fZ ~- pz~puf-6 i y u 

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment. 

Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. 

Govwnor 

Tbomar W Easterly 

CommIssIonK 

100 North 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 2 9 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) from electric 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 D approach (self-implemented), and a 

RCRA Subtitle C approach. IDEM carefully 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 from Congress to add and develop rules for CCR surface impoundments, 

disposal sites and reuse, with a full state program authorization, similar to the one 

developed for municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) under 40 CFR Part 258 . 

Relative to the specific options proposed by EPA, IDEM offers 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 C will 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 C approach, 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 CCR go in to effect, and there is not adequate capac 

existing Subtitle C landfills to manage all of the CCR waste destined for dispi 

4. If the Subtitle D option is chosen, IDEM is 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 D approach 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 CCR surfE 

impoundments and lateral expansions. As currently proposed, placing a fle) 

geomembrane liner (FML) directly over a leak detection system makes 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 system could 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 them that 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 . IDEM also 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 EPA develop performanc 

standards and location restrictions (i .e . no placement in wetlands) that woul 

protective of public health and the environment and allow states 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