. It is well-known that landfill gas contains a variety of known or potential human carcinogens that represent significant threats to public health. Hodgson et al. (1992) California Air Resources Control Board's studies on the hazardous nature of landfill gas emissions in California state,
"The Landfill Gas Testing Program of the State of California has demonstrated that landfills typically contain toxic VOC regardless of the type of waste they are designated to accept and that off-site migration of landfill gas is a fairly common occurrence."
A review of the data provided by Hodgson et al. shows that landfill gas typically contains a variety of highly hazardous, potentially carcinogenic chemicals, such as vinyl chloride, that must be controlled to protect public health and the environment. Vinyl chloride is a common constituent present in municipal solid waste landfill gas. It is of particular concern since it is a known human carcinogen that can cause cancer in people and animals at very low concentrations. According to Lawrence & Associates (1994a), the California Integrated Waste Management Board's (CIWMB) soil gas sampling conducted in May 1994 found vinyl chloride in the gas from the leachate collection pipe at 0.5 ppm.
At this time, the landfill gas monitoring and evaluation program conducted by the County is highly deficient compared to the program that should have been conducted to comply with regulatory requirements. The recently initiated landfill gas monitoring program, while an improvement over the previous almost non-existent landfill gas monitoring conducted by the County, is still deficient compared to the monitoring that should be conducted at the WRSL. Of particular concern is the inadequate number of gas monitoring points and the parameters being monitored. The complex subsurface geology at the WRSL site in which sandy lenses are present in the vicinity of the landfill modules could readily result in lateral transport of landfill gas for considerable distances in a sandy lens.
Another deficiency in the past and current landfill gas monitoring program is the failure to evaluate the potential for groundwater pollution by landfill gas VOC's and other highly hazardous chemicals typically present in municipal solid waste landfill gas. The Hodgson et al. (1992) studies discussed above point to the importance of monitoring for a large number of hazardous chemicals that are commonly found in landfill gas. The migration of VOC's in landfill gas can be much more rapid than the migration of leachate. It can also lead to pollution of groundwaters up groundwater gradient from the landfill since landfill gas migration does not necessarily follow the groundwater gradient.
The monitoring of the vadose zone for landfill gas and the groundwaters for landfill gas VOC's should be done with sufficient sensitivity to detect potentially hazardous concentrations of these components of the gas to public health and wildlife. Increasing attention is being given by regulatory agencies to the protection of wildlife from adverse impacts of environmental chemicals. Terrestrial animals and possibly birds are also susceptible to acquiring cancer from landfill gas, and therefore in addition to controlling off-site migration of landfill gas, landfill gas control on the Landfill property must be achieved to protect wildlife populations that inhabit the Landfill property.
As discussed above, the CVRWQCB Order No. 90-272 specifically delineates the management of landfill gas to control health effects due to migration through the vadose (unsaturated) zone. In order to comply with this Order it is obviously necessary to monitor the vadose zone and the groundwater near the Landfill for hazardous components in landfill gas. Monitoring of these components at the groundwater monitoring wells falls far short of conducting a reliable vadose zone monitoring for hazardous components of landfill gas that represent a threat to public health through migration to the groundwater table. At this time, inadequate attention by the County has been given to complying with the CVRWQCB's Order on landfill gas migration monitoring within the vadose zone and associated groundwaters.
Typically, flares are used for management of the gas collected in a landfill gas collection system. At the Sardinia '93 conference held in Sardinia, Italy one year ago, a British engineer (Eden, 1993) reported that landfill gas flares of the type being widely used tend to produce dioxins in potentially significant amounts. Placer County should be required to reliably monitor all landfill gas flares that it uses for landfill gas management to determine the extent of dioxin formation and control the hazards of all gases present in the discharge from the flares so that the emissions from the flares do not represent significant threats to public health and the environment in the vicinity of the Landfill.
All regulatory agencies that control landfill gas emissions should issue orders to Placer County to immediately take steps to install a highly reliable landfill gas collection system for all modules that are no longer accepting wastes. Further, these regulatory agencies should require that the County properly maintain this system as long as landfill gas is being produced or could be produced within the landfill module.
To ensure that the County - Landfill operator have adequate funds to properly operate and maintain this system a dedicated trust fund generated from County sources, such as disposal fees, should be developed that could be used as a source of funding for gas monitoring and gas collection system maintenance.
