United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5305W)
EPA530-R-99-066
PB2000-101 906
February 2000
RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA
Hotline Training Module
Introduction to:
Municipal Solid Waste
Disposal Facility Criteria
'-
'* j&&SL*i~ • ' "'is'^ "* "•
s*v^'. -> ^f *,. \' ,:-sft,v*S
Updated October 1999
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document was developed by Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. under contract 68-WO-0039 to EPA. It is
intended to be used as a training tool for Hotline specialists and does not represent a statement of EPA
policy.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or
policies. This document is used only in the capacity of the Hotline training and is not used as a.reference
tool on Hotline calls. The Hotline revises and updates this document as regulatory program areas
change.
The information in this docume nt may not necessarily reflect the current position of the Agency. This
document is not intended and cannot be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural,
RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Hotline Phone Numbers:
National toll-free (outside of DC area) (800) 424-9346
Local number (within DC area) (703) 412-9810
National toll-free for the hearing impaired (TDD) (800) 553-7672
The Hotline is open from 9 am to 6 pm Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except for federal holidays.
-------
SUBTITLE D: MUNICIPAL SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY CRITERIA
CONTENTS
1. Introduction 1
2. Regulatory Summary 2
2.1 Subpart A: General Requirements 3
2.2 Subpart B: Location Restrictions 6
2.3 Subpart C: Operating Criteria 8
2.4 Subpart D: Design Criteria 12
2.5 Subpart E: Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action 13
2.6 Subpart F: Closure and Post-Closure Care 19
2.7 Subpart G: Financial Assurance Criteria 21
3. Enforcement 25
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria -1
1. INTRODUCTION
This module provides a summary of the regulatory criteria for municipal solid waste
landfills (MSWLFs). In general, a MSWLF is a landfill that accepts garbage, or solid
waste, from households. Wastes that are typically landfilled include bottles, cans,
disposable diapers, uneaten food, scraps of wood and metal, newspapers, paper and
plastic packaging, and old appliances, as well as some industrial and commercial
nonhazardous wastes. MSWLFs may also accept household hazardous wastes and
conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG) wastes that are not regulated
as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).
The MSWLF regulations promulgated on October 9,1991 (56 FR 50978), address
location restrictions, facility design and operation standards, groundwater monitoring
and corrective action measures, closure and post-closure care, and financial
responsibility requirements. Implementation of these regulations, primarily by states
with approved programs, will reduce the environmental impact of existing and future
MSWLFs.
When you have completed this module, you will be able to summarize the standards
for MSWLFs and list the relevant statutory and regulatory citations. Specifically, you
will be able to:
• Provide the statutory authority under RCRA and the Clean Water Act (CWA)
directing EPA to develop the MSWLF criteria in 40 CFR Part 258
• Provide the Part 258 effective date and the compliance dates for providing
demonstrations to satisfy individual regulatory requirements
• Identify the types of facilities that qualify for the small landfill exemption
• Explain the requirements of each subpart of Part 258 as they apply to states with
EPA-approved MSWLF permit programs and states without approved permit
programs
• Compare the MSWLF environmental performance standards described in Part
258 to the corresponding requirements for hazardous waste management
facilities in Part 264, which are generally more stringent.
Use this list of objectives to check your knowledge of this topic after you complete the
training session.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
2 - Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria
2. REGULATORY SUMMARY
RCRA Subtitle D addresses solid waste management, and was designed to assist waste
management officials in developing and encouraging environmentally sound methods
for the disposal of "nonhazardous" solid waste (RCRA §4001). Promulgated under the
authority of Subtitle D, the MSWLF regulations in Part 258 establish a framework at the
federal level for planning and implementing municipal solid waste landfill programs
at the state and local levels. This framework sets minimum standards for protecting
human health and the environment, while allowing states to develop more flexible
MSWLF criteria.
The Part 258 standards are intended to provide the means to mitigate or expeditiously
remediate potential adverse environmental impacts resulting from municipal landfills.
There were other Subtitle D regulations prior to the revised MSWLF standards
discussed in this module. RCRA §4004(a) authorized the promulgation of Part 257,
Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices (44 FR 53438;
September 13,1979). Part 257 established regulatory standards to satisfy the minimum
national performance criteria for sanitary landfills. Since Part 258 became effective on
October 9,1993, Part 257 governs only those solid waste disposal facilities that do not
meet the definition of a MSWLF. Such facilities include waste piles, industrial
nonhazardous waste landfills, injection wells, surface impoundments, and land
application units. EPA modified the Part 257 criteria on July 1,1996 (61 FR 34252), to
address the fact that these landfills may receive CESQG hazardous waste. (See the
training module entitled Solid Waste Programs.)
Section 4010 of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA)
authorized EPA to revise its existing sanitary landfill criteria to establish specific
regulations for facilities that receive household hazardous waste or CESQG hazardous
waste. In response to HSWA §4010, EPA promulgated regulations on October 9,1991
(56 FR 50978), and added Part 258 requirements to address all aspects of MSWLF
design and management. EPA designed the Part 258 requirements to be self-
implementing, meaning that in unapproved states the owner and operator of a MSWLF
can meet these standards without the oversight of either EPA or the state agency. These
revised, performance-based standards enable implementing agencies to strike a
balance between environmental protection, cost, and site-specific factors. Integral to
this regulatory approach is the significant flexibility granted to approved states for
developing site-specific controls.
Because municipal solid waste is more amenable to local, rather than federal,
regulatory oversight, EPA intends for states to take the lead role in implementing the
MSWLF regulations. EPA's goal is for states to receive approval of their MSWLF
programs. States with approved programs are given flexibility to consider site-specific
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria - 3
conditions regarding MSWLF design and other requirements of Part 258. If a state does
not have an approved program, there is no mechanism by which a regulatory agency
can exercise flexibility in implementing the Part 258 requirements.
This flexibility is a motivating factor for states to submit applications for approval of
their programs as quickly as possible. In fact, EPA recently promulgated the State
Implementation Rule (SIR) to encourage states to receive program approval and take
advantage of this flexibility. SIR, finalized on October 23,1998 (63 FR 57026), provides
a flexible framework for modifications of approved programs, establishes procedures
for withdrawals of approvals, and confirms the process for future program approvals.
