Some California landfills are on fire and leaking methane. Newly proposed rules could make them safer – Los Angeles Times

Report on California Landfill Failures and Their Conflict with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

A series of hazardous incidents at California landfills has exposed critical failures in waste management, posing significant threats to public health, community stability, and environmental integrity. These events directly contravene the principles of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including those concerning health, sustainable communities, responsible production, and climate action. This report details the ongoing crisis, the proposed regulatory responses, and the profound implications for California’s commitment to sustainable development.

Landfill Incidents Across California

Recent events have highlighted systemic issues within the state’s waste management industry, leading to increased scrutiny from regulators and residents. Key incidents include:

• Santa Clarita Valley: A subterranean fire at the Chiquita Canyon Landfill has resulted in the release of noxious fumes and liquid waste, impacting local communities.
• San Fernando Valley: Toxic gas emissions from a landfill have forced a local elementary school to cancel outdoor activities, directly affecting children’s well-being.
• Inland Empire: Multiple surface fires have been reported at a landfill, indicating operational instability.
• San Francisco Bay Area: A landfill converted into a park has shown evidence of explosive methane levels being released, posing a significant public safety risk.

Impact on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The landfill crisis represents a significant setback for California’s progress toward achieving key SDGs.

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The release of toxic pollutants from mismanaged landfills directly undermines public health. Communities near these sites are exposed to harmful substances, leading to severe health consequences.

• Residents near the Chiquita Canyon Landfill have reported headaches, nausea, nosebleeds, and respiratory difficulties.
• Air sampling detected elevated levels of cancer-causing benzene, at concentrations more than eight times higher than the state’s short-term health limit.
• The health impacts have forced families to relocate their children to different schools to ensure they breathe cleaner air.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The ongoing environmental hazards make surrounding communities unsafe and unsustainable, threatening the long-term viability of residential areas.

• Noxious odors and health risks have diminished the quality of life, forcing residents to remain indoors.
• Long-term residents are contemplating moving, potentially losing their life’s investment and facing financial hardship as property values are impacted.
• The incidents erode the social fabric of communities, turning “forever homes” into sources of stress and financial ruin.

SDG 13: Climate Action

Landfill emissions are a primary source of methane, a greenhouse gas significantly more potent than carbon dioxide, directly fueling climate change.

• Landfills are California’s second-largest source of methane emissions, undermining state and global climate targets.
• A new state satellite program detected 17 methane plumes from nine landfills between July and October alone, highlighting the scale of uncontrolled emissions.
• Ineffective gas capture systems and unaddressed leaks contribute directly to atmospheric warming.

SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

The crisis underscores a failure to manage waste sustainably, a core tenet of SDG 12. The incidents reveal inadequate infrastructure and oversight for handling the byproducts of consumption.

• The reliance on landfilling organic waste, which then decays and produces methane, points to a need for improved waste reduction, recycling, and composting systems.
• The mismanagement, aging equipment, and regulatory loopholes demonstrate a departure from sustainable production and waste management patterns.

Proposed Regulatory Framework and Opposition

California Air Resources Board Proposal

In response to the crisis, the California Air Resources Board is considering new regulations to enhance oversight and mitigate environmental damage. The proposal aims to align waste management with climate and health objectives.

1. Advanced Leak Detection: Mandate the use of modern technologies, including satellites and drones, for comprehensive monitoring of methane leaks.
2. Rapid Corrective Action: Require landfill operators to fix leaks within three days of detection (down from ten) and address elevated temperatures promptly.
3. Improved Gas Collection: Shorten the time allowed for gas collection wells to be offline for repairs to five days and require new systems to be installed within six months of waste placement (down from 18).
4. Enhanced Transparency: Obligate operators to be more transparent about temperatures within their gas collection systems to prevent underground fires.

Industry and Government Opposition

Many landfill operators and local governments oppose the proposed rules, citing logistical and financial challenges.

• Opponents argue the new requirements would create an untenable workload and impose millions of dollars in annual costs.
• Publicly-owned facilities, such as Sacramento County’s Kiefer Landfill, claim they cannot adapt quickly to such significant regulatory shifts.
• There is concern that these increased operational costs will be passed on to residents through higher garbage fees.

