£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. ------- ------- |