Riverbend Air Quality Meeting Tuesday, November 29

One condition of Riverbend Landfill's Air Quality (Title V) permit is to hold twice-yearly meetings with interested community members. Usually most of the folks who attend work for Riverbend, so if you go, be sure to ask who in the room is an employee or contractor and who is a legitimate community member.

This fall's meeting will be held virtually on Tuesday evening, November 29, at 7:00 PM. To attend, you must first register by contacting mramos14@wm.com.

Typically, Riverbend puts on a brief slide show explaining activities they've undertaken to reduce unwanted emissions at the dump. These activities might include drilling more gas wells, flaring off more gas, or diverting more gas to the electricity-producing engines.

Riverbend does NOT typically explain fines that have been levied against the dump or consent orders it has agreed to. You have to ask (though they are not likely to tell you much anyway).

One thing to ask about is the closure permit DEQ (the state Department of Environmental Quality) issued to the landfill in August. Under that permit, Riverbend is to file an updated closure and post-closure plan by the end of this calendar year.  It would be nice to know if they will be following through on that requirement. Because that is a different permit from the air quality permit, however, Riverbend might decline to answer.

Other topics to think about are the tonnage of polluting emissions released into the atmosphere by the dump in the past 6-12 months and how that compares to prior periods. Also, due to a consent order issued by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, the landfill is supposed to be monitoring emissions, as well as tears in its polymer covers, more closely than previously. You can ask how they are doing that and how emissions have changed as a result.

Please consider attending. You will get an eyeful.

Riverbend To Close by August 31, 2030

DEQ has made it official:  Riverbend Landfill must close within eight years, no later than August 31, 2030.

Unless it expands.

The Permit

DEQ--the state Department of Environmental Quality--issued a Closure Permit to Riverbend in late August. The Permit sets out parameters governing the landfill's final years. DEQ estimates it will take eight years for Riverbend to close, considering the time required for closure construction, availability of contaminated soil for disposal, availability of materials and contractors, and balancing of the advantages (like reducing odors and leachate generation sooner) and disadvantages (increased stress on the final cap from less waste settlement) of closing sooner.

To begin the closure process, Riverbend must submit its "final engineered closure plan and a post-closure plan(s) [and] obtain DEQ approval of the plan(s)" within 120 days after permit issuance (ie, by December 29). Riverbend must also submit a new operations plan in the same time frame. DEQ has promised to post these plans on its Riverbend Landfill website after it completes its review. However, whether DEQ will accept public comment on the plans is not guaranteed.

In its response to comments asking DEQ to submit Riverbend's proposed plans to the public for comment, DEQ pointed to state rules that appear to require an opportunity to comment only when a closure permit is renewed or modified. If DEQ does not consider approval of a closure plan to be a modification, then the Department will not make the plans available for public comment.

According to DEQ, the final engineered closure plan will describe how the landfill will be closed (grading, cover system, etc.), and the post-closure plan will describe how the landfill will be maintained after it closes. (Note that Riverbend is not considered closed now even though it stopped accepting waste in June 2021.) The operations plan details how Riverbend runs the landfill, for example, by not taking waste.

The closure permit also requires Riverbend to submit detailed engineering design plans and specifications to DEQ for approval at least six months before closing any section of the landfill. At the public hearing on the permit, DEQ told participants that Riverbend intended to close at least one cell of the landfill this past summer.  There is as yet no indication on the DEQ website that this has occurred.

Environmental Impacts

A big issue raised by public comments reflects concern that the landfill is an environmental disaster waiting to happen, with respect to ground water quality, air pollution, leachate management, and seismic vulnerabilities. DEQ rejected all such concerns based on reviews undertaken by the agency in past years.

In its response to public comments on the draft permit, DEQ noted that "[c]losure of the landfill does not release the owner of responsibility to maintain the landfill, monitor groundwater, leachate, and landfill gas, manage leachate appropriately, and respond to any groundwater contamination issues that may come up." 

Moreover, DEQ also promised to keep the Yamhill County Solid Waste Coordinator "apprised of significant issues at the landfill." We will be watching to ensure DEQ and Riverbend live up to all its promises.

