1. Results of the Review of MSW Landfill Regulations from Selected States and Countries Landfill Facility Compliance Study presented to California Integrated Waste Management Board by GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc. Oakland, California 14 April 2004

2. Presenters / Collaborators Julie Holmes Ryan, P.E. Project Engineer GeoSyntec Consultants Michael Minch, P.E., G.E. Senior Engineer GeoSyntec Consultants Patrick Lucia, Ph.D., P.E., G.E. Principal GeoSyntec Consultants

3. Section 1 Goals Review current MSW landfill regulations from all 50 states and selected countries to identify those jurisdictions that will be most relevant to this study. Select up to eight states and five countries for comparison of their current MSW landfill regulations with those from California. Compile the regulations from the selected states and compare them to the California and federal regulations. Contact international landfill experts to help compile the regulations from the selected countries, and compare them to the California regulations. Identify those elements of other states’ and countries’ regulations that, if applied in California, could possibly improve or enhance California’s multimedia regulation of MSW landfills. To the extent possible, compare the incremental cost and potential environmental protection benefit of the selected states’ and countries’ regulations to California’s current state of practice.

4. Section 2 States Selected for Evaluation

5. Section 2 Countries Selected for Evaluation

6. Sections 3 and 4 Regulatory Topics Special Handling of Waste Landfill Siting General Landfill Design Base Liner System Leachate Collection and Removal System Final Cover System Post-Closure Groundwater Monitoring Landfill Gas Control

7. Sections 3 and 4 Presentation of Regulations

8. Section 5 Selection of MSW Landfill Regulations Regulations reviewed to identify significant differences in intent or detail from California regulations Significant differences identified for each of the regulatory topics 19 regulations selected from the 8 states 5 regulations selected from the 5 countries

9. Each of these selected regulations was evaluated based on the following criteria: Environmental Protection Benefit Cost Impact Design Considerations Operational Considerations Comparison to Cross-Media Inventory Documented Performance (Internet Literature Search) Section 5 Discussion of Selected Regulations

10. Basis: EU Directive Strict limitations on biodegradable content entering landfill Timeline for achieving reduction in waste volume Environmental Impact: Reduced potential for impact to air, groundwater, and surface water Example : Waste Pre-Processing Prior to Landfilling

11. Cost Impact: Capital costs Increased handling of waste Potential treatment of by-products Cost Benefits: Potential revenue from sale of by-products Saves airspace Potential savings for control systems and remediation

12. Example : Waste Pre-Processing Prior to Landfilling Design Consideration: Altered characteristics of MSW may warrant changes to existing design procedures. Some technologies are still in the development stages. Operational Consideration: Addition of on-site waste pre-processing facilities may require significant changes in site operations.

13. Cross-Media Inventory 5 of 224 existing California MSW landfills have some form of pre-processing. 1 is “In Corrective Action”, 3 “Have Gas Inspection Report” and 2 “Have Surface Water Action” Many MRFs and incineration facilities currently exist, not associated with specific landfill sites. Example : Waste Pre-Processing Prior to Landfilling

14. Documented Performance: One article evaluates performance under hypothetical scenarios [Kranert, 2001] Regulation too new to reliably document actual performance Results of study suggest that the regulation should perform as expected to reduce waste volume and emissions Example : Waste Pre-Processing Prior to Landfilling

15. Recommendations were developed regarding the applicability of 22 of the 24 selected regulations to California Section 6 Recommendations

16. Section 6 General Findings The California regulations appear to be less specific than the regulations from the 8 selected states The California regulations appear to be similar to the 5 countries reviewed in that they are all attempting to accommodate highly variable site conditions California appears to have found a balance between flexibility and specificity appropriate to the heterogeneity of the state

17. Section 6 Regulatory Changes Proposed for Consideration in California Multiple prescriptions for base liner based on site conditions (Section 6.4) Size Climate Population Density Subsurface Conditions Proximity to Groundwater

18. Standard for defining the end of post-closure based on environmental performance (Section 6.7) Leachate quality Landfill gas generation Results of groundwater monitoring Level of degradation of the waste mass (future potential for impact) Section 6 Regulatory Changes Proposed for Consideration in California

19. Waste Pre-processing (Section 6.1) (may be appropriate, but further evaluation required) Identify technologies appropriate for California Consider social and physical setting Perform cost-benefit analysis Section 6 Regulatory Changes Proposed for Consideration in California

20. Additional regulations (changes may be recommended if existing regulations are not performing) Minimum distance from wetlands (Section 6.2) Proximity to water supply wells (Section 6.2) Concentration of explosive gases at the property boundary (Section 6.9) Section 6 Regulatory Changes Proposed for Consideration in California

21. QUESTIONS