Cal/EPA Building Room 550 Financial Assurances Corrective Action Workshop April 14, :00 am to 12:00 pm Financial Assurances Corrective Action Workshop April 14, :00 am to 12:00 pm

AGENDA 9:00 - 9:10Introductions and General Overview (Bill Orr) 9:10 – 9:30Corrective Action 101 (Bernie Vlach) 9:30 – 10:30California Experience (Ed Wosika, Bobbie Garcia, Andy Marino, Bernie Vlach) 10:30 – 10:50Other States (JoAnne Byrne, Garth Adams) 10:50 – 11:50Corrective Action Group Exercises (Richard Castle, Rubia Packard, Bernie Vlach) 11:50 – 12:00Next Steps (Bill Orr) 9:00 - 9:10Introductions and General Overview (Bill Orr) 9:10 – 9:30Corrective Action 101 (Bernie Vlach) 9:30 – 10:30California Experience (Ed Wosika, Bobbie Garcia, Andy Marino, Bernie Vlach) 10:30 – 10:50Other States (JoAnne Byrne, Garth Adams) 10:50 – 11:50Corrective Action Group Exercises (Richard Castle, Rubia Packard, Bernie Vlach) 11:50 – 12:00Next Steps (Bill Orr)

Closure Postclosure Corrective Action Financial Assurances Goal: Protect Public Health, Safety, and the Environment into the Future

Corrective Action 101 Definitions of Terms Reasonably Foreseeable CA Costs Known CA Costs Extraordinary CA Costs Extremely Rare Events CA Costs Definitions of Terms Reasonably Foreseeable CA Costs Known CA Costs Extraordinary CA Costs Extremely Rare Events CA Costs

Corrective Action 101 Types of Corrective Actions: Event Based (quake, storm, flood etc.) Release Based (GW contamination, LFG migration etc.) Types of Corrective Actions: Event Based (quake, storm, flood etc.) Release Based (GW contamination, LFG migration etc.)

Corrective Action 101 Authority: Explicit Authority vs. Implied Authority PRC 40502(a) – general authority to adopt regulations as necessary PRC & – authority to adopt regulations setting forth minimum standards References: PRC & – protection of environment and preservation of public health and safety PRC & – state minimum standards Authority: Explicit Authority vs. Implied Authority PRC 40502(a) – general authority to adopt regulations as necessary PRC & – authority to adopt regulations setting forth minimum standards References: PRC & – protection of environment and preservation of public health and safety PRC & – state minimum standards

Profiles

California Experience Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT) (Ed Wosika) Statute required "snapshot" of groundwater quality effects from landfills Program lasted from 1985 through the early '90s Conclusion: over 70% of sampled (mostly unlined) landfills were polluting groundwater Result: provided support for the State Water Resource Control Board's update mandating composite liners in 1993 Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT) (Ed Wosika) Statute required "snapshot" of groundwater quality effects from landfills Program lasted from 1985 through the early '90s Conclusion: over 70% of sampled (mostly unlined) landfills were polluting groundwater Result: provided support for the State Water Resource Control Board's update mandating composite liners in 1993

California Experience Geosyntec Landfill Compliance Study (Bobbie Garcia)

Landfill Compliance Study Board initiated a unique, 2-phase, cross-media study of the state’s MSW landfills and contracted with GeoSyntec Consultants. Phase 1 consisted of a cross-media inventory and assessment of MSW landfill environmental performance for the period of 1998 thru Phase 2 consisted of an assessment of current regulatory effectiveness in protecting the environment for the short and long terms. Board initiated a unique, 2-phase, cross-media study of the state’s MSW landfills and contracted with GeoSyntec Consultants. Phase 1 consisted of a cross-media inventory and assessment of MSW landfill environmental performance for the period of 1998 thru Phase 2 consisted of an assessment of current regulatory effectiveness in protecting the environment for the short and long terms.

