Solid Waste and
Emergency Response EPA530-R-96-036
(5305W)
RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA
Hotline Training Module
i
|
I '
i ¦ -
I
]
Introduction to:
i
Updated July 1996
i
i
i
!
i
I
i
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
jvEPA
Municipal Solid Waste
Disposal Facility Criteria
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document was developed by Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc. under contract 68-W6-0016 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 document 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, enforceable by any
party in litigation with the United States.
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 Standard Time,
Monday through Friday, except for federal holidays.
-------
SUBTITLE D: MUNICIPAL SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY CRITERIA
CONTENTS
1. Introduction . 1
2. Regulatory Summary 3
2.1 Subpart A: General Requirements 4
2.2 Subpart B: . Location Restrictions 7
2.3 Subpart C: Operating Criteria 9
2.4 Subpart D: Design Criteria 13
2.5 Subpart E: Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action 14
2.6 Subpart F: Closure and Post-Closure Care 20
2.7 Subpart G: Financial Assurance Criteria 22
3. Enforcement 25
/ .
/
-------
^MuruciŁaJ^oUd^VVasfeJDisŁOsaJ^FacUUv^Cntena^l
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 wastes which 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
t
o
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
2. REGULATORY SUMMARY
RCRA Subtitle D which addresses solid waste management, was designed to assist
waste management officials in developing and encouraging environmentally sound
methods for the disposal of "northazardous" 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, wjiile allowing states to develop more flexible municipal solid waste
landfill 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.
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 conditionally
exempt small quantity generator hazardous waste. In response to HSWA §4010,
EPA promulgated regulations on October 9,1991 (56 FR 50978), adding Part 258. In
adopting these revised standards, which address all aspects of MSWLF design and
management, the Agency selected a performance-based approach, seeking 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 and tribes to take the lead role in
implementing the MSWLF regulations. EPA's goal is for states and tribes to receive
approval of their MSWLF programs. States and tribes with approved programs are
given flexibility to consider site-specific conditions regarding MSWLF design and
other requirements of Part 258. If a state or tribe 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 and tribes to submit applications for approval of their programs as quickly
as possible.
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
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
V
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, conditionally exempt small-quantity generator
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 of the final rule (October 9, 1993). 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
Part 258 applies to owners/operators of new and existing MSWLFs and lateral
expansions that receive waste after October 9, 1991. Owners/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/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
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.
-------
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/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 l991
criteria an exemption for certain small MSWLFs from the requirements of Subpart D
(design criteria) and Subpart E (groundwater monitoring) (§258.1(f)(1)). 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. 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 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.
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/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.
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 . . • .
t
Figure 1
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE MSWLF CRITERIA
MSWLF units
accepting greater
than 100 TPD
MSWLF units
accepting 100 TPD
or less; not on the
NPL; and located
in a state that
has submitted an
application for
approval by
10/9/93, or on
Indian lands or
Indian country
MSWLF units that meet
the small landfill
exemption in 40 CFR
§258:l(f)
MSWLF
units
receiving
flood-
related
waste
General Effective
Date1'2'3
This is the effective
date for location,
operation, design, and
closure! post-closure
standards.
October 9,1993
April 9, 1994
October 9,1997; exempt
from design requirements
Up to
October 9,
1994, as
determined
by state
Date by which unit
must install final
cover if it ceases .
receipt of waste by the
general effective
date.2,3
October 9,1994
October 9,1994
October 9,1998
Within one
year of date
determined
by state; no
later than
October 9,
1995
Effective date of
groundwater
monitoring and
corrective action
provisions.2,3
Prior to receipt of
waste for new units;
October 9,1994
through October 9,
1996 for existing units
and lateral
expansions .
October 9,1993 for
new units; October
9,1994 through
October 9,1996 for
existing units and
lateral
expansions
Exempt from the
groundwater monitoring
requirements.^
October 9,
1993 for new
units;
October 9,
1994 through
October 9,
1996 for
existing
units and
lateral
expansions
Effective date if
financial assurance
requirements.3'4
April 9, 1997
April 9, 1997
X
October 9,1997
April 9,' 1997
1 If a MSWLF unit receives waste after this date, the unit must comply with all of Part 258.
2 See the final rule and preamble published on October 1, 1993 (58 EE 51536) for a full discussion of all
changes and related conditions.
3 See the final rule and preamble published on October 6,1995 (60 ER 52337) for a full discussion of all
changes and related conditions.
4 See the final rule and preamble published on April 7, 1995 (60 ER 17649) for a discussion of this delay.
5 See the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1996.
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
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/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/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 EE 51043; October 9,1991). These provisions apply to new MSWLFs,
existing MSWLFs, and lateral expansions located within 10,000 feet of any airport
runway end used by turbojet aircraft, or within 5,000 feet of any runway end used by
piston-type aircraft only. The owner/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/operator can make this demonstration, the airport safety
criteria do not prohibit the disposal of solid waste within the specified distances.
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)).
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 Wasie Disposal Facility Criteria
f
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/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/operator makes 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 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).
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
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 (5.6 FR 51046; October 9, 1991). In a state with an approved
permitting program, however, an owner/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)(1). In a state with an approved
permitting program, however, a MSWLF may be located in a seismic impact zone if
the owner/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/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/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/operators must have a program in place to exclude regulated
quantities of hazardous waste and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) wastes. Additional
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/operators must institute a program to detect and prevent
the disposal of regulated quantities of PCB wastes and RCRA hazardous wastes
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
(except from conditionally exempt small-quantity generators) (§258.20(a)). Facility
personnel must be trained to identify regulated hazardous waste and PCBs, and the
owner/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/operator must notify the
State Director or Regional Administrator. Even if the owner/operator receives the
waste accidentally, he or she is 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 EE 51051; October 9,1991).
