|
Identifying
how best to clean up old and unlined landfills - especially
in rural areas - requires many types of professional
skills. The location, history, and activity of each
closed landfill require that we look at each specific
case within its own context.
By
Rob Arner
In the late
1970s and into the mid-1980s, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) initiated the "Open Dump Inventory"
under its Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Subtitle D program. This nationwide voluntary assessment
of landfills attempted to standardize federal classification
criteria (40 CFR Part 257) and revealed that many unlined
landfills have an impact on water quality (USEPA, 1985).
Landfills
There are
various hazardous constituents within municipal solid
waste that can migrate from unlined landfills into the
broader environment unless adequate corrective measures
are applied. Older landfills may have been closed several
decades ago, but such closure regulations may not ensure
adequate environmental protection. Each old landfill
is different, depending on what exactly was disposed
in it.
Any releases
from unlined pre-Subtitle D landfills may occur several
years - even many decades - after the placement of waste
in these older facilities.
Many organic
constituents are stable (i.e., degrade very slowly)
while other hazardous constituents (e.g., toxic metals)
never degrade. Corrective measures forever must be maintained
to isolate these wastes from the environment. Ideally,
identifying best management corrective measures will
address any migration of contaminants from unlined pre-Subtitle
D landfills into the water, air, or land.
Using USEPA's
correlated leachate data from 53 landfills in 1988,
concentrations of various hazardous constituents were
measured in MSW leachate and landfill gas, and a comparison
was made between the nonhazardous and hazardous landfill
sites. A nonhazardous landfill was defined in this study
as one that was not known to have accepted hazardous
waste, but the results indicated there was very little
difference between the two types of sites (USEPA, 1988).
What Do
We Know About Rural Landfill Closures?
Especially
in poor rural areas, the questions today are these:
Are there adequate monies to properly cap and maintain
landfills after closure and correct any failure that
would occur after closure at any landfill in the US?
Will landfills in the future impact human health or
degrade environmental quality? In 1992, USEPA estimated
the total present cost of landfill corrective action
at $5.2 billion (USEPA, 1993).
Several years
ago, USEPA's Office of the Inspector General released
a report (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ), 2000) that raises concerns that all landfills
have sufficient funds to cover future landfill closure.
In 1998, a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency report
found that landfills require continued site maintenance
beyond 30 years. This report also mentions numerous
instances where unexpected events have occurred after
30 years. USEPA's Office of the Inspector General cited
in its Executive Summary, "There is insufficient assurance
that funds will be available in all cases to cover the
full period of landfill postclosure monitoring and maintenance."
Decomposition
or the release of contaminants may continue even when
some corrective action has been taken. In addition,
closed unlined landfills may have no closed postclosure
monitoring if they were closed before Subtitle D regulations
came into effect in the late 1980s. Before Subtitle
D regulated landfills, there were no liner, leachate
collection, or gas requirements. Landfill caps were
2 in. of soil with no slope requirements. Potential
landfill failures may occur:
- Erosion
of the cap by natural weathering, vegetation, or animals
- No leachate
collection systems
- No liners,
resulting in groundwater contamination
- Rainfall,
creating more leachate that migrates into groundwater
(via the bathtub effect), and slope failure
- Landfill
gas, such as methane and carbon dioxide, releases
One Case
Study: Virginia's Inventory of Closed Unlined Landfills
Approximately
800 landfill sites in Virginia stopped operation in
the late 1960s and early 1970s. There are approximately
291 closed and 45 inactive landfills that opened before
the effective date of the current regulatory program
(December 1988) but were in operation when the regulations
went into effect and therefore fall under current closure
and postclosure care requirements (Virginia DEQ, 2000).
Data from
the groundwater monitoring programs have revealed that
non-Subtitle D cells are causing contamination. Some
of these landfills lack adequate liners and/or leachate
collection systems and other environmental controls.
Because adverse effects on the environment can arise
from the migration of leachate, the high percentage
of non-Subtitle D MSW landfills in assessment monitoring
is a concern.
The specific
characteristics of leachate vary widely from landfill
to landfill and even in the same landfill over time,
since the dynamic decomposition of waste can affect
the proportion and strength of different constituents.
Leachate from nonhazardous municipal solid waste MSW,
however, can contain a number of chemicals and metals
that toxicological studies have shown to be harmful
to life or that are carcinogenic. Action levels have
been established for many of the proscribed waste constituents
based on toxicological effects. A contaminated groundwater
supply is probably the clearest example of a verifiable
pathway of exposure (Virginia DEQ, 2000).
