|
Letters to the Editor
From: “John Odermatt” <oderj@rb9.swrcb.ca.gov> Commentary on the I commend the editor(s) of HydroVisions for having the courage to print an article (Mr. FloodÕs “Regulatory Board Duped by Flawed Study”) and the WSPA response on the question: to purge or not to purge? Many technical/trade organizations do not appear to be open to opinions which seem to question the prevailing wisdom of the time. Reports or “studies” such as the WSPA report and the LLNL LUFT Report (1995) need to be honestly evaluated, reviewed, and debated in the literature more often. From my experience, these studies often get only “glowing reviews” published in the trade/technical literature, often at the behest of the organizations which paid for the study in the first place. Real debate requires views fairly and openly expressed by both sides of an issue. It appears that GRA has allowed the “purging” issue to receive a balanced presentation for the readers to decide for themselves. Good job! From: “John Reay” <jrthegeo@inforum.net> No Floyd, “Duped” was a good word. Keep up the good work.
Editor, HydroVisions In response to Mr. T. BrayÕs “disappointment” in Dr. Jones-LeeÕs and my discussion of “unreliability of groundwater monitoring in lined landfills,” where Mr. Bray asserts that our publications on this issue are in non-peer reviewed journals, if he had properly investigated and reported on the issues, he would have found that we published a discussion of the unreliability of groundwater monitoring at lined landfills in “A Groundwater Protection Strategy for Lined Landfills,” Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T) 28:584-5 (1994). This article was extensively peer reviewed. Further, as noted in our HydroVisions overview review and in the ES&T article, our work is based primarily on that of Dr. John CherryÕs classic work on this topic in “Groundwater Monitoring: Some Deficiencies And Opportunities,” 1990. While Dr. Cherry is an internationally-recognized authority in groundwater issues, his 1990 work is largely ignored by landfill applicants, their consultants, and regulatory agency staff in the permitting of minimum Subtitle D landfills. It is this situation that caused us to develop our HydroVisions discussion of this issue, since landfills are routinely being developed in California without adequate groundwater monitoring systems that comply with current regulatory requirements. The US EPA Subtitle D groundwater monitoring system regulations require: “A ground-water monitoring system must be installed that consists of a sufficient number of wells, installed at appropriate locations and depths, to yield ground-water samples from the uppermost aquifer (as defined in ¤258.2) that: (2) Represent the quality of ground water passing the relevant point of compliance specified by Director of an approved State under ¤248.40(d) or at the waste management unit boundary in unapproved States.” “(c) The sampling procedures and frequency must be protective of human health and the environment.” (emphasis added) Further, California regulations require that a sufficient number of monitoring wells be located so that they “Éprovide for the best assurance of the earliest possible detection of a release from a waste management unit.” (emphasis added) Mr. Bray states, “The title and tone of the article, however, are clearly intended to imply that groundwater monitoring is routinely carried out without the slightest consideration for local geological conditions or for the actual mechanisms of leakage and contaminant migration at the sites being monitored.” Mr. BrayÕs statement is another example of his distorted presentation of information in an attempt to support his ill-founded position. While Mr. Bray indicates that he has worked on 15 landfills where “...groundwater monitoring programs are routinely designed to reflect the specific subsurface conditions and probable mechanisms of contaminant migration at each site, we have been involved in review of over 50 landfills located in various parts of the US and have yet to find a single case where the groundwater monitoring system that is used reflects the issues raised by Cherry (1990) that the initial leakage through a plastic sheeting-lined landfill will produce finger plumes of leachate of limited dimension at the point of compliance where groundwater monitoring occurs. Further, we have yet to find a single case where the fact that the groundwater monitoring wells at the point of compliance often have zones of capture of a foot or so around each well is considered in developing well spacing at the point of compliance. Under typical conditions, with monitoring wells spaced hundreds to a thousand or more feet apart, which is typically used today, it is obvious that, as discussed in our HydroVisions article, as well as elsewhere, the basic premise of US EPA Subtitle D landfilling requirements of being able to detect the inevitable leakage of leachate through landfill liners at the point of compliance before off-site pollution of groundwaters occurs is fundamentally flawed. In fact, for essentially homogenous sand aquifer systems, Cherry and his associates have shown that an initial two-foot wide rip tear or point of deterioration in an FML will produce a leachate plume that is about 10 feet wide at 150 meters from the edge of the landfill. With monitoring wells