It is important to understand that when a true low-permeability cover is installed on a particular waste module, it is possible that landfill gas production will decrease to a low level and may actually halt due to lack of moisture needed for gas production. Even though landfill gas production is no longer occurring, if the wastes in the landfill have fermentable materials in them, then it will be necessary to maintain the gas collection system until these fermentable materials have been converted to non-fermentable residues which may not occur as long as a true "dry tomb" landfill module is maintained. Failure to require maintenance of the landfill gas collection system could readily result in moisture entering the landfill at some time in the future due to inadequate maintenance of the cover which generates landfill gas which then migrates to adjacent properties which at that time could be developed, leading to an explosion and/or public health hazards. Further, landfill gas migration through the cover could lead to hazards to vegetation and wildlife in the vicinity of the closed landfill modules, and such migration will contribute to the greenhouse effects associated with global warming.
An important characteristic of the landfill module cover must be recognized in developing the monitoring and maintenance of the cover and landfill gas monitoring and collection systems. The key situation that must be considered is that the low-permeability layer in the landfill cover is usually buried beneath a drainage layer and topsoil. As discussed above, this means that visual inspection of the landfill cover may not show that the low-permeability layer, which is the key to the prevention of moisture from entering the landfill, has been breached and is allowing moisture into the landfill, leading to both leachate production and landfill gas production. Under these conditions where the breach of the low-permeability layer occurs without being repaired, landfill leachate production and landfill gas production would occur. The only way that this would be detected is through finding leachate in the leachate collection system for the composite-lined system. As noted above, leachate generation in the compacted soil-lined modules will not be detected under the current monitoring system until extensive groundwater pollution has occurred.
Ultimately in time, the composite-lined landfill liner system will deteriorate to the point where the plastic sheeting no longer is an effective leachate collection system. Under these conditions, the leachate will pass through the liner rather than be collected. Before this occurs, however, leachate should be collected in those waste modules which have leachate collection and removal systems that might indicate that the landfill cover is no longer functioning to prevent moisture from entering the landfill and producing leachate. Any time leachate is produced, landfill gas will also likely be produced. Similarly, it may be that landfill gas monitoring would be an indication of potential problems associated with leachate production. As a result, both the landfill gas monitoring system and the leachate monitoring systems must be highly effective and maintained in perpetuity to detect potential problems associated with either liquid or gaseous emissions from the WRSL.
One of the most noticeable and objectionable aspects of landfill gaseous emissions is the presence of landfill odor. As discussed in the Cal EPA Comparative Risk Project report (Lee & Jones-Lee, 1994c), landfill odor detection in the air near and downwind of the landfill is a potential indication that landfill gas emissions are occurring that could be significantly detrimental to public health and the environment. Landfill gas can, under certain meteorological conditions, be carried for long distances. There are reports in the administrative record for the proposed WRSL expansion onto the Lastufka property (EMCON, 1988b) of significant odors associated with the WRSL at over a mile from the Landfill. Such odors are not unexpected from the way that the County has sited and operated this Landfill.
BVA (1994) discusses the various potential impacts of the WRSL on neighboring residences and states that according to CCR Title 14, §17683 and §17713,
"California regulations state that a landfill owner/operator `shall not cause, let, permit, suffer or allow emissions of odorous substances which cause the ambient air at or beyond the facility's property boundary to be odorous and to remain odorous.'"
This means that there shall be no malodorous conditions occurring at the property line between the Landfill and the adjacent properties. Any malodorous conditions found at this point would be a violation of the California regulations.
BVA (1994) states on page 1-1 of Section 1 of the 1.1 Executive Summary under the first bulleted item,
"Under California and federal law, the primary responsibility for assuring that a landfill has no impacts on adjacent residents rests on the landfill owner/operator. As discussed in this report, a regulatory-compliant landfill should not have problems related to noise, odor, dust or other potential nuisances."
Title 14. Natural Resources, Division 7. California Waste Management Board, §17225.45 requires that a landfill be operated so that it does not cause a nuisance. A nuisance is defined as,
"`Nuisance' includes anything which is injurious to human health or is indecent or offensive to the senses and interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, and affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons although the extent of annoyance or damage inflicted upon the individual may be unequal and which occurs as a result of the storage, removal, transport, processing or disposal of solid waste."
Further, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, §13050(m) defines nuisance as,
"`Nuisance' means anything which: (1) is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, and (2) affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal, and (3) occurs during or as a result of the treatment or disposal of wastes."
As quoted above Order No. 90-272 from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board prohibits landfill gas migration from causing a nuisance at the property line. It is clear that several regulatory agencies have statutory authority to require that the operations of the WRSL be conducted in such a way as to prevent off-site migration of odors.
