£f>A/530-S\J- fP-
   PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CRITERIA FOR
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL LANDFILLS:


               A SUMMARY
            August. 22, 1988
  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
         Office of Solid Waste

-------

-------
            SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES CRITERIA:   A SUMMARY
 I.   INTRODUCTION

     Through Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
 (RCRA) of 1976, EPA  is establishing a framework for Federal, State, and
 local government cooperation for the management of solid waste.  The
 Federal role is to establish the overall regulatory direction, provide
 minimum standards for the protection of human health and the environment,
 and provide technical assistance to States for planning and developing
 sound solid waste management.  The actual planning, enforcement, and
 direct implementation of solid waste management programs under Subtitle D
 of RCRA remain State and local functions.

     This Federal framework currently is contained in the Criteria for the
 Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices  (40 CFR
 Part 257), which were developed in 1979.  These Criteria establish general
 environmental performance standards addressing eight major topics:
 floodplains, endangered species, surface'water, ground water, land
 application, disease, air, and safety.  Under the Hazardous and Solid
 Waste Amendments of  1984 (HSWA), Congress directed EPA to assess, and
 revise as necessary, the Criteria for facilities that may receive
 household hazardous waste (HHW) and small quantity generator (SQG)
 hazardous waste, particularly with respect to ground-water contamination.

     To fulfill its responsibilities under HSWA, EPA conducted a series of
 studies and analyses of solid waste characteristics, waste disposal
 practices, and environmental and public health impacts resulting from
 solid waste disposal.  Final results, which form the basis for the Agency
 decisionmaking on this rule, are incorporated in EPA's Subtitle D report
 to Congress, scheduled to be issued shortly.

     EPA's studies reveal that there were more than 11 billion tons of
 solid waste generated in 1986 and managed in some 227,000 solid waste
disposal facilities.  This included 160 million tons of municipal solid
waste,  126 million tons of which were disposed of in 6,034 municipal solid
waste landfills (MSWLFs).  The remaining waste was recycled, incinerated,
or managed by some other method.

     Because of the limited data available concerning solid waste
 facilities and practices other than MSWLFs, EPA has decided to revise the
Part 257 Criteria in phases.  The first phase revises the Criteria for
MSWLFs.   In August 1988, EPA proposed the revised Criteria for MSWLFs in
the Federal Register.  In addition to general environmental performance
standards, this proposal calls for a notification requirement for
 industrial solid waste facilities and construction/demolition waste
landfills.  The data obtained through these notifications and from other
ongoing and planned data collection efforts may lead to a second phase

-------
                                   - 2 -

of Criteria revisions, which would address other types of solid waste
management facilities and practices.

II.  SUMMARY OF THE RULE          ;

     This proposed action would amend Part 257 by:  1) including
information requirements for owners and operators of industrial solid
waste disposal facilities and construction/demolition waste landfills and
2) excluding MSWLFs from Part 257,  This action also would add a new Part
258 to propose specific requirements for MSWLFs, including those that
co-dispose of sewage  sludge with household waste.  In addition, landfills
that receive ash residue from municipal waste combustion  (MWC) facilities,
including ash monofills (i.e., landfills that receive only ash), would be
subj.ect to these Criteria.        |

    -The new Part 258 sets forth revised minimum criteria for MSWLFs,
primarily in the form of performance standards, including location
restrictions, facility design and:operating criteria, closure and
post-closure care, financial assurance, ground-water monitoring, and
corrective action requirements.  The.primary goals of this rule are to
establish standards that protect human health and the environment  provide
flexibility to the States, and minimize disruption of current solid waste
management practices  by taking into account .the practicable capability of
the regulated community.          j
                                  i
     Part 258 will be co-promulgated  under the  authorities of the Clean
Water Act  (CWA) and RCRA and,  in  part, will  fulfill EPA's mandate to
promulgate regulations governing  the  use  and disposal of sewage sludge.   A
separate regulation  for sludge mohofills  is  being prepared for  future
proposal under the CWA.           [

III. AMENDMENTS TO PART 257

     EPA is proposing to  add to  Part  257  a notification requirement
applicable to owners  and  operators  of industrial solid waste  disposal
facilities  (landfills,  surface impoundments,  waste  piles, and land
application units) and  construction/  demolition waste landfills.  The
owner  or operator of these facilities would  be required to complete and
submit a form to  the State and EPA that would include basic  information on
facility type and location,  waste type and volume,  and management
practices,  as well as limited exposure data.