Landfill Compliance Study Phase 1 Task 1: Checklist of pertinent environmental regulatory requirements. Task 2: Cross-media inventory of 224 MSW landfills Task 3: Phase 1 Report that summarizes the results of a screening analysis performed on the cross-media inventory of 224 MSW landfills to better understand environmental performance. Phase 1 Task 1: Checklist of pertinent environmental regulatory requirements. Task 2: Cross-media inventory of 224 MSW landfills Task 3: Phase 1 Report that summarizes the results of a screening analysis performed on the cross-media inventory of 224 MSW landfills to better understand environmental performance.

Landfill Compliance Study Phase 2 Task 4: More in-depth look at 40 of the MSW landfills plus 13 additional MSW landfills that closed prior to 1993 to better understand why a landfill is not in compliance and if it is related to current regulation. Task 5: Phase 2 Report that summarizes the results of the more in-depth look at MSW landfills and the role current regulations play with regard to compliance to better understand regulatory effectiveness. Phase 2 Task 4: More in-depth look at 40 of the MSW landfills plus 13 additional MSW landfills that closed prior to 1993 to better understand why a landfill is not in compliance and if it is related to current regulation. Task 5: Phase 2 Report that summarizes the results of the more in-depth look at MSW landfills and the role current regulations play with regard to compliance to better understand regulatory effectiveness.

Landfill Compliance Study Phase 2 Task 6: Evaluation of selected states’ and countries’ MSW landfill regulations and identification of those that could approve California’s program if applied. Task 7: Identification of emerging technologies that could possibly improve the operation of California’s MSW landfills if applied. Phase 2 Task 6: Evaluation of selected states’ and countries’ MSW landfill regulations and identification of those that could approve California’s program if applied. Task 7: Identification of emerging technologies that could possibly improve the operation of California’s MSW landfills if applied.

Landfill Compliance Study Phase 2 Task 8: Final Report that summarizes the results of the study and identifies indicators that could be used to track ongoing environmental performance. Phase 2 Task 8: Final Report that summarizes the results of the study and identifies indicators that could be used to track ongoing environmental performance.

Phase I: Landfill Characteristics Collected in Task 2 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 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

Phase I: Goals of Task 3  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.  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.

Phase I: Develop Indicators of Environmental Performance (Task 3) “Quantifying environmental performance is complex and difficult for any single site, and is even more complex and difficult when examining the performance of 224 sites with respect to each other.” Requirements for a State-wide Study: Data must be Quantifiable Available for Each Landfill Representative of Performance Uniform Measurement “Quantifying environmental performance is complex and difficult for any single site, and is even more complex and difficult when examining the performance of 224 sites with respect to each other.” Requirements for a State-wide Study: Data must be Quantifiable Available for Each Landfill Representative of Performance Uniform Measurement

Phase I: Regulatory Actions as Indicators of Environmental Performance (Task 3) Regulatory Agency Overseeing Environmental Performance Environmental Performance Indicator State OversightLocal 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]

Phase I: Environmental Screening Analyses (Task 3) Statistical Analyses Approach Independent Variable - Owner type - Landfill age and size - Social and physical setting, etc. Assumed Dependent Variable 1. “In Correction Action.” 2. “Has Gas Inspection Report.” 3. “Has Gas Enforcement Action.” 4. “Has Surface Water Action.” 5. “Has Air Quality Violation.” Statistical Analyses Approach Independent Variable - Owner type - Landfill age and size - Social and physical setting, etc. Assumed Dependent Variable 1. “In Correction Action.” 2. “Has Gas Inspection Report.” 3. “Has Gas Enforcement Action.” 4. “Has Surface Water Action.” 5. “Has Air Quality Violation.”

Phase I 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. 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.

