1 / 41

California Integrated Waste Management Board Permitting and Compliance Committee May 12, 2008

Item #4 (Committee Item E): Update On Landfill Long-Term Financial Assurances Activities For Postclosure Maintenance and Corrective Action. California Integrated Waste Management Board Permitting and Compliance Committee May 12, 2008. Topics. Postclosure Maintenance & Corrective Action Defined

qiana
Download Presentation

California Integrated Waste Management Board Permitting and Compliance Committee May 12, 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Item #4 (Committee Item E): Update On Landfill Long-Term Financial Assurances Activities For Postclosure Maintenance and Corrective Action California Integrated Waste Management BoardPermitting and Compliance CommitteeMay 12, 2008

  2. Topics • Postclosure Maintenance & Corrective Action Defined • Postclosure Maintenance (PCM) • Corrective Action (CA) • Additional Pooled Fund Scenarios • June 2008 Agenda Item

  3. Postclosure Maintenance & Corrective Action • Definitions of Terms • Postclosure Maintenance • Maintainthe integrity of closed disposal site • Regular/periodic to deal with routine, expected wear and tear • Corrective Action • Restore the integrity of landfill/disposal site • Can occur during both operational and closure phases • Result of • Major events • Mismanagement, defective materials, poor design, improper installation, inadequate maintenance

  4. Site Security - PCM Ground Water Monitoring - PCM Cleanup - CA Landfill Gas Monitoring – PCM Control – PCM or CA Drainage/Erosion Control Repair - PCM Replacement – PCM or CA Final Cover Repair - PCM Replacement - CA Slope Stability – PCM or CA Leachate System Repair – PCM or CA Replace - CA Fire Damage – PCM or CA PCM or CA?

  5. Postclosure Maintenance (PCM): When Does PCM End? • By the Book • California Experience • Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC)/Environmental Research and Education Foundation (EREF) Approach • Other States Poll

  6. When Does PCM End? By the Book: • Federal Subtitle D Regulations • 30 years • Can Be Shortened Or Extended by Director • California Law • Minimum 30 years • Until waste no longer poses a threat

  7. When Does PCM End? California Experience Over Past 15 Years: • RWQCB has extended PCM for 2 Mega LFs to a minimum of 100 years • Los Angeles County requires separate PCM FA in perpetuity

  8. When Does PCM End? California Experience Over Past 15 Years: • Actual Release of California Landfills from PCM -- Myth or Reality? • CIWMB/LEAs • No releases from PCM requirements • RWQCBs • Require no ground water monitoring (7 sites) • Rescinded WDRs (6 sites) • Sites are inspected periodically • All 7 sites required to perform PCM

  9. When Does PCM End?Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council/Environmental Research and Education Foundation (ITRC/EREF)

  10. When Does PCM End?ITRC – Progression of LFG and Leachate Over Time Reference: Kjeldsen et. al. 2003

  11. All states participated in the survey 46 states have not changed the 30-year care period Three other states have changed the 30-year care period as follows: Wisconsin has increased the financial assurance requirement to 40 years with PCM required until the waste no longer poses a threat. Nebraska decreased the period of one MSWLF to 18 years Tennessee increased the period of one MSWLF to 50 years When Does PCM End?Survey of Other States

  12. When Does PCM End?Survey of Other States Six states are currently considering criteria to increase or decrease the postclosure maintenance period: • Indiana, • Minnesota, • Nebraska, • Ohio, • Utah, and • Virginia. (Draft documents are currently being prepared for the states of Indiana, Minnesota, Utah, and Virginia and will be considered “guidelines” not official mandates.)

  13. Do PCM Costs Change Over Time? California Experience Over Past 15 Years: • Reported Reductions/Increase in Annual PCM Costs • Insufficient evidence to determine definitive trend • Requests for fund releases • 1/30 of PCM estimate • Some for > 1/30 PCM estimate • Few revised PCM plans • Many included increased costs

  14. Do PCM Cost Change Over Time?Survey of Other States Has your state noticed a trend of annual PCM costs going up or down for any landfills in relation to the originally submitted and approved cost estimates?

  15. Reasonable PCM ContingencySurvey of Other States Does your state require a reasonable contingency added to the cost of PCM? If so, what amount? e.g., 10%, 20%, etc. *Of the 25 states responding, 60% require a reasonable contingency cost.