     The proposal would except MSWLFs from the Part 257 Criteria; these
 facilities would be covered by the proposed Part 258.  In addition the
proposal updates the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for the
ground-water to include MCLs established since the current criteria were
promulgated.

 IV.   SUMMARY OF THE NEW PART 258

A.   Subpart A—General          !

      Part 258 sets forth minimum[national criteria for the location,

-------
                                   _ o _

design, operation, cleanup, and closure of new and existing MSWLFs,
including those receiving sewage sludge from publicly owned treatment
works  (POTWs) and ash from MWC facilities.  The revised Criteria would
apply to all new and existing MSWLFs except those that close prior to the
effective date of the rule.  Under the proposal,  the revised Criteria
would be effective 18 months from when the Criteria revisions are
finalized.          '     ',                                               .

B.   Subpart B—Location Restrictions

     In this Subpart, EPA has identified six types of locations for MSWLFs
that require special siting restrictions and/or performance standards.
These are:

     o   Proximity to Airports;  New and existing MSWLF units located
         within 10,OOO feet of airports handling turbojets and within
         5,OOO feet of airports handling piston-type aircraft would be
         required to be operated in a manner that does not pose a bird
         hazard to aircraft.  (This requirement has not changed from Part
         257.)

     o   IQO-year Floodplains;  New and existing MSWLF units located in
         the lOO-year floodplain would be prohibited from restricting the
         flow of the lOO-year flood, reducing the temporary water storage
         capacity of the floodplain, or resulting in the washout of solid
         waste so as to pose a threat to human health and'the
         environment.  (This x-equirement has not changed from Part 257.)

     o   Wetlands;  New MSWLF units would not be allowed to be located in
         wetlands unless the owner or operator demonstrates to the State
         that the new unit:  1) meets the discharge restrictions developed
         pursuant to Section 4O4(b)(l) of the CWA, 2) there is no
         practicable alternative, and 3) siting will not result in
         significant adverse environmental impacts.  This proposal does
         not apply to existing units.

     o   Fault Areas;  New MSWLF units would be prohibited from siting
         within 2OO feet (61 meters) of faults that have had displacement
         in Holocene time  (i.e., within 11,OOO years).  This provision
         applies only to new units.

     o   Seismic Impact Zones:  New MSWLF units in a seismic impact area
         would be required to be designed to resist the maximum horizontal
         acceleration of hard rock at the site (i.e., ground motion from
         earthquakes).  This provision only applies to new units.

     o   Unstable Areas;  The owner or operator would be required to
         incorporate engineering components into the unit design to ensure
         the stability of a MSWLF unit located in an unstable area  (e.g.,
         Karst terrain, landslide-susceptible areas).  Existing units
         would be required to close within five years unless:  1) the
         owner or operator demonstrates the structural integrity of the
         MSWLF, or 2) the State extends the deadline.

-------
                                   - 4 -

    The owner or operator of a MSWLF ianit would be required to demonstrate
to the State that the design at the proposed location is in compliance
with the location restrictions.      [

C.   Subpart C—Operating Criteria   !

     The requirements of this Subpart • would apply to all new and existing
MSWLFs.  Operating criteria comprise [four major components:  Day-to-day
operating criteria, closure, post-closure care, and financial assurance.

a.  Day-to-Day Operating Criteria    \

     Specific operating requirements would include the following, and
apply to both new and existing MSWLFs!:

     o    Procedures for Excluding the Receipt of Hazardous Waste;  The
          owner or operator would be required to implement a program to
          detect and prevent attempts to dispose of regulated quantities
          of hazardous waste.  This plrogram would include random
          inspections of incoming loads, inspections of suspicious loads,
          recordkeeping of inspections, training of personnel to recognize
          hazardous waste, and procedures to notify the State if regulated
          hazardous waste is found.

