Peter Anderson, Executive Director...Presentation to the Environmental Review Commission. by Peter...

Presentation to theEnvironmental Review Commission.

by Peter Anderson, Executive DirectorThe Center for a Competitive Waste Industry

Presentation to thePresentation to theEnvironmental Review CommissionEnvironmental Review Commission..

byby Peter Anderson,Peter Anderson, Executive DirectorExecutive DirectorTheThe CenterCenter for afor a Competitive Waste IndustryCompetitive Waste Industry

____________________________TheThe CenterCenter for afor a CompetitiveCompetitive▶ Waste IndustryWaste Industry ◀◀


Routine care for 30 years afterclosure

Uncertain funding mechanismsintended to assure that the

routine care will be undertakenfor that period

The Industry ViewThe Industry ViewIndustry consultant Mort Barlaz

California Integrated Waste Management Bd.

Landfill Decomposition

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

Time (yrs)

AnaerobicBioreactor Landfill

Dry Tomb Landfill (dry site)

ContainmentFailure

Ga

s/L

ea

ch

ate

Ge

ne

ratio

n


Second WaveSecond WaveSecond WaveEPA in the Federal Register of Aug. 30, ’88–

“[E]ven the best liner andleachate collection systemswill ultimately fail due tonatural deterioration…”


…More Second Wave……More Second WaveMore Second WaveSWANA Director and former EPA OSW Chief,

John Skinner, in “Composting and Bioreactors,” MSWManagement Magazine (July/August 2001) –

“The problem with the dry-tomb approachto landfill design is that it leaves the wastein an active state for a very long period oftime. If in the future there is a breach in thecap or a break in the liner and liquids enterthe landfill, degradation would start andleachate and gas would be generated….”


The Second ProblemCosts are Enormous

The Second ProblemThe Second ProblemCosts are EnormousCosts are Enormous

The true costs to addressmajor landfill failures in the

future could be 10 timesgreater than Superfund

suggests -- which are 10 timeswhat current assurance covers


Containment v. RemediationContainment v. RemediationContainment v. RemediationE.P.A., Conducting Remedial Investigations - FeasibilityStudies for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites (1991)–

“[C]ontainment technologies willgenerally be appropriateremedies for wastes that pose arelatively low-level threat or wheretreatment is impracticable.”


The Flaw in EPA’s PolicyThe Flaw in EPAThe Flaw in EPA’’s Policys Policy

When landfills fail: [1] cities willhave sprawled around them and[2] standards will be stricter

Modern mega-fills are severalhundred feet high and maycollapse catastrophically


Catastrophic Site FailureCatastrophic Site FailureNear Cincinnati in 1996Near Cincinnati in 1996


$5,000,000 $20,000,000$40,000,000

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

RoutineNon-Routine

PalliativeRemediation

Third Party

Cumulative Orders of Magnitude

Different Magnitudes of Risk


Care Costs Exceed Cash FlowCare Costs Exceed Cash Flow

$70,000

$612,500

$630,000

$135,000

Cost of Care Net Income Free Cash Flow

Non-Routine

Rout ine

Annual Post-Closure MaintenanceWMI Available Funds Compared to

Source: Center for Competitive Waste Industry

WMI Financial Capability

Annual Maintenance$682,500


for Corrective Action & Third Party Injuryfor Corrective Action & Third Party Injury

Cover corrective actionand third-party injurieswith long-termcatastrophic insurance


Landfill Decomposition

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

Time (yrs)

AnaerobicBioreactor Landfill

Dry Tomb Landfill (dry site)

ContainmentFailure

Gas/L

ea

cha

teG

en

er a

tion

Peter Anderson, Executive Director...Presentation to the Environmental Review Commission. by Peter...

Documents

Transcript of Peter Anderson, Executive Director...Presentation to the Environmental Review Commission. by Peter...