certify to the State that closure of the MSWLF unit has been completed in accordance with the approved closure plan.

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

Following completion of the first phase of postclosure care, the Agency proposes to require a second, less intensive phase of care. The Agency proposes that the owner or operator be required to continue, at a minimum, ground-water and landfill gas monitoring in order to detect any contamination that might occur beyond the first 30 years of post-closure care. The State would establish the length of this period and the exact

notation stating that the land formerly was a MSWLF and specifying approved post-closure uses would be required.

d. Financial Assurance

Under the proposed rule, the owner or operator of a MSWLF would be required to demonstrate the financial and technical ability to conduct closure and post-closure care, and, if applicable, corrective action for known releases. This requirement would ensure that the owner or operator adequately plans for all the costs involved. While State and Federal Government entities would be excluded from financial assurance requirements, local governments would not be excluded. (The Agency is requesting comment on a financial test that could lead to local government exemption and whether to exempt Indian Tribes from financial assurance requirements.)

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

The proposed design criteria establishes a

performance standard that allows State flexibility in determining the allowable risk level and the point of compliance. New and existing units would be required to meet the performance standard but different options for control mechanisms are given for each.

New units would be required to be designed with liners, leachate collection systems, and final cover systems as necessary to meet a State-established alternative boundary. The alternative boundary would be no more than 150 meters from the waste management unit boundary and would be required to be on facility-owned land.

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

E. Subpart E
Action

-

Ground-Water Monitoring and Corrective

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

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

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

The owner or operator would be required to conduct a corrective action assessment if the Phase II constituent

1

levels are exceeded. The State would be required to evaluate corrective action measures, select the remedy, establish corrective action standards (considering sitespecific factors), and set the corrective action

schedule. The owner or operator would be required to carry out corrective action until the State determines that ground-water protection standard would be selected by the State within a protection risk range of 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-7.

APPENDIX B

TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES FOR

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS

1.

Introduction

This appendix outlines the steps necessary for developing contracts for solid waste management services. Note that Air Force has their own service contract guidance (AFR 400-28, Vol. 1). The Navy's guidance on writing and inspecting service contracts is NAVFAC Manual MO-327 "Facility Support Contract Quality Management Manual."

a. Advantages of such contract service include the following:

(1) The acquisition of land, buildings and equipment is not
required.

(2) Many of the overhead and administrative costs are eliminated.

(3) The day-to-day operating problems of solid waste management are diminished.

b. Disadvantages of contract service include the following:

(1) High bid prices may result from limited contractor competition, especially in thinly populated areas.

(2) The contractor may cut corners and skimp on the quality of service to increase his profit margin. Therefore, contracts shall provide for protection penalties. However, NAVFACENGCOM contracts do not contain protection penalties since they are difficult to enforce.

(3) To be attractive to private enterprise, the term of the contract must cover a sufficient period for the contractor to amortize his capital expenditures. However, long term contracts often result in contractor complacency and poor performance.

2. Types of Contract Services

Contract services may be used in parallel operations and/or in functional area operations. In a parallel operation the contractor provides a duplicate solid waste management service for specific wastes or certain locations within an installation. This service may be necessary for those problem wastes which cannot be managed safely in-house. However, the parallel method is not normally cost effective. In functional area services --the most common type -- a contractor provides one or more of the services of storage, collection, transfer, or disposal. The installation provides the remaining services. In general, the more functions provided by the contractor, the greater the economic advantages realized.