     o    Daily Cover:  This requirement would strengthen the current Part
          257 criteria by requiring the application of cover material at
          the end of each operating day, or more frequently, to control
          disease vectors (disease-carrying rodents or flies), fires,
          odors, blowing litter, and scavenging.

     o    Disease Vector Control:  The owner or operator of the MSWLF
          would be required to prevent or control disease-carrying
          populations (e.g., rodents or flies) using appropriate
          techniques.  (This requirement has not changed from Part 257.)
                                     |
     o    Explosive Gases Control;  This provision would strengthen the
          current Part 257 Criteria for methane concentration limits
          (i.e., 25 percent of the lower explosive limit (LEL) in facility
          structures and the LEL at the facility boundary) by adding a
          landfill gas monitoring provision.   If the standard has been
          exceeded, the owner or operator would be required to take steps
          to ensure protection of human health and the environment,
          submit a remediation plan to the State and work with the State
          in implementing the appropriate protective measures.

     o    Air Criteria;  These propos'ed requirements prohibit open burning
          of solid waste, except infrequent burning of agricultural and
          silvicultural waste, land clearing debris, diseased trees,
          debris from emergency cleanup operations, and ordnance.  The
          owner or operator would be ^required  to comply with State
          Implementation Plans under the Clean Air Act.  These
          requirements are not substantively different from the  current
          Part 237.                  |

-------
          :'                          - 5 -

      0    Access Restrictions;  The MSWLF owner or operator would be
           required to control public access, illegal dumping, and
           unauthorized vehicular traffic through use of- natural and/or
           artificial barriers.

      0    Run-on/Run-off Control;  The owner or operator would be required
           to design, construct, and maintain:  1)  a run-on control system
           to prevent flow into active portions of the MSWLF during 'a
           25-year storm, and 2) a run-off control system to collect and
          , control at least the volume of water from a 24-hour, 25-year
          ' storm.  Run-off would be handled in accordance with the surface
           water requirements described below.

      0    Surface Water Requirements:   NO MSWLF would be allowed to-  1)
           cause a discharge into waters of the U.S.  that violates CWA
           standards,  or 2)  cause a nonpoint source discharge that violates
           a water quality management plan under sections 208 or 319 of the
           CWA.   This requirement has not changed from Part 257.

      0    Liquids Restrictions;   The intent of this  provision is to
           prohibit the disposal in MSWLFs of 55 gallon drums filled with
           liquids and the disposal of  tank trucks  filled with liquids.
           Household waste,  except tank trucks filled with septic waste,
           are exempt.   Leachate and gas condensate from the unit would'be
           allowed to  be recirculated only if the unit has. a composite
           liner and a leachate collection system.

      0     Recordkeeping;  The  owner or operator would be  required to
          .retain historical  records/including ground-water and  landfill
           gas monitoring, data;  inspection records;  State notification
           procedures;  and closure  and  post-closure care plans.

 b.    Closure  Criteria

      The  closure criteria are  designed  to  minimize the  need for
 maintenance after closure and  minimize  the formation  and  release of
 leachate  and  explosive gases to air, ground  water, or surface  water during
 the post-closure care period.  The  owner or  operator  would be  required to
 submit a  closure plan to  the State  for  approval.

    Closure activity would be  required  to  begin  shortly after  the  final
 receipt of waste at that  landfill.  Upon closure,  the owner or operator
 would be  required to certify to the State  that closure  of  the  MSWLF unit
 has been  completed in accordance with the  approved closure plan.

 c.  Post-Closure Criteria

    Following closure of the MSWLF unit, the owner or operator would be
 required to conduct two phases of post-closure care.  In the first  phase
 of the post-closure care period (a minimum of 30 years) the Agency
proposes that the owner or operator conduct routine maintenance  of  any
 final cover,  continue any leachate collection, and maintain and  operate
ground-water and landfill gas monitoring, as necessary, to  control

-------
                                   - 6 -

environmental hazards.

