WINNEMUCCA —Tuesday's City Council meeting featured a presentation from Jim French, a private citizen with concerns about the landfill Recology hopes to operate in Desert Valley. Recology Chief Operating Officer George McGrath and Chief Counsel John Frankovich were on hand to address French's concerns, and others, and update City officials on the company's plans and progress.

Recology has been granted a conditional use permit by Humboldt County, but still lacks the state-level regulatory permits needed to operate a landfill. It hopes to operate a Class I facility on a site about 25 miles west-southwest of Winnemucca, on property near Jungo flats that was purchased by its wholly owned subsidiary, Jungo Land & Investments.

Discussion of the proposed landfill has proven contentious in previous local government meetings. This time attendees were mostly well-behaved with Mayor Putnum having to play "adult-in-the-room" only a couple of times.

Fugitive Dust

French fears that human waste could be blown into Winnemucca as "fugitive dust." This could jeopardize Recology's permit, he said.

To support this theory, French showed a wind direction map acquired from the local airport. The map (depicted below) showed wind direction to be highly unpredictable, but moving from the proposed site toward the general direction of Winnemucca about a third of the time.

French then showed photos of several sky-blackening dust storms. To borrow a Plain States phrase, the photos showed "a lot of real estate changing hands."

Groundwater Contamination

Ordinarily, Class I landfills are required to sit 1000 feet or more from any open water, and 100 feet or more above any water table, French noted. In its landfill operation permit application to NDEP, Recology requested an exemption from this requirement, because exploratory drilling found water 55 to 60 feet below the surface. That means the dump's perimeter "leachate collection system" would come within "19 to 30 feet" from the water table, by French's estimatation, and could contain hazardous materials.

French said that to support its exemption request, Recology has argued that water beneath its land constitutes a "perched aquifer" that does not connect to nearby water tables. The site appears to be about 15 miles from the Humboldt River, and a similar distance from Rye Patch Reservoir.

In his presentation, French suggested that hydrogeologic data for the area is not complete enough to determine whether or not the water beneath the site constitutes a "perched" (isolated) aquifer. However, he said, "I believe the aquifer under section seven on Jungo Flat is an active aquifer, for a number of reasons."

French next displayed a map of regional water table depths, which he said was made using GIS software and data from the Groundwater Atlas of Northern Nevada. The map showed similar water depths throughout a large region near the proposed site. Since water tends to "seek its own level," the implication seemed to be that the water under the dump could be part of a single large system, rather than a compartmentalized one as Recology has suggested.

French also argued that "especially further north," the perched aquifers he has observed in the Desert Valley have high levels of "total dissolved solids," because the water is essentially stagnant. He said, "The water quality [found in Recology's wells] approximates what we see in Rye Patch, and even the groundwater in Winnemucca."

French also expressed concern over Recology's ability to handle area floods. He said, "One of the requirements of the permit is that surface water can't leave the site. The engineered design [submitted to NDEP] is a series of ditches and some settling basins." French then showed a photo of adjacent land in a flooded state, commenting, "The notion that [ditches and basins] would be able to keep and capture that amount of water is disingenuous."

French also questioned NDEP's ability to enforce water quality compliance effectively, due to understaffing and administrative furloughs created in response to the statewide budget crisis.

Attractive nuisance to wildlife

Finally, French expressed concern that the proposed dump's leachate collection system, collection basins, and even dust control watering could constitute an "attractive nuisance" to wildlife.

Because Recology hopes to operate its landfill on private land, it was not obliged to apply for a permit from the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), French said. However, he noted that there is a "zero tolerance policy from Fish and Wildlife on that issue," and said Recology should have sought advice from NDOW early on about how to design its facility for compatibility with local wildlife.

"I'm not saying it's a deal-breaker, but it's something that should have been addressed," he said.

Recology's response

After French concluded his presentation, McGrath and Frankovitch spoke with the Council and with the public. They responded to points made by French, and also answered additional questions from Mayor Di Ann Putnam, City Council members, and the audience.