Expansion

The real elephant in the room, however, is expansion. DEQ is emphatic that issuance of a closure permit does NOT prevent Riverbend from expanding. That decision will depend upon land use approvals by Yamhill County government, not DEQ.

Any new effort to expand would have to solve the litter problem that sank Riverbend's last application. And the issue of "cumulative impacts" on accepted farm practices--one of the tests an expansion must pass--has never been decided in court.

Eight years is a long time. But eight years of an expanded Riverbend would be an eternity to local farmers, neighbors, businesses, and tourists. Under the newly-adopted Urban Growth Boundary for McMinnville, the city will only grow closer to the landfill. That reality on the ground, not land use laws or DEQ promises, may ultimately be what closes Riverbend.

 

 

The Cost of Failure: What if an Earthquake Collapses Riverbend?

The comments are in; we now await the response from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to the many suggestions for revising its proposed Closure Permit for Riverbend Landfill.

Most of the comments focus on particular language in the draft Permit, asking for restrictions that are more specific or for additional public participation. But one comment in particular focuses on important information that anyone living or working near Riverbend or downstream on the South Yamhill River -- or upstream, for that matter -- needs to know in order to plan for their own safety.

Richard McJunkin is a licensed and certified engineering geologist and hydrogeologist with more than 50 years experience evaluating landfills for compliance with seismic standards and regulations.  For several years now, he has tried to share his expertise with DEQ, but no one in the agency has been listening. The latest evidence of this is the draft Permit's acceptance of a $15 million set-aside as sufficient to handle any "worst-case" scenario -- for example, a catastrophic failure of the dump in a 9.0 Cascadia subduction zone earthquake.

Per McJunkin's analysis, DEQ should be requiring Riverbend to set aside more than $750 million to pay for clean-up and compensate land and animal owners for damage resulting from a landfill collapse.  His comment is worth reading in full. (Note: McJunkin also submitted comments regarding water contamination; we will feature those comments in a subsequent post.)

To:  Permit Coordinator (deqwr.solidwastepermitcoordinator@deq.oregon.gov)

      Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

I recommend that Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) NOT ACCEPT “2021 Annual Financial Assurance Update and Recertification, Riverbend Landfill; Solid Waste Disposal Permit No. 345 Yamhill County,” or  “Final Engineered Site Closure and Post-Closure Plan, Riverbend Landfill, McMinnville, Oregon” (CP).

 

My justification for this recommendation is that significant financial closing costs for Riverbend Landfill (RL) were not only omitted from planning but not even considered in the scenario for establishing Closing Costs.... [The] scenario for total financial closing costs for RL, in no uncertain terms, should have addressed a catastrophic seismic foundation failure from an earthquake.  It appears that specific geologic sampling data from drilling data, that exposed wide-spread liquefiable sands to be everywhere present in the geologic foundation for RL, were ignored.  If considered, these sampling data would have forced recognition of the landfill long-term vulnerability.

 

At least some of the liquefaction data collected by WMI [Waste Management, owner of RL] were in characterization efforts for constructing the Mechanically Stabilized Earthen (MSE) Berm; however and for whatever reason, liquefaction data were withheld from public access for approximately five years. During public WMI/DEQ meetings for the RL MSE Berm, the presence of liquefaction in the geologic foundation of RL was presented by the public as a big concern, especially as WMI sampling data indicated liquefiable sands were everywhere throughout the geologic foundation. DEQ, however, told the public that “No liquefiable sands were present beneath RL” even though sampling data from drilling operations at this same time period showed by laboratory analyses that liquefiable sands were wide-spread in the geologic foundation of RL. Samples, also verified as liquefiable by WMI laboratory analyses, appear to be present in 30 to 40 percent of subsurface sandsin the RL foundation.

