Environment, Coasts, Oceans, & Infrastructure

I have been concerned with a landfill in Oregon ever since I was professionally involved with it in the 1980's.  Please read the below history, then your comments would be appreciated.  Several ethical questions are:

1.  Is it ethical for a professional engineer to inspect a project and approve construction without knowledge of the original design and approval?

2.  Does an EPA clause in a Technical Guidance Manual that waives application of an EPA rule meet an Engineer's responsibility to "Protect the health, safety and welfare of the public?"

3.  Is the attached history a good reflection of our engineering community?

4.  How would you handle these politics?

My engineering concerns are now being (or not being) addressed by a public affairs officer.

I know my opinion, but it doesn't seem to have a wide acceptance.

Thank you.

Leonard

Dear Friends,

Riverbend Landfill is out of control, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is determined to ensure that at any cost, it continues to grow.  This is not right.  Let me explain.

I am a consulting Civil Engineer, Professional Land Survey and Water Rights Examiner licensed in the State of Oregon, and this year am celebrating my 40th year of professional practice.  I have been following Riverbend Landfill since 1982 when I laid out the original survey coordinate system for Riverbend, revised the original construction plans, and for a brief while, was the “Engineer of Record” until my concerns over Riverbend Landfill ™s failure to meet the landfills design and specifications led me to resign.

It was obvious to me even then, that Riverbend Landfill was going to become a major environmental hazard, and that the DEQ would be no help.  I laid out Cells 1, 2 and 3, and measured ground water levels that showed that ground water moves in and out of the garbage.  Compaction of cell bottoms was next to non-existent for four years, and the DEQ tested it at 60% (95% required), but allowed garbage to be placed below ground water levels anyway.

The original design was for the landfill to rise to a height of 157 feet above sea level, or a height of 37 feet above the toe of the berm elevation of 120 feet and 7 feet above the farmed fields at elevation 150 feet.  After the original Yamhill County and DEQ and approval, I was asked to revise the original plans to steepen the slopes to a height of 178 feet or 58 feet above the toe of the berm elevation of 120 feet and 28 feet above the top of the farm fields on the uplands.

The landfill was constructed the flood plain and floodway of the South Yamhill River.  I know, because I calculated the survey coordinates based on a redlined map from the Army Corps of Engineers..  The flood plain is defined as the area flooded during floods.  The flood way is defined as the channel in the flood plain where the flood flows are carried.  The 100 year flood elevation is about 137 feet.  The 500 year flood elevation is about 139 feet.  The top of the perimeter flood control/perimeter support berm is 145 feet.  The toe of flood control berm is about a mile along, and is located in the flood plain of the South Yamhill River.  The 100 year flood waters submerge the bottom of the flood control/landfill perimeter support berm between 9 to 17 feet.  A picture is attached.

Some statistics about the original landfill:

10% of the Riverbend Landfill is in the Floodway.
 52.4% of Riverbend Landfill is in the Floodway and Floodplain
 29% of the landfill (At least Cells No. 1, 2 and 3) are not lined and portions of these cells are below ground water

Of course, the DEQ now maintains that none of the these statistics are true because when I calculated and made them public in 2012, Waste Management and the DEQ discovered that the original flood maps from 1982 (30 years before) had not been revised to reflect landfill construction, and since Waste Management has unlimited resources and because Yamhill bent over backwards to get a flood map change approved, the “official flood plain and floodway line now follows the flood control berm.  Problem “solved”.

The DEQ is also ignoring future problems from the meandering channel of the South Yamhill River.  Waste Management did provide a study that documents the meandering, but the DEQ conveniently ignored the figures in the report, failed to note that the eroding bend nearest the landfill was not covered by the report, and focused on a statement that, “the current planform of the South Yamhill, within the project area, has not changed significantly from what it was historically.  This hypothesis is supported by radio carbon dating of a Native American archaeological site on a flood terrace with the project area that dates back to approximately 3,000 years before the present”.  The report then goes on to say that, “The measured rated of channel migration ranged from 3.9 feet per year to 1.5 feet per year with a mean of 2.2 feet per year.”  The rate is increasing, and the report fails to note that the perimeter berm is only 345 feet from an eroding 90 degree bend.  You can do the math.  Since the landfill isn't going anywhere, think on a geologic scale and great-great grand kids.