Landfill
leachate, which reaches surface water from seepage or
through groundwater discharge, can contaminate a water-supply
source. Documenting this effect through chemical testing
of the affected water can be complicated if there are
industrial point discharges occurring upstream (Virginia
DEQ, 2000).
Costing
the Waste
Not every
non-Subtitle D facility that continues to operate will
incur corrective action costs. If the average 38.5-ac.
non-Subtitle D facility was required to implement the
medium corrective action (i.e., pump and treat), the
capital cost would be $770,000 with an annual operations
and maintenance cost of $154,000.
Without further
information on the extent of contamination and specific
conditions at each non-Subtitle D facility, it is not
possible to make an informal estimate of future corrective
action costs or to guess how they might be altered by
early closure of a particular site. The same uncertainty
would apply to already closed non-Subtitle D facilities
that may require corrective action. As an estimate,
all 34 sites with active non-Subtitle D areas required
this medium level of corrective action, and closure
costs would be $37,730,000 with potential average operations
and maintenance costs estimated to be $7,536,000 per
year.
This estimate
assumes that solid waste going to non-Subtitle D facilities
would be sent to the nearest Subtitle D facility able
to accept the additional tonnage. The cost of transporting
the waste was $10.50/ton, based on a one-way transportation
distance of 50 mi. or less, plus a $30/ton tipping fee
at a Subtitle D facility (Virginia DEQ, 2000).
Only site-specific
analysis of all costs and consideration of regional
factors, such as geology, transportation, and other
intergovernmental agreements, would allow an accurate
estimate of the cost-benefit impact of early closure
of non-Subtitle D landfills.
One cost
element not quantified is debt service; this was mentioned
by county and other local government officials responding
to the landfill survey and represents the remaining
debt for loans used to finance construction of the non-Subtitle
D areas still operating. The survey did not ask directly
about financing of facilities but only about the expected
year of closure. Because closure dates range from 2007
to 2017, there is no way to quantify outstanding debt
and related debt service on a facility retired before
its useful life is over.
It is not
possible to determine the monetary benefit value for
avoidance of corrective action. It is likely, however,
that there are real environmental benefits of closing
unlined landfills where groundwater contamination exists
and is migrating off-site. An example of this benefit
comes from another state. New Hampshire's Nonpoint-Source
Management Plan lists unlined landfills as the state's
highest priority problem because it relies on groundwater
for much of its drinking water supply (Virginia DEQ,
2000).
Since the
potential for corrective action in Virginia could cost
up to $37.7 million (not including annual operations
and maintenance) under the very broad assumptions of
this report, reducing the problems that may require
this kind of expenditure in the future could be very
important. According to several respondents in the landfill
owners/operators survey, closing a non-Subtitle D facility
prior to its planned fill date would have economic and
other impacts on communities. Early closure would mean
incurring capital costs for landfill final-cap and new-cell
construction in the near term (Northeast Midwest Institute
and National Association of Local Government Environmental
Professionals, 2002).
The Empire
State's Landfill Grant Program
In New York,
older municipal landfills did not have funds available
to close them. New York's landfill closure assistance
program grew out of the 1986 Environmental Quality Bond
Act, which initially provided zero-interest loans to
municipalities for assistance with closing their unlined
open dumps.
In 1990,
the loan program was changed to the grant program, which
still operates today. Under the grant program, municipally
owned or operated landfills that closed after 1986 are
eligible for 50% reimbursement for costs incurred to
close the landfill up to a maximum reimbursement of
$2 million for each landfill for communities with populations
equal to or greater than 3,500. If a community has a
population of less than 3,500, the reimbursement can
be up to 90% of the cost of closure for a maximum of
$2 million per landfill.
This state
assistance program for landfill closures came about
due to a statewide landfill enforcement program initiated
in 1982. It required all landfills to comply with the
state's solid waste management regulations or enter
a consent order requiring cessation of waste acceptance
within three years with obligation to close, or cap,
the landfill in accordance with a department-approved
closure plan.
This statewide
enforcement program was established based on the fact
that these older unlined landfills were poorly designed
and/or located in geologically unsound areas. In their
earlier years, these landfills did not have enough operational
controls to prevent hazardous materials from being disposed
of in them and thus posed a potential impact to the
environment and public health.
