# ADEQ

ARK A N S A S Department of Environmental Quality

April 9, 2009

US Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Matt Hale Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery USEPA Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mail Code 5301 P Washington, DC 20460

Dear Mr. Hale:

The Arkansas Department of Environmental (ADEQ) appreciates the opportunity to work with the EPA and provide comments on the potential development of federal regulations addressing coal combustion waste (CCW). ADEQ has reviewed in detail the various options that are under consideration. Should it be determined that CCW must be regulated through federal regulation,
it is our opinion that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Subtitle D option would be the appropriate approach.

The State of Arkansas currently successfully manages CCW through our Subtitle D program as do many other states. The Subtitle D approach can address any concern regarding the design and operation of a CCW disposal facility through the establishment of a federal design standard and routine inspection and monitoring. ADEQ's regulation of CCW through a Subtitle D program is

an example of how this can be accomplished while providing the necessary human health and environmental protections and while promoting the successful beneficial use of CCW. It is Arkansas's experience that CCW is a low toxicity waste that generally does not exceed RCRA Subtitle C based hazardous waste characteristics. The regulation of CCW through RCRA Subtitle C including the Subtile C contingent management option (hybrid approach) would have detrimental effects on beneficial use of the material and subject the state and the industry to burdensome requirements without a clear benefit.

The State of Arkansas appreciates your approach in requesting state input in the development of

a regulatory approach to address CCW. We feel that our experience, as well as other states, in successful regulation of CCW over the past two decades is valuable and look forward to working with you on the development of a national CCW regulatory approach.

Sincerely

1. Ryan Benefield, P.E. Deputy Director

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

5301 NORTHSHORE DRIVE / NORTH UTILE ROCK / ARKANSAS 72118-5317 / TELEPHONE 501 -682-0744 / FAX 501-682-0880 www.adeq.stote.or.usMarch 31, 2009

Mr. Matt Hale, Director USEPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery USEPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Mail Code 5301P Washington, DC 20460

RE: EPA Proposed Regulations of Coal Combustion Waste

Mr. Hale:

Coal combustion waste is managed as a solid wa ste in Colorado. The waste is managed in accordance with the requirement s of the Solid Wastes and Disposal Sites and Facility Act (Title 30, Article 20, Part 1; the Act) and the Regul ations Pertaining to Solid Waste Sites and Facilities (6 CCR 1007-2, Part 1; the Regulations). The wastes are typically disposed of in monofills designed, construct ed, operated, closed and monitor ed pursuant to all applicable requirements, most notably Se ction 3 (Subtitle D landfill design requirements) of the Regulations.

Facilities may apply for the beneficial use of coal combustion waste pursuant to Section 8 (Recycling) of the Regulations. Section 8 requires that the re-use of the material is a demonstrable beneficial use via the replacement of raw material and does present a risk or threat to human health or the environment. This process includes the submittal and approval of a design and operations plan prior to re-use of the material. The Desi gn and Operation plan must include geotechnical, chemical and other applic able testing of the coal combustion waste and the re-usable configuration of the material as a demonstration of acceptable material reuse. We believe the solid waste regulation of the waste material and the beneficial reuse is a safe and protective regulatory cons truct for coal combustion waste.

Charles G. Johnson, Unit Leader Solid Waste and Material Management Unit Solid and Hazardous Waste Program Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division Colorado Department of Pub lic Health and EnvironmentApril 27, 2009 

# Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Bob Martinez Center 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Charlie Crist Governor

Jeff Kottkamp

Lt. Governor

Michael W. Sole Secretary

Mr. Matt Hale, Director Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest Mail Code 5301P Washington, DC 20460

Dear Mr. Hale,

The purpose of this letter is to notify the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the Department’s opinion that c oal ash generated in Florida should not be regulated as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Department is concerned that this would add an unnecessary regulatory burden to coal-fired power plants in the state and would adversely affect the recycling of coal ash. Our specific concerns about this matter are listed below.