Conclusion

The widespread failures at California’s landfills present a clear and urgent threat to public health, community safety, and the state’s climate goals. The incidents are a stark violation of the principles embedded in SDGs 3, 11, 12, and 13. The proposed regulations by the Air Resources Board offer a critical opportunity to rectify these shortcomings by enforcing stricter monitoring, faster remediation, and greater accountability. Adopting these measures is essential for protecting vulnerable communities and ensuring California’s waste management practices contribute to, rather than detract from, a sustainable future.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. SDGs Addressed in the Article

   The article highlights several issues related to landfill mismanagement in California, which directly connect to multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary SDGs addressed are:

   • SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article extensively discusses the negative health impacts on communities near landfills, such as residents experiencing “headaches, nausea, nosebleeds and difficulty breathing” due to toxic fumes. It also mentions the detection of “cancer-causing benzene” at levels “more than eight times higher than the state’s short-term health limit,” directly threatening the well-being of the population, including children whose school recess was canceled.
   • SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The core of the article revolves around the failure of municipal waste management, a key component of sustainable cities. The problems described, including air pollution, safety risks from “explosive levels of methane,” and the degradation of living conditions forcing residents to move, all point to the challenge of making human settlements safe, resilient, and sustainable.
   • SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The article is fundamentally about the consequences of waste generation and the need for its environmentally sound management. The landfill fires, liquid waste geysers, and gas leaks are direct results of improper management of post-consumer waste, which is a central theme of SDG 12.
   • SDG 13: Climate Action: A significant focus of the article is on methane, described as a “potent greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere much more than carbon dioxide.” It identifies landfills as “California’s second-largest source of methane” and discusses new state regulations aimed at curbing these emissions to combat climate change.

2. Specific SDG Targets Identified

   Based on the article’s content, the following specific targets under the identified SDGs are relevant:

   • SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

     • Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination. The article’s detailed accounts of residents becoming sick from “noxious fumes,” “toxic pollutants like hydrogen sulfide or benzene,” and “lung-aggravating sulfur pollutants” directly relate to this target.

   • SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

     • Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management. The entire article serves as a case study for this target, focusing on the adverse environmental impacts of poor landfill management on air quality and the well-being of urban and suburban communities.

   • SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

     • Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment. The article describes failures in achieving this, citing “mismanagement, aging equipment and inadequate oversight” leading to the release of methane and toxic chemicals, with severe impacts on health and the environment.

   • SDG 13: Climate Action

     • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning. The article highlights a direct action related to this target: the California Air Resources Board’s proposal to vote on “a new slate of requirements to better identify and more quickly respond to methane leaks.” This represents the integration of climate change mitigation measures into state-level environmental regulations.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied

   The article mentions or implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets:

   • For Target 3.9 (Health impacts from pollution)

     • Measured concentration of pollutants: The article explicitly states that “Air sampling found elevated levels of lung-aggravating sulfur pollutants and cancer-causing benzene.” It also quantifies benzene concentrations as “more than eight times higher than the state’s short-term health limit.” This serves as a direct indicator of air pollution.
     • Number of public health complaints: The text notes that residents “called in thousands of odor complaints to the South Coast Air Quality Management District,” which can be used as a proxy indicator for community health and well-being impacts.

   • For Target 11.6 (Environmental impact of cities)

     • Temperature anomalies in landfills: The article mentions that “18 landfills in California that have had prolonged heat signatures detected by NASA’s Fire Information for Resource Management System.” Monitoring these thermal anomalies is an indicator of improper waste decomposition and risk.
     • Frequency and scale of methane leaks: The use of a “new state satellite program” that has “detected 17 methane plumes from nine landfills” provides a direct, measurable indicator of failures in waste management and its impact on air quality.

   • For Target 12.4 (Sound management of waste)

     • Number of regulatory exemptions granted: The article points out that “11 of these landfills requested and received permission from either federal or local environmental regulators to continue operating with higher temperatures than currently allowed.” Tracking the reduction of such “waivers” would indicate stricter enforcement of environmentally sound management.
     • Response time to leaks: The proposed new rules would require operators to “take actions to fix a leak within three days of detection, rather than 10 days.” This change in required response time is a clear performance indicator for waste management.

   • For Target 13.2 (Climate action integration)

     • Adoption of new regulations: The central event discussed is the California Air Resources Board’s vote on new landfill regulations. The adoption and implementation of these rules is a direct indicator of integrating climate change measures into policy.
     • Greenhouse gas emissions from the waste sector: The article identifies landfills as the “second-largest source of methane statewide.” Directly measuring and reporting methane emissions from these facilities, as the satellite program does, is a key indicator for tracking progress on climate action.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators Identified in the Article
   SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being	3.9: Substantially reduce illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air pollution.	Measured concentrations of benzene and sulfur pollutants in the air. Number of odor and health complaints from residents.
   SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities	11.6: Reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, focusing on air quality and waste management.	Number of landfills with heat signatures indicating underground fires. Number and volume of methane plumes detected by satellite technology.
   SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production	12.4: Achieve environmentally sound management of all wastes to minimize adverse impacts on human health and the environment.	Number of regulatory waivers granted to landfills for high-temperature operations. Mandated response time for fixing detected gas leaks (e.g., reducing from 10 days to 3 days).
   SDG 13: Climate Action	13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.	Adoption of state-level regulations targeting methane emissions from landfills. Total measured methane emissions from the state’s landfill sector.

Source: latimes.com