 

 

Seismic/Liquefaction Considerations

At the time the landfill was permitted [1980], Oregon seismic issues were only beginning to be recognized as a potential threat to engineered structures. Today, news agencies routinely present forecasts of a pending Cascadia Fault Zone (CFZ) earthquake of Magnitude 9 on the Richter Scale. These earthquake forecasts are based on recent scientific research that indicates 19 earthquakes, caused by a complete break of the CFZ, have occurred in the last 10,000-years, five...in the last 2,000-years. Besides Magnitude 9 events, many magnitude 6, 7, and 8 earthquakes also occurred with epicenters within 100-miles of the Pacific coast.

 

The last full-break CFZ earthquake is well-dated and occurred in late January 1700, more than 100 years before the arrival of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Given that five major earthquakes have occurred in the last 2,000 years and that the last Magnitude 9 CFZ earthquake was 322-years in the past, the PNW is well into the window for a repeat full-break of the CFZ that will result in a Magnitude 9 devastating earthquake. How could RL propose and DEQ accept the total closing cost amount now set at a maximum cap of $15,425,086 given this pending earthquake threat?  How could they, and who will pay for remediating a total failure of RL??

When the MSE Berm was being permitted, geologic data, confirmed by WMI laboratory analysis, showed that even though the landfill itself may be stable when exposed to a magnitude 9 earthquake, the geologic foundation for the landfill would fail by foundation liquefaction during an earthquake of even moderate magnitude.  Totally overlooked (disregarded-?) in the RL Closure Plan was any mention of these liquefaction data and the single largest long-term threat to RL: Earthquakes

 

Seismic Wave Amplification: Overview

 

From the lack of comments in the CP, WMI and DEQ also appear to not fully recognize, or appreciate, that RL geologic site conditions favor amplifying seismic wave energy during earthquakes (Seismic Wave Amplification). This geologic situation is given to make shaking, even from small earthquakes, more intense. Seismic wave amplification will be generated at RL for one classic reason: loose geologic sedimentary river deposits overlie hard well-cemented bedrock.  In this setting, seismic waves from deep underground earthquakes travel upward at thousands of feet per second in dense well-cemented rock and then propagate into soft near-surface sedimentary materials that have seismic velocities less than 1,000 feet per second. As these high-velocity waves are transmitted into near-surface much lower seismic velocity loose sands and gravels, conservation of total seismic wave energy must be maintained. To conserve total wave energy requires that seismic wave amplitude be increased significantly, a given, with some localized shaking severe. This setting translates into significantly higher ground shaking for RL that undoubtedly exceeds what was used in Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) stability calculations by WMI and approved by DEQ.

 

In geologic settings for amplifying seismic wave energy similar to that of RL, two examples are well-known: 1) Olive View Hospital in San Fernando, California, which was destroyed in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake (magnitude=6.6) and 2) the Cypress Viaduct freeway structure for the Interstate 880 approach to the Bay Bridge from Oakland that failed by collapse during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (magnitude 6.9) and also killed 42 people. In both of these cases, the structures were built on slow-velocity geologic materials overlying higher velocity bedrock with the low-velocity near-surface geologic materials amplifying seismic wave energy. 

 

Even though both liquefaction and seismic wave amplification phenomena are associated with the RL site, WMI is committed to persist with the opinion that these threats are more conceptual than reality; therefore, not of significant threat to RL seismic stability. As WMI minimizes both concepts, they have had the full support of DEQ, which apparently also considers seismic wave amplification and liquefaction as incapable of generating any significant RL earthquake damage. Such a HUGE mistake!

 

Conclusions and Recommendations

 

The data are clear that RL is geologically subject to Seismic Wave Amplification. This phenomenon will increase ground shaking for any given earthquake and be a threat to RL surface structures. To address seismic data gaps that could be generated during any earthquake impacting RL, I propose that DEQ ask WMI to install a permanently affixed “strong-motion accelerograph” in an on-site location free from structurally influenced ground motion. This accellerograph would measure strong earthquake ground motion during seismic events and provide for collecting valuable engineering data to analyze precise ground motions, including PGAs, as well as enhanced motion velocities and displacements. Data from such an accelerograph would be beneficially invaluable for seismic engineering concerns, especially if RL sustained damage or underwent total failure during an earthquake. This installation may be of technical interest to US Geological Survey (USGS), which has an earthquake strong-motion monitoring program that installs and monitors accelerographs.  In other words, USGS may install and service such an accelerograph free of charge.