Landfill odors, in addition to being a nuisance, are now recognized as being a significant public health threat. The public health implications of odors from landfills is discussed in the report to the Cal EPA where Dr. Shusterman of the Department of Health Services has found significant public health problems associated with malodorous conditions (Shusterman, 1992).
Therefore, Placer County should be required to operate the WRSL so that there are no detectable odors at the adjacent property lines. It is clear that Placer County and, for that matter, the regulatory agencies have allowed the continued operation of the WRSL without effective control of odor. It may be that those responsible for enforcing the regulations have concluded that since no one is living or extensively using the adjacent properties at the property line, violations of the regulatory requirements for the control of odor and other landfill gas components at the property line can be ignored. It is situations such as this that should not be allowed to occur since it eventually leads to the county boards of supervisors, such as occurred with the Placer County Board of Supervisors, to conclude that they have the right to declare a public use of adjacent properties for buffer lands in order to dissipate the odors and other obnoxious conditions associated with the WRSL's operations. If the WRSL were operated in accord with regulatory requirements, there would be no need to use adjacent property owners' lands as a buffer to cover up for the inadequate operations of the WRSL that have been allowed to occur by the regulatory agencies over the last 10 years or more.
Landfill regulations should be enforced, independent of whether the adjacent properties are used for farming, high-density residential or other purposes. The regulations do not allow the regulatory agency personnel to make discretionary judgements about whether to enforce the regulations or not. They are explicit in requiring enforcement. This explicit requirement, however, has been ignored to some extent by the regulatory agency personnel responsible for regulating the WRSL operations. It should be noted, as discussed in the appended discussion of the failure of this Landfill to achieve regulatory compliance, that the LEA's that have periodically inspected the Landfill have noted problems in the operations of this Landfill with virtually every inspection. This situation became sufficiently severe so that the Placer County Department of Health and Medical Services issued Order No. 92-01 in February 1992 (DHMS, 1992) covering some of the inappropriate operations of the Landfill. As shown in the LEA periodic inspection reports, many of these same problems have been allowed to continue. This is a very serious problem which reflects the inadequate regulatory attention that has occurred associated with the operations of this Landfill.
One of the purposes of daily cover of the wastes in a municipal solid waste landfill is to reduce the amount of odorous emissions associated with the daily deposition of wastes in the landfill. Daily cover, if properly applied, can be helpful in reducing some of the landfill odors, especially those associated with overnight releases from the waste. It does not, however, address the release of odorous materials that occurs at the time of dumping of wastes. Typically, those odors are dissipated within the landfill-owned buffer lands which allow for their dilution prior to reaching adjacent property owners' lands. It is important to note that under certain climatic and geographical settings, a buffer of considerable distance may not be adequate to dissipate the odorous emissions from a landfill. A site-specific investigation of the situation has to be conducted to determine how a landfill owner/operator should control odors so there are no offensive odors at the property line. If a landfill owner/operator does not acquire sufficient buffers to dissipate odors associated with the landfilling operations, it may be necessary that the disposal of wastes take place under a dome in which all air associated with the odorous release from the wastes is collected and treated before it is released to the atmosphere.
At this time, the WRSL plans to include modules along Feddyment Road where wastes would be deposited within a few tens of feet of the road. As discussed elsewhere in this report, unless special precautions are taken to control landfill odor releases from the deposited waste in these modules, such as the dumping of wastes under a dome where all dome air is treated before release, there will almost certainly be violations of various regulatory requirements requiring no off-site, malodorous conditions at the landfill property line, which in this case would be the public road. As discussed in this report, unless the County commits to extraordinary provisions for control of odors, dust, etc. for the proposed modules along Feddyment Road, the County should be prohibited from developing those modules as planned.
The California Integrated Waste Management Board's regulatory requirements for daily covering of the wastes include as stated in Title 14, Division 7, §17225.17 (CIWMB, 1990),
"`Daily Cover' includes that cover material spread and compacted on the entire surface of the active face of the sanitary landfill at least at the end of each operating day in order to control vectors, fire, water infiltration, erosion and to prevent unsightliness."
According to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP-787) issued by the Placer County Planning Department on July 7, 1984, (PCPD, 1984) item 13 states,
"A minimum 6" layer of earth shall be spread over the compacted solid waste layer by the end of each day's operations. If no additional refuse is to be placed in an area for a period of 6 months or longer, a minimum 12" of intermediate cover shall be placed."