Throughout this module, the text will refer to the titles "State Director," meaning the
chief administrative officer responsible for implementing the state municipal solid
waste permit program, and "Director of an approved state," meaning the chief
administrative officer responsible for implementing the state municipal solid waste
permit program that is approved by EPA under §§2002 and 4005 of RCRA.
2.1 SUBPART A: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The purpose of the Part 258 standards is to establish minimum national criteria under
RCRA for all MSWLFs to ensure protection of human health and the environment. A
MSWLF unit is a discrete area of land or an excavation that (1) receives household
waste and (2) may not otherwise be defined as a land application unit, surface
impoundment, injection well, or waste pile. A MSWLF unit may also receive other
types of RCRA Subtitle D wastes, such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous
sludge, CESQG waste, and industrial solid waste. Such a landfill may be publicly or
privately owned.
A MSWLF unit may be a new MSWLF unit, an existing MSWLF unit, or a lateral
expansion. Any MSWLF unit that has not received waste prior to October 9,1993, is a
new MSWLF unit. An existing MSWLF unit means any MSWLF unit that is receiving
solid waste as of the effective date, October 9,1993, of the final rule (56 FR 50978;
October 9,1991). A landfill cell could constitute an individual MSWLF unit. A lateral
expansion is a horizontal expansion of the waste boundaries of an existing MSWLF
unit.
Units accepting municipal solid waste that do not meet the Part 258 criteria are
classified as open dumps, and are prohibited by RCRA §4005(c). Accordingly, such
units must be upgraded or closed.
EFFECTIVE DATES
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
4 - Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria
Part 258 applies to owners and operators of new and existing MSWLFs and lateral
expansions that receive waste after October 9,1991. Owners and operators of units that
ceased receiving waste between October 9,1991, and October 9,1993, only needed to
comply with the final cover requirements in §258.60(a) (§258.1(d)). For these landfills,
compliance entails placing a final cover on the unit by October 9,1994. Owners and
operators who failed to comply with these final cover requirements by October 9,1994,
like those whose units continued to receive waste after October 9,1993, needed to
comply with all applicable Part 258 standards.
On October 1,1993 (58 FR 51536), EPA issued a rule delaying the effective date for
certain existing smaller MSWLFs to April 9,1994. To qualify for the extension, the
MSWLF units had to accept 100 tons per day or less during a representative period
prior to October 9,1993, not be on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL), and be
located in a state that had submitted an application for state program approval by
October 9,1993; or be located on Indian lands or Indian country. MSWLFs qualifying
for the extension were still required to install a final cover by October 9,1994.
The effective date may also have been extended up to April 9,1994, for existing
MSWLFs, regardless of size, in Midwest flood regions if a landfill owner and operator's
state determined that an extension was needed to manage flood-related waste from
federally designated disaster areas during the summer of 1993. These states were
allowed to provide six additional months beyond April 9,1994, to comply with the
federal regulations. The nine states within federal disaster areas were Illinois, Iowa,
Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
Compliance dates for meeting individual regulatory requirements are listed in Figure
1.
SMALL LANDFILL EXEMPTION
When the landfill criteria were developed in the late 1980s, EPA determined that nearly
half of the MSWLFs in the United States were small facilities serving communities of
approximately 10,000 people or less (57 FR 50989; October 9,1991). Because of the
financial impact of the regulations on these facilities, EPA included in the final 1991
criteria an exemption for certain small MSWLFs from the requirements of Subpart D
(design criteria) and Subpart E (groundwater monitoring) (§258.1 (f)(l)). In 1993, EPA
was subsequently sued and required to remove the groundwater monitoring
exemption. In March 1996, the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1996 was
signed into law, reinstating the groundwater monitoring exemption for qualifying
small landfills. This exemption was codified on September 25,1996 (61 FR 50410). To
qualify for this exemption, a unit must receive less than 20 tons of municipal solid
waste daily based on an annual average, and must serve either:
• A community that experiences an annual interruption of at least 3 consecutive
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria - 5
months of surface transportation that prevents access to a regional waste
management facility
or
A community that has no practical waste management alternatives, and the
landfill is an area that annually receives less than or equal to 25 inches of
precipitation.
Figure 1
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE MSWLF CRITERIA
General effective
date.1'2-3
This is the effective
date for location,
operation, design, and
closure/post-closure
standards.
Date by which unit
must install final
cover if it ceases
receipt of waste by
the general effective
date.2'3
Effective date of
groundwater
monitoring and
corrective action
provisions.2'3
Effective date if
financial assurance
requirements.3'4
MSWLF units
accepting greater
than 100 TPD
October 9, 1993
October 9, 1994
Prior to receipt of
waste for new
units; October 9,
1994 through
October 9, 1996 for
existing units and
lateral expansions
April 9, 1997
MSWLF units
accepting 100 TPD
or less; not on the
NFL; and located in
a state that has
submitted an
application for
approval by 10/9/93,
or on Indian lands
or Indian country
April 9, 1994
October 9, 1994
October 9, 1993 for
new units; October
9, 1994 through
October 9; 1996 for
existing units and
lateral expansions
April 9, 1997
MSWLF units that
meet the small
landfill exemption
in 40 CFR §258.1(f)
October 9, 1997;
exempt from design
requirements
October 9, 1998
Exempt from the
groundwater
monitoring
requirements.5
October 9, 1997
MSWLF units
receiving flood-
related waste
Up to October 9,
1994,3s
determined by
state
Within one year
of date
determined by
state; no later
than October 9,
1995
October 9, 1993
for new units;
October 9, 1994
through October
9, 1996 for
existing units
and lateral
expansions
April 9, 1997
1 If a MSWLF unit receives waste after this date, the unit must comply with all of Part 258.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
6 - Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria
2 See the final rule and preamble published on October 1,1993 (58 FR 51536) for a full discussion of all changes and related
conditions.
3 See the final rule and preamble published on October 6,1995 (60 FR 52337) for a full discussion of all changes and related
conditions.
4 See the final rule and preamble published on April 7,1995 (60 FR 17649) for a discussion of this delay.
5 See the final rule published on September 25,1996 (61 FR 50410).
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria - 7
In addition, there must be no evidence of existing groundwater contamination from the
unit for the small landfill exemption to apply. If evidence of groundwater
contamination from an exempted small landfill is discovered, the owner and operator
must notify the State Director and thereafter fully comply with Subparts D and E
(§258.1 (f)(3)). MSWLF units meeting the small landfill exemption in §258.1(f) are
exempt from all applicable regulations until October 9,1997.