 

In my more than 50-years of geologic experience, one thing has been deeply learned: moving earthen materials is expensive and time consuming. Further, the type of material being excavated and distance moved determines the final cost, and moving clean soil is much-much cheaper than moving contaminated soils. It is my estimate that a total seismic failure of RL would require all of the landfill materials to be ‘eventually’ excavated, loaded, hauled, and dumped, possibly temporarily for later movement to a final containment site.

 

In any catastrophic failure, RL waste and leachate would be comingled into huge quantities of soil, water, and pasty, leaking exposed landfill waste, all needing to be excavated and removed.  Necessary excavation, containment, transportation, and disposal costs to an approved site could easily be in the range of $600 to $800 per cubic yard.  With cost overruns and the fact that the waste needing to be remediated could be potentially hazardous, the final cost per cubic yardage could be $900 to $1,000 per yard. 

 

At these rates (which address only remediating landfill waste), the minimum cost for a catastrophic failure is estimated, on the low end, to be between $500-million and $650-million dollars; a more realistic total of $750-million to $900-million is probably more correct. Where did WMI generate a dollar amount in the CP, that was approved by DEQ, of only $15,425,086, which is almost a humorous amount?  Again, who is supposed to pay in the case of a total landfill failure?  The citizens of Yamhill County who once voted to approve using the landfill??  The citizens of Oregon???

 

[The question is whether] the RL geologic foundation will perform without damage in future earthquakes. What should be especially considered are WMI soil samples, confirmed by laboratory analyses, showing loose liquefiable sands being wide-spread in the RL geologic foundation.  An answer needs to be provided by DEQ.

 

 

Closing Statements

 

After personally reviewing and studying RL geologic and seismic data from drill logs and other measurements, and using my 50-years of professional drilling and characterization experience, it is clear to me that the geologic foundation of the RL is very fragile to seismic acceleration. In fact, it is much more fragile than WMI and DEQ have ever admitted. The high percentage of drill logs (30 - 40 percent) showing the presence of liquefiable sands proves RL is a seismic accident waiting to happen.  Another condition is also set:  Seismic failure of RL will provide for the single largest environmental disaster in the post-European settlement-history of Oregon.

 

RL permitting and closure efforts in no way support the DEQ ‘Mission Statement.’  RL failure debris will be a long-term issue with wide-spread watery contamination everywhere down-gradient from the landfill.  The South Yamhill River, by its nature, will assist in spreading RL contamination toward McMinnville, Newberg, and beyond to Portland.  Resources for addressing remediation of this disaster will not be available for months, and possibly years.  And all the while, Yamhill County residents will be forced to live in conditions caused by failure of the landfill; stinking conditions that would possibly not have occurred if geologic and seismic data were fully recognized (understood) by DEQ and used to address RL technical reviews.  Upon any failure of RL, especially from seismic sources, DEQ will encumber a huge long-term debt of responsibility to the citizens of Yamhill County and Oregon, who will be the ones truly experiencing post-disaster environmental effects. These individuals will be the ones who bear the very uncomfortable burden of living with a failed RL reality.

 

It is professionally disappointing to me that WMI very fully understands the threat from catastrophic geologic details underlying RL and that the details will provide for a total collapse during any future seismic event that lasts more than a few seconds. This fact is also understood by DEQ, which, it appears, fully supports the inadequate CP being submitted by WMI to the citizens of Oregon.  Further, no explanation is provided by WMI or DEQ for apparently keeping confidential from public access, during a critical permitting period, the full scope of technical understanding for geologic and seismic liquefaction conditions underlying RL.  Even though WMI and DEQ always knew the true seismic risk from geology underlying RL, it is minimized and disregarded. And the damaging data have been in the WMI and DEQ records for years.