The LEA for the Landfill has repeatedly noted in inspection reports for the Landfill that the Landfill is operated without adequate daily cover and intermediate cover for those parts of the Landfill that have not received waste within 180 days. There are reports of wastes being exposed at the surface through the daily and intermediate cover. When waste exposure occurs, landfill gases, including odorous components, can be released. Further, these areas are sites in which birds, rodents and other vermin and potential vectors of disease can gain exposure to the waste. The potential significance of these types of problems is discussed below.
The County has announced plans for a materials recovery facility (MRF) on the Landfill property adjacent to the property line. MRF's can be significant sources of odors. The County's operation of an MRF on the Landfill property must be conducted so that it does not lead to off-site odors at the adjacent property line. If odors are encountered, it may be necessary to conduct the MRF operations in a structure which prevents release of odorous materials outside of the structure. All air released from the MRF may have to be treated to control odors.
The County has also announced its intentions of conducting a solid waste composting operation at the WRSL. Solid waste composting of the type the County indicates it plans to use can be highly significant sources of odor. Any composting operation conducted at the WRSL must comply with the regulations of no off-site odor at the adjacent property line, including the County road.
Landfill-derived Dust
Municipal solid waste landfills are notorious for generating on-site and off-site dust. The off-site dust is a nuisance, damages property, and most importantly, is now becoming widely recognized as a significant public health hazard. This hazard arises from the presence of PM 10 particles in the dust. PM 10 particles are particulate matter of less than 10 µ size. This is the size of the particle that enters and causes damage in the lungs. The Human Health Advisory Committee of the Cal EPA Comparative Risk Project (CCRP, 1994) in a comparison of the public health risks of environmental chemicals and constituents in California recently concluded that airborne PM 10 particles are among the most hazardous constituents in the environment affecting public health. Therefore, there is significant public health justification to control municipal solid waste landfilling operations so that they do not cause any increased incidence of off-site dust and especially PM 10 particles at the landfill adjacent property owners' property line.
Municipal solid waste landfills generate dust from a variety of sources and activities. The roads which the garbage trucks and other vehicles use at the landfill between the public roads and waste deposition area are often significant sources of dust. Further, significant dust can be generated at the landfill daily cover mining site as part of daily cover extraction. The deposition of the daily cover at the active face of the landfill is often a significant source of MSW landfill dust. Further, the wastes themselves can through the dumping operations release significant dust to the atmosphere. Some of the waste-associated dust can be highly hazardous and include such things as asbestos if the management of the asbestos-containing waste is not properly carried out. The WRSL has been accepting asbestos-containing waste.
Another source of dust from municipal solid waste landfills is from the closed modules. Because of the thin layer of topsoil that is often allowed in the cover above a waste module, it is found that there are significant difficulties establishing a good vegetative layer on the landfill cover that will prevent dust formation during periods of moderate to high wind. The "closed" modules (those no longer accepting waste) at the WRSL do not display a good vegetative layer that will be maintained in perpetuity to ensure that wind erosion of the closed modules and the Landfill overall does not result in off-site dust problems on adjacent and nearby properties during periods of moderate to high wind.
Some dust control at a MSW landfill is often accomplished through watering of the roads. Little can be done to control dust at the daily cover excavation site and during waste and daily cover deposition, however. It is essential in order to prevent off-site migration of dust to control the operations of the landfill so that at any time that dust is generated during landfill operations which could migrate to adjacent properties that the operations of the landfill be curtailed. This could mean that during periods of moderate to high winds which would tend to promote off-site transport of dust and the associated PM 10 particles, that no dumping of wastes, excavation of daily cover material and deposition of daily cover material on the wastes be allowed. It may be necessary, especially for Landfill modules near the property line, to conduct the daily cover excavation and especially waste deposition and daily cover deposition under a dome in order to control dust migration.
The WRSL operating records do not demonstrate any attempt to curtail dust through the modification of operating schedules and conditions during windy periods. The WRSL should establish a wind direction and velocity monitoring program which can be used to determine when there is need to curtail landfill operations that lead to off-site dust generation. Further, a dust monitoring program should be conducted at the adjacent property property lines and on adjacent and nearby properties to determine whether the Landfill is controlling dust and especially that it is not contributing PM 10 particles to adjacent and nearby properties over those that would be contributed from the lands if the Landfill were not present.
