## fZ~-pz~puf-6iyu INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

WeProtectHoosiers and OurEnvironment. Mitchell E

. Daniels,Jr. Govwnor Tbomar W

Easterly CommIssIonK 100North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

(317) 232-8603 Toll Free (800) 451-6027 www .idem .IN.gov October 22, 2010

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mailcode: 5305T 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 

# OCT 29 2010

Re: State of Indiana Comments on Hazardous Waste Management System ; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities Docket, Attn. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640 Document ID

: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-0352 The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) is providing comments on the proposed rule concerning identification and listing of special wastes and disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCRs) fromelectric utilities, docket ID No: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640, published on June 21, 2010, in the Federal Register, Vol . 75, No: 118. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft rule offers two options for regulating disposal of CCRs: a RCRA Subtitle Dapproach (self-implemented), and a RCRA Subtitle C approach. IDEMcarefully considered these two approaches in light of Indiana's current regulatory framework for CCRs that are regulated under its solid waste program . Based upon this review, Indiana is recommending that EPA obtain authorization fromCongress to add and develop rules for CCR surface impoundments, disposal sites and reuse, with a full state programauthorization, similar to the one developed for municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) under 40 CFR Part 258. Relative to the specific options proposed by EPA, IDEMoffers the following comments: 1 . It is not appropriate to regulate CCR under the requirements of Subtitle C, which were devised to manage hazardous waste that exhibited harmful characteristics that are not shared by CCR . 2. Regulating CCR under Subtitle Cwill place a significant burden on state staff responsible for implementing Subtitle C requirements.

# OCT 22 2010 Re, .yded Paper ® An Equal Opportunity Employer Please Recycle C .-Page 2

3. Under the proposed Subtitle Capproach, the disposal or reuse option of CCI MSWLFs will no longer be available. The proposed rule is silent on the fate, such co-disposal facilities (facilities that accept CCR and other solid waste) c the new regulations for CCRgo in to effect, and there is not adequate capac existing Subtitle Clandfills to manage all of the CCRwaste destined for dispi 4. If the Subtitle Doption is chosen, IDEMis recommending matching the prop location restriction and design standards with those of MSWLFs, so CCRs rr continue to be managed in MSWLFs. One of the examples of a discrepancy between the proposed Subtitle Dapproach for CCRs and MSWLFs is a requirement of placement of CCRs above the water table, which is not a requirement for MSWLFs. 5. EPA should reconsider the design standards for existing and new CCRsurfE impoundments and lateral expansions. As currently proposed, placing a fle) geomembrane liner (FML) directly over a leak detection systemmakes the proposed design very inefficient, resulting in a significant leakage rate throuc FML because it will not be supported by a clay liner. IDEM believes that a composite liner (combination of compacted clay and FML) beneath a surfacE impoundment would provide adequate protection of ground water. As a verification of the soundness of the impoundment a perimeter ground water monitoring systemcould also be required. 6 . EPA expects beneficial use of CCRs to increase as generators seek to avoil disposal costs. The rule also discusses a potential "stigma" effect that migh in decreased use. In speaking with both current generators and end-users c CCRs, they have expressed an opinion that the potential "stigma" effect woL real and detrimental to use. As an example, in the case where CCRs may k used for public road construction, the actual work is often completed by contractors that, in the past, have been concerned about liability. It is hard 1 convince themthat while CCRs destined for disposal must be highly regulat to the risks posed, those same CCRs used in a road base carry little to no fi liability. IDEMalso disagrees that a Subtitle D approach would carry the sa stigma since it does not employ the same cradle to grave approach. Additi it has been IDEM's experience that a shift in management practices to avoi( disposal costs may lead to environmentally questionable use. These quest' uses are likely to add to that real stigma effect. 7. Relative to beneficial uses it is recommended that EPAdevelop performanc standards and location restrictions (i .e. no placement in wetlands) that woul protective of public health and the environment and allowstates to assess N proposed beneficial uses against those standards before approving them .Page 3

Indiana looks forward to conversations with EPA relative to the regulation of CCRs and appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed draft rules. Questions concerning Indiana's comments may be directed to Ms. Daniela Klesmith, Engineering Technical Advisor, Office of Land Quality at (317) 232-8840 or dkiesmitAidem

.IN.aov.

Thomas W . Easterly Commissioner