 

RL Closure needs a Final Closure Plan that financially addresses a catastrophic event turning RL closure operations into the monumental remediation of a totally destroyed landfill. Closure should only be completed with a full commitment by WMI to adhere to future and long-term maintenance issues that also include a total landfill remediation from a PENDING extreme and scientifically forecasted Cascadia Fault Zone (CFZ) earthquake. The future occurrence of a magnitude 9 earthquake along the CFZ is a given. WMI has stated and shown by mathematical calculation that RL will be completely stable in a magnitude 9 earthquake. The landfill was sold to the Oregon public under the pretense of seismic stability; therefore, WMI should fully indemnify the landfill against seismic failure. Otherwise, the people of Oregon will suffer the long-term financial responsibility to remediate a failed landfill whose geologic foundation was positively known to be seismically unstable by WMI and DEQ, which has excused the geologic facts from Closure consideration. A more realistic ‘starting’ dollar amount of financial assurance for RL should be at least $750,000,000 to address a total landfill failure knowing that when such an event occurs, the final cost to remediate RL will be one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) or more--and it is unavoidable.

 

 

Don't Forget to Comment!

As previously reported here, the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), is accepting comments on its proposed closure permit for Riverbend Landfill. Once adopted, the permit will govern operations at the landfill for the next eight years.

Comments should be sent to DEQWR.SolidWastePermitCoordinator@deq.oregon.gov no later than 5:00 PM Monday, July 11.

Information about the permit as well as the draft permit itself can be found on DEQ's Riverbend web page, https://www.oregon.gov/deq/programs/pages/riverbend-landfill.aspx.

At a public hearing in late June, DEQ accepted some comments orally. These include the following; your comment can echo these or offer new suggestions for requirements to be included in the permit:

1. The permit should prohibit further expansion of the landfill. DEQ officials have already acknowledged that the site, on a bend in the South Yamhill River, is problematic, and have said that the location would not be approved if Riverbend were seeking to establish a new landfill there. If a new landfill would not be appropriate at this site, an expansion should not be appropriate, and the permit should say so.

2. The permit should require public participation in efforts to modify the permit's terms, whether the modification is initiated by DEQ or by Riverbend. As drafted, the permit only requires DEQ to "notify" the public when a "significant" change is made. At the public hearing, DEQ stated that the public would have the opportunity to participate in any modification that allowed the landfill to expand, but that is not spelled out in the permit draft. The public's right to participate must be clearly stated in the permit.

3. The permit should require timely public "notification" of every adverse environmental event at the landfill. Currently, neighbors and regulators find out about leachate spills and methane emissions only long after the fact and often from the press or by incidental direct contact with the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or DEQ. The landfill should routinely inform neighbors about issues that affect them directly or via air, soil, and water quality pollution.

4. Riverbend should be required to host an annual (or semi-annual) community meeting to update the public on its progress toward closure and also to explain any adverse environmental incidents that have occurred since the previous meeting. The landfill's Air Quality (Title V) permit already requires semi-annual meetings; those meetings could be expanded to cover closure as well. In addition to presentations by landfill personnel, the meetings should also allow the public to make presentations and also require DEQ to present its findings/position on the issues discussed.

5. The permit should require Riverbend to return the land to farming when the dump is closed. This was required in the original permit granted by Yamhill County. The requirement was dropped when the landfill site was rezoned to PWS (Public Works Safety), but the land has been rezoned again, back to EFU (Exclusive Farm Use), so there's no legal barrier to requiring a farm use.

6. Each task involved in closing the landfill needs to be identified in the permit together with its projected cost and an explanation of the method(s) used to determine that cost.

7. The future of the 11 acres that are available for filling with waste should be spelled out in the permit, not left to the whim of Riverbend.

Deadline to Comment on Proposed Landfill Closure Plan Extended to July 11

At the request of neighbors of Riverbend Landfill, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has agreed to extend the time for commenting on a draft closure permit for the landfill by two weeks. Previously, the deadline was this coming Monday, June 27; the actual deadline will now be Monday, July 11, at 5:00 PM.

Ramsey McPhillips, whose farm abuts the landfill, and Susan Watkins, who also lives in the area, called on DEQ to extend the deadline after they learned that some documents DEQ relied on in drafting the closure permit had not been made available to the public. Most of those documents have now been posted on DEQ's Riverbend web page, https://www.oregon.gov/deq/programs/pages/riverbend-landfill.aspx.

DEQ asked Riverbend to apply for a closure permit after the landfill's request to expand was turned down by Yamhill County and the landfill subsequently closed its doors to community waste. According to Riverbend, the remaining permitted capacity at the landfill is about 395,000 cubic yards. The landfill once took in that much waste in a year, but under its new "curated" waste policy, has accepted only about 5,000 cubic yards since last July.

DEQ estimates it will take about 8 years for Riverbend to close and cap the remaining uncapped 59 acres of the landfill.

The closure permit will be written for 10 years, with the condition that Riverbend finish capping the landfill in 8 years. Subsequently, DEQ intends to issue a post-closure permit to Riverbend.  Post-closure permits typically run for 30 years but can be extended.

According to DEQ, Riverbend can request a permit modification at any time during the 8, 10, or 30-year periods. Modification could include expanding the current landfill, though the existing cells would still have to be closed and capped within the original 8-year period.

Information about the permit can be found on DEQ's Riverbend web page, cited above.  Comments can be sent to DEQ at any time before 5:00 PM Monday, July 11, at deqwr.solidwastepermitcoordinator@deq.oregon.gov.

With Closure Hearing Less Than a Week Away, Questions Mount

As previously reported, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will hold a public hearing next week to consider issuing a closure permit to Riverbend Landfill.

The landfill abruptly closed its doors to community garbage last summer, and now takes in only soils and "waste by appointment" as it tries to fill all the nooks and crannies in its giant mound.

Outraged citizens immediately sought DEQ's help in figuring out what was happening. Had the dump closed? Could it keep its doors shut but the landfill itself open indefinitely? Fueling these questions was another lurking issue:  Riverbend's operating permit expired in 2009. DEQ has extended the permit administratively ever since, citing uncertainties about the landfill's numerous expansion applications.

With the County's definitive rejection of Riverbend's expansion plans in 2020, citizens were ready for DEQ to act. As far as the public knows, DEQ did nothing, even when the landfill closed its doors last June. Finally, in January 2022, DEQ asked Riverbend to apply for a closure/post-closure permit; the landfill filed the permit on January 27, DEQ drafted a proposed permit, and the hearing is set for next week.

But what will the hearing address? The Notice of Hearing says the draft closure permit is based on a closure plan last updated in 2017 and a permit application dated Jan. 27, 2022. The draft permit itself says the permit is based on that January closure permit application plus a solid waste permit renewal application received Aug. 19, 2009, and a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) from the Yamhill County Planning Department dated Nov. 16, 2016.  Which is it?

To complicate things, the 2017 closure plan has been modified by Riverbend, at least twice. So which version of this "last updated in 2017" plan is DEQ relying on?

Finally, financial assurances are a huge part of the closure permit; landfill owners must agree to manage their dumps for at least thirty years post-closure. Yet DEQ has not yet revealed the criteria by which it judges the sufficiency of financial bonds and set-asides. And Riverbend's 2022 assurance letter, due in April, has not been posted by DEQ on its Riverbend web page.

In fact, only some of these documents are available on the web page. You can find the "public notice, draft closure permit and permit evaluation report," the January 2022 "Riverbend Landfill Closure Permit Application" form, the 2009 "Riverbend Landfill Solid Waste Permit Renewal Application" form, the 2017 "Closure and post-closure plan," and 2021 "Closure and post-closure financing" documents (which include the 2021 update to the never-modified 2017 plan) on the web page--but not the 2016 LUCS or other documents supposedly attached to the January 2022 application.

All of these contradictions and missing documents beg the question whether DEQ has figured out what it is doing.

Which means the Department needs your help in closing Riverbend! Don't miss out on all the fun -- register for the hearing now!  On the Riverbend web page, of course.

Hearing: Wednesday, June 22 at 6:30 PM only on Zoom!