2.2 SUBPART B: LOCATION RESTRICTIONS
The regulations establish special siting restrictions and performance standards for six
types of MSWLF site locations: airport surroundings, 100-year floodplains, wetlands,
fault areas, seismic impact zones, and unstable areas (Part 258, Subpart B). These six
types of locations are sensitive areas that warrant additional regulatory controls. While
all six location restrictions apply to new and laterally expanding MSWLF units, existing
units are subject only to airport safety, floodplain, and unstable area controls.
Unless the owner and operator of an existing MSWLF unit can make all applicable
demonstrations required for airport controls (§258.10(a)), floodplains (§258.11(a)), and
unstable areas (§258.15(a)), the unit must close by October 9,1996, in accordance with
§258.60. The owner and operator must also conduct post-closure activities in
accordance with §258.61, as required by §258.16. Approved states may delay the
October 1996 closure date by up to two years.
Because these landfill siting regulations involve substantial geological investigation,
certain terms used in the regulations are unusually technical. Refer to Part 258, Subpart
B, for definitions of specific terms.
AIRPORT SAFETY CONTROLS
Because landfills can attract birds seeking food or nesting sites, landfills that are
located near an airport may pose a risk of collisions between birds and aircraft. The
airport safety restrictions in §258.10 define a danger zone in which special care must be
taken to ensure that the likelihood of collisions between birds and aircraft is reduced
(56 FR 51043; October 9,1991). These provisions apply to new MSWLFs, existing
MSWLFs, and lateral expansions located within 10,000 feet of any airport runway used
by turbojet aircraft, or within 5,000 feet of any runway end used by piston-type aircraft
only. The owner and operator of any unit located within these areas must demonstrate
that the management practices of the landfill will minimize the incidents of bird
hazards for aircraft.
Provided the owner and operator can make this demonstration, the airport safety
criteria do not prohibit the disposal of solid waste within the specified distances.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
8 - Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria
Likewise, the airport safety restrictions do not impact the location of airports or airport
runways. In accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 5200.5A,
however, municipal landfills and lateral expansions proposed within a five-mile radius
of any airport runway end used by turbojet or piston-type aircraft must notify the
affected airport and the FAA in writing of such a proposal (§258.10(b)).
FLOODPLAIN CONTROLS
Floodplain regulations establish guidelines that must be followed when a new or
existing MSWLF or a lateral expansion is located in a 100-year floodplain. A unit
subject to these provisions must be designed and operated to minimize its effect on
both the 100-year flood flow and the temporary water storage capacity of the
floodplain. The unit's owner and operator must provide evidence that the landfill will
not restrict the flow of the 100-year flood, reduce the temporary water storage capacity
of the floodplain, or result in washout of solid waste.
WETLANDS CONTROLS
Swamps, bogs, marshes, and other wetlands are unique, critical ecosystems that serve
an important role in flood control, help filter wastes from water, provide an important
breeding ground for fish and wildlife, and constitute an important recreational
resource. EPA has placed a high priority on wetlands protection, but believes an
outright ban of new MSWLFs or lateral expansions in wetlands could severely restrict
the sites available for new or expanding landfills. Thus, the Agency developed
guidelines for the limited siting of MSWLFs in wetlands.
New units or lateral expansions are banned from wetlands unless the owner and
operator make the following demonstrations to the Director of an approved state:
• Rebut the presumption that a practicable alternative site is available
• Show that landfill construction and operation will not violate certain state and
federal standards designed to protect water quality and wildlife
• Demonstrate that the MSWLF unit will not cause or contribute to significant
degradation of wetlands
• Demonstrate that steps were taken to achieve no net loss of wetlands.
Because these demonstrations must satisfy the Director of an approved state, §258.12(a)
effectively bans the siting of new MSWLF units and lateral expansions in wetlands in
unapproved states.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria - 9
The Agency intends to keep these wetlands location restrictions consistent with all
CWA regulatory modifications. As §404 of the CWA evolves in accordance with the
wetlands protection program, EPA will modify relevant portions of §258.12 accordingly
(56 FR 51045; October 9,1991).
FAULT AREA CONTROLS
Fault area restrictions ban the siting of new MSWLFs and lateral expansions within 200
feet of a fault that has experienced displacement in Holocene time (i.e., the past 11,000
years). This restriction reflects the Agency's belief that, in general, a 200-foot buffer
zone is adequate to protect engineered structures, such as a new MSWLF, from seismic
damage (56 FR 51046; October 9,1991). In a state with an approved permitting
program, however, the owner and operator may demonstrate that a setback distance
less than 200 feet will prevent damage to the structural integrity of the unit and will be
protective of human health and the environment.
SEISMIC IMPACT ZONES
In unapproved states, new MSWLFs and lateral expansions cannot be sited in a seismic
impact zone, as defined in §258.14(b)(l). In a state with an approved permitting
program, however, a MSWLF may be located in a seismic impact zone if the owner and
operator can prove that all containment structures, liners, leachate collection systems,
and surface water control systems are designed to resist the anticipated movement in
geologic features at the site.
UNSTABLE AREA CONTROLS
Any location susceptible to events or forces capable of impairing a landfill's structural
integrity is classified as an unstable area. Owners and operators must assess on-site
and local factors, including soil conditions and geologic features, to determine whether
an area is unstable. Unstable areas can include poor foundation conditions, areas
susceptible to mass movement, and karst terranes (§§258.15(b)(3), (4), and (5)). New
and existing MSWLFs and lateral expansions must not be located in an unstable area
unless the owner and operator can demonstrate that engineering measures in the unit's
design are sufficient to ensure that the integrity of structural components (e.g.,
composite liner and final cover) will not be disrupted (§258.15(a)).
2.3 SUBPART C: OPERATING CRITERIA
Operating criteria are controls for the day-to-day management of a MSWLF. For
example, owners and operators must have a program in place to exclude regulated
quantities of hazardous waste and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) wastes. Additional
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
10 - Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria
requirements include daily cover material, controlling disease vector populations (such
as rodents and mosquitoes), restricting public access, and maintaining appropriate
records. The operating criteria are summarized below.