McGrath noted that  Recology's permit before NDEP is still pending, but has already been extensively reviewed. And, he said, "Almost without exception, their opinions are different than those of Mr. French."

"If he's correct [about hydrogeologic issues]," McGrath added, "They won't issue these permits."

McGrath continued, "NDEP has a standard that says you cannot degradate [sic] ground water. Most of this landfill is 60 feet above water level. Around the edges, where there's a collection system, it gets as close as 35 feet. We have submitted to NDEP a sophisticated liner system. NDEP has not approved it yet. We have numerous meetings with them. The [liner] we have is a 6-foot multi-material system."

"In addition to that, you have to monitor, so that if there's any leakage, it's detected quickly and remediated quickly, or your permit is in jeopardy," McGrath continued. "The possibility of any significant amount of pollution is extremely remote," he concluded.

Mayor Putnam asked, "Do you have monitors in there? Is it recorded on a monthy basis? Or, how is it reported to NDEP?"

McGrath said Recology would contract an engineering firm, Golder Associations, to do leachate testing and submit the results "to us and the agencies." Frankovitch added that frequency would be one of the conditions of the permit. While yearly testing is not unusual, Frankovich said, "Because of the publicity, my guess is that they are going to be more often, at least at the beginning."

The Mayor then asked about what kinds of materials would be stored at the Jungo facility, and whether there was the potential for on-site recycling, energy production, or the use of a system, such as those commonly used in Europe, that convert garbage into energy and inert materials.

McGrath said, "Typically, the biggest component is fiber, such as paper products. There's a large percentage of textiles, such as clothing. There's plastic bags, kitchen bags, packaging, soda cans, and construction and demolition debris."

McGrath then added, "I'd like to qualify the origin of the waste in the Bay Area. There seems to be a misunderstanding that there'd be the waste stream from San Francisco, which has 72 percent diversion [into recycling facilities]. What's left is the dregs. That waste stream will not go to Jungo. It is destined for another landfill we operate and own. The balance of the Bay Area are not as aggressive as San Francisco in terms of recycling."

As for mining the garbage for materials or fuels, McGrath said, "In order to look at the future, and say, 'Can this landfill be a mechanism to look at recycling, or fuel a plasma-arc furnace?' you need high-BTU content. The City and County of San Francisco's waste is not high-BTU. When you do a plasma-arc furnace, you're looking at 5,000 degrees to maintain plasma temperature. In order to bring in 4,000 tones per day, and process and use a conversion technology, there's multiple companies that have the technology. However, we'd have to be able to position the company to acquire those waste streams. But you need a permit to bid on those waste streams."

McGrath added, "Recology is a leader in recycling. We have met with numerous companies [that sell conversion technologies]. But until you put a facility in place that's marketable, you can't get to the next step."

McGrath then responded to French's suggestion that Recology should have worked with NDOW to ensure compliance with Fish and Wildlife requirements. He said, "If NDOW wants to get involved, it's not too late to participate. We haven't got any permits yet, including the operating permit, and before that's issued, there'll be a period for public comment."

He then downplayed the potential for fugitive dust bearing dried human waste. "The working area will be about an acre in size. All but that one acre will always be covered," he said.

Addressing French's concerns about run-off containment, he said, "If there's a rainstorm, everything that touches the garbage must be treated as leachate. NDEP does require all storm runoff to be retained onsite. It goes into a lined basin, and is tested and then distributed to retention basins for absorbtion or use for dust control."

Councilman Patty Herzog then asked what method would be used to keep animals out of the various water basins.

McGrath replied that Recology has dealt with "unusual animal issues" from time to time. He said, "We have one landfill near Travis Air Force Base, and one near Beale Air Force Base. If there's an inordinate amount of seagulls, we could create risk for pilots. So, we use falconers to move the seagulls away. That's an environmentally sustainable way to do it, without shotguns, smoke, and other enviornmental hazards. That's not a permit condition; it's just something we do."