Phase II: Methods for Task 4 Review Task 2 cross-media inventory and Task 3 multi-variable analyses Contact landfill owners/operators and regulators (RWQCB, EA, and AQMD/APCD) regarding environmental performance of the landfill the application of the existing MSW regulations at the landfill Develop summary for each landfill of information collected from owner/operator and regulators Review Task 2 cross-media inventory and Task 3 multi-variable analyses Contact landfill owners/operators and regulators (RWQCB, EA, and AQMD/APCD) regarding environmental performance of the landfill the application of the existing MSW regulations at the landfill Develop summary for each landfill of information collected from owner/operator and regulators

Phase II: Methods for Task 5 Review results of Task 4, looking across all environmental media, for use in cross-site comparisons. Evaluate Task 4 data and identify recurring issues related to unsatisfactory environmental performance that may be associated with deficiencies in the existing California landfill regulations. Develop recommendations for changes to the existing California MSW landfill regulations based on the results of the evaluations that could lead to greater environmental protection. Review results of Task 4, looking across all environmental media, for use in cross-site comparisons. Evaluate Task 4 data and identify recurring issues related to unsatisfactory environmental performance that may be associated with deficiencies in the existing California landfill regulations. Develop recommendations for changes to the existing California MSW landfill regulations based on the results of the evaluations that could lead to greater environmental protection.

Phase II: Task 5 General Findings Landfill gas impacts on air quality: No recurring issues identified Containment systems and closure/post- closure care: No changes to regulations recommended Existing regulations address explosive gas impacts of landfill gas, but not groundwater impacts Landfill gas impacts on air quality: No recurring issues identified Containment systems and closure/post- closure care: No changes to regulations recommended Existing regulations address explosive gas impacts of landfill gas, but not groundwater impacts

Phase II: Proposed Changes to Regulations Based on Tasks 4 and 5 Landfill Gas Monitoring and Control Landfill gas monitoring and control as comprehensive during active life as currently required during post-closure care Gas generation starts as soon as waste is placed. Active landfills more likely than closed landfills to have gas compliance issues. Monitoring for explosive gases in the vadose zone closer to the landfill mass at sites with large buffers. The migration of landfill gas is a precursor to groundwater impacts The distance to the property boundary may not allow migration of explosive gases to be effectively identified No actual changes to existing regulations, but promoted by the EA Compliance point for explosive gas concentrations remains at the property boundary Landfill Gas Monitoring and Control Landfill gas monitoring and control as comprehensive during active life as currently required during post-closure care Gas generation starts as soon as waste is placed. Active landfills more likely than closed landfills to have gas compliance issues. Monitoring for explosive gases in the vadose zone closer to the landfill mass at sites with large buffers. The migration of landfill gas is a precursor to groundwater impacts The distance to the property boundary may not allow migration of explosive gases to be effectively identified No actual changes to existing regulations, but promoted by the EA Compliance point for explosive gas concentrations remains at the property boundary

Phase II: Proposed Changes to Regulations Based on Tasks 4 and 5 Groundwater Quality Monitoring Landfill gas monitoring included in detection monitoring program Migration of landfill gas is a precursor to groundwater impacts. Landfill gas is typically easier to control than groundwater. 59% of the 53 landfills that have had impacts to groundwater have attributed those impacts at least in part to landfill gas migration. Surface Water Monitoring and Control Submission of an annual winterization plan Winterization plans helpful in complying with surface water regulations at sites with different climates. Storm-related surface water and leachate control compliance issues have occurred at sites with different climates. The cost to implement and enforce the plans may be lower than the cost of responding to storm-related impacts Groundwater Quality Monitoring Landfill gas monitoring included in detection monitoring program Migration of landfill gas is a precursor to groundwater impacts. Landfill gas is typically easier to control than groundwater. 59% of the 53 landfills that have had impacts to groundwater have attributed those impacts at least in part to landfill gas migration. Surface Water Monitoring and Control Submission of an annual winterization plan Winterization plans helpful in complying with surface water regulations at sites with different climates. Storm-related surface water and leachate control compliance issues have occurred at sites with different climates. The cost to implement and enforce the plans may be lower than the cost of responding to storm-related impacts

