***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

1

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

EO12866_CCR 2050-AE81 Final Preamble and Rule_2014110720141218

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 257 and 261

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640; FRL-9149-4]

RIN-2050-AE81

HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM; DISPOSAL OF COAL 

COMBUSTION RESIDUALS FROM ELECTRIC UTILITIES 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is publishing a final 

rule to regulate the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR) as solid waste under Subtitle D 

of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA is also deferring its final 

decision on the Bevill Regulatory Determination because of regulatory and technical 

uncertainties that cannot be resolved at this time. Despite these uncertainties, theThe available 

information demonstrates that the risks posed to human health and the environment by certain 

CCR management units warrant regulatory controls. EPA is finalizing national minimum 

criteria for existing and new CCR landfills and existing and new CCR surface impoundments

and all lateral expansions consisting of location restrictions, design and operating criteria, 

groundwater monitoring and corrective action, closure requirements and post closure care, and 

recordkeeping, notification, and internet posting requirements. The rule requires any existing 

unlined CCR surface impoundment that is contaminating groundwater above a regulated 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

2

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

constituent’s groundwater protection standard to stop receiving CCR and either retrofit or close, 

except in limited circumstances. It also requires the closure of any CCR landfill or CCR surface 

impoundment that cannot meet the applicable performance criteria for location restrictions or 

structural integrity established in this rule. . Finally, those CCR surface impoundments that are 

no longer receivingdo not receive CCR as ofafter the effective date of the rule, but still contain 

water and CCR will be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements, unless the owner or 

operator of the facility dewaters and installs a final cover system on these inactive units no later 

than three years from the effective date of the rule. publication of the rule. EPA is deferring its 

final decision on the Bevill Regulatory Determination because of regulatory and technical 

uncertainties that cannot be resolved at this time. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: EPA has established three dockets for this regulatory action under Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392, and Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028. All documents in these dockets are available at

http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 

Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 

OSWER Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

3

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OSWER Docket is 202–566–0276.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on technical issues:

Alexander Livnat, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 5304P; telephone number: (703) 308-7251; fax number: (703) 605-0595; email address: 

livnat.alexander@epa.gov, or Steve Souders, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 5304P; telephone number: (703) 308-8431; fax number: 

(703) 605-0595; email address: souders.steve@epa.gov. For questions on the regulatory impact 

analysis: Richard Benware, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 5305P; telephone number: (703) 308-0436; fax number: (703) 308-7904; 

email address: benware.richard@epa.gov. For questions on the risk assessment: Jason Mills, 

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Environmental Protection Agency, 5305P; 

telephone number: (703) 305-9091; fax number: (703) 308-7904; email address: 

mills.jason@epa.gov.

For more information on this rulemaking please visit 

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/index.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This rule applies to all coal combustion residuals (CCR) generated by electric utilities 

and independent power producers that fall within the North American Industry Classification 

systemSystem (NAICS) code 221112 and may affect the following entities: electric utility 

facilities and independent power producers that fall under the North American Industry 

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

4

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Classification System (NAICS) code 221112. The industry sector(s) identified above may not be 

exhaustive; other types of entities not listed could also be affected. The Agency’s aim is to 

provide a guide for readers regarding those entities that potentially could be affected by this 

action. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is affected by 

this action, you should refer to the applicability criteria containeddiscussed in Unit VI.A. If you 

have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the 

person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What Actions Are Not Addressed in This Rule?

This rule does not address the placement of CCR in coal mines. The U. S. Department of 

Interior (DOI) and, as necessary, EPA will address the management of CCR in minefills in 

separate regulatory action(s), consistent with the approach recommended by the National 

Academy of Sciences, recognizing the expertise of DOI’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement in this area. See Unit IVVI for further details. This rule does not affect 

existingregulate practices that meet the definition of a beneficial use applications (i.e., 

applications started before the effective date of the rule.) Only planned applications (i.e., 

applications to be startedof CCR. Beneficial uses that occur after the effective date of the rule)

need to determine if they comply with the criteria contained in the definition of “beneficial use of 

CCRs.” See Unit IVThis rule does not affect past beneficial uses (i.e., uses completed before the 

effective date of the rule.) See Unit VI for further details on proposed clarifications of beneficial 

use. Furthermore, CCR from non-utility boilers burning coal are also not addressed in this final 

rule. EPA will decide on an appropriate action for these wastes through a separate rulemaking 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

5

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

effort. See Unit IV of this notice for further details. Finally, this rule does not apply to 

municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills (MSWLFs) that receive CCR for disposal or use as daily 

cover provided the MSW landfill is located in a state with an approved permitting program under 

40 CFR 258, is located in the state of Iowa, or is located on Indian Lands or Indian Country..

C. The Contents of This Preamble Are Listed in the Following Outline 

I. Executive Summary

II. Statutory Authority

III. Background

IV. Bevill Regulatory Determination Relating to CCR from Electric Utilities and Independent 

Power Producers

V. Development of the Final Rule – RCRA Subtitle D Regulatory Approach

VI. Development of the Final Rule – Technical Requirements

VII. Summary of Major Differences between the Proposed Rule and the Final RuleRules

VIII. Effective Dates of CCR Rule and Implementation Timeframes for Minimum National 

Criteria and Coordination with Steam Electric ELG Rule 

IX. State AuthorityImplementation of the Minimum Federal Criteria and State Solid Waste 

Management Plans

X. Risk Assessment

XI. Summary of Damage Cases

XII. Cost and BenefitsSummary of the Final RuleRegulatory Impact Analysis

XIII. Uniquely Associated Wastes

XIV. Statutory and Executive Order ReviewReviews

I. Executive Summary

This rule establishes nationally applicable minimum criteria for the safe disposal of coal 

combustion residuals in landfills and surface impoundments. This section summarizes these 

criteria. Detailed discussions of the criteria and the Agency’s rationale for finalizing these 

requirements are provided in Unit VI of this notice.

A. What are coal combustion residuals?

Coal combustion residuals (CCR) are generated from the combustion of coal, including 

solid fuels classified as anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite, for the purpose of 

generating steam for the purpose of powering a generator to produce electricity or electricity and 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

6

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

other thermal energy by electric utilities and independent power producers. CCRs includeCCR 

includes fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization materials. A description of 

the types of CCR can be found in the proposed rule (see 75 FR at 35137).

CCRs areCCR is one of the largest industrial waste streams generated in the U.S. In 

2012, over 470 coal-fired electric utilities burned over 800 million tons of coal, generating 

approximately 110 million tons of CCR in 47 states and Puerto Rico. CCRsCCR may be 

generated wet or dry,; however, this composition may change after generation. Some CCRs 

areCCR is dewatered while other areCCR is mixed with water to facilitate transport (i.e., 

sluiced). CCRsCCR can be sent to off-site for disposal or beneficial use or disposed in on-site 

landfills or surface impoundments. In 2012, approximately 40% percent of the CCR generated 

was beneficially used, with the remaining 60% percent disposed in surface impoundments and 

landfills. Of that 60%, percent, approximately 80% percent was disposed in on-site disposal 

units. CCR disposal currently occurs at over 310 active on-site landfills, averaging over 120 

acres in size with an average depth of over 40 feet, and at over 735 active on-site surface 

impoundments, averaging over 50 acres in size with an average depth of 20 feet. 

B. Background

The Agency first solicited comments on the regulation of CCR in a proposed rule 

published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2010. This proposal, under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), addressed the risks from disposal of CCRsCCR

generated from the combustion of coal at electric utilities and from independent power 

producers. Two regulatory options were proposed. Under the first option, EPA proposed to 

reverse its August 1993 Bevill Regulatory and May 2000 Bevill Regulatory Determinations 

regarding CCR and to list CCRsCCR as special wasteswaste subject to regulation under the 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

7

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

subtitle C of RCRA, when destined for disposal in landfilllandfills or surface impoundments. 

Under this option, CCRsCCR would require “cradle-to-grave” management and requirewould be 

subject to requirements for, among other things, composite liners, groundwater monitoring, 

structural stability requirements, corrective action, closure/post closure care and financial 

assurance. States would be required to adopt the rule before it went into effect and a permitting 

program would be established with direct federal oversight. The subtitle C option, as proposed, 

would also effectively result in the closure of all CCR surface impoundments.

Under the second option, EPA proposed to leave the Bevill determination in place and 

regulate the disposal of CCR under subtitle D of RCRA by issuing minimum national criteria. 

Similar to the subtitle C option, this option would require composite liners, groundwater 

monitoring, structural stability requirements, corrective action, and closure/post closure care. 

However, givenconsistent with the available statutory authoritiesauthority under subtitle D, EPA 

proposed this option to be a self-implementing rule with no direct federal oversight, with an 

effective date six months after publication in the Federal Register. This option required all 

unlined surface impoundments to either retrofit to a composite liner or close within five years. 

After reviewing all the comments and additional data received, EPA is promulgating this 

final rule to regulate the disposal of CCR as solid waste under Subtitlesubtitle D of RCRA. This 

rule addresses the risks from structural failures of CCR surface impoundments, groundwater 

contamination from the improper management of CCR in landfills and surface impoundments 

and fugitive dust emissions. The rule has also been designed to provide electric utilities and 

independent power producers generating CCR with a practical approach for implementation of 

the requirements and has established implementation timelines that take into account, among 

other things, other upcoming regulatory actions affecting electric utilities, site specific practical 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

8

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

realities, and options available to our State partners in choosing their role in the implementation 

of these requirements. and site specific practical realities. In order to ease implementation of the 

regulatory requirements for CCR units with state programs, EPA is also providing the 

opportunity for states to secure approval of its CCR program through the State Solid Waste 

Management Program (“SWMP”). EPA strongly recommends that States take advantage of this 

process by revising their SWMPs to address the issuance of the revised federal requirements in 

this final rule, and to submit revisions of these plans to EPA for review. EPA would then review 

and approve the revised SWMPs provided they demonstrate that the minimum federal 

requirements in this final rule will be met. In this way, EPAs approval of a revised SWMP 

signals EPA’s opinion that the State SWMP meets the minimum federal criteria.

C. What types of CCR units are covered by this rule?

The final rule applies to owners and operators of new and existing landfills and new and 

existing surface impoundments, including all lateral expansions of landfills and surface 

impoundments that dispose or otherwise engage in solid waste management of CCRsCCR

generated from the combustion of coal at electric utilities and independent power producers. The 

requirements of the rule also apply to CCR units located off-site of the electric utilities’ or 

independent power producers’ facilities that receive CCR for disposal. In addition, the rule 

applies to certain inactive CCR surface impoundments (i.e., units not receiving CCR after the 

effective date of the rule) at active electric utilities’ or independent power producers’ facilities, 

regardless of the fuel currently used at the facility to produce electricity (e.g., coal, natural gas, 

oil), if the CCR unit still contains CCR and liquids.

The requirements do not apply to: (1) CCR landfills that ceased receiving CCRsCCR

prior to the effective date of the rule; (2) CCR units at facilities that have ceased producing 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

9

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

electricity (or electricity and other thermal energy) prior to the effective date of the rule; (3) 

CCRsCCR generated at facilities that are not part of an electric utility or independent power 

producer, such as manufacturing facilities, universities, and hospitals; (4) fly ash, bottom ash, 

boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization materials, generated primarily from the combustion of 

fuels (including other fossil fuels) other than coal, for the purpose of generating electricity unless 

the fuel burned consists of more than fifty percent coal on a total heat input or mass input basis, 

whichever results in the greater mass feed rate of coal; (5) CCRsCCR that areis beneficially 

used; (6) CCR placement at active or abandoned underground or surface coal mines; or (7) 

municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLF) that receive CCRsCCR.

D. What minimum national criteria are being established for CCR landfills and CCR surface 

impoundments?

This final rule establishes minimum national criteria for CCR landfills, CCR surface 

impoundments, and all lateral expansions of CCR units including location restrictions, liner 

design criteria, structural integrity requirements, operating criteria, groundwater monitoring and 

corrective action requirements, closure and post-closure care requirements, and recordkeeping, 

notification, and internet posting requirements. 

1. Location Restrictions. To provide forensure there will be no reasonable probability of 

adverse effects on health or the environment from the disposal of CCR in CCR landfills, CCR 

surface impoundments, and all lateral expansions of CCR landfills and CCR surface 

impoundments (together “CCR units”), this final rule establishes five location restrictions. The 

location criteria include restrictions relating to placement of CCR above the uppermost aquifer, 

in wetlands, within fault areas, in seismic impact zones, and in unstable areas. All of these 

location restrictions require the owner or operator of a CCR unit to demonstrate that they meet 

Formatted: Normal (Web), Pattern: Clear (White)

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

10

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

the specific criteria. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the five location restrictions apply 

to all new CCR landfills, all new and existing CCR surface impoundments, and all lateral 

expansions of CCR units; however, existing CCR landfills are only subject to the location 

restriction for unstable areas. Units that do not meet these restrictions can retrofit or make 

appropriate engineering demonstrations to meet this criteria. This final rule requires owner or 

operators of existing CCR units that cannot make the required demonstrations to close, while 

ownerowners or operators of new CCR units and all lateral expansions who fail to make the 

required demonstrations are prohibited from placing CCR in the CCR unit.

2. Liner Design Criteria. The final rule also establishes liner design criteria to help prevent 

contaminants in CCR from leaching from the CCR unit and contaminating groundwater. All 

new CCR landfills, new CCR surface impoundments, and lateral expansions of CCR units must 

be lined with composite liner, which is a liner system consisting of two components – a 

geomembrane and a two-foot layer of compacted soil – installed in direct and uniform contact 

with one another. The final rule allows an owner or operator to construct a new CCR unit with 

an alternative composite liner, provided the alternative composite liner performs no less 

effectively than the composite liner. In addition, new landfills are required to operate with a 

leachate collection and removal system which is designed to remove excess leachate that may 

accumulate on top of the composite (or alternative composite) liner. Existing CCR landfills are 

not required to close or be retrofittedretrofit with a composite (or alternative composite) liner and 

a leachate collection and removal system. These existing CCR units can continue to receive 

CCR after this rule is in effect; however, the CCR units must meet all applicable groundwater 

monitoring and corrective action criteria to address any groundwater releases promptly. Existing 

CCR surface impoundments can also continue to operate as designed. However, if the existing 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

11

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

CCR surface impoundment was not constructed with a composite (or alternative composite) liner 

or with at least two feet of compacted soil with a specified hydraulic conductivity, the rule 

maywould require the unit to retrofit or close. If such an existinga CCR surface impoundment 

determines under the groundwater monitoring program that thedetects concentrations of one or 

more constituents foundlisted in CCR are detectedAppendix IV at statistically significant levels 

above the groundwater protection standard established by the rule, the rule requires the CCR unit 

tomust retrofit or close.

3. Structural Integrity Requirements. To help prevent the damages associated with structural 

failures of CCR surface impoundments, the final rule establishes structural integrity criteria for 

new and existing surface impoundments (and all lateral expansions of them) as part of the design 

criteria. While the applicability of the structural integrity requirements to individual CCR 

surface impoundments vary depending on the factors such as dike heights and the potential for 

loss of life, environmental damage and economic loss if there is a dike failure, the final rule 

establishes requirements for owner or operators to conduct periodically a number of structural 

integrity-related assessments regularly. These include: conducting periodic hazard potential 

classification assessments to assess the damagepotential adverse incremental consequences that 

would occur if there was a failure of the CCR surface impoundment; conducting periodic 

structural stability assessmentassessments by a qualified professional engineer to document 

whether the design, construction, operation and maintenance is consistent with recognized and 

generally accepted good engineering practices; and conducting periodic safety factor assessments 

to document whether the CCR unit achieves minimum factors of safety. for slope stability. If a 

CCR unit required to conduct a safety factor assessment fails to demonstrate that the unit 

achieves the specified factors of safety, the final rule requires an owner or operator to 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

12

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

closuremust close the unit. In addition, certain CCR surface impoundments are required to 

develop an emergency action plan which defines the events and circumstances involving the 

CCR unit that represent a safetyan emergency and identifies the actions that will be taken in the 

event of a safety emergency.

4. Operating Criteria. The operating criteria include air criteria for all CCR units, run-on 

and run-off controls for CCR landfills, hydrologic and hydraulic capacity requirements for CCR 

surface impoundments, and periodic inspection requirements for all CCR units. These criteria 

address the day-to-day operations of CCR units and are established to prevent health and 

environmental impacts from CCR units. The air criteria address the pollution caused by 

windblown dust from CCR units, and require owners and operators are required to take all 

reasonable precautions to minimize CCR from becoming airborne at the facility. The run-on 

controls for CCR landfills minimize the amount of surface water entering the unit that will help 

prevent erosion, surface discharges of CCR in solution or suspension, and will mitigate the 

generation of landfill leachate, while run-off controls help prevent erosion, protect downstream 

surface water from releases from the unit, and minimize stormwater runoff volume and velocity. 

CCR surface impoundments are subject to hydrologic and hydraulic capacity requirements to 

ensure the unit can safely handle flood flows, which will help prevent uncontrolled overtopping 

of the unit or erosion of the materials used to construct the surface impoundment. The final rule 

also requires periodic inspections of CCR units to identify any appearancesappearance of 

structural weakness or other conditions that are not consistent with recognized and generally 

accepted good engineering standards.

5. Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action. The groundwater and corrective action 

criteria require an owner or operator of a CCR unit to install a system of monitoring wells and 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

13

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

specify procedures for sampling these wells, in addition to methods for analyzing the 

groundwater data collected, to detect the presence of hazardous constituents (e.g., toxic metals) 

and other monitoring parameters (e.g., pH, total dissolved solids) released from the units. The 

final rule establishes a groundwater monitoring program consisting of detection monitoring, 

assessment monitoring and corrective action. This phased approach to groundwater monitoring 

and corrective action provides for a graduated response over time to address groundwater 

contamination as the evidence of such contamination increases. Once a groundwater monitoring 

system and groundwater monitoring program has been established for a CCR unit under the rule, 

the owner or operator must conduct groundwater monitoring and, if necessarythe monitoring 

demonstrates exceedance of drinking standards for identified constituents in CCR, corrective 

action throughout the active life and post-closure care period of the CCR unit.

6. Closure and Post Closure Requirements. The closure and post-closure care criteria 

require that all CCR units to close in accordance with specified standards and to monitor and 

maintain the units for a period of time after closure, including the groundwater monitoring and 

corrective action programs. These criteria are essential to ensuring the long-term safety of 

closing CCR units. Closure of a CCR unit must be completed either by leaving the CCR in place 

and installing a final cover system or through removal of the CCR and decontamination of the 

CCR unit. The final rule establishes time frames by whentimeframes to initiate and complete

closure activities must be initiated and when they must be completed, along with providing for, 

and authorize owners or operators to obtain time extensions due to site-specific circumstances or 

other factors beyond the facility’s control. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the rule also 

establishes alternative closure procedures in situations where an owner or operator is closing a 

CCR unit, but has no alternative CCR disposal capacity or is permanently closing the coal-fired 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

14

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

boiler unit in the foreseeable future. Finally, owners and operators are required to prepare 

closure and post-closure care plans describing these activities.

7. Record Keeping, Notification, and Internet Posting Requirements. The final rule requires 

owner or operators of CCR units to record certain information in the facility’s operating record. 

In addition, owners and operators are required to provide notification to States and/or appropriate 

Tribal authorities when the owner or operator places information in the operating record, in 

additionas well as to maintainingmaintain a publicly accessible internet site for this information.

The following tables provide a summary of the specific technical requirements applicable 

to existing and new CCR landfills, existing and new CCR surface impoundments, and all lateral 

expansions of CCR units.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

15

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

CCR Landfill Requirements

Requirement

Existing CCR Landfills New CCR Landfills and Lateral Expansions

Required? 1 Rule Section Required? 1 Rule Section

Location Restrictions: √ §257.64 √ §257.60 - §257.64

Placement Above the Uppermost Aquifer √ §257.60

Wetlands √ §257.61

Fault Areas √ §257.62

Seismic Impact Zones √ §257.63

Unstable Areas √ §257.64 √ §257.64

Design Requirements: √ §257.70

Composite Liner √ §257.70 (b & c)

Leachate Collection and Removal System √ §257.70 (d)

Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action √ §257.90 - §257.98 √ §257.90 - §257.98

Weekly Inspections √ §257.84 (a) √ §257.84 (a)

Annual Inspections √ §257.84 (b) √ §257.84 (b)

Fugitive Dust Controls √ §257.80 √ §257.80

Run-on, Run-off Controls √ §257.81 √ §257.81

Surface Water Protection2 √ §257.3-3 √ §257.3-3

Closure Requirements √ §257.100 - §257.103 √ §257.100 - §257.103

Post-Closure Care √ §257.104 √ §257.104

Recordkeeping Requirements √ §257.105 √ §257.105

Notification Requirements √ §257.106 √ §257.106

Publicly Accessible Internet Site Requirements √ §257.107 √ §257.107

1 √ = required, = not required.

2

In existing regulations at 40 CFR part 257, subpart A.

Formatted: Font: 9 pt, Superscript
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

16

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

CCR Surface Impoundment Requirements

Requirement

Existing Surface Impoundments New Surface Impoundments and Lateral Expansions

Five feet high AND 20 acre-feet, or 20 feet high Five feet high AND 20 acre-feet, or 20 feet high

Yes No Yes No

Required? 1 Rule Section Required? 1 Rule Section Required? 1 Rule Section Required? 1 Rule Section

Location Restrictions: √

 §257.60 -

§257.64 √

 §257.60 -

§257.64 √

 §257.60 -

§257.64 √

 §257.60 -

§257.64

Placement Above the Uppermost Aquifer √ §257.60 √ §257.60 √ §257.60 √ §257.60

Wetlands √ §257.61 √ §257.61 √ §257.61 √ §257.61

Fault Areas √ §257.62 √ §257.62 √ §257.62 √ §257.62

Seismic Impact Zones √ §257.63 √ §257.63 √ §257.63 √ §257.63

Unstable Areas √ §257.64 √ §257.64 √ §257.64 √ §257.64

Design Requirements: √ §257.71 √ §257.71 √ §257.72 √ §257.72

Composite Liner 2 √

2 §257.71 √2 §257.71 √ §257.72 √ §257.72

Leachate Collection and Removal System

Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action √

 §257.90 -

§257.98 √

 §257.90 -

§257.98 √

 §257.90 -

§257.98 √

 §257.90 -

§257.98

Structural Integrity Criteria: √

§257.73 & 

§257.83 √

§257.73 & 

§257.83 √

§257.74 & 

§257.83 √

§257.74 & 

§257.83

History of Construction √ §257.73 (c)

Construction Plan √ §257.74 (c)

Marker 3 √ §257.73 (a)(1) √ §257.73 (a)(1) √ §257.74 (a)(1) √ §257.74 (a)(1)

Hazard Potential Classification Assessments 3 √ §257.73 (a)(2) √ §257.73 (a)(2) √ §257.74 (a)(2) √ §257.74 (a)(2)

Structural Stability Assessments √ §257.73 (d) √ §257.74 (d)

Safety Factor Assessments √ §257.73 (e) √ §257.74 (e)

Emergency Action Plan 3 √ §257.73 (a)(3) √ §257.73 (a)(3) √ §257.74 (a)(3) √ §257.74 (a)(3)

Weekly Inspections √ §257.83 (a) √ §257.83 (a) √ §257.83 (a) √ §257.83 (a)

Annual Inspections √ §257.83 (b) √ §257.83 (b)

Fugitive Dust Controls √ §257.80 √ §257.80 √ §257.80 √ §257.80

Hydrologic & Hydraulic Capacity Requirements √ §257.82 √ §257.82 √ §257.82 √ §257.82

Surface Water Protection 4 √ §257.3-3 √ §257.3-3 √ §257.3-3 √ §257.3-3

Formatted: Position: Horizontal: 0", Relative to:

Margin Formatted Table

Formatted: Position: Horizontal: 0", Relative to:

Margin Formatted: Position: Horizontal: 0", Relative to:

Margin Formatted: Position: Horizontal: 0", Relative to:

Margin Formatted Table

Formatted: Position: Horizontal: 0", Relative to:

Margin Formatted: Position: Horizontal: 0", Relative to:

Margin Formatted: Position: Horizontal: 0", Relative to:

Margin Formatted: Position: Horizontal: 0", Relative to:

Margin Formatted Table

Formatted: Position: Horizontal: 0", Relative to:

Margin Formatted: Position: Horizontal: 0", Relative to:

Margin Formatted: Position: Horizontal: 0", Relative to:

Margin Formatted Table

Formatted: Position: Horizontal: 0", Relative to:

Margin Formatted: Position: Horizontal: 0", Relative to:

Margin
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

17

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

CCR Surface Impoundment Requirements

Requirement

Existing Surface Impoundments New Surface Impoundments and Lateral Expansions

Five feet high AND 20 acre-feet, or 20 feet high Five feet high AND 20 acre-feet, or 20 feet high

Yes No Yes No

Required? 1 Rule Section Required? 1 Rule Section Required? 1 Rule Section Required? 1 Rule Section

Closure Requirements √

 §257.100 - 

§257.103 √

 §257.100 - 

§257.103 √

 §257.100 - 

§257.103 √

 §257.100 - 

§257.103

Post-Closure Care √ §257.104 √ §257.104 √ §257.104 √ §257.104

Recordkeeping Requirements √ §257.105 √ §257.105 √ §257.105 √ §257.105

Notification Requirements √ §257.106 √ §257.106 √ §257.106 √ §257.106

Publicly Accessible Internet Site Requirements √ §257.107 √ §257.107 √ §257.107 √ §257.107

1 √ = required, = not required.

2 Existing CCR surface impoundments are required to be constructed with a composite liner or atwo feet of compacted soil liner with a specified hydraulic conductivity. of no more than 1x10-7

cm/sec, a composite liner that meets the requirements of §257.70(b), or an alternative liner that meets the requirements of §257.70(c).

3 This requirement does not apply to an incised CCR surface impoundment.

4

In existing regulations at 40 CFR part 257, subpart A.

Formatted: Font: 9 pt, Superscript
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

18

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

19

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

8. Severability. EPA intends that the provisions of this rule be severable. In the event that 

any individual provision or part of this rule is invalidated, EPA intends that this would not render 

the entire rule invalid, and that any individual provisions that can continue to operate will be left 

in place.

E. When must owners or operators of CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments meet 

the minimum national criteria?

Owners and operators of CCR units subject to this final rule generally must be in 

compliance with the minimum national criteria by the effective date of this rule, which is six 

months after the publication date of the this rule. However, the implementation time frames for 

some criteria are specified after the effective date of the final rule. In some cases, the time 

frames specified in the rule are longer than six months because more time is requiredThe rule 

becomes effective six months after the publication date of this rule. The final rule establishes 

timeframes for certain technical criteria based on the amount of time determined to be necessary

to implement the requirements (e.g., installing the groundwater monitoring wells and 

establishing the groundwater monitoring program). In other cases, the final rule coordinates the 

compliance and implementation time frames withestablishing these timeframes, EPA accounted 

for other Agency rulemakings affecting ownerthat are anticipated to also affect the owners or 

operators of CCR units, namely the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam 

Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (78 FR 34432; proposed rule issued June 7, 

2013) and the Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric 

Utility Generating Units (79 FR 34830; proposed rule issued June 18, 2014). TheSpecifically, 

EPA developed implementation time frames were established sotimeframes that would ensure

that owner or operators of CCR units would not be required to make decisions about those CCR 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

20

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

units without first understanding the implications that such decisions would have for meeting the 

requirements of each ruleall applicable EPA rules.

F. Deferral of Final Bevill Determination

This rule defers a final Bevill Regulatory Determination. The Agency is deferring its 

final Bevill Regulatory Determination with respect to CCRsCCR that areis disposed in CCR 

landfills and CCR surface impoundments until additional information is available on a number of 

key technical and policy questions, including. This includes information needed to quantify the 

risks of CCR disposal based on its arsenic content, such as the appropriate safe daily dose for 

arsenic and the speciation of arsenic in the environment, and the potential impacts of recent 

Agency regulations on the chemical composition of CCR. In addition, theThe Agency also

needs additionalfurther information on adequacy of the state programs before it is in a position to 

make a final Bevill Regulatory Determination.

G. Beneficial Use

The final rule retains the Bevill exclusion for CCRs going to beneficial useCCR that is

beneficially used, and provides a definition of beneficial use to distinguish between beneficial 

use and disposal.

H. Implementation

TheseBecause the regulations do not address the generation, transportation, storage, or 

treatment of CCR prior to disposal. In addition, because the regulations are beinghave been

promulgated under sections 1008(a), 4004(a), and 4005(a) of RCRA, the rule does not require 

permits, does not require Statesstates to adopt andor implement these requirements, nor canand

EPA cannot enforce these requirements. Instead, states or citizens can enforce the requirements 

of this rule under RCRA’s citizen suit authority; the states can also continue to enforce any state 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

21

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

regulation under their independent state enforcement authority. (For a more detailed discussion 

of EPA authorities under RCRA and its relationship to this rule, see 75 FR 35128, June 21, 

2010). However, EPA recognizes the significant role our State partnersstates play in 

implementationimplementing these requirements and we areEPA strongly encouraging 

Statesencourages states to revise their Solid Waste Management Plans (SWMPs or plans) to 

show how these new criteria will be implemented. EPA would then review and approve the 

revised SWMPs provided they demonstrate that the minimum federal requirements in theirthis 

final rule will be met. In this way, EPAs approval of a revised SWMP signals EPA’s opinion 

that the State SWMP meets the minimum federal criteria. For a more detailed discussion on the 

role of state. solid waste management plans, please refer to Section IX.

I. Characterization of Baseline Affected Entities and CCR Management Practices

This action will affect CCRsCCR generated by coal-fired electric utility plants in the 

NAICS industry code 221112 (i.e., the ‘‘Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation’’ industry within 

the NAICS 22 ‘‘Utilities’’ sector code). Based on 2012 electricity generation data published by 

the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this

action estimated that a total of 478 operational coal-fired electric utility plants in this NAICS 

code could be affected by this action. These plants are owned by 242 entities consisting of 166 

companies, 17 cooperative organizations, 58 Statestate or local governments, and one Federal 

Agency.federal agency. A sub-total of 81 of the 242 owner entities (i.e., 33%) percent may be 

classified as small businesses, small organizations, or small governments. The 478 coal-fired 

electric utility plants operate a total of 1,045 CCR management units (735 surface impoundments 

and 310 landfills). These 478 plants generate 120.4 million tons of CCRsCCR, consisting of 201 

plants (42%) percent) disposing in on-site landfills, 169 (35%) percent) disposing in on-site 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: English (United States)
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

22

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

ponds, and 197 (41%) percent) disposing in off-site landfills. Because some plants use more than 

one CCR management method, these plant counts exceed 478 total plants. In addition, 293 of the 

478 plants supply CCRsCCR for beneficial uses in at least 14 industries. Nineteen of the 293 

plants solely supply CCRsCCR for beneficial uses. As of 2012, CCR beneficial uses (i.e., 

industrial applications) involved about 52 million tons annually. 

J. Summary of Estimated Regulatory Costs and Benefits

The EPA estimated future regulatory compliance costs and expected future human health 

and environmental protection benefits in a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) document which is 

available from the docket for today’sthis action. The estimated costs and benefits for the CCR 

rule are incremental to the baseline (current) practices by the electric utility industry to manage 

CCR in accordance with (a) existing Statestate government environmental regulations and (b) 

utility company CCR management methods. 

The RIA estimates the cost of the rule over a 100 year period because of: (1) CCR 

disposal unit lifespans (40 years to 80 years of age),); (2) groundwater migration, (estimated time 

to peak potential exposures of CCRsCCR through groundwater migration to drinking water wells 

is 75 years),); and (3) latency periods for onset of illness after exposure to CCRsCCR, which can 

average 20 years.

Table 1 below summarizes the estimated incremental costs and benefits of the rule. The 

RIA estimates costs to comply with the 12 pollution control requirements associated with the rule, 

as well as estimated monetized values for 11 expected benefits, and discusses 11 other nonmonetized benefits.

Formatted: Left

Formatted: Font: 12 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

23

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Table 1

EPA Estimated Incremental Costs & Benefits of the CCR Rule

(millions 2013$ over 100-year period of analysis 2015-2114)

3% discount rate 7% discount rate

A. Annualized Values

A1. Total Costs $735 $509

A2 Total monetized benefits $289 $232

A3. Net Benefits (A2 - A1) ($446) ($277)

A4. Benefit to Cost Ratio (A3 / A1) 0.39 0.46

B. Present Value

B1. Total Costs $23,200 $7,260

B2 Total monetized benefits $8,550 $3,290

B3. Net Benefits (B2 - B1) ($14,650) ($3,970)

B4. Benefit to Cost Ratio (B2/ B1) 0.37 0.45

II. Statutory Authority 

These regulations are established under the authority of sections 1006(b), 1008(a), 

2002(a), 3001, 4004, and 4005(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and 

Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6906(b), 6907(a), 6912(a), 6944 and 

6945(a).

RCRA section 1006(b) directs EPA to integrate the provisions of RCRA for purposes of 

administration and enforcement and to avoid duplication, to the maximum extent practicable, 

with the appropriate provisions of other EPA statutes. Section 1006(b) conditions EPA’s 

authority to reduce or eliminate RCRA requirements on the Agency’s ability to demonstrate that 

the integration meets RCRA’s protectiveness mandate (42 U.S.C. 6005(b)(1)). See Chemical 

Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F.2d 2, 23, 25 (D.C. Cir.1992).

RCRA section 1008(a) authorizes EPA to publish “suggested guidelines for solid waste 

management.” 42 U.S.C. 6907(a). RCRA defines solid waste management as “the systematic 

administration of activities which provide for the collection, source separation, storage, 

Formatted: Font: Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

24

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

transportation, transfer, processing, treatment, and disposal of solid waste.” 42 U.S.C. § 

6903(28).

Pursuant to subsection section 1008(a)(3), the guidelines are to include the minimum 

criteria to be used by the states to define the solid waste management practices that constitute the 

open dumping of solid waste or hazardous waste and are prohibited as “open dumping”under 

section 4005. Only those requirements promulgated under the authority of section 1008(a)(3) are 

enforceable under section 7002 of RCRA. 

RCRA Sectionsection 4004 generally requires EPA to promulgate regulations containing 

criteria for determining which facilities shall be classified as sanitary landfills (and therefore not 

“open dumps). ”). The statute directs that, “at a minimum, the criteria are to ensure that units are 

classified as sanitary landfills only isif there is no reasonable probability of adverse effects on 

health or the environment from disposal of solid wastes at such facility.” 42 U.S.C. § 6944(a).

RCRA section 4005(a), entitled “Closing or upgrading of existing open dumps” generally 

[establishes the key implementation and enforcement provisions applicable to] EPA regulations 

issued under sections 1008(a) and 4004(a). Specifically, this section prohibits any solid waste 

management practices or disposal of solid waste that does not comply with EPA regulations 

issued under RCRA section 1008(a) and 4004(a). 42 U.S.C. § 6944(a). See also 42 U.S.C. § 

6903(14) (definition of “open dump”). This prohibition takes effect “upon promulgation” of any 

rules issued under section 1008(a)(3) and is enforceable through a citizen suit brought pursuant 

to section 7002. As a general matter, this means that facilities must be in compliance with any 

EPA rules issued under this section no later than the effective date of such rules, or be subject to 

a citizen suit for “open dumping” 42 U.S.C. § 6945. RCRA section 4005 also directdirects that 

open dumps, i.e., facilities out of compliance with EPA’s criteria, must be “closed or upgraded.” 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

25

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Section 7004 lays out specific requirements relating to public participation in regulatory 

actions under RCRA. Subsection (b) provides that “[p]ublic participation in the 

...implementation, and enforcement of any regulation under this chapter shall be provided for, 

encouraged, and assisted by the Administrator.” 42 U.S.C. § 6974(b). 

A. Regulation of Solid Wastes Underunder RCRA Subtitle D

Solid wastes that are neither a listed nor characteristic hazardous waste are subject to the 

requirements of RCRA subtitle D. Subtitle D of RCRA establishes a framework for federal, 

state, and local government cooperation in controlling the management of non-hazardous solid 

waste. The federal role is to establish the overall regulatory direction, by providing minimum 

nationwide standards that will protect human health and the environment, and to provide 

technical assistance to states for planning and developing their own environmentally sound waste 

management practices. The actual planning and any direct implementation of solid waste 

programs under RCRA subtitle D, however, remains a state and local function, and the actAct

envisions that Statesstates will devise programs to deal with Statestate-specific conditions and 

needs. EPA has no role in the planning and direct implementation of the minimum national 

criteria or solid waste programs under RCRA subtitle D, and has no authority to enforce the 

criteria. However, Statesstates are not required to adopt solid waste management programs, and 

thus, Congress developed a statutory structure that creates incentives for states to implement and 

enforce the federal criteria, but that does not necessarily rely on or require a regulatory entity to

oversee or implement them. While Congress developed the statutory structure to create 

incentives for states to implement and enforce the federal criteria, it does not require them to do 

so. As a result, subtitle D is also structured to be self-implementing.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

26

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

RCRA sections 1008(a)(3) and 4004(a) delegate broad authority to EPA to establish 

regulations governing the management of solid waste. Under section 4004(a) EPA is charged 

with establishing requirements to ensure that facilities will be classified as sanitary landfills 

“only if there is no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment from 

the disposal of solid waste” at the facility. Or in other words, under section 4004(a) EPA is 

charged with issuing regulations to address all “reasonable probabilities of adverse effects” (i.e., 

all reasonablereasonably anticipated risks) to health and the environment from the disposal of 

solid waste. Section 1008(a)(3) expands EPA’s authority to address the risks from any of the 

listed activities. Specifically, EPA is authorized to establish requirements applicable to “storage, 

transportation, transfer, processing, treatment, and disposal of solid waste.” (42 U.S.C. §§ 

6907(a), 6903(28)). 

EPA interprets the standard in section 4004(a) to apply equally to criteria issued under

sections 1008(a)(3) and 4004(a); namely that the criteria must ensure that a facility is to be 

classified as a sanitary landfill, and thus allowed to continue to operate, “only if there is no 

reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment” from either the disposal 

or other solid waste management practices at the facility. Thus, under the combined authority 

conferred by sections 1008(a)(3) and 4004(a), a facility is an “open dump” if it engages in any 

activity involving the management of solid waste that does not meet the standard in section 

4004(a); or in other words, any activity involved with the management of solid waste that 

presents a reasonable probability of causing adverse effects on health or the environment. EPA 

also interprets these provisions to authorize the establishment of criteria that define the manner in 

which facilities upgrade or close, consistent with the standard in section 4004(a), to ensure there 

will be no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

27

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

As discussed previously, Congress created a regulatory structure that limited EPA’s role 

to the creation of national criteria that would operate even in the absence of a regulatory entity to 

oversee or implement the criteria. Under RCRA section 4005(a), upon promulgation of criteria 

under section 1008(a)(3), any solid waste management practice or disposal of solid waste that 

constitutes the ‘‘open dumping’’ of solid waste is prohibited. The federal standards apply 

directly to the facility (are self-implementing) and facilities are directly responsible for ensuring 

that their operations comply with these requirements. States are not required to incorporate or 

implement these requirements under any state permitting program or other state law requirement, 

and EPA is not authorized to impose such requirements, directly or indirectly on the states.

States and citizens may enforce this prohibition (and therefore, the federal criteria) using the 

authority under RCRA section 7002.1

The statute also creates an incentiveincentives to Statesstates to implement the criteria by 

granting States that have EPA-approved. Chief among the incentives is a greater role in 

implementation and enforcement of the solid waste management plansprogram, including to a 

limited extent the ability to give facilities that are currently operating within their state additional 

time to come into compliance with newly promulgated EPA criteria. Specifically, if the facility 

is located in a state with a plan that was approved under section 4003(b), the state may grant the 

facility an extension of up to five years from the date the final rule was published in the Federal 

Register to come into compliance with EPA regulations, provided: (a) the facility is listed in a 

state inventory of open dumps; and (b) the facility has demonstrated that it has considered other 

 

1 EPA also may act if the handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of such wastes may 

present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment, pursuant to RCRA 

section 7003.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

28

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

public or private alternatives for solid waste management to comply with the prohibition on open 

dumping and is unable to utilize such alternative. For facilities that meet these requirements, the 

state may establish a “schedule for compliance” which specifies a schedule of remedial 

measures, including an enforceable sequence of actions or operations, leading to compliance 

with the requirements “within a reasonable time (not to exceed five years from the date of 

publication of criteria under section [1008] (a)(3) of this title).” 42 U.S.C. § 6945(a).

As a consequence of this statutory structure – the requirement to establish national

criteria and the absence of any requirement for direct regulatory oversight—to establish the 

criteria, EPA must demonstrate, through factual evidence available in the rulemaking record, that 

the final rule will achieve the statutory standard (“no reasonable probability of adverse effects on 

health or the environment”) at all sites subject to the standards based exclusively on the final rule 

provisions. This means that the standards must account for and be protective of all sites, 

including those that are highly vulnerable. 

III. Background 

A. EPA’PAkground that 

On June 21, 2010 (75 FR 35128), EPA proposed regulating CCRsto regulate CCR under 

RCRA to address the risks from the disposal of CCRsCCR generated from the combustion of 

coal at electric utilities and independent power producers. As described in the proposal, 

CCRsCCR are residuals generated from the combustion of coal and include fly ash, bottom ash, 

boiler slag (all composed predominantly of silica and aluminosilicates), and flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD) materials (predominantly Ca-SOx compounds) and can be managed in 

either wet (surface impoundments) or dry (landfills) disposal systems. EPA noted in the 

proposed rule that the constituents of most environmental concern in CCRsCCR are metals, such 

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Normal, Line spacing: single, Don't keep

with next

Formatted: Highlight

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

29

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

as antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, 

silver and thallium. EPA also presented data showing numerous instances where these 

constituents (especially arsenic) have leached at levels of concern from unlined and inadequately 

clay-lined landfills and surface impoundments. 

In the proposal, EPA revisited its August 1993 and May 2000 Bevill Regulatory 

Determinations regarding CCRsCCR generated at electric utilities and independent power 

producers. The results from this effort led the Agency to consider two primary options for the 

management of CCRsCCR and thus, propose two alternative regulatory strategies. Under the 

first option, EPA proposed reversingto reverse its August 1993 and May 2000 Bevill Regulatory 

Determinations (58 FR 42466 and 65 FR 32214 respectively) regarding CCRsCCR and to list 

these residuals as special wastes subject to regulation under subtitle C of RCRA when they are 

destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments. Under this proposed option, 

CCRsCCR would be regulated from the point of generation to the point of final disposition and 

would generally be subject to the existing subtitle C regulations at 40 CFR parts 260 through 

268, as well as the permitting requirements in 40 CFR Part 270, and the state authorization 

process in 40 CFR Parts 271-272. Among other things, the regulatory requirements included 

waste characterization, location restrictions, liner and, if applicable, leachate collection 

requirements for land disposal units, fugitive dust controls, groundwater monitoring and 

corrective action requirements, closure and post-closure care requirements, financial assurance, 

permitting requirements, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. This option also 

imposed requirements on generators and transporters of CCR destined for disposal, including 

manifesting (if the CCR destined for disposal is sent off-site). However, in light of practical 

difficulties in implementing certain subtitle C regulatory requirements, EPA also proposed to 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

30

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

revise selected requirements under the subtitle C option. Consequently, EPA proposed, pursuant 

to its authority under section 3004(x) of RCRA, modifications to the CCR landfill and surface 

impoundment liner and leak detection system requirements, the effective dates for the land 

disposal restrictions, and the surface impoundment retrofit requirements. EPA also proposed to 

establish new land disposal prohibitions and treatment standards for both wastewater and nonwastewater forms of CCR. In part, the proposed modifications to the treatment standards would 

result in the closure of existing surface impoundments and the prohibition of all new surface 

impoundments. (See 75 FR 35128 for a complete discussion of this proposed option).

Under the second option, EPA proposed to retain the August 1993 and May 2000 Bevill 

Regulatory Determinations and to regulate CCR disposal under subtitle D of RCRA by issuing 

national minimum criteria to ensure the safe disposal of CCR in surface impoundments and 

landfills. Under this option, CCR would remain classified as a non-hazardous RCRA solid waste

and. EPA proposed to establish technical requirements, many of which were nearly identical to 

the technical standards proposed under the subtitle C option. The technical standards included, 

among other things, locations standards, liner and leachate collection requirements, groundwater 

monitoring and corrective action standards for releases from the units, operating criteria, such as 

fugitive dust control, closure and post-closure care requirements, and recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. Under this option, EPA did not propose to establish regulatory 

requirements that would restrict the generation, transportation, storage, or treatment of CCR 

prior to disposal, nor did EPA propose to establish financial assurance requirements under 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

31

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

RCRA.2 Also, because of subtitle D’s limitations, the proposed rule did not require permits; nor 

could EPA enforce the national minimum criteria. Rather, states or citizens could enforce the 

national minimum criteria under RCRA’s citizen suit authority, and states could continue to 

enforce any state regulation that applies to CCRsCCR under their independent state enforcement 

authority.

The subtitle D proposed option was designed to be self-implementing, meaning that the 

requirements were such that facilities could comply with the regulatory requirements without 

interactionthe need to interact with a regulatory authority. EPA sought to enhance the 

protectiveness of the proposed option by requiring certified demonstrations by an independent 

registered professional engineer to provide verification that the regulatory requirements were 

being adhered to. In addition, the option provided for state and public notification of the 

certifications, as well as required posting of certain information on a website maintained by the 

facility and in the operating record. (See 75 FR 35128 for a complete discussion of this proposed 

option).3

 

2

In the proposal, the Agency stated that the RCRA subtitle D alternative did not include proposed 

financial responsibility requirements and that any such requirements would be proposed separately. The 

Agency solicited comment on whether financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA section 

108(b) should be a key Agency focus under a RCRA subtitle D approach. While the Agency received 

numerous comments urging the Agency to establish financial responsibility as part of the subtitle D 

option, the CERCLA 108(b) option did not receive significant support. As discussed in the proposal and 

reiterated here, EPA has determined that it lacks statutory authority to require financial assurance under 

this RCRA subtitle D rule and will not be requiring financial assurance requirements as part of this rule. 

The Agency however will continue to investigate the use of other statutory authorities (e.g., CERCLA) to 

establish financial responsibility requirements for owners and/or operators of CCR landfills, CCR surface 

impoundments and any lateral expansion. 

3 While EPA could not oversee the implementation ofcannot enforce the subtitle D proposed rules, EPA 

couldcan take action under section 7003 of RCRA to abate conditions that “may present an imminent and 

substantial endangerment to health or the environment.” EPA couldcan also use the imminent and 

substantial endangerment authorities under the CERCLA, or under other federal authorities to address 

those circumstances where a unit(s) may pose a threat. 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

32

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The Agency also described other alternatives considered. For example, one subtitle D 

option, called “D-prime” was structured so that all existing CCR surface impoundments could 

continue to receive CCRsCCR after the effective date of the rule for the remainder of theirthe

unit’s useful life, irrespective of their liner type, provided the other provisions of the subtitle D 

option were met (e.g., groundwater monitoring). (See 75 FR 35128 for a complete discussion of 

this and other possible regulatory alternatives on which the Agency solicited comment.) 

Under both the subtitle C and subtitle D alternatives, EPA proposed establishing dam 

safety requirements to address the structural integrity of surface impoundments. EPA also 

proposed not to change the May 2000 Regulatory Determination for beneficially used CCR,

which are currently exempt from the hazardous waste regulations under Sectionsection

3001(b)(3)(A) of RCRA. EPA also did not propose to address the placement of CCRsCCR in 

mines, or non -minefill uses of CCRsCCR at coal mine sites.

In addition to proposing these two regulatory options for the management of CCRsCCR, 

EPA identified many issues on which it solicited comment, information, and data. Certain 

solicitations were very general, such as comments on alternative options for regulating 

CCRsCCR, while other requests for comment were very specific in nature, for example, whether 

clay liners designed to meet a specified hydraulic conductivity might perform differently in 

practices than modeled in the risk assessment. (The Agency requested comment on issues

throughout the preamble,; however specific issues for which EPA solicited comment can be 

found at 75 FR 35221-34224.)

B. Comments Received on the Proposed Rule 

The Agency received over 450,000 comments on the proposed rule. The majority of the 

commenters focused on which regulatory path the Agency should pursue for regulating 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

33

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

CCRsCCR, i.e., RCRA’s subtitle C or subtitle D. A number of commenters, however, argued 

that no additional regulation was necessary and that the states were adequately regulating the 

management of CCR. Generally, environmental groups and individual citizens favored a subtitle 

C rule arguing that state programs have failed and damage cases are growing in number. State 

organizations, individual states, and industry groups (electric utilities, recycling firms, trade 

associations), on the other hand, largely favored a subtitle D rule with a permitting program. 

One area that received extensive comment was the re-evaluation of the eight Bevill study 

factors.4 Numerous commenters provided detailed analysis related to the study factors and 

provided their own interpretations of the data (e.g., state programs and damage cases). Other 

areas that received significant comment included beneficial use and the risk assessment.

Discussions of the specific comments germane to this rulemaking are provided in the 

relevant sections of this notice.

C. Other Actions During Which Comment Was Taken

1. Public Hearings

EPA conducted eight public hearings during the months of August, September, and 

October in 2010. There were over 1300 individual speakers at the eight public hearings that 

commented on the proposed rule. Testimony at the public hearings focused generally on whether 

 

4

 In considering whether to retain or to reverse the August 1993 and May 2000 Regulatory 

Determinations regarding the Bevill exemption of CCR destined for disposal, the Agency re-examined the 

RCRA section 8002(n) study factors. These eight study factors are: (1) source and volumes of CCR 

generated per year; (2) present disposal and utilization practices (which includes evaluation of existing 

state regulatory oversight and beneficial use;); (3) potential danger, if any, to human health and the 

environment from the disposal and reuse of CCR; (4) documented cases in which danger to human health 

or the environment from surface runoff or leachate has been proved; (5) alternatives to current disposal 

methods; (6) the cost of such alternative disposal methods; (7) the impact of the alternative disposal 

methods on the use of coal and other natural resources; and (8) the current and potential utilization of 

CCR (see 75 FR 35128). Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

34

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

EPA should adopt a subtitle C or subtitle D approach for regulating CCR. Many commenters 

were also concerned with fugitive dust emissions and the effect these emissions had on their 

health and overall well-being. Other commenters were concerned that applyadopting a subtitle C 

regulatory strategyrule for CCR would negatively affect the beneficial use of the material. In 

addition to their testimonies that were entered into the rulemaking record, over 1200 additional 

documents were submitted in hard copy and entered into the docket (see EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-

0640).

2. Notices of Data Availability 

Subsequent to the proposed rule, the Agency published several Notices of Data 

Availability (NODAs), the first on October 21, 2010, (75 FR 64974); the second on October 12, 

2011 (76 FR 63252) and the third on August 2, 2013 (78 FR 46940). Specifically:

• The first NODA (NODA 1) announced and invited comment on the responses EPA 

received on Information Collection Requests that were sent to electric utilities on their 

CCR surface impoundments, as well as reports and materials related to the site 

assessments EPA had conducted on a subset of these impoundments. 

• The second NODA (NODA 2) announced and invited comment on a number of topics, 

including (1) Chemicalchemical constituent data from coal combustion residuals; (2) 

Facilityfacility and waste management unit data; (3) Informationinformation on 

additional alleged damage cases; (4) Thethe adequacy of state programs; and (5) 

Beneficialbeneficial use. 

• The third NODA (NODA 3) announced and invited comment on (1) 

Supplementalsupplemental data for the risk assessment; (2) Supplementalsupplemental

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

35

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

data for the regulatory impact analysis (RIA);; (3) Informationinformation regarding 

large -scale fill; and (4) Datadata on the surface impoundment structural integrity 

assessmentsCCR Impoundment Assessment Program. EPA also sought comment on two 

technical issues associated with the requirements for CCR management units: closure 

requirements and regulation of overfills (i.e., CCR management units built directly over 

pre-existing CCR landfills or CCR surface impoundments).

Specific comments received on each of the three NODAs are provideddiscussed in the 

relevant sections of this rule.

3. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating 

Point Source Category Proposed Rule

On June 7, 2013 (78 FR 34432), EPA proposed a regulation that would strengthen the 

controls on discharges from certain steam electric power plants by revising the technology-based 

effluent limitation guidelines (ELG) and standards for the steam electric power generating point 

source category. As part of this proposal, EPA discussed its current thinking on how a final 

RCRA CCR rule might be aligned and structured to account for any final requirements adopted 

under the ELGsELG for the Steam Electric Power Generating point source category. Two 

primary means of integrating the two rules were discussed: (1) coordinating the design of any 

final substantive CCR regulatory requirements and (2) coordinating the timing and 

implementation of the rules to allow facilities to coordinate their compliance planning and 

implementation and to protect electricity reliability for consumers. EPA stated that consistent 

with RCRA section 1006(b), effective coordination of any final RCRA requirements with the 

ELG requirements would be sought in order to minimize the overall complexity of the two 

regulatory structures, and facilitate implementation of engineering, financial, and permitting 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

36

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

activities. EPA solicited comments on its current thinking on how any final CCR final rule 

might be aligned and structured to account for any final requirements adopted under the 

ELGsELG for the Steam Electric Power Generation point source category.

D. EPA’s CCR Impoundment Assessment Program

In March 2009, the Agency’s CCR Impoundment Assessment Program (herein referred 

to as the Assessment Program) was initiated. This effort was in response to the December 22, 

2008 dike failure of a coal ash impoundment at the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Kingston 

Fossil Plant in Harriman, Tennessee where over one billion gallons of coal ash slurry waswere

released, affecting more than 300 acres and impacting, including residences and infrastructure. 

The TVA Kingston impoundment failure ignited a nation-wide concern over the safety of coal 

ash impoundments; and EPA was tasked with determining whether the potential existed for 

similar impoundment failures at other coal-fired power plants. ThusIn response, EPA developed 

the Assessment Program to evaluate the structural stability and safety of all coal ash 

impoundments throughout the country.5 As of September 2014, 559 impoundments had been 

assessed at over 230 coal-fired power plants. 

While not directly associated with the The Assessment Program began as a separate 

effort from the development of this final rule.

6 However, the information and experience 

developed in carrying out the site assessments during the Assessment Program addressed critical 

 

5 The focus of the Assessment Program was to assess the structural integrity of CCR impoundments 

meeting specified criteria. The Agency did not include, as part of its evaluation, the assessment of other 

conditions/characteristics of the impoundment that may present potential risks to human health or the 

environment, i.e., groundwater contamination due to an insufficient liner design. 

6 EPA however has issued a two Notices of Data Availability (75 FR 35128 (October 21, 2101) and 78 

FR 46,94046940 (August 2. 2013))) specifically soliciting comment on the information generated by the 

Assessment Program and inviting comment on the materials posted on our web sitewebsite. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

37

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

factorsis directly relevant to the developmentmany of the rule and provided issues addressed in 

this rulemaking, and provide further technical support and justification for numerousmany of the

technical criteria established in the rule, namely. Consequently, many of the final technical 

criteria were developed in direct response to findings from the site assessments. For example, 

several of the technical criteria contained in the proposed rule were modified to account for the 

widely accepted engineering methodologies and practices used in conducting the site 

assessments, as well as current facility practices documented during the assessments. In a few 

instances, the criteria were supplemented to better align the technical requirements with the 

Assessment Program. Included among the final criteria that directly rely on the Assessment 

Program are the provisions relating to structural integrity assessments addressingto address

factors of safety, periodic reassessments, hazard potential classifications, and the hydrologic and 

hydraulic capacity requirements. Moreover, as a result of this effort EPA, has been able to 

clarify some of its structural integrity requirements relevant to specific of CCR surface 

impoundments. These requirements are further discussed in Unit IVVI of this preamble.

The Assessment Program focused on impoundments meeting four general criteria that 

were designed to identify the units most likely to present the same risks as the collapsed TVA 

impoundment: (1) above ground or diked; (2) of significantsufficient height to be susceptible to 

structural failure (i.e., six feet); (3) receiving CCR; and (4) located at operating coal-fired power

plants selling power to the electric grid. Also included in the assessments were a number of 

inactive impoundments, i.e., impoundments not receiving CCR but still containing CCR and/or 

liquid. The Agency chose to includeincluded these inactive units in the assessment reasoning 

that these units would be as susceptible to structural failure as units currently receiving CCR, 

given that they still contained CCR and maintained an ability to impound water (i.e., the unit had 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

38

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

not been breached). The Assessment Program did not evaluate, however, incised (not having 

above ground berms or dikes) impoundments or landfills (not disposingcontaining liquid slurried 

CCR wastes). EPA chose not to assess these units because they failed to meetdid not share the 

four basic criteriacharacteristics of impoundments likely to raise concern for 

assessmentscatastrophic releases, and because the Agency was unaware of anyno known 

catastrophic structural failures were associated with these types of units. 

Prior to initiating the assessments, EPA consulted with two key dam safety organizations, 

the Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) and the Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) to better understand how these federal and state dam inspection 

programs operated and more directly, including how earthen dams and impoundments were 

assessed.

7 These groups provided the Agency with critical insight and information for inspecting 

and evaluating CCR impoundments. The Agency also reviewed various technical documents 

relating to dam safety and conducting impoundment inspections, many of which were 

recommended by these organizations. These were: (1) U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) 

2008 National Inventory of Dams (NIDS); (2) FEMA’s Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety -

Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams (April 2004); (3) FEMA’s Risk Prioritization 

Tool for Dams User Manual (March 2008); (4) MSHA’s Handbook (PH07-01); (5) MSHA’s

Coal Mine Impoundment Inspection and Plan Review Handbook (October 2007); and (6) 

MSHA’s Engineering and Design Manual: Coal Refuse Disposal Facility (May 2009); (7) 

ASDSO’s “Summary of State Dam Safety Laws and Regulations,” (2000); (8) ASDSO’s 

 

7 ASDSO identified for EPA key documents to review including Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) and Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) guidance. 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

39

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

“Owner Responsible Periodic Inspection Guidance,” (2005); (9) “Guidelines for Inspections of 

Existing Dams.” New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection – Dam Safety (January 

2008). 

In developing the criteria for conductingthat were used to conduct the assessments, a 

standard rating system was developed to classify units regardingthe units’ suitability for 

continued safe and reliable operation. EPA modeled its impoundment condition rating criteria 

on those developed by the State of New Jersey (see reference above). 

1. Conducting the Site Assessments 

In order to prioritize the assessments, a preliminary hazard potential classification 

ranking was assigned toidentified for each impoundment, based on criteria developed by the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and found generally in FEMA’sUS Army 

Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) National Inventory of Dams. (NID). EPA elected to evaluate first 

those impoundments with a high hazard potential, meaning classification, which signifies that a 

failure or mis-operation of the unit would probably result in the loss of human life. 

Upon initiation of the Assessment Program, every owner or operator of ana CCR

impoundment scheduled to be assessed was contacted by the Agency and supplied with 

information on the objectives of the assessment and the how the assessments were to be 

conducted. Assessments were subsequently conducted in rounds, consisting of groups of 20-25 

impoundments12-26 facilities per round.

8 Prior to each site assessment, to ensure uniformity 

 

8 The results of this effort are either presented on a facility by facility basis or are summarized by 

round. All of these data have been posted on the Agency website.

Formatted: Normal
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

40

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

throughout the study, a statement of work and an impoundment field checklist was developed 

and adhered to during the assessment. 

To secureensure objectivity in this program, EPA contracted with professional engineers

(PEs) in the state where the impoundment was located who were experts in the area of dam 

safety to perform the site assessments. Each individual assessment was performed by 

professional engineers qualified in the areas of geotechnical engineering, hydrology and 

hydraulics, and overall dam safety. Upon evaluation of a robust set of technical documents 

addressing dam safety and inspections as well as comprehensive discussions with key dam safety 

organizations, the Assessment Program developed a comprehensive set of factors that were to be 

used to evaluate the overall safety of CCR surface impoundments, which concluded that, among 

other important factors, the static (which included and seismic factors of safety, hydrologic and 

hydraulic capacity) and seismic factors of safety, among other factors, liquefaction potential 

analysis and a post-liquefaction stability analysis if the soils of the embankment were identified 

to be susceptible to liquefaction , and operation and maintenance protocols, e.g. instrumentation 

monitoring, inspection program, emergency response protocols were critical parameters for 

assessing the overall safety of CCR surface impoundments. 

The individual evaluations or assessments were conducted at each impoundment at each 

facility using standard, accepted engineering practices, including a visual assessment of the CCR 

surface impoundment, interviews with site personnel, a review of the history of the CCR surface 

impoundment, and a review of engineering documentation related to the design, construction, 

operation, and maintenance of the impoundments., including available technical analyses. At 

each site visit, additional documentation was collected and reviewed as available, including

descriptions, along with supporting information, of: (1) a description of the impoundment, 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

41

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

including location, size, age, design and/or alterations to the design, and the amount of residuals 

currently in the unit; (2) known, measured settlement of the impoundment embankment; (3) 

known, measured movement of the impoundment embankment; (4) observed erosion of the 

impoundment embankment; (5) seepage; (6) leakage; (7); observed cracking of the impoundment 

embankment; (8) deterioration, such as scarps, boils, or sloughs, of the impoundment 

embankment; (9); seismicity; (10) internal stressstresses; (11) functioning of foundation drains 

and relief wells; (12) stability of critical slopes adjacent to the units; and (13) regional and site 

geological conditions. If available, state and federal inspections reports were also reviewed.9 

In addition, for each assessment, the following factors were identified, to the extent 

feasible, for evaluation: (1) the presence and adequacy of spillways; (2) effects of 

overtoppinghydrologic and hydraulic capacity of the unit; (3) overall structural adequacy and 

stability of structures under all credible loading conditions; (4) through a review of static and,

seismic evaluations to determine, and liquefaction analyses with determined factors of safety; 

(54) soil, groundwater, surface water, geology, and geohydrology characteristics associated with 

the unit, including hydrological data accumulated since the impoundment was constructed or last 

inspected; (65) a history of the performance of the management unit through analysis of data 

from monitoring instruments; (7, interviews with facility personnel, and review of available 

operating records; (6) quality and adequacy of maintenance, surveillance, and methods of unit 

operations for the protection of public safety; (87) location of schools, hospitals, or other critical 

infrastructures within five miles down gradient of the impoundment and (98) whether the 

 

9

It is important to note that during the assessment, no physical drilling, coring or sampling was 

conducted, while on site; however, they did review studies whichwere reviewed that often included such 

information.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

42

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

impoundment is located within federally designated flood plains. Finally, each impoundment 

and any associated spillways were evaluated to determine whether the impoundment and the 

spillways could withstand the loading or overtopping from floodingappropriate inflow design 

flood events. 

Each CCR surface impoundment was classified with a Hazard Potential Classification 

following State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Dam Safety 

and Flood Control hazard potential ranking. Each impoundment was classified with a hazard 

potential classification of either; “High,” “Significant,” “Low,” or “Less-than-Low.” The hazard 

potential classification was a qualitative assessment of the potential adverse incremental 

consequences of a dam failure.

At the conclusion of each assessment, a report was generated and the impoundment was 

given a condition rating of either; “satisfactory,” “fair,” “poor,” or “unsatisfactory.” The 

condition ratings were based on the availability of information on the unit and evaluation of the 

previously mentioned factors as well as, including the static and, seismic, and liquefaction

factors of safety. No impoundments received an “unsatisfactory” rating. Numerous 

impoundments were, however, rated as “poor,” often for lack of appropriate technical 

documentation in the aforementioned areas. “Poor” or “fair” ratings were also an indication that 

additional effortsmeasures were needed to improve the stability of the unit. Of 559 

impoundments assessed, 241 received a condition rating of “satisfactory”,,” 166 received a 

condition rating of “fair”,” and 152 received a “poor” condition rating. 

It is important to note that the condition rating did not necessarily inferimply that the unit 

had inadequate structural integrity issues. On the contrary, in many instances a structurally 

sound impoundment may have been given a condition rating or “fair” or “poor” based on other 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

43

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

factors such as a lack of documented information on the unit. or insufficient operations and 

maintenance protocols. For example, an impoundment could be rated as “poor” if it lacked the 

appropriate technical documentation and analyses regarding structural or hydrologic and 

hydraulic analyses. EPA rated numerous units as “poor” based primarily on missing or 

absentunavailable technical analyses. 

Once the assessment was performed, a draft report was prepared. Draft reports were 

reviewed by the overseeingappropriate state agency, the utility, and by EPA.10 Once comments 

were received and incorporated, a final report was issued along with recommendations for 

additional actions to be taken by the facility (if needed). Facilities then developed action plans 

and schedules to implement the recommendations. EPA also informed facility owners and 

operators that in addition to implementing their action plans, they need to adopt an ongoing, 

routine program to assess each surface impoundment was needed these units and to take 

necessary corrective measures is needed to ensure the units’ continued structural integrity. The 

ongoing responsibility for this lies first with each facility’s owner and operator.

2. Assessment Program Findings 

Upon completion of the Assessment Program, a review was undertaken to ascertain the 

key findings or lessons learned from the effort. While this review is not yet final, our 

preliminary These key findings include: included: (1) the owners or operators of the majority of 

 

10 As noted many times in this notice, states play a critical role in implementing and 

overseeing these units. To assist states in this effort, EPA has, in the majority of cases directly 

provided the states with all of the information from our assessments. The Assessment Program 

reports may be accessed at;:

http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/index.htm Formatted: Normal, Space Before: 15.6 pt, Don't add

space between paragraphs of the same style
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

44

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

CCR surface impoundments are subject to currently conduct some form of daily, weekly or 

annual periodic inspection; (2) most utilities supplemented oldwere readily able to supplement 

outdated or missing information with new or updated evaluations of their impoundments after 

the initialon-site portion of EPA’s assessment was conducted; (3) as a result ofin response to the 

assessment findingsreport recommendations, facilities readily typically willingly conducted 

remedial actions when requested by EPA; (4) interaction with the states and the utilities assured 

accuracy in the final assessment reports; (5) placing site assessment materials on an internet site 

assured that the public, states, and utilities had full access to information about the design and 

operation of CCR impoundments and did not present either homeland security or other 

confidentiality concerns; (6) static and, seismic evaluations, and liquefaction analyses did not 

pose a significant technical or cost burden on facilities since many already routinely conducted 

these types of evaluations; (7) state regulatory bodies viewed the assessments as a means to 

further support existing inspectionassessment programs; and (8) the use of Professional 

EngineersPEs to stampcertify all final reports assuredensured that the assessments metreflected 

the PE’s best professional engineer judgments.

3. Assessment Program’s Support for the Structural Integrity Requirements of the Rule

TheAs noted, the findings from EPA’s Assessment Program provide technical and factual 

support for many of the final requirements for structural stability being promulgated in this rule

are supported by the findings from EPA’s Assessment Program.. A more detailed discussion of 

structural stability requirementsseveral of the most significant of these is presented below:. 

Additional discussion of the relevance of these findings is included throughout Unit VI.

a. Periodic Inspections
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

45

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Consistent with the findings from the assessments and with EPA’s recommendations to 

facilities as part of the Assessment Program, this rule requires that all CCR surface 

impoundments be inspected at intervals not exceeding seven days for any appearances of actual 

or potential structural weakness and other conditions whichthat are disrupting or have the 

potential to disrupt the operation or safety of the CCR surface impoundment. Monitoring of 

instrumentation is also required to be conducted at intervals not exceeding 30 days. The 

Assessment Program found that virtually all utility companies conduct some sort of periodic 

inspection or monitoring at CCR surface impoundments, although practices varied among 

facilities and between states. The Assessment Program also found that while many facilities

were conducting regularly scheduled inspections, some did not adequately document the results 

of these inspections. 

CCR surface impoundments exceeding a specified size threshold, i.e., height of five feet 

or more and capacity of 20 acre-feet or more or a height of 20 feet or more, are required to 

perform annual inspections as well as an assessmentthree assessments of structural stability and 

factors of safety quinquennially, (i.e., every five years) that include a structural stability 

assessment of specified parameters, a factor of safety assessment, and a hazard potential 

assessment. Annual inspections are broader in scope than weekly inspections and are conducted 

to ensure that the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the CCR unit is consistent 

with recognized and generally accepted good engineering standards. Annual inspections must 

include a review of available information regarding the status and condition of the unit and a 

visual inspection to identify signs of distress or malfunction of the unit and appurtenant 

structures. The annual inspections must be conducted by a qualified professional engineer.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

46

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The Assessment Program also reviewed how detailed structural stability reviews/ and 

inspections were recommended to be conducted by FEMA and, MSHA, and the USACE 

guidelines and found that such inspections often tookwere recommended to take place every 

three to five years. Review of state dam safety programs demonstrated that similar detailed 

inspections were also conducted on a three -to -five year cycle. Therefore, in the final rule, EPA 

is requiring that structural integrity assessments, including the calculation of factors of safety 

under various loading conditions, be conducted within six months of publication of the rule, and

be repeated every five years. The five year review timeframe appears reasonable since is based 

on documentation showing that the validityfactual bases for such reviews appears to be factual 

are only sound for that time period, and is consistent with federal dam safety guidance, 

specifically FEMA. FEMA recommends in Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety that dams be 

formally assessed at a frequency not to exceed five years. by a qualified professional engineer.

EPA has adopted this timeframe to maintain consistency with FEMA guidance. The inspection

and assessment requirements in this rule will ensure that there is aare consistent and uniform 

inspection and assessment practices across states and facilities and will assureensure that 

problems related to their stability will be promptly identified and remediated as necessary. 

b. Static and, Seismic, and Liquefaction Factors of Safety 

(1) Static Factors of Safety. 

Factor of safety (FOS) means the ratio of the forces tending to resist the failure of a 

structure, as compared to the forces tending to cause such failure as determined by accepted 

engineering practice. This analysis is used to determine whether a CCR surface impoundment’s 

dikes are engineered to withstand the specific loading conditions whichthat can be reasonably 

anticipated to occur during the lifetime of the unit without failure of the dike, if accepted good 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

47

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

engineering practices are employed. Static factors of safety refer to the factors of safety (FOS) 

under static loading conditions whichthat can reasonably be anticipated to occur during the 

lifetime of the unit. Static loading conditions are unique from other loading conditions (e.g., 

seismic, liquefaction) in that static loading conditions are those which are in equilibrium, 

meaning the load is at rest or is applied with constant velocity. 

EPA reviewed a series of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) guidance documents 

addressing how to determine static FOS. These documents included, but were not limited to, 

Engineer Manual EM 1110-2-1902“Slope Stability” (October 2003), and EM 1110-2-1902 

“Stability of Earth and Rock-Fill Dams.” The Agency also assessed the 

recommendations/guidance on how to conduct static analysis contained in the Engineering and 

Design Manual for Coal Refuse Disposal Facilities, originally published by the Mining 

Enforcement and Safety Administration (MESA) in 1975 and updated for MSHA in May 2009, 

and in particular Chapter 6, “Geotechnical Exploration, Material Testing, Engineering Analysis 

and Design.” Based on recommendations from ASDSO, among others, the Agency chose to 

utilizeadopted the USACE guidance for determiningto determine static FOS, both in thatthe 

Assessment Program and in this rulemaking, as these manuals are recognized throughout 

industry as the standard routinely used in field assessment of structural integrity. 

In EPA’s Assessment Program all CCR units were assessed to determine their static FOS. 

Each assessment classified eacha CCR unit as having sufficient structural stability under static 

loading conditions if analysis of critical sections of embankments demonstrated FOS meeting or 

exceeding values defined by USACE for static specific loading conditions. that met or exceeded 

the values defined by USACE for static specific loading conditions. EPA found that most CCR 

surface impoundments exhibited sufficient calculated factors of safety under static loading 

Formatted: Font color: Custom Color(RGB(33,33,33))

Formatted: Pattern: Clear (White)

Formatted: Font color: Custom Color(RGB(33,33,33))
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

48

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

conditions. EPA found that in those CCR units which insufficient factors of safety against failure 

due to static loading were calculated, the owner or operator was able to implement actions which 

increased the factors of safety under static loading conditions to acceptable levels. Oftentimes, 

these implemented actions were of a simple nature, such as installing riprap (rock armoring the 

slopes) or buttressing the slopes.

Similarly, this rule adopts the static factors of safety from USACE Engineer Manual EM 

1110-2-1902 “Slope Stability,” with the exception of the rapid drawdown loading condition,11

which was determined not to be relevant to CCR surface impoundments. EPA found the factors 

of safety identified by EM 1110-2-1902, specifically the Maximum Storage pool, Maximum 

Surcharge pool, and End-Of-Construction loading conditions, provided consistent, achievable 

levels of safety in CCR surface impoundment dikes which were comprehensive in the scope of 

assessing, comprehensively assessed static stability, and provided sufficient consideration of 

compounding stresses on dikes (e.g., factors of safety values greater than 1.00 to account for 

unanticipated loadings acting in conjunction or misidentified strength of materials). With respect 

 

11 Rapid (or sudden) drawdown is a condition in earthen dikes that may develop when the embankment 

becomes saturated through seepage during a high pool elevation in the reservoir. Rapid drawdown 

becomes a threat to the dike when the reservoir pool is drawn down or lowered at a rate significantly 

higher than the excess poor water pressure within the dike can dissipate. Typically, rapid drawdown 

scenarios are considered for dikes with reservoirs used for water supply and management or agricultural 

supply. In these scenarios, a high pool elevation is maintained in the reservoir in storage months. 

Subsequently, the water supply is drawn on in months where there is a demand for the reservoirs contents. 

This drawing down of the pool can present issues for the structural integrity of the unit. However, the 

management of CCR surface impoundments differs from that of conventional water supply reservoirs. 

CCR surface impoundments are never used for water supply, and the only instance in which EPA 

determined through its Assessment Program that rapid drawdown loading conditions would be relevant 

to CCR surface impoundments was in the event that the CCR surface impoundment had already released 

the contents of the impoundment through a breach of the dike or emergency discharge. Since the threat of 

release of CCR and the reservoir has already been realized, any failure due to rapid drawdown of the 

embankment is no longer critical to the overall containment of the now-released contents of the CCR unit.

Formatted: Font: Bold, Font color: Custom

Color(RGB(33,33,33))

Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Bold, Font color: Custom

Color(RGB(33,33,33))
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

49

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

to rapid (or sudden) drawdown, rapid drawdown is a condition in earthen dikes that may develop 

when the embankment becomes saturated through seepage during a high pool elevation in the 

Reservoir. Rapid drawdown becomes a threat to the dike when the reservoir pool is drawn down 

or lowered at a rate significantly higher than the excess poor water pressure within the dike can 

dissipate. Typically, rapid drawdown scenarios are considered for dikes with reservoirs used for 

water supply and management or agricultural supply. In these scenarios, a high pool elevation is 

maintained in the reservoir in storage months. Subsequently, the water supply is drawn on in 

months where there is a demand for the reservoirs contents. This drawing down of the pool 

presents issues regarding rapid drawdown. However, the management of CCR surface 

impoundments differs from that of conventional water supply reservoirs. CCR surface 

impoundments are never used for water supply, and the only instance in which EPA determined 

through its Assessment Program that rapid drawdown loading conditions would be relevant to

CCR surface impoundments was in the event that the CCR surface impoundment had already 

released the contents of the impoundment through a breach of the dike or emergency discharge. 

Subsequently, in such a scenario, the threat of release of CCR and the reservoir has already been 

realized, and the failure due to rapid drawdown of the embankment has been rendered not critical 

to the overall containment of the now-released contents of the CCR unit.

(2) Seismic Factor of Safety. 

Seismic FOS means the FOS determined using analysis under earthquake conditions for a 

seismic loading event, based on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) seismic hazard maps for 

seismic events with a specified return period for the location where the CCR surface 

impoundment is located. The seismic FOS analysis is used to determine whether a dam would 

remain stable during an earthquake or other seismic event. The Agency relied on two sources to 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

50

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

evaluate the appropriate methods to determine if a dam would remain stable during a seismic 

event. This includes the USACE guidance Engineer Circular 1110-2-6061: Safety of DamsPolicy and Procedures 2204, Engineer Circular 1110-2-6000: Selection of Design Earthquakes 

and Associated Ground Motions 2008, and Engineer Circular 1110-2-6001: Dynamic Stability of 

Embankment Dams 2004). EPA also reviewed MSHA’s 2009 Engineering and Design Manual 

for Coal Refuse Disposal Facilities, in particular Chapter 7, “Seismic Design: Stability and 

Deformation Analyses.” These documents are viewed by ASDSO, FEMA and MSHA as 

generally accepted guidance on how to conduct seismic stability analyses.

As noted earlier, in performing the assessments, EPA directed its engineering contractors 

to assess seismic stability of CCR impoundments during and following a seismic event with 2 

Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 years (i.e. probable earthquake within approximately

2,500 years) and a Horizontal Spectral Response Acceleration for 1.0-Second Period (5 Percent 

of Critical Damping). EPA relied onselected this return period in determination offor 

determining the Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE) by first considering the operating life 

anticipated for CCR surface impoundments. EPA has identified the operating life of CCR surface 

impoundments to be approximatelyrange between 40-80 years. EPA then consulted the United 

States Geological Survey and ASDSO to determine what a conservative probability that should 

be used in the assessments.12 To reduce the likelihood of a CCR unit failing during a seismic 

event, the Agency assessed various return periods and chose a conservative 2500 year return 

period. The use of this “return” period was chosen because it is conservative, reflects the fact 

 

12 Wieland, M., “Seismic Design and Performance Criteria for Large Storage Dams”, Proc. 15th World 

Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, Sep. 24-28, 2012.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

51

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

that many CCR impoundments are located in active seismic zones, and the use of a conservative 

“return” period ensures that if a unit meets the seismic FOS it is unlikely to fail under most 

seismic events. By evaluating seismic stability under a conservative return period and requiring 

the unit to maintain structural stability under that design seismic event, the likelihood of a 

seismic event occurring at the location of the CCR surface impoundment in which the strength of 

the unit is exceeded and the unit fails is considerably diminished. Additionally, the unit can 

reasonably be anticipated to withstand seismic events of a more frequent return period (i.e., 

smaller magnitude). 

The Agency assessed CCR impoundments and classified them as having seismic stability 

if modeling results of critical failure surfaces were calculated to have FOS greater than 1.0 under 

the specified seismic loading condition. The Assessment Program found that most CCR 

impoundments did meet the required seismic FOS. This rule also adopts this seismic stability 

FOS under the 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years event. 

As discussed previously, theThe Assessment Program found that many CCR 

impoundments had not undergone static or seismic analyses in sufficient detail that an 

independent professional engineer could assert that they were stable. The assessments gave 

impoundments a condition rating of “poor” if the utility was unable to provide static and seismic 

studies of their units conducted in a fashion which represented acceptable professional 

engineering practice. As the Assessment Program advanced, many utilities independently 

conducted new or updated static and seismic analyses of CCR surface impoundments in 

anticipation of their facilities being assessed. By the end of the program, virtually all utility 

companiesfacilities had conducted or were in the process of conducting static and seismic 

analyses. While some utilities noted concern over the costs of conducting additional static or 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

52

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

seismic stability studies, none found that completing these studies presented any significant 

engineering challenges. 

(3) Liquefaction Factors of Safety.

Liquefaction FOS means the factor of safety determined using analysis under liquefaction 

conditions. Liquefaction is a phenomenon which typically occurs in loose, saturated or partiallysaturated soils in which the effective stress of the soils reduces to completezero, corresponding to 

a total loss of shear strength of the soil. The most common occurrence of liquefaction is in loose 

soils, typically sands. The liquefaction FOS determination in the final rule is used to determine if 

a CCR unit would remain stable if the soils of the embankment of the CCR unit were to 

experience liquefaction. EPA relied primarily on one source to evaluate the appropriate methods 

to determine if a dam would remain stable under liquefaction conditions. This source was “Soil 

Liquefaction during Earthquakes,” Idriss and Boulanger, Earthquake Engineering Research 

Institute, 200813. EPA also reviewed several technical resources regarding soil liquefaction, 

including “Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes,” Seed and Idriss, 1982,14

“Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary report from the 1996 and 1998 NCEER/NSF 

Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,” Youd and Idriss, 2001,15 and 

Seismic Design Guidance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facilities, US EPA, Office of 

 

13 https://www.eeri.org/products-page/monographs/soil-liquefaction-during-earthquakes-3/

14 Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., 1982, "Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes,"

Monograph No. 5, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California, pp. 134.

15 Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M., 2001, “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary report from the 1996 and

1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils.” Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

53

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Research and Development, 1995.16 These documents are viewed as generally accepted guidance 

on how to conduct liquefaction potential analyses and residual strength analyses under postliquefaction conditions. 

As noted earlier, in performing the assessments, EPA directed its engineering contractors 

to assess the liquefaction potential of soils which compose the embankments of the CCR unit to 

determine if the soils present in the embankment were of the soil classification and configuration 

that was susceptible to liquefaction. This determination was based on evidence available through 

interviews with facility personnel, construction documentation, or representative soil sampling, 

such as information provided by corings and borings. Identical to the requirements for seismic 

factor of safety calculation, EPA selected a return period for a seismic event for analysis of 

liquefaction potential, under a seismic loading which may induce liquefaction in embankments, 

of a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. The discussion of the selection of this return 

period can be found in the “Seismic Factor of Safety” section above.

The Agency assessed CCR impoundments and classified them. as having stability under 

liquefaction conditions if representative soil sampling, anecdotal evidence from interviews with 

facility personnel, or construction documentation indicated that there was no susceptibility to 

liquefaction of the embankment soils or if modeling or analysis in critical failure planes in the 

embankment expected to be susceptible to liquefaction were calculated to have a FOS greater 

than 1.00 under post-liquefaction conditions. The Assessment Program found that most CCR 

surface impoundments did not contain soils in detrimental volumes or configurations in the 

 

16 United States EPA, Office of Research and Development, 1995, EPA/600/R-95/051, RCRA Subtitle D

(258) Seismic Design Guidance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facilities. Available as of the Writing 

of this policy at www.epa.gov/clhtml/pubtitle.html on the U.S. EPA website.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

54

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

embankment that would indicate susceptibility to liquefaction. However, the assessment effort 

found that in embankments with a presence of soils susceptible to liquefaction, most CCR 

surface impoundments did not meet the required liquefaction FOS.

The Assessment Program found that many CCR surface impoundments had not 

undergone liquefaction potential analyses or post-liquefaction residual strength analyses in those 

instances in which liquefaction potential was identified (i.e., soils subject to liquefaction were 

present). The assessments gave impoundments a condition rating of “poor” if there was no 

information available to characterize the soils of the embankment, and a condition rating of 

“poor” or “fair” if post-liquefaction residual strength analysis of soils previously identified as 

being susceptible to liquefaction had not been available, with the rating dependent on the 

determined severity of the liquefaction potential in the embankment. Impoundments with 

calculated liquefaction factors of safety which did not meet or exceed 1.00 were given a 

condition rating of “poor.” As the Assessment Program advanced, many utilities independently 

conducted new or updated liquefaction potential analyses or residual strength analyses of CCR 

surface impoundments in anticipation of their facilities being assessed. By the end of the 

program, virtually all facilities had conducted or were in the process of conducting liquefaction 

potential analyses or residual strength analyses. While some utilities noted concern over the 

costs of conducting additional liquefaction potential or residual strength studies, none found that 

completing these studies presented any significant engineering challenges. 

Based on its experience in the Assessment Program and subsequent review of numerous 

technical resources, EPA determined that a post-liquefaction residual strength factor of safety in 

the embankment of 1.00 is not sufficient. Liquefaction potential analysis and post-liquefaction 

residual strength analysis involves a larger degree of uncertainties, e.g., liquefiable stratum 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

55

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

configuration, in assumptions and analysis which must be accounted for with a factor of safety 

above 1.00. The final rule therefore requires CCR surface impoundments which are constructed 

of soils determined to be susceptible to liquefaction to meet or exceed a liquefaction factor of 

safety of 1.20. EPA has determined that 1.20 is an appropriate liquefaction factor of safety based 

on several technical guidances and memos, including Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: 

Earthquake Analyses and Design of Dams, Document 65, FEMA May 2005, which states that 

“post-liquefaction factors of safety are generally required to be a minimum of 1.2 to 1.3.” 17, 18, 19, 

20, 21

c. Impoundment Height and Relationship to Regulatory Requirements

During the Assessment Program, the Agency reviewed the stability issues related to 

various heights of impoundments. The Assessment Program concluded that impoundments with 

heights less than five feet or those retaining less than 20 acre feet were unlikely to cause 

significant environmental or economic loss should they undergo a catastrophic failure. The 

Agency’s review of MSHA and FEMA guidancesguidance also noted that “small” units were 

unlikely to cause significant losses should they fail. Based on the Agency’s 

knowledgeexperience and positions taken by FEMA and MSHAMSHA’s guidance, the Agency 

has concluded that there is a substantial benefit in having impoundments which exceed a 

 

17 US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), “Water Operation and Maintenance Bulletin No. 222,” Denver, 

Colorado, December 2007.

18 http://www.oregon.gov/odot/hwy/bridge/docs/bddm/pdfs/psha.pdf

19 Canadian Dam Association. Canadian Dam Safety Guidelines, 2007, 88 pp.

20 Sonmez, H., 2003. Modification of the liquefaction potential index and liquefaction susceptibility 

mapping for a liquefaction-prone area (Inegol, Turkey), Env. Geology, (44): 862-871.

21 Seed, R.B., Cetin, O.K., Moss, R.E.S., Kammerer, A.M., Wu, J., Pestana, J.M., Riemer, M.F., Sancio, 

R.B., Bray, J.D., Kayen, R.E., Faris, A., 2003. Recent advances in soil liquefaction engineering: a unified 

and consistent framework, 26th annual ASCE L.A. Geot. Spring Sem., Long Beach, California, April 30, 

71 pp.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

56

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

specified size threshold, i.e., height of five feet or more and capacity of 20 acre-feet or more or a 

height of 20 feet or more determine both their static and, seismic, and liquefaction FOS on a 

regular basis. The analyses and experience gained in conducting the Assessment Program 

indicates that a catastrophic failure of a CCR surface impoundment is unlikely to occur so long 

as the factors of safety are maintained or exceeded throughout the unit’s operating life. EPA has 

based thisThis conclusion onis also consistent with relevant guidance and regulationregulations

which doesdo not require the consideration ofsuch evaluations for units below a certain size 

threshold. 

d. Hazard Potential Ratings

Each impoundment assessed in the Assessment Program was given a Hazard Potential 

Classification rating of either Less-than-Low, Low, Significant, and High. Previous 

classifications were reviewed and amended as necessary to reflect guidance 

developmentdeveloped for the Assessment Program. The hazard potential ratings refer to the 

potential for loss of life or damage if there is a dam failure. The ratings do not refer to the

condition or structural stability of the dam. Four hazard potential classifications were used in 

assessing the impoundments in the Assessment Program:

High Hazard Potential - Dams assigned the high hazard potential classification are 

those where failure or mis-operation will probably cause loss of human life.

Significant Hazard Potential - Dams assigned the significant hazard potential 

classification are those dams where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of human 

life, but can cause economic loss, environment damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or impact 

other concerns. Significant hazard potential classification dams are often located in 

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line

spacing: Double

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line

spacing: Double
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

57

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

predominantly rural or agricultural areas, but could be located in areas with population and 

significant infrastructure.

Low Hazard Potential - Dams assigned the low hazard potential classification are those 

where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of human life and low economic and/or 

environmental losses. Losses are principally limited to the owner’s property.

Less Than Low Hazard Potential - Dams which do not pose high, significant, or low 

hazard potential..

There is a substantial benefit in having owners or operators of all CCR impoundments 

determine the hazard potential classification of their units. The Assessment Program found that 

many CCR surface impoundments had not been given a hazard potential classification and 

consequently, their potential threat to human health and the environment if a failure were to

occur was not clearly identified, nor had response plans been developed to respond to any 

catastrophic failure. Moreover, these classifications should be updated over time, particularly to 

account for changes in an area over time, such as population growth, construction of key 

infrastructure, or changes to the impoundment’s size or operation. The Assessment Program also 

found that some states do not classify CCR impoundments as “dams” and therefore those units 

may not be required to determine their hazard potential classification or otherwise evaluate the 

potential effects of a catastrophic failure. Based onConsistent with the guidance from ASDSO, 

FEMA, and New Jersey guidances, this rule requires that all diked CCR impoundments 

determine their hazard potential classification according to the definitions set out in today’s 

Formatted: Strong

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line

spacing: Double

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Line

spacing: Double

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

58

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

regulation. For those units with a hazard potential classification of Significant or High, the owner 

or operator of such impoundments is also required to develop an Emergency Action Plan to 

address the higher potential impacts of a potential failure. 

e. Condition Ratings

While the rule does require facilities to evaluate the same engineering factors that went 

into developing these ratings, the rule does not require that each impoundment be given a 

condition rating. After evaluation of the use of these ratings, the Agency determined that 

suchthe rating may have relied too heavily on subjective factors. For that reason, this rule 

requires that the qualified professional engineer certify, based on quantitative determinations,

that an impoundment meets the specifiedrequirements for FOS and hydraulic and hydrologic 

capacity. EPA has determined that thisThis approach is less subjective and allows the 

professional engineer to make quantifiable certifications.

 

IV. Bevill Regulatory Determination Relating to CCR from Electric Utilities and 

Independent Power Producers

As discussed in the preceding sections, in the proposed rule EPA reopened its August 

1993 and May 2000 Regulatory Determinations regarding CCRsCCR generated at electric 

utilities and independent power producers, to reevaluate whether regulation of CCRsCCR under 

RCRA subtitle C is necessary in light of subsequent information. EPA explained that this was 

based on several relatively recent developments, such as a newly completed quantitative risk 

assessment that concluded that the disposal of CCR in unlined waste management units posed 

substantial risks, with upper end risk estimates ranging from 10-2– 10-4. Citing to the recent 

structural failures of surface impoundments, the proposed rule also noted that these wastes have 

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, Add space between

paragraphs of the same style
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

59

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

caused greater damage to human health and the environment than EPA originally estimated. 

Finally, EPA explained that recently collected information regarding the existing state regulatory 

programs had called into question whether those programs, in the absence of national minimum 

standards specific to these wastes, had sufficiently improved to address the gaps originally 

identified in the May 2000 Regulatory Determination. EPA ultimately concluded that federal 

regulation of this material was necessary, but did not reach any conclusion as to whether 

regulation under subtitle D would be sufficient or whether regulatory under subtitle C would be 

necessary to adequately address the risks. 

Of the over 450,000 comments received on the proposed rule, the vast majority focused 

on whether the Bevill exemption should be retained, and the corresponding question of whether 

CCR regulations should be established under RCRA subtitle C or subtitle D. In terms of the 

sheer numbers, the majority of commenters supported a decision to revoke the Bevill exemption 

and to regulate CCRsCCR under a subtitle C rule. These commenters, largely individual 

members of the public and environmental groups, generally argued that the Bevill exemption 

should be revoked because state programs have failed to adequately regulate the disposal of 

CCRsCCR and because the risks associated with the management of these wastes are significant. 

In support of both points, these commenters pointpointed to the fact that the number of damage 

cases that have been discovered has increased substantially since the original 2000 Regulatory 

Determination, and have continued to grow since publication of the proposed rule in 2009. 

By contrast, state organizations, individual states, and industry groups (electric utilities, 

recycling firms, trade associations), largely favored a subtitle D rule. Overall, these commenters 

raised concern about the costs of the subtitle C regime, arguing that the subtitle C requirements 

were more stringent than necessary to address the risks from CCR disposal. Commenters also 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

60

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

raised concern that regulation of these wastes under subtitle C would negatively affect the 

beneficial use of these materials, arguing that the stigma associated with regulating the disposal 

of CCR as a hazardous waste would “cripple” the current beneficial reuse market. Many of these 

commenters also argued that EPA lacks the legal authority to regulate these wastes under subtitle

C on a variety of grounds, including claims that EPA entirely lacks the authority to revisit its 

Bevill Regulatory Determination, and that EPA had failed to comply with statutory procedures in 

doing so.

A. Deferral of a Final Decision on the Bevill Regulatory Determination for CCRsCCR

Destined for Disposal

In determining whether the Bevill exemption should be retained for CCRsCCR, EPA 

must evaluate and weigh eight factors that were enumerated in section 8002(n) of RCRA. 42 

U.S.C. § 6921(b)(3)(C). The eight factors are: (1) the source and volumes of CCR generated per 

year; (2) present disposal and utilization practices; (3) potential danger, if any, to human health 

or the environment from the disposal and reuse of CCR; (4) documented cases in which danger 

to human health or the environment from surface runoff or leachate has been proved; (5) 

alternatives to current disposal methods; (6) the cost of such alternative disposal methods; (7) 

the impact of those alternatives on the use of coal and other natural resources; and (8) the current 

and potential utilization of CCRs. CCR. 42 U.S.C. §.§ 6982(n). 

EPA addressed each of these study factors in the 1988 and 1999 Reports to Congress, and 

in reaching our decisions in the August 1993 and the May 2000 Regulatory Determinations to 

maintain the Bevill exemption for CCRs. CCR. 58 FR 42466 (August 9, 1993); 65 FR 32214 

(May 22, 2000). Consequently, in considering whether to retain or to reverse the August 1993 

and May 2000these Regulatory Determinations regarding the Bevill exemption of CCRsfor CCR

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

61

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

destined for disposal, EPA reexamined the RCRA section 8002(n) study factors against all of the 

available data, which included both the data that formed the basis for the May 2000 Regulatory 

Determination, as well as and the most recent data available. (See 75 FR at 35150-35156..)

As discussed at length in the proposed rule, three of these factors weighed the most 

heavily in the Agency’s decision to reconsider its previous Regulatory Determinations. (See 75 

FR at 35133 and 35156-35158. .) The first of these related to the extent of the risks posed by the 

current management of these wastes. Since the 2000 Regulatory Determination, EPA had 

completed a quantitative risk assessment that estimated significant risks to human health and the 

environment. EPA’s 2010 CCR risk assessment estimated the cancer risk from arsenic that 

leaches into groundwater from CCRsCCR managed in units without composite liners to exceed 

EPA’s typical risk thresholds of 10-4to 10-6. For example, depending on various assumptions 

about disposal practices (e.g., whether CCRs areCCR is co-disposed with coal refuse), 

groundwater interception and arsenic speciation, the 90th percentile risks from unlined surface 

impoundments ranged from 2×10-2to 1×10-4. The risks from clay lined surface impoundments 

ranged from 7×10-3to 4×10-5. Similarly, estimated risks from unlined landfills ranged from 

5×10-4to 3×10-6, and from 2×10-4to 5×10-9for clay-lined landfills. EPA’s risk assessment also 

estimated Hazard Quotients (HQs)

22 above 1 for other metals, including selenium and lead in 

unlined and clay-lined units. However, a number of technical questions were raised regarding 

this quantitative risk assessment that called into question the accuracy of these risk estimates. 

A second and equally significant consideration related to how effectively state regulatory 

programs address the risks associated with the improper management of these wastes. The 

 

22 For more information on HQs please see Unit X. Risk Assessment of this preamble.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

62

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

existing reports on state regulatory programs had called into question whether the trend in 

improving state regulatory regimes that EPA identified in May 2000 had materialized to the 

degree anticipated in the Regulatory Determination. EPA noted concern about the lack of 

substantial details regarding the full extent of state regulatory authority over the disposal of these 

materials, and the manner in which states have, in practice, implemented this oversight. 

The final consideration, which is tightly related to the first two, was the recent 

information documenting continued instances involving the contamination of ground or surface 

water from the management of these wastes. Since the 2000 Regulatory Determination, EPA 

had gathered or received information on 67 “proven or potential” cases involving damage to (i.e., 

contamination of) ground and surface water, and to human health and the environment from 

improper management of CCRsCCR in landfills and surface impoundments. These also 

included cases involving the structural failure of surface impoundments and the catastrophic 

release of CCRsCCR.

For each of these key areas, EPA identified a number of issues on which the absence of 

critical information prevented the Agency from reaching an initial decision on whether to revise 

the Bevill Determination. Some of these issues or uncertainties werehave been resolved during

the development of the final rule, either as a result of information received from commenters or 

through additional information and analyses EPA obtained or developed, which were held out for 

comment in subsequent Notices of Data Availability (NODAs).. See 75 FR 35128 (October 21, 

2010) and 78 FR 46940 (August 2, 2013). However, as discussed in more detail below, critical 

information necessary to a final Regulatory Determination is still lacking in two of these three 

areas. This information bears directly on the extent and magnitude of the risks over the course of 

the next several years, and the degree to which those risks can be managed sufficiently under 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

63

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

each of the two regulatory structures available to the Agency. In the absence of this information, 

EPA is unable to reach a conclusion on the issue that is central to a Bevill Detemination: 

Determination: whether the risks presented by management of CCR waste streams can only be 

adequately mitigated through regulation under RCRA subtitle C. As a consequence, EPA is 

deferring a final Regulatory Determination for these wastes until the Agency is able to obtain the 

necessary information. .

23

Nevertheless, the record is clear that current management of these wastes can present, 

and in many cases has presented, significant risks to human health and the environment. 

Although EPA is not yet prepared tocannot reach conclusions as the full extent or magnitude of 

those risks over the long term, the current level of risk clearly warrants the issuance of 

Federalfederal standards to ensure consistent management practices and a national minimum 

level of safety. 

In the following sections, EPA describes the information that was obtained over the 

course of the rulemaking relating to each area of concern, and the extent to which the new 

information addressed the issue. 

1. Risks Posed by Current Management of CCR and Potential Danger to Human 

Health from the Disposal of CCR/ Risks Posed by Current Management of CCRs

In the proposed rule, EPA specifically noted that several uncertainties remained in the 

 

23 Because EPA is deferring its final Bevill Determination, EPA has not responded to comments that 

pertain exclusively to that issue. However EPA has responded to significant comments that relate to 

topics that are otherwise relevant to the final subtitle D regulation. For example, because EPA is relying 

on the damage cases to support certain aspects of the technical requirements, EPA has responded to 

comments relating to the accuracy of the facts involved in the damage cases. EPA has not, however, 

responded to many comments on state programs because the Agency has made no final conclusions on 

the adequacy of those programs and is not relying on state programs to support any of the final rule’s 

provisions. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

64

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Agency’s quantitative risk analysis of the current management of CCR. Chief among these 

uncertainties was the evolving character and composition of CCRsCCR due to electric utility 

upgrades and retrofits of multi-pollutant controls needed to comply with the emerging Clean Air 

Act (CAA) requirements, which could present new or otherwise unforeseen contaminant issues 

(e.g., addition of calcium bromide to coal prior to combustion increasing mercury capture; use of 

selective catalytic reduction for post-NOX controls forming hexavalent chromium). As EPA 

explained, changes to fly ash and other CCRs aretypes of CCR is expected to occur as a result of 

increased use and application of advanced air pollution control technologies in coal-fired power 

plants. These technologies include flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems for SO2 control, 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems for NOX control, and activated carbon injection 

(ACI) systems for mercury control. These technologies are being installed or are expected to be 

installed in response to federal regulations, state regulations, legal consent decrees, and voluntary 

actions taken by industry to adopt more stringent air pollution controls. Use of these more 

advanced air pollution control technologies reduces air emissions of metals and other pollutants 

in the flue gas of a coal-fired power plant by capturing and transferring the pollutants to the fly 

ash and other air pollution control residues. Previous EPA studies of whether increased pollutant 

content would increase the risks correspondingly were inconclusive. For example, EPA 

evaluated the environmental fate of metals that are captured in CCR through use of enhanced air 

pollution controls, by characterizing the leaching behavior of 73 air pollution control residues,

using the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) methodology. Materials 

were tested over the pH conditions and liquid – solid ratios expected during management via 

land disposal or beneficial use. Leachate concentrations for most metals were highly variable 

over a range of coal type, facility configurations, and air pollution control residues. In addition, 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

65

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

the data showed significantly different leaching behavior for similar residue types and facility 

configurations. Overall, the variability in leaching of the metals in the CCR was greater than the 

variability in totals concentrations by several orders of magnitude, suggesting that total pollutant 

content may not be predictive of leaching behavior, and consequently the risks.24

The Agency received no data from commenters that would aid in resolving this 

uncertainty. To try to establish some parameters around the uncertainty, EPA attempted to 

develop estimates of the extent to which this issue could meaningfully affect the risks. 

As an initial step, EPA focused on mercury pollution controls, as mercury levels in these 

wastes was an issue of particular concern in the public comments. It has been established that 

mercury pollution controls can affect both the mercury content and the general leaching behavior 

of ash (US EPA 2006, 2008, 2009). Using the limited data available, EPA attempted to evaluate 

the extent to which mercury controlled wastes could ultimately affect the overall risk associated 

with disposal of CCRsCCR. 

EPA conducted a sensitivity analysis that filtered the full 2014 risk assessment results for 

the subset of fly ash samples generated by facilities that have currently installed ACI systems. 

The samples were collected from 5five different facilities with the that were either installing or 

evaluating an ACI system turned onfor increasing mercury capture. At each facility, samples 

were collected both before and off. after the installation of an ACI system. Ultimately the results 

were inconclusive, likely because of the small sample size, and EPA can draw no conclusions 

about the exact effects of ACI systems on the risks from CCR disposal. Nevertheless, the 

 

24 Thorneloe, S, Kosson,D., Sanchez, F., Garrabrants, A.C., and Helms, G., Evaluating the Fate of Metals 

in Air Pollution Control Residues from Coal-Fired Power Plants, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 7351–

7356.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

66

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

analysis provided some useful information. Capturing and transferring pollutants from air 

emission to the fly ash and other air pollution control residues would normally be expected to 

increase the risks associated with disposal of these wastes. EPA’s analyses, however, showed 

only a marginal difference in risks for ash generated with or without the use of an ACI system, 

and in some instances the risks decreased slightly with the addition of activated carbon. The 

significance of these results should not be overstated--the observed decreases were not consistent 

and were thought to be an artifact of the relatively small number of model iterations. It is also 

important to remember that these results provide no information about the potential effects from 

the installation of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems for SO2 control, or selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) systems for NOX control, any of which could also significantly affect the 

characteristics of the wastes. But these results also suggest that EPA should be cautious about 

assuming that the risks will necessarily increase as a result of the imposition of additional air 

pollution controls. 

Other uncertainties in the risk assessment developed for the proposal related to the extent 

to which some sampled data with high concentrations used in the risk assessment accurately 

reflect coal ash leaching from landfills or surface impoundments. For example, as explained 

earlier in the preambleproposed rule, some data reflected pore water taken in the upper section of 

a surface impoundment where coal refuse was placed. There were acid generating conditions and 

high concentrations of arsenic, but the data demonstrated that the underlying coal ash neutralized 

the acid conditions and greatly reduced the arsenic which leached from the bottom of the 

impoundment. EPA also noted that much of the pore water samples and leachate data were 

several years old, and questions had been raised whether these data accurately reflected current 

management practices. Finally, EPA noted that recent research indicatesindicated that traditional 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

67

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

leach procedures (e.g., TCLP and SPLP) may underestimate the actual leach rates of toxic 

constituents from CCRsCCR under different field conditions.

First, regarding the question of appropriate pH conditions in CCR disposal units, and the 

resulting leachate concentrations in impoundments where coal refuse was placed, EPA obtained 

data during the development of this rule directly relevant to this issue. A survey conducted by 

the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in 1995 had shown that 34 percent of unlined 

landfills and 68 percent of unlined surface impoundments actively managed CCR wastes with 

coal refuse. However, more recent data collected by EPA as part of the CWAClean Water Act

ELG rulemaking in 2009-2010 indicates that this management practice has declined significantly 

to approximately five percent of current units. 

EPA also obtained sufficient data to resolve concerns about the accuracy of the 

concentrations in pore water and leachate used in the risk assessment. EPA received a 

substantial amount of data on CCR chemical constituents from commenters, which included total 

concentrations, pore water, and leaching test results for various types of CCRsCCR, i.e., bottom 

ash, FGD gypsum, FGD sludge, fly ash cenospheres, boiler slag, and combined waste streams. 

This included data from several EPRI reports, which provided field leachate results for bottom 

ash, fly ash, and FGD solids from a number of landfills and surface impoundments. EPA also 

received leachate data from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, the 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (MI DNRE), and from the 

Maryland Department of the Environment on total metals, TCLP, and SPLP results for bottom 

ash and fly ash. Included among these data were TCLP results for 102 CCR samples and 12 

FGD gypsum samples, and two landfill leachate samples, as well as several laboratory reports on 

CCR leachate reports from 2008 through 2010. EPA also received several reports from the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

68

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center, with leaching test results 

for 58 fly ash, five FGD, and four FGD gypsum samples using various leaching methods, but not

other than TCLP, and TCLP mercury results for 15 fly ash samples, as well as leaching test 

results for five fly ash and two bottom ash samples using 18-hr, 30-day, and 60-day leach 

methods, plus bulk and trace element data for five fly ash samples, two bottom ash samples, and 

one slag sample. (See 75 FR 35128..) 

In addition to the data submitted by commenters, EPA's Office of Research and 

Development (ORD), in collaboration with Vanderbilt University (VU), developed additional 

CCR leaching data using a revised methodology, the Leaching Environmental Assessment 

Framework, or LEAF, consisting of four methods that evaluate leaching potential for various 

waste forms at different plausible pH values and liquid-solid ratios, in order to more accurately 

simulate leaching potential over a variety of field conditions. The LEAF methods went through 

validation working with 20 different laboratories, different waste matrices, and documented in 

two EPA reports finding good agreement between the labs for the four methods.25 In addition, 

EPA compiled decades of data for 10ten different case studies to compare field and laboratory 

 

25 Garrabrants A.C., D.S. Kosson, H.A. van der Sloot, F. Sanchez and O. Hjelmar (2010) Background 

information for the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF) Test Methods, EPA-600/R10/170, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, 

December 2010.

Garrabrants A.C., D.S. Kosson, L. Stefanski, R. DeLapp, P.F.A.B. Seignette, H.A. van der Sloot, P. 

Kariher and M. Baldwin (2012a) Interlaboratory Validation of the Leaching Environmental Assessment 

Framework (LEAF) Method 1313 and Method 1316, EPA/600/R-12/623, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, September 2012.

Garrabrants A.C., D.S. Kosson, R. DeLapp, P. Kariher, P.F.A.B. Seignette, H.A. van der Sloot, L. 

Stefanski and M. Baldwin (2012b) Interlaboratory Validation of the Leaching Environmental Assessment 

Framework (LEAF) Method 1314 and Method 1315, EPA-600/R-12/624, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, September 2012.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

69

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

leach data.26 These data also showed LEAF methods to be a good predictor of field leachate 

behavior using geochemical speciation modeling for factors such as oxidation that are difficult to 

account for in the lab. When considered along with the methods validation, the field-to-lab 

leachate data comparison provides additional confidence that LEAF methods can more 

accurately predict environmental release over a range of materials, waste form, pH, liquid-solid 

ratio, and other parameters influencing leaching behavior such as calcium depletion for a 

material. 

In updating the risk assessment for the final rule, EPA relied on surface impoundment 

pore water data and impoundment wastewater data, including the data submitted by commenters. 

For landfills, EPA only used LEAF data to characterize the leachate for the range of materials 

resulting from various air pollution control technologies. The CCR data documented in three 

EPA reports27 and summarized in Thorneloe et al, 201028 provides a robust characterization of 

air pollution control residues from coal-fired power plants and indicates that leaching rates can 

 

26 Kosson D.S., van der Sloot, H.A., Seignette, P.F.A.B. 2014. Leaching Test Relationships, Laboratoryto-Field Comparisons and Recommendations for Leaching Evaluation using the Leaching Environmental 

Assessment Framework (LEAF), EPA-600/R-14/061. EPA Office of Research and Development, 

National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711. December.

27 Sanchez F., R. Keeney, D.S. Kosson and R. DeLapp (2006) Characterization of Mercury-Enriched Coal 

Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities using Enhanced Sorbents for Mercury Control, EPA-600/R06/008, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, February 

2006. 

Sanchez F., D.S. Kosson, R. Keeney, R. DeLapp, L. Turner and P. Kariher (2008) Characterization of 

Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities using Wet Scrubbers for Multi-pollutant Control, EPA600/R-08/077, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, 

July 2008. 

Kosson D.S., F. Sanchez, P. Kariher, L.H. Turner, R. DeLapp, and P. Seignette (2009) Characterization of 

Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities – Leaching and Characterization Data, EPA-600/R09/151, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, 

December 2009.

28 Thorneloe S.A., D.S. Kosson, F. Sanchez, A.C. Garrabrants and G. Helms (2010) “Evaluating the fate 

of metals in air pollution control residues from coal-fired power plants,” Environmental Science and 

Technology, 44, 7351-7356.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

70

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

vary by several orders of magnitude, depending on pH levels and the amount of pH-dependent 

leaching behavior. liquid that comes into contact with the CCR solids (i.e., the liquid to solid 

ratio).

The 2014 risk assessment incorporates these new data, and accounts for both the pH of 

the waste in field conditions, as well as the liquid-to-solid ratio of the leachate and CCR, which 

effectively addresses the concerns raised in the proposed rule that TCLP and SPLP methods 

could underestimate leachate concentrations. 

A further area of uncertainty related to one of the primary inputs into the risk assessment. 

As noted in the proposed rule, the Agency’s risk estimates were based on the existing cancer 

slope factor of 1.5 mg/kg/d-1for arsenic in EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 

However, EPA noted that was in the process of revaluating the arsenic cancer slope factor in 

light of recent recommendations from the National Research Council (NRC) of the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) in ‘‘Critical Aspects Arsenic in Drinking Water, 2001 Update.’’ In 

the proposal, EPA estimated that using this NRC data analysis would increase the individual risk 

estimates by approximately 17 times.

EPA is currently evaluating the arsenic cancer slope factor in light of more recent NRC 

recommendations, regarding the approach and the science for estimating cancer and non-cancer 

risk in ‘‘Critical Aspects of EPA’s IRIS Assessment of Inorganic Arsenic, (NRC 2013).’’ EPA is 

in the process of implementing these recommendations, but to date has been unable to finalize its 

IRIS reassessment. Nor did EPA receive any other information during the development of this 

final rule that would help to resolve this uncertainty. 

A final source of uncertainty in the risk assessment developed for the proposed rule 

related to the potential impact from the interception of contaminated groundwater plumes by 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

71

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

surface water bodies that exist between a waste management unit and a down-gradient drinking 

water well. It is common for coal-fired utilities to be located near water bodies, which are used 

as a source of cooling water and waste conveyancing. Releases from surface impoundments 

located in close proximity to water bodies can be intercepted and, which can significantly affect 

the contaminants that reach drinking water wells. For example, surface impoundments are 

commonly placed next to rivers, which can intercept the leachate plume and prevent 

contamination of drinking water wells on the other side of the river. Also, in such circumstances 

the direction of groundwater flow on both sides of the river may be towards the river; thus, the 

drinking water well on the opposite side of a river may not be impacted.

Over the course of the rulemaking, EPA was able to obtain sufficient data to model the 

impact from interception of contamination by surface water bodies. The risk assessment 

developed for the final rule accounts for the interception of the groundwater contamination 

plume by surface water bodies, and the resulting decrease in constituent mass to downstream 

drinking water sources. As a consequence of this modeling, the median risks for surface

impoundments and landfills were substantially lower than both the high-end and median risks 

modeled in the 2010 risk assessment, i.e., by approximately an order of magnitude. 

2. Adequacy of Existing State Regulatory Oversight

The assessment of state regulatory programs in the proposed rule was based largely on 

two reports: a joint U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and EPA study completed in 2006, “Coal 

Combustion Waste Management at Landfills and Surface Impoundments, 1994–2004,” and a 

2009 survey conducted by the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 

Officials (ASTSWMO). EPA’s preliminary conclusion was that while states seem to be 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

72

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

regulating landfills to a greater extent than in 2000, significant gaps in state programs appeared 

to remain, particularly with respect to the oversight of surface impoundments. 

In reaching this conclusion EPA noted the following findings from the DOE/EPA study: 

only 19% (3 percent (three out of 19) of the surveyed surface impoundment unit permits 

included requirements addressing groundwater protection standards (i.e., contaminant 

concentrations that cannot be exceeded) or closure/post-closure care, and only 12% (2 percent

(two out of 12) of surveyed units were required to obtain bonding or financial assurance. The 

EPA/DOE report also concluded that approximately 30 percent of the net disposable CCRsCCR

generated was potentially exempt from all state solid waste permitting requirements (EPA/DOE 

Report at pagespp 45–46). For example, at the time of the report, Alabama did not regulate CCR 

disposal under any state waste authority and nor had a dam safety program. Texas (the largest 

coal ash producer) did not require permits for waste managed on-site, which is defined as waste 

managed at any site owned by the generator, up to 50 miles away from the generating facility. 

Finally, the report found that a number of states only regulated surface impoundments under 

Clean Water ActCWA authorities, and consequently primarily addressed the risks from effluent 

discharges to navigable waters, but did not require liners or groundwater monitoring.

The more recent 2009 ASTSWMO survey reached similar conclusions. With respect to 

liner requirements, 36% percent of surveyed states did not have minimum liner requirements for 

CCR landfills, while 67% percent did not have CCR liner requirements for surface 

impoundments. Similarly, 19% percent of states surveyed did not have minimum groundwater 

monitoring requirements for landfills and 61%61percent did not have groundwater monitoring 

requirements for surface impoundments. The 2009 ASTSWMO survey also indicated that only 

36 %percent of states regulated the structural stability of surface impoundments.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

73

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

In the proposal, EPA identified several issues that complicated its preliminary assessment 

and prevented the Agency from reaching overall conclusions as to the adequacy of state 

regulatory programs. First, EPA raised concern about the absence of any real details in the two 

reports regarding how states, in practice, oversee the disposal or other solid waste management 

of CCR. For example, even though the disposal units might not be regulated under the state 

solid waste provisions, some states may use performance based standards or implement 

requirements to control CCR landfills and surface impoundments under other state programs. 

Second, EPA noted that most of the more recent data primarily focused on the requirements 

applicable to new management units, which only represented approximately 10% percent of 

currently operating units. EPA had little, if any, information that described the extent to which 

states and utilities implemented had imposed requirements, such as groundwater monitoring, on 

the many existing landfills and surface impoundments that receive CCRs. CCR. Moreover, the 

information in the record for the proposal with respect to these older units was fifteen years old. 

EPA assumed it to be unlikely that states would have required existing units to install liners, but 

suggested states may have been more likely to have imposed groundwater monitoring for such 

units over the last 15 years.

EPA also identified several issues that would be relevant to the Agency’s evaluation of 

the overall adequacy of state regulatory programs. Specifically, EPA explained that it would 

consider how state regulatory programs have, in practice, evaluated and imposed requirements to 

address: (1) leachate collection; (2) groundwater monitoring; (3) whether a unit must be lined, 

and the type of liner needed; (4) the effectiveness of existing management units as opposed to 

new management units; (5) whether the state requires routine analysis of CCRsCCR; (6) whether 

financial responsibility requirements are in place for the management of CCRsCCR; (7) the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

74

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

extent of permit requirements, including under what authorities these disposal units are 

permitted, the types of controls that are included in permits, and the extent of oversight provided 

by the states, (8) whether state programs include criteria for siting new units; (9) the extent of 

requirements for corrective action, post-closure monitoring and maintenance; (10) the state’s 

pattern of active enforcement and public involvement; and (11) whether or not these facilities 

have insurance against catastrophic failures.

EPA received a substantial amount of information on state programs from public 

commenters. Extensive comments were submitted by a coalition of environmental groups, 

outlining the alleged gaps in state government regulatory programs applicable to the 

management of CCRsCCR. These comments contained a comprehensive analysis of 37 state 

programs based on the findings of the DOE/EPA 2006 report as well as on an independent 

compilation of state program requirements. According to these commenters’ analysis, only four 

states (representing approximately 4 %percent of the CCR generated in the U.S. in 2005) 

required groundwater monitoring in all new and existing landfills, and only six states 

(representing approximately 19% percent of the CCR generated in 2005) required groundwater 

monitoring in all new and existing surface impoundments; only five states (representing 

approximately 7% percent of the CCR generated in 2005) required composite liners for all new 

landfills; and only four states (representing approximately 19% percent of the CCR generated) 

required composite liners for all new surface impoundments. The commenters’ analysis 

discounted any state law that was not strictly mandatory, i.e.,included any provision that granted 

permit writers discretion to modify the requirement on a case-by-case basis;, and/or to grant 

waivers and exemptions based on the waste’s toxicity, onsite location, and management practice.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

75

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

EPA also received comments from ASTSWMO, the Environmental Council of the States,

(ECOS), and 36 individual states. In its comments, ASTSWMO submitted a report with revisions 

of the aggregated statistics in its 2009 report, which they claim demonstrated that state CCR 

programs were more robust than described in the proposed rule. These comments generally 

agreed with EPA’s conclusion that state requirements for key CCR requirements are typically 

more robust for landfills than for surface impoundments. TheirASTSWMO’s comments included 

the following examples: 71%71percent of the surveyed states required a liner for landfills, 

compared to 65%65percent that required that surface impoundments be lined; 87% percent of 

surveyed states required monitoring at landfills, compared to 67% percent of states that required 

groundwater monitoring at surface impoundments; and while 83% percent of surveyed states 

require structural stability monitoring at landfills, only 64% percent of surveyed states require it 

at surface impoundments. The sole exception related to permit requirements, where the report 

claimed that 91% percent of the surveyed states require a permit of some type for surface 

impoundments, as compared to 86% percent of states that require a permit for landfills. In 

addition, ASTSWMO claimed that all 42 surveyed states had the authority to require 

remediation. InThe report also alleged that in 43 of 44 states, states had the authority to require 

surface impoundments to implement repair and maintenance efforts during operation. 

ASTSWMO also claimed that 43 out of 44 states require that steps be taken to protect human 

health and the environment. Forty-one, and that 41 of 43 states also had authority to require 

closure. 

According to this revised survey, state requirements also vary with respect to whether 

they applied to all waste units, or only to new units or lateral expansions. ASTSWMO 

allegedstated that in 34% percent of the surveyed states, liners requirements applied equally to 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

76

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

new and existing landfill units, and to both existing and new surface impoundments in 46%

percent of the surveyed states. Similarly, they claimASTSWMO stated that groundwater 

monitoring was required for both existing and new landfills in 82% percent of the surveyed 

states, and to both existing and new surface impoundments in 74% percent of the surveyed 

states.

Nineteen states and state organizations also directly responded to the environmental 

groups’ report by submitting comments on their programs, although only four of these states 

were among the leading CCR generators: Kentucky, North Dakota, Ohio, and Michigan. These 

states identified specific instances where the assertions made by the environmental groups were 

factually incorrect or omitted relevant information. In response to both the proposed rule and the 

NODA (76 FR 63252, October 12, 2011) most states provided only summaries of their 

regulatory programs rather than detailed descriptions. 

As EPA explained in the proposed rule, there are significant limitations to the kind of 

aggregated survey statistics presented in ASTSWMO’s comments. Such statistics fail to provide 

the information necessary to meaningfully address the question of how, in practice, state 

programs regulate the relevant risks presented by the management/ or disposal of these wastes, 

which was the issue that EPA explained was necessary to resolve. For example, even assuming 

that 91% percent of the surveyed states actually do require a permit of some type for surface 

impoundments, this provides no information on the nature or extent of the specific requirements 

in the permit. As noted in the proposal, most CCR surface impoundments are regulated under a 

NPDES permit, and while the risks from effluent discharges to navigable waters are addressed, 

these units are not subject to the provisions designed to protect groundwater, such as liners or 

groundwater monitoring. Nor does it address the extent of the requirement; for example, 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

77

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

although Texas generally requires landfills to be permitted and to monitor groundwater, the 

majority of CCR units are exempt from these requirements because all industrial wastes 

managed on-site (i.e., any site owned by the generator, up to 50-miles away from the generator’s 

facility) are exempt. Finally, since the ASTSWMO survey does not identify the individual 

surveyed states but merely presents aggregated statistics, this information cannot be correlated 

with the amount of CCR generated, which significantly limits its value; for example, information 

demonstrating the strength of the regulatory program in a state responsible for 2% percent of the 

net CCRsCCR generated nationally is less significant than similar information on a state 

responsible for 25%25percent of the net CCRsCCR generated. 

In addition to the information provided by commenters, EPA independently reviewed 

state statutes and regulations, with a more detailed focus on the sixteen states responsible for 

approximately 74% percent of the CCR generated in 2009. It is clear from this review, as well as 

from information submitted by the commenters, that the degree of state regulatory oversight of 

these wastes and the overall protectiveness of the particular state programs varies widely. 

Overall, the information from commenters and from EPA’s own review of state programs 

generally confirms EPA’s original conclusion that significant gaps remain in many state 

programs. Some programs provide minimal or no regulatory oversight of CCR disposal units. 

For example, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah have no regulations applicable to CCR disposal 

units or entirely exempt CCR from state regulations governing solid waste. Similarly, 

Mississippi, Montana, and Texas (the largest coal-ash producer) exempt the on-site disposal of

CCR (as “nonhazardousnon-hazardous industrial solid waste”) from some or all key 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

78

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

requirements, such as permits or groundwater monitoring.29 Such exemptions would cover most 

of the disposal of CCR within the state, as the majority of utilities dispose of their CCR on-site. 

Other states, such as Florida, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania, exempt CCR landfills or 

“monofills” from many requirements. For example, Indiana regulations consider surface 

impoundments that are dredged at least annually to be “storage units” that are exempt from solid 

waste regulations, including from corrective action requirements. Many of these states are 

among the leading generators of CCR wastes. In total, EPA estimates that approximately 20%

percent of the net disposable CCRsCCR is entirely exempt from state regulatory oversight. 

State programs that entirely exempt CCR management from regulatory oversight, 

however, are the exception. Most states do regulate the management of CCR wastes to varying 

degrees, although the particular requirements can vary significantly. Still, some general 

conclusions can be drawn.

Most CCR surface impoundments are permitted exclusively under NPDES or other 

surface water pollution prevention programs; in. In these states, requirements to protect 

groundwater, such as liners or groundwater monitoring systems, are frequently less robust than 

the corresponding requirements applicable to CCR landfills. 

Many state programs require that new disposal units be lined and install groundwater 

monitoring systems installed, although many also exemptedexempt existing waste units from the 

liner and groundwater monitoring requirements. Consequently, for newer units, the facts are less 

alarming: 89% percent of the 114 CCR surface impoundments constructed between 1994 and 

2010 have liners, and 70% percent have composite liners. Similarly, 37 of 45 CCR surface 

 

29 See 30 TX ADC 335.2(d); Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line spacing: single
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

79

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

impoundments EPA surveyed had installed groundwater monitoring systems. By contrast, 79%

percent of the landfills constructed during this time frametimeframe had installed liners, and only 

58% percent are composite-lined. However the majority of the older (pre-1994) waste units still 

lack liners; 63% percent of older landfills have no liners and 63% percent and 24% percent of 

older surface impoundments have either no liners or clay liners, respectively). Information on 

the extent of groundwater monitoring at older units was either unavailable, or was too unreliable 

to support any conclusions as to the overall number or percentage of older units with 

groundwater monitoring systems in most states. ASTSWMO’s comments in response to the 

October 2011 NODA identified eight states30 that required groundwater monitoring at existing 

facilities, but only a few of these states addressed this issue in their comments. EPA has some 

anecdotal evidence on the status of groundwater monitoring in six states, including four states 

that are among the leading CCR generators. In the wake of the Kingston TVA spill, groundwater 

monitoring wells were installed at 12 of Illinois’s existing surface impoundments, almost 

doubling the number of monitored surface impoundments in the state. However, 55 additional 

surface impoundments, both active and inactive, still lack groundwater monitoring systems. In 

Ohio, 44 CCR units, out of a total of 57 CCR units in the state (42 surface impoundments and 15 

landfills),) still lack groundwater monitoring, even though all of whichthe surface impoundments

were permitted decades ago under Ohio’s NPDES program, still lack groundwater monitoring. .

Ohio acknowledgesacknowledged in their comments that the extent of groundwater risks in the 

state is poorly documented, as 40 out of 44 unlined CCR units do not have a groundwater 

monitoring system. In sum, the available information is limited, but at least some of that 

 

30 Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

80

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

information indicates that significant gaps remain with respect to the implementation of 

groundwater monitoring requirements under some state regulatory programs.

 Of the states that require groundwater monitoring, most appear to require monitoring 

wells to be placed around the waste unit boundary, although the distance from the unit boundary 

varies from 50 feet to 150 meters. However, some state programs also authorize a buffer zone or 

a “zone of discharge,” which allows the facility to defer remediation of groundwater 

contamination for some period of time, usually until the contaminant plume has migrated to the 

facility site boundary. Florida, Illinois, North Dakota, and Tennessee are among that states with 

such a regulatory provision. For example, under Florida regulations, primary and secondary 

MCLs do not apply even beyond the “zone of discharge,” absent a specific order by state 

regulatory authorities. 

Most state programs allow the state regulatory authority to grant variances or exemptions 

for some or all of the requirements based on site-specific factors. For example, all of the 

following states require groundwater monitoring at CCR surface impoundments, but also 

authorize the regulatory authority to exempt or waive those requirements: Alabama, Florida, 

Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, North Caroline North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and West 

Virginia. Contrary to the analysis presented by the environmental groups’ comments, the mere 

fact that state law grants a permit authority the discretion to tailor requirements to account for a 

facility’s site specific conditions does not support a conclusion that the regulatory program is 

necessarily inadequate. In fact, EPA noted in the proposal that one of the strengths of the 

subtitle C program was that, as a result of the permit process, requirements could be tailored to 

account for site specific conditions. Nor does the existence of a waiver process provide any 

evidence of actual practices; in their comments, a few states acknowledged that state law allowed 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

81

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

for variance, but asserted that none had been requested. 

To complicate matters further, several states explained that while state law does not 

mandate certain requirements, state regulatory authorities have, in practice, begun to require 

them in more recent permits. For example, several states, including Ohio, Texas, Michigan, 

Florida, and Kentucky, noted that recent practice was to require older disposal units to retrofit or 

close, where they failed to meet relevant standards. Similarly, it appears that in the 16 leading 

CCR-generating states, 94% percent of new landfills have installed liners (either composite or 

clay), although only 19% percent of these state programs actually mandate CCR landfills to 

install a liner. And although only 6% percent of these state programs require installation of a 

liner in a new surface impoundment, 75% percent of new CCR surface impoundments in these 

states are lined. 

All of this information suggests that, at least in some cases, the concerns raised in the 

proposal regarding the protectiveness of state programs remain warranted. But it also is clear it 

would be impossible to accurately evaluate whether, in practice, state programs are protective 

without reviewing individual permits decisions and permit requirements. Such an evaluation 

would necessarily involve not only a review of the specific permit requirements, but also the site 

conditions and other factual bases supporting the decision to impose the particular requirements. 

Unfortunately, this information was not provided by commenters or found in any source 

currently available to the Agency. 

3. Documented Cases in Which Danger to Human Health or the Environment from Surface 

Run-off or Leachate Has Been Proved 

In the proposed rule, EPA described the information it had compiled on specific cases 

where CCR mismanagement had caused harm to human health or the environment since the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

82

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

2000 Regulatory Determination. Specifically, EPA explained that it had identified 27 proven 

damage cases: 17 cases of damage to groundwater, and ten cases of damage to surface water, 

seven of which are ecological damage cases. Sixteen of the 17 proven damage cases to 

groundwater involved disposal in unlined units—; for the one additional unit, it is unknown 

whether the unit was lined. EPA also identified 40 potential damage cases to groundwater and 

surface water. The Agency noted that these numbers likely underestimated the number of 

damage cases and its expectation that additional cases of damage would be found if a more 

comprehensive evaluation was conducted, particularly since much of this waste has been (and 

continues to be) managed in unlined disposal units. EPA also noted its concern that several of the 

new damage cases involved activities that differ from prior damage cases, including the 

catastrophic release of waste due to the structural failure of CCR surface impoundments, such as 

the dam failures that occurred in Martins Creek, Pennsylvania and Kingston, Tennessee, as well 

as the large-scale placement, akin to disposal, of CCRsCCR, under the guise of ‘‘“beneficial 

use.’’.”

EPA noted as well that it had received new reports from industry and environmental and 

citizen groups regarding damage cases. Industry provided information indicatingto demonstrate

that many of EPA’s listed proven damage cases did not meet EPA’s criteria for a damage case to 

be considered “a proven damage casescase,” that had been developed for purposes of the Bevill 

Regulatory Determinations. Environmental and citizen groups, on the other hand, had submitted 

reports alleging the existence of more recent damage cases beyond those EPA had previously 

documented. 

EPA raised questions concerning the following areas associated with the damage cases; 

first, whether the damage cases discovered to date accurately reflected the true number of 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

83

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

damage cases associated with the mismanagement of CCRs. CCR. Second, EPA highlighted 

concern regarding the accuracy of the available information on damage cases, as in certain 

instances, much of the information was largely anecdotal. EPA therefore specifically solicited 

comments from state regulatory authorities and the facilities involved with the incidents, in the 

hope of obtaining direct evidence of the facts in each case and to obtain a better understanding of 

the nature of the damage caused by past and current management practices. For the same reason, 

on October 12, 2011, EPA published a NODA, soliciting comment on the extensive reports 

received during the original comment period on the proposed rule. (See 76 FR 63252..)

As discussed in more detail in Unit XI, EPA received a significant number of comments 

on this topic, both during the original comment period on the proposal, and in response to the 

October 12, 2011 NODA. EPA received information on additional damage cases from a number 

of citizen groups. This includes the report from Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice

of alleged damage cases, titled, “Out of Control: Mounting Damages From Coal Ash Waste 

Sites,” which presents information on 31 alleged CCR damage cases that were not included or 

were not recognized as damage cases in EPA's July 2007 report. EPA also received an August 

26, 2010 report by the Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice, and the Sierra Club titled 

“In Harm's Way: Lack of Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans and Their 

Environment,” which presented an additional 39 alleged CCR damage cases.31 EPA also 

received information on ten additional damage cases from state officials in Michigan and 

Wisconsin. 

 

31 EPA also received several additional reports that contained allegations of further damage cases. 

However, because these were submitted after the close of the comment period, EPA did not evaluate these 

damage cases for this rulemaking or otherwise consider the information in those reports. 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

84

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

EPRI submitted to EPA two draft reports titled “Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product 

Damage Cases: Volume 1: Data Summary and Conclusions” (finalized in July 2010), and 

“Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases: Volume 2: Case Summaries” (finalized 

in September 2010). In these reports EPRI provided information that, they claimed, showed that 

many of EPA’s previously identified “proven” damage cases did not meet EPA’s criteria for a 

damage case to be considered “proven.” In response to the 2010 NODA, USWAG submitted a 

report that reviewed the 70 additional damage cases submitted by citizen groups as part of their 

comments on the proposed rule. These reports focused primarily on the degree to which the 

contamination had been contained “on-site” or had migrated off-site of the facility.

In Unit XI, EPA discusses at length all of the comments received and its subsequent 

analysis of the information obtained throughout the rulemaking. In sum, after analyzing all of 

the information submitted by the end of the last comment period EPA has confirmed a total of 

135157 cases, both proven and potential, in which CCR mismanagement has caused damage to 

human health and the environment. Although EPA expects that additional damage cases will be 

discovered in response to the installation of the groundwater monitoring systems required by the 

final rule, overall EPA has a significantly better understanding of the extent and nature of the 

damage caused by CCR mismanagement than when the proposed rule was issued. At this stage 

EPA has sufficient confidence in the veracity of the information collected to date to rely on it in 

making decisions in this rule. 

4. Conclusions

EPA explained in the proposed rule that the decision on whether to retain the Bevill 

exemption is inherently discretionary, in that it ultimately requires the Agency to make a policy 

judgment as to the appropriate balance among the eight statutory factors. Chief among the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

85

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

several principles that EPA stated would guide its decision was that any action must protect 

human health and the environment. To this end, EPA singled out three key areas of analyses that 

bear directly on that guiding principle: the extent of the risks posed by mismanagement of 

CCRsCCR; the adequacy of Statestate programs to ensure proper management of CCRsCCR; 

and the extent and nature of damage cases. 

The first of these largely related to the 2010 quantitative risk assessment of the potential 

for contamination to groundwater. During the rulemaking, EPA received information that 

allowed the Agency to resolve two of the four primary uncertainties identified in the proposal. 

The risk assessment has been revised with updated pore water concentration data and with LEAF 

leachate data, and accounts for the potential reduction of contaminants reaching drinking water 

sources due to interception of contamination by surface water bodies. However, two sources of 

uncertainty remain: the potential effect of pollution control technologies on the CCR 

characteristics, and the appropriate IRIS value for arsenic. 

EPA’s risk assessment evaluated current management practices, and generally did not 

attempt to account for or evaluate the potential for future changes in the wastes. While EPA has 

great confidence in the assessment, its ability to definitively resolve this question is therefore 

limited, given the very real potential for significant changes in CCR characteristics and 

constituents in the near future, due to the required installation of pollution control technologies. 

Changes in the CCR characteristics are particularly significant, as the risk assessment concluded 

that one of the parameters most likely to affect the agency’s risk estimates was the characteristic 

of the wastes.

It is also notable that these remaining uncertainties are generally expected to increase the 

risks from CCR mismanagement. Moreover, there are few sources of conservatism in the final 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

86

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

risk assessment; as discussed above the two sources of uncertainty that were most likely to lead 

to meaningful overestimation of the risk have been addressed. Certainly, the results of the 

sensitivity analysis conducted regarding the use of ACI indicate that caution is needed in 

presuming that air pollution control technology will necessarily increase the constituent levels in 

CCR or otherwise increase the risks. Nevertheless, there are real reasons to be concerned that 

ultimately, regulation under subtitle D may not be adequately protective over the next several 

years. 

With respect to the second area, EPA is unable to reach any definitive conclusions as to 

whether state regulatory programs are so deficient that the level of federal oversight under 

subtitle C is necessary. Specifically, EPA cannot determine from the available information how 

states, in practice, have implemented regulatory requirements. At this point, only limited 

conclusions are possible.

Clear deficiencies exist in some state regulatory programs, and questions remain with 

respect to others. And many of these concerns exist with respect to programs in states 

responsible for the majority of CCR generation and disposal. However, most state programs, 

although they vary considerably, are not clearly deficient on their face. 

But it is equally clear that exclusive reliance on the regulatory programs as written, 

without any examination of how states have implemented those requirements in practice, would 

not support sweeping conclusions about the overall adequacy of state programs. It is critical to 

ensure that any decision accurately accounts for how the states have exercised their judgment in 

implementing those requirements, before concluding that state programs cannot adequately 

oversee the management of CCRsCCR without the degree of federal involvement mandated by 

subtitle C. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

87

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Notwithstanding EPA’s inability to draw conclusions on the overall adequacy of state 

programs, the high degree of variation across state programs strongly supports the need for some 

federal requirements to establish a consistent national standard of groundwater and human health 

protection. 

In contrast to the other two areaareas identified in the proposed rule, while some 

uncertainty remains with respect to the damage cases—namely, whether the 135157 identified to 

date represent the total number of damage cases caused by CCR mismanagement, and whether 

some of the “potential” damage cases should be classified as “proven” damage cases—at this 

point, EPA has concluded that the available information provides a sufficient evidentiary base on 

which decisions can be made. In the absence of the necessary information on two of the three 

critical areas points, however, EPA cannot reach any final conclusions regarding the appropriate 

balance among the eight statutory factors . Consequently, EPA is also not reaching any final 

conclusions as to whether a damage case is best categorized as “proven” or “potential.” Such a 

finding is relevant only to the Bevill Regulatory Determination. 

However, as discussed in more detail in Unit XI, the damage cases provide extremely 

usefulvaluable evidence that is directly relevant to the question of whether and how to regulate 

CCR wastes. waste. For example, the damage cases provide “real world” evidence against which 

to compare EPA’s risk modeling estimates, such as evidence regarding the frequency thatwith 

which particular constituents leachedleach into groundwater. They also provide direct evidence 

regarding specific waste management practices at electric utilities, along with the potential 

consequences of those practices. Finally, both the specifics of the damage cases and the fact that 

they continue to occur provide strong evidence of the need for today’sthis rule under subtitle D

while EPA obtains the information that will allow the Agency to make a final Regulatory 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

88

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Determination for these wastes. Once sufficient information becomes available, EPA will issue 

a final Regulatory Determination as to whether regulation of these wastes under subtitle C is 

warranted. Before EPA issues a final Regulatory Determination, EPA will provide the public 

with an additional opportunity to comment on a proposed Determination. Because any final 

decision will necessarily account for information not previously available to the public, an 

additional round of public notice and comment is clearly necessary and appropriate.

Thus, even though EPA is not able to reach a final conclusion on the Regulatory 

Determination for these wastes, the totality of the information in the rulemaking record clearly 

demonstrates that the risks associated with the current management and disposal of CCR remain 

substantial. EPA’s risk assessment concluded that the cancer risks from unlined surface 

impoundments ranged from 3 x 10-4for trivalent arsenic to 4 x 10-5for pentavalent arsenic. 

Noncancer risks from these same units also significantly exceeded EPA’s level of concern, with 

estimates ranging from an HQ of 2 for thallium, to HQs

32 of 4 for molybdenum toand 8 for 

trivalent arsenic. The risks associated with unlined landfills were also estimated to be 

significant, whichwith cancer risks of 2 x 10-5for trivalent arsenic. It is important to note that 

these risk numbers are based on national disposal practices. Risks at an individual site may be 

even higher based on individual site conditions, waste characteristics, and management practices. 

EPA’s risk assessment identified the potential for higher risks based on different waste pH values 

and management practices. Multiple constituents presented higher risks when considered in 

waste management units that co-dispose both ash and coal refuse at more acidic pHs or FGD 

wastes at more basic pHs. For example, the modeled cancer risks for the co-disposal of ash and 

 

32 For more information on HQs please see Unit X. Risk Assessment of this preamble.

Formatted: Widow/Orphan control
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

89

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

coal refuse (pH 1.7-8.2) ranged between 10-3for trivalent arsenic to 4 x 10-4for pentavalent 

arsenic. Noncancer risks were similarly high, ranging between and an HQ of 13 for cobalt, and

HQs of 14 for pentavalent arsenic to 26 for trivalent arsenic, based on the ingestion of 

contaminated drinking water. Although this management practice is declining, recent 

information indicates that approximately 5% percent of facilities continue to co-dispose of ash 

and coal refuse in surface impoundments. 

Moreover, EPA’s risk estimates are consistent with the continued damage cases compiled 

through this rulemaking. As discussed in Unit XI, EPA has confirmed that 135157 cases of 

proven or potential contamination of groundwater have occurred in states across the nation since 

the initial Regulatory Determination. These damage cases were primarily associated with 

unlined units and were most frequently associated with releases of arsenic. While new units are 

typically constructed with composite liners, which under EPA’s current risk assessment 

adequately mitigate the risks, older units still comprise the overwhelming majority of currently 

operating units. EPA’s data show that approximately 63% percent of currently operating surface 

impoundments and landfills are unlined, and thus more prone to leach contaminants into 

groundwater. Analysis of the information from the damage cases also demonstrates that unlined 

surface impoundments typically operate for 20 years before they begin to leak. Most of the 

currently operating surface impoundments are between 20 and 40 years old. 

The age of the units also has implications for their structural stability and the potential for 

catastrophic releases. Of the approximately 735 CCR surface impoundments currently operating 

in the United States, a certain percentage have a great potential for loss of human life and 

environmental damage in the event of catastrophic failure. Based on the information collected 

from EPA’s Dam Safety Assessment Program, 318 surface impoundments have either a high or 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

90

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

significant hazard potential rating, at least thirteen of which were not designed by a professional 

engineer. Of the total universe of surface impoundments, approximately 186 of these units were 

not designed by a professional engineer. Surface impoundments are generally designed to last the 

typical operating life of coal-fired boilers, on the order of 40 years. However, many 

impoundments are aging; based on the subset of units for which age data were available, 

approximately 195 active surface impoundments exceed 40 years of age; 56 units are older than 

50 years, and 340 are between 26 and 40 years old. In recent years, problems have continued to 

arise from these units, which appear to be related to the aging infrastructure, and the fact that 

many units may be nearing the end of their useful lives. For example, as a result of the 

administrative consent order issued after the December 2008 spill, TVA conducted testing which 

showed that another dike at TVA’s Kingston, Tennessee plant had significant safety deficiencies. 

Collectively, these facts indicate a high likelihood that in the absence of any regulatory action, 

contamination will occur such units will leak in the near future, or are currently leaking, 

undetected, since groundwater monitoring is not installed at many of these older units. 

Moreover, damage cases continue to occur; in response to EPA’s CERCLA 104(e) information 

request letter, a total of 35 units at 25 facilities reported historical releases. These range from 

minor spills to a spill of 0.5 million cubic yards of water and fly ash. And as recently as 

February 2014, CCR slurry was released into the Dan River from an inactive surface 

impoundment in North Carolina. 

All of which demonstrates a compelling need for a uniform system of requirements to 

address these risks, and particularly for the installation of groundwater monitoring systems at all 

CCR units to detect any contamination, without waiting for the information and analyses 

necessary to complete a final Regulatory Determination. EPA will continue to monitor these 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

91

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

critical areas, and will provide the public with an additional opportunity to comment on any 

proposed Regulatory Determination, prior to issuing a final Regulatory Determination.

B. Final Regulatory Determination Regarding Beneficial Use

EPA generally proposed to retain the May 2000 Regulatory Determination that 

beneficially used CCRs doCCR did not warrant federal regulation under subtitle C of RCRA. As 

EPA stated in the May 2000 Regulatory Determination, ‘‘In the [Report to Congress], we were 

not able to identify damage cases associated with these types of beneficial uses, nor do we now 

believe that these uses of coal combustion wastes present a significant risk to human health and 

the environment. While some commenters disagreed with our findings, no data or other support 

for the commenters’ position was provided, nor was any information provided to show risk or 

damage associated with agricultural use. Therefore, we conclude that none of the beneficial uses 

of coal combustion wastes listed above pose risks of concern.’’ (See, 65 FR 32230. .) EPA noted 

that since the original Regulatory Determination, the Agency had found no data or other 

information to indicate that existing efforts of states, EPA, and other federal agencies had been 

inadequate to address the environmental issues associated with the beneficial usesuse of 

CCRsCCR that were originally identified in the Regulatory Determination. EPA explained that it 

had proposed this approach in recognition that some uses of CCRsCCR, such as encapsulated 

uses in concrete, and use as an ingredient in the manufacture of wallboard, provide benefits and 

raise minimal health or environmental concerns. Consequently, EPA preliminarily concluded 

that encapsulated uses of CCR, which are common in many consumer products, did not merit 

regulation based on the available information. 

However, EPA noted that the issues were more difficult with respect to unencapsulated 

uses of CCRsCCR and specifically solicited comment on whether such uses should continue to 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

92

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

be included as “beneficial use” under the Bevill exemption. EPA explained that unencapsulated 

uses have raised concerns and therefore merited closer attention. For example, the placement of 

unencapsulated CCRsCCR on the land, such as in road embankments or in agricultural uses, 

presented a set of issues similar to those that caused the Agency to propose to regulate 

CCRsCCR destined for disposal. But the Agency also acknowledged that the amounts and, in 

some cases, the manner in which CCRs areCCR is used—i.e., subject to engineering 

specifications and material requirements rather than landfilling techniques—are potentially very 

different from land disposal.

EPA is retaining the original 2000 Regulatory Determination for CCRsCCR that areis

beneficially used. EPA has made this determination based on consideration of the available 

information and the RCRA section 8002(n) study factors. 

1. Source and Volume of CCRsCCR Generated Each Year 

The American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) conducts a voluntary, annual survey of the 

coal-fired electric utility industry to track the quantities of CCRsCCR generated and beneficially 

used. According to the latest survey, the electric utility industry generated nearly 110 million 

tons of CCRsCCR in 2012. Approximately 39 million tons of these CCRs wereCCR was

identified by ACAA as beneficially used in either encapsulated or unencapsulated products. An 

additional 12.8 million tons were placed in mine-fill operations, while the remaining 57.8 million 

tons were disposed of in landfills and surface impoundments (ACAA, 2013).33

2. Present Utilization Practices

 

33 ACAA (American Coal Ash Association). 2013. 2012 Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production & 

Use Survey Report. Farmington Hills, MI 48331. Available online at: http://www.acaausa.org/Portals/9/Files/PDFs/revisedFINAL2012CCPSurveyReport.pdfhttp://www.acaausa.org/Portals/9/Files/PDFs/revisedFINAL2012CCPSurveyReport.pdf

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

93

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Based on the beneficial use rates reported by ACAA, approximately 50% percent of the 

CCRsCCR beneficially used on an annual basis falls into two categories: (1) fly ash used as a 

direct substitute for portlandPortland cement during the production of concrete (referred to as 

“fly ash concrete”); and (2) flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum used as a replacement for 

mined gypsum in wallboard (referred to as “FGD gypsum wallboard”) during use by the 

consumer. Specifically, the 2012 ACAA survey indicates that the largest encapsulated beneficial 

uses of CCRsCCR, by more than a factor of two, are fly ash used in “concrete/concrete 

products/grout” (12.6 million tons) and FGD gypsum used in “gypsum panel products” (7.6 

million tons).

3. Potential Danger, if Any, to Human Health or the Environment from the Reuse of 

CCRsCCR

The risks associated with the disposal of CCRs stemCCR stems from the specific nature 

of that activity and the specific risks it involves; that is, the disposal of CCRsCCR in (often 

unlined) landfills or surface impoundments, with thousands, if not millions, of tons placed in a 

single concentrated location. And in the case of surface impoundments, the CCRs areCCR is

managed with water, under a hydraulic head, which promotes more rapid leaching of

contaminants into neighboring groundwater than doconditions in landfills. The beneficial uses 

identified as excluded under the Bevill exemption for the most part present a significantly

different risk profile.

a. Encapsulated beneficial uses

An encapsulated beneficial use is one that binds the CCRsCCR into a solid matrix that 

minimizes their mobilization into the surrounding environment. Examples of encapsulated uses 

include, but are not limited to: (1) filler or lightweight aggregate in concrete; (2) a replacement 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

94

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

for, or raw material used in production of, cementitious components in concrete or bricks; (3) 

filler in plastics, rubber, and similar products; and (4) raw material in wallboard production.

Since publication of the proposal, EPA developed a methodology for evaluating 

encapsulated beneficial uses. A copy of the methodology can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/imr/ccps/benfuse_fq.htm. EPA applied this methodology 

to the two largest CCR uses—the use of fly ash as a replacement for portlandPortland cement in 

concrete, and the use of FGD gypsum as a replacement for mined gypsum in wallboard. A 

complete copy of the evaluation can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/imr/ccps/pdfs/ccr_bu_eval.pdfhttp://www.epa.gov/wastes/c

onserve/imr/ccps/pdfs/ccr_bu_eval.pdf.

The evaluation considered products that meet relevant physical and performance 

standards, that conform to standard design specifications, and that incorporate fly ash and FGD 

gypsum from pollution control devices currently used in the United States. Based on the 

findings of the evaluation, the Agency concluded that environmental releases of constituents of 

potential concern from CCR fly ash concrete and FGD gypsum wallboard during use by the 

consumer are comparable to or lower than those from analogous non-CCR products, or are at or 

below relevant regulatory and health-based benchmarks for human and ecological receptors.

b. Unencapsulated uses 

EPA acknowledged in the proposal that unencapsulated uses generally presented more 

difficult issues than encapsulated uses. CCRsCCR can leach toxic metals at levels of concern, so

depending on the characteristics of the CCR, the amount of material placed, how it is placed, and 

the site conditions, there is a potential for environmental concern. However, EPA cannot 

extrapolate from the risk assessments conducted to evaluate the management practices associated 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

95

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

with CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments, because the exposure patterns are too 

dissimilar: the amounts and manner involved with beneficial use are very different than the 

thousands, if not millions of tons of CCRsCCR that are mounded in a single concentrated 

location in a landfill. And the potential exposures are entirely unlike surface impoundments, 

where CCRs areCCR is managed with water under a hydraulic head, which promotes more rapid 

leaching of contaminants. By contrast “beneficial uses,” even unencapsulated uses, are typically

subject to engineering specifications, and for certain uses, federal oversight, and material 

requirements. For example, fly ash used as a stabilized base course in highway construction is

subject to both regulatory standards under DOT/FHA,the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), and engineering specifications, such as 

the ASTM C 593 test for compaction, the ASTM D 560 freezing and thawing test, and a seven

day compressive strength above 2760 (400 psi). (See, 75 FR 35163-35165 for additional 

examples..) 

In 1999, EPA conducted a risk assessment of certain agricultural uses of CCRsCCR, 

since this was considered the most likely to raise human health or environmental concerns.34

EPA estimated the risks associated with such uses to be within the range of 1×10-6. These results 

as well as EPA’s conclusion that the use of CCRsCCR in agricultural settings was the most 

likely use to raise concerns, caused EPA to conclude that none of the beneficial uses identified in 

the 2000 Regulatory Determination warranted federal regulation, because ‘‘“we were not able to 

identify damage cases associated with these types of beneficial uses, nor do we now believe that 

 

34 For more information on this risk assessment see EPA’s Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes 

from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels (65 FR 32214, May 22, 2000).

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

96

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

these uses of coal combustion wastes present a significant risk to human health or the 

environment.’’.” (65 FR 32230, May 22, 2000.) 

EPA also noted that beneficially using secondary materials conserves natural resources, 

and can serve as an important alternative to disposal.

4. Documented Cases in Which Damage to Human Health or the Environment from Surface 

Runoff or Leachate has Been Proved 

To date, EPA has seen no evidence of damages from the encapsulated beneficial uses of 

CCRsCCR that EPA identified in the proposal. For example, there is wide acceptance of the use 

of CCRsCCR in encapsulated uses, such as wallboard, concrete, and bricks because the CCRs 

areCCR is bound into products. 

However, as of the date of the proposed rule, seven proven damage cases associated with 

unencapsulated uses have occurred, wherein which large quantities of unencapsulated CCRsCCR

were used indiscriminately to re-grade the landscape or to fill old quarries or gravel pits. The 

proposed rule discussed two of these cases that occurred since the original 2000 Regulatory 

Determination. . (See 75 FR at 35147. .) The first case was in Gambrills, Maryland and involved 

the disposal of fly ash and bottom ash (beginning in 1995) in two sand and gravel quarries. EPA 

considers this site a proven damage case, because groundwater samples from residential drinking 

wells near the site include heavy metals and sulfates at or above groundwater quality standards, 

and the state of Maryland is overseeing remediation. The second case is the Battlefield Golf 

Course in Chesapeake, Virginia where 1.5 million yards of fly ash were used as fill and to 

contour a golf course. Groundwater contamination above MCLs has been found at the edges and 

corners of the golf course, but not in residential wells. An EPA study in April 2010, established 

that residential wells near the site were not impacted by the fly ash and, therefore, EPA does not 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

97

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

consider this site to be a proven damage case. However, due to the onsite groundwater 

contamination, EPA considers this site to be a potential damage case.

During the development of this final rule, EPA obtained information on a comparable 

situation in which large quantities of unencapsulated CCRsCCR were placed on the land in a 

manner that presented significant concerns. The AES coal-fired power plant in Puerto Rico 

lacked capacity to dispose of their CCRsCCR on-site, and off-site landfills in Puerto Rico were 

prohibited from accepting CCRs. CCR. In lieu of transporting their CCRsCCR off of the island 

for disposal, AES created an aggregate (“AGREMAX”) with the CCRsCCR generated at their 

facility, and used the aggregate as fill in housing developments and in road projects. Over 2 

million tons of this material was used between 2004 and 2012. 

Currently, there is insufficient information to determine whether groundwater has been 

contaminated as a result of this practice, and thus, EPA cannot classify this as either a proven or 

potential “damage case.” Nevertheless, the available facts illustrate several of the significant 

concerns associated with unencapsulated uses. Specifically, the AGREMAX was applied without 

appropriate engineering controls and in volumes that far exceeded the amounts necessary for the 

engineering use of the materials. Inspections of some of the sites where the material had been 

placed showed use in residential areas, and to environmentally vulnerable areas, including areas 

close to wetlands and surface waters and over shallow, sole-source drinking water aquifers. In 

addition, some sites appeared to have been abandoned.

Consistent with the proposed rule, EPA does not consider the practices described in this 

section to be beneficial use, but rather waste management that would be subject to the 

requirements of the final rule. 

5. Alternatives to Current Disposal Methods, the Costs of Such Alternatives, and the Impact 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

98

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

of Such Alternatives on the Use of Coal and Other Natural Resources 

The beneficial use of CCRsCCR is a primary alternative to current disposal methods. 

And as EPA has repeatedly concluded, it is a method that, when performed correctly, can offer

significant environmental benefits, including greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, energy 

conservation, reduction in land disposal (i.e.,along with the corresponding avoidance of potential 

CCR disposal impacts), and reduction in the need to mine and process virgin materials and the 

associated environmental impacts.

a. Greenhouse Gas and Energy Benefits

The beneficial use of CCRsCCR reduces energy consumption and GHG emissions in a 

number of ways. Three of the most widely recognized beneficial applications of CCRsCCR are

the use of coal fly ash as a substitute for Portland cement in the manufacture of concrete, the use 

of FGD gypsum as a substitute for mined gypsum in the manufacture of wallboard, and the use 

of CCRsCCR as a substitute for sand, gravel, and other materials in structural fill. Reducing the 

amount of cement, mined gypsum, and virgin fill produced by substituting CCRsCCR leads to 

large supply chain-wide reductions in energy use and GHG emissions. Specifically, the RIA 

estimates 3three-year rolling average of 53,054,246 MMBtu per year in energy savings and 

11,571,116 tons per year in GHG (i.e., carbon dioxide and methane) emissions reductions in 

2015. This estimate is likely to underestimate the total benefits that can be achieved from all 

beneficial uses. Furthermore, the use of fly ash generally makes concrete stronger and more 

durable. This results in a longer lasting material, thereby marginally reducing the need for future 

cement manufacturing and corresponding avoided emissions and energy use.

b. Benefits from Reducing the Need to Mine and Process Virgin Materials 

CCRsCCR can be substituted for many virgin materials that would otherwise have to be 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

99

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

mined and processed for use. These virgin materials include limestone to make cement, and 

Portland cement to make concrete; mined gypsum to make wallboard, and aggregate, such as 

stone and gravel for uses in concrete and road bed. Using virgin materials for these applications 

requires mining and processing, which can impair wildlife habitats and disturb otherwise 

undeveloped land. It is beneficial to use secondary materials—provided it is done in an 

environmentally sound manner—that would otherwise be disposed of, rather than to mine and 

process virgin materials, while simultaneously reducing waste and environmental footprints. 

Reducing mining, processing and transport of virgin materials also conserves energy, avoids 

GHG emissions, and reduces impacts on communities. 

c. Benefits from Reducing the Disposal of CCRsCCR 

Beneficially using CCRsCCR instead of disposing of themit in landfills and surface 

impoundments also reduces the need for additional landfill space and any risks associated with 

their disposal. In particular, the U.S.United States disposed of over 57.8 million tons of 

CCRsCCR in landfills and surface impoundments in 2012, which is equivalent to the space 

required of 20,222 quarter-acre home sites under 8eight feet of CCRsCCR. 

As discussed in the final rule RIA, the current beneficial use of CCRsCCR as a 

replacement for industrial raw materials (e.g., Portland cement, virgin stone aggregate, lime, 

gypsum) provides substantial annual life cycle environmental benefits for these industrial 

applications. Specifically, the 3three-year rolling average of environmental benefits estimated for 

2015 includes: (a1) 53,054,246 MMBtu per year in energy savings; (b2) 1,661,900 million 

gallons per year in water savings; (c3) 11,571,116 tons per year in GHG (i.e., carbon dioxide and 

methane) emissions reductions; (d4) 45,770 tons of criteria air pollutant (i.e., NOx, SOx,

particulate matter, and CO) emissions reductions; and (e5) 3,207 lbspounds of toxic air pollutant 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

100

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(i.e., Hgmercury and Pblead) emissions reductions. All together, the beneficial use of CCRsCCR

in 2015 is estimated to provide over $2.3 billion in annual national environmental benefits. In 

addition, since EPA estimates annual baseline disposal costs of approximately $2.4 billion for 

the just over 50% percent of tons disposed each year, current beneficial use and minefilling also 

result in annual material and disposal cost savings of approximately $2 billion annually.

5. Current and Potential Utilization of CCRsCCR

In 2012, nearly 36% percent (39 million tons) of CCRsCCR were beneficially used 

(excluding minefill operations) and nearly 12% percent (12.8 million tons) were placed in 

minefills. (This compares to 23% percent of CCRsCCR that were beneficially used, excluding 

minefilling, at the time of the May 2000 Regulatory Determination, and represents a significant 

increase.)

6. Conclusions

On balance, after considering all of the available information, EPA has concluded that the 

most appropriate approach toward beneficial use is to retain the May 2000 Regulatory

Determination that regulation under subtitle C of the beneficial use of CCRsCCR is not 

warranted. EPA has also determined that regulation under subtitle D is generally not necessary 

for these beneficial uses. 

As discussed in the preceding section, the most important of the section 8002(n) factors 

are those that relaterelating to the potential risks to human health and the environment. See, e.g.,

Horsehead Resource Development Co. v EPA, 16 F.3d 1246, 1258 (DC Cir, 1994)() (Upholding 

EPA’s interpretation that wastes resulting from the combustion of mixtures of Bevill-exempt and 

non-exempt wastes could only retain Bevill-exempt status so long as the combustion waste 

remained of low toxicity); EDF v EPA, 852 F.2d 1316, 1328-1329 (DC Cir. 1988)()

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

101

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(Overturning EPA rule that included as Bevill exempt, wastes that were not of low toxicity).

EPA is adopting this Regulatory Determination in recognition that many uses of CCRsCCR,

such as encapsulated uses in concrete, and use as an ingredient in the manufacture of wallboard, 

provide environmental benefits and raise minimal health or environmental concerns. To date, the 

information available does not demonstrate the existence of any risks associated with

encapsulated uses of CCR that merit regulation under either subtitle C or Dsubtitle D of RCRA. 

While there can be some risks associated with unencapsulated uses--−for example, the 

placement of unencapsulated CCRsCCR on the land, such as in road embankmentslarge scale fill 

operations or in agricultural uses, depending on the specific site conditions--−in general the 

amounts and, in some cases, the manner in which they are used are very different than land

disposal. For example, agricultural uses involve the placement of inches rather than tons of 

CCRsCCR, and placement of CCRsCCR in a thin layer rather than mounded in a single 

concentrated location. In addition, these uses are subject to engineering specifications and 

materials requirements, which will limit the ultimate amount of material placed on the land. 

EPA recognizes that several proven damage cases involving the large-scale placement, 

akin to disposal, of CCRsCCR have occurred under the guise of ‘‘beneficial use’’— the

‘‘beneficial’’ use being the filling up of old quarries or gravel pits, or the re-grading of landscape 

with large quantities of CCRs. CCR. EPA did not consider this type of use as a ‘‘beneficial’’ use 

in its May 2000 Regulatory Determination, and still does not consider this type of use to be 

covered by the exclusion. Therefore, the final rule explicitly removes these types of uses from 

the category of beneficial use, and from this Regulatory Determination. As discussed in the next 

section of this preamble, EPA has adopted criteria in the final rule to ensure that inappropriate 

uses that are effectively are disposal will be regulated as disposal. The final rule expressly
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

102

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

defines the placement of CCRsCCR in sand and gravel pits or quarries as disposal in a landfill. 

In addition, the final rule provides that the use of large volumes of CCRsCCR in restructuring 

landscape that does not meet specific criteria will constitute disposal. 

While EPA has not definitively concluded that all unencapsulated beneficial uses are 

“safe,” based on the current record for this rulemaking, EPA is unable to point to evidence 

demonstrating that the unencapsulated uses subject to this Determination warrant federal 

regulation. While the absence of demonstrated harm in this instance is not proof of safety, 

neither is the lack of information proof of risk.35 

In this regard, EPA notes that many states have developed beneficial use programs that 

allow the use of CCRs as long asCCR, provided they are demonstrated to be non-hazardous

materials,; and many require a site specific assessment before authorizing placement on the land 

of large amounts of unencapsulated CCRs. CCR. For example, Wisconsin’s Department of

Natural Resources has developed a regulation (NR 538 Wis. Adm. Code), which includes a fivecategory system to allow for the beneficial use of industrial by-products, including coal ash, 

provided they meet the specified criteria. In addition, the ASTSWMO 2006 Beneficial Use 

Survey Report states that a total of 34 of the 40 reporting Statesstates, or 85 percent, indicated 

they had either formal or informal decision-making processes or beneficial use programs relating 

to the use of solid wastes.’’ (http://www.astswmo.org/files/ publications/solidwaste/

2007BUSurveyReport11–30–

 

35 The Agency is currently developing a Framework to address the risks associated with the beneficial use of 

unencapsulated materials. This Framework is expected to be finalized in 2015. See Unit VI of this notice for more 

information.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

103

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

07.pdf).(http://www.astswmo.org/Files/Policies_and_Publications/Solid_Waste/2007BUSurveyR

eport11-30-07.pdf).36 Because EPA has not identified significant risks associated with the 

beneficial uses covered by this Regulatory Determination, the adequacy of these state programs 

does not factor into EPA’s Determination. Nevertheless, to the extent that that these materials do 

have the potential to pose risk at an individual site, thatthe fact that many states exercise 

regulatory oversight of these materials provides an additional level of assurance. 

Finally, EPA does not wish to inhibit or eliminate the measurable environmental and

economic benefits derived from the use of this valuable material given the current lack of 

evidence affirmatively demonstrating an environmental or health risk. Consequently, EPA is 

confident that the combination of the final rule, EPA guidance, current industrial standards and 

practices, and in many cases, state regulatory oversight is sufficient to address concerns 

associated with the beneficial uses to which this Determination applies. 

C. Placement of CCR in Minefilling Operations

EPA is working with the U.S. Department of Interior’s Office of Surface Mining (OSM)

to develop effective federal regulations to ensure that the placement of CCR in minefill 

operations is adequately controlled. In doing so, EPA and OSM are considering the 

recommendations of the National Research Council (NRC), which, at the direction of Congress, 

studied the health, safety, and environmental risks associated with the placement of CCR in 

 

36 EPA has worked with the states to support the development of a national database on state beneficial 

use determinations. Information on the beneficial use determination database can be found on the 

Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association (NEWMOA) Web site at 

http://www.newmoa.org/solidwaste/bud.cfm.http://www.newmoa.org/solidwaste/bud.cfm. This database 

helps states share information on beneficial use decisions providing for more consistent and informed 

decisions.

Formatted: List Paragraph, Don't add space between

paragraphs of the same style, Line spacing: single,

Widow/Orphan control

Formatted: Font: Not Italic, (Intl) Arial Unicode MS

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

104

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

active and abandoned coal mines in all major U.S. coal basins. The NRC published its findings 

on March 1, 2006, in the report entitled, “Managing Coal Combustion Residues (CCRs) in 

Mines.” 37

The report concluded that the “placement of CCRs in mines as part of coal mine 

reclamation may be an appropriate option for the disposal of this material. In such situations, 

however, an integrated process of CCR characterization, site characterization, management and 

engineering design of placement activities, and design and implementation of monitoring is 

required to reduce the risk of contamination moving from the mine site to the ambient 

environment.” The NRC report recommended that enforceable federal standards be established 

for the disposal of CCR in minefills to ensure that states have specific authority and the state 

implement adequate safeguards. The NRC Committee on Mine Placement of Coal Combustion 

Wastes also stated that OSM and it SMCRA state partners should take the lead in developing 

new national standards for CCR use in mines because the framework is in place to deal with 

mine-related issues. Consistent with the recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences, 

the U. S. Department of the Interior (DOI) is taking the lead in developing these regulations. 

EPA will continue to work closely with DOI throughout this process. Therefore, the Agency is 

not addressing minefilling operations in this final rule.

D. CCR Generated by Non-Utility Boilers

This rule does not apply to CCRs that are generated by non-utility boilers (i.e., that are 

 

37

 This report is available at http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?=isbn=0309100496.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

105

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

not part of the electric power sector or independent power producers). Industries that burn coal 

to generate power for their own purposes (i.e., non-utilities) are primarily engaged in other 

business activities, such as industrial manufacturing (e.g., chemical, pulp and paper), mining, and 

institutions (e.g., colleges and universities, hospitals, military installations). The electricity 

generated by these non-utility boilers is mainly for their own use, although any excess may be 

sold in the wholesale market.

EPA never proposed to include these wastes in the rule because EPA lacked critical data 

from these facilities that would allow us to address key Bevill criteria (see 75 FR at 35165). 

These other industries and the manufacturing industries in particular, generate other types of 

wastes which are likely to be mixed or co-managed with the CCRs at least at some facilities. As 

a result, the chemical compositions of the co-managed wastes are likely to be fundamentally 

different from the chemical composition of CCRs that are generated by electric utilities or 

independent power producers. In addition, EPA also noted that insufficient information was 

available on non-utility boilers burning coal to determine whether a regulatory flexibility 

analysis would be required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, nor to conduct one if it is 

necessary. Without such data, we were unable to fully assess CCR wastes from non-utility 

operations and indicated that we would decide on an appropriate course of action for these 

wastes after completing this rulemaking (see 75 FR at 35129).

In response to the Agency’s decision to limit the rule to the electric power sector, several 

commenters stated that EPA’s decision to propose limiting the scope of the rule only to CCRs 

generated by the electric power sector (electric utilities and independent power producers) was 

arbitrary. These commenters stated that CCRs generated by the electric power sector and CCRs 

generated by non-utilities are generally comparable in physical and chemical composition and 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

106

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

are typically managed similarly. As a result, these commenters suggested that EPA amend the 

applicability of the rule to subject all facilities that generate CCR to the same disposal 

requirements. EPA also received comments maintaining that important differences exist 

between CCR generated by electric power sector facilities and non-utility facilities that support 

EPA’s proposed decision to exclude CCRs generated by non-utilities from the rule. Differences 

identified by the commenters included waste management issues (e.g., mixing and subsequent 

co-management of non-utility CCRs and other industrial wastes generated by non-utilities), CCR 

generation rates, CCR management unit design, and CCR management unit operation. In 

response to our request for additional information, a few commenters provided either waste 

characterization data for non-utility CCRs or information on alleged damage cases involving 

non-utility CCRs.

Based on the proposed rule, EPA cannot include these facilities in this final rule, even if 

the Agency had concluded that it had received the necessary information from commenters. 

EPA specifically stated its intention to exclude them, and clearly stated that it had not assessed 

the operations. 75 FR at 35166. The Agency provided no notice of any intention to include such 

facilities, and did not solicit comment on such an option. Moreover, under the Administrative 

Procedure Act, the public must be given the opportunity to comment on not only the information 

that would support such an action, but also EPA’s evaluation of that information, and the 

reasoning behind the Agency’s decision. And with respect to these facilities, no such 

opportunity has been presented. EPA will consider the information provided by commenters at a 

future point, and will determine whether the information is sufficient to address key Bevill 

criteria and to decide on the appropriate regulatory scheme for disposal of CCRs generated by 

non-utilities. As a result, this rule does not apply to owners and operators of landfills and surface 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

107

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

impoundments in which CCRs are disposed that were generated by non-utility boilers burning 

coal.

V. Development of the Final Rule - RCRA Subtitle D Regulatory Approach 

As previously discussed in Unit II, the authority to develop and promulgate the national 

minimum criteria governing the disposal of CCR in landfills and surface impoundments is found 

under the provisions of sections 1008(a), 4004, and 4005(a) of RCRA (i.e., subtitle D of 

RCRA). These authorities, however, do not provide EPA with the ability to issue permits, 

require states to issue permits, approve state programs to operate in lieu of the Federalfederal

program, or to enforce any of the requirements addressing the disposal of CCR. Consequently, 

EPA designed the proposed RCRA subtitle D option to ensure that the requirements will 

effectively protect human health and the environment within those limitations. The final rule 

establishes self-implementing requirements—primarily performance standards--that owners or 

operators of regulated units can implement without any interaction with regulatory officials. 

In developing the subtitle D option for the proposal, EPA considered a number of 

existing programs as relevant models. EPA drew most heavily on the existing 40 CFR Part 258 

program applicable to municipal solid waste landfills. MSWLFs. While this program does not 

address CCR disposal in surface impoundments, it provided EPA with a general regulatory 

framework that addressed all aspects of disposal in certain land-based units. Given the Agency’s 

expansive history and experience with these requirements, EPA believedconcluded that the part 

258 criteria with certain modifications for other land-based disposal units (i.e., surface 

impoundments) represented a reasonable balance between ensuring the protection of human 

health and the environment from the risk of CCR disposal and the absence of any regulatory 

oversight. (See 75 FR 35192-35195.) Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

108

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

EPA also considered that many of the technical requirements developed to specifically 

address the risks from the disposal of CCRsCCR as part of the subtitle C alternative would be 

equally justified under a RCRA subtitle D regulatory regime. The factual record—i.e., the risk 

analysis and the damage cases—supporting such requirements was the same, irrespective of the 

statutory authority under which the Agency iswas operating. Thus, several of the provisions 

under RCRA subtitle D either corresponded to the proposalsproposal under RCRA subtitle C, or 

were modeled after the existing subtitle C requirements; for example, EPA proposed the same 

MSHA-based structural stability standards for surface impoundments under both the subtitle C 

and subtitle D options. However, because there is no corresponding guaranteed permit 

mechanism under the RCRA subtitle D requirements, EPA also considered the 40 CFR part 265 

interim status requirements for hazardous waste facilities, which were designed to operate in the 

absence of a permit. These requirements were particularly relevant in developing the 

requirements for surface impoundments since such units are not regulated under 40 CFR part 

258. Beyond their self-implementing design, these requirements provided a useful model 

because, based on decades of experience in implementing these requirements EPA has assurance 

that these requirements were protective for a variety of waste, under a wide variety of site 

conditions. 

In an effort to ensure that the proposed RCRA subtitle D requirements would achieve the 

statutory standard of “no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health and the 

environment” in the absence of guaranteed regulatory oversight, EPA also proposed to require 

facilities to obtain third party certifications and to provide enhanced state and public notifications 

of actions taken to comply with the regulatory requirements. Specifically, EPA proposed that 

certain technical demonstrations made by the owner or operator be certified by an independent 

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

109

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

registered professional engineer or hydrologist, in order to provide verification and otherwise 

ensure that the provisions of the rule were properly applied. EPA also provided a regulatory 

definition of the term, “independent registered professional engineer or hydrologist,” to identify 

the minimum qualifications necessary to make these certifications. While EPA acknowledged

that relying upon a third party certification was not the same as relying upon a state or federal 

regulatory authority and was not expected to provide the same level of independence as a state 

permit program, the availability of meaningful third party (i.e., independent) verification 

provided critical support that the rule will achieve the statutory standard, as it would provide at 

least some degree of control over a facility’s discretion in implementing the the rule.

As part of the notification requirements, EPA further proposed that all owners and 

operators create and maintain an operating record and publically accessible web sitewebsite, 

containing comprehensive documentation of compliance with the rule. EPA also 

requiredproposed that owners or operators provide notification to the state and the public of third 

party certifications as well as other information documenting decision made or actionactions

taken to comply with the criteria of the rule. 

A. The Self- Implementing Approach

While the vast majority of state and industry commenters supported regulating the 

management of CCRsCCR under subtitle D of RCRA, a very limited number of commenters 

favored the proposed self-implementing option. Most commenters argued that if the Agency 

were to adopt the proposed subtitle D approach it would most certainly result in parallel and 

redundant regulatory programs for CCR in many states, creating an unworkable situation for 

industry, as well as the state. Some commenters argued that under this dual regulatory approach, 

an owner/ or operator of a CCR unit could be conceivably be in non-compliance with both a 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

110

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

federal requirement and an independently administered state regulatory requirement, subjecting 

the owner or operator to both a citizen suit enforcement action in federal court for the alleged 

violation and to a wholly separate enforcement action in state court for violation of the parallel 

state requirement. Commenters argued that this regulatory construct made no sense and would 

waste federal and state judicial resources and company resources, as well as possibly resulting in 

inconsistent federal and state court determinations with respect to an identical regulatory 

requirement. It also could result in duplicative federal and state penalties for essentially the same 

regulatory infraction. 

Commenters further argued that the prescriptive one-size-fits-all approach was overly 

stringent and inflexible and had the potential to greatly disrupt implementation of a state’s rules 

and authorities thatregulatory programs, which have been tailored to provide for site specific 

conditions and situations. Moreover, commenters argued that because of the many state 

regulatory programs addressing CCR disposal, there would be many instances where state 

requirements could be in conflict with, in addition to, or separate from the federal requirements 

and it was unclear as to how these differences would be resolved.

Many commenters simply argued that a permitting program similar to that for municipal 

solid waste landfillMSWLFs was the only viable approach for the regulation of CCRs. CCR. A

significant number of commenters, however, proposed various alternative approaches for 

regulating CCR disposal under subtitle D of RCRA. One option would have EPA allow 

qualified state programs to directly administer the subtitle D requirements for CCRsCCR when 

the state regulatory program meets or exceeds the federal requirements, thereby minimizing 

duplicative regulations and avoiding the self-implementing “one size fits all” approach contained 

in EPA's proposal. This option, commenters reasoned, could be implemented utilizing a process 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

111

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

developed by the Agency for evaluating whether the state’s CCR regulations were equivalent to 

the federal minimum criteria (much like EPA does now in the case of municipal solid waste 

landfillsMSWLFs under 40 CFR Part 258). Another suggested approach involved EPA 

clarifying that a state can be more restrictive than the federal rule, and that where a state has a 

Subtitle D regulatory program that is more restrictive, the state program and permitting process 

would take precedence over any self-implementation aspects of a final rule. (The proposed rule

had simply stated that an owner or operator must comply with any other applicable federal, state, 

tribal or local laws or other requirements.) Commenters also proposed a third option, similar to 

the 40 CFR Part 258 program, recognizing that EPA cannot approve state programs in this rule. 

Specifically, 40 CFR part 258 provides a definition for “Director of an approved state” that 

means “the chief administrative officer of a state agency responsible for implementing the state 

permit program that is deemed to be adequate by EPA under regulations published pursuant to 

sections 2002 and 4005 of RCRA.” The commenters suggested that the final rule adopt a similar 

approach by defining a “state permit program” and allowing a Statestate permit program that met 

the definition to approve compliance with a specified regulatory requirement, e.g., landfill 

design. The commenter suggested the following definition: “Statestate permit program means a 

permit program implemented by a Statestate agency that adopts and implements the minimum 

requirements for the disposal of coal combustion residuals outlined in this final rule.” The 

commenter claimed that such an approach should not affect enforcement through citizen suits 

under RCRA section 7002 or by EPA under RCRA section 7003. Taking such an approach, 

commenters reasoned, would allow states to utilize their own enforcement authority and not rely 

upon the citizen suit authority under RCRA section 7002. Furthermore, allowing states to 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

112

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

consider alternative approaches to the technical standards and may give states an incentive to 

adopt the minimum requirements of the final federal rule into their state permit programs.

Still otherAs noted, many commenters suggested that EPA could rely on the same 

combination of RCRA statutory authorities, i.e., RCRA sections 4010(c) and 4005(c), to 

establish controls for CCR disposal units that it employed in promulgating federally enforceable 

subtitle D rules for municipal solid waste (MSW) landfillsMSWLFs and for non-MSW 

landfillsMSWLFs that receive household hazardous waste and small quantity generator waste 

under 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258. RCRA sections 4010(c) and 4005(c), the commenters 

reasoned, provideprovides EPA that authority because non-hazardous waste CCR disposal 

facilities have the potential to receive household wastes or conditionally exempt small quantity 

generator waste, whether or not such waste is actually received at the CCR disposal facility. 

Commenters contended that the combination of these two provisions could enable EPA to 

promulgate non-hazardous waste rules for CCR that could be directly administered through state 

permitting programs and backed up by direct EPA enforcement powers in those states that fail to 

adequately implement the federal rules. Such an approach, commenters concluded provides the 

Agency with the enforcement authority it desires under a subtitle D regulatory program, while 

enabling states to have a prominent role in the administration of any subtitle D rules, whileand

preventing the duplication of potentially conflicting federal and state controls. 

Finally, some commenters encouraged EPA to request from Congress the statutory 

authority necessary to propose non-hazardous regulations under subtitle D that could be 

implemented by the states and provide federal enforceability (similar to RCRA’s part 258 

requirements for municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills). MSWLFs). Commenters argued that 

states should be allowed to enforce compliance through a traditional permitting system, and that 

Formatted: Font: Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

113

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

solid waste operating permits are critical to ensuring coal ash disposal facilities design, construct, 

operate and close their waste facilities safely. Permits are important because they can dictate the 

use of specific operating practices and control technologies that may be essential for minimizing 

releases. Permits also provide an important enforcement vehicle, as well as a process by which 

the public can be informed and participate in the siting, operation and closure of the waste 

disposal unit. 

While the Agency appreciates commenters’ attempts to craft alternative approaches to 

address the limitations in the proposed self-implementing subtitle D option, EPA has not 

“chosen” to design standards under subtitle D that are self-implementing. The sections of RCRA 

that are currently applicable to CCR – sections 1008(a), 4004(a), and 4005(a)--only authorize the 

Agency to establish minimum national criteria that apply to “facilities.”

EPA agrees that it would be preferable to establish a program that requires facilities to 

obtain a permit. As previously discussed, these provisions do not authorize EPA to require that 

facilities obtain a permit from EPA or a state. The fact that section 4004(a) does not contain any 

provision that either expressly requires a permit to manage waste, such as in section 3005, or that 

requires states to adopt a permit program, such as in section 4004(c)(1), provides strong evidence 

that Congress did not authorize EPA to impose such a requirement on facilities managing solid 

waste. Compare 42 U.S.C. §§ 6925(a), 6944(a), and 6945(c)(1). This is further confirmed by 

the fact that Congress thought it necessary to expressly add provisions to require state permit 

programs in 4010(c) and 4005(c). And the fact that the HSWA provisions are limited to two 

specifically enumerated types of units also demonstratesprovides further evidence that Congress

intended to authorize EPA to require permits only for these units. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

114

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The restriction that the criteria apply only to “facilities” also means that EPA cannot 

establish any requirements on states or state programs, either directly or indirectly. This means, 

for example, that EPA cannot adopt a regulation that restricts certain provisions to those “state 

permit programs” that meet EPA requirements, as one commenter suggested, since this would 

indirectly regulate state programs—leaving aside that EPA never proposed anything of the sort. 

This also means that EPA cannot require a facility to obtain state approval, as this not only 

presupposes the existence of a state permit program, but also that the state will approve the 

facility action on the basis of EPA's criteria. EPA cannot condition a facility’s compliance on 

actions beyond its control.

However, these provisions restrict EPA’s authority only. The legislation is clear that 

these are minimum requirements only, and without preemptive effect; states may therefore 

impose more stringent requirements, including the requirement that CCR facilities obtain a 

permit. This is also wholly consistent with longstanding EPA interpretations. See 44 FR 53438, 

53439 (September 13, 1979) (“the standards established in the criteria constitute minimum 

requirements. These criteria do not preempt other State and Federal requirements. Nothing in the 

Act precludes the imposition of additional obligations under authority of other laws on parties 

engaged in solid waste disposal.”); see also 44 FR 45066 (July 31, 1979) (“EPA establishes only 

‘minimum’ requirements under this portion of the Act which should not prevent States from 

developing broader programs or stricter standards under authority of State law.”). States may 

also incorporate the Federalfederal requirements into state law—whether through revisions to 

existing legislation or regulation, or through incorporating them into any permits issued to CCR 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

115

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

facilities. Such an approach would also resolve commenters’ concerns about the potential for 

“parallel and redundant regulatory programs.” 

EPA also agrees that it would be preferable to have a program analogous to that 

underWhile subtitle C orand 4005(c), in which states oversee the) provide for state oversight on 

rule implementation of this rule, and in whichallow approved state requirements to operate in 

lieu of the federal criteria. Unfortunately, the Agency lacks the authority to do so under the 

subsections of RCRA that are currently applicable to CCRs to do more than encourage states to 

adopt the federal criteria.

CCR. The provisions applicable to solid waste—sections 1008(a)(3), 4003, 4004(a) and 

4005(a)—establish a regulatory structure that differs in key respects from those established under 

subtitle C and for MSWLFs inunder section 4005(c). Under subtitle C and section 4005(c), 

Congress required EPA to establish federal criteria that will serve as national minimum 

standards, which is comparable to the authority under section 4004(a). But subtitle C and section 

4005(c) also include detailed provisions governing both the state implementation of those 

requirements and the relationship between the federal requirements and the state programs that 

implement them. No comparable provisions appear in either section 4004(a) or section 4003, 

which governs the approval of state solid waste management plans. And the consequences of 

these omissions are significant. 

Subtitle C of RCRA contains several provisions that establish the relationship between 

the federal program and state requirements; these include provisions authorizing EPA to approve 

state programs and to retain a direct role in the implementation of the federal minimum 

requirements, whether through continued oversight of Statestate implementation or direct 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

116

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

implementation of the regulations. See, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6926, 6928(a)(2), and 6929. For purposes 

of this issue, the most critical of these is the explicit direction in section 3006 that authorized 

state programs “operate in lieu of the Federal program.” 42 U.S.C. § 6926(b), (c)(1). See also 

42 U.S.C. § 6929 (prohibiting the adoption of less stringent state requirements than those in EPA 

regulations, and authorizing states to establish more stringent requirements). 

The provisions for MSWLFs under section 4005(c) are less detailed, but establish a 

similar regulatory structure. Section 4005(c)(1) expressly directs the states to "adopt and 

implement a permit program or other system of prior approval and conditions,” for covered 

facilities in order to implement federal requirements established for such facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 

6945(c)(1). The statute directs EPA to determine the adequacy of such programs, and directs 

EPA to enforce the federal requirements in states that have not adopted an adequate program. 42 

U.S.C. § 6945(c)(1)(C), (2). While less detailed than the provisions under subtitle C, section 

4005(c) establishes a system that is equally predicated on mandated implementation by a state 

regulatory authority of the federal requirements, rather than the potential coexistence of two 

separate regulatory systems. 

The absence of any similar provisions in the “solid waste” provisions of subtitle D 

demonstrates that Congress intended to create a different regulatory structure. EPA’s role under 

sections 1008(a)(3) and 4004(a) is to establish minimum criteria to determine which facilities 

“shall be classified as sanitary landfills and which shall be classified as open dumps,” and to 

encourage states to use the criteria as a part of their solid waste management planning. Under 

this regulatory structure, Congress intended that the federal requirements apply directly to 

facilities and operate independent of state involvement, unless the states choosestate chooses to 

do otherwise. The ability to approve state solid waste management plansSWMPs under section 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

117

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

4003 does not alter this relationship. Indeed, the fact that Congress thought it necessary to revise 

section 4005 to include the specific provisions in subsection (c) confirms that Congress did not 

believe such authority already existed under sections 4003 and 4004. 

Approval of a state’s solid waste management plan pursuant to section 4003 qualifies the 

state to receive federal funds (no longer available) and authorizes the state to issue compliance 

schedules; but unlike under section 3006 or 4005(c), an authorized plan does not affect the 

federal minimum standards themselves, or authorize states to do so. Section 4003 contains 

nothing that explicitly or implicitly authorizes state requirements to operate “in lieu of” the 

federal requirement as a consequence of EPA approval of the state plan. The closest analogue is 

that states with an approved plan may establish a “timetable or schedule” to bring existing open 

dumps into compliance with the federal requirements; but notably, Congress only authorized the 

state to modify the time framestimeframes by which such facilities must be in compliance, not 

the substantive requirements themselves. 42 U.S.C. § 6945(a).

The combination of this regulatory structure and the need to demonstrate that the final 

rule achieves section 4004(a)’s protectiveness standard based on the record at the time the rule is 

promulgated also effectively limits EPA’s ability to establish the kind of regulatory provisions 

commenters have requested (i.e., establish an alternative that allows a State permit program to 

approve a less stringent technical requirement based on site specific conditions). Because as 

discussed in Unit IV.A, EPA is currently unable to reach a conclusion regarding the adequacy of 

state programs, EPA cannot demonstrate that such an alternative would meet the section 4004(a) 

standard. And in the absence of a mandatory mechanism for subsequent public involvement and 

review, which would create decisions with their own record, subject to judicial review in their 

own right, the lack of such information is dispositive. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

118

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

With respect to the proposal to rely on RCRA sections 4010(c) and 4005(c) authorities, 

EPA also disagrees that this is a viable option. As the comment appears to acknowledge, 

construing sections 4010(c) and 4005(c) to apply to CCR disposal units on the basis that they 

could potentially receive conditionally-exempt small quantity generator waste is inconsistent 

with EPA’s longstanding interpretation of those sections. EPA directly addressed this issue 

nearly 20 years ago in the preamble for EPA’s final rules at 40 CFR 257, Subpart B. That 

discussion is reproduced here in its entirety: 

The proposed rule was written to provide that only those non-municipal nonhazardous waste disposal units which meet the requirements in §§ 257.5 through 257.30 

"may receive" CESQG waste, as required by RCRA section 4010(c). Any non-municipal 

non-hazardous waste disposal unit that did not meet the proposed requirements may not 

receive CESQG hazardous wastes. The proposal was written to apply to non-municipal 

non-hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG waste for storage, treatment, or 

disposal, including such units as surface impoundments, landfills, land application units 

and waste piles. The regulatory definition of the term "disposal" cover all placement of 

wastes on the land. See 40 CFR 257.2.

Several commentorscommenters addressed the Agency's interpretation of the 

statutory language "may receive". One commentorcommenter supported the Agency's 

decision to limit the proposed regulatory requirements to only those non-municipal nonhazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG wastes. Another 

commentorcommenter, however, stated that a closer reading of Section 4010(c) reveals 

that Congress was not only concerned about modifying the criteria for "facilities that may 

receive hazardous household wastes or hazardous wastes from small quantity generators * 

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Space Before: 0 pt

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Space Before: 0 pt,

After: 0 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

119

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

* *" but also for "facilities potentially receiving such wastes." According to the 

commentorcommenter, the "may receive" clause of the first sentence in Section 4010(c) 

merely refers to whether a facility may legally receive CESQG waste for disposal. The 

"potentially receiving such wastes" clause of the third sentence of Section 4010(c) refers 

to the actual potential for such facilities to receive CESQG wastes. The potential for 

CESQG waste to be disposed of at many types of industrial D landfills is high even with 

the proposed prohibition under § 261.5. It is the "potentially receiving" clause that 

specifically commands the Agency to promulgate provisions for all industrial facilities that 

could potentially receive CESQG wastes.

EPA disagrees with the commentor'scommenter's interpretation of the statutory 

language in RCRA section 4010(c). More specifically, for a number of reasons, the Agency 

does not believe that the statutory language cited by the commentorcommenter evidences 

congressional intent that the revised criteria being promulgated in this rule should address 

disposal of solid waste in all industrial disposal facilities. First, EPA believes that the 

commentorcommenter errs by focusing only on the "facilities potentially receiving" 

language in the last sentence of section 4010(c). If one reviews this language together with 

the statutory language in RCRA section 4010(a), it is clear that Congress did not intend for 

the revised criteria being promulgated in this rule to apply to all industrial landfills. 

“RCRA section 4010(a) required EPA to conduct a study of the then existing 

guidelines and criteria issued under RCRA sections 1008 and 4004 which were applicable 

to "solid waste management and disposal facilities, including, but not limited to landfills 

and surface impoundments." 42 U.S.C. § 6949a(a). This statutory language does indeed 

suggest that EPA was to study a wide range of solid waste disposal facilities, including 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

120

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

industrial landfills. (As the commentorcommenter stated, because the information on 

industrial disposal facilities was quite limited, EPA's report to Congress did focus on 

municipal landfills.)

However, the statutory language in section 4010(c) directing EPA to promulgate a 

rule revising the criteria in 40 CFR Part 257 limits the rule's applicability only to those 

facilities which may receive hazardous household waste or small quantity generator waste. 

42 U.S.C. 6949a(c). If Congress had intended the revised criteria under section 4010(c) to 

apply to all solid waste disposal facilities, including industrial landfills and surface 

impoundments, it clearly could have done so by enacting language similar to that already 

used in section 4010(a).

Secondly, the legislative history of RCRA section 4010 suggests that Congress 

expressly rejected a provision that would have required rules to be promulgated under 

section 4010(c) to apply to the entire universe of RCRA Subtitle D solid waste disposal 

facilities. Indeed, the House version of section 4010 would have required EPA to 

promulgate revised guidelines and criteria such that they would be applicable to all "solid 

waste management and disposal facilities, including, but not limited to landfills and surface 

impoundments * * *." H.R. 2867, section 30, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (as introduced in the 

Senate on November 9, 1983). However, the Conference Committee instead adopted a 

Senate amendment which limited the scope of the revised criteria to those facilities that 

may receive hazardous household waste or small quantity generator waste. H. Rept. No. 

98-1133, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., at 116-117.

Another indication that RCRA section 4010(c) was not intended to cover the entire 

universe of solid waste disposal facilities is the fact that subsequent to the enactment of 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

121

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

section 4010(c) (as part of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments in 1984), a number 

of bills were introduced in Congress which would have either authorized or required EPA 

to issue additional regulations that would address all disposal facilities receiving industrial 

waste as opposed to addressing those which may receive CESQG waste as stated in Section 

4010(c). See, e.g., H.R. 3735, "Waste Materials Management Act of 1989," section 324 

(would have required EPA to promulgate standards for the management of industrial solid 

waste) (Luken Bill); S. 1113, "Waste Minimization and Control Act of 1989," section 204 

(would have required EPA to promulgate requirements for facilities that manage different 

types of industrial waste) (Baucus Bill). Neither of these provisions (although neither was 

enacted) would have been necessary if RCRA section 4010(c) required EPA to promulgate 

revised criteria for all types of industrial disposal facilities.

This same commentorcommenter cites to language in both the Report to Congress 

(as provided for in RCRA section 4010(b)) and the MSWLF rulemaking to suggest that 

EPA acknowledged that all industrial landfills, even those not receiving CESQG waste, 

should fall within the scope of this rule. EPA acknowledges that it expressed a concern 

about the potential risks that industrial solid waste disposal facilities might pose; however, 

EPA indicated that it did not have the level of information necessary to conduct a 

rulemaking for such disposal facilities. At the time of issuing the final MSWLF rule, EPA 

indicated that it would attempt to study these facilities to gain a better understanding of the 

risks that they may pose. See 56 FR 51000 (Oct. 9, 1991).

After investigating available information in more detail, it became clear that of all 

industrial solid waste disposal facilities, only construction and demolition and off-site 

commercial facilities typically receive CESQG waste. As discussed in the proposed rule, 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

122

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

recent information and discussions with the relevant industries indicate that on-site 

industrial disposal facilities (which make up the vast majority of industrial disposal 

facilities) generally do not receive CESQG waste. However, the commentorcommenter

should be aware that EPA has drafted the rule such that it will apply to such industrial onsite facilities if they receive CESQG waste. See sections 257.5(a) (1) and (3).” 61 FR

34252, 34254-55 (July 1, 1996).

(See 61 FR 34252, 34254-55 (July 1, 1996).)

The commenter makes essentially the same argument based on the same language in 

4010(c),) that EPA rejected in the above discussion. The commenter does not provide 

anyprovided no legal analysis that contravenes the bases for EPA’s interpretation of Subtitle D. 

EPA thus declines to reopen or reconsider this interpretative question. EPA also notes that in any 

case, information in its record for this rulemaking indicates that CCR landfills or surface 

impoundments do not actually or potentially receive CESQG wastes. 

Nevertheless, EPA recognizes that this regulatory structure gives rise to legitimate 

concerns about the potential for duplicative or conflicting state and federal regulatory systems

relationship between the federal minimum criteria and existing state regulatory programs. EPA 

has tried. EPA has adopted measures to address these concerns within the confines of the 

regulatory structure that Congress established in subtitle D. First, EPA has made every effort to 

ensure that the final rule does not establish any requirements that truly conflict with existing state 

programs. To clarify, this does not mean that the requirements are necessarily the same, but 

rather that it is possible to comply with both federal and state requirements simultaneously. Or 

in other words, compliance with the more stringent standard—whether federal or state—will 

ensure compliance with the less stringent. Based on the comments received, EPA is aware of no 

Formatted: Font: Font color: Black, (Intl) Arial Unicode

MS
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

123

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

example of a situation in which truly conflicting requirements will exist. Second, as discussed, 

these regulations do not constrain or direct state action. States can impose more stringent or 

different requirements, such as requiring a permit. Nor does the regulation require the state to 

enforce the federal requirements; even with promulgation of the final rule, the decision to bring 

an action under section 7002 remains entirely within the state’s discretion. Third, as discussed in 

greater detail in Unit IX, EPA has developed a number of measures to clarify the relationship 

between an individual state program, or particular requirements, and the federal criteria. 

Specifically, for those states that choose to submit revised state solid waste management 

plansSWMPs that incorporate the federal criteria, EPA intends to rely on the existing processes 

in 40 CFR Part 256 relating to approval of state solid waste management plans. EPA expects 

that approval of a state solid waste management plan, while it cannot prevent a citizen group 

from filing a lawsuit, will carry substantial weight in any court proceeding charged with 

determining whether compliance with state requirements constitutes compliance with the federal 

criteria. 

Finally, EPA notes that the limitations inherent in subtitle D is a factor that will continue 

to weigh heavily in EPA’s continued evaluation of whether to ultimately retain the Bevill 

exemption. 

B. Enforceability of the Subtitle D Approach 

Numerous commenters raised concern that reliance on a RCRA citizen suit as the basic 

enforcement mechanism to address non-compliance with the CCR requirements present presents

environmental justice concerns. Commenters argued that as a practical matter, this selfimplementing approach would result in unenforced regulations affecting neighborhoods where 

environmental, legal, and technical services are unavailable or difficult to obtain. Commenters 

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

124

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

stated that it would be highly unreasonable and against public policy for EPA to place the burden 

of enforcement of the CCR regulations on citizens, arguing that it is EPA’s duty to make sure 

federal regulations protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and 

effectively, and that enforcement by citizen suits puts an unacceptable burden on low income 

populations located near these facilities. Commenters contended that environmental justice 

communities were the least likely to mount a serious challenge to the industry because low 

income people are often less well-educated, have less access to computers and internet 

technology, less knowledge of how to access and interpret environmental data, and are the least 

likely to have the resources for a time consuming legal battle. Commenters argued that given the 

high number of damage cases in this industry, it was clear that the industry cannot police itself 

and neither can state governments. For these reasons, commenters asserted that the regulations 

and the enforcement must come from the federal level. 

Conversely, other commenters were encouraged by the opportunity to enforce viathe rule 

through citizen suits, stating that it would result in very effective regulation since citizens have 

shown no reluctance to challenge companies that they believe are not responsibly following 

environmental regulations. Similarly, other commenters noted that other incentives existed to 

comply with the regulations, including the possibility of state and third party litigation (for both 

regulatory compliance and actual damages), and the requirements of investors, lenders, and 

insurers to demonstrate compliance with environmental requirements, i.e., investors and lenders 

typically condition capital investments and loans on environmental compliance. Commenters 

also noted that incentives to comply were created by environmental insurance policies, which 

“invariably exclude damage claims arising from non-compliance from covered events” as well as 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

125

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

typical corporate policies that call for environmental compliance as a standard operating 

procedure.

Still otherOther commenters focused on the role of the professional engineer in the selfimplementing framework, arguing that EPA is requiring the certifying professional to 

inappropriately take on a quasi-regulatory and enforcement role which places the certifying 

professional at great risk of being subject to nuisance lawsuits from project opponents, creating a 

scenario where some professionals may decline to be involved in such reviews.

Still other commenters argued with EPA’s basic premise that the RCRA subtitle D 

program lacks enforceability. Commenters contended that EPA’s concerns about the lack of 

direct federal enforcement authority failed to recognize the significant enforcement opportunities 

available under existing law, namely the "imminent and substantial endangerment authority" 

under RCRA §section 7003 to take action against any CCR unit that posed a risk to human 

health and the environment, as well as, the imminent and substantial endangerment authorities 

under CERCLA, as well as other federal authorities, including the federal Clean Water Act, to 

address circumstances where a CCR unit posed a threat. 

EPA agreesacknowledges that the lack of federal enforcement is a weakness of this 

ruleunder Subtitle D presents challenges. However, as discussed above, issuing minimum 

national standards under the authority that is currently applicable to CCRs (CCR (i.e., subtitle 

D), while not perfect,) is significantly more protective than the current federal standardstandards

in part 257 that apply to these wastes. It is more consistent with EPA’s obligations under RCRA 

to put in place the additional protections that, based on the information currently available, are 

necessary to protect health and the environment, rather than waiting until all of the information 

necessary to reach a final Bevill Determination is available. All of the considerations raised by 

Formatted: Don't add space between paragraphs of

the same style
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

126

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

the commenters will continue weigh heavily in EPA’s further evaluation of whether to ultimately 

retain the exemption.needed to protect health and the environment. As part of those 

requirements, EPA has developed a number of provisions designed to facilitate citizens to 

enforce the rule pursuant to RCRA section 7002. Chief among these is the requirement to 

publicly post monitoring data, along with critical documentation of facility operations, so that the 

public will have access to the information to monitor activities at CCR disposal facilities. 

Moreover, as noted elsewhere, a state seeking EPA’s approval for a State Solid Waste 

Management Plan would be required to conduct a public comment process to avail itself of the 

benefits of an EPA’s approval. 

EPA agrees that the states and citizens can enforce this rule under RCRA section 7002. 

EPA also agrees that the Agency retains the authority to bring an action under RCRA section 

7003, as well as other statutes, when the facts support the necessary findings. However, an action 

under section 7003 does not enforce the requirements of this rule. Certainly, EPA believes that 

the failure to comply with the requirements of the rule increases the probability that an imminent 

and substantial endangerment may arise, but the fact that a facility has not complied with one or 

more of the requirements of this rule does not per se establish that a section 7003 order is 

warranted.

The Agency also agrees that the concernsacknowledges that the self-implementing 

frameworks putscould potentially place certifying professionals at risk for lawsuits are valid; 

several of the performance standards in the proposed rule were adopted from part 258, which 

were designed to operate in the context of an approved state program, byunder the oversight of a 

state regulatory authority, rather than a purely private entity. In part due to this concern, the 

Agency has re-evaluated the performance standards throughout the final rule, and has revised 

Formatted: Font: Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

127

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

them where necessary to ensure that the requirements are sufficiently objective and technically 

precise that a qualified professional engineer will be able to certify that they have been met. 

C. Reliance on Certification by Independent Qualified Professional Engineers

As previously discussed, the vast majority of commenters were highly skeptical of a 

regulatory approach that substituted state oversight with an owner or operator hiring a consultant 

or professional, i.e., an independent registered professional engineer or hydrologist, to certify 

compliance with a federal regulatory requirement and posting that information on an internet 

site. More specifically, commenters were concerned that relying almost entirely on professional 

certifications for ensuring regulatory compliance did not seem like a reliable way to provide for 

protection of human health and or the environment. 

As explained in Unit IV.A, EPA is issuing national minimum criteria under subtitle D to 

put in place the technical requirements the Agency has determined are necessary to protect 

human health and the environment from the disposal of CCRsCCR in surface impoundments and 

landfills, at this time, while the Agency completes its Bevill Determination. EPA is relying on 

the certification in this context to partially compensate for one of the more significant limitations 

under the authorities currently applicable to CCRs: CCR: the lack of any guaranteed regulatory 

oversight mechanism. However, EPA disagrees that the rules rely "almost entirely" on 

professional engineers to protect human health and the environment. The final rule relies on 

multiple mechanisms to ensure that the regulated community properly implements requirements 

in this rule are properly implemented and fully adhered to by the regulated community. As one 

part of this multi-mechanism approach, owners or operators must obtain certifications by 

qualified individuals verifying that the technical provisions of the rule have been properly 

applied and met. However, a more significant component supporting EPA's determination that 

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

128

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

the technical requirements will achieve the level of protection required under section 4004(a) is 

the performance standards that the rules lay out. These standards impose specific technical 

requirements, and, even where they provide flexibility, will operate to significantly constrain the 

facility's activities and discretion. The certifications required by the rule supplement these 

technical requirements, and while they are important, they are not the sole mechanism ensuring 

regulatory compliance.

The rule also contains a number of provisions requiring the owner or operator to 

document their compliance with the rule’s technical requirements, and to post those documents 

on a publically available website in a timely and transparent manner. The rule also requires 

owners or operators to notify State Directors of numerous actions, including that certified 

demonstrations have been completed. This transparency will facilitate citizen and state oversight 

and overall enforcement of the requirements. Finally, the rule establishes specific time 

framestimeframes by which these actions must occur, including time framestimeframes by which 

facilities must document compliance with the various technical requirements in the rule. Time 

framesTimeframes have been established for: (1) technical compliance demonstrations made by 

the owner or operator; (2) certifications made by a qualified professional engineer verifying the 

technical accuracy and veracity of the compliance demonstration; (3) notifications made to the 

State Director; (4) submittals (e.g., data, reports and other documentation) to the operating 

record; and (5) postings to the owner or operator’s publicly accessible internet site. Further 

details pertaining to all of these requirements can be found in the Recordkeeping, Notification, 

and Posting of Information to the Internet section of the regulations published in this rule. 

1. Changes to the Definition of Independent Registered Professional Engineer or Hydrologist
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

129

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

EPA proposed to define “independent registered professional engineer or hydrologist” to 

mean a scientist or engineer who is not an employee of the owner or operator of a CCR landfill 

or CCR surface impoundment, who has received a baccalaureate or post-graduate degree in the 

natural sciences or engineering, and who has sufficient training and experience in groundwater 

hydrology and related fields as may be demonstrated by state registration, professional 

certifications, or completion of accredited university programs that enable that individual to 

make sound professional judgment regarding the technical information for which a certification 

under this subpart is necessary.

Many comments were received on the definition. Some commenters agreed with the 

proposed definition, but most commenters argued that significant changes were needed. These 

changes included removing the requirement that the engineer be “independent,” adding the word 

“qualified,” and limiting the ability to make certifications to “licensed” professional engineers. 

Still other commenters felt that EPA should broaden the qualifications beyond a professional 

engineer or hydrologist, to include geologists, hydrogeologists, groundwater scientists or “other 

qualified environmental professionals” among the individuals able to certify regulatory 

demonstrations. 

By far the issue receiving the most comment was whether the Agency should require a 

professional engineer to be “independent.” Commenters disagreed with EPA that the 

certification must be made by an independent registered professional engineer (i.e., not an 

employee of the owner/operator of the CCR unit). Commenters argued that most utilities 

employ a number of professional engineers that typically possess the most relevant experience 

and knowledge about the unit, and that company-employed engineers and hydrologists were in a 

much better technical position to certify technical provisions of the rule were being met. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

130

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Furthermore, commenters asserted that these professionals would be subject to the same state 

registration and licensing requirements as those not employed by the facility and would have an 

equally strong incentive to maintain their licenses in good standing as those that are independent

of the utility.,. These commenters also pointed to several EPA rulemakings in which EPA 

allowed “qualified” professional engineers to make the kind of certifications contemplated by 

this rulemaking, without requiring that they be “independent. ”.” Commenters also contended 

that state licensing and registration programs help to ensure that all professionals exercise proper 

judgment or “independence” regarding the operation of CCR landfills and CCR surface 

impoundments. Similarly, commenters claimed that a professional engineer without the required 

expertise would refuse to make any certifications for which they were not qualified. Some 

commenters suggested that EPA provide some criteria requiring demonstrated experience and 

training. Commenters also took issue with the fact that the definition focused entirely on 

groundwater hydrology and failed to include training or experience in other areas that would also 

be necessary to effectively certify specific technical criteria of the rule (e.g., structural integrity, 

composite liner design).

The definition EPA proposed for “independent registered professional engineer or 

hydrologist,” focused on three components that were intended to define the minimum 

qualifications necessary to independently verify that a specific technical standard was met and to 

provide sufficient objectivity to reduce the opportunity for abuse. These components were: (1) 

the individual was a scientist or engineer by academic training or education; (2) the individual 

was not an employee of the owner or operator of the CCR disposal unit; and (3) the individual 

had sufficient training in groundwater hydrology or related fields. The proposed definition did 

not require the individual to be licensed professional engineer or hydrologist; instead the Agency 

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

131

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

prohibited the individual providing the certification from being an employee of the owner or 

operator of the CCR unit, reasoning that this requirement would provide some degree of 

independent verification of facility practices.38 The Agency stated that the availability of 

meaningful independent verification was critical to EPA’s ability to conclude that thesethe

performance standards laid out in the proposed rule would meet the RCRA section 4004 

protectiveness standard.

In the course of developing this final rule, the Agency concluded that it needed to better 

define the connection between the technical requirements of the rule and the technical 

qualifications an individual must possess to certify the demonstrations being made by the owner 

or operator of the CCR disposal unit. In doing so, the Agency looked for direction in the 

following rules, the “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Burden Reduction 

Initiative” (71 FR 16826, April 4, 2006) and the “Oil Pollution Prevention and Response; NonTransportation-Related Onshore and Offshore Facilities Rulerule (67 FR 47042, July 17, 2002.) 

). In both of these actions, the Agency camehad come to similar conclusions. First, that 

professional engineers, whether independent or employees of a facility, being professionals, will 

uphold the integrity of their profession and only certify documents that meet the prescribed 

regulatory requirements; and that the integrity of both the professional engineer and the 

professional oversight of boards licensing professional engineers are sufficient to prevent any 

 

38 While the definition did not require the independent registered professional engineer or hydrologist to 

be licensed, the preamble did state that EPA expects that professionals in the field will have adequate 

incentive to provide an honest certification, given that the regulations require that the engineer not be an 

employee of the owner or operator of the CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundment, and that they 

operate under penalty of losing their license, implying that the professional was, in fact, licensed. This 

narrative and the title of independent registered professional engineer caused many commenters to 

assume that the certifiers indeed had to be a licensed professional engineers. (See 75 FR at 35194, June 

21, 2010)..)

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

132

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

abuses. See for(For an example see: 67 FR 47084, July 17, 2002. .) And second, that in -house 

professional engineers may be the persons most familiar with the design and operation of the 

facility and that a restriction on in-house professional certifications might place an undue and 

unnecessary financial burden on owners or operators of facilities by forcing them to hire an 

outside engineer. 

Reviewing these other regulatory actions and the Agency’s rationale for making its 

decisions, has leadled the Agency to a similar conclusion with regard to this rule -- that it is 

unnecessary to require the individual making certifications under this rule to be “independent.”

Thus the final rule does not prohibit an employee of the entity needing such certification,facility

from making the certification, provided they are a professional engineer that is licensed by a state 

licensing board. The personal liability of the professional engineer provides strong support for 

both the requirement that certifications must be performed by licensed professional engineers, 

and for removing the requirement that the engineer be "independent." 

While other commenters argued that the word “independent” should be retained because 

an independent review and certification avoids any potential of conflict of interest, the Agency is 

convinced that an employee of a facility, who is a qualified professional engineer and who has 

been licensed by a state licensing board would be no more likely to be biased than a qualified 

professional engineer who is not an employee of the owner or operator. Moreover, it is not clear 

that an in-house engineer faces a greater economic temptation than an independent engineer 

seeking to cultivate an ongoing relationship with a client. EPA has concluded that the programs 

established by state licensing boards provide sufficient guarantees that a professional engineer, 

regardless of whether he/she is “independent” of the facility, will give a fair technical review. 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

133

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Moreover, and asAs an additional protection, the Agency has re-evaluated the 

performance standards throughout the final rule to ensure that the requirements are sufficiently 

objective and technically precise that a qualified professional engineer will be able to certify that 

they have been met. 

The Agency agrees with concerns that a professional engineer may not be qualified to 

address all the varied aspects of CCR landfill and CCR surface impoundment design, and has 

amended the definition to clarify and strengthen the qualifications of the individual authorized to 

certify the technical demonstrations under the rule. In the proposed rule, the Agency did not 

require an independent registered professional engineer to be licensed, only that they be an 

engineer or hydrologist who had received a baccalaureate or post graduate degree in the natural 

sciences with training and experience in groundwater hydrology or a related field. While the 

term “independent registered professional engineer or hydrologist” conveyed to some 

commenters that the individual was in fact “licensed,” the definition in the proposal did not 

require it. MoreoverFurthermore, as noted by commenters, the proposed definition focused 

primarily on hydrogeology expertise and did not include training and experience qualifications 

necessary to accurately certify some of the requirements being promulgated in the rule, e.g., 

landfill and surface impoundment design and construction, structural stability assessments, 

analysis of unstable areas. In reviewing this proposed requirement, the Agency has determined 

that specifying exact qualifications and or experience for the professional engineer is neither

necessary nor practical, given the range of technical specifications that will require certification. 

EPA has therefore adopted a more succinct requirement focused on the professional engineer 

being qualifiedengineer’s qualifications to perform the task or certification. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

134

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

In making this change, the Agency was again strongly influenced by the “Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Burden Reduction Initiative” rule. (See 71 FR 16826, 

April 4, 2006)..) In that rule, EPA amended the majority of RCRA provisions requiring the 

certification of an “independent, qualified, registered, professional engineer” to substitute the 

phrase, a “qualified professional engineer,” reasoning that a requirement for a qualified 

professional engineer maintains the most important components of any certification requirement:

(1) that the engineer be qualified to perform the task based on training and experience; and (2) 

that she or he be a professional engineer licensed to practice engineering under the title 

Professional Engineer which requires following a code of ethics with the potential of losing 

his/her license for negligence (Seesee 71 FR at 16868.) 

In the “Burden Reduction Rule”the Agency concluded that a professional engineer is able 

to give fair and technical review because of the oversight programs established by the state 

licensing boards that will subject the professional engineer to penalties, including the loss of 

license and potential fines if certifications are provided when the facts do not warrant it. In fact, 

this personal liability of the professional engineer is one of the primary reasons that commenters 

to the “Burden Reduction Rule”supported the idea that RCRA certifications should only be done 

by licensed professional engineers (See 71 FR at 16868). .) Upon further analysis and reflection, 

the Agency sees no reason to deviate from the position EPA held in the “Burden Reduction 

Rule.” Despite some concerns raised by commenters that problems could occur if an owner or 

operator hires an engineering firm that is small, inexperienced, or operating outside of their past 

professional practice, the Agency continues to believe that with the protections afforded by the 

specific performance standards in this rule and the standards and ethics byto which a qualified 

professional engineer will certify technical demonstrationsis subject, situations wherein which an 

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

135

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

unqualified or un-licensed engineer certifies a technical demonstration will be avoided.

Furthermore, it is important to reiterate that state licensing boards can investigate complaints of 

negligence or incompetence on the part of professional engineers, and may impose fines and 

other disciplinary actions, such as cease-and-desist orders or license revocation. (See 71 FR at 

16868). .) In light of the third party oversight provided by the state licensing boards in 

combination with the numerous recordkeeping and recording requirements established in this 

rule, the Agency is confident that abuses of the certification requirements will be 

minimizedminimal and that human health and the environment will be protected.

The Agency wants to make it clear that qualified professional engineers can utilize a 

qualified team of professionals in performing the analyses that underlie these certifications. The 

Agency is confident that inIn most instances, EPA expects that the basis for certification by a 

qualified professional engineer will be the result of a team of professionals (e.g., geologists, 

hydrologists, scientists and engineers) who have collectively worked together in order to provide 

the data and analyses necessary for the professional engineer to certify the specific 

demonstration. 

The Agency is convinced that the change to the certification requirements to allow the 

use of in-house expertise will not compromise environmental safety. Professional engineers 

employed by a facility are more familiar with the facility’s particular situation and are in a 

position to provide more on-site review and oversight of the activity being certified. To this end, 

the Agency is also requiring that the qualified professional engineer be licensed in the state in 

which the CCR unit is located. The Agency has made this decision for a number of reasons, but 

primarily because state licensing boards can provide the necessary oversight on the actions of the 

professional engineer and investigate complaints of negligence or incompetence as well as 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, Add space between

paragraphs of the same style

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

136

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

impose fines and other disciplinary actions such as cease-and-desist orders or license revocation. 

Oversight may not be as rigorous if the professional engineer is operating under a license issued 

from another state. 

Finally, the Agency disagrees with comments that professional geologists or geoscientists 

should be added to the list of those professionals that have expertise and authority to certify 

compliance with certain RCRA subtitle D regulatory requirements. In developing this final rule, 

the Agency has re-considered the qualifications necessary to certify compliance with the 

technical requirements of the rule and is limiting compliance certifications to qualified 

professional engineers only. While some environmental professionals, e.g., hydrologists, 

geologists may be qualified to make certain certifications, we areEPA is not convinced that 

hydrologists or geologists licensed by a state are held to the same standards as a professional 

engineer licensed by a state licensing board. For example, it is unclear that hydrologists or 

geologists are subject to the rigorous testing required by professional engineers or that state 

licensing boards can investigate complaints of negligence or incompetence. Further, 

professional engineers have licensing boards in all 50 states, a standard not achieved by other 

professional disciplines. Consequently, hydrologists, geologists, or other professionals may only 

perform analyses that underlie the certification, but it is the responsibility of a qualified 

professional engineer to make the actual certification. 

D. State and Public Notifications of Certifications 

To address concerns about the absence of adequate regulatory oversight under subtitle D, 

EPA proposed to require state and public notifications of the third party certifications, as well as 

other information documenting the decisions made or actions taken by the owner or operator to 

comply with the technical criteria in the rule. As stated in the proposal and reiterated here, the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

137

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Agency cannot conclude that the regulations promulgated in this rule will ensure there is no 

reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment unless there is a 

mechanism for states and citizens, as the entities responsible for enforcing the rule, to 

effectively monitor or oversee its implementation. Mandated documentation and transparency 

of the owner or operator’s actions to comply with the rule provides this mechanism, and will help 

to minimize the potential for abuse. The proposal specified that the documentation of how the 

various technical standards had been met were to be placed in the facility’s operating record, 

along with notification to the appropriate state authority. Additionally, EPA proposed to require 

the owner or operator to maintain a website available to the public that would also provide access 

to this documentation. EPA proposed that owners or operators post notices and relevant 

information on the internet site with a link clearly identified as being a link to notifications, 

reports, and demonstrations required under the regulations. While EPA recognized that the 

internet is currently the most widely accessible means for gathering and disseminating 

information, the Agency also solicited comments regarding alternative methods to provide 

notifications to the public and the states. The Agency also solicited comment on whether to 

require the establishment of a publicly accessible internet site for providingto provide regulatory 

information to the public and the states, including whether there could be homeland security 

implications associated with internet posting of information, and whether the posting would 

duplicate information that is already available to the public through the state. 

In response to most of these proposals, the Agency received little comment. Significant 

comment, however, was received on the publicly accessible internet site. Commenters argued 

that absent specific statutory authorization, it was inappropriate for EPA to delegate a regulatory 

oversight function to the regulated community by requiring the creation of a web sitewebsite
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

138

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

and posting of regulatory compliance information. Commenters identified at least three 

substantial problems associated with “outsourcing information management responsibilities” to 

CCR facilities. First, commenters argued that EPA lacked the authority to impose such a 

requirement. Specifically, the commenters alleged that no statute authorizes EPA to demand 

that private parties act as an information clearinghouse for information pertaining to EPA’s 

regulatory functions, either generally or in the specific context of CCRsCCR. To the contrary,

the commenters argued, public information access statutes, such as the Freedom of Information 

Act are predicated on an assumption that information held by the government is presumptively 

public, while information held by a private entity presumptively is not.

Second, some commenters were concerned that facilities would not post information the 

facility deems to be confidential (e.g., the structural stability of ash pond impoundments) and by 

attempting to outsource the information management role to industry, EPA effectively allows 

industry to make the initial determination as to confidentiality and places the burden on citizens 

and EPA to take action to compel disclosure.

Third, commenters were concerned that citizen groups would not accept an electric 

utility’s self-reported information, regardless of the amount of effort the facility exerts to ensure 

the accuracy of the information, without a regulatory agency acting as the intermediary or 

providing some degree of oversight (e.g., EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory, EPA’s Biennial 

Report of hazardous waste facilities). By requiring citizen groups to obtain their information 

from industry instead of a regulator, the commenters argued that EPA is inviting conflict as to 

the adequacy of data and the sufficiency of the utilities’ responses to citizen groups’ requests for 

clarification or additional information. The fact that the industry has provided information to a 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

139

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

federal agency, subject to criminal penalties for providing false information, provides a useful 

public assurance of the integrity of the information.

Other commenters stated that the proposed requirement to maintain a website was

excessive, and generated a regulatory burden upon companies that serves no useful function. 

Commenters urged that the same purpose could be served simply through making the 

certification of the registered professional engineer available on the website. Other commenters 

argued that internet posting of information on a surface impoundment's construction raised 

homeland security issues. These commenters alleged that the information “can be extremely 

sensitive and may contain information that could be used by certain individuals with an intent to 

destroy a dam (e.g., engineering information on the structure's foundation, detailed information 

on physical and engineering properties, the basis for the structure hazard classification, slope 

stability information, etc.).”

Finally, some commenters offered an alternative to the requirement to establish and 

maintain a publicly accessible internet site. Under this alternative the information would be 

included in the owner’s/owner or operator’s operating record only, and persons with “legitimate 

interests in reviewing these data” could make a written request to the owner/ or operator or the 

permitting authority to obtain the information. The commenters alleged that this would also 

allow the owner/, operator, and federal/ and state authorities to know the names and identities of 

all organizations requesting information on the facility, which would help protect against the 

misuse of these data. 

EPA flatly disagrees that RCRA section 4004(a) does not authorize EPA to require 

facilities to disclose all of the information required under these final rule provisions. Section 

4004(a) delegates broad authority to EPA to establish criteria governing facilities’ management 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

140

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

of solid waste, requiring only that such criteria ensure that there will be no reasonable probability 

of adverse effects on health or the environment from the disposal of solid waste. The statute 

imposes no limits on the actions EPA may require facilities to perform to achieve that level of 

protection. Moreover, unlike other statutes, e.g., the Toxic Substances Control Act, or the 

Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide and Fungicide Act, RCRA contains neither provisions that grant 

facilities the right to withhold regulatory compliance information from the public, nor provisions 

that establish any reasonable expectation that such information will be kept confidential. To the 

contrary, section 7004 explicitly provides that [p]ublic participation in the ...implementation, 

and enforcement of any regulation under this chapter shall be provided for, encouraged, and 

assisted by the Administrator.” 42 U.S.C. § 6974(b). And in fact, this kind of information 

would routinely be publically available under the permitting process for hazardous waste 

facilities. Accordingly, provided that EPA has articulated a rational factual basis for these 

requirements, RCRA provides more than ample authority to support these requirements. 

As repeatedly discussed throughout this preamble, under section 4004(a),) EPA must be 

able to demonstrate, based on the record available at the time the rule is promulgated that the 

final rule provisions will achieve the statutory standard. As EPA explained in the proposal, that

a key component of EPA’s support for determining that the rule achieves the statutory standard 

is the existence of a mechanism for states and citizens to monitor the situation, such as when 

groundwater monitoring shows exceedancesevidence of potential contamination, so that they can 

determine when intervention is appropriate. The existence of effective oversight measures 

provides critical support for the statutory finding, particularly with respect to some of the more 

flexible alternatives EPA has adopted in certain of the technical standards in response to 

commenters’ requests for greater flexibility. These “transparency” requirements serve as a key 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

141

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

component by ensuring that the entities primarily responsible for enforcing the requirements 

have access to the information necessary to determine whether enforcement is warranted. Unlike 

a federal or state regulatory authority, private citizens cannot access a private facility to conduct 

inspections. While EPA encourages states to adopt and implement a CCR regulatory program, 

and seek EPA’s approval of it via a State Solid Waste Management Plan, EPA cannot require it. 

The final rule therefore must establish oversight mechanisms that will function effectively even 

in the absence of a state regulatory authority. 

Such notifications will also reduce the incentives for owners or operators to abuse the 

rule’s self-implementing requirements, and can improve compliance. Indeed, the public 

disclosure of information is an increasingly common and important regulatory tool, as evidenced 

by the 2010 guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with principles to 

assist agencies in using information disclosure to achieve regulatory objectives.

Thus, even if the commenters were correct that there exists a general “presumption” that 

information held by private entities need not be made publically available, that presumption can 

be, and has been, effectively rebutted by the facts at hand.

None of the alternatives offered by the commenters would fulfilfulfill these same 

objectives. For example, simply making the certification of the registeredqualified professional 

engineer available on the website without the underlying support information fails to provide the 

same incentives because no one could evaluate the accuracy of that certification. This alternative 

could also present the same concerns raised in comments on other sections of the rule, i.e., that 

such a requirement could place the engineer at great risk of being subject to lawsuits. Requiring 

persons with “legitimate interests in reviewing these data” to request the data from the 

owner/operator also fails to provide an effective guarantee, as facilities that have failed to 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

142

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

comply will hardly be likelyhave a strong incentive to providewithhold information documenting 

their non-compliance, however “legitimate” the request. And as noted, the absence of a 

guaranteed state permitting program, means that requiring citizens to request information from 

such entities is also not a viable alternative. 

Given the absence of a guaranteed regulatory authority, EPA also disagrees that posting such 

information on a company internet site is necessarily duplicative, particularly in those states that 

have no regulatory program for controlling CCRsCCR. In addition, state requirements, whether 

pursuant to permits or other regulatory mechanisms, may not necessarily correspond to the 

requirements of this rule... 

EPA acknowledges that parties may be suspicious of information self-reported by 

regulated entities. However, it is important to remember that facilities that provide information 

in compliance with these regulation remain subject to the penalties for providing false 

information under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, even though the information will not be submitted to EPA. 

For example, the Tenth Circuit has held that federal jurisdiction lies under 18 U.S.C. s§ 1001 

when a defendant has submitted false information to a state delegated to enforce a federal 

environmental statute. United States v. Wright, 988 F. 2d 1036 (10th Cir. 1993) (defendant 

submitted false monitoring reports required by the Safe Drinking Water Act to Oklahoma 

officials). This is consistent with rulings in other areas that the false statement need not be made 

directly to the federal government. United States v. Uni Oil Co., 646 F.2d 946, 954-55 (9th Cir. 

1981); see also United States v. Patullo, 709 F.2d 1178, 1180 (7th Cir.1983); United States v. 

Ross, 77 F.3d 1525, 1544 (7th Cir.1996) (“This court has repeatedly found the submission of a 

fraudulent statement to a private (or non-federal government) entity to be within the jurisdiction 

of a federal agency where the agency has given funding to the entity and fraudulent statements 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

143

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

cause the entity to utilize the funds improperly.”). As commenters recognized, the potential for 

criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. §1001 provides a significant guarantee, as well as a strong 

incentive for compliance. 

EPA also disagrees with the comments raising concern about the homeland security

concern overimplications of posting information on a CCR surface impoundment’s construction, 

as it relates to structural stability. Much of the information relevant to an impoundment’s 

structural stability is currently available through Google Earth or through EPA’s website. For 

example, EPA’s website currently provides access to all of the information from the responses to 

EPA’s original 104(e) information requires and the information obtained through the CCR dam 

integrity assessments. This information can be accessed at the following pages: 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/index.htm, 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/index.htm, and 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccrs-fs/index.htm. Moreover, the 

Department of Homeland Security has cleared both the internet posting of all of the information 

currently on EPA’s website, as well as, in general, information on the design, hydraulic 

parameters, volume of contained liquids and solids, and hazard rating of all major CCR surface 

impoundments across the U.S.

VI. Development of the Final Rule – Technical Requirements 

A. Applicability

EPA proposed general provisions to identify those solid waste disposal units subject to 

the proposed RCRA subpart D requirements (i.e., CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments 

as defined under proposed § 257.40(b)). The applicability section also identified three of the 

existing subpart A criteria that would continue to apply to these facilities: § 257.3-1 Floodplains, 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

144

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

§ 257.3-2 Endangered Species, and § 257.3-3 Surface Water. Consistent with RCRA section

4004(c), EPA specified an effective date of 180 days after publication of the final rule. 

The Agency received numerous comments on this part of the rule. In general, 

commenters were concerned with three specific areas. First, commenters requested additional 

clarification as to the specific sources of CCR that would be subject to the requirements of the 

rule, i.e., CCRsCCR generated by the electric utilities and independent power producers. 

Second, commenters requested clarification on the applicability of the proposed regulations to 

municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) disposing of CCRsCCR and third, the definition and 

status of “uniquely associated wastes.” Uniquely associated wastes are addressed in Unit XIII of 

this preamble. EPA also received numerous comments regarding the proposal to apply the rule 

to “inactive” CCR surface impoundments that had not completed closure prior to the effective 

date of the rule. 

EPA is finalizing minimum national criteria that apply to owners and operators of new 

and existing CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments, including any lateral expansions of 

these units, that dispose, or otherwise conduct solid waste management of CCR generated from 

the combustion of coal at electric utilities and independent power producers. The rule applies 

only to CCR disposal units at “active” electric utilities and independent power producers, i.e., 

those that generate electricity, regardless of the fuel currently used to produce electricity. 

However, disposal units at facilities that are “closed”—i.e., the entire facility has been 

permanently taken out of service and no longer produces electricity—are outside of the scope of 

this rule. 

Unless otherwise provided, the rule applies to CCR disposal units located both on-site 

and off-site of the electric utility or independent power producer. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

145

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

1. CCR Generated by Non-Utility Boilers

The final rule also applies to “inactive” CCR surface impoundments at any active electric 

utilities or independent power producers, regardless of the fuel currently being used to produce 

electricity; i.e., surface impoundments at any active electric utility or independent power 

producer that have ceased receiving CCRs or otherwise actively managing CCR. While it is 

true that EPA exempted inactive units from the part 258 requirements in 1990, the original 

subtitle D regulations at 40 CFR part 257 (which are currently applicable to CCR wastes) applied 

to “all solid waste disposal facilities and practices” except for eleven specifically enumerated 

exemptions (none of which are relevant). 40 CFR 257.1(c). See also, 40 CFR 257.1(a)(1)-(2). 

And as discussed in greater detail below, subtitle D of RCRA does not limit EPA’s authority to 

active units—that is, units that receive or otherwise manage wastes after the effective date of the 

regulations. EPA has documented several damage cases that have occurred due to inactive CCR 

surface impoundments, including the release of CCR and wastewater from an inactive CCR

surface impoundment into the Dan River which occurred since publication of the CCR proposed 

rule. As discussed in the proposal, the risks associated with inactive CCR surface impoundments 

do not differ significantly from the risks associated with active CCR surface impoundments; 

much of the risk from these units is driven by the hydraulic head imposed by impounded units. 

These conditions remain present in both active and inactive units, which continue to impound 

water along with CCR. For all these reasons, the Agency has concluded that inactive CCR 

surface impoundments require regulatory oversight. 

The sole exception is for “inactive” CCR surface impoundments” that have completed 

dewatering and capping operations (in accordance with the capping requirements finalized in this 

rule) within three years of the effective date. EPA considers these units to be analogous to 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

146

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

inactive CCR landfills, which are not subject to the final rule. As noted, EPA’s risk assessment 

shows that the highest risks are associated with CCR surface impoundments due to the hydraulic 

head imposed by impounded water. Dewatered CCR surface impoundments will no longer be 

subjected to hydraulic head so the risk of releases, including the risk that the unit will leach into 

the groundwater, would be no greater than those from CCR landfills. Similarly, the requirements 

of this rule do not apply to inactive CCR landfills—which are CCR landfills that do not accept 

waste after the effective date of the regulations. The Agency is not aware of any damage cases 

associated with inactive CCR landfills, and as noted, the risks of release from such units are 

significantly lower than CCR surface impoundments or active CCR landfills. In the absence of 

this type of evidence, and consistent with the proposal, the Agency has decided not to cover 

these units in this final rule. 

The requirements of this rule do not apply to wastes, including fly ash, bottom ash, boiler 

slag, and flue gas desulfurizationFGD materials generated at facilities that are not part of the 

electric power sector or an independent power producer and that use coal as the fuel in nonutility boilers, such as manufacturing facilities, universities, and hospitals. Industries that 

primarily burn coal to generate power for their own purposes (i.e., non-utilities), also known as 

combined heat and power (CHP) plants, are primarily engaged in business activities, such as 

agriculture, mining, manufacturing, transportation, and education. The electricity that they 

generate is mainly for their own use, but any excess may be sold in the wholesale market. 

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), CHPs produced less than one 

percent of the total electricity generated from coal combustion in 2013 and, similarly, burned less 

than one percent of the total coal consumed for electricity generation or less than 5 million tons 

(http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.cfm). The Agency lacks sufficient information at this time to 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

147

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

determine an appropriate course of action for the wastes generated from these facilities. 

(http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.cfm).

EPA never proposed to include these wastes in the rule because EPA lacked critical data 

from these facilities that would allow us to address key Bevill criteria (see 75 FR 35165). These 

other industries, and the manufacturing industries in particular, generate other types of wastes 

which are likely to be mixed or co-managed with the CCR at least at some facilities. As a result, 

the chemical compositions of the co-managed wastes are likely to be fundamentally different 

from the chemical composition of CCR generated by electric utilities or independent power 

producers. In addition, EPA noted that insufficient information was available on non-utility 

boilers burning coal to determine whether a regulatory flexibility analysis would be required 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and to conduct one if it is necessary. Without such data, we 

were unable to fully assess CCR wastes from non-utility operations and indicated that we would 

decide on an appropriate course of action for these wastes after completing this rulemaking (see 

75 FR 35129).

Several commenters stated that EPA’s decision to propose limiting the scope of the rule 

only to CCR generated by the electric power sector (electric utilities and independent power 

producers) was arbitrary. These commenters claimed that CCR generated by the electric power 

sector and CCR generated by non-utilities are generally comparable in physical and chemical 

composition and are typically managed similarly. As a result, these commenters suggested that 

EPA amend the applicability of the rule to subject all facilities that generate CCR to the same 

disposal requirements. EPA also received comments maintaining that important differences exist 

between CCR generated by electric power sector facilities and non-utility facilities, and that 

supported EPA’s proposed decision to exclude CCR generated by non-utilities from the rule.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

148

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Differences identified by the commenters included waste management issues (e.g., mixing and 

subsequent co-management of non-utility CCR and other industrial wastes generated by nonutilities), CCR generation rates, CCR management unit design, and CCR management unit 

operation. In response to our request for additional information, a few commenters provided 

either waste characterization data for non-utility CCR or information on alleged damage cases 

involving non-utility CCR.

Based on the proposed rule, EPA cannot include these facilities in this final rule, even if 

the Agency had concluded that it had received the necessary information from commenters. 

EPA specifically stated its intention to exclude them, and clearly stated that it had not assessed 

the operations. (See 75 FR 35166.) The Agency provided no indication of any intention to 

include such facilities, and did not solicit comment on such an option. Moreover, under the 

Administrative Procedure Act, the public must be given the opportunity to comment on not only 

the information that would support such an action, but also EPA’s evaluation of that information, 

and the reasoning behind the Agency’s decision. And with respect to this subset of facilities, no 

such opportunity has been presented. EPA will consider the information provided by 

commenters at a future point, and will determine whether the information is sufficient to address 

key Bevill criteria and to decide on the appropriate regulatory scheme for disposal of CCR

generated by non-utilities. Accordingly, this rule does not apply to owners and operators of 

landfills and surface impoundments in which CCR are disposed that were generated by nonutility boilers burning coal.

2. CCR Generated Primarily from the Combustion of Fuels Other than Coal

These requirements also do not apply to fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas 

desulfurization materials, generated primarily from the combustion of fuels (including other 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

149

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

fossil fuels) other than coal, for the purpose of generating electricity unless the coal comprises 

more than fifty percent (50%) of the fuel burned on a total heat input or mass input basis, 

whichever results in the greater mass feed rate of coal (see § 266.112). Fuel mixtures that contain 

less than 50% coal are not considered to be CCRsCCR, but other fossil fuel wastes. Other fossil 

fuels that are typically co-combusted with coal are oil and natural gas. In the May 22, 2000 

Regulatory Determination, EPA determined that it is not appropriate to establish national 

regulations applicable to oil combustion wastes (OCW) because: (1) we found in most cases that 

OCW, whether managed alone or co-managed, are rarely characteristically hazardous; (2) we 

have not identified any beneficial uses that are likely to present significant risks to human health 

or the environment; (3) we identified no significant ecological risks posed by land disposal of 

OCW; (4) we identified only one documented damage case involving OCW in combination with 

coal combustion wastes, and it did not affect human receptors; and (5) except for two unlined 

surface impoundments, we have not identified any significant risks to human health and the 

environment associated with any waste management practices. Similarly, EPA determined that 

regulating natural gas combustion wastes is not warranted because the burning of natural gas 

produces virtually no solid waste. Therefore, the Agency has determined that regulations for 

wastes generated primarily from the combustion of fuels (including other fossil fuels) other than 

coal are not warranted unless the fuel mixture consists primarily of coal.

3. Placement of CCR in Minefilling Operations

Consistent with the approach in the proposed rule, this rule does not apply to CCR placed 

in active or abandoned underground or surface coal mines. The U. S. Department of Interior 

(DOI) and EPA will address the management of CCRsCCR in minefills in a separate regulatory 

action(s). EPA will work with the OSM to develop effective federal regulations to ensure that 

Formatted: Font color: Auto

Formatted: List Paragraph, Don't add space between

paragraphs of the same style, Line spacing: single,

Widow/Orphan control

Formatted: Font: Not Italic, (Intl) Arial Unicode MS
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

150

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

the placement of coal combustion residuals in minefill operations is adequately controlled. In 

doing so, EPA and OSM will consider the recommendations of the National Research Council 

(NRC), which, at the direction of Congress, studied the health, safety, and environmental risks 

associated with the placement of CCRsCCR in active and abandoned coal mines in all major 

U.S. coal basins. The NRC published its findings on March 1, 2006, in a report entitled 

‘‘Managing Coal Combustion Residues (CCRsCCR) in Mines,’’ which is available at 

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309100496.http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=

0309100496.

The report concluded that the ‘‘placement of CCRsCCR in mines as part of coal mine 

reclamation may be an appropriate option for the disposal of this material. In such situations, 

however, an integrated process of CCR characterization, site characterization, management and 

engineering design of placement activities, and design and implementation of monitoring is 

required to reduce the risk of contamination moving from the mine site to the ambient 

environment.’’ The NRC report recommended that enforceable federal standards be established 

for the disposal of CCRsCCR in minefills to ensure that states have specific authority and that 

states implement adequate safeguards. The NRC Committee on Mine Placement of Coal 

Combustion Wastes also stated that OSM and its SMCRA state partners should take the lead in 

developing new national standards for CCR use in mines because the framework is in place to 

deal with mine-related issues. Consistent with the recommendations of the National Academy of 

Sciences, EPA anticipates that the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) will take the lead in 

developing these regulations. EPA will work closely with DOI throughout that process. 

Finally, consistent with the proposed rule and the final Regulatory Determination in Unit 

IV.B, the final rule does not apply to CCR that is beneficially used. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

151

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

1. 4. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

The issue receiving the majority of comment in the applicabilitythis section focused on 

the applicability of the rule to municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills MSWLFs accepting CCR. 

The vast majority of commenters on this issue requested that EPA clarify that permitted MSW 

landfillsMSWLFs, receiving CCR as daily cover or for disposal were not covered by the rule. 

While most CCRs areCCR is currently disposed of at electric utility owned CCR disposal 

siteslandfills or surface impoundments, there is no prohibition against disposing of CCRsCCR in 

state-permitted MSW landfillsMSWLFs. However, many commenters interpreted the proposed 

CCR subtitle D regulations to apply to a state permitted MSW landfillMSWLF disposing of 

CCRsCCR, which as a consequence would be subject to the additional burden of posting 

documentation to a website, having a professional engineer review certification, etc. ( See 75 FR

at 35210, where the preamble states that under a subtitle D regulation, regulated CCR wastes 

shipped off-site for disposal would have to be sent to facilities that meet the standards above.) 

Commenters argued that since MSW landfillsMSWLFs were never mentioned in the proposed 

rule, that it should be made clear that the rule did not apply to these facilities. Commenters 

further contended that since the requirements for CCR landfills were directly modeled from the 

MSW landfillMSWLF requirements found at 40 CFR 258, disposal in MSW landfillsMSWLFs

would be protective. of human health and the environment. Commenters also arguedcontended

that a benefit of MSW landfillsMSWLFs would be their ability to provide additional capacity, 

for the disposal of CCR as utilities seek to close, upgrade, or develop their own compliant CCR 

disposal sites. 

EPA recognizes that there are MSW landfillsMSWLFs that either accept CCR for 

disposal, use CCR for as daily cover, or both. Since the proposed and final RCRA subtitle D 

Formatted: List Paragraph, Don't add space between

paragraphs of the same style

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

152

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

standards for CCR landfills are modeled after the standards for MSW landfillsMSWLFs found at 

40 CFR 258, EPA has concluded that disposal of CCR in MSW landfills is as protective as 

disposal in CCR landfillsa CCR landfill and that permitted MSWLFs are not subject to the 

requirements of this rule. Like the MSWLF requirements, the CCR technical criteria require new 

units to have composite liners or their equivalent, and all units are subject to location restrictions, 

run-on and run-off controls, fugitive dust controls, groundwater monitoring and corrective 

action, closure and post-closure care requirements. 

39

While the MSWMSWLF fugitive dust criteria (air criteria) are not as specific as those in 

this rule, § 258.4(a) states that “owners or operators of all MSW landfillsMSWLFs must ensure 

that the units not violate any applicable requirements developed under a State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) approved or promulgated by the Administrator pursuant to section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act , as amended. It is expected that states will impose additional requirements to address 

fugitive dusts, of the sort codified in Illinois’ 415 ILCS 5/9(a)(2012)40 and enforced by the state 

(see People of the State of Illinois v KCBX Terminals Company, Injunction no. 2013CH24788 in 

the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois;

http://www.cityofchicago/org/...environmental.../SETF_Exhibit_Thre...).. Moreover, if used as a 

daily cover, § 258.21 requires that the alternative cover (i.e., CCR) control disease, vectors, 

 

39 One significant difference however is that MSWLFs are required to have financial assurance, a 

requirement not applicable to CCR under the subtitle D requirements.

40 “No person shall (a) Cause or threaten or allow the discharge or emission of any contaminant into the 

environment in any state so as to cause or tend to cause air pollution in Illinois, either alone or in 

combination with contaminants from other sources, or so as to violate regulations or standards adopted by 

the Board under this Act; (b) Construct, install or operate any equipment, facility, vehicle, vessel, or 

aircraft capable of causing or contributing to air pollution or designed to prevent air pollution, of any 

typed designated by Board regulations, (1) without a permit granted by the Agency unless otherwise 

exempt by this Act or Board regulations; or (2) in violation of any conditions imposed by such permit.”

Formatted: Default Paragraph Font

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

153

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

odors, blowing litter, and scavenging without presenting a threat to human health and the 

environment.

The Agency is not requiring MSW landfills that receive CCR for disposal or for use as 

daily cover to modify their groundwater monitoring programs to comply with the rule; for 

example, the final list of constituents to be used for detection monitoring at CCR units includes 

Boron, which is known to be a leading indicator of releases of contaminants from CCRs, but is 

not on the list of detection monitoring constituents for MSW landfills. EPA is not requiring that 

MSW landfills that receive CCR add Boron to their existing list of detection monitoring 

constituents for several reasons. First, the existing list of detection monitoring constituents 

found in 40 CFR 258 will generally be sufficient to detect potential releases of CCR constituents 

from a MSW landfill. This is because the pH of most CCR leachate tends to be slightly alkaline 

to near neutral depending on coal chemistry; arsenic and selenium are associated with existing 

CCR damage cases, which tends to confirm CCR leachate as being near neutral to slightly 

alkaline. MSW landfill leachate also tend to be near neutral. Under suboxic, near neutral pH 

conditions, the following constituents in CCR are known to be mobile; sulfate, magnesium, iron, 

zinc, nickel, arsenic, selenium, and boron. Of this group, the following are also detection 

monitoring constituents for MSW landfills under 40 CFR 258: zinc, nickel, arsenic, and 

selenium. So with all other factors affecting mobility being equal, adding Boron to the list of 

detection monitoring constituents for MSW landfills is not necessary. In addition, EPA does not 

have any evidence of environmental or human health damage resulting from the disposal or use 

of CCR as daily cover at MSW landfills. Therefore, the Agency sees no need to impose 

duplicative requirements for MSW landfills that receive CCR. Consequently, the final rule 

Formatted: Font color: Auto
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

154

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

excludes MSW landfills from the requirements of the rule by adding them in a list of excluded 

facilities or activities under § 257.50.

EPA agrees with the commenters that, since the proposed and final RCRA subtitle D 

standards for CCR landfills are modeled after the standards for MSW landfills found at 40 CFR 

258, disposal of CCR in MSW landfills will be as protective as disposal in CCR landfills. Both 

the MSW and CCR standards require composite liners, groundwater monitoring, corrective 

action, and fugitive dust controls. Therefore, the Agency sees no need to impose duplicative 

requirements for MSW landfills that receive CCR for disposal or daily cover. 

2The Agency is not requiring MSWLFs that receive CCR for disposal or for use as daily 

cover to modify their groundwater monitoring programs to comply with the rule; however the 

Agency expects that State Directors will require MSWLFs to modify their MSWLF permits to 

address the addition of CCR to the unit as it relates to groundwater monitoring and corrective 

action. Section 258.54(a)(2) allows for the Director of an approved state to establish an 

alternative list of inorganic indicator parameters for a MSWLF unit if the alternative parameters 

provide a reliable indication of inorganic releases from the MSWLF unit to the groundwater (i.e., 

as would be the case if CCR was disposed in the MSWLF unit). In determining alternative 

parameters, the Director shall consider, among other things: (1) the types, quantities, and 

concentrations in wastes managed at the MSWLF unit; (2) the mobility, stability, and persistence 

of waste constituents or their reaction products in the unsaturated zone beneath the MSWLF unit; 

and (3) the detectability of indicator parameters, waste constituents, and reaction products in the 

groundwater. In situations where the MSWLF unit is receiving CCR for disposal and/or daily 

cover, EPA expects the controlled management of CCR in these units. Specifically, EPA expects 

State Directors to utilize the provisions in § 258.54(a)(2) to revise the detection monitoring 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

155

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

constituents to include those constituents being promulgated in this rule under § 257.90. These 

detection monitoring constituents or inorganic indicator parameters are: boron, calcium, chloride, 

fluoride, pH, sulfate and total dissolved solids (TDS). These inorganic indicator parameters are 

known to be leading indicators of releases of contaminants associated with CCR and the Agency 

strongly recommends that State Directors add these constituents to the list of indicator 

parameters to be monitored during detection monitoring of groundwater if and when a MSWLF 

decides to accept CCR. 

The Agency has concluded that CCR can readily be handled in permitted MSWLFs 

provided that they are evaluated for waste compatibility and placement as required under the Part 

258 requirements. Furthermore, consistent with the recordkeeping requirements in § 258.29, the 

Agency further expects State Directors to encourage MSWLF units receiving CCR after the 

effective date of this rule to do so pursuant to a “CCR acceptance plan” that is maintained in the 

facility operating record. This plan would assure that the MSWLF facility is aware of the 

physical and chemical characteristics of the waste received (i.e., CCR) and handles it with the 

additional precautions necessary to avoid dust, maintain structural integrity, and avoid 

compromising the gas and leachate collection systems of the landfill so that human health and 

the environment are protected. While the Agency sees no need to impose duplicative 

requirements for MSWLFs that receive CCR for disposal or daily cover; development of these 

acceptance plans as well as a revised list of groundwater detection monitoring constituents will 

help ensure that CCR is being managed in the most protective manner consistent with the Part 

258 requirements.

5. Inactive CCR Surface Impoundments Formatted: List Paragraph, Don't add space between

paragraphs of the same style
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

156

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The final rule also applies to “inactive” CCR surface impoundments at any active electric 

utilities or independent power producers, regardless of the fuel currently being used to produce 

electricity; i.e., surface impoundments at any active electric utility or independent power 

producer that have ceased receiving CCR or otherwise actively managing CCR. While it is true 

that EPA exempted inactive units from the part 258 requirements in 1990, the original subtitle D 

regulations at 40 CFR part 257 (which are currently applicable to CCR wastes) applied to “all 

solid waste disposal facilities and practices” except for eleven specifically enumerated 

exemptions (none of which are relevant). 40 CFR 257.1(c). See also, 40 CFR 257.1(a)(1)-(2). 

And as discussed in greater detail below, subtitle D of RCRA does not limit EPA’s authority to 

active units—that is, units that receive or otherwise manage wastes after the effective date of the 

regulations. EPA has documented several damage cases that have occurred due to inactive CCR 

surface impoundments, including the release of CCR and wastewater from an inactive CCR 

surface impoundment into the Dan River which occurred since publication of the CCR proposed 

rule. As discussed in the proposal, the risks associated with inactive CCR surface impoundments 

do not differ significantly from the risks associated with active CCR surface impoundments; 

much of the risk from these units is driven by the hydraulic head imposed by impounded units. 

These conditions remain present in both active and inactive units, which continue to impound 

water along with CCR. For all these reasons, the Agency has concluded that inactive CCR 

surface impoundments require regulatory oversight. 

The sole exception is for “inactive” CCR surface impoundments” that have completed 

dewatering and capping operations (in accordance with the capping requirements finalized in this 

rule) within three years of the effective date. EPA considers these units to be analogous to

inactive CCR landfills, which are not subject to the final rule. As noted, EPA’s risk assessment 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

157

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

shows that the highest risks are associated with CCR surface impoundments due to the hydraulic 

head imposed by impounded water. Dewatered CCR surface impoundments will no longer be 

subjected to hydraulic head so the risk of releases, including the risk that the unit will leach into 

the groundwater, would be no greater than those from CCR landfills. Similarly, the requirements 

of this rule do not apply to inactive CCR landfills—which are CCR landfills that do not accept 

waste after the effective date of the regulations. The Agency is not aware of any damage cases 

associated with inactive CCR landfills, and as noted, the risks of release from such units are 

significantly lower than CCR surface impoundments or active CCR landfills. In the absence of 

this type of evidence, and consistent with the proposal, the Agency has decided not to cover 

these units in this final rule. 

Under both the subtitle C and subtitle D options, EPA proposed to regulate “inactive” 

CCR surface impoundments that had not completed closure prior to the effective date of the rule. 

EPA proposed that if any inactive CCR surface impoundment had not met the interim status 

closure requirements (i.e., dewatered and capped) by the effective date of the rule, the unit would 

be subject to all of the requirements applicable to CCR surface impoundments. Under the 

subtitle C option, those requirements would have included compliance with the interim status 

and permitting regulations. Under subtitle D, such units would have been required to comply 

with all of the criteria applicable to CCR surface impoundments that continued to receive wastes, 

including groundwater monitoring, corrective action, and closure. 

EPA acknowledged that this represented a departure from the Agency’s long-standing 

implementation of the regulatory program under subtitle C. While the statutory definition of 

“disposal” has been broadly interpreted to include passive leaking, historically EPA has 

construed the definition of “disposal” more narrowly for the purposes of implementing the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

158

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

subtitle C regulatory requirements. See, e.g.,For examples see 43 FR 58984 (Dec. 18, 1978); and

45 FR 33074 (May 1980). Although in some situations, post-placement management has been 

considered to be disposal triggering RCRA subtitle C regulatory requirements, e.g., dredging of 

impoundments or management of leachate, EPA has generally interpreted the statute to require a 

permit only if a facility treats, stores, or actively disposes of the waste after the effective date of 

its designation as a hazardous waste. EPA explained that relying on a broader interpretation was 

appropriate in this instance given that the substantial risks associated with currently operating 

CCR surface impoundments, i.e., the potential for leachate and other releases to contaminate 

groundwater and the potential for catastrophic releases from structural failures, were not 

measurably different than the risks associated with “inactive” CCR surface impoundments that 

continued to impound water, even though the facility had ceased to place additional wastes in the 

unit. EPA noted as well that the risks are primarily driven by the older existing units, which are 

generally unlined.

In the section of the preamble discussing the subtitle D option, EPA did not expressly 

highlight the application of the rule to inactive CCR surface impoundments, but generally 

explained that EPA’s approach to developing the proposed subtitle D requirements for surface 

impoundments (which are not addressed by the part 258 regulations that served as the model for 

the proposed landfill requirements) was to seek to be consistent with the technical requirements 

developed under the subtitle C option. (See, 75 FR 35193.) (“In addition, EPA considered that 

many of the technical requirements that EPA developed to specifically address the risks from the 

disposal of CCRsCCR as part of the subtitle C alternative would be equally justified under a 

RCRA subtitle D regime...The factual record—i.e., the risk analysis and the damage cases—

supporting such requirements is the same, irrespective of the statutory authority under which the 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

159

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Agency is operating.......Thus several of the provisions EPA is proposing under RCRA subtitle 

D either correspond to the provisions EPA is proposing to establish for RCRA subtitle C 

requirement. These provisions include the following regulatory provisions specific to CCRsCCR

that EPA is proposing to establish: Scope and applicability (i.e., who will be subject to the rule 

criteria/requirements) ...”)(emphasis added). 

EPA received numerous comments on this aspect of the proposal. On the whole, the 

comments were focused on EPA’s legal authority under subtitle C to regulate inactive and closed 

units, as well as inactive and closed facilities. One group of commenters, however, specifically 

criticized the proposed subtitle D regulation on the ground that it failed to address the risks from 

inactive CCR surface impoundments. The majority of commenters, however, argued that RCRA 

does not authorize EPA to regulate inactive or closed surface impoundments. These commenters 

focused on two primary arguments: first, that RCRA’s definition of “disposal” cannot be 

interpreted to include “passive migration” based on the plain language of the statute, and second, 

that such an interpretation conflicted with court decisions in several circuits, holding that under 

CERCLA “disposal” does not include passive leaking or the migration of contaminants. 

In support of their first argument, commenters argued that the plain language of RCRA 

demonstrates that the requirements are “prospective in nature” and thus cannot be interpreted to 

apply to past activities, i.e., the past disposals in inactive CCR units. They also argued that the 

absence of the word “leaching” from the definition of “disposal” clearly indicates that Congress 

did not intend to cover passive leaking or migration from CCR disposal units. The commenters 

also selectively quoted portions of past EPA statements, claiming that these demonstrated that 

EPA had conclusively interpreted RCRA to preclude jurisdiction over inactive units and 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

160

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

facilities. In particular, they pointed to EPA’s decision in 1980 not to require permits for closed 

or inactive facilities. 

Commenters cited several cases to support their second claim. These include, Carson 

Harbor Vill. v. Unocal Corp., 270 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. 150 Acres of Land, 

204 F.3d 698, 706 (2000); ABB Industrial Systems v. Prime Technology, 120 F.3d 351, 358 (2d 

Cir. 1997); United States v. CMDG Realty Co., 96 F.3d 706, 711 (3rd Cir. 1996); Joslyn Mfg. 

Co. v. Koppers Co., 40 F.3d 750, 762 (5th Cir. 1994); Delaney v. Town of Carmel, 55 F. Supp. 

2d 237, 256 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); see also Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honey-Well Intl Inc., 263 F. 

Supp. 2d 796, 846 n.10 (D.N.J. 2003). The commenters acknowledge that these cases were all 

decided under CERCLA, but claim that the cases are all equally dispositive with respect to 

RCRA’s definition of disposal because CERCLA specifically incorporates by reference RCRA‘s 

statutory definition of disposal.

As an initial matter, it is important to correct certain misunderstandings contained 

throughout a number of the comments. First, EPA did propose to include inactive units under the 

subtitle D alternative. EPA clearly signaled its intent to cover the same universe of units and 

facilities covered under the subtitle C proposal. EPA did not include a corresponding discussion 

in its explanation of the subtitle D alternative because application of the criteria to inactive units 

did not represent such a significant departure from EPA’s past practice or interpretation. As 

discussed in more detail below, the original subtitle D regulations applied to all existing disposal 

units. See 40 CFR § 257.1(a)(1)-(2), (c) and 43 FR 4942-4943, 4944. 

Second, several commenters criticized EPA’s purported proposal to cover both “closed” 

and “inactive” surface impoundments, using the terms interchangeably. These same commenters 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

161

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

also refer to both “inactive facilities” and “inactive units.” These are all different concepts, and 

EPA clearly distinguished between them. 

EPA proposed to impose requirementsregulate on “inactive” surface impoundments that 

had not completed closure of the surface impoundment before the effective date. “Inactive” 

surface impoundments are those that contain both CCR and water, but no longer receive 

additional wastes. By contrast, a “closed” surface impoundment would no longer contain water, 

although it may continue to contain CCRsCCR (or other wastes), and would be capped or 

otherwise maintained. There is little difference between the potential risks of an active and 

inactive surface impoundment; both can leak into groundwater, and both are subject to structural 

failures that release the wastes into the environment, including catastrophic failures leading to 

massive releases that threaten both human health and the environment. This is clearly 

demonstrated by the recent spill in the Dan River in North Carolina, which occurred as the result 

of a structural failure at an inactive surface impoundment. AndSimilarly, as demonstrated by the 

recent discovery of additional damage cases upon the recent installation of groundwater 

monitoring systems at existing CCR surface impoundments in Michigan and Illinois, many 

existing CCR surface impoundments are currently leaking, albeit currently undetected. These 

are the risks the disposal rule specifically seeks to address, and there is no logical basis for 

distinguishing between units that present the same risks. 

EPA did not propose to require “closed” surface impoundments to “reclose.” Nor did 

EPA intend, as the same commenters claim, that “literally hundreds of previously 

closed...surface impoundments - many of which were properly closed decades ago under state 

solid waste programs, have changed owners, and now have structures built on top of them -

would be considered active CCR disposal units.” TheAccordingly, the final rule does not impose 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

162

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

any requirements on any CCR surface impoundments that have in fact “closed” before the rule’s 

effective date—i.e., those that no longer contain water and can no longer impound water. 

Further, EPA never proposed that the rule would apply to inactive facilities. The 

proposal was clear that the regulations would apply to active facilities—i.e., those that continue 

to generate electricity for distribution to the public, and those that continue to manage 

CCRsCCR. Consistent with that proposal, the final rule applies only to inactive surface 

impoundments at active electric utilities., i.e., facilities that are actively generating electricity

irrespective of the fuel used. 

Finally, some comments focused on issues that were specific to the plain language of 

subtitle C provisions. While most of the issues the commenters raised relate equally to EPA’s 

authority under both subtitles C and D, because the final rule establishes standards under subtitle 

D of RCRA, EPA has not addressed comments that are purely relevant or applicable to the extent 

of EPA’s authority under subtitle C. 

a. Plain Language of RCRA and EPA’s Past Interpretations

Under both subtitle C and subtitle D, EPA’s authority to regulate “inactive” units 

primarily stems from the agency’s authority to regulate “disposal.” The term is defined once in 

RCRA and applies to both subtitles C and D. Moreover, the definition explicitly includes 

“leaking” and “placing of any solid waste...into or on any land so that such [waste] or any 

constituent thereof may enter the environment...or be discharged into any waters, including 

ground waters.” 42 U.S.C. § 6903(3). 

Commenters focused on the past statements that EPA cited in the proposal in 

acknowledging that the Agency was proposing to revise its interpretation for this rulemaking. In 

general, the comments misconstrue the significance of these past statements. The cited passages 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

163

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

merely explain that the permitting requirements in subtitle C were written to be “prospective in 

nature” and as a consequence, EPA has chosen to interpret “disposal” more narrowly in that 

context. Thus EPA’s historic interpretation under subtitle C was not based on an interpretation 

that the plain language of RCRA’s definition of “disposal” precluded reaching inactive units, but 

on a determination that a narrower interpretation would be reasonable in light of specific 

language in sections 3004 and 3005, and the practical consequences of applying these

requirements to inactive facilities.41

None of EPA’s past statements included any interpretation that “leaking” does not 

include leaking from an inactive disposal unit, or that the statutory definition of “disposal” 

cannot be interpreted to apply to the current consequences of past disposals. To the contrary, 

EPA was clear in the original 1978 proposed hazardous waste regulations that leaking from 

inactive disposal units constitutes “disposal” under RCRA. 

 Neither RCRA nor its legislative history discusses whether section 3004 standards for 

owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities apply or were 

intended to apply to inactive facilities, i.e., those facilities which have ceased receiving, treating, 

storing, and disposing of wastes prior to the effective date of the subtitle C regulations. This is 

an important issue, however, because some, and perhaps most, inactive facilities may still be 

“disposing of waste within the meaning of that term in Section 1004(3) of RCRA. ‘Disposal’ 

includes:

 

41 It is also clear that certain subtitle C requirements in fact do apply to inactive units, for example, section 

3004(u) requires facilities to clean up releases from inactive units located on the facility site. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

164

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

the discharge, dumping, spilling, leaking,...of any solid waste or hazardous waste into or 

on any land or water so that such solid waste or hazardous waste or any constituent 

thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any 

waters, including ground waters.

Many inactive facilities may well be leaking solid or hazardous waste into groundwater 

and thus be “disposing” under RCRA. 

43 FR 58984 (emphasis added). 

Note as well that EPA declined to impose requirements on “inactive facilities” not 

“inactive units at active facilities,” which are the entities covered in this final CCR rule. Further, 

the complications discussed in 1978 were specific to inactive or closed facilities: the concern 

that the present owner of the land on which an inactive site was located might have no 

connection (other than present ownership of the land) with the prior disposal activities. Id. 

These considerations are not relevant to inactive CCR surface impoundments at active electric 

utilities. 

EPA further clarified this position in the 1980 final hazardous waste rule, explaining that, 

while the Agency did not generally intend to regulate those portions of facilities that had closed 

before the effective date, there were exceptions to this, and that in individual cases, inactive 

portions of a facility—or in other words, inactive units, might be regulated. 

[O]wners and operators which continue to operate after the effective date of the 

regulations must ensure that portions of facilities closed before the effective date of these 

rules do not interfere with the monitoring or control of active portions. This requirement 

regulates the facility which operates under the RCRA regulations, although it may require 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

165

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

the owner or operator before he receives a permit, or, as a permit condition, to take certain 

measures on portions of his facility closed before the effective date of these regulations. 

45 FR 33068. (See also 45 FR 33170..) In other words, EPA was clear that its jurisdiction under 

RCRA extended to these portions of the facility but that the Agency had made a policy choice 

not to exert its regulatory jurisdiction as a general matter over inactive facilities, choosing 

instead to rely on section 7003 and CERCLA to address the risks and require clean-up of these 

sites. EPA has adopted essentially the samea substantially similar approach here, requiring the 

current owner or operator of an active facility to address the risks associated with an inactive 

portion of the facility that could potentially interfere with the monitoring or control of the 

actively operating portion of the facility through leaking contaminants or other releases. 

Similarly, in the 1980 final rules, EPA expressly declined to revise the regulatory 

definition of disposal to exclude accidental or unintentional releases. EPA noted that 

“[r]egardless of whether a discharge of hazardous waste is intentional or not, the human health 

and environmental effects are the same. Thus intentional and unintentional discharges are 

included in the definition of “disposal.” (See 45 FR 33068..) While EPA revised other 

provisions to clarify that a permit would not be required for accidental discharges, EPA was clear 

that such activities are properly considered to be “disposal.” 

By contrast, EPA’s past implementation of subtitle D, following from the legislative 

history and the statutory language, consistently applied regulatory requirements equally to all 

facilities, without distinguishing between active and inactive or new and existing facilities. 

Congress was clear that subtitle D was intended to specifically address the problem of 

abandoned leaking “open dumps” scattered across the country, “where frequently the use of the 

site for waste disposal is neither authorized nor supervised.” H. Rep. No. 94-1491, p 37, 94th

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

166

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Cong., 2d Sess (1976). For example, the report described the consequences when “the City of 

Texarcana Arkansas/Texas, abandoned its six open dumps, in 1968” to support the need to 

require open dumps to upgrade or close. Similarly, in describing the need for the legislation, the 

House report stated:

Disposal of solid wastes, including hazardous wastes, can have adverse 

environmental impacts in several ways. The following paragraphs discuss five different 

types of such impacts.

(i) Perhaps the most pernicious effect is the contamination of groundwater by 

leachate from land disposal of waste. About half of the U.S. domestic water supply is from 

underground water, and thus is potentially subject to contamination. Such contamination 

is particularly vexing because often it is discovered after the damage is done and because 

the contamination is very long lasting. Thus leachate from a landfill or dump may not 

show up for years, maybe not even until after the landfill is closed.

Id at 89 (emphasis added). 

Consequently, subtitle D of RCRA provides clear authority to address inactive or 

abandoned disposal sites. The relevant provisions of RCRA subtitle D do not distinguish 

between “active” and “inactive” disposal units. Nor do any of the relevant provisions tie 

jurisdiction to the receipt or disposal of waste after a specific date. 

RCRA section 1004(14) defines an “open dump” as “any facility or site where solid 

waste is disposed of which is not a sanitary landfill which meets the criteria promulgated under 

section [4004] of this chapter and which is not a facility for disposal of hazardous waste.“ 42 

U.S.C. § 6903(14)(emphasis added). Section 4004(a) delegates broad authority to EPA to 

determine the facilities that will be considered “open dumps,” without any requirement that the 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

167

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

units or facilities be in operation. “[T]he Administrator shall promulgate regulations containing 

criteria for determining which facilities shall be classified as sanitary landfills and which shall be 

classified open dumps within the meaning of this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 6944(a). Section 

4005(a), which is titled, “Closing or upgrading of existing open dumps,” is also not limited in 

scope: “Upon promulgation of criteria under [1008(a)(3)] of this title, any solid waste 

management practice of disposal of solid waste or hazardous waste which constitutes the open 

dumping of solid or hazardous waste is prohibited,...” 42 U.S.C. § 6945(a)(emphasis added). 

See also, section 4003(a)(3), requiring state plans to provide for the closing or upgrading of “all 

existing open dumps”). 42 U.S.C. § 6943(a)(3)(emphasis added). 

Consistent with the statutory provisions, EPA’s current subtitle D regulations at 40 CFR 

257 apply to “all solid waste disposal facilities and practices” whether active or inactive, and did 

not differentiate between new and existing facilities.42 40 CFR § 257.1(c). See also, 40 CFR §

257.1(a)(1)-(2). EPA was clear in both the proposed and final rules that the rules applied to all 

existing facilities: 

These criteria for the classification of disposal facilities apply to all “solid waste” and 

“disposal” facilities, which are defined in the Act [in](section 1004). 

43 FR 4942-4943, 4944. The final rule was equally clear: 

These criteria apply to the full range of facilities and practices for “disposal” of “solid 

waste,” as those terms are defined in the Act. 

 

42The regulations establish eleven specifically enumerated exemptions, none of which are 

relevant to the units at issue.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Normal
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

168

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

44 FR 53440. (See also 44 FR 53438..) The final rule describes eight categories of materials or 

activities that are excluded; inactive facilities or units are not among them. This stands in stark 

contrast to the hazardous waste regulations, which, as discussed, specifically exempted inactive 

facilities from the permitting and associated regulatory requirements. 

b. Case Law on the Definition of Disposal

EPA also disagrees with the commenters’ second claim that regulating inactive surface 

impoundments would be inconsistent with case law in six circuits. The commenters are correct 

that some courts have held that the subsequent passive migration of contamination left on-site is 

insufficient to support liability against a third party that merely owned the property under 

CERCLA. But the commenters misconstrue this case law and fundamentally overstate its 

significance to the issue at hand. Of greater significance, however, is that federal courts have 

almost universally reached different conclusions under RCRA, holding that the statutory 

definition of disposal does include the passive migration of contamination from previously 

disposed of wastes. 

As an initial matter, the issue decided by the courts in the cited CERCLA cases was 

narrower than the commenters allege; these cases generally focused on whether current or past 

owners of land contaminated by the activities of other owners were liable for passive migration 

that occurred during their ownership of the land. This is very different than the situation at hand, 

in which regulatory requirements are being imposed to address the existing and future 

contamination caused by the past and current activities of the current owner. 

In addition, these decisions were largely predicated on language that is unique to 

CERCLA, rather than on a definitive reading of RCRA’s definition of disposal. See, e.g., United 

States v. CMDG Realty Co., supra at 712-717. For example, in CMDG Realty, the court found 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

169

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

that passive migration was not disposal because Congress had clearly distinguished between 

“releases,” and “disposal,” defining the two terms differently and imposing liability on different 

parties for the two activities. Id. Accord, Carson Harbor Village, supra, at 880-885; ABB 

Industrial Systems v. Prime Technology, supra at 358. 

Moreover, even under CERCLA courts have not universally reached the same 

conclusions on whether “passive migration” can be considered “disposal.” See, e.g., Nurad, Inc. 

v. William E. Hooper & Sons Co., 966 F.2d 837, 844-46 (4th Cir. 1992)(concluding that because 

the definition of disposal includes "leaking," prior owners are liable if they acquired a site with 

leaking barrels or underground storage tanks even though the prior owner's actions are purely 

passive); ABB Industrial Systems, Id., n.3 (expressly declining to decide whether passive 

migration could ever be considered “disposal”). 

But in any event, courts have consistently interpreted RCRA to apply to passive 

migration. Two cases under RCRA are the most directly analogous to the current situation as 

they address the extent of EPA’s authority to regulate based on the statutory definition of 

“disposal”: In re Consolidated Land Disposal Regulation Litigation, 938 F.2d 1386 (D.C. Cir. 

1991), and United States v. Power Engineering Co., 10 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (D. Colo. 1998), aff'd

191 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 1999). In both cases, the court considered whether EPA could impose 

or enforce regulatory requirements to address passive migration under the interpretation that this 

constituted “disposal” under RCRA. And in both cases the court agreed that RCRA’s definition 

encompassed such activities. 

The issue in Consolidated Land Disposal was whether EPA could require closed 

hazardous waste facilities to obtain a “post-closure” permit. 938 F.2d at 1388-1389. EPA had 

relied on the definition of disposal to support the regulation, concluding that a facility "at which 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

170

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

hazardous wastes have been disposed by placement in or on the land" remains subject to both 

permitting and regulation because "such hazardous wastes or constituents may continue 'leaking' 

or 'may enter the environment or be emitted . . . or discharged . . .' " into the environment.” Id. 

Similar to the commenters’ current arguments, the petitioners argued that under § 3005, a permit 

can only be required for “on-going activities” - the treatment, storage, or disposal of waste at 

such facilities - not for the facility itself post-closure. The petitioners argued that linguistically, 

“disposal . . . is not a continuing activity but occurs anew each time waste is placed into or on 

land." The DC Circuit summarily rejected the petitioners’ interpretation, holding that this “may 

be one way in which the word is used in ordinary language, but is not necessarily how it is used 

in the statute; the equation of "disposal" with "leaking," which is a continuous phenomenon 

rather than a discrete event, is enough to blunt the sting of the petitioners' point.” Id. This case 

is essentially dispositive of the issue, given the similarities between the requirement for a postclosure permit and the final requirements applicable to inactive CCR surface impoundments. 

Electric utilities retain ownership and control over these existing CCR units, just as hazardous 

waste facilities retain ownership and control over the closed units subject to post-closure 

permitting. In both situations, EPA requirements are designed to address both the existing and 

future risks of further “releases” or “leaking” from these units—i.e., further disposal, as that term 

is defined in section 1004. 

Similarly, in Power Engineering the court considered whether under section 3008 of 

RCRA EPA could bring an action to compel the operator of a metal refinishing plant to comply 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

171

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

with the state’s RCRA regulations relating to financial assurance.43 10 F. Supp.2d at 1159. The 

defendants argued that since they were not currently disposing of waste, they were operating in 

compliance with state regulations and were exempt from financial assurance requirements. The 

court disagreed. It held that the use of the word "leaking" in the definition of "disposal" 

indicated that the leaching of hazardous waste into the groundwater constitutes the continuing 

disposal of hazardous waste. Id. at 1159-60 (“Because the definition of "disposal" includes the 

word "leaking," disposal occurs not only when a solid waste or a hazardous waste is first 

deposited onto ground or into water, but also when such wastes migrate from their initial 

disposal location.”). 

Courts in several circuits have also been asked to decideconsidered whether the passive 

migration of previously dumped waste constitutes a current or ongoing violation of RCRA, i.e., 

illegal “disposal,” under the citizen suit provisions of section 7002(a)(1)(A). Most have 

concluded that it does. See, Scarlett & Associates v Briarcliff Center Partners, 2009 WL 

3151089 (N.D. Ga 2009)(deciding to “follow the majority rule” and holding that “the continued 

presence of migrating waste constitutes a continuing violation under the RCRA” ); Marrero 

Hernandez v. Esso Standard Oil Co., 597 F. Supp. 2d 272, 283 (D.P.R. 2009) (holding that 

unremedied, migrating contamination is not a wholly past violation); Cameron v. Peach County, 

GA, No. 5:02-CV-41-1 (CAR), 2004 WL 5520003 (M.D. Ga. 2004) (holding that the continued 

presence of illegal contamination that remains remedial constitutes a continuing violation, even 

though the acts of unlawful disposal occurred in the past); California v M&P Investments, 308 

 

43 Under RCRA’s financial assurance regulations, owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities must 

document that they have sufficient resources to close their facilities and pay third-party claims that may 

arise.

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

172

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

F.Supp2d 1137, 1146-1147 (E.D. CA 2003)(Allowing RCRA 7002 claim of continuing violation 

to proceed on evidence that wastes “continue to exist unremediated” as a result of improper 

discharge that had ceased over 20 years prior to filing of suit); Aurora National Bank v TriStar 

Marketing, 990 F. Supp. 1020, 1025 (N.D. Ill. 1998) ("Although subsection (a)(1)(A) does not 

permit a citizen suit for wholly past violations of the statute, the continued presence of illegally 

dumped materials generally constitutes a 'continuing violation' of the RCRA, which is cognizable 

under § 6972(a)(1)(A).") (internal citation omitted); City of Toledo v. Beazer Materials & Servs., 

Inc., 833 F. Supp. 646, 656 (N.D. Ohio 1993) (“[T]he disposal of wastes can constitute a 

continuing violation so long as no proper disposal procedures are put into effect or as long as the 

waste has not been cleaned up and the environmental effects remain remediable."); Gache v. 

Town of Harrison, 813 F. Supp. 1037, 1041-42 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ("The environmental harms do 

not stem from the act of dumping when waste materials slide off the dump truck but rather after 

they land and begin to seep into the ground, contaminating soil and water. So long as wastes 

remain in the landfill threatening to leach into the surrounding soil and water, a continuing 

violation sure may exist."); Acme Printing Ink Co. v. Menard, Inc., 812 F. Supp. 1498, 1512 

(E.D. Wisc. 1992) ("RCRA includes in its broad definition of 'disposal' the continuous leaking of 

hazardous substances.... Accordingly, leaking of hazardous substances may constitute a 

continuous or intermittent violation of RCRA."); Fallowfield Dev. Corp. v. Strunk, No. 89-8644, 

1990 WL 52745 (E.D. Pa. 1990) (“If a person disposes of hazardous waste on a parcel of 

property, the hazardous waste remains in that property insidiously infecting the soil and 

groundwater aquifers. In other words, the violation continues until the proper disposal 

procedures are put into effect or the hazardous waste is cleaned up."). It is particularly notable 

that these cases were all decided under subsection (A); in contrast to subsection (B), section 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

173

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

7002(a)(1)(A) does not include any reference to liability for past actions or for prior owners. 

Compare, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6972(a)(1)(A) and (B). In reaching their holdings, therefore, the courts 

necessarily relied [solely] on the reach of the statutory definition of “disposal,” which is at the 

heart of EPA’s authority to regulate inactive CCR surface impoundments. 

Finally, whileCourts have also addressed the limits of RCRA’s definition of "disposal" is 

in the context of an EPA action under RCRA section 7003. Section 7003 authorizes EPA to 

obtain injunctive relief for actions, including disposal that “may present an imminent and 

substantial endangerment to health or the environment." 42 U.S.C. § 6973(a). Several courts 

have evaluated whether an inactive disposal site, where no affirmative acts of disposal are 

occurring, constitute an "imminent and substantial endangerment" under this provision. Once 

again, most courts accept a definition of disposal that encompasses leaking or contaminant 

migration from previously discarded wastes. See United States v. Price, 523 F. Supp. 1055, 

1071 (D.N.J. 1981), aff'd United States v. Price, 688 F.2d 204 (3rd Cir. 1982) (“There is no 

doubt, however, that [section 70003] authorizes the cleanup of a site, even a dormant one, if that 

action is necessary to abate a present threat to the public health or the environment.”) citing S. 

Rep. No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess., at 11 (1980); H. R. Rep. 96-1016 (Part I), 96th Cong., 

2nd Sess., at 21 reprinted in [1980] U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News, 6119, 6124; United States v. 

Waste Indus., 734 F.2d 159 (4th Cir. 1984) (Rejecting district court interpretation that disposal 

only includes "active human conduct" based on the inclusion of "leaking" in the definition of 

disposal, and interpreting the “movement of the waste after it has been placed in a state of repose 

[to be] encompassed in the broad definition of disposal”); United States v. Diamond Shamrock 

Corp., 12 Envtl. L. Rep. 20819, 20821 (N.D. Ohio May 29, 1981) (noting that "a disposal clearly 

requires no active human conduct"); United States v. Conservation Chemical Co., 619 F. Supp. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

174

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

162, 200 (D. Mo. 1985) ("'disposal' occurs...when [wastes] migrate from their initial location"). 

See also S.Rep. 98-284, p 58 (98th Cong. 1st Sess)(“The Environmental Protection Agency and 

the Department of Justice have used the equitable authority and [sic] granted in section 7003 to 

seek court orders directing those persons whose past or present acts have contributed to or are 

contributing to the existence of an imminent and substantial endangerment to abate such 

conditions. This has been an intended use of the section 7003 since 1976....An[sic] evidenced 

by the definition of ‘disposal in section 1004(3), which includes the leaking of hazardous wastes, 

section 7003 has always provided the authority to require the abatement of present conditions of 

endangerment resulting from past disposal practices, whether intentional or unintentional.”).

While EPA continues to maintain that the statutory definition of disposal does in fact 

authorize regulation of inactive CCR surface impoundments, this is not the sole basis for that 

authority. Under section 1008(a)(3), EPA is authorized to establish criteria governing solid 

waste management, which includes the “storage” of solid waste. 42 U.S.C. §§ 6904(28) and 

6908(a)(3). RCRA’s definition of “storage” is limited to hazardous waste; under subtitle D, 

therefore, the definition Congress intended was the dictionary definition, which incontrovertibly 

covers the activities associated with continuing to maintain CCRsCCR in inactive surface 

impoundments. For example, Miriam Webster defines “storage” as “the state of being kept in a 

place when not being used” and “the act of putting something that is not being used in a place 

where it is available, where it can be kept safely, etc.” 

Finally, consistent with the proposed rule and the final Regulatory Determination in Unit 

IV.B, the final rule does not apply to CCR that is beneficially used.3

6. Beneficial Use
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

175

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The proposed rule generally distinguished between the disposal of CCRsCCR and the 

beneficial use of CCRsCCR. Disposal activities would be subject to regulation under one of two 

alternative regulatory schemes. But under either alternative, beneficial use would remain Bevill 

exempt and would not be subject to regulation. The proposal identified specific criteria that 

would be used to distinguish between legitimate beneficial uses of CCRsCCR and the disposal of 

CCRsCCR. These criteria were largely drawn from the approach contained in the May 2000 

Bevill Regulatory Determination. The criteria were:

- The material used must provide a functional benefit. For example, CCRsCCR in 

concrete increase the durability of concrete—and are more effective in combating degradation 

from salt water; synthetic gypsum serves exactly the same function in wallboard as gypsum from 

ore, and meets all commercial specifications; CCRsCCR as a soil amendment adjusts the pH of 

soil to promote plant growth. 

- The material substitutes for the use of a virgin material, conserving natural 

resources that would otherwise need to be obtained through practices, such as extraction. For 

example, the use of FGD gypsum in the manufacture of wallboard (drywall) decreases the need 

to mine natural gypsum, thereby conserving the natural resource and conserving energy that 

otherwise would be needed to mine natural gypsum; the use of fly ash in lieu of Portland cement 

reduces the need for cement. CCRsCCR used in road bed replace quarried aggregate or other 

industrial materials. 

- Where relevant product specifications or regulatory standards are available, the 

materials meet those specifications, and where such specifications or standards have not been 

established, they are not being used in excess quantities. For example, when CCRs areCCR is

used as a commercial product, the amount of CCRsCCR used is controlled by product 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

176

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

specifications, or the demands of the user. Fly ash used as a stabilized base course in highway 

construction is part of many engineering considerations, such as the ASTM C 593 test for 

compaction, the ASTM D 560 freezing and thawing test, and a seven day compressive strength 

above 2760 (400 psi). If excessive volumes of CCRsCCR are used—i.e., greater than were 

necessary for a specific project,—that could be grounds for a determination that the use is not 

beneficial, but rather is being disposed of. 75 FR 35162-35163.

EPA explained that in the case of agricultural uses, CCRsCCR would be expected to 

meet appropriate standards, constituent levels, prescribed total loads, application rates, etc. EPA 

has developed specific standards governing agricultural application of biosolids. While the 

management scenarios differ between biosludge application and the use of CCRsCCR as soil 

amendments, EPA stated that the Agency would consider application of CCRsCCR for 

agriculture uses not to be a legitimate beneficial use if they occurred at constituent levels or 

loading rates greater than EPA’s biosolids regulations allow. (75 FR 35162 – 35163, June 21, 

2010)

EPA proposed to codify these criteria in the term, “beneficial use of coal combustion 

products (CCPs).” This definition stated that the beneficial use of CCPs was “the use of CCPs 

that provides a functional benefit; replaces the use of an alternative material, conserving natural 

resources that would otherwise need to be obtained through practices such as extraction; and 

meets relevant product specifications and regulatory standards (where these are available). CCPs 

that are used in excess quantities (e.g., the field-applications of FGD gypsum in amounts that 

exceed scientifically-supported quantities required for enhancing soil properties and/or crop 

yields), placed as fill in sand and gravel pits, or used in large scale fill projects, such as 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

177

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

restructuring the landscape, are excluded from this definition.” (75 FR 35129 – 35130, June 21, 

2010). 

Commenters generally supported the criteria in the proposal but raised concern that the 

criteria lacked specificity; some commenters stated that the criteria were those that States already 

considered in doing their beneficial use determination. Commenters also suggested the use of a 

“no toxics” provision and others suggested that the criteria include a requirement that 

“environmental benefits” be achieved. A more general comment raised by several commenters 

was that the proposed criteria failed to establish any standard that ensured protection of human 

health and the environment. Finally, one commenter raised concern that EPA’s approach to 

beneficial use, and particularly to large scale fill operations, inappropriately assumed that these 

operations constituted the disposal of solid waste, which, the commenter claimed was 

inconsistent with a series of judicial decisions. 

There are generally three critical issues in determining whether a material is regulated 

under RCRA subtitle D: whether the material is a “solid waste,” whether the activity constitutes 

“disposal,” and whether regulation of the disposal is warranted. Although there can be some 

overlap between these issues in that the same facts may be relevant to each of them, 

understanding the distinction between them is critical to understanding the final approach to the 

beneficial use of CCRsCCR adopted in this rulemaking. 

In order to be subject to RCRA, the material must be a solid waste. The statute defines a 

solid waste as “any garbage, refuse... and other discarded material....” 42 U.S.C. § 6903(27). 

As EPA noted in the proposed rule, for some beneficial uses, CCRs areCCR is a raw material 

used as an ingredient in a manufacturing process that have never been ‘‘discarded,’’ and thus, 

would not be considered solid wastes under the existing RCRA regulations. For example, 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

178

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

synthetic gypsum is a product of the FGD process at coal-fired power plants. In this case, the 

utility designs and operates its air pollution control devices to produce an optimal product, 

including the oxidation of the FGD to produce synthetic gypsum. In this example, after its 

production, the utility treats FGD as a valuable input into a production process, i.e., as a product, 

rather than as something that is intended to be discarded. Wallboard plants are sited in close 

proximity to power plants for access to raw material, with a considerable investment involved. 

Thus, FGD gypsum used for wallboard manufacture is a product rather than a waste or discarded 

material. This use and similar uses of CCRsCCR that meet product specifications would not be 

regulated under the final rule. 

However, this does not describe the majority of CCRsCCR, which are unambiguously 

wastes; after generation in the boiler, they are placed into landfills or surface impoundments. 

While they may subsequently be dredged from these units and reused, placement in a landfill or 

surface impoundment presents prima facie evidence of discard. At the time the material is 

placed into the unit, the utility is not treating the material as a valuable product or otherwise 

seeking to protect the material for use. Although the material may subsequently be reused if a 

buyer is found, the material is originally placed in the unit with the intent to let it remain in place 

if no buyer is found. The waste designation does not change merely because a material in a 

surface impoundment or landfill may in the future be beneficially reused. 

For those materials that are “wastes” the second issue becomes relevant: whether the 

activities involved with the material constitutes “disposal” or “solid waste management.” The 

statue distinguishes between these activities and “use;” several activities are listed in the 

definitions of “disposal” and “solid waste management” and “use” is not among them. See 42 

U.S.C. § 6903(3) and (28). In general, commenters agreed that the three criteria in the proposal, 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

179

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

and discussed above, would be useful in identifyingidentify those activities that were properly 

considered to be legitimate beneficial uses rather than disposal. As several commenters noted, 

many state beneficial use programs rely on similar (or identical) criteria. And for encapsulated 

uses, EPA agrees that these three criteria are sufficient to distinguish between the activities that 

will be regulated as disposal under this final rule and those that will be considered beneficial use. 

Accordingly, EPA has adopted them in the final definition of “beneficial use.” 

But as EPA acknowledged in the proposal, the issues are more difficult with regard to 

unencapsulated uses. Because these uses involve the direct placement of CCRsCCR on the land, 

they are clearly more analogous to activities that have consistently been considered to be 

“disposal.” RCRA defines disposal to specifically include the “placing of any solid waste or 

hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such solid waste or hazardous waste or any 

constituent thereof may enter the environment...” 42 U.S.C.§ 6903(3). The issue is further 

complicated by the fact that there can be risks associated with placement of unencapsulated 

CCRsCCR on the land. As described in the proposal, CCRsCCR can leach toxic metals at levels 

of concern. The major risks associated with the placement of unencapsulated CCRsCCR on the 

land for beneficial use involved using large volumes of CCRsCCR to restructure the landscape, 

such as occurred at the Battlefield golf course, and placement in quarries and sand and gravel 

pits, such as occurred at the Gambrills, Maryland site. EPA acknowledged in the proposal that 

these types of operations would be subject to regulation as disposal, and so were not directly on 

point. However, because these damage cases involved the placement of unencapsulated 

placement of CCRsCCR on the land, they raised questions regarding the usesafety of other uses

of unencapsulated CCRs byCCR that involved direct placement on the land. In addition, 

previous risk analyses do not address many of the use applications currently being implemented, 

Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0", Space Before: 0

pt, Add space between paragraphs of the same style,

Line spacing: single
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

180

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

and have not addressed the improved leachate characterization methods. EPA also noted that 

some scientific literature indicates that the uncontrolled (i.e., excessive) application of 

CCRsCCR can lead to the potentially toxic accumulation of metals.44 

SeveralAs noted, several commenters raised concern that EPA’s beneficial use criteria 

did not include any standard that ensured protection of human health and the environment. EPA 

agrees that a criterion that accounted for the potential risks of the land placement of 

unencapsulated CCRsCCR would be an appropriate element to include in differentiating between 

disposal and beneficial use. RCRA’s definition of disposal includes some elements related to 

risk: specifically, the definition includes as a relevant concept that the waste or any constituent 

of concern “may enter the environment.” In this regard it is also relevant that not all disposal 

activities are regulated by EPA under subtitle D; rather, EPA only regulates those that present 

risks that exceed the Agency’s acceptable risk levels. 

Building off of these concepts, the Agency has developed an additional criterion to 

address both the question of whether the activity is appropriately considered to be “disposal”,”

and the question of whether that “disposal” warrants regulation. Because uses that fail to meet 

the beneficial use criteria will be considered disposal and would therefore be considered disposal 

subject to the final regulation, this fourth criterion was designed to exclude uses likely to present 

the same risks as the management practices regulated under other sections of the final rule. 

 

44 See, for example, ‘‘Effects of coal fly ash amended soils on trace element uptake in plant,’’ S.S. Brake, 

R.R. Jensen, and J. M. Mattox, Environmental Geology, November 7, 2003 available at 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ 3c5gaq2qrkr5unvp/fulltext.pdf; 

See information regarding the Town of Pines Groundwater Plume at http://www.epa.gov/

region5superfund/npl/sas_sites/INN000508071.htm. Also see additional information for this site at 

http://www.epa.gov/ region5/sites/pines/#updates.

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Font: 10 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

181

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Thus, the final criterion directly correlates to the practices and the risks that the disposal 

regulations are designed to address: the risks associated with the placement of large quantities of 

CCRsCCR in a single concentrated location, such as a CCR landfill, as documented in the 2014 

risk assessment and the damage cases. 

As discussed in more detail below, to be considered a “beneficial use,” prior to initiating 

an activity that involves placing unencapsulated CCRsCCR on the land in amounts greater than 

12,400 tons, in non-roadway applications, the user must demonstrate that environmental releases 

to ground watergroundwater, surface water, soil and air are comparable to or lower than those 

from analogous products made without CCRsCCR, or that environmental releases to ground 

water, surface water, soil and air will be at or below relevant regulatory and health-based 

benchmarks for human and ecological receptors during use. 

EPA acknowledges that there may be risks associated with uses that are below this 

threshold, depending on the characteristics of the CCR, the amount of material and the manner in 

which it is placed, and (perhaps most important) the site conditions. Consequently, all 

unencapsulated uses, including use in road construction and agriculture, should be conducted 

with care, according to appropriate management practices, and with appropriate characterization 

of the material and the site where the material will be placed. However, as discussed in the 

previous section, because the amounts and, in some cases, the manner in which the CCRsCCR

are used are very different from the land disposal modeled in the risk assessment, EPA cannot 

extrapolate from the risk assessment to reach conclusions regarding the risks these uses may 

pose. And in the absence of such information, EPA cannot establish criteria to regulate these 

uses.

a. a. Final Definition of the Term “Beneficial Use of CCRsCCR” 

Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 0", Hanging:

0.5", Space Before: 0 pt, Line spacing: single,

Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b, c, ... +

Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent

at: 1.04"

Formatted: Font: Italic, (Intl) Arial Unicode MS

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Arial Unicode MS
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

182

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The final beneficial use criteria are as follows: (1) The CCR must provide a functional 

benefit; (2) The CCR must substitute for the use of a virgin material, conserving natural 

resources that would otherwise need to be obtained through practices, such as extraction; (3) The 

use of CCRsCCR must meet relevant product specifications, regulatory standards, or design 

standards when available, and when such standards are not available, CCRsCCR are not used in 

excess quantities; and (4) When unencapsulated use of CCRs involvingCCR involves placement 

on the land of 12,400 tons or more in non-roadway applications, the user must demonstrate and 

keep records, and provide such documentation upon request, that environmental releases to 

ground water, surface water, soil and air are comparable to or lower than those from analogous 

products made without CCRsCCR, or that environmental releases to ground water, surface 

water, soil and air will be at or below relevant regulatory and health-based benchmarks for 

human and ecological receptors during use. Unencapsulated uses involving placement on the 

land of 12,400 tons or more that fail to meet all the beneficial use criteria are considered a CCR 

landfill. Unencapsulated uses involving placement on the land of 12,400 tons or more that meet 

the beneficial use criteria will be considered beneficial use for the purposes of this rule. Any use 

that fails to comply with all of the relevant criteria will be considered to be disposal of 

CCRsCCR, subject to all of the requirements in the disposal regulations. , and the user will be 

considered to be the owner or operator of a CCR disposal unit. Encapsulated uses need only 

comply with the first three criteria. Unencapsulated uses involving placement on the land of 

12,400 tons or more in non-roadway applications that fail to meet all of the beneficial use criteria 

are considered a CCR landfill. As previously noted, the first three criteria were discussed in the 

proposal and commenters generally supported these criteria, which establish flexible 

performance standards. As discussed above, the Agency has developed an additional criterion to 

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt, Tab stops: Not at 0.88"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

183

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

implement the concepts proposed and in response to comments, which generally reflects the 

issues discussed in the proposal. This additional criterion is designed to address the 

environmental and human health concerns associated with large-scale, unencapsulated uses that 

have features similar to landfills. These four criteria are discussed in greater detail in the sections 

below. Any user of CCR that, at a later time, believes that there could be a health or 

environmental issue associated with their beneficial use should work with their State Agency to 

address any potential issue. 

EncapsulatedAs noted above, encapsulated uses of CCRsCCR must only comply with the 

first three criteria. Encapsulated beneficial uses are those that bind the CCRsCCR into a solid 

matrix that minimizes their mobilization into the surrounding environment. Examples of 

encapsulated uses include, but are not limited to: (1) Filler or lightweight aggregate in concrete; 

(2) A replacement for, or raw material used in production of, cementitious components in 

concrete or bricks; (3) Filler in plastics, rubber, and similar products; and (4) Raw material in 

wallboard production. 

Compliance with the first three criteria suffices because, as discussed in Unit IV, the 

available information demonstrates that encapsulated uses of CCRsCCR raise minimal health or 

environmental concerns. The Agency did not receive any data to contradict this assessment 

during any of the comment periods. In addition, since publication of the proposal, the Agency 

conducted a study of FGD gypsum in wallboard and fly ash concrete, which further supports this 

conclusion. This study “Coal Combustion Residual Beneficial Use Evaluation: Fly Ash 

Concrete and FGD Gypsum Wallboard” (February 2014) concluded that “environmental 

releases of constituents of potential concern (COPCs) from CCR fly ash concrete and FGD 

gypsum wallboard during use by the consumer are comparable to or lower than those from 

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt, Add space between

paragraphs of the same style, Tab stops: Not at 0.88"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

184

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

analogous non-CCR products, or are at or below relevant regulatory and health-based 

benchmarks for human and ecological receptors.” 

Criteria 1: CCRsCCR must provide a functional benefit. This criterion is designed to 

ensure that the material performs a genuine function in the product or use; while it need not 

improve product performance when compared to the material for which it is substituting, 

CCRsCCR must genuinely be a necessary component of the product. In other words, there must 

be a legitimate reason for using CCRsCCR in the product other than the fact that it is an 

alternative to disposal of the material, e.g., the material fulfils material specifications. For 

example, CCRsCCR provides a functional benefit when used as a replacement for cement in 

concrete because the CCRsCCR increase the durability of the concrete and are also more 

effective against degradation from salt water. FGD gypsum serves the same function in the 

production of wallboard as gypsum mined from ore, and meets all product specification. 

Additionally, CCRsCCR can be used to adjust the pH of soils thereby increasing and promoting 

plant growth.

One commenter noted that many States already consider whether the material provides a 

functional benefit when making beneficial use determinations under their regulatory programs. 

The Agency agrees that this is an important criterion in determining whether a use is a 

“beneficial use.” To the extent that a state regulatory program has determined that a particular 

use provides a functional benefit, this may serve as evidence that this criterion has been met. 

Criteria 2: CCRsCCR must substitute for the use of a virgin material, conserving natural 

resources that would otherwise need to be obtained through practices, such as extraction. This 

criterion is intended to ensure that the use is truly “beneficial” from an environmental 

perspective. Examples of CCRsCCR used as a substitute for a virgin material include FGD 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

185

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

gypsum for mined gypsum and the use of fly ash in lieu of portlandPortland cement thereby 

reducing the need for cement. The use of FGD gypsum in the manufacture of wallboard reduces 

the need to use virgin gypsum from mined ore, thereby conserving natural resources (virgin 

gypsum) while conserving valuable energy that would be needed to mine the virgin gypsum. 

Similarly, the use of CCR fly ash in lieu of portlandPortland cement reduces the overall need for 

cement. CCRsCCR used in a road bed application substitutes for the use of quarried natural 

materials that provide structural support for the road surface. 

One commenter again highlighted that many states consider this criterion in their current 

state beneficial use programs. The Agency agrees that this second criterion is appropriate, and 

that conserving natural resources is an important function that should be encouraged. Here as 

well, potential users of CCR materials may choose to rely on a state determination to provide 

evidence that this criterion has been met. 

Criteria 3: The use of CCRsCCR must meet relevant product specifications, regulatory 

standards, or design standards, when available, and where such specifications or standards have 

not been established, CCRsCCR may not be used in excess quantities. This criterion was 

intended to address both the legitimacy of the use and the potential environmental and human 

health consequences associated with the use of excess quantities of CCRsCCR, particularly 

unencapsulated CCRsCCR. If excessive volumes of CCRsCCR are used—i.e., greater than 

necessary for a specific project—that calls into question whether the purpose of the application 

was in fact a sham disposal that would be subject to avoid compliance with the disposal 

regulations. In addition, the record demonstrates that the risks from use of CCRsCCR are more 

likely to be associated with large volumes, particularly for unencapsulated uses. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

186

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The Agency has modified this criterion slightly from the proposed rule. The proposed 

rule merely referenced “ relevant product specifications or regulatory standards;” EPA was

concerned that this was too narrow, and might not incorporate all of the relevant technical 

information currently available that provides guidance on what constitutes an excess amount. 

In Consequently, in the final definition of the term beneficial use of CCR materials, the Agency 

has added the phrase “design standards” to incorporate additional technical specifications. 

Design standards help determine if an excess amount is being used because design standards 

typically specify that 6 inches of CCR be used in a roadway setting or that 2 feet of CCRs be 

incorporated into a lift..” Design standards are necessary to include as they are different from 

product specifications because product specifications include specifications such as including 

CCRs as 20% of a mixture., because they include things other than “products.” An example of a 

“design standard” would be technical guidance specifying that six inches of CCR is to be used in 

constructing a road. 

EPA received several comments on this provision, several of which criticized the sole 

reliance on engineering performance standards. For example, one commenter raised a concern 

as toquestioned how the Agency would quantify acceptable amounts for each use if no 

specifications or standards were in place. One commenter stated that the Agency needs to rely 

on more than the existence of engineering performance standards or comparisons to typical 

application rates of mined materials as coal combustion wastes are unique materials and 

comparisons to typical rates of application of natural gypsum or other soil amendments are 

inappropriate. Another commenter suggested a provision that would require users to follow a 

plan to only use what is necessary to reach the desired effect, in lieu of product specifications. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

187

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

EPA purposely did not attempt to establish product specifications for each potential 

beneficial use application. The potential products are too varied, and in many instances EPA 

lacks the necessary expertise (e.g., to develop manufacturing specifications for individual 

products.). Nor is such an approach necessary. When CCRsCCR substitute for other materials, 

the amount used is typically controlled by product specifications, particularly for encapsulated 

uses. Product specifications currently exist for many, if not most, of the significant uses of 

CCRsCCR and can be found in a variety of sources. For example, as previously described, fly 

ash used as a stabilized base course in highway construction is subject to both regulatory 

standards under DOT/FHA, and engineering specifications, such as the ASTM C 593 test for 

compaction, the ASTM D 560 freezing and thawing test, and a seven day compressive strength 

above 2760 (400 psi). 

Similarly, in an agricultural setting, EPA expects all appropriate standards, constituent 

levels, prescribed total loads, and application rates to be met. For example, EPA has developed 

specific standards governing the agricultural application of biosolids. While the management 

scenarios differ between biosludge application and the use of CCRsCCR as soil amendments, 

EPA would consider application of CCRsCCR for agriculture uses not to be a legitimate 

beneficial use if they occurred at constituent levels or loading rates greater than EPA’s biosolids 

regulations. Several commenters also noted that agronomic rates currently exist for certain 

items such as peanuts, cotton, tomatoes, corn and soybeans. Commenters further stated that, at 

least in agronomic settings, there is no incentive to use excess amounts because it simply 

Formatted: Normal, Line spacing: single
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

188

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

increases the grower’s cost45 EPA would generally consider application of CCR above these 

rates, or any other rate that has been scientifically justified, to constitute disposal rather than 

beneficial use. 

Many other sources of technical reports and documents exist for other uses. ASTM 

standardStandard E2277-03 provides standard guidance and a methodology for using CCR in a 

structural fill and includes a consideration of engineering properties and behaviors, testing 

procedures, and design considerations relevant to constructing a structural fill project using 

CCRsCCR. Industry guidance, such as USWAG’s “Engineering and Environmental Guidance 

on the Beneficial Use of Coal Combustion Products in Engineered Structural Fill Projects”, may 

also provide information relevant to this issue. Further, some states, such as Wisconsin and 

Virginia, have developed environmental guidance for evaluating the suitability of a site prior to 

construction of a CCR structural fill. 

While many of these documents do not establish binding requirements—nor is EPA 

seeking to make them binding on users--they provide evidence of the design and construction 

practices, including the amounts, that are typically used throughout the industry, and provide a 

basis on which to evaluate whether excessive quantities have been used in a particular 

application. These types of documents are also relevant in making judgments on the larger 

question—whether the activity is legitimate reuse or merely sham disposal. In essence, product 

specifications serve the same function as the requirement suggested by a commenter for a plan to 

only use what is necessary to reach the desired effect.

 

45 Commenters argued that, at least in agronomic settings, there is no incentive to use excess amounts 

because it simply increases the grower’s cost. 

Formatted: Font: Italic

Formatted: Font: Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

189

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Commenters were also concerned that the proposed standards, and particularly this 

criterion, did not include any provision that would ensure that CCR reuse was protective of 

human health and the environment. One commenter stated that product specifications and 

engineering standards do not speak to environmental risk or consumer exposure. This same 

commenter was concerned that the proposed criteria used circular logic by stating that excess 

materials were not to be used in cases where specifications or standards have not been 

established. Another commenter criticized this criterion because it did not include threshold 

levels that protect public health from the range of toxicants routinely found in coal ash. 

EPA generally disagrees that the requirement to ensure that excessive volumes have not 

been used is unrelated to environmental and safety concerns. Minimizing the amount of material 

used in a product or released to the environment decreases potential exposures to the material. 

EPA agrees, however, that an additional criterion that more directly addresses the potential 

health and environmental risks is appropriate for unencapsulated uses, which present the greater 

potential for exposures of concern. As discussed in more detail below, the Agency has added a 

criterion to specifically require users of unencapsulated CCRsCCR to demonstrate that 

environmental and health related standards have been met. The criterion is a general 

performance standard that is equally applicable to all sites and uses and will account for a wide 

variety of potential exposures. By contrast, in order to establish toxicant “threshold levels,” 

EPA would need to develop risk assessments that account for the wide variety of potential uses 

and exposures. This is neither practical nor feasible, given the site specific nature of the 

potential risks and the myriad of potential uses. In addition, EPA disagrees that this is necessary, 

as the performance standard laid out in the fourth criterion will appropriately address the risks 

documented in the current record for these uses. Furthermore, as the Agency has previously 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

190

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

stated in the May 2000 Regulatory Determination and the 2010 proposal that, leaving the Bevill 

determination in place for beneficial use does not conflict with EPA’s view that certain 

beneficial uses, e.g., use in road construction and agriculture, should be conducted with care, 

according to appropriate management practices, and with appropriate characterization of the 

material and the site where the materials will be placed. EPA has concluded that the potential 

risks of these uses do not warrant federal regulation, but can be addressed, if necessary, in other 

ways. State programs exist and have the expertise to address beneficial use applications. In 

addition, the Agency is currently developing a Framework to address the risks associated with 

the beneficial use of unencapsulated materials. This Framework is expected to be finalized in 

2015; the Framework will be available to assist in the implementation of issues associated with 

the unencapsulated uses of CCR. The Agency has also been working with USDA to address the 

risks associated with the agricultural use of CCRsCCR. In conclusion, the Agency believes that 

sufficient tools are available (or will soon be available) to address the site-specific risks 

associated with the beneficial use of CCRsCCR. 

Criteria 4: When unencapsulated use of CCRsCCR involving placement on the land of 

12,400 tons or more in non-roadway applications, the user must demonstrate and keep records , 

and provide such documentation upon request, that environmental releases to ground water, 

surface water, soil and air are comparable to or lower than those from analogous products made 

without CCRsCCR, or that environmental releases to ground water, surface water, soil and air 

will be at or below relevant regulatory and health-based benchmarks for human and ecological 

receptors during use. The Agency has established an environmental criterion to protect human 

health and the environment. The establishment of this environmental standard is an outgrowth of 

the in response to numerous comments received on the proposal. Commenters were concerned

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

191

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

raising concern that additional provisions were necessary to ensure that unencapsulated uses of 

CCRsCCR needed to donebe conducted in an environmentally protective manner. The Agency 

discussed in the proposed rule howthe ways in which the use of CCRsCCR in an unencapsulated 

manner could potentially present risks similar to the risks associated with landfills that disposed 

of CCRs. These potential risks could affect ground water, surface water, air and be associated 

with dust emissions. The environmentThis fourth “environmental” criterion requires potential 

users to addresses potential risks tofrom all of these pathways andin order to avoid compliance 

with the criterionfinal disposal requirements. Existing sources of guidance and standards (e.g., 

ASTM E2277-03 and USWAG’s “Engineering and Environmental Guidance on the Beneficial 

Use of Coal Combustion Products in Engineered Structural Fill Projects,” to name just two that 

are currently available), are available and may provide useful assistance for determining if the 

use of CCR are comparable to or lower than those from analogous products made without CCR, 

or that environmental releases to ground water, surface water, soil and air will ensure protect of 

human be at or below relevant regulatory and health and the environment. -based benchmarks 

for human and ecological receptors during use. Information (e.g., modeling results, proposed 

designs, risk assessments, etc.) that have been proposed or developed to comply with state 

standards that explicitly address the environmental impacts of unencapsulated uses may also be 

relevant to this determination.

i. Source of the 12,400 Ton Threshold and Fill Operations.

As discussed earlier in this section, the fourth criterion was designed to address whether 

the activity is appropriately considered to be “disposal” and whether that “disposal” warrants 

regulation. Thus, the final criterion correlates to the practices and the risks at issue: the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

192

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

placement of large quantities of CCRsCCR in a single concentrated location, as documented by 

the 2014 risk assessment and the damage cases. 

In the proposed rule, EPA explained that the risks of greatest concern from 

unencapsulated beneficial uses were associated with the placement of CCRsCCR in quarries and 

sand and gravel pits, and with large scale fill operations used to re grade the landscape. EPA 

generally proposed to define these operations as “disposal” rather than “beneficial use.” As 

discussed below, EPA has retained that approach forwith respect to the placement in sand and 

gravel pits and quarries; consequently the fourth criterion need not account for these uses. By 

contrast, EPA ishas not definitively concludingconcluded that “large scale fill operations”,” per 

se, constitute the disposal of CCRsCCR. This is because EPA agrees with commenters that, if 

constructed correctly, large scale fill operations can meet all of the criteria for a beneficial use. 

But EPA also agrees that these applications can present risks to human health and the 

environment, and therefore has focuseddrafted the fourth criterion to specifically address the 

risks presented by these operations. The fourth criterion is thus tied to the Agency’s general 

approach to large scale fill. 

The Agency acknowledged in the proposal that additional guidance was warranted on 

what would constitute a large scale fill operation, and received numerous comments on this issue 

in response to the proposal. EPA requested comments again on the topic of large scale fills in a 

Notice of Data Availability (NODA) published in 2013. 78 FR 46940, (August 2, 2013). The 

NODA discussed the fact that many commenters on the proposed CCR rule stated that EPA 

should have developed a size criterion to define large scale fill operations. One commenter 

suggested 5,000 cubic yards as a size criterion for a CCR landfill, but did not provide a basis for 

this size criterion.. Other commenters suggested size criteria but for different reasons than 

Formatted: Normal, Space Before: 0 pt, Line spacing:

single
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

193

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

defining disposal criteria; for example, Wisconsin has a standard where all CCRsCCR used for 

unconfined and confined “fill projects exceeding 5,000 cubic yards require concurrence by the 

State prior to commencement of the project.” Similarly, West Virginia stated that 

“unencapsulated use of CCRsCCR as structural fills not exceeding 10,000 cubic yards are 

approvable on a case-by-case basis.” 

In the NODA, EPA identified three different types of data sets that could provide 

information relevant to developing appropriate criteria or to otherwise defining what constitutes 

a “large scale” fill operationsoperation. EPA solicited comment on the adequacy of the data sets 

and whether EPA should consider them for the purpose of creating criteria or a definition. The 

three data sets were: (1) The size of the structural fills that have resulted in damage cases; (2) 

The distribution of landfill sizes, derived either from an EPA Office of Water's questionnaire or 

from the landfill size distribution used in the proposed rule; and (3) The size distribution for 

large scale fills that have been constructed in North Carolina.

Many commenters argued that it was entirely inappropriate for EPA to specify in the rule 

when a project constitutes beneficial use simply by volume or amount of structural fill a project 

requiresnecessary to construct a stable base for a building. Commenters argued that a large scale 

fill operation, if designed appropriately, constituted a legitimate beneficial use. In fact, industry 

commenters universally claimed that they were not aware of any damage cases or adverse 

environmental impacts that had been seen fromassociated with structural fills that had adhered to 

industry guidance (e.g., ASTM standard E2277-03 for structural fills and the USWAG 

Engineering and Environmental Guidance on the Beneficial Use of CCPs in Engineered 

Structural Fill Projects), and argued that the history of well-designed and implemented 

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

194

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

engineered structural fills demonstrate that CCRsCCR can serve as a valuable resource in 

avoiding disturbing native ground to secure borrow soils where fill materials are needed to 

establish a final grade for a project site that meets the need of the proposed final use. To this 

end, the commenters also acknowledged the need for site characterization and characterization of 

the CCRsCCR themselves are fundamental to the construction of fills across the U.S. Similarly, 

other commenters stated that size should not be the only criteriacriterion used to define large 

scale fill operations and highlighted that the site conditions, including such features as the 

hydraulic conductivity of the area, should also be an important criteriacriterion to consider. Still

other commenters stated that CCR landfills cannot include large scale fill CCR beneficial use 

projects because such operations do not involve disposal of a solid waste. Rather, industry 

commenters argue that the determination as to what is disposal as opposed to beneficial use 

should be a determination that rests solely with State agencies. These commenters suggested 

that the determination as to whether a particular fill project constituted disposal, rather than 

beneficial use should be based on a series of factors, and not simply a size-cut-off. Finally, other 

commenters argued that the Agency incorrectly presumed that only large scale fill operations 

could cause environmental damage, and suggested that rather than regulating large scale fill 

operations solely on the basis of the volume or the amount of CCRsCCR involved, the 

information available to EPA from damage cases and monitoring data suggests that an 

additional, if not primary criteria for regulating fill operations, including those involved in 

highway construction, should include the prevention of CCRs inCCR coming into contact with 

water. 

Focusing on the risks of concern—that these operationslarge scale fills were effectively 

operating as landfills--the Agency reviewed the database of landfills used in the 2014 risk 

Formatted: Swedish (Sweden)
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

195

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

assessment and has established a threshold limit that corresponds to the smallest size landfill

used in the risk assessment database. EPA selected this threshold as the trigger for requiring an 

affirmative demonstration by the user that there will be no releases of concern as a consequence 

of the land application, because the available evidence in the record (i.e., the 2014 risk 

assessment) demonstrates that at these volumes therethe potential risks are of such significance 

to warrant regulation. Based on this evidence, the burden then shifts to the potential user to 

demonstrate that these potential risks do not exist at the particular site or have been adequately 

mitigated. Under this approach, unencapsulated beneficial use applications greater than or equal 

to 12,400 tons can still be conducted without becoming subject to the disposal regulations, by 

using engineering principles, such as a liner system, and demonstrating that environmental 

releases to ground water, surface water, soil and air are comparable to or lower than those from 

analogous products made without CCRsCCR, or that environmental releases to ground water, 

surface water, soil and air will be at or below relevant regulatory and health-based benchmarks 

for human and ecological receptors.

EPA agrees that the volume of CCRsCCR involved should not be the sole basis for 

determining whether an operation constitutes disposal. As such, the Agency is requiring the use 

of the forthfourth criterion in order to address any potential risks associated with unencapsulated 

uses of CCRsCCR that are in excess of 12,400 tons. Users will be required to make an 

affirmative demonstration relating to the potential environmental releases and the potential risks 

of the application (in addition to requiring compliance with the other three criteria). Specifically, 

users will be required to demonstrate that environmental releases to ground water, surface water, 

soil and air are comparable to or lower than those from analogous products made without CCR, 

or that environmental releases to ground water, surface water, soil and air will be at or below 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

196

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

relevant regulatory and health-based benchmarks for human and ecological receptors during use. 

EPA expects such determinations to take into account a wide variety of factors, including the 

hydraulic conductivity of the area, proximity of the material to water, and the likelihood of 

contact with water. EPA also expects that such determinations would take into account, as many 

commenters acknowledged to be appropriate and necessary, the need for site characterization 

and characterization of the CCR.

To The fourth criterion was adopted in part, to address commenterscommenters’ concern 

that a potential criterion for regulating fill operationsthe EPA should be the inclusion of a 

statementinclude a criterion that prevents the placement of CCR in water sources, the Agency 

believes that the fourth criterion, dealing with the environmental criterion, addresses the 

commenters concern. The . These are legitimate concerns; existing damage cases that exist show 

that the placement of CCR in sand and gravel pits was almost always associated with the CCR 

being placed in contact with water. The fourth criterion was designed to addresses these types 

of issues. The fourth criterion will require that the user of the CCRto demonstrate that 

environmental releases to ground water, surface water, soil and air are comparable to or lower 

than those from analogous products made without CCR, or that environmental releases to ground 

water, surface water, soil and air will be at or below relevant regulatory and health-based 

benchmarks for human and ecological receptors during use. This demonstrationAs a 

consequence of this requirement, EPA expects that significant changes may changeneed to be 

made in order to proceed with a proposed use; for example, conducting the potential use of the 

CCR; the demonstrationrequired assessment, may show that the potential use will not protect 

human health and the environment or it may showdemonstrate that the only way to achieve 

compliancethe performance standard is to install engineering features. The Agency firmly 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

197

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

believes that the fourth criterion addresses the commenters concern regarding placement, such a 

liner, as part of CCR in or near water sources.the proposed project. 

The applicationApplication of unencapsulated CCR to the land in volumes less than the 

12,400 tons will not require an affirmative demonstration under criterion four to be considered a 

beneficial use. While the Agency has sufficient information to document that unencapsulated 

uses can present a hazard, based on the current rulemaking record, EPA lacks the information 

necessary to demonstrate that the unencapsulated uses in smaller amounts are likely to present a 

risk.46 In other words, the evidence relating to these uses is not sufficient to shift the burden to 

the potential user to affirmatively demonstrate the safety of the proposed use. Nevertheless, the 

Agency expects potential users of unencapsulated CCR below this threshold to work with the 

States to determine the potential risks of the proposed use at the site and to adopt the appropriate 

controls necessary to address the risks. In addition, the Agency is working to provide assistance 

to states and potential users by releasing the Agency’s Industrial Waste Evaluation Model

(IWEM)In this regard, EPA notes that the composition and leaching behavior of CCR being 

beneficially used may change over time due to upgrades in air pollution controls devices at coalfired power plants. Further, initial determinations for existing BU applications may have relied 

on single-point pH test methods (e.g., TCLP, SPLP) that, depending on actual field conditions in 

which the applications are occurring, can under- or over-estimate leachate concentrations. 

 

46 In November 2014, EPA received reports alleging that extensive groundwater monitoring data collected 

by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources demonstrated a correlation between beneficial uses of 

unencapsulated CCR below these thresholds and contaminated drinking water wells in southeastern 

Wisconsin. Insufficient time was available to allow EPA to evaluate these reports as part of this 

rulemaking. However, EPA will continue to evaluate the issues associated with unencapsulated uses of 

CCR, and to the extent available data demonstrate the need for revisions to these criteria, EPA will 

initiate the necessary rulemaking procedures. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

198

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Scientific advancements in leach test protocols have found that the degree of leaching can vary 

by several orders of magnitude. Accordingly, States overseeing CCR BU programs are 

encouraged to closely evaluate existing BU applications in light of ongoing scientific advances 

in tools and technologies to ensure these applications remain protective of human health and the 

environment. In addition, the Agency is working to provide assistance to states and potential 

users; this includes the release of the Agency’s Industrial Waste Evaluation Model (IWEM), and 

the development of a Framework for systematically assessing unencapsulated BU applications to 

aid in assessing whether there are environmental risks associated with site specific structural 

fills. 

ii. Exclusion of Roadway Applications from the Demonstration Requirement4

th Criterion

In the 2010 proposal, the Agency stated that the placement of unencapsulated CCRsCCR

on the land, such as in road embankments, presented some concern, however, the Agency also 

statedconcerns, but that the amount and the manner in which they are used – subject to 

engineering specifications and material requirements rather than landfilling techniques – are very 

different from land disposal. The Agency highlighted the 2005 guidance that was developed by 

EPA, FHWA, DOE, ACAA, and USWAG that addressed, addressing the appropriate

methodologies and engineering requirements for the use of coal ash in highway construction. 

Lastly, the Agency noted the difference in terms of volume; the difference between the 

amountamounts of CCRsCCR that could be disposed of in a landfill vs. the amount of CCR used 

in the construction of a roadbase (typically on the order of six to twelve inches thick). 

EPA received a number of comments requesting that the definition of a CCR landfill not 

include CCRs whenexclude CCR used in highway and road construction projects and 

othersimilar beneficial use projects authorized by an appropriate State agency. These 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

199

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

commenters reasoned that the “arbitrary cutoff’ discussed in the NODA would be inappropriate

because it would sweep into the CCR landfill definition large scale fills projects, including 

highway projects and other governmentally authorized projects that constitute legitimate 

beneficial use of CCRsinappropriately capture such uses. 

The Agency has excluded roadways and associated embankments from the requirement 

to make the environmental demonstration in thisfourth criterion because the methods of 

application are sufficiently different from CCR landfills that EPA cannot extrapolate from the 

available risk information to determine whether these activities present similar risks. Roadways 

are subject to engineering specifications andthat generally havespecify CCR to be placed in a 

thin layer (e.g., 6six to 12 inches) under a road. The placement under the surface of the road 

limits the degree to which rainwater can influence the leaching of the CCR because of their 

placement beneath the surface of the road. Embankments are also subject to engineering 

specifications rather than landfilling techniques. Embankments can be designed with CCR in a 

manner that mitigates leaching to groundwater and run-off to surface waters; e.g., by assuring 

adequate compaction of the CCR in the embankment, one can limit the potential for leaching. In 

addition, by ensuring that proper grading of the site is achieved, promotion of surface water 

runoff is enhanced which also eliminates the ability of precipitation to leach constituents from 

the CCR. Further, the construction of roads and associated embankments are supervised and 

approved by State and/or Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) engineers who ensure 

that engineering specification are complied with. .

There are also significant differences between the manner in which roadways and 

landfills can potentially impact groundwater. These include the nature of mixing in the media, 

the leaching patterns, and how input infiltration rates are generated. First, CCR landfills are 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

200

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

typically a homogenously mixed system, and as a result, there are no spatial variations of the 

chemical and physical properties of the media (for example, bulk density, hydraulic conductivity 

and contaminant concentration). By contrast, roadways are generally constructed of several 

layers with different material properties (heterogeneity). This difference affects the hydraulic 

conductivity of a mass of CCR in a landfill vs. those , as compared to CCR placed in an 

embankment. Given the difference, the hydraulic conductivity will be changing in an 

embankment and given the compaction of the CCR in individual lifts, the hydraulic conductivity 

of the embankment will be less than the conductivity of the CCR placed into a landfill. Any 

potential leaching will tend to spread over the length of the embankment vs., as opposed to the 

leaching in a downward motion asthat would occur in a homogenously filled landfill.

Finally, (and perhaps most critically) the construction of roads and associated 

embankments are supervised and approved by State and/or Federal Department of Transportation 

(DOT) engineers who ensure compliance with engineering specifications

While EPA is exempting roadbed applications of 12,400 tons or larger from the 

demonstration requirement as discussed abovefourth criterion, EPA is mindful of situations 

where large quantities of CCR have been used without appropriate engineering controls or where 

placement on the land has apparently far exceeded those necessary for the engineering use of the 

materials. One such situation occurred in Puerto Rico with CCRsCCR generated by the AES 

Coal Fired Power Plant in Guayama. As discussed in Unit IV.B, CCRsCCR and an aggregate 

created from them (“AGREMAX”) were being used as fill in housing developments and in road 

projects. Over two million tons of this material was used between 2004 and 2012. When made 

aware of the situation, EPA raised concerns over the use of CCRsCCR and AGREMAX based 

on the fact that the Environmental Quality Board had not imposed engineering controls, specified 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

201

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

appropriate uses, or otherwise limited the use of AGREMAX by the end users. Inspections of 

some of the sites where the material had been placed showed use in residential areas, areas close 

to wetlands and surface waters and/or over shallow sole source drinking water aquifers. In 

addition, in some cases the volumes appeared to be in excess of what was necessary for 

engineering uses and some sites appeared to be abandoned. EPA believes that thisThis kind of 

situation will be directly addressed by the new beneficial use criteria promulgated in the final 

rule. To qualify as a beneficial use, the use of AGREMAX would need to meet all four of the 

criteria – that is, it must provide a functional benefit, substitute for a virgin material, meet 

product specifications, and in this case, the user would havebe required to make the 

environmental demonstration for the non-roadbed applications.

iii. UnencapsulatedKinds of unencapsulated uses of CRRs when placed on the land in a 

volume equal to or greater than 12,400 tonsCCR required to comply with the fourth criterion

Unencapsulated uses of CCRsCCR are numerous and range, in total use, from hundreds 

of thousands of tons to millions of tons per year. These applications include, as examples, the 

following: (1) flowable fill; (2) structural fills; (3) soil modification/stabilization; (4) snow and 

ice control; (5) waste stabilization/solidification; (65) use in agriculture as a soil amendment; 

and (76) aggregate.

ManyMany of these unencapsulated uses, other than structural fills, are not generally 

expected to be used in amounts that would require an environmental demonstration under the 

fourth criterion. And for several of these applications, which can also be structurally very 

different from landfills. When CCR are used, EPA expects that even if these applications are 

used in amounts greater than 12,400 tons, potential users will be easily able to meet the 

performance standard. For example, the use of CCR for soil modification or stabilization, snow 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

202

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

and ice control, agriculture, waste stabilization/solidification, aggregate or flowable fill 

applications, their usage is generally not similar to the mounding that occurs in a landfill 

situation. Some of the above-mentioned applications are where CCRs have been placed in an 

extremely thin layer (i.e., snow and ice control) or where their use is limited to a thin amount 

(i.e., use as an agricultural amendment) vs. the case where CCRs may be placed in a landfill that 

is perhaps 20 to 30 feet deep. These differences in volumes/amountscan have a tremendous 

bearing on the leaching potential of the CCR materials. These unencapsulated uses, other than 

structural fills, are not generally expected to be used in amounts that would require an 

environmental demonstration. 

Structural fills, however, can be larger applications that have similarities to the landfills 

regulated in the final disposal rule and, as such, the Agency expects that some structural fill 

applications using CCRs will find it necessaryand so may be required to demonstrate compliance 

with the environmental standards in the fourth criterion. more frequently. In addition, because 

structural fills can be similar to the landfills regulated in the final disposal rule, some proposed 

applications may need to install engineering features to meet the performance standard. 

iv. What does demonstrate Demonstration that “environmental releases to ground 

water, surface water, soil and air are comparable to or lower than those from analogous 

products made without CCRsCCR, or that environmental releases to ground water, surface 

water, soil and air will be at or below relevant regulatory and health-based benchmarks for 

human and ecological receptors during use” mean?.”

The environmental fourth criterion requires a potential use of CCRsCCR to compare 

analogous products or to perform an environmental assessment evaluating whether releases to 

the environment are at or below relevant regulatory and health-based benchmarks for human and 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

203

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

ecological receptors during use. A demonstration should consider the development of a 

conceptual model to assist in the determination of whether the environmental criteria contained 

in the definition of the term “beneficial use of CCRsCCR” can be demonstrated. Numerous 

potential pathways exist and these should be evaluated as necessary depending on the potential 

application of the CCRsCCR. Potential exposure pathways include exposure to ground water, 

surface water, air, and soils. Generation of dust, leaching to ground water and surface water, 

inhalation of mercury, and plant uptake are areas that need to be evaluated. A complete 

evaluation of the types of releases, the types of exposure and the receptors that may be 

potentially affected by a potential application will need to be conducted. A screening 

comparison will need to be performed comparing the concentrations of individual constituents of 

potential concern to the following benchmarks: human soil ingestion, ecological soil, tap water 

ingestion, fish ingestion, surface water, sediment, and inhalation. As an example, a user could 

compare a mercury concentration to a human health screening benchmark with an inhalation 

value of 300 ng/m3. Example ofExisting documents that can be used to gain an understanding of 

conceptual models, pathways, and regulatory limits include: Risk Assessment Guidance for 

Superfund, Exposure Factors Handbook, Volumes I, II and III, Risk Assessment Guidance for 

Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual Part A, Industrial Waste Management 

Model (IWEM) Technical Backgrounds Document, Exposure Factors Handbook, Human and 

Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes. In addition, although it is not directly 

applicable, a potential user of unencapsulated CCR may find it useful to consult the previously 

mentioned “Coal Combustion Residual Beneficial Use Evaluation: Fly Ash Concrete and FGD 

Gypsum Wallboard” and the “Methodology for Evaluating Encapsulated Beneficial Uses of Coal 

Combustion Residuals” to assist in the determination of whether the unencapsulated CCR is 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

204

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

comparable to or lower than those from analogous products made without CCR, or that 

environmental releases to ground water, surface water, soil and air will be at or below relevant 

regulatory and health-based benchmarks for human and ecological receptors during use.

It is required, afterAfter the effective date of today’sthe final rule and as stated in the 

definition of the term “beneficial use of CCRs,” that, any potential user of CCRsCCR that makes 

the demonstration in the fourth criterion #4, maintain a copy of the demonstration to be used in 

the event of any citizen suit brought to enforce these criteria.must keep records and provide such 

documentation upon request.. 

b. Placement in Sand and Gravel Pits and Quarries

EPA proposed that, without exception, unencapsulated CCR placed in sand and gravel 

pits, and quarries should not constitute beneficial use, but disposal. The Agency highlighted a 

number of damage cases that involved the filling of old, unlined quarries or gravel pits with large 

quantities of unencapsulated CCR, under the guise of “beneficial use.” The Agency stated that 

because Because of the damage cases and the concern that in such instances, sand and gravel pits 

and quarries were essentially operating as landfills, EPA proposed to define the placement of 

CCR in sand and gravel pits or quarries as land disposal that would be subject to regulation 

under either of the proposed regulatory options. The proposal specifically defined a CCR 

landfill as “a disposal facility or part of a facility where CCR are placed in or on land and which 

is not a land treatment facility, a surface impoundment, an underground injection well, a salt 

dome formation, a salt bed formation, an underground mine, a cave, or a corrective action 

management unit. For purposes of this part, landfills also include piles, sand and gravel pits, 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

205

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

quarries, and/or large scale fill operations. Sites that are excavated so that more coal ash can be 

used as fill are also considered CCR landfills.” 

Commenters representing the environmental community and local citizens stated that 

there were numerous examples of harm caused by the unencapsulated “reuse” in sand and gravel 

pits and quarries, which demonstrate that these unencapsulated uses are merely disposal in 

disguise, and must be regulated stringently under Subtitle C of RCRA to prevent the risks they 

pose of contaminating groundwater, surface water, and ecological systems with heavy metals and 

other harmful pollutants. In particular, they argue that “There have already been at least thirteen 

damage cases caused by the disposal of coal ash in sand and gravel pits or former quarries that 

led to contamination of water sources and/or ecological damages.” Some states also agreed that 

placement in sand and gravel pits and quarries should not be considered beneficial use. For 

example, one state commenter agreed that CCR placement in sand and gravel pits and quarries is 

“disposal” and not beneficial use while another state commenter wrote that it concurs that largescale fills in quarries in poorly engineered applications can cause negative impacts. Industry 

commenters highlighted that damage cases related to sand and gravel pits and quarries were old 

practices that no longer take place. Industry commented that the presumption that the use of 

CCR to reclaim sand and gravel quarries is not beneficial use is flawed. WhileThese 

commenters argued that while sand and gravel quarries have been used to dispose of CCR, it is 

not correct to assume that with proper engineering and environmental standards that CCR cannot 

be used beneficially to reclaim quarries for uses such as recreational areas, commercial or 

industrial uses, or to aesthetically improve the characteristics of the land. 

EPA is finalizing its proposal that placement of CCR in sand and gravel pits constitutes 

disposal, rather than beneficial use. The final definition of a CCR landfill explicitly includes 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

206

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

placement of CCR in sand and gravel pits and quarries. EPA has adopted this approach because 

the majority of comments were opposed to this practice and the practice has resulted in 

numerous damage cases inas a result of the highly permeable strata typically present at such 

sites. Moreover, while the past.commenters may be correct that “with proper engineering 

measures, placement in sand and gravel pits and quarries can be conducted safely”, they 

submitted no data to support this contention. The only engineering features the available 

information demonstrates that fordemonstrate would be protective are those that have been 

determined to be necessary for CCR landfills—i.e., composite liners and groundwater 

monitoring. And in the absence of these features, any future placement in sand and gravel pits 

and quarries, unless it met the requirements applicable to landfills, such as the inclusion of a liner 

and ground water monitoring system, could not demonstrate that environmental releases to 

ground water, surface water, soil and air are comparable to or lower than those from analogous 

products made without CCR, ormeet the performance standard in the fourth criterion: i.e., that 

environmental releases to ground water, surface water, soil and air will be at or below relevant 

regulatory and health-based benchmarks for human and ecological receptors during use. 

B. Definitions

EPA proposed definitions for a number of key terms used in the proposed subtitle D rule 

that the Agency determined were necessary for the proper interpretation of the proposed 

requirements, e.g., coal combustion residuals, existing CCR landfill. (See 75 FR at 35196-97, 

June 21, 2010)..) In addition, EPA also proposed definitions for terms that were specific to 

certain regulatory requirements, e.g., seismic impact zone.

EPA is finalizing many of the regulatory definitions that were proposed, some with 

modifications. Several definitions that were proposed have been removed because they are no 

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Add space

between paragraphs of the same style

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

207

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

longer relevant to this rulemaking and a number of new definitions have been added. 

Specifically, definitions that have been removed from the final rule include: natural water table, 

probable maximum precipitation, surface water, systemic toxicants and upstream toe. New 

definitions are discussed in the technical section of the rule for which they apply.

New definitions are discussed in the technical section of the rule for which they apply. The 

majority of the regulatory definitions contained in the proposed rule are beinghave been retained 

in the final rule, as writtenproposed or with minor clarifying changes. These definitions can be 

foundare codified in § 257.7353 and are identified hereinclude the following: acre foot, active 

life, aquifer, area capacity curves, areas susceptible to mass movement, coal combustion 

residuals (CCRsCCR), displacement, facility, factor of safety, fault, freeboard, groundwater, 

hazard potential classification, high hazard potential surface impoundment, significant hazard 

potential surface impoundment, low hazard potential surface impoundment, holocene, hydraulic 

conductivity, karst terrain, lithified earth material, maximum horizontal acceleration in lithified 

earth material, new CCR landfill, new CCR surface impoundment, operator, owner, , poor 

foundation conditions, recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, 

representative sample, run-off, run-on, sand and gravel pit or quarry, seismic impact zone, state, 

structural components, unstable area, uppermost aquifer, and waste boundary. 

Several definitions received a significant number of comments and upon further 

evaluation by EPA have been modified to better explain their meaning or intent. TheseThis 

includes the definitions are for the following terms: CCR landfill or landfill, CCR surface 

impoundment or impoundment, existing CCR landfill and existing CCR surface impoundment

and are discussed in more detail below. In addition. These comments, along with the revisions 

made in response are discussed in more detail below. In addition, EPA has revised a number of 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Space Before: 0 pt,

After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the

same style

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Add space

between paragraphs of the same style
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

208

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

definitions, or added new definitions, to be consistent with revisions made in the corresponding 

technical requirements. These are discussed in the various sections of the preamble that address 

the specific technical requirement. For example, as discussed in Unit V, EPA has revised the 

definition of “independent registered professional engineer or hydrologist” to “qualified 

professional engineer” to address the concerns raised in response to comments.

1. Definition of CCR landfill

EPA proposed to define a CCR landfill to mean as “a disposal facility or part of a facility 

where CCRs areCCR is placed in or on land and which is not a land treatment facility, a surface 

impoundment an underground injection well, a salt dome formation, a salt bed formation, an 

underground mine, a cave, or a corrective action management unit. For purposes of this subpart, 

landfills also include piles, sand and gravel pits, quarries, and/or large scale fill operations. Sites 

that are excavated so that more coal ash can be used as fill are also considered CCR landfills.

.” (See 75 FR 35239.)The Agency received a significant number of comments on the 

proposed definition. These comments focused almost exclusively on two issues, includingthe 

inclusion of “large-scale fill operations” and “piles” within the definition of CCR landfill. 

CommentersRegarding large-scale fills, commenters argued that one of the fundamental 

problems with the proposed definition was that it assumed all CCR placed in large scale fill 

operations constituted “disposal” of CCR (and that these operations therefore constitute CCR 

landfills) and notrather than beneficial use. Commenters furthered argued that CCR is often used 

in engineered fills, such as road base and road embankments and that these legitimate beneficial 

use operations should not be subject to the CCR landfill regulations. Other commenters argued 

that the phrase “large-scale fill operation” was unlawfully vague and could not be included in a 

final regulatory definition without a supplemental proposal setting forth discernible and readily 

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Italic

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Add space

between paragraphs of the same style
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

209

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

understandable parameters as to what constitutes the type of large scale fill operations that would 

constitute a CCR landfill. 

With respect to the Agency’s decision to include Commenters also argued that “piles” 

inshould be omitted from the definition of a CCR landfill, for a variety of reasons. Several

commenters argued that including the word “pile” in the definition was overly broad and 

insufficiently prescriptive and would inappropriately capture on-going or short-term storage for 

beneficial useCCR management activities that did not constitute disposal., such as storage for 

beneficial use. These commenters contendedalso raised concern that including “piles” in the 

definition of CCR landfill without further clarification or specificity, i.e., when used as part of a 

beneficial use operation, would negatively affect beneficial use activities. Other commenters 

raised concern that the term “piles” was too vague, and suggested that whether piles were treated 

as CCR landfills should be determined by the size of the piles, or the intent for which such piles 

exist. These commenters suggested the Agency should exclude small piles of CCR that are 

staged and/or consolidated prior to transport or placement for disposal. These commenters 

argued that subjecting all CCR piles to all of the landfill requirements was “illogical and 

inappropriate.”

OtherCertain commenters argued that the term “piles” was vague and failed to adequately 

specify the size or intent for which such piles exist and as drafted, would inappropriately capture 

on-going, short-term CCR management activities that do not constitute disposal. These 

commenters reasoned that to regulate any CCR storage pile in the same manner as a CCR landfill 

was illogical and inappropriate and that the word “pile” should be removed from the definition of 

CCR landfill. Still other commenters were concerned that the inclusion of piles, as written, 

would include even small piles that are staged and/or consolidated prior to transport or placement 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

210

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

for disposal and that to subject these units to all the landfill siting and design requirements would 

be entirely inappropriate. Other commenters raised the issue of risks from these units and argued 

that piles should not be regulated under this rule because they do not present a significant risk to 

the environment, as evidenced by thea lack of damage cases from these units.. Alternately, other 

commenters, suggested that if EPA were to regulate these units,piles, the Agency should 

consider a regulatory strategy other than regulation as a CCR landfill should be considered. 

Several . One alternative regulatory strategies werestrategy suggested, including was to include 

an option establishing a limit (e.g., 180 days) on the amount of time that the CCRsCCR could be 

allowed to be maintained in a pile without regulation as a CCR landfill. Another option 

suggested was to develop a set of reasonable design and operating standards consistent with the 

uses and risks posed by piles. Such design standards could include the requirement for a low 

permeability underlayment or base such as asphalt, concrete or an HDPE liner. Operating 

standards could include such provisions as labeling, and the requirement to remove at least 90 

percent of the contents every 90 days, with a full cleanout annually.

EPA believes the suggested option to establish a time limit would be difficult to oversee 

and verify. States and citizens would have no way to determine when CCR is placed in a pile and 

when the CCR was subsequently removed. Therefore, EPA is rejecting this suggested option. 

The suggested option to develop appropriate design and operating standards is essentially the 

approach EPA has adopted, as discussed in more detail below. However, the final design and 

operating standards differ according to the management practices, and include measures to 

control fugitive dust, and for certain practices, require the installation of a composite liner and 

leachate collection system.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

211

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

EPA discussed its final approach to large-scale fill operations in Unit V.A,; the definition 

of a CCR landfill has been revised to be consistent with the approach described in that section. 

Waste piles temporarily storing or managing CCR on-site prior to disposal in a CCR landfill or As 

explained at length, EPA has adopted a final approach that distinguishes between beneficial use 

and the “disposal” of CCR. Activities that meet the definition of beneficial use are not subject to 

these regulations. Activities that do not meet all of the criteria in the definition of a beneficial 

use—and in particular, such activities that involve the placement of unencapsulated CCR on the 

land--are considered disposal and are subject to the requirements of this final rule. Consistent 

with this approach the final definition of a CCR landfill has been revised to clarify that it 

includes “the use of CCR that does not meet the definition of a beneficial use of CCR.” Waste 

piles, including those used to temporarily store or manage CCR on-site prior to disposal in a 

CCR landfill or subsequent beneficial use, have been retained within the definition of a CCR 

landfill. In making this determination the Agency was strongly influenced by the similarities in 

the potential for risks posed by both waste piles and CCR landfills to pose the same risks tohuman 

health, groundwater resources, or the air if improperly managed. Both CCR piles and CCR 

landfills can beare subject to external factors such as rain and wind, which can adversely affect 

human health and the environment. For example, uncontrolled run-on and run-off can result in 

ponding of water in and around the unit resulting in increased leachate which has the potential to 

affect groundwater. Similarly, absent dust control measures, likesuch as the conditioning of 

CCRsCCR, both CCR landfills and waste piles have the potential to generate significant amount 

of fugitive dusts. Indeed, CCR piles are generally more susceptible to the creation of fugitive 

dusts. And contrary to the commenters’ contention about the absence of damage cases, the 

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Body, Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

212

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

single most frequent issue presented during the public hearings was the allegation by individual 

citizens of damage caused by fugitive dusts from neighboring CCR facilities. Moreover, the 

same pollution control measures like, such as liners, leachate collection systems, and groundwater 

monitoring can help minimize, will address the potential adverse effects from both of these units. 

As such, the Agency sees no reason to distinguish between treat piles and landfills if the regulatory 

requirements being implemented in this rule have the same effect on both units. Consequently, EPA is 

including waste piles in the definition of CCR landfill which will require these units to implement all the 

same technical criteria as CCR landfills. differently.

Other commenters suggested that the definition of CCR landfill should explicitly exclude the use 

of CCRsEPA also disagrees that the inclusion of CCR piles would capture on-going or short-term 

CCR management activities that do not constitute disposal. Irrespective of whether the facility is 

using the pile as “temporary storage” or ultimately intends to direct the CCR to beneficial use, by 

placing the CCR on the land with no containment or other method of preventing environmental 

exposures, the facility is engaging in an activity that clearly falls within the statutory definition 

of disposal. See 42 U.S.C. § 6903(3)(“placing of solid waste...on any land, so that such solid 

waste...or any constituent thereof may enter the environment.”) Moreover, even where the 

facility intends the pile to be “temporary,” some amount of CCR inevitably remains in place. 

And even were this not the case, under section 1008(a)(3), EPA is authorized to establish criteria 

governing all aspects of solid waste management--which explicitly is defined to include 

“storage” as well as all of the other activities identified by the commenters--to ensure the 

protection of human health and the environment. See 42 U.S.C. § 6903(28). 

Nevertheless, EPA agrees that not every activity that involves the management of CCR 

must occur in a unit that meets all of the technical requirements of a CCR landfill (e.g., 

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

213

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

groundwater monitoring). The key concern EPA is seeking to address with the inclusion of piles 

is the uncontrolled exposure from the extended, repeated, or indefinite placement of large 

amounts of unconsolidated CCR directly on the land. To the extent those exposures are 

controlled, whether through the use of tanks or some other kind of containment measures, the 

practice is neither considered to be a “pile” nor disposal in a landfill. 

To clarify this, and in response to the concern that the term “piles” was too vague, EPA 

has adopted a definition of the term “CCR pile” to identify those “piles” that are subject to the 

disposal requirements in this regulation. The final regulation specifies that a CCR pile means 

any non-containerized accumulation of solid, non-flowing CCR that is placed on the land. This 

definition mirrors the existing definition of “waste pile or pile” from the part 257 regulations, 

(i.e., the regulations that currently apply to CCR facilities), as well as the definition in part 260. 

The use of the phrase “non-containerized” is not intended to require that all activities occur 

within tanks or containment structures, but merely that concrete measures have been adopted to 

control exposures to human health and the environment. This could include placement of the 

CCR on an impervious base such as asphalt, concrete, or a geomembrane; leachate and run-off 

collection; and walls or wind barriers. To further clarify how this relates to EPA’s overall 

approach to beneficial use it is important to distinguish between CCR that is actually being used 

beneficially and CCR that may someday be used beneficially. CCR that is currently being used 

beneficially, for example, fly ash that has been transferred to a cement manufacturer and that is 

stored off-site in a “temporary pile” that complies with all of the criteria in the definition to be 

considered a beneficial use including the fourth criterion relating to the placement of large 

quantities of unconsolidated CCR on the land, would not be subject to the regulations applicable 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

214

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

to CCR disposal. Accordingly, the final regulation specifies that practices that meet the 

definition of beneficial use of CCR are not subject to the ‘disposal” requirements of the rule. 

By contrast, CCR located on-site that may someday be used beneficially but is not yet 

beneficially used remains subject to the disposal rule. Given that landfills and surface 

impoundments can be periodically dredged to provide material for beneficial use, any other 

approach would be impracticable, and would exclude from regulation many of the greatest 

sources of risk. An example of a “pile” that is not yet beneficially used is unconsolidated CCR 

placed on the land, that have been designated by the CCR facility to be transferred to another 

location for subsequent beneficial use (e.g., use as road bed) in the near future.

Several commenters also suggested that the definition of a CCR landfill should explicitly 

exclude the use of CCR at surface coal mining and reclamation operations, as described into 

reflect the proposed rule.Agency’s intention not to cover such activities. The Agency agrees and 

is clarifying inhas revised the final ruledefinition to explicitly provide that the term CCR landfill 

does not include the use of CCRsCCR at coal mining and reclamation operations. 

In consideration of all the preceding comments and upon further evaluation, 

Consequently, the Agency is finalizing the followinga definition of “CCR landfill or landfill or 

landfill”:

CCR landfill or landfill to mean an area of land or an excavation that receives 

CCR and which is not a surface impoundment, an underground injection well, a salt 

dome, a salt bed formation, an underground or surface mine, or a cave. For purposed of 

this subpart, a CCR landfill also includes sand and gravel pits and quarries, piles, and 

practices that do not meet the definition of a beneficial use of CCR. 

In” that can be found in § 257.73. On a related matter, the definition of CCR landfill or 

landfill contains the terms “sand and gravel pits or quarries.” EPA proposed a “sand and gravel 

Formatted: Body, Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

215

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

pit and/or quarry” to mean an excavation for the commercial extraction of aggregate for use in 

construction projects. The Agency received comments on the definition of sand and gravel pit 

and/or quarry suggesting that the term “commercial extraction” resulted in the definition 

beingwas too narrow. Specifically commenters were concerned it would leave outexclude noncommercial extraction, such as gravel pits operated by municipalities, and exclude metallic 

mineral mines, nonmetallic mining for other than sand and gravel, and coal mines. EPA agrees 

that the use of the term “commercial extraction” renders the proposed definition too narrow, as 

there is no basis for distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial extraction, either 

because of the risks these activities pose, or any other consideration relevant to this rulemaking. 

EPA is, therefore, revising “sand and gravel pit and/or quarry” as follows: 

Sand and gravel pit and/or quarry meansto mean an excavation for the extraction of 

aggregate, minerals, or metals. The term sand and gravel pit and/or quarry does not include 

subsurface or surface coal mines.

2. Definition of CCR surface impoundment

EPA proposed to define a “CCR surface impoundment” to mean a facility or part of a 

facility which is a natural topographic depression, man-made excavation, or diked area formed 

primarily of earthen materials (although it may be lined with man-made materials) which is 

designed to hold an accumulation of CCRsCCR containing free liquids, and which is not an 

injection well. Examples of CCR surface impoundments are holding, storage, settling, and 

aeration pits, ponds and lagoons. CCR surface impoundments are used to receive CCRsCCR that 

Formatted: Body, Indent: Left: 0", Line spacing:

Double, Adjust space between Latin and Asian text,

Adjust space between Asian text and numbers

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

216

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

have been sluiced (flushed or mixed with water to facilitate movement), or wastes from wet air 

pollution control devices, often in addition to other solid wastes. 

The Agency received many comments on the proposed definition of CCR surface 

impoundment. The majority of commenters argued that the definition was overly broad and 

would inappropriately capture surface impoundments that are not designed to hold an 

accumulation of CCR. Commenters were concerned that the proposed definition could be 

interpreted to include downstream secondary and tertiary surface impoundments –, such as 

polishing, cooling, wastewater and holding ponds – receivingthat receive only de minimis 

amounts of CCRsCCR. Commenters reasoned that these types of units in no practical or 

technical sense could be described as units “used to receive CCRsCCR that havehas been 

sluiced.” 

Other commenters raised the issueconcern that the definition did not differentiate 

between temporary and permanent surface impoundments. Commenters stated that many 

facilities rely on short-term processing and storage before moving CCRsCCR off-site for 

beneficial use or permanent disposal and that these units should not be required to comply with 

all of the technical criteria being implementedrequired for more permanent disposal 

impoundments. 

Upon further evaluation and review of the comments, the Agency has amended the 

definition of CCR surface impoundment to make clear the types of units that are covered by the 

rule. Aclarify the types of units that are covered by the rule. After reviewing the comments, 

EPA reviewed the risk assessment and the damage cases to determine the characteristics of the 

surface impoundments that are the source of the risks the rule seeks to address. Specifically, 

these are units that contain a large amount of CCR managed with water, under a hydraulic head 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

217

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

that promotes the rapid leaching of contaminants. These risks do not differ materially according 

to the management activity (i.e., whether it was “treatment,” “storage” or “disposal”) that 

occurred in the unit, or whether the facility someday intended to divert the CCR to beneficial 

use. However, EPA agrees with commenters that units containing only truly “de minimis” levels 

of CCR are unlikely to present the significant risks this rule is intended to address. 

EPA has therefore revised the definition to provide that a CCR surface impoundment as 

defined in this rule must meet three criteria: (1) the unit is a natural topographic depression, manmade excavation or diked area; (2) the unit is designed to hold an accumulation of CCR and; (3) 

the unit treats, stores or disposes of CCR. In applying these criteria to specific surface 

impoundments, the Agency is convinced that an owner or operator will be able to easily discern 

whether or not a particular unit is a CCR surface impoundment. The criteria set forth in this 

definition are consistent with the proposed rule and makes clear the types of impoundments 

covered by the rule. liquid; and (3) the unit treats, stores or disposes of CCR. These criteria 

correspond to the units that are the source of the significant risks covered by this rule, and are 

consistent with the proposed rule. EPA agrees with commenters that relying solely on the 

criterion from the proposed rule that the unit be designed to accumulate CCR could inadvertently 

capture units that present significantly lower risks, such as process water or cooling water ponds, 

because, although they will accumulate any trace amounts of CCR that are present, they will not 

contain the significant quantities that give rise to the risks modeled in EPA’s assessment. By 

contrast, units that are designed to hold an accumulation of CCR and in which treatment, storage, 

or disposal occurs will contain substantial amounts of CCR and consequently are a potentially 

significant source of contaminants. However, EPA disagrees that impoundments used for “shortterm processing and storage” should not be required to comply with all of the technical criteria 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

218

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

applicable to CCR surface impoundments. By “short-term,” the commenters mean that some 

portion of the CCR is removed from the unit; however, in EPA’s experience these units are never 

completely dredged free of CCR. But however much is present at any given time, over the 

lifetime of these “temporary” units, large quantities of CCR impounded with water under a 

hydraulic head will be managed for extended periods of time. This gives rise to the conditions 

that both promote the leaching of contaminants from the CCR and are responsible for the static 

and dynamic loadings that create the potential for structural instability. These units therefore 

pose the same risks of releases due to structural instability and of leachate contaminating ground 

or surface water as the units in which CCR are “permanently” disposed. 

The final definition makes extremely clear the impoundments that are covered by the 

rule, so an owner or operator will be able to easily discern whether a particular unit is a CCR 

surface impoundment. CCR surface impoundments do not include units generally referred to as 

cooling water ponds, process water ponds, wastewater treatment ponds, storm water holding 

ponds, or aeration ponds, or polishing ponds.. These units are not designed to hold an 

accumulation of CCR, and in fact, do not engage in the treatmentgenerally contain significant 

amounts of CCR. Treatment, storage, or disposal of accumulated CCR also does not occur in 

these units. Conversely, a constructed primary settling pond that receives sluiced CCR directly 

from the electric utility iswould meet the definition of a CCR surface impoundment because it 

meets all three criteria of the definition,: it is a man-made excavation, and it is designed to hold 

an accumulation of CCR (i.e., directly sluiced CCR) and it). It also engages in the treatment of 

CCR through its settling operation, which ultimately results in dredging of the. The CCR may be 

subsequently dredged for disposal or beneficial use elsewhere or permanent disposal, or it may 

be permanently disposed within the unit. Similarly, secondary or tertiary impoundments that 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

219

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

receive wet CCR thator liquid with significant amounts of CCR from a preceding impoundment 

(i.e., from a primary impoundment in the case of a secondary impoundment, or from a secondary 

impoundment in the case of a tertiary impoundment), even if they are ultimately dredged for land 

disposal elsewhere are also considered CCR surface impoundments and are covered by the rule. 

To illustrate further, consider a diked area in which wet CCR is accumulated for future transport 

to a CCR landfill or beneficial use. The unit is accumulating CCR and is also, while allowing for 

the evaporation or removal of liquid (no free liquids) to facilitate transport to a CCR landfill or 

for beneficial use. In this instance, the unit again meets all three definition criteria, it is a diked 

area (i.e., there is an embankment), it is accumulating CCR for ultimate disposal or beneficial 

use; and it is removing any free liquids, (i.e., treatment). As such, this unit would meet the 

definition of CCR surface impoundment.As such, this unit would meet the definition of CCR 

surface impoundment. In all of these examples significant quantities of CCR are impounded 

with water under a hydraulic head that will be managed for extended periods of time. This gives 

rise to the conditions that both promote the leaching of contaminants from the CCR and are 

responsible for the static and dynamic loadings that create the potential for structural instability. 

These units therefore all pose the same risks of releases due to structural instability and of 

leachate contaminating ground or surface water. 

In response to the comment on short-term holding of CCR in surface impoundments, the 

Agency disagrees that CCR surface impoundments that hold CCR for even short period of time 

should be excluded from the rule. The Agency knows of no compelling reason or set of facts to 

conclude that the potential risks from the temporary storage or holding of CCR in surface 

impoundments would be significantly different from the potential risks posed by longer storage 

times. As such, the Agency is concluding that the period of time that CCR is contained in a 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

220

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

disposal unit is not a relevant criteria in determining the definition of CCR surface 

impoundment. 

3. Definition of Existing CCR Landfill

EPA proposed “Existingto define an “existing CCR landfill” to mean a CCR landfill 

which was in operation on, or for which construction commenced prior to [the effective date of 

the rule]. AThe proposed definition specified that a CCR landfill has commenced construction 

if the owner or operator has obtained the federal, state, and local approvals or permits necessary 

to begin physical construction; and either: (1) a continuous on-site, physical construction 

program has begun; or (2) the owner or operator has entered into contractual obligations – which 

cannot be cancelled or modified without substantial loss – for physical construction of the CCR 

landfill to be completed within a reasonable time.

In response to the proposed definition, the Agency received significant commentseveral 

comments arguing that the use of the phrase "was in operation on, or for which construction 

commenced prior to" would lead to confusion. Commenters contended that most units defined as 

CCR landfills at some point in time "were in operation" and had "commenced construction" prior 

to the effective date of the regulation and. Commenters claimed that with this interpretation of 

existing CCR landfill,definition would unnecessarily capture thousands of closed structural fill 

projects, including residential properties, commercial properties used by small businesses, and 

many recreational facilities would unnecessarily be subject to the requirements of the rule..

Furthermore, commenters doubted that EPA intended for the rule to cover all of these units and 

urged the Agency to clarify that closed projectsunits are excluded from the definition of existing 

CCR landfill.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

221

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Other commenters argued that the proposed definition of “existing CCR landfill“ should 

be modified to include lateral expansions of operation units where such an expansion is within 

the site footprint of an area already approved and permitted by the state for the landfill. 

Commenters contended that while the proposed definition included undeveloped areas within the 

footprint of an approved permitted site, it also required that the construction be initiated at the 

site or that some type of binding contractual obligation be present. Commenters contended that 

the existence of a contractual obligation unfairly subjects undeveloped, yet approved permitted 

areas to design and operating standards for new CCR landfills based merely on the existence of a 

contract to commence construction. Commenters argued that such a distinction was arbitrary 

and capricious and provided no practical benefit.47 Other commenters questioned the usefulness 

of requiring a contractual obligation at all. As written, the commenters argued, that the definition 

was vague, unenforceable, and thus, not protective of human health and the environment. 

Commenters reasoned that there was no definitive or generally accepted meaning for the term 

“substantial loss” or the term “reasonable time” and an owner or operator, sensing that these 

proposed rules may be passed, could sign a contract now with minimum predetermined 

cancellation or modification penalties and a contract term of say five years or even longer to 

avoid the new unit requirements, i.e., a composite liner.

Upon review of the comments, theThe commenters are correct that EPA did not intend to 

cover inactive landfills under this rule. The Agency agrees that, as drafted, the proposed 

definition could cause confusion. EPA therefore deleted the phrase “was in operation on the 

effective date of the rule” could cause confusion and is revising the definition to remove the 

 

47 The same comment was received for existing CCR surface impoundments. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

222

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

term.and has substituted the phrase “that receives CCR both before and after [the effective date 

of the rule].” EPA also agrees that, as proposed, the phrase "commenced construction" prior to 

the effective date of the rule” could alsosimilarly cause confusion. Therefore, the Agency is 

clarifying the definitionhas made a similar revision, by adding the phrase “and receives CCR on 

or after [the effective date of the rule]” after the phrase “for which construction commenced prior 

to [the effective date of the rule].” EPA believes theseThese revisions will clarify which units are 

covered by the technical requirement of the rule and alleviate any confusion. EPA is also 

making conforming modifications to the definition of “existing CCR surface impoundment.”

Furthermore, EPA agrees with commenters that with regard to the “commence 

construction” provision of the definition, there should be no distinction between undeveloped 

areas where federal, state and local approvals or permits necessary to begin physical construction 

have been obtained, and undeveloped areas that have obtained the same approvals but also have 

a binding contractual agreement in place for the construction of the unit. Given the proposed 

language in the definitionEPA disagrees that lateral expansions should be considered to be 

“existing” based solely on the fact that such an expansion is within the site footprint of an area 

already approved and permitted by the state. EPA has frequently distinguished between the 

types of requirements applicable to new and existing units, reasoning that in many instances, risk 

mitigation measures would be adequate such that existing units need not wholly retrofit to meet 

the new “state of the art.” For new units, however, the balance is generally struck in favor of 

requiring a greater degree of risk prevention, rather than relying solely on risk mitigation 

measures. In determining whether a unit is “new” or “existing,” EPA has historically considered 

that the equities lie in favor of considering a unit to be “existing” when there has been an 

irretrievable commitment of resources on the part of the facility. That has not occurred merely 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

223

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

because permits have been obtained. While admittedly resources have been committed, at this 

stage modifications to the design and construction of the unit are still feasible. Specifically, the 

critical differences between the requirements applicable to new and existing CCR landfills are 

the type of liner that must be installed and the location restrictions that apply. Compliance with 

these requirements can be addressed through modifications to the design and construction of the 

unit, and are therefore readily feasible until construction has begun. 

EPA agrees with those commenters who were concerned that the phrase, “the owner or 

operator has entered into contractual obligations – which cannot be cancelled or modified 

without substantial loss – for physical construction of the CCR landfill to be completed within a 

reasonable time,” the Agency has concluded, that absent some type of guidance that objectively 

discusses how “substantial loss” could be calculated by the owner or operator, the purpose and/or 

effect of this requirement in meeting the objectives of this rule remain unclear.is vague and 

potentially subject to abuse. While this phrase has been included in other EPA regulations, those 

regulations operate within a regulatory program overseen by a regulatory authority. No similar 

guarantee exists under these regulations. EPA could not discover a definitive or generally 

accepted meaning for the terms “substantial loss” or “reasonable time,” or develop sufficiently 

objective and determinate criteria for these concepts. Consequently, the Agency has decided to 

remove this provision from the definition of “existing CCR landfill” but.” EPA is retaining what 

the Agency considers are the two most important elements of the definition. First, that will 

effectively determine whether the facility has irretrievably committed resources such that it 

would not reasonable to require compliance with all of the requirements applicable to new units. 

Accordingly, a unit will be considered to be existing if, first, the owner or operator has obtained 

the federal, state, and local approvals or permits necessary to begin physical construction; and 

Formatted: Font color: Auto
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

224

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

second, that a continuous on-site, physical construction program has begun (i.e., groundbreaking 

has occurred). Therefore, EPA is finalizing the definition of “existing CCR landfill” as 

followsthat can be found in § 257.53.

Existing CCR landfill means a CCR landfill that receives CCR both before and 

after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], or for which construction commenced prior to [INSERT 

DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] and receives CCR on or after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. A CCR landfill has 

commenced construction if the owner or operator has obtained the federal, state, and 

local approvals or permits necessary to begin physical construction and a continuous onsite, physical construction program had begun prior to [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

4. Definition of Existing CCR Surface Impoundment”

EPA proposed to define an “existing CCR surface impoundment” to mean a surface 

impoundment which was in operation on, or for which construction commenced prior to [the 

effective date of the rule]. AThe proposal also specified that a CCR surface impoundment has 

commenced construction if the owner or operator has obtained the federal, state, and local 

approvals or permits necessary to begin physical construction; and either: (1) a continuous onsite, physical construction program has begun; or (2) the owner or operator has entered into 

contractual obligations – which cannot be cancelled or modified without substantial loss – for 

physical construction of the CCR landfill to be completed within a reasonable time.

Commenters argued that EPA received many of the same comments on the definition of 

an existing CCR surface impoundment required modification to clarifythat were received on an 

existing CCR landfill. This included comments requesting clarification that itthe term did not 

include impoundments that had ceased receiving CCR before the effective date of the rule. 

Commenters also suggested that EPA modify the definition to include the phrase that the surface 

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Font: Bold, Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

225

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

impoundment “was in operation and had not yet ceased receiving CCR prior to the effective date 

of the rule” to make clear that the definition did not encompass units that are no longer receiving 

CCR on the effective date of the rule, even though the unit may not have completed final closure 

prior to the rule’s effective date. Commenters reasoned that units no longer receiving CCRsCCR

on the effective date of the rule are not “in operation” and therefore should not be subject to the 

standards applicable to active units. Commenters also requested that EPA clarify that the 

definition of “existing CCR surface impoundment’ include units that were in operation on the 

effective date of the rule and that periodically dredged out during the operating life of the 

impoundment. Commenters contended that while this may seem self-evident, EPA needed to 

clarify that these impoundments would not be characterized as “new CCR surface 

impoundments.” 

Upon consideration of comments received and further evaluation, the Agency is 

modifying the definition of existing CCR surface impoundments to clarify which CCR surface 

impoundments are considered “existing.” To aid in this clarificationThe Agency is generally 

conforming the definition of an existing CCR surface impoundment to the revised definition of 

an existing CCR landfill. Although inactive CCR surface impoundments are covered by the final 

rule (unlike inactive CCR landfills), EPA decided it would provide greater clarity to establish a 

section specific to inactive CCR surface impoundments rather than merely including such units 

within the definition of an existing CCR surface impoundment. As discussed in greater detail in 

Unit XX, under § 257.100, any CCR surface impoundment that continues to impound CCR and 

water after the effective date of the rule, must either (1) breach, dewater, and place a cover on the 

unit within three years or (2) must comply with all of the requirements applicable to existing 

CCR surface impoundments. Without the need to account for inactive CCR surface 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

226

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

impoundments within the definition, the definitions of “existing” landfills and surface 

impoundments should be the same.

Thus, the Agency has removed the term “in operation” from the definition and has 

instead focused on when the surface impoundment received or will receive CCR. ForEPA has 

also deleted the provision that would have allowed a unit to be considered to be “existing” based 

on the existence of a contract. Accordingly, for purposes of this rule, the Agency considers a a 

CCR surface impoundment will be considered to be “existing” if the unit received CCR both 

before and after the effective date of the rule. Under this construct, the Agency believes that an 

owner or operator will be able to easily determine whether or not a particular CCR surface 

impoundment is considered “existing” and subject to specific requirements of the rule. For 

example, if a CCR surface impoundment received CCR prior to the effective date and was in the 

process of dredging on the effective date with the intent of receiving additional CCR after the 

effective date, the unit would still be considered ‘to be an “existing”.” rather than a new unit. 

Conversely, if a unit received CCR prior to the effective date and was no longer receiving CCR, 

this unit would not be considered “inactive,” and would only be subject to the technical criteria 

applicable to “existing”.” CCR surface impoundments if they had not completed closure within 

three years. Similarly, if a CCR surface impoundment had commenced constructedconstruction

prior to the effective date with the intention of receiving CCR being received on or after the 

effective date of the rule, the unit would be considered an “existing” unit only if the physical 

construction program had begun (i.e.g., groundbreaking had occurred) with the appropriate 

federal, state and local approvals or permits in place. Conversely,But if, prior to the effective 

date of the rule, the permits had been obtained but the physical construction of the unit had not 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

227

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

begun (i.e.g., groundbreaking had not occurred), the unit would be considered “new” and would 

be subject to all the applicable technical criteria for new CCR landfills. 

surface impoundments. Therefore, the Agency is finalizing the definition as follows. 

Existingof “existing CCR surface impoundment means a CCR surface 

impoundment” that receives CCR both before and after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or for 

which construction commenced prior to [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and receives CCR on 

or after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER].A CCR surface impoundment has commenced 

construction if the owner or operator has obtained the federal, state, and local approvals 

or permits necessary to begin physical construction and a continuous on-site, physical 

construction program had begun prior to [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

5. Definitions Added to the Rule

Additionally, we are adding some new definitions that were not can be found in the 

proposed rule. Those are: active facility or active electric utilities or independent power 

producers, active portion, beneficial use of CCR, CCR fugitive dust, CCR pile, CCR unit, closed, 

dike, disposal, downstream toe, flood hydrograph, free liquids, height, inactive CCR surface 

impoundment, incised CCR surface impoundment, Indian country, Indian tribe, inflow design 

flood, in operation, liquifaction factor of safety, probable maximum flood, qualified person, 

qualified professional engineer, seismic factor of safety, slope protection, solid waste 

management, State Director, static factor of safety, and temporary staging. Those definitions 

are presented below.

Definitions for the following terms have been added in this rule to further clarify the specific 

requirements of the rule. The following terms have been adapted or wholly taken from the 

regulations for MSWLFs at 40 CFR Part 258. These are: (1) Active portion which means that 

part of the CCR unit that has received or is receiving CCR or non-CCR waste and that has not 

Formatted: No underline
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

228

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

completed closure in accordance with § 257.102; and (2) State Director which means the chief 

administrative officer of the lead state agency responsible for implementing the state program 

regulating CCR disposal in landfills and CCR surface impoundments or any lateral expansions of 

a CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundment.

The definition for the term “dike” is taken from the definition found at 40 CFR 260.10. 

The definition for the term “disposal” was adapted from the criteria for classification of solid 

waste disposal facilities and practices at § 257.2. The definition for the term “CCR pile or pile”

was adapted from the definition of waste pile or pile at § 257.2 and the definition for the term 

“free liquids” was taken from the criteria for hazardous waste management system at § 260.10. 

The definition for “slope protection” was adapted from the definition for the term found in the 

Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, Glossary of Terms, FEMA, April 2004. The definition for 

the term “incised CCR surface impoundment” was adapted from the definition of incised 

impoundment in the document, “Engineering and Design Manual for Coal Refuse Disposal 

Facilities,” Second Edition, Chapter 3 and Chapter 9, May 2009, U.S. Department of Labor, 

Mine Safety and Health Administration. The definition for the terms “flood hydrograph” and 

“inflow design flood” were adapted from the definitions found in the Federal Guidelines for Dam 

Safety, Selecting and Accommodating Inflow Design Floods for Dams, October 1993. 

Definitions for the remaining terms were developed based on EPA’s intended meaning for the 

terms as used in the rule. The new definitions are provided below and in the final rule. 

Active facility or active electric utilities or independent power producers means any 

facility subject to the requirements of this subpart that is in operation on [INSERT DATE 180 

DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. An 

electric utility or independent power producer is in operation if it is generating electricity that is 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

229

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

provided to electric power transmission systems or to electric power distribution systems on or 

after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. An off-site disposal facility is in operation if it is accepting or 

managing CCR on or after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

Active life or in operation means the period of operation beginning with the initial 

placement of CCR in the CCR unit and ending at completion of closure activities in accordance 

with § 257.102.

Active portion means that part of the CCR unit that has received or is receiving CCR or 

non-CCR waste and that has not completed closure in accordance with § 257.102.

Beneficial use of CCR means the CCR meet all of the following conditions: (1) The CCR 

must provide a functional benefit; (2) The CCR must substitute for the use of a virgin material, 

conserving natural resources that would otherwise need to be obtained through practices, such as 

extraction; (3) The use of the CCR must meet relevant product specifications, regulatory 

standards or design standards when available; and (4) When unencapsulated use of CCR 

involving placement on the land of 12,400 tons or more in non-roadway applications, the user 

must demonstrate, and maintain a copy of that demonstration, showing that environmental 

releases to ground water, surface water, soil and air are comparable to or lower than those from 

analogous products made without CCR, or that environmental releases to ground water, surface 

water, soil and air will be at or below relevant regulatory and health-based benchmarks for 

human and ecological receptors during use.

CCR fugitive dust means solid airborne particulate matter that contains or is derived from 

CCR, emitted from any source other than a stack or chimney.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

230

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

CCR pile or pile means any non-containerized accumulation of solid, non-flowing CCR 

that is placed on the land. CCR piles located off-site at either beneficial use sites or beneficial 

use facilities are not piles. 

CCR unit means any CCR landfill, CCR surface impoundment, or lateral expansion of a 

CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundment, or a combination of more than one of these units, 

based on the context of the paragraph(s) in which it is used. This term includes both new and 

existing units, unless otherwise specified.

53. Closed means placement of CCR in a CCR unit has ceased, and the owner or operator 

has completed closure of the CCR unit in accordance with § 257.102 and has initiated postclosure care in accordance with § 257.104.

Dike means an embankment, berm, or ridge of either natural or man-made materials used 

to prevent the movement of liquids, sludges, solids, or other materials.

Disposal means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of 

any solid waste as defined in section 1004(27) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

into or on any land or water so that such solid waste, or constituent thereof, may enter the 

environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including ground waters. 

For purposes of this subpart, disposal does not include the storage or temporary staging of CCR, 

or the beneficial use of CCR. 

Downstream toe means the junction of the downstream slope or face of the CCR surface 

impoundment with the ground surface.

Flood hydrograph means a graph showing, for a given point on a stream, the discharge, 

height, or other characteristic of a flood as a function of time.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic, Underline
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

231

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Free liquids means liquids that readily separate from the solid portion of a waste under 

ambient temperature and pressure.

Height means the vertical measurement from the downstream toe of the CCR surface 

impoundment at its lowest point to the lowest elevation of the crest of the CCR surface 

impoundment.

Inactive CCR surface impoundment means a CCR surface impoundment that no longer 

receives CCR on or after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER and still contains both CCR and liquids on 

or after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

Incised CCR surface impoundment means a CCR surface impoundment which is 

constructed by excavating entirely below the natural ground surface, holds an accumulation of 

CCR entirely below the adjacent natural ground surface, and does not consist of any constructed 

diked portion.

Indian country or Indian lands means: 

(1) All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the 

United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-ofway running throughout the reservation; 

(2) All dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether 

within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the 

limits of the State; and 

(3) All Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including 

rights of way running through the same. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

232

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Indian Tribe or Tribe means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or community recognized by 

the Secretary of the Interior and exercising substantial governmental duties and powers on Indian 

lands. 

Inflow design flood means the flood hydrograph that is used in the design or modification 

of the CCR surface impoundments and its appurtenant works.

In operation means the same as active life.

Liquefaction factor of safety means the factor of safety (safety factor) determined using 

analysis under liquefaction conditions.

Probable maximum flood means the flood that may be expected from the most severe 

combination of critical meteorologic and hydrologic conditions that are reasonably possible in 

the drainage basin.

Qualified person means a person or persons trained to recognize specific signs of 

structural instability and other hazardous conditions by visual observation and, if applicable, to 

monitor instrumentation.

Qualified professional engineer means an individual who is licensed by a state as a 

Professional Engineer to practice one or more disciplines of engineering and who is qualified by 

education, technical knowledge and experience to make the specific technical certifications 

required under this subpart. Professional engineers making these certifications must be currently 

licensed in the state where the CCR unit(s) is located.

Seismic factor of safety means the factor of safety (safety factor) determined using 

analysis under earthquake conditions using the peak ground acceleration for a seismic event with 

a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, equivalent to a return period of approximately 2,500 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

233

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

years, based on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) seismic hazard maps for seismic events with 

this return period for the region where the CCR surface impoundment is located.

Slope protection means engineered or non-engineered measures installed on the upstream 

or downstream slope of the CCR surface impoundment to protect the slope against wave action 

or erosion, including but not limited to rock riprap, wooden pile, or concrete revetments, 

vegetated wave berms, concrete facing, gabions, geotextiles, or fascines.

Solid waste management or management means the systematic administration of the 

activities which provide for the collection, source separation, storage, transportation, processing, 

treatment, or disposal of solid waste.

State Director means the chief administrative officer of the lead state agency responsible 

for implementing the state program regulating CCR disposal in landfills and CCR surface 

impoundments or any lateral expansions of a CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundment.

Static factor of safety means the factor of safety (safety factor) determined using analysis 

under the long-term, maximum storage pool loading condition, the maximum surcharge pool 

loading condition, and under the end-of-construction loading condition.

Temporary Staging means placing CCR on the land prior to transport for disposal or beneficial 

use of CCR.

C. Location Restrictions and Individual Location Requirements Formatted: Normal, Space Before: 0 pt, Add space

between paragraphs of the same style, Line spacing:

single
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

234

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

In the proposed rule, EPA stated that any RCRA subtitle D regulation would need to ensure that 

CCR landfills, CCR surface impoundments and all lateral expansions were appropriately sited to ensure 

that no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment from the disposal of 

CCRs at CCR disposal units would occur. Under the subtitle D option, EPA proposed location 

restrictions for CCR disposal units which included requirements relating to the placement of CCRsCCR

in five general locations: (1) above the natural water table,; (2) wetlands,; (3) fault areas,; (4) seismic 

impact zones,; and (5) unstable areas. The proposed requirements relied in large measure, on the record 

EPA developed to support the 40 CFR part 258 requirements for MSWLFs and on EPA’s Guide for 

Industrial Waste Management (EPA530-R-03-001, February 2003). EPA also chose to add one additional 

location restriction that would ban the placement of CCR disposal units within two feet of the upper 

limit of the natural water table. This proposed requirement was originally included in the proposed rule, 

Standards for the Management of Cement Kiln Dust (64 FR 45631, August 20, 1999) because of the 

potential damage to groundwater caused by the management of cement kiln dust at sites located below 

the natural water table. While the proposed cement kiln dust rule has not yet been finalized, EPA 

extended this reasoning to CCRsCCR by applying the same location restriction to CCR disposal units.

The proposed applicability of these location requirements varied depending on whether 

the unit was an existing or new CCR landfill, an existing or new CCR surface impoundment, or 

anya lateral expansion of such disposal units. For example, for existing CCR landfills, the 

Agency proposed that only the location requirement for unstable areas would apply. By contrast, 

the proposed rule applied all of the location restrictions to new CCR landfills and all CCR 

surface impoundments, both existing and new - - −an approach consistent with RCRA subtitle C 

Formatted: Normal, Line spacing: single,

Widow/Orphan control
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

235

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

and Congressional distinctions between the risks presented by landfills and surface 

impoundments. (seeSee 75 FR at 35198-35199)..) This meant that owners or operators would 

need to close existing CCR surface impoundments located less than two feet above the natural 

water table, or for existing CCR disposal units in sensitive but not prohibited locations, make a 

technical demonstration that the unit met the requirements of a performance standard that serves 

as the alternative to the location restriction, retrofit the unit so that it could meet the performance 

standard, or close. For those CCR disposal units identified for closure that need to close (i.e., 

owners or operators that could not make the necessary technical demonstrations required to 

comply with all location restrictions), EPA proposed that the unit must close within five years of 

the effective date of the rule. If closure could not occur within the five year timeframe, the 

Agency proposed allowing for a case-by-case extension for up to two more years if the facility 

demonstrated that there was no alternative disposal capacity and no immediate threat to health or 

the environment. 

EPA didproposed not propose to impose all of the location requirements on existing CCR 

landfills based on the possibilityconclusion that a significant number of these CCR landfills

could be located in areas subject to this requirement (particularly wetlands), and the Agency 

believed such CCR landfills posedCCR landfills pose less risk and are structurally less 

vulnerable than existing CCR surface impoundments. Furthermore, the AgencyEPA also raised 

concern that potentiala significant number of these CCR landfills could be located in areas 

subject to these requirements, (particularly wetlands), which could cause disposal capacity 

shortfalls could result in certain regions of the U.S.., if existing CCR landfills in these locations 

were required to close. The Agency concluded that the potential disposalDisposal capacity 

shortfalls wouldcan pose significant environmental and public health concerns based on the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

236

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

potential for significant disruption of solid waste management state-wide from the closure of 

these units. ThanEPA concluded that these risks would be greater than the potential risks from 

allowing existing CCR landfills to remain in these locations, given that these units would be 

subject to all of the design and operating requirements of the rule. To ensure the accuracy of its 

preliminary conclusions, the Agency requested commenters to provide any available information 

regarding the number of existing CCR landfills located in these sensitive areas. The Agency also 

sought additional information regarding the extent to which CCR landfill capacity would be 

affected by applying all of the location restrictions to existing CCR landfills, the extent to which 

facilities could comply with the proposed performance standards, and the costs that would be 

incurred to retrofit existing CCR landfills to meet these standards.

The Agency received numerous comments in response to the Agency’s request for 

additional information regarding the extent to which landfill capacity would be affected by 

applying all the proposed subtitle D location restrictions to existing CCR landfills. Commenters 

generally agreed with the Agency that applying the other location restrictions to existing CCR 

landfills would cause a significant decrease in disposal capacity across the country, although they 

did not provide any data or information which would support this concern. Commenters noted, 

however, that if existing CCR landfills located in these areas were to close, it would greatly 

complicate operations at many utilities. Affected facilities would need to find additional disposal 

capacity, which would require utilities to procure new real estate for sitingon which to site a new 

CCR landfill (which may be a significant distance from a power plant), obtain a new disposal 

permit for the CCR landfill (which can take an extended period of time), and potentially 

transport significant volumes of CCRsCCR great distances to newly-permitted facilities.

Commenters argued that there was simply no environmental basis for causing this level of 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

237

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

disruption to utility CCR disposal practices by subjecting existing CCR landfills to the full range 

of location restrictions.. 

InEPA received no data or information in response to the Agency’s request for the costs 

associated with retrofitting a CCR surface impoundment or CCR landfill to meet the 

demonstrations for existing units. Similarly, the Agency received little to no data or information. 

Finally, in response to EPA’s request for additional information on the location of these 

facilities, the Agency received little to no information. Some commenters acknowledged that 

specific states were located in some of these restricted areas but did not provide specific 

information on specific units was not provided. .

Overwhelmingly, the issue receiving the most comment was EPA’s intention to subject 

existing CCR surface impoundments to all of the new location criteria. Commenters contended 

that subjecting existing units to all of the location criteria was a radical departure from the 

location restriction provisions of the existing municipal solid waste landfillMSWLF rules on 

which the subtitle D option is based (i.e., existing MSWLFMSWLFs are only subject to the 

floodplains and unstable areas restrictions) without any justification for regulating CCR surface 

impoundments more stringently than existing CCR landfills. Commenters argued that EPA must 

demonstrate that there are increased risks posed by each CCR surface impoundments based on its 

location; otherwise, they claimed, there was no justification for EPA to subject CCR surface 

impoundments to more stringent location restrictions. Some commenters suggested that a more 

reasonable approach would be to limit the restrictions for existing CCR surface impoundments to 

unstable areas, like thatconsistent with the approach proposed for existing CCR landfills. 

Finally, an additional factor adding to the commenters’commenters raised concern wasabout the

inconsistency between the preamble language and the corresponding regulatory text. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

238

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Specifically, the preamble language applied allstated EPA’s intention to apply all of the location 

criteria to all CCR surface impoundments (existing and new) while the proposed regulatory 

language applied all location criteria only to new CCR surface impoundments and lateral 

expansions.

1. Applicability of the Location Criteria to Existing CCR Surface Impoundments 

In response toEPA acknowledges the discrepancies between the preamble language and 

the regulatory text, the Agency admits that indeed an error was made in drafting regarding the 

proposed regulatory language for the location restrictions as it applies to existing CCR surface 

impoundments, and that. In the proposed rule, the regulatory language should have included,

“all surface impoundments” as opposed to only “new surface impoundments.” With regard to the 

commenter's assertion 

EPA disagrees that in order to justify national minimum standards applicable to existing 

CCR surface impoundments, the Agency must demonstrate an adverse impact to human health 

and the environment from each individual unit, based on the specific risks posed at each location, 

the Agency disagrees. The commenter has misstated the standard applicable to this rule in two 

regards.. As an initial matter, it is well established that an agency may regulate a class of 

similarly situated [entities] through rulemaking, rather than on the basis of an individualized 

assessment of every entity that will be subject to the rule. And indeed, Congress specifically 

directed EPA to proceed by rulemaking to establish minimum national standards under RCRA 

sections 1008(a) and 4004(a). Moreover, section 4004(a) does not require a demonstration of 

actual impacts, merely that these units present an unacceptable risk of harm. Thus, it is sufficient 

for EPA to establish a factual record demonstrating that the specific location restrictions in the 

final rule are necessary for CCR disposal units (landfills and surface impoundments), as a class, 

Formatted: Normal, Line spacing: single,

Widow/Orphan control
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

239

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

to ensure that there will be no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the 

environment. In this case, asAs discussed in greater detail in the next section and in Unit XI of 

the preamble, the factual record supports the need for all of the location standards for existing 

CCR surface impoundments imposed by this rule.

The Agency also rejects the suggestion that EPA establish the same location restrictions 

for both existing CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments. As laid out in the proposal and 

elsewhere in this final rule in greater detail, the risks associated with CCR surface impoundments 

are substantially higher than the risks associated with CCR landfills, by approximately an order 

of magnitude. Surface impoundments are utilized by 45% percent of coal-fired power plants and 

in 2000 accounted for disposal of one-third of all CCRsCCR generated.

48 Unlike landfills, CCR 

surface impoundments contain slurried residuals that remain in contact with ponded waters until 

closure. In a statewide investigation of impacts to groundwater quality from CCR disposal sites, 

the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources reported that closed sites which originally 

contained sluiced coal-combustion residuals displayed extremely elevated mean arsenic levels 

(as high as 364 μg/l)49. The highest contaminant concentrations in the study were associated 

with sluiced CCR residuals. 

 

48 Rowe, C.L., Hopkins, W.A., Congdon, J.D., 2002. Ecotoxicological Implications of Aquatic Disposal 

of Coal Combustion Residues in the United States: A Review. Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment, Vol. 80, pp. 207–276.

49 Zillmer, M. and Fauble, P., 2004. Groundwater Impacts from Coal Combustion Ash Disposal Sites in 

Wisconsin. Waste & Materials Management, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, PUB-WA 

1174 2004. 

Formatted: Normal, Line spacing: single

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

240

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

In addition, releases of toxic contaminants to surface water and groundwater from mostly 

unlined CCR surface impoundments and ponds are a relevant factor in 34 of 40 cases of proven

damage to the environment (as well as in several cases of “potential” damage to the 

environment) from mismanagement of coal combustion residualsCCR.

50 In many of these cases, 

effluent discharges from the surface impoundments caused significant ecological damage to 

aquatic life in nearby streams and wetlands. In one case, in 2002, the structural stability of a 

CCR surface impoundment was directly compromised by sinkhole development, leading to the 

release of 2.25 million gallons of CCRsCCR. In another, an unusually weak foundation of ash 

and silt beneath a CCR surface impoundment (i.e., man-made unstable ground) was identified as 

one of several likely factors contributing to the dike failure that in 2008 resulted in the largest 

CCR spill in United States history. 

Unlike RCRA subtitle C, subtitle D does not explicitly authorize EPA to establish 

different standards for existing and new units, and Congress specifically intended subtitle D to 

address the risks from existing, abandoned “open dumps.” In the proposed rule preamble, EPA 

explained the rationale for applying today’sthese provisions to existing CCR surface 

impoundments, and the commenters have submitted nothing to rebut that rationale. Thus, EPA 

maintains its determination that application of the location standards to existing CCR surface 

impoundments is necessary to achieve the standard in section 4004(a). Absent thethese location 

restrictions being promulgated, the risk of impacts to human health and the environment from 

 

50 Cases of damage attributable to disposal of coal combustion residuals are summarized in Appendix I of 

the Proposed Rule, 40 CFR 35230-35239, June 21, 2010, and can be found in the RCRA Docket.

Formatted: Widow/Orphan control, Border: Top: (No

border), Bottom: (No border), Left: (No border), Right:

(No border), Bar : (No border)
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

241

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

releases from CCR units, including from the rapid and catastrophic destruction of CCR surface 

impoundments, sited in these sensitive areas would exceed acceptable levels. And even though 

costs are not relevant in determining the appropriate criteria under section 4004(a), the risks from 

these units far outweigh the costs of requiring surface impoundments to close or retrofit. 

Consequently, EPA retains its conclusion that, givenGiven that the risks associated with CCR 

surface impoundments are substantially higher than the risks posed by CCR landfills, this is the 

appropriate regulatory course for existing CCR surface impoundments. 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing location restrictions that will ensure that CCR units are 

appropriately sited, that the structure of the CCR unit will not be adversely impacted by 

conditions at the sitedsite, and that overall the location of the CCR unitthere will not present abe 

“no reasonable probability of harm to human health or the environment” due to the location of 

the CCR unit. EPA is finalizing different sets of location restrictions depending on whether the 

unit is a CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundment and whether it is an existing or new unit. 

Lateral expansions fall within the definitions of new units and are treated accordingly. These 

standards provide minimum national siting and performance criteria for all CCR units.

The location restrictions under § 257.60 through § 257.64 include: (1) placement above 

the uppermost aquifer; (2) wetlands; (3) fault areas; (4) seismic impact zones; and (5) unstable 

areas. Each of these locations is generally recognized as having the potential to impact the 

structure of any disposal unit negatively and as such, increase the risks to human health or the 

environment through structural failures or leaching of contaminants into the groundwater. Under 

today’sthe final rule and as proposed, new CCR landfills, existing and new CCR surface 

Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt, After: 8 pt, Don't add

space between paragraphs of the same style,

Widow/Orphan control, Border: Top: (No border),

Bottom: (No border), Left: (No border), Right: (No

border), Bar : (No border)
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

242

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

impoundments, and all lateral expansions will be required to comply with all of the location 

restrictions. Existing CCR landfills however, will be subject to only two of the location 

restrictions – floodplains, and unstable areas. As noted in the proposed rule, and restated here, 

existing landfills and surface impoundments are already subject to the floodplains location 

restrictionsstandards in the existing 40 CFR part 257, subpart A criteria. Theof 40 CFR 257 for 

floodplains, endangered species and surface waters. The final rule does not change this 

requirement, and so facilities should already be in compliance. The Agency is finalizing, as 

proposed, the unstable area location restriction for existing CCR landfills because the record 

clearly shows that failure of CCR units in these areas (e.g., due to instabilities in Karst 

terranesterrains) have and in all likelihood would continue, in the absence of the restrictions in 

the final rule, to result in damage cases where caused by the release of CCR constituents from 

CCR are released, affecting both groundwater and surface waters. As the Agency stated in the 

proposed rule, the impacts resulting from the failure of CCR units from location instability are of 

far more concern than any disposal capacity concerns resulting from the closure of existing CCR 

disposal units in unstable areas. 

Conversely, and also consistent with the proposed rule, EPA is not applying the 

following location restrictions torto existing CCR landfills;: the requirement to construct a unit 

with a base located no less than 1.52 meters (five feet) above the upper limit of the uppermost 

aquifer, as well as the siting restrictions applicable to wetlands, fault areas, and seismic impact 

areas. The Agency is convinced that existingExisting CCR landfills pose lesslower risks and are 

structurally less vulnerable than existing CCR surface impoundments, and. In addition, disposal 

capacity shortfalls, which could result if existing CCR landfills in these locations were required 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

243

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

to close, raise greater environmental and public health concerns than the potential failure of the 

CCR landfills in these locales.

2. Placement Above the Uppermost Aquifer. 

Under § 257.60(a) EPA is requiring new CCR landfills, existing and new CCR surface 

impoundments and all lateral expansions to be constructed with a base that is located no less than 

1.52 meters (five feet) above the uppermost aquifer., or to demonstrate that there will not be an 

intermittent, recurring, or sustained hydraulic connection between any portion of the base of the 

CCR unit and the uppermost aquifer due to normal fluctuations in groundwater elevations 

(including groundwater elevations during the wet season). Existing surface impoundments that 

fail to achieve this location criteria standard must close. Today’s requirement is a ban, meaning 

that newNew CCR landfills, new CCR surface impoundments and all lateral expansions of 

existing and new CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments cannot be constructed with a 

base either below, or less than 1.52 meters above the uppermost aquifer for any reason.unless 

they meet one of these two standards. . In response to comment, the Agency has modified the 

criteria to replacein two ways. First, EPA has replaced “a base that is located a minimum of two 

feet above the upper limit of the natural water table” with “a base no less than 1.52 meters (five 

feet) above the uppermost aquifer.” EPA received comment explaining that fluctuations in 

groundwater levels in many geological settings can exceed ten feet over the course of the year, 

and alleging that the proposed two foot minimum buffer between the base of the unit and the top 

of the water table would therefore be insufficiently protective. The commenter recommended

that the minimum vertical separation be at least three to five feet from the base of the liner 

components. After additional research, EPA is finalizing a minimum buffer of five feet instead 

of two feet. EPA’s research confirmed the commenter’s claims. In addition, EPA determined 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

244

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

that several states consider five feet between the base of the surface impoundment and the top of 

the uppermost aquifer to be athe minimum distance that is protective of human health and the 

environment. These includedare California, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, West Virginia, and 

Wisconsin. Oklahoma considers 15 feet to be a minimum distance that is protective of waters of 

the state. The Agency has concluded from geographic and climatic spacing of these seven states 

that the hydrogeologic conditions within them encompass the range of conditions found in the 

United States. Therefore, EPA is finalizing this minimum buffer at five feet instead of two feet, 

because at least seven States consider five feet between the base of the surface impoundment and 

the top of the uppermost aquifer to be a minimum distance that is protective of human health and 

the environment. The Agency believes the hydrogeologic conditions within these states 

encompass the range of conditions found in the United States and is today finalizing five feet as 

a national minimum standard.a minimum buffer of five feet instead of two feet. 

EPA is also clarifying the definition of the natural water table. As some commenters 

noted, there are many factors (hydrologic and geologic settings, nearby pumping, etc.) that 

influence the location of the groundwater table making it difficult to determine the “natural” 

level. In addition, as noted, one commenter noted that local site-specific hydrogeologic 

conditions within the aquifer may cause the natural groundwater table to exceed five feet and 

vary as much as ten feet. To take into considerationaccount for the possibility of such large 

seasonal fluctuations, EPA is finalizing a change torevising the definition of “uppermost aquifer” 

to specify that the measurement of the upper limit of the aquifer must be made at a point nearest 

to the natural ground surface to which the aquifer rises during the wet season. The finalizedThis

definition of “uppermost aquifer” will encompass large seasonal variations, and is a more 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

245

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

appropriate parameter than “seasonal high ground water table” as suggested by several 

commenters and the proposed “natural water table” because it is more clearly defined. 

In § 257.60(a) the term Uppermostuppermost aquifer meanshas the same definition as

defined under the general provisions of § 257.40: the geologic formation nearest the natural 

ground surface that is an aquifer, as well as lower aquifers that are hydraulically interconnected 

with this aquifer within the facility’s property boundary. This definition includes a shallow, 

deep, perched, confined or unconfined aquifer, provided it yields usable water. Although EPA 

originally proposed that all CCR surface impoundments be located ‘....above the upper limit of 

the natural water table’, the Agency is today amending this requirement and replacing ‘water 

table’ with ‘uppermost aquifer’ to make it consistent with the way natural underground water 

sources are described elsewhere in the rule. 

EPA made a second revision to the criteria that were originally proposed. As an 

alternative to requiring that the CCR units described in this section be constructed with a base 

that is located no less than five feet above the uppermost aquifer, owners and operators may 

instead demonstrate that there will not be an intermittent, recurring, or sustained hydraulic 

connection between any portion of the base of the CCR unit and the uppermost aquifer due to 

normal fluctuations in groundwater elevations (including groundwater elevations during the wet 

season).

This alternative standard was developed in response to concerns from commenters that a 

single depth to the aquifer failed to account for the wide variations in the level of water table 

fluctuations in different regions of the country. For example, arid regions of the country, such as 

Arizona, under normal conditions generally do not experience the same degree of fluctuations in 

groundwater elevations as more temperate regions, such as Minnesota. Accordingly, EPA 

Formatted: Font color: Black
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

246

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

developed an alternative performance standard focused on the conditions identified in the 

damage cases and the risk assessment that this location criterion was designed to prevent: 

specifically, where groundwater elevation is high enough to intersect the base of the waste 

management unit. In such situations, this hydraulic connection can enhance the transport of 

contaminant of concern from the CCR unit into groundwater. By requiring owners and operators 

to ensure that these conditions do not occur, the alternative standard to allow owners and 

operators to account for situations where there are relatively small variations in groundwater 

levels and a buffer of five feet is not necessary. This will also ensure that a CCR unit need not 

address situations where an infrequent, unexpected event (e.g., hurricane) could cause a brief, 

temporary condition where the uppermost aquifer rises to less than the prescribed five feet but 

which would not in and of itself constitute a long-term threat to the aquifer. However, where 

normal fluctuations in groundwater elevation (including, but not limited to, seasonal or temporal 

variations, groundwater withdrawal, mounding effects,51 etc.) will result in the failure of the unit 

to meet performance standard (i.e., no intermittent, recurring, or sustained hydraulic connection 

between the base of the CCR unit and the uppermost aquifer), the unit must close. 

In some recent damage cases, placement of large volumes of CCRsCCR into highly 

permeable strata in the disposal area promoted CCR-water interactions. For example, from 1995 

to 2006 in Anne Arundel County, Maryland 4.6 million tons of CCR were placed directly in two 

sand and gravel quarries without a geomembrane liner or leachate collection system. Rainwater 

 

51 A phenomenon usually created by the recharge of groundwater from a manmade structure, such as a 

surface impoundment, into a permeable geologic material, resulting in outward and upward expansion of 

the free water table. Mounding can alter groundwater flow rates and direction; however, the effects are 

usually localized and may be temporary, depending upon the frequency and duration of the surface 

recharge events.

Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt, After: 8 pt, Don't add

space between paragraphs of the same style,

Widow/Orphan control, Border: Top: (No border),

Bottom: (No border), Left: (No border), Right: (No

border), Bar : (No border)
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

247

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

infiltration into exposed CCR coupled with groundwater-CCR interactions and the transmissivity 

characteristics of local strata contributed to rapid migration of heavy metals, including antimony, 

arsenic, cadmium, nickel, and thallium to residential drinking water wells located near the mine 

pits and significant deterioration of water quality as a result of placement of CCRs. CCR.

Similarly, from 1980 to 1997 in Lansing, Michigan, around 0.5 million tons of coal ash werewas

dumped for disposal into a gravel pit with an elevated water table. A remedial investigation has 

established that groundwater mounding has immersed the CCRsCCR into the upper aquifer 

resulting in on-site exceedances of groundwater quality protection standards for sulfate, 

manganese, lead, selenium, lithium, and boron. Placement of CCRsCCR into un-engineered, 

unlined units in permeable strata has plainly led to adverse impacts to groundwater.

The phrase “normal fluctuations” has been used to clarify that EPA does not intend for 

the facility to account for extraordinary or highly aberrant conditions (e.g., one-in-a million or 

“freak” events). Normal fluctuation can include those resulting from natural as well as 

anthropogenic sources. Natural sources that could affect groundwater levels include, but are not 

limited to precipitation, runoff, and high river levels. Anthropogenic sources that could affect 

groundwater levels include groundwater withdrawal, pumping, well(s) abandonment, and 

groundwater mounding. In satisfying this location restriction, it may be necessary for a 

professional engineer to model these effects before he can make the necessary certifications.52

 

52 For example, evaluations can be done to estimate groundwater mounding such as 

pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5102/, www.groundwatersoftware.com/calculator_9_hantush_mounding.htm, and 

www.ndwrcdp.org/documents/wu-ht-02-45/wuht0245_electronic.pdf
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

248

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

EPA also notes that this modeling may include the same considerations already evaluated under 

some state programs.53

EPA expects that owners and operators will have sufficient information to determine 

whether their CCR unit meets either performance standard. Most, if not all, of this information 

would be information a facility would typically have as part of normal operations (e.g., the depth 

of the CCR unit itself), or that will be developed as part of implementing other rule requirements. 

For example, by relying on part of the groundwater monitoring system required under §§257.90-

257.98, the facility can obtain water level measurements in a sufficient number of locations (e.g., 

monitoring wells, piezometers) to use in determining whether they satisfy either performance 

standard. Similarly, under §257.91 a thorough characterization of the geology and 

hydrogeology of the site must be conducted. Finally, EPA notes that available technology and 

guidance are available for using existing groundwater monitoring wells, like those required 

under this final rule, to measure groundwater levels.54

3. Wetlands

In § 257.61 of this rule, EPA is finalizing the regulatory text essentially as proposed. 

Specifically, EPA is adopting a prohibition on locating all CCR surface impoundments and new 

CCR landfills, as well as lateral expansions of existing CCR disposal units, in wetlands as 

defined in 40 CFR 232.2, absent specific demonstrations made by the owner or operator that 

assureensure the CCR disposal unit will not degrade sensitive wetland ecosystems. These 

 

53 See, e.g., dnr.wi.gov/topic/stormwater/standards/gw_mounding.html

54 See, e.g., U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Groundwater Level and Well Depth 

Measurement. SESDPROC-105-R2. Region 4. Athens, GA. Available online at: 

www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/fbqstp/Groundwater-Level-Measurement.pdf

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Normal, Space After: 6 pt, Don't add space

between paragraphs of the same style, Line spacing:

single, Widow/Orphan control, Border: Top: (No

border), Bottom: (No border), Left: (No border), Right:

(No border), Bar : (No border)

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font: Calibri, 11 pt, Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

249

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

provisions place the burden of proof for these demonstrations directly on the owner or operator 

(the discharger). The owner or operator must make the results of these demonstrations available 

in the facility record. Under this regulation, failureFailure to make any of the demonstrations 

will bar siting of the CCR unit in a wetland. 

In 2003, disposal of coal combustion residualsCCR in natural or man-made aquatic 

basins accounted for nearly one-third of all CCR land disposal. Historically, aquatic disposal of 

CCRsCCR has been attractive economically to facilities because of its lower overall cost relative 

to dry management and the ease of handling of residuals. During aquatic disposal CCRs are, 

CCR is commonly piped as a slurried mixturesmixture to surface impoundments designed to 

retain the solids in contact with water for the life of the unit. Particulate solids from the waste 

stream gravitationally settle while clarified waters ultimately discharge into nearby streams and 

wetlands. 

The term ‘wetlands’ refers to those areas inundated or saturated by surface or 

groundwater at a frequency and over a duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation 

typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include marshes, swamps, bogs 

and similar areas that are commonly located between open water and dry land. Under the CWA 

wetlands are considered ’special aquatic sites’ deserving of special protection because of their 

ecologic significance. Wetlands are very important, fragile ecosystems that must be protected, 

and hadEPA has long identified wetlands protection as a high priority. 

Undisturbed, natural wetlands provide many benefits to society by improving water 

quality, providing essential breeding, rearing, and feeding grounds for fish and wildlife, 

reducing shoreline erosion, and absorbing flooding waters and pollution. Wetlands are also 

commercial source areas of products for human use such as timber, fish, and shellfish. 

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

250

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Recreational hunters harvest wetland-dependent waterfowl. Wetland environments, however, 

may be adversely impacted by releases of wastes from co-located industrial facilities. Wetland 

ecosystems can be degraded by accidental discharges that can change the habitat value for fish 

and wildlife by obstructing surface water circulation patterns, altering substrate elevation, 

dewatering, or permanent flooding. 

In support of the provisions finalized in this rule, EPA is citing several damage cases, 

including 30 cases of 40 cases of “proven” damage to the environment that involve aquatic 

disposal of CCRsCCR, 14 of which involve impacts to wetlands from release of CCRsCCR. For 

example, at the Hyco Reservoir in Roxboro, North Carolina from 1966 to 1990 the lake received 

contaminated effluent from coal ash disposal basins that were authorized by permits through the 

CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. (NPDES) permits under the CWA. 

High levels of the trace element selenium bioaccumulated in aquatic food chains 

(phytoplankton), poisoning invertebrates and fish in the lake, particularly species of sport fish 

(bluegill, largemouth bass), causing reproductive failure and severe declines in fish populations 

in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. Consequently, from 1988-2001 the North Carolina 

Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) issued a consumption restriction 

advisory for selenium contamination in fish from the Reservoir. In 1990, a dry ash handling 

system was implemented resulting in lower selenium discharge and reduced mean selenium 

concentration in reservoir waters. As of 2005, concentrations of selenium in fish tissues 

remained above a toxic threshold even with reduced influx of Seselenium, due to migration of 

the element from contaminated sediments to benthic food chains. The total monetized value of 

damage can be divided among ecologic factors (e.g., major impacts on fish), recreational factors 

(e.g., fishing trips not taken), depreciated real estate values, aesthetic factors, and human health 

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

251

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

damages (e.g., losses due to stress and anxiety from knowing ecosystem is poisoned) and is 

estimated at $877 million.55

Although this consideration is not relevant for purposes of establishing the minimum 

national criteria under RCRA sections 1008(a) and 4004(a), the rulemaking record demonstrates 

that the monetary cost of environmental damage from releases of coal combustion residuals at 

surface impoundments could be considerable. A report on the environmental damage caused by 

releases of coal combustion residuesCCR at 22 sites estimates the total cost of poisoned fish and 

wildlife at the surface impoundment sites at $2.32 billion. At twelve of these sites the releases 

were legally permitted under the CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits. . Five of the twenty-two22 cases were caused by structural failures, two 

resulted from an unpermitted discharge, and only one was from a landfill.

56

. Effluent 

contaminated with coal combustion residues is directly linked with high loadings of toxic metals 

in the discharge areas of aquatic basins, where some metals (primarily arsenic, cadmium, 

chromium, copper, lead, and selenium) have accumulated in aquatic food chains.

57

. In a research 

overview (literature synthesis) on the environmental effects of disposal of coal combustions 

residuesCCR, Rowe et al. (2002) listlisted adverse biological responses, including 

histopathological, behavioral, and physiological (reproductive, energetic, and endocrinological) 

effects, that have been observed in some vertebrates and invertebrates following exposure to and 

bioaccumulation of CCR-related contaminants.

 

55 Lemly, A.D. 2010. Op.cit.

56 Lemly, A.D.2010. Op. cit.

57 Rowe, C.L. et. al. 2002. Op. cit.

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

252

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Under the criteria finalized in this rule, in order to locate a CCR disposal unit or lateral 

expansion in a wetland, the owner or operator must: (1) successfully rebut the presumption that 

an alternative site (that is,i.e., one that does not involve a wetland) is reasonably available for the 

CCR unit or lateral expansion; (2) show that the construction or operation of the unit will not 

cause or contribute to violations of any applicable State water quality standard, violate any 

applicable toxic effluent standard or prohibition, jeopardize the continued existence of

endangered or threatened species or critical habitats, or violate any requirement for protection of 

a marine sanctuary; (3) show that the CCR unit or lateral expansion will not cause or contribute 

to significant degradation of wetlands; and (4) demonstrate that steps have been taken to attempt 

to achieve no net loss of wetlands.

In addition to these requirements, other federal laws may be applicable in siting a CCR 

disposal unit in a wetland. These include: Sections 401, 402, and 404 of the CWA; the Rivers 

and Harbors Act of 1989; the National Environmental Policy Act; the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act; the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; the Coastal Zone Management Act; 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act; and the National Historic Preservation Act. In addition, the use 

of a wetlands location for a CCR disposal unit may require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers. To the extent these are applicable, compliance with these RCRA criteria dodoes

not alleviate the need to comply with these other federal requirements, and the owner or 

operator of the facility remains responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable 

Federalfederal and state requirements.

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

253

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The rule adopts a regulatory presumption that a less damaging alternative to locating a disposal 

unit in a wetland exists, unless the permit applicant can demonstrate otherwise. Thus, when proposing 

to locate a new facility ofor lateral expansion in a wetland, owners and operators must be able to 

demonstrate that alternative sites are not available and that the impact to wetlands is unavoidable. If 

this presumption is not clearly rebutted, thanthen the CCR disposal unit may not be sited in a wetland 

location. Such an analysis necessarily includes a review of reasonable alternatives to locating or laterally 

expanding CCR units in wetlands.

As part of the evaluation of reasonable (that is, available and feasible) alternatives the 

owner or operator must show, and an independent professional engineer must verify, that 

operation or construction of the CCR disposal unit will not: (1) violate any applicable Statestate

water quality standards; (2) cause or contribute to the violation of any applicable toxic effluent 

standard or prohibition; (3) cause or contribute to violation of any requirement for the protection 

of a marine sanctuary; and jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened 

species or critical habitats. 

When evaluating the impacts of a CCR unit on a wetland, the owner or operator must 

ensure that the unit cannot cause or contribute to significant wetland degradation. Therefore, the 

owner or operator, and the qualified professional engineer must: (1) verify the integrity of the 

CCR unit, and its ability to protect ecological resources by addressing the erosion, stability, and 

migration potential of native wetland soils, and dredged and fill materials used to support the 

unit; (2) verify that the design and operation of the CCR unit minimizes impacts on fish, wildlife, 

and other aquatic resources and their habitat(s) from any release of coal combustion residue; (3) 

Formatted: Normal, Space Before: 12 pt, After: 8 pt,

Don't add space between paragraphs of the same style,

Line spacing: single, Widow/Orphan control, Border:

Top: (No border), Bottom: (No border), Left: (No

border), Right: (No border), Bar : (No border)

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

254

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

evaluate the effects of catastrophic release of CCRsCCR to the wetland and the resulting impacts 

on the environment; and (4) verify that ecological resources in the wetland are sufficiently 

protected, including consideration of the volume and chemistry of the CCR managed in the unit; 

and any additional factors, as necessary.

When a wetland functions properly, it provides water quality protection, fish and wildlife 

habitat, natural floodwater storage, and reduction in the erosive potential of surface water. A 

degraded wetland is less able to effectively perform these functions. For this reason, wetland 

degradation is as big a problem as outright wetland loss, though often more difficult to identify 

and quantify. Any change in hydrology can significantly alter the soil chemistry and plant and 

animal communities. The common hydrologic alterations that can lead to significant degradation

in wetland areas include: (1) deposition of fill material, including CCR; (2) drainage for 

development; (3) dredging and stream channelization for development; (4) diking and damming 

to form ponds or impoundments; (5) diversion of CCR-bearing waters or other flows to or from 

wetlands; (6) addition of impervious surfaces in the watershed, thereby increasing water and 

CCR-bearing runoff into wetlands. These activities can mobilize CCR-bearing sediment; and 

once the sediment is discharged into the environment, toxic metals in CCR can become available 

to organisms within the wetland. Consequently, while the mere presence of one or more of these 

activities does not necessarily demonstrate that the CCR unit causes or contributes to significant 

degradation, the fact that they may do so means these activities need to be carefully evaluated. 

In determining what constitutes “significant” degradation, it is important to understand 

that although wetlands are capable of absorbing pollutants from the surface water, there is a limit 

to their capacity to do so. For the purposes of this rule, the primary pollutants of concern are 

CCR-bearing sediment and toxic metals. Although the risk assessment did not assess the 

Formatted: Font color: Black
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

255

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

exposure and hazard to wetlands, these can originate from uncontrolled runoff from the facility, 

fugitive dust from uncovered CCR landfills and piles, and uncontrolled discharge from CCR 

disposal units (landfills, waste piles, surface impoundments). A clear example of biologically 

significant degradation in wetlands is when these toxic metals accumulate in benthic and aquatic 

food chains as a result of uncontrolled runoff. Another is obrution (smothering) of benthic 

organisms from discharge(s) of CCR to surface water, thereby jeopardizing the continued 

existence of organisms or critical habitats within the wetland. EPA notes that there are other 

requirements established under this rule that can also be relevant in this context, as they have the 

potential to reduce the likelihood that facility operations will cause or contribute to significant 

wetland degradation. EPA anticipates that as the facility begins to implement all of the 

requirements under this rule, the facility will consider how modifications to facility operations to 

address one requirement can affect compliance with other requirements. 

After consideration of these factors, if an existing CCR unit cannot meet all of the 

requirements in paragraphs (1)-(3) (i.e., if it causes or contributes to significant degradation, or if

no reasonable alternative to locating thea new CCR disposal unit in wetlands is available,), the 

facility can comply with the location criterion by compensatory steps must be taken to achieve 

no net loss of wetlands (as defined by acreage and function). Owners or operators must first take 

measure to avoid impacts to wetlands. If potential impacts cannot be avoided, all reasonable 

steps are to be taken to minimize such impacts to the extent feasible. Appropriate measures (for 

example, engineered containment systems to control discharge of leachate or surface water runoff to wetlands) will likely be site-specific and should be incorporated into the design and 

operation of the CCR disposal unit. Any remaining unavoidable impacts must be offset, or 

compensated for through all appropriate and feasible compensatory mitigation actions. This 

Formatted: Normal, Space Before: 12 pt, After: 8 pt,

Don't add space between paragraphs of the same style,

Line spacing: single, Widow/Orphan control, Border:

Top: (No border), Bottom: (No border), Left: (No

border), Right: (No border), Bar : (No border)

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

256

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

compensatory mitigation may take the form of restoration (re-establishment or rehabilitation of a 

wetland), establishment (creation of a man-made wetland where one did not previously exist) 

enhancement (improving one or more wetland functions), and preservation (permanent 

protection of important wetlands through implementation of appropriate legal and physical 

mechanisms). The functions and values of a wetland will vary based on any number of site 

specific characteristics, including location, wetland type, hydrology, degradation, and whether it 

is natural or constructed to treat waste. Strictly limited to the application of the wetlands 

location requirements under this rule, any assessment of the nature and extent of mitigation 

required under the CCR rule shall consider these kinds of characteristics, including wetlands 

designed for treatment for CCR. The agency recognizes that the function and value of a 

particular man-made wetland constructed to perform a wastewater treatment function may 

present a unique situation that may affect both the determination of whether the wetland is 

significantly degraded, and the nature and extent of any required compensatory mitigation. This 

discussion refers only to the wetlands-related requirements of this rule and does not affect any 

requirements or obligations under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 USC 1251, et 

seq.) and its implementing regulations.

Although the EPA is not finalizing an outright ban on siting of existing or new CCR units 

in wetlands, the Agency continues to believe that discharges to wetlands of pollutants that can be 

reasonably avoided should be avoided. Therefore, the amount and quality of compensatory 

mitigation may not substitute for avoiding and minimizing impacts. For purposes of this rule, 

EPA assumes CCR units that are designed to avoid discharge of coal combustion residues into 

wetlands have less adverse impact to the aquatic environment than CCR units that ultimately 

discharge such residues in wetlands.

Formatted

Formatted: Underline

Formatted

Formatted

Formatted: Font color: Black
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

257

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

4. Fault Areas 

In § 257.62 of this rule, EPA is banning the location of new CCR landfills, existing and 

new CCR surface impoundments, and all new lateral expansions within 60 meters (200 feet) of a 

fault that has had displacement in Holocene time, unless the owner or operator demonstrates that 

an alternative setback distance of less than 60 meters (200 feet) will prevent damage to the 

structural integrity of the unit. For existing surface impoundments, today’sthe demonstration is 

required only if the unit is located closer than 60 meters (200 feet) to an active Holocene fault. If 

a demonstration cannot be made, than the existing surface impoundment must close. The Agency 

believes the These requirements have been adopted with only minor changes from the proposal, 

and will minimize the risks associated with CCR disposal units located in fault areas. 

Stresses produced during earthquake motion can cause serious damage to landfill 

integrity via seismically induced ground failure and associated rupture of liner systems and 

subsequent damage to leachate collection systems. Or if the unit is unlined, seismic motion 

could disrupt landfill caps and foundation soils that impede migration of percolating water. 

Potential damage to CCR disposal units resulting from structures located across a fault include 

surface breakage, cracks and fissures between fill and confining slopes, slope failure via 

landslides, liquefaction-induced lateral spreading and settlement of the pile, disruption of surface 

water and drainage control systems, and rupture of leachate collection systems; in. In

impoundments--, for example, interior dike failure and leakage, and rupture of multilayer liner 

systems would also be of concern. Failure of the leachate collection system may prevent 

removal of generated leachate, allowing it to pond on the liner. If the liner system is ruptured, 

this may create a pathway for leachate to migrate into and contaminate the uppermost aquifer. In 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

258

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

addition to the potential damage to leachate collection and liner systems, the integrity of the 

landfill slopes could also be impaired by fault rupture, potentially exposing coal combustion 

residuals to surface runoff.

EPA believes theThe best protection is to avoid locating new CCR landfills and all CCR 

surface impoundments across faults and fault zones subject to displacement. For new units or 

lateral expansions there is no need to construct units in these areas. For existing surface 

impoundments, the Agency has been unable to find any way to retrofit or engineer the unit to be 

protective. The Agency believes that aA setback distance of 60 meters (200 feet) from the 

outermost damage zone of a Holocene fault provideswill provide an adequate margin of safety to 

protect the facility from displacements due to surface faulting and any associated damage 

because 60 meters typically covers the zone of deformation where the ground may be bent or 

warped as a consequence of fault movement. By including this as a siting requirement for new 

units the risk of rupture of the unit, including any liner and leachate collection systems, due to 

surface faulting will be minimized.

Observations of engineered landfill response during earthquake motion come primarily 

from California where field data have been reported from municipal solid waste 

landfillsMSWLFs (including some meeting the current part 258 standards) affected by strong 

shaking from six major nearby earthquakes. In these large magnitude events (M ≥ 6.7), bedrock 

peak horizontal ground accelerations, an index of the intensity of earthquake motion, endured by 

the landfills were in excess of 0.3g. Engineered dry municipal solid waste landfillsMSWLFs in 

California are reported to have performed well after strong earthquake motion (no documented 

incidence of an earthquake-induced release of contaminants harmful to human health or to the 

environment). Minor cracking of cover soils and breaking of vertical wells and headers were 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

259

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

among the most common types of damage reported at municipal solid waste landfillsMSWLFs

subject to strong ground shaking. In the 1994 Northridge earthquake, only one landfill compliant 

with RCRA Part 258 standards experienced tears in a liner (a geomembrane liquid barrier),): one

tear 23 meters in length. However, there is little data on seismic stability and performance from 

industrial solid waste landfills with geosynthetic liners or industrial landfillsunits with watersaturated CCR waste. The Agency, therefore, remains concerned over the potential instability of 

engineered disposal units, and particularly CCR surface impoundments, under seismic loadings. 

In the absence of any data demonstrating the safety of such engineered unitsAccordingly, EPA is 

prohibiting new CCR landfills, CCR surface impoundments, and any new extensions from sites 

located within an active fault zone, unless the owner or operator makes a demonstration, certified 

by a qualified professional engineer, that an alternative setback distance of less than 60 meters 

will prevent damage to the structural integrity of the unit. 

 EPA is clarifying its definition of fault to incorporate updated technical information.

58

. 

Although a fault can be thought of as a simple planar surface across which there has been 

measurable displacement of one side relative to the other, field-based observations show fault 

architecture to often be complex. In the geologic literature faults developed in the upper crust 

are characterized as zones of brittle deformation composed of linked fault segments, with each 

segment composed of one or more subparallel, curved, or anastomosing fault cores nested within 

a damage zone. Some fault zones may contain broad deformational features such as pressure 

ridges and sags rather than clearly defined fault scarps or shear zones.

59

. Fault cores are regions 

 

58 Sibson, R.H. 2003. Thickness of the Seismic Slip Zone. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of 

America, Vol. 93, No. 3, pp. 1169–1178

59 Bryant, W.A. and Hart, E.W., 2007. Fault-Rupture Zones in California. Special Publication 42 (Interim 

Revision), California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

260

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

of high strain slip that have accommodated most of the displacement and are marked by 

mylonites, cataclastites, and gouge, whereas the damage zone is characterized by low strain 

structures mechanically related to the growth of the fault zone such as small faults, fractures, 

veins and folds. To avoid displacement that would damage unit integrity, it is best to restrict 

new CCR landfills and surface impoundments, and all new extensions, to locations no less than 

60 meters from the outermost damage zone created by an active fault. Fault zones can range 

from aone meter to several kilometers in width.

For purposes of this section, a fault is considered active if it has moved during Holocene 

time. Holocene time is defined as the geological epoch which began at the end of the 

Pleistocene, at 11,700 years BP, and continues to the present. In the field, evidence for Holocene 

activity may be hard to obtain. Therefore, the Agency cautions that faults which show no 

evidence for Holocene activity may not necessarily be inactive.

To investigate active faults, EPA expects owners and operators of CCR landfillsunits to 

follow standard engineering and geologic practices. Technical considerations include: (1) a

geologic reconnaissance of the site to determine the location of active faults. Such a 

reconnaissance would include utilizing the seismic analysis maps and tools (Quaternary fault 

maps, earthquake probability maps) of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake 

Hazards Program (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/apps/); and (2) a site fault characterization 

within 1000 meters of a site to determine whether it is within 60 meters of an active fault. Such 

characterizations would include subsurface exploration, including drilling or trenching, to locate 

any fault zones and evidence of faulting, trenching perpendicular to any faults or linements 

found within 60 meters of the site, and determination of the age of any displacements. Based on 

this information, the qualified professional engineer would prepare a report that delineates the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

261

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

location of any active (Holocene) fault, including any damage zones, and the associated 60 meter 

setback. To demonstratetake advantage of an alternative setback distance of less than 60 meters, 

the owner or operator must make a demonstration, certified by a qualified professional engineer, 

that the CCR landfill, surface impoundment, or lateral expansion has a foundation or base 

capable of providing support for the structure, and capable of withstanding hydraulic pressure 

gradients to prevent failure due to settlement, compression, or uplift, and all effects of ground 

motions resulting from at least the maximum surface acceleration expected from a probable 

earthquake.

5. Seismic Impact Zones

In § 257.63, EPA is adopting the provisions applicable to seismic impact zones, as 

proposed. The rule prohibits new CCR landfills, existing and new CCR surface impoundments 

and all lateral extensions from being located in seismic impact zones unless the owner or 

operator makes a demonstration, certified by an qualified professional engineer, that all 

containment structures, including liners, leachate collection systems, and surface water control 

systems, are designed to resist the maximum horizontal acceleration in lithified earth material 

from a probable earthquake. A Seismic impact zone means an area having a 2% or greater 

probability that the maximum expected horizontal acceleration, expressed as a percentage of the 

earth’s gravitational pull (g), will exceed 0.10 g in 50 years. Seismic zones, which represent 

areas of the United States with the greatest seismic risk, are mapped by the U.S. Geological 

Survey and readily available for all the U.S. (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/apps/). 

(http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/apps/). 

Maximum Horizontal Acceleration in lithified earth material means the maximum 

expected horizontal acceleration at the ground surface as depicted on a seismic hazard map, with 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

262

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

a 98% or greater probability that the acceleration will not be exceeded in 50 years, or the 

maximum expected horizontal acceleration based on a site-specific seismic risk assessment. 

This requirement translates to a 10% probability of exceeding the maximum horizontal 

acceleration in 250 years. 

For units located in seismic impact zones, as part of any demonstration, owners and 

operators should include: (1) a determination of the expected peak ground acceleration from a 

maximum strength earthquake that could occur in the area; (2) a determination of the sitespecific seismic hazards such as soil settlement; and (3) a facility design that is capable of 

withstanding the peak ground acceleration. EPA believes seismicSeismic designs broadly should 

include a response analysis to quantify the demands of earthquake motion on facility structures 

(landfills, surface impoundments, liners, covers, leachate collection systems, surface water 

handling systems), liquefaction analyses of both waste and foundation soils to evaluate stability 

under seismic loading, and a slope stability and deformation analyses. Design modifications to 

accommodate seismic risks should include use of conservative design factors, use of ductile 

materials, built-in redundancy for critical system components, and other measures capable of 

mitigating the potential for seismic upset.60

 

60 The seismic location standard requires a demonstration that a CCR disposal unit can withstand the 

stresses imposed by peak ground acceleration during earthquake motion. The seismic factor of safety is a 

unitless measure of strength calculated for fill material assuming earthquake conditions. It is the ratio of 

material shear strength relative to the magnitude of shear forces acting on the material. For a CCR 

disposal unit, the seismic location demonstration could be composed of numerous factor of safety

calculations showing that the structural components of the unit have factors of safety greater than or equal 

to 1.00.

Formatted: Font: 11 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

263

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Following trends in earthquake engineering, EPA has concluded that seismic design 

criteria for new CCR landfills, new CCR surface impoundment and all lateral expansions should 

be based on a “withstand without discharge” standard.

61 The Agency believes that EPA interprets 

the performance standard in this criterion (“designed to resist the maximum horizontal 

acceleration in lithified earth material from a probable earthquake”) to require any new CCR 

disposal unit located in a seismic impact zone mustto be designed to withstand seismic motion 

from a credible earthquake without damage to the foundation or to the structures whichthat

control leachate, surface drainage, or erosion. In other words, the CCR disposal unit must be 

able to withstand an expected earthquake without discharging waste or contaminants. The owner 

or operator must make a demonstration, certified by a qualified professional engineer, that the 

CCR landfill, surface impoundment, or lateral expansionunit has a foundation or base capable of 

providing support for the structure, and capable of withstanding hydraulic pressure gradients to 

prevent failure due to settlement, compression, or uplift and all effects of ground motions 

resulting from at least the maximum surface acceleration expected from a probable earthquake. 

In practice, the Agency recognizes that the CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundment may 

sustain some limited damage during an earthquake, but ultimately, the unit design must remain 

capable of preventing harmful release of coal combustion residuals, leachate, and contaminants 

both during and after the seismic event.

 

61 Kavazanjian, E., 1999. Seismic Design of Solid Waste Containment Facilities. Proceedings of the Eight 

Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, BC, pp. 51-89.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

264

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

6. Unstable Areas 

EPA laid out its rationale for these requirements in the proposal at 75 FR at 35201. No 

significant comments were received on either this rationale or the specific regulatory provisions. 

Consequently, EPA is adopting the regulatory text as proposed. Specifically, under § 257.64(a) 

new and existing CCR landfills, new and existing CCR surface impoundments and all lateral 

expansions are prohibited from sites classified as unstable areas unless the owner or operator 

makes a demonstration, certified by an qualified professional engineer, that engineering 

measures have been incorporated into the CCR unit's design to ensure that the structural 

components (i.e.,will not be disrupted. EPA considers a structural component to include any 

component used in the construction and operation of CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundment 

that is necessary to ensure the integrity of the unit and to ensure that the contents will not be 

released to the environment, including but not limited to liners, leachate collection system, 

embankments, spillways, outlets, final covers, inflow design flood controls systems) will not be 

disrupted. . Liners and leachate collection systems require a firm, secure foundation to maintain 

their integrity, and may be disrupted as a result of uneven settlement induced by 

hydrocompaction. Similarly, sudden differential movement resulting from CCR placement and

the consequent exceedance of the weight-bearing strength of subsurface materials in unstable 

areas can destroy liners and damage unitthe unit’s structural integrity, resulting in catastrophic 

release of CCRs, leading to difficult and expensive cleanups. CCR. It is essential for the owner 

or operator of any CCR unit to extensively evaluate the adequacy of the subsurface foundation 

support for the structural components of the unit. Therefore, the Agency is making this 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

265

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

demonstration mandatory for all CCR units and under this rule those; existing CCR units for 

which a demonstration cannot be made must be closed.

EPA has adopted the following definitions without material change from the proposal:

Unstable area means a location that is susceptible to natural or human-induced events or forces 

capable of impairing the integrity of some or all of the structural components responsible for 

preventing releases from a CCR unit. Natural unstable areas include those areas that have poor 

soils for foundations, areas susceptible to mass movements, and karst terranesterrains. Structural 

components mean liners, leachate collection systems, final covers, run-on/run-off systems, and 

any other component used in the construction and operation of a CCR unit. Poor foundation 

conditions means those areas where features exist which may result in inadequate foundation 

support for the structural components of a CCR unit. Areas susceptible to mass movement means 

those areas of influence (i.e., areas characterized as having an active or substantial possibility of 

mass movement) where the movement of earth material at, beneath, or adjacent to the CCR unit, 

because of natural or man-induced events, results in the downslope transport of soil and rock 

material by means of gravitational influence. Areas of mass movement include, but are not 

limited to, landslides, avalanches, debris slides and flows, solifluction, block sliding, and rock 

fall. Karst terrain means an area where karst topography, with its characteristic erosional 

surface and subterranean features, is developed as the result of dissolution of limestone, 

dolomite, or other soluble rock. Characteristic physiographic features present in karst 

terranesterrains include, but are not limited to, dolines, collapse shafts (sinkholes), vertical 

shafts, sinking streams, caves, seeps, large springs, and blind valleys. 

The owner or operator must consider at a minimum, the following factors when 

determining whether an area is unstable: (1) Onon-site or local soil conditions that may result in 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

266

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

significant differential settling; (2) Onon-site or local geologic or geomorphologic features; and 

(3) Onon-site or local human-made features or events (both surface and subsurface). To evaluate 

subsurface conditions for purposes of § 257.64(c)(3), EPA considers it essential that the owner or 

operator conduct a geotechnical site investigation, certified by a qualified professional engineer, 

to identify any potential thick layers of soil that are soft and compressible (e.g., loess, 

unconsolidated clays, wetland soils)), which could cause a significant amount of postconstruction differential settlement of foundation soils, adjacent embankments, and slopes unless 

improved. In addition, it is essential that the investigation identify on-site or local soil conditions 

that are conducive to downslope movement of soil, rock, and/or debris (alone or mixed with 

water) under the influence of gravity. Local topography, surface and subsurface soils, surface 

slope angles, surface drainage and runoff patterns, seepage patterns, rock mass orientations, joint 

patterns, fissures, and any other landscape factors that could influence downslope movement 

should be identified. Anthropogenic activities that could induce instability include mining, cut 

and fill activities during construction, excessive drawdown of groundwater, which may cause 

excessive settlement or bearing capacity failure of foundation soils;, and use of an old landfill as 

the foundation for a new landfill without verification of complete settlement of the underlying 

wastes. 

In designing a new CCR unit located in an unstable area, recognized and generally 

accepted good engineering practices dictate that a stability assessment should be conducted to 

prevent a destabilizing event from damaging the structural integrity of the component systems. 

For CCR units this involves three components: (1) an evaluation of subsurface conditions, (2) an 

analysis of slope stability, and (3) an examination of related design needs. In addition to 

explaining site constraints, identifying any soft soils, and recommending any appropriate ground 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

267

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

improvement techniques, the assessment report should include a description of: the site, site 

geology; and investigative methodology; the results from all site investigations including 

subsurface exploration, field and laboratory tests, and test results; the subsurface profile, 

recommended foundation types, depths, and bearing capacities; the water content, grain-size 

distribution, shear strength, plasticity, and liquefaction potential of foundation soils and subsoils; 

and other foundation consolidation and settlement issues relevant to site development. 

In addition to assessing the ability of soils and rocks to serve as a foundation, it is 

essential that the report also include a stability assessment of excavated sideslopes, aboveground 

embankments or dikes, and retaining structures. The slope stability analyses are performed as 

part of an evaluation of the design configuration under all potential hydraulic and loading 

conditions, including conditions that may exist during construction of a lateral or vertical 

expansion. As part of any demonstration, it is essential that owners and operators should make 

an assessment, certified by a qualified professional engineer, that finalized site embankments and 

slopes are able to maintain a stable condition. In addition to evaluating the potential for postconstruction differential settlement, the stability assessment should also consider seepageinduced saturation and softening of soils, particularly at CCR surface impoundments and CCR 

landfill sites that manage effluent.

An explanation of engineering Engineering considerations for CCR landfills and lateral 

expansions located in unstable areas are expected to be similar to those for municipal solid waste 

landfillsMSWLFs, which can be found in EPA’s 1993 Technical Manual on Solid Waste 

Disposal Facility Criteria (EPA530-R-93-017). For surface impoundments the relevant design 

criteria are found in the Agency’s 1991 Technical Resource Document on Design, Construction 

and Operation of Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Waste Surface Impoundments (EPA/530/SW-
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

268

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

91/054). Any stability assessment should consider the following: (1) Thethe adequacy of the 

subsurface exploration program; (2) the liquefaction potential of the embankment, slopes and 

foundation soils; (3) the expected behavior of the embankment slopes, and foundation soils when 

they are subjected to seismic activity; (4) the potential for seepage-induced failure; and (5) the 

potential for differential settlement.

For facilities in areas of karst, to support the demonstration required under the 

regulations, the owner or operator of a CCR unit would need to evaluate the subsurface 

conditions to ensure that the unit is located away from the influence of potential sinkholes. For 

areas where the solution-weathered limestone is close to the surface (e.g., Florida) recognized 

and generally accepted good engineering practices dictate that there must be no conduits beneath 

the CCR unit that allow piping of groundwater into the karst aquifer, or shallow caves that could 

cause sudden collapse of the unit foundation. Where unconsolidated sediments cover underlying 

limestone, piping is commonly marked by paleosinks where sands and clays from the overburden 

have filled solution cavities in the underlying limestone.

62

. Local hydraulic gradients in 

paleosinks typically point downward. EPA generally expects the potential for sinkhole 

development to be minimal at locations in karst areas where there are no paleosinks, or historical 

record of sinkhole development, and where there are no local hydraulic gradients that point 

downward. 

In making a demonstration, it is important for owners and operators of CCR landfills and 

surface impoundments in karst areas to adequately characterize subsurface conditions. Karst 

 

62 For examples, see Garlanger, J.E., Foundation Design in Florida Karst. Online presentation by 

Ardaman & Associates. 

http://www.ardaman.com/foundation_design.htm.http://www.ardaman.com/foundation_design.htm.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

269

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

hydrogeology is complex, since contaminant flows can occur along paths and networks that are 

discreet and tortuous. Nevertheless, under the requirements of this rule,, and groundwater 

monitoring wells must be capable of detecting any contaminants released from the CCR unit into 

the karst aquifer. Therefore, the owner or operator will need to ensure, with verification by a

qualified professional engineer, that monitoring wells installed in accordance with § 257.90 will 

intercept these pathways. Verification will usually necessitate the use of tracers to track 

groundwater flow towards offsite seeps or springs from the uppermost aquifer beneath the 

facility. 

Any engineered solution employed to mitigate weak ground strength in karst areas must 

be able to prevent the kind of foundation collapse and settlement that could lead to sudden 

release to the environment of CCR waste with its toxic constituents and associated leachate. 

Solution cavities present at the site should be filled with grout or other suitable stiff material to 

avoid further crumbling and erosion. Where necessary, CCR unit foundations could be 

reinforced with engineered ground supports such as concrete footings that bridge voids. Larger 

caverns could be filled with concrete to underpin the CCR unit foundation by transferring load to 

the cavern floor. However, the Agency recognizes such engineered solutions are complex and 

costly, and believes the best protection is not to site CCR landfills and surface impoundments in 

karst areas. Nevertheless, today’sthis rule does not ban the location of CCR landfills, surface 

impoundments, or lateral extensions in karst areas. 

7. Closure of Existing CCR Landfills and Existing CCR Surface Impoundments

Finalized The final provisions of § 257.60 require owners or operators of an existing CCR 

surface impoundment to demonstrate that the unit meets the minimum requirements for 

placement above the uppermost aquifer (i.e., constructed with a base located no less than 1.52 

Formatted: Font: Not Bold
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

270

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

meters (five feet) above the upper limit of the uppermost aquifer) no later than 1842 months after 

the date of publication of this rule in the Federal Register. The Agency is setting the compliance 

date at 18 months, or one year after the effective date of this rule, to allow owners and operators 

time to adequately study and characterize seasonal variations in the elevation of the top of the 

uppermost aquifer. Owners and operators must initiate closure of those units that fail to make 

this demonstration no later than six months from this determination, except in limited 

circumstances as discussed in Unit VI.H. of this rule. 

Owners and operators of existing CCR surface impoundments subject to §§ 257.61 -

257.64 of this rule and existing CCR landfills subject to § 257.64, must complete demonstrations 

by the date corresponding to 42 months from publication of this rule. The Agency is setting the 

compliance deadline at 42 months, instead of 18 months, to allow owners and operators time to 

complete the requisite studies to make these demonstrations. and to complete any engineering 

measures necessary to allow the CCR unit to meet the performance standards. If closure is 

warranted, it must be initiated no later than 48 months from publication of this rule. Closure and 

post-closure care must be done in accordance with §§ 257.100 – 103; which allow certain 

regulatory flexibilities provided specific conditions are met. 

D. Design Criteria – Liner Design 

EPA proposed that existing CCR landfills without a composite liner could continue to receive 

CCRsCCR and continue to operate as compliant landfills, without violating the open dumping 

prohibition. Conversely, EPA proposed that existing CCR surface impoundments would be 

required to retrofit with a composite liner system, as defined in the proposed rule, within five 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Widow/Orphan

control, Border: Top: (No border), Bottom: (No border),

Left: (No border), Right: (No border), Bar : (No border)

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Body, Line spacing: Double,

Widow/Orphan control

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

271

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

years of the effective date of the rule or to close. EPA also proposed that all new CCR units must

be constructed with a composite liner and leachate collection and removal system.

In the proposal, EPA defined a composite liner to mean a liner system consisting of two 

components; the upper component consisting of a minimum 30-mil flexible membrane liner 

(FML), and the lower component consisting of at least a two-foot layer of compacted soil with a 

hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1×10−7 cm/sec.63 FML components consisting of high 

density polyethylene (HDPE) were required to be at least 60-mil thick; and the FML component 

was required to be installed in direct and uniform contact with the compacted soil component. 

EPA also solicited comment on a number of issues, including: (1) whether EPA should 

allow facilities to use an alternative design for new CCR disposal units,; (2) whether clay liners 

designed to meet a 1x10-7cm/sec hydraulic conductivity might perform differently in practice 

than modeled in the risk assessment, including a request for specific data on the hydraulic 

conductivity of clay liners associated with CCR disposal units; and (3) whether the effectiveness 

of such additives as organosilanes, would allow the use of these additives in lieu of composite 

liners. (See 75 FR at 35203 and 35222.)64 With respect to the last two issues, the Agency 

received little comment. However, in response to the use of alternative liner designs in lieu of a 

composite liner (as defined in the rule), significant comment was received. Commenters 

advocated for a number of alternative composite liner designs, with a majority recommending 

 

63 The definition of hydraulic conductivity is being promulgated as proposed. Hydraulic conductivity

means the rate at which water can move through a permeable medium (i.e., the coefficient of 

permeability).

64 The terms compacted soil and compacted clay are used interchangeably, i.e., when referring to a 

compacted soil liner this is the same as referring to a compacted clay liner (CCL). 

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

272

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

that a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) be allowed as an alternative to the lower component of the 

composite liner. Other commenters stated that GCLs alone should be allowed as an alternative 

to the proposed composite liner. Still others argued that alternative liner designs, such as an 

FML/FML65 provided a level of performance similar to the proposed composite liner system and 

should be allowed. Conversely, there were also comments opposing the use of any alternative 

liners stating, claiming that alternatives have not been proven to be effective.66 

EPA also received significant comment on the actual design of the composite liner 

system proposed by the Agency as it pertained to CCR surface impoundments (Seesee 75 FR at 

35202-35203). 67 Commenters argued that the proposed requirement for a leachate collection 

and removal system in a CCR surface impoundment was illogical since it would have to be 

constructed between the lower component (two feet of compacted soil) and upper component 

(flexible membrane liner) and the proposed rule specifically states that the flexible membrane 

liner component must be installed in direct and uniform contact with the compacted soil 

 

65 Current terminology favors the use of geomembrane liner or GM when referring to flexible membrane 

liners or FMLs. Hereafter in the preamble, except when referring to specific comments or the proposed 

rule, and in the final rule, the Agency will use the term geomembrane liner or GM in place of flexible 

membrane liner or FML. 

66 Upon further research and evaluation, as well as in response to comment, current terminology 

favors the use of geomembrane liner or GM when referring to flexible membrane liners or FMLs. 

Hereafter in the preamble, except when referring to specific comments to the contrary or the proposed 

rule, and in the final rule, the Agency will use the term geomembrane liner or GM in place of flexible 

membrane liner or FML. 

67 See proposed § 257.71 which states that an existing CCR surface impoundment shall be constructed 

with a composite liner and a leachate collection system between the upper and lower components of the 

composite liner; where a composite liner means a system consisting of two components; the upper 

component consisting of a minimum 30-mil flexible membrane liner (FML) and a lower component 

consisting of at least a two-foot layer of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 

1x10-7cm/sec. The FML component would be required to be installed in direct and uniform contact with 

the compacted soil component (Seesee 75 FR at 35243).

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

273

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

component. Commenters reasoned that the inclusion of a leachate collection and removal system 

between the upper and lower components precluded direct and uniform contact ofbetween the 

two components and that placing a leachate collection and removal system between the lower 

and upper components of a composite liner would compromise the integrity of the composite 

liner. 

With regard to this last point, the Agency has reviewed the requirements for a proposed 

composite liner system as it would pertain to CCR surface impoundments and agrees that the 

leachate collection and removal system requirements proposed for CCR surface impoundments 

would be counterproductive and that; EPA proposed this requirement in error. The integrity of 

the composite liner system is indeed dependent upon the direct and uniform contact of the upper 

GM component with the lower soil component. The proposed requirement for CCR surface 

impoundments to construct a leachate collection system between the FML and soil components 

would prevent the direct and uniform contact of the upper and lower components and, therefore, 

compromise the integrity of the composite liner. For this reason, EPA is not requiring a leachate 

collection and removal system for new surface impoundments or any lateral expansion of a CCR 

surface impoundment. 

While EPA agrees with those commenters arguing that new CCR disposal units should 

only be installed with a composite liner system of some kind, the Agency has concluded that not 

all alternative designs for a composite liner system should necessarily be rejected as 

insufficiently protective. Many commenters provided strong and compelling evidence that the 

specific composite liner system described in the proposed rule, was not always feasible or 

necessary to protect groundwater resources and that alternate composite liner designs could be 

equally protective, and may be a necessity in many areas of the country where soil with the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

274

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

appropriate hydraulic conductivity may not be available (e.g., Alaska).68

In re-evaluating the proposed requirement for a composite liner system, EPA was 

influenced by a number of factors.69 First, the data provided by commenters showing the 

performance of a GM/GCL design. Second, EPA’s own studies showing that a GM/GCL liner 

can be constructed to achieve hydraulic efficiencies in the range of 99 to 99.9% which meets or 

exceeds the hydraulic performance of a GM/compacted clay liner (CCL) design. 70 In addition, 

these high efficiencies demonstrate that the GCL component of a GM/GCL composite liner is at 

least as effective in impeding leakage through holes in the GM component of the composite liner 

system as a CCL with a hydraulic conductivity no more than 1x10-7cm/sec.

71 In fact, EPA has 

developed guidance for the selection and installation of various types of liners including a 

GM/GCL.72 And third, EPA was influenced by the many comments arguing that a “one-size-fits 

all” approach to liner design stifles design innovation and regulatory flexibility in addressing site 

specific factors such as geologic or climatic conditions. These commenters reasoned that if EPA 

established some type of performance standard for composite liners, it would mitigate the 

 

68 See for example comments from the states of Alaska (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-06409); Florida 

(EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-06846); and North Carolina (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-09282) available 

at www.regulations.gov.

69 Geomembranes (GMs), which are flexible membrane liners (FMLs), are thin materials manufactured 

from polymers and reinforced with woven fabric or fibers which are used as hydraulic barriers. Resins 

used to manufacture geomembrane liners typically include high density polyethylene (HDPE), linear low 

density polyethylene (LLDPE), low density linear polyethlene (LDLPE), very low density polyethylene 

(VLDPE) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Geomembranes manufactured using HDPE are the least flexible 

of the geomembranes.

70 USEPA, “Assessment and Recommendations for Improving the Performance of Waste Containment 

Systems,” EPA 600/R-02/029, December 2002. http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P1001O83.pdf

71 USEPA, “Assessment and Recommendations for Improving the Performance of Waste Containment 

Systems,” EPA 600/R-02/029, December 2002.

72 USEPA, “Guide for Industrial Waste Management,” Chapter 7 

(http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/guide/pdf/chap7b.pdf).(http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/indu

strial/guide/pdf/chap7b.pdf).

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Don't add space

between paragraphs of the same style

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Add space between

paragraphs of the same style

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Don't add space

between paragraphs of the same style
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

275

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

negative impacts of a “one-size fits all” regulatory framework. 

1. Development of Composite Liner Design Criteria 

In this final rule EPA is requiring all new CCR units to be designed and constructed with 

a composite liner as specified in § 257.70. EPA is also providing the owner or operator with an 

option to install an alternative composite liner provided it is meets the required performance 

standard and it is certified by a qualified professional engineer. EPA has concluded, consistent 

with many of the comments received and its own analysis, that an alternative composite liner for 

new CCR units is warranted if it can be shown to be equivalent to the performance of a 

composite liner and affords the same protections to groundwater resources as a composite liner. 

The Agency is promulgating this alternative option to provide flexibility in designing and 

constructing a protective composite liner system that addresses site specific conditions and 

situations. The Agency acknowledges that it was overly prescriptive by requiring one particular 

type of liner rather than relying on a performance standard to define the lower component of the 

composite liner. The overwhelming amount of data supporting the effectiveness of a GC/GCL 

liner has convinced the Agency that a sole prescribed, single composite liner design should not 

be required, but rather the Agencyfinal rule should allow for some flexibility in composite liner 

designs. As such, the Agency is allowing new CCR units to be designed and constructed with an 

alternative composite liner, as described below, provided the lower component of the composite 

liner meets a specified performance standard that ensures itsit functions in a manner equivalent 

to the composite liner system defined in the rule. 

Composite liner systems installed in either a CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundment 

provide an effective hydraulic barrier by combining the complementary properties of the two 

different liner components. The geomembrane provides a highly impermeable layer that can 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

276

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

maximize leachate collection and removal in a CCR landfill or minimize infiltration of leachate 

in a CCR surface impoundment, while the soil component (e.g., CCL) serves as a backup in the 

event of any leakage/infiltration from the geomembrane occurs. Data indicate that alternatives to 

the lower component of the composite liner system (e.g., GCLs) are available and can perform at 

a level equivalent to a compacted soil liner when, based on a comparison of their flow rates are 

evaluated in comparison with two feet of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity of no 

more than 1x10-7cm/sec. 

2. Liner Designs That Would Not Meet the Requirements of a Composite Liner or 

Alternative Liner

Contrary to the arguments made by several commenters, EPA has concluded that a 

composite liner consisting of two 30-mil GMs (GM/GM) will not provide an equivalent degree 

of protection as a composite liner consisting of a GM and two feet of compacted soil, or an 

alternative composite liner such as a GM/ GCL. While GMs have the advantages of extremely 

low rates of water permeation, the disadvantages of a composite liner consisting of two GMs 

include leakage through occasional GM imperfections and punctures, potential for slippage along 

the interface between the GMs, and GM embrittlement over time. Furthermore, a critical 

component of a composite liner is the compacted soil or GCL component beneath the GM layer 

whichthat will impede the flow of liquid that may leak through a hole or defect in the GM. This 

added protection cannot be achieved using two GMs for the composite liner. Additionally, the 

potential exists for liquid transport through the GMs through holes caused by punctures, tears, 

flawed seams, etc. If a puncture occurs, the puncture could compromise both GMs and create a 

conduit for liquid flow to underlying permeable soil. Moreover, a liner system consisting of two 

GMs in contact with each other poses the risk of creating a slip plane that may compromise the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

277

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

stability of the disposal unit (although EPA acknowledges that using textured GMs would reduce 

or eliminate this particular risk). These data are documented in EPA research.

73

Consistent with the previous determination, EPA has also determined that the double 

liner system set forth in Florida regulations (see Florida Rules 62-701.400(3)(c),F.A.C) also does 

not meet the level of performance achieved by EPA’s composite liner system or the alternative 

liner system. While this double liner system provides the advantage of a leak detection system 

between the two GMLs, the lower composite liner, consisting of a 60-mil HDPE over six inches 

of soil with a saturated hydraulic conductivity of less than or equal to 1 x 10-5cm/sec, is not 

equivalent to a GM over two feet of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity of less than or 

equal to 1 x 10-7cm/sec. To be hydraulically equivalent, soil with a hydraulic conductivity of 1 

x 10-5cm/sec would need to be on the order of 100 times thicker than soil with a hydraulic 

conductivity of less than or equal to 1 × 10-7cm/sec. Similarly, a lower composite liner 

consisting of a 60-mil HDPE over a GCL with a hydraulic conductivity not greater than 1 x 10-7

cm/sec would require a GCL thickness of 24 inches to be equivalent to a GM over two feet of 

compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity of less than or equal to 1 x 10-7cm/sec. 

EPA has also examined the performance of GCLs approved for use as alternatives to 

composite liners in municipal solid waste landfillsMSWLFs.

74

 The EPA report titled 

 

73 “Assessment and Recommendations for Improving the Performance of Waste Containment Systems.” 

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r02099/600r02099.htm

74

 “Geosynthetic Clay Liners Used in Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,”

http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/geosyn.pdf; “Geosynthetic Clay Liners in Waste 

Containment,”

http://www.epa.gov/tio/tsp/download/2001_meet/prez/carson.pdfhttp://www.epa.gov/superfund/remedyte

ch/tsp/download/2001_meet/prez/carson.pdf; and “Assessment and Recommendations for Improving the 

Performance of Waste Containment Systems,” http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r02099/600r02099.htm

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Formatted: Font: 11 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

278

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

“Assessment and Recommendations for Improving the Performance of Waste Containment 

Systems,”

75 concluded that if a CCL or GCL is used alone, liquid migration can occur over the 

entire area of the liner that is subject to a hydraulic head. The report also concluded that in a 

composite liner, leakage will only occur at the location of the geomembrane penetration (e.g., 

hole, tear), and will be much slower than flow through an orifice due to the hydraulic impedance 

provided by the CCL or GCL alone. The report also evaluated, among other characteristics, the 

hydraulic efficiencies of a GM/GCL composite liner system for 28 cells at seven landfills. Liner 

hydraulic efficiencies were reported between 97% and 100%. However, potential stability 

problems were reported with GCLs constructed on slopes greater than 10 H:1 V (5.7°), and 

GCLs may not be appropriate for the disposal of liquid wastes or sludges. The Agency is also 

concerned that GCLs, being much thinner than the two feet of compacted soil required for 

composite liners, may allow for the flow of liquids through the GCL at a faster rate than through 

two feet of compacted soil. Taking all of this information into account, the Agency remains 

unconvinced that a GCL alone is a viable alternative to a composite liner. 

3. Design Requirements 

a. Existing CCR Landfills

As proposed, the final rule allows existing CCR landfills as defined in § 257.54, to 

continue to operate without retrofitting with a composite liner and leachate collection and 

removal system. As previously discussed, given the volume of the material currently managed in 

 

75

 “Assessment and Recommendations for Improving the Performance of Waste Containment 

Systems.” http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r02099/600r02099.htm

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line spacing: single
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

279

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

CCR landfills, the potential for disruption in CCR disposal capacity if existing CCR landfills 

were required to retrofit would be significant. Significant disruptions in the state-wide solid 

waste management (and possibly power generation) are associated with significant risks to

public health and the environment in their own right. EPA has concluded that these risks are 

greater than the risks associated with allowing unlined CCR landfills to continue to operate. 

Further, existing CCR landfills will be required to comply with the extensive groundwater 

monitoring, and corrective action requirements, among others, to assureensure that any 

groundwater releases from the CCR unit are identified and promptly remediated, which will 

significantly mitigate the risks from these existing units. By themselves, the risk assessment 

results and the risk migration from the other regulatory requirements in this rule would not 

support a decision to allow these CCR units to continue to operate on a national basis. But when 

the risks associated with the level of disruption EPA estimates to be possible from requiring 

existing CCR landfills to retrofit are also included, the totality of the evidence supports a 

determination that allowing these units to continue operating meets the section 4004(a) standard. 

b. Existing CCR Surface Impoundments

In a departure from the proposed rule and after considerable evaluation and analysis, the 

Agency is finalizing a provision to allow all existing CCR surface impoundments to remain in 

operation provided certain conditions are met.76 Owners or operators of existing CCR surface 

impoundments are required, within one year of the effective date of the rule, to document, 

certified by a qualified professional engineer, whether the unit is constructed with any one of the 

 

76 Existing CCR surface impoundments will not be required, as was proposed, to retrofit to a composite 

liner or close within five years of the effective date of the rule (see 57 FR 35202). 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

280

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

three liner types: (1) a liner consisting of a minimum of two feet of compacted soil with a 

hydraulic conductivity of more than 1x10-7 cm/sec; (2) a composite liner that meets the 

requirements of § 257.70(b); or (3) an alternative liner that meets the requirements of § 

257.70(c). 

In some instances, owners or operators may have information readily available to 

determine if an existing CCR surface impoundment is constructed with one of the three liner 

types listed above. On the other hand, this information may not be readily available and may 

require an owner or operator to conduct an engineering evaluation to determine if the unit was 

constructed with any of the three liner type. Factors such as the availability of engineering 

personnel and weather may impede the engineering evaluation. Therefore, EPA believes that 12 

months from the effective date, or 18 months from publication of the rule, is a reasonable amount 

of time to make the determination whether the existing CCR surface impoundment was 

constructed with one of the three liner types described above. Existing surface impoundments 

with liners that meet the criteria established for any of the three specified liner types are 

considered to be an “existing lined CCR surface impoundments.” These existing lined surface 

impoundments can continue receiving CCRto operate until the owner or operator decides to 

initiate closure, provided the unit does not meet other requirements of the rule that independently 

mandate closure of the unit (i.(.e.g., location criteria (§§ 257.60-257.64) or structural integrity 

factors of safety (§ 257.73)). Existing CCR surface impoundments with liners that do not fall 

into any of one of the three prescribed liner types are considered “existing unlined CCR surface 

impoundments.” Existing unlined CCR surface impoundments must also cease receiving CCR 

and initiate closure if an owner or operator determines, at any point in time, as part of its 

groundwater monitoring program that the concentrations of one or more constituents listed in 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

281

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Appendix IV to part 257 are detected at a statistically significant level above the groundwater 

protection standard established for that unit. EPA agrees with the many commenters who argued 

that existing unlined CCR surface impoundments should not be required to close prematurely if 

they are operating as designed and are complying with all of the requirements of the rule, 

including all groundwater protection standards. Taking into account the additional protections 

being afforded withrequired under this rule (e.g., location restrictions, groundwater monitoring, 

corrective action, structural integrity criteria, inspections and fugitive dust controls), the Agency 

has concluded that the risks posed by unlined CCR surface impoundments that are not “leaking” 

(i.e., exceeding any groundwater protection standard) are not sufficient to warrant requiring these 

units to close. However, once a groundwater protection standard is exceeded (i.e., the unit is 

leaking), without any type of liner system in place, leachate will flow through the unit and into 

the environment unrestrained and the only corrective action strategy that EPA can determine will 

be effective at all sites nation-wide requires as its foundation --the closure of the unit. 

EPA acknowledges that it may be possible at certain sites to engineer an alternative to 

closure of the unit that would adequately control the source of the contamination and would 

otherwise protect human health and the environment. However, the efficacy of those 

engineering solutions will necessarily be determined by individual site conditions. As previously 

discussed, the regulatory structure under which this rule is issued, effectively limits the Agency’s 

ability to develop the type of requirements that can be individually tailored to accommodate 

particular site conditions. Under sections 1008(a) and 4004(a), EPA must establish national 

criteria that will operate effectively in the absence of any guaranteed regulatory oversight (i.e., a 

permitting program), to achieve the statutory standard of “no reasonable probability of adverse 

effects on health or the environment” at all sites subject to the standards. EPA was unable to 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

282

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

develop a performance standard that would allow for alternatives to closure, but would also be 

sufficiently objective and precise to minimize the potential for abuse. There are too many factors 

that determine whether a particular engineering solution will meet the section 4004(a) standard at 

a particular site. And the risks of these units are simply too high.

Conversely, existing lined surface impoundments that exceed their groundwater 

protection standard are in a better position to manage the leak because it is generallyusually

caused by some localized or specific defect in the liner system whichthat can more readily be 

identified and corrected. Consequently, this rule is not requiring existing lined CCR surface 

impoundment to close if an exceedance of a groundwater protection standard is detected; rather 

the Agency is affording the owner or operator with the abilityopportunity to userely on corrective 

action measures to managebring the situation,risks back to acceptable levels (i.e., control the 

source of the release and remediate the contamination), without requiringmandating closure of 

the unit.

c. New CCR Landfills and New CCR Surface Impoundments and All Lateral Expansions

Both the CCR damage case history and the risk assessment clearly show the need for and 

the effectiveness of appropriate liners in reducing the potential for groundwater contamination at 

CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments. Accordingly, EPA is finalizing liner and 

leachate collection and removal system requirements for new CCR landfills and all lateral 

expansions of these units. Similarly, EPA is finalizing liner requirements for new CCR surface 

impoundments and all lateral expansions of these units.

Specifically, EPA is requiring new CCR landfills, new CCR surface impoundments, and 

all lateral expansions be constructed with a composite liner (see § 257.70). The composite liner 

must consist of two components; an upper component consisting of a minimum 30-mil 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

283

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

geomembrane liner (GM), and a lower component consisting of at least a two-foot layer of 

compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1x10-7centimeters per second 

(cm/sec). GM components consisting of high density polyethylene (HDPE) must be at least 60-

mil thick and the GM or upper liner component must be installed in direct and uniform contact 

with the compacted soil or lower liner component 

New CCR landfills or lateral expansions of these units are also required to be constructed 

with a leachate collection and removal system designed to maintain less than a 30-centimeter 

depth of leachate over the composite liner. A leachate collection and removal system is not 

required for new CCR surface impoundments because, as previously discussed, a leachate 

collection system installed between a single composite liner system is not practicable and would 

compromise the integrity of the composite liner system. 

In addition, in a departure fromresponse to comments on the proposed rule, EPA is 

allowing alternatives to the lower component of the composite liner system provided the flow 

rate through the lower component is no greater than the flow rate through two feet of compacted 

soil with a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-7cm/sec. The lower component must also be a 

recognized liner material; e.g., soil, clay, or GCL. Alternative composite liners using compacted 

soil or clay as the lower component must be constructed with the upper component in intimate 

contact with the lower component; i.e., the geomembrane must be installed to ensure good and 

uniform contact with the lower component. The hydraulic conductivity for the two feet of 

compacted soil used in the flow rate comparison must be no greater than 1 x 10-7cm/sec. The 

hydraulic conductivity of the lower component must be determined using recognized and 

generally accepted engineering methods, for example, ASTM D5084 - 10, “Standard Test 

Methods for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

284

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Flexible Wall Permeameter,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012, DOI: 

10.1520/D5084-10, www.astm.org for compacted soils or clays, or ASTM Standard D6766 - 12, 

“Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Hydraulic Properties of Geosynthetic Clay Liners 

Permeated with Potentially Incompatible Aqueous Solutions,” ASTM International, West 

Conshohocken, PA, 2012, DOI: 10.1520/D6766-12, www.astm.org for GCLs. The flow rate 

comparison for the lower component must be made using Darcy’s Law for gravity flow through 

porous media, which is an empirical law which states that the velocity of flow through porous 

medium is directly proportional to the hydraulic gradient. The use of Darcy’s Law to calculate 

fluid flow through porous media is a well -established and generally accepted engineering 

methodology, and is the foundation for EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration with 

Transformation Products (EPACMTP) and is generally recognized to evaluate steady state flow 

of liquids through soils and GCLs.

77

 EPACMTP is a subsurface fate and transport model EPA 

uses to simulate the impact of the release of constituents present in waste that is managed in land 

disposal units. Accordingly, the flow rate comparison for the lower component of alternative 

composite liner must be made using the following equation which is derived from Darcy’s Law.

 

77 See for example EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products 

(EPACMTP) at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/tools/cmtp/, “Assessment and 

Recommendations for Improving the Performance of Waste Containment Systems.” 

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r02099/600r02099.htm,

Giroud, J.P., Badu-Tweneboah, K. and Soderman, K.L., 1997, “Comparison of Leachate Flow Through 

Compacted Clay Liners and Geosynthetic Clay Liners in Landfill Liner Systems,” Geosynthetics 

International, Vol. 4, Nos. 3-4, pp. 391-431 

(http://www.geosyntheticssociety.org/Resources/Archive/GI/src/V4I34/GI-V4-N3&4-Paper7.pdf),391-

431 (http://www.geosyntheticssociety.org/Resources/Archive/GI/src/V4I34/GI-V4-N3&4-Paper7.pdf),

and "Design Considerations for Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCLs) in Various Applications," Geosynthetic 

Research Institute, January 9, 2013 (http://www.geosyntheticinstitute.org/grispecs/gcl5.pdf).(http://www.geosynthetic-institute.org/grispecs/gcl5.pdf).
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

285

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Q

A

= q = k (

h

t

+ 1)

where: Q = flow rate,

A = surface area of the liner,

q = flow rate per unit area,

k = hydraulic conductivity of the liner,

h = hydraulic head above the liner, and

t = thickness of the liner.

A qualified professional engineer must certify that the design and construction of either 

the composite liner or the alternative composite liner meets the requirements of §§ 257.70(b) or 

(c). 

EPA has also included supporting supplemented the composite liner criteria for landfills 

with performance standards that provide more precise direction to the liner 

requirementsprofessional engineer regarding the “recognized and generally accepted good 

engineering practices” that need to be used in the design and construction of composite liner 

systems to ensure that the liner system will continue to perform as designed. These criteria, 

which have been codified at §§ 257.70(b) and 257.70(c). These criteria have been added to 

better define the technical ), have been adopted in response to comments requesting that EPA 

provide the professional engineers that will be required to certify that CCR units meet the 

requirements of the rule and more accurately with more precise and objective criteria. These 

criteria reflect the Agency’s current thinking on the protectionsengineering specifications

necessary to ensure thatprevent liner failures resulting from improper design and construction are 

minimized and groundwater resources are protected. Consequently, theseand to ensure that the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

286

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

liner will continue to perform correctly. These provisions will ensure not only that the liner is 

properly designed and constructed and, but also that the system will continue to safely perform 

throughout itsthe landfill’s active life and through post closure care. As such, the Agency is 

adding what it believes are minimum criteria to address factors that affect the performance of a 

liner and are necessary to ensure its proper design and construction. The criteria have been 

adopted from the technical provisions proposed under the subtitle C optionprovisions for CCR 

landfills, and are consistent with design requirements set forth for hazardous waste landfills 

regulated under Part 265 of RCRA. The Agency has also concluded, based on, as well as 

existing guidance reviewed for municipal solid waste landfills, that these requirements generally 

reflect recognized and generally and recognized good engineering practices for the design and 

construction of landfillsMSWLFs.

78

 

Specifically, the Agency is modifying the composite and alternative liner design 

requirements by including provisions that requirerequiring the composite or alternative liner to 

be chemically compatible with the CCR and of adequate strength and thickness to prevent 

failure. The liner system must also provide appropriate shear strength between the two 

components to prevent sliding of the upper component. In addition, the Agency is requiring that 

liners be placed on an adequate foundation and installed to cover all areas that might come into 

contact with the CCR. 

For new CCR landfills, which are required to have a leachate collection and removal 

system designed and operated to maintain less than a 30 centimeter depth of leachate. The, the

 

78

 “Technical Guidance Document: Quality Assurance and Quality Control for Waste Containment 

Systems.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of 

Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH 45268. EPA/600/R-93/182. September 1993.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

287

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Agency is also requiring, consistent with the requirements proposed under the alternative subtitle 

C proposal, that the leachate collection and removal system be constructed of sufficient strength 

and thickness to prevent collapse from the pressure of the CCR and to minimize clogging during 

the active life and post closure care period.79

4. Vertical Expansions of New and Existing CCR Landfills and All Lateral Expansions

In the proposed rule, EPA stated that CCR landfills could vertically expand without 

retrofitting, in order to alleviate concerns with regard to CCR disposal capacity in the short term. 

In the few comments to the proposed rule which mentioned vertical expansions of landfills,

commenters expressed concernrequested that the Agency be clear regardingclarify the design 

standards that vertical expansions would have to meet. Information collected to date, which is 

included in the docket supporting the final rule, leads the Agency to conclude there are no issues 

unique to vertical expansions of CCR landfills that warrant modifications to the technical 

standards being promulgated in this rule. Therefore, vertical expansions of existing CCR

landfills are not subject to the provisions governing new units, but are subject to all applicable 

requirements for existing CCR landfills. To be clear however, while the location requirements 

relating to the placement above the water table, wetlands, fault areas, and seismic impact zones 

do not apply to existing CCR landfills, all of these restrictions apply to lateral expansions of 

existing CCR disposal units, as well as new CCR disposal units. Consequently, under this rule, 

owners or operators of existing CCR landfills couldcan continue to vertically expand their 

 

79

 Hardin, PE, Christopher D, and Perotta, PE Nick L. “Operations and Maintenance Guidelines for Coal 

Ash Landfills – Coal Ash Landfill are NOT the Same as Subtitle D Solid Waste Landfills”. Presented at 

the 2011 World of Coal Ash Conference; May 9-12, 2011 in Denver, Colorado. 

http://www.flyash.info/http://www.flyash.info/2011/127-Hardin-2011.pdf
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

288

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

existing facilities in these locations, but must comply with the provisions governing new units if 

they wish to laterally expand.

5. Construction of New CCR Landfills or any Lateral Expansion over an Existing CCR Unit

On August 2, 2013, EPA published a NODA that among other things, solicited comment 

regarding a particular type of CCR management unit described by some commenters in the 

proposed rule as “overfills” (see 78 FR 46940). As discussed in the NODA, overfills, 

i.e.,Overfills are CCR landfills constructed over a closed CCR surface impoundment, are a type 

of CCR disposal unit for which the Agency had no previous information or knowledge and as 

such were not factored into the development of . As discussed in the NODA, in developing the 

proposed rule, EPA was not aware that CCR was managed in this fashion and so did not either 

evaluate this specific management scenario or propose technical requirements of the rule. 

Comments received onspecifically tailored to this type of unit. Under the proposed rule however, 

identified overfills as a viable, these types of units would need to comply with both the 

requirements applicable to the closure of surface impoundments or landfills, and increasingly 

popular CCR disposal option forwith all of the technical requirements applicable to new 

landfills. Information collected since the electric utility industry, promptingproposal confirmed 

that the Agency to questionpractice of constructing overfills for the disposal of CCR is 

conducted with some regularity, and raised questions as to whether overfills would be effectively 

regulated under the proposed technical requirements of the rule. In the NODA, to aid in the 

development of final technical requirements, EPA solicited data and information that directly 

addressed existing engineering guidelines or practices applicable to this units, as well as any 

regulatory requirements governing the siting, design, construction, and long-term protectiveness 

of these units for the disposal of CCR.

Formatted: Font: Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

289

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The Agency received numerous comments on the NODA. The majority of commenters 

agreed that overfills are commonly employed to allow continuing use of CCR disposal sites and 

to avoid the need to develop CCR management units at other sites. Some commenters added that: 

(1) the engineering design of an overfill can increase the stability of the underlying surface 

impoundment or landfill; (2) the use of an overfill facility reduces the need for new infrastructure 

construction; and (3) an overfill avoids having to transport CCRsCCR significant distances for 

off-site disposal.

Other commenters mentioned that several states had experience with overfills and have 

applied requirements such as liner systems, monitoring wells, and stormwater modeling on a 

case-by-case basis using best engineering practices. They added that overfills are constructed in a 

site-specific manner and pose unique construction and operational issues depending on the site 

and the characteristics of the underlying unit., and that the construction of these units will 

therefore vary to account for these conditions. Commenters listedidentified several issues 

requiring additional attention for during design and construction of overfills: including seismic 

and static liquefaction, settlement, foundation improvement, partial overfills, groundwater 

upwelling, groundwater monitoring, and wastewater infrastructure.

Upon review of these comments and further evaluation, the Agency has concluded that 

while there may be technical issues uniquerelating to the design, construction, and maintenance

of overfills, it does not warrant specific modifications to the technical standards for CCR 

landfills being promulgated in this rule. What is important however, is howare sufficiently 

flexible that no modifications are necessary to accommodate such units. For example, while the 

Agency classifies overfills (i.e., an existing or new unit), which the Agency is clarifying in this 

rule to be a new CCR landfill. In other words, in this rule overfills are considered new CCR 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

290

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

landfills, and design and construction of groundwater monitoring systems may be technically 

more challenging, the final standards already allow for the construction of a multi-unit system. 

The performance standards and technical specifications laid out in the technical criteria 

developed for this rule are equally as applicable to overfills (and as protective) as to other new 

units. In essence, EPA is retaining the approach from the proposal that overfills will need to 

comply with both the requirements applicable to the closure of surface impoundments or 

landfills, and with all of the technical requirements applicable to new landfills. Thus, overfills 

cannot be constructed unless the underlying foundation composed of CCRs is—i.e., the existing 

CCR surface impoundment has first been dewatered, capped, and completely closed. Like And 

because overfills are considered to be “new CCR landfills,,” the design and construction 

considerations for an overfill, includeof such units must comply with the technical requirements 

that address foundation settlement, overall and side slope stability, side slope and subgrade 

reinforcement, and leachate collection and groundwater monitoring system requirements, which 

will all need to be evaluated independent of the underlying CCR disposal unit to ensure that the 

overfill design is environmentally protective. This evaluation must also be certified by a 

qualified professional engineer. 

SubgradeUnder the location standards applicable to new CCR units, subgrade soils must 

be capable of providing stable structural support to the new liner system. The Agency considers 

anAn overfill foundation composed of unconsolidated materials, such as CCRsCCR that is 

susceptible to slip-plane failure, to beis an unstable area (man-made) and, under provisions of 

this rule, is therefore a prohibited location for a new CCR disposal units. The TVA Kingston ash 

fill failure was at least partly attributable to slip-plane failure of saturated CCR that made up the 

subgrade and foundation beneath the unit. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

291

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Similarly, prudent and standard engineering practice for new CCR landfills requires that 

the base and side slopes of the overlying CCR landfill must be able to maintain the structural 

integrity of the unit. If necessary, the subgrade should be reinforced with a geotextile fabric, or 

otherwise improved, to stabilize existing CCR in the underlying unit and to minimize tensile 

strain in the liner system. Slopes should be reinforced to prevent downhill sliding and to protect 

the leachate drainage system.

Although EPA is aware from comments that at least one facility is consolidating 

(dewatering) wet CCR in an active CCR surface impoundment through placement of dry ash 

over the wet CCR, and thereby converting the impoundment to a dry landfill, the Agency in 

thiswithout stabilizing the CCR in the unit or capping the unit. This practice will no longer be 

permitted under the final rule is drawing a clear distinction between wet and dry CCR 

management. Provisions in this rulecriteria. Although no modifications were determined to be 

necessary to the individual technical criteria, EPA has added specific provisions that clarify the 

status of overfills, and clearly prohibit construction of a CCR landfill over a CCR surface 

impoundment unless the CCR in the underlying unit arehas first been dewatered and the unit is 

capped and completely closed. Dewatering, capping and closure of the underlying CCR unit

prior to construction of the overlying CCR landfill renders the CCR overfill less susceptible to 

slip-plane failure. Conversion of an impoundment to a landfill without these measures involves a 

complex construction process that is difficult to highly site specific; EPA was unable to develop 

sufficiently objective performance standards that could be independently verifyverified outside 

of a supervised permit program. Because this rule is self-implementing EPA is, therefore, 

prohibiting construction of new CCR landfills over existing or operational CCR surface 

impoundments to prevent the creation of potential structural instabilitiesstructurally unstable 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

292

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

units that could potential lead to catastrophic failure of the units. By requiring dewatering, 

capping and closure of CCR units prior to construction of the overlying CCR landfill, EPA has 

concluded the provisions in this rule will make a CCR overfill less susceptible to slip-plane 

failure.failures. 

E. Design Criteria - Structural Integrity

Under the design criteria requirements, EPA proposed to establish structural stability 

standards for existing and new CCR surface impoundments and lateral expansions of these units 

based on a combination of existing Federal programs and requirements applicable to dam safety. 

The proposed rule was largely based on the requirements promulgated for coal slurry 

impoundments regulated by the MSHA at 30 CFR 77.216. (See 75 FR 35176.) EPA also 

developed aspects of the proposal based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and 

FEMA Corps of Engineersf the

Consistent with the MSHA requirements, EPA proposed that existing and new CCR 

surface impoundments that could impound CCR to an elevation of five feet or more above the 

upstream toe of the structure and have a storage volume of 20 acre feet or more;, or that impound 

CCRsCCR to an elevation of 20 feet or more above the upstream toe of the structure would be 

required to provide detailed information on the history of construction of the existing CCR 

surface impoundment, as may be available, or alternatively, and to meet certain performance 

standards. Specifically, facilities would need to (1) develop plans for new CCR surface 

impoundments, information addressing the design, construction, and maintenance of the new 

existing impoundments, (2) conduct periodic inspections by trained personnel knowledgeable in 

impoundment design and safety, and (3) provide an annual certification by an independent 

registered professional engineer that all construction, operation, and maintenance of 

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

293

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

impoundments is in accordance with the approved plan. 

EPA also proposed to require the facility to obtain certification from a professional 

engineer that the “design of the CCR surface impoundment is in accordance with current, 

prudent engineering practices for the maximum volume of CCR slurry and CCR waste water 

which can be impounded therein and for the passage of runoff from the design storm which 

exceeds the capacity of the CCR surface impoundment. To support this performance standard, 

EPA proposed to require the facility to conduct specific analyses, and to provide information on 

critical structures. This includes the proposed requirements to compute the minimum factor of 

safety for slope stability of the retaining structures of the unit. Specifically, owners or operators 

would be required, including the methods and calculations used to determine each factor of 

safety, and to provide information on the location of the unit, purpose of the unit, the watershed 

affecting the unit, a description of the physical and engineering properties of the foundation 

materials and construction materials of the unit, scaled drawings of the unit, showing, among 

other things, all zones,foundations of the CCR surface impoundment, any foundation 

improvements, drainage provisions, spillways, diversion ditches, outlet instrument locations and 

slope protections, and area capacity curves. 

EPA proposed to require more extensive information from new CCR surface 

impoundments addressing the design, construction, and maintenance of the new CCR unit, 

recognizing that such information may not be available for existing units. 80 In addition, EPA 

 

80 In the proposed rule under proposed § 257.71 – Design criteria for existing CCR surface 

impoundments, the Agency only required the hazard potential classification for which the facility is 

designed and a detailed explanation of the basis for the classification (§ 257.71(d)(1)) “as may be 

available” (§ 257.71(d)). Similarly the computed minimum factor of safety for slope stability of the CCR 

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

294

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

proposed to require existing and new CCR surface impoundments of a specified size to calculate 

and report: (1) the hazard potential classification of the unit. . Finally, and (2) the computed 

minimum factor of safety for slope stability of the retaining structures of the unit.81 EPA also

proposed that any CCR surface impoundments classified as having a high or significant hazard 

potential, as certified by an independent registered professional engineer, be required to develop 

and maintain an Emergency Action Plan defining the responsible persons and actions to be taken 

in the event of a dam safety emergency. 

The Agency solicited comment on a number of issues relating to the proposed structural 

stability requirements. In particular, the Agency solicited comment on the scope of these 

requirements and whether they should apply to all CCR surface impoundments regardless of 

height and/or storage volume or whether EPA should adopt, as proposed and consistent with the 

MSHA requirements, the size cut-off described in the proposed rule,; i.e., impounding 

CCRsCCR to an elevation of five feet or more above the upstream toe of the structure and have a 

storage volume of 20 acre feet or more;, or impounding CCR to an elevation of 20 feet or more 

above the upstream toe of the structure.

EPA also solicited comment on several alternative regulatory strategies for regulating the 

structural stability of CCR surface impoundments in lieu of regulation under RCRA subtitle D. 

The first alternative strategy suggested in the proposal involved using NPDES permits rather 

 

retaining structure(s) and the analyses used in the determination (§ 257.71(d)(11) “as may be available” (§ 

257.71(d)). 

81 In the proposed rule under proposed § 257.71 – Design criteria for existing CCR surface 

impoundments, the Agency only required the hazard potential classification for which the facility is 

designed and a detailed explanation of the basis for the classification (§ 257.71(d)(1)) “as may be 

available” (§ 257.71(d)). Similarly the computed minimum factor of safety for slope stability of the CCR 

retaining structure(s) and the analyses used in the determination (§ 257.71(d)(11) “as may be available” (§ 

257.71(d)). 

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

295

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

than RCRA regulations to address dam safety and structural integrity. The second strategy 

would eliminate the structural integrity requirements from the RCRA subtitle D rule and, instead, 

have EPA establish and fund a program for conducting annual (or at some other frequency) 

structural stability assessments of CCR surface impoundments having a the RCRA subtitle D nt” 

hazard potential rating as defined by criteria developed by the USACE for the National Inventory 

of Dams.NID. EPA would conduct these assessments and, using appropriate enforcement

authorities already available under RCRA, CERCLA, and/or the Clean Water Act, would require 

facilities to respond to issues identified with their CCR surface impoundments. The rationale 

behind this suggested approach would bewas that annual inspections would be far more cost 

effective than the phase-out of CCR surface impoundmentsto respond to issues identified with 

theiannual assessments versus , as compared to the $876 million annually for the phase-annual 

cost of a rule that also phased out of CCR surface impoundments.. EPA also solicited comments 

on this approach and itsthe effectiveness of this approach in ensuring the structural integrity of 

CCR surface impoundments. (See for example: 75 FR at 35176, 35223.)

On October 21, 2010, EPA published a Notice announcing that EPA intended to consider 

the information that had been developed through the Agency’s Impoundment Assessment 

Program as part of the CCR rulemaking. The Notice described the Impoundment Assessment 

Program, and solicited comment on “the extent to which both the CCR surface impoundment 

information collection request responses and assessment materials on the structural integrity of 

these impoundments should be factored into EPA's final rule on the Disposal of Coal 

Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities.” (See 75 FR 35128.) This included the responses 

to information requests that EPA originally sent to electric utilities, as well as reports and 

materials related to the site assessments developed through the Impoundment Assessment 

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Not Italic, (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman, Pattern:

Clear (White)
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

296

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Program. At that time, EPA had completed the assessments and the final reports for 53 units. On 

August 2, 2013, EPA published another Notice soliciting public comment on the additional 

assessments that had been completed since the 2010 NODA. In all, this included draft and final 

reports for a total of 522 units and 209 facilities. EPA again solicited comment on the extent to 

which this information should be taken into account as part of this rulemaking. 

EPA received numerous comments on the proposed structural stability requirements. 

Many of these fell within two general areas: (1) EPA’s approach of establishing the structural 

stability requirements, along with EPA’s proposed reliance on MSHA’s size thresholds to 

determine the applicability for the majority supportingof structural stability requirements; and (2) 

the level of detail laid out in the technical criteria themselves. 

With respect to the overall regulatory approach, the majority supported both the concept 

of structural stability requirements for existing and new CCR surface impoundments, and the 

adoption of the MSHA size threshold for complying with the majority of the structural stability 

requirements. EPA received comments from a number of state entities (the Association of State 

Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste 

Management Officials (ASTSWMO)) suggesting that EPA incorporate federal dam safety 

guidelines rather than rely solely on MSHA’s dam safety guidelines. Commenters were concern 

that the MSHA regulations “only exist to protect miners on mine property, and not the 

downstream public.” They urged that any EPA regulation also include consideration of hazards 

to the downstream public. These commenters also requested that EPA “incorporate specific 

safety standards consistent with the Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety,” referencing standards 

contained in FEMA documents 93, 333, 64, 94 and 65. 

Little support was expressed for the alternative strategies presented in the proposal for 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

297

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

addressing structural stability outside of the RCRA subtitle D proposal.

. Some comments were received suggesting alternative regulatory strategiesadditional 

alternatives. One commenter suggested that EPA consider limiting the volume of “primary 

containment ponds” to 10 acre-feet, reasoning that this provision would likely eliminate much of 

the concern regarding catastrophic failures, like TVA, and actually reduce the amount of slurry 

released in the event of a structural failure. Other commenters argued that EPA should limit the 

structural requirements to CCR surface impoundments both meeting both the proposed size 

threshold and having a hazard potential classification of "high" or "significant" hazard potential 

rating based on FEMA’s criteria for dam safety.82 Commenters argued that a failure of a CCR 

surface impoundment with a “low hazard potential classification” posed only a low risk for onsite economic or environmental losses and would avoid the imposition of costly, arbitrary and 

unnecessary regulatory burdens on the owner or operator. In addition, commenters contended 

that this regulatory approach would be consistent with many state dam regulatory programs that 

apply dam integrity standards only to “high” or “significant” potential hazard facilities and 

would promote consistency with existing state controls.83 Several commenters also suggested 

that EPA consider adding regulatory language or preamble discussion to assist owners or 

operators of CCR surface impoundments in interpreting the specific technical requirements in the 

 

82 See: Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard Potential Classification for Dams, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (“FEMA”) (reprinted January 2004). Under the FEMA dam safety classification 

system, a “low hazard potential classification” means that failure or mis-operation of the impoundment 

“results in no probable loss of human life and low economic and/or environmental losses. Losses are 

principally limited to owner’s property.”

83 See e.g., New Mexico Rules and Regulations Governing Dam Design, Construction and Dam Safety 

(e.g., requiring dam site security, an instrumentation plan for monitoring and evaluating dam 

performance, and an operation and maintenance manual and emergency action plan only for dams with a 

high or significant hazard potential); see also NMAC §§ 19.25.12.11(G)-(J).

Formatted: Pattern: Clear (White)

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

298

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

regulation. 

EPA disagrees with the comment suggestingsuggestion that the Agency finalize a 

mandatory size limitation for operating CCR surface impoundments. While the Agency does 

agree that limiting the volume of CCR surface impoundments to ten acre-feet would limit the 

volume of CCR released in the event of a structural failure, limiting the size of CCR surface 

impoundments to 10 acre-feet may not always be practicable; nor does EPA believe that such a 

restriction is truly necessary to ensure that the section 4004(a) standard will be met. Many CCR 

surface impoundments are much larger than ten acre-feet and have been operating for many 

years without a structural failure. While EPA acknowledges that this fact in no way guarantees 

that a failure will not occur, the Agency is convinced that the implementation of all of the 

combined regulatory requirements in this rule (e.g., location criteria, structural integrity, inflow 

design flood controls and inspection requirements) provides the necessary safeguards that will 

ensure that those CCR surface impoundments with a potential for structural failure are designed, 

constructed, operated, and maintained to minimize the risks associated with a catastrophic 

release of impounded CCR due to structural failure. While the Agency appreciates limiting the 

size of CCR surface impoundments will reduce risks because there will be a lower volume of 

waste in the unit, the Agency is not convinced that such a prescriptive restriction is necessary, as 

the other more flexible performance standards in this rule will adequately mitigate the risk of 

structural failure. Nor is EPA convinced that, in practice, such a requirement would 

meaningfully reduce the risks at many facilities. EPA expects that such a restriction would only 

cause facilities to construct either several small units or a multi-unit system. Failure of one unit 

can lead to progressive failure of other units in the system, and thus, ultimately this may not 

reduce the total volume of waste that could be released into the environment. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

299

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

EPA also disagrees that structural stability requirements should only apply to “high” or 

“significant” potential hazard facilities. Similarly, EPA disagrees with commenters that the 

structural integrity requirements of the rule should only be applicable apply to owners or 

operators of CCR surface impoundments that both meet the specified size criteria and have either 

a high hazard or significant hazard potential classification. Even for CCR units with a low 

hazard potential classification, EPA is still concerned with the risk to human health and the 

environment from any structural failure of a CCR unit. As discussed previously in Unit VI.C.,

the environmental effects of the failure of even a low hazard potential impoundment can still be 

significant, given the size of these units, the nature of the material in the unit, and the potential 

volume of material volumes that could be released. Contamination of surface waters and 

groundwater resources is still a significant threat when CCR units of this size fail, irrespective of 

theirthe lower likelihood that a release will affect human health, as reflected in the low hazard 

potential classification. 

FurthermoreConsequently, one focus of this rule is preventing any release, catastrophic or 

otherwise, of CCR to the environment. While the Agency agrees that a hazard potential 

classification can be a reasonable method for assessing the potential impacts from a dam or CCR 

failure or mis-operation, it only marginally addresses the Agency’s concerns regarding the 

potential contamination of both surface and groundwater resulting from a release from a CCR 

unit., and limiting all structural stability requirements commenters suggested would be 

inconsistent with this goal. 

The Agency agrees that the final regulation should incorporate provisions that address the 

hazards to the downstream public. Accordingly, the final rule incorporates a number of 

provisions consistent with the FEMA Guidelines, including a requirement that owners and 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

300

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

operators know each CCR unit’s hazard potential classification, as this is part of owners and 

operators’ responsibility to actively ensure the integrity of their CCR unit(s) and that their 

operations do not endanger human health or the environment. EPA also agrees that the 

requirements should be differentiated based on the potential severity of the consequence posed 

by the unit’s failure, and therefore the hazard potential can be relevant in determining the 

stringency of particular requirements. However, the hazard potential is, at best, only an indicator 

of the potential damage that may be incurred from the structural failure of the unit, and so EPA 

has generally not relied on hazard potential as the sole basis for determining the structural 

integrity requirements that are necessary for a CCR unit.84 Although the hazard potential 

classification can serve as a proxy for the amount of water and CCR that could potentially be 

released to the environment in the event of a CCR surface impoundment failure, the amount of 

water and CCR potentially released is more directly correlated to the actual height and storage 

volume of the CCR surface impoundment. While the Agency agrees that it is essential that

owners or operators of a CCR surface impoundment have knowledge of the CCR unit(s) hazard 

potential classification, it is only an indicator of the potential damage that may be incurred from 

the structural failure of the unit and should not be the basis for determining whether structural 

integrity requirements should apply to a particular unit.

EPA firmly believes that the owners and operators of all CCR unit(s) must actively 

ensure the integrity of their CCR unit(s) so as to minimize the potential for release of CCR to the 

environment through structural failure. It is widely recognized that a hazard potential 

 

84 For example, EPA relied on hazard potential to trigger the requirement for an Emergency Action Plan, which will 

identify the actions necessary to minimize damage to life and property. As damage to life and property are the 

factors directly addressed in hazard potential classification, reliance on the classification is an appropriate 

determinant for this requirement. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

301

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

classificationIn addition, it is widely recognized that the hazard potential classification of an 

individual unit can often fail to encompass the overall magnitude of a release on human health 

and the environment. The Agency notes that CCR surface impoundments can frequently be part 

of a facility’s runoff system that is responsible for routing surface waters to a drainage basin or 

watershed. TheAs previously discussed, the failure of a CCR unit that is part of such a system 

has the potential to inundate downstream surface water units and water bodies, resulting in 

progressive failures of other units, including other CCR surface impoundments at the facility, 

which in turn can have a much greater environmental impact than the failure of just the one unit 

for which a hazard potential classification was made. EPA has concluded that usingUsing a 

“height and/or volume” threshold for determiningto determine the applicability of the structural 

integrity criteria provides an increased level of scrutiny forensures that CCR units with the 

potential to cause these progressive failures in downstream surface water management units. are 

appropriately overseen and regulated. CCR surface impoundments exceeding a specified height 

and/or capacity threshold also pose a higher degree of risk of release of CCRsCCR to the 

environment than other types of CCR surface impoundments (e.g., incised or “small” CCR units) 

and). For all of these reasons, the size of the CCR unit, rather than the hazard potential 

classification, is the best indicator of potential severity of release of CCR to the environment and 

should therefore be the measure fromprimary basis on which structural integrity criteria are 

applied. As such, EPA is promulgating, as proposed, a regulatory strategy that at its foundation 

usesestablishes some requirements for all CCR surface impoundments, but relies primarily on

size as the basis for establishingdetermining the majority of the specific technical criteria for 

minimizing risk from structural failure.

1. Structural Integrity Requirements Applicable to All CCR Surface Impoundments
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

302

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Regarding the second major issue presented in the comments, as noted previously, EPA 

received comments requesting the Agency to provide either more specific regulatory language or 

further guidance in the preamble, so that parties could certify that the CCR surface impoundment 

met the rule’s overall performance standard. Commenters contended that guidance would be 

particularly critical if EPA did not establish more specific technical criteria, as owners or 

operators will be vulnerable to lawsuits for non-compliance. In addition, state officials requested 

that EPA adopt more specific standards consistent with those adopted under FEMA’s Federal 

Guidelines for Dam Safety. As discussed throughout this section in more detail, EPA has 

adopted clarifications to the regulation, particularly in the sections on structural stability and 

safety factors, to more precisely lay out the specific technical standards that are considered to be 

the “generally accepted and recognized good engineering practices” that must be met. EPA 

relied extensively on existing MSHA requirements, FEMA’s Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, 

and guidance issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as they were applied throughout 

EPA’s CCR Impoundment Assessment Program, to supplement the technical detail originally 

contained in the proposed rule. EPA has also modified the criteria, where necessary, so they 

better reflect the information and experience developed through the Impoundment Assessment 

Program, e.g., the engineering criteria used to evaluate the CCR surface impoundments and to 

make recommendations to improve the structural stability of the units. 

In this rule, the Agency is finalizing structural integrity criteria to ensure that CCR 

surface impoundments are designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in a manner that 

ensures the structural integrity of the CCR surface impoundment throughout its active life (i.e., 

through closure of the CCR unit), detects actual or potential releases of CCRsCCR as early as 

practicable, and prevents catastrophic failures. EPA is finalizing different structural integrity 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

303

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Many of the requirements depending on whether the CCR surface impoundment or lateral 

expansion exceeds a certain size threshold. The rulemaking record clearly demonstrates that 

these larger CCR surface impoundments present a greater risk of catastrophic failure and require 

a more robust set of have been adopted without revision from the proposed rule for some 

requirements, however, as noted EPA has provided additional language to clarify the final 

regulation. These clarifications have been made in response to comments urging EPA to finalize 

regulatory requirements that were more precise or sufficiently objective (i.e., a specific standard 

of performance) to allow a qualified professional engineer to reasonably certify that the 

requirements of the rule have been met. to ensure their continue structural integrity.These 

specific regulatory clarifications are discussed throughout this section. 

A further change is that the final rule requires facilities to periodically reassess several 

elements of the structural integrity performance standards (i.e., re-assess every five years). 

Finally, in contrast to the programs established by MSHA and FEMA, the final rule establishes 

certain minimum requirements for all CCR surface impoundments. This is based on the fact 

that, unlike the dams regulated under other federal programs, the material in all CCR units is 

harmful, so even small releases can present environmental and human health concerns. But the 

majority of the structural integrity requirements vary depending on whether the CCR surface 

impoundment or lateral expansion exceeds particular size thresholds. The rulemaking record 

clearly demonstrates that these larger CCR surface impoundments present a greater risk of 

catastrophic failure, and therefore require a more robust set of regulatory requirements to ensure 

their continue structural integrity. This is consistent with the approach.

These modifications are being made to better reflect the protections necessary to ensure 

that: (1) structural integrity is maintained throughout the operational life of a CCR unit; and (2) 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

304

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

the risk of catastrophic failure is minimized. The changes being made in this rule have been 

directly influenced by comments received, the observations and the conclusions drawn from 

EPA’s Assessment Program, and the recommendations made by both MSHA and FEMA 

regarding dam safety. They are also generally consistent with the regulatory requirements of 

many other state and other federal agencies regulating dam safety.

1. Overview of Technical Criteria

Owners or operators of all existing and new CCR surface impoundments and any lateral 

expansion of these CCR units are required to: (1) place a permanent identification marker on or 

immediately adjacent to the CCR units with the name associated with the CCR unit and the name 

of the owner or operator of the CCR unit; (2) conduct an initial hazard potential assessment to 

determine the current hazard potential classification of the CCR unit; (3) conduct periodic (i.e., 

every five years) hazard potential re-assessments; (4) develop an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) 

if the hazard potential classification of the CCR unit is classified as either a high- or significant 

hazard potential; and (5) maintain the CCR unit with vegetated slopes or other forms of slope 

protection.

Owners or operators of CCR surface impoundments that either have a height of five feet 

or more and a storage volume of 20 acre feet or more;, or a height of 20 feet or more are required 

to addresscomply with the following additional structural integrity criteria: (1) document the 

design and construction of the CCR surface impoundment; (2) conduct an initial structural 

stability assessment; (3) conduct an initial safety factor assessment; and (4) conduct periodic (not 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

305

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

to exceed five years) structural stability and safety factor assessments.85 Owners and operators of 

CCR units that fail to make the safety factor assessment or fail to meet the factors of safety 

specified in the rule must stop placing CCR in the unit and initiate closure. 

The Agency is promulgating, as proposed, many of the requirements specified within the 

structural integrity criteria. For some requirements, however, EPA is providing additional 

clarifying regulatory language. These clarifications have been made in response to comments 

received on the proposed rule urging EPA to finalize regulatory requirements that were 

reasonablyThe structural integrity requirements of the final rule require the compilation of 

construction history of the CCR surface impoundment within one year of the effective date of the 

rule. 

Within two months of the effective date of the rule, the Structural Integrity requirements 

(§257.73) state that the owner or operator must install a permanent marker on the CCR surface

impoundment. This timeframe is being promulgated as proposed, as EPA did not receive 

comments on the timeframe for installation of a permanent marker. 

2. Structural Integrity Requirements Applicable to All CCR Surface Impoundments.

precise or sufficiently objective (i.e., a specific standard of performance) to allow a 

qualified professional engineer to reasonably certify that the requirements of the rule have been 

met. As such, EPA is adding clarifying regulatory language, particularly in the sections on 

structural stability and safety factors, to more precisely lay out the specific technical standards 

that must be met. EPA has relied extensively on existing MSHA requirements, FEMA dam 

 

85

 Height means the vertical measurement from the downstream toe of the CCR surface impoundment at 

its lowest point to the lowest elevation of the crest of the CCR surface impoundment.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

306

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

safety guidance, and guidance issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to supplement the 

technical detail originally contained in the proposed rule. These specific regulatory clarifications 

are discussed in proceeding sections. 

In addition, several elements of the structural integrity criteria are being modified to 

require periodic re-assessments of specific standards of performance (i.e., re-assess every five 

years). These modifications are being made to better reflect the Agency’s current thinking on the 

protections necessary to ensure that: (1) structural integrity is maintained throughout the 

operational life of a CCR unit; and (2) the risk of catastrophic failure is minimized. The changes 

being made in this rule have been directly influenced by comments received, the observations 

and the conclusions drawn from EPA’s Assessment Program, and recommendations made by 

both MSHA and FEMA regarding dam safety. They are also consistent with the regulatory 

requirements of many other state and other federal agencies regulating dam safety. 

a. Hazard Potential Classification Assessments 

A hazard potential classification provides an indication of the potential for danger to life, 

development, or the environment in the event of a release of CCR from a surface impoundment. 

In this rule, an owner or operator of any existing or new CCR surface impoundment or any 

lateral expansion of a CCR surface impoundment must determine which of the following hazard 

potential classifications characterizes their particular CCR unit.86 These classifications are: a 

 

86 Incised CCR surface impoundments are not required to perform a hazard potential 

classification assessment because hazard potential classifications are based on the failure of a dam, diked 

surface impoundment, or other water-retaining structure and the adverse incremental impacts that may 

result from the failure. Because incised CCR surface impoundments, as defined in this rule, do not have a 

diked portion which may fail, the incised CCR surface impoundment cannot have a hazard potential 

classification. Today’s final rule covers CCR surface impoundment failures and releases due to other 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

307

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

high hazard potential CCR surface impoundment, a significant hazard potential CCR surface 

impoundment; and a low hazard potential CCR surface impoundment and are defined as follows:

 High hazard potential CCR surface impoundment means a diked surface impoundment 

where failure or mis-operation will probably cause loss of human life.

 Significant hazard potential CCR surface impoundment means a diked surface 

impoundment where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of human life, 

but can cause economic loss, environmental damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or 

impact other concerns is unlikely to result in a loss of life, but can cause undue harm to 

the environment, cause economic loss, or disrupt lifeline facilities..

 Low hazard potential CCR surface impoundment means a diked surface impoundment 

where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of life and low economic and/or 

environmental losses. Losses are principally limited to the surface impoundment’s 

owner’s property.

Owners and operators of all CCR surface impoundments must determine each unit’s 

hazard potential classification through a hazard potential classification assessment. Hazard 

potential classification assessments must be certified by a qualified professional engineer and 

documentation must be provided that supports the basis for the current hazard potential rating. 

An initial hazard potential assessment must be conducted within one year of the effective date of 

the rule for existing units and prior to the initial receipt of CCR in the unit for new units or lateral 

 

potential failure modes (i.e., which do not pose an immediate catastrophic threat to human health or the 

environment,), such as a release through the liner of the unit or through failure of underlying structures, in 

the location restrictions, design criteria, and operating criteria of the rule.

Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" +

Indent at: 0.5"

Formatted: Widow/Orphan control, Adjust space

between Latin and Asian text, Adjust space between

Asian text and numbers

Formatted: Normal
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

308

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

expansions. Hazard potential classifications, structural stability assessments, and safety factor 

assessments require significant planning and coordination, such as detailed site-work and 

investigations, modeling and analysis, design and construction planning and implementation, and 

post-construction investigation. Many of these efforts take several months to complete, 

compounded by the fact that much of the work cannot be completed in cold-weather or heavyrain seasons.

As commenters noted, it is imperative that the owner or operator maintain a current 

assessment of a unit’s hazard potential classification, rather than develop a single one-time 

classification “for which the facility was designed.” (See proposed § 257.71(d)(10).) Moreover, 

the requirement for a current hazard potential rating is consistent with FEMA 

recommendationsrecommends that the frequency of review of a unit’s hazard potential 

classification should not exceedbe reviewed no less frequently than every five years in order to 

take into account changes in the factors that are the basis for which a hazard potential 

classification is made (e.g., changed reservoir or downstream development).87 Based on this 

information, EPA determined that a periodic reassessment of a CCR surface impoundment’s 

hazard potential classification is a necessary component in maintaining the accuracy of the unit’s 

hazard potential classification, as well as the overall safety of the unit. Consequently, EPA is

adopting a provision requiring the owner or operator of a CCR surface impoundment to reassess 

the hazard potential classifications of their CCR unit and to have that classification, certified by a 

 

87 See: Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Hazard Potential Classification for Dams, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (“FEMA”) (reprinted January 2004). Under the FEMA dam safety classification 

system, a “low hazard potential classification” means that failure or mis-operation of the impoundment 

“results in no probable loss of human life and low economic and/or environmental losses. Losses are 

principally limited to owner’s property.”

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

309

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

qualified professional engineer, at least every five years. 

EPA has continued to rely on FEMA requirements to serve as the basis for general CCR 

surface impoundment safety requirements, e.g., inflow design flood selection, inspection criteria, 

earthquake analyses and design, developed for CCR surface impoundments for several reasons: 

(1) structural failure risks for CCR surface impoundments are similar to the risks from the larger 

dam universe for which FEMA intends its guidance; and (2) risks to downstream development 

from CCR surface impoundment failures are equal or similar to those presented by other types of 

dams’ failures.

In this rule, hazard potential classifications define the consequences in the event of a 

failure of a CCR surface impoundment. The classification is separate from the structural 

stability of a CCR unit or the likelihood of the impoundment failing. A surface impoundment 

that meets or exceeds all of the structural stability criteria and safety factors of today’s rule 

would still be classified as “high hazard potential” if, in the event of failure, loss of life would be 

likely to occur. The Agency feels that the determination of theThe hazard potential classification 

of the CCR surface impoundments is an essential element in the overalldetermining how to 

properly design, construction, operation, maintenanceconstruct, operate, and safety of 

themaintain a CCR surface impoundment. As such, the Agency feels thatfinal rule bases the 

stringency of some technical requirements should be based, in part, on the potential for adverse 

impacts in the failure of the CCR unit, as quantified by the hazard potential classification of 

today’s rule. For exampleSpecifically, the requirements become more stringent as the potential 

for loss of life and/or property damage increases. This is reflected in both the criteria established 

under the structural stability assessments,,--.e.g., where the combined capacity of all spillways 

must adequately manage flow during and following peak discharge from the specified inflow 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

310

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

design flood with respect tobased on the hazard potential classification of the unit --and in the 

inflow design floodhydrologic and hydraulic capacity requirements, which are similarly 

specified perbased on the hazard potential classification of the CCR unit (see §§ 

257.73(d)(2)(v); 257.74 (d)(2)(v) and 257.82 respectively).88 Additionally, high and significant 

hazard potential CCR surface impoundments must develop a written Emergency Action Plan 

which establishes emergency action procedures in the event of a previously defined emergency.

b. Emergency Action Plan

An Emergency Action Plan (EAP) is a document that identifies potential emergency 

conditions at a CCR surface impoundment and specifies actions to be followed to minimize loss 

of life and property damage. Typically an EAP includes: (1) actions the owner or operator will

take to moderate or alleviate a problem at the CCR unit; (2) actions the owner or operator will 

take, in coordination with emergency management authorities, to respond to incidents or 

emergencies related to the CCR surface impoundment; (3) procedures owner or operators will 

follow to issue early warning and notification message to responsible downstream emergency 

management authorities; (4) inundation maps to allow owners and operators of the CCR unit and 

emergency management authorities to identify critical infrastructure and population-at-risk sites 

that may require protective measures, warning and evacuation planning; and (5) delineation of 

the responsibilities of all those involved in managing an incident or emergency and how the 

responsibilities should be coordinated and implemented.89 As FEMA guidance suggests, and 

 

88 A high-hazard potential impoundment, for example, must be designed with sufficient spillway capacity 

to manage flow from the probable maximum flood. , whereas a low hazard potential unit need only 

account for a 100 year flood.

89 See: “Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Emergency Action Planning for Dams,” FEMA 64/July 

2013.A
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

311

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

EPA reiterates here, the level of detail in the EAP should be commensurate with the potential 

impact of a surface impoundment failure or other operational incident (e.g., its hazard potential 

classification). A surface impoundment with low potential hazard impact should not require an 

extensive evaluation or be subject to an extensive planning process, while high-hazard and 

significant hazard surface impoundments would typically require a much larger emergency 

planning effort. In addition, high hazard and significant hazard surface impoundments tend to 

involve more entities that must coordinate responsibilities and greater efforts would generally be 

necessary to effectively respond to an incident with such a surface impoundment than to a 

similar incident involving a low-hazard surface impoundment. As such, every EAP must be 

tailored to specific site conditions.

EPA is promulgating, as proposed, a provision that requires any CCR surface 

impoundment that is determined by the owner or operator, through the certification by a 

qualified professional engineer, to be either a high- hazard potential CCR surface impoundment 

or a significant- hazard potential CCR surface impoundment to prepare and maintain a written 

EAP. While EPA agrees that the level of detail contained in an EAP should be commensurate 

with its hazard potential rating, EPA has concluded that at a minimum, the EAP must: (1) define 

responsible persons and the actions to be taken in the event of a CCR surface impoundmentsafety emergency; (2) provide contact information for emergency responders, including a map 

which delineates the downstream area which would be affected in the event of a failure and a 

physical description of the CCR surface impoundment; (3) include provisions for an annual faceto-face meeting or exercise between representatives of the owner or operator of the CCR unit and 

the local emergency responders; and (4) define conditions that initiate implementation of the 

EAP and define emergency response actions which must be implemented upon the detection of 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

312

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

these conditions, including all persons responsible for the implementation of the emergency 

response actions. The first three of these four requirements were proposed as part of the EAP 

and are being promulgated without revision. The fourth requirement, which requires facilities to 

explicitly define the conditions by which the EAP is activated, was inadvertently omitted from 

the proposal, and is being added to the final rule to ensure that the EAP includes at least the basic 

requirements necessary to function effectively.

The owner or operator shouldmust amend the written EAP whenever there is a change in 

conditions that would substantially affect the written EAP in effect, e.g., change in personnel, 

change in emergency responder contact information, a change in the CCR surface 

impoundments’ designation from a significant-hazard potential classification to a high-hazard 

potential classification, or the vertical expansion of the CCR unit (i.e., increase in the amount of 

CCR that potentially could be released.) Consistent with the requirements for hazard potential 

classification reassessments, the Agency is requiring, at a minimum that the EAP be reassessed 

at least every five years. If an owner or operator determines that, as part of it periodic hazard 

potential re-assessment that the unit no longer is classified as a high-hazard or a significanthazard potential classification, but is now classified as a low hazard potential CCR surface 

impoundment, then the owner or operator of the CCR unit is no longer subject to the requirement 

to prepare and maintain an EAP, effective when such documentation is placed into the facility’s 

operating record. If, however, during the reassessment effort it is determined that an existing 

CCR unit classified as a low hazard potential has been re-classified as either a significant-hazard 

or high-hazard potential, then the owner or operation must prepare an EAP for the CCR unit 

within six months of completing such a periodic hazard potential re-assessment. 

Although the owner or operator is responsible for developing and maintaining the EAP, 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

313

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

which must be certified by a qualified professional engineer, the plan should be developed and 

implemented in close coordination with all applicable emergency management authorities, 

including the appropriate local, state, and federal authorities. Generally, these coordination 

efforts, along with the EAP, provide emergency management authorities with the necessary 

information to facilitate the implementation of their responsibilities, and so, it is vital that the 

development of the EAP be coordinated with emergency responders and other entities, agencies, 

and jurisdictions, as appropriate. After the initial EAP has been developed and placed in the 

operating record and on the owner or operator’s readily accessible internet site, it should be 

periodically reviewed and updated on a regular basis, as it can become outdated and ineffective. 

While the Agency is only requiring the EAP to be re-assessed every five years, it is 

recommended that the EAP be reviewed at least annually for appropriateness, accuracy, and 

adequacy so as to remain current. EPA recommends that the EAP be promptly updated to 

address changes in personnel, contact information and/or significant changes to the facility or 

emergency procedures. Even if no revisions are necessary, the review should be documented. 

The initial EAP must be prepared within 18 months from the effective date of the rule, In 

order to prepare an EAP, the owner or operator must accurately and comprehensively identify 

potential failure modes and at-risk development, and therefore completion of the emergency 

action plan needs to follow the completion of the initial hazard potential classification, structural 

stability assessment, and safety factor assessments, during which this information will be 

generated. 

c. Vegetated Slopes of Dikes and Surrounding Areas

EPA proposed to require both new and existing CCR surface impoundments that exceed 

the MSHA size thresholds to document the slope protection measures that have been adopted and 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

314

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

to compute the minimum factors of safety for slope stability, in order to support the certification 

from an independent professional engineer that the unit has been designed in accordance with 

“generally accepted engineering standards.” EPA is promulgating the requirement that all CCR 

surface impoundments have adequate slope protection because EPA determined through the 

Assessment Program that slope protection is an essential element in preventing slope erosion and 

subsequent deterioration of CCR unit slopes. EPA is requiring slope protection for all units, not 

just units exceeding the size threshold of the final rule, because EPA has identified that slope 

protection on CCR units is a generally accepted good practice which reduces the occurrence of 

erosion, degradation of surface waters due to run-off from the CCR unit, enhances slope 

stability, and that vegetated cover is an easily accomplished practice in the vast majority of 

climates where CCR surface impoundments are located. In conducting the Assessment Program, 

the protective cover of slopes of the CCR surface impoundment was determined to be relevant to 

the overall condition rating of all units, irrespective of size. This is consistent with FEMA 

guidance, which also lays out specifications for the ideal vegetative cover for a dam. EPA has 

adopted this requirement to be consistent with its findings from the Assessment Program, and in 

response to comments, has elaborated on the slope protection measures necessary to achieve the 

factors of safety. The final rule provides performance standards drawn primarily from FEMA 

guidance, as applied during the Assessment Program.

All CCR surface impoundments are required to be designed, constructed, operated, and 

maintained with adequate slope coverprotection to protect against surface erosion at the site. 

Slope protection is necessary to ensure that dike or embankment erosion does not occur. 

Additionally, slope protection is required of all CCR surface impoundments to maintain the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

315

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

stability of the CCR surface impoundment slope under rapid drawdown events90 and low pool 

conditions of water bodies whichthat may abut the CCR surface impoundment and are outside 

the control of the owner or operator, e.g., a natural river which the slopes of the CCR surface 

impoundment run down to and abut. This rapid drawdown is not included in the rule’s factors of 

safety assessments. The protection against rapid drawdown requirement of this rule is concerned 

with the rapid drawdown of adjacent water bodies acting upon the downstream slope of the CCR 

surface impoundment rather than the rapid drawdown of the impounded reservoir of the CCR 

surface impoundment acting upon the upstream slope of the CCR surface impoundment.The 

slope protection can act as a stabilizer in the slope of the embankment during rapid drawdown 

events. Adequate slope protection can be achieved in most climates through simple vegetation, 

typically healthy, dense stand of low-growing grass, or other similar vegetative cover. In arid 

climates where the upkeep of vegetation is inhibited, alternate forms of slope protection, 

including rip-rap, or rock-armor is typically used. Additional slope protective measures are 

available and effective in certain circumstances, including but not limited to rock, wooden pile, 

or concrete revetments, vegetated wave berms, concrete facing, gabions, geotextiles, or fascines. 

The owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment must ensure that the slopes of 

the CCR surface impoundment are protected from erosion by appropriate engineering slope 

protection measures. It is recommended throughout the embankment technical literature that 

vegetative cover not be permitted to root too deeply, precipitating internal embankment issues. 

 

90 This rapid drawdown is not included in the rule’s factors of safety assessments. The protection against 

rapid drawdown requirement of this provision is concerned with the rapid drawdown of adjacent water 

bodies acting upon the downstream slope of the CCR surface impoundment rather than the rapid 

drawdown of the impounded reservoir of the CCR surface impoundment acting upon the upstream slope 

of the CCR surface impoundment. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

316

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The rule requires a vegetative cover limit to prevent the establishment of rooted vegetation, such 

as a tree, a bush, or a shrubbery, on the CCR surface impoundment slope. EPA has concluded 

that a vegetative cover of no more than six inches above the face of the embankment is adequate 

and is the uppermost limit for vegetative cover height for today’s final rule. In developing this 

requirement, EPA was strongly influenced by information contained in the FEMA document 

entitled, “Technical Manual for Dam Owners: Impacts of Plants on Earthen Dams”91 in 

determining an appropriate vegetative cover height for CCR surface impoundments. EPA 

believes that sixSix inches represents a vegetative height which prevents any trees, bushes, or 

shrubbery from rooting deeply enough to warrant additional removal measures outside of simple 

mowing. Furthermore, EPA feels that the height proscribedprescribed by today’sthe final rule 

represents a maximum height of vegetative cover so as to allow for adequate observation of the 

slope of the CCR unit during inspection. EPA feels that vegetativeVegetative cover in excess of 

the height limit of six inches above the slope of the dike would prevent the adequate observation 

of the slope of the CCR unit and detection of structural concerns such as animal burrows and 

minor sloughs, amongst others concerns. Consistent with FEMA guidance, as applied during the 

Assessment Program, other slope protection, such as rock armoring or vegetated berms, would 

also be considered adequate.92

2. Structural Integrity Criteria Applicable to CCR Surface Impoundments Exceeding a 

Specific Size Threshold. 

The structural integrity criteria discussed in this section of the preamble apply to existing 

and new CCR surface impoundments and any lateral expansion with: (1) a height of five feet or 

 

91 http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1446-20490-2338/fema-534.pdf

92 http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1446-20490-2338/fema-534.pdf

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line spacing: single
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

317

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

more and a storage volume of 20 acre-feet or more; or (2) a height of 20 feet or more; where. 

The rule defines “height” is defined as the vertical measurement from the downstream toe of the 

CCR surface impoundment at its lowest point to the lowest elevation of the crest of the CCR 

surface impoundment. The “downstream toe” is defined as the junction of the downstream slope 

or face of the CCR surface impoundment with the ground surface. Today’s final rule considers 

the lowest elevation of the crest of the CCR surface impoundment to be the maximum storage 

elevation of the reservoir or pool of the CCR unit, e.g., the invert of the lowest-elevation 

spillway. EPA is implementing this size threshold because it comports with thresholds 

established by other federal and state agencies regulating dam integrity and/or safety. 

Specifically, for the implementation of the size threshold of today’s final rule, EPA relied on the 

identical size parameters, i.e., height of five feet and capacity of 20 acre-feet, which is 

promulgated in MSHA coal slurry impoundment regulations in 30 CFR § 77.216.

In the proposed rule, EPA used the size cut-off promulgated by MSHA in their dam 

safety requirements for coal slurry impoundments at 30 CFR Part 77. In proposing this cut-off, 

EPA reasoned that the MSHA requirements affecting coal slurry impoundments were directly 

applicable and relevant to CCR surface impoundments and provided a size threshold that, when 

applied to the rule’s structural integrity criteria, would generally meet RCRA’s mandate to 

ensure protection of human health and the environment by minimizing the potential for 

catastrophic failure. Specifically, EPA proposed that surface impoundments: (1) impounding 

CCRsCCR to an elevation of five feet or more above the upstream toe of the structure and can 

have a storage volume of 20 acre-feet or more; or (2) impounding CCRsCCR to an elevation of 

20 feet or more above the upstream toe of the structure would be subject to the structural stability 

criteria. EPA also proposed to define upstream toe as the junction of the upstream slope of the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

318

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

dam with the ground surface, with the height of the CCR unit measured from the upstream toe or 

water-borne toe of the CCR unit. 

While little comment was received on adopting this size threshold or the accompanying 

definition of upstream toe, the Agency was concerned that the size threshold presented in the 

proposed rule was in need of revision because it did not reflect standard measuring protocols 

used by other federal agencies and the dam sector in determining the size of a dam or, in the case 

of today’s rule, surface impoundment. Of particular concern to the Agency was the fact that 

EPA’s own Assessment Program was measuring the height of a CCR unit from the downstream 

toe rather than the upstream toe, which was specified in the MSHA regulatory requirement and 

the subsequent CCR proposed rule. 

A review of MSHA, FEMA and the USACE regulations and guidance, as well as the 

guidance of several state agencies that oversee dam safety, revealed that dam or surface 

impoundment height wasis more appropriately measured from the downstream and not the 

upstream toe of the unit. EPA based this conclusion on the near-universal position of dam safety 

guidance that the downstream slope height of the dike is of primary concern in the design, 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the dam or surface impoundment. Virtually all of the 

dam safety regulations, including state and federal guidance and regulations, whichthat EPA 

reviewed and considered measured dam height to be taken from the downstream slope of the 

dike. Some of these guidance and regulations include FEMA “Federal Guidelines for Dam 

Safety,” U.S. Army Corps “National Inventory of Dams,” and MSHA Metal and Nonmetal 

Tailings and Water Impoundment Inspection requirements in 30 CFR § 56/57.20010.93 This 

 

93 http://www.msha.gov/regs/complian/PILS/2013/PIL13-IV-01.asp Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line spacing: single
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

319

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

information, coupled with the information on the methodology used in the Assessments Program, 

convinced the Agency that a revised description of the CCR surface impoundment size cutoff 

was necessary, specifically requiring the height of the CCR unit to be measured from the 

downstream toe. 

a. Design and Construction Information

The first element of the structural integrity criteria applicable to CCR units exceeding the 

specified size threshold requires the owner or operator to compile and place in the operating 

record design and construction information pertaining to the CCR unit. Among other things, this 

provision requires the following documentation to be provided by the owner or operator: (1) the 

name of the owner or operator of the unit; (2) the name of the unit; and (3) any identification 

number assigned by the state. In addition, it requires that the owner or operator identify: (5) the 

location of the CCR unit on a U.S. Geological Survey Map or a topographic map of equivalent 

scale; (6) provide dimensional drawings of the CCR unit with pertinent engineering structures 

and appurtenances identified; (7) describe the purpose of the CCR unit; and (8) identify the name 

and size of the watershed affecting the CCR unit, if any. Detailed information is also required 

documenting: (9) the design and construction of the unit including dates and descriptions of each 

zone or stage constructed; (10) instrumentation used to monitor the operation of the CCR unit, 

(11) spillway and diversion design descriptions and construction specifications; and (12) 

provisions for surveillance, maintenance and repair of the CCR unit. 

While these requirements apply to both existing and new CCR surface impoundments, 

existing CCR surface impoundments are required to compile this information/documentation 

only “to the extent available” and,” within one year of the effective date of the rule. Conversely, 

new CCR surface impoundments or any lateral expansion must compile all of the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

320

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

information/documentation listed prior to the initial receipt of CCR. For existing CCR surface 

impoundments, EPA acknowledges that much of the construction history of the surface 

impoundment maybe unknown or lost. EPA’s Assessment Program confirmed that many owners 

or operators of CCR units did not possess documentation on the construction history or operation 

of the CCR unit. Information regarding construction materials, expansions or contractions of 

units, operational history, and history of events was frequently difficult for the owners or 

operator to obtain. The Assessment Program also confirmed the Agency’s initial assumption that 

this information, in many instances, will be difficult to compile. Therefore, in today’s rule, EPA 

is using the phrase “to the extent available” and clarifying that the term requires the owner or 

operator to provide information on the history of construction only to the extent that such 

information is reasonably and readily available. EPA intends facilities to provide relevant design 

and construction information only if factual documentation exists. EPA does not expect owners 

or operators to generate new information or provide anecdotal or speculative information 

regarding the CCR surface impoundment’s design and construction history. 

There are several other requirements under the design and construction criteria requiring 

clarification. First, the Agency is amending the requirement that all dimensional drawings of the 

CCR unit (see § 257.73(b)(vii) and § 257.74(b)(vii)) use a uniform scale of one inch equals 100 

feet. After further consideration, EPA has deleted this requirement and has replaced the proposed 

scale of 1 inch equals 100 feet with the phrase “at a scale that details engineering structures and 

appurtenances relevant to the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the CCR unit.” 

EPA made this change in response to comments arguing that this level of detail was unnecessary. 

EPA agrees that, given the extremely large variety in the size of CCR units, a prescriptive scale 

for all drawings of all CCR units is not necessary in many cases; this level of detail would be 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

321

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

excessive for most units. The Agency is also clarifying, (see § 257.73(b)(2) and § 257.74(b)(2)) 

that if an owner or operator determines that a significant change has occurred in the 

information/documentation previously compiled under this provision, that the owner or operator 

must update the relevant information and place it in the operating record. 

b. Types of Assessments 

A second element of the structural integrity criteria is the requirement for specific 

technical assessments of the CCR unit. Consistent with the requirements outlined in the 

proposed rule, two technical assessments are required for all CCR units exceeding the specified 

size threshold.: (1) a structural stability assessment; and (2) a safety factor assessment. The 

owner or operator of an existing CCR surface impoundment is required to conduct an initial 

assessment addressing both structural stability and safety factors within one year of the effective 

date of the rule. New CCR surface impoundments or any lateral expansion of a CCR unit are 

required to complete the initial assessment prior to placing CCR into the unit. Following the 

initial assessments, EPA, in a departure from the proposed rule, is also requiring periodic reassessments of both a CCR surface impoundment’s structural stability and factors of safety. 

TheseEPA proposed to require an annual recertification, but in a departure from the proposed 

rule, EPA is only requiring these re-assessments mustto be conducted on a regular basis but, not 

to exceed once every five years. In making this regulatory change, the Agency has relied heavily 

on the dam safety guidance established by FEMA in the document entitledtitled, Federal 

Guidelines for Dam Safety that a formal inspection, including”...a review to determine if the 

structures (i.e., CCR surface impoundments) meet current accepted design criteria and 

practices...” be taken at an interval not to exceed five years. EPA has interpreted this guidance 

to be applicable to both the structural stability assessment and the safety factor assessment. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

322

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

A demonstration must be madecompleted within the assessment period of afor the

specific type of assessment. TheThis means that, within this time frame the owner or operator 

must demonstrate that the CCR unit meets all of the requirements of each type of assessment in 

today’s final rule, as certified by a qualified professional engineer. The It also means that the 

owner or operator must takehave taken all measures necessary to bring the unit into compliance 

with all of the requirements for assessments of today’s final rule within the assessment period. If 

the owner or operator cannot provide a demonstrationdemonstrate that the unit meets the 

requirements of thethese factors of safety assessment(or otherwise fails to comply with the 

structural stability requirements) within the appropriate time frame, the unit must initiate closure.

c. i. Periodic Structural Stability Assessments

In order to ensure the proper upkeep and operation of the CCR unit, the owner or 

operator must demonstrate that the CCR surface impoundment has been designed, constructed, 

operated and maintained to provide structural stability. Specifically, consistent with the proposal, 

the final rule requires the owner or operator to demonstrate that the design, construction, 

operation, and maintenance of the CCR surface impoundment is consistent with recognized and 

generally accepted good engineering practices for the maximum volume of CCR and water that 

can be impounded therein. As discussed previously, EPA has elaborated on this overall 

performance standard in response to comments from the engineers who would be required to 

make these certifications, urging EPA to specify more precisely the standards that must be met. 

Specifically the final rule focuses on the critical structural aspects of the CCR surface 

impoundment that EPA identified in the proposed rule, and identifies the minimum elements that 

a professional engineer must provide engineering details on or otherwise address. In certain 

cases, the final criteria identify specific engineering performance standards. EPA relied on 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

323

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

existing MSHA requirements, FEMA dam safety guidance, and guidance issued by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, as applied throughout EPA’s CCR Impoundment Assessment 

Program to develop these criteria. Consistent with the proposal, these demonstrations must be 

certified by a qualified professional engineer. Each of these criteria is discussed in more detail 

below.

In addition to requiringimplementing adequate slope protection against erosion, which is 

a structural stability requirement applicable to all CCR units, anthe owner or operator of a CCR 

surface impoundment exceeding the specified size threshold must demonstrate that all vertical 

and lateral expansions are constructed with stable foundations and abutments and sufficient 

geotechnical compaction of the embankments. the unit, including any vertical and lateral 

expansions, is constructed with “stable foundations and abutments.”In addition, a demonstration 

must be made that the CCR surface impoundment has been designed, constructed, operated, and 

maintained with inflow design flood controls and/or spillway capacity to manage peak discharge 

during and following inflow design floods. These demonstrations must be certified by a qualified 

professional engineer and are intended to provide engineering detail on critical structural aspects 

of the CCR surface impoundment. For example, as part of the structural stability assessment, the 

owner or operator must make a demonstration, certified by a qualified professional engineer, that 

the unit has been constructed with a “stable foundation and abutments.” A stable foundation is 

an essential element of surface impoundment construction and prevents differential settlement of 

the embankment which can result in adverse internal stresses with the embankment crosssection. Soils tend to consolidate when subjected to loadings for extended periods, which can 

lead to strain incompatibility, a phenomena which prevents the full development of peak strength 

of the foundation. The stability of foundations and abutments can be determined by engineering 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

324

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

monitoring, representative soil sampling, and modeling. Similarly, cohesion between the 

abutments of the CCR surface impoundment and the embankment of the CCR surface 

impoundment areis critical. Frequently, CCR surface impoundments are subject to cracking and 

excessive seepage and piping in the groins where the abutment and embankment meet. These 

adverse conditions may lead to further structural deficiencies which threaten the safety of the 

CCR surface impoundment. 

TheConsistent with general engineering construction methodologies, the structural 

stability assessment also requires the owner or operator to determine whether the CCR surface 

impoundment has been mechanically compacted. to a density sufficient to withstand the range of 

loading conditions in the CCR unit.94 Compaction of a dike or embankment is considered 

essential, as the compaction of soils leads to an increase in density. and subsequently strength.

Soil mechanics theory has established that the density of a soil corresponds to the moisture 

content and strength of the soil. The rule requires thatthe owner or operator make this 

determination for all dikes of existinga CCR surface impoundments be mechanically 

compacted.impoundment. 

The rule requiresEPA notes that all dikes of new CCR surface impoundments be 

mechanically compacted to one of three performance a number of existing voluntary consensus 

standards: (1) are available that can be useful in making this determination. For example, ASTM 

D 698 establishes a performance standard of 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density. 

Similarly, ASTM D 698; or (2)1557 establishes a standard of 90% of the maximum modified 

Proctor density, ASTM D 1557; or (3) 70% relative density if. Alternatively, in certain 

 

94 http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals/EM_1110-2-2300.pdf
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

325

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

instances, such as soils consisting of more than 30% material retained on the 3⁄4 in. sieve, Proctor 

testing is not appropriate. and the relative density criteria can be met. In such cases, EPA 

recommends a 70% relative density. These specific soil compaction criteria are ubiquitous 

throughout engineering construction as sufficient to support engineered works based on the 

requirements. They are also consistent with the standards promulgated by the state of New 

Mexico’s dam safety program in order to ensure proper compaction during construction of new 

CCR surface impoundments. 

EPA recognizes that it would be highly difficult for owners or operators of older units to 

certify with any certainty that the unit’s construction meet the specific numeric compaction 

criteria found in the ASTM standards. New units, however, can easily meet these standards, and 

should therefore be designed and constructed to meet the numeric compaction criteria.

The owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment must also design, construct,

operate, and maintain the CCR surface impoundment spillway or spillways with appropriate 

material so as to prevent the degradation of the spillway, as well as to ensure that the CCR 

surface impoundment has adequate spillway capacity to manage the outflow from a specific 

inflow design flood. In addition, a demonstration must be made that the CCR surface 

impoundment has been designed, constructed, operated, and maintained with inflow design flood 

controls and/or spillway capacity to manage peak discharge during and following inflow design 

floods. This demonstration is required to ensure the CCR surface impoundments will have 

adequate hydrologic and hydraulic capacity to prevent such failures as overtopping and excessive 

internal seepage and erosion. Spillways must be designed to withstand discharge from the 

inflow design flood without losing their structural form and leading to discharge issues, such as 

erosion or overtopping of the embankment. This requirement is covered in more detail in the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

326

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

inflow design flood controlshydrologic and hydraulic capacity requirements for CCR surface 

impoundments section of this rule.

EPA is not requiring a facility to include in itsany demonstration therelating to the 

potential for rapid, or sudden, drawdown loading condition. Rapid or sudden drawdown is a 

condition in earthen embankments in which the embankment becomes saturated through seepage 

in aan extended high pool elevation in the reservoir. A threat to the embankment emerges when 

the reservoir pool is drawn down or lowered at a rate significantly higher than the excess poor 

water pressure within the embankment can diminish. Typically, rapid drawdown scenarios are 

considered for embankments with reservoirs used for water supply and management, emergency 

reservoirs, or agricultural supply, in which the reservoir is rapidly discharged from the structure. 

In these scenarios, a high pool elevation is maintained in the reservoir in storage months. 

Subsequently, the water supply is drawn on in months where there is a high demand for the 

reservoirsreservoir’s contents. This drawing down of the pool presents issues regarding rapid 

drawdown.can affect the structural stability of the unit. However, the management of CCR 

surface impoundments differs from that of conventional water supply, emergency, and 

agricultural reservoirs. The only instance of a rapid drawdown of a CCR surface impoundment 

which EPA has identified is in the event of a massive release of the reservoir of the CCR surface 

impoundment due to a failure of the dike of the CCR surface impoundment. In this instance, a 

massive release has occurred or is occurring. A subsequent failure of the upstream or internal 

embankment due to this rapid drawdown would only precipitate further embankment failure and 

not theany further release of the contents of the impoundment, as the contents of the surface 

impoundment would have already been released. In these instances, remediation of a failure in a 

rapidly drawn-down section would be necessary prior to filling of the reservoirunit, but is not a 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

327

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

concern precipitating a release of impounded contents. 

A second consideration regarding rapid drawdown, however, is the rapid drawdown of a 

water body adjacent to the slope of the CCR surface impoundment which may periodically 

inundate the slope. Many CCR surface impoundments are located in areas in which the 

downstream slope of the CCR surface impoundment runs down to a lake, stream, or river. In 

such instances, rapid drawdown must be considered for the stability of the downstream slope of 

the embankment in the event of a rapid drawdown in the lake, stream, or river pool elevation or 

stage. Because the water ponded against the downstream slope of the CCR surface 

impoundment provides a stabilizing load on the slope of the CCR surface impoundment, the 

rapid or gradual loss of this stabilizing force must be considered in the analysis of the CCR 

surface impoundment. The rule, therefore, requires that existing and new CCR surface 

impoundments and any lateral expansions of existing and new CCR surface impoundmentssuch 

units with a downstream slope that can be inundated by an adjacent water body, such as rivers, 

streams, or lakes, be constructed with downstream slopes that will maintain structural integrity in 

events of low pool or rapid drawdown of the adjacent water body. Thus, the owner or operator 

of the CCR surface impoundment is responsible forThis ensures that the structural integrity of 

the downstream slope of the CCR surface impoundment will be maintained, even ifthough the 

conditions of an adjacent surface water body aremay be outside the owner or operator’s control. 

dii. Periodic Safety Factor Assessments

As previously discussed, EPA received comment requesting that the Agency consider 

adding regulatory language or preamble discussionto supplement the proposed technical criteria 

to assist owners or operators of CCR surface impoundments in interpreting the factor of safety 

determination required by proposed § 257.71(d)(12). Commenters contended that guidance was 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

328

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

particularly critical given that owners or operators will be vulnerable to lawsuits or noncompliance if no more specific technical criteria were provided. EPA proposed that facilities 

compute “a minimum factor of safety for slope stability of the CCR retaining structure(s).”),” 

and to provide the methods and calculations used to determine each factor of safety. In 

reviewing the proposed requirement, the Agency agrees with the commenter that further 

elaboration on the requirement is necessary to ensure that engineers can accurately assess a CCR 

unit’s structural stability using factor of safety calculations, and would be valuable to ensure a 

consistent national standard. EPA has therefore revised the criteria to be consistent with the 

criteria developed and used to assess these impoundments as part of the Impoundment 

Assessment Program. 

In an effort to provide sufficient clarification, theAccordingly, the final rule requires 

demonstrations of structural integrity using accepted engineering methodologies under specific 

loading conditions. Owners or operators must conduct and have certified by a qualified 

professional engineer, an initial safety factor assessment documenting, and, supported by the 

appropriate engineering calculations, documenting whether the CCR unit achieves the following 

minimum factors of safety: (1) the calculated static factor of safety under the long-term, 

maximum storage pool loading condition equaling, which must equal or exceedingexceed 1.50; 

(2) the calculated static factor of safety under the maximum surcharge pool loading condition

equaling, which must equal or exceeding 1exceed1.40 and; (3) the calculated seismic factor of 

safety equally, which must equal or exceedingexceed 1.00.; and (4) the calculated liquefaction 

factor of safety, which must equal or exceed 1.20. In addition to the safety factors specified for 

existing CCR surface impoundments, new CCR surface impoundments and any lateral expansion 

must also comply with a fourthfifth safety factor (4), the calculated static factor of safety under 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

329

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

the end-of-construction loading condition equaling, which must equal or exceedingexceed 1.30. 

These

The minimum static factors of safety are adopted directly from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineer’s Engineer Manual EM 1110-2-1902 entitled, “Slope Stability.” As discussed in more 

detail in Unit IVIII, EPA relied heavily on this manual and applied these specific factors of 

safety during itits Impoundment Assessment Program, and it is widely considered the benchmark 

in the dam engineering community for slope stability and methodology and analysis. The 

Agency is confident that this additional regulatory detail will provide owners or operators , as 

well as the qualified professional engineer, with the information necessary to accurately calculate 

a CCR unit’s current safety factors, and in turn, its structural integrity. 

The seismic factor of safety is adopted from review of several dam safety guidance 

documents, including USACE guidance Engineer Circular 1110-2-6061: Safety of Dams-Policy 

and Procedures 2204, Engineer Circular 1110-2-6000: Selection of Design Earthquakes and 

Associated Ground Motions 2008, and Engineer Circular 1110-2-6001: Dynamic Stability of 

Embankment Dams 2004). EPA also reviewed MSHA’s 2009 Engineering and Design Manual 

for Coal Refuse Disposal Facilities, in particular Chapter 7, “Seismic Design: Stability and 

Deformation Analyses.” These documents are viewed by ASDSO, FEMA and MSHA as 

generally accepted guidance on how to conduct seismic stability analyses. EPA chose the factor 

of safety of 1.00 because the 1.00 quantity represents the condition of the slope in which the 

strength of resistance to loading is equal to the anticipated loading stress acting upon the 

embankment, or the value which represents stability under the appropriate loading condition. 

The liquefaction factor of safety is adopted from review of several dam safety guidance 

and liquefaction guidance, including “Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes,” Idriss and 

Formatted: Add space between paragraphs of the

same style, Widow/Orphan control
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

330

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Boulanger, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 200895, “Geotechnical and Stability 

Analyses for Ohio Waste Containment Facilities,” Ohio EPA, Sept. 14, 2004, Chapter 596, and 

Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Earthquake Analyses and Design of Dams, Document 65,

FEMA May 200597. EPA also reviewed several technical resources regarding soil liquefaction, 

including “Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes,” Seed and Idriss, 1982,98

“Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary report from the 1996 and 1998 NCEER/NSF 

Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,” Youd and Idriss, 2001,99 and 

Seismic Design Guidance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facilities, US EPA, Office of 

Research and Development, 1995. EPA chose a liquefaction factor of safety of 1.20, identifying 

that consideration of liquefaction potential and post-liquefaction residual strength slope stability 

included several uncertainties in assumptions and analysis which must be accounted for in a 

factor of safety above unity (i.e., 1.00). FEMA guidance explicitly states that “post-liquefaction 

factors of safety are generally required to be a minimum of 1.2 to 1.3.”

In conjunction with this requirement, EPA is also requiringcontinues to require periodic 

re-assessments of the safety factor calculations, but as discussed, has modified the frequency to 

be no less than once every five years for all affected CCR units. The Agency is making 

thisPeriodic reassessments are necessary to account for factors that are subject to change and can 

 

95 https://www.eeri.org/products-page/monographs/soil-liquefaction-during-earthquakes-3/

96 http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/34/document/guidance/gd_660.pdf

97 http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/safety/guidelines/fema-65.pdf

98 Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., 1982, "Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes,"

Monograph No. 5, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California, pp. 134.

99 Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M., 2001, “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary report from the 1996 and

1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils.” Journal of

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

331

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

adversely affect the structural stability of a CCR unit, e.g., age, use, volume of material 

contained within, and to reflect the dynamic nature of a CCR surface impoundment and the 

loads to which the dikes of the CCR surface impoundment may reasonably be expected to 

become subject to and to ensure that the structural integrity of the unit is continually re-assessed 

to account for factors that are subject to change and can adversely affect the structural stability of 

a CCR unit, e.g., age, use, volume of material contained within. Both the requirement to 

periodically reassess safety factor calculations and the five-year time frames are consistent with 

the guidance set forth by other federal agencies in assessing dam safety. (For example, see, 

including MSHA, FEMA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). FEMA. For example, 

FEMA’s Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety explicitly recommends that a dam be formally 

reassessed at an interval not to exceed every five years, and EPA has adopted this minimum 

frequency of assessment in today’s final rule. 

i. (a). General Safety Factor Assessment Considerations. Determination

Generally accepted engineering methodologies specify that the determination of the 

structural stability factors of safety specified above mustis to be calculated by the qualified 

professional engineer using conventional analysis procedures or, if necessary, special analysis 

procedures. EPA considers conventionalConventional analysis procedures to include, but are not 

be limited to, limit equilibrium methods of slope stability analysis, whereas, special analysis 

procedures include, but are not limited to, finite element methods, finite difference methods, 

three-dimensional methods, or probabilistic methods. Whichever methodology is used to 

determine the factors of safety of the CCR surface impoundment, the qualified professional 

engineer must document the methodology used, as well as the basis for using saidthat

methodology, and the analysis must be supported by appropriate engineering calculations. 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

332

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

More specifically, limitLimit equilibrium methods compare forces, moments, and stresses 

which cause instability of the mass of the embankment to those which resist that instability. The 

principle of the limit equilibrium method is to assume that if the slope under consideration were 

about to fail, or at the structural limit of failure, then one must determine the resulting shear 

stresses along the expected failure surface. These determined shear stresses are then compared 

with the shear strength of the soils along the expected failure surface to determine the factor of 

safety. Limit equilibrium methods include, but are not limited to, methods of slices. The most 

commonly applicable method of slices are the ordinary method of slices or Modified Swedish 

Method, Bishop’s Modified Method, force equilibrium methods, Janbu’s method, Morgenstern 

and Price’s method, or Spencer’s Method.

If conventional analysis procedures yield results that indicate complex failure 

mechanisms or the need for estimation of displacements, such as the need to determine internal 

stresses or displacements in and embankment or account tofor 3-Dimensionaldimensional effects 

in an embankment, in order to calculate factors of safety, special analysis procedures may be 

necessary to calculate factors of safety. Special analysis procedures include, but are not limited 

to: (1) the finite element method; (2) the finite difference method; (3) the three-dimensional limit 

equilibrium analysis method; or (4) the probabilistic method.100

Structural stability factors of safety mustneed to be met in all cross-sections of the CCR 

surface impoundment since the failure of any cross-section of the CCR surface impoundment can 

result in the loss of the reservoir and stored CCR material in the CCR surface impoundment. 

 

100 Additional information regarding special analysis methodologies can be found in publications 

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Publications or geotechnical journals and scholarly 

articles.

Formatted: Normal
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

333

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

However, the final rule doesit is not necessary to require that all cross-sections be analyzedthe 

facility to fully analyze and calculated for calculate factors of safety in for all cross sections 

under the specific loading conditions. identified above. Rather, today’s final rule requires that it 

is sufficient to calculate the factors of safety under both static and, seismic, and liquefaction

loading conditions be calculatedonly for the critical cross section of the CCR surface 

impoundment embankment. The, provided the facility carefully analyzes each cross section to 

properly identify the critical cross section. EPA has adopted this approach because the critical 

cross-section(s) represents a “most-severe” case and it is reasonably anticipated that all other 

cross-sections of the embankment will exceed the calculated factors of safety of the critical 

cross-section(s). The final rule therefore adopts this approach. The final rule defines the critical 

cross section of the embankment of a CCR surface impoundment isto be that which is 

anticipated to be most susceptible amongst all cross sections of the embankment to structural 

failure based on several engineering considerations for the given loading condition, such as soil

composition of the cross-section, phreatic surface level within the cross section, grade of the 

upstream and downstream slopes of the cross section, and presence or lack of reinforcing 

measures in the cross-section as opposed to other cross-sections, such as buttressing or slope 

protection on the slopes of the cross section. Due to the variance of qualitative and quantitative 

properties of embankment structural strength, EPA expects that a prudent engineering analysis 

wouldwill need to consider multiple cross sections in order to greater ensure proper selection of a 

critical cross section. 

ii.(b). The Calculated Static Factor of Safety Under the Long-term, Maximum Storage Pool 

Loading Condition. The long-term, maximum storage pool 

It is generally accepted practice to analyze the stability of the downstream slope of the Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

334

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

dam embankment for steady -state seepage (or steady seepage) conditions with the reservoir at 

its normal operating pool elevation (usually the spillway crest elevation) since this is the loading 

condition must consider conditions at the embankment will experience most. This condition is 

called steady seepage with maximum storage pool. The maximum storage pool loading is the 

maximum water level that can be maintained that will result in the full development of a steadystate seepage condition. Maximum storage pool loading conditions need to be calculated to 

ensure that the CCR surface impoundment tocan withstand a maximum expected pool elevation 

with full development of saturation in the embankment under long-term loading. The final rule 

requires that the calculated static factor of safety for the critical cross section of the CCR surface 

impoundment under the long-term maximum storage pool loading condition meet or exceed 

1.5.The generally accepted methodology for determining the long-term, maximum storage pool 

loading condition considers conditions at the CCR surface impoundment that exist for a length 

of time sufficient for steady-state seepage or hydrostatic conditions to fully develop within the 

embankment of the CCR unit.101 The maximum storage pool loading mustneeds to consider a 

pool elevation in the CCR unit to bethat is equivalent to the lowest elevation of the invert of the 

spillway, i.e., the lowest overflow point of the perimeter of the embankment. The maximum 

storage pool loading is the maximum water level that can be maintained which will result in the 

full development of a steady-state seepage condition. TheThe generally accepted methodology 

for the calculation of the factors of safety must useuses shear strengths expressed as effective 

stress and with pore water pressures whichthat correspond to the long-term condition. Pore-

 

101 US Army Corps of Engineers “Slope Stability” manual.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

335

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

water pressures should be estimated from the most reliable of the following sources: (1) field 

measurements of pore pressures in existing slopes; (2) past experience and judgment of the 

qualified professional engineer; (3) hydrostatic pressure computation for conditions of no flow; 

or (4) steady-state seepage analysis using flow nets or finite element analyses. 

Maximum storage pool loading condition must be calculated because it ensures that the 

CCR surface impoundment can withstand a maximum expected pool elevation with full 

development of saturation in the embankment under long-term loading.

iii.(c). The Calculated Static Factor of Safety Under the Maximum Surcharge Pool Loading 

Condition. 

The maximum surcharge pool loading condition is calculated to evaluate the effect of a 

raised level (e.g., flood surcharge) on the stability of the downstream slope. This ensures that the 

CCR surface impoundment can withstand a temporary rise in pool elevation above the maximum 

storage pool elevation for which the CCR surface impoundment may normally be subject under 

inflow design flood stage, for a short-term until the inflow design flood is passed through the 

CCR surface impoundment. The final rule requires that the calculated static factor of safety for 

the critical cross section of the CCR surface impoundment under the long-term maximum 

surcharge pool loading condition meet or exceed 1.4.

Similar to the long-term, maximum loading condition, a prudent evaluation of the 

maximum surcharge pool loading condition mustneeds to consider conditions at the CCR unit to 

exist for a length of time sufficient for steady-state seepage or hydrostatic conditions to fully 

develop within the embankment of the CCR surface impoundment. The maximum surcharge 

pool is considered a temporary pool whichthat is higher than the maximum storage pool. The; the

maximum surcharge loading condition should therefore consider a temporary condition in the 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

336

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

pool at which the pool exists temporarily above the maximum storage pool elevation in the event 

of an inflow design flood and spillway discharge condition in the reservoir, i.e., above the lowest 

invert of the spillway during the anticipated inflow design flood.

The maximum surcharge pool loading condition must be calculated in order to ensure 

that the CCR surface impoundment can withstand a temporary rise in pool elevation above the 

maximum storage pool elevation for which the CCR surface impoundment may be subject under 

inflow design flood stage for a short-term until the inflow design flood is passed through the 

CCR surface impoundment.

iv.(d). The Calculated Seismic Factor of Safety. 

All CCR surface impoundments and, including any lateral expansions whichthat exceed 

the size threshold of today’s final rule must meet a seismic factor of safety of equal to or greater 

than 1.0. EPA has addedincluded this requirement because reliance on the factors of safety under 

static loading is not sufficient to evaluate the structural stability of a CCR unit because the 

mechanics and response phenomena of geotechnical structures vary radically under dynamic 

loading from those under static loading. Consequently reliance on the factors of safety under 

static loading is not sufficient to evaluate the structural stability of a CCR surface impoundment. 

Standard engineering methodology and guidance support EPA’s conclusion that adequate 

seismic analysis of embanked structures is essential to ensure the continued structural stability of 

a geotechnical structure under dynamic, or seismic, loading is warranted.102

As discussed in the section of this preamble addressing the location criteria, all CCR 

 

102 E.g., FEMA’s Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Earthquake Analyses and Design of Dams

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

337

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

surface impoundments must also be capable of withstanding a design earthquake without damage 

to the foundation or embankment that would cause a discharge of its contents. To further 

support the location criteria established in this rule, CCR surface impoundments and any lateral 

expansion exceeding a specific height and/or volume threshold must be assessed under seismic 

loading conditions for a seismic loading event with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, 

equivalent to a return period of approximately 2,500 years, based on the USGS seismic hazard 

maps for seismic events with this return period for the region where the CCR unit is located. 

EPA chose the 2% exceedance probability in 50 years event based on its common use in seismic 

design criteria throughout engineering. See for example, ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads for 

Buildings and Other Structures, International Building Code. Moreover, USGS seismic hazard 

maps, dictate that the life of a structure and the realistic probability of event occurrence be taken 

into considerationconsidered in the design of lateral force resisting systems for structures. EPA 

considersAs discussed in the Regulatory Impact Assessment, the expected life of a CCR surface 

impoundment tocan exceed 50 years, per EPA’s Regulatory Impact Assessment. Additionally, 

EPA considers. Consistent with the location criteria for seismic impact zones, EPA adopted 2% 

to beas a reasonable probability of occurrence. Standard engineering methodology and guidance 

found in FEMA Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Earthquake Analyses and Design of Dams

support EPA’s conclusion that adequate seismic analysis of embanked structures is essential to 

ensure the continued structural stability of a geotechnical structure under dynamic, or seismic, 

loading is warranted.

SeismicUnder standard engineering methodologies, seismic analysis includes several 

procedures to adequately analyze the structural strength of a CCR surface impoundment during 

dynamic, i.e., seismic, loading. Analysis mustSuch analyses would typically need to include the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

338

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

appropriate characterization of ground motions at the site of the CCR surface impoundment for 

the 2% probability in 50 years seismic event. This includes appropriate selection of103. In 

addition, the peak ground acceleration (PGA), velocity, and displacement should be selected

using historic records, site-specific observations, or magnitude-distance attenuation relations. 

Additionally, the analysis mustwould need to include an appropriate duration of earthquake, 

considering accelorograms for the anticipated event. Appropriate elastic response spectra should 

be selected using engineering methodology for selection, includingsuch as the Newmark-Hall 

Spectrum or other appropriate published spectra, USGS ProbabalisticProbabilistic Maps, or sitespecific response spectra.

(e) The Calculated Liquefaction Factor of Safety

All CCR surface impoundments, including any lateral expansions that exceed the size 

threshold and have been determined to contain soils susceptible to liquefaction must meet a 

liquefaction factor of safety of equal to or greater than 1.20. A prudent engineering analysis of 

seismic loading conditionstructural stability also includes a liquefaction evaluation,potential

analysis and analysis of post-earthquakeliquefaction static factors of safety, and a postearthquake deformation analysis. Minimum factors of safety, specifically against liquefaction 

and sliding, must meet or exceed 1.0. . As discussed previously, liquefaction is a phenomenon 

which typically occurs in loose, saturated or partially-saturated soils in which the effective stress 

of the soils reduces to zero, corresponding to a total loss of shear strength of the soil. The most 

common occurrence of liquefaction is in loose soils, typically sands. The liquefaction FOS 

 

103 FEMA Doc. 65 “Earthquake Analyses and Design of Dams;” 

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/safety/guidelines/fema-65.pdf
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

339

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

determination in the final rule is used to determine if a CCR unit would remain stable if the soils 

of the embankment of the CCR unit were to experience liquefaction. Liquefaction analysis is 

only requirednecessary in instances where CCR surface impoundments show, through 

representative soil sampling, construction documentation, or anecdotal evidence from personnel 

with knowledge of the CCR unit’s construction, that soils of the embankment are susceptible to 

liquefaction. Prudent engineering analysis should consider

EPA has included this requirement because the overall safetymechanics and response 

phenomena of geotechnical structures vary radically following induced liquefaction, i.e., postliquefaction. Similar to the requirement for seismic factors of safety, liquefaction factors of 

safety are necessary because reliance on static loading is not sufficient to evaluate the structural 

stability of a CCR surface impoundment even in instances where all factors of safety are met, 

such as operational and maintenance. Standard engineering methodology and guidance support 

EPA’s conclusion that adequate liquefaction potential analyses and post-liquefaction residual 

strength slope stability analyses of embanked structures is essential to ensure the continued 

structural stability of a geotechnical structure following dynamic loading.

Under standard engineering methodologies, liquefaction potential analysis and postliquefaction stability analysis includes several procedures, and make recommendations for 

improvement of to adequately analyze the structural strength of a CCR surface impoundment. 

Because only certain soils, such as loose sands, are susceptible to liquefaction, the rule requires 

only embankments constructed of such soils identified through liquefaction potential analysis 

must meet liquefaction factors of safety in marginally safe CCR surface impoundments, i.e., .

Such liquefaction potential analysis would need to include proper soil characterization of the 

embankment soils for soil age and origin, fines content and plasticity index, water content, 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

340

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

saturation, and maximum current, past, and anticipated future phreatic surface levels within the 

embankment, foundation, or abutments, location beneath the natural ground surface, and 

penetration resistance whether through standard penetration testing (SPT) or, ideally, cone 

penetration testing (CPT). Post-liquefaction stability analysis would need to include detailed 

characterization of the site conditions, identification of the minimum liquefaction-inducing 

forces based on soil characterization, determination of seismic effect on liquefied layers of the 

embankment, and calculation of factors of safety between 1.0 and 1.25, because uncertainties in 

assumptions and conditions in analysis may lead to the overestimation of embankment 

strengthagainst each liquefied layer of the embankment. 

v.(f). The Calculated Static Factor of Safety Underunder the End-of-Construction Loading 

Condition. 

The End-of-Construction loading condition is analyzed for new construction under their 

initial filling condition, following the completion of construction. Undrained shear strength 

conditions are assumed for the End-of-Construction loading condition. The End-of-Construction 

loading condition is required tomust be calculated for new CCR surface impoundments to ensure 

that the CCR surface impoundment can withstand a “first-filling” of the embankment, during 

which time the embankment first become saturated and is subject to phreatic flow through the 

cross-section.

Embankments are typically constructed in layers with soils at or above their optimum 

moisture content that undergo internal consolidation because of the weight of the overlying 

layers. Embankment layers may become saturated during construction as a result of 

consolidation of the layers or by rainfall. Because of the low permeability of fine-grained soils of 

which many embankments are constructed and the relatively short time for construction of the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

341

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

embankment, there can be little drainage of the water from the soil during construction: resulting 

in the development of significant pore pressures. Soils with above optimum moisture content will 

develop pore pressures more readily when compacted than soils with moisture contents below 

optimum. In general, the most severe construction loading condition is at the end of construction. 

The final rule requires that the calculated static factor of safety for the critical cross 

section of the CCR surface impoundment under end of construction loading conditions meet or 

exceed 1.30. The End-of-Construction loading condition is analyzed for new construction under 

their initial filling condition, following the completion of construction. Undrained shear strength 

conditions are typically assumed for the End-of-Construction loading condition. Both the 

upstream and downstream slopes of the embankment are analyzed for this condition

e. Failure to Demonstrate Minimum Safety Factors or Failure to Complete a Timely Safety 

Factor Assessment

As previously discussed, the rule requires an owner or operator to document that the 

calculated factors of safety for each CCR surface impoundment achieve the minimum safety 

factors specified in the rule. If the owner fails to demonstrate this requirement by the deadlines 

established in the rule For any CCR surface impoundment that does not meet these requirements, 

the owner or operator must either take any engineering measure necessary to ensure that the unit 

meets the requirements by the rule’s deadlines, or cease placement of CCR and non-CCR waste 

into the unit and initiate closure of such CCR unit as provided in section 257.102 within six 

months. Similarly, if an owner or operator fails to complete the initial safety factor assessment 

or any subsequent periodic factor safety assessment by the deadlines established in the rule, the 

owner or operator must also cease placing CCR and non-CCR waste into the unit and initiate 

closure within six months. 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

342

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

f. Vertical Expansions of CCR Surface Impoundments and Structural Integrity Criteria

Due to the capacity concerns of CCR surface impoundments, EPA acknowledges that itIt

is not uncommon for the owner or operator to raise the crest of a CCR surface impoundment to 

accommodate the additional capacity needs of the facility. The record documents that CCR 

surface impoundments are commonly expanded from the original design or as-built construction.

The Agency also acknowledges that there will be occasions when, through such “vertical 

expansions,” including where a CCR surface impoundment changes from a “small” CCR unit 

(i.e., below the height and/or volume threshold) to a “large” CCR unit (i.e., exceeding the height 

and/or volume threshold) as a result of the vertical expansion.). In these situations, the owner or 

operator of the CCR unit, as a result of the vertical expansion, becomes subject to additional 

structural integrity requirements. as a result of the vertical expansion. Realizing that these newly 

created “large” CCR units will require some time to meet the structural integrity requirements. 

The Agency is allowing one year from the completion of the vertical expansion for the owner or 

operator to comply with the requirements of §§ 257.73 or 257.74, as applicable.

F. Operating Criteria – Air Criteria

EPA proposed to require CCR landfills, CCR surface impoundments and any lateral 

expansion to be managed in a manner that control the creation of fugitive dust did. Specifically, 

EPA proposed that facilities must ensure that fugitive dust either not exceed the standard of 35 

μg/m3, established as the level of the 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

for fine particulate matter (PM–2.5), unless someor any alternative standard had been established 

pursuant to applicable requirements developed under a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

approved or promulgated by the Administrator pursuant to section 110 of the CAA as amended 

((see 75 FR at 55175). Consistent with the numerical standard, EPA proposed to require that 

Formatted: Font: Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

343

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

CCR surface impoundments and CCR landfillsunits be managed to control the wind dispersal of 

dustsdust, and that CCR landfills also be required to emplace wet conditioned CCRsCCR (i.e., 

wetting CCRsCCR with water to a moisture-content that prevents wind dispersal and facilitates 

compaction, but does not result in free liquids) into the unit. EPA also required that 

documentation of the measures taken to comply with the requirements be certified by an 

independent registered professional engineer. EPA proposed these requirements based on the 

results of a screening level analysis of the risks posed by fugitive dustsdust from CCR landfills, 

which showed that without fugitive dust controls, levels at nearby locations could exceed 35 

μg/m3, established as the level of the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS for fine particulate. Similarly, 

another impact on public healthThese measures were also intended to be avoided wasreduce the 

potential for excessexcessive cancer casesrisks associated with the inhalation of hexavalent 

chromium inhaled from the air. . This potential risk would apply to over six million people who 

live within the census population data ‘‘“zip code tabulation areas’’areas” for the 495 ruleaffected electric utility plant locations. (seeSee 75 FR at 35215.)104

As part of the proposal, EPA solicited comments on the following fugitive dust issues: 

(1) the location of air monitoring stations near CCR landfills or CCR surface impoundments; and 

(2) information on any techniques, such as wetting, compaction, or daily cover that are or can be 

employed to reduce exposures to fugitive dust. With regard to these two solicitations theThe

Agency received no information from commenters on either of these issues.

 

104 As evidenced in 42 U.S. C. 6971(f), Congress intended that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) be able to enforce its regulations to protect workers exposed to hazardous waste and that EPA and OSHA 

would work together to ensure that. EPA is clarifying that it intends that the CCR disposal rule not preempt 

applicable OSHA standards designed to protect workers exposed to CCRs; thus EPA’s final rule on CCR disposal 

will apply in addition to any applicable OSHA standards. The Agency has added specific regulatory language in 

this section to address this intent.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

344

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The majority of comments received, however, took issue with the proposed technical 

standard of 35 ug/m3. Commenters argued that, as proposed, the standard would be impossible to 

implement because the Agency provided no information on particle size, form of the standards, 

whether an averaging period is available, point of compliance or how one considers upwind 

sources. More generally, however, commenters argued that the proposed provisions were 

unnecessary because fugitive dust issues were adequately addressed by existing air rules through 

the development and implementation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 

such as PM10 and PM2.5. These same commenters acknowledged, however, that if the Agency 

were to proceed with establishing an air criteria standardestablished a criterion to control fugitive 

dusts, a more appropriate and reasonable standard could be based on best management practices 

or BMPs. To that end, commenters offered information suggesting that CCR landfills typically 

used compaction, regular wetting and temporary covers in conjunction with visual air monitoring 

to effectively control fugitive dust at their facilities, and that these practices were included in 

facility operating plans. 

As discussed in the proposed rule, EPA’s decision to address fugitive dust was based on a 

peer review of the 2010 draft Risk Assessment, 2007 NODA stakeholder comments, 

photographic documentation of fugitive dust associated with the management of CCRsCCR, 

Agency effortsactions to control fugitive emissions during the clean-up of the December 2008 

TVA Kingston spill, and OSHA’s requirement for Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)now 

Safety Data Sheets (SDS)) requirements for coal ash. These lines of evidence have been 

bolstered since the proposal, by evidence collected during the eight 2010 CCR proposed rule’s

public hearings, where stakeholders provided extensive feedback about fugitive dust impacts 

associated with the whole life cycle of CCR management at facilities adjacent to their residences, 

Formatted: Subscript

Formatted: Subscript

Formatted: Font: Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

345

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

and by documented reports on fugitive dust issues provided by citizen groups. 105 The 

stakeholders called for federal oversight to address those instances where complaints were 

seemingly ignored by state regulators and/or where state administrative enforcement measures 

failed to compel the utilities to effectively amend their dust emission control management 

practices. The Agency followed up on the complaints with state agencies and compiled a 

preliminary database on documented and alleged fugitive dust damage cases.106

In support of this rule, EPA compiled records of over twenty20 documented fugitive dust 

cases, in addition to several alleged cases that could not be verified. The documented cases 

indicate that fugitive dust concerns arise in all phases of the CCR life cycle – from conveyor belt 

transfer at the coal-fired power plant, through stockpiling and transport for disposal/beneficial 

use, and up to final disposition. Fugitive dust also is a potential concern associated with all 

disposal modes -both – landfills, and surface impoundments, and minefilling. . Whereas a nexus 

between fugitive dust impacts and CCR landfill operations was to be expected, the association of 

EPA discovered that fugitive dust withwas also of concern at CCR surface impoundments was 

invoked, either under conditions of windy winter spells affecting CCR exposed above/ or next to 

the CCR surface impoundment boundary, or due to the total CCR surface impoundment 

evaporation in arid areas. 

 

105 For instance, photographic evidence provided by Susan Holmes, the Bokoshe Environmental Cause 

Group (B.E. Cause), Bokoshe, Oklahoma. See Earthjustice’s brief background coverage at: 

http://earthjustice.org/blog/2011-april/not-having-fun-in-bokoshe-ok, and ABC News’ Oklahoma Town 

Fears Cancer, Asthma May Be Linked to Dump Site, March 29, 2011: http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-town-fearscancer-asthma-linked-dump-site/story?id=13240312.

106 [insert FN on where this databaseA compilation of damage cases can be found in the docket]

supporting this rule.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Formatted: Font: 11 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

346

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Very few studies have been undertaken to test the health impacts caused by fugitive dust 

emissions, and of those few, due to inherent limitations, all failed to identifyprove that fugitive 

dust as a causativewas the cause of the documented health concern. concerns. For example, in 

the wake of the January 2005 coal ash pile collapse at the Rostosky Ridge Road, in Allegheny 

County, Pennsylvania, both the federal and county studies107 failed to test during this period and 

missed the narrow exposure window to demonstrate any linkage ofthat would have possibly 

demonstrated a link between the event toand the short-term health symptoms (e.g., sore throat, 

cough, fever, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, and headaches) contracted by residents who ultimately 

removed approximately 1,500 tons of fly ash from their properties immediately after the incident 

without the benefit of any protective respiratory gear. In addition, both theThe federal and county 

studies also found no evidence of long-term arsenic poisoning of the tested individuals. For 

recurring instances of CCR dispersion in the air at the Indian River Power Plant, Millsboro, 

Delaware, three consecutive state studies tentatively established other risk factors as the probable 

cause for a lung cancer cluster in a down-wind location of the presumable source term (CCR 

fugitive dust blowing of a landfill and stack emissions).108 Critics claim that these studies used 

 

107 (i) Coal Fly Ash Landslide, Forward Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, ASTDR Health 

Consultation June 1, 2006: 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/CoalFlyAshLandslide/CoalFlyAshLandslideHC060106.pdf

(ii) Results of the Health Investigation Following Fly Ash Contamination in Forward Township, 

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Allegheny County Health Department, July 2005: 

http://academics.rmu.edu/faculty/short/research/arsenic/ACHD-Arsenic-2005.pdf.

108 Millsboro Inhalation Exposure and Biomonitoring Study. State of Delaware Department of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Control, Department of Health and Social Services, Dover (RTI Project 

0213061), DE, May 2013: 

http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/Admin/Documents/Millsboro_Inhalation_Exposure_and_Biomonitoring_

Study_Final_Repor_05282013.pdf

Formatted

Formatted: Font: 11 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

347

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

too small of a sample, and by design, didwere not designed to capture the impact of long-term 

exposure to pollution.109

Nevertheless, in eleven other cases, states pursued administrativeadopted measures to 

address concerns from fugitive dust emissions:; these included conducting lung-cancer cluster 

and other health studies, conducting particle dispersion studies, issuing Notices of Violation and 

Consent Orders to the responsible facilities, as well as waiving landfill cover exemptions, and 

requiring dust management plans for newly permitted CCR landfills. In addition, in several 

instances, citizens filed lawsuits or reached an out-of-court settlement with the primary 

responsible party; and in one case, OSHA imposed a steep fine on the owners of a facility 

manufacturing abrasive blasting and roofing materials from slag produced at a nearby coal-fired 

power plant, for willfully exposing their workers to dangerously high levels of hazardous dust, 

and for failing to provide adequate breathing protection and training for workers at the facility. 

According to stakeholder allegations, fugitive dustdusts generated by thethese same 

materialmaterials also adversely impacted residents in the facility’s immediate vicinity. 

As previously stated, many commenters argued that the proposed numeric particulates 

standard requiring “fugitive dusts do not exceed 35 ug/m3, unless some alternative standard has 

been established pursuant to applicable requirements developed under a State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) approved or promulgated by the Administrator pursuant to section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act, as amended” was incompatible with the air quality requirements established under the 

States’ Implementation Plans (SIPs) or with provisions set up by the Statesstates in their Title V 

 

109 Critic chides cancer study: Indian River plant results called lame. Delawareonline, May 28, 

2013: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20130528/NEWS/305280081/ Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line spacing: single
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

348

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Clean Air Permits to the power producers. In addition, it was alsothe commenters argued that 

the proposed standard lacked technical details to facilitate effective implementation;, and that 

implementation of the standard required specialized equipment and advanced training to carry 

out thea judicious reading and interpretation of opacity, a proxy measure for the level of fugitive 

dust emissions. Indeed,In light of these comments, EPA re-evaluated the existing CAA 

standards applicable to these units; 40 CFR part§ 70.2 identifies (§ 70.2) fossil-fuel-fired steam 

electric plants of more than 250 million BTU/hour heat input as potential sources of fugitive dust 

(PM sources) that must be covered by state permitting, and 40 CFR part § 70.3 stipulates that 

“Fugitive emissions from a part 70 source shall be included in the permit application and the part 

70 permit in the same manner as stack emissions, regardless of whether the source category is

included in the list of sources contained in the definition of major source.” Based on these 

applicable CAA stipulationsrequirements, the Agency realizesagrees that the reintroductionadoption of a PM standard under the final rule would entail a potential for 

duplication or inconsistency with applicable state-established standards in SIP permits. 

EPA also acknowledges the challenges involved in measuring the proposed compliance 

standard. Because fugitive dust is emitted from non-definable [non-point] sources, it cannot be 

easily measured by conventional methods. Usually, regulations developed by the states to 

control fugitive dust stipulate that no person/ or source shall cause or allow, from any activity, 

any emissions of fugitive particulate matter that are visible to an observer who looks horizontally 

along the source’s property line. A quantitative measurement of fugitive dust levels (EPA’s 

Reference Method 9) would require measuring opacity, which, as the commenters noted,

necessitates specialized technical training, trainee certification, and judicious application of 

instrumentation. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

349

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Therefore, rather than requiring a potentially redundant and challenging-to-implement 

quantitative standard, EPA is removing the requirement from the final rule and alternatively is 

establishingsubstituting a performance standard for fugitive dust control. This standard requires 

owners or operators of a CCR landfill, CCR surface impoundment, or any lateral expansion of a 

CCR unit to take all reasonable precautions toadopt measures that will effectively minimize CCR 

from becoming airborne at the facility, including CCR fugitive dust originating from CCR units, 

CCR piles, roads, and other CCR management and material handling activities. The Agency 

considers this standard unvarying fromto be consistent with the intent of the proposed rule, with 

the added advantage of allowing for facilities the flexibility in achieving to determine the 

appropriate measures to achieve regulatory compliance. Furthermore, the Agency believes that 

this at their individual site. This standard and the accompanying regulatory requirements 

supporting its implementation, will achieve the statutory obligation of “no reasonable 

probability of adverse effects on human health and the environment.” Like

As in the proposal, the Agency is also requiring documentation of the measures taken to 

comply with the technical standard. However, in order to facilitate implementation and provide 

for a higher degree of clarity, EPA is referring to this documentation in the final rule as thea

“CCR fugitive dust control plan” (herein referred to as “plan”). Consistent with the proposal, the 

plan must be certified by a qualified professional engineer and placed in the operating record and 

on the owner or operators publicly accessible internet site. In a departure from the proposal, but 

in response to comments stating that the standards lacked technical detail to facilitate 

implementation, theThe plan requires owners or operators to elaborate on the types of activities 

applicable and appropriate for the conditions at the facility that will be employed to minimize 

CCR from becoming airborne at the facility. Examples of control measures that may be 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

350

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

appropriate include: locating CCR inside an enclosure or partial enclosure; operating a water 

spray or fogging system; reducing fall distances at material drop points; using wind barriers, 

compaction, or vegetative covers; establishing and enforcing reduced vehicle speed limits; 

paving and sweeping roads; covering trucks transporting CCR; reducing or halting operations 

during high wind events; or applying a daily cover. 

The AgencyThe initial plan must be completed by the effective date of the rule (i.e., 

within six months of publication). Because this is an initial plan, and because it must be 

completed within a short time frame, EPA acknowledges that the facility may only be able to 

present its initial judgment of the measures that it anticipates are likely to be effective based on 

the information that is readily available within this six month time frame. EPA anticipates that 

owners or operators may need to revise the plan as they gain additional information and 

experience implementing the regulations. In recognition of this, the final rule also requires that 

the CCR fugitive dust control plan include a description of the procedures the owner or operator 

will follow to periodically assess the effectiveness of the control plan. Consistent with other 

plans required in this rule, the owner or operator of a CCR unit may amend the written CCR 

fugitive dust control plan at any time. However, the owner or operator must amend the written 

plan whenever there is a change in conditions that would substantially affect the written plan in 

effect, such as the construction and operation of a new CCR unit. The plan and any subsequent 

amendments must be certified by a qualified professional engineer.

In addition, the Agency is promulgating with a slight modification the requirement for 

owners and operators of all CCR landfills and any lateral expansion to emplace CCR as 

conditioned CCR, as well as the definition of conditioned CCR. Conditioned CCR means 

CCRshas been defined to mean CCR wetted with water to a moisture content that will prevent 

Formatted: No underline
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

351

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

wind dispersal, but will not result in free liquids., consistent with the definition in the proposed 

rule. In response to commenters requestseveral commenters’ requests and upon further 

evaluation the Agency is allowing that in lieu of water, CCR conditioning may be accomplished 

with an appropriate chemical dust suppression agent. 110 As with other requirements of this rule, 

in order to ensure that the provisions of the fugitive dust criteria are maintained throughout the 

operating life of the CCR unit, the Agency is requiring that the owner or operator of the CCR 

unit prepare an annual CCR fugitive dust control report, describing the actions taken to control 

CCR fugitive dust, a record of all citizen complaints, and a summary of any corrective measures 

taken. The first annual report must be completed no later than 14 months after placing the initial 

CCR fugitive dust control plan in the facility’s operating record. The owner or operator has 

completed the annual CCR fugitive dust control report when the plan has been placed in the 

facility’s operating record. 

The general public, as well as the Agency remains, is highly concerned with the apparent 

lack of regulatory action towards citizen complaints onpotential risks associated with CCR 

fugitive dust. dusts. This was readily apparent during the public hearing processhearings and 

from the many comments received on this issue. The Agency continues to receive information 

regarding this human health and environmental concern. While the subtitle D provisions of this 

rule lack permitting oversight mechanisms to control fugitive dust from CCR units, it is clear to 

the Agency that additional substantive actions should be takenwas needed to facilitate citizen suit 

 

110

 Spray-on adhesives, surfactants, aqueous foamers, humectants (calcium, magnesium, ad sodium 

chloride and their mixtures), and polymer solutions and emulsions. See, for instance “The Role of 

Chemicals in Controlling Coal Dust Emissions/Benetch, Inc. 

http://www.benetechglobal.comhttp://www.benetechglobal.com/ or Peterson, Edwin. “An Aid to Fugitive 

Materials Control in Coal Ash Applications” presented at the World of Coal Ash (WOCA) conference –

May 9-12, 2011 in Denver, Colorado.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

352

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

enforcement of this criteria. Consequently, the Agency is adding a specific requirement to the 

CCR fugitive dust control plan to require owners and operators of all CCR units to develop and 

implement formal procedures to log citizen complaints involving CCR fugitive dust events.

These complaints must, then, be included as part of the annual CCR fugitive dust control report.

This report must be placed in the operating record and on the owner or operator’s publicly 

accessible internet site. The Agency believes that promulgationPromulgation of these measures 

will subject the owner or operator of the CCR disposal facility to public and Statestate scrutiny,

and incentivizecreate an incentive for the owner or operator of the CCR disposal facility to 

improve compliance with the fugitive dust control requirements and to document these effort in

revisions to the plan and updates to the annual report.

G. Operating Criteria – Run-on and Run-off Controls for CCR Landfills

EPA’s proposal required owners or operators of CCR landfills and all lateral expansions 

to design, construct and maintain a run-on control system to prevent flow onto the active portion 

of these units during the peak discharge from a 24 hour, 25-year storm. As described in the 

proposed rule, run-on controls are designed to prevent erosion, which may damage the physical 

structure of the landfill, prevent the surface discharge of CCR in solution or suspension; and to 

minimize the downward percolation of run-on through wastes, creating leachate. Similarly, EPA 

proposed run-off controls in order to collect and control, at a minimum, the water volume 

resulting from a 24-hour, 25-year storm. This standard was proposed in order to protect surface 

waters from contamination. Under the existing 40 CFR part 257 requirements, to which CCR 

units are currently subject, run-off must not cause a discharge of pollutants into waters of the 

United States that is in violation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) under section 402 of the Clean Water Act. EPA did not propose to revise the existing 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

353

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

requirement, but merely incorporated it for ease of the regulated community.

The Agency proposed the 24-hour period because it was a timeframe that included storms 

of high intensity with short duration and storms of low intensity with long duration. EPA 

believed that this was a widely used standard that had been incorporated into the hazardous 

waste landfills and MSW landfills regulatory requirements. At the time, EPA had no 

information that warranted a more restrictive standard for CCR landfills. EPA received no 

significant comment on the proposed requirements, and for the most part, is adopting the 

proposed requirements without revision. However, in an effort to clarify and provide more 

direction to the owner or operator and the certifying qualified professional engineer, the Agency 

has added additional regulatory language that more specifically describes the technical criteria 

established under this section of the rule.

The run-on and run-off (RORO) controls of the final rule require that the owner or 

operator prepare the initial run-on and run-off control system plan within 18 months of the 

effective date of the rule. Run-on and run-off control system plan reporting may require design, 

construction, and post-construction implementation. In instances where RORO capacity is 

insufficient, installing additional capacity may involve construction of diversion structures such 

as swales or ditches. Many of these efforts may require several months of design and 

construction, compounded by the fact that much of the work cannot be completed in coldweather or heavy-rain seasons.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

354

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

1. Run-on and Run-off Controls for CCR Landfills and All Lateral Expansions111

All CCR landfills and all lateral expansions must be designed, constructed, operated, and 

maintained with a run-on control system to prevent flow onto the active portion of the CCR unit 

from the peak discharge from a 24 hour, 25-year storm and a run-off control system to collect 

and control at least the volume of water resulting from a 24-hour, 25-year storm from the active 

portion of the CCR disposal unit.

112

Consistent with the proposal, the rule requires the owner or operator of a CCR landfill or 

lateral expansion to prepare an initial run-on and run-off control system plan for the CCR unit. 

For existing CCR landfills, the plan must be prepared by the owner or operator no later than one 

year from the effective date of the rule. For new CCR landfills and any lateral expansion of a 

CCR landfill, the plan must be prepared no later than the date of initial placement of CCR in the 

landfill or lateral expansion. The plan must document how the run-on and run-off control 

systems have been designed and constructed to meet the requirements of rule and must be 

supported by appropriate engineering calculations. The run-on and run-off control system plan 

must be certified by a qualified professional engineer and is considered prepared when the owner 

or operator has placed the plan in the facility’s operating record. 

 

111 In the proposed rule under the RCRA subtitle D option, EPA jointly proposed run-on and run-off 

requirements for CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments under proposed § 257.81. In this final 

rule, EPA has modified the “run-on and run-off” requirements and is providing separate requirements for 

CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments. CCR surface impoundments are now subject to the 

hydrologic and hydraulic capacity requirements at § 257.82. This new section of the rule more 

appropriately addresses flow management issues at CCR surface impoundments. 

112 Under existing Part 257 requirements, to which CCR units are currently subject, runoff must 

not cause a discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States that is in violation of the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) under section 402 of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 

257.3-3). EPA did not propose to revise this requirement but is merely incorporating it here for ease of 

the regulated community.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

355

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The rule also provides for the owner or operator of the CCR unit to amend the plan at any 

time (e.g., prior to receipt of CCR in the CCR unit, during the operating life of the CCR unit, 

during closure of the CCR unit, or following closure of the CCR unit) provided the revised plan 

is placed in the facility’s operating record. The owner or operator must, however revise the plan 

whenever there is a change in the conditions that would substantially affect the written plan in 

effect (e.g., closure of an existing portion or cell of the CCR landfill, resulting in a possible 

change in the size of the “active portion” of the CCR landfill). 

In addition, while not formally discussedconsistent with other provisions in the 

proposedthis rule, the Agency is requiring that the run-on and run-off control system plan be 

reviewed, and where necessary, revised or updated no less thanat least every five years. The 

Agency is specifying this periodic review in order to address factors having the potential to 

influence the run-on and run-off control system. Among other things, CCR landfills can be 

subject to build-out, operational changes, and surface cover changes, all of which all have the 

potential to significantly alter run-on and run-off flows to and from the active portion of the CCR 

landfill. ChangingChanges in storm intensity and duration, as well as upstream catchment area 

characteristics, can alter flows that may significantly affect a previously adequate run-on and 

run-off control system. The Agency believes that aA mandated five year review of a control 

system plan is consistent with accepted good engineering practices and protocols for proper 

maintenance of operational systems supporting the overall performance of a CCR landfill. 

Furthermore, EPA points toIT is also consistent with the proposed requirement that an owner or 

operator “maintain” the run-on and run-off control system. EPA has interpretedinterprets this 

requirementto require the owner or operator to meanensure that the run-on and run-off control 

system is kept in a condition that meets the requirements of the rule, i.e., that the run-on and run-
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

356

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

off control system both prevents flow onto the active portion of the unit during the peak 

discharge from a 24 hour, 25-year storm and collects and controls at least the water volume 

resulting from a 24 hour, 25 year storm event for the duration of the CCR landfill’s operational 

life. As such, the Agency is finalizing theA requirement to conduct a review of the control plan 

at least once every five years merely provides an explicit mechanism to ensure this occur, in a 

manner that facilitates citizen and state oversight. 

The date of preparing of the initial plan is the basis for establishing the deadline to 

complete the first subsequent plan.; i.e., the subsequent plan must be completed within five years 

of the prior plan. The owner or operator may complete any required plan prior to the required 

deadline provided the owner or operator placesand must place the completed plan into the 

facility’s operating record within a reasonable amount of the 5-year time frame. A qualified 

professional engineer must certify that the run-on and run-off control system plan and, including

any subsequent amendments to the run-on and run-off control system plan, meets the run-on and 

run-off control system requirements of today’s final rule. 

a. Run-on control 

Run-on meansConsistent with the proposal, EPA is defining run-on to mean any liquid 

that drains over land onto any part of a CCR landfill or any lateral expansion of a CCR landfill. 

In surface water hydrology, run-on is a quantity of surface runoff, or excess rain, snowmelt, or 

other sources of water, which flows from an upstream catchment area onto a specific 

downstream location. This rule requires that the CCR landfill be designed, constructed, operated, 

and maintained to prevent flow onto the active portion of the CCR landfill during the peak 

discharge from a 24 hour, 25-year storm. EPA has adopted this requirement to minimize the 

amount of surface water entering the CCR landfill and to minimize the disruption of the CCR 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

357

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

landfills operation due to storm water inflow. Uncontrolled or undesirable storm water run-on 

may have significant impacts on the stability of the slopes of a CCR landfill and continued safe 

operation of the CCR landfill, due to such phenomena as erosion and infiltration.

b. Run-off control 

EPA has adopted the definition of run-off from the proposal without revision. Run-off

means any liquid that drains over land from any part of the CCR landfill. Effectively, run-off is 

the portion of rainwater, snowmelt, or other liquid which does not undergo abstraction, such as 

infiltration, and travels overland. Typically, runoff is the product of the inability of water to 

infiltrate into soil due to saturation or infiltration rate capacity being exceeded. The rule requires 

that the CCR landfill be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to collect and control at 

least the water volume resulting from a 24-hour, 25-year storm. The owner or operator must 

design, construct, operate, and maintain the CCR landfill in such a way that any run-off 

generated from at least a 24-hour, 25-year storm must be collected through hydraulic structures, 

such as drainage ditches, toe drains, swales, or other means, and controlled so as to not adversely 

affect the condition of the CCR landfill. EPA has promulgated these requirements to minimize 

the detention time of run-off on the CCR landfill and subsequently minimizing infiltration into 

the CCR landfill, to dissipate storm water run-off velocity, and to minimize erosion of CCR 

landfill slopes. An additional concern with run-off from CCR landfills is the water quality of the 

run-off, which may collect suspended solids from the landfill slopes. EPA acknowledges that the 

run-off requirements will also minimize the amount of run-off related pollution generated by the 

landfill run-off. 

c. Run-on and Run-off Control System Plan

The owner or operator of any CCR landfill must prepare an initial run-on and run-off 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

358

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

control system plan documenting, with supporting engineering calculations, how the control 

systems have been designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the rule. This has been 

adopted without revision from the proposal. In most cases, EPA expects this documentation will 

include in addition to the supporting engineering calculations, references and drawings 

regarding the identification of the 24 hour, 25 year storm for the location of the CCR landfill, a 

characterization of the rainfall abstractions, including but not limited to depression storage and 

infiltration, the selection and basis of an appropriate runoff model, the selection and basis of an 

appropriate run-on or run-off routing model, and the selection and design of an appropriate runon and run-off management system. (e.g., swales, ditches, retention or detention ponds. ).

Consideration of the above factors would generally constitute a comprehensive review of the 

hydraulic and hydrologic processes associated with the design of a run-on and run-off control 

system plan. EPA recognizes that over time, any number of factors, e.g., expansion of the 

facility, could affect a change in the run-on and run-off control system plan. In Consequently in

the final rule, EPA is providing for flexibility in this area by stating that the plan can be amended 

by the owner or operator at any time during the life of the CCR landfill, provided the 

amendments are placed on the facility’s publicly available internet site.

H. Operating Criteria – Hydrologic and Hydraulic Capacity Requirements for CCR Surface 

Impoundments.

As discussed in the previous section, EPA proposed to require owners or operators of 

CCR landfills to design, construct, operate, and maintain: (1) a run-on control system to prevent 

flow onto the active portion of the unit during the peak discharge from a 24-hour, 25-year storm; 

and (2) a run-off control system to collect and control, at a minimum, the water volume resulting 

from the same 24-hour, 25-year storm. EPA also proposed to apply these same run-on and runFormatted: Font color: Gray-80%
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

359

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

off requirements to all CCR surface impoundments and lateral expansions. 

Commenters overwhelmingly disagreed with EPA’s decision to apply the same run-on 

and run-off requirements to both CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments, arguing that a 

"control system to prevent flow onto the active portion of the surface impoundment" was at odds 

with a commonly employed practice of using CCR surface impoundments to manage incoming 

storm water and other inflow. While some commenters reasoned that preventing run-on may be 

appropriate for CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments surrounded by above-ground 

dikes, the proposed requirement was entirely inappropriate for units specifically designed to 

retain storm water from an adjoining watershed or to operate as part of a facility’s overall storm 

water management system. Numerous commenters suggested that instead of the run-on 

prevention provision for CCR surface impoundments, EPA adopt a requirement specifying that 

CCR surface impoundments be designed to accommodate “peak discharge events.” 

Other commenters argued that storm water run-on controls were only appropriate during 

and after the closure of CCR surface impoundments; while still other commenters suggested that 

EPA remove entirely the run-on and run-off requirements because CCR surface impoundments 

were typically designed to impound and discharge storm water flow far in excess of a 25 year/24 

hour storm event. 

In evaluating commenter’sthe arguments against preventingthe requirements to prevent

flow onto the CCR surface impoundment, the Agency was strongly influenced by guidance 

developed by FEMA for selecting and accommodating hydraulic and hydrologic inflow and 

outflow as well as the application of this guidance to the CCR surface impoundments evaluated 

Formatted: Add space between paragraphs of the

same style

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

360

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

as part of EPApoundments evaluated a 113 A review of FEMA guidance confirmed 

commenter’scommenters’ contentions that managing flow both to and from dams and 

impoundments was a widely used practice, and a preferable management strategy for 

accommodating storm water flows. This was further confirmed by observations made during 

EPAs; assessment program whereAssessment Program; EPA frequently observed units designed 

to detain or retain storm water inflows of an upstream catchment area to manage CCR, and/or to 

receive storm water inflow as part of the facilitylows of an upstream catchment area rvations 

made dur EPA relied on the same FEMA guidance to assess the adequacy of the hydrologic and 

hydraulic capacity of the CCR surface impoundments. In conducting this analysisthese 

assessments, EPA considered a number of factors including operating freeboard, catchment area, 

hydrologic structures’ inflow and outflow ratings, design precipitation event, spillway presence 

and capacity, and unit operating procedures to make this determination. The adequacy of the 

capacity was determined using FEMA guidance for selecting and accommodating inflow design 

floods (IDF) for dams. (Note: The use of the terminology related to related toology a number of 

factors including operating freeboard, catchment area, hydrologic structures’ inflow and outflow 

ratings, design precipitation event, spillwe impoundments to adequately manage both the inflow 

and outflow from a design flood..)

During its assessment effort, EPA also found that, contrary to commenter’s arguments 

that CCR surface impoundments are often not designed to address flood in excess of a 24 hour, 

 

113

 EPA referred to FEMA’s “Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Selecting and Accommodating Inflow 

Design Floods for Dams” in evaluating the adequacy of the CCR surface impoundment’s hydrologic and 

hydraulic capacity during its assessment effort.

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Font color: Black, (Intl) Times New

Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

361

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

25-year storm event, rather EPA discovered that. Rather many CCR surface impoundments were 

deficient in their hydrologic and hydraulic capacity requirements due to factors such as lack of 

operating freeboard, misunderstanding of the actual contributory area, lack of documentation, 

undersized decant structures, undersized spillways, and lack of spillways. 

With regard, however, toEPA also disagrees with the comment asserting that storm water 

controls are only appropriate during and after closure of CCR surface impoundments, EPA 

disagrees.. Hydrologic and hydraulic capacity, as determined by an effective design flood 

control system, is an essential element of the overall structural integrity and safety of a CCR 

surface impoundment. CCR surface impoundments are subject to any number of stresses 

throughout their operational life with; one of the most common causes of a dike or embankment 

failure being the inability of the CCR unit to adequately pass or manage flood flows resultant 

from direct or indirect precipitation. These failures can occur at any point in the CCR unit’s life, 

not solely during and after closure, and are usually due to inadequate hydrologic and hydraulic 

capacity, leading to internal erosion due to seepage and piping, erosion of spillways, overtopping 

erosion, and overstressing of the embankment. Furthermore, according to the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation, a common dam failure mode is due to overtopping, accounting for 30% of the 

failures in the U.S. over the last 75 years.

114

. Overtopping is the direct result of lack of adequate 

hydrologic and hydraulic capacity of a dam or surface impoundment. Therefore, EPA is not 

modifying the regulation as suggested by the commenter.

In light of comments received, observations made during EPA. CCR assessment 

 

114 http://www.usbr.gov/ssle/damsafety/Risk/BestPractices/16-FloodOvertoppingPP20121126.pdf

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

362

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

programAssessment Program, and guidance developed by FEMA, EPA has concluded that it was 

inappropriate to propose to prohibit all run-on discharge or inflow from storm water to CCR 

surface impoundments. EPA has also concluded that run-on and run-off criteria are 

inappropriate for CCR surface impoundments, and that a more appropriate standard involves 

determining the hydrologic and hydraulic capacity of a unit, measured by its inflow design flood 

or IDF. Therefore, EPA is amending the proposed run-on and run-off requirements for CCR 

surface impoundments to require owners or operators of all CCR surface impoundments to 

design, construct, operate, and maintain hydraulic and hydrologic capacity to adequately manage 

flow both into and from a CCR surface impoundment during and after the peak discharge 

resulting from the inflow design flood, based on the Hazard Potential Classification of the CCR 

surface impoundment. 

The final rule requires the preparation of the initial inflow design flood control system 

plan within 18 months of the effective date of the final rule. In many cases, inflow design flood 

control system plan reporting may require design, construction, and post-construction 

implementation in order to provide sufficient hydrologic and hydraulic (H/H) capacity for the 

CCR unit. In instances where H/H capacity is insufficient, installing additional capacity may 

involve spillway construction or decant structure construction or installation. Many of these 

efforts may require several months of design and construction, compounded by the fact that 

much of the work cannot be completed in cold-weather or heavy-rain seasons. 

1. Inflow Design Flood Controls for CCR Surface Impoundments and All Expansions

The Agency has concluded that the proposed requirement preventing run-on to a CCR 

surface impoundment was both impractical and unwarranted and could possibly disrupt effective 

storm water management systems operating at CCR facilities. Therefore, consistent with FEMA 

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

363

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

guidance, the Agency is modifying this requirement to require an owner or operator of an 

existing or new CCR surface impoundment or any lateral expansion to design, construct, operate, 

and maintain hydraulic and hydrologic capacity of CCR surface impoundments to: (1) 

adequately manage flow into the CCR surface impoundment during and following the peak 

discharge of the inflow design flood; and (2) adequately manage flow from the CCR unit to 

collect and control the peak discharge resulting from the inflow design flood. The inflow design 

flood is based on the Hazard Potential Classification of the unit as required by § 257.73 and § 

257.74 of this rule.

115

 The inflow design floods for specific hazard potential classifications are 

as follows: (1) the probable maximum flood (PMF) for high hazard potential CCR surface 

impoundments; (2) the 1000-year flood for significant hazard potential CCR surface 

impoundments; (3) the 100-year flood for low hazard potential CCR surface impoundments; and 

(4) the 25-year flood for incised CCR surface impoundments.116 

EPA has based this revised language on the FEMA documentFEMA’s guidance entitled, 

aSelecting and Accommodating Inflow Design Floods for Dams” and,” which represents current 

and accepted practices in dam engineering and provides a consistent and uniform standard that 

has been adopted throughout dam engineering.

Incised CCR surface impoundments, as defined in this rule, are also required to meet 

inflow design flood requirements.117 While incised units do not pose the same potential for 

 

115

 Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety: Selecting and Accommodating Inflow Design Floods for Dams. 

August 1, 2013. FEMA P-94. 

116

 All discharge from the CCR surface impoundment must be handled in accordance with the surface 

water requirements under § 257.3-3.

117

 Incised CCR surface impoundment means a CCR surface impoundment which is constructed by 

excavating entirely below the natural ground surface, holds an accumulation of CCR entirely below the 

adjacent natural ground surface, and does not consist of any constructed diked portion.

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

364

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

release as a diked unit, i.e., breach of dike and release of CCR, overtopping of an incised unit 

does represent a potential environmental hazard warranting control. EPA acknowledges, 

however, that overtopping of an incised unit would result in a release of CCR material through a 

surcharge flow, i.e., flow of a temporary stage overtopping the “crest” of the incised CCR 

surface impoundment, and would not precipitate the degradation of a dike and potential 

subsequent breach of a dike and massive release of contents of the CCR surface impoundment. 

Because this reduced threat of releaseTo reflect the lower risks associated with such releases, and 

because incised CCR surface impoundments are not required to determine their hazard potential 

classification, the Agency has determinedis requiring that incised CCR surface impoundments 

only must accommodate a 25-year flood is the appropriate inflow designfor the hydrologic and 

hydraulic capacity requirements of the rule. EPA chose the 25-year flood for calculating the 

inflow design flood control system. 

incised CCR surface impoundments to maintain consistency with the proposed rule, 

which required that all units accommodate a 25-year storm event. As part of these requirements, 

EPA is also finalizing a definition of inflow design flood meaningand flood hydrograph. Inflow 

design flood has been defined to mean the flood hydrograph that is used to design or modify the 

CCR surface impoundment and its appurtenant works, and flood hydrograph meaninghas been 

defined to mean the temporal distribution of inflow into a CCR surface impoundment. 

2. Inflow Design Flood Control Systems

Controlling the inflow and outflow of the CCR surface impoundment reduces the risks of 

hydrologic failure, which includesinclude overtopping erosion, internal excessive seepage and 

piping, erosion of spillways, and overstressing of the structural components of the CCR surface 

impoundment. The CCR surface impoundment’s hydraulic and hydrologic capacity is to be 

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Space Before: 5 pt, After: 5 pt

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

365

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

designed based on the unitrnal excessive seepage and piping, erosion of spillwa qualified 

professional engineer. TheTo meet the performance standard in the rule, the CCR surface 

impoundment must be designed to have adequate hydraulic and hydrologic capacity to ensure 

that rainfall and watershed characteristics have been accounted for, the hydraulic ratings of all 

intake structures are adequate and free of obstruction, operating freeboard is adequate, all 

spillways and decant structures have adequate capacity, and that all downstream hydraulic 

structures have adequate capacity. While not required, an antecedent flood study may be 

necessary to characterize the condition of the CCR surface impoundment under normal operating 

conditions.

EPA recognizes that in many impoundment configurations, CCR surface 

impoundmentsan inflow design flood may be limited to the direct precipitation that falls within 

the perimeter of the CCR surface impoundment during a storm event, due to the lack of storm 

water inflow routing from adjacent catchment areas. Other CCR surface impoundments may 

have storm water or other hydrologic contributions from various catchment areas or other 

sources. EPA intends today’s The final rule todayter inflow routing from adjacenrequirements 

tostandards require all CCR surface impoundments to have adequate hydraulic and hydrologic 

capacity to accommodate all contributory inflow to CCR surface impoundments, regardless of

the inflow’s origin. 

HydraulicThe hydraulic and hydrologic capacity requirements will minimize the potential 

for overtopping resultingto occur from normal or abnormal operations, overfilling, wind and 

wave action, rainfall, and run-on;, and will ensure that the unit is operated with appropriate 

consideration of these potentially adverse conditions. The Agency, notes, however, that the 

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

366

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

operating freeboard of a CCR surface impoundment is subject to fluctuations, deviating from 

original design assumptions and specifications. Additionally, EPA notes that routine 

maintenance and alterations of hydraulic structures associated with the CCR surface 

impoundments, e.g., decant structures and spillways, maycan adversely impact the hydrologic 

and hydraulic capacity of the CCR surface impoundment. At no point should the inflow design 

flood exceed the capacity of the CCR surface impoundment, regardless of fluctuations in 

freeboard, maintenance of hydraulic structures, or other potential obstructions to the hydraulic 

and hydrologic capacity of the unit. The owner or operator must account for operational changes 

or diminished capacity in the calculation of hydraulic and hydrologic capacity of the CCR unit. 

3. Inflow Design Flood Control System Plan

The owner or operator of an existing CCR surface impoundment must prepare an initial 

inflow design flood control system plan to document that the design and construction of the 

system will achieve the rule’s performance standards no later than 18 months after the 

publication of this rule in the Federal Register. New CCR surface impoundments or lateral 

expansions of CCR surface impoundments must prepare an initial inflow design flood control 

system plan no later than the date of initial receipt of CCR in the CCR unit. Inflow design 

plansThe owner or operator must be certified byobtain a certification from a qualified 

professional engineer stating that the plan meets all applicable requirements of the rule for inflow 

design flood control system plans. The plan must also be supported by appropriate engineering 

calculations. This documentation should also include engineering calculations, references, and 

drawings regarding the identification of the design storm for the catchment area affecting the 

CCR surface impoundment and the CCR surface impoundment itself, a characterization of the 

rainfall abstractions, including but not limited to depression storage and infiltration in the 

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

367

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

upstream catchment area affecting the CCR surface impoundment,. In addition, EPA expects 

supporting documentation to address the selection and basis of an appropriate runoff model, the 

selection and basis of an appropriate run-on or run-off routing model,; the identification and 

characterization of any intake or decant structures of the CCR surface impoundment,; an 

appropriate characterization of the spillway(s) of the CCR surface impoundment and their 

capacity,; and characterization of downstream hydraulic structures which ultimately receive the 

discharge from the CCR surface impoundment. TheFinally, the owner or operator of the CCR 

unit must comply with the recordkeeping, notification and internet requirements specified in the 

rule for the plan. 

The owner or operator of the CCR unit may amend the written inflow design flood 

control system plan at any time prior to receipt of CCR in the CCR unit, during the operating life 

of the CCR unit, during closure of the CCR unit, or following closure of the CCR unit provided 

the revised plan is placed in the facility’s operating record. The owner or operator must amend 

the written inflow design flood control system plan whenever there is a change in the conditions 

that would substantially affect the written plan in effect. The owner or operator of the CCR 

surface impoundment must also periodically update the inflow design flood control system plan. 

The owner or operator must preparereview or update an existing plan at a frequency no less than 

every five years. Changes in storm characteristics (e.g., intensity and duration) and upstream 

catchment area characteristics, hazard potential classifications, as well as build-out, operational 

changes, and diminishing available capacity, all have the potential to influence inflow design 

flood volumes and therefore the effectiveness of the existing inflow design flood control 

systems. EPA has concluded that aA periodic review of the plan to address these and other 

factors is necessary to ensure that the hydrologic and hydraulic capacity of the unit is maintained 

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

368

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

overtimeover time. An update of the inflow design flood control system plan should document 

any modifications pertinent to the inflow design flood control system. 

The owner or operator of the CCR unit may amend the written inflow design flood 

control system plan at any time prior to receipt of CCR in the CCR unit, during the operating life 

of the CCR unit, during closure of the CCR unit, or following closure of the CCR unit 

providedand must place the revised plan is placed in the facilityan f CCR in the CCR uThe

However, the owner or operator must amend the written inflow design flood control system plan 

whenever there is a change in the conditions that would substantially affect the written plan in 

effect. The owner or operator of the CCR unit must prepare oralso review and, where necessary, 

update an inflow design flood control system plan every five years. As part of this review, the 

owner or operator must obtain certification from a qualified professional engineer must certify 

that the inflow design flood control system plan, and any subsequent amendments continues to 

meet the requirements of the rule. The date of completion of the initial plan is the basis for 

establishing the deadline to complete the first subsequent plan. The owner or operator may 

complete any required plan prior to the required deadline provided the owner or operator places, 

and must place the completed plan into the facilitys required plan prior to the required 

deadlineine to co A qualified professional engineer must certify that the inflow design flood 

control system plan and any subsequent amendments to the inflow design flood control system 

plan meets the inflow design flood control system requirements of the rule.

I. Operating Criteria – Inspection Requirements for CCR Surface Impoundments 

EPA proposed structural stability requirements for CCR surface impoundments based on 

the long-standing MSHA requirements, with only minor modifications. These structural stability 

requirements were covered in various sections of the proposed rule (see specifically proposed §§

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

369

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

257.71, 257.72, 257.83, and 257.84). Section 257.83 addressed requirements for periodic 

inspections of CCR surface impoundments. In proposing these requirements, the Agency 

concluded that periodic inspections were critical for ensuringto ensure that any problems relating 

to structural stability beare quickly identified and remedied to prevent past types of catastrophic 

releases, such as occurred at Martins Creek, Pennsylvania and TVA’s Kingston, Tennessee 

facility. The proposed rule required owners or operators of CCR units to conduct: (1) weekly 

inspections to detect potentially hazardous conditions or structural weakness; and (2) annual 

inspections to assure that the design, operation, and maintenance of the surface impoundment 

was in accordance with generally accepted engineering standards. EPA proposed that weekly 

inspections be conducted by a person qualified to recognize specific signs of structural instability 

and other hazardous conditions by visual observation and, if applicable, to monitor 

instrumentation. Annual inspections were The proposed to be certified byrule also required 

annual inspection reports from an independent registered professional engineer, certifying that 

the design, operation, and maintenance of the CCR surface impoundment was in accordance with 

generally accepted engineering standards. Consistent with the annual inspection requirements, 

EPA, as part of its recordkeeping requirements also proposed that owners or operators of CCR 

surface impoundments annually document and report on, among other things: (1) changes in the 

geometry of the impounding structure; (2) location and type of instrumentation monitoring the 

unit; (3) the minimum, maximum and present depth and elevation of the impounded water, 

sediment or slurry for the reporting period; and (4) storage capacity of the impounding structure 

(see 75 FR at 35246).

The annual inspection provisions also required that if a potentially hazardous condition 

developed, the owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment must immediately take 

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Not Italic, (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

370

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

action toseveral actions: eliminate the potentially hazardous condition; notify potentially affected 

persons and state and local first responders; notify and prepare to evacuate, if necessary, all 

personnel from the property whichwho may be affected by the potentially hazardous 

condition(s); and direct a qualified person to monitor all instruments and examine the structure at 

least once every eight hours, or more often as required by an authorized representative of the 

state. Finally, the proposed rule required that inspection and monitoring reports be maintained in 

the facility operating record and placed on the facility’s publicly accessible internet site as well 

as promptly reporting the results of the inspection or monitoring to the state.

While the Agency did not seek comment specifically on the inspection requirements, 

EPA did requestEPA specifically requested comment on whether to cover all CCR 

impoundments for stability (including the inspection requirements), regardless of height and 

storage volume, whether to use the cut-offs in the MSHA regulations, or whether other 

regulations, approaches, or size cut-offs should be used. The Agency further requested that if 

commenters who believed that other regulations or size cut-offs should be used (and not the size 

cut-offs established in the MSHA regulations) that commentersto provide the basis and technical 

support for their position. (75 FR 35176, 35223). In response to EPApport for their position. (75 

(and not the size cut-offs established in the MSHA regulation However, many commenters 

acknowledged confusion withquestioned EPAtioneded confusapply the inspection requirements 

torequire inspections for all CCR surface impoundments, given that the other structural stability 

requirements being proposed were triggered only if the CCR unit exceeded the proposed size 

threshold (consistent with MSHA requirements.)). Commenters argued that there was no basis 

to impose the inspection obligations onrequire inspections of all CCR surface impoundments 

given that units below the specified size threshold, had a much lower risk of catastrophic failure. 

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Not Italic, (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

371

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

This conclusion,A more limited requirement the commenter’s argued, was supported by 

MSHA’s decision to regulate only those “larger” sized units. Other commenters argued that 

inspection timeframes should take into account site specific conditions at the site and be based 

on the recommendations of an independent, registered, professional engineer. Commenters 

reasoned that while, in theory, a short inspection interval (i.e., a weekly inspection) should 

increase the chances of finding an adverse condition, the judgment of a qualified professional 

engineer to establish the frequency and focus, as well as the purpose of the dam safety inspection 

was a far more effective method for detecting and preventing the development of a potentially 

adverse situation. Still other commenters questioned the overall value of a weekly inspection if, 

as proposed, no documentation of the results was being required.

In reviewing the proposed regulatory language, it appears to the Agency that an error was 

made in drafting the regulatory text addressing inspections. In consulting. Although the 

preamble discussion, EPA did suggestgenerally stated that the proposed regulatory requirements 

addressing stability (which included inspections) applied only to those CCR surface 

impoundments exceeding the specified size threshold established by the MSHA regulations and 

that, the regulatory text stating thatrequired inspections applied tofor all CCR units was 

incorrect. However, upon further consideration and evaluation, the Agency has concluded and is 

finalizing in this. The final rule, requirements for requires weekly general inspections and 

monthly instrumentation inspections to be conducted for all CCR surface impoundments. EPA 

has determined that periodicPeriodic inspections of all CCR units are a necessary practice to 

ensure that the overall structural integrity of the CCR unit is maintained and that actual and 

potential structural weaknesses and other hazardous conditions are quickly identified and 

remediated throughout the active life of the unit EPA is, therefore requiring that all CCR surface 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

372

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

impoundments . All CCR surface impoundments pose some risk of release—whether from a 

catastrophic failure or from a more limited structural failure, such as occurred at Duke Energy’s 

Dan River plant. Periodic inspections are a generally accepted, prudent engineering practice that 

will significantly reduce the risks of such failures; during the Impoundment Assessment 

Program, EPA discovered that many facilities routinely conduct some sort of periodic inspection 

and monitoring, although the frequency varied widely between facilities. The final rule merely 

codifies this practice, by establishing a consistent minimum timeframe. EPA is therefore 

requiring that all CCR surface impoundments be inspected by a qualified person both weekly 

(for visual signs of a potentially adverse condition) and monthly (for instrumentation 

monitoring). 

Consistent with the proposed rule, EPA is also finalizing anrequiring annual inspection 

requirementinspections for all CCR unitssurface impoundments that exceed the specified size 

threshold of: (1) a height of five feet and a storage capacity of 20 acre-feet; or (2) a height of 20 

feet, must also be inspected no less than annually by a qualified professional engineer. These 

inspection requirements are generally being promulgated as proposed, allowing for a limited 

degree ofwith minor technical clarification. clarifications. 

The final inspection requirements have been drawn heavily from guidelines established 

by FEMA for dam safety where, ideally,, under which maintaining structural integrity involves 

continuous evaluation of the unit, withbased on periodic inspections forming the basis of the

evaluation. To be most effective, FEMA suggests, and EPA concurs, that inspections be varied 

with respect to both the time interval between inspections and the level of detail of the 

inspection. FEMA guidance, in part, suggests that inspections can be categorized as either: 

visual observations to identify abnormal conditions (i.e., informal inspections); field inspections 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

373

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

by a professional engineer (i.e., intermediate inspections); and a technical review to determine if 

the unit meets current and accepted design criteria and practices (i.e., formal inspection). 118 In 

general, FEMA recommends that inspections focusing on visual observations should be 

conducted often (e.g., weekly) while more substantive technical evaluation should be 

reviewedconducted every year to every five years depending on the engineering analyses 

required. (See also the preamble discussion on the requirements specified in §§ 257.73 and 

257.74 of this rule, in particular the discussion addressing the five year time interval for 

structural stability and factor of safety reassessments.) 

In this final ruleFor the reasons discussed above, EPA has concluded, consistent with 

FEMA guidelines, that routine inspections of all CCR units are necessary to ensure that the units 

are safely operated and that issues that could disrupt the safety and continuing operation of these 

units are promptly identified and remediated. For all CCR surface impoundmentsAccordingly, 

the Agency is requiringfinal rule requires both weekly inspections and monthly instrumentation 

inspections to be conducted at all CCR unitssurface impoundments to confirm that they are 

operating safely. These inspections must be conducted by a qualified person trained to recognize 

specific signs of structural instability and other hazardous conditions by visual observation and 

if, applicable monitor instrumentation. EPA is also finalizing an additionalretaining the annual 

inspection requirement for CCR surface impoundments exceeding the specified size threshold 

established in this rule. This inspection must be conducted and certified by a qualified 

professional engineer. The Agency has concluded that unitsUnits exceeding this size threshold 

 

118 See “Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety” Federal Emergency Management Agency.

(reprintedReprinted April 2004).

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line spacing: single

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

374

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

pose a higher degree of risk of release of CCRsCCR to the environment than other types of CCR 

surface impoundments (e.g., incised or “small” CCR units) and as such warrant additional 

regulatory control and oversight. 

The final rule for requires that both weekly inspections of the CCR unit and monthly 

monitoring of CCR unit instrumentation be initiated within 6 months of the effective date of the 

rule.

Within 9 months of the effective date of the rule, the owner or operator must complete 

the initial annual inspection of the CCR unit. Initial annual inspection requires the retaining of a 

professional engineer along with the familiarization of the engineer with the facility and CCR 

units. Additionally, the annual inspection should not be conducted unless weekly inspection and 

monthly instrumentation monitoring has been initiated and established in order to generate a 

body of information for the professional engineer to consider. Furthermore, in some coldweather regions of the United States, weather may inhibit adequate inspection of CCR units, 

whether through snow or ice cover. EPA is establishing a timeframe of 9 months after the 

effective date of the rule so as to allow for adequate weather conditions for inspection.

1. Surface Impoundment Inspection Requirements

a. Weekly Inspections

As presented in the proposed rule and finalized here, this rule requires all CCR surface 

impoundments to be examined by a qualified person at least once every seven days for any 

appearance of actual or potential structural weakness or other conditions whichthat are disrupting 

or that have the potential to disrupt the operation or safety of the CCR unit. The results of the 

inspection by a qualified person must be recorded in the facility’s operating record.

Weekly inspectioninspections are intended to detect, as early as is practicable, signs of 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

375

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

distress in a CCR surface impoundment that may result in larger, more severe conditions. They 

are also designed to identify potential issues with hydraulic structures whichthat may affect the 

structural safety of the CCR surface impoundment and impact the hydraulic and hydrologic 

capacity of the CCR surface impoundment. The early detection of signs of structural weaknesses 

is an essential preventative measure which helps to impede structural failure. The rule’s 

requirements forrequired weekly inspections are designed identify such signs of structural 

weakness before they develop into larger, debilitating concerns in the structural stability of the 

dike.

Appearances of structural weakness may include, but are not limited to: (1), excessive, 

turbid, or sediment- laden seepage; (2) signs of piping and other internal erosion; (3) transverse, 

longitudinal, and desiccation cracking; (4) slides, bulges, boils, sloughs, scarps, sinkholes, or 

depressions: (5) abnormally high or low pool levels; (6) animal burrows; (7) excessive or lacking 

vegetative cover; (8) slope erosion; and (9) debris. 

In addition, EPA is also establishingadopting a new provision that requires the qualified 

person to inspect the discharge of all outlets of hydraulic structures which pass underneath the 

base of the CCR surface impoundment or through the dike of the CCR unit for abnormal 

discoloration, flow, or discharge of debris or sediment. The requirement is being added to aid in 

the identification of any internal or sub-surface issues which cannot be reasonably identified in a 

routine visual inspection. Identification of abnormalAbnormal discharges from hydraulic 

structures isare often an indication of potential issues with the sub-surface or internal integrity of 

the structure. Hydraulic structures, particularly corrugated metal pipe, are subject to deterioration 

and corrosion over time and, as deterioration proceeds, the hydraulic structure becomes more 

susceptible to collapse, translation, or malfunction. Issues with hydraulic structures within the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

376

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

dike may exacerbate structural or operational issues with the CCR surface impoundment due to 

the significant internal deterioration of the dike via the hydraulic structure. As an example, on 

February 2, 2014, Duke Energy’s Dan River Fossil Plant experienced a structural collapse of a 

corrugated metal storm water discharge pipe which passed underneath the interior of a CCR 

surface impoundment. The subsequent collapse of the base of the CCR surface impoundment 

led to a massive release of CCR to the environment. Additionally, the adjacent dike of the CCR 

surface impoundment was severely damaged due to the erosion of the upstream slope.

Furthermore, the Agency believes thatFurther, an owner or operator may want to consider 

inspections outside of the weekly, seven-day schedule if an unanticipated event, such as a flood, 

earthquake, or vandalism occurs on the site. While rare in occurrence, these events may increase 

the chances that a potential structural stability issue has arisen. Prudent CCR management 

practices dictate that a visual assessment is warranted after such events. For example, after a 

large flood (considered a flood with a return period of equal or greater frequency of ten years) 

there is potential for damage, including structural damage to the CCR surface impoundment, 

caused by increased reservoir levels whichthat inundate areas infrequently inundated. The slopes 

of the dike should be inspected to ensure that no significant erosion has occurred due to the 

flood, or that any large debris or sediment has been deposited on the dike. An inspection should 

also be conducted following an earthquake where earthquake damage is observed or can be 

reasonably expected, where ground motion is felt at the CCR surface impoundment or in nearby 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

377

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

locations, or following established magnitude-epicenter distance relationships.119

b. Monthly Instrumentation Inspection 

In a departure from the proposed rule, EPA is requiring the monitoring of all 

instrumentation supporting the operation of the CCR unit to be conducted by a qualified person 

no less than once per month. This is a change from the proposal where EPAwhich required 

instrumentation to be monitored no less than every seven days. 

In response to the proposed requirement forMany commenters argued that requiring

inspections every seven days, many commenters argued that this time frame was excessive, and 

that, based on FEMA guidelines for dam safety, a more reasonable timeframe would be once per 

month for CCR surface impoundments with a hazard potential rating of "high" and quarterly for 

those CCR surface impoundments with a hazard potential rating of "significant." In considering 

the commenter’s suggestionthese comments, the Agency was influenced by a number of factors 

including the FEMA guidelines suggested by FEMA and the results of EPA’s Assessment 

Program.the commenters. Also weighing heavily onin EPA’s decision waswere the observations 

made as part of the Assessment Program, which revealed that many CCR units are equipped with 

only “basic” measuring devices such as piezometers and pool elevation and freeboard 

instrumentation and not the more sophisticated (i.e., sensitive) measuring devices for measuring 

pressure, seepage, internal movement, slope movement; and vibration. These findings strongly 

suggested to the Agency that, given the status of current instrumentation employed at CCR 

 

119

 The US Army Corps of Engineers has ahave developed useful criteria for Post-Earthquake 

Inspectionspost-earthquake inspections, specifically their published magnitude-epicenter distance criteria 

in Table 11.1 of “Safety of Dams – Policy and Procedures,” ER 1110-2-1156, 31 March 2014119. The 

criteria stipulatesstipulate when the dam (or in the case of this rule, CCR surface impoundment) should be 

inspected:

. Formatted: Normal
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

378

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

facilities, weekly monitoring would be excessive, impractical, and —of greatest significance--

unlikely to indicate any measurable changes in structural stability in such a short time frame. 

EPA, therefore, has concludedagrees that a monthly time frame is a more appropriate interval for 

detecting discernible or significant changes in the operation of the CCR unit. Furthermore the 

Agency is convinced that if more sophisticated measuring devices are employed at a facility, the 

owner or operator will have the incentive to monitor these instruments independent of some 

prescribed inspection requirement.EPA has not, however, differentiated between high, 

significant, and low hazard potential CCR surface impoundments in the requirement that 

instrumentation be monitored monthly, as commenters suggested. Through the Assessment 

effort, EPA identified that typically low hazard potential CCR surface impoundments were 

monitored less frequently than high- or significant hazard potential CCR surface impoundments 

by the owner or operator. Additionally, these low hazard potential CCR surface impoundments 

less commonly were equipped with sophisticated monitoring instrumentation, including remote 

monitoring instrumentation which would allow the owner or operator to monitor the unit from a 

remote location. Based on these observations, along with the limited burden that instrumentation 

monitoring places on the owner or operator, the rule requires all CCR surface impoundments 

with instrumentation to be monitored monthly. 

c. Annual Inspections

The rule requires owners or operators of any CCR surface impoundments exceeding a 

specifiedthe MSHA size threshold (i.e., a height of five feet or more and a storage volume of 20 

acre-feet or more; or a height of 20 feet or more) to conduct annual inspections of the CCR unit 

throughout its operating life. These annual inspections are focused primarily on the structural 

stability of the CCR surface impoundment and must assureensure that the operation and 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

379

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

maintenance of the CCR surface impoundment is in accordance with recognized and generally 

accepted good engineering standards. Inspections must be conducted and certified by a qualified 

professional engineer.120 Incised CCR surface impoundments, as defined in § 257.53 are not 

subject to the annual inspection requirements. The Agency has concluded that incisedIncised

units are at a reduced riskpresent lower risks of structural failure, and thatso weekly inspections 

are sufficient to address any risks associated with these CCR units.

Annual inspections of any CCR unitsurface impoundment must include, at a minimum : 

(1) a review of all previously generated information regarding the status and condition of the 

CCR unit, including, but not limited to, all operating records and publicly accessible internet site 

entries, design and construction drawings and other documentation; (2) a thorough visual 

inspection to identify indications of distress, unusual or adverse behavior, or malfunction of the 

CCR unit and appurtenant structures; and (3) a thorough visual inspection of hydraulic structures 

underlying the base of the CCR unit and passing through the dike of the CCR unit for structural 

integrity and continued safe and reliable operation. Additionally, following each inspection, the 

qualified professional engineer must prepare an inspection report which documents the 

following: (1) any changes in geometry of the impounding structure since the previous annual 

inspection; (2) the location and type of existing instrumentation and the maximum recorded 

readings of each instrument since the previous annual inspection; (3) the approximate minimum, 

maximum, and present depth and elevation of the impounded water and CCR since the previous 

annual inspection; (4) the storage capacity of the impounding structure at the time of inspection; 

 

120

 For purposed of this requirement, qualified means an individual experienced in the operation 

and maintenance of dams and must bewho has been trained to recognize signs of concern and structural 

weakness.

by visual observation, and if applicable, to monitor instrumentation.

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Normal

Formatted: Font: 11 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

380

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(5) the approximate volume of the impounded water and CCR at the time of the inspection; and 

(6) any appearances of an actual or potential structural weakness of the CCR unit, in addition to 

any existing conditions that are disrupting or have the potential to disrupt the operation and 

safety of the CCR unit and appurtenant structures; and (7) any other change(s) which may have 

affected the stability or operation of the impounding structure since the previous annual 

inspection.

This last set of requirements was originally presented in § 257.84 of the proposed rule 

(i.e., recordkeeping requirements), however, the Agency has moved these requirements to the 

annual inspection section of the rule because (1) these requirements apply only to CCR surface 

impoundment exceeding the specified size threshold, rather than all CCR surface impoundments, 

as proposed; (2) must be reported annually; and (3) are more appropriately housed in the 

inspection section.

The owner or operator of the existing CCR surface impoundments must ensure that the 

initial annual inspection by a qualified professional engineer is completed and documented with 

a report no later than three months after the effective date of the rule.121 Whereas, EPA 

established this timeframe for completing an initial annual inspection based on its experience with 

the Assessment Program. In an effort similar to conducting an initial annual inspection, the 

following tasks were generally completed within three months: retaining the services of a 

 

121

 EPA established this timeframe for completing an initial annual inspection based its 

experience with the Assessment Program. In an effort similar to conducting an initial annual 

inspection, the following tasks were generally completed within three months. These tasks were 

retaining the services of a qualified professional engineer, development of a scope of work, review of 

existing documentation on the CCR unit, conducting a thorough field inspection, and completion of 

an inspection report.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

381

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

qualified professional engineer, developing a scope of work, reviewing existing documentation on the 

CCR unit, conducting a thorough field inspection, and completing an inspection report Owners 

and operators of new CCR surface impoundment must commence annual inspections no later 

than one year from the initial placement of CCR into the new unit. An annual inspection is not 

required in any calendar year in which the five year structural stability reassessment is also 

required to be completed. (See §§ 257.73 and 257.74)..) The report which the qualified 

professional engineer has documented must be placed in the facility’s operating record and 

placed on the facility’s publicly accessible internet site. An annual inspection is considered 

complete when the inspection report has been placed in the facility’s operating record. Finally, if 

a deficiency is identified during an inspection, the owner or operator of the CCR unit must 

develop and implement an action planmust take immediate measures to remedy the structural 

weakness or disrupting condition as soon as feasible.

J. Operating Criteria - Inspections for CCR Landfills 

Under RCRA Subtitle D Parts 258, EPA does not require specific inspection 

requirements for MSWLFs. Rather, EPA relies on states to establish their own inspection 

criteria and frequency of inspections to ensure protection of human health and the environment. 

It is the Agencyria and frequency of inany states require owner/operators of MSW

landfillsMSWLFs to conduct either daily, weekly, quarterly and annual inspections of these units 

to ensure that they are being designed, constructed, operatedthe design, construction, operation,

and maintained in compliancemaintenance complies with theall requirements of the rule. The 

Agency has also determined. In addition, based on a review of selected state regulations that 

most states conduct state inspections of operating landfills no less than annually.

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

382

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Under the proposed subtitle D option, EPA did not propose to require mandatory 

inspections of new or existing landfills or any lateral expansion. However, under the subtitle C 

option, EPA proposed to apply the requirements of § 264.303 to permitted CCR landfills. 

Specifically, these requirements stated that CCR landfills while in operation would be required to 

be inspected weekly and after storms to detect evidence of any of the following: (1) 

deterioration, malfunctions, or improper operation of run on and run-off control systems; (2) 

proper functioning of wind dispersal control systems, where present; and (3) the presence of 

leachate in and proper functioning of the leachate collection and removal system where present. 

(See proposed § 264.1306, 75 FR at 35257). 

Upon further evaluation, the Agency has decided, consistent with the weekly inspection 

requirements proposed for CCR landfills under the subtitle C option, andas well as many state 

requirements for MSW landfillsMSWLFs, to require all existing and new CCR landfills and any 

lateral expansion to conduct, at intervals not exceeding seven days, inspections by a qualified 

person for any appearances of actual or potential structural weakness or any other conditions

which are disrupting or have the potential to disrupt the operation or safety of the CCR landfill. 

In addition, EPA is also requiring, consistent with the inspections requirements for CCR surface 

impoundments, inspections by a qualified professional engineer at intervals not exceeding one 

year to ensure that the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the CCR landfill is 

consistent with recognized and generally accepted good engineering standards. This inspection 

must include a review of all data in the operating record as well as a visual inspection of the unit 

to identify signs of distress or malfunction that is or potentially could affect the safe operation of 

the unit. The qualified professional engineer must then also preparedprepare a report to identify 

and discuss the findings of the inspection as well as a discussion of potential remedies for 

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

383

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

addressing any deficiencies discovered during the inspection. The Agency has concluded that all 

CCR landfills should be routinely inspected to assureensure that they are operating as designed 

and are being maintained in an environmentally protective fashion and in compliance with the 

reqirements of the rulefederal criteria.

The Agency is promulgating these inspection requirements based on: (1) a review of state 

municipal landfill inspection requirements; and (2) comments from parties whichthat clearly 

supported inspections of all CCR landfills. The Agency reviewed MSW landfillMSWLF

inspection checklists in a selected number of states to assess the scope of these inspections. The 

Agency also conducted a preliminary review of state MSW landfillMSWLF regulations for New 

York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, North Dakota and California. All of 

these states require municipal landfill owner/operators to conduct a either daily, weekly, 

monthly, quarterly and annual inspections addressing the following: (1) proper placement of the 

waste;

( (2) landfill slopes are stable and that erosion is controlled: (3) surface water 

percolation is minimized (i.e. reduce ponding): (4) liner systems and leachate collection systems 

are properly operated and maintained: (5) water quality monitoring systems are maintained and 

operating; (6) dust is controlled; and (67) a plan is in place to promptly address and correct 

problems and deficiencies discovered during the inspection. The Agency also noted during its 

review of state regulations that states reserve the right to inspect landfills at any time and routine 

conduct state inspections on a no less than annual basis. It is therefore, Agency’s finding 

thatCCR landfills present at least the weeklysame level of risks as MSWLFs, and while the 

operations may differ, both operating systems are equally susceptible to malfunction. Weekly

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5", Space Before: 0 pt,

After: 0 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

384

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

inspections of all CCR landfills by a qualified person are therefore equally necessary to assure 

thatensure that ground water monitoring, run-on/runoff controls, liner systems, and leachate 

collection systems are operated and maintained to reduce adverse environmental and human 

health impacts. 

 This rule also requires that all existing and new CCR landfills and any lateral 

expansion conduct an annual inspection by a qualified professional engineer to assure that these 

units are designed, constructed, operated, and maintained throughout their operating life to 

ensure protection of human health and the environment. The Agency finds that annual 

inspections for these units are justified for the following reasons: (1) CCR landfills are large 

engineered units that require, like CCR surface impoundments, that a variety of design and 

operating parameters be assessed to assure that the CCR landfill is operating as designed. Of 

particular concern to the Agency, is the fact that coal ash is a fine grained material that may have 

the potential to compact and clog leachate collection systems (see: “Operations and Maintenance 

Guidelines for Coal Ash Landfills” Christopher Hardin, et. al. 2011 World of Coal Ash 

Conference. May 2011). It is not unreasonablereasonable therefore that the rule requires annual 

inspections to assure that these liner and leachate systems are assessed to assure that they are 

performing their functions as designed. (2) A formal annual inspection would review data 

collected during weekly inspections and determine if any remedial actions are need to address 

deficiencies, (3) the annual review by a qualified professional engineer assuresensures that a 

detailed level of engineering analysis of operating conditions are evaluated which could lead to 

recommendations to address design or operating issues that need attention. 

K. Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action

EPA is finalizing groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements to ensure 

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

385

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

that groundwater contamination at new and existing CCR disposal units will be detected and 

cleaned up as necessary to protect human health and the environment. These requirements 

reflect Congressional intent that protection of groundwater be a prime objective of any new solid 

waste regulations. As stated in the proposal, EPA's damage cases and risk assessments indicate 

there is significant potential for CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments to leach 

hazardous constituents into groundwater, impairingimpair drinking water supplies and 

causingcause adverse impacts on human health and the environment. Indeed, groundwater 

contamination is one of the key environmental and human health risks EPA has identified with 

CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments. Groundwater monitoring is a key mechanism for 

facilities to verify that the existing containment structures, such as liners and leachate collection 

and removal systems, are functioning as intended. Thus, in order for a CCR landfill or CCR 

surface impoundment to show no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the 

environment, a system of routine groundwater monitoring to detect any such contamination from 

a CCR disposal unit, and corrective action requirements to address identified contamination, are 

essential.

EPA proposed to require that a system of monitoring wells be installed at all new and 

existing CCR units. The regulation would also provide procedures for sampling these wells and 

methods for statistical analysis of the analytical data derived from the well samples to detect the 

presence of hazardous constituents released from these CCR disposal units. The Agency 

proposed a groundwater monitoring program consisting of detection monitoring and assessment 

monitoring, and a corrective action program. This phased approach to groundwater monitoring 

and corrective action programs provides for a graduated response over time to the problem of 

groundwater contamination as the evidence of such contamination increases. This allows for 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

386

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

proper consideration of the transport characteristics of CCR constituents in ground water, while 

protecting human health and the environment.

EPA largely based these proposed groundwater monitoring requirements on those for 

MSWLFs in the 40 CFR part 258 criteria, albeit with certain modifications to tailor the 

requirements to the case at hand. In particular, the possibility that a state may lack a permit 

program for CCR disposal units made it impossible to include some of the alternatives available 

in 40 CFR part 258, which establish alternative standards that allow a state, as part of its permit 

program to tailor the default requirements as alternatives to account for site specific conditions at 

the individual facility. EPA also sought to tailor the proposed requirements for CCR units, by 

incorporating certain provisions from the interim status regulations, which operate in the absence 

of a permit, and by including in several of the proposed requirements, a certification by an 

independent registered professional engineer that the rule’s requirements had been met. 

In the proposed rule, the Agency required facilities to install a groundwater monitoring 

system that met a specified performance standard and that consisted of a minimum of one up 

gradientupgradient and three down gradientdowngradient wells at all CCR disposal units. EPA 

acknowledged in the proposal that the design of an appropriate groundwater monitoring system 

is particularly dependent on site conditions relating to groundwater flow, and on the development 

of a system that has a sufficient number of wells, installed at appropriate locations and depths, to 

yield groundwater samples from the uppermost aquifer that represents the quality of background 

groundwater that has not been affected by contaminants from CCR landfills or CCR surface 

impoundments.a CCR unit. EPA's existing requirements under 40 CFR parts 258 and 264 

recognize this, and because they operate in a permitting context, these requirements do not 

specify the minimum number and location of wells but provide more flexibility in establishing
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

387

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

groundwater monitoring systems. But because the same guarantee of permit oversight is not 

available under the criteria developed for the proposal, EPA proposed to establish a minimum 

requirement based on the part 265 interim status regulations, which are self-implementing. 

PastLong experience demonstrates that these monitoring requirements will be protective of a 

wide variety of conditions and wastes, and that facilities can feasibly implement these 

requirements. EPA also noted that in many instances a more detailed groundwater monitoring 

system will need to be in place, and EPA therefore proposed requiring a certification by the 

independent registered professional engineer that the groundwater monitoring system is designed 

to detect all significant groundwater contamination.

EPA also proposed to require that owners and operators of CCR disposal units establish

consistent sampling and analysis procedures to determine whether a statistically significant 

increase in the level of a hazardous constituent(s) has occurred, indicating the presence of 

groundwater contamination.

As noted, EPA proposed a phased approach to monitoring. The first phase is detection 

monitoring where indicators would be monitored to determine whether groundwater was 

potentially being contaminated. The parameters EPA proposed to be used as indicators of 

groundwater contamination were the following: boron, chloride, conductivity, fluoride, pH, 

sulfate, sulfide, and total dissolved solids (TDS). In selecting the parameters for detection 

monitoring, EPA chose constituents that are present in CCRs,CCR and would rapidly move 

through the subsurface, and thus provide an early detection as toof whether contaminants were 

migrating from the CCR disposal unit. Under the proposed rule, monitoring would be required 

no less frequently than semi-annuallysemiannually. 

When a statistically significant increase over background levels is detected for any of 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

388

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

these parameters, the proposed rule would require the facility to begin an assessment monitoring 

program to determine if releases of CCR constituents of concern had occurred. The parameters 

that were proposed for assessment monitoring included aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, 

beryllium, boron, cadmium, chloride, chromium, copper, fluoride, iron, lead, manganese, 

mercury, molybdenum, pH, selenium, sulfate, sulfide, thallium, and total dissolved solids.

The proposed rule also required that whenever monitoring results indicate a statistically 

significant level exceeding the groundwater protection standard for any of these parameters, the 

owner or operator of the CCR disposal unit must start the process for cleaning up the 

contamination, and initiate an assessment of corrective action remedies. The proposed rule 

required that the assessment of correction action remedies be initiated within 90 days and then 

completed within 90 days.

EPA proposed that the assessment of corrective measures must consider a number of 

factors, including the effectiveness, performance, and time needed for the potential remedies. As 

part of the assessment of corrective measures, the owner or operator will needwas required to 

identify the source of the release. The owner or operator was also required to gather data on 

plume definition, fate of the contaminants, stratigraphy and hydraulic properties of the aquifer. 

The owner or operator also was required to consider whether immediate measures to limit further 

plume migration or measures to minimize further introduction of contaminants to groundwater 

would be necessary. EPA also proposed to require the owner or operator to provide notification 

of the corrective measures assessment to the State Director, place the corrective measures 

assessment in the operating record and on the owner’s or operator’s publicly accessible internet 

site, and discuss the results of the corrective measures assessment in a public meeting with 

interested and affected parties.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

389

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Based on the results of the corrective measures assessment, EPA proposed to require the 

owner or operator to select a remedy based on a number of factors, including: the long- and 

short-term effectiveness and protectiveness of the potential remedy, along with the degree of 

certainty that the remedy will prove successful; the effectiveness of the remedy in controlling the 

source to reduce further releases; the ease or difficulty of implementing a potential remedy; the 

degree to which community concerns are addressed by a potential remedy; and potential risks to 

human health and the environment from exposure to contamination prior to completion of the 

remedy. The owner or operator was also required to specify as part of the selected remedy a 

schedule for initiating and completing remedial activities.

Under the proposed rule, implementing the corrective action program would require the 

owner or operator to establish and implement a corrective action groundwater monitoring 

program; implement the corrective action remedy selected; and take any interim measures 

necessary to ensure the protection of human health and the environment, all according to the 

schedule the owner or operator developed during the assessment of corrective measures.

The proposed rule also required that the owner or operator must demonstrate that 

concentrations of constituents have not exceeded the ground water protection standards for three 

consecutive years in order to support a determination that the remedy is complete.

The majority of the commenters supported “appropriate groundwater monitoring 

standards for CCR waste management units” and the development of such standards under a 

RCRA subtitle D framework. Comments were received on various parts of the groundwater 

monitoring scheme laid out in the proposed rule. The majority of comments received requested 

EPA to provide “more flexibility” to the proposed requirements. Many commenters wanted the 

states to be more involved with the process and provided comments suggesting that added 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

390

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

additional “flexibility,,” such as is provided in the 40 CFR part 258 regulations for MSWLFs as 

part of the permitting process, be extended to CCR units. For example, commenters wanted 

states to have the authority to add or drop monitoring constituents; approve alternatives to 

schedules; modify the number of wells needed; allow variances; allow alternatives to the point of 

compliance specified in the rule; employ alternative methods to detect potential groundwater 

contamination, such as leak detection systems; allow alternatives to the statistical methods used 

to determine whether groundwater contamination has occurred; and to replace the qualified 

professional engineer role in the certification process. 

For the final rule, EPA has developed a groundwater monitoring program that is flexible 

and allows facilities to design a system that accounts for site specific conditions within specific 

parameters. The final rule establishes an overall performance standard that the system must 

meet, lays out the bare minimum requirements of an effective system, and requires the owner or 

operator to design a system that achieves that overall performance standard based on a full 

characterization of site conditions. 

As described in more detail below, in certain cases, EPA was able to develop 

performance standards to serve as “more flexible” alternatives to the technical specifications laid 

out in the proposal. In these instances, the available information allowed the Agency to develop 

performance standards that were sufficiently objective and determinate that EPA could conclude 

that the 4004(a) standard would be met nationwide. 

However, many of the commenters’ requests related to alternatives that would be less 

stringent than the minimum criteria laid out in the proposal and were based on arguments that 

state regulators (or facilities) should be allowed to “tailor” those requirements to sites that did 

not need those particular requirements. As explained at length in the proposal, EPA is concerned 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

391

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

that provisions allowing such modifications are particularly susceptible to abuse, since in many 

cases the provisions could allow substantial cost avoidance. In the absence of a mandated state 

oversight mechanism to ensure that the suggested modifications are technically appropriate, 

these kinds of provisions can operate at the expense of protectiveness. In Unit II of this

preamble, we explainEPA explains the extent of our authority to establish criteria under RCRA 

sections 1008(a)(3) and 4004(a), including the implications associated with the lack of any 

authority to establish a program analogous to part 258, which relies on approved states to 

implement the Federal criteria through a permitting program. While some states currently do 

have programs for the regulation of CCRs, which in some cases may be more stringent than this 

final rule, the federal program must be defensible on the record in place at the time the final rule 

is adopted. . As a result of the statutory structure, this rule is self-implementing and is designed 

to operate to ensure that facilities will manage CCRsCCR in a manner that achieves the 4004(a) 

standard even in the absence of any regulatory entity available to judge the reasonableness of the 

desired alternatives. While some states currently do have programs for the regulation of CCR, 

which in some cases may be more stringent than this final rule, the federal program must be 

defensible on the record in place at the time the final rule is adopted. Based on the current 

rulemaking record, in most cases EPA lacked the information necessary to defend the 

commenters’ less stringent alternatives (i.e., the commenters’ requested “flexibilities”) to the 

minimum technical criteria specified in this rule for these units. Under both the subtitle C and 

part 258 programs, EPA can rely on subsequent proceedings to develop the information 

necessary to support such tailoring. This is clearly neither contemplated nor authorized under 

the regulatory program relevant to this rule. 

In addition, given the extremely technical nature of these requirements, EPA remains 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

392

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

concerned that such provisions would render the requirements appreciably more difficult for 

citizens to effectively enforce. Nevertheless, working within these constraints this rule 

specifically allows the PE to design a system that accounts for site conditions within the 

parameters of the minimum technical criteria, and EPA has added language to the regulation that 

expressly clarifies this. Moreover, states that have programs can continue to impose more 

stringent requirements, and thus can require, for example, additional monitoring wells, 

monitoring of additional aquifers, and inclusion of additional parameters to the detection 

monitoring list or the assessment monitoring list. The following discussion addresses in more 

detail the technical requirements under groundwater monitoring and corrective action in the final 

rule.

1. Applicability

Consistent with the provisions in the proposed rule, the final rule requires a system of 

monitoring wells to be installed at all CCR landfills, CCR surface impoundments and lateral 

expansions. Existing CCR units must install the groundwater monitoring system, develop their 

groundwater sampling and analysis procedures, develop background levels for Appendix III and 

Appendix IV constituents, and begin detection monitoring (§ 257.90 through § 257.94) within 

two years of the effective date of today’sthis rule. The proposed rule required that existing CCR 

units comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements within one year of the effective 

date. EPA proposed one year believing that thisit would be feasible and a reasonable period of 

time for facilities to install the necessary systems, and. EPA also believed that a one year 

timeframe would ensure that existing CCR disposal facilities begin monitoring groundwater as 

soon as possible , so that releases from existing CCR disposal units are detected and addressed. 

Comments were received on this issue argued that suggested the one-year timeframe was not 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

393

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

sufficient to complete a hydrogeologic study and develop a monitoring plan. Several 

commenters requesting more time mentioned staffing shortages and limited contractor and lab 

resources. One state, referencing theirits experience relating to development and implementation 

of groundwater monitoring systems, said that a one year timeframe to investigate, design and 

submit and obtain approval for the installation of an effective groundwater monitoring system 

iswas unreasonable. Most commenters thought that a timeframe of two years was reasonable. 

After review of the comments received on this issue and careful reexamination of the actual 

requirements in the final rule, EPA has determinedagrees that a one-year time frametimeframe is 

not feasible, and has decided to extend the time framestimeframes for completing installation of 

the system, including background monitoring, to two years. As important as it is to begin 

detecting and addressing releases to groundwater, it is equally important that these complex 

systems be designed and installed correctly. That generally entails a number of activities, many 

of which must occur sequentially, including: determining the uppermost aquifer, deciding

whether to install a single or multi-unit monitoring system, collecting and evaluating

hydrogeological information that can be used to model the site, characterizing the site geology, 

characterizing the groundwater flow beneath the site, determining the flow direction and 

hydraulic gradient, establishing horizontal and vertical flow direction, determining hydraulic 

conductivity, determining groundwater flow rate, determining the monitoring wells placement, 

selecting the drilling method, designing the monitoring wells, developing sampling and analysis 

procedures, choosing a statistical method for evaluating the data and beginning detection 

monitoring. We also recognize that in some states, the state may require the owner or operator of 

the CCR disposal facility to receive state approval under state law before they can install a 

groundwater monitoring system. Two years is a more reasonable timeframe in which to carry out 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

394

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

these activities. New CCR landfills, new CCR surface impoundments and any new lateral 

expansion must comply with these same requirements (§§ 257.90 through 257.94) before any 

CCR can be placed in the CCR unit.

Consistent with the proposal, the final rule also requires that the owner or operator of the 

CCR facility annually certify that each CCR unit is in compliance with the groundwater 

monitoring and corrective action provisions and provide a copy of this certification to the State 

Director. Because this is a self-implementing rule that relies on citizen enforcement, it is 

important for the owner or operator of the facility to periodically document that they are in 

compliance with the existing groundwater monitoring requirements, and an annual certification 

is the easiest and most effective way to achieve this. While the groundwater monitoring data will 

be made available on the owner or operator’s publicly accessible website and in the operating 

record of the facility, the analysis of these data is complicated and requires a certain level of 

scientific expertise to analyze the data correctly. As such, a document that serves as both an 

interpretative record of scientific analysis and regulatory compliance is critically important to the 

successful implementation of a self-implementing rule that is to be enforced exclusively by 

citizens and the states. For similar reasons, the certification must also be placed in the operating 

record, provided to the State Director, and posted on the owner or operator’s publicly accessible 

website. 

The groundwater monitoring requirements must be met throughout the active life of the 

disposal unit, as well as during the closure and post-closure care period of the CCR unit. 

EPA has added a new provision to § 257.90 to address the corrective action requirements 

that apply when CCRsCCR have been released into the environment, such as from the kind of 

structural failure that occurred with TVATVA’s Kingston Fossil Fuel plant release, or from the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

395

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

kind of release that occurred in North Carolina at the DamDan River. Originally, EPA had

inadvertently drafted the corrective action requirements in the proposed rule to apply exclusively 

upon detection of groundwater contamination caused by a leaking unit. However, there is no 

reason to establish different corrective action provisions for conducting clean-up operations for 

different kinds of releases; the same general process is applicable to all kinds of releases. 

The new provision requires that in the event of a release from a CCR unit, the owner or 

operator must immediately take all necessary measures to control the source(s) of releases so as 

to reduce or eliminate, to the maximum extent practicable, further releases of contaminants into 

the environment. The owner or operator of the CCR unit is also required to comply with all of 

the relevant corrective action requirements in §§ 257.96, 257.97, and 257.98.

2. Ground WaterGroundwater Monitoring System Requirements

EPA received comments that supported establishing more prescriptive requirements for 

the design of the groundwater monitoring system. For example, one commenter argued that 

three downgradient wells are insufficient to ensure detection of leakage from the very large 

disposal units typically used for CCRsCCR; due to uncertainty in flow directions, the perimeter 

of the CCR disposal unit must be monitored on its cross -gradient, as well as downgradientdowngradient sides. The commenter suggested that the minimum number of nonbackground monitoring wells should instead be three, plus one for every 500 feet of 

downgradient and cross-gradient perimeter of the CCR disposal unit. (i.e., if the perimeter length 

adds up to 1200 feet, the minimum number of wells would be five), and that wells should be 

spaced no more than 500 feet apart along the downgradient and cross-gradient perimeter. EPA 

also received many comments arguing that the minimum requirements were overly prescriptive, 

and that the final rule should instead allow a professional engineer or hydrologist to design “an 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

396

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

alternative, but equally effective, groundwater monitoring program.” The majority of comments 

on groundwater monitoring systems requested that EPA not promulgate requirements that would 

be incompatible with state requirements.

The final rule provisions are fundamentally the same as those in the proposal, although 

EPA has also added language to the regulations to better clarify how the requirements in the 

various sections collectively operate. The final rule establishes a general performance standard 

that all ground watergroundwater monitoring systems must meet: All ground watergroundwater

monitoring systems must consist of a sufficient number of appropriately located wells (at least 

one upgradient and three downgradient wells) in order to yield ground watergroundwater

samples from the uppermost aquifer that represent the quality of background ground 

watergroundwater and the quality of ground watergroundwater passing the CCR waste boundary. 

This is the same performance standard included in the proposed rule. The objective of a 

groundwater monitoring system is to intercept groundwater to determine whether the 

groundwater has been contaminated by the CCR disposal unit. Early contaminant detection is 

important to allow sufficient time for corrective measures to be developed and implemented 

before sensitive receptors are significantly affected. To accomplish this, the rule requires that 

wells be located to sample groundwater from the uppermost aquifer at the waste unit boundary. 

These requirements have been adopted without fundamental change from the proposal.

Because hydrogeologic conditions vary so widely from one site to another, the rule does 

not prescribe the exact number, location and depth of monitoring wells needed to achieve the 

general performance standard. Rather, the rule requires the owner or operator to install a 

minimum of one upgradient and three downgradient wells, and any additional monitoring wells 

necessary to achieve the general performance standard of accurately representing the quality of 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

397

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

the background groundwater and the groundwater passing the waste boundary of the CCR unit. 

The number, spacing, and depths of the monitoring wells must be determined based on a 

thorough characterization of the site, including a number of specifically identified factors 

relating to the hydrogeology of the site (e.g., aquifer thickness, groundwater flow rates and 

direction). Further, any owner or operator who determines that the specified minimum number 

of wells is adequate must provide a factual justification for that decision. Factors that may 

substantiate a reduced density of groundwater monitoring wells includes simple geology (i.e., 

horizontal, thick, homogenous strata that are continuous across site, with no fractures, faults, 

folds, or solution channels), a flat and constant hydraulic gradient, uniform hydraulic 

conductivity, low seepage velocity, and high dispersivity potential.

In essence, the rule establishes a presumption that the minimum of one upgradient and 

three downgradient wells is not sufficient, and requires the owner or operator to rebut that 

presumption in order to install only this minimum. This is fundamentally consistent with the 

proposed rule, which required the installation of a system that would achieve the general 

performance standard, as well as the “minimum” of one upgradient and three downgradient 

wells. The final regulation merely makes more explicit that both of these requirements must be 

met. 

EPA considered establishing a more prescriptive set of requirements, including a 

specified number, location, and design of monitoring wells, but because of the highly site 

specific nature of developing an adequate groundwater monitoring system, determined that it 

lacked sufficient information to be able to design a single groundwater monitoring system that 

would be nationally protective at all sites. A properly designed system must account for too 

many variables, most of which are highly dependent on the individual characteristics of the unit 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

398

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

and the facility site. Consequently, the final rule leaves the exact system design to be determined 

by those at the site, including a qualified professional engineer, who can tailor the design of the 

system to the unit and site conditions. 

Nevertheless EPA is confident that the parameters laid out in the regulation will ensure 

that the design of groundwater monitoring systems at CCR facilities will be protective. As a 

practical matter, EPA expects that there will be few cases, if any, where four wells will be 

sufficient, given that this requirement was originally developed for hazardous waste management 

units that are typically much smaller than CCR units. As mentioned above, a small unit with 

simple geology, a flat and constant hydraulic gradient, uniform hydraulic conductivity, low 

seepage velocity, and high dispersivity potential would be the type of unit for which the 

minimum number of wells could be sufficient to meet the overall performance standard.

Although EPA today is finalizing a requirement for one upgradient and three downgradient wells 

as a regulatory minimum, the Agency expects large CCR units to have many more wells because 

most CCR sites have hydrologic settings that are too complex for the regulatory minimum to be 

adequate. Facilities with large CCR units could have as many as thirty or more downgradient 

wells. This is because the placement and spacing of detection monitoring wells along the 

downgradient perimeter of the CCR disposal unit must be based on the abundance, extent, and 

physical/chemical characteristics of the potential contaminant pathways. All potential pathways 

need to be monitored. 

Therefore, even though EPA is not requiring a specific number of wells, the Agency is 

confident that the combination of the requirements will ensure that protective groundwater 

monitoring systems will be installed. The owner or operator is required to install a sufficient 

number of wells to meet the performance standard in § 257.91 (a)(1) and (2), provide a 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

399

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

justification if they determine the required minimum is adequate, and have a qualified 

professional engineer certify that their groundwater monitoring system has been designed and 

constructed to ensure that the groundwater monitoring will meet this performance standard—i.e., 

accurately represent the quality of groundwater that has not been affected by leakage from any 

CCR disposal unit – that is, groundwater from background wells and the quality of groundwater 

passing the waste boundary. 

The final rule establishes certain parameters regarding the location of the wells. 

Upgradient background wells must be located beyond the upgradient extent of potential 

contamination. However, groundwater quality in areas where the geology is complex can be 

difficult to characterize. If the facility is new, groundwater samples collected from both 

upgradient and downgradient locations prior to waste disposal can be used to establish 

background water quality. Downgradient wells to monitor for any contaminants leaking into the 

groundwater must be located at the hydraulically downgradient perimeter (i.e., the edge) of the 

CCR unit or at the closest practical distance from this location. 

Determining background groundwater quality by sampling wells that are not 

hydraulically upgradient may be necessary where hydrogeologic conditions do not allow the 

owner or operator to determine which wells are hydraulically upgradient (e.g., floodplains, where 

nearby surface water can influence groundwater). In such cases, the rule allows the owner or 

operator to establish groundwater quality at existing units by locating wells that are not 

upgradient under certain conditions (§ 257.91(a)(1)). This provision may be used when 

hydrogeologic conditions do not allow the owner or operator to determine which wells are 

hydraulically upgradient and when sampling at other wells will provide data establishing 

background groundwater quality that is equally or more representative than that provided by 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

400

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

upgradient wells. These conditions could include one or more of the following:

 The facility is located above an aquifer in which groundwater flow directions change 

seasonally.

 The facility is located near production wells that influence the direction of groundwater 

flow.

 Upgradient groundwater quality is affected by a source of contamination other than the 

CCR disposal unit.

 The proposed or existing CCR disposal unit overlies a groundwater divide or local source 

of recharge.

 Geologic units present at downgradient locations are absent at upgradient locations.

 Karst terrain or fault zones modify flow.

 Nearby surface water (i.e., river.g., rivers) influences groundwater flow directions.

Additionally, there is nothing in the rule that would prevent the owner or operator from 

monitoring multiple aquifers in addition to the uppermost significant aquifer. Certain site 

conditions warrant more extensive monitoring requirements, as discussed in “Technical Manual 

Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria”, EPA530-R-93-017, USEPA, November, 1993, Chapter 

5, Subpart E, Ground-Water Monitoring and Corrective Action.

Each CCR disposal unit must have its own ground water monitoring system, unless the 

owner or operator chooses to install a multiunit groundwater monitoring system. The final rule 

specifies that if a multiunit system is installed, it must be based on the consideration of several 

factors, including the number, spacing, and orientation of the CCR disposal units, the 

hydrogeologic setting, the site history and the engineering design of the CCR disposal units. A 

multiunit groundwater monitoring system must be equally capable of detecting background and 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

401

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

ground watergroundwater contamination at the CCR waste boundary as an individual monitoring 

system. This documentation must be certified by a qualified professional engineer. Whether a 

single or multi-unit system has been installed, the monitoring wells must be cased in a manner 

maintaining the integrity of the bore hole and must be maintained so as to meet design 

specifications. Both of these provisions have been adopted from the proposal without revision. 

3. Sampling and Analysis Requirements

EPA received comment on several aspects of its proposed requirements for conducting

groundwater sampling and analyses. Specifically mentioned here, commenters raised concern 

about the number of samples required to establish background concentrations and about the 

statistical test methodologies specified in the proposal. As discussed below, EPA has modified 

the rule to account for the issues raised by these commenters. The sampling and analysis 

requirements in the final rule have otherwise been adopted from the proposed rule with only 

minor clarifications. 

The rule provides procedures for sampling monitoring wells and methods for the 

statistical analysis of groundwater monitoring of Appendix III (detection monitoring) and 

Appendix IV (assessment monitoring) constituents that may be released from CCR disposal 

units. The sampling and analysis program must include procedures and documentation for 

sample collection (including the frequency, water level measurements, well purging, field 

analyses, and sample withdrawal and collection); sample preservation and handling (including 

sample containers, sample preservation, sample storage and shipment); chain of custody control; 

analytical procedures (appropriate methods can be found in “Test Methods for Evaluating Solid 

Waste , Physical/Chemical Methods,,” SW-846 (USEPA, 1986), 

http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/online/index.htm ); and quality 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

402

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

assurance/quality control. More information and guidance can be found in “Technical Manual 

Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria”,,” EPA530-R-93-017, USEPA, November, 1993, 

Chapter 5, Subpart E, Ground-Water Monitoring and Corrective Action, as well as the “Unified 

Guidance Document: Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA 

Facilities”,,” March 2009, EPA 530/R-09-007.

Similar to the approach used in designing a groundwater system, the final rule adopts a 

combination of a general performance standard for groundwater sampling and analytical 

methods, along with particular technical specifications that must be met. The general 

performance standard requires that the method used must accurately measure hazardous 

constituents and other monitoring parameters. In addition, the rule specifies that groundwater 

elevations must be measured in each monitoring well immediately prior to sampling. Also, the 

rate and direction of the groundwater flow in the uppermost aquifer must be determined each 

time groundwater is sampled. Further, the rule specifies that the background groundwater 

quality must be established at a hydraulically upgradient well for each of the monitoring 

parameters or constituents required by the applicable groundwater monitoring program, except as 

provided in § 257.91. The number of samples collected to establish groundwater quality data 

must be consistent with the appropriate statistical procedures determined for the specific 

statistical method chosen. The sampling must also be conducted to account for both seasonal 

and spatial variability in groundwater quality.

The final rule requires the owner or operator to determine whether there has been a 

statistically significant increase over background concentrations at each well, after the 

completion of any required sampling and analysis (§ 257.93). To establish background levels,

the proposed rule required that “a minimum of four independent samples from each background 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

403

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

and downgradient well must be collected and analyzed...” 75 FR 35247-35248 (proposed §§

257.93(f) and 257.94(b)). This is the same sampling protocol that EPA adopted for both the 

subtitle C and part 258 groundwater monitoring requirements.

EPA received comments criticizing this sampling protocol. Several commenters stated 

that more than the required 4four samples were needed in order to adequately represent 

background water quality and reduce the number of false negatives. For example, one 

commenter argued that EPA should require a minimum of one year of monthly monitoring of 

background concentrations to characterize fluctuations in parameters that will be evaluated 

statistically. The commenter claimed that this would also help to ensure that quarterly 

monitoring events are properly timed. Another comment stated that more data points and time 

were needed to ensure statistical confidence in the data. By contrast, another commenter objected 

to the requirement to obtain four independent samples, arguing that this requirement was 

unnecessary and should be deleted. The commenter argued that this requirement was 

inconsistent with EPA’s Unified Guidance (EPA, 2009) for Statistical Analysis of Groundwater 

Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities, which specifies that replicate samples (i.e., multiple 

samples from the same location during a given sampling event) should typically be limited to the 

collection of two samples from the same location, rather than four. Another commenter 

requested clarification on the number of samples required when establishing background levels 

that would serve as the point of comparison in determining whether a statistically significant 

increase over background levels had occurred. The commenter was apparently confused by the 

proposed requirement to collect “at a minimum, four independent samples.”

In response to these comments, EPA reviewed the available information to determine 

whether revisions to the proposed requirements were warranted. 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

404

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

More recent information developed since the promulgation of the subtitle C and part 258 

groundwater monitoring requirements indicates that statisticians now generally consider sample 

sizes of four or less to be insufficient for good statistical analysis because the observations are 

too few to adequately characterize the parameters of the population. Tests utilizing a small 

background sample size have low statistical performance in terms of power and per-test false 

positive rates. In 2009, EPA issued a guidance document that accounts for more recent scientific 

developments, “Unified Guidance Document: Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring 

Data at RCRA Facilities,” March 2009, EPA 530/R-09-007. This guidance recommends a 

minimum of 8eight to 10ten independent background observations be collected before 

performing the first statistical test. Sample sets of 20 are considered optimal.

RCRA regulations are predicated on having appropriate and representative background 

measurements. Samples should be tested against data which best represent current 

uncontaminated conditions. In addition, as discussed further in section XX, under these 

regulationsUnit VI.K.5 below, the detection of a statistically significant increase over 

background concentrations of the constituents of concern will have serious implications for 

unlined surface impoundments, as these units will be required to close whenever the facility 

makes such a finding. EPA is also cognizant of the significant differences between the subtitle 

C and part 258 regulations and the final regulations being promulgated for CCR units. Both the 

subtitle C and the part 258 MSWLF requirements are implemented under permit programs, under 

which regulatory authorities are specifically authorized to establish more stringent requirements 

to account for scientific advances (among other things). EPA expects that existingcurrent

permits generally specify a greater number of samples than the minimum laid out in the 

regulations (i.e., more than four) to determine background concentrations. And because of this it 

Formatted: Font: Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

405

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

is less critical that those regulations (subtitle C and part 258) reflect the most current science. By 

contrast, as previously discussed, the provisions adopted under this rule are self-implementing,

and will only be updated through a subsequent rulemaking. Accordingly, the Agency agrees 

with the comments that four samples would be insufficient and has amended the rule to require 

the owner or operator to collect, at a minimum, eight statistically independent and identically 

distributed (spatially invariant) samples from each well during the first six months of monitoring

for each monitoring parameter. Although still a small sample size by statistical standards, EPA 

believes eight independent observations allows for minimally acceptable estimates of variability 

and evaluation of trend and goodness-of fit. While more samples, including a full year of 

background monitoring, would be scientifically ideal, the Agency selected eight samples as a 

minimum by balancing the minimum number needed to ensure the scientific accuracy of the 

results against the need to expedite initiating the groundwater monitoring process of detecting 

exceedances, along with any necessary corrective action at these facilities.

TheBackground sampling (i.e., the requirement to collect eight statistically independent 

samples from each well within the first six months) must be completed for all Appendix III and 

IV constituents by the end of the 24 month period to begin implementation of the groundwater 

monitoring applies not only to detection monitoring, but also during assessment monitoring and 

corrective action monitoring whenever any new parameters are detected in downgradient wells 

and background levels must be established. program.

EPA has also revised the regulatory text relating to the number of samples that must be 

collected during subsequent sampling events after background concentrations have been 

established to clarify how the various provisions collectively operate. Consistent with the 

proposal, the final rule requires the owner or operator to collect and analyze the number of 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

406

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

samples from each well necessary to be consistent with the statistical test selected under § 

257.93(e) and with the unique characteristics of the site, but at minimum, to collect at least one 

sample from each background and downgradient well. In cases where the groundwater is “wellbehaved” one sample from each compliance well could be all that the owner or operator would 

need to conduct the necessary comparisons. But if statistical assumptions are not met (e.g., the 

observations are not statistically independent or background well data show trends) a comparison 

based on a single observation will not yield a significant result, and will likely result in a false 

positive. Further, detection monitoring tests, such as Student’s t-test, look at the difference 

between the sample means (e.g., upgradient vs downgradient) to determine when an observed 

difference should be considered more than a chance fluctuation. Every t-test assumes that the 

observations that make up each data group meet the requirements of statistical independence and 

stationarity. Therefore, the larger the sample size, the more significant the result. In other words, 

a facility can chosechoose to use only one observation (a group size of one), but the chances are 

good that the result derived would be non-significant, since there are many reasons sample 

means can vary. Consequently, it is likely to be in the facility’s best interest to take more 

samples than the minimum, particularly in the early stages of monitoring. As monitoring 

continues, each successive sample will be added to the sampling data base, which will increase 

the confidence in the statistical analyses performed. Additional guidance on sample size can be 

found in the “Unified Guidance Document: Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data 

at RCRA Facilities,” March 2009, EPA 530/R-09-007. 

The requirements for applying statistical procedures in the rule are the same as those

included in the proposed rule, which were based on the statistical procedures used in the 

MSWLF regulations. The rule requires the owner or operator to select from among the listed 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

407

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

statistical procedures based on a determination that the test is appropriate for evaluating 

groundwater at that site. The statistical method chosen must be appropriate for the distribution of 

chemical parameters or hazardous constituents. The rule has been revised to include the 

clarification that normal distributions of data values shall use parametric methods and nonnormal distributions shall use non-parametric methods. The rule identifies four statistical 

procedures, along with an alternative procedure that must meet the performance standard of §

257.93(g). The four specific statistical procedures provided in today’sthis final rule are: (1) a 

parametric analysis of variance followed by multiple comparison procedures to identify 

statistically significant evidence of contamination; (2) an analysis of variance based on ranks 

followed by multiple comparison procedures to identify statistically significant evidence of 

contamination; (3) a tolerance or prediction interval procedure; and (4) a control chart approach.

The performance standard for the alternative method in subsection (g) is the same as the 

performance standard in the proposal, with minor revisions. EPA has deleted the performance 

standard “protect human health and the environment” in subsections (3), (4) and (5). While that 

standard is perfectly appropriate in a context in which a regulatory authority will apply the 

standard, EPA is concerned that a professional engineer will be unable to certify that any 

alternative statistical method meets that standard. EPA received comments from professional 

engineers raising concern about their ability to certify that many of the requirements in the 

proposed rule had been met without further specification or clarification. To address those 

concerns, in those three provisions EPA has substituted a more objective performance standard 

that more precisely defines the relevant issues to be considered. Specifically, the subsections 

now specify that those approaches must be “at least as effective as any other approach in this 

section for evaluating groundwater.” 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

408

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The data objectives of the monitoring, in terms of the number of samples collected and 

the frequency of collection, must be consistent with the statistical method selected. Selection 

ofGuidance on selecting a specific method is described in “Unified Guidance Document: 

Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities”,,” March 2009, EPA 

530/R-09-007. The owner or operator must indicate in the operating record the statistical 

method that will be used in the analysis of groundwater monitoring results. 

The owner or operator must conduct the statistical comparisons between upgradient and 

downgradient wells within 90 days of completion of each sampling event and receipt of validated 

data. The statistical comparison must be conducted in order to determine if a statistically 

significant increase has occurred over background levels for each parameter or constituent 

required in the particular groundwater monitoring program that applies to the unit as determined 

under §§ 257.94(a) or 257.95(a). This has been adopted without revision from the proposal. In 

response to comments, EPA has revised § 257.93(b) to remove the prohibition on field filtering 

samples. Field filtering is not normally recommended when monitoring for organic constituents,

which are a significant proportion of the constituents of concern in hazardous waste units and in 

MSWLFs. But, as the commenters noted, field filtering is often used in conjunction with low 

flow sampling and regularly approved by EPA and state agencies in sampling plans for RCRA 

and Superfund sites, particularly

EPA is finalizing as proposed the prohibition in § 257.93(b) on field filtering 

groundwater samples because filtration of samples for metals analyses will not provide accurate 

information concerning the mobility of metals contaminants, the primary objective of 

groundwater sampling. Metal contaminants may move through fractured and porous media not 

only as dissolved species, but also as precipitated phases, polymeric species, or adsorbed to 

Formatted: Font: Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

409

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

particles of colloidal dimensions (< 10 microns). For an assessment of mobility, all mobile 

species must be considered, including suspended or colloidal particles acting as absorbents for 

contaminants. Filtration of groundwater samples for metals analyses will not provide accurate 

information concerning the mobility of metal contaminants because some mobile species in 

solution are likely to be removed by filtration before chemical analysis. Significant 

underestimations of mobility may result if filters (typically 0.45 micron) are used to separate 

dissolved and particulate phases. 

In its approach to sampling EPA is specifying in the final rule that owners and operators 

use ‘total recoverable metals’ concentrations in measuring groundwater quality. Measurement of 

total recoverable metals captures both the particulate fraction and dissolved fraction of metals in 

natural waters. Exceedances of ambient water criteria on a total recoverable basis are an 

indication that metal loadings could be a stress to an ecosystem. 

One commenter argued that to prohibit field filtering would potentially bias the results 

artificially high, particularly at sites where low yielding formations or naturally high levels of 

turbidity in groundwater are encountered. Field filtering of polluted sites can interfere with the 

actual reading of organic constituents. Since CCR is rarely, if ever, associated with organic 

constituents, by disallowing field filtering the field-collected sample might entrap suspended 

solids; once the sample gets to the lab for analysis, some of the hazardous constituents would 

have dissolved from the solid particles, driving the concentration of the constituents upwards. 

Commenters argued that to prohibit field filtering would potentially bias the results artificially 

high. Because there are no organic constituents on either monitoring list, we agree with the 

commenters and are removing this prohibition. While filtration of groundwater samples at the 

time of collection in the field is a well-established practice for determining total dissolved

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

410

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

metals, there may be instances (e.g., colloidal-size mobile particles are present in sufficient mass 

and these particles possesses high sorption reactivity, large surface area and remain stable in 

suspension) that unfiltered groundwater samples will need to be collected for determining total

metals (particulate + dissolved metals), which should show equal or greater metal values than the 

filtered samples. EPA is also However, high turbidity can also be the consequence of faulty well 

design and/or construction, which causes the introduction of foreign materials (high turbidity) 

through created fracture pathways. A properly designed well should allow for sufficient 

groundwater flow for sampling, minimize the passage of materials into the well, and exhibit 

sufficient structural integrity to prevent collapse of the intake structure. It is vital that the well 

provide a representative hydraulic connection to the geologic formation of interest. Otherwise 

the water chemistry information cannot be correctly interpreted in relation to groundwater flow 

or transport of chemical constituents.

Sampling with no filtration means that increased importance is placed on proper well 

construction and purging sampling procedures to eliminate or minimize sources of sampling 

artifacts. There should be nothing in the well design that will lead to high levels of turbidity. 

Groundwater sampling should be conducted utilizing EPA protocol low stress (low-flow) 

purging and sampling methodology, including measurement and stabilization of key indicator 

parameters prior to sampling. For purposes of sampling, this final rule presumes that a properly 

constructed well is capable of yielding groundwater samples with low turbidity (≤5 NTU), and 

by knowing the cause of turbidity the qualified professional engineer will be able to optimize 

well performance and reduce turbidity levels, eliminating the need for filtration.

EPA is revising § 257.93(i)(2) to specify a time period of 90 days to determine if a 

statistically significant increase over background concentrations of one of more of the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

411

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

contaminants has been detected. As proposed, this section specified: “Within a reasonable 

period of time after completing sampling and analysis, the owner or operator of the CCR landfill 

or surface impoundment must determine whether there has been a statistically significant 

increase over background at each monitoring well.” Commenters pointed out that this section of 

the regulation was very vague, and potentially unenforceable. Several commenters suggested

that once sampling and analysis had been completed, 90 days would be a reasonable amount of 

time to complete the statistical analysis to determine whether an exceedance had occurred. No 

commenter suggested a longer period of time was necessary and that time frametimeframe is 

consistent with the Agency’s experience of the time framestimeframes necessary to complete 

such analyses. Accordingly, we have revised the provision to require the determination of a 

statistically significant increase to be made within 90 days of sampling and analysis.

4. Detection Monitoring Program 

With three exceptions, EPA is finalizing the regulatory provisions relating to detection 

monitoring as proposed. The three revisions are the Appendix III list of monitoring parameters; 

the required number of samples to determine background concentrations; and the availability of 

an option to conduct detection monitoring on a less frequent basis due to a lack of groundwater.

The detection monitoring phase of the ground water monitoring program in this rule 

requires that the owners or operators of CCR disposal units establish background concentrations

for all monitoring parameters (Appendix III and IV of Part 257) and sample at least semiannuallysemiannually during the active life of the facility, closure, and post closure periods for a 

set of detection monitoring indicator parameters (Appendix III of Part 257). 

In response to comments, EPA has revised Appendix III to delete conductivity and 

sulfide from the list of monitoring parameters and to add calcium. Thus, the list of parameters 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

412

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

included on the detection monitoring list is boron, calcium, chloride, fluoride, pH, sulfate and 

TDS.total dissolved solids (TDS). The Agency has deleted conductivity from the detection 

monitoring program because it is merely a proxy for TDS, which is already included on the list 

of parameters to analyze during detection monitoring. The Agency has also deleted sulfide 

because it occurs in groundwater only under strongly reducing conditions, and such conditions 

are rather rare at CCR disposal facilities. Calcium is being added to Appendix III because it is an 

indicator of the extent of leaching from fly ash and FGD gypsum and because of the strong 

demonstrated link between the leaching of calcium and arsenic, which is one of the primary risk 

drivers identified in the risk assessment. 

As discussed in the preceding section, in detection monitoring, a minimum of eight

independent samples from each background and downgradient well must be collected and 

analyzed for the Appendix III and IV parameters during the first sixno later than 24 months from 

the effective date of samplingthe rule. During subsequent sampling events, at least one sample 

from each background and down gradientdowngradient well must be collected and analyzed, 

although the total number of samples must be consistent with the statistical procedures selected 

and with the performance standard in § 257.93(g). See discussion above in section 3. Sampling 

and Analysis Requirements.

Under the proposed rule, monitoring would be required no less frequently than semiannually.semiannually. In the final rule, semi-annualsemiannual sampling remains the general 

requirement; however, in response to comments, EPA has decided to include a provision that 

would allow an alternative sampling frequency if there is not adequate groundwater to flow to 

sample wells semi-annually.semiannually. Specifically, EPA received comment stating that 

there may be instances where there simply is not enough water available to collect and analyze 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

413

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

on a semi-annualsemiannual basis, especially in western climates where the rate of groundwater 

recharge may be too slow or a lack of precipitation exists. The commenter also provided an 

example demonstrating that mining practices in adjacent areas can greatly alter the groundwater 

flow. Accordingly, EPA has included a provision to address the situations where there is

insufficient ground water available to collect and analyze samples around CCR disposal units on 

a semi-annualsemiannual basis. 

An owner or operator seeking to establish an alternative frequency would be required 

tomust demonstrate that less frequent monitoring is necessary based on the following three 

factors: (1) lithology of the aquifer and the unsaturated zone; (2) hydraulic conductivity of the 

aquifer and the unsaturated zone; and (3) groundwater flow rates. In addition, the rule requires 

the owner or operator to demonstrate that any alternate sampling frequency would be no less 

effective in ensuring that any leakage from the CCR disposal unit will be discovered within a 

timeframe that does not materially delay the initiation of any necessary remediation measures. 

The owner or operator must have a qualified professional engineer certify that the alternative 

(i.e., less frequent) monitoring will achieve this performance standard. The final rule also 

specifies that any alternate frequency during the active life (including closure) and the postclosure care period shall be no less than annual. As noted, the owner or operator will bear the 

burden of justifying an alternate frequency under this regulation, and in any court proceeding 

brought to enforce these requirements. This means that any uncertainty or lack of information 

will be weighed against the entity seeking to justify the alternate frequency.

Consistent with the proposed rule, if the owner or operator determines that there is a 

statistically significant increase (SSI) over background for one or more of the parameters listed 

in Appendix III at any monitoring well at the waste boundary, the owner or operator must place a 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

414

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

notice in the operating record and on the facility’s internet site indicating which parameters have 

shown statistically significant changes from background levels and notify the State Director. 

The facility must also then establish an assessment monitoring program and begin 

monitoring within 90 days. The owner or operator has the opportunity to demonstrate that a 

source other than the CCR unit caused the statistically significant increase or that the statistically 

significant increase resulted from error in sampling, analysis, statistical evaluation or a natural 

variation in groundwater quality. Within 90 days, the owner or operator must prepare a report 

documenting this demonstration which must then be certified by a qualified professional 

engineer verifying the accuracy of the information in the report. If a successful demonstration is 

made within 90 days, the owner or operator may continue detection monitoring. If a successful 

demonstration is not made within 90 days, the owner or operator must initiate assessment 

monitoring. 

Commenters raised concern that 90 days would not be sufficient to complete all of the 

activities necessary to determine whether the detection of an SSI was from another source than 

the CCR unit or was based on inaccurate result. The Agency recognizes that in some 

circumstances it could take more than 90 days to resample and have laboratories conduct new 

analyses, or to conduct field investigations to determine that another source is causing the 

contamination. As a result, § 257.94(e)(3) does not place an ultimate time limit for owners and 

operators to complete the demonstration. However, if after 90 days the owner or operator has 

not made a successful demonstration, (s) he must begin an assessment monitoring program. At 

this stage, there is evidence to indicate that a release has occurred from the CCR unit, and while 

EPA agrees that the facility may want to confirm that the information is accurate, it is critical 

that the facility not delay indefinitely the more targeted monitoring to determine whether a 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

415

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

constituent of concern is contaminating groundwater. It would not be consistent with the 

statutory standard to allow a facility unlimited time to delay taking reasonable steps to assess, 

and if necessary, address potential contamination by continuing to resample until they obtain a 

“better” answer. Moreover, initiation of an assessment monitoring program does not involve an 

irretrievable commitment of resources or even a significant investment by the facility, but only 

requires the facility to begin more targeted sampling for constituents of concern. This represents 

a reasonable first stepsstep to address a potential threat to ground water. This requirement is also 

in the MSWLF Part 258 regulations. For more information see 56 FR 51078 (October 9, 1991).

Subsequent to initiating the assessment monitoring program, if an owner or operator 

demonstrates that the statistically significant increase resulted from an error in sampling, 

analysis, statistical evaluation, or natural variation in groundwater quality, or was caused by a 

souredsource other than the CCR disposal unit, the owner or operator may cease assessment 

monitoring and return to detection monitoring. If the demonstration is successful, the owner or 

operator must have the demonstration certified by a qualified professional engineer, and is

required by § 257.94(e)(3) to place a notice in the operating record, and on the internet site and 

send a copy of the report to the State Director. 

5. Assessment Monitoring Program

EPA is adopting an assessment monitoring program that is largely identical to the 

program laid out in the proposal. However, as discussed in more detail below, some revisions 

have been made; some were made in response to comments, but most are conforming changes 

made to be consistent with changes adopted in other provisions, such as the detection monitoring 

program described previously,

Consistent with the proposed rule, if any of the detection monitoring parameters are 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

416

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

detected at a statistically significant level over the established background concentrations, the 

owner or operator must proceed to the next step, assessment monitoring. Assessment 

monitoring requires annual sampling and analysis for the full list of hazardous constituents 

included in Appendix IV. The number and frequency of samples required for assessment 

monitoring are the same as those established for detection monitoring. See discussion above in 3.

Sampling and Analysis Requirements. This includes the requirements with respect to background 

sampling. Thus for any constituent detected in the downgradient wells as a result of the 

complete Appendix IV analysis, a minimum of eight independent samples from each background 

and downgradient well must be collected and analyzed within the first six months of the 

assessment monitoring program to establish background concentrations for those constituents. 

EPA has also revised the list of constituents in Appendix IV by deleting the following 

constituents and parameters: aluminum, boron, chloride, copper, iron, manganese, pH, sulfate, 

sulfide, and TDS; and adding the following constituents: cobalt, lithium, and radium 226 and 

228 combined. The following constituents and parameters are being removed from Appendix IV 

because they are on Appendix III and therefore will continue to be monitored throughout 

assessment monitoring: boron, chloride, pH, sulfate and TDS. Although fluoride is on 

Appendix III, we are also retaining it on Appendix IV because it does have an MCL and was 

found to pose risks in the 2014 risk assessment, and therefore is appropriately considered to be a 

constituent that is relevant for purposes of corrective action. Aluminum, copper, iron, 

manganese, and sulfide are beinghave been removed because they lack maximum contaminant 

levels (MCLs) and were not shown to be constituents of concern based on either the risk 

assessment conducted for this rule or the damage cases (see Unit X). We are adding cobaltCobalt 

has been added to Appendix IV because cobalt was found to be a risk driver in the 2014 risk 

Formatted: Widow/Orphan control
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

417

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

assessment, based on certain waste management disposal practices that lead to highly acidic 

wastes conditions. Lithium is being added to Appendix IV because it has been detected in several 

proven and potential damage cases at levels exceeding EPA’s Regional Screening Level (RSL) 

of soil to groundwater and has been determined as potentially toxic if consumed concurrently 

with certain drug types.[1] Radium 226 and 228 combined (the sum of the radioactive isotopes 

radium-226 and radium-228) is being added because there is evidence from several damage 

cases of exceedances of gross alpha, indicating that radium from the disposal of CCRsCCR may 

be problematic. Appendix IV now contains antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, 

chromium, cobalt, fluoride, lead, lithium, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, thallium and radium 

226 and 228 combined.

If any Appendix IV constituents are detected in any Appendix IV analyses, the owner or 

operator must notify the State Director and continue to monitor, at least semiannually, for both

the specific constituents in Appendix IV that were detected and all parameters in Appendix III. 

EPA has decided to also include a provision to allow an alternative sampling frequency if there is 

not adequate groundwater to flow to sample wells semi-annuallysemiannually, consistent with 

the revised provision adopted for the detection monitoring program. . If the owner or operator 

demonstrates at any time during assessment monitoring that all of the detected Appendix III 

and IV constituents are at or below background values for two consecutive sampling events, 

 

[1] EPA’s Regional Screening Level (RSL) Soil to Groundwater Supporting Table (TR=1E-6, HQ=1) May 

2014/Mid-atlantic Risk assessment:

http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/Generic_Tables/index.htm; and Health 

Consultation: Chesapeake ATGAS 2H Well Site Leroy Hill Road, Leroy, Leroy Township, Bradford 

County, Pennsylvania, October 29, 2013. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Community Health Investigations Atlanta, Georgia. 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/.

Formatted: Pattern: Clear (White)

Formatted: Pattern: Clear (White)
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

418

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(s)he must notify the State and may return to detection monitoring. In general, EPA expects that 

Appendix III constituents are unlikely to remain elevated once measures have been taken to 

address the release of the detected Appendix IV constituents. But should Appendix III 

constituent levels remain elevated, detection monitoring continues to be necessary to determine 

whether another source of contamination is present.

After obtaining the sampling results the owner or operator must place a notice in the 

operating record and on the facility’s internet site indicating which Appendix IV constituents 

have been detected and notify the State Director. Within 90 days and on at least a semiannual 

basis thereafter, the owner or operator must resample all wells, conduct analyses for all 

parameters in Appendix III and for those constituents in Appendix IV that were detected in the 

initial assessment monitoring sampling event. The results of this resampling must be placed in 

the owner or operator’s operating record, as well as its publicly accessible internet site. The 

results of the resampling must also be sent to the State Director. These provisions have been 

adopted without change from the proposal. 

For each Appendix IV constituent that is detected, a ground water protection standard 

must be set. The groundwater protection standards must be the maximum contaminant level 

(MCL) or the background concentration level for the detected constituent, whichever is higher. If 

there is no MCL promulgated for a detected constituent, then the groundwater protection 

standard must be set at background. The proposed rule would have allowed the owner or 

operator to establish an alternative groundwater protection standard for constituents for which 

MCLs have not been established provided that the alternative groundwater protection standard 

has been certified by an independent registered professional engineer and the state has been 

notified that the alternative groundwater protection standard has been placed in the operating 

Formatted: Normal (Web), Widow/Orphan control,

Pattern: Clear (White)

Formatted: Font: (Intl) Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

419

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

record and on the owner’s or operator’s publicly accessible internet site. This provision had been 

adopted from the part 258 regulations, but was determined to be inappropriate in a selfimplementing rule, as it was unlikely that a facility would have the scientific expertise necessary 

to conduct a risk assessment, and was too susceptible to potential abuse. Additionally, numerous 

comments were received suggesting that only those constituents with MCLs be included in 

Appendix IV. The commenters were concerned that only MCLs are enforceable. With the 

exception of cobalt, lithium and molybdenum (included on Appendix IV because of their 

relevance in the risk assessment and damage cases), all Appendix IV constituents have an MCL. 

ForIn the proposed rule, as stated above, owner or operators were allowed to establish certain 

types of alternative groundwater protection standards. In the final rule, if a constituent has no 

MCL (i.e., cobalt, lithium and molybdenum,), their groundwater protection standards will be 

their background levels. These background standards are sufficiently precise that they are 

enforceable. 

The owner or operator must compare the levels of thoseany detected Appendix IV 

constituents to the appropriate groundwater protection standard. If the concentrations of all 

Appendix IV constituents are shown to be at or below background values, for two consecutive 

sampling events using the statistical procedures required by § 257.93, for two consecutive 

sampling events, the owner or operator of the CCR disposal facility must place that information 

in the operating record and on the facility’s internet site and notify the State Director. The owner 

or operator may then return to detection monitoring.

If the concentrations of any Appendix III or IV constituents are above background values, 

but all concentrations are determined to be below the groundwater protection standard using the 

statistical procedures required by this rule, the owner or operator of the CCR disposal facility 

Formatted: Font: Calibri
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

420

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

must continue assessment monitoring program. 

If, however, the monitoring indicates a statistically significant increase for any Appendix 

IV constituent over the groundwater protection standard, the owner or operator is required to 

notify the State Director and local officials of this finding and place a notice in the operating 

record and on the owner or operator’s publicly accessible internet site. 

The owner or operator also must characterize the nature and extent of the release. As part 

of characterizing the nature and extent of the release, the owner or operator must install 

additional wells, as necessary to define the contaminant plume(s) and collect data on the nature 

and estimated quantity of the material released. Adequate characterization of the release is 

critical in designing and effectively implementing a protective corrective action 

programsprogram if groundwater remediation is necessary. The purpose of these additional 

wells is to delineate the contaminant plume boundary and to eventually demonstrate the 

effectiveness of corrective action in meeting the groundwater protection standard. 

Because the requirements for additional monitoring are entirely specific to the site 

conditions and the size and nature of the release, the Agency is not able to set requirements that 

precisely specify the location or the number of additional wells that must be installed. Instead 

EPA has adopted an approach that corresponds to the approach to designing the original 

groundwater monitoring system under § 257.91. The regulations establish a general performance 

standard (“install additional wells as necessary to define the contaminant plume”) and specify a 

true minimum of installing at least one well at the facility boundary in the direction of 

contaminant migration in order to ascertain whether or not the contaminants have migrated past 

the facility boundary. The regulations also establish a rebuttable presumption that this minimum 

is insufficient, requiring the owner or operator to justify a decision to install only this minimum.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

421

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

ThisThe requirement to justify the decision to only install the minimum number of additional 

wells is a revision from the proposal that has been adopted to be consistent with the Agency’s 

overall approach to developing an effective groundwater monitoring system.

The Agency has also added some clarification to the proposed requirement to 

characterize the nature and extent of the release, by requiring the owner or operator to collect 

data on the nature and estimated qualityquantity of material released, including specific 

information on the constituents listed in Appendix IV and the levels at which they are present in 

the material released. This information will be necessary to help the owner or operator 

characterize the release and assist in ultimately deciding on a remedy.

If contamination has migrated off-site, the owner or operator must notify individuals who 

own land or reside on land overlying the plume.

In addition to characterizing the nature and extent of the release, the owner or operator 

must initiate an assessment of corrective measures within 90 days of finding a statistically 

significant increase over background concentrations, and select the appropriate remedy. During 

this phase, the owner or operator is required to continue at least semiannual monitoring (or an 

alternative frequency, no less than annual) for all Appendix III constituents and for those 

Appendix IV constituents exceeding the groundwater protection standard. To be consistent with 

the provisions in detection monitoring, EPA has included a provision that would allow the owner 

or operator to demonstrate that a source other than their CCR unit caused the contamination or 

that the statistically significant increase above ground water protection standards resulted from 

error in sampling, analysis, statistical evaluation, or natural variation in groundwater quality. 

However, in contrast to that provision, thisThis alternative option will not delay compliance with 

the next phase of the groundwater monitoring and corrective action program. Thus, until such a
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

422

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

demonstration is made, the owner or operator must comply with the other requirements of this 

section, including initiating the assessment of corrective measures. At this stage, the evidence 

that the CCR unit is leaking is stronger, and the owner or operator hadhas previously had the 

opportunity to demonstrate that the finding was made in error under the detection monitoring 

program, so no further delay in initiating measures to address any groundwater contamination is 

warranted. 

Another change since the proposal is that in addition to complying with all of the 

corrective action requirements—i.e., initiating an assessment of corrective measures, followed by 

selection of a remedy and implementation of a corrective action program--if the unit is an 

unlined surface impoundment, it must either retrofit or initiate closure. Further, where the 

facility has chosen to install a multi-unit ground water monitoring system, the detection of an SSI 

of an Appendix IV constituent would trigger the corrective action and closure (or retrofit) of all

of the unlined surface impoundments covered by that monitoring system, as there will be no 

way to isolate a particular unlined unit as the source of the contamination. These requirements 

are discussed in more detail in the Closure section.

6. Assessment of Corrective Measures.

This section of the regulations also largely mirrors the analogous provisions in the 

proposed rule. EPA added some language to reflect that this section is not limited to the 

remediation of groundwater from a leaking CCR unit but will also apply to contamination caused 

by any kind of release from a CCR unit. EPA also made some minor revisions in response to 

comments, and some editorial changes to conform this provision to changes made in other 

sections of the rule. 

Consistent with the proposal, § 257.96(a) specifies that the assessment of corrective 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

423

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

measures must be initiated within 90 days of detecting a statistically significant increase of any 

of the constituents listed in Appendix IV, at a level exceeding the groundwater protection 

standard(s), or of otherwise documenting a release of contaminants from the CCR unit. The 

regulation also requires the assessment of corrective measures to be completed in 90 days of 

such a finding, but in response to comments, EPA is adopting a provision that will allow for a 

single 60-day extension. Multiple commenters argued that 90 days was not adequate to complete 

the assessment of corrective measures. Commenters stated that for situations with complex 

hydrogeology, additional studies and sampling may be required in order to assess potential 

contributing offsite sources, background levels, and possible remedies. They stated that 

identification of remedy alternatives, collection and analysis of data used to evaluate remedy 

alternatives, and discussions with vendors/contractors regarding availability of labor and 

materials are all critical steps in the remedy selection process. As explained in the “Technical 

Manual Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria,” EPA530-R-93-017, USEPA, November, 1993, 

Chapter 5, Subpart E, Ground-Water Monitoring and Corrective Action, the owner or operator 

will need to;: (1) identify and remediate the source of contamination; and (2) identify and 

remediate the known contamination. The factors that must be considered in assessing corrective 

measures include source evaluation, plume delineation, groundwater assessment and source 

control. Based on the comments received, as well as the Agency’s own experience, EPA 

recognizes that there may be complex situations that require more time to develop a careful and 

well-thought out corrective measures assessment. Therefore, the final rule has been modified to 

allow up to an additional 60 days to complete the assessment of corrective measures, provided 

that a qualified professional engineer certifies that the additional time is necessary. The initial 90 

days plus the additional 60 days, which is within the range of time suggested by the commenters, 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

424

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

would provide the owner or operator up to 150 days to complete the corrective measures 

assessment, which shouldEPA expects will be sufficient. The certification must be placed in the 

operating record, on the owner’s or operator’s web sitewebsite and submitted to the proper state 

official.

The rule requires the owner or operator to assess the effectiveness of potential remedies 

in meeting the objectives of § 257.97 by addressing at least: (1) performance, reliability, ease of 

implementation and potential impacts; (2) time requirements; and (3) institutional requirements. 

The proposed rule also included consideration of the costs of remedy implementation. However, 

that language came directly from the MSWLF rule in part 258. Because Congress did not 

authorize the consideration of costs in establishing minimum national standards under RCRA 

section 4004(a), we have removed this factor. In evaluating the performance, reliability, ease of 

implementation, and potential impacts of each remedy, the owner or operator should evaluate the 

appropriateness ofwhether specific remedial technologies are appropriate to the problem being 

addressed and the ability of those technologies to achieve the groundwater protection standards. 

Analysis of a remedy’s reliability should include an assessment of the effectiveness of the 

remedy in controlling the source of the release and its long-term reliability. Source control 

measures need to be evaluated to limit the migration of the plume, and to ensure an effective 

remedy. The regulation does not limit the definition of source control to exclude any specific 

type of measure to achieve this. Remedies must control the source of the contamination to reduce 

or eliminate further releases by identifying and locating the cause of the release. Source control 

measures may include the following: modifying the operational procedures (e.g., banning waste 

disposal); undertaking more extensive and effective maintenance activities (e.g., excavate waste 

to repair a liner failure); or, in extreme cases, excavation of deposited wastes for treatment and/or 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

425

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

offsite disposal. Construction and operation requirements also should be evaluated. The 

analysis of the timing of potential remedies should include an evaluation of construction, startup, and completion time. Timing is particularly important if contamination has migrated off-site. 

Institutional requirements such as local permit or public health requirements may affect 

implementation of the remedies evaluated and should be assessed by the owner or operator. 

The proposed rule included a provision that would allow an owner or operator to 

determine that compliance cannot be reasonably achieved with any currently available methods. 

This has been deleted from the final rule. The Agency determined that without state oversight or 

a permitting program, that provision was potentially subject to abuse and thus, inappropriate to 

be includedinclude in a self-implementing rule. 

As part of evaluating potential remedies, the owner or operator must hold a public 

meeting to discuss the remedies under consideration (prior to selecting a final remedy). Once the 

owner or operator has selected a remedy, he must place a description of the selected remedy in 

the operating record, on the owner or operatorsoperator’s internet site and notify the State 

Director. If the unit is an unlined surface impoundment with an MCL, the surface impoundment 

must also retrofit or close. See Unit VI.K. for additional information on this provision.

7. Selection of Remedy

This section of the final rule has been adopted with only minor changes from the 

proposal. As in the prior section, EPA has revised certain provision to reflect that this section 

will also apply to the cleanup of contamination caused by a release from a CCR unit. EPA also 

deleted a provision that had been adopted from the part 258 regulations, but that was determined 

to be inappropriate in a self-implementing rule, as it was too susceptible to potential abuse. 

Based on the results of the corrective measures assessment conducted, the owner or 

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

Formatted: Font: Italic

Formatted: Adjust space between Latin and Asian text,

Adjust space between Asian text and numbers
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

426

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

operator of the CCR disposal unit must select a remedy. The selected remedy must attain all of 

the performance standards listed in subsection (b). Specifically, the remedy must protect human 

health and the environment, attain the groundwater protection standards, control the sources of 

releases so as to reduce or eliminate, to the maximum extent practicable, further releases of 

Appendix IV constituents into the environment, and comply with the specifiedany relevant

standards for management of wastes that are generated as a result of the remedial activities. EPA 

included an additional criterion more directly related to remediation of contamination associated 

with a release, such as from a collapse or structural failure of a CCR unit, which requires the 

remedy to “remove from the environment as much of the contaminated material that was 

released from the CCR unit as is feasible, taking into account factors such as avoiding the 

inappropriate disturbance of sensitive ecosystems.” Together, these criteria reflect the major 

technical components of any kind of clean up remedy.

The rule also specifies decision criteria to be considered by the owner or operator in 

selecting the most appropriate remedy. These include: (1) long and short term effectiveness, and 

degree of certainty of success; (2) effectiveness of remedy in controlling the source to reduce 

further releases; (3) ease or difficulty of implementation; and (4) community concerns. 

Additionally, the rule requires the owner or operator to specify a schedule for implementing and 

completing the remedial activities. The rule requires the owner or operator to set the schedule 

because it is impossible for EPA to establish a single schedule appropriate for all possible 

situations; the schedule will necessarily depend on the nature and size of the contamination, 

among other factors. The rule outlines six factors to be considered in setting 

schedulesestablishing a schedule for completing remedies (§§ 257.97(d)(1-6)). These factors 

include: (1) extent and nature of contamination; (2) reasonable probabilities of remedial 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

427

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

technologies in achieving compliance with the groundwater protection standards; (3) availability 

of treatment or disposal capacity for CCRsCCR managed during implementation of the remedy; 

(4) potential risks to human health and the environment; (5) resource value of the aquifer; and 

(6) other relevant factors. EPA had included one additional factor in the proposal: “The 

desirability of utilizing technologies that are not currently available, but which may offer 

significant advantages over already available technologies in terms of effectiveness, reliability, 

safety, or ability to achieve remedial objectives.” EPA considered that this provision, which 

could be used to justify delaying remediation measures, was potentially subject to abuse and 

thus, inappropriate to be included in a self-implementing rule. 

For similar reasons, EPA deleted the provisions in the proposal, subsections (e) and (f) 

that would authorize a facility to determine that remediation of a release is not necessary. These 

sections which came from the MSWLF rule in part 258 are appropriate where there is state 

oversight. The preamble to the final MSWLF rule specifically discusses situation in which an 

approved State may decide not to require cleanup of hazardous constituents released to 

groundwater from a MSWLF (see 56 FR 51090). However, there is no similar guarantee that an 

individual facility will act in the public interest. 

8. Implementation of the Corrective Action Program

The proposed rule required the owner or operator to include a schedule for initiating the 

remedial activities in the schedule for implementing the remedy (§257.97(d)). The Agency 

understands that selecting a remedy is closely related to the assessment process and cannot be 

accomplished unless a sufficiently thorough evaluation of alternatives has been completed. The 

process of documenting the rationale for selecting a remedy requires that a report be placed in 

the operating record that clearly defines the corrective action objectives and demonstrates why 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

428

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

the selected remedy is anticipated to meet those objectives. The report must identify how the 

remedy will be protective of human health and the environment, attain the groundwater 

protection standards (either background or MCLs), attain source control objectives, and comply 

with waste management standards. 

The selection of a remedy also involves a public meeting with interested parties before 

finally selecting a remedy. For these reasons, the Agency is not establishing a deadline for 

completing the remedy selection process, but rather expects it to be completed within a 

reasonable amount of time. as soon as practicable. Once the assessment of corrective measures 

has been completed within the timeframe specified in this rule, and the public meeting has 

occurred, the facility owner/operator must select a remedy and begin implementing that remedy 

as soon as is practicable. It is vitally important that the facility selects a remedy as soon as 

practicable and begins designing and implementing that remedy, so that releases to groundwater 

are addressed without unnecessary delay. EPA understands that there are a variety of activities 

that may be necessary in order to select the appropriate remedy (e.g., discussions with affected 

citizens, state and local governments; conducting on-site studies or pilot projects); and, once 

selected, to implement the remedy (e.g., securing on-site utilities if needed, obtaining any 

necessary permits, etc.). That is why EPA does not find it appropriate to set specific timeframes 

for selecting the remedy or to begin implementing the selected remedy. However, in order to 

ensure that the community is kept informed as to the progress of selecting and implementing the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

429

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

remedy, EPA is requiring that the facility owner/operator, on a semiannual basis, post status 

reports/updates on their progress to their website and submit these to the state.122

However, the Agency has concluded that it is reasonable to require that once a remedy 

has been chosen, the owner or operator of the CCR unit must begin to implement that remedy 

within a specified period of time. Consistent with the time framestimeframes throughout this 

section, the final rule requires that within 90 days of selecting a remedy, the owner or operator 

must have initiated corrective measures, including any interim measures determined to be 

appropriate, and have established a corrective action ground water monitoring program (and 

begin following it). (§ 257.98). This is a reasonable time frametimeframe in which to begin 

these activities, based on EPA’s long experience in conducting and overseeing clean upcleanup

activities.

The remedy would be considered complete when the owner or operator demonstrates 

compliance with the groundwater protection standards for a period of three consecutive years,

and all other actions required to meet the performance standards in § 257.97(b) have been 

satisfied (e.g., source control). The owner or operator of the CCR disposal facility must obtain 

certification that the remedy is complete from a qualified professional engineer, and must notify 

the State Director. The certification of completion of remedy must also be placed in the 

operating record and on the owner or operatorsoperator’s internet site.

The Agency deleted the provision that allows an owner or operator to determine that 

 

122 As evidenced in 42 U.S. C. 6971(f), Congress intended that the OSHA be able to enforce its regulations to protect 

workers exposed to hazardous waste and that EPA and OSHA would work together to ensure that. EPA is clarifying 

that it intends that the CCR disposal rule not preempt applicable OSHA standards designed to protect workers 

exposed to CCRs; thus EPA’s final rule on CCR disposal will apply in addition to any applicable OSHA standards. 

The Agency has added specific regulatory language in this section to address this intent.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

430

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

compliance cannot be reasonably achieved with any currently available methods. The Agency 

determined that without state oversight or a permitting program, that provision was potentially 

subject to abuse and thus, inappropriate to be included in a self-implementing rule. 

9. Timing Overview

The groundwater monitoring regulations require that the owner or operator of existing 

CCR units must comply with § 257.90-§ - § 257.94 within 30 months of the date of publication 

of the rule. Essentially, that means that by the end of 30 months, the owner or operator must (1) 

install the groundwater monitoring system; (2) document the sampling and analysis procedures; 

(3) establish which statistical tests will be used to determine exceedances; (4) sample all wells 

for 6 months to have a minimum of 8 samples for all Appendix III and IV parameters; and (5) 

determine if there is a statistically significant exceedance of any Appendix III parameter, which 

would trigger assessment monitoring.

New CCR units must comply with §§ 257.90-257.93, including the requirement under § 

257.94(b) to collect and analyze eight independent samples from each well for the parameters 

listed in Appendix III and IV to this part during the first six months of sampling in order to 

determine background levels for all Appendix III and IV constituents, before commencing 

operation. Essentially, that means that before receiving CCR waste, the owner or operator must 

(1) install the groundwater monitoring system; (2) document the sampling and analysis 

procedures; (3) establish which statistical tests will be used to determine exceedances; and (4) 

sample all wells for 6 months to have a minimum of 8eight samples for all Appendix III and IV

parameters.

If assessment monitoring is triggered, within 3three months the owner or operator must 

sample the downgradientall wells for all Appendix IV constituents (minimum of 1one sample) 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

431

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

and resample (minimum of 1one sample) the downgradientall wells for all Appendix III 

parameters and those Appendix IV constituents that were detected in the first round of sampling. 

The owner or operator could also simultaneously use this three-month time frametimeframe to 

demonstrate that the statistically significant increase found in detection monitoring was due to 

another source or sampling and analysis error. While conducting assessment monitoring, the 

owner or operator must continue sampling for all Appendix III constituents and any Appendix IV 

detected constituents semiannually. The owner or operator must sample for all Appendix IV 

constituents annually.

For any Appendix IV constituent detected in the downgradient wells during the first 3 

months of sampling, the owner or operator must continue sampling for the next 6 months (a 

minimum of 8 independent samples) to develop background levels for those Appendix IV 

constituents. The owner or operator must also establish groundwater protection standards (MCL 

or background levels) for all Appendix IV constituents detected in either the initialduring

sampling or the resampling events. 

If one or more Appendix IV constituents are detected at statistically significant levels 

above the groundwater protection standards established, or a release from a CCR unit has been 

detected, corrective action is triggered. The owner or operator must characterize the nature and 

extent of the release by installing additional monitoring wells, collecting data on the quantity and 

concentration levels of regulated constituents in the released material, sampling and notifying the 

State Director, local government officials, and any persons who own land or reside on the land 

that overlies the plume if the plume has migrated off site. The owner or operator must also place 

the notification in their operating record and website.

If corrective action is triggered, within three months the owner or operator must initiate 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

432

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

an assessment of corrective measures. If the CCR unit is an unlined surface impoundment, the 

unit must also initiate closure or begin to retrofit the unit. The owner or operator could also 

simultaneously use these 3 months to demonstrate that the statistically significant increase found 

in detectionduring assessment monitoring was due to another source or sampling and analysis 

error. 

The assessment of corrective measures must be completed in three months, with the 

possibility of an additional two months if the owner or operator demonstrates the need for 

additional time. The owner or operator must continue assessment monitoring and provide 

notification of the corrective measures assessment to the State Director and place the assessment 

in the operating record and on the owner’s or operator’s website. The owner or operator also 

must discuss the results of the corrective measures assessment at least 1 month prior to selection 

of remedy in a public meeting.

Within three months of selecting a remedy, the owner or operator must initiate remedial 

activities. Once correctiveCorrective action is completed, when the owner or operator must 

demonstratedemonstrates compliance with the groundwater protection standards for three

consecutive years.

L. L. Closure of Inactive Units

As discussed in Unit VI.A, EPA proposed that inactive CCR surface impoundments that 

had not completed closure in accordance with specified standards by the effective date would be 

subject to all of the requirements applicable to existing CCR surface impoundments. EPA 

adopted this approach to create an incentive to expedite the closure of these units, with all of the 

significant risk mitigation that such a measure would entail. EPA is retaining this general 

approach in the final rule, but has revised the provision to grant inactive CCR surface 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

433

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

impoundments more time to complete closure, consistent with the other closure provisions in the 

final rule. The final rule extends the deadline to three years from publication of the rule in the 

Federal Register.

The proposal was based on EPA’s belief that the time frames between publication of the 

final rule and the effective date would be sufficient for facilities to close inactive CCR surface 

impoundments. This was particularly true under the subtitle C option, where the time frame 

between publication and the effective date could be as long as 18 months, due to the need for 

subsequent action by authorized states. Under the proposed rule, the maximum amount of time a 

facility would have to initiate and complete closure of a disposal unit was seven months. 

However, as discussed elsewhere in this preamble, EPA received numerous comments raising 

concern that these time frames would essentially be ‘‘impossible to meet’’ for surface

impoundments located in certain geographic and climatic conditions, as well as for all of the 

larger units. These comments convinced EPA that it had not adequately accounted for the 

complexities inherent in electric generating facility operations, and the different characteristics of 

CCR surface impoundments in designing the closure provisions in the proposal. EPA has 

revised the time frames applicable to closures in the final rule accordingly in light of these 

issues. See Unit VI.M below. These same considerations apply with respect to this provision, 

and additional time is therefore necessary to make this option truly viable. 

EPA selected three years based primarily on two factors. EPA initially focused on the 

minimum amount of time necessary to close a CCR surface impoundment. As discussed in more 

detail in Unit VI.M, there can be a substantial range in the amount of time needed to close a 

surface impoundment, depending on, for example, the size and location of the unit. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

434

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

However, a critical factor in EPA’s decision is that under this approach these units will 

not be subject to the rule’s groundwater monitoring or structural stability requirements (provided 

they complete closure within three years). Moreover, based on the information in the record, it 

appears highly unlikely that groundwater monitoring is currently being conducted at these units 

(as discussed in unit IV.A, the information on groundwater monitoring requirements applicable 

to existing units was extremely sparse, but many older units appear to lack effective groundwater 

monitoring systems). EPA considered that allowing these inactive units to remain in place 

without taking measures to address the continuing threat that these units present for a substantial 

amount of time could not be justified. EPA therefore focused on the amount of time authorized 

under the rule for implementation of the groundwater monitoring requirements (i.e., 2 years from 

the effective date) and for key structural stability requirements (i.e., 18 months to complete key 

analyses).

As discussed in more detail in the next section, the information in the record 

demonstrates that it is feasible to complete the closure of CCR surface impoundments within 

three years. EPA recognizes that larger CCR surface impoundments (i.e., above 40 acres) may 

not be able to close within this time frame. However, to be able to support this provision, EPA 

must balance the risk mitigation achieved by closure of CCR surface impoundments against the 

risks inherent in allowing inactive CCR surface impoundments to remain in place for longer 

periods of time. The longer inactive CCR impoundments remain without all of the protections 

provided by the final rule, the greater the potential for significant health and environment 

impacts. Larger units are also the ones more likely to present the highest risks, and so warrant 

the greater oversight provided by application of all of the technical criteria to their operation (and 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

435

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

closure). Consequently, EPA is unable to justify expanding this option to include the longer time 

frames available under §§ 257.102 or 257.103. 

The criteria for conducting the closure of inactive CCR surface impoundments are 

essentially the same as those applicable to active CCR units. Inactive units can either clean close 

units, or close with waste in place, subject to same performance standards in 257.102 for all 

other CCR units. If an inactive CCR surface impoundment is completely closed within the three 

year time frame, no other requirements apply to that unit. This means that no groundwater 

monitoring or other post-closure care requirements would apply to these units. Once an inactive 

CCR surface impoundment has been breached and dewatered, the risks are essentially the same 

as the risks associated with an inactive CCR landfill, which are not subject to any requirements 

under the final rule. 

However, owners or operators of inactive CCR surface impoundments that have not 

completed closure within this time frame must comply with all of the requirements applicable to 

existing CCR impoundments. If the facility intends to maintain the inactive unit indefinitely,

whether to provide potential future capacity, or to continue to dredge the unit to provide material 

for beneficial use, or with the idea that it may be repurposed for other facility operations (e.g., to 

manage stormwater), there is no basis for distinguishing between these units and actively 

managed units on the basis of the potential risks. Thus, such units would need, for example, to 

meet all of the location and structural stability criteria (which could independently compel 

closure of the unit), install the groundwater monitoring system, and begin to monitor within the 

time frames established in the final rule. This also means that any facility that initiates closure 

under this provision but fails to complete it within this time frame, must comply with all 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

436

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

groundwater monitoring requirements in §§257.90-98 (e.g., install groundwater monitoring 

wells) as well as all of the post-closure care requirements. 

M. Closure and Post-Closure Care

Closure and post-closure care are an integral part of the design and operation of CCR 

landfills and CCR surface impoundments. The123 EPA solicited public comment on closure and 

post-closure care requirements under a subtitle D approach in the proposed rule (75 FR at 35207-

10) and sought additional comment on specific closure requirements in the 2013a subsequent

notice of data availability (NODA 3) (78 FR at 46944-46)..

For CCR landfills, the proposed closure and post-closure care requirements were 

modeled on current regulations that apply to municipal solid waste landfills, which are codified 

in part 258. In some cases, the proposed requirements were modified to reflect the lack of a 

mandatory permitting mechanism (see Unit V.A. of this preamble for more discussionadditional 

information), in addition to other changes EPA believed were appropriate to ensure that there 

would be no reasonable probability of adverse effects from the wastes that remain after a CCR 

unit had closed. For CCR surface impoundments, the Agency modeled the proposed 

requirements on current regulations that apply to interim status hazardous waste surface 

impoundments, which are codified in part 265. Some additional proposed provisions were based 

on requirements currently applicable to water, sediment or slurry impoundments and impounding 

structures that are regulated by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).) of the U.S. 

Department of Labor. See 30 CFR part 77, subpart C.

 

123

 As discussed in the proposed rule, EPA’s “Guide for Industrial Waste Management” documents the general 

consensus on the need for effective closure and post-closure care requirements (Chapter 11). This guide can be 

accessed at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/guide/.

Formatted: Font: Font color: Auto, (Intl) Times New

Roman

Formatted: No widow/orphan control
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

437

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The proposed rule included a number of closure and post-closure criteria, 

including: (1) requirements to prepare closure and post-closure plans,; (2) requirements for 

conducting closure of a CCR unit when the CCR is removed and disposed elsewhere, 

requirements for closure of a CCR unit whenwhen the CCR is left in place, including design 

criteria for a final cover system (or an alternative final cover design), time frames; (3) 

timeframes to commence and complete closure activities,; (4) closure and post-closure care 

certification requirements,; and (5) requirements for theconducting post-closure care period. The 

Agency received numerous comments on the proposed closure and post-closure criteria, with the 

majority of comments pertaining to the proposed time framestimeframes for closure (i.e., time 

framestimeframes for commencing and completing closure) of a CCR surface impoundment. As 

a result of these comments, EPA solicited additional comments on the EPA reopened the 

comment period regarding the time framestimeframes for closure, but not for the other closure 

and post-closure care proposed requirements. in a NODA published on August 2, 2013 (NODA 

3). See 78 FR at 46944. The sections below explain the approach and rationale for the final rule 

closure and post-closure care criteria consideringbased on the comments received in response to 

the proposed rule and the NODA.

1. Closure Plan

In the proposed rule, the The Agency proposed to require that the owners or 

operators of CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments prepare a written closure plan 

describing the closure of the unit and providing a schedule for implementation of the plan (. 75 

FR at 35207-08).. The closure plan would describe the steps necessary to close the CCR unit at 

any point during the active life based on recognized and generally accepted good engineering 

practices. The proposal also identified the minimum information necessary to include in the 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5", No widow/orphan

control

Formatted: No widow/orphan control
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

438

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

closure plan. This information included: (1) an estimate of the largest area of the CCR unit that 

would ever requiringrequire a final cover during the active life of the CCR unit; (2) an estimate 

of the maximum inventory of CCR that would ever be present on-site over the active life of the 

CCR unit; (3) a description of the final cover and the procedures to be used to install the final 

cover; (4) a description of how the facility will provide for major slope stability will be provided 

for following closure; (5) a description of the provisionsmeasures the owner or operate will adopt

to preclude the probability of future impoundment of water, sediment, or slurry; and (6) a 

schedule for the implementation of the closure plan. See proposed §257.100(a) and (g). The 

proposed rule would also requirehave required each owner or operator of a CCR unit to develop 

the closure plan by the effective date of the final rule. Finally, theEPA proposed approach 

wouldto require the owner or operator to have the closure plan certified by an independent 

registered professional engineer, in addition to notifying the appropriate state of its availability, 

placing the closure plan in the facility’s operating record, and placing the closure plan on the 

owner or operator’s publicly accessible internet sitecomplying with all of the notification and 

posting requirements under the rule.

The Agency EPA received few public comments on either the proposed 

requirementproposal to develop a closure plan or the individual elements of the closure plan. 

NoSome commenters opposedgenerally supported the requirement for thean owner or operator to 

develop a closure plan for eachthe CCR unit. One, and no commenters opposed it. However, 

one commenter requested that the EPA include more specific requirements for slope stability in 

the regulatory language beyond the general requirement to address major slope stability in the 

closure plan.

The Agency is finalizing the closure plan requirements substantially as proposed, except
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

439

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

for units that this rule clarifies the requirement to close with waste in place.

The Agency agrees that the proposed regulatory language should provide for more 

specific criteria defining the expectations with regard to major slope stability and . The proposed 

regulation merely required the owner or operator to “provide for major slope stability” in the 

closure plan, or in other words, to include measures to ensure that slope stability issues will be 

accounted for in designing the final cover. See 75 FR 35252. 

EPA explained that unit closure must provide for major slope stability to prevent the 

sloughing of the cover system over the wastes that will remain in the CCR unit over the long 

term. Sloughing of a land slope can occur when the earth material becomes saturated with water 

and incapable of maintaining the slope resulting in the movement or sliding of the earth material. 

75 FR at 35209. Slope stability is a critical issue in the design of final cover systems for both 

surface impoundments and landfills because cover system slope instability has been attributed to 

a number of final cover system failures.124 More specifically, the primary causes of final cover 

system slope failure during construction have been identified as: (1) placing soil over the 

sideslope geosynthetics from the top of the slop downward, rather than the toe of the slope 

upward; (2) using presumed values for critical interface shear strengths that were not 

conservative; and (3) using interface shear strength values from laboratory tests performed under 

conditions not representative of the actual field conditions. For final cover system slope failures 

after rainfall or thaw, the primary causes of failure have been identified as: (1) not accounting for 

seepage forces; (2) clogging of the internal drainage layer, which leads to increased seepage 

forces; and (3) not accounting for moisture at the geomembrane and compacted clay liner 

 

124

 USEPA, “Assessment and Recommendations for Improving the Performance of Waste Containment Systems,” 

EPA/600/R-02/099, December 2002.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

440

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

interface (which weakened the interface) due to both rain falling on the compacted clay liner 

surface during construction and freeze-thaw effects. 

Given that slope stability is a critical issue in the design and eventual performance of a 

final cover system, EPA has adopted a new criterion in the performance standard that all closures 

must meet: the owner or operator must ensure that the CCR unit is closed in a manner that will 

“provide for major slope stability to prevent the sloughing or movement of the final cover system 

during closure and throughout the post-closure care period.” See § 257.102(d)(1)(iii). Or in 

other words, the owner or operator must design a final cover system with any measures 

necessary to ensure that the major slopes of the closed CCR unit remain stable. Consistent with 

the proposal, the closure plan must discuss how the final cover system will achieve the 

performance standards specified in the regulation, which will necessarily include how the 

measures taken to address major slope stability. As explained in the proposed rule, the original 

provision was based on existing MSHA standards, specifically the requirements under 30 CFR 

§77.216-5 which apply to abandoned water, sediment or slurry impoundments and impounding 

structures.125 75 FR 35208-09. Under these requirements major slope stability includes long 

term stability considerations, such as “erosion control, drainage, etc.” These issues are equally 

relevant to the closure of CCR units, and EPA expects facilities to account for these factors in 

their final closure plans. 

The remaining information elements of the closure plan have been adopted without 

revision (although EPA has reorganized the final regulatory text for greater clarity). These are 

 

125

 The term “abandoned” is defined in the MSHA regulations under 30 CFR §77.217, and as applied to an 

impoundment or impounding structure such term means that work on the structure has been completed in 

accordance with a plan for abandonment approved by the District Manager.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

441

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

briefly summarized below:

a. An estimate of the largest area of the CCR unit ever requiring a final cover during 

the active life of the CCR unit. If the owner or operator routinely closes portions of a CCR unit 

as the design capacity is reached, the closure plan should indicate the largest area of the CCR 

unit that will be open (and requiring a final cover) at one time.

b. An estimate of the maximum inventory of CCR ever on-site over the active life of 

the CCR unit. If the owner or operator routinely closes portions of a CCR unit as the design 

capacity is reached, the closure plan should indicate the maximum inventory of CCR that will be 

open (and requiring a final cover) at one time.

c. A description of the final cover and the procedures to be used to install the final 

cover. The closure plan should also discuss how the closure performance standard will be 

achieved.

d. A description of the provisions to preclude the probability of future impoundment 

of water, sediment, or slurry. The final grades of the final cover system should promote surface 

water run-off and minimize erosion. The closure plan should also discuss the steepness of the 

slopes of the final cover system, in addition to the vertical spacing and width of benches.

e. A schedule for the implementation of the closure plan.

This rule also provides owners and operations additional time to prepare the new 

procedures for amending an existing written closure plan. While the proposed rule did not 

specifically allow or require the owner or operator to revise an existing closure plan, EPA 

recognizes that available information and conditions known at the time the closure plan is 

prepared may very well change during the active life of the CCR unit, which could be decades in 

some cases. In order to eliminate any potential confusion over whether an owner or operator is 

Formatted: No widow/orphan control
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

442

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

allowed under this rule to revise the closure plan to reflect a change in conditions or 

circumstances, the final rule adopts new procedures for amending a written closure plan. These 

new procedures allow the owner or operator to revise the closure plan at any time provided the 

revised plan is placed in the facility’s operating record, in addition to complying with all of the 

notification and posting requirements under the rule. Furthermore, the final rule requires the 

closure plan be amended any time there is a change in conditions that would substantially affect 

the written closure plan in effect.

Finally, in a departure from the proposed rule, the final rule provides owners and 

operators one year from the rule’s effective date to prepare the initial written closure plan, which 

is one year longer than proposed. EPA made this change as part of its effort to coordinate the 

compliance and implementation timeframes in the CCR rule with another Agency rulemaking –

the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point 

Source Category (ELG) rulemaking – that may affect owners and operators of CCR units. See 

78 FR 34442. As explained in that proposal, consistent with RCRA section 1006(b), EPA has 

sought to effectively coordinate any final RCRA requirements with the ELG requirements, to 

minimize the overall complexity of these two regulatory structures, and to facilitate the 

implementation of engineering, financial and permitting activities. EPA’s goal is to ensure that 

the two rules work together to effectively address the discharge of pollutants from steam electric 

generating facilities and the human health and environmental risks associated with the disposal 

of CCRs, without creating avoidable or unnecessary burdens.

EPA proposed to require facilities to complete a closure plan by the rule’s effective date, 

or six months following the rule’s publication. However, this would have required owners or 

operators to prepare closure plans approximately three months prior to publication of the ELG 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

443

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

final rule. Given that an understanding of the ELG rule would likely affect the details and 

content of a closure plan, the Agency concluded that it would make no sense to requiring an 

owner or operator to prepare a closure plan within six months, only to have them update it 

months later, after the owner or operator understands the requirements of both the CCR and ELG 

final rules. No measureable environmental or health benefit would be gained by having a closure 

plan in place for those three months. Moreover, EPA wants to ensure that closure plans are well 

considered, and the knowledge that a plan may need to be substantially revised in the near future 

could create a contrary incentive.

By extending the deadline for preparation of the closure plan by one year, owner or 

operators will have slightly more than six months after the ELG rule is published to complete a 

closure plan. This is consistent with the six month timeframe EPA originally proposed, which as 

noted, would have required completion of the closure plan within six months of publication of 

the final CCR rule.

2. Closure of a CCR Unit through Removal and Decontamination

The proposed rule would allow closure ofhave allowed facilities to close a CCR unit with 

CCR in place with a final cover system oreither through CCR removal and decontamination of 

all areas affected by releases from the CCR unit. If (“clean closure”) or with CCR in place with 

a final cover system. The Agency proposed that if the owner or operator elects to clean close a 

CCR unit by the latter approach, the Agency proposed that, CCR removal and decontamination 

are complete when constituent concentrations throughout the CCR unit and any areas affected by 

releases from the CCR unit do not exceed the numeric cleanup levels for those constituents 

found in CCR established by the state in which the CCR unit is located, to the extent that the 

state has established cleanup levels (. 75 FR at 35208).. In the absence of state cleanup levels, 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5", No widow/orphan

control

Formatted: No widow/orphan control
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

444

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

the proposal stated that metals should be removed to either statistically equivalent background 

levels, or to maximum contaminant levels or health-based numbers. Once a facility had 

completed clean closure of a CCR unit, EPA proposed that post-closure care would not be 

required for that unit. EPA also noted that it was considering whether to adopt a further 

incentive for clean closure, under which the owner or operator could remove the deed notation 

required under the proposed rule, once all CCR has been removed from the facility and 

notification provided to the state.

The final Several commenters urged that EPA not require clean closure as the only 

method of closing a CCR unit, arguing that clean closure is not feasible or not necessary. Others 

acknowledged that clean closure is not only a viable option for their CCR units, but in some 

cases it would be “the only prudent closure option.” A few commenters suggested criteria to 

determine the conditions under which clean closure would be appropriate. For example, one 

commenter agreed with EPA that the risk-based corrective action process (RBCA) would be 

useful in determining whether waste removal is appropriate at the site. 

EPA received relatively few comments on the specific standards for conducting clean 

closure. One commenter identified six criteria that should be included in any final regulation in 

order to allow a facility to have been deemed to have completed clean closure of a CCR surface 

impoundment and thereby avoid post–closure care. Some of the commenter’s suggestions were 

comparable to requirements in the proposal. However the commenter also included 

requirements to ensure that adequate engineering controls were used to prevent contamination of 

soil and groundwater during excavation, and requirements for quarterly monitoring of shallow 

groundwater beneath the surface impoundment for a period of 5 years to demonstrate that no 

residual CCR was left in place. Finally, a number of commenters supported a provision that 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

445

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

would allow the owner or operator to remove the deed notation required provided all CCR is 

removed from the site.

EPA did not propose to require clean closure nor to establish restrictions on the situations 

in which clean closure would be appropriate. As EPA acknowledged in the proposal, most 

facilities will likely not clean close their CCR units given the expense and difficulty of such an 

operation. Because clean closure is generally preferable from the standpoint of land re-use and 

redevelopment, EPA has explicitly identified this as an acceptable means of closing a CCR unit. 

However, both methods of closure (i.e., clean closure and closure with waste in place) can be 

equally protective, provided they are conducted properly. Thus, consistent with the proposal, the 

final rule allows the owner or operator to close a CCR unit by removing and 

decontaminatingdetermine whether clean closure or closure with the waste in place is appropriate 

for their particular unit. EPA agrees that the RBCA process, using recognized and generally 

accepted good engineering practices such as the ASTM Ec0–RBCA process, can be a useful tool 

to evaluate whether waste removal is appropriate at the site. It is, however, not a necessary 

prerequisite. 

EPA has adopted the provisions governing clean closure from the proposed rule with 

only one revision. The final provisions consist of two performance standards: First, the owner or 

operate must remove all CCR from the unit and decontaminate all areas affected by releases 

from the CCR landfill or surface impoundment. As part of meeting this performance standard, 

the final rule requires facility owners/operators to remove all wastes from the closing unit, and 

remove all liners contaminated with CCR waste and CCR waste leachate. The final rule also 

requires the owner or operator to remove and decontaminate all areas affected by releases from 

the CCR unit. The rule specifies that This would require removal andor decontamination of the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

446

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

CCR unit are completeunderlying and surrounding soils and flushing, pumping, and/or treating 

the aquifer. The Agency interprets the term ‘soil’ broadly to include both unsaturated soils and 

soils containing groundwater.

Second, the final rule specifies that closure has been completed when constituent 

concentrations throughout the CCRall CCR in the unit and any areas affected by releases from 

the CCR unit do not exceed ahave been removed and groundwater protection standard for any 

constituent included onmonitoring demonstrates that all concentrations of the assessment 

monitoring list, which constituents are specifiedlisted in Appendix IV to part 257. do not exceed 

either statistically equivalent background levels or MCLs. This standard encompasses both 

saturated and unsaturated soils, as well as the groundwater. As part of attaining this standard, 

facility owners and operators will need to document that any contaminants left in the subsoils 

(i.e., contaminated groundwater left in soils below the former landfill or impoundment) will not 

impact any environmental media including groundwater, surface water, or the atmosphere in 

excess of Agency-recommended limits or factors. Typically, any metals in these “subsoils” in 

excess of background levels are allowed to either naturally attenuate, or are removed by flushing. 

Once the facility has removed all of the assessment monitoring constituents listed in Appendix 

IV down to background levels or MCLs the groundwater is considered to be “clean” and closure 

is complete. 

EPA disagrees that specific provisions requiring the use of adequate engineering controls 

to prevent contamination of soil and groundwater during excavation are necessary to ensure that 

closure will be protective. To the extent that any contamination of soil or groundwater has 

occurred during CCR removal, this would constitute a release (or an “area affected by a release”) 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

447

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

from the CCR unit, and the final performance standard requires the facility to ensure that this 

been removed before closure is deemed to be complete. 

Contrary to the commenter’s suggestion that quarterly monitoring for 5 years is necessary 

to demonstrate that no residual CCR was left in place, the rule requires a facility to document 

that all Appendix IV concentrations are below MCL or background levels for two consecutive 

sampling events, using the statistical procedures in § 257.93(g). This is the same sampling 

required to demonstrate under the groundwater monitoring program that there is no longer a 

reason to suspect a source of contamination, and that consequently assessment monitoring can 

cease. EPA selected these provisions as the most factually analogous to the circumstances 

surrounding the clean closure of a CCR unit. Once a facility has removed the waste and any 

liner, the presumption is that the source of contamination has been removed as well. Although 

there may be site-specific factors that could support the need for a longer monitoring period, 

there is no factual basis to require a longer minimum period of sampling on a national basis. 

This represents a change from the proposal. EPA proposed a performance standard that 

required decontamination to either any state established numeric cleanup levels for CCR 

constituents, or in the absence of state cleanup levels, the removal of metals to either statistically 

equivalent background levels, or to maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), or health-based 

numbers. This was taken directly from the current part 258 standards for municipal solid waste 

landfills. EPA has deleted both of these standards as inappropriate for these units. 

The reference to state established clean up levels was inadvertently carried over from the 

existing part 258 regulations. As explained throughout this preamble, EPA is unable to rely on 

state programs to establish the specific standards under this rule; the record does not contain 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

448

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

information on all state cleanup standards, and there is no mechanism for states to operate 

approved programs in lieu of federal programs. 

EPA determined that the requirement to clean all soils to background levels was equally 

inappropriate. In practice, EPA does not routinely require complete removal of all 

contamination (that is, cleanup to ‘background’) from a closing unit even for hazardous waste 

units. Requiring CCR units to clean up soils to levels before the site was contaminated, would 

be more stringent than current hazardous waste policies. There is no basis in the current record 

to impose provisions for the remediation of CCR units that are more stringent than those 

imposed on hazardous wastes. 

Upon completion, the unit is exempt from the ground water monitoring and any other postclosure care requirements. In addition, the final rule adopts the proposal to allow the owner or 

operator to remove the deed notation required under §257.102(i)(4), upon certification that clean 

closure has been completed. EPA had proposed this option to create a further incentive for clean 

closure, and it is clear from the commenters, who uniformly supported this option, that it does so. 

EPA had proposed this option to create a further incentive for clean closure, and it is clear from 

the comments received in response that it will create a strong incentive for clean closure. Some 

commenters raised concern about the effect this option will have on state laws, which may not 

allow the deed notation to be removed. EPA notes that these criteria do not preempt state 

laws; to the extent state law requires the facility to retain a deed notation despite the completion 

of clean closure, those requirements will remain in place, notwithstanding this final rule.

3. Closure of a CCR Unit with CCR in Place

The proposed rule would have also allow for the closure ofallowed facilities to 

close a CCR unit by leaving the CCR in place and installing a final cover system. The final 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: No widow/orphan control
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

449

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

cover system would have been required to be designed and constructed to a have a permeability 

less than or equal to the permeability of any bottom liner system or the natural subsoils present, 

or a permeability no greater than 1x10-5centimeters per second (cm/sec), whichever is less. The 

proposal would have also requirerequired an infiltration layer that contains a minimum of 18 

inches of earthen material and an erosion layer containing a minimum of 6 inches of earthen 

material that is capable of sustaining native plant growth to help minimize erosion of the final 

cover. These proposed requirements were generally modeled after the performance standard and 

technical requirements contained in §258.60 for municipal solid waste landfills (. 75 FR at 

35208). The. EPA also proposed that the final cover system would have to be designed to 

minimize the disruption of the final cover through a design that accommodates settling and 

subsidence and to provideprovides for major slope stability to prevent the sloughing of the closed 

CCR unit over the long term. These last two criteria are based on existing requirements for 

interim status units under RCRA part 265 and MSHA requirements under 30 CFR part 77, 

subpart C, respectively.

As proposed, CCR surface impoundments would also behave been subject to aan 

additional set of performance standards. The owner or operator of thesea CCR unitssurface 

impoundment would behave been required to either drain the CCR unit or solidify the remaining 

wastes. In addition, these CCR unitsthe owner or operator would requirehave been required to 

stabilize the wastes be stabilized to a bearing capacity to support the final cover. The proposed 

criteria furtherwould also have required that the final cover for all CCR units be designed to 

minimize the migration of liquids through the closed CCR surface impoundment over the long 

term; promote drainage, and accommodate settling and subsidence so that the final cover’s 

integrity is maintained. Finally, closure of the CCR unit would bealso have been subject to the 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

450

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

general performance standard that the probability of future impoundment of water, sediment, or 

slurry be precluded.

The Agency also proposed to allow owners or operators of CCR units to select an 

alternative final cover design. As proposed, the alternative final cover design would need to 

achievehave required an infiltration layer that achieves an equivalent reduction in infiltration, 

and an erosion layer that provideswould provide equivalent protection from wind and water 

erosion, as the infiltration and erosion layers specified for final covers described above. In 

addition, anythe proposed approach for alternative final cover designdesigns would need to be 

certifiedhave also required certification by an independent registered professional engineer and,

notification would need to bebeing provided to the state that the alternative final cover design 

has been placed in the facility’s operating record and, and placement of the alternative final 

cover design on the owner or operator’s publicly accessible internet site.

This final rule establishes criteria for final cover systems and alternative final cover 

design, in addition to performance standards for these covers.

a. Final Cover System Design

EPA received comments supporting the proposed approach, while other 

commenters opposed the proposed final cover system design requirements. One state 

commenter generally supported using the part 258 final cover design requirements as a general 

model for CCR units. This commenter also requested that the Agency clarify whether new CCR 

units would be required to install a composite final cover system given that it was proposed that 

new CCR units would be required to designed and constructed with a composite bottom liner. 

Another state indicated that its state regulations allow final cover designs similar to that proposed 

by EPA, although the state requires a 24 inch infiltration layer and a 12 inch erosion layer. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

451

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Another state referenced current research showing that soil-only covers may not be effective in 

minimizing infiltration over the long term under certain climates. This commenter 

recommended that a geomembrane should be made a standard component of the cover system. 

Other commenters stated that the final cover system should be a composite system consisting of 

a synthetic component and a low permeability clay component. A state commenter offered that 

post-closure maintenance of composite cap system incorporating a geomembrane has been 

challenging in that state. Another commenter stated that a compacted clay liner should not be 

used as a final cover for landfills due to the potential for settlement cracking, desiccation 

cracking, and root and animal penetration. Instead, it was suggested that if a single barrier 

system is used, then a benefit-cost analysis favors a geomembrane, and if a composite barrier is 

to be used, a benefit-cost analysis favors a composite system of a geomembrane and 

geosynthetics clay liner.

The Agency also received many comments on the proposed approach to allow the 

use of alternative final cover systems. Most commenters supported allowing the use of 

alternative covers. One commenter stated that the use of geosynthetic clay liners in lieu of 18 

inches of earthen material for the infiltration layer is a commonly accepted for cover systems for 

municipal solid waste landfills. This commenter also noted that that geosynthetic clay liners 

have documented permeability characteristics on the order of 1 x 10-9cm/sec. Another 

commenter supported allowing the use of alternative cover systems because a one-size-fits-all 

approach is not appropriate for final cover system designs. A state also offered that 

appropriately designed alternative final covers such as capillary barrier covers and 

evapotranspiration covers are being successfully used at facilities in the state.

After considering comments received regarding final covers, the Agency is 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

452

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

essentially finalizing the approach in the proposed rule with minor revisions. The final rule 

allows owners or operators to use a final cover system consisting of an infiltration layer and an 

erosion layer, provided the infiltration layer has a permeability less than or equal to the bottom 

liner or natural subsoils. However, regardless of the bottom liner or natural subsoils present, the 

final cover must have a permeability no greater than 1 x 10-5cm/sec.

To address the commenters’ concerns that the final cover system may not function 

effectively as designed over the long term under certain circumstances, the rule also includes a 

performance standard that the any final cover system must meet. This standard is modeled after 

the closure performance standard applicable to interim status hazardous waste units under 

§265.111. The final rule requires that any final cover system control, minimize or eliminate, to 

the maximum extent practicable, post-closure infiltration of liquids into the waste and releases of 

leachate (in addition to CCR or contaminated run-off) to the ground or surface waters. Thus, a 

facility must ensure that in designing a final cover for a CCR unit they account for any condition 

that may cause the final cover system not to perform as designed. This could include accounting 

for site conditions that may increase the likelihood that a cover would be susceptible to 

desiccation cracking or settlement cracking. Under this performance standard, if the cover 

system results in liquids infiltration or releases of leachate from the CCR unit, the final cover 

would not be an appropriate cover. The final rule requires the final cover system design to be 

certified by a qualified professional engineer that the design meets both the performance 

standard and cover system criteria.

The final rule does not require the use of composite final covers, such as a 

geomembrane underlain by a compacted soil infiltration layer. This is also the case in situations 

for a CCR unit that is designed with a composite bottom liner or if the permeability of the soil 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

453

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

underlying the unit is comparable to the permeability of a geomembrane. As EPA has concluded 

for municipal solid waste landfills, in certain site-specific situations it may be possible to 

construct an infiltration layer that achieves an equivalent reduction in infiltration without 

matching the permeability in the bottom liner material. 62 FR 40710. 

Nonetheless, in certain locations, composite cover systems may be necessary to 

achieve the rule’s performance standards. EPA acknowledges that under certain circumstances 

issues can arise with compacted clay barriers, particularly when used alone. These can include 

desiccation, freeze-thaw sensitivity, and distortion due to total and differential settlement of the 

underlying wastes. These issues can generally be addressed through proper maintenance of the 

cover system; and in fact the final rule requires as part of post-closure care that the owner or 

operator maintain the integrity and effectiveness of any final cover, including making repairs to 

the final cover to correct the effects of settlement, subsidence, erosion, or other events, and 

preventing run-on and run-off from eroding or otherwise damaging the final cover. 

Consequently EPA is not mandating the installation of a composite liner system.

However, fewer problems are typically seen with the use of composite cover systems. 

And while ongoing oversight and proper maintenance is necessary to ensure the efficacy of any 

cover system, less effort is generally involved to ensure the continued performance of a 

composite cover system. EPA therefore generally recommends that facilities install a composite 

cover system, rather than a compacted clay barrier, as the composite system has often proven to 

be more effective (and cost effective) over the long term. For these reasons, EPA also 

anticipates that composite cover systems will be recommended in many circumstances by 

qualified Professional Engineers.

The final rule also allows the use of an alternative final cover. The rule requires 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

454

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

that the alternative final cover must include infiltration and erosion layer that achieve equivalent 

performance as the minimum designs specified for final cover systems as discussed above. As 

discussed in the proposed rule, EPA included this provision to increase the flexibility for an 

owner or operator of a CCR unit to account for site-specific conditions. Moreover, these 

provisions will provide an opportunity to incorporate future technology improvements that 

would be missed if the rule required prescriptive design measures. In addition, these 

requirements would not supersede more stringent state requirements. Thus, if a state either has 

more prescriptive or more stringent standards in its state regulations applicable to CCR units, 

those state requirements would control any final cover system or alternative final cover system 

design.

While the rule provides the owner or operator flexibility in selecting the final 

cover for the unit, EPA remains concerned about the lack of guaranteed state oversight on final 

cover selection. A final cover system that does not perform as designed may result in 

unacceptable infiltration of water into the closed CCR unit that may lead to leachate and releases 

from the unit. To address this concern, as well as the concerns raised by commenters regarding 

the long-term performance of certain cover systems by providing further assurance that the final 

cover system will perform over the long term, EPA has deleted the proposed provision that 

would have allowed owners or operators to shorten the length of the post-closure care period. As 

discussed in Unit M.9 below, the final rule requires facilities to conduct post-closure care for all 

CCR units for 30 years.

b. Performance Standards When Leaving CCR in Place

EPA received no significant comments on the proposed performance standards. 

The Agency is therefore finalizing these requirements without revision from the proposal 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

455

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(although EPA has reorganized the final regulatory text for greater clarity). The performance 

standards are summarized below:

i. As discussed in the previous section, the CCR unit must be closed in a manner 

that will control, minimize or eliminate, to the maximum extent practicable, post-closure 

infiltration of liquids into the waste and releases of CCR, leachate, or contaminated run-off to the 

ground or surface waters.

ii. The CCR unit must be closed in a manner that will preclude the probability of 

future impoundment of water, sediment, or slurry.

iii. The CCR unit must be closed in a manner that will provide for major slope 

stability, which is discussed is Unit M.1 for closure plans above.

iv. The CCR unit must be closed in a manner that will minimize the need for further 

maintenance of the unit.

v. The CCR unit must be closed in the shortest amount of time consistent with 

recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. The Agency added this 

performance standard to be consistent with the final provisions applicable for the timeframes for 

initiating and completing the closure of CCR units.

4. Time FramesTimeframes for Closure

In the proposed rule, the The Agency proposed that closure activities must be 

initiated by the owner or operator of a CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundment must be 

initiated by the owner or operator no later than 30 days following the knowknown final receipt of 

CCR. TheTo address concerns about “inactive” or abandoned units, the proposed rule also 

provided that this 30-day deadline could be extended toa CCR unit must initiate closure no later 

than one year after the most recent receipt of CCRs if the CCR unit had remaining capacity and 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5", No widow/orphan

control

Formatted: No widow/orphan control
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

456

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

there was a reasonable likelihood that the CCR unit would receive additional CCR (i.e., the rule 

would have forced the facility to close the CCR unit). See 77 FR at 35209 and proposed §

257.100(j)).). In addition, the proposed rule would requirehave required an owner or operator to 

complete closure activities within 180 days of initiating closure (. See proposed § 257.100(k)).). 

Thus, the maximum amount of time a facility would have had to initiate and complete closure of 

a CCR unit was seven months.

While the existing closure criteria for municipal solid waste landfills allow the Director 

of an approved State to grant time extensions for closure (both to initiate and to complete 

closure) if steps are taken to prevent threats to human health and the environment from the 

unclosed unit, the EPA proposed not to include similar provisions for owners or operators of 

CCR units. At proposal, the Agency believed that extending the closure deadlines was 

inappropriate because, in the absence of an approved State program, the owner or operator could 

unilaterally decide to extend the time for closure of a CCR unit, without any basis, or oversight 

by a regulatory authority (. 75 FR at 35209)..

The EPA received numerous comments in response to the proposed deadlines under the 

subtitle D proposed approach. Industry and state commenters stated that the proposed deadlines 

to begin and complete closure activities (30 and 180 days, respectively) are technically 

impracticable and simply too short for the vast majority of CCR units, especially for CCR 

surface impoundments. to complete closure. Commenters stated that a 30-day deadline to 

initiate closure activities may not be workable in situations such as when there are construction 

limitations due to seasonal or climatic conditions, orand should not be required in circumstances 

when a coal-fired generating unit is temporarily idled (e.g., maintenance related outages or an 

outage corresponding with a CCR handling system conversion). Regarding the amount of time 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

457

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

needed to close a unit, numerous commenters noted that it would be impossible to properly 

complete closure activities within the proposed 180 days at most surface impoundments due to 

the length of time needed to dewater an impoundment and stabilize the wastes prior to 

constructing the final cover system. For example, commenters pointed out that dewatering of a 

surface impoundment alone can take several years to complete because impoundments can be 

hundreds of acres in size. One commenter provided information related to an ongoing CCR 

surface impoundment closure where the dewatering and ash stabilizing phases of closure took 

two years to complete. Commenters also stated that because a large number of CCR disposal 

units will have to be closed during roughly the same timeframe, facilities may not be able to 

obtain the necessary specialized personnel, equipment, and materials (e.g., clay or fill material, 

liner materials) to close multiple units simultaneously. This issue may be further complicated in 

locations where multiple facilities are competing for the same limited resources. Commenters 

further argued that adopting the same closure deadlines applicable to municipal solid waste 

landfills is not appropriate given differences in size, design, and operation (e.g., CCR surface 

impoundments contain large volumes of water, municipal solid waste landfills typically close 

each component cell when it reaches its disposal capacity). As a result of these concerns, 

commenters recommended that EPA extend the deadlines both to commence and complete 

closure activities. The majority of the these commenters, however, urged EPA not to establish 

specific deadlines for closure activities and instead require facilities to close a CCR unit 

consistent with a closure plan approved by a state, or developed and certified by a qualified 

professional, such as a professional engineer.

In response to the comments to the proposed requirementsa subsequent NODA, 

the Agency reopened the comment period in NODA 3 to solicitsolicited additional public 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

458

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

comment on several different options to address these concerns (. 78 FR at 46944-46).. With 

respect to the deadline to initiate closure, the EPA noticedpresented several examples of routine 

and legitimate circumstances in which CCR units would not receive CCR for periods longer than 

one year passed between CCR placement in the CCR , even though the facility intended to 

continue to use the unit, such as. For example, EPA discussed circumstances in which the 

situation where a facility alternates use between CCRtwo surface impoundments (e.g.,, only one 

CCR surface of which is operational at a time. Once the impoundment may be receiving CCR 

while has reached capacity, the facility dewaters the unit, and begins to send CCR to the second 

CCR impoundment. Once the unit is dewatered to facilitate CCR removal for beneficial use or 

disposal elsewhere, the CCR is excavated and disposed in an adjacent landfill. The time to fill 

these units has varied over the years as demand has fluctuated, but a typical time to fill a unit 

with CCR is two years, perhaps longer, during which the other unit is “idle,” in that it does not 

“receive CCR,” but it remains operational.

The Agency also solicited comment on ana revised approach to establish the deadline to 

commenceinitiate closure. The approach entailed establishing a rebuttable presumption that if 

the CCR unit has not received waste within a particular period of time (e.g., 18-24 months), the 

CCR unit would be considered inactive and unit closure would be required to begin within a 

specified time. However, if the facility could substantiate that there was a reasonable likelihood 

that the CCR unit would again receive CCRsCCR in the future and also was able to document 

certain findings, the CCR unitowner or operator would not haveneed to immediately commence 

immediate closure of the CCR unit. In the NODA 3EPA discussed several examples of 

situations that would warrant delayingcould support a demonstration that immediate closure of 

the CCR unit. was not necessary. One example discussed was was if an owner or operator could 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

459

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

document that a CCR unit had been dedicated to a temporarily idled coal-fired generating unit 

and there is a reasonable likelihood that CCRs will be disposed in the CCR unit once the coalfired generating unit resumes operation. Another situation presented was a CCR unit dedicated 

to a coal-fired generating unit that was not burning coal at the time (e.g., electricity was being 

generated with other fuels such as natural gas), but the facility needed the CCR unit following 

resumption of coal burning. A final example discussed wasinvolved normal facility operations 

that include periods during which the CCR unit does not receive CCR for extended periods (e.g., 

the alternating use of two CCR surface impoundments discussed above). As part of this 

approach, the Agency solicited comment on putting awhether to limit on now long onthe length 

of time an owner or operator can maintain an idle without placing additional waste in the CCR 

unit, including the option of no time limits.

With respect to the deadline for completing closure, the EPA acknowledged in the 

NODA 3 that it needs to establish different deadlines, at least for the larger CCR units., were 

warranted. Information that the Agency has obtained throughout the rulemaking confirmed 

commenters’ claims that the timeframes originally proposed to complete closure of CCR surface 

impoundments will be practicably infeasible for the larger impoundments. However, the Agency 

cautioned that any ultimate time frametimeframe provided in the rule that would be practicable 

for the largest CCR units would be far too long to justify the time framesas timeframes for 

closure of the smaller impoundments. The EPA solicited comment onexplained that it intended 

to examine available closure plans for CCR surface impoundments to determine whether there 

are consistent timeframes or other factors that EPA could adopt as part of the regulations. EPA 

specifically identified two closure plans of CCR units that were scheduled to close since the 

proposed rule was published.as a possible source of useful information. These plans projected 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

460

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

that closure would take multiple years to complete for modestly-sized CCR units.surface 

impoundments (i.e., less than 50 acres).

a. Deadlines to Initiate Closure

In response to public comments to the proposed rule and the NODA 3 and to 

make the closure requirements self-implementing, the final rule requires owners and operators of 

CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments , most utility commenters stated that the time to 

initiate closure activities within 30 days after the known final receipt of CCR or any non-CCR 

should be tied to reasonable triggers that account for the diverse uses of CCR surface 

impoundments and CCR landfills. In particular, these commenters recommended that closure 

not be initiated for an idled CCR unit if the CCR unit is expected to receive additional waste in 

the CCR unit. The term “known final receipt” means that the owner or operators knows that the 

CCR unit will no longer future, whether CCR or any other waste the unit may be authorized to 

manage CCR or non-CCR. This . These commenters also supported the scenarios EPA 

described in the NODA as examples of legitimate situations that could warrant delaying the 

immediate closure of a CCR unit. Many of these commenters generally agreed that the 

rebuttable presumption alternative discussed in the NODA could be an appropriate approach for 

closure, in particular for CCR units not covered by a state-approved operating plan, provided the 

regulatory approach would be implemented in a manner that did not restrict other legitimate uses 

of the CCR unit. Many of these commenters also asserted that a limit on the length of time a 

CCR unit can remain idle is not practical because the owner or operator will not be able to 

predict with any degree of certainty how long a CCR unit will be idled. Several of these 

commenters also urged EPA to specify in the final rule what EPA intended by the phrase 

“initiation of closure;” that is, that EPA define the activities or actions the owner or operator 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5", No widow/orphan

control
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

461

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

must take by the deadlines specified in the rule.

A trade organization and other commenters warned that strict restraints on the initiation 

(and completion) of closure of CCR units would pre-empt opportunities for reclaiming CCR 

from these CCR units for beneficial use of CCR. These commenters recommended that the final 

rule create meaningful incentives for the beneficial use of CCR already in CCR units which will 

become unavailable to reclamation once a final cover system is put in place. For example, one 

commenter suggested that an incentive could be deferring deadlines for closure of a CCR unit if 

an owner or operator reduces its net tonnage by a set amount, such as 10,000 tons per year, if the 

CCR is beneficially used. EPA also received comments from several states that generally 

supported the rebuttable presumption concept. One state supported a longer rebuttable 

presumption time period of three years that could be extended if approved by the state on a caseby-case basis.

After consideration of all of the public comments, the Agency is adopting an approach 

that largely mirrors the approach outlined in the NODA. Closure of a CCR unit is triggered in 

one of three ways. The first is upon the known final receipt of waste (CCR or otherwise), or 

when an owner or operator removes the known final volume of CCR from the CCR unit for the 

purpose of beneficial use of CCR. Under these scenarios, the final rule requires an owner or 

operator to commence closure of the CCR unit within 30 days of such known final receipt or 

known final volume removal, whichever date is later.

The second way closure can be triggered relates to “idled” CCR units. This applies to 

situations in which the CCR unit has remaining disposal, treatment, or storage capacity, or there 

has been a temporary pause in the removal activities of CCR from the CCR unit. In these 

situations, the rule establishes a presumption that the owner or operator must initiate closure of 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

462

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

the CCR unit no later than two years after the most recent receipt of CCR or any non-CCR 

wastestream, or no later than two years after the most recent date that CCR was removed from 

the CCR unit for the purpose of beneficial use, whichever date is later. The rule, however, 

provides procedures for an owner or operator of the CCR unit to rebut this presumption and 

obtain additional time, provided the owner or operator can make the prescribed demonstrations.

The final way closure is triggered is when a CCR unit fails to meet certain of the 

technical criteria. Specifically, an owner or operator may be compelled to close a CCR unit in 

the following circumstances: (1) if the CCR unit has been sited inappropriately; i.e., cannot meet 

the applicable location criteria; (2) if an unlined CCR surface impoundment is found to 

contaminate groundwater in excess of a ground water protection standard; or (3) if a CCR 

surface impoundment cannot demonstrate the minimum factors of safety regarding structural 

integrity of the CCR unit. When closure is triggered under these circumstances, the owner or 

operator must initiate closure of the CCR unit within six months. Each of these is discussed in 

more detail below.

i. “Known Final Receipt” of CCR

Several commenters suggested that the rule not link the deadlines to initiate closure 

solely to when a CCR unit ceases to receive CCR. Many of these commenters provided 

information that CCR units also serve functions other than managing CCR, including the 

management of other wastes or water treatment. Thus, while there are periods of time that 

certain CCR units will receive both CCR and non-CCR wastes, there are also other times when 

the same CCR unit will only receive non-CCR wastes or perform other forms of active waste 

management in the unit, e.g., specific water treatment functions. EPA agrees that these are 

legitimate waste management activities, and EPA is aware of no risks that would warrant 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

463

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

cessation of such activities simply because the unit is no longer receiving CCR. Therefore, in 

response to these comments, the final rule no longer requires closure based solely upon the 

receipt of CCR. Instead, the final rule requires closure to be initiated after the CCR unit ceases 

to receive any waste or wastestream into the CCR unit. See §257.102(e)(1) and (e)(2) in the rule.

The Agency also agrees with those commenters that supported delaying the 

commencement of closure of a CCR unit if substantial quantities of CCR are removed from the 

CCR unit for the beneficial use of the waste. This could include, for example, removal of CCR 

from a CCR unit followed by its use as a partial replacement for Portland cement. As discussed 

in Unit IV.B of this preamble, EPA has identified significant benefits from reducing the disposal 

volumes of CCR in CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments, including reduced risks 

associated with the practice of CCR disposal, benefits from reducing the need to mine and 

process virgin materials, and energy and greenhouse gas benefits. EPA finds these potential 

benefits compelling and is therefore revising the closure requirements in the rule to 

accommodate the removal and beneficial use of CCR. EPA has therefore revised the rule to 

provide that closure of an otherwise idled CCR unit is not immediately triggered, as long as the 

owner or operator is removing substantial quantities of CCR from the unit. However, once 

removal of CCR for beneficial use no longer taking place, the rule would require the owner or 

operator to initiate closure of the CCR unit. See §257.102(e)(1) and (e)(2) in the rule.

After considering comments received regarding the specific timeframe by which closure 

must be initiated following known final receipt of wastes, the Agency is finalizing the 30 day 

timeframe from the proposed rule. Several commenters expressed concern that 30 days is too 

short because it does not account for the potential that weather or seasonal concerns may 

interfere or cause substantial delay. The Agency acknowledges that weather or seasonal effects 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

464

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

can delay certain activities, but disagrees that the rule provision needs to be revised to account 

for those. This provision does not require that specific actions or activities must be initiated 

during this 30-day period. For example, the rule does not require the installation of the final 

cover system (or the commencement of removal of CCR from the CCR unit) necessarily begin 

within this 30-day period. Instead, the provision is more flexible; the owner or operator can 

initiate closure by taking other actions necessary to implement the closure plan that are not 

weather or seasonal dependent, such as turning off pumps supporting sluice lines or taking any 

steps necessary to comply with any state or other agency standards that are a prerequisite to 

initiating closure. Provided the owner or operator has started to take the measures to implement 

the closure plan that can be feasibly undertaken, the facility will have complied with this 

requirement.

The 30-day period remains equally appropriate under the wider provision that allows 

closure to be triggered either by the known final receipt of all wastes in the unit, or upon the 

known final volume removal of CCR for beneficial use of CCR. There are no facts unique to 

these circumstances that would necessitate an extension beyond the 30 days timeframe. 

Furthermore, as the terms “known final receipt” and “known final volume removal” suggest, the 

owner or operator has made the determination to cease managing waste in the CCR unit, or to 

cease removing CCR from the CCR unit for beneficial use purposes. This will likely occur in 

situations where the CCR unit has reachedis reaching its disposal capacity (or treatment capacity 

when the CCR unit is receiving non-CCR wastestreams) or the owner or operator intends to 

close the CCR unit for other purposes (e.g., the closing of a CCR surface impoundment is closed

following conversion to dry handling of CCR). Given that these situations can generally be 

anticipated and planned for in advance, EPA is not aware of circumstances that would prevent 

Formatted: No widow/orphan control
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

465

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

owners or operators from at least commencing closure within this 30-day period. In summary, 

the owner or operator must commence closure of the CCR unit with 30 days of known final 

receipt of CCR or any non-CCR wastestream, or within 30 days of known final removal of CCR 

for beneficial use, whichever date is later.

In ii. Temporarily Idled Units

This situation involves CCR units with remaining CCR disposal or storage capacity (or 

treatment capacity for non-CCR wastestreams) that may sit idle for extended periods of time 

(e.g., potentially years at a time); however, the owner or operator intends to continue to maintain 

the idled unit to receive CCR or non-CCR wastestreams in the future. EPA proposed that these 

CCR units could remain idle for up to one year, but that closure of the CCR unit would have to 

be initiated no later than one year after the most recent receipt of CCRs. See 75 FR 35252 

(proposed §257.100(j)). The majority of commenters claimed that one year was too short and 

would require the premature closure of CCR units that would be needed in the future. In 

response to these comments and new information documenting examples of legitimate 

circumstances in which CCR units were idled for more than one year, EPA solicited comment on 

a revised approach to establish longer timeframes to initiate closure for temporarily idled CCR 

units. As discussed previously, this approach entailed establishing a rebuttable presumption that 

if the CCR unit has not received waste within a specified period of time (i.e., 18 months to two 

years), the CCR unit would be considered inactive and closure of the CCR unit would be 

required. However, this time could be extended beyond the 18 months or two years if the facility 

could substantiate certain findings. See 78 FR at 46945.

After considering comments received, the Agency is essentially finalizing the approach 

presented in the NODA. Specifically, in situations where the CCR disposal unit has remaining 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

466

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

disposal or storage capacity (or treatment capacity for non-CCR wasteswastestreams) and there 

is a reasonable likelihood that the CCR unit will receive additional CCR or non-CCR waste in 

the foreseeable future, the final rule allows the owner or operator to keep the CCR unit available 

for use. However, the final rule requires initiation of closure activities after two years for up to 

two years. However, if the CCR unit has not received CCR or any non-CCR waste within two 

years of the last receipt of CCR or any non-CCR waste. If the owner or operator has not 

resumed disposal in the CCR unit within this two year period, whichever date is later, the rule 

nonetheless allows the owner or operator of the CCR unit to secure additional time before 

initiatingrequires closure of the CCR unit, provided unless the owner or operator can make 

certain demonstrations. document that additional time is necessary to accommodate routine 

operations and legitimate waste management activities.

The Agency agrees that it is not necessary to require closure of temporarily idled CCR 

units after one year. Information in the record documents numerous examples of legitimate 

circumstances in which CCR units were idled for more than one year. In most of the examples 

provided CCR units are temporarily idled for periods that can last more than one year, but 

typically use of the CCR units resumes within approximately two years. Based on this 

information EPA has concluded that a two year timeframe before presumptively requiring 

closure of a CCR unit would be more consistent with current practice, and is better supported by 

the available information.

This same information documented that there can be situations in which a CCR unit is 

idled for longer periods of time (e.g., a coal-fired boiler may be idled for years during which 

another fossil fuel is burned (e.g., natural gas), and the CCR unit will be needed when the utility 

returns to coal burning. In order to obtain additional time beyond two years, the owner or 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

467

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

operator must document in writing both that the CCR unit has remaining disposal or storage 

capacity and the facts that support a conclusion that there is a reasonable likelihood that the CCR 

unit will accept CCR or non-CCR waste in the foreseeable future. The facility would need to 

substantiate those findings, including the specific reasons the owner or operator believes “that 

there is a reasonable likelihood that CCRs will be disposed in the waste disposal unit.” These 

findings would need to be certified by the owner or operator of the CCR unit.

The rule identifies specific examples of situations specific scenarios that would support a 

determination that the CCR unitthere is a continuing need for the unit to support future waste 

management activities (e.g., that the CCR will resume receiving CCR or non-CCR waste in the 

future. These ). These are intended to be illustrative rather than an exclusive list; there may well 

be additional circumstances in which routine operations or legitimate waste management 

practices would support the necessary determination. The particular situations identified in the 

rule generally match those discussed in the NODA or reflect situations include written 

documentation thatidentified in public comments. Specifically, the rule identifies four particular 

circumstances: (1) Normal plant operations include periods during which the CCR unit does not 

receive wastes (CCR or non-CCR wastestreams, such as ). This may include the alternating use 

of two or more CCR units whereby at any point in timebetween one CCR unit is receivingthat 

receives CCR while dewatering or removing CCR is being removed from a second CCR unit

after its dewatering.. (2) The CCR unit is dedicated to a coal-fired boiler unit that is temporarily 

idled (i.e., CCR is not being generated) and there is a reasonable likelihood that the coal-fired 

boiler will resume operations in the future. (3) The CCR unit is dedicated to an operating coalfired boiler (i.e., CCR is being generated); however, no CCR areis being placed in the CCR unit 

because the CCR areis being entirely diverted to beneficial uses, but there is a reasonable 

Formatted: No widow/orphan control
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

468

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

likelihood that the CCR unit will again be used in the foreseeable future. (4) The CCR unit 

currently receives only non-CCR wastestreams and those non-CCR wastestreams are not 

generated for an extended period of time, but there is a reasonable likelihood that the CCR unit 

will again receive non-CCR wastestreams in the future. The final rule allows an owner or 

operatorAs noted, a facility must substantiate these findings; it is not sufficient to obtainmerely 

repeat the words of the regulation and conclude that additional two-year time extensions 

provided the owner or operator continues to be able to make the written demonstrationsis 

warranted.

The final rule allows an owner or operator to obtain additional two-year time frames to 

initiate extensions for as long as the owner or operator continues to be able to provide a factual 

basis to justify the need for additional time via a written demonstration. Because these idled 

units must continue to comply with all applicable technical requirements, including those for 

groundwater monitoring, corrective action, and structural stability, a fixed or definitive limit on 

the amount of time that a CCR unit can sit idle is not necessary.

In addition, the Agency agrees that the final rule should better define the actions or 

activities that constitute “initiation of closure discussed ” of a CCR unit. A clear definition will 

assist in the implementation and understanding of the rule. Commenters suggested a number of 

actions or activities, any one of which would be sufficient to show that closure of the CCR unit 

has been initiated. Examples provided by the commenters included the removal of CCR slice 

lines; beginning the necessary permitting processes (i.e., submitting a completed permit 

application); turning off pumps supporting the sluice lines; preparing a bid for contractors; or 

procuring capping materials such as clay or top soil.

The final rule specifies that closure has been initiated when the owner or operator 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

469

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

takes two actions. The first action is that the owner or operator must have permanently ceased 

placing CCR and non-CCR wastestreams in the CCR unit. As suggested by commenters, 

permanent removal of CCR sluice lines or inactivation of the pumping system supporting the 

sluicing operation would be evidence that placement of CCR and non-CCR wastestreams has 

ceased. The second action is that the owner or operator must have taken steps to implement the 

written closure plan required by the rule. This second action would include submitting a 

completed application for any required state or agency permit or permit modification in order to 

implement closure of the CCR unit, or taking any steps necessary to comply with any state or 

other agency standards or regulations that are a prerequisite to initiating or completing the 

closure of the CCR unit. Once the owner or operator has completed both of these actions, 

closure of the CCR unit has been initiated for purposes of this rule. See §257.102(e)(3) in this 

rule.

iii. Closure for Cause

Finally, the Agency is clarifying that the closure initiation timeframes specified 

above – the 30 day period for known final receipt or known final volume removal and the 2 year 

period for temporarily idled CCR units – do not apply to specific situations.closures initiated for 

cause. As discussed elsewhere in Unit X of the preamble, the final rule requires certain CCR 

surface impoundments and CCR landfills to close potentially before the end of the planned 

period of use.. The situations include: existing unlined CCR surface impoundments whose 

groundwater monitoring shows an exceedance of a groundwater protection standard; existing 

CCR surface impoundments that are determineddo not to be sited appropriately; new and 

existingcomply with the location criteria; CCR surface impoundments that are not designed and 

operated to achieve minimum safety factors; and existing CCR landfills that aredo not are not 

Formatted: No widow/orphan control
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

470

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

site appropriatelycomply with respect tothe location criteria for unstable areas. In these 

situations, the final rule specifies that the owner or operator must initiate closure activities within 

six months of making the relevant determination that the CCR unit must close, which is different 

than the time frames specified above. Because some facilities may need to continue to use these 

CCR units that the rule is requiring to close in order to generate electricity, the final rule includes 

alternative closure requirements for these CCR units, which is discussed below. .

The final rule allows a CCR unit that is subject to closure for these situations may 

continue to receive CCR in the unit if the owner or operator can certify to the absence of 

alternative disposal capacity both on-site and off-site of the facility. To qualify, the owner or 

operator of the CCR unit must document that all of the following conditions have been met: (1) 

No alternative disposal capacity is available on-site or off-site. An increase in costs or the 

inconvenience of existing capacity is not sufficient to support qualification under this section. (2) 

The owner or operator has made, and continues to make, efforts to obtain additional capacity. 

Qualification under this subsection lasts only as long as no alternative capacity is available. 

Once alternative capacity is identified, the owner or operator must arrange to use such capacity 

as soon as feasible and also initiate closure of the closing unit. If no alternative capacity is 

identified within five years after the initial certification, the CCR unit must cease receiving CCR 

and close.

The final rule provides an additional option for coal-fired generating units that will cease 

operations permanently in the foreseeable future. This one-time alternative addresses the 

situation in which the owner or operator has already determined to close the coal-fired generating 

unit and allows the CCR unit to continue to receive CCR in return for the facility completing

closure on an expedited schedule. That is, closure of the CCR unit will be achieved sooner than 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

471

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

is allowed under the time frames discussed in Section L.1.b of the preamble. Under this 

alternative, a CCR surface impoundment may continue to receive CCR if the owner or operator 

of the CCR unit certifies that the facility will cease operation of the coal-fired boilers within the 

time frames specified in the rule, but in the interim period (prior to closure of the coal-fired 

boiler), the facility must continue to use the CCR unit due to the absence of alternative disposal 

capacity both on-site and off-site of the facility. To qualify, the owner or operator of the CCR 

unit must document that certain conditions have been met: (1) No alternative disposal capacity 

is available on-site or off-site. An increase in costs or the inconvenience of existing capacity is 

not sufficient to support qualification under this section. (2) The owner or operator must remain 

in compliance with all other requirements of this subpart, including the requirement to conduct 

any necessary corrective action. And (3) The owner or operator must complete an annual 

progress report documenting the continued lack of alternative capacity and the progress towards 

the closure of the coal-fired boiler. The final rule specifies that for a CCR surface impoundment 

that is 40 acres or smaller, the coal-fired boiler must cease operation and the CCR surface 

impoundment must have completed closure no later than 8 1⁄2 years following rule publication. 

For a CCR surface impoundment that is larger than 40 acres, the coal-fired boiler must cease 

operation, and the CCR surface impoundment must complete closure no later than 13 1⁄2 years 

following publication of the rule.

Table 1 to this section summarizes the time frames for initiating closure of CCR landfills 

and CCR surface impoundments.

Table 1.—Summary of Time Frames for Initiating Closure

If the CCR unit 

is a/an...

The owner or operator must 

initiate closure of the CCR 

unit within...

Unless the owner or 

operator...

In which case the 

owner or operator...
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

472

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Existing 

unlined CCR 

surface 

impoundment

6 months of detecting one or 

more listed constituents at 

statistically significant 

levels above the 

groundwater protection 

standard

Qualifies for the 

alternative closure 

requirements

Must comply with the 

requirements and 

time frames specified 

under §257.103(a) or 

(b).

Existing CCR 

surface 

impoundment 

or existing 

CCR landfill

not sited 

appropriately

6 months of determining 

that the CCR unit has not 

demonstrated compliance 

with any applicable location 

restriction

Qualifies for the 

alternative closure 

requirements

Must comply with the 

requirements and 

time frames specified 

under §257.103(a) or 

(b).

Existing or 

new CCR 

surface 

impoundment 

not achieving 

minimum 

safety factors

6 months of failing to 

document with minimum 

factors of safety for 

structural integrity of the 

CCR unit.

Inactive CCR 

surface 

impoundment

There is no deadline to 

initiate closure of the CCR 

unit because §257.100(b) 

requires closure to be 

completed by a date certain.

Existing CCR 

surface 

impoundment

or new CCR 

surface 

impoundment 

or any lateral 

expansion of a 

CCR surface 

impoundment

Either:

30 days of receiving the 

known final receipt of CCR 

or non-CCR waste;

OR

2 years of the most recent 

receipt of CCRs if the CCR 

unit has remaining capacity 

and there is a reasonable 

likelihood that the CCR unit 

will receive additional CCR

Demonstrates that 

there is a reasonable 

likelihood that the 

CCR unit will accept 

waste in the 

foreseeable future or 

remove CCR from 

the CCR unit for the 

purpose of beneficial 

use.

Can defer initiation 

of closure for an 

additional 2 years 

with a successful 

demonstration(s). 

The owner or 

operator is not 

limited to one twoyear deferment.

Existing CCR 

landfill or new 

CCR landfill 

or any lateral 

expansion of a 

CCR landfill

Either:

30 days of receiving the 

known final receipt of CCR 

or non-CCR waste;

OR

2 years of the most recent 

receipt of CCRs if the CCR 

unit has remaining capacity 

and there is a reasonable 

Demonstrates that 

there is a reasonable 

likelihood that the 

CCR unit will accept 

waste in the 

foreseeable future or 

remove CCR from 

the CCR unit for the 

Can defer initiation 

of closure for an 

additional 2 years 

with a successful 

demonstration(s). 

The owner or 

operator is not 

limited to one twoyear deferment.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

473

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

likelihood that the CCR unit 

will receive additional CCR

purpose of beneficial 

use.

b. Deadlines to Complete Closure

In response to public comments to the proposed rule and the NODA, the final rule 

provides CCR surface impoundments five years to complete closure and provides CCR landfills 

six months to complete closure. If the owner or operator of a CCR surface impoundment can 

demonstrate that it is not feasible to complete closure within this five year period, the final rule 

includes procedures to obtain extensions of time, provided the additional time that is needed is 

due to factors beyond the facility’s control. In order to obtain additional time, the owner or 

operator of the CCR unit is required to prepare a written demonstration that identifies the basis 

for an extension. Such factorsIn response to the August 2013 NODA, many utility commenters 

stated that the time period to complete closure must be sufficiently flexible to account for the 

inherent uncertainties in predicting a closure schedule. These commenters point to potentially 

innumerable complications and circumstances beyond the control of the owner or operator that 

render it nearly impossible to predict with precision when the closure of a CCR unit will be 

completed. These commenters also believe it is impractical and unrealistic for the rule to subject 

the closure of CCR units to any type of fixed regulatory structure. They maintained their 

position from the proposed rule that it would be impossible to properly complete closure of most 

CCR surface impoundments within 180 days. Their recommendation is to allow closure 

timeframes to be governed by the a state-approved closure process, which would include the 

owner or operator developing and submitting a closure plan to the state and mechanisms for the 

state to verify and enforce compliance with all closure requirements, including the closure plan. 

Under this approach, the owner or operator’s compliance with the requirements of the stateFormatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

474

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

approved closure process (including following the closure plan, completing mitigation, etc.) 

would represent compliance with this rule’s closure requirements. For CCR units not subject to 

a state-approved closure process, these commenters recommended that the owner or operator 

should demonstrate compliance with the CCR closure requirements by submitting a closure plan 

to the state that is certified by an independent professional engineer. In this case, because there 

is not direct state oversight and administration of the closure process, the timelines in the closure 

plan could be subject to a modified set of tiered timeframes for completing closure, provided 

owner or operators could demonstrate that more time is needed to close the unit on a case-bycase basis.126

 These commenters also opposed any closure approach with firm and inflexible 

timeframes because no single factor (e.g., the acreage of the CCR unit or the volume of CCR in 

the unit) is determinative in all instances of how long it will take to complete closure of the CCR 

unit. Commenters also cautioned that pre-closure closure plans (and the closure schedules 

contained therein) may not be an actual reflection of the time it will take to close the unit due to 

unforeseen or variable conditions. Finally, these commenters also generally opposed the idea 

discussed in the NODA of petitioning the Agency for a site-specific rule to vary from a generally 

applicable deadline.

Many commenters described the many factors that could affect timeframes for closure of 

a CCR unit. Most comments were specific to CCR surface impoundments whose closures are 

typically more complex as compared to CCR landfills due to the presence of water in 

 

126

 The tiered timeframes for completing closure could be based on the size of the CCR unit (after obtaining 

necessary state and local approvals): (1) Within 3 years for an impoundment with an area less than 20 acres; (2) 

Within 5 years for an impoundment between 20 and 50 acres; (3) Within 8 years for an impoundment between 50 

and 75 acres; (4) Within 10 years for an impoundment with an area of 75 acres or more; and (5) Within 180 days for 

a landfill. Under this approach, the owner or operator could demonstrate the need for additional time to close the 

CCR unit.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

475

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

impoundments. Factors most often cited by the commenters that may affect the time required to 

close a CCR unit included: the size and volume of CCR in the unit; the geotechnical 

characteristics the CCR; the type or design of the surface impoundment (i.e., diked, incised, 

valley fill, and side hill); the need to coordinate or obtain approvals from state permitting 

officials; the availability of qualified engineers, contractors, and materials since closing a CCR 

unit is a specialized activity, especially given that many units may be required to close 

simultaneously; climate and weather that can affect dewatering operations and the length of a 

construction season; the time needed to obtain replacement disposal capacity for a closing unit 

that would ensure ongoing facility operations; and dam safety considerations during closure. 

Many of commenters identified that the dewatering process (an early necessary step in the 

closure process) as being a site-specific issue, as the time that will be needed to dewater an 

impoundment can vary considerably depending on the type of CCR unit, the volume of CCR in 

unit, and the geotechnical properties of the CCR. Several commenters also cited that closure 

times for some CCR units will require substantial volumes of fill material to properly grade a 

closing surface impoundment to facilitate positive drainage from the closed unit. These 

commenters provided estimates on the volumes of fill material needed and showed that the 

earthmoving aspect of this step alone can take many years in some cases.

Several state commenters generally supported the tiered closure alternative discussed in 

the NODA. However, these commenters urged EPA to include provisions in the rule to provide 

flexibility for closing units to demonstrate the need for additional time on a case-by-case basis.

i. Timeframes for Completing Closure

In the August 2013 NODA the Agency solicited comment on ways to establish categories 

of timeframes that would adequately account for the various factors that can affect the amount of 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

476

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

time need to properly close a CCR surface impoundment. One approach discussed in the NODA 

was called the “tiered approach” that was based on comments received in response to the 

proposed rule. Under that approach, the final rule would establish fixed timeframes to complete 

closure that varied depending on the size of the impoundment (i.e., surface area acreage). The 

Agency stated in the NODA that the concept of a tiered approach was appealing; however, the 

precise basis for the distinctions (i.e., unit size cutoffs) and timeframes were not clear. EPA 

further explained its concern that factors other than size (e.g., climate, geography, unit 

configuration) would also appear to be relevant, and that any timeframes should account for 

those other factors. EPA encouraged commenters interested in supporting a tiered approach to 

provide the rationale and data to support any suggested categories of timeframes. 78 FR 46946. 

Most commenters opposed the tiered approach by itself (i.e., an approach without an 

accompanying process by which an owner or operator could obtain additional time due to sitespecific circumstances) because they felt there simply are too many factors that can affect 

closure timeframes. These commenters concluded that basing closure timeframes on a subset of 

factors would not be appropriate. As one commenter noted, a 20 acre impoundment 10 feet deep 

can likely be dewatered and closed more quickly than a 20 acre impoundment 30 feet deep.

After considering comments and information available on closure timeframes, EPA has 

concluded that there are insufficient data and information to adopt the kind of tiered approach 

discussed in the NODA. EPA is convinced that the available information does not support an 

approach that would establish fixed and definitive timeframes for closure, based on a select 

subset of factors that distinguish between surface impoundments (e.g., a 50 acre diked 

impoundment holding 500 acre-feet of CCR with a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-5centimeters 

per second located in a state in the southwest with a permitting program would be required to 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

477

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

close in 4 1⁄2 years, while a 50 acre cross valley impoundment holding 1,500 acre-feet of CCR 

with a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10-6centimeters per second located in a state in the upper 

midwest with a permitting program would be required to close in 7 years, etc). While 

information is available for surface impoundments on certain factors, such as the size and type of 

the unit and geographic information, the Agency has little to no data for a number of other key 

factors. For example, EPA has no information on the geotechnical properties of the CCR that 

can affect the time needed to dewater a unit, the volumes of clays, soils, and other materials that 

will be needed for closure, and information on the time needed to obtain state approvals (in 

accordance with state CCR programs) related to closure of a unit.

In discussing the tiered approach EPA noted that commenters to the proposed rule had 

suggested that the largest CCR surface impoundments (i.e., those having a surface area greater 

than 75 acres) should be subject to a site-specific deadline to complete closure. In the NODA the 

Agency explained that a site-specific deadline may not be practicable unless the rule were to 

establish a “variance” process as part of the rule. 78 FR 46946. Under a variance approach, 

EPA would establish a specific deadline (e.g., closure must be completed no later than five years 

from the date closure activities are initiated), but would allow facilities to petition EPA for a sitespecific rule to establish an alternate deadline. In response to the NODA, some commenters 

expressed interest in such an approach, but other commenters found the approach not practicable 

since each owner or operator would need to petition the Agency for a site-specific rule. Some 

commenters believed that a site-specific rule process, which would necessarily involve a notice 

and comment process, would be an unwieldy process leading to unnecessary delays. The 

Agency agrees that this is also not a practical alternative to establish timeframes to complete 

closure.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

478

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Recognizing the numerous factors that can affect the amount of time needed to close an 

impoundment, many commenters suggested EPA not establish any type of fixed regulatory 

deadline for closure. Instead, these commenters recommended that the rule allow closure 

timeframes to be governed by a state-approved closure process. Under this process suggested by 

commenters, and adequate state-approved closure process would include one where the owner or 

operator developing and submitting a closure plan to the state and mechanisms for the state to 

verify and enforce compliance with all closure requirements, including the closure plan. Under 

the commenter’s recommendation, compliance with the requirements of the state-approved 

closure process would not be compliance with the closure requirements of this rule. As 

discussed elsewhere in this preamble, under subtitle D of RCRA, the Agency cannot rely on the 

existence of a state permitting authority to implement the subtitle D requirements.

Some other commenters suggested EPA not establish any type of fixed regulatory 

deadline for closure in the rule, and instead rely on the closure plan developed and certified by a 

professional engineer. The Agency disagrees that this approach would meet the protectiveness

standard of RCRA section 4004(a). CCR units present significant risks, and it is critical that 

facilities complete closure expeditiously – particularly those that are closing because they are 

structurally unsound or are contaminating groundwater. To be able to determine that the rule 

will be protective, the final rule must limit the discretion of individual facilities, many of whom 

may have significant incentives for delay, and avoid the potential for abuse. Moreover, in 

contrast to corrective action, where EPA was truly unable to establish an outer limit on the 

necessary timeframes – including even a presumptive outer bound – closures, while complex, do 

not vary to the same degree as site remediation actions. Consequently, as discussed later in this 

section, the available data were sufficient to support the establishment of definitive timeframes. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

479

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Most commenters, however, were generally supportive of an approach that would 

establish timeframes for closure, whether in a tiered-like approach (i.e., timeframes for closure 

based on one or more characteristics of the unit) or under a “rebuttable presumption” approach, 

so long as the rule would provide the owner or operator a process or procedures to demonstrate 

the need for additional time. As explained in the NODA, such an approach could be 

implemented by establishing a presumption that facilities complete closure within a specified 

timeframe, such as five years, unless the facility could document that closure is not feasible to 

complete within the presumptive timeframe.

After consideration of all of the public comments, EPA is adopting an approach that takes 

elements from two of the alternatives discussed in the NODA: the concept of tiered timeframes 

based primarily on the size of the surface impoundment, and the concept of a rebuttable 

presumption. The final rule establishes a presumption that the owner or operator must complete 

the closure of a CCR surface impoundment within five years of initiating closure activities. For 

CCR landfills the presumption is that the owner or operator must complete closure within six 

months of initiating closure activities. The rule, however, provides procedures for an owner or 

operator to rebut either presumption and obtain additional time, provided the owner or operator 

can make the prescribed demonstrations. For CCR surface impoundments, the amount of 

additional time beyond the five years varies based on the size (using surface area acreage of the 

CCR unit as the surrogate of size) of the unit. For impoundments 40 acres or smaller, the 

maximum time extension is two years. For impoundments greater than 40 acres, the maximum 

time extension is five two-year extensions (ten years) and the owner or operator must 

substantiate the factual circumstances demonstrating the need for each two-year extension. For a 

CCR landfill, the amount of additional time beyond the six months does not vary according to 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

480

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

the size of the landfill, rather the maximum time extension is two one-year extensions (two 

years) for any CCR landfill. The owner or operator must substantiate the factual circumstances 

demonstrating the need for each one-year extension.

ii. CCR Surface Impoundment Timeframes

To develop these timeframes the Agency began by identifying the period of time in 

which most surface impoundments could feasibly complete closure. EPA intended this period of 

time to serve as the basis for the rebuttable presumption of the rule. As EPA recognized in the 

NODA, a timeframe that would be feasible for the largest units would grant more time than 

could be justified to complete the closure of smaller units. The closure of CCR units, and 

particularly the closure of CCR units that are compelled to close because they fail to comply with 

the rule’s requirements (e.g., are structurally unstable or are contaminating groundwater), needs 

to occur as expeditiously as is feasible. While these units (and particularly the larger CCR 

surface impoundments) are in the process of closing, they continue to present risks to human 

health and the environment. On the other hand a presumptive time period that is feasible for a 

small percentage of units would simply result in a greater number of facilities that would need to 

obtain time extensions. It is well established that the law cannot compel actions that are

physically impossible, “lex non cogit ad impossibilia”, and it is incumbent on EPA to develop a 

regulation that does not in essence establish such a standard. 

The available information shows that CCR surface impoundments vary in size by an 

order of magnitude (i.e., from less than one acre to nearly 1,000 acres). EPA evaluated the 

information on the size distribution of CCR surface impoundments in its database of survey 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

481

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

results from EPA’s 2009 Information Request.127 Through this effort, EPA received a 

substantial amount of factual information from 240 utility facilities covering 676 surface 

impoundments, including surface area information on over 650 impoundments. The database of 

survey responses shows that the median surface impoundment is approximately 14 acres in size, 

75 percent of impoundments are 50 acres or smaller, 80 percent of impoundments are 66 acres or 

smaller, and 90 percent of impoundments are 111 acres or smaller.

Available information on actual and projected timeframes needed to close CCR surface 

impoundments of varying sizes (using surface area as the surrogate for size) is summarized 

below. Much of this information came from public comments from utilities. The largest CCR 

surface impoundment in this data set that has actually completed closure is a 40-acre unit that 

closed over a period of approximately five years (i.e., the surface impoundment at PPL 

Corporation’s Martins Creek Power Plant).128 This facility closed with waste in place, and 

included installation of a final cover system. According to the facility, this CCR unit ceased 

receiving wastewater in January 2008, and the closure work began with dewatering the unit and 

preparing the revised closure plan and permit modification applications. Installation of the final 

cover, in addition to final soil grading and seeding of the unit was completed in spring 2012. By 

early 2013, all remaining closure actions were completed and state regulators issued final 

approvals in July 2013. EPA gave substantial weight to this information because (1) this was a 

CCR surface impoundment—the units of greatest relevance to the issue at hand; (2) the closure 

was completed recently, and so would accurately reflect current and available engineering 

 

127

 More information on EPA’s Information Request, including a data base of survey responses, can be accessed at 

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys/index.htm.

128

 EPA included information on the planned closure of this CCR surface impoundment in the NODA. 78 FR 

46945. The closure plan estimated that the closure process would take approximately three years to complete.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

482

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

practices; and (3) the facility actually unit actually completed closure of the unit. See EPA-HQRCRA-2012-0028-0103 and EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0113.

As another example, American Electric Power provided some information on the recent 

closure of a CCR surface impoundment in 2013. This 21-acre unit had been inactive for several 

years and was closed over two construction seasons. The impoundment was closed by leaving 

CCR in place and installing a composite cap, in addition to the installation of hydraulic 

appurtenances to control the design storm events. See EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0067.

Cleco Corporation provided planned closure timeframes contained in existing permits for 

its CCR surface impoundments. For three of its CCR surface impoundments, which in aggregate 

totaled 66 acres, Cleco Corporation estimated that it could take approximately one year to 

complete closure, which would be accomplished by leaving CCR in place and installing a final 

cover system. Cleco Corporation also estimated that it would take approximately nine months to 

complete closure of two additional CCR surface impoundments, with an aggregate acreage of 5.5 

acres, by removing CCR from the CCR units, (i.e., clean closure of the units). Information on 

the size of any of the five CCR units was not provided, which complicates the Agency’s ability 

to assess the closure of any of the individual CCR units. In addition, the time period appears to 

begin when dewatering operations are initiated and the comments do not discuss how much time 

may be needed to obtain any necessary approvals from the state prior to commencing closure 

activities. See EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0106.

Similarly, Xcel Energy stated in its comments to the NODA that it closed four CCR 

surface impoundments at its Northern States Power of Minnesota’s Minnesota Valley Plant by 

removing all of their contents. See EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0079. While the commenter did 

not provide any information on the time needed to close the four CCR units, other information 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

483

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

available to the Agency indicates that closure took place sometime after May 2009 and was 

completed prior to September 2013. Based on information learned from Xcel Energy in 

response to EPA’s request for information from May 2009, the four CCR units at the Minnesota 

Valley Plant each have a surface area less than one acre. In addition, the response to the 

information request showed that one CCR surface impoundment was nearly full of ash, a second 

was more than half full, and the final two CCR units were less than one quarter full.

In the August 2013 NODA, the Agency solicited comment on a draft plan to close two 

CCR surface impoundments at Santee Cooper’s Grainger Generating Station in South Carolina. 

78 FR 46945. The plan estimated that closure of the two CCR units, approximately 42 and 39 

acres in surface area, could be accomplished during a three year period. This original estimate 

was based on closing the unit with waste in place and installing a final cover. However, Santee 

Cooper has since amended its draft plan and is now pursuing closure by removal of CCR and 

transport off-site for either disposal or beneficial use.129 The revised draft envisions the 

complete removal of CCR from both CCR units and also one foot of underlying soil beneath the 

units. In total, the draft closure plan estimates that approximately 1.3 million cubic yards of 

CCR and underlying soil will be removed from both units – approximately 900,000 cubic yards 

from one unit and 400,000 cubic yards from the second – over a period of six to ten years.

The Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group (FCG) claimed that, based on FGC 

member experience, closing a 30 acre CCR surface impoundment is expected to take 

approximately two years to complete, but provided no additional information or details. See 

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0064.

 

129

 “Amended Closure Plan Wastewater Ash Ponds, Grainger Generating Station, Conway, South Carolina,” 

January 2014.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

484

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) provided another projected closure 

schedule for a 20 acre CCR surface impoundment operated by Luminant. This facility was in the 

process of closing the unit when the comments were prepared. The schedule estimated that 

completion of all closure activities, would take approximately 45 months (3 years, 9 months) to 

complete. However, the commenter also states that, when complete, the “full closure period will 

take approximately 84 months (7 years) due to the unique circumstances of that closure.” No 

other information was provided on this closure to explain the “unique circumstances” that 

warrant such an extended period of time. See EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0113.

There is other information in these data that indicates that larger impoundments may be 

able to complete closure within approximately the same timeframes as smaller units. For 

example, the data included the projected closure of a 100-acre CCR surface impoundment over a 

4 1⁄2 year period, which seems to indicate that larger units may be able to close in approximately 

the same period of time. However, the Agency gave substantially less weight to this 

information for a number of reasons. Most critically, this information merely demonstrated 

projected timeframes for CCR surface impoundments, not actual timeframes that had been 

achieved. In addition, for some of these data, it was unclear whether the circumstances that 

allowed for completion within this timeframe were generally applicable to the majority of CCR 

surface impoundments. In one instance, the commenter noted that the time to complete closure 

was shorter than would normally be expected because the impoundment was being closed well 

before it reached full capacity and because water in the impoundment could be pumped into an 

adjacent impoundment. The commenter also noted that the impoundment had been built with a 

leachate collection system to facilitate dewatering at closure. See EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-

0113.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

485

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Moreover, the majority of commenters claimed that it would take substantially longer 

than five years to close the largest impoundments. For example, USWAG stated that one of its 

members obtained “approval for a closure plan for a 343-acre surface impoundment that 

provided for a twelve-year closure period to ensure adequate time to complete dewatering of the 

impoundment, assure the stability of the dewatered CCRs, and uniformly construct the slope of 

the final cover materials.” No other information was provided on this closure example. See 

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-10483. USWAG also provided information on the closure of the 

CCR surface impoundment at First Energy’s Little Blue Run Disposal Area. This 950 acre 

surface impoundment, which is the largest CCR surface impoundment in the country, has a 

projected closure period of 15 years.

Similarly, to illustrate the time required simply for earthmoving operations to close a 

large CCR surface impoundment (in their example, 350 acres), Duke Energy Corporation 

estimated that the time needed in the schedule to deliver and place the necessary volume of 

materials for construction of the final cover and the sub-base to the cover system could take 

between nine and 12 years. This estimate is based on the need for approximately 10 to 11 

million cubic yards of fill to construct and shape the sub-base of the final cover and the cover 

system itself that would require nearly 500,000 truckloads to deliver. See EPA-HQ-RCRA2012-0028-0095.130

 

130 EPA also received information from Consumers Energy Company on the closure of three former fly 

ash surface impoundments at the JR Whiting plant. These surface impoundments (combined) totaled 

approximately 52 acres and are scheduled to be closed with a final cover over an approximately 12-year 

period. The commenter claimed that the extended time for closure “was necessary to allow dewatering 

and the filling of numerous voids, but principally to allow the generation of fly ash to allow the placement 

of structurally placed, low permeability ash to provide minimal required slopes for closure and to serve as 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

486

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Collectively, this information formed the basis for the 5 year presumptive default. 

As noted the median size of CCR surface impoundments is approximately 14 acres, and 75 

percent of impoundments are 50 acres or smaller. The information presented by the utilities 

documents that impoundments as large as 66 acres under normal circumstances can close within 

2-3 years. EPA therefore expects that most, if not all, units should be able to complete closure 

within 5 years. For all but the very largest units, this timeframe would even accommodate 

potential delays caused by weather or any other unpredictable variables. This is clearly 

demonstrated by the examples presented by public comments, and by the recent example of the 

40-acre CCR surface impoundment in Martins Creek that closed within 5 years.

EPA also notes that 5 years is the timeframe Congress mandated for the completion of 

open dumps to close or upgrade. While the closure times apply generally to all units—both 

those whose closure is mandated by this final rule and those that close because the facility 

decides to do so—the statutory directive provides further support for EPA’s decision. 

But as many commenters stated, initial estimates can and often do vary from actual 

closure times due to unforeseen or variable conditions. EPA acknowledges that a host of 

variables can, and frequently do, delay closure activities, such that the initial time estimates to 

complete closure of the unit are ultimately exceeded. For example, the 40 acre impoundment at 

Martins Creek Power Plant discussed above was initially scheduled in its closure plan to be 

completed within three years; however, closure ultimately took five years to complete. The 

 

the select layer for the flexible membrane liner.” See EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0068. Information on 

the individual size of any of the three CCR units was not provided in the comments, which complicates 

any assessment of the time needed to complete closure of any single CCR unit. Because the facility 

appears to be continuing to use the unit to actively manage waste, EPA does not consider this to be 

representative of a typical closure process.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

487

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

additional two years was due to the need to obtain approval of a modified closure plan from the 

state, as well as modifications to three permits, in addition to the need to obtain other local 

planning approvals. Further time was also needed to accommodate the public notice and 

comment processes for several of the permits and approvals.

EPA also recognizes that a number of unpredictable or variable conditions that can affect 

the time needed to close a CCR unit are not within the control of the owner or operator. For 

example, some states require review and approval of a closure plan prior to initiating of closure 

activities. See, for example, 25 Pa. Code §§ 288.292(b) and 289.311(b) for CCR landfills and 

CCR surface impoundments, respectively. Another commenter noted that in Illinois, permits 

from several different authorities may need to be obtained to commence closure, including the 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Services.

Climate and weather can also impact the time needed to complete closure. For example, 

an unusually wet or short construction season can result in schedule delays; one commenter 

noted that in certain regions of the Midwest, it is possible for as much as 40 inches of rain to fall 

in a given season. 

To account for these complexities, a substantial majority of commenters requested that 

the final rule include the potential for time extensions, and several specifically referenced the 

need for a “force majeure” provision. One commenter also recommended that a “force majeure” 

clause should specifically include delays caused by court order (i.e., appeals of permits issued by 

state agencies causing judgments in court). Another commenter provided an example of a “force 

majeure” provision that could serve as a model: 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

488

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

An extension shall be granted for any scheduled activity delayed by an event of 

force majeure which shall mean any event arising from causes beyond the control of the 

owner that causes a delay in or prevents the performance of any of the conditions under 

this rule including but not limited to: acts of God, fire, war, insurrection, civil 

disturbance, explosion; adverse weather conditions that could not be reasonably 

anticipated causing unusual delay in transportation and/or field work activities; restraint 

by court order or order of public authority; inability to obtain, after exercise of reasonable 

diligence and timely submittal of all applicable applications, any necessary 

authorizations, approvals, permits, or licenses due to action or inaction of any 

governmental agency or authority; and delays caused by compliance with applicable 

statutes or regulations governing contracting, procurement or acquisition procedures, 

despite the exercise of reasonable diligence by representatives of the owner.

Events which are not force majeure include by example, but are not limited to, 

unanticipated or increased costs of performance, changed economic circumstances, 

normal precipitation events, or failure by the owner to exercise due diligence in obtaining 

governmental permits or performing any other requirement of this rule or any procedure 

necessary to provide performance pursuant to the provisions of this rule. 

EPA agrees that the rule should include procedures to obtain extensions of time to 

complete closure of the unit, based on the complexity of the activity. As previously noted, the 

law, including a regulation, cannot compel the impossible. However, because the record 

demonstrates that most units, even the larger units, can close within that 5 year timeframe, the 

final rule establishes a high threshold to obtain additional time. To account for those instances of 

true physical impossibility, the final rule limits extension to circumstances in which the owner or 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

489

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

operator can demonstrate that the additional time is needed due to factors that are truly beyond 

the facility’s control—i.e., could fairly be characterized as an example of “force majeure.” To 

obtain additional time, the owner or operator of the CCR unit must document in writing that 

identifies the exact reasons why additional time is needed. The regulation specifies that such 

reasons could include: (1) Complications stemming from the climate and weather, such as 

unusual amounts of precipitation or a significantly shortened construction season; (2) Time 

required to dewater a surface impoundment due to the volume of CCR contained in the CCR unit 

or the geotechnical characteristics of the CCR in the unit; (3) The geology and terrain 

surrounding the CCR unit will affect the amount of material needed to close the CCR unit; or (4) 

Time required or delays caused by the need to obtain State permits and/or to comply with other 

State requirements. These findings would need to be certified by the owner or operator of the 

unit, as well as by a qualified professional engineer.

The final rule limits the amount of time that closure can be secured, and the amount of 

time variesextended based on the size of the closing CCR unit and. Specifically, the type of 

CCR unit. Forrule allows CCR surface impoundments that are 40 acres or smaller, the 

maximum a time extension to complete closure is limited to no longer than of up to two years. 

For, while CCR surface impoundments larger than 40 acres, the owner or operator may extend 

the time frame can obtain up to five two-year extensions. The 40 acre size demarcation is based 

on the available information showing that surface impoundments of 40 acres or smaller routinely 

have either completed closure or are projected to be able to complete closure within timeframe 

shorter than five years. EPA expects that facilities will account for all potential delays that can 

reasonably be foreseen in planning their closure activities, and that this is feasible within this five 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

490

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

year timeframe. Consequently the final rule restricts facilities with units of this size to a single 

extension to account for truly exception circumstances (e.g., Acts of God).

The Agency also recognizes that there is more uncertainty for CCR surface 

impoundments larger than 40 acres. First, while available information documents that some 

CCR surface impoundments can be closed within this same five year period, the Agency is also 

has other information indicating that closure of units larger than 40 acres are expected to take 

much longer than five years. The largest surface impoundment in the country is approximately 

950 acres which is scheduled to cease receiving CCR by December 31, 2016 and commence 

closure in 2017. The facility’s projected closure period is 15 years for this unit. However, EPA 

currently has no data (anecdotal or otherwise) on the actual timeframes in which a surface 

impoundment of that size that has completed closure. Given that closure for the largest of 

surface impoundments could reasonably be expected to take more than five years to complete

closure of the CCR unit multiple times, in two-, the Agency has concluded that surface 

impoundments larger than 40 acres need to be provided with the possibility of additional time 

extensions beyond the two years provided to impoundments less than 40 acres. Based on 

available information, in particular the current estimates of the time needed to close the largest 

unit in the country, the rule authorizes a facility to obtain a maximum of five time extensions, 

totaling as much as ten years in two year increments. For each two-year extension sought to 

close a CCR surface impoundment greater than 40 acres. However, the owner or operator must 

substantiate the factual circumstances demonstrating the need for the each two-year extension. 

No more than a total

Several commenters also urged EPA to specify in the final rule what EPA intended by the 

phrase “completion of five two-year closure;” that is, that EPA define the activities or actions the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

491

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

owner or operator must complete to satisfy the closure requirements. For purposes of this rule, 

closure of a CCR unit is completed when the unit meets all of the requirements of this rule and 

the owner or operator obtains certification from a qualified professional engineer verifying that 

closure has indeed been completed, consistent with all of the performance standard in the rule. 

While EPA recognizes that under some state programs closure is not considered complete until 

the owner or operator receives certification from the state, this is not a prerequisite to completion 

of closure under these federal rules.

iii. Closure Timeframes for CCR Landfills

Similar to the approach for CCR surface impoundments, EPA recognizes that there can 

be unforeseen and extraordinary circumstances that warrant additional time to close a CCR 

landfill. Accordingly, the rule adopts procedures analogous to those for CCR surface 

impoundments that allow the owner or operator to obtain additional time to complete the closure 

of a CCR landfill, provided the owner or operator can make the prescribed demonstrations. 

However, the amount of additional time the facility can obtain beyond the presumptive six 

month timeframe does not depend on the size of the landfill; rather the maximum time extension 

is two one-year extensions may be obtained(two years) for any CCR surface impoundment. The 

owner or operator of a CCR landfill may also extend the time frame to complete closure of the 

CCR unit multiple times; however, time extensions are secured in one-year increments. Similar 

to landfill. As with the procedures for CCR surface impoundments, the owner or operator must 

substantiate each time extension sought and provide the factual circumstances demonstrating the 

need for the each one-year extension. No more

EPA developed this timeframe based on its review of the available information in the 

record regarding the timeframes for completing the closure of CCR landfills, some of which is 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

492

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

summarized below. Additional information may also be found in the comment response 

document.

In response to the August 2013 NODA, Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) 

provided information documenting that it completed closure of a 10 acre CCR landfill within 180 

days after the final volume of fly ash and bottom ash was placed in the CCR landfill. Closure 

was accomplished by leaving CCR in place and installing a final cover system. NPPD’s 

comments do not indicate what year closure of this CCR landfill was completed. See EPA-HQRCRA-2012-0028-0076.

The Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group (FCG) stated in its comments that 

FGC member experience with CCR landfill closure has “demonstrated the need for a period of 

time greater than a total180 days to complete closure activities.” However, the commenter did 

not provide any information indicating how long such closures actually took, nor any 

information to substantiate their claim. See EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0064.

Overall, the closure of CCR landfills is less complex than the closure of CCR surface 

impoundments. Portions of the CCR landfills that reach final grade can be closed as other ares 

of the CCR landfill continue to receive CCR, which is typically not possible at CCR surface 

impoundments. Nor does the owner or operator need to dewater the unit, which appears to be 

the aspect of closure most likely to be a source of unanticipated circumstances. Finally, there is 

substantially less uncertainty with respect to the timeframes to complete the closure of CCR 

landfills, which are not all that different (in this respect) than landfills containing other forms of 

solid or hazardous waste. EPA therefore has greater confidence that a fixed period of two oneyear extensionsyears will be adequate to account for the vast majority of circumstances.

c. Alternative Closure Requirements
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

493

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The Agency is finalizing alternative closure requirements in two narrow 

circumstances for a CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundment that would otherwise have to 

cease receiving CCR and close, consistent with the requirements of §257.101(a), (b)(1), or (d). 

The first is where the owner or operator can certify that CCR must continue to be managed in 

that CCR unit due to the absence of both on-site and off-site alternative disposal capacity. 

§257.103(a). The second is where the owner or operator of a facility certifies that the facility will 

cease operation of the coal-fired boilers no later than the dates specified in the rule, but lacks 

alternative disposal capacity in the interim. §257.103(b). Under either of these alternatives, 

CCR units may continue to receive CCR under the specified conditions explained below. In 

addition, under either alternative, the owner or operator must continue to comply with all other 

requirements of the rule, including the requirement to conduct any necessary corrective action.

1. No alternative CCR disposal capacity (§257.103(a)).

The Agency recognizes that the circumstance may arise where a facility’s only disposal 

capacity, both on-site and off-site, is in a CCR unit that has triggered the closure requirements in 

§257.101(a), (b)(1), or (d). As a result, the facility may be obtained for any CCR landfill.faced 

with either violating the closure requirements in §257.101 by continuing to place CCR in a unit 

that is required to close, or having to cease generating power at that facility because there is no 

place in which to dispose of the resulting waste. For example, while it is possible to transport 

dry ash off-site to alternate disposal facility that simply is not feasible for wet-generated CCR. 

Nor can facilities immediately convert to dry handling systems. As noted previously, the law 

cannot compel actions that are physically impossible, and it is incumbent on EPA to develop a 

regulation that does not in essence establish such a standard. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

494

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Table 2 to this section summarizes the time frames for completing closure for CCR 

landfills and CCR surface impoundments.

Table 2.—Summary of Time Frames for Completing Closure

If the CCR unit is 

a/an...

The owner or operator 

must complete closure 

of the CCR unit 

within...

Unless the owner or 

operator...

In which case the 

owner or operator...

Existing CCR 

landfill or new 

CCR landfill or any 

lateral expansion of 

a CCR landfill not 

complying with the 

alternative closure 

requirements under 

§257.103 

6 months of 

commencing closure of 

the CCR unit

Demonstrates that it 

is not feasible to 

complete closure of 

the CCR unit within 

the time frames due 

to factors beyond the 

facility’s control

May extend the 

deadline to complete 

closure by up to 2 

years, in 1 year 

increments with each 

successful 

demonstration. 

Existing CCR 

landfill complying 

with the alternative 

closure 

requirements under 

§257.103(b)

Must comply with the 

requirements and time 

frames specified under 

§257.103(b).

Existing CCR 

surface 

impoundment or 

new CCR surface 

impoundment or 

any lateral 

expansion of a 

CCR surface 

impoundment not 

complying with the 

alternative closure 

requirements under 

§257.103

5 years of commencing 

closure of the CCR unit

Demonstrates that it 

is not feasible to 

complete closure of 

the CCR unit within 

the time frames due 

to factors beyond the 

facility’s control

If the CCR unit is 40 

acres or smaller, may 

extend the deadline to 

complete closure by 

up to 2 years.

If the CCR unit is 

larger than 40 acres, 

may extend the 

deadline to complete 

closure by up to 10 

years, in 2 year 

increments with each 

successful 

demonstration.

Existing CCR 

surface 

impoundment 

complying with the 

alternative closure 

Must comply with the 

requirements and time 

frames specified under 

§257.103(b).
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

495

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

requirements under 

§257.103(b)

Should a facility choose to comply with the regulation and stop generating power, there 

would be significant risks to human health that would arise if a community would be left without 

power for an extended period of time. As information in the record demonstrates, obtaining 

alternative capacity can sometimes require a substantial amount of time (e.g., if the facility needs 

to construct alternative capacity, including potentially the need to locate an alternative site or 

purchase additional property). EPA recognizes that there are also significant risks to human 

health and the environment, as demonstrated throughout this preamble, from a leaking or 

improperly sited CCR unit, and that these risks justify requiring those units to either retrofit to 

meet the federal criteria established in the final rule or close. EPA also acknowledges that in the 

interim period while the owner or operate seeks to obtain additional capacity, the risks associated 

with the continued use of these units will be significant. However, the agency believes that the 

risks to the wider community from the disruption of power over the short-term outweigh the 

risks associated with the increased groundwater contamination from continued use of these units. 

This conclusion is further buttressed by the fact that during this interim period the risks 

associated with allowing these units to continue to receive CCR are mitigated by all of the other 

requirements of the rule with which the facility must continue to comply, including the 

requirements to continue groundwater monitoring and corrective action. Under §257.103(a)(1), 

a CCR unit that would otherwise be required to cease receiving CCR under §257.101(a), (b)(1), 

or (d), may continue to receive CCR provided the owner or operator certifies that the CCR 

generated at that facility must continue to be managed in that unit due to the absence of 

alternative disposal capacity both on-site and off-site. The rule also requires the owner or 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

496

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

operator to document this claim and the claim must be based on the real absence of an alternative 

and not justified based on the costs or inconvenience of alternative disposal capacity. 

§257.103(a)(1)(i). The owner or operator must also remain in compliance with all other 

requirements of today’s rule, including the requirement to take any necessary corrective action. 

§257.103(a)(1)(ii). Because this alternative is only available as long as the absence of disposal 

capacity exists, the owner or operator must document its efforts to obtain additional capacity. If 

any additional capacity is identified, the owner or operator must arrange to use it as soon as it 

feasible. §257.103(a)(1)(iii). The owner or operator is also required to prepare an annual 

progress report documenting the continued absence of disposal capacity and must also document 

the progress made toward developing alternative capacity. §257.103(a)(1)(iv).

Once alternative disposal capacity is available, the CCR unit subject to this section must 

cease receiving CCR and must initiate closure following the timeframes in §257.102(e) and (f). 

Finally, if the owner or operator has not identified alternative capacity within 5 years after the 

initial certification the CCR unit subject to this section must cease receiving CCR and must 

initiate closure following the timeframes in §257.102(e) and (f). As discussed elsewhere in this 

preamble, several commenters provided information to document the length of time needed to 

obtain additional capacity. Based on this information, the 5 year timeframe provided for under 

this alternative is expected to provide sufficient time to obtain alternative disposal capacity and 

to avoid the consequences of a forced immediate closure of a power plant.

2. Permanent cessation of a coal-fired boiler by a date certain. (§257.103(b)).

Under this provision, the Agency addresses the circumstance where a facility’s only 

disposal capacity, both on-site and off-site, is in a CCR unit that has triggered the closure 

requirements in §257.101(a), (b)(1), or (d), but the owner or operator of coal-fired power plant 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

497

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

has decided to permanently cease operation of that plant within one of two timeframes specified 

in the regulation. For the same reasons discussed immediately above, EPA has concluded that 

the provisions of §257.103(b) represent the most reasonable balance between the competing 

risks.

Additionally, EPA anticipates that some owners or operators will decide to permanently 

cease operation of a coal-fired power plant in response to the combined effects of new and/or 

existing statutory or regulatory requirements promulgated under the Clean Air Act and under the 

Clean Water Act (e.g. the proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam 

Electric Power Generating Point Source Category. See 78 FR 34442), in combination with 

market dynamics. As discussed earlier in this preamble, RCRA section 1006(b) directs EPA to 

integrate the provisions of RCRA for purposes of administration and enforcement and to avoid 

duplication, to the maximum extent practicable, with the appropriate provisions of other EPA 

statutes, including the CAA and the CWA. As noted earlier, section 1006(b) conditions EPA’s 

authority to reduce or eliminate RCRA requirements on the Agency’s ability to demonstrate that 

the integration meets RCRA’s protectiveness mandate (42 U.S.C. 6005(b)(1)). See Chemical 

Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F.2d 2, 23, 25 (D.C. Cir.1992). The provisions of §257.103(b) 

are fully consistent with the direction in section 1006(b) to account for the provisions of other 

EPA statutes which may lead an owner or operator to close a coal-fired power plant.

EPA has also concluded that the provisions of §257.103(b) meet RCRA’s protectiveness 

mandate. As stated above, EPA recognizes that there are long-term risks to human health and 

the environment, as demonstrated throughout this preamble, from a leaking CCR unit and those 

risks justify requiring those units to either meet the federal criteria established in today’s rule or 

close. However, the risks associated with allowing these units to continue to receive CCR are 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

498

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

mitigated by the requirement that the facility must comply with all other requirements of the rule, 

including initiating ground water monitoring and corrective action where necessary. And a 

critical factor is that facilities that choose to rely on this alternative will be required to complete

closure of their disposal unit in an expedited timeframe. Thus, the risks from these units will be 

fully addressed sooner. Consequently, while over the short term the risks will be higher, overall,

the risks will be at least equivalent to, or potentially lower than if the CCR unit had closed in 

accordance with the normal closure timeframes.

Under §257.103(b)(1), a CCR unit that would otherwise be required to cease receiving 

CCR under §257.101(a), (b)(1), or (d), may continue to receive CCR provided the owner or 

operator of the facility certifies that the facility will cease operation of the coal-fired boilers 

within the timeframes specified in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4) and that the CCR generated 

at that facility (before the plant ceases to operate) must continue to be managed in that unit due 

to the absence of alternative disposal capacity both on-site and off-site. The rule also requires 

the owner or operator to document the facts that support this claim. The regulation specifies that 

the claim must be based on the real absence of alternative disposal capacity, and not justified 

based on the costs or inconvenience of alternative disposal capacity. §257.103(b)(1)(i). The 

owner or operator must also remain in compliance with all other requirements of today’s rule, 

including the requirement to take any necessary corrective action. §257.103(b)(1)(ii). The 

owner or operator is also required to prepare an annual progress report documenting the 

continued absence of disposal capacity and must also document the progress made toward the 

closing of the coal-fired boiler. §257.103(b)(1)(iii).

Under §257.103(b)(1), the owner or operator does not need to demonstrate any efforts to 

develop alternative capacity because of the impending closure of the power plant itself.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

499

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Consistent with the general timeframes provided for the closure of CCR surface 

impoundments, EPA has established different timeframes based on the size of the CCR unit. 

Under §257.103(b)(2), where the disposal unit is a CCR surface impoundment 40 acres or 

smaller in size, the coal-fired boiler must cease operation and the disposal unit must have 

completed closure within 8.5 years of the publication date of the rule. Where the disposal unit is 

a CCR surface impoundment larger than 40 acres in size, the coal-fired boiler must cease 

operation and the disposal unit must have completed closure within 13.5 years of the publication 

date of the rule. §257.103(b)(3). Finally, under §257.103(b)(4), where the disposal unit is a CCR 

landfill, the coal-fired boiler must cease operation and the disposal unit must have completed 

closure within 6 years of the publication date of the rule. These timeframes were selected to 

ensure that closure of these units will be completed in a measurably shorter timeframe, and that 

overall the risks will be lower, or at least equivalent to, the level of risk that would be achieved

under the rule’s “standard” closure provisions.

5. Notation on the Deed to Property

The proposed rule would requirehave required, following closure of the CCR unit, 

the owner or operator to record a notation on the deed or some other instrument normally 

examined during a title search. This notation would notify any potential purchaser in perpetuity 

that the property has been used a CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundment and that use of the 

land is restricted under the rule’s post-closure care provisions. After the notation was completed, 

the proposed rule would requirehave required the owner or operator to notify the state that the 

notation has been recorded and a copy has been placed in the facility’s operating record and on 

its publicly accessible internet site. In addition, the Agency solicited public comment on adding 

a provision to the rule to allow removal of the deed notation once all CCR are removed from the 

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

Formatted: Body, Don't add space between

paragraphs of the same style, Line spacing: Double
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

500

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

facilityCCR unit, and notification is provided to the state of this action. The EPA solicited 

comment on this potential approach as a way to create a further incentive for clean closure (of 

the facility. 75 FR at 35208-09). . The proposal further encouraged commenters who are 

interested in supporting such an option to suggest alternatives to state oversight to provide for 

facility accountability.

The final rule requires the owner or operator of a CCR unit to record a notation on the 

deed or some other instrument normally examined during a title search. EPA received few 

public comments on the proposed requirement to record a deed notation to the property (or some 

other instrument that is normally examined during title search). One commenter provided 

general support for the proposed requirement to record a deed notation to the property. Another 

commenter urged EPA to ensure that any deed notation requirements should not interfere or 

conflict with existing state property laws that provide for environmental covenants.

EPA did receive several comments in response to the Agency’s solicitation of 

comment on adding a provision to the rule to allow removal of the deed notation when all CCR 

are removed from the facility, and notification is provided to the state of this action. One 

commenter supported the addition of this provision, stating that the licensure requirements of the 

Professional Engineer provide an assurance of integrity because the Professional Engineer would 

be required to verify that closure has been completed in accordance with the closure plan. This 

commenter also stated that it would be sufficient to allow removal of a deed notation upon an 

application to the state agency supported by a declaration of a licensed professional, subject to 

state agency review and approval. Another commenter supported providing the incentive for 

clean closure and allowing the facility to demonstrate the “cleanliness of the closure.” The 

commenter also recommended that the information provided by the facility should be followed 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

501

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

by a review from an independent third party with knowledge of the industry and associated 

environmental issues.

After considering comments, the final rule requires an owner or operator to record 

a notation on the deed or some other instrument normally examined during a title search. This 

notation notifies any potential purchaser in perpetuity that the property has been used a CCR 

landfill or CCR surface impoundment and that use of the land is restricted under the rule’s postclosure care provisions. See §257.102(i). In response to the commenter that urged EPA to 

ensure that any deed notation requirements should not interfere or conflict with existing state 

property laws, the Agency has no information that the proposed requirement would create such a 

conflict. In addition, the commenter did not provide any information or suggest that EPA’s 

proposed approach would actually interfere or conflict with existing state property laws. 

Therefore, the Agency is finalizing the deed notation requirement as proposed.

In addition, regarding the Agency’s solicitation of comment on adding a provision 

to the rule to allow removal of the deed notation when all CCR are removed from the facility, as 

discussed in Unit VI.M.2 of this preamble, the final rule adopts the proposal to allow the owner 

or operator to remove the deed notation required under §257.102(i)(4), upon certification that 

clean closure has been completed. The rationale for this decision is discussed in that unit of the 

preamble.

6. Notification of Intent to Close and Certification of Closure Completion

The Agency proposed to require owners or operators of CCR units to notify the 

state that a notice of intent to close a CCR unit has been placed in the facility’s operating record 

and on the publicly accessible internet site. This notification had to be completed prior to 

beginning closure of the CCR unit. Following closure of a CCR unit, the proposed rule would 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

502

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

also requirehave required the owner or operator to obtain a certification from an independent 

registered professional engineer verifying that closure has been completed in accordance with the 

written closure plan. As proposed, this certification would be placed in the facility’s operating 

record and on the publicly accessible internet site.

The Agency received no public comments on the proposed requirements to develop a 

notification of intent to close or the certification of completion of closure. Therefore, the 

Agency is finalizing these requirements substantially as proposed. See §257.102(g) and (h).

7. Post-Closure Care Plan

The Agency proposed to require that the owners or operators of CCR landfills and 

CCR surface impoundments prepare a written post-closure care plan describing how the CCR 

unit would be maintained after closure. See proposed §257.101(c). The proposal also identified 

the minimum information necessary to include in the post-closure care plan. This information 

included: (1) a description of the monitoring and maintenance activities for the CCR unit and the 

frequency at which these activities would be performed; (2) the name, address, and telephone 

number of the person or office to contact about the facility during the post-closure care period; 

and (3) a description of the planned uses of the property during the post-closure care period.

The proposed rule further provided that the post-closure use of the property shall not 

disturb the integrity of the final cover, liner(s), or any other components of the containment 

system, or the function of the post-closure monitoring systems unless necessary to comply with 

the requirements of the rule. The proposal would have allowed a disturbance if the owner or 

operator of the CCR unit demonstrated that disturbance of the final cover, liner, or other 

component of the containment system, including any removal of CCR, would not increase the 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic, Font color: Auto, (Intl)

Times New Roman
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

503

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

potential threat to human health or the environment. A professional engineer would have been 

required to certify such a demonstration.

The Agency received no significant comments on the proposed post-closure care 

requirements. The Agency’s responses to these comments are addressed in the closure comment 

response document, which is available in the rulemaking docket. Therefore, the Agency is 

finalizing these requirements substantially as proposed. See §257.102(g) and (h).

8. Post-Closure Care Activities

Following closure of a CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundment, EPA proposed 

that the owner or operator would be required to conduct post-closure care of the closed unit. At 

a minimum, the proposal would have required the owner or operator to conduct at least the 

following: (1) maintain the integrity and effectiveness of any final cover, including making 

repairs to the final cover to correct the effects of settlement, subsidence, erosion, or other events, 

and preventing run-on and run-off from eroding or otherwise damaging the final cover; (2) 

maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the leachate collection and removal system and 

operating the leachate collection and removal system in accordance with applicable requirements 

under the design criteria for such systems; and (3) maintain the groundwater monitoring system 

in accordance with applicable requirements under the groundwater monitoring and corrective 

action rule provisions.

EPA received few public comments on the proposed activities to conduct during the postclosure care period. These commenters were supportive of the activities and specifically urged 

the rule to require the monitoring of groundwater throughout the post-closure care period. The 

Agency received no comments opposing the proposed post-closure care activities. Therefore, 

EPA is finalizing the same post-closure care activities in this rule. See §257.104(b). In addition, 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

504

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

consistent with the proposal, the rule clarifies that certain CCR units are not subject to these 

post-closure care activities. Specifically, owners or operators that elect to close a CCR unit by 

removing CCR (i.e., clean close the CCR unit) are not subject to any post-closure care 

requirements. See §257.104(a)(2) and Unit M.2 of this preamble. In addition, owners or 

operators of inactive CCR surface impoundments that elect to complete closure of the unit within 

30 months of the rule’s effective date are not subject to any post-closure care requirements. See 

§257.104(a)(3).

9. Length of Post-Closure Care Period

The Agency proposed that the owner or operator of a CCR unit conduct postclosure care for 30 years. EPA also proposed to allow utilities to conduct post-closure care for a 

decreased length of time if the owner or operator demonstrates that the reduced period is 

sufficient to protect human health and the environment. The owner or operator would have been 

required to have this demonstration certified by a professional engineer, in addition to complying 

with all of the notification and posting requirements under the proposed rule. The proposed rule 

would also have allowed an increase in the post-closure care period if the owner or operator of 

the CCR unit determined that it is necessary to protect human health and the environment. EPA 

also recognized in the proposed rule that state oversight can be critical to ensure that post-closure 

care is conducted for the length of time necessary to protect human health and the environment; 

however the Agency also recognized that there is no set length of time for post-closure care that 

will be appropriate for all possible sites, and all possible conditions. Therefore, EPA solicited 

comment on alternative methods to account for different conditions, yet still provide methods of 

oversight to assure facility accountability.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

505

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Some commenters supported the proposed approach because it provided 

flexibility to increase or decrease the post-closure care period of 30 years. EPA also received 

comments from a number of states documenting the current state requirements; some states 

require a post-closure care period of less than 30 years, some require 30 years, and one state 

currently requires 40 years for CCR units. Other commenters opposed the shortening of the 30-

year period without state involvement and approval.

After considering public comments, and in a departure from the proposed rule, the 

Agency is requiring that post-closure care be conducted for a minimum of 30 years. EPA is 

making this change due to the lack of guaranteed state oversight for this rule. The Agency has 

concluded that providing the owner or operator the flexibility to shorten the post-closure care 

period is no longer appropriate, particularly given the flexibility being provided for the selection 

of a final cover system or alternative final cover system. As discussed in Unit M.3 above, the 

information available to the Agency supports the need to proceed cautiously. By not allowing 

the post-closure care period to be shortened, EPA better ensures that the final cover system will 

be properly maintained. In addition, a mandatory 30 year period ensures that if problems do 

arise with respect to a final cover system, the groundwater monitoring and corrective action 

provisions of the rule will detect and address any releases from the CCR unit, at least during the 

post-closure care period.

10. Notification of Completion of Post-Closure Care Period

The Agency proposed to require owners or operators of CCR units to notify the 

state that a notice of completion of the post-closure care period has been placed in the facility’s 

operating record and on the publicly accessible internet site. The proposed approach would have 

required the owner or operator to obtain a certification from an independent registered 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

506

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

professional engineer verifying that post-closure care has been completed in accordance with the 

written post-closure care plan.

The Agency received no public comments on the proposed requirement to develop a notification 

of completion of the post-closure care period. Therefore, the Agency is finalizing these 

requirements as proposed. See §257.104(e).

M. Recordkeeping, Notification and Posting of Information to the Internet

To address concerns about the absence of adequate regulatory oversight under subtitle

DIn response to EPA’s lack of authority to require a state permit program or to oversee state 

programs, EPA has sought to enhance the protectiveness of the regulatory requirements by 

providing for state and public notifications of the third party certifications, as well as requiring a 

robust set of other information that documents the decisions made or actions taken to comply 

with the technical requirements of the rule. Consistent with the proposed rule, owners or 

operators of CCR units are required to document how the various provisions of the rule have 

been met by placing information (e.g., plans, records, notifications, reports) in the operating 

record and providing notification of these actions to the stateState Director/or appropriate Tribal 

authority. The owner or operator is also required to establish and maintain a publicly accessible 

internet site that posts documentation that has, in many instances, also been entered into the 

operating record. The owner or operator is required to maintain a copy of the current Emergency 

Action Plan, the current fugitive dust control plan, and the current written closure plan as long as 

the facility remains active. EPA believes that the establishment and maintenance of this 

information in both the operating record and on a publicly accessible internet site is appropriate 

so as to allow states and citizens access to all of the information necessary to show that the rule 

has been implemented in accordance with the regulatory requirements.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

507

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

With regard to the specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements outlined in the 

proposal, the Agency received very little comment. Commenters were primarily concerned not 

with the specific recordkeeping requirements but rather how the recordkeeping requirements 

aligned with the overall approach of the RCRA subtitle D regulatory scheme. These comments 

and the Agency’s responses are discussed in Unit V of this preamble.

The combined mechanisms of recordkeeping, notifications, and maintaining a publicly 

accessible internet site will serve to provide interested parties with the information necessary to 

determine whether the owner or operator is implementing and is operating in accordance with the 

requirements of the rule. As stated in the proposal and reiterated here, EPA believes that it 

cannot conclude that the RCRA subtitle D regulations will ensure there is no reasonable 

probability of adverse effects on health or the environment, unless there are mechanisms for 

states and citizens to monitor the situation, such as when groundwater monitoring shows 

exceedances above the groundwater protection standard specified in the rule, so they can 

determine when intervention is appropriate. TheEPA also believes that the recordkeeping and 

notification requirements will minimize the danger of owners or operators abusing the selfimplementing system being established in this rule, through increased transparency that will 

facilitate and by facilitating the citizen suit enforcement by states and private citizensprovisions 

applicable to the rule. 

In effortcontrast to make the regulations easier to follow, EPAproposed rule, the Agency

has consolidated the identified for ease of implementation each recordkeeping, notification and 

internet posting requirements into a single section of the regulationsrequired in this rule. The 

proceeding section provides a summary of the requirements for each reporting mechanism. 

1. Recordkeeping Requirements Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

508

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

This rule requires the owner or operator of a CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundment 

and any lateral expansion to maintain files of all required information (e.g., demonstrations, 

plans, notifications, and reports) that supports theirthe implementation of this rule in an operating 

record located at the facility. Each file must be maintained in the operating record for a period of 

at least threefive years following submittal of the file into the operating record. In certain 

instances, however, files must be maintained for longer periods of time (i.e., five years) or until 

the CCR unit completecompletes closure. For example, the initial and periodic structural stability 

assessments as required under section § 257.73(d) and § 257.74(d) must be maintained for five 

years, consistent with the time frametimeframe for conducting periodic reassessments. By 

contrastWhereas, information on the construction of a CCR surface impoundment must be 

maintained until the CCR unit completes closure (see §§ 257.73(c) and 257.102.) These time 

frames are generally consistent with the time frames required for maintaining hazardous waste 

compliance records under subtitle C of RCRA and with the timeframes outlined in the proposed 

subtitle C option for the regulation of CCR. (seeSee specifically 40 CFR 264.73 and 265.73.)

Owners or operators with more than one CCR unit may elect to consolidate all files into 

one operating record provided that each unit is identified and files for that unit are maintained 

separately in different sections of the operating record. The owner or operator of the CCR unit

must place files documenting compliance with the location restrictions; design criteria; operating 

criteria; groundwater monitoring and corrective action; closure and post closure care, into the 

operating record, with the specific documentation requirements found in § 257.105. As noted, 

EPA has consolidatedIn the development of this final rule, the Agency has included in the 

regulatory language a comprehensive listing of each recordkeeping and notification requirements 

into a comprehensive listing in a single section of the regulations. required by the rule. The 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

509

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Agency anticipates that this effort will facilitate complianceowners or operators efforts in 

complying with the reporting provisions of the rule, and will provide other interested parties with 

an easy to reada guide to the reporting provisions of the rule. 

2. Notification Requirements

As previously discussed, owners or operators are required to notify State Directors and/or 

the appropriate Tribal authority when specific documentation has been placed in the operating 

record and on the owner or operator’s publicly accessible web sitewebsite. In most instances 

these notifications must be certified by a qualified professional engineer and may, in certain 

instances will be accompanied with additional information and or data supporting the 

notification. For example under § 257.106(f)(1), within 60 days of commencing construction of 

a new CCR unit, a notification of the availability of the design criteria specified under § 

257.105(f)(1) or (f)(3) in the operating record and on the owner or operator’s publicly accessible 

internet site. If however, the owner or operator installsof the CCR units elects to install an 

alternative composite liner, the owner or operator must also submit to the State Director and/or 

appropriate Tribal authority a copy of the alternative composite liner design which has been 

certified by a qualified professional engineer. 

Notification requirements have been consolidatedcan be found in § 257.106, and are 

required for location criteria, design criteria, operating criteria, groundwater monitoring and 

corrective action and closure and post closure care. 

3. Publicly Accessible Internet Site Requirements

The Agency is finalizing, without change from the proposal,as proposed a 

requirement for owners and operators of any CCR unit to establish and maintain a publicly 

accessible internet site, titled “CCR Rule Compliance Data and Information.” As with the 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

510

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

operating record, owners or operators that maintain multiple CCR units may elect to use one 

internet site in order to comply with these requirements, provided that the website clearly and 

distinctly identifies information from each of the CCR units by name and location. Unless 

provided otherwise in the rule, information posted to the internet site must be available for a 

period no less than three years from the initial posting date. Posting of information must be 

completed no later than 30 days from submittal of the information to the operating record. This 

time frametimeframe is consistent with the notification requirements of the rule. As with the 

other criteria in this section, internet postings are required for various elements identified in the 

following sections: location restrictions; design criteria; operating criteria; groundwater 

monitoring and corrective action; closure and post closure care. These requirements are 

enforceable by citizen suits.

VII. Summary of Major Differences between the Proposed and Final Rules

The basic regulatory framework outlined in the proposed rule under the Subtitle D option, 

is being adopted in this final rule for the regulation of CCR landfills and CCR surface 

impoundments and any lateral expansion. However, as indicated and discussed in Unit VI, the 

Agency has made a number of revisions to several significant changes from of the provisions in 

the proposed rule regarding;, including (1) the time framestimeframes for closure; (2) regulating 

inactive CCR surface impoundments; (3) locations restrictions – placement above the uppermost 

aquifer; (43) the use of an alternative composite liner design; (4) revisions to align the structural 

stability criteria with the experience and data generated by the Assessment Program; and (5) air 

criteria. These changes have been made in response to public comments, and additional 

information collected and analyses conducted. Specifically,
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

511

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

• by EPA in the course of responding to those comments. These are discussed in 

greater detail below. Under the proposed rule, all new CCR landfills and all CCR surface 

impoundments that had not completed closure would be required to retrofit to a composite liner 

or close within five years. However, after reviewing comments and further evaluation, the 

Agency has concluded that this regulatory approach was both unreasonable and impractical 

given the complexities involved in the closure of CCR surface impoundments, and that the 

unnecessary in light of the protections afforded to these units fromby the other technical 

provisions of the rule (e. g., groundwater monitoring, corrective action). In the final rule, EPA is 

allowing all CCR surface impoundment to continue operating for the remainder of their active 

life. However, unlined CCR surface impoundments that exceedto continue to operate for the 

remainder of the active life, provided that the facility documents through groundwater 

monitoring that the CCR surface impoundment is not contaminating groundwater. However, if 

groundwater monitoring at the facility demonstrates that the unlined CCR surface impoundment 

has exceeded any groundwater protection standard as part of their groundwater monitoring 

program,, the owner or operator must initiate corrective action, and either remove all CCR from 

the unit and install a composite liner (i.e., “retrofit”) or close within five years. In a departure 

from the proposed rule, CCR surface impoundments less than 40 acres may receive one two-year 

extension, providing for a maximum orof seven years to complete closure. Units greater than 40 

acres may receive up to five two-year extensions providing a maximum of 15 years to complete 

closure. These units are also eligible for alternative closure time framestimeframes to account for 

site specific operational constraints.

• UnderIn addition, under the proposed rule, CCR surface impoundments that had 

not closed in accordance with the rule would be subject to all the provisions of the rule. After 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

512

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

further evaluation, EPA is allowing an exemption from has revised the requirements of the rule 

for any provision to allow an inactive CCR surface impoundment that completes closure no later 

than three years afterfrom publication of the rule in the Federal Register. to complete closure.

Owners or operators of inactive CCR surface impoundments that chosehave not to usecompleted 

closure within this exclusiontimeframe are subject to all the applicable requirements of the rule.

• In response to comment and upon further evaluation the Agency is amending the 

location restrictions for restriction relating to the placement of the CCR unit above the natural 

water table. Under the proposal, new landfills and, any CCR surface impoundment, and all 

lateral expansions would behave been required to have a base located a minimum of two feet 

above the upper limit of the natural water table. In the final rule, the Agency has amended this 

requirement and replaced ‘a base that is located a minimum of two feet above the upper limit of 

the natural water table’to require that new CCR landfills and all CCR surface impoundments, 

and all lateral expansions be constructed with ‘a base no less thatthan 1.52 meters (five feet) 

above the uppermost aquifer.’ or must demonstrate that there will not be an intermittent,

recurring, or sustained hydraulic connection between any portion of the base of the CCR unit and 

the uppermost aquifer due to normal fluctuations in groundwater elevations (including the 

seasonal high water table.) EPA has made this change in response to comments and further 

evaluation demonstrating that five feetthis standard is the minimum distance necessary in order 

to demonstrate that no reasonable probability of adverse effects on human health and the 

environment will occur.

• Under the proposed rule, EPA proposed to require all new CCR landfills, CCR 

surface impoundments and any lateral expansion to be constructed with a composite liner. A 

composite liner was defined as a system consisting of two components; the upper component 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

513

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

consisting of a minimum 30-mil flexible membrane liner (FML) and the lower component 

consisting of at least two feet of compacted soil. In response toBased on public comments and 

further evaluation, the Agency is finalizing a new requirement that allows an owner or operator 

to install an alternative composite liner provided it meets the performance standard established in 

the rule. EPA has concluded that this alternative composite liner affords the same protection to 

groundwater resources as a composite liner.

• Under the proposed rule, all CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments would 

behave been required to manage fugitive dusts in a manner not to exceed 35 ug/m3. The 

proposal also required owners or operators of CCR units to control the wind dispersal of dusts 

consistent with the standard, and to document the measures taken to comply with the 

requirements. In response to comments and upon further evaluation, the Agency has removed 

the numerical standard of 35ug/m3 from the rule and is alternately establishing a performance 

standard for fugitive dust control. This standard requires owners or operators of any CCR unit to 

take all reasonable precautions toadopt measures that will effectively minimize CCR from 

becoming airborne at the facility. The Agency considers this standard unvarying from the intent 

ofto be generally consistent the proposed rule with the added advantage of allowing for 

flexibility in achieving compliance. The owner or operator must also prepare an annual CCR 

fugitive dust control report that describes action taken by the owner or operator to control CCR 

fugitive dust and to present a record of all citizen complaints during the previous year, as well as 

a summary of the corrective action measures taken.

VIII. Effective Date of CCR Rule and Implementation Timeframes for Minimum 

National Criteria and Coordination with Steam Electric ELG Rule. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

514

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Under Section 4004 of RCRA, minimum national criteria are effective six months after 

publication. Owners and operators of CCR units subject to this rule must be in compliance with 

these minimum criteria by that date. However, implementation timeframes for some of the 

criteria have been set after the effective date of the rule. In some cases the timeframes specified 

are longer than six months because more time is required to implement the requirements (e.g., 

installation of the groundwater monitoring system and establishment of the groundwater 

monitoring program). EPA’s rationale for these requirements has already been discussed 

elsewhere in this notice and so that will not be repeated here. 

In other cases, the final rule coordinates the compliance and implementation timeframes 

withThe final rule generally establishes time frames for the technical criteria based on the 

amount of time determined to be necessary to implement the requirements (e.g., installing the 

groundwater monitoring wells). In establishing these time frames, EPA also accounted for other 

Agency rulemakings that may affect owners or operators of CCR units, namely the Effluent 

Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source 

Category (ELG) (78 FR 34432 (June 7, 2013)) and the Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for 

Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (Clean Power Plan) (79 FR 34830 

(June 18, 2014)). TheSpecifically, the implementation timeframes in this rule were established 

so thatwill not require owners or operators of CCR units would not be required to make decisions 

about those CCR units without first understanding the implications that such decisions would 

have for meeting the requirements of each rule. For example, this final rule requires the closure 

and post-closure plans to be prepared following the anticipated publication of the ELG and Clean 

Power Plan final rules so that owners or operators of CCR units can take into consideration those 

final rules as they prepare the closure and post-closure care plans.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

515

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

This is also particularly true in the situation where the minimum criteria in the CCR rule 

could potentially require a surface impoundment to either undergo RCRA closure or retrofit with 

a composite liner. A decision on what action to take with that unit willmay ultimately be directly 

influenced by the requirements of the ELG rule; for example, if the final ELG rule requires a 

conversion to dry handing of fly ash, then it may not make economic sense for an electric utility 

to retrofit a surface impoundment that contains wet-handled fly ash since it would be required to 

cease that practice under the ELG rule. Thus, under the Agency has structured thefinal

timeframes in this rule so that, any such decision will not have to be made by the owner or 

operator of a CCR unit until well after the ELG rule is final and the regulatory requirements are 

well understood. In this example, the earliest date that a CCR surface impoundment may be 

triggered into a retrofit or closure decision is approximately February 2017 (the exact date would 

be 24 months following publication of this final rule), which would apply to a CCR surface 

impoundment that fails to achieve minimum safety factors for the CCR unit. This is due to the 

fact that the owner or operator must complete the initial safety factor assessment within 18 

months of the publication of this rule being published plus an additional six months to initiate 

closure of the CCR unit if the minimum factors or safety are not achieved. The ELG rule is 

scheduled to be finalized in September 2015 and its effective date is 60 days following its 

publication. Thus, the EPA believes there is ample time for the owners and operators of CCR 

units to understand the requirements of both regulations and to make the appropriate business 

decisions. EPA plans to issue additional guidance on how the ELG and the CCR rules will work 

together once the ELG rule is also finalized.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

516

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Table 1 below summarizes the implementation time framestimeframes for the minimum 

criteria for existing CCR surface impoundments being promulgated todayin this rule. Table 2 

provides a similar summary for existing CCR landfills.

Table 1.—Implementation Time FramesTimeframes for the Minimum Criteria for 

Existing CCR Surface Impoundments

Requirement

Implementation Time 

FrameTimeframe

(Number of Months 

after Publication of 

Rule)

Description of Requirement to 

be Completed

Location Restrictions 

(§257.60 - §257.64)

18 months

42 months

- Complete demonstration for 

placement above the uppermost 

aquifer

- Complete demonstrations for 

wetlands, fault areas, seismic impact 

zones, and unstable areas

Design Criteria 

(§257.71)

18 months - Document whether CCR unit is 

either a lined or unlined CCR 

surface impoundment

Structural Integrity

(§257.73)

6 months

8 months

18 months

24 months

- Compile a history of construction

- Install permanent marker

- Complete- Compile a history of 

construction,

complete initial hazard potential 

classification assessment, initial 

structural stability assessment, and 

initial safety factor assessment

- Prepare emergency action plan

Air Criteria

(§257.80)

6 months - Prepare fugitive dust control plan

Hydrologic and 

Hydraulic Capacity

(§257.82)

18 months - Prepare initial inflow design flood 

control system plan

Inspections

(§257.83)

6 months

6 months

9 months

- Initiate weekly inspections of the 

CCR unit

- Initiate monthly monitoring of 

CCR unit instrumentation

- Complete the initial annual 

inspection of the CCR unit

Groundwater Monitoring 

and Corrective Action

30 months - Install the groundwater monitoring 

system; develop the groundwater 

Formatted: Font: Bold

Formatted: Left, Indent: First line: 0"

Formatted Table

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Formatted: Font: Bold
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

517

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(§257.90 - §257.98) sampling and analysis program; 

initiate the detection monitoring 

program; and begin evaluating the 

groundwater monitoring data for 

statistically significant increases 

over background levels

Closure and Post-Closure 

Care 

(§257.103 - §257.104)

18 months - Prepare written closure and postclosure care plans

Recordkeeping, 

Notification, and Internet 

Requirements

(§257.105 - §257.107)

6 months - Conduct required recordkeeping

- Provide required notifications

- Establish CCR website

Table 2.—Implementation Time FramesTimeframes for the Minimum Criteria for 

Existing CCR Landfills

Requirement

Implementation Time 

FrameTimeframe

(Number of Months 

after Publication of 

Rule)

Description of Requirement to 

be Completed

Location Restrictions 

(§257.64)

42 months - Complete demonstration for 

unstable areas

Air Criteria

(§257.80)

6 months - Prepare fugitive dust control plan

Run-On and Run-Off 

Controls

(§257.81)

18 months - Prepare initial run-on and run-off 

control system plan

Inspections

(§257.83)

6 months

9 months

- Initiate weekly inspections of the 

CCR unit

- Complete the initial annual 

inspection of the CCR unit

Groundwater Monitoring 

and Corrective Action

(§257.90 - §257.98)

30 months - Install the groundwater monitoring 

system; develop the groundwater 

sampling and analysis program; 

initiate the detection monitoring 

program; and begin evaluating the 

groundwater monitoring data for 

statistically significant increases 

over background levels

Closure and Post-Closure 

Care

(§257.103 - §257.104)

18 months - Prepare written closure and postclosure care plans

Formatted: Font: Bold

Formatted: Left

Formatted Table

Formatted: Font: Bold
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

518

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Recordkeeping, 

Notification, and Internet 

Requirements

(§257.105 - §257.107)

6 months - Conduct required recordkeeping

- Provide required notifications

- Establish CCR website

IX. State AuthorityIX. Implementation of the Minimum Federal Criteria and State 

Solid Waste Management Plans

As explained earlier in this notice, the final regulations EPA is promulgating under 

RCRA subtitle D impose minimum federal criteria with which CCR landfills and CCR surface 

impoundments units must comply. These regulations impose no requirements on without any 

additional action by a State or federal regulator. As discussed previously in today’s notice, under 

the provisions of subtitle D applicable to solid waste, States are not required to adopt or 

implement these regulations, to develop a permit program, or submit a program covering these 

units to EPA for approval, as subtitle D of RCRA does not provide and there is no mechanism 

for EPA such authority. to officially approve or authorize a State program to operate “in lieu of” 

the federal regulations.

Nevertheless, EPA has, however, received numerous comments regarding the potential 

implementation difficultieschallenges that this statutory and resulting regulatory structure may 

causepose, particularly in States that already have a comprehensive regulatory program 

governing CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments. units. These concerns include the fact 

that facilities willmay need to comply with two sets of potentially differing regulations, perhaps 

resulting in confusion for the regulated community and the general public. , and also potentially 

resulting in inconsistent results from citizens seeking enforcement of the criteria. The 

commenters were also concerned and that there is no explicit mechanism for EPA to officially 

approve a state program (as there is in subtitle C or in the municipal solid waste provisions of 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

519

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

subtitle D). In addition, in States without a current formal program for overseeing CCR landfills 

and surface impoundments at coal fired electric utilities, stakeholders have expressed a 

preference for a state mechanism for implementing the federal requirements. Finally, many 

stakeholders expressed a strong preference for a permit program with its opportunities for public 

input and transparency.

Moreover, EPA recognizes the critical role that our State partners play in implementation 

and ensuring compliance with environmental regulations. This is particularly important in 

complex situations, such as presented by CCR landfills and surface impoundments that involve 

corrective action and requirements and timelines for closure of units. EPA expects that the

States will be active partners in overseeing the regulation of CCR landfills and CCR surface 

impoundments. However, in order, and has adopted a number of provisions to ensure that States 

have the information necessary to undertake this role. First, the federalfinal regulations being 

promulgated will require owners or operators of the regulated CCR units to notify the State of 

actions taken to comply with the requirements of the rule. States (see § 257.106). Facilities will 

also be ablerequired to accessmaintain a publicly accessible internet site to monitor that will 

document the facility’s compliance with the requirements of the rule. ; states (along with other 

members of the public) will be able to access this site to monitor facility activities (see § 

257.107). (For a detailed discussion of these requirements, please see Unit VI.M.)

In order to ease implementation and to harmonize the regulatory requirements for CCR 

landfills and CCR surface impoundments, EPA strongly encourages the States to adopt at least 

the federal minimum criteria into their regulations. EPA also encouragesrecognizes that some

States tohave already adopted requirements that go beyond thesethe minimum federal 

requirements, where appropriate; for example, manysome States already have imposedcurrently 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

520

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

impose financial assurance requirements for CCR units. EPA reminds States and others that the , 

and require a permit for some or all of these units. This rule will not affect these State 

requirements. The federal criteria promulgated today are indeed minimums and, as a general 

matter, supports requirements that go beyond these minimums and encourages minimum 

requirements and do not preclude States’ from adopting more stringent requirements where they 

deem to be appropriate. 

As noted above, commenters on the States to maintain requirementsproposal voiced 

concerns that go beyond because EPA does not have the minimum.

authority to approve a State program under subtitle D of RCRA, there is no document in 

which EPA also encourages the States to revise their State formally provides its judgment that a 

State solid waste program substantially incorporates the minimum federal criteria. However, a 

mechanism for this has been available for many years through the Solid Waste Management 

PlansPlanning process already in the regulations at 40 CFR Part 256 “Guidelines for 

Development and Implementation of State Solid Waste Management Plans.” This process, 

designed early in the development of the waste management infrastructure, was structured to 

encourage States to effectively plan for and manage their solid wastes, including upgrading or 

closing any units that were considered “open dumps” through the development of Solid Waste 

Management Plans (SWMPs or plans). Currently most States have SWMPs that have previously 

been submitted to and approved by EPA. EPA strongly recommends that States take advantage 

of this process by revising their SWMPs to address the issuance of the revised federal 

requirements in this final rule, and to submit revisions of these plans to EPA for review, using 

the provisions contained in 40 CFR Part 256, “Guidelines for Development and Implementation 

of State Solid Waste Management Plans.” The . To be clear, EPA is not suggesting that States 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

521

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

revise their entire SWMPs, but only that States revise their plans to address the revised federal 

requirements being promulgated today. EPA would then review and approve the revised 

SWMPs provided they demonstrate that the minimum federal requirements in this final rule will 

be met. In this way, EPAs approval of a revised SWMP signals EPA’s opinion that the State 

SWMP meets the minimum federal criteria. 

As noted above, the part 256 regulations set upestablished the system for the 

development and approval of initial solid waste management plans,SWMPs as well as their 

revisions. For the convenience of the reader, we describe these regulations in the following 

paragraphs. The regulations in §lay out a series of requirements that a plan must meet to be 

approved, as well as a number of recommendations that should also be reflected in the solid 

waste management plan. E.g., 40 C.F.R. §§ 256.01-256.04 and 256.20 – 256.27. For example, 

section 256.02 setsets out the scope of the solid waste management plans. The plans are 

toSWMPs, requiring that the plans address “all solid waste in the State that poses potential 

adverse effects on public health or the environment or provides an opportunity for resource 

conservation or resource recovery.” The regulations also specify that the plan must require that 

all solid waste shall be disposed of in “sanitary landfills,”--i.e., units that meet any federal 

requirements promulgated under RCRA section 4004(a)--or otherwise disposed of in an 

environmentally sound manner. 40 C.F.R. §256.01(a)(2). The plan must also prohibit the 

establishment of new open dumps, and provide for the closing or upgrading of all existing open 

dumps within the State, pursuant to the requirements of RCRA section 4005. 40 C.F.R. 

§256.01(a)(2)-(3). State plans must also “set forth an orderly and manageable process for 

achieving the objectives of the Act and meeting the requirements of these guidelines.” 40 C.F.R. 

§256.02(d). The regulations further specify that the plan “shall describe as specifically as 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

522

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

possible the activities to be undertaken, including detailed schedules and milestones.” Id. 

The Part 256 regulations further require a SWMP to identify the state’s legal authorities, 

and regulatory powers, including any revisions that may be necessary to implement the plan. 40 

C.F.R. §256.02(e). The plan must also identify and set out the responsibilities of state, local, and 

regional authorities that will implement the state plan. 40 C.F.R. §256.10(a). Thus, the SWMP 

is the comprehensive compendium, developed and adopted with public participation, setting 

forth how solid waste is managed in a particular State. As such, SWMPs have been a key 

component of solid waste programs for many years. As stated above, states that have approved 

plans will only need to address these requirements for CCR landfills and surface impoundments.

In addition, the plan is to consider the following aspects of solid waste management: 

resource conservation, source separation, collection, transportation, storage, transfer, processing, 

treatment and disposal. In addition, under § 256.03, a state plan is to be submitted to EPA 

within a “reasonable time” after promulgation of guidelines. to the substantive requirements, the 

Part 256 regulations impose a number of procedural obligations. Before submission to EPA, the 

planSWMP must be adopted by the State pursuant to State administrative processes and 

developed in accordaccordance with the public participation requirements as set out in § 256.60. 

In addition, all state solid waste management plans SWMPs were to contain procedures for 

revisions. The regulations go40 C.F.R. §256.03(e). EPA anticipates that States would rely on 

their existing procedures to say that revise their SWMPs to implement the State plans should lay 

outnew federal criteria. 

Currently, most states have approved SWMPs. These approvals were based on the state’s 

legal authorities and set out the responsibilities for the various aspects of requirements applicable 

to solid waste management. In addition, §§ 256.20 – 256.27 lay out specific requirements for 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

523

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

State solid waste management programs that should be reflected in the solid waste management 

plan.were in force at the time of approval. Now, because EPA is promulgating revised Federal 

criteria, the facilities that will be considered to be “sanitary landfills” and “open dumps” is 

changing. Thus, the State Solid Waste Management Plans EPA expects that SWMPs in many 

states will need to be revised to account for these revised Federal requirements. Consistent with 

the provisions in section 256.01(a)(2)-(3) and with the requirement in section 256.03(e) that such 

plans are the comprehensive compendium, developed and adopted with public participation, 

showing how solid waste is managed in a particular State. As such, they have been a key 

componentto be revised where necessary, in order to maintain approval of solid waste programs 

for many years. these plans EPA believesexpects that dueStates will revise their SWMPs to 

account for the promulgation of the minimumrevised federal criteria for CCR landfills and 

surface impoundments, States should revise their Solid Waste Management Plans, especially as 

these new criteria. 

As fully explained later in this section, the plans are the first such specific criteria for 

CCRs. EPA believes the plans aregenerally the best tool available for demonstrating how CCR 

disposal units will be regulated in a State, including how the State andintends its state 

requirements to relate to the federal regulations will be implemented in a particular State.. In 

addition, EPA believesanticipates that the public participation processes will have substantial 

benefit in, by involving all sectors of the community in addressing the management of 

CCRsCCR in a particular state. 