PROCEDURES FOR EXCLUDING THE RECEIPT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
All MSWLF unit owners and operators must institute a program to detect and prevent
the disposal of regulated quantities of PCB wastes and RCRA hazardous wastes (except
from CESQGs) (§258.20(a)). Facility personnel must be trained to identify regulated
hazardous waste and PCBs, and the owner and operator must either conduct random
inspections of wastes brought to the facility, or take other steps to ensure that incoming
loads do not contain regulated hazardous wastes or PCBs (e.g., arranging pre-
acceptance agreements with haulers).
Upon detection of hazardous or PCB wastes, the owner and operator must notify the
State Director or Regional Administrator. Even if the owner and operator receive the
waste accidentally, they are responsible for ensuring that regulated hazardous waste is
treated, stored, or disposed of in accordance with all applicable RCRA Subtitle C and
state requirements (57 FR 51050; October 9,1991).
COVER MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS
Exposed waste at landfills contributes to a range of health, safety, and aesthetic
problems, such as disease vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and waste scavenging.
To control these problems, §258.21 requires that at the end of each operating day, a
cover of at least six inches of soil be placed over exposed waste in a MSWLF (§258.21).
In states with approved permitting programs, the State Director is authorized to allow
alternative cover materials or thicknesses, or to grant temporary waivers from the daily
cover requirement if extreme seasonal weather conditions, such as heavy snow or
severe freezing, make meeting this requirement impractical (56 FR 51051; October 9,
1991).
Section 258.21 was revised on July 29,1997, (62 FR 40708) consistent with the Land
Disposal Program Flexibility Act (LDPFA). The revision provides additional flexibility
to approved states, allowing the Director of an approved state, after public review and
comment, to establish alternative frequencies for daily cover for certain small MSWLFs,
provided that the Director takes into account climatic and hydrogeologic conditions
and determines that the alternative requirements are protective of human health and
the environment.
DISEASE VECTOR CONTROL
Disease vectors are rodents, flies, mosquitoes, or other animals and insects capable of
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria -11
transmitting disease to humans (§258.22(b)). As stated above, one purpose for the daily
cover requirement is to prevent the facility from becoming a breeding ground, habitat,
or feeding area for disease vector populations. If compliance with the daily cover
material requirement is insufficient to ensure disease vector control, the facility owner
and operator must employ additional methods (e.g., shredding the waste) to protect
human health and the environment.
EXPLOSIVE GASES CONTROL
The decomposition of organic waste produces methane gas. High concentrations of
methane in MSWLF structures or the facility area create an explosion hazard for
employees, facility users, and occupants of nearby structures. To mitigate potential
hazards, a routine methane monitoring program, conducted at least quarterly, must be
implemented in accordance with §258.23(b) to ensure that the following conditions are
maintained:
• In facility structures, the concentration of methane gas must not exceed 25
percent of the lower explosive limit for methane as defined in §258.23(d)
• At the facility property boundary, the concentration of methane gas must not
exceed the lower explosive limit.
While §258.23(c) outlines the procedures that the owner and operator must follow if
these methane levels are exceeded, states with approved programs may establish
alternative response procedures (§258.23(c)(4)).
Consistent with the LDPFA, §258.23 was revised on July 29,1997, (62 FR 40708) to
incorporate a provision allowing the Director of an approved state, after public review
and comment, to establish alternative frequencies of methane monitoring for any small
MSWLFs, provided that the Director takes into account climatic and hydrogeologic
conditions and determines that the alternative requirements are protective of human
health and the environment.
AIR CRITERIA
In general, air emissions from MSWLFs are regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA),
not under RCRA (56 FR 51053; October 9,1991). Nevertheless, §258.24 prohibits open
burning of nearly all solid wastes at MSWLFs; only the infrequent burning of
agricultural wastes, silvicultural (forestry) wastes, land-cleaning debris, diseased trees,
and debris from emergency cleanup operations is permitted (§258.24(b)). Additionally,
landfill gas performance standards for new landfills and guidelines for existing
landfills were promulgated under the authority of the CAA on March 12,1996 (61 FR
9905).
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
12 - Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria
ACCESS REQUIREMENTS
Access to MSWLF facilities must be controlled to prevent unauthorized people from
entering the MSWLF. Owners and operators of all MSWLFs may use artificial or
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria -13
natural barriers, as necessary, to control public access to the facility and prevent
unauthorized vehicular traffic and illegal dumping of wastes (§258.25).
RUN-ON AND RUN-OFF CONTROL SYSTEMS
To prevent the flow of surface water onto or from a landfill unit, §258.26(a)(l) requires
all MSWLF units to have run-on and run-off control systems. The intent of the design,
construction, and maintenance of a run-on control system is to prevent the flow of
surface water onto the active portion of a unit during the period of greatest
precipitation in a 25-year storm. These system controls are intended to mitigate
erosion, reduce surface discharge of wastes in solution or suspension, and minimize
run-on available to percolate down through waste that creates leachate (56 FR 51054;
October 9,1991). A run-off control system, likewise, must be designed and operated to
collect and control the water volume resulting from a 24-hour, 25-year storm
(§258.26(a)(2)).
SURFACE WATER REQUIREMENTS
The run-off control measures would be largely undermined if collected waters were
improperly managed. Run-off collected from the active portion of a landfill unit must
be managed in accordance with §258.27, which requires that all MSWLFs be operated in
compliance with the Clean Water Act.
BULK OR NONCONTAINERIZED LIQUIDS
Restricting the introduction of liquids into a landfill reduces the unit's potential to
generate leachate (56 FR 51055; October 9,1991). According to §258.28, only household
waste (excluding septic waste), properly recirculated leachate, or gas condensate
derived from the MSWLF may be disposed of in bulk or noncontainerized liquid form.
Furthermore, the re-circulation of leachate or gas condensate in MSWLFs is limited to
units equipped with composite liners and leachate collection systems (§258.28(a)(2)).
Containers holding liquids may be disposed of in a MSWLF only if the waste is a
household waste, the container is similar in size to one typically found in household
waste, or the container is designed to hold liquids for use other than storage (e.g.,
beverage containers) (§258.28(b)).
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
Each MSWLF owner and operator must retain certain records and documents near the
facility in an operating record. In unapproved states, the following materials must be
kept in the operating record (§258.29(a)):
• Location restriction demonstrations required under Subpart B
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
14 - Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria
• Inspection records, training procedures, and notification procedures required by
§258.20.