McGrath added that Recology has experience handling animal issues at its other sites, and "should it have to deal with wildlife at Jungo," would build fences or install nets as needed to keep wildlife out.

Why us?

Herzog then asked, simply, why Recology wanted to move all this garbage here. McGrath replied, "We went through a [site-finding] process with a third party. Once you leave the vicinity of the Bay Area, trucks are expensive. The economies of rail displaced shorter truck hauling. We wanted to ensure the landfill was in a remote area. Our partner looked at various parcels of land, and said this one in Humboldt County works."

Councilman Joyce Sheen then asked, "If you're such an environmental-friendly, good neighbor company, why did you look for a remote area?"

McGrath replied, "Part of it is that land is reasonably priced. There aren't a lot of regional landfills in Northern California. The bulk [of landfills] service municipal areas. At one time, there were in excess of 2,000 landfills in California. Now, there are [fewer] than 700 or 800."

Councilman Doug Cain asked specifically about the potential for electrical power generation at the proposed site. McGrath replied, "We've had discussions with [company's that do] electricity, ethanol, and even jet fuel production from waste. But none have commercially viable plants in the U.S."

He added, "We do at one plant capture methane that powers about 1,500 homes in the area. [At the Jungo plant], we should achieve the ability to capture methane within five years, because of the volume."

McGrath then said Recology would happily provide tours of other landfills, if that would help allay concerns over the proposed Jungo plant. He said, "At one of our facilities, aside from the operating area, you can't tell it's a landfill. That's the kind of facility we'd place in Humboldt County."

He added, "I extend the offer to Mr. French, and the Council. We'd be happy to share in the cost of a chartered bus or other conveyance to make this work."

Humboldt Development Authority Boardmember Pat Gray then asked specifically about the potential for recycling at the proposed Jungo facility. He said, "When you're talking about the wastestream, it sounds like there's some recyclables. Is there an opportunity once it gets here to recycle it here, and send it back to California?"

McGrath replied, "The opportunity does exist. We are a partner in a "dirty MuRF" [material recovery facility] that accepts garbage without segregation. Some opportunity for that would exist here. The issue becomes where we're positioned, where we are with our permit process. And, it would be based on the economics of it."

How much money's in it for the County?

Former Councilman Don Stoker then asked, from the audience, "The money the County's going to get... Is that negotiable?"

McGrath replied, "Our host fee [at our Class I/Class II facility in Lincoln County, Nevada] is $1.35/ton, or a percentage of the tip fee, whichever's greater. That's probably in the middle range; host fees depend where the landfill is located. In Lincoln County, some of that host fee is used for road mitigation in front of the landfill."

McGrath then suggested a similar rate would net Humboldt County about $1,350,000 annually, considering the planned daily dump rate of 4,000 tons. And, finally, he answered, "But yes; everything's negotiable."

Additional possible economic benefits were discussed in an earlier Silver Pinyon story.

An unidentified audience member then asked about additional lands owned by Jungo Land Investments that abutt Recology's proposed landfill site. He said, "Conversations at the Desert Research Institute suggest that four square miles is the area needed [for Class I landfills] to stay economically feasible in this environment. Why have you refused to acknowledge responsibility for three additional square-mile sections currently lease-optioned? Is that designed to avoid BLM permitting processes?"

McGrath replied, "We're not intending to do anything with them at this time." He added that the proposed site has volume "sufficient for 95 years" at the expected rates. In order to annex the adjacent lands, the company would have to go through a re-permitting process, he said.

Audience member William Douglas then asked whether Recology had undertaken any studies of possible health threats resulting from landfills, and whether it would post bonds against the possibility of widespread cancer outbreaks, such as those elsewhere in Nevada near former military waste dump sites. McGrath replied that the only bonds Recology planned to post were those set aside for site closure, and post-closure maintainenace.

The council then moved on to discuss other matters.

• Landfill survey draws fire
• Landfill appeal heads to district court
• Economic benefits of landfill outlined for HDA
• Reader Response: Proposed Jungo Rd. Landfill
• Commission upholds RPC decision on a split vote