Results of Screening Analyses of 224 California MSW Landfills Landfill Compliance Study

1. Results of Screening Analyses of 224 California MSW Landfills Landfill Compliance Study 15 October 2003 presented toCalifornia Integrated Waste Management Board byGeoSyntec Consultants, Inc. Walnut Creek ,California

2. Presenters • Patrick Lucia, Ph.D., P.E. Principal and Chairman of the Board GeoSyntec Consultants • Mike Minch, P.E. Senior Engineer GeoSyntec Consultants

3. Task 2 Inventory of MSW Landfills • 224 MSW Landfills • 97 EAs, RWQCBs, APCDs, and AQMDs • Reviewed by Owners, Operators, Regulators • 237 Sets of Comments • 25 Mb Database – Bigger than SWIS • Over 1,000 Scanned Permits, Photos, and other Documents • Over 1,500 Hours to Compile Data

4. Task 3 Goals • Categorize California’s MSW landfills with respect site characteristics. • Develop screening indicators for evaluating the environmental performance of MSW landfills. • Perform analyses of the site characteristics to evaluate any commonality of factors pertaining to the environmental performance. • Recommend 40 MSW landfills for inclusion in the Phase II assessment. • Provide a brief overview of solid waste landfills in California that do not receive MSW.

5. Task 3 GoalsCategorize MSW Landfills • Setting Features • Underlying Geologic Material • Minimum Depth to Underlying Groundwater • Physical Setting (Coastal, Alpine, Desert, etc.) • Social Setting (Urban, Suburban, Rural) • Annual Precipitation • Operational Features • Owner Type (Federal, State, County, Private, etc.) • Age • Size (Permitted Disposal Area, Remaining Capacity, etc.) • Site Status (Active, Inactive, Closed, Combination) • Design Features • Liner Type • Cover Type • Landfill Gas Collection System

6. Task 3 Methodology for Environmental Screening Analyses Statistical Analyses Approach Independent Variable [Section 3.2.1] - Owner type - Landfill age and size - Social and physical setting - etc. Assumed Dependent Variable [Section 3.2.3] 1. “In Correction Action.” 2. “Has Gas Inspection Report.” 3. “Has Gas Enforcement Action.” 4. “Has Surface Water Action.” 5. “Has Air Quality Violation.”

7. Task 3 Methodology for Environmental Performance Assumption • Monitoring systems at each site are sufficient to have a adequate picture of the environmental performance. • The actions of the regulators are appropriate for the actual environmental impacts. • The actions the regulators take are uniform across the state.

8. Task 3 GoalsDevelop Indicators of Environmental Performance Requirements for a State-wide Study: • Data must be Quantifiable • Available for Each Landfill • Representative of Performance • Uniform Measurement

9. Regulatory Agency Overseeing Environmental Performance Environmental Performance Indicator State Oversight Local Oversight State Water Resources Control Board Regional Water Quality Control Board “In Corrective Action” [Required to conduct a corrective action program] California Integrated Waste Management Board Enforcement Agency “Has Gas Inspection Report” [EA reported at least one gas related action] “Has Gas Enforcement Action” [EA issued at least one gas-related enforcement action] “Has Surface Water Action”. [EA reported at least one surface water action] California Air Resources Board Air Districts (SCAQMD and BAAQMD) “Air Quality Violation” [Reported at least one NOC or NOV] Regulatory Actions as Indicators of Environmental Performance

10. Landfill Site Characteristic Data Examples Figure 2.8: Distribution of Social Setting

11. Landfill Site Characteristic Data Examples Figure 2.13: Distribution of Liner Types (All 224 Landfills)

12. Landfill Site Characteristics Data Examples Figure 2.17:Distribution of Site Status

13. Results and Observations of Site Status Example Table 5-B: Summary of Environmental Performance and Landfill Site Characteristic Data for Urban, Suburban, and Rural Landfills by Site Status

14. Environmental Performance Analyses Table 4-I: Summary of Environmental Performance Data for Landfill Liner Type

15. Environmental Performance Analyses Table 5-J: Summary of Environmental Performance and Landfill Site Characteristic Data for Active, Inactive, Closed, and Combination Landfills by Liner Type

16. Typical California Landfill Table 5-A: Profile of a “Typical” California MSW Landfill

17. Remaining MSW Capacity • 1.2 Billion Cubic Yards Statewide • 35 Cubic Yards Per Person 10 ft

18. CONCLUSIONS • Sites most likely to be in corrective action or have water-related cleanup and abatement orders are larger, located in urban areas, are at least partially unlined, and are located in areas of higher than average precipitation. • A larger volume of waste over a larger area with higher precipitation together produces a higher potential for a release. • A larger volume of waste with higher precipitation together produces more landfill gas with a higher potential for a gas compliance issues.

19. CONCLUSIONS (cont.) • Inconsistency among regulatory agency increases the difficulty of state-wide comparisons. • EAs, RWQCBs, and APCDs/AQMDs view sites differently • APCDs/AQMDs have different rules • EAs permit differently • RWQCBs enforce differently

20. TASK 4 – The Next StepAn In-Depth Look at 40 of the MSW Landfills • Detailed study of each site to better understand the root of environmental performance problems • Assess effectiveness of the regulation to provide environmental protection

21. QUESTIONS