1. If EPA determines that coal ash is a hazardous waste under Subtitle C, then current Florida law (Section 403.7222, Fl orida Statutes) w ould prohibit the disposal of this coal ash in Florida's l andfills unless it was first treated to be nonhazardous. This would greatly increase costs to facilities that generate coal ash, since they would either have to treat thei r ash before disposal or ship it out of state. It is also lik ely that if existing disposal areas in Florida were disturbed after EPA determined coal ash was a hazardous wast e, then the coal ash in these old disposal sites would have to be managed as hazardous waste too. In addition to being a financial burden, this would disco urage use or removal of coal ash in existing disposal areas.

2. If EPA decides to call coal ash a hazardous waste under Subtitle C, then it may significantly reduce the beneficial use of this material unless EPA also creates some special exemptions. For example, would cement plants that have for years used coal ash in the manufacturing of Portland cement now be considered hazardous waste treatment facilities? Also, the Department has approved the use of some coal ash in the constructi on of roads. Based on analytical testing, there was no reason to believe the ash ex hibited a hazardous characteristic. The Department does not allow t he use of coal ash unless it has data showing the use of the ash will not cause gr ound water contamination or pose an unacceptable human health risk. However, if coal ash is defined as a hazardous waste by EPA, then the Department would not allow its use in the construction of roads.

“More Protection, Less Process” www.dep.state.fl.usMr. Matt Hale April 27, 2009 Page Two

3. The Department does not have any data to suggest that coal ash used in projects that have been reviewed in Flor ida failed the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). While the Depar tment agrees that in the past there have been some cases of adverse environment al effects from the disposal of coal ash in unlined areas, declaring all coal ash to be a hazardous waste because of these cases does not appear to be supported by the data.

4. Florida has some coal-fired power plants that are co-located near gypsum wallboard manufacturers. These power plants transport their flue gas desulfurization (FGD) sludge by conveyor belt directly to the wallboard facility for beneficial use. Some FGD sludge in Fl orida is also used as a gypsum soil amendment by peanut farmers. The Depar tment believes these uses of FGD sludge are beneficial and safe, and it woul d be inappropriate to define this material as a hazardous waste.

5. As has been noted in comments from ASTSWMO and other states, Florida continues to believe that the management of coal ash can and should continue to be regulated by the states without the need for additional federal oversight. While we agree that coal ash has not always been properly managed in the past, the Department is aware of no data in this state that suggests that ash disposal areas constructed with a liner system that is less stringent than would be required for a hazardous waste landfill pose any significant environmental threat.

The Department understands these new c oncerns about coal ash arose because of the coal slurry impoundment failure at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant in Tennessee. The Department agrees that this is a huge problem needing EPA's attention. We recommend EPA consider providing more training and materials for conducting adequate slurry impoundment ins pections. We also believe EPA should encourage power plant facilities to convert from wet to dry processes to minimize these kinds of risks in the future. But, for t he reasons stated above, the Department does not believe EPA should decide to define coal ash as a hazardous waste since this would likely create more problems than it solves.

We greatly appreciate your consideration of this matter. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Richard Tedder, P.E. at (850) 245-8735, or at richard.tedder@dep.state.fl.us.

Sincerely,

Charles F. Goddard, Chief Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste

CFG/rt

## MARYLAND 

## DEPARTMENT 

## OF THE ENVIRONMENT
1880 

## Washington Boulevard 

## Baltimore 

## MD 21230 

# MDE 410-537-3000 1-800-533-6101

Martin O'Wtky Ski 

### T. Wilw Goveraor %-

Anthony 

### G. Brown Lieumt Garnor



### April 17,2009



### Mr. Ma# 

### Rde, Director 

### Office 

### of Re~~mce Consmatian md 

### Recovery 

### United States 

### Environmental 

### Rdmtiw Agency 

### Arid 

### Rhs Building, mail 

### Code 

### 5301P I200 

### Pennsylvania Avmue, 

### N. W. 

### Washington 

### DC 20460 APR 

### 8"O 

## 2009 

# -w~otorroOrrnr

Dear 

### Mr. Hale:

, 

### The foIIowing responds to 

### EPA's 

### fequesf to 

### states regarding 

### their opiriions caneming 

### the reguIatian 

### of

ma1 

### combustion 

### byproducfs (CCBs) 

### by the 

### Federal 

### gov~mmt. 

### Tn a 

### recent 

### meeting 

### with the Asmiation 

### of'8bta 

### and 

### T4 tod 

### Solid 

### Waste Management 

### Omcial$ {ASTS WMO) Ad-huc Cod 

### Ash 

### Workgoup

on 

### F&riwy 27,209, you rquested that States 

### express 

### their pfererrct 

### concerning thrm 

### po&ble options that 

### USEPA 

### is considering 

### with 

### respect to the 

### development of CCB 

### regulations. The three 

### aptions discussed may be summarized as:

1 ) 