Hazardous and Toxic Waste Materials
The various EIR's and other supporting documents by or for the County and approved by the Placer County Board of Supervisors have repeatedly asserted that no hazardous or toxic substances will be placed in this Landfill (EIR-77, EIRS-85). Those who do not understand the characteristics of municipal solid wastes and the potential impact that various chemical constituents present in solid waste leachate of the type that have and will continue to be accepted at the WRSL could be led to believe that the leachate that is produced in this Landfill would not be detrimental to water quality. However, those knowledgeable in these topic areas know that large amounts of highly hazardous substances have been and will continue to be placed in this Landfill. First, every substance is hazardous at some concentration and duration of exposure. Even such materials as common salt can be a hazardous material. Jones-Lee and Lee (1993) (see attached) present information on the average composition of landfill leachate for a variety of landfills located across the US. While thus far data on the composition of the leachate that is being collected at the WRSL has not been examined by the author, it would be expected to be similar to that reported by Jones-Lee and Lee (1993). Typical MSW leachate contains a wide variety of constituents which in small amounts render large amounts of groundwater unusable for domestic water supply purposes.
All one needs to do to understand the statements which were certified by the Placer County Board of Supervisors that the WRSL would not accept any toxic or hazardous substances is to examine the composition of municipal solid waste. As discussed by Lee and Jones-Lee (1993c), many of the common household chemical residuals disposed of in MSW landfills represent highly hazardous chemicals. It is for this reason that attempts are made to collect household hazardous waste separately. However, these programs fall far short of being completely effective in preventing highly hazardous chemicals from entering the municipal solid waste stream and therefore being deposited in the landfill. Further, what would be considered benign wastes as street sweepings, which are placed in municipal landfills, contain a variety of heavy metals, such as lead, which can also be hazardous in a landfill.
Landfill operators to varying degrees try to reduce the amounts of hazardous waste that enter the landfill through load checking. Such programs, effectively conducted, can detect relatively large amounts of hazardous waste in containers that are readily identifiable, but they will not prevent hazardous substances that cause wastes to be classified as hazardous from entering the landfill. The WRSL has only recently implemented a minimal load checking program. There is no doubt that even with the current load checking program, substantial amounts of hazardous and toxic materials are entering the Landfill. It is equally certain that during the many years when no load checking program was in place, large volumes of hazardous and toxic material were placed in the WRSL where many of them will remain a threat in perpetuity, i.e. for as long as the Landfill exists.
Another area of concern at municipal landfills is the potential for small amount of radioactive waste to be incorporated into the municipal and industrial wastes that are deposited in the WRSL. While MSW landfill operators claim that they are monitoring for radioactive waste, the facts are that the monitoring that is done only monitors for certain types of radioactive waste that can be readily monitored with the approaches used. Substantial amounts of radioactive waste can be deposited in municipal solid waste landfills without being detected by these monitoring programs.
It therefore must be concluded that the Placer County Department of Public Works, their consultants and the Placer County Board of Supervisors have been misrepresenting the character of the wastes that enter the WRSL for many years with respect to the presence of toxic substances in the wastes. The amounts of highly toxic substances that enter this Landfill produce a leachate that is not only hazardous to consume, but also can render the groundwater polluted by it unusable for domestic water supply purposes. Further, because of the character of this leachate, once the aquifer solids are contaminated with it, it is impossible to clean up the aquifer again so that it would be considered safe for domestic water supply use.
The WRSL accepts what are classified as inert wastes. Chapter 15 §2524., "Inert Waste," defines inert waste as,
"(a) Inert waste does not contain hazardous waste or soluble pollutants at concentrations in excess of applicable water quality objectives, and does not contain significant quantities of decomposable waste."
However, no leaching test has been developed to determine whether so-called inert wastes complies with the Chapter 15 definition of no soluble components in excess of applicable water quality objectives. It is important, therefore, that the WRSL be required to treat inert wastes similarly to municipal solid wastes and place them within the landfill containment system (lined module) unless it is appropriately demonstrated that the inert wastes contain no soluble components that could cause exceedance of water quality objectives.
Other Important Problems
Municipal solid waste landfills can be a significant source of human and animal disease vectors and vermin. Of particular concern are birds, flies, rats and other rodents, mosquitos, etc. According to BVA (1994), CCR, Title 14, §17258.21, 17682, 17683 and 17707 require landfill owners/operators to control vectors and vermin at the landfills. One of the primary approaches for controlling vectors and vermin is through proper application of daily cover. In addition to insufficient daily cover causing obnoxious conditions due to landfill odors, the entry of vermin, rodents, birds, etc. into the waste can lead to potentially significant public health problems. The recent finding of hantavirus at several locations throughout the US reinforces the importance of requiring landfill owners/operators to vigorously pursue daily cover development so that mice do not gain entrance to food within the landfill. Similarly, wind-blown waste litter as well as roadside dumping of wastes should be picked up immediately since some of this litter contains food that helps to sustain rodent populations.