EPA recognizes that revising solid waste management plans could entail substantial 

effort both in developing the modifications to the plan and in implementing the public 

participation process envisioned by Part 256. However, EPA also believes that the revised plans 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

524

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

EPA believes that the revised SWMPs will have significant benefits. The and provide the best 

mechanism available to respond to the concerns expressed by commenters regarding the role of 

states in management of this waste. First, the revised plans will enable to States to set out, as 

part of their overall solid waste program, how the State intends to regulate CCR landfills and 

surface impoundments will be regulated in their State; that is, these plans can demonstrate how, 

if at all, the State program has incorporated the minimum national criteria and can highlight 

those areas where the State regulations are more stringent or broader in scope than or otherwise 

go beyond the federal minimum criteria. The For example, the plan can also show instances 

wheredescribe the actions the State has not adopted some or all of the federal minimum criteria. 

Providing this detail can greatly assist the regulated community understand the regulatory 

structure under which they will be operating. It can also assist the general public in 

understanding the regulations. 

Secondly, the plan can also show how the State willtake to oversee CCR units, 

particularly those units undergoing closure or corrective action, and how the State plansintends 

to review or use the notices and other information pertaining to the units that the unitsfacility 

owners will be providing to the State (as required in the federal regulations. As noted above, 

EPA believes that such a tool will be extremely beneficial to both). Providing this detail can 

greatly assist the regulated community and to understand the regulatory structure under which 

they will be operating. It can also assist the general public in understanding the regulations and 

thereby their ability to industry’s monitor compliance with the rule. 

Third, EPA believes thatSecond, substantial benefits will be gained through the public 

participation process that the States will go through in required as part of revising theirthe State

plans. GreaterSee 40 C.F.R § 256.60. At a minimum, these processes will promote greater
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

525

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

awareness of the specificfederal regulatory requirements, as well as how these fit into the overall 

context of solid waste management in the State, which will be very valuable as the new 

minimum criteria for CCRsCCR are implemented. In addition, these processes will provide the 

public and communities near CCR landfills and surface impoundments an opportunity to be 

involved in how CCRs are managed in their state.with an opportunity to participate in the 

decision making about how CCR are managed in their state. Finally, the record generated by the 

public participation process has an inherent value to States, the utilities, and the general public in 

that it can demonstrate explicitly the manner in which issues related to the regulation of CCR 

landfills and surface impoundments were raised and resolved in the state. This record would be 

a value in any later proceedings seeking enforcement of the rule. 

Finally, RCRA Section 4005 provides a strong incentive for States to submit and obtain 

EPA approval on revised solid waste management plans. Under Section 4005, States with 

approved solid waste management plans can provide a schedule for facilities to come into 

compliance with EPA’s national minimum criteria. This schedule can provide a “reasonable 

time “not to exceed 5 years from the date of publication of criteria”. Thus, if a State submits 

and receives EPA approval on its revised plan, it then has the ability to give facilities in its 

jurisdiction additional time to comply. 

While this flexibility exists, however, it is EPA’s expectation, that states would be 

judicious is granting facilities additional time to comply with the federal minimum criteria. As 

explained earlier, CCR disposal units do pose significant risks to public health and the 

environment. It is therefore critical that actions to implement these criteria be taken in an 

expeditious manner to address these risks. EPA believes, for example, that it would be almost 

impossible to justify additional time to implement the structural stability requirements given the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

526

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

significant risks of embankment failures. EPA also believes that there would be virtually no 

justification to allow additional time beyond the three years already provided for in the criteria to 

comply with the ground water monitoring requirements. 

MoreoverThird, once EPA has approved a SWMP that incorporates or goes beyond the 

minimum federal requirements, EPA expects that facilities will operate in compliance with that 

plan and the underlying State regulations. In those circumstances, EPA’s view is that facilities 

adhering to the requirements of a State program that is identical to or more stringent than an 

approved SWMP will meet or exceed the minimum federal criteria. In addition, EPA anticipates 

that a facility that operates in accord with an approved SWMP will be able to beneficially use 

that fact in a citizen suit brought to enforce the federal criteria; EPA believes a court will accord 

substantial weight to the fact that a facility is operating in accord with an EPA-approved SWMP. 

In addition, as noted above, the record generated by the public participation process in 

developing the SWMP has an inherent value to the States, the utilities, and the general public in 

any such litigation. The more specific the record is on the public process regarding how the 

SWMP would incorporate the minimum federal requirements and any state oversight the more 

valuable it would be in any court proceedings to complement EPA’s approval of the SWMP. As

fully explained earlier, EPA approval of a State SWMP does not mean that the state program 

operates “in lieu of” the federal program as EPA does not have the authority to make such a 

determination. 

The process and criteria for approval of SWMPs are set out in 40 CFR Part 256. The Part 

256 regulations state that EPA has six months from submittal of a plan to either approve or 

disapprove it. The regulations further state that EPA will approve a plan if the agency

determines that the plan: (a) meets the requirement set out in RCRA Section 4003(a) (1), (2), 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

527

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(3), and (5); (b) and contains provisions for revisions. Those requirements of 4003 (a) are: the 

identification of the responsibilities of State, local, and regional authorities in the implementation 

of the plan and the means for coordinating regional planning and implementation; prohibition on 

the establishment of new open dumps and the requirement that all solid waste be utilized for 

resource recovery or disposed of in landfills meeting the minimum federal criteria; provision of 

the closing or upgrading of all existing open dumps; and no prohibition on negotiating or 

entering into contracts for the supply of solid waste to resource recovery facilities. In this rule, 

EPA has established minimum national criteria for CCR disposal facilities, which effectively 

define when CCR disposal facilities are open dumps. In order for EPA to approve a revised state 

SWMP, it must determine that the State plan provides enforceable regulatory requirements for 

the closing or upgrading of CCR disposal facilities that constitute open dumps. A state SWMP 

can do so through direct incorporation and implementation of the minimum federal criteria 

established by this rule or through incorporation of alternative requirements that are at least as 

protective of public health and the environment.

EPA anticipates that it will be able to review and approve State SWMPs that adopt the 

federal regulations in total or go beyond the federal minimum criteria very quickly; EPA’s 

review of plans that do not adopt the federal minimum criteria or alter them substantially is likely 

to be more difficult and therefore more time consuming. EPA’s review of and decision to 

approve or disapprove a State solid waste management plan will be based on the record before 

the Agency at the time of that decision. This record includes the record developed during the 

public participation process in which the State engaged prior to submitting the revised SWMP to 

EPA for approval. Should information come to EPA’s attention at a later date that a State is not 

implementing its approved plan or taking actions at variance with the plan’s provisions, EPA 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

528

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

will take appropriate steps including potentially withdrawing approval of the SWMP.

Because SWMPs form a critical part of the implementation of this rule, EPA intends to 

engage the States very soon after promulgation of the minimum criteria to develop a streamlined, 

efficient process for review and approval of these revised plans. EPA also intends to develop 

both guidance for States to use to submit revisions and for EPA to use in its review of the 

revisions. 

In addition, EPA is exploring options for developing and publishing the statutorily 

required inventory of open dumps. Specifically, within one year of the promulgation of federal 

criteria under RCRA section 4004(a), section 4005(b) directs EPA “to assist the States in 

complying” with the directive in section 4003(a)(3) that state SWMPs shall provide for closure 

and upgrading of open dumps (i.e., facilities that do not meet the revised Federal criteria) by 

publishing an inventory of all “open dumps” in the US. 42 U.S.C. §6945(b). Because the 

minimum criteria promulgated today include implementation timelines, it is possible for a 

facility to become an open dump in the future for failure to meet the minimum criteria. Thus, 

EPA anticipates publishing an initial inventory and likely subsequent periodic updates. 

Finally, in addition to benefits just described of a revised SWMP, RCRA Section 4005 

provides an incentive in certain circumstances for States to obtain EPA approval on revised

SWMPs. Under section 4005, States with approved SWMPs can provide additional time for 

facilities that do not meet the national minimum criteria (i.e., “open dumps”), to come into 

compliance. As noted above, within one year of the promulgation of federal criteria under 

RCRA section 4004(a), section 4005(b) directs EPA “to assist the States in complying” with the 

directive in section 4003(a)(3) that state SWMPs shall provide for closure and upgrading of open 

dumps (i.e., facilities that do not meet the revised Federal criteria) by publishing an inventory of 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

529

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

all “open dumps” in the US. 42 U.S.C. §6945(b). Facilities on this inventory are eligible to 

obtain a “schedule of compliance” from a State with an approved management plan, provided 

certain additional criteria have been met. Specifically, the facility must demonstrate that it is 

unable to use other “public or private alternatives” to manage its waste in the non-compliant unit. 

In such cases, the state may establish a schedule of remedial measures that includes “an 

enforceable sequence of actions or operations” which must lead to compliance within a 

“reasonable time (not to exceed 5 years from the date of publication of criteria).” 42 U.S.C. 

§6945(a). Such a schedule would shield the facility from any suit brought to enforce the criteria. 

Thus, if a State receives EPA approval on its revised plan, it can offer facilities additional time, 

albeit limited, to come into compliance with the federal requirements. EPA expects, however, 

that few facilities will either be eligible for or need to take advantage of this flexibility. First, as 

a practical matter, only a limited number of facilities or units will fall into the category of open 

dumps within the relevant time frames. As noted, an open dump is defined as a solid waste 

facility that does not meet the federal minimum criteria. 42 U.S.C. §6903(14). As also 

explained, the final criteria establish time frames for facilities to implement the technical 

requirements, ranging between six months to several years, including certain provisions that 

authorize extensions. Until those deadlines pass, the facility is not an open dump and therefore 

would not be eligible for or need a compliance schedule under section 4005. Because the statute 

limits the States’ ability to set compliance schedules to 5 years from the publication of the 

criteria, if a facility is out of compliance with the criteria either shortly before or after this time 

5-year frame, from a purely practical perspective, compliance schedules are no longer a viable 

option. Thus for certain of the provisions (e.g., closure, which generally must be completed 

within five years) compliance schedules would never be available. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

530

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Second, the time frames in the regulation reflect EPA’s considered judgment of the 

amount of time that would realistically be needed under normal circumstances for a facility to 

come into compliance, based on standard engineering practices used throughout the industry. 

Most facilities will, in fact, be able to comply with the federal criteria within the specified time 

frames, and so will not need to seek a compliance schedule. For example, as part of its Dam 

Safety Assessment program, EPA evaluated all CCR surface impoundments with a dam hazard 

potential rating of “high” or “significant,” using criteria that were essentially the same as the 

technical criteria adopted in the final rule. As of the completion of that program, all units were 

either rated satisfactory, or were taking steps to ensure the structural stability of the unit. EPA 

acknowledges that ensuring the structural stability of these units requires continued maintenance 

and oversight, so past compliance is no guarantee of future compliance. However, our 

experience from the Impoundment Assessment Program leads us to expect that the vast majority 

of CCR surface impoundments will be able to demonstrate compliance with the structural 

stability requirements in the final criteria within the specified time frames. Any facility that 

seeks to justify an extension would have a heavy burden to demonstrate that anything longer 

than a minor amount of time is needed to implement the structural stability requirements would 

meet the statutory standard (i.e., be “reasonable”). Similarly, absent factors beyond the facility’s 

control (i.e, “Acts of God”) EPA is unable to envision the circumstances that would support a 

decision that additional time beyond the 30 months already provided in the criteria to comply 

with the ground water monitoring requirements would be “reasonable.” 

Third, RCRA section 4005(a) imposes a number of requirements that will further limit 

both the circumstances in which a compliance schedule may be granted, and the amount of time 

that States will ultimately be authorized to grant. 42 U.S.C. §§ 6945(a). Section 4005(a) 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

531

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

requires that to obtain a compliance schedule, the facility must first demonstrate that it has 

considered other public or private alternatives to comply with the prohibition on open dumping 

and is unable to utilize such alternatives.131 At a minimum, this means that the facility must 

demonstrate that there are no alternative units that meet the federal requirement, either on-site or 

off-site, that can be used to dispose of the CCR. EPA also interprets this provision to require the 

facility to demonstrate that it has made a good faith effort to comply with the criteria, which 

would include documenting the actions that had been taken, along with the facts demonstrating 

the reasons that compliance was not feasible within the criteria’s time frames. As has been 

previously discussed, cost is not a factor that is appropriately considered under sections 

1008(a)(3), 4004(a), or 4005(a), and so would not provide an adequate justification for these 

purposes either.

Further, the statute requires that a schedule for compliance specify “a schedule of 

remedial measures, and an enforceable sequence of actions, leading to compliance within a 

reasonable time.” Id. This means that any compliance schedule must lay out precisely the 

activities that remain to be completed, along with clear and enforceable deadlines for each. 

Again, this will effectively serve to limit the ultimate amount of time that would be granted in 

any individual case. 

Finally, as stated earlier, the statute providesrequires that aany schedule to bring an open 

dump into compliance schedule can allow foris to be limited to a “reasonable time”,,” that is not 

to exceed five years. What from the date of publication of the federal criteria. Whether a 

 

131 Upon promulgation of criteria under sections 1008(a)(3) and 4004(a), the continued use of any unit 

that does not comply with these criteria is prohibited, as “open dumping,” unless a compliance schedule 

has been established. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

532

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

particular period of time is “reasonable” depends on the facts of the particular situation;, but, 

generally speaking, takesit should take into account the technical complexity of the requirement, 

the activities that remain to be completed, the reasons for the lack of compliance, and other 

particular factors such as geology, geography, weather, and engineering circumstances. It is 

EPA’s expectation that any extension should be limited to the time absolutely necessary to bring 

a unit into compliance and a five year timeframe should not automatically be granted. Moreover, 

EPA expects that as part of their revised solid waste management plans, States would explain the 

criteria they would use to determine whether and how much additional time to comply with 

federal minimum criteria should be granted. EPA anticipates it would review this portion of a 

solid waste management plan very carefully.For example, EPA expects that a significantly lower 

amount of time would be reasonable for a facility that simply chose to delay implementation than 

for a facility whose compliance was complicated by factors beyond its control. Overall, to be 

consistent with the statute, EPA expects that facilities seeking to establish an alternative 

compliance schedule would need to provide a factual justification that not only documents the 

reasons that compliance within the criteria’s time frames was not feasible, but carefully 

documents the facts that would support a determination that any significant extension of time to 

come into compliance is “reasonable.” 

EPA anticipates being able to approve State solid waste management plans that adopt the 

federal regulations in total or go beyond the federal minimum criteria very quickly; EPA 

approval of plans where States do not adopt the federal minimum criteria or alter them 

substantially is likely to be more difficult. EPA plans to engage the States very soon after 

promulgation of the minimum criteria to develop further guidance on the submission of revised 

solid waste management plans and to develop a streamlined, efficient process for review and 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

533

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

approval of these revised plans.

Should a State elect not to develop and submit a revised solid waste management plan to 

EPA for approval, the State may still find it appropriate to ask EPA for technical assistance or for 

EPA ‘s opinion of its regulations covering CCR units. EPA believes that such an opinion could 

carry weight and thus be useful to States in certain circumstances. 

Where a State requests this of EPA, EPA anticipates it will respond in a timely manner. 

It is likely that EPA would work with the State requestor to obtain copies of relevant regulations, 

implementation guidances, or other materials (e.g., State judicial opinions) that could affect how 

a State program is implemented. In such cases, EPA anticipates it would review all the materials, 

discuss with the States, and develop an opinion. As with the State solid waste management 

plans, EPA plans to engage the States shortly after promulgation of these revised criteria to 

develop guidance for this situation. 

EPA wishes to make clear however, that neither EPA approval of a State Solid Waste 

Management Plan nor an EPA opinion on the State regulations act as a formal approval to allow 

State regulations to operate “in lieu of” the federal, as is the case with RCRA subtitle C 

authorization. These tools serve primarily to indicate that the State and federal rules are 

compatible and work together to protect public health and the environment.

EPA expects that as part of any revised solid waste management plans, a State would 

explain the criteria it intended to use to determine whether and how much additional time to 

comply with the federal criteria should be granted. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 256.04(f) and 256.26. 

Consistent with the statute’s directives, EPA expects that any extension would be limited to the 

time absolutely necessary to bring a unit into compliance, and that five years would not 

automatically be granted. Nor would a revised solid waste management plan that granted all 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

534

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

“open dumps” an additional 5 years generally meet the regulatory criteria for approval. Id. EPA 

also expects that States would consider the original time frames laid out in the criteria. As 

previously discussed, in developing these time frames EPA sought to achieve a balance between 

the minimum amount of time that would realistically be needed to properly and adequately 

implement the technical requirements, and the need to expeditiously address the significant risks 

associated with CCR units. EPA therefore expects that in granting additional time under 

compliance schedules, States will be guided by the same considerations. As documented 

throughout this preamble, CCR disposal units do pose significant risks to public health and the 

environment; it is therefore critical that actions to implement these criteria be taken expeditiously 

to address these risks. EPA intends to closely review those portions of a State solid waste 

management plan that address the processes and criteria for establishing compliance schedules.

In conclusion, EPA believes that the use of the solid waste management plan revision 

process is the best mechanism available under RCRA subtitle D to address the States’ interest in 

obtaining formal EPA “approval” of their solid waste management plans. EPA will continue to 

work with the States as the rules are implemented to ensure that this process is streamlined and 

efficient.

X. Risk Assessment

EPA revised and updated the 2010 draft risk assessment using mathematical models to 

determine the rate at which chemical constituents may be released from different waste 

management units (WMUs), to predict the fate and transport of these constituents through the 

environment, and to estimate the resulting risks to human and ecological receptors. Modeling 

was conducted in a step-wise fashion, with more refined analyses used at each subsequent step. 

Below, EPA discusses how the risk assessment was revised and updated in response to the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

535

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

various public comments received. The Agency also provides a summary of the analyses 

conducted as part of the risk assessment and the final conclusions drawn from these analyses. For 

further discussion, see the revised risk assessment and response to comments documents 

available in the docket.

A. Response to Public Comments

EPA received numerous comments discussing the following non-technical or non-riskrelated categories: beneficial reuse, regulatory comments including Subtitle C versus D listing, 

legal comments, monitoring requirements, the Regulatory Impact Analysis, cost considerations 

and population risk, direct discharge and associated permitting, structural integrity, 

environmental remediation, sand and gravel pits, coal mining, and the receipt of site-specific 

data. Because these comments are not germane to the risk assessment, no responses are provided 

in this document. In addition, EPA received numerous, general comments on both the draft risk 

assessment and subsequent NODAs. These comments tended to express general support or 

disapproval for the risk assessment methodology, data, or results. However, these comments did 

not provide any specific technical recommendations or data that could be used to improve the 

risk assessment. EPA appreciates the overwhelming interest of the public regarding the Agency’s 

risk assessment. However, without any substantive critique that could be acted upon, EPA could 

not alter the risk assessment in response to these more general comments. To the extent that any 

commenter mentioned substantive issues regarding a specific aspect of the risk assessment, these 

comments are further addressed in subsequent sections of this preamble. 

1. Comments Related to Fate and Transport Modeling

COMMENT: Commenters wondered how realistic results may be using a risk assessment 

model that assumes current conditions will be maintained for 10,000 years. Specifically, 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

536

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

commenters were concerned about the assumption that constituent concentrations in the leachate 

remain constant throughout that timeframe. In addition, commenters questioned the assumption 

that well use and climate conditions will remain constant for 10,000 years.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA acknowledges that the 10,000-year ground water modeling time 

horizon required further clarification in the revised risk assessment. Thus, the text in the revised 

risk assessment has been updated to make it clear that the selection of a maximum 10,000-year 

time horizon does not mean that all model simulations continue for the full 10,000 years. 

Specifically, Section 4 states: 

EPA ran the model until either the observed ground water concentration of a constituent 

at the receptor point reached a peak and then fell below a model-specified minimum 

concentration (10-16 mg/L), or the model had been run for a time period of 10,000 years.

Although ground water concentrations are modeled beyond the observed peak or 

maximum average concentrations, these post-peak or post-maximum average predictions are not 

used in estimates of risk. In many cases the leachate plume reaches the receptor point much 

sooner than 10,000 years. As discussed in Section 5 and Appendix K of the revised risk 

assessment, on a national scale, both unlined and clay-lined surface impoundments consistently 

pose peak risks within 100 years. Meanwhile, composite liners show much longer peak arrival 

times, close to 10,000 years for most surface impoundment runs. Peak arrival times are longer 

for landfills, and more than 10,000 years for composite-lined landfills. Under such timeframes, 

EPA acknowledges that surface conditions may change significantly, compounding the 

uncertainty associated with the predicted exposures and risks. However, EPA also notes that the 

time to first exceedance of selected risk criteria is typically considerably less than the time to the 

greatest exceedance. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

537

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

EPA acknowledges that future ground water use patterns may shift as the number and 

location of receptors changes, and that it is unknown whether future changes in receptor 

locations and other surface conditions would result in greater, lesser, or the same risk as 

predicted in this analysis. However, no known data exist that would allow EPA to do more than 

speculate about future population dynamics. Thus, the Agency relied on the best available data 

on the current population to conduct the revised risk assessment. The approach used to place 

residential ground water wells is further discussed in Section 4 and Appendix B of the revised 

risk assessment, and the associated uncertainties are discussed in Section 5.

COMMENT: Comments related to the specifics of the ground water transport modeling 

were received from commenters. Issues covered in their comments included the following: 

Geochemical Modeling:

 The way that soil and aquifer Kd values were determined and used, including the fact that 

the risk assessment did not explicitly model oxidation/reduction reactions and 

precipitation-dissolution processes that may influence the chemical fate and transport.

 Whether hydrogeologic settings were assigned correctly. 

Selection of Sorbents:

 The selection of iron oxides, and dissolved (DOM) and particulate organic matter (POM) 

to represent all sorbents in soil and aquifer materials.

 The selection of goethite as the iron oxide mineral to use to estimate sorption to vadose 

zone and aquifer materials.

 The treatment of POM and DOM in the MINTEQA2 modeling used to generate the Kd

values (sorption isotherms) used in the analysis.

 The adequacy of sensitivity and uncertainty analyses for the MINTEQA2 modeling.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

538

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Kd Values:

 The approach used to determine the value of pH in the aquifer for selecting Kd.

 The subsequent calculation of the retardation factor.

Arsenic Speciation:

 The assumption that arsenic III is the only or dominant form of arsenic is too 

conservative, as arsenic III readily converts to the less mobile arsenic V species under 

aerobic conditions. 

 A commenter requested time to exceedance results for arsenic species and other 

constituents, as well as distance versus concentration output from EPACMTP. 

EPACMTP Assumptions and Simplifications:

 The appropriateness of EPACMTP and its various assumptions and simplifications for 

ground water modeling, including:

 Not altering the chemistry of the aquifer receiving leachate.

 Not simulating variable Ehoxidation-reduction potential conditions or multiple chemical 

species during a model run.

 Not evaluating the potential mobilization of non-waste related metals from soils when 

exposed to leachate with potentially different geochemistry compared to ambient 

conditions.

 Not considering the potential occupation of adsorption sites by naturally occurring metals 

or competition from multiple contaminants.

 Not considering mounding-induced reduction of the unsaturated zone thickness or other 

cases where the ground water table is in direct contact with the bottom of the WMU. 

 Not considering fractured rock, karst, and other complex hydrogeologic settings.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

539

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The comments also addressed the general need for more transparency in the data and 

methods used in the analysis and the need for validation and/or comparison of model inputs and 

results to site-specific field data.

EPA RESPONSE:

Geochemical Modeling: 

EPA recognizes that explicit reactive/geochemical modeling would be more realistic than 

using linear and nonlinear partitioning coefficients. EPA considered the use of the Objects 

Representing Chemical Speciation and Transport (ORCHESTRA) model during revisions to the 

risk assessment because it can account for geochemical interactions, such as aqueous 

complexation, precipitation, surface complexation, and ion exchange.132 However, such 

modeling is not a practical approach for a nationwide analysis because the data collection effort 

necessary to populate such a model on a nationwide, location-based level would be prohibitively 

expensive. Even assuming such data were available to populate ORCHESTRA or a similar 

model, the complexity of the algorithms necessary to account for highly variable geochemical 

and hydrogeologic conditions nationwide and the time required to run such a model would also 

be impractical. Furthermore, the use of Kd as a surrogate for dilution/sorption/ precipitation 

processes is a widely used and accepted method in both the scientific literature and the ground 

water modeling community, provided the values of Kd used are appropriate to account for the 

range of potential attenuation processes.133 Therefore, for a nationwide analysis, the use of Kd is 

 

132

 Meeussen, J.C.L. 2003. ORCHESTRA: An Object-Oriented Framework for Implementing Chemical 

Equilibrium Models. Environmental Science & Technology 37(6):1175–1182.

133

 U.S. EPA. 1999. Understanding Variation In Partition Coefficient, Kd, Values Volume I: The Kd 

Model, Methods of Measurement, and Application of Chemical Reaction Codes. EPA 402-R-99-004A. 

OAR. Washington, DC. August.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

540

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

a practical and necessary simplification. EPA has added discussion to the risk assessment to 

clarify Kd-related issues raised by the commenters. Appendix H of the revised risk assessment 

displays select percentiles of the Kd values used in the analysis. These values were derived from 

the isotherm sampling performed by EPACMTP and used in the modeling (including effective 

Kd values for the unsaturated zone). A listing of all individual Kd values available in the 

MINTEQA2 isotherms used in these analyses would not be practicable. Instead, the full input 

and output files are available to the public in the docket.

Some commenters suggested that EPA should focus on the effect of redox potential in the 

ground water on fate and transport. While this is possible, it would take significant effort to set 

up this type of approach for every inorganic constituent considered in the risk assessment. 

Therefore, EPA was unable evaluate redox, and acknowledges this is a source of uncertainty for 

the ground water transport modeling approach., and it was determined not to be necessary. EPA 

did indirectly account for some of the major effects of redox potential when modeling arsenic 

and other constituents for which speciation is known to have a significant impact on mobility. 

For these constituents, a model run was conducted for each species under the assumption that all 

of the constituent mass was present as that speciation. Therefore, EPA did not evaluate redox, 

and acknowledges this is a source of uncertainty for the ground water transport modeling 

approach. Commenters expressed concern about the assumption of a single speciation, noting 

that it is likely that constituents will be present as some combination of the different species. 

EPA acknowledges that this approach is a simplification of real world conditions; however, the 

Agency believes this approach is useful because it provide bounding estimates that can inform 

the risk assessment. 

Regarding the concern that there were possible errors in hydrogeological assignments
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

541

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

noted by a commenter in the 2007 NODA, these assignments have been updated in the revised 

risk assessment based on a more robust and accurate dataset for waste management units (WMU)

and facility locations. These data are discussed in Section 3 and Appendix B of the revised risk 

assessment. Because these assignments were based on more complete GIS coverages of soils and 

aquifers across the U.S., EPA believes they are more consistent and reliable than the previous 

ones in representing the spatial variability in hydrogeologic environments needed by the 

EPACMTP model. 

Selection of Sorbents: 

In recent years, databases of equilibrium sorption reactions have been compiled in the 

literature for several of the dominant potential sorbents in the environment, including two 

common iron oxide minerals: hydrous ferrous oxides (HFO) and goethite.134,135 Because of the 

availability of these data and their prevalence in the environment, these are the sorbent types 

available for MINTEQ2 modeling used to develop constituent sorption isotherms. Other 

common hydrous oxides that can sorb chemicals include hydrous oxides of aluminum, 

manganese, and silicon (Dzombak and Morel, 1990); however, there were insufficient data on 

these to consider their use. To determine the most appropriate iron oxide sorbent, EPA chose 

goethite as the most appropriate form of hydrous iron oxide for the risk assessment to avoid an 

underestimation of risk. While both goethite and HFO are common forms of iron oxide in soils, 

goethite is a much poorer adsorbent than HFO, thereby leading to relatively greater ground water 

 

134

 Dzombak, D.A and F.M.M. Morel. 1990. Surface Complexation Modeling: Hydrous Ferric Oxide. .

Wiley-Interscience, New York, 393 pp

135

 Mathur, Samir S. 1995. Development of a Database for Ion Sorption on Goethite using 

Surface Complexation Modeling. Carnegie Mellon University, M.S. Thesis, Department of Civil and 

Environmental Engineering.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0", Space After:

0 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

542

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

plume concentrations. EPA acknowledges that HFOs are common as well and there is the 

potential for HFOs with greater sorption affinities than goethite to be present at some CCR 

disposal sites. In reaching this conclusion, EPA consulted experts who published on this subject 

(specifically, Dr. David Dzombak, Dr. Samir Mathur and Dr. Jerry Allison), developer of 

MINTEQA2. EPA agrees that this was a necessary assumption.

EPA also recognizes that limiting MINTEQA2 to two types of sorptive materials (iron 

oxide and organic matter [DOM and POM]) is a simplification given the wide range or soil and 

aquifer materials that actually adsorb metals (e.g., clay and other soil minerals). However, given 

that the extensive sorption databases needed to perform MINTEQA2 are available for POM, 

DOM, and goethite, we believe that they are the best representation of subsurface sorption 

processes active in soils and aquifer materials. This decision and the actual approaches used to 

model DOM, POM, and goethite are described in detail in MINTEQA2 background documents 

and the associated Response to Peer Review Comments for those documents. 

Finally, with respect to the adequacy of sensitivity and uncertainty analyses for 

MINTEQA2, EPA notes that the 2009 sensitivity analysis showed that only results for strongly 

sorbing constituents were sensitive to the Kd values output from MINTEQA2. In contrast, the 

three risk drivers identified in the revised risk assessment (arsenic, lithium, and molybdenum) all 

tend to be weakly sorbing, with the exception of arsenic in the pentavalent state. Furthermore, to 

the extent Kd affects the risks, Section 5 of the revised risk assessment evaluated these effects by 

examining alternate speciation (e.g., trivalent and pentavalent arsenic) as well as the effect of 

waste type and waste pH. For these reasons, EPA finds that sufficient sensitivity and uncertainty 

analyses were conducted.

Kd Values: 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

543

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The approach adopted in the risk assessment to determine the value of pH in the aquifer 

(used to select Kd) and the subsequent calculation of the retardation factor assumed that, after 

entering the aquifer, the leachate plume would thoroughly mix with the ambient, uncontaminated 

ground water. One commenter stated that the mixing zone would only be present at the periphery 

of the ground water plume. This is consistent with the general conceptual model used in this risk 

assessment of uniform subsurface flow with recharge. However, EPACMTP requires a constant 

ground water pH in each model run to model transport with nonlinear sorption isotherms. EPA 

assumed full mixing as a more conservative approach to selecting pH because, for most metals, 

sorption/precipitation tends to increase (i.e., Kd goes up) with higher pH, which is characteristic 

of much CCR leachate (i.e., assuming full mixing lowers the ground water pH and, thus, 

decreases sorption). To characterize the potential effect of this simplifying assumption on 

calculated risk results, EPA conducted an uncertainty analysis that is presented in Section 5 of 

the revised risk assessment.

EPA considered comparing the modeled Kd values to available estimates in the published 

literature, but did not do so for three reasons. First, there are many individual values within each 

Kd isotherm that depend both on constituent concentrations and MINTEQA2 master variables, 

such as pH, organic carbon, and iron oxide concentrations. Second, measured values are limited 

to specific sites where conditions that may not be fully documented, and because such variables 

can vary from site to site, it can be very difficult to determine exactly how well the collected 

values represent conditions across the country. Third, field and laboratory methods for measuring 

Kd vary greatly and are not easy to compare, adding a significant measurement uncertainty to the 

variability issues mentioned above. Therefore, not only would this comparison be complicated to 

perform, it would also be subject to its own numerous uncertainties and unknown biases, making 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

544

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

it unlikely to provide a basis for definitive conclusions about the representativeness of the current 

approach.

With respect to comments on the calculation of the retardation factor, EPA points 

commenters to U.S. EPA (2003)136 which discusses how EPA uses Kd values to model sorption 

in the subsurface environment.

Arsenic Speciation: 

Commenters also pointed out that literature on arsenic V often shows that it is orders of 

magnitude less soluble than arsenic III, which appears inconsistent with the results of the 2010 

Draft Risk Assessment. The draft assessment found similar exposure concentrations for both 

arsenic species. As a result of a combination of different updates to the revised risk assessment, 

the modeled concentrations of arsenic III and V are now generally an order of magnitude 

different, although the specific results vary between pathways. One cause of this difference is 

likely the increased distances to receptors in the revised risk assessment. The increased distance 

would lead to additional arsenic V attenuation because this species sorbs more readily (i.e., has 

greater Kd values) than arsenic III. Section 5 of the revised risk assessment discusses the 

uncertainty associated with modeling both species of arsenic. For the specific concentrations at 

various distances, EPA directs the commenter to review the input and output files available in the 

docket.

EPA did not model the time to first exceedance of risk criteria, but did conduct a 

sensitivesensitivity analysis for the time to peak ground water concentration. The time to peak 

 

136 U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate Migration 

with Transformation Products (EPACMTP). Technical Background Document. , EPA53-R-03-002. 

Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

545

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

results for arsenic species and other select other constituents are presented in Section 5 of the 

revised risk assessment. The distance to nearest well receptors is also discussed in Section 5 of 

the revised risk assessment. The relation of distance versus concentration was not explicitly 

evaluated on a per simulation basis, rather all receptor well locations within one mile from the 

WMU footprint were included in the analysis to provide a conservative risk estimate.

EPACMTP Assumptions and Simplifications: 

Comments on the treatment of dispersivity within EPACMTP highlighted the need for 

greater transparency about the model’s underlying assumptions and input data sources. The 

documentation for the 2010 Draft Risk Assessment did not include comprehensive tables 

detailing model input parameters, their values or distributional characteristics, and the sources of 

the data used. These values are, in many cases, publicly available in the EPACMTP Background 

and Parameters/Data Background documents.137,138 EPA still finds it inappropriate to duplicate 

this large amount of data. Instead, the revised risk assessment includes an increase in the number 

of references to these documents, and directs readers to refer to these documents for further 

information. Additionally, the full input and output files are available to the public in the docket.

With respect to the fundamental questions raised about the assumptions and 

simplifications built into EPACMTP, EPA acknowledges some limitations within the model. 

Some simplifications are necessary to complete a large, national scale risk assessment, and EPA 

believes that the model provides the most appropriate available tool to complete this type of 

 

137

 U.S. EPA. 2003. EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products 

(EPACMTP): Parameters/Data Background Document. EPA 530-R-03-003. Office of Solid Waste, 

Washington, DC. April.

138

 U.S. EPA. 2003. EPACMTP Technical Background Document. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, 

DC.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

546

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

analysis. As discussed in Section 5 of the revised risk assessment, EPACMTP has been 

thoroughly peer reviewed and tested for application in large-scale risk assessments. This section 

also provides additional documentation on these internal and external reviews of the model, its 

limitations, and the associated uncertainties. With respect to particular criticisms levied:

 EPA alters the chemistry of the aquifer receiving leachate by changing the aquifer pH in 

response to full mixing. Alternatively, EPA conducts an analysis in Section 5 using the 

alternate assumption of partial mixing;

 EPA evaluates alternative species in separate model runs. As described in the revised risk 

assessment, EPA believes that presentation of these two results bound the range of 

possible risks from a constituent. To the extent that EPA does not model oxidationreduction potential, EPA notes that this would require geochemical modeling, which was 

not feasible for the reasons discussed above;

 Full mixing of the leachate plume did not demonstrate significant potential to affect 

aquifer pH. Thus, since pH is one of the most significant factors affecting constituent 

mobilization EPA does not believe significant constituent from the underlying soils will 

be mobilized in most cases. Instead, it is a site-specific consideration that is not possible 

to include in a nationwide risk assessment.

 A discussion of sorbent competition as a limitation of the analysis is discussed in 

Attachment H-1 of Appendix H in the revised risk assessment.

 EPA did not consider ground water mounding, ground water in contact with the waste 

management unit, fractured rock, karst, and other complex hydrogeologic settings as 

these are site-specific considerations that could not be accommodated in a nationwide 

risk assessment.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

547

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

COMMENT: Several commenters discuss the use of site-specific analysis to increase 

confidence in the risk assessment results. They expressed concern that the results are difficult to 

evaluate given the significant variability and uncertainty associated with the national scope of the 

analysis, and that validation or calibration of EPACMTP results with actual data is needed, 

including the potential use of damage cases.

EPA RESPONSE: Commenters expressed concern about validation of the EPACMTP 

model with actual field data and some commenters suggested that EPA should use actual 

monitoring data rather than modeling to assess potential risks. EPA recognizes the importance of 

monitoring data in characterizing specific sites. EPA agrees with the commenters that confidence 

in the results of an environmental fate and transport model increase significantly when model 

predictions can be compared favorably with measured field results. However, site-specific 

modeling involves extensive data collection and detailed modeling (representing site-specific 

conditions and processes), which was not possible with the available resources for this large, 

national-scale risk assessment. Available site-specific data are limited to a relatively small 

fraction of locations and settings. This risk assessment was intended to represent a broad range of 

potential conditions. Consequently, EPA validated the model results with actual field data by 

comparing the results of the national probabilistic, Monte Carlo analysis to proven/potential 

damage cases from across the United States. These damage cases represent real-world instances 

of contamination from CCR WMUs that provide the best available comparison for the results of 

the risk assessment. This comparison is presented in Section 5 of the revised risk assessment. 

EPA also provided extensive EPACMTP validation results relative to theoretical models and 

field data in Appendix D of the EPACMTP technical background document (U.S. EPA, 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

548

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

2003a,b).139

COMMENT: Comments relating to the number of wells contaminated, the realistic risk 

of exposure, well placement within the plume, distance to receptor wells, identification of 

surface water receptors, surface water interception modeling, the appropriateness of receiving 

water reaches (e.g. the nearest surface water body), and other receptor or well-related issues were 

received from public commenters. 

Surface Water Interception Modeling: 

Regarding surface water interception, many comments were supportive of EPA’s 

approach for simulating the interception of ground water by surface water bodies, which has 

been added to the revised risk assessment. However, some commenters indicated that a 

meaningful allocation of the ground water plume between a surface water body and a 

downgradient well receptor can only be determined reliably with assessment of the system at a 

local scale. 

Commenters also raised questions regarding the specific surface water interception 

methodology, including the base data and algorithms used to calculate stream base flow, net 

ground water flow, and the contaminant mass loss to ground water. Concern was expressed about 

the large range of possible values used for Monte Carlo sampling without calibrating models to 

site specific conditions and the potential to mismatch parameters. Additionally, concerns were 

raised that the assessment assumed transport directly to the nearest water body without reflecting 

complexities that are often present and could lead to longer transport pathways or to pathways to 

 

139

 U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2003a. EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate 

Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP). Technical Background Document. , EPA53-R-03-

002. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

549

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

water bodies other than the nearest.

Commenters noted that the vicinity of many WMUs is serviced by a municipal water 

supply, and; therefore, there would be no drinking water receptors associated with these WMUs. 

Comments were also received that the one mile distance considered by the transport model is not 

sufficient, because actual receptor wells in many cases are further than one mile from facilities. 

Comments also highlighted the possibility that modeled receptor well concentrations may 

incorrectly represent actual exposures by sampling from a single aquifer depth. Comments on 

dispersivity noted the need for greater transparency in the report.

Placement of Receptor Wells, EPACMTP Well Inputs and Assumptions: 

Comments related to the risk assessment’s use of water well distances from municipal 

solid waste (MSW) landfillsMSWLFs and the Agency’s belief that these distances would be 

protective for CCR WMUs. Additional comments focused on the assumption that the wells used 

in this assessment are contaminated (i.e., located within the plume), even if the well location 

used reflects a deeper well that may be screened in an uncontaminated aquifer; the manner in 

which the assessment handles uncontaminated wells, plume characteristics, ground water–

surface water interactions, vertical contaminant concentration across a screened interval in an 

aquifer; and the values used for plume dispersivity.

EPA RESPONSE:

Surface Water Interception Modeling: 

In cases where receptor wells are located downgradient from a surface water body that 

intersects the ground water table, some or all of the ground water, along with the mass of 

constituents contained therein, is intercepted by the water body before it can reach the well. This 

interception was not modeled in the 2010 Draft Risk Assessment. However, a review of the input 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

550

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

database for the 2010 Draft Risk Assessment found that such a water body was present in 

approximately two-thirds of the Monte Carlo runs. Furthermore, ignoring the loss of constituent 

mass had the effect of overestimating exposures. Thus, in the revised risk assessment an 

EPACMTP model post-processor was created to account for surface water interception by

removing constituent mass flowing into the water body from the ground water plume, and 

leaving only the remaining ground water available to migrate to a drinking water receptor. The 

approach used to account for interception is discussed in further detail in Section 4 and Appendix 

J of the revised risk assessment. 

While commenters were generally supportive of the proposed approach, some indicated 

that a meaningful allocation of constituent mass from ground water into a surface water body 

required site-specific data. Concerns were raised about the assumption that transport occurred 

directly to the nearest water body without reflecting complexities that are often present and could 

lead to longer transport pathways or to pathways to water bodies other than the nearest. EPA 

acknowledges that local conditions can make ground water flow conditions complex, and 

detailed, local-scale assessments would be required to describe these conditions accurately. 

While EPA agrees that, while local-scale conditions must be considered for precise estimation 

for specific systems, it was impractical for EPA to characterize, simulate, and calibrate models 

for the numerous locations across the nation. Discussion of the uncertainties associated with this 

approach has been added to Section 5 of the revised risk assessment.

Several questions about the surface water interception methodology were raised by the 

public. The qBaseflow input parameter was derived from the NHDplus mean recharge parameter 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

551

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(MEAN_RCHRG)140 and the size of the water body catchment and reach (see Appendix B of the 

revised risk assessment). The approach assumes that all streams intersect the shallow aquifer and 

that all streams either gain water from the aquifer or do not interact with the aquifer at all (for 

simplicity and conservatism). As the commenter indicates, qNetflow is a key result calculated by 

subtracting the stream baseflow from the average ground water flow upgradient of the stream. 

The qNetflow value becomes the adjusted ground water flow beyond the stream, reflecting 

ground water losses to the stream. One commenter raised a specific question about how the 

methodology handles cases where qNetflow is less than zero, but greater than the average ground 

water flow. This case does not occur with the methodology adopted by EPA, because qNetflow 

is always equal to or less than the average ground water flow (i.e. streams are assumed not to be 

losing). If qNetflow is negative (i.e., a losing stream), all of the ground water is assumed to 

migrate to any wells on the opposite side of the stream.

Model Validation/Calibration: 

Concern was expressed about the large range of possible values used in the probabilistic 

analysis for certain parameters and the potential for this to result in a mismatch of input 

parameters without proper site-specific calibration. EPA notes that the revised risk assessment is 

not intended to capture the exact risks at each disposal site. Instead, the revised assessment 

combines the best resolution of site-based, regional and national data available to provide an 

estimate of potential risks that may occur from current disposal practices. While the assigned 

data for any given model iteration may not reflect the exact conditions at a real-world site, the 

resulting sum of all model iterations reflect the range of potential conditions near each WMU, 

 

140 Available online at: water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/XML/nhd_recharge.xml Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line spacing: single
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

552

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

weighted by prevalence, across the conterminous United States. 

Placement of Receptor Wells, EPACMTP Well Inputs and Assumptions: 

Comments regarding placement of receptor wells in the probabilistic analysis (also 

known as the appropriateness of receiving water reaches) are the result of a fundamental 

misinterpretation regarding the constraints placed on ground water receptor location to be, as 

described in the 2010 Draft Risk Assessment, “within the contaminant plume.” This constraint is 

more fully explained in Section 4.4.3.6 of the EPACMTP technical background document.141 A 

citation referring readers to that document has been placed in Section 4 of the revised risk 

assessment. Because the comment resulted from a misunderstanding, EPA does not believe the 

sensitivity analysis suggested by the commenter is necessary.

Some commenters were concerned that many residents in the vicinity of some WMUs 

may be serviced by a municipal water supply. Because these residents would not be exposed to 

ground water, the risk assessment could overestimate exposures. EPA acknowledges that there 

may be a large percentage of the population that does not rely on ground water as a source of 

potable water; however, the aim of the risk assessment is to estimate the magnitude of potential 

risk to the exposed population. Thus, this does not represent a significant source of uncertainty in 

the risk assessment. 

Comments were also received that the one-mile distance considered by the transport 

model is not sufficient, because actual receptor wells in many cases are further distant than one 

mile from facilities. EPA conducted a sensitivity analysis, discussed in Section 5 of the revised 

 

141 U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2003a. EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate 

Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP). Technical Background Document. , EPA53-R-03-

002. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

553

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

risk assessment, which indicates that risks beyond the one-mile distance are appreciably lower 

than risks within one mile. Given that the highly exposed population was adequately captured by 

a one-mile radius, the significant additional effort required to extend the analysis further 

downgradient was unjustified.

With respect to comments related to the placement of wells within deeper aquifers, EPA 

has a policy of addressing uncertainty by erring towardin favor of the protection of human health 

and environmental quality. Consistent with this practice, wells screened within vulnerable, 

surficial aquifers (i.e., the top 10 meters of the saturated zone) continue to be the primary focus 

of the Agency’s national-scale modeling efforts. Comments also highlighted the possibility that 

modeled receptor well concentrations may incorrectly represent actual exposures by sampling 

from a single aquifer depth. Wells are typically screened across an extended depth, and may 

capture both contaminated and pristine ground water. Due to the constraints of EPACMTP, EPA 

maintained the current approach of modeling exposures at a single depth. A discussion of the 

uncertainties associated with this approach has been added to Section 5 of the revised risk 

assessment.

In response to comments on the use of MSW landfill data to predict the distance to 

private wells, EPA did not use the MSW data in the revised risk assessment. Instead, EPA used 

synthetic population representations of U.S. Census data to place each household and its 

occupants at discrete points across the landscape surrounding CCR WMUs. Synthetic 

populations are realistic representations of households and individual residents and their 

attributes in a given census area, and are based on methods that identify realistic locations within 

each block by using LandScan 90-meter night-time population distributions to place each 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

554

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

household across the landscape.142 From these households, a distribution of the distances to the 

nearest well was created. This approach is discussed in more detail in Appendix B of the revised 

risk assessment. Some commenters suggested that EPA develop site-specific estimates of actual 

populations around facilities rather than relying on synthetic populations to determine potential 

receptor locations. Aside from the significant effort required to develop receptor data for each 

facility, theThe synthetic approach provides the maximum spatial resolution possible for 

publically available population data from the U.S. Census. More site-specific estimates would be 

costly, but not necessarily more accurate. 

Some commenters were also concerned that the assessment did not consider direct 

discharges from surface impoundments to surface water. This pathway was outside the scope of 

the assessment, because it is regulated by the NPDES program. However, this pathway was 

evaluated in Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and 

Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category,

143 which will be 

revised in support of final effluent limitation guidelines due to be released in September of 2015.

2. Comments Related to Source Modeling

COMMENT: The majority of the public commentary in this subcategory was dominated 

by the assertion that Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), Synthetic Precipitation 

Leaching Procedure (SPLP) and other laboratory leachate test data are not applicable to CCR 

wastes. Comments specifically regarding the use of Leaching Environmental Assessment 

 

142

 Bhaduri, B., E. Bright, P. Coleman, and M. Urban. 2007. LandScan USA: A high resolution geospatial 

and temporal modeling approach for population distribution and dynamics. GeoJournal 69:103–117.

143

 U.S. EPA. 2013. Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and 

Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category. EPA-821-R-13-003. Office 

of Water. Washington, DC. 20460. April. 

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0", Space After:

0 pt

Formatted: Reference, Don't add space between

paragraphs of the same style
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

555

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Framework (LEAF) data for modeling leaching behavior noted that the data should be applied 

appropriately and pointed out the following: (1) that the range of conditions (i.e., range of pH) 

encompassed by the LEAF data is broader than those conditions found in the field for CCR 

disposal; (2) high pH limits the mobility of leaching constituents; (3) the need for validating 

LEAF leachate concentrations against field data if available; and (4) the reliability of the LEAF 

data is questionable as a result of inconsistencies identified in the LeachXS LiteTM database.

EPA RESPONSE: Only pore water and impoundment water data were used to 

characterize surface impoundments. Therefore, the comments received on the use of laboratory 

leachate data are not relevant for the surface impoundment scenario. For landfills, EPA agrees 

that TCLP, SPLP and other single pH test methods may not be the most appropriate leachate 

extraction methods for all waste streams and all disposal scenarios. The 2010 Draft Risk 

Assessment relied on a hierarchy of dissolved concentration data to characterize leaching from 

landfills, ranging in order of preference from field leachate data to TCLP. However, new data 

collected using the LEAF test methods have been made available through a series of EPA 

reports.144,145,146 LEAF were collected with three LEAF methods, specifically: 

 

144 U.S. EPA. 2006. Characterization of Mercury-Enriched Coal Combustion Residues from Electric 

Utilities Using Enhanced Sorbents for Mercury Control. EPA-600/R-06/008. Prepared by F. Sanchez, R. 

Keeney, D. Kosson, and R. DeLapp for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution 

Prevention and Control Division. February.

145 U.S. EPA. 2008. Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using Wet 

Scrubbers for Multi-Pollutant Control. EPA/600/R-08/077. Prepared by F. Sanchez, D. Kosson, R. Keeney, 

R. DeLapp, L.Turner, and P.Kariher for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution 

Prevention and Control Division. July.

146 U.S. EPA. 2009. Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities – Leaching and 

Characterization Data. EPA-600/R-09/151. Office of Research and Development, National Risk 

Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. December.

Formatted: Superscript

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

556

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

 SW-846 Method 1313 (and its predecessor, Method SR02); 

 SW-846 Method 1314; and 

 SW-846 Method 1316 (and its predecessor, Method SR03).147

With the availability of the LEAF data, EPA no longer relied on other data sources to 

model landfills because the inability to identify trends in leaching behavior from single pH tests 

made it impossible to link these data together with the LEAF data in the probabilistic analysis. 

The LEAF data provide information on the leaching behavior of CCRsCCR for a range of pH 

values observed in CCR landfills, as well as the liquid-to-solid ratio of the pore water. The data 

from these three methods were used in conjunction to characterize landfill leaching. While the 

natural pH range for any individual sample may be narrower than the full range analyzed with 

the LEAF methods, many facilities burn a range of coal types under varying operating 

conditions, and co-dispose with other materials, so the range of pH for a specific CCR sample 

may be exposed to is wider than it would bethe pH estimated based on one sample alone. 

EPA agrees that appropriate use of the data is needed to ensure that data represent likely 

conditions of leaching occurring at range of facilities nationwide taking into account local 

specific environmental conditions, the geometry of monofill, type of coal, air pollution control, 

and other factors that affect leaching. Since the NODAs were released, a report comparing 

leachate from field and laboratory analyses has been completed.148 The report includes the use of 

geochemical speciation modeling as needed to reflect site-specific factors affecting leaching, and 

 

147

 Methods SR02 and SR03 are predecessor methods to SW-846 Methods 1313 and 1316.

148 U.S. EPA. 2014. Leaching Test Relationships, Laboratory-to-Field Comparisons and Recommendations 

for Leaching Evaluation using the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF). EPA-600/R14/061. EPA Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, 

Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711. November
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

557

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

shows that LEAF methods provide realistic predictions of environmental releases across the 

range of pH.

All three LEAF methods are summarized in Appendix C, with the leachate data provided 

in Attachment C-5 of the revised risk assessment. Additionally, the inter-laboratory validation 

for these methods are described in U.S. EPA (2012a,b)149,150 while Kosson et al. (2002)151

provides the detailed test methodology for the predecessor methods, SR02 and SR03. The noted 

discrepancies and classification errors within LeachXS Lite have been corrected.

COMMENT: Public comments focused on the general relevance of the facility data based 

on age and noted that newer data should be used to more accurately reflect the current state of 

CCR management. Related comments cited that the grouping of waste and liner types by facility 

is not representative of current conditions. Another commenter suggested that the outcomes for 

different liner types were not comparable and should not be used to make relative conclusions 

about liner performance. It was also suggested that the assumed three-foot clay layer underlying 

composite liners is too thick, and two feet would be more representative of current practice. 

Commenters also described existing management controls required in some geographical 

locations that mitigate potential risks (e.g., liners, leachate collection) and requested that EPA 

 

149

 U.S. EPA. 2012. Interlaboratory Validation of the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework 

(LEAF) Method 1314 and Method 1315. EPA/600/R-12/624. Prepared by A.C. Garrabrants, D.S. Kosson, 

R. DeLapp, P. Kariher, P.F.A.B. Seignette, H.A. van der Sloot, L. Stefanski, and M. Baldwin for the U.S. 

EPA Office of Research and Development, Air Pollution Control Division. September.

150

 U.S. EPA. 2012. Interlaboratory Validation of the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework 

(LEAF) Method 1313 and Method 1316. EPA/600/R-12/623. Prepared by A.C. Garrabrants, D.S. Kosson, 

L. Sefanski, R. DeLapp, P.F.A.B. Seignette, H.A. van der Sloot, P. Kariher, and M. Baldwin for the U.S. 

EPA Office of Research and Development, Air Pollution Control Division. September.

151

 Kosson, D.S., H.A. van der Sloot, F. Sanchez and A.C. Garrabrants. 2002. An integrated framework for 

evaluating leaching in waste management and utilization of secondary materials. Environmental 

Engineering Science 19(3):159–204.

Formatted: Font: Not Bold

Formatted: Font: Not Bold
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

558

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

reflect the existence of those controls in their analysis, as well as mismanagement scenarios 

when these controls are not in place.

EPA RESPONSE: Since the purpose of the risk assessment was to evaluate risks for the 

universe of currently operating facilities and WMUs, EPA generally agrees with the commenter 

that the 1995 EPRI and 2006 DOE survey data relied on in the 2010 Draft Risk Assessment may 

be outdated. Thus, EPA collected data from several new sources of information on the facilities, 

WMUs, and liners that are present at the time of this analysis. Further discussion of these data 

sources is available in Section 2 and Appendix A of the revised risk assessment. 

Regarding the inclusion of mismanagement scenarios, EPA reviewed the high-end pore 

water concentrations and determined that these data represent actual CCR samples and;

therefore, represent possible high-end risks from current management practices. To better 

understand which practices may lead to the highest risks, EPA conducted sensitivity analyses 

that consider the influence of liner type, liner design, waste type and other variables on model 

results. The results of these analyses are presented in Section 5 of the revised risk assessment.

Several commenters described existing management controls required in some 

geographical locations that mitigate potential risks (e.g., liners, leachate collection) and 

requested that EPA reflect the existence of those controls in theirthe final risk analysis. The 

Agency’s analysis reflects the presence of different management scenarios at WMUs to the 

extent the available data allowed (e.g., WMUs were assumed to have liners if the information 

indicated such). A key objective of the analysis was to compare the effectiveness of management 

options (e.g., liners; surface impoundments versus landfills) at preventing potential releases and 

exposures. Because the population of WMUs considered in the analysis included a range of 

management controls, the analysis does provide such comparative results between management 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

559

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

options. The uncertainties associated with the updated facility, WMU and liner data are 

discussed in Section 5 of the revised risk assessment.

COMMENT: One commenter suggested that the risk assessment applied risk results for 

fly ash to bottom ash, FGD sludge, and other CCR wastes, which may result in an incorrect 

estimate of risks for these other wastes. Other commenters called for EPA to evaluate each CCR 

waste independently. A public commenter expressed concern about whether the risk assessment 

adequately considered alternative CCR disposal scenarios. Specifically, it was noted that 

CCRsCCR codisposed with coal refuse generate more acidic conditions (i.e., lower pH) due to 

higher-levels of sulfide minerals, which may significantly impact the mobility of metals.

EPA RESPONSE: In the revised risk assessment, EPA modeled a combined ash waste 

types for the majority of surface impoundments and all landfills. Although commenters are 

correct that different CCR wastes may behave differently when monofilled, the 2009/2010 EPA 

survey data indicates that the CCRsCCR are codiposed in a majority of units. Thus, EPA 

believes this approach appropriately reflects current disposal practices.

With regard to the evaluation of CCRsCCR codisposed with coal refuse, EPA notes that 

the pore water data used to characterize surface impoundments were broken out separately for 

this waste type evaluation. These data reflect samples collected in the field and are representative 

of the pH at which these samples are managed. While some ash and coal refuse samples are 

highly acidic, others are more neutral or slightly basic (full pH range of 1.7 to 8.2). The 

development and application of these waste types is discussed in Section 3, Section 4 and 

Appendix H of the revised risk assessment, while the associated uncertainties are discussed in 

Section 5. For landfills, waste pH, which is the major driver of variations in Kd values used to 

distinguish waste types, was known with great accuracy for CCRsCCR nationwide because U.S. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

560

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

EPA (2009a)152 compiled a full, nationwide distribution of CCR pH. In this distribution, disposal 

of ash with coal refuse is reflected is the acidic tail of the distribution. For the national 

probabilistic analysis, EPA aggregated model runs for ash and coal refuse (surface 

impoundments) and acidic waste (landfills) with other wastes so that risks reflected the 

prevalence of these disposal practices. However, EPA also performed sensitivity analyses to 

understand the extent that the lower pH of co-managed wastes could affect risks, which is 

discussed in Section 5 of the revised risk assessment.

COMMENT: Commenters stated that it is unclear why EPA chose to approximate

infiltration through composite liner systems based on leak detection system flow rates from 

industrial landfills that use a different construction design than projected for CCR landfills.

EPA RESPONSE: The composite liner leakage rates used for this risk assessment 

correspond to leakage rates developed for the peer-reviewed Industrial Waste Management 

Evaluation Model (IWEM).153 The types of synthetic liners used are likely to be the same, 

regardless of the type of waste present. EPA is unaware of any factors specific to CCRsCCR that 

would exacerbate leakage rates, nor did the commenter provide any. Thus, in the absence of any 

information to the contrary, EPA finds these to be the best available data. 

Because there is currently no approach for differentiating between flow from unimpacted 

water released by the consolidation of clay and from contaminated leakage through the liner, 

EPA excluded data on the subset of composite liners constructed with natural clay from the 

 

152

 U.S. EPA. 2009. Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities – Leaching and 

Characterization Data. EPA-600/R-09/151. Office of Research and Development, National Risk 

Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. December.

153

 U.S. EPA. 2002. Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model (IWEM) Technical Background 

Document. EPA530-R-02-012. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC. August.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

561

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

distribution of composite liner leakage rates. EPA did consider the potential impact of 

incorporating these additional data into the risk assessment as part of sensitivity analysis, 

presented in Section 5 of the revised risk assessment. 

COMMENT: Concerning the treatment of non-detect values in the risk assessment, one 

commenter recognized that the use of one half the detection limit in calculations has become an 

accepted protocol. However, it was suggested that this approach may not be appropriate in all 

cases, and that newer or more straightforward methods can be applied to improve precision and 

minimize biasing of the dataset. Another commenter noted that mercury was excluded from the 

analysis due to the high number of non-detects.

EPA RESPONSE: Additional constituent data measured with lower detection limits have 

been made available to EPA since completion of the 2010 Draft Risk Assessment. However, the 

overall CCR constituent database still contains a large number of non-detect data for some 

constituents. EPA continues to incorporate all available with the use half the reported detection 

limit as the most appropriate method to account for these non-detects. The commenter is correct 

that much of the pre-2010 mercury data has high detection limits and a large proportion of nondetects. In this one instance, EPA relied only on the newer data made available to the Agency 

since the 2010 Risk Assessment, which was collected through newer methods with significantly 

lower detection limits. A more detailed rationale for this approach is provided in Section 3 of the 

revised risk assessment, along with further discussion of the uncertainty in Section 5.

COMMENT: Comments received related to the effect of waste compaction in landfills 

focused on changes to hydrologic properties of waste materials, such as porosity and hydraulic 

conductivity. These changes may result from compaction, consolidation, hydration or 

geochemical changes, and have the potential to result in either an underestimation or 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

562

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

overestimation of risks.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA acknowledges that the landfill source model does not consider 

the compaction of CCR waste that may occur over time as a result of anthropogenic activities, 

gravity or infiltrating water. However, no data on either the rate or degree to which these 

processes may occur were provided by commenters or identified elsewhere. EPA considered the 

impacts of this uncertainty in Section 5 of the revised risk assessment.

COMMENT: Public comments focused on assumptions relating to the variability of 

unlined landfill design, landfill clay liner materials, and construction of landfill cover materials 

and construction. Specific comments emphasized that the clay liner and cover thickness 

assumptions (three feet) were too conservative and not conservative enough, respectively. 

Commenters also questioned why composite covers and leachate collection systems were not 

considered for clay-lined landfills. Additionally, commenters stated that there was a high degree 

of variability in the material and design and construction for unlined landfills that was not 

accounted for in the HELP modeling. One commenter also pointed out that the assessment may 

overestimate percolation rates from landfills by underestimating the use of engineering controls. 

In addition, a commenter stated that the assessment assumes that States will require liners in all 

cases which may not be the case, thereby weakening the regulation.

EPA RESPONSE: For both unlined and clay-lined landfills, EPA used Hydrologic 

Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model-derived infiltration rates. These infiltration 

rates assume that the cap placed on top of the landfill at the end of its useful life will remain 

intact for the duration of the risk assessment, up to a maximum 10,000 years of modeling. A 

commenter pointed out that hydraulic conductivity of a clay liner is likely to increase by orders 

of magnitude due to desiccation resulting from natural temperature cycles. Additionally, 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

563

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

commenters stated that there was a high degree of variability in the material and design and 

construction for unlined landfills that was not accounted for in the HELP modeling. EPA has 

adopted the use of the HELP model, which was subject to both peer and administrative review, 

as the source of unlined and clay-lined infiltration rates for landfill for nearly two decades. EPA 

acknowledges that there are limitations in using HELP. However, the model has been tested and 

verified as discussed in the EPACMTP Parameter/Data Background Document.154 To the extent 

that the performance of the cap will decrease over time, EPA acknowledges that unlined and 

clay-lined infiltration rates calculated by HELP may be underestimated, however the degree of 

that underestimate is unknown. Discussion of this uncertainty has been added to Section 5 of the 

revised risk assessment.

COMMENT: One commenter expressed concern over the fact that the assessment 

modeled all disposal sites above the water table. The commenter indicated that many surface 

impoundments and landfills are deep and can come in direct contact with the water table. This 

will result in an underestimation of peak concentrations, arrival times and risks for these WMUs. 

Furthermore, the commenter emphasized that the use of the unsaturated zone flow module to 

calculate infiltration from the bottom of impoundments underestimates true risks in the 

consolidated sediment, and noted that clogged soil layers should be treated as saturated rather 

than unsaturated.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA acknowledges that EPACMTP is not designed to handle 

scenarios where the water table is above the bottom of the landfill. However, EPACMTP can 

 

154

 U.S. EPA. 2003. EPA’s Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products 

(EPACMTP): Parameters/Data Background Document. EPA 530-R-03-003. Office of Solid Waste, 

Washington, DC. April.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

564

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

accommodate surface impoundments in direct contact with the water table. If unit geometry and 

the selected depth to the water table create a scenario where the bottom of the unit is in contact 

with the water table, then the entire soil column is considered saturated. Otherwise, even for very 

high infiltration rates, regions beneath impoundments will remain partially saturated when there 

is sufficient distance between the unit and the water table. Uncertainties EPA has added a 

discussion of the uncertainties associated with WMU source terms and EPACMTP. EPA has 

added a discussion of this uncertainty to in Section 5 of the revised risk assessment.

EPA believes the commenter misunderstood how the sediments were modeled for surface 

impoundments. The EPACMTP unsaturated zone module assumes that the 0.2 m of consolidated 

sediments at the bottom of a surface impoundment are always saturated whereas the 0.5 m of 

clogged native soil are assumed to be unsaturated when the bottom of the surface impoundment 

is above the water table.

COMMENT: Public commenters recommended that EPA address the future increase in 

mercury and NOx compounds levels in CCR that will result from mercury capture from flue gas 

under new emission control regulations. Commentary pointed out that the recent Vanderbilt 

study should provide data that could be used to expand the risk assessment in this area.

EPA RESPONSE: The risk assessment was designed to evaluate the risks associated with 

current management practices and, as such, draws no conclusions about the potential for future 

air pollution technologies to alter the composition or leaching behavior of CCR wastes. 

However, it has been shown that newer mercury pollution control technologies currently in place 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

565

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

have the potential to affect leaching behavior.155,156,157 Thus, EPA consideredconducted a 

sensitivity analysis to evaluate the risks associated with existing units that dispose of this waste

through a sensitivity analysis ; however the data were too few to allow EPA to draw conclusions 

about the effect of pollution control technologies on the risks. This sensitivity analysis is 

presented in Section 5 of the revised risk assessment.

COMMENT: Multiple public commenters noted that additional pore water will improve 

the risk assessment, but TCLP and SPLP data are not appropriate for use as source 

concentrations. Additionally, commenters stated that EPA applies the LEAF data to pH 

conditions that are not realistic to CCR disposal scenarios. Although LEAF provides a more 

representative and scientifically sound approach, it must be correctly adapted. Alternative 

statistical methods to represent the input data as a range is certainly feasible and could enhance 

the risk assessment if the range of data is used as an input to the risk assessment.

Commenters agree that the LEAF data does provide useful information, but point out that 

it is associated with the potential for leaching and does not represent actual leaching of a specific 

CCR under actual field conditions. Commenters argues that field leaching data should not be 

mixed with laboratory data, and that EPA's field leachate dataset (for landfills and 

 

155

 U.S. EPA. 2006. Characterization of Mercury-Enriched Coal Combustion Residues from Electric 

Utilities Using Enhanced Sorbents for Mercury Control. EPA-600/R-06/008. Prepared by F. Sanchez, R. 

Keeney, D. Kosson, and R. DeLapp for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution 

Prevention and Control Division. February.

156

 U.S. EPA. 2008. Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using Wet 

Scrubbers for Multi-Pollutant Control. EPA/600/R-08/077. Prepared by F. Sanchez, D. Kosson, R. Keeney, 

R. DeLapp, L.Turner, and P.Kariher for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution 

Prevention and Control Division. July.

157

 U.S. EPA. 2009. Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities – Leaching and 

Characterization Data. EPA-600/R-09/151. Office of Research and Development, National Risk 

Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. December.

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: Not Bold
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

566

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

impoundments) is not adequate for use in the CCR risk assessment. Specific efforts 

recommended to properly utilize the LEAF data include: Use of probability density functions for 

leachate concentrations based on pH and/or L/S ratios in the Monte Carlo process; Selection of 

leachate concentrations based on pH and L/S and tied to the geographic location of the WMU 

and CCR type; and geochemical modeling to incorporate reactions once leachate impacts 

groundwater.

A few commenters pointed out that the pore water data are generally representative, 

although concerns were raised about the highest arsenic concentration (81 mg/L) in the dataset. 

One commenter believed that although the addition of new data is an improvement, EPA could 

greatly improve the accuracy of the model’s results by removing the extreme and unsubstantiated 

outlier data driving its high risk cases. Another commenter believed the assumption that 

concentration of contaminants in the sediment pores (applicable to a post closure scenario) 

would be equal to the concentration assigned to in the impoundment water would result in 

underestimated risks. Additionally, commenters noted that EPA should classify the data 

according to CCR type and coal type. 

Overall, commenters support updates to the pore water data and the use of statistical 

method to normalize the data curve. However, one commenter noted that EPA should not use 

commenter-submitted CCR pore water data unless it meets requisite applicable data quality 

requirements. Another commenter stated that EPA needs to provide better clarity on these 

solicited comments (on the use of older pore water data) and provide these documents in the 

docket. Without these documents, the reader does not have a complete understanding of comanaged material containing CCRsCCR. Another comment noted that properly collected field 

pore water (freely draining) samples should take priority over any of the laboratory generated 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

567

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

data and freely draining pore water is more representative of leachate releases than tightly held 

pore water.

EPA RESPONSE: The use of pore water data is still considered the most appropriate 

approach to estimate constituent fluxes to ground water for CCR surface impoundments. This is 

because pore water better represents the leachate seeping from the bottom of the impoundment 

than impoundment water samples. EPA did not use available LEAF data for surface 

impoundments because a national distribution of pH was not available to allow the Agency to 

probabilistically assign LEAF concentrations to these units, and because there was no way to 

account for partitioning of the leachate into wastewater versus porewater. Thus, EPA has 

continued to rely on pore water data, supplemented with data from the 2010 comments. EPA 

appreciates commenter support on the use of pore water data and statistical methods for data 

analysis for surface impoundments. EPA agrees that data available for minefill sites may not be 

representative of disposal in surface impoundments. Thus, these data were not considered in the 

revised risk assessment. The specific handling of pore water concentration data with site 

quartiles, rather than site averages, is discussed in Section 4 and Section 5 of the revised risk 

assessment report. 

EPA agrees that TCLP and SPLP data are less appropriate for CCR disposal scenarios 

and no longer uses these data in the revised risk assessment. EPA adapted the LEAF methods 

and data for landfills, as this is the best available approach and data to represent CCR landfill 

leachates, and does not mix or use field data with LEAF laboratory results for landfill leachate. 

The LEAF data are considered the most robust and technically defensible data available. As 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

568

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

noted in the 2010 Environmental Science and Technology publication,158 the data represents the 

largest collection of comprehensive characteristic leaching data to date. 

A commenter noted that the LEAF data provide the potential for leaching and not actual 

leaching of a specific CCR under actual field conditions. The commenter suggests using 

probability distribution of key factors affecting leaching behavior [i.e., pH and liquid/solid ratio 

(L/S)] and site specific data tied to the geographic location of the management unit and the type 

of CCR being managed. In the revised risk assessment, pH is expressed as a national distribution 

for selecting leachate concentrations developed to represent CCR nationally, and L/S is 

considered in estimating washout leachate concentrations based on field data observations. EPA 

believes that theThe use of the pH distribution developed in U.S. EPA (2009)159 does capture the 

range of potential variability in pH conditions at CCR sites nationwide and is the best approach 

possible given the current availability of information on site-specific coal ash chemistry. 

Although leachate concentrations are beingwere selected considering pH and L/S conditions that 

are nationally representative, EPA does not have the detailed and extensive site-specific 

measurements that would be needed to tie CCRsCCR and leachate concentrations to specific 

WMU locations. Instead, EPA adopted a national probabilistic approach that is site-based and 

representative of risks to human and ecological health across the country. The revised risk 

assessment also provides details regarding how the LEAF data are used in combination of 

geographical specific data such as hydrology, precipitation, fill configuration, CCR type, pH, L/S 

 

158

 Thorneloe, S., D. Kosson, F. Sanchez, A. Garrabrants, and G. Helms. 2010. Evaluating the Fate of 

Metals in Air Pollution Control Residues from Coal-Fired Power Plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44:7351-

7356.

159

 U.S. EPA. 2009. Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities – Leaching and 

Characterization Data. EPA-600/R-09/151. Office of Research and Development, National Risk 

Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. December.

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

569

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

ratio, and other factors that take the leaching potential as an input to fate and transport models 

accounting for attenuation and dilution. Additionally, an effort was made to collect CCR samples 

that characterize the range and quantity of coal usage in the U.S. along with likely air pollution 

control configurations. While the data is not statistically representative on a site-specific basis, it 

is adequate to identify trends in leaching behavior that relate to differences in materials types, 

APC technology, and coal rank. Geochemical speciation modeling was not conducted given 

thatbecause the source term as measured and interpreted is conservative assuming, provided that 

oxidizing conditions occur. 

Regarding the number and concentration of pore water samples, EPA reviewed the highend pore water concentrations and determined that these represent actual CCR samples that 

therefore represent possible high-end risks if CCR is inadequately regulated and managed. EPA 

recognizes that more pore water data would potentially improve the representativeness of the 

dataset, but believedis convinced that the current dataset adequately captures the possible high 

end risks that are of most interest in the rulemaking, including risks from the mismanagement of 

CCR through codisposal with coal refuse. 

The assumption that saturated contaminant concentrations in surface impoundment 

sediments are at equilibrium with the impoundment waters is a conservative assumption that is 

unlikely to significantly underestimate risks. This assumption is further discussed in Section 5 of 

the revised risk assessment report.

Regarding commenter-submitted pore water data, EPA conducted a review of the 

additional datasets provided by the commenters with respect to relevance and data quality. Based 

on the available information, EPA determined that the selected datasets were relevant and 

acceptable in terms of data quality requirements. However, EPA does not have sufficient data to 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

570

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

distinguish between freely draining and tightly bound pore water data at this time. Overall, EPA 

agrees that the use of these data introduces some uncertainty into the analysis, which is discussed 

in Section 5 of the revised risk assessment.

COMMENT: One commenter questioned the assumption that there will be no net 

addition of waste into a surface impoundment during and after the operational life, noting that 

impoundments are frequently deepened. Additionally, many surface impoundment wastes are left 

in place at the time of closure, so that the waste behaves more as a landfill than a surface 

impoundment (and increasingly, with new landfills being constructed on top of previous surface 

impoundments). Another commenter questioned why the conceptual model assumes that 

impoundments are always full during their operating life, which overestimates releases to the 

subsurface. Additionally, a commenter noted that the assumption of only 0.2 m of sediment 

accumulation underestimates the amount of sedimentation and subsequently overestimates the 

amount of percolation to the subsurface. The commenter stated that in actual operation, ash 

thickness can increase up to 30 feet or more, eventually filling the impoundment, which results 

in a significant decrease in percolation through the base. Furthermore, the commenter questioned 

the assumption that post-closure percolation continues at the same rate as during active 

operations.

EPA RESPONSE: Based on the 2009/2010 EPA surveys, it was assumed that the 

majority of the surface impoundments are storage impoundments, which are continuously 

dredged and clean closed. Because these facilities have other units (whether onsite or offsite) 

established for disposition, it likely that the majority of waste in the dredged impoundments 

would be removed by the end of the unit’s operating life. Regardless, an uncertainty analysis 

provided in Appendix K demonstrates that the risks during the operating life of surface 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

571

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

impoundments are greater because the higher hydraulic head drives leachate into underlying soils 

with greater force than gravity alone post-closure. Therefore, EPA did not explicitly model the 

post-closure phase of surface impoundments. The uncertainties resulting from this decision are 

discussed in Section 5 of the revised risk assessment. 

EPA acknowledges that EPACMTP is restricted to modeling flow as steady state with the 

assumption that an impoundment always has a fixed depth of wastewater. EPA further 

acknowledges that such an assumption may overestimate infiltration. The surface impoundment 

conceptual model assumes that sediments are periodically dredged and removed and that the 

long-term average thickness of the sediment is approximately 0.4 m, with half of that layer 

consolidated. EPA has used EPACMTP and its predecessor model versions for a longstanding 

time period and it has undergone multiple rounds of internal and external review. The reviews 

associated with EPACMTP and its limitations are further discussed in Section 5 of the revised 

risk assessment report.

COMMENT: Public commenters suggested that risks from operating landfills should be 

considered along with those that occur post-closure. These commenters questioned whether 

greater risks may occur during site operations when wastes are uncovered and exposed directly 

to precipitation. Additional commenters noted that complete leaching of all constituent mass at a 

constant concentration is overly conservative.

EPA RESPONSE: The landfill source model used in this risk assessment is not able to 

address landfills during operation because the non-linear sorption isotherms used require a 

constant, annualized infiltration rate throughout the duration of leaching. Instead, the revised risk 

assessment assumed that the full footprint of the landfill is filled to capacity with a cap no less 

permeable than the soil or liner underlying the WMU is present at the start of leaching. EPA 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

572

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

acknowledges that this approach introduces some uncertainty into the analysis, the potential 

impacts of which are discussed in Section 5 of the revised risk assessment.

With respect to comments that complete leaching of all constituent mass is overly 

conservative, EPA now models landfills using leachable mass as discussed in Section 4 and 

Appendix C of the revised risk assessment. Alternatively, EPA presents a sensitivity analysis of 

these results compared with the results generated using total mass in Section 5.

3. Comments Related to Exposure Scenarios

COMMENT: The commenter emphasized that the risk assessment does not consider 

direct discharges to ground and surface water systems other than ground water infiltration (e.g., 

direct injection to ground water, point and nonpoint discharges to surface water systems). It was 

recommended that EPA consider combining contributions from these sources with CCR ground 

water leaching impacts to calculate the full load of CCR constituents to ground water and surface 

water systems. The commenter continues by suggesting that the use of liners in impoundments 

does not reduce overall hazards if direct discharges are considered in the risk assessment.

EPA RESPONSE: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste disposal risk 

assessments do not address direct discharges from impoundments to surface waters because they 

are regulated as permitted point source discharges under the Clean Water Act by EPA’s Office of 

Water. Since this pathway is outside the scope of the risk assessment, as well as outside the 

scope of the proposed rule, the revised risk assessment does not consider these releases. 

However, this pathway was evaluated in the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed 

Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

573

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Source Category,160 which will be revised in support of final effluent limitation guidelines (ELG) 

due to be released in September of 2015. The revised risk assessment was updated to note this 

fact.

EPA is not aware of any CCR disposal where waste is directly injected into ground water 

aquifers, and absent any data on this practice declines to evaluate it.

COMMENT: Public comments were received on the methodology applied to evaluate 

exposure to fugitive dust during landfill operations (before closure). The majority of these 

comments focused on the fugitive analysis as presented in Inhalation of Fugitive Dust: A 

Screening Assessment of the Risks Posed by Coal Combustion Waste Landfills,

161 and EPA’s 

proposed approach for refining the analysis. Comments received on the initial fugitive dust 

analysis methodology and modeling ranged from emphasizing that the approach was overly 

conservative in some cases to underestimating risk in other cases. 

Multiple comments were provided on the proposed methodology for refining the fugitive 

dust analysis that was applied in the revised risk assessment. One commenter recommended that 

2010/2011 EPA survey data should be used to refine the fugitive dust analysis for landfills. 

Specifically, the current OW data indicate that active portions of the landfills are significantly 

smaller than the landfills identified in the 1995 EPRI survey. Several comments were received 

that pointed out that the application of AERSCREEN and AERMOD is appropriate if 

representative or realistic inputs are used including meteorological data, material silt content, 

 

160

 U.S. EPA. 2013. Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and 

Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category. EPA-821-R-13-003. Office of 

Water. Washington, DC. 20460. April.

161 U.S. EPA. 2010. Inhalation of Fugitive Dust: A Screening Assessment of the Risks Posed by 

Coal Combustion Waste Landfills. OSWER. Washington, DC. September.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

574

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

source areas for subcells of ash management units and consideration of common operating and 

control practices, which are in some cases defined by the states (e.g., Virginia). However, one 

commenter expressed concern that no previous or current EPA regulatory model;, including 

SCREEN3, AERSCREEN or AERMOD;, has been rigorously tested and evaluated for 

performance in modeling fugitive emissions associated with CCR landfills. 

In general, the commenters supported or recommended the use of appropriate AP-42 

factors and other techniques to estimate emissions. Others noted that consideration of deposition 

impacts and constituent-specific modeling is appropriate. One commenter recommended that 

EPA should conduct a full-scale assessment that considers fugitive dust as well as emissions 

from landfills and emissions of diesel particulate matter from haul trucks, on-site heavy-duty 

landfill equipment, and diesel-powered pumps and generators, with potential receptors of interest 

as residents and sensitive subpopulations living near the power plant, along the transportation 

route and at the landfill. Another commenter expressed concern over the lack of metal speciation 

data, while another comment concerned gas emissions from the landfills (e.g., hydrogen sulfide).

Commenters also noted that relying on the NAAQS is not an appropriate regulatory approach for 

a material that has toxic characteristics. One final commenter voiced concern that insufficient 

information was provided on the modeling approach and the model inputs to support evaluation 

and allow comments on the overall validity or propriety of the suggested modeling.

EPA RESPONSE: The majority of the comments received concerning exposures during 

landfill operation (before closure) focused on the assessment of fugitive dust. EPA acknowledges 

that the 2010 Draft Risk Assessment did not evaluate the inhalation pathway, relying instead on 

the findings of a previous evaluation, Inhalation of Fugitive Dust: A Screening Assessment of the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

575

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Risks Posed by Coal Combustion Waste Landfills.

162 This previous evaluation only considered 

releases from windblown emissions and the potential to exceed national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter. 

Based on the comments received, EPA updated the screening analysis of fugitive dust. 

EPA agrees that there are potential risks posed by fugitive emissions from sources beyond wind 

and revised the analysis to consider emissions from a range of activities, such as vehicular 

activity, unloading operations and spreading/compacting operations. Emissions from these 

sources were calculated using techniques that have undergone extensive peer-review, including 

AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.

163 Screening level modeling was 

performed with a combination of AERSCREEN and AERMOD to estimate dust dispersion and 

deposition rates. Model inputs were selected to be representative of current landfills, 

environmental settings (e.g., meteorological conditions) and common dust management 

practices. Estimated air concentrations were used to screen acute and chronic health risks from 

inhalation, as well as the potential to exceed NAAQS standards. Furthermore, EPA considered 

exposures that may result from the offsite deposition on and accumulation in downgradient 

media. This was done for all relevant metal species. In contrast, EPA did not evaluate emissions 

of hydrogen sulfide to air as EPA has no data on the extent to which this constituent is present in 

CCR or released into the surrounding environment. Further discussion of this screening analysis 

is presented in Section 3 and Appendix F of the revised risk assessment.

 

162

 U.S. EPA. 2010. Inhalation of Fugitive Dust: A Screening Assessment of the Risks Posed by Coal 

Combustion Waste Landfills. OSWER. Washington, DC. September.

163

 U.S. EPA. 1985. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area 

Sources (Fourth Edition). AP-42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation and 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. September.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

576

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

COMMENT: Comments both supported and disagreed with the appropriateness of a 

screening analysis to eliminate pathways from consideration in the full-scale probabilistic 

analysis. One commenter pointed out that the EPA conducted a very conservative, but 

appropriate, screen to identify constituents to include in the full-scale probabilistic analysis. 

Another commenter emphasized that a full scale risk assessment should be conducted that 

assesses exposures concurrently through all pathways (e.g., including surface pathways with 

inhalation exposure) for all chemical constituents. In particular, they emphasized that inhalation 

exposures to human carcinogens, such as hexavalent chromium, as well as non-carcinogens may 

occur through the aboveground pathway. Although disagreed over the use of a screening 

approach, both commenters expressed concerns over the use of risk attenuation factors to scale 

screening risks to the full-scale risks for the subset of constituents that did not pass the screen 

and were not evaluated under the full scale assessment. Both commenters believe that this 

approach ignores the unique fate and transport properties of the omitted constituents and that the 

use of a simplistic, attenuation factor is not an appropriate way to estimate risk.

EPA RESPONSE: By first conducting the screening analysis presented in Section 3 of 

the revised risk assessment, EPA was able to focus available resources on the characterization of 

risks for exposure routes and constituents with the greatest potential to pose risks. The screening 

analysis conducted for the revised risk assessment considered all of the potential exposure routes 

identified in the conceptual models for surface impoundments and landfills, which included 

aboveground exposures to ambient air, soil, sediment, produce and animal products. Each 

exposure pathway was evaluated for all constituents (and individual species, as appropriate) for 

which both concentration and toxicity data were available.

The screening analysis was developed to be protective of highly exposed individuals. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

577

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Due to the conservative nature of the screening, the calculated risks represent a protective, but 

unlikely, combination of conditions that most likely reflect an upper bondbound on potential 

exposures for each individual constituent. The revised screening assessment did not rely on risk 

attenuation factors to screen out constituents. All constituents that resulted in screening-level 

risks above human health or ecological criteria, and for which characterization of fate and 

transport could be refined, were carried forward for further consideration in the probabilistic 

analysis, described in Section 4 of the revised risk assessment. It is possible that consideration of 

exposure to multiple constituents through a single pathway or to the same constituent through 

multiple pathways may have resulted in the retention of some additional constituents. However, 

it is highly unlikely that these additional constituents would remain risk drivers once more 

realistic dilution and attenuation in the environment is considered.

COMMENT: Multiple commenters noted that there may be additional constituents 

present in CCR wastes beyond those quantitatively evaluated in the risk assessment. In 

particular, multiple commenters referenced organics and radionuclides. Some commenters called 

on EPA to quantify the risks associated with these additional constituents. Others claimed that 

these constituents are present in low levels and do not pose risk to receptors.

EPA RESPONSE: In the Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil 

Fuels: Volume 2 - Methods, Findings, and Recommendations,

164 EPA reviewed the available 

data on organic constituents, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons and dioxins. These data 

 

164

 U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1999b. Report to Congress: Wastes from the 

Combustion of Fossil Fuels: Volume 2 – Methods, Findings, and Recommendations (EPA 530-R-99-

010). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, DC.

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: References, Justified, Space After: 9 pt,

Don't add space between paragraphs of the same style
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

578

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

indicated that concentrations of all organics are near or below analytical detection limits both in 

CCRsCCR and in the leachate released from CCRsCCR. Based on the findings of this report, the 

Agency concluded that organic constituents were not risk drivers and did not require further 

evaluation. In the absence of additional data that demonstrate the organic composition of CCR 

wastes have markedly changed, EPA continues to rely on these findings. 

EPA acknowledges that, like other inorganic constituents, naturally-occurring 

radionuclides may be concentrated in CCR waste through the combustion of coal. However, due 

to a lack of data that could be used to characterize leachate concentrations for individual 

radionuclides, a quantitative evaluation of risk was not conducted. To address this data gap, EPA 

has included radionuclides in the list of constituents for ground water monitoring. Furthermore, 

potential transport of these constituents downgradient by windblown dust and storm runoff are 

addressed through requirements for fugitive dust controls and run-on/run-off controls.

4. Comments Related to Human Exposure and Toxicity

COMMENT: Some commenters argued that EPA underestimated risks by not 

considering combined chemical effects, additive risk and concurrent exposures through multiple 

pathways. One commenter indicated that EPA should conduct a full scale assessment that 

considers concurrent exposure from ingestion of fish and ground water. Commenters also raised 

concerns that some chemical constituents share a common mechanism of toxicity and may affect 

the same body organ or system, resulting in greater risks than predicted through the 

consideration of each constituent separately. 

One commenter noted that the combination of risks from different constituents would not 

change the overall results of the risk assessment. Constituents concentrations found to result in 

an HQ less than 1 in the screening analysis are unlikely to make a meaningful contribution to 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

579

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

overall risk regardless of whether multiple compounds share the same toxicological endpoints. 

Additionally, the commenter expressed that it would be inappropriate to add the risks from 

different constituents as modeled because the constituents do not all arrive at a hypothetical 

receptor at the same time, due to differing mobility in the subsurface environment.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA acknowledges that this risk assessment considered potential risks 

to human health from individual constituents and individual pathways. EPA acknowledges that 

not explicitly evaluating cumulative risk is a source of uncertainty that may result in some 

underestimation of risks. It is possible that an individual could be exposed to risks from drinking 

contaminated ground water, as well as eating contaminated fish from a local surface water body, 

it is unlikely that these two exposure pathways would occur simultaneously with any appreciable 

frequency in the real world. It is even more unlikely that a receptor would be exposed to both 

media at the high-end concentrations modeled. Therefore, the magnitude of the uncertainty 

introduced into the risk assessment is likely to be small. It is also possible for an individual to be 

exposed to multiple constituents through a single pathway. This is a more likely scenario 

because, as demonstrated by the available data, CCRsCCR typically leach multiple inorganic 

constituents. Where exposure to multiple constituents is likely to occur, EPA policy is to assume 

that the risks resulting from these exposures are additive.165 The current probabilistic analysis 

identified individual constituents above risk criteria. Many of the other constituents modeled 

resulted in risks an order of magnitude or more below risk criteria. Thus, the consideration of 

additive risk, even with the high-end risks modeled in this risk assessment, is unlikely alter the 

 

165

 U.S. EPA. 2000. Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical 

Mixtures. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. August.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

580

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

principal results of the probabilistic analysis. HoweverSimilarly, because the risks for individual 

constituents were found to be above levels of concern, the magnitudeconsideration of the 

uncertainty introduced into the final conclusions of the additive risk assessment is likelyunlikely

to be smallmeaningfully change the results of the analysis. EPA updated the revised risk 

assessment to include a discussion of the associated uncertainties in Section 5.

COMMENT: Some commenters identified incorrect and inconsistent reporting of toxicity 

benchmark values and recommended conducting a thorough review of literature to ensure the use 

of the most current values were used. One commenter expressed concern over the use of the 

current IRIS value for arsenic carcinogenic effects and believes it underestimates risk. Other 

commenters emphasized that it would be inappropriate for EPA to consider using the draft oral 

cancer slope factor (CSF) for arsenic and the oral CSF for hexavalent chromium [chromium 

(VI)] published by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 

Concerning lead, one commenter supported a peer reviewer’s recommendation to use the 

Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) model to calculate human health risks, 

especially for young children. Additionally, a commenter requested chemical-specific 

information on toxicity criteria derivation, as well as information on the relationship between 

environmental exposures to specific chemicals and adverse health effects. The commenter 

emphasized that this information would provide an uncertainty discussion regarding toxicity 

values, facilitate communication with the public, and provide a balanced perspective on risk.

EPA RESPONSE: Human health benchmarks were chosen based on the Office of Solid 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

581

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Waste and Emergency Response hierarchy (OSWER Directive 9285.7-53).166 EPA reviewed the 

benchmarks to confirm their accuracy and determine whether newer values have become 

available from EPA or other sources used by EPA since the CCR draft risk assessment was 

conducted. The current, updated list of human health benchmarks is provided in Appendix E of 

the revised risk assessment, and the references cited in that appendix provide further information 

on the potential adverse effects and derivation of toxicity criteria. 

For lead, EPA used the drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL) to estimate 

risks from drinking water exposure in the draft risk assessment. In the revised risk assessment 

EPA continued to rely on the MCL, but also used IEUBK model for lead in children as described 

in Section 5 of the revised risk assessment. While lead failed the screening assessment, risks 

from lead exposure in the probabilistic assessment were well below the risk criterion, and did not 

drive risks in either the probabilistic or any sensitivity analyses.

COMMENT: The commenters questioned why the cancer benchmark of 1×10-5 was 

selected while the typical range used by OSWER and EPA guidance is a range of 1×10-4to 1×10-

6

. The commenters suggested that an explanation is necessary. In particular, one commenter 

requests clarification on the phrase “point of departure” when supporting the use of the cancer 

benchmark of 1×10-5. Concerning noncancer criteria, a commenter suggested that non-cancer 

risks should be report as follows: Worst Case – Assume maximum exposure scenarios including 

exposure 24 hours/day, 365 days/year for 70 years; High End – 95th percentile based on national 

human activity pattern distributions; Central Tendency – 50th percentile (or median) risk based 

 

166 U.S. EPA. 2003. Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments. Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response Directive 9285.7-53. December.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

582

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

on national human activity pattern distributions. Furthermore, another commenter believed that it 

is more appropriate to consider 95th percentiles, rather than 90th percentile, of exposure and risk 

estimates for humans and ecological receptors.

EPA RESPONSE: The rationale for the selected cancer and noncancer risk criteria, based 

on Agency policy, is discussed in Section 2 of the revised risk assessment. A citation to the 

where “point of departure” was originally defined is provided for reference. The rationale for use 

of 90th percentile risk generated by a Monte Carlo simulation is discussed in Section 4 of the 

revised risk assessment.

COMMENT: Commenters questioned the evaluation of only the reasonable maximum 

exposure scenario. Specifically, it was noted that the receptor placement downgradient of an 

unlined management unit does not represent the entire population exposure distribution. One 

commenter suggested that EPA clearly define the exposed population of interest.

EPA RESPONSE: In risk assessments used to develop regulations under RCRA, EPA 

has historically assessed potential risks resulting from a reasonable maximum exposure (RME) 

scenario in order to ensure that the resulting regulation is adequately protective of human health 

without being excessively conservative. The types of data necessary to define the exact 

population that relied on ground water wells as a source of drinking water or consumes fish from 

impacted water bodies are not available. EPA believes that consideration of RME is a reasonable 

and protective alternative, given the available data. Uncertainties associated with the revised risk 

assessment are further discussed in Section 5 of the revised risk assessment.

COMMENT: The commenters questioned the use of data from the 1997 Exposure 

Factors Handbook in the development of intake rate distributions for various exposures, because 

more current data are currently available. Commenters recommended that EPA make updates to 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

583

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

these parameters using more current sources of information, including the recently released 2011 

Exposure Factors Handbook.167 In addition, some commenters pointed out the potential for the 

available exposure factor data to underestimate or overestimate exposures. One commenter noted 

that the risk assessment did not fully account for the dependence of input variables (e.g., the 

interdependence of body weight and water ingestion rates for children and link between the rate 

of fish consumed from a water body). Another commenter suggested that a sensitivity analysis of 

human health exposure factors be conducted to add to the sensitivity analysis conducted by EPA 

in 2009. 

Regarding fish consumption rates, commenters questioned the representativeness of a 

fixed fish consumption rate drawn from a single study. It was suggested for transparency that the 

risk assessment provide the results of the chi-square tests to demonstrate how well the fish

consumption rate data fit a log normal distribution. Additionally, it was suggested that fish 

consumption rates should be determined from other studies and more robust data sets. One 

commenter suggested the incorporation of fish consumption rates representative of subsistence 

fishers, such as Native American populations that harvest and consume fish as part of their native 

traditions and culture. 

Regarding drinking water ingestion rates, one commenter voiced concern about the 

assumption that ground water is the source of all drinking water. The commenter indicated that 

this is an overly conservative and atypical assumption, as a majority of individuals will consume 

 

167 U.S. EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition. EPA/600/R-090/052F. National Center 

for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. September.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

584

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

liquids from other sources (e.g., milk, juice, sodas, bottled water, sports and energy drinks).

EPA RESPONSE: This revised risk assessment relied on both the 1997 Exposure Factors 

Handbook (EFH)168 and the 2008 Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (CSEFH)

169 for 

information on human exposure factors for the U.S. population. The 2011 Exposure Factors 

Handbook170 has been completed and updates some of the data from the 1997 EFH. During the 

finalization of this risk assessment, EPA released OSWER Directive 9200.1-120.

171 Although this 

document provides default exposure factors to use for point estimates, EPA is still in the process 

of updating the full distributions necessary for probabilistic analysis. Therefore, this risk 

assessment does not incorporate the data from the 2011 EFH.

Exposure data used for the fish ingestion rates are described in Appendix D of the revised 

risk assessment. Data on site-specific fish consumption rates were not available for use in this 

analysis. Instead, the full distribution of fish consumption rates were drawn from a study of adult 

anglers from Maine that fished from streams, rivers, and ponds. Because age-specific data for 

children were not available, all child cohorts were assumed to consume fish at the same rate as 

the adult cohort. Data on fish ingestion rates for Native American subsistence fishers are 

currently limited and can vary widely geographically, to the point that the 2011 EFH makes no 

recommendation for representative values. EPA acknowledges that these issues introduce 

uncertainty into the analysis, which are further discussed in Section 5 of the revised risk

 

168

 U.S. EPA. 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume III, Activity Factors. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. 

Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. August.

169

 U.S. EPA. 2008. Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/R-06-096F. National Center 

for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH.

170

 U.S. EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition. EPA/600/R-090/052F. National Center 

for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. September

171

 U.S. EPA. 2014. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Update of Standard 

Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive 9200.1-120. February.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

585

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

assessment.

COMMENT: Commenters emphasized the need to update exposure factors for childhood 

exposures and recommended that updates include data from the 2011 EFH. One commenter 

stated that the risk assessment appropriately considered the potential fish exposures for children. 

However, they pointed out that the fish consumption rates for children should be lower than 

those applied for adults. Another commenter suggested that the risk assessment should provide a 

clear description of how the exposure duration of child cohorts were used in the risk calculations. 

Specifically, the commenter questioned whether exposure durations were truncated at the end of 

each age cohort or aged through the different cohorts. 

EPA RESPONSE: The revised risk assessment makes use of the 1997 EFH172 and the 

2008 CSEFH173 for information on human exposure factors for the U.S. population. Although, as 

discussed in the preamble sections above, the revised risk assessment does not incorporate data 

from the recent 2011 EFH,174 all child data included in this document was derived from the 2008 

EFH. In addition to child ingestion of drinking water, the EPA’s evaluation has been revised to 

also account for infant exposures that may occur from formula mixed with contaminated ground 

water. These data are presented in Appendix D of the revised risk assessment. Consistent with 

the commenterscommenter’s recommendation for cohort aging, the risk assessment aged 

receptors through each age cohort using age-specific data for exposure factors and physical 

characteristics that were weighted proportionally by the corresponding time period and then 

 

172

 U.S. EPA. 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume III, Activity Factors. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. 

Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. August.

173

 U.S. EPA. 2008. Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/R-06-096F. National Center 

for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH.

174

 U.S. EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition. EPA/600/R-090/052F. National Center 

for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. September
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

586

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

summed. Specific discussion of truncation values is provided in later in this preamble. 

COMMENT: Public commenters recommended updating BCF values with more current 

references. One commenter questioned why bioconcentration factors were zero for some 

constituents that are essential nutrients (i.e., cobalt and copper). Another commenter voiced 

concern that EPA had not fully considered the appropriateness of using BCFs to describe metals 

bioaccumulation, suggesting that current science (including EPA guidance documents) indicates 

that BCFs are poor predictors of tissue metal concentrations due to wide variation in uptake 

patterns governed by several chemical and biological factors. Another commenter recommended 

the use of an approach that would be more robust than the single BCF approach, establishing and 

applying distributions of BCFs. This commenter also recommended that the assessment adhere 

to the EPA policy of using dissolved metals in the calculating the bioconcentration of metals in 

fish, or should provide the rationale for using a different approach.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA recognizes that the use of BCFs may not represent the most 

current approaches available to estimate metal bioaccumulation at individual sites, where fish 

tissue data can be collected. However, as noted by public commenters, BCFs are useful in a 

screening-level assessment and EPA believes they are also appropriate for a national-level risk 

assessment, where site-specific data are not available and collection of site-specific data is not 

viable. 

In some cases, insufficient data to determine a BCF value meant that these constituents 

could not be quantitatively evaluated for this pathway. Regarding the concern expressed with 

respect to zero BCF values, essential nutrients dothe commenter did not necessarily 

bioconcentrate in organismsprovide alternative BCFs that EPA could consider for the 

constituents at issue. Additionally, EPA agrees that given the latest scientific information, 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

587

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

distributions of BAFs/BCFs may be better than single BAFs/BCFs because they account for 

changes in bioaccumulation/bioconcentration at different water concentrations. EPA is working 

to develop BAF/BCF distributions for several CCR pollutants of concern but does not yet have a 

robust enough dataset for use for the final CCR Rule. In lieu of this, EPA is proceeding with the 

single BAF/BCF approach for the current analysis. EPA does recognize this issue as a limitation 

for the BCF calculations and considers it as an uncertainty in the risk characterization. Overall, 

EPA agrees that the use of this older data introduces some uncertainty into the analysis. These 

uncertainties are discussed in greater detail in Section 5 of the revised risk assessment. 

With the exception of mercury, EPA evaluated bioconcentration based on water column 

concentrations that include contributions from dissolved and solid phases because available 

BCFs represent contributions from both. Because a BAF based only on dissolved-phase 

concentrations was available for mercury, EPA evaluated this constituent using only dissolved 

concentrations. Applying this conservative approach for most constituents ensured protection of 

human health. Even with this conservative assumption, the 90th percentile risks for the 

probabilistic analysis (Section 4) did not exceed risk criteria for the fish ingestion pathway. 

Therefore, this approach is unlikely to have affected the magnitudeprincipal findings of any 

uncertainty introduced into the risk assessment is likely to be small.

For the revised risk assessment, EPA reviewed the available literature and identified 

BCFs for additional constituents that previously had no values. As noted in Appendix G of the 

revised risk assessment, the following source hierarchy was used for fish BCFs:

 Primary literature: These are generally papers focused on a single 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

588

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

chemical175,176,177,178 or may contain data on multiple chemicals.179,180

 U.S. EPA databases/publications: These included ECOTOX181 and the Mercury 

Report to Congress.182

 Other government agency resources: These included ATSDR Toxicological 

Profiles183 and the Hazardous Substances Data Bank.184

The EPA also finds that the references provided by the commenters, focused provided

primarily on phytotoxicity and accumulation indata for terrestrial plants, rather than fish. EPA 

did consider these sources when developing the screening for aboveground exposures, where the 

Agency evaluated ten categories of produce and animal products to capture the variability in 

 

175

 Eisler, R. 1989. Molybdenum Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. 

Contaminant Hazard Reviews, Report No. 19, Biological Report 85(1.19). Laurel, MD. August.

176

 Kumada, H., et al. 1973. Acute and chronic toxicity, uptake and retention of cadmium in freshwater 

organisms. Bull. Freshwater Fish. Res. Lab. 22: 157

177

 Lemly AD. 1985. Toxicology of selenium in a freshwater reservoir: implications for environmental 

hazard evaluation and safety. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 10(3): 314-338.

178

 Murphy, B.R., G.J. Atchison, and A.W. McIntosh. 1978. Cadmium and zinc in muscle of bluegill 

(Lepomis macrochirus) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) from an industrially contaminated 

lake. Environmental Pollution 17:253–257.

179 Barrows ME, Petrocelli SR, Macek KJ, Carroll JJ. 1980. Bioconcentration and elimination of selected 

water pollutants by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). In: Haque R, ed. Dynamics, exposure and 

hazard assessment of toxic chemicals. Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.: American Chemical Society. p. 379-

392.

180

 Stephan, C.E. 1993. Derivation of Proposed Human Health and Wildlife Bioaccumulation Factors for 

the Great Lakes Initiative. Draft. Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and 

Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN. March.

181

 U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2009b. ECOTOX User Guide: ECOTOXicology 

Database System. Version 4.0. Available online at www.epa.gov/ecotox/.

182

 U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1997d. Mercury Study Report to Congress. Volume III 

- Fate and Transport of Mercury in the Environment. EPA 452/R-97/005. Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

183

 ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2008. Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) for 

Hazardous Substances. Available at www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html.

184

 U.S. NLM (National Library of Medicine). 2011. Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB).

Available online at: toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

589

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

farm-raised foods consumed by human receptors. However, the Agency found the references 

were therefore not sufficient to updaterelevant to EPA’s explicit solicitation on whether the 

bioconcentration and biotransfer factors drawn from Baes et al. (1984).) should be considered in 

the final risk assessment.185

5. Comments Related to Ecological Exposure and Toxicity

COMMENT: Public commenters emphasized the potential importance of cumulative 

ecological risk, whereby an ecological receptor may be exposed to multiple constituents and/or 

pathways concurrently. For example, amphibians may be subject to both dermal and ingestion 

exposure. Public commenters noted that ecological risks were underestimated because the 

following scenarios were not considered for ecological receptors: aboveground pathways, 

contaminant transport to nearby uncontaminated environments, and the inclusion of field data in 

the analysis.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA acknowledges that although cumulative effects can be important 

for ecological receptors. However, just as EPA did not consider cumulative human health risks 

from exposures to ground water (discussed in the previous sections of this preamble), they were 

not modeled for ecological receptors. In the national, probabilistic analysis (Section 4 of the 

revised risk assessment), risks for all constituents fell below the ecological criteria. Even the sum 

of modeled risks for all constituents fell below the ecological criteria. In sensitivity analyses 

(Section 5 of the revised risk assessment), which considered different subsets of national disposal 

practices that may drive risks, boron and cadmium were the two constituents found to result in 

 

185 Baes, C.F., III, R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, and R.W. Shor. 1984. A Review and Analysis of Parameters for 

Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides Through Agriculture. ORNL-5786. Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. September.

Formatted: Font: 10 pt

Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0", Space

After: 0 pt, Add space between paragraphs of the

same style, Not Don't swap indents on facing pages

Formatted: Font: 10 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

590

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

risks above ecological criteria. To the extent that cumulative risk wasexposures were not 

evaluated, EPA acknowledges that ecological risk could be underestimated to some degree by 

not accounting for cumulative exposure. However, these uncertainties are unlikely to affect the 

principal findings of the risk assessment. In addition, EPA also notes that all surface water risks 

are orders of magnitude lower than the risks resulting from direct discharges modeled in U.S. 

EPA (2013).186

In contrast to the surface water and sediment exposures, ecological risks for individual 

constituents were appreciably above risk criteria for direct exposure to impoundment wastewater. 

As a result, it is clear that CCR disposal in surface impoundments have the potential to pose risk 

to ecological receptors, even without consideration of cumulative exposures. 

COMMENT: Public commenters stated that the risk assessment does not consider 

sensitive habitats or species. Commenters requested additional consideration of threatened and 

endangered species and the inclusion of ecological field data.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA did not evaluate these sensitive habitats and sensitive/endangered 

ecological receptors because the presence these are inherently site-specific issues for which data 

on potential impacts are often not available and can be difficult to quantify, even on a sitespecific basis. EPA acknowledges that the inability to quantitatively evaluate the potential for 

these adverse effects represents a source of uncertainty. Discussion of these uncertainties is 

presented in Section 5 of the revised risk assessment. 

COMMENT: Public commenters were concerned that a more conservative approach was 

 

186

 U.S. EPA. 2013. Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and 

Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category. EPA-821-R-13-003. Office of 

Water. Washington, DC. 20460. April.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

591

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

needed to derive the ecological benchmarks. Multiple commenters also stated that the use of risk 

attenuation factors to scale the screening risks to full-scale risks was inappropriate. Several 

commenters noted that the ecological boron benchmark used for surface water exposures 

contained incorrect units based on an incorrect transcription in the peer-reviewed article. Another 

commenter noted that the ecological cadmium benchmark used for direct contact with surface 

water was incorrect.

EPA RESPONSE: Ecological benchmarks were obtained for CCR constituents when 

available and compared with the modeled media concentrations (e.g., surface water, sediment) to 

estimate the HQs used to characterize ecological risk. These benchmarks represent the best 

available estimates of receptor responses based “no effects” (NOAEL) or “lowest effects” 

(LOAEL) study data. In some scenarios, these benchmarks may be represent species not actually 

present in the field. In others, these benchmarks may not capture the most sensitive possible 

receptor at every site or for each constituent. While some benchmarks have factors of safety 

included to account for these or other uncertainties, there remains is the potential for thethese

ecological benchmarks used to underestimate risks for the specific species and communities that 

live in surface waters impacted by CCR WMUs. The magnitude of this uncertainty is unknown. 

Consideration of any additional sensitive species not captured by the current benchmarks may 

result in some additional constituents above risk criteria in the probabilistic analysis. EPA notes 

that these some of these ecological risks areto some of these additional sensitive receptors may 

be reflected in damage cases. However, this site-specific uncertainty is unlikely to affect the

final, national conclusions of the risk assessment.

Regarding incorrect benchmark values, an updated boron benchmark was used in the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

592

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

revised risk assessment. The units in the fish study from which the previous SCV was derived187

had been erroneously transcribed in Suter and Tsao (1996)188 as μg/L instead of mg/L. The 

updated SCV was recalculated using the corrected units. The revised value has been corroborated 

with the authors. Additionally, a continuous criteria concentration (CCC) was used for the 

cadmium surface water benchmark in the revised risk assessment, replacing the previous value. 

The updated values are presented in Appendix E of the revised risk assessment report.

6. Comments Related to the Monte Carlo Analysis Approach

COMMENT: While some public commenters stated that the human health probability 

distributions appeared appropriate, others expressed concern regarding a conservative bias in 

input parameter probability distributions used and the resulting potential for overestimation of 

risks. These commenters noted that the ideal approach would be to estimate the actual risk and 

associated uncertainty rather than weighting the results conservatively.

EPA RESPONSE: The revised risk assessment conducted full-scale probabilistic Monte 

Carlo analysis to quantify human and ecological risks. EPA agrees in theit would be ideal of 

producingto produce best estimates of actual risk. All input data distributions (e.g., aquifer data, 

soil type, WMU data, climate data, distance to ground water wells, distance to surface water 

bodies, constituent concentrations, water flow data, human exposure factors) were developed in 

line with this objective. However, these distributions were developed from available data and are 

subject to the limitations of these data. In cases where data were not sufficient to fully 

 

187 Hamilton, S.J. 1995. Hazard assessment of inorganics to three endangered fish in the Green River, Utah. 

Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 30:134-142.

188

 Suter, G.W., and C.L. Tsao. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants 

of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota: 1996 Revision. U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. June.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

593

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

characterize the input distribution, conservative values and assumptions were used to fill data 

gaps to remain protective of human health and the environment. Further discussion of these 

uncertainties has been added to Section 5 of the revised risk assessment. 

COMMENT: Public commenters pointed out that the risk assessment does not formally 

differentiate variability from uncertainty or show confidence limits for risk results, which makes 

it challenging to identify opportunities to reduce uncertainty. One commenter requested that EPA 

discuss the implications of the relatively wide risk distributions, including the reasons why some 

risk distributions are larger than others based on the Monte Carlo results.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA acknowledges theit would be ideal of separatingto separate

variability from uncertainty when possible in a probabilistic risk assessment. EPA was able to 

reduce a substantial number of the uncertainties in the revised risk assessment through the 

acquisition of additional data on facilities, environmental parameters, and constituent 

concentrations. Variability and uncertainty are still comingled in a large number of cases due to 

remaining data gaps; however, EPA conducted multiple sensitivity analyses to determine the 

potential for different inputs to affect risk results. Additional discussion of the differences 

between parameter variability, data uncertainty, and model error, as well as discussions of the 

sensitivity and uncertainty analyses, is presented in Section 5 of the revised risk assessment. 

EPA disagrees that there are wide risk distributions. While the commenter correctly 

points to other risk assessments that had closer central tendency and high-end results, those were 

either site-specific assessments or involved no fate or transport modeling. National-scale risk 

assessments will necessarily have wider variability in their results compared to risk assessments 

that are specific to a single site. Thus, the “wider” risk distributions are simply reflectingreflect

the fact that different sites with different CCRsCCR can have very disparate impacts on human 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

594

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

health and the environment.

7. Miscellaneous Comments

COMMENT: Some commenters stated that the documentation is incomplete and that an 

independent reviewer could not reproduce the analysis. Another commenter performed an 

independent review and cancer risk estimate and noted that the EPA used a reasonable approach 

for calculating cancer cases in the risk assessment.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA acknowledges that the documentation of the inputs and 

intermediate outputs could have been more transparent for the 2010 Draft Risk Assessment. In 

the revised risk assessment, EPA notes that many of the inputs EPA used are directly discernible 

from the appendices. A summary of the data available in each appendix is presented in Section 1 

of the revised risk assessment. EPA also acknowledges that the additions and discussions of 

inputs in the document were not sufficient for complete duplication of the results. Thus, the input 

and output files for the draft risk assessment were made available in the docket of the proposed 

rule via an FTP site,189 and final input and output files are being placed in the docket for the final 

rule.

COMMENT: Commenters requested improvement on the graphical presentation of risk 

results. Additionally, commenters requested further explanation of the minimum and maximum 

truncating values, as truncated values may reduce risk estimates. 

EPA RESPONSE: While EPA did not provide a graphical presentation of the risk results, 

this information is more clearly discernible from the full input and output files. For discussion of 

the full inputs and outputs files, see the responses in the preamble section above. With regard to 

 

189 Available online at: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/coal-combustion-residues Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

595

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

truncation, EPA no longer manually truncates input distributions for the human exposure factors. 

Instead, exposure factor distributions in the revised risk assessment were generated with the 

@Risk software (Palisade Co., Newfield, NY),190 as described in Appendix D. EPA has also 

added further discussion of the cohorts to revised risk assessment, with tables comparing each 

cohort’s risk presented in Section 5 of the revised risk assessment.

COMMENT: Commenters requested more complete documentation of the sensitivity 

analysis. Other comments included a request to add human health exposure factor variables to 

the sensitivity analysis, and to conduct additional sensitivity analyses on different topics (e.g. 

well distance distribution).

EPA RESPONSE: EPA acknowledges the omission of the original sensitivity analysis 

from the docket. EPA updated the sensitivity analysis191 so that it clearly describes the 

methodology that underlies the results summarized in Section 5 of the revised risk assessment. 

This sensitivity analysis was placed in the docket for the proposed rule. 

Human health exposure factor variables were not evaluated in the sensitivity analysis. 

Human exposure factor variables have well-established, peer-reviewed, national distributions 

that are regularly used in probabilistic risk analyses conducted by EPA based on Agency policy. 

Therefore, the contribution of variability in the exposure factors to the variability in risk was not 

particularly useful for understanding the aspects of CCR disposal practices that may drive risk. 

Additional sensitivity analyses such as leachate duration versus leachable content and liner 

performance by thickness were conducted in the revised risk assessment and are summarized in 

 

190 Available online at: www.palisade.com/risk/

191 U.S. EPA. 2009. Sensitivity Analysis for the Coal Combustion Waste Risk Assessment. Draft Technical Report. 

Prepared by RTI International for U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0", Space After:

0 pt, Line spacing: single
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

596

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Section 5. 

B. Summary of Risk Assessment and Results

1. Problem Formulation

EPA first developed conceptual models to illustrate a general layout of surface 

impoundments and landfills, the chemical constituents that may be released from these WMUs, 

the routes through which these constituents may migrate through environmental media, and the 

types of exposures that may result. These conceptual models were used as the basis for all 

subsequent data collection efforts. EPA first collected data on the coal-fired power plants and 

CCR WMUs located across the United States. EPA then collected regional and national data to 

characterize the environment and receptor population surrounding each WMU. The data 

assembled represent the most current and comprehensive information available to the Agency at 

the time this risk assessment was conducted. Using the data collected, EPA first conducted a 

simplified hazard identification to determine which constituents warranted further evaluation. At 

this stage, EPA considered the presence of a constituent in CCR waste, combined with the 

availability of at least one toxicity benchmark, sufficient evidence of hazard potential. Table 1 

presents a summary of the different chemical constituents retained as constituents of potential 

concern (COPCs) for further analysis. All risks identified in these subsequent analyses were 

compared against risk criteria of cancer risk greater than 1×10-5 or noncancer hazard quotient 

(HQ) greater than 1.

Table 1. List of Chemical Constituents Evaluated in the CCR Risk Assessment 

Aluminum Cadmium Iron Molybdenum Nickel

Strontium

Sulfate

Ammonia Calcium Lanthanum Nickel Nitrate / Nitrite Sulfate Sulfide

Antimony Chloride Lead

Nitrate / Nitrite

Selenium

Sulfide Thallium
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

597

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Arsenic Chromium LithiumMagnesium Selenium Silicon

Thallium

Uranium

Barium Cobalt

Magnesium

Manganese

Silicon Silver

Uranium

Vanadium

Beryllium Copper Manganese Mercury Silver Sodium Vanadium Zinc

Boron Fluoride Mercury Molybdenum Sodium Strontium Zinc

Risks identified in the subsequent analyses were compared against risk criteria of cancer 

risk greater than 1×10-5 or a noncancer hazard quotient (HQ) greater than 1.EPA typically relies 

on a risk range to determine the point at which regulation is appropriate. EPA uses as an initial 

cancer risk ‘‘level of concern’’ a calculated risk level of 1 × 10-5(one in one hundred thousand) 

or an HQ above 1.0 for any noncarcinogens. For example, waste streams for which the 

calculated high-end individual cancer-risk level is 1 × 10-5or higher generally are considered 

candidates for regulation. Waste streams whose risks are calculated to be 1 × 10-4or higher 

generally will be considered to pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and 

the environment and generally will be regulated. Waste streams for which these risks are 

calculated to be 1 × 10-6or lower, and lower than 1.0 HQs or EQs for any noncarcinogens, 

generally will be considered not to pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health 

and the environment and generally will not regulated. See 59 FR 66075–66077, December 22, 

1994. 

2. Screening Analysis

EPA conducted separate screening analyses for each exposure pathway to identify which 

COPCs are most likely to pose risk to receptors. The results of this screening generally do not 

provide a precise characterization of individual risks that may occur, but rather identify those 

COPCs that are most likely to exceed risk criteria. In cases where well established, postFormatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

598

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

construction management practices (“controls”) have been shown to minimize releases from 

WMUs, EPA considered exposures for both an uncontrolled and controlled management 

scenario. 

This screening analysis identified potential risks to human and ecological receptors 

resulting from the releases of particulate matter and the chemical constituents contained therein 

through wind and run-off. Under an uncontrolled management scenario, risks to human receptors 

resulted from the inhalation of windblown particulates in ambient air and the ingestion of soil 

and animal products (i.e., meat and dairy), while risks to ecological receptors resulted from 

exposures to soil and sediment. Under a controlled management scenario, which consisted of 

fugitive dust controls and run-on/run-off controls, all risks associated with these exposure 

pathways decreased to below the criteria. Due to the conservative nature of the screening, there 

is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the specific risks calculated for these exposure 

pathways. These risks represent a protective, but unlikely, combination of conditions that most 

likely reflect at least an upper bound on potential exposures. TheThus, the cumulative effect of 

these uncertainties resultsresult in an overestimation of potential nationwide risks to most or all 

receptors. Therefore, EPA makes no direct findings concerning the magnitude of the risks that 

may occur under either an uncontrolled or controlled management scenario, but concludes with a 

high degree of confidence that the reductions achievable with standard management practices are 

sufficient to be protective even under this conservative screening assessment. Based on these 

lines of evidence, EPA concluded that no further characterization was warranted for these 

exposure pathways. 

These screening analyses identified potential risks to human and ecological receptors 

from leaching of chemical constituents from CCR waste into surrounding environmental media. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

599

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Risks to human health resulted from ingestion of ground water and fish, while risks to ecological 

receptors resulted from exposure to surface water. There was no simple method to estimate the 

effect controls may have for these pathways. However, considerable dilution and attenuation 

may occur before COPCs reach downgradient private wells and surface water bodies. Therefore, 

EPA retained all of the COPCs found to be above risk criteria in ground water and surface water 

for further characterization. In addition, EPA used the uncontrolled screening results for the 

above ground sediment pathway as a conservative proxy for the ground water to surface water 

sediment pathway. As a result, sediment exposures of four COPCs were retained for further 

characterization. Table 2 presents a summary of the chemical constituents retained as COPCs for 

each pathway.

Table 2. List of Chemical Constituents Retained for Probabilistic Analysis

Human Health Ecological

Ingestion of

Ground Water

Ingestion of

Fish

Surface Water

Exposure

Sediment

Exposure

Antimony Arsenic Aluminum Copper Antimony

Arsenic Cadmium Arsenic Iron Arsenic

Boron Mercