Groundwater Pollution at the Existing Puente Hills Landfill. Testimony Presented to LA County Sanitation Districts

Similar documents
Landfill Siting and Tipping Fees

Comments on "Environmental Impact Report Puente Hills Waste Management Facilities" Submitted by. G. Fred Lee, Ph.D. and Anne Jones-Lee, Ph.D.

Subtitle D Municipal Landfills vs Classical Sanitary Landfills: Are Subtitle D Landfills a Real Improvement?

Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Expansion/Closure of the Union Mine Disposal Site, El Dorado County, California

Management of Hazardous Wastes: Issues in Mexico

Comments on the Potential Impacts of the Peoria Disposal Company Landfill Expansion on Public Health, Groundwater Quality and the Environment

Frequently Asked Questions

(this cover page left intentionally blank)

7.0 EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

Mitigation Monitoring Program

# 5 ) UN THREE CUPS YARD NORTH AMERICA CULTIVATION FACILITY SPECIAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING

Response to Comments of Don and Tricia Nevis (Letter I25) See the master response to Public Outreach Process.

OPTIMUM CLEANUP SCENARIOS FOR VOC S AND PERCHLORATE IN BALDWIN PARK OPERABLE UNIT, SAN GABRIEL VALLEY, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.

Re: Contamination of Protected Underground Sources of Drinking Water; Request for Enforcement Action

Inglewood Oil Field Specific Plan Project Environmental Impact Report Public Information Meetings

Regulatory & Research Aspects of the San Gabriel Valley Indirect Reuse Replenishment Project (IRRP)

Groundwater Quality Monitoring at Active and Closed Landfills Less is More. Rob Burden and Nicola Livingston

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES REVIEW NOTICE

SARDINIA '93IV INTERNATIONAL LANDFILL SYMPOSIUMS. Margherita di Pula, Italy, October 1993

A. INTRODUCTION B. EXISTING CONDITIONS

Wastewater ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. Wastewater Collection

4.05. Groundwater Program. Chapter 4 Section. Background. Follow-up to VFM Section 3.05, 2004 Annual Report. Ministry of the Environment

ENVIRONMENTAL HYDROGEOLOGY

Trans- Ash Landfill Benton County, Tennessee Class II Disposal Facility

KERN COUNTY OIL AND GAS PERMITTING PROGRAM ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT (December 9, 2015 to November 30, 2016)

3 ways to help WATER GRADE:C. cut your shower time by 5 minutes. Replace grass with native vegetation. switch to ultra-low water use toilets

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. Question 13: Wetlands

Solid Waste for the Environmental Advisory Council

GROUNDWATER INFORMATION SHEET. Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE)

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS K. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 3. SOLID WASTE

List of Technical Reports and Maps of W12A Landfill

Roche s Position 1 on Landfills / Contaminated Soil

SOLID WASTE AND RESOURCE RECOVERY ELEMENT

# 17 ) UN DESERT GREEN FARMS SPECIAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION OF TIME PUBLIC HEARING

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA. Wednesday, March 8, :00 a.m.

STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT STORMWATER SUB-ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES & POLICIES

Aquifer Storage and Recovery Using Reclaimed Water: Successful Applications and Critical Opportunities

Refuse-to-Energy Facility

CHAPTER 2. Objectives of Groundwater Modelling

REGIONAL AND LOCAL SCALE GIS SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER MODELS OF THE OIL SHALE BASINS

REGIONAL GROUND-WATER STUDY TOWN OF WOODBURY ORANGE COUNTY, NEW YORK INTRODUCTION

6.20 UTILITIES SOLID WASTE

Comments on Remediation of Sydney Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens Sites Environmental Impact Statement, Sydney, Nova Scotia Dated December 2005

HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE HUMBOLDT RIVER BASIN, IMPACTS OF OPEN-PIT MINE DEWATERING AND PIT LAKE FORMATION

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Volume 1. NBC Universal Evolution Plan ENV EIR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO Council District 4

Clifton Marsh Landfill Variation of planning permission 05/09/0376 & 06/09/0395 for the continuation of landfilling until Non Technical Summary

Water Quality Aspects of Dredged Sediment Management

GROUNDWATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FUNDAMENTALS: GROUNDWATER BASIN CONNECTIVITY. Open-File Report May 2014

III. CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR

Solid Waste Disposal & Maintenance Manager

Bradford/Union County Proposed Phosphate Mine Project Map

Natural Resources Journal

The Opportunities, Challenges, and Unknowns of Shale Gas Exploration

Hydrogeology Laboratory Semester Project: Hydrogeologic Assessment for CenTex Water Supply, Inc.

7. Completing the Well s Structure

LGSEC June Quarterly Meeting June 2, 2017 San Diego

Collection #432 Butterworth Landfill Files Collection 432

- INSTALLATION RESTORATION DIVISI~ON

Resource Environmental LLC (RELLC) A Unique Approach to Managing Multi-party Environmental Liabilities

ANSWER KEY Groundwater Pollution Worksheet

Landfill Gas Systems

Carpinteria Valley Water District. Memo. Recommendation:

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY L PE RMIT-TO4 N STALL t

CAPACITY MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE

CALIFORNIA, YOU STILL LOVE ME RIGHT?

Lorelei H. Oviatt, Director, AICP Kern County Planning and Community Development Department

TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS...

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS DISPOSAL SITE GUIDELINES

Proposed New 18 CFR Part Hydraulic Fracturing in Shale and Other Formations:

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN SUPERIOR COURT

5.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

Board of County Commissioners. Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. DATE: October 7, 2015

An Approach to Siting Solid Waste Disposal Facilities in Minnesota

Infiltration Guidelines

Land Use Planning in Colorado

Campbell River Environmental Committee 2353 Dolly Varden Road Campbell River, BC V9W 4W5 (Via ) Attention: Leona Adams

# 7 ) UN MY PLACE HOTEL SPECIAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUMMARY

The Future Of Trash Management In San Mateo County

Worksheet #1 Assessing the Risk of Groundwater Contamination from Drinking Water Well Condition

Table of Contents L.3 Utilities - Solid Waste

OAKLAND COUNTY HEALTH DIVISION SANITARY CODE ARTICLE II - GROUNDWATER PROTECTION

UNIVERSAL BUSINESS PAYMENT SOLUTIONS ACQUISITION CORPORATION CHARTER OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Avon Lake Municipal Landfill, Lorain County Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Rule Authorization

6.2.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures

CERTIFICATION AND FINANCING PROPOSAL

DIRECTOR S ORDER. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT R.S.O. 1990, c.e. 19, as amended ( EPA ) Sections 18 & 196

Environmental Management Division. David Amidei NASA HQ

Environmental Information Form

SHELL ONSHORE OPERATING PRINCIPLES

2008 SCHEDULED ELECTIONS (AS OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2008)

Unconventional Gas & Oil Environmental & Regulatory Issues. Robert Kleinberg Schlumberger Research Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Community Environmental Newsletter

STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY FINDINGS OF FACT

Environment ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ORDER NO. EPO SSR. Sears Canada Inc. [Sears] C/O. Lloyd McLellan. Eli Consulting Canada Inc.

Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

Rock Fill Layer Management and Maintenance Plan Former BNSF Site 13 Highway 99 Eugene, Oregon

Waste Management, a Role for Surveyors - Linking the Environment and Planning

Transcription:

Groundwater Pollution at the Existing Puente Hills Landfill Testimony Presented to LA County Sanitation Districts G. Fred Lee, Ph.D., D.E.E. and Anne Jones-Lee, Ph.D. G. Fred Lee & Associates El Macero, CA 95618 June 21, 1993 The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (Districts) asserted in the Districts' staff's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the proposed Puente Hills Landfill expansion and in testimony that the existing Puente Hills Landfill is not polluting groundwaters and that the proposed expansion of the Puente Hills Landfill would therefore not pollute groundwater. In connection with that argument the Districts' staff made a variety of statements in the Districts' EIR and in testimony about the lack of leachate generation at the existing landfill, the adequacy of the groundwater monitoring program that has been conducted to detect leachate migration, and the efficacy of the groundwater barriers (slurry walls) that have been constructed for the purpose of preventing migration of any contaminated groundwater that did occur offsite to pollute the San Gabriel Basin. Those not knowledgeable in the details of groundwater pollution by municipal solid waste landfills of the Puente Hills type at a geological setting such as occurs at Puente Hills might be led to believe that the Districts' assessment of the existing pollution of groundwaters at the Puente Hills site by the current landfill is a reliable assessment of what is occurring at that site. This, in turn, could lead to support for expansion of that landfill based on the statements made by the Districts in their EIR. However, an understanding of the characteristics of municipal landfill leachate, the development of groundwater monitoring systems for landfills located in a geological setting of the Puente Hills type, the expected performance of groundwater barriers (slurry walls) of the type that the Districts have constructed, and the potential impact of municipal solid waste landfill leachate of the type being generated in the Puente Hills Landfill on groundwater resources shows that the Districts have not presented a reliable assessment of the current groundwater pollution situation at the existing Puente Hills Landfill and of the potential to pollute groundwaters hydraulically connected to the San Gabriel Basin groundwater aquifer system. While the Districts' Board of Directors and the Planning Commission Commissioners chose to ignore comments made by the representatives of Hacienda Heights, Dr. Dennis Williams, and others including us, concerning the unreliability of the Districts' assessment of current groundwater pollution at the Puente Hills Landfill, the recent submission of the Stetson Engineers' report (Stetson Engineers, 1993) on the current groundwater pollution that is occurring at the Puente Hills Landfill as well as the adequacy and reliability of the Districts' groundwater monitoring program, the ability of the Districts to reliably carry out the regulations governing the Puente Hills Landfill operations, the Districts' attitude towards cooperation with Stetson Engineers and others in making data and other information available to Stetson Engineers as requested, coupled with the inability of the Regional Water Quality Board to review and enforce regulations governing the Districts' operations at the Puente Hills Landfill gives cause great concern about any proposed expansion of the Puente Hills Landfill as proposed by the Districts. The Puente Hills Landfill is the second largest landfill in the United States. The Districts propose to continue to operate that landfill at the rate of 12,000 tons/day to more than double the current amount of solid waste present in the landfill today. The current

Puente Hills Landfill represents a massive threat to groundwater resources in the vicinity of the landfill, which are key resources for a large number of people who depend on the San Gabriel Basin for their domestic water supply. An objective peer review assessment of the existing and proposed Puente Hills Landfill expansion will lead to the following conclusions: The Puente Hills site is a very poor site for a landfill, especially the second largest landfill in the United States. The fractured rock geology and hydrogeology of the site make it essentially impossible to reliably monitor the groundwater pollution that has occurred at the existing Puente Hills Landfill and that will eventually occur at the Districts' proposed landfill expansion. The Districts' operations at the existing Puente Hills Landfill have been poorly conducted; the landfill has had significant, repeated adverse impacts on adjacent and nearby property owners and users through severe, obnoxious odors and traffic problems due to inadequate provisions for garbage truck traffic. As would be expected, the existing Puente Hills Landfill has been polluting groundwaters in the vicinity of the landfill with landfill leachate/gas. A review of the groundwater monitoring data, the actions required by the Regional Board and the Districts to try to stop offsite migration of leachate-contaminated groundwaters through the construction of so-called groundwater barriers shows that they will not be effective in preventing groundwater pollution in the San Gabriel Basin aquifer system. It is also clear that the Districts' mode of operations of the Puente Hills Landfill, in which the Regional Water Quality Control Board has relied on Districts' self-policing of the groundwater quality protection provisions, is not reliable for ensuring groundwater quality protection. The Stetson report documents the sloppy and inadequate operations of the Districts in providing for groundwater quality protection. From the Districts' staff refusal to cooperate with Stetson Engineers in providing information requested, the failure of the Districts to admit that groundwater pollution would be expected to occur and that groundwater pollution has occurred at the existing Puente Hills Landfill, and the attempts of the Districts to ignore the pollution as exemplified in the EIR prepared by the Districts' staff, it is very clear that the Districts cannot be relied on for reliable self-policing of groundwater quality protection. It is also clear that if the Regional Board is not adequately funded or staffed to provide the kind of protection that is appropriate to ensure that when the eventual failure of the groundwater barriers systems to prevent offsite migration of leachate from the existing landfill occurs, corrective action will, in fact, be taken before widespread pollution of the San Gabriel Basin aquifer system occurs. Thomas Stetson of Stetson Engineers, Inc. submitted a cover letter to the Board of Directors of the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District on his firm's review of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts' groundwater quality evaluation, monitoring, and management program at the Puente Hills Landfill. In his June 2, 1993 cover letter, Mr. Stetson summarized their key findings. These findings and their meaning to water quality protection of the San Gabriel Basin 2

aquifer system are presented and discussed in these comments. Mr. Stetson concluded that there appear to be deficiencies in the basic requirements for water quality monitoring at the existing Puente Hills Landfill. This is a very significant finding and is in accord with our independent evaluation of the Districts' and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board's water quality protection program for the Puente Hills Landfill. We have concluded, based on independent evaluation, that the Districts and the Regional Board have not been, and are not now, conducting an adequate, reliable groundwater quality monitoring, evaluation, and management program. Based on the testimony of the Districts' staff (Maguin and Chan) in the Puente Hills Landfill expansion Environmental Impact Report (EIR) hearings last fall and the Los Angeles County Planning Commission hearings this spring, it is clear that the Districts' management staff for the Puente Hills Landfill operations has provided the Districts' Board of Directors and the Los Angeles County Planning Commission with highly unreliable, inaccurate, and misleading information on the impacts of the current landfill operations on groundwater quality in the vicinity of the Puente Hills Landfill. As reported by Stetson Engineers (1993), significant groundwater pollution has been occurring and will continue to occur at the Puente Hills Landfill from its existing operations. While the Districts' staff Mr. Maguin claimed at the April 8, 1993 Planning Commission hearing that there is no leachate generated at the landfill, with the implication is that there is no groundwater pollution, it is obvious and common sense that leachate has been and continues to be generated at the landfill and that groundwater pollution is occurring due to that leachate. Municipal landfill leachate-polluted groundwater contains a wide variety of highly hazardous chemicals, conventional chemicals that can render a water unusable for domestic purposes, and non-conventional chemicals whose hazards to public health and the environment are unknown but that could readily be of significance to public health, groundwater resources and the environment due to hazardous and otherwise deleterious chemical compounds. Beginning in 1989, on behalf of the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District and Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, the authors conducted a review of the Azusa Landfill operations in the San Gabriel Basin. That landfill is operated under the "supervision" of the Los Angeles County Regional Water Quality Control Board. We have found many of the same kinds of problems at the Puente Hills Landfill as were found with the Azusa landfill. A review of the groundwater monitoring data for the Azusa Landfill showed that that landfill had been polluting groundwaters for many years, yet the Regional Board had not, and still has not, implemented the requirements set forth in Article 5 of Chapter 15 for determining the degree and extent of groundwater pollution and for initiating corrective action to clean up the polluted aquifer to the extent possible. Under the supervision of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, more than $100 million worth of groundwater in the vicinity of the Azusa Landfill has been destroyed for use for domestic purposes. That is the cost of trying to clean up the groundwater pollution plume that now exists to the extent possible, and to purchase replacement water for that which has been destroyed by leachate-pollution. As with the Puente Hills Landfill, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board staff claimed in hearings before the State Water Resources Control Board that there was no pollution of groundwater by the Azusa Landfill, while it was immediately obvious from examination of the data that had been submitted by the landfill owner every quarter over the past almost 10 years, that were in the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board's files, that 3

highly significant pollution had been and continues to occur at that landfill. It is clear that the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board does not have the staff or the funds necessary to properly implement Article 5 of Chapter 15. Since that article is the key to groundwater quality protection from pollution by landfill leachate, the groundwater quality protection program for the Azusa Landfill is seriously flawed and not being implemented. The Azusa Landfill situation has considerable relevance to the Puente Hills Landfill situation in that Stetson Engineers reported in their June 1993 report the same kind of significant deficiencies in the evaluation and management of groundwater quality associated with the Puente Hills Landfill as is occurring with the Azusa Landfill. Selected Specific Comments on Stetson Engineers (1993) Report Page II-1 The report mentions in paragraph 2 the difficulties encountered in obtaining information from the County Sanitation Districts including their not furnishing data that the Districts had collected. Page II-3 Paragraphs 3 and 4 discuss the significant deficiencies in how the Sanitation Districts have carried out their sampling and analysis program. Page II-4 The report indicates that because of inadequate staff, changing staff, and budget constraints, the Regional Water Quality Control Board has been unable to maintain close scrutiny of the Puente Hills Landfill operations and relies on the Districts to police their own operations. It is clear from the Stetson Engineers report that the Districts policing of their own operations is inadequate and unreliable for providing protection of public health, groundwater resources, and the environment. Page III-2 Listed on this page are the groundwater quality protection standards established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A review of those standards shows them to be significantly deficient compared to what is needed to protect the groundwaters of the San Gabriel Basin. Page III-7 The first paragraph indicates that the Districts have not used adequately sensitive lower detection limits in measuring various contaminants of concern. The second paragraph discusses that the Districts have not complied with requirements set forth in determining groundwater velocity and direction. These are just a few of the highly significant deficiencies in the way in which the Districts, under the supervision of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board staff, have conducted the minimum required groundwater pollution evaluation and management at the existing Puente Hills Landfill. 4

It is clear that the Puente Hills Landfill should not be expanded because of the past and potential future groundwater pollution. Reference Stetson Engineers, "Puente Hills Landfill Investigation," Report to Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District," Stetson Engineers, West Covina, CA, June (1993). 5