• Gas monitoring results and any remediation plans required by §258.23
• MSWLF unit design documentation for placement of leachate or gas condensate
in a unit as required by §258.28(a)(2)
• Demonstrations, certifications, findings, monitoring, testing, or analytical data
required by Subpart E groundwater monitoring and corrective action
• Closure and post-closure care plans and any monitoring, testing, or analytical
data as required by §§258.60 and 258.61
• Cost estimates and financial assurance documentation required by Part 258,
Subpart G
• Information demonstrating compliance with the small landfill exemption
required by §258.1(f)(2).
The Director of an approved state may allow an alternative location for these records
and establish alternative schedules for complying with most of the recordkeeping and
notification requirements.
2.4 SUBPART D: DESIGN CRITERIA
To prevent unit failures, the regulations establish a uniform design standard for new
units and lateral expansions, allowing for site-specific MSWLF designs in approved
states (56 FR 51053; October 9,1991). In states without approved permitting programs,
the MSWLF design criteria require construction with a composite liner and leachate
collection system. For new units and lateral expansions in approved states,
§258.40(a)(l) allows greater flexibility in design.
COMPOSITE LINER SYSTEM
The uniform design criteria require a composite liner and a leachate collection system.
The composite liner system consists of an upper component which is a flexible
membrane liner (FML) that satisfies specific thickness standards. The lower component
must be constructed of at least a 2-foot layer of compacted soil and must exhibit a
hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1 x 10'7 cm/sec. EPA believes that the
combination of an FML and a compacted soil layer ensures adequate protection by
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria -15
providing both a highly impermeable upper liner to maximize leachate collection and
removal, and a lower soil layer to serve as a back-up in the event of FML failure (56 FR
51060; October 9,1991). The leachate collection system must be designed and
constructed to maintain less than a 30-cm depth of leachate over the liner (§258.40(a)(2)).
SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGNS
For approved states, flexibility in design requirements is allowed. The performance-
based standard in §258.40(a)(l) requires that a MSWLF's design be capable of
controlling migration of hazardous constituents into the uppermost aquifer. This
design performance standard requires that maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) not be
exceeded in the uppermost aquifer at the relevant point of compliance. In general, the
relevant point of compliance must be located within 150 meters of the waste
management boundary on the landfill owner's property.
The Director of an approved state determines whether a proposed design meets the
performance standard. When reviewing a design plan, the Director of an approved
state must evaluate hydrogeologic characteristics, climatic factors, and volume,
physical, and chemical characteristics of the landfill's leachate (§258.40(c)).
2.5 SUBPART E: GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND
CORRECTIVE ACTION
Similar to the regulations for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
(TSDFs) in Subpart F of Part 264, MSWLF groundwater monitoring and corrective
action requirements consist of three sequential phases. Detection monitoring,
minimally required for all units, is designed to measure concentrations of certain
indicator parameters. Statistically significant increases (SSI) in these indicators trigger
groundwater assessment monitoring for hazardous constituents. Finally, a corrective
action program is required if remediation of contaminated groundwater is necessary.
APPLICABILITY, WAIVERS, AND EXEMPTIONS
The groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements of Part 258, Subpart E,
apply to all MSWLFs, except in two instances. First, as a result of the Land Disposal
Program Flexibility Act of 1996, MSWLF units meeting the small landfill exemption in
§258.l(f) are now exempt from the groundwater monitoring requirements of Subpart E.
Second, the Director of an approved state may waive the groundwater monitoring
requirements if the owner and operator can demonstrate that there is no potential for
migration of hazardous constituents into the uppermost aquifer during the unit's active
life and the post-closure care period (§258.50(b)). A qualified groundwater scientist, as
defined in §258.50(g), must certify the demonstration.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
16 - Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria -17
SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
Once established, groundwater monitoring must be conducted throughout the active
life and post-closure care period of the MSWLF unit. While new units must be in
compliance with the groundwater monitoring requirements prior to accepting waste,
the compliance date in unapproved states for each existing landfill depends on its
distance from a drinking water intake, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COMPLIANCE DEADLINES
FOR UNAPPROVED STATES
Proximity of an Existing MSWLF
to a Drinking Water Intake
Groundwater Monitoring
Compliance Date
Less than one mile
October 9,1994
(§258.50(c)(l))
More than one mile, but less than two
miles
October 9,1995
(§258.50(c)(2))
More than two miles
October 9,1996
(§258.50(c)(3))
In states with approved programs, the Director may establish an alternative
groundwater monitoring schedule of compliance for existing MSWLF units and lateral
expansions (258.50(d)). In developing this compliance schedule, the Director of an
approved state should consider certain risk factors: the proximity of receptors; the size,
age, and design of the unit; types and quantities of wastes disposed; and the resource
value of the underlying aquifer.
The resulting schedule must ensure that, excluding units not subject to the
groundwater monitoring requirements, at least 50 percent of the existing MSWLF units
in the state are in compliance by October 9,1994, and that all such existing units in the
state are in compliance by October 9,1996. The Director of an approved state may also
establish alternative schedules for Subpart E notification, sampling, assessment, and
recordkeeping requirements (§258.50(g)).
GENERAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
A groundwater monitoring system must be installed to yield samples from the
uppermost aquifer that represent both the quality of background groundwater (usually
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
18 - Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria
from an upgradient well), and the extent of groundwater contamination at the waste
management unit boundary (from downgradient wells). Each time groundwater is
sampled the owner and operator must determine the rate and direction of groundwater
flow and measure the water elevation in each well.
The number, spacing, and depths of monitoring wells depend on site-specific
characteristics such as aquifer thickness and groundwater flow rate and direction.
Unless approved by the Director of an approved state, these system specifications must
be certified by a qualified groundwater scientist (258.51(d)(2)). In addition, all
monitoring well bore holes and other measurement, sampling, and analytical devices
must be operated to meet design specifications for the duration of the groundwater
monitoring program (§258.51(c)).
The Agency recognizes that local conditions can make installation of a monitoring well
system around each landfill unit difficult. In approved states, multiple MSWLF units
may share a common groundwater monitoring system, provided that sharing the
multiple unit system is as protective of human health and the environment as installing
a separate monitoring system for each unit (§258.51 (b)).