### Regulation under 

### Resource Cofismation and 

### Recovery Act RCM) Subtitle 

### D, 

### as a 

### nnn-hazirdous induha1 waste, 

### with 

### enforcement largely 

### by 

### the States and through 

### ci&m f 

### awsutts, as 

### USEPA had originally decided to 

### do in 

### 2000;



### 2) 

### Regulation 

### under RCRk Subtitle 

### C 

### as hazardous waste, 

### with flexible management 

### requirements 

### afforded under the authority of 

### RCRA 

### Section 3004(x); 

### or

3) 

### Regulation 

### under 

### an approach that 

### establishes 

### basic management standards and 

### criteria under 

### RCRA 

### C, but 

### "delists" those waste 

### which 

### are being 

### handled 

### in accordance 

### with those criteria, but 

### treating as 

### hazardous waste 

### those materials that 

### are not 

### handled appropriately. This 

### has 

### been described 

### in 

### di~ussions 

### with other States as 

### the 

### "kiln 

### dust" appm&h, 

### due to 

### its similarity to 

### the 

### manner in 

### which 

### EPA 

### has proposed to 

### address 

### cemenf kiln dust in a 

### proposal 

## From 1W.

@ Recycled Pnper TTY lJm 1 -8W7'35-22B Via Maryland Relay Scwice

### Mr. Matt Hale, 

### Director Page 

### Two

If Federal 

### regulations are 

### enacted, regulation of 

### the 

### material thnough industrial waste regulatibns 

### promulgated 

### under RCU 

### Subtitle 

### D is Maryland's 

### preferred supportable 

### option. 

### Mary Id 

### recognizes
that 

### CCBs have 

### the potential to cause 

### pollution 

### of surface 

### and groundwater 

### and recently adopd pmtm 

### tive regulations 

### rquiring liners, lachate collect 

### ion, gruundwater 

### monitoring, capping, 

### and dmwe
caps. 

### We believe that 

### USEPA could implement 

### similar nhes 

### under 

### Subtitle 

## D and afford States 

### the opportunity 

### to 

### demonstrate that they can 

### implement those stdds 

### much 

### more quickly 

### than 

### regqIation unber Subtitle C. 

### Please also note that, 

## based d!I 

### its eqmimce 

### with 

### municipal 

# and industrial w&es 

### including 

### CCBs, the 

### Maryland 

### martment 

### of the 

### Environment (MDE) cowid- 

### municipal solid waste 10 

### produce potential 

### risks to 

### the 

### environment that are 

### more diverse and 

### more dimcult to 

### control 

### than CCBs. 

### Municipal waste 

### leachals tad 

### to contain 

### organic 

### chemicals as 

### well as 

### inorganic chemicds,the wastes 

### are 

### ility standpoint 

### due to 

### their inhomogeneity, 

### and they 

### m1e

gmus prod t 

### must 

### be dressed 

### which CCEh gendly 

### do not. The &pmn&t can 

### p r@e.in&nna%ion concerning 

### sites that support this sho;Id you 

### requst. Protective 

### mech s such 

### as liners, lachate 

### collection systems, 

### caps, 

### and monitoring ahdy 

### required

are 

### wfbient to 

### address the 

### risks posed by CCBs to 

### the ci 

### tizem 

### thc ability to participate 

### through citizen 

### suits authorized 

### under RCRA Subtitle 

## D,

CCBs rarely fail 

### the criteria 

### by which 

### materials are 

### debmined to 

### be hazardous waste. 

## To classify them

as hazardous, 

### regardless 

### of their 

### chemical 

### content, woukl 

### needlessly limit the 

### management 

### options 

### for 

### both the+ 

### CCBs, 

### and other wastes 

### legitimately classified 

### as hazardous 

### which will 

### be competing 

## wi& CCBs 

### for limi 

### $4 hazardous waste 

### disposal 

### capacity. 

## The Deptmmt also 

### considers the 

### more stringent 

### requirements 

### of RCRA Subtitle C to 

### be unnewmy given 

### the 

### risks amckted 

### wilh 

### CCB. The regulatoq 

### approaches required 

### in Mqland's hy 

### adopted 

### CCB regulations, which are 

### similar to the 

### engineering 

### c~qtmls required 

### for 

### municipal 

### solid waste 

### twlls, but 

### tailored to 

### the 

### spific 

### characteristics of CCBs, 

### are adequate 

### to 

### manage the 

### material 

### in a 

### mmer that 

### protects groundwater, 

### public 

### health 

### and the environment.