Waste Management compounded the problem by mining thousands of cubic yards of dirt out of the flood plain, and failed to get a Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) permit.  Wasted Management also “jumped the gun” by mining dirt on adjoining property last summer.  Again, the DEQ and DOGAMI did not see a problem of mining dirt without a permit.  The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community did see a problem with cultural resources, and mining in the flood plain has temporarily stopped.

In the 1980's, earthquakes were not even discussed as part of an engineering design.  Now, we (except the DEQ), know better, and a chart of the Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake history is attached.    None, and I repeat NONE of the original 8 cells of Riverbend Landfill have ever been studied to ANY of the earthquakes on this chart.  Cells 1, 2 and 3 have not been studied for ANYearthquakes, yet the DEQ is still allowing garbage to now be piled up to 286 feet high (yes, that is a 108 foot increase from 1982).

Cells 4 and 5 have been studied to a 7.25 magnitude earthquake.  If you Google “Earthquake Calculator”, you can determine that a 9.0 magnitude earthquake is 56.234 times bigger than a 7.25 earthquake but releases 421.696 times the energy.  It is not the same as paying $9.00 for lunch instead of $7.25.  Of course, the chart says "9.0 plus", and the current opinions are as high as 9.2.

But wait, there is more!  The July 1993 study for Cells 4 and five for a 7.25 earthquake was based on landfill slopes up from the top of the perimeter flood control/landfill support berm being 4 feet horizontal to one foot vertical, with an expected height of 96 feet above the top of the berm.  This results in a maximum heights of 145 plus 95 or 240 feet, yet the DEQ is allowing a steeper 3.5 feet horizontal to one foot vertical slope with a maximum height of 286 feet (46 feet higher than the 1993 study).  I asked the permit engineer when the increase in height was approved, and what the design calculations were.  He did not know, but he did state that a 3.5 foot horizontal to one foot vertical was “allowed by administrative rule”.   To me, that is like adding four floors to a skyscraper without engineering calculations because it is allowed by the zoning code.

I have repeatedly pressed the DEQ ™s Permit Engineer on this issue, and he not only continues not to know what was approved, but refuses to even find out.

Can  you imagine a professional engineer in the State of Oregon whose “paramount duty is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public” not knowing the approved design for a facility that is his responsibility to inspect and certify for conformance to the approved plans and specifications?

My letters on engineering concerns are now forward to the Public Affairs Officer in Bend who stated, “EPA guidance identifies “unstable areas” as areas including poor foundation conditions, areas susceptible to mass movements and Karst terrains. These areas are not conditions found at Riverbend Landfill.”

The rule actually continues to state, “(1)  Unstable area means a location that is susceptible to natural or human-induce events or forces capable of impairing the integrity of some or all of the landfill structural components responsible for preventing releases from a landfill.”

I suggested that to the DEQ ™s Public Affairs Officer that he read the 20 July 2015 article in the New Yorker Magazine on the Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake.  The link is   http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/annalsofseismology. One sentence states, “Kenneth Murphy, who directs FEMA ™s Region X, the division responsible for Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska, says, “Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast.”
 
I also suggested that he reviews Yumi Wang's Hospital Report for Yamhill and Lincoln Counties addressing liquefaction.  One of the comments in the report states, “In addition to damage to bridges from earthquake shaking, damage would occur from tsunami flooding to road segments in low lying portions of Highway 101 especially near the Siletz River, from landslides especially toward the western portion of Highway 18 (ODOT mileposts 13 to 18); and from liquefaction especially between Sheridan and McMinnville”.  In case you don't know, Riverbend Landfill is located on the riverside of Highway 18 between Sheridan and McMinnville.

I also recommended that he check DOGAMI ™s web site for the conditions at Riverbend Landfill.  You can do it yourself at this link:

http://www.opb.org/aftershock/?lat=45.1681697&lng=-123.25000520000003&loc=%2013469%20OR-18,%20McMinnville,%20OR%2097128

I also stated that Waste Management ™s current application being reviewed by the DEQ includes constructing roads and berms in wetlands and the existing and former flood plains of the South Yamhill River and its tributaries.  Every engineer except Waste Management ™s and the DEQ ™s, and any person with some common sense that I talk to, knows that landfills should not be located in wet climates with 39 inches of rainfall a year (one million gallons per acre per year), wetlands, flood ways, former flood ways, flood plains, former flood plains and the Cascadia Subduction Earthquake Zone.  Did I mention Western Pond Turtle Habitat that is protected by Oregon Administrative Rules?