     Following completion of the first phase of post-closure care,  the
Agency proposes to require a second, less intensive phase of care.   The
Agency proposes that the owner or operator be required to continue,  at a
minimum, ground-water and landfill !gas monitoring in order to detect any
contamination that might occur beyond the first 30 years of post-closure
care.  The State would establish the length of this period and the exact
sampling and maintenance requirements.   In addition, a property deed
notation stating that the land formerly was a MSWLF and specifying
approved post-closure uses would be required.
d.
Financial Assurance
     Under the proposed rule, the owner or operator of a MSWLF would be
required to demonstrate the financial and technical ability to conduct
closure and post-closure care, and, if applicable, corrective action for
known releases.  This requirement would ensure that the owner or operator
adequately plans for all the costs involved.  While State and Federal
Government entities would be excluded from financial assurance
requirements, local governments would not be excluded.  (The Agency is
requesting comment on a financial test that could lead to local government
exemption and whether to exempt Indian Tribes from financial assurance
requirements.)                     '

     The amount of financial assurance required would be based upon
written site-specific cost estimates.  EPA proposes that the cost estimate
account for the costs of closure, post-closure care, and corrective action
for known releases. The cost estimkte would be adjusted annually for
inflation until the entire landfill has been closed.  The State may
release the owner or operator  from: post-closure financial requirements
after the State has received certification that post-closure care has been
completed.
                                   I
D.        Subpart D—Design Criteria

     The proposed design criteria  'establish a performance standard that
allows State flexibility in determining the allowable risk  level and the
point of compliance.  New and  existing units would be required to meet the
performance standard but different; options  for control mechanisms are
given for each.                    |
                                   i    '        .        .     •     .  .  •   •
     New units would be required to be designed with  liners,  leachate
collection systems, and final  cover systems as necessary to meet a
State-established design goal.  The design  goal would be risk-based  and
would be in the range of lifetime  cancer  risk of  1 x  10   to
1 x  10~7.                          | .

     The point of compliance  would be at  the waste management unit
boundary or State-established alternative boundary.   The alternative
boundary would be no more than 150 meters from the waste management unit
boundary and would be required to  |be  on  facility-owned  land.

-------
                                    -  7  -
      Existing units would be required  to  install  a  final  cover  that
 prevents ;infiltration of liquid into the  waste, but would not be  required
 to install  liners  or leachate collection  systems.

 E.        Subpart  E—Ground-Water Monitoring and  Corrective Action

      This Subpart  proposes a two-phased ground-water monitoring system and
 corrective  action  requirement to ensure that ground-water contamination at
 new and  existing MSWLFs  will be detected  and cleaned up as necessary to
 protect  human health and the environment.  These  requirements would be
 applicable  to all  new and existing MSWLF  units.   In Phase I monitoring,
 the owner or operator would monitor for specified constituents.   If
 contamination is detected,  the owner or operator  would be required to
 comply with Phase  II monitoring requirements and  monitor  for additiona]
 constituents.

      Existing landfill units would be  exempt from ground-water  monitoring
 only if  the owner  or operator could demonstrate to  the State that there is
 no  potential  for migration of hazardous constituents from the unit to the
 uppermost aquifer  during the active life  of the unit and  the post-closure
 care period.

      States would  be required to specify,  a schedule for all units in the
 State to be  in compliance with the ground-water monitoring requirements.
 Ground-water  monitoring  would be conducted throughout the active life, as
 well  as, during closure  and  the post-closure care periods for that unit.
 The  State would have final approval for the ground-water  monitoring well
 system at each unit.

      The owner or  operator would be required to conduct a corrective
 action assessment  if the  Phase  II constituent levels are  exceeded.  The
 State would be required  to evaluate corrective action measures, select the
 remedy, establish  corrective  action standards (considering site-specific
 factors), and set  the  corrective action schedule.   The owner or operator
would be required  to  carry out  corrective action until the State
determines that ground-water  protection standard has been met.  The
ground-water protection  standard would be selected by the State within a
protection risk range  of  1 x  1O 4 to 1 x  1O~7.

-------

-------