The department's
enforcement cases were based largely on impacts to groundwater
quality. Thus, these enforcement initiatives centered
on the findings of groundwater-quality conditions established
with department-approved monitoring to characterize
existing water quality. What was found was that unlined
landfills located in damp climates almost always exhibited
landfill-derived contaminant impacts to groundwater
quality, which established a need for an environmentally
secure closure.
The state
required these groundwater-contaminating landfills to
develop a closure investigation report and establish
funding mechanisms, including increased tip fees, in
order to bank some money to help offset their closure
costs. New York generally allowed three years of continued
operation under a consent order to help address the
fiscal demands of an impending closure coupled with
the state assistance funding. Without such financial
assistance incentives, many of these older landfills
that were closed because of groundwater impacts likely
would have remained uncapped and impacted groundwater
resources.
A Model
in Cleaning Up Old Landfills: Brownfields
Recovering
contaminated property and transforming it into new real
estate is called brownfield redevelopment. Financing
the reuse of old landfill property is a concept being
explored throughout the US.
Federal,
state, and private organizations now are teaming together
to assist local development experts not only to reuse
land but also to transform liabilities into assets.
There are many incentives and forms of assistance to
allow brownfields to compete economically with "greenfield"
sites to allow local rural communities to prosper.
The public
sector has done much to stimulate this facility reuse,
resulting in significant economic, social, and aesthetic
benefits. But there is no cookie-cutter approach to
stimulating environmental cleanup by providing tax and
cash-flow incentives to economically distressed areas.
Also, there are many different regulatory and legal
issues to resolve to stimulate such remedial efforts.
On the southern
tip of Virginia's eastern shore is Northampton County,
where dredged material is being used to cap an active
landfill. Under a county-approved master plan for this
landfill, the brownfield will be closed and converted
for recreational use.
Another example
of innovation in Virginia is transforming the 54 acres
of the Danville City Dump, which operated from 1948
to 1973, into a brownfield area. The City of Danville
is responsible for the hazards on the site, but if the
property remains as is, corrective measures will not
be necessary. Certain corrective measures will
be necessary, however, if the property is made into
a safe recreational site - especially one for youth.
Either the
former dumpsite is still producing methane gas or methane
gas from earlier production is trapped in the subsurface.
The levels of methane detected at the site are sufficient
to warrant remedial activities to promote a safe environment
for the general public since it has been proposed that
the site be turned into a golf-training facility. A
landfill-gas remedial system will be initiated. This
dumpsite is the largest undeveloped area within the
city limits and the only possible location for the park
and recreational facility being proposed.
The compatibility
of the proposal (installing a synthetic cap of highly
specialized and durable materials for use as a multipurpose
recreational facility) and the optimum location as part
of a new housing development mean that this site can
be restored as a valuable piece of real estate and subsequently
can be transformed into a valuable community asset,
a green space and park open for public use.
Although
the City of Danville owns the dumpsite, the Danville
Redevelopment and Housing Authority took the lead on
this initiative as the lessee of the property. The Housing
Authority contracted with consultants to complete the
Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments
and to design the gas remediation system. In addition,
the authority has already contracted with a developer
for the construction of The First Tee golf-training
facility. Through the cleanup and construction process,
the authority would continue to be the responsible managing
entity on behalf of the involved partners. If necessary,
the city and the authority would enter into a voluntary
response program.
Leaking underground
storage tanks or USTfields provide another wonderful
example of what could be extended into the cleaning
up of old landfillsbu - but only if the location is
attractive for new real estate development, depending
on both local leadership and the cost of cleanup. Roughly
200,000 of the 500,000 sites contain petroleum tanks.
Streamlining regulatory efforts and leveraging resources
are another reason why these efforts demonstrate the
USTfields' revitalization as another example of success
(Northeast Midwest Institute and National Association
of Local Government Environmental Professionals, 2002).
Also, various states are providing additional incentives
to clean up and restore these properties. For example,
South Carolina's SUPERB Fund, financed through a half-cent
per-gallon environmental impact fee on gasoline, brings
in $1.2 million each month assisting third parties with
addressing these polluted sites.
Pulling together
these resources can attract developers to "shovel-ready"
sites. Also, reducing Superfund Potentially Responsible
Liability in environmental and enforcement settlements
is another way to stimulate public/private partnerships
with oil companies to leverage resources away from costly
legal challenges into future cleanup needs.