I also recommended review of the DEQ ™s approval of the Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall located on the uplands on the West side of the landfill.  The wall was approved by the DEQ after the DEQ lobbied the Oregon Department of Minerals and Industry to back off on their written recommendation to use a 9.0 earthquake standard.  While the DEQ stated that DOGAMI felt that the analysis method submitted by the applicant “met the standard of practice”, DOGAMI felt that the “assumptions tend to reduce the risk.”  DOGAMI ™s recommendation was ignored.

I recommended review of the EPA Section 258 standards require that earthquake analyses meet a 10% chance of happening in 250 years.  The DEQ approval of the MSE wall did not meet the EPA standard because it approved a 10% chance of happening in 236 years.  236 years is less than 250 years.  Furthermore, it totally ignored common sense and Oregon ™s earthquake history of nineteen 9.0 plus earthquakes in the last 10,000 years, or an average return interval of 526 years which is a 10% chance of happening in 53 years.

Furthermore, USGS recommended a distance to the earthquake of 48 km and a peak ground acceleration of 0.58 g.  The DEQ approved a distance of 75 km (farther away from the failure zone) and a peak ground acceleration of 0.415 g.  DOGAMI was right, “the assumptions tend to reduce the risk,” but even this didn't help produce a result that met the factor of safety.

Kleinfelder, a national engineering firm, who for some reason (rumored to be corporate politics) declined to do further work for Waste-Not, concluded that the movement in the landfill will be two to five times greater than the analysis approved by the DEQ.  The DEQ ignored Kleinfelder ™s report.

If one read Waste Management ™s application to Yamhill County for Riverbend Landfill (prepared by an attorney), one would think that Riverbend Landfill is a modern, state of the art lined landfill.  It is designed to have a top liner, a bottom liner, and a secondary bottom liner.  Therefore, one would think that leachate would not represent a problem to the environment.  The top liner should prevent rain water from getting into the landfill.  The bottom line collects the water that does, and the secondary bottom liner collects the leachate that makes it through the top and bottom liner.  It is well known in the industry that all liners leak.  The issue is, "how much".

However, 29% of the landfill bottom is not lined (Cells 1, 2 and 3).  Out of the million gallons per acre of rain that falls on each acre of Riverbend Landfill ever year, about 20% of it was hauled out of Yamhill County (9 tanker loads a day) in 2013.  Leachate generation has increased from 19,279,540 gallons in 2013 to 32,225,199 gallons in 2014, a 67% increase, or 37% of the rain that falls.  This leachate is collected below the top liner and between the two bottom liners and from ground water in Cells 1, 2 and 3.  It cannot be treated by any facility in Yamhill County because it is toxic to biological sewer treatment plants.  The 2014 amount average per day is 0.1367 cfs which is 24% of the lowest measured flows of 0.58 cfs the South Yamhill River.  The South Yamhill River is heavily used for irrigation of food crops.  The City of Newberg gets its water downstream from gravel deposits next to the Willamette River, and Wilsonville gets its water from the Willamette River.  Reminds me of the saying, "Let them eat cake!", but should be modified to, "Let them drink leachate!"

Leachate has to be hauled across bridges and roads that probably will not be standing or passable after the earthquake even if the leachate collection, pumping and storage systems were still intact.  EPA rules require that these systems be "demonstrated" to withstand predicted movements, but I don't know how one does that when they are buried under 160 feet of garbage.

In January/February of 2014, there was a slide on the perimeter berm (which as of last November, had not been studied or repaired) and heavy rains and snow made it impossible to haul leachate from the site and the leachate ponds came close to overflowing.  Apparently one good snow storm and some heavy rains can overwhelm the existing system.  A picture of the DEQ report is attached.  Note the checked boxes.  Makes you wonder if the DEQ can recognize a problem when they see one.

I have taken numerous pictures of mud being tracked onto Highway 18 from Riverbend Landfill, trucks washing the dirt into the stream, and acres of unprotected landfill slopes.  In spite of permit requirements prohibiting these practices, the DEQ has ignored the violations.  However, the were able to fine one of my clients about $4,000, not because there was any erosion or sediment movement, but because the contractor rocked a gravel construction entrance with finish rock after the project was completed and because the “grass wasn't fully established”.

Today, I just got an e-mail that said that the DEQ is not going to enforce its regulations to require a closure permit at this time even though the existing Riverbend Landfill has less than two years of space.  An approved closure permit is required five years before reaching capacity.  Apparently, the DEQ is gambling with your watershed expecting that the land use appeal of Yamhill County ™s approval of expansion will be in Waste Management ™s favor, and that the DEQ will be successful in ignoring common sense and good engineering judgement by approving a landfill expansion in a flood plain, a flood way, a wetland, in a wet climate on liquefiable soils in the Cascadia Subduction Earthquake Zone.