Comments: Submit at the Hearing or email to:DEQWR.SolidWastePermitCoordinator@deq.oregon.gov

 

 

DEQ Issues Public Hearing Notice for Riverbend Closure Permit

DEQ, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, informed Yamhill County and other interested parties yesterday that it intends to issue a closure permit for Riverbend Landfill.

 

DEQ has invited the public to read and comment on the proposed permit (which can be found at Notice). The hearing itself will be held virtually on June 22 at 6:30 PM, with written comments due by 5 p.m., Monday, June 27. Links to the hearing and to the address to send comments are given at the end of this post.

 

The closure process is typically started by the landfill operator, though County Planning Director Ken Friday told the County Commissioners that he was not sure who initiated Riverbend's permit. The Notice itself refers to "a permit application dated Jan. 27, 2022," which would seem to indicate that Riverbend and/or its parent company, WM (formerly known as Waste Management, the world-wide garbage behemoth) did, indeed, ask DEQ to move forward with closure. The News-Register of McMinnville stated in today's edition that DEQ asked Riverbend to request the permit.

 

The Notice describes the closure process as follows:

 

"Given the reduction in waste flow over the past several months, DEQ is proposing to issue a closure permit for the landfill. This permit is based on a closure plan last updated in 2017 and a permit application dated Jan. 27, 2022.

 

"Under the proposed closure permit, Riverbend Landfill will continue accepting waste until it has used all its permitted capacity. The landfill will also install an impermeable final cover on uncapped portions of the landfill once they are full. The draft permit requires that final closure be completed within eight years of the date of permit issuance. 

 

"The closure permit does not prevent the landfill from continuing to accept waste in the approximately eight years prior to closure and does not prevent the applicant from applying for a permit modification for an expansion in the future."

 

The "permitted capacity" referenced in the Notice is not a specified volume but rather is based on an approved slope leading up from the permitted landfill footprint. Riverbend acknowledged a year ago that the dump as then structured had reached capacity; in response, the landfill shut its doors to the public and to haulers other than WM's Newberg hauling subsidiary. Riverbend's intention was to restructure the slopes of the dump to create platforms on which to pile more garbage. Though it is not clear to what extent that strategy has been successful, the proposed closure permit would give the company six more years to continue the process, using contaminated soils and curated garbage.

 

The proposed permit is good for ten years, through June 30, 2032.  DEQ estimates that closure at similar landfills takes a minimum of 30 years. Landfill owners are expected to pre-fund all anticipated costs associated with closure. Documents accompanying the proposed permit cite several past escapes of leachate from the landfill, its leachate ponds, and/or trucks hauling leachate off-site.

 

A cursory review of the proposed permit revealed no requirement for oversight by, or even for sharing information with, the public.

 

To read the Notice in full, go to Notice.

 

To register for the June 22 Zoom public hearing, go to: 

https://ordeq.org/Riverbend-closure-permit-public-hearing 

Alternatively, join the hearing by calling 877-853-5257 or 888-475-4499, using meeting ID 865 1813 7706 and passcode 651889.

 

DEQ will accept written public comment on the proposed permit until 5 p.m., Monday, June 27, 2022, at deqwr.solidwastepermitcoordinator@deq.oregon.gov 

or by mail at Solid Waste Permit Coordinator, Oregon DEQ, 165 E. Seventh Avenue, Suite 100, Eugene, OR 97401.

 

For further information, contact Denise Miller, Permit Coordinator, at 541-687-7465 or deqwr.solidwastepermitcoordinator@deq.oregon.gov.

 

 

Riverbend Closing?? Is DEQ Crying "Wolf"?

DEQ, the Oregon state Department of Environmental Quality, is in the process of writing a closure permit for Riverbend Landfill, according to DEQ permit writer Bob Schwarz.

A closure permit is required for authorized landfills in Oregon in order to ensure they are properly monitored over the life of the waste (or the period DEQ specifies in the permit).  Closure permits dictate the type of final cover, including soil cover (typically three feet of compacted soil) and vegetative cover.  The permit may also specify water diversion methods or other requirements for the particular site to be closed.

