Achieving “Closure” on a Pre-Regulation Burn Dump

SWANA Western Regional Symposium

Presented by: Janet Goodrich, CH2M

2

Agenda

Regulatory Framework

Typical Process

Site Information

Approved Approach

3

What should you learn from this presentation?

Pre-Regulatory burn dumps in CA must be closed under a regulatory process that requires implementation of “State Minimum Standards” Pre-Regulation = site that predates landfill regulations and was not

formally closed

i.e. consolidate and cap or clean close

This project is the first CA risk-based burn dump “closure” (regulations and guidance allow)

Precedent is now available!

4

Regulatory Framework

5

Burn Dump Regulatory Framework

Pre-regulation: regulate municipal waste disposal, often not high on the priority list for agencies

“Action” is usually required with changes to site use, triggered by owner:

• State minimum standards requirements under CCR Title 27, non-hazardous solid waste regulations

• Former burn dump sites are subject to the 2003 DTSC Burn Dump Protocol

Typical Closure – consolidate and cap with land use restriction or clean closure

6

• Primary agencies

• California Department of Resource Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)

• CalRecycle Designated Local Enforcement Agency (LEA)

• Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)

• Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)

• Can often also Involve

• California or US Fish and Wildlife

• US Army Corps of engineers (wetlands)

• CUPA

Typical Regulatory Agencies

7

Burn Dump Protocol (Ref: CA Burn Dump Protocol, DTSC)

8

Regulatory ProcessWhat Usually Happens vs Our Example

What We Did Voluntarily

• Developed investigation approach and gained approval

• Performed Investigation, Risk Assessment, then Work Plan. Gained approval

• Performed remediation

Typical – CalRecycle and LEA Drives Process

• Site Identified by LEA

• Investigated by CalRecycle

• Remediated by CalRecycle

• Cost Recovery sought by Cal Recycle

Why? Allowed us to use closure approach that considered endangered species and

special site constraintsProblem: No regulatory precedent

9

Site Information (Case Study)

Key Information

Historical 7-acre burn dump in northwest corner of a privately owned industrial site

• 1920s - 1940s: portion of site used for municipal burn dump

• 1977/1978: Current owner purchased parcel from the city and constructed a facility outside of the former burn dump area

• Burn ash on multiple properties owned by different entities

Overhead power lines transect property – 3 networks

Surrounded by closed landfills, high end retail and commercial, major roadways no residential

Wetlands formed along low areas where burn ash was piled; habitat for fairy shrimp (federally protected species)

Site is densely vegetated currently, fully fenced

11

Investigation and Study Information

Ecological Risk Assessment indicated protection of vernal pools and species outweighs other risk

Human Health Risk indicated current site conditions with restricted minimal access are fully protective of the current onsite workers and offsite populations

Elevated risk for intrusive work, if performed in the future, would require controls.

Burn ash contains metals (primarily lead), PAHs and dioxin

Groundwater and surface water risks not evident

11

12

12

Vernal Pools Formed Between Burn Dump Piles

Well (Reference Point)

SummerSpring

Vernal pools formed between burn dump

piles

Large burn dump pile

(central berm)

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp

13

Innovative Approach

14

Rather Than Typical CalRecycle Approach…

Perform limited sampling (habitat and species limitations)

Perform HHRA and EcoRA

Prepare a FS – risk based decision process

Work Plan for approved alternative

Complete closure

15

Alternatives Considered

Alternative Description

1 Status Quo / No Action

2 Site Access Controls

3

Site Access Controls with Limited Capping and Stabilization, and Drainage Improvements (Selected)

4 Site Access Controls with Consolidate and

Cap

5 Clean Closure

Objectives for Selected Closure Alternative

Satisfy Burn Dump Protocol

Avoid Ecological Impacts

• Protect wetland/vernal pools

• Protect terrestrial receptors

Minimize Disruption to Site Operations

Compare Cost – Benefit

Optimize Sustainability: Stressors include greenhouse gases, local economy, biological resources, and waste soil recycling/reuse

16

17

Alternative 3 – Site Access Controls with Limited Capping and Stabilization, and Drainage Improvements

Strategy:

• Import clean soil to cover exposed burn ash, establish vegetation

• Implement localized drainage improvements

• Add gravel to existing roads

Burn Dump Protocol – satisfied

• Protective of human health for typical non-intrusive site workers. Procedures will be in place to address risks to intrusive workers (site management plan)

• Surface water: Controls potential run-off from site

Ecological Impacts – Balance protected species vs potential impacts

• Does not address potential risk to terrestrial receptors

• No impact to vernal pools

Site Operations: No disruption to facility and power lines

Costs: Moderate capital and moderate O&M

18

Addressing the Burn Dump Protocol –Risk Based Approach

Risk Assessment as an alternative to state minimum standards (HHRA primarily, EcoRA for decisions).

Gap: Who would review and accept risk assessment, CalRecycle not able to do that, but used an IA with DTSC, passed costs back to LEA, to site owner.

CalRecycle was very helpful once we got high level staff involved to help drive “outside the box” process. They saw advantages to their agency and the CIA program to having a precedent based on risk.,

19

Alternative 3 Construction Completed in 2015

Site Access Controls with Limited Capping and Stabilization, and Drainage Improvements

Site Work Closure• Signage, post and cable across roads• Import and place clean soil or erosion mat where needed to establish

vegetation• Localized drainage control improvements with potential stormwater

monitoring • Road maintenance (geotextile and rock)

Permit type actions remaining: Deed Restriction, Site Management Plan (SMP)

O&M (Post-Closure): Implementing SMP, including training; maintenance

20

Summary

• Key Message - IT IS POSSIBLE to “close” a pre-regulation disposal site or burn dump with a “risk based” approach that does not default to state minimum standards (consolidate and cap with drainage control or clean closure)

• This project provided a precedent for a process to use a “risk based” closure (including potentially other types of pre-regulation sites)

• CalRecycle is interested in seeing how this can be applied where it makes sense in other cases

Thank You

Contact:

Janet GoodrichCH2M Sacramento, CA

916-286-0362

Janet.Goodrich@ch2m.com