spaced hundreds of feet apart, it is obvious that the groundwater monitoring systems being used for many Subtitle D landfills is a fundamentally flawed approach for assessing the inevitable groundwater pollution that will occur at essentially all minimum Subtitle D landfills sited at geologically unsuitable sites, i.e., lacking natural protection, when the flexible membrane liner systems being used fail to prevent leachate from passing through them for as long as the wastes in the landfill represent a threat. These are not just our views. The state of Michigan Rule 641 specifically addressed this issue where it will not allow a minimum Subtitle D single composite lined municipal landfill overlying vulnerable groundwaters because of the inevitable failure of the liner system and the unreliability of the groundwater monitoring system. This stateÕs Department of Natural Resources recognized this problem many years ago and requires a double composite liner where the lower composite liner is a leak detection system for the upper liner. This is the system that we advocated in our ES&T article as a means of addressing the fundamentally flawed nature of the groundwater monitoring systems that are being developed today at many minimum Subtitle D landfills. While Mr. Bray implies in his comments on our HydroVisions review that for the 15 landfills that he has been involved with there have been site-specific considerations of the local hydrogeology, he does not indicate whether this consideration is a superficial type of consideration that is typically given by landfill applicants, their consultants and by regulatory agency staff and boards or whether, as we have advocated for a number of years, the landfill applicant through its consultants is required to conduct a site-specific evaluation of the characteristics of the leachate plumes generated through initial leakage through the FML when it reaches the point of compliance for groundwater monitoring. This is a site-specific statistical/hydrogeological problem of assessing the dimensions of the leachate-polluted groundwater plume at the point of compliance relative to the zones of capture of the monitoring wells and the well spacing for failure of the landfill liner system that could occur at any location under the landfill footprint. It would be of interest to see if Mr. Bray at his 15 landfills has conducted this type of analysis and, if so, what has been found for homogeneous sand aquifer systems as well as other types of aquifer systems. Based on the work of Dr. CherryÕs group, monitoring wells would have to be spaced about 10 feet apart to conform to Subtitle D minimum requirements of detecting leachate-polluted groundwaters at the point of compliance with a high degree of reliability before off-site pollution occurs. If Mr. Bray has, in fact, conducted this type of analysis, it would be informative to have him make available to GRA for review by members a copy of reports that he has developed on this topic. They could be used as guides to other consultants and regulatory agencies on how such an analysis should be conducted. From our experience, consultants and regulatory agency staff are operating by a seat-of-the-pants approach toward establishing well spacing based on the hydrogeology of the system and the initial leakage characteristics of lined landfills. Mr. Bray, in his superficial approach toward addressing issues, comments, “Drs. Lee and Jones [sic] appear to lack any actual experience in developing or conducting groundwater monitoring programs at Subtitle D sites in California, as their entire article is based solely on regulatory framework and not on any specific instances where groundwater monitoring is found to be inadequate.” Mr. Bray fails, however, to provide the readers with a discussion of the situation that exists today with respect to failure of minimum Subtitle D landfill liner systems and groundwater monitoring systems to function as required in Subtitle D and the WRCB Chapter 15 requirements. The typical ploy used by landfill applicants and their consultants, as part of attempting to refute the work of Dr. Cherry and others, is that there is no proof that a minimum Subtitle D liner will fail and that the groundwater monitoring systems are inadequate based on actually finding failure and off-site groundwater pollution. Since this ploy has been frequently encountered in discussing the problems with proposed landfills on behalf of water utilities and others with whom we have worked who are concerned about protecting groundwaters from pollution by landfill leachate for as long as the wastes in the landfill will be a threat, we have developed a review of this topic entitled “Detection of the Failure of Landfill Liner Systems,” April 1996. A copy of this review is available from our web site (http://members.aol.com/gfredlee/gfl.htm). Minimum Subtitle D landfills have only been required since 1993. It would be highly unusual in this short period of time to have demonstrated proof that eventually during the infinite period of time that the wastes would be a threat at a minimum Subtitle D landfill that the liner will fail and that the groundwater monitoring systems with monitoring wells spaced hundreds to a thousand or so feet apart at the point of compliance have detected the liner failure. In most cases, liner failure that would have