### It 

### is also important 

### to note 

### that Maryland 

### has 

### an active 

### cd mining regulatory program 

### that aHows 

### for the 

### utilization of alkaline ash, only, 

### in the 

### recldon 

### process. Ash 

### wsd 

### in the recIamation of 

### non-caal mine sites 

### follows 

### requirements similar 

### to the 

### found in RCRA 

### Subtitle 

### D standards 

### for 

### CCBs. 

### Maryland's recently enacted 

### regulations will require 

### an applicant to 

### develop and implement a 

### sampling 

### plan for the 

### initial characterization 

### of the CCBs. 

### The plan shall include a 

### comprehensive list 

### of parameters to 

### be analyzed and 

### the methods 

### used in the 

### analytical characterization. Ongoing ash 

### characterizatkn will 

### be required 

### as will 

### site monitoring through post 

### closure 

### until MDE is satisfied that 

### the site 

### is &able 

### and not contributing to advem surface 

### or groundwater 

### impacts, 

### The Dqhnent 

### also plans to 

### amad the 

### existing regulations to 

### clarify those 

### deep 

### mining operations will 

### be subject to the same 

### requirements 

### as surface 

### mines.



### The Department dso 

### supports closer regulation 

### of liquid slurry 

### storage 

### lagoons. A1 though 

### Maryland dw 

### not have any 

### liquid storage 

### lagoons, 

### thm art 

### storage Iqgwns 

### directly 

### across the 

### Maryland line 

## fkom two 

### facilities that ate 

### linked to 

### the lagoons 

### by pipelines. One 

### of these 

### pipelines recently was 

### found to 

### be leaking, which caused 

### s dischzqe 

### of 

### several thousand gallons 

### of coal ash slurry 

### directly 

### into the Potomac 

### River, a 

### Maryland waterway.

Ma.

Rec~w A~er www.mde.state,~us In Uea~ I-ljOD-735-2258
Vin Maryhnd May Saviot

### Mr. Matt 

### Hale, Director Page 

### Three



### FiaaIly, Maryland plans to, 

### in 2009, 

### develop 

### regulations governing the 

### recycling and beneficial use 

### of CCBs. As 

### the 

### anticipated volume qf 

### CCBs produced 

### in Maryland (currently 2 

### million 

### tons) 

### is expected to 

### double by 2013 as 

### the requirements 

### for Maryland's Health Air Act 

### and flusgas desulhrization 

### for coal 

### fired power 

### plants are implemented, it 

### is vital 

### that 

### the 

### recycling of 

### rn&tmials that can 

### be safely used 

### in products or 

### as raw 

### materials be 

### encourage to 

### the maximum extent 

### possible. Regulating 

### these materiais 

### as

a 

### hazardous waste would 

### discourage recycling.



### Last, 

### paying for 

### thee 

### enhanced 

### regulatory efforts is 

### of great 

### concern to 

### the State- 

### The Maryland I 

### legislature. at the 

### Department's request, just 

### recently enacted 

### legislation imposing 

### a per 

### ton fee 

### on 

### CCB matd generated. 

### Material that 

### is used for cod 

### mine 

### recImation or 

### bencfid 

### rewe is 

### exempt from the fee. 

### The revenues will pay fur 

### the additional cats 

### to MBE 

### of implementing these 

### new requirements 

### for disposal and recycling. 

### While this is 

### Maryland's appmh, many staks 

### may 

### not have 

### this option 

### and EPA 

### should also 

### consider 

### in its development 

### of its approach, 

### how State's 

### will be abIt to 

### implement 

### new requiments,



## We look forward to 

### laming more abut other state's 

### opinions 

### and experiences 

### with this 

### mtaiaI 

### and working with EPA, 

### ASTS 

## WMO, and 

### ECOS to 

### develop 

### an appropriate 

### approach to national management 

### sf 

## coal combustion byproducts. 

### If I 

### my be 

### of further assistance, 

### place contact 

### me at 

### 41 

### 0-537-3304, 

### toll-free at 

### 1-8800-6334101, 

### or via 

### email at 

### ~la.da6hde.state.md.u~.

Sincerely,

H-io Tablada, Director Waste Management 

### Administration

cc: 

### Mary Zadanowicz, Executive Director, ASTSWMO Nancy 

### Marker, 

### ASTSWMO Region I11 

### Board Member 

### and Manager, 

### Solid 

### and Hamdous Waste Management 

### Branch, 

### DmC Shari 

## T. Wilson, Secretary

TIT Uam 1 -W-7353258
Via Maryland Relay Mice1 Chuck Head, Senior Director Land Programs Bureau of Environment Department of Environment & Conservation 1 st Floor L&C Annex Nashville, TN 37243

- 1501

e

- mail: chuck.head@state.tn.us

James H. Fyke Phil Bred esen Commissioner Governor

March 31, 2009

Matt Hale

, Director Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460

RE: TN Recommendations for Regulation of Coal Combustio n By

- Products by EPA

Dear Mr. Hale:

The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (the Department) appreciates the opportunity to submit recommendations for the regulation of Coal Combustion By

Products (CCBs) to the U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency (EPA). Tennessee is home to six active coal fired power plants. These plants produce approximately 2,000,000 cubic yards or more of coal ash per year. The Department has worked with the disposal of coal ash for many years. Garey Mabry, the Mana ger of o u r State Hazardous Waste Management Program

, is participating in the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials , and has informed the Department of EPA’s effort to collect recommendations from states about the regulation of CCB waste. We understand that EPA has set a goal of issuing draft CCB regulations by the end of this year.

Attached with this letter are recommendations from Tennessee for the regulation of CCB wastes along with data from the analysis of coal for Total Metals and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure Metals. From our perspective, the regulation of CCB waste should be guided by sound science and provide protection of public health and environment. It is our recommendation that CCB waste be managed a s a solid waste, with disposal facilities having design criteria similar to that for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills under RCRA Subtitle D.2 Do not hesitate to contact me or Garey (615 532

- 0845 & Garey.Mabry@st ate.tn.us ) if you have any questions or concerns about our recommendations. If there is a need for state participation with EPA with the development of a regulatory path for management, disposal and beneficial reuse of CCB waste, we would welcome the oppo rtunity.

Sincerely,

Chuck Head

CC: Paul Sloan
Paul Davis Mike Apple Garey Mabry Stan Meiburg
Tom Welborn
Alan Farmer Mary T. Zdanowicz3 Attachment 1

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

Recommendations for Regulatory Overs ight

Coal Combustion Byproducts in Landfills & Surface Impoundments

The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (the Department) appreciates the opportunity to provide input to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the regu lation of coal combustion byproducts (CCBs). The Department has considered the current requirements for

CCB regulation; the constituents contained in CCBs and reviewed the industry practices for generation, collection, storage, treatment, disposal, and ben eficial reuse of CCBs. Any changes to existing requirements should be made using sound science with the goal of protection of the public health, public safety, and the environment. The Department’s recommendations are presented in outline form, anticipatin g that as EPA develops draft CCB regulations, states will be provided an opportunity to provide input and the logic and science supporting their position.

1. Are additional federal regulations needed to insure that CCBs are managed properly across the
United States?

Tennessee does not believe that additional regulation of CCBs at the federal level is necessary. However, should US EPA adopt rules, the states should be allowed to implement them. Tennessee regulates the disposal of CCBs as an industrial waste u nder the TN Solid Waste Management Act,
T.C.A. 68

- 211

- 101 et seq. The Department regulates the effluent discharged from settling ponds and surface impoundments via the TN Water Quality Control Act, T.C.A 69

- 3

- 101 et seq . We are reviewing our regulations to determine if amendments are necessary to insure that catastrophic failures such as the TVA Kingston Coal Ash release do not occur again.

2. Should CCBs be regulated as a Solid Waste via RCRA Subtitle D or as a Hazardous Waste via RCRA
Subtitle C?

The Depar tment has been reviewing analytical data on CCBs since the early 1990s, when developing our existing rules permitting coal ash fill facilities. As a result of the December 22, 2008, coal ash release from the TVA Kingston Fossil Plant, there have been many more coal ash samples analyzed for many parameters such as Total Metals, TCLP Metals, Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Solvents and Radioactive Materials. None of the analytical results indicated levels that would classify coal ash as a characteristic h azardous waste.

Similarly, our testing of “gyp sum”, produced as a CCB, did not reveal any chemical constituents that
rise to hazardous waste levels.4 None of the analytical results from coal ash samples we have reviewed were at levels for TCLP
metals that approach the concentration that would categorize either coal ash or gypsum as a characteristic hazardous waste. We have great success in the beneficial reuse of CCBs. The Department strongly supports continued regulation of CCBs as solid wastes subject t o the RCRA Subtitle D Program. Regulating coal ash and gypsum as a hazardous waste greatly reduces the opportunity to beneficially reuse this waste and would increase the coast of CCB waste management by at least an order of magnitude.

3. Regulatory Standa rd Recommendations for CCBs.

In Tennessee, the Department sees necessary regulatory management of CCBs during three distinct handling activities: Management and Disposal in Surface Impoundments, Disposal into Landfills, and Beneficial Use. Regulatory sta ndards for the material must be standardized from the point it is first generated.

A. CCB Surface Impoundments

1. Surface impoundments should be regulated under the state Solid Waste Management Program. Outfalls would continue to be monitored under the Water Qu ality Control Act.

2. Often surface impoundments are closed as solid waste landfills after having been filled with coal ash. Existing standards for disposal facilities should be used in designing these facilities.

3. New and Expansion of Surface Impoundments

- The Department is evaluating whether new surface impoundments and expansions of existing CCB surface impoundments should be required to meet new design criteria and operating criteria. Any new regulations will be developed under the state Solid Waste Mana gement Program.

a. Design requirements should include:

i. A stipulation stating either (1) the surface impoundment shall be used for treatment and storage for CCB with CCB removed for disposal or beneficial reuse or (2) the surface impoundment shall be closed as a solid waste landfill;
ii. Design criteria based on the chemical characteristics of the CCB;
iii. Appropriate containment measures ( e.g. liner);
iv. Ground water monitoring system;

v. Installation of piezometers to monitor ground water levels around surface impound ment;

vi. Siting criteria which determines the site geologic conditions stipulating the site is geologically stable and specifies separation from ground water and streams;

vii. Geologic buffers;

viii. Stability analysis;

ix. Closure plan with cap design;

x. Post closure plan; and

xi. Financial assurance.5 b. Operating criteria should include:

i. Structural stability inspection program for impoundments utilizing dikes;

ii. Weekly measurement of free board;

iii. Weekly inspections for seepage with requirements for immediate repair if se epage discovered;
iv. Regular maintenance of dikes including removal of trees, shrubs, bushes, etc. growing in the dikes;

v. Ground water monitoring with semi

- annual sampling for total metals;
vi. Operating methods for ash removal, if removed.

4. Existing CCB Surface Impoundments

– These units should be required to meet specific operating criteria and to meet new requirements for financial assurance and closure. These regulations are likely to be developed under the existing state Solid Waste Management Program.

a. Requ irements should include:

i. Submission of a permit application including the engineering design of the surface impoundment if not previously submitted;
ii. A stipulation stating either (1) the surface impoundment shall be used for treatment and storage for CCB w ith CCB removed for disposal or beneficial reuse or (2) the surface impoundment shall be closed as a solid waste landfill;

iii. Installation of ground water monitoring wells and semi

- annual ground water monitoring for total metals;

iv. Installation of piezometers t o monitor ground water levels around surface impoundment;

v. Conduct a structural stability and integrity analysis with plans for repair or closure if structural stability and integrity are in question;

vi. Require scheduled structural stability testing and integ rity analysis;

vii. Weekly measurement of free board;

viii. Weekly inspections for seepage with requirements for immediate repair if seepage discovered;

ix. Regular maintenance of dikes including removal of trees, shrubs, bushes, etc. growing in the dikes;

x. Closure plan w ith cap design;
xi. Post closure plan;
xii. Operating methods for ash removal, if removed; and
xiii. Financial assurance.6 B. CCB Landfills

1. Landfills constructed to receive CCBs should be regulated under the existing state Solid
Waste Program.

2. The Department is evaluat ing whether new and expansions of existing CCB landfills should be required to meet new design criteria and operating criteria. Any new regulations will be developed under the state Solid Waste Program. Tennessee believes this is best achieved by permitti ng monofill disposal facilities following the Tennessee Class II Industrial Landfill design criteria. The Class II Industrial Landfill design criteria are equivalent to the design criteria for Class I Municipal Landfills with an opportunity for variances u pon approval by the Department. Standards would include the requirement for a leachate collection system
and financial assurance.

3. Existing CCB landfills should be required to meet specific operating criteria and to meet new requirements for financial ass urance and closure. These regulations will be developed under the state Solid Waste Program.

Requirements should include:

a. Installation of ground water monitoring wells and semi

- annual ground water monitoring for total metals;

b. Installation of piezomet ers to monitor ground water levels around surface the landfill;

c. Conduct an initial structural stability and integrity analysis with plans for repair or closure if structural stability and integrity are in question;

d. Require scheduled structural stability te sting and integrity analysis;

e. Weekly inspections for seepage with requirements for immediate repair if seepage discovered;

f. Regular maintenance of berms including removal of trees, shrubs, bushes, etc. growing in the berms;

g. Closure plan with cap design;
h. Pos t closure plan; and
i. Financial assurance.

4. Beneficial Reuse of CCBs

Tennessee successfully promotes CCBs in beneficial uses. CCBs often have the physical properties to be used beneficially in structural fills and other projects. Given the goal to
reduce so lid waste and beneficially reuse materials that are solid waste in lieu of virgin products, regulatory flexibility should be maintained to allow CCBs to be used as structural fill material, cement and concrete amendment, etc. The Department maintains clear regulatory requirements that stipulate that each source of the CCBs must meet specific physical and chemical properties before the proposed beneficial reuse is approved by the

state.7 Tennessee strongly recommends that any regulatory framework adopted by U S EPA should not limit the ability to reuse CCBs beneficially.March 16, 2009

Matt Hale, Director U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Mail Code 5301P Washington, D.C. 20460

SUBJECT: State Implications of Regulatory Options for the Management of Coal Combustion Waste

Dear Mr. Hale,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input reg arding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s re

evaluation of regulatory options for the management of coal combustion wastes (CCW) and the potential implications for State regulatory programs.

The State of Wisconsin has formally provided testimony a nd submitted comments on this issue in the past, but we wish to reiterate our opposition to regulation of CCW as a listed waste under RCRA Subtitle C , or to a hybrid approach, such as has been used with cement kiln dust (CKD) . Copies of our responses are attached to this letter along with a summary table of our estimated rate of beneficial reuse of CCW in 2006.

To summarize, we believe that regulation of CCW under the current structure of RCRA Subtitle C is in appropriate given the level of environmental h azard posed by these materials. We remain deeply concerned that such a categorization would have a significant adverse impact to our ongoing successful efforts to beneficially reuse these materials . This beneficial use program avoid s the need for landfil l space with its associated impacts

, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, provides for water conservation and reduces energy consumption

. We recommend that if federal regulation of CCW is determined to be necessary, these wastes be regulated using the existi ng regulatory model for municipal solid waste under Part 258 of RCRA Subtitle D.

If you have any further questions, please contact Gene Mitchell, Chief of our Recycling and Solid Waste Section at (608) 267

- 9386 or gene.mitchell@wisconsin.gov

Sincerely,

Al len K. Shea, Administrator Air and Waste Division Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

c c: Gene Mitchell / Phil Fauble

– WA/5 Kerry Callahan

- ASTSWMO

wisconsin.gov Printed on Recycled Paper dnr.wi.gov 101 S. Webster St. Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53707

- 7921 Telephone 608

- 266

- 2621 FAX 608

- 267

- 3579 TTY Access via relay

- 711 Jim Doyle, Governor Matthew J. Frank, Secretary