SUNSHINE CANYON LANDFILL 74 A REPUBLIC SERVICES COMPANY

de4

November 18, 2014

VIA US MAIL AND EMAIL

Gail Farber Director of Public Works Emiko Thompson Senior Civil Engineer Environmental Programs Division County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works P.O. Box 1460 Alhambra, CA 91802-1460 gfarber@dpw.lacounty.gov ethomp@dpw.lacounty.gov

RE: County DPW Letter of October 22, 2014 re. Sunshine Canyon Landfill

Dear Ms. Farber and Ms. Thompson:

I am the General Manager of the Sunshine Canyon Landfill, which is owned and operated by Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (BFIC). I am responding to your letter of October 22, 2014.

While we are already substantially complying with the information requests set forth in your letter, it is our desire to meet with you to review the various mitigation measures requested to more fully understand the technical rationale and specific objectives sought from the new requirements. It has been our understanding that the results of the AQMD Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) will be the foundation for further discussions regarding potential additional mitigation measures specifically related to the landfill's gas collection and control system. Since the results of the SEP have yet to be published, we believe many of the requests detailed in your October 22nd letter are premature. An example of this is the request for the installation of additional horizontal and vertical wells. We would have expected the County to consider the results of the SEP before recommending significant changes in the landfill gas system design which our own professional gas collection system design engineers have not recommended.

Additionally, the Department's letter states that the new well requirements proposed by the Department are based on Condition 45 N in the CUP for the County side of the Sunshine Canyon Landfill. That condition states in relevant part "the Director of Public Works and the DPH-SWNP shall each have the authority to require the Permittee to implement additional collective measures for complaints of this nature [i.e. dust and odor complaints from local residents] when such measures are deemed necessary to protect public health and safety."

14747 San Fernando Rd., Sylmar, CA 91342 (818) 833-6500 Office (818) 362-5484 Fax

Gail Farber Emiko Thompson November 18, 2014 Page 2

There is no evidence to suggest that the faint and fleeting odors that may potentially be generated on occasion by the landfill are adversely affecting public health and safety. A great deal of air quality monitoring has been performed by BFIC and by Sonoma Tech, acting as consultants to the Technical Advisory Committee. None of the air quality monitoring data collected over the past several years has in any way suggested that air emissions from the landfill pose a potential threat to public health and safety. In fact, it is well established in the scientific community that odors alone, even strong odors, are not a threat to the health or safety of individuals, and in fact cause no physical harm or illness.

The occasional odors claimed by some neighbors to come from the landfill are described by SCAQMD personnel as faint or very faint, and fleeting. Moreover, as discussed below, faint and fleeting odors, even if they are all from the landfill, do not rise to the level of a "nuisance" under the standards adopted by those jurisdictions that have sought to establish quantifiable science-based limitations on odor intensity and duration.

Therefore, there is no basis under Condition 45 N of the County's CUP to require the landfill to take further actions for the ostensible purpose of protecting public health and safety, where the faint and fleeting odors claimed to be caused by the landfill are indisputably not a threat to public health or safety.

The Department 9-Inch Daily Soil Requirement Interferes With The Gas Collection System.

Before continuing the discussion of the new odor mitigation measures, I would like to first remind the Department of the continued negative repercussions of the County's requirement regarding the manner of use of 9 inches of daily cover soil, which we believe has adversely affected the landfill's ability to control potential odor emissions.

On September 27, 2010, the Department sent a letter to BFIC requiring BFIC to apply 9 inches of daily cover soil at the landfill working face and not to remove or peel back the cover soil from the disposal area at the beginning of the next operating day. We have provided the County with expert reports explaining why this practice interferes with both the gas collection and leachate collection systems in the landfill by creating permanent semi-impermeable lenses inside the waste mass that prevent the flow of leachate to the leachate collection system and the flow of gas to the gas collection system. These semi-impermeable lenses created by the Department's requirement result in honeycombed structures inside the landfill that: (1) trap and hold leachate in the waste mass—which, because it remains in the waste mass, interacts with the waste and generates more landfill gas; and (2) cause leachate to flow into the gas collection system wells because they become the path of least resistance to the gravity flow of leachate, which in turn clogs the wells so they cannot perform their function of collecting landfill gas. In fact, the number of odor complaints regarding the landfill increased following implementation of the Department's daily cover soil requirement.

The five written reports we provided the Department in September 2012 and December 2012 reflect the combined expertise of six licensed professional engineers in California, all of whom specialize in landfill engineering and gas and leachate collection system design and

Gail Farber Emiko Thompson November 18, 2014 Page 3

operations. Their expert findings are remarkably consistent—namely, that the County's requirement that the 9-inches of cover soil at the working face remain in place when disposal operations begin the next day is: (a) ineffective, (b) counter-productive, and (c) most likely interfering with the landfill's ability to control surface odor emissions and is itself a potential cause of off-site odors

Here is a summary of key comments from the expert engineering reports we have provided the County:

1) Blue Ridge Services (Mr. Neal Bolton, a licensed professional engineer and highly respected advisor to public and private landfill operators throughout California) opined that the Department's daily cover soil mandates "are not helping to control odors but are, in fact, likely to increase odors." (Blue Ridge Report, p. 14; emphasis added.) The Blue Ridge report states that "[t]he practice of removing daily/intermediate soil prior to placing additional waste is industry-wide and is supported not only by regulations, but by industry textbooks as well. (Blue Ridge Report, at pp. 11-2.)

2) The Technical Memorandum prepared by Michael Yacyshyn, a licensed professional engineer and Chief Engineer of Brown and Caldwell (whose firm was approved by the SCAQMD as the Environmental Monitor for the Sunshine Canyon Landfill), concluded that "the requirement to place a 9-inch thick daily cover soil and leave it in place is unusual and counterproductive. This requirement: hinders effective LFG [landfill gas] control; [and] can result in perched layers, as evidenced in the CC-2 area, that can render LFG extraction wells non-functional, produce leachate seeps and excess pore pressures potentially destabilizing the waste mass..." (Brown and Caldwell Technical memorandum, at p. 2.) Indeed, the Brown and Caldwell report states that non-functional landfill gas extraction wells caused by flooding of the gas collection wells resulting from the 9-inch daily cover soil requirement "may have been the largest single factor contributing to the offsite odors..." (Ibid, emphasis added.)

3) A report by Michael Leonard, a licensed professional engineer and Senior Engineer for the Methane Gas Group of Bryan A. Stirrat and Associates (BAS), which firm has intimate knowledge of the design and operations of the Sunshine Canyon Landfill gas collection system, stated "...the data suggests that the Los Angeles County DPW requirement to place 9 inches of soil at the end of each day and not remove it before commencing daily landfilling operations has created relatively impermeable lenses in the landfill that are likely causing leachate accumulation in the LFG wells, thereby interfering with performance of the wells." (Emphasis added.)

4) A report by Paul Stout and Maura Dougherty, both licensed professional engineers with the Cornerstone Group, who performed a detailed review of the design of the Sunshine Canyon Landfill gas collection system, concluded that "Cornerstone

Gail Farber Emiko Thompson November 18, 2014 Page 4

believes that the daily 9-inch soil layers that are not removed, and thus buried, may be the main cause of the liquid within the wells" and that the removal of this requirement "would greatly improve the ability of the liquids in the landfill to drain to the underlying leachate collection and removal systems. This in turn would likely result in landfill gas extraction wells...to operate more efficiently." (Cornerstone Report, p. 2; emphasis added.)

5) M. Ali Mehrazarin, a licensed professional engineer who has worked for many years on the Sunshine Canyon Landfill, states in a letter report that the Department's requirements of 9-inch of daily cover soil that must be placed at the end of each operating day in the disposal area and not removed when disposal operations begin the following day, is "ineffective and counter-productive, and should be eliminated." The Department's requirements create "a series of small waste cells separated by barriers of soil." (A-Mehr letter, p. 2.) These soils are relatively impermeable. (Ibid.) The creation of these small cells "impedes the downward flow of gas... [and] the well becomes ineffective for the control of gas near the surface and can contribute to surface emissions and odor problems at the site." (A-Mehr letter, p. 3; emphasis added.)

The expert findings we have submitted to the Department two years ago are logical when you consider how a landfill is filled and how the gas collection and leachate control systems are designed to operate. These environmental control systems are designed so that gas can be collected in the gas collection wells and leachate can flow freely through the waste mass and be collected in the leachate collection system at the bottom of the fill. Creating a series of small honeycombs that trap the gas and liquids is the antithesis of this basic design concept.

We note the comment in your letter that the County would be willing to consider allowing us to remove the 9-inches of daily soil once all odor complaints regarding the landfill have stopped, but the problem with this approach is that the 9-inches of soil requirement is impeding the ability of the landfill to control odors and it should be removed immediately.

In summary, despite our expert submittals, the Department has never sought to defend the 9-inches of daily cover soil requirement on the basis of sound landfill engineering practices. In fact, we have never been given any clear rationale at all for the requirement.

Complaints and NOVs.

Your letter recites that the landfill has received numerous complaints and 99 Notices of Violation (NOVs) from the SCAQMD over a six-year period. You also acknowledge that in that time frame, the Sunshine Canyon Landfill has made substantial improvements to its operational practices and its gas collection system. In fact, BFIC has invested over $25 million to control landfill gas and will continue to invest funds to remain in full compliance.

As you may know, in 2012 five Granada Hills residents filed a purported class action lawsuit against BFIC seeking nuisance damages. One of the litigants has created a "Google

Gail Farber Emiko Thompson November 18, 2014 Page 5

alert" system consisting of other residents, whereby he will walk his property late at night to see if he can detect what he considers to be landfill gas odors, and if he detects any odors whatsoever he sends an email to the Google group, asking them to step outside, smell the air and if they smell anything to call the SCAQMD hotline to register an odor complaint. The purpose of the Google alert system is to create a sufficient number of complaints to require the SCAQMD inspector to drive to the neighborhood to confirm complaints and issue a notice of violation. It is clear that the litigants have been encouraged by their counsel in the lawsuit to generate as many complaint calls and, hopefully, NOVs as possible.

When the total number of complaints is viewed in the context of how many separate individuals are actually making the complaints, the information provided by the SCAQMD reveals that approximately 48% of all complaints received during the last year have come from a core group of 5-7 individuals/addresses. Many of these individuals are named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and we believe most are in the aforementioned Google group. In short, these individuals have an independent financial interest to register complaints with the Air District. Many of these individuals are also part of a long-standing campaign to close the landfill, regardless of the odor issue.

With respect to the 99 NOVs referenced in your letter, the SCAQMD's published guidelines on odor nuisances provides a scale for determining at what level of intensity an odor may be considered a nuisance. That chart, which the Air District's inspector has confirmed is the only written guidance published by the SCAQMD regarding when an odor may be considered a nuisance provides (with emphasis added) as follows:

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ODOR CLASSIFICATION

CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION

No odor No detectable odor.

Very Faint

Faint

An odor that would ordinarily not be noticed by the average person, but could be detected by the experienced inspector or a very sensitive individual.

An odor so weak that the average person might detect it, if his or her attention were called to it, but that would not otherwise attract attention.

Gail Farber Emiko Thompson November 18, 2014 Page 6

Distinct

Strong

An odor of moderate intensity that would be readily detected and might be regarded with disfavor (A possible nuisance in inhabited areas.)

An odor that would force itself upon the attention and that might make the air very unpleasant (a probable nuisance, if found in inhabited areas).

Very Strong An odor of such intensity that the air would be absolutely unfit to breath.

One can see from the SCAQMD's published guidance that odors that are considered to be "faint" or "very faint" are not described as having the potential to create a public nuisance. This approach of requiring a minimum amount of odor intensity before a public nuisance can be deemed to be created by an odor source has been followed in a number of jurisdictions throughout the United States.

Despite the SCAQMD's published guidelines as to how strong odors must be in order to constitute a potential public nuisance, the Air District's inspector has stated under oath in a deposition originally noticed by the plaintiffs' counsel in the lawsuit, that his practice is to issue an NOV whenever there are six odor complaints in the neighborhood and he can detect any odor whatsoever-- no matter how faint and no matter how fleeting. In recent months, the inspector has consistently reported that the odors he detected were fleeting and either faint or very faint.

To our knowledge, no regulatory agencies have made any attempt whatsoever to objectively measure the intensity of the occasional faint and fleeting odors that could possibly be attributed to the landfill.

The Department's New Well Density Requirements Do Not Have Any Engineering Justification.

Based on the Radius of Influence of a gas well calculated by our consultant, there is no engineering justification for three wells per acre. As outlined above, the continued use of 9" of soil cover seriously affects the performance of a gas well and merely increasing the density of gas wells does not help improve the efficiency of the gas collection system. Additionally, there are significant operational impacts of having wells spaced so closely together that the equipment and vehicles that operate across the working face will have little to no room to maneuver.

Conclusion

Sunshine Canyon Landfill remains committed to meet or exceed all rules and regulations governing waste disposal and take continuous steps supported by sound landfill engineering practices to control odor emissions. As I am sure you recognize, the landfill meets a significant need for both the County and the City for waste disposal capacity and it is our strong desire to

Sincer

Gail Farber Emiko Thompson November 18, 2014 Page 7

meet this need with minimal impact to the surrounding community. To that end, we have made significant improvements to the site's gas collection and control systems (GCCS) as outlined below.

• Installation of two new, state of the art flare systems • 425 vertical extraction wells • 18,500 linear feet of 36-inch and 24-inch perimeter header piping • Over 40,000 linear feet of horizontal collectors in waste • 3,000 linear feet of perimeter liner collectors • 16,500 linear feet of lateral piping and slope collectors • New 200 horsepower blowers at flares 1, 3 and 8

Additionally, we are prepared to move forward upon regulatory review and approval with a pilot proposal to conduct an Alternative Daily Cover Pilot Project using geosynthetic panel product as alternative daily cover (ADC) in lieu of the 9 inches of soil currently being used. This is a follow-up action to the Interagency Task Force recommendations submitted on June 27, 2013. One of the recommended operational changes made by the Task Force includes a "pilot project for the Landfill Operator to demonstrate the effective use of a biodegradable or thermodegradeable plastic approved as Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) or combinations of ADCs which meet the statutory performance standards that apply".

For the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that the additional Odor Mitigation Measures outlined in the County's letter dated October 22, 2014 be held in abeyance until the SCAQMD Supplemental Environmental Project regarding the effectiveness of the landfill's gas collection system is released and evaluated. Additionally, as stated at the outset, I would ask that representatives from Sunshine Canyon and the Department of Public Works meet to discuss the additional reporting requirements outlined in your letter.

Rob Sherman General Manager Sunshine Canyon Landfill

Gail Farber Emiko Thompson November 18, 2014 Page 8

cc: South Coast Air Quality Management District (Mohsen Nazemi, Edwin Pupka) Sunshine Canyon Landfill Local Enforcement Agency (G. Villalobos, D. Thompson) Department of Regional Planning (Maria Masis, Iris Chi) Department of Public Health (Gerry Villalobos) City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning (Ly Lam) Sunshine Canyon Landfill Technical Advisory Committee (Lisa Webber, Jon Sanabria) Sunshine Canyon Landfill Community Advisory Committee (B. Bendikson, W. Hunter) Members of the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Committee/Integrated Waste

Management Task Force