occurred in the past four years would be due to grossly inadequate construction and waste placement. Further, the transport rates of leachate and leachate-polluted groundwaters are such that it would be unlikely that leachate that had passed through the failed liner system would have reached the point of compliance at this time, which can be located, under Subtitle D requirements, at 150 meters from the edge of the waste management unit. Because of the fundamentally flawed nature of the groundwater monitoring approach, involving the use of monitoring wells with limited zones of capture compared to well spacing, it would be a pure fluke that the initial liner leakage groundwater pollution plumes would be detected by a groundwater monitoring well at the point of compliance as required by US EPA and Chapter 15 requirements of detecting leachate-polluted groundwaters at the earliest possible time. Some have characterized minimum Subtitle D landfills as a “time bomb.” If we follow the Bray approach, we will have to wait until the bomb goes off before we can address the obvious issues that the approach as being implemented today is fundamentally flawed and does not consider the issues raised by Cherry and others on the inadequacies of groundwater monitoring to detect pollution at minimum Subtitle D landfills. Mr. Bray states in his final paragraph, “I strongly disagree with his implication that groundwater monitoring programs are ÔunreliableÕ simply because he can develop a hypothetical situation in which the minimum regulatory requirements would fail to detect a release. This is his opinion and he may be entitled to it, but he should not be using the GRAC as an organ to validate his own opinion.” It is important to understand that we are not anti-landfill. They are a necessary part of our solid waste management for the non-recyclable, reusable residues. We are strongly opposed, however, to the superficial approach that has been used by landfill applicants, their consultants and, for that matter, regulatory agencies in addressing the obvious, significant, long-term problems associated with proposed landfills sited at most sites where minimum Subtitle D landfills can be developed in California. It is reasonable to expect that a groundwater monitoring system would have a high probability of detecting leachate-polluted groundwaters at the point of compliance, for any plausible landfill liner leak that could occur for as long as the wastes in the landfill will be a threat that could lead to the pollution of off-site groundwaters impairing their use for domestic or other purposes. Certainly, a situation where a substantial part of the leachate associated with liner leakage can pass by the point of compliance for groundwater monitoring without being detected by the monitoring wells does not comply with either Subtitle D or Chapter 15 requirements of adequate and reliable groundwater monitoring. Evidently, Mr. Bray has limited understanding of the published literature and the role of HydroVisions articles in validating positions on issues. It is certainly appropriate for HydroVisions to discuss issues of interest to the GRA members. The inherent unreliability of groundwater monitoring systems that exist today for lined landfills, and for that matter, for many other waste management units, is a topic that should be discussed by GRA members, through HydroVisions. Hopefully, these discussions can stimulate actions that can lead to more appropriate landfilling of municipal and other wastes that will, in fact, have a high degree of reliability in protecting groundwaters of the state from pollution by landfill leachate for as long as the waste in the landfill will be a threat. Alternative approaches for municipal solid waste landfilling and groundwater monitoring are readily available and are used in other parts of the country. These have been described in our publications, available from our web site, that are estimated to cost those that generate the waste about 10 to 20 cents more per day than they are paying now for minimum Subtitle D landfilling. It is our position that the groundwater resources of California are sufficiently important so that these costs should be borne by todayÕs waste generators in order to protect future generationsÕ groundwater resources. The State Water Resources Control Board is in the process of revising Chapter 15 requirements for landfilling of municipal solid waste. The situation today is that the State Board staff, without public review, sometime after 1993, adopted the Position that a minimum Subtitle D landfill could be sited at any location in California allowed under Subtitle D, which does not restrict siting with respect to groundwater value and vulnerability, and be protective of groundwater resources for as long as the waste in the landfill will be a threat. Such a position is a political position designed to perpetuate the initially cheaper than real cost garbage disposal. It was not based on a proper review of the substantial information available at the time that it was adopted by the State Board staff. I would hope that GRA would actively review these issues in depth and develop a position that supports the current Chapter 15 regulatory requirements of developing municipal solid waste and other landfills within the state that will protect groundwaters from landfill leachate