And by the way, Waste-Not, a group advocating closure of Riverbend Landfill, just released a report by a hydogeologist that states that Riverbend Landfill is leaking and does not meet water quality standards.  I knew that was happening 43 years ago.

In case you were wondering, regulations do require  that landfills have a “catastrophic closure plan” and funding to implement it, but if you assume that it would cover damage from an earthquake, you would be mistaken.  The DEQ is not requiring that for Riverbend because, “if they required it for Riverbend, they would have to require it for every landfill.”  So, to the DEQ, a “catastrophe” consists of funding to cover Waste Management ™s walking away from the site plus money for the predicted operation and maintenance costs for 30 years.  I question DEQ ™s and the Yamhill County ™s Commissioners trust that Waste Management will be around forever.  Will they continue to fund Riverbend ™s closure forever, or as long as it takes.  Should they instead consider that Riverbend Landfill is actually a separate company owned by Waste Management, and if it becomes a liability after closure, or a huge liability after an earthquake, Riverbend Landfill Company will go broke.  Will Yamhill County foreclose for non-payment of property taxes?  Could the State of Oregon successfully sue Waste Management, but what kind of case would they have if they helped create the problem?

So, if there is a problem with the present or failed landfill, will we be able to clean it up, or will we all be picking up garbage out of the South Yamhill, Willamette, and Columbia River for generations?  Will we be posting “NO SWIMMING” or “DON ™T EAT THE FISH” signs in our parks from McMinnville to Astoria?

And who is going to pay for the cleanup when it happens?  Fortunately, that has been decided by the rule that the EPA passed in 1980 called “The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).  In other words, it is the polluters, and if you have garbage service or haul to Riverbend Landfill, your name and address is on record.

I will be happy to provide any of the background information on any of the above statements, but I hope that you can conclude that our expectations of the DEQ to protect our environment are not being met.

So, what should we do?  Continue ignoring common sense and good engineering standards?  The DEQ is hiding behind select EPA landfill rules, but ignoring others that conflict.

EPA Rule 258 states that. “New MSWLF units and lateral expansions shall not be located in seismic impact zones..” so that the regulation is clear.  The regulation is also clear when it states:

§§ 258.15Unstable areas.
(a) Owners or operators of new MSWLF units, existing MSWLF units, and lateral expansions located in an unstable area must demonstrate that engineering measures have been incorporated into the MSWLF unit's design to ensure that the integrity of the structural components of the MSWLF unit will not be disrupted.

However, it is the EPA ™s Technical Guidance manual for rule implementation that is less clear in that it states, “Existing units are not required to be retrofitted.”  But it does require, “..redundant precautionary measures should be designed and built into the various landfill systems” as well as “post-closure care.”

So, it boils down to whether these issues:

1.      Is Oregon ™s engineering community (consultants and permit engineers) going to meet its responsibilities to “protect the health, safety and welfare of the public”

2.      Is the public going to continue to be content with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ™s advocacy of expanding Riverbend at any cost

3.      Will the DEQ meet their mission statement that states,

DEQ's mission is to be a leader in restoring, maintaining and enhancing the quality of Oregon's air, land and water.  DEQ works collaboratively with Oregonians for a healthy, sustainable environment.




Leonard A. Rydell, P.E., P.L.S., W.R.E.
601 Pinehurst Drive
Newberg, Oregon   97132-1625
Home Office:  503-538-5700
Fax:   503-538-9167
Mobile:  503-781-4138

 Slope Failur4...pdf

Dear Fellow Professionals,

One of the comments that I received from my posting in the past, was to contact the Oregon Board of Engineering Examiners.

I did.  Their response is included in the attached in the letter I sent to my local Oregon ASCE chapter.

The the Oregon Engineering Board of Engineering Examiners have a conflict of interest?

Are engineers that review and approve plans and write reports justifying the approval, practicing engineering, or are they immune to the responsibility of a professional in the performance of their job?

If they are immune to professional standards of practice, why have engineers working for public bodies?

What to you think?

Thanks,

Leonard

------------------------------
Leonard Rydell P.E., P.L.S., L.S., M.ASCE
Owner
Rydell Engineering Surveying
Newberg OR
(503) 538-5700