  16. Postclosure MaintenanceFinancial Assurances Scenarios • Enhanced FA Demonstrations • Perpetual Individual Demonstrations • Individual Demonstrations w/ Contingency • Rolling 15/30 Year Individual Demonstrations • Pooled Fund • Narrowing Focus for Ongoing Scenarios • Perpetual Care Demonstrations (with/without Pooled Fund) • Rolling Individual Demonstrations with Pooled Fund • Pooled Fund after 30 years

  17. PCM - Financial Assurances Scenarios • Rolling PCM • Conduct 5 year PCM review • Petition to reduce PCM multiplier in 5 year increments to minimum of 15 years • Incentivize “good performance”

  18. Postclosure Maintenance Grandfathering • Currently Closed • 19 single operator facilities are already closed • PCM Contingency would not apply to Closed Sites • Pooled Fund would only be available to Post-1988 Sites

  19. Corrective Action • Definitions • Landfill CA Survey • Other States Poll • CA Conceptual Scenarios • Grandfathering

  20. Corrective Action Definitions of Terms • Known CA Costs • Reasonably Foreseeable CA Costs • Extraordinary CA Costs • Extremely Rare Events CA Costs

  21. California Landfill CA Survey • 282 Sites • 15 years data (1993 -2008) • Data from 90% Landfills • Adjusted • 100% Landfills • 240 years • Continue to collect/refine • Does not account for Increases/Decreases in CA over time

  22. California Landfill CA Survey - Summary Comparison • Estimated CAs per landfill over 240 years • CA Survey results similar to Pooled Fund model • Actual cost data was rarely available • Corrective actions were grouped based on the nature of the activities • Low Cost CA – Counterintuitive • Many low cost CAs are not being captured via enforcement actions

  23. California Landfill Compliance Survey - Summary Results Most Common Corrective Actions • Ground Water (47%) • LFG Migration (29%) • Slope Failure • Surface Water • Liner Issues • Waste Boundaries • Fires (Sub-sfc and sfc) • Erosion

  24. Corrective ActionPossible Scope of a CA Plan • One combined plan • Release to water (current requirement) • Non-WQ release issues - Top types from Compliance Survey • Release driven (similar to current requirement) • LFG migration • Leachate seep • Event driven (e.g., quake, flood, rain, etc) • Within design criteria for type of LF • One combined CA demonstration • Most expensive type CA • Reasonably foreseeable • Known(s)

  25. Corrective ActionConceptual Scenarios • Current System • Individual Financial Assurance Demonstrations • FA Demonstrations Combined with a Backstop Pooled Fund • Pooled Fund as Primary Resource

  26. Phase II Regulations Only

  27. Phase II Regulations Plus Pooled Fund

  28. Corrective ActionGrandfathering • Post-1991 LFs – Water Board FA • Currently Closed • Providing Financial Assurance Demonstration • 19 single operator facilities are already closed • Pooled Fund • Payments Into? • Receiving Benefits?

  29. Statewide Pool Fund Scenarios: • Postclosure Maintenance and/or Corrective Actions • Operating and/or Closed • Public and/or Private • Bracketing (+ or -) • CA Frequency • Default Rates • CA Costs • PCM Costs • Tons Disposed

  30. Modeling Results - Primary

  31. Modeling Results - PCM

  32. Modeling Results - CA

  33. Do PCM Costs Change Over Time?PCM Cost Survey • Purpose – Determine cost trends • Criteria • MWS Class III landfill or equivalent • Closed 5 years minimum • Minimum 10-acre footprint • Subtitle D Final Cover or equivalent • Timeline • Solicit LF partners – April 2008 • Submit costs and documentation – July 2008 • Summarize results – August 2008

  34. June 2008 Agenda Item • Discussion and Request for Additional Direction • Phase II Rulemaking • Additional Statutory Authority Needed • e.g. Statewide Pooled Fund

  35. Phase II Regulatory Language Groupings • Group A – required by AB 2296 • 3rd Party costs – Completed Phase I • Replacement and repair costs for longer lived items – Partially complete Phase I • Reasonable PCM contingency – Deferred to Phase II • Board direction on findings from Phase I study – Phase II • Group B – related to AB 2296 • Phase 0 – predates AB 2296 • Ongoing programmatic improvements

More Related