Corrective
Action Accounting
As increased
information is gathered, accounting for corrective action
and better management practices will follow. Subtitle
D requirements were promulgated by USEPA's Generally
Accepted Account Principles' Statement 18 (GASB 18),
Accounting for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Closures and Postclosure Care Costs, and were developed
to provide uniform financial reporting for landfill
closure and postclosure care costs for government entities.
GASB 18 requires governments to recognize the liability
of these closure and postclosure conditions as a landfill
is being used, so by the time the landfill becomes full
and no longer accepts waste, the liability is recorded
in the financial statements of the government entity
that operates the landfill and is responsible for these
requirements (Government Accounting Standards Board,
2002). How corrective action is handled comes down to
in-house and/or consulting, accounting, or financial
engineers that prepare these calculations for governmental
entities. Since these financial-statement experts ultimately
are responsible for the amounts recorded and disclosed,
their collective experience with corrective action is
invaluable.
Another challenge
is when an owner or operator of a landfill may transfer
to another entity all or part of the responsibilities
for closure and postclosure care. A typical example
is where a private company agrees to provide closure
and postclosure care as part of its contract to operate
a government-owned landfill.
New Opportunities
Remediating
old, unlined landfills depends on identifying and addressing
a host of issues. Restoring old, contaminated landfills
requires understanding the various criteria of corrective
action and addressing many important site-specific factors
from groundwater monitoring to local government buy-in.
Such remedial efforts may include assessment, cleanup,
and even real estate marketing. The keys to these efforts
are intergovernmental communication, collaboration,
and cooperation. Also critical is collaborative intergovernmental
leadership and support to tap available resources.
Concerns
about liability and property ownership combined with
constrained staff time and funding are project barriers.
Also, addressing possible environmental justice issues
is another emerging concern. Transforming a once blighted
landfill with corrective action and redevelopment requires
leadership at all levels. Increased attention to transforming
rural liabilities into real estate assets will heal
the once scarred landscape into new areas of prosperity.
The sooner
we advance corrective efforts, the quicker local governments
and businesses may develop these sites into for new
recreational, industrial, commercial, and housing uses.
If corrective action is needed and financial assurance
resources are not adequate to fix these unlined landfills,
then exploring statewide insurance pools may be one
viable option as seen in the emerging brownfield finance
field.
As more landfills
experience corrective action, we will understand more
about its current adequacy. To find out about the funding
of corrective action, consider the following:
- Ask
regulators if there are sufficient backup reserves
or third-party guarantees. Also, how viable are certain
types of financial mechanisms, such as self-insurance
and self-guarantees, for providing adequate financial
reserves? Do state and federal funds need to be allocated?
- Request
information from regulators concerning their increased
experience with unlined landfill cleanup projects, including
costs for corrective actions and innovative technology,
such as bioremediation of groundwater.
Defining
corrective action and how it fits with financial assurance
is something to be further explored. Also, site-to-site
or state-to-state comparisons of corrective actions
may be useful. For example, there is a challenge in
defining the time frame of these activities. Both corrective
action and financial assurance requirements have duration
questions that must be further addressed. What happens
after 10 years when an unlined landfill, which was once
assumed to be fully remediated, still requires corrective
action? Will the postclosure care period be extended?
Finally local,
state, and federal officials need to exchange information
actively with accounting, financial, engineering, and
environmental insurance experts since, as in brownfield
cleanups, liability protection is fundamental. Such
further dialogue and information sharing will improve
methods to clean up and restore old landfills and provide
new opportunities to restore unlined landfills into
new real estate.
References
Government
Accounting Standards Board. Statement 18: Accounting
for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Closures and Postclosure
Care Cost. Norwalk, CT. 2002.
Northeast
Midwest Institute and National Association of Local
Government Environmental Professionals. Recycling
America's Gas Stations: The Value and Promise of Revitalizing
Petroleum Contaminated Properties. Washington, DC.
2002.
USEPA.
Inventory of Open Dumps, EPA/530-SW-85-017. Office
of Solid Waste, Washington, DC. 1985.
USEPA.
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Rulemaking
on Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units;
Proposed Methodology for Analysis, Exhibits 5-12.
Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC. 1993.
USEPA.
Report to Congress on Solid Waste Disposal in the
United States, EPA/530-SW-88-011B. Office of Solid
Waste, Washington, DC. 1988.
Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality. Comprehensive
Evaluation of Solid Waste Management in the Commonwealth.
Richmond, VA. June 2000.
Rob Arner
is a pollution prevention facilitator for a seven-states
nonprofit organization called the Southeast Rural Community
Assistance Project.
MSW
- May/June 2004
|