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
Consistent sampling and analytical procedures are essential to obtain reliable
monitoring results that accurately measure hazardous constituents and other
parameters established in either detection monitoring or assessment monitoring
programs. Each MSWLF's groundwater monitoring program must be developed to
ensure that monitoring results provide an accurate representation of groundwater
quality at both background and downgradient wells. For example, sampling and
analysis programs must include procedures and techniques for sample collection,
sample preservation and shipment, analytical procedures, chain of custody control, and
QA/QC (§258.53(a)).
In evaluating groundwater quality monitoring data, the owner and operator must use
one of the statistical methods provided in §258.53(g). The selected method, which will
be used to identify statistically significant evidence of groundwater contamination at a
monitoring well, must be appropriate for the type and distribution of chemical
constituents detected, or suspected to be present, in the groundwater (§258.53(h)(l)).
The frequency and number of groundwater samples necessary to establish
groundwater quality vary with the statistical method (56 FJR 51072; October 9,1991).
DETECTION MONITORING PROGRAM
A detection monitoring program includes monitoring for 62 constituents listed in
Appendix I of Part 258 (§258.54(a)). On a site-specific basis, the Director of an approved
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria -19
state may delete any of these monitoring constituents or establish a list of alternative
inorganic indicator parameters in lieu of some or all of the heavy metals constituents
(§258.54(a)(l)).
The owner and operator must monitor for all Appendix I constituents (or alternative
parameters) at least semiannually throughout the facility's active life and post-closure
period (§258.54(b)). The Director of an approved state may allow an alternate
frequency, but nothing less than annually. Detection of any Appendix I constituent at
levels significantly higher than background concentrations requires the owner and
operator to notify the State Director of the statistically significant increase (SSI)
(§258.54(c)). Within 90 days after detecting an SSI, the owner and operator must
establish an assessment monitoring program in accordance with §258.55.
Demonstrating that the evidence of contamination resulted from an error (e.g., an error
in sampling, analysis, or statistical evaluation, or a natural variation in groundwater
quality), or that a source other than the MSWLF unit caused the contamination, nullifies
the assessment monitoring requirement. This demonstration allows the owner and
operator to continue the detection monitoring program (§258.54(c)(3)). A qualified
groundwater scientist must certify or the Director of an approved state must approve a
report documenting this demonstration. Failure to make such a demonstration within
90 days triggers the assessment monitoring requirement.
ASSESSMENT MONITORING PROGRAM
An assessment monitoring program is implemented when an SSI of hazardous
constituent concentrations over background levels is confirmed. Within 90 days of
beginning an assessment monitoring program, and annually thereafter, the owner and
operator must sample and analyze the groundwater for all Part 258, Appendix II,
constituents. If any Appendix II constituent is detected in a downgradient well,
background levels for that constituent must be established through analysis of at least
four independent samples from each well.
The Director of an approved state is authorized to delete any of the Appendix II
constituents from the assessment monitoring program, or to specify an appropriate
subset of wells to be sampled and analyzed (§258.55(b)). In addition, the Director may
implement an alternative sampling and analysis frequency for Appendix II constituents
based on factors identified in §258.55(c).
Within 90 days of establishing Appendix II background levels, and on at least a
semiannual basis thereafter, the owner and operator must resample for all Appendix I
constituents and those Appendix II constituents detected during the initial phase of
assessment monitoring (§258.55(d)(2)). Again, the Director of an approved state may
specify an alternative monitoring frequency based on consideration of the site factors
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
20 - Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria
delineated in §258.55(c).
Groundwater Protection Standard
The MSWLF owner and operator must establish a groundwater protection standard
(GWPS) for each Appendix II constituent detected in the groundwater (§258.55(h)). The
GWPS represents the maximum constituent concentration level permissible in
groundwater. This standard must be based either on the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) maximum contaminant level (MCL) for the constituent or, if no MCL has been
established, on the background concentration level at the site. In cases where the
background level is higher than the promulgated MCL for a constituent, the GWPS
should be set at the background level.
In accordance with §258.55(i), the Director of an approved state may establish an
alternative GWPS for constituents that have no established MCL. When establishing an
alternative standard, the Director may consider multiple contaminants in the
groundwater, exposure threats to sensitive environmental receptors, and other site-
specific factors (e.g., the reliability of exposure data and the weight of scientific
evidence). Any alternative GWPS must satisfy the health-based criteria set forth in
§§258.55(i)(l)-(4).
Monitoring Results Determination
The owner and operator may return to detection monitoring only after concentrations of
all Appendix II constituents are shown to be at or below background values for two
consecutive sampling events (§258.55(e)). If the concentration of any Appendix II
constituent is detected at statistically significant levels above the established GWPS,
however, the owner and operator must notify the Director and all appropriate
government officials (§258.55(g)). The owner and operator must then characterize the
nature of the release and ascertain whether contaminants have migrated past the facility
boundary, installing additional monitoring wells as necessary. If well sampling
indicates that contaminants have migrated off-site, all persons who own or reside on
land that directly overlies any part of the plume of contamination must be notified
If the owner and operator are able to make a successful demonstration that a source
other than the MSWLF caused the contamination, or that the SSI resulted from an error,
then the owner and operator may continue assessment monitoring and return to
detection monitoring when all Appendix II constituents are at or below background
levels (§258.55(g)(2)). Unless the demonstration is made within 90 days, the owner and
operator must initiate an assessment of corrective measures (§258.55(g)(l)(iv)).
ASSESSMENT OF CORRECTIVE MEASURES
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria - 21
After exceeding any GWPS, within 90 days the owner and operator must initiate an
assessment of various corrective measures, a process which must be completed within
a reasonable period of time (§258.56(a)). Based on this assessment, the owner and
operator must then select a remedy. Sections 258.56 and 258.57 set forth the criteria for
determining what types of potential remedies to consider and criteria for evaluating
each remedy.
When evaluating a potential remedy, the MSWLF owner and operator must assess its
long- and short-term effectiveness and protectiveness, its ability to control the source
and minimize further releases, the ease or difficulty of implementation in light of
practical considerations (including technical and economic factors), and the degree to
which it addresses community concerns. Prior to final selection of a remedy, the unit
owner and operator must discuss the results of the assessment of potential remedies in
a public meeting with interested and affected parties (§258.56(d)).
