£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.
-------
------- |