Hantavirus is a significant public health threat associated with various types of rodent populations. Landfills can be significant stimulators of rodent populations in their vicinity. The hantavirus has now been recognized as causing death in many people due to unknown respiratory problems (Sorensen, 1994). Approximately 50% of the people who acquire this virus from being in contact with areas where rodents, including mice, are or have been recently present, die. This problem has been misdiagnosed for many years. It points to the extreme importance of controlling mice and other rodent populations near landfills in order to protect the public health of those who own or use properties near the landfills.
Litter is another of the problems associated with landfill operations that represents at least a nuisance and quite possibly a public health threat to those who own or use properties near the landfill. This is especially true for roadside dumping of wastes which contain food material for birds, rodents and other animals and insects. The above-mentioned hantavirus situation could become a problem at a landfill where roadside litter is not vigorously controlled due to this litter representing a food source for mice and other rodents that carry the virus. Litter control at the WRSL has been highly inadequate and must be significantly improved through more effective policing of litter and through control of operations during periods of high winds which allows wind-blown litter to leave the area of deposition and be scattered on the Landfill property as well as on adjacent properties. It may be necessary to apply additional daily cover to the active face of the Landfill on days when there are sufficient winds to cause wind-blown litter that is not controlled by the litter fencing. Further, if adequate fencing and daily cover are not effectively utilized to control wind-blown litter, it may be necessary to curtail dumping operations during periods of high wind to prevent wind-blown litter from causing a nuisance and representating a public health threat to those who own or use properties near the Landfill.
Truck traffic is one of the adverse impacts of landfills on those who own or use property near landfills. The typical landfill operation allows garbage trucks to converge on the landfill at about the same time each day. This situation is of significance since the impact of garbage truck traffic is related to the number and frequency of trucks entering the landfill. At this time, the pick-up of garbage is regulated in many areas so that the garbage trucks do not disturb those who generate the wastes. In order to protect the interests and safety of those who own or use properties near a landfill, it may be necessary to control the arrival of garbage trucks at the landfill so that they do not significantly disturb those who own or use properties near the landfill. Certainly those who own or use properties near the landfill are entitled to the same degree of protection from adverse impacts of garbage collection and associated truck transport as those who have generated the waste that are placed in the landfill.
The Landfill inspection reports note that the WRSL has had significant problems with controlling erosion at the Landfill. It is clear that the WRSL has been operated outside of regulatory compliance with respect to erosion control. This is of concern since it results in off-site transport of erosional materials which are in violation of regulations, including the CVRWQCB's stormwater runoff permit. The WRSL should be required to control erosion from the property so that there is no transport of erosional materials associated with the landfilling operations and the "closed" Landfill modules to adjacent properties. This control on the "closed" Landfill modules will have to be actively practiced in perpetuity.
Regulatory Compliance
The operations of this Landfill have been out of regulatory compliance in a variety of areas for many years. A review of the Local Enforcement Agency's (LEA) inspection reports for the Landfill shows that essentially every time an inspection is made, problems with regulatory compliance are found. The County of Placer Department of Health and Medical Services has issued two Orders (Orders No. 92-01 and 94-01) to require that the WRSL come into regulatory compliance.
In July 1994, the County of Placer Department of Health and Medical Services, issued a "Stipulated Agreement 94-01" (DHMS, 1994) which sets forth various WRSL permit violations and conditions that should be followed to address these violations.
DHMS (1994) reported that:
The WRSL has been operating in violation of its Solid Waste Facility Permit No. 31-11-0210 issued in 1983 on the amount of solid wastes permitted to be received each day.
The WRSL is in violation of its approved design in the height of the proposed final landfill.
The WRSL is overdue for its Periodic Site Review which is required every five years. The last review was completed in 1988.
The WRSL is in violation of the Explosive Gas Control regulations.
The DHMS (1994) "Stipulated Agreement" does not address many of the key issues that are of concern to adjacent and nearby property owners that have been repeatedly noted in LEA reports as violations of the operations of this Landfill. DHMS (1992) "Notice and Order 92-01" covers the violations of the WRSL operations that have been found as of 1992. This Order notes that the WRSL has been operating in violation of the terms and conditions of the Solid Waste Facility Permit No. 31-AA-0210 in the following areas: