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.us
 
March 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 waste in Colorado. The waste is managed in 

accordance with the requirements of the Solid Wastes and Disposal Sites and Facility Act 

(Title 30, Article 20, Part 1; the Act) and the Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Sites and 

Facilities (6 CCR 1007-2, Part 1; the Regulations). The wastes are typically disposed of in 

monofills designed, constructed, operated, closed and monitored pursuant to all applicable 

requirements, most notably Section 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 Design and Operation plan 

must include geotechnical, chemical and other applicable 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 construct 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 Public Health and Environment 
April 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 coal 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, Florida Statutes) would prohibit the 

disposal of this coal ash in Florida's landfills 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 their ash before disposal or ship it out of 

state. It is also likely that if existing disposal areas in Florida were disturbed after 

EPA determined coal ash was a hazardous waste, 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 discourage 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 construction of roads. Based on analytical testing, 

there was no reason to believe the ash exhibited a hazardous characteristic. The 

Department does not allow the use of coal ash unless it has data showing the 

use of the ash will not cause ground 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.us 
Mr. 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 Florida failed the Toxicity Characteristic 

Leaching Procedure (TCLP). While the Department agrees that in the past there 

have been some cases of adverse environmental 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 Florida is also used as a gypsum soil 

amendment by peanut farmers. The Department believes these uses of FGD 

sludge are beneficial and safe, and it would 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 concerns 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 inspections. 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 the 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 Mice 










1

Chuck Head, Senior Director

Land Programs

Bureau of Environment

Department of Environment & Conservation

1st Floor L&C Annex

Nashville, TN 37243-1501

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

James H. Fyke Phil Bredesen

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 Combustion 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 ByProducts (CCBs) to the U.S. Environmental Protection 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 Manager of our 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 as 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@state.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 opportunity.

Sincerely,

Chuck Head

CC: Paul Sloan

Paul Davis

Mike Apple

Garey Mabry

Stan Meiburg

Tom Welborn

Alan Farmer

Mary T. Zdanowicz
3

Attachment 1

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

Recommendations for Regulatory Oversight 

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 regulation 

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 beneficial 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, 

anticipating 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 under 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 Department 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 hazardous waste.

Similarly, our testing of “gypsum”, 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 to 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 Standard 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 standards 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 Quality 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 Management 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 

impoundment;

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 seepage 

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. Requirements 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 with 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 to 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 integrity 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 with 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 evaluating 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 permitting 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 upon 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 assurance 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 piezometers 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 testing 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. Post 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 solid 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 US EPA should 

not limit the ability to reuse CCBs beneficially.


March 16, 2009

Matt Hale, Director

U.S. Environmental 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 regarding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s reevaluation 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 and 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 

inappropriate given the level of environmental hazard 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 avoids the need for landfill 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 

existing 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,

Allen K. Shea, Administrator

Air and Waste Division

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

cc: 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