DISEASE VECTOR CONTROL
Disease vectors are rodents, flies, mosquitoes, or other animals and insects capable of
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/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:
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
• 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 an owner/operator must follow if
these methane levels are exceeded, states with approved programs may establish
alternative response procedures (§258.23(c)(4)).
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).
ACCESS REQUIREMENTS
Access to MSWLF facilities must be controlled to prevent unauthorized people from
entering the MSWLF. Owners/operators of all MSWLFs may use artificial or
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)(1)
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 which 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)).
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
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 a 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/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
• 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
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
• 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 problems, 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, 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 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). TTie 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
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^MumciŁaJ^SoUd^W^ste^DisŁOsaJ^FacilitvCnten^
. »
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 §258.1(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 an owner/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(f), must certify the
demonstration.
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.
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
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 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/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.
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
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/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)(1)). The frequency and number of groundwater samples
necessary to establish groundwater quality vary with the statistical method (56 FR
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
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)(1)).
The owner/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
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
owner/operator to notify the State Director of the statistically significant increase
(SSI) (§258.54(c)). Within 90 days after detecting an SSI, the owner/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, allowing the
owner/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/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/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 delineated in §258.55(c).
Groundwater Protection Standard
/
The MSWLF owner/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.
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.
-------
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/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/operator must notify the Director and all appropriate
government officials (§258.55(g)). The owner/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 (§258.55(g)(l)(iii)).
If an owner/operator is able to make a successful demonstration that a source other
than the MSWLF caused the contamination, or that the SSI resulted from an error,
the owner/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/operator
must initiate an assessment of corrective measures (§258.55(g)(l)(iv)).
ASSESSMENT OF CORRECTIVE MEASURES
After exceeding any GWPS, within 90 days the owner/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/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 for
evaluating each remedy.
When evaluating a potential remedy, the MSWLF owner/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/operator must discuss the results of the assessment of potential
remedies in a public meeting with interested and affected parties (§258.56(d)).
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
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/operator is 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/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)).
During implementation of the corrective action remedy, the owner/operator is
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/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/operator achieves 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/operator must obtain certification that
the remedy is complete and notify the State Director.
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
2.6 SUBPART F: CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE
MSWLFs not adequately closed arid 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/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 IS 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.
CLOSURE PLAN
The owner/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/operator must
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
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/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/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 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, an owner/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/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)).
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.
-------
22j^M^niciŁaJ^Solid^VasteDisposaJ^acUitvCntena
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/operator declares 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/operators of all new and
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 §258.1 (f) will not be subject to the financial assurance until
October 9,1997.
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/operator must prepare a written, site-specific estimate of the
costs of conducting closure, post-closure care, and known corrective action.
Closure
The owner/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)(1)).
As stated in §258.71 (a)(3), an owner/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/operator must document evidence supporting such a reduction.
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
Post-Closure Care ¦ . .
The financial assurance requirements for post-closure are similar to the
requirements for closure of MSWLF units. Each owner/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/operator to modify the post-closure care cost estimate and the
amount of financial assurance.
Corrective Action
In accordance with §258.73, an owner/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
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)(1)). 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/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))
• State-approved mechanism (§258.74(i))
• State assumption of financial responsibility (§258.74(j)).
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
In addition, the Agency expects to add financial tests and guarantees as allowable
mechanisms for corporations and local governments 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
owner/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/operator is released from financial assurance responsibilities
• The mechanisms must be legally valid, binding, and enforceable under state
and federal law.
In approved states, an owner/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, an owner/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 a MSWLF
owner/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 - 25
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 an owner/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 sieek
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 for Hotline training purposes.
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION | 1. REPORT NO.
I 2.
I
PAGE | EPA530-R-96-036
I
I
I
4.
Title and Subtitle
| 5. Report Date
RCRA, SUPERFUND, AND EPCRA HOTLINE TRAINING MODULE:
INTRODUCTION TO
I JULY 1996
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY CRITERIA
I 6-
7.
Author(s)
| 8. -Performing Organization Rept. No
I
9.
Performing Organization Name and Address
U.S. EPA
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
401 M STREET, SU
WASHINGTON. DC 20460
| 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
| 11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
| (C)
| (G)
12.
Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
| 13. Type of Report & Period Covered
| TRAINING - UPDATED 7/96
I
| 14. '
15.
Supplementary Notes
r
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
ONE OF A SERIES OF MODULES DEVELOPED AS A TRAINING TOOL.FOR HOTLINE SPECIALISTS. PROVIDES A SUMMARY OF THE REGULATORY
CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS (MSWLFs)'. PROVIDES THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY UNDER RCRA AND THE CLEAN WATER
ACT (CWA) DIRECTING EPA TO DEVELOP THE MSWLF CRITERIA IN 40 CFR PART 258. GIVES THE PART 258 EFFECTIVE DATE AND THE
COMPLIANCE DATES FOR PROVIDING DEMONSTRATIONS TO SATISFY INDIVIDUAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. 'iDENTI FIES THE TYPES OF
FACILITIES THAT QUALIFY FOR THE SMALL LANDFILL EXEMPTION. EXPLAINS 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.f^COMPARES THE MSWLF
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS DESCRIBED IN PART 258 TO THE CORRESPONDING REQUIREMENTS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE TSDFs IN.
PART 264, WHICH ARE GENERALLY MORE STRINGENT. THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT A COMPLETE REPRESENTATION OF
EPA'S REGULATIONS OR POLICIES, BUT IS AN INTRODUCTION USED FOR HOTLINE TRAINING PURPOSES.
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
RELEASE UNLIMITED
19. Security Class (This Report)| 21. No. of Pages
UNCLASSIFIED I 25
20. Security Class (This Page) | 22. Price
UNCLASSIFIED 0.00
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
------- |