California Experience Landfill Compliance Survey - CA Study Process (Andy Marino/ Bernie Vlach) 282 Sites 15 years data ( ) Data from 90% Landfills Adjusted 100% Landfills 240 years Continue to collect/refine Landfill Compliance Survey - CA Study Process (Andy Marino/ Bernie Vlach) 282 Sites 15 years data ( ) Data from 90% Landfills Adjusted 100% Landfills 240 years Continue to collect/refine

CA Study Data Sources SWIS database SWRCB database GeoSyntec Landfill Study Other reports/documents Personal conversations CIWMB LEA RWQCB SWIS database SWRCB database GeoSyntec Landfill Study Other reports/documents Personal conversations CIWMB LEA RWQCB

CA Study Results CA Study 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 CA are not being captured via enforcement actions CA Study 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 CA are not being captured via enforcement actions FA StudyCA Study CA TypeSmall LFMedium LFLarge LF Low Cost Medium Cost58109 High Cost2344 Total

Other States Survey of Other States (JoAnne Byrne) CIWMB is considering requiring operators of MSW landfills develop a cost estimate for reasonably foreseeable corrective actions that are not water related (e.g., gas, major repairs not covered in the PCM plan). Does your state require corrective action cost estimate plans? Does your state require financial assurance demonstrations for corrective actions (beyond RCRA)? Survey of Other States (JoAnne Byrne) CIWMB is considering requiring operators of MSW landfills develop a cost estimate for reasonably foreseeable corrective actions that are not water related (e.g., gas, major repairs not covered in the PCM plan). Does your state require corrective action cost estimate plans? Does your state require financial assurance demonstrations for corrective actions (beyond RCRA)?

Other States Overview of Minnesota (Garth Adams) Doug Day, Supervisor of the Closed Landfill Program, Minnesota Discussion of the Corrective Action responsibility due to State assumption of liability for closed landfills. Overview of Minnesota (Garth Adams) Doug Day, Supervisor of the Closed Landfill Program, Minnesota Discussion of the Corrective Action responsibility due to State assumption of liability for closed landfills.

Corrective Action Group Exercises Fishbone Diagram (Richard Castle/Rubia Packard) Fishbone Diagram (Richard Castle/Rubia Packard) Timeframe Costs Corrective Action Grandfathering Coverage PCM/P-PCM Greater Frequency Providing FA demonstration Receive Payouts Pay into Pooled Fund Higher Costs Water quality issues Non-water quality Closure Operating Both Less Frequency Lower Costs

Corrective Action Group Exercises Conceptual Scenarios (Bernie Vlach/ Richard Castle) Current System Individual Financial Assurance Demonstrations FA Demonstrations Combined with a Backstop Pooled Fund Pooled Fund as Primary Resource Conceptual Scenarios (Bernie Vlach/ Richard Castle) Current System Individual Financial Assurance Demonstrations FA Demonstrations Combined with a Backstop Pooled Fund Pooled Fund as Primary Resource

Corrective Action Only Scenarios

Workshops/Meetings April - July 2008 DateLocationActivity 4/28/08CalEPA Rm-550PCM Follow-up, CA Carryover, Pooled Fund Results 5/12/08CalEPA Rm-550Phase II Informal Rulemaking 5/12/08Coastal Hearing Room Update On Landfill Long-Term Financial Assurances Activities For Postclosure Maintenance And Corrective Action P&C Committee Meeting 5/27/08CalEPA Rm-550Phase II Rulemaking, New PCM, and CA Language 6/9/08Coastal Hearing Room Discussion and Request for Additional Direction P&C Committee Meeting 6/18/08CalEPA Rm-550Phase II Rulemaking Language 7/14/08Coastal Hearing Room Request for Rulemaking Direction for Phase II P&C Committee Meeting 7/17/08CalEPA Rm-550Pooled Fund, Items Needing Additional Statutory Authority

Next Steps