Under §258.57(g), the Director of an approved state may determine that remediation of
a release of an Appendix II constituent is not necessary based on one of the following
demonstrations:
• The groundwater is contaminated by multiple sources and cleanup of the
MSWLF release would provide no significant reduction of risk
• The contaminated groundwater is not a current or potential source of drinking
water and is not hydraulically connected with waters to which hazardous
constituents are migrating or are likely to migrate in a concentration that would
exceed the GWPS
• The remediation is not technically feasible or would result in unacceptable
cross-media impacts.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
After the remedy is selected, the MSWLF owner and operator are required to
implement the corrective measure, establish a corrective action groundwater
monitoring program, and take any necessary interim measures (56 FR 51011; October 9,
1991). First, a schedule for initiating and completing all activities associated with
implementing the selected remedy must be established. In accordance with this
schedule, the owner and operator must develop and implement the corrective action
groundwater monitoring program to indicate the effectiveness of the selected remedy,
to meet the minimum requirements of the assessment monitoring program, and to
comply with established GWPSs (§258.58(a)(l)).
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
22 - Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria
During implementation of the corrective action remedy, the owner and operator are
responsible for taking any interim measures consistent with the objectives and
performance of the remedy that may be necessary to ensure protection of human health
and the environment (§258.58(a)(3)). Similarly, the owner and operator must implement
alternative methods or techniques necessary to achieve compliance with the minimum
standards for any selected remedy set forth in §258.57(b).
Completion of Corrective Action
Once implemented, remedial activities at the unit must continue until the MSWLF
owner and operator achieve compliance with the established GWPSs for three
consecutive years, and demonstrates that all required actions have been completed
(§258.58(e)). Under §258.58(e)(2), the Director of an approved state may specify an
alternative period of time for demonstrating compliance with any GWPS. Upon
completion of corrective action, the owner and operator must obtain certification that
the remedy is complete and notify the State Director.
2.6 SUBPART F: CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE
MSWLFs not adequately closed and maintained after closure may pose a continuing
threat to human health and the environment. As with hazardous waste facilities, EPA
established requirements for MSWLF closure and post-closure care to address the fact
that wastes left in place at a facility may pose a threat even after disposal activities have
ceased.
CLOSURE CRITERIA
Closure standards require owners and operators to install a final landfill cover system
that is designed to minimize soil erosion and infiltration of liquids through the cover.
The cover's infiltration layer, consisting of at least 18 inches of earthen material, must be
at least as impermeable as any bottom liner system or natural subsoils, but in no case
may the permeability be greater than 1 x 10~5 cm/sec. While this standard does not
explicitly require the use of a synthetic membrane in the final cover, the Agency
anticipates that if a MSWLF has a synthetic membrane in the bottom of the unit, then
the infiltration layer in the final cover will, in all likelihood given today's technologies,
include a synthetic membrane in the final cover. The erosion layer must be a minimum
of six inches of earthen material that can sustain native plant growth. The Director of an
approved state may allow an alternative final cover design if the cover layers provide
equivalent reduction of infiltration and protection from wind and water erosion.
Section 258.60(a) was revised on July 29,1997 (62 FR 40708) to provide additional
flexibility to approved states, allowing the Director of an approved state, after public
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria - 23
review and comment, to establish alternative infiltration barriers in the final cover for
any small MSWLFs. This provision is contingent on the Director accounting for
climatic and hydrogeologic conditions and a determination that the alternative
requirements are protective of human health and the environment.
CLOSURE PLAN
The owner and operator must prepare a written closure plan describing the measures
necessary to close each MSWLF unit at a facility at any point during the unit's active life
(§258.60(c)). The closure plan must include at least the following:
• A description of the final cover, and the methods and procedures used to install
the cover
• An estimate of the largest area of the MSWLF that may ever require a final cover
during the unit's active life
• An estimate of the maximum inventory of wastes maintained on-site during the
active life of the landfill facility
• A schedule for completing all activities necessary to satisfy the closure criteria
specified in §258.60.
ONSET AND COMPLETION OF CLOSURE ACTIVITIES
Subpart F sets a closure timetable for MSWLFs. In general, no later than 30 days after a
MSWLF unit receives the final volume of waste, the owner and operator must begin
closure activities (§258.60(f)). A unit with remaining capacity may receive additional
wastes and is allowed one year following the most recent receipt of wastes to initiate
closure activities. Within 180 days after closure begins, all closure activities must be
completed (§258.60(g)). Finally, the owner and operator must obtain either an
independent registered professional engineer's certification or a Director of an
approved state's approval verifying that closure has been completed in accordance
with the established closure plan (§258.60(h)). In approved states, deadlines for closure
activities may be extended.
POST-CLOSURE CARE REQUIREMENTS
Post-closure care entails a 30-year period after closure during which the owner and
operator must conduct monitoring and maintenance activities to preserve the integrity
of a MSWLF system. The purpose of post-closure care is to ensure that landfills are
closed in a manner that controls, minimizes, or eliminates the escape of waste, leachate,
contaminated rainfall, or waste decomposition products to soils, waters, and the
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
24 - Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria
atmosphere. Post-closure care requires maintaining the following:
• The integrity and effectiveness of all final covers
• The leachate collection system, in accordance with §258.40
• The applicable groundwater monitoring system, in accordance with Subpart E
requirements
• The methane gas monitoring system required by §258.23.
In an approved state, the Director can modify the length of post-closure care as
necessary to protect human health and the environment (§258.61 (b)).
In addition to the closure plan, the owner and operator must prepare a written post-
closure plan that provides a description of monitoring and maintenance activities,
information identifying the facility contact for the post-closure period, and a
description of the planned uses of the property during the post-closure period.
Pursuant to §258.61 (c)(3), any planned uses must not disturb either the integrity of the
final covers and liners or the function or components of the monitoring and
containment systems.
Following completion of the post-closure care period for each MSWLF unit, the owner
and operator must obtain either certification of post-closure by an independent
registered professional engineer, or verification of completion of post-closure care
activities by the Director of an approved state. The certification or approval must
indicate that post-closure care has been completed in accordance with the post-closure
plan (§258.61(e)).
2.7 SUBPART G: FINANCIAL ASSURANCE CRITERIA
The Part 258, Subpart G, financial assurance criteria require demonstration of
responsibility for the costs of closure, post-closure care, and known corrective action.
EPA believes that compliance with these requirements will help ensure responsible
planning for future costs. Adequate funds must be available to hire a third party to
carry out all necessary closure, post-closure care, and known corrective action activities
in the event that the owner and operator declare bankruptcy or lacks the technical
expertise to complete the required activities (56 FR 51110; October 9,1991).
APPLICABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Except for state and federal government entities, owners and operators of all new and
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria - 25
existing units and lateral expansions must comply with the MSWLF financial assurance
requirements. Local governments and Indian tribes are subject to the Subpart G
criteria. The compliance date for satisfying MSWLF financial assurance requirements is
April 9,1997 (§258.70(b)). Small landfills that qualify for the small landfill exemption
under §258.l(f) will not be subject to financial assurance until October 9,1997.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
26 - Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria
COST ESTIMATES
The amount of financial assurance, using acceptable financial mechanisms, must equal
the cost of a third party conducting these activities. To determine these costs each
MSWLF owner and operator must prepare a written, site-specific estimate of the costs
of conducting closure, post-closure care, and known corrective action.
Closure
The owner and operator must calculate a detailed cost estimate for closure based on the
largest area of a MSWLF unit that may ever require a final cover during its active life.
The cost estimate must equal the expense of closing the area when the extent and
manner of operation would make closure most expensive (§258.71(a)(l)).
As stated in §258.71(a)(3), the owner and operator must increase both the closure cost
estimate and the amount of financial assurance maintained if the closure plan is
adjusted or if changing unit conditions (e.g., increases in design capacity) raise the
maximum cost of closure. The closure cost estimate and the amount of financial
assurance maintained may also be reduced if, as a result of changes in facility
conditions (e.g., partial closure of a landfill), the existing cost estimate exceeds the
maximum cost of closure during the remaining life of the MSWLF unit. The owner and
operator must document evidence supporting such a reduction.
Post-Closure Care
The financial assurance requirements for post-closure are similar to the requirements
for closure of MSWLF units. The owner and operator must have a detailed, site-
specific written estimate of the cost of hiring a third party to conduct post-closure care
for the MSWLF unit (§258.72). This cost estimate must account for the total costs of
conducting post-closure care, including annual and periodic costs described in the
post-closure plan. Post-closure care cost estimates must be based on the most
expensive costs during the post-closure care period (§258.72(a)(l)). As with closure cost
estimates, changes in facility conditions or the post-closure plan may require the owner
and operator to modify the post-closure care cost estimate and the amount of financial
assurance.
Corrective Action
In accordance with §258.73, the owner and operator of a MSWLF unit required to
undertake corrective action under §258.58 must have a detailed, site-specific written
estimate of the cost of hiring a third party to perform corrective action for known
releases. The corrective action cost estimate must account for the total expense of
activities described in the corrective action plan. Again, the corrective action cost
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria - 27
estimate and amount of financial assurance must increase or decrease in response to
changes in either the corrective action program or MSWLF unit conditions.
Adjustments for Inflation
Due to changes in inflation and interest rates, cost estimates must be annually adjusted
for inflation (§§258.71 (a)(2), 258.72(a)(2), and 258.73(a)(l)). Updated cost estimates must
account for added inflationary costs to ensure that adequate funds will be available if
needed (56 FR 51111; October 9,1991). The Subtitle C financial assurance provisions
offer guidance on adjusting cost estimates using an inflation factor based on the
implicit price deflator (review the module entitled Financial Assurance for
explanations of the terms and concepts in this section.)
ALLOWABLE MECHANISMS
The mechanisms used to demonstrate financial assurance must ensure that the funds
necessary to meet the costs of closure, post-closure care, and known corrective action
will be available when needed. Owners and operators may use any of the following
financial mechanisms:
• Trust fund (§258.74(a))
• Surety bonds guaranteeing payment or performance (§258.74(b))
• Letter of credit (§258.74(c))
Insurance (§258.74(d))
Corporate financial test (§258.74(e))
Local government financial test (§258.74(f))
Corporate guarantee (§258.74(g))
Local government guarantee (§258.74(h))
State-approved mechanism (§258.74(i))
State assumption of financial responsibility (§258.74(j)).
In addition, the Agency expects to add financial tests and guarantees as allowable
mechanisms for corporations to demonstrate financial assurance.
The performance standard in §258.74(1) requires that any approved financial assurance
mechanism satisfy the following criteria:
• The amount of funds assured is sufficient to cover the costs of closure, post-
closure care, and corrective action for known releases when needed
• The funds will be available in a timely fashion when needed
• The mechanisms for closure and post-closure care must be established by the
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
28 - Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria
owner and operator by the effective date of these requirements or prior to the
initial receipt of solid waste, whichever is later. The mechanisms for corrective
action must be secured no later than 120 days after the corrective action remedy
has been selected pursuant to §258.58, and maintained until the owner and
operator are released from financial assurance responsibilities
• The mechanisms must be legally valid, binding, and enforceable under state and
federal law.
In approved states, the owner and operator may satisfy the Subpart G requirements
using a state-approved mechanism. Such an alternative financial mechanism must
meet the criteria specified in the performance standard and be approved by the
Director of an approved state (§258.74(i)). Furthermore, the owner and operator will
remain in compliance with the financial assurance requirements if the Director either
assumes legal responsibility for the Subpart G requirements or ensures that funds will
be available from state sources to cover these requirements (§258.74(j)). Any such state
assumption of financial responsibility must satisfy the performance standard.
Finally, as with Subtitle C financial assurance, nothing precludes the MSWLF owner
and operator from combining multiple financial mechanisms to satisfy the Subpart G
requirements (§258.74(k)). The mechanisms must comply with all applicable
requirements specified in §§258.74(a) through (j), except that the combination of
mechanisms, rather than any individual mechanism, must provide financial assurance
for an amount at least equal to the current cost estimate for closure, post-closure care,
or corrective action.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria - 29
3. ENFORCEMENT
The MSWLF criteria are enforceable by state authorities in states with approved
programs. EPA intended administration of the program to be solely a state agency
function. The Part 258 requirements were designed to be self-implementing, meaning
that in unapproved states the owner and operator of a MSWLF can meet these
standards without oversight or interaction with either EPA or a state agency.
Regardless of whether a state has an approved program, citizens may seek enforcement
of Part 258 standards by means of citizen suits under RCRA §7002. EPA can only
enforce these provisions if a formal decision has been made that a state program is
inadequate, or where there is an imminent and substantial threat to human health or the
environment under RCRA §7003.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction to the topic used fof Hotline training purposes.
------- |