pollution for as long as the wastes in the landfills are a threat. While these requirements were established in 1984, they have not been, and continue to not be, implemented by the regional boards. GRA could and should play an important role in addressing these issues. Several years ago as part of presenting invited lectures and short-courses on the deficiencies of landfilling of municipal solid wastes through various university extensions and the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Ground Water Association, California Groundwater Association, the National Water Resources Association, and other organizations, in response to a request from a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers Ethics Committee, Dr. Jones-Lee and I developed a review of the typical unreliable information provided by landfill applicants and their consultants in connection with the permitting of landfills. This review was published in condensed form in the ASCE Civil Engineering “Forum” as “Environmental Ethics: The Whole Truth.” A copy of the condensed version as well as the full back-up document entitled “Practical Environmental Ethics: Is There an Obligation to Tell the Whole Truth?” is available from our web site. Basically, this article discusses the significant, well-known problems that exist today where landfill applicants and their consultants fail to provide full disclosure of the potential problems associated with a proposed landfill in protecting public health, groundwater resources, the environment and the interest of those within the sphere of influence of the landfill for as long as the wastes in the landfill will be a threat. The codes of ethics for the National Society for Professional Engineers and the American Society of Civil Engineers require that any registered engineer provide full disclosure with respect to public health and environmental protection of their proposed projects. The typical approach used today by landfill applicants and their consultants follows the legal-adversary system used in the courts, where only the merits of a proposed project are discussed, without informing the public or regulatory agencies of the significant deficiencies in the proposed project in complying with Chapter 15 requirements of protecting groundwaters from pollution by landfill leachate for as long as the waste in the landfill will be a threat. It is well known that many consultants who work for landfill applicants and, for that matter, many other projects that have the potential to be adverse to the environment, must, if they want to continue to obtain business, only report on the positive aspects of a particular project and fail to report on the well-known significant negative aspects. It is also well known in the field that any consultants who normally work with landfill applicants who fully discuss in a public arena, such as a landfill permitting hearing, the long-term problems associated with the proposed landfill will do this only once, since they will not obtain further work with landfill applicants. In our discussion of these issues, we recommend that an independent full public peer review of technical issues, such as the adequacy of a groundwater monitoring system for a proposed landfill be conducted in which the landfill applicants and their consultants are required to provide information on their evaluation of the reliability of the groundwater monitoring system that they propose to use in detecting, at the earliest possible time, leachate polluted groundwater at the point of compliance. Adoption of this peer review process would eventually lead to a situation where engineering consultants would not have to violate their NSPE and ASCE codes of ethics for protection of public health and the environment in order to gain additional work with landfill applicants. If Mr. Bray feels that his 15 landfills with which he has been associated have properly evaluated the potential for complying with US EPA Subtitle D and Chapter 15 requirements, then he should welcome the opportunity to work through GRA to conduct an independent public peer review of the adequacy of the groundwater monitoring system design relative to the properties of the aquifer and the expected initial leakage through the flexible membrane liner. A comprehensive, in-depth peer review of Mr. BrayÕs landfill groundwater monitoring systems will demonstrate whether his discussion of issues, in which he attempts to critique our discussion of the unreliability of groundwater monitoring systems at lined landfills, is a superficial discussion or is, in fact, based on a proper evaluation of the reliability of groundwater monitoring systems developed for lined landfills to detect leachate-polluted groundwaters before off-site groundwater pollution occurs. It is our experience that it is indeed rare that consultants will participate in a full public, independent peer review of the quality of the groundwater monitoring system that has been developed for a particular landfill. We want to thank Mr. Bray for raising these issues. It provides us with an opportunity to discuss in more depth than was possible in our original review article, some of the key issues that need to be addressed in understanding and, most importantly, addressing the unreliability of groundwater monitoring systems used today at lined landfills.
G. Fred Lee & Associates
|