The permit will likely allow for inspections by DEQ personnel during the permit's life and may mandate maintenance activities deemed necessary to keep surface and ground water safe during closure. In Riverbend's case, since emissions have been an on-going issue, some monitoring of emissions and gas wells will likely also be required.

Before the permit is finalized, DEQ will issue a public notice that will presumably allow the public to comment on the particulars of the Riverbend permit.  Watch this space for further developments!

Landfill Fined -- Again

The Oregon state Department of Environmental Quality has fined Riverbend Landfill more than $17,000 for "failing to collect and control" leachate on multiple occasions in 2021.

This comes on top of more than $100,000 in fines levied by the federal Environmental Protection Agency for methane leaks beginning in at least 2017.

Both leachate and methane are seriously harmful to the environment.

Leachate from landfills may contain large amounts of organic and inorganic contaminants, heavy metals, and toxins derived from drugs, food additives, and pesticides that have been thrown in the trash.  When these compounds seep into the water supply, they can poison crops as well as drinking water for livestock, wildlife, and humans.

Because at least three of Riverbend's oldest, deepest cells are known to be unlined--and because the dump sits on the South Yamhill River--leachate leakage has long been feared.  Riverbend attempts to divert leachate from the landfill into ponds, from which it must be pumped and hauled away in tanker trucks.

DEQ's Notice of Civil Penalty Assessment and Order (dated March 25, 2022) cites leaks from both the landfill proper and a tanker truck.  To correct the leaks, Riverbend had to dig up and "dispose" of the contaminated soil (more than 16 cubic yards or eight truckloads).  The Order does not explain what "disposal" consisted of, but the landfill regularly accepts soils contaminated in other ways (eg, from gasoline leaks) for use as "daily cover."

DEQ's Order notes that Riverbend had previously been cited for similar violations at least three times, in 2014, 2019, and earlier in 2021.

As a potent greenhouse gas, methane is similarly damaging to the environment.  The EPA not only fined Riverbend, but also prescribed a detailed series of steps the landfill was required to take to correct the problems, which included failures in both the physical condition of the landfill and its cover and the processes Riverbend was using to identify and repair those physical failures.  According to statements made by landfill manager Nicholas Godfrey at the semi-annual Title V Air Quality public meeting in April, Riverbend has complied with each of those steps.

 

Waste Management To Open "Riverbend Shopping Mall"

Waste Management, ginormous Texas-based owner of Riverbend Landfill, has decided to one-up the City of McMinnville and open its own "scenic" shopping mall, atop the garbage dump. The company (now know as "WM," having finally admitted it knows nothing about either waste or management) has given up on expanding the landfill and is seeking other ways to turn a profit at the site.

An upscale shopping mall appears to be WM's ticket to success.

The company has already begun construction on the first phase: an EV-charging station, to be powered by excess methane leaking from the dump. The station will sit at the southwest corner of the property, where WM has recently torn down an old tumble-down house that once served as living quarters for landfill employees.

Explained a company spokesperson, "Riverbend has always produced more methane than we can process at our landfill gas-to-energy plant. In the past, we have just let that excess gas leak into the air--I mean, what harm can a little more methane do to our already ravaged atmosphere? Now we will harness that gas to make electricity to fuel all the Teslas, Rivians, and Ioniq 5s that will soon flood our winery-fixated neighborhoods. What's not to like?"

WM believes those upscale cars will bring shoppers with full pocketbooks to its new Riverbend Shopping Experience.  Said the spokesperson, "We don't fear competition from Mac's proposed big box center. We have the better site by far--a gently curving hill overlooking a wide bend in the South Yamhill River. Goats and orchards and of course vineyards wherever you look. Yes, shoppers might occasionally see a raven peck out a sheep's eyes or a falcon carry off a prize-winning pheasant, and they might smell sulfur leaking out with the methane, but that's all part of country living, right?"

When pressed to identify some of the establishments that might open their doors atop the landfill, the spokesperson turned coy. "We can't name names just yet. We need to see what kind of businesses our Commissioners favor.  Of course, there will be at least one gun shop."

Like you, we can't wait to go shopping on the dump! Though that may take longer than you might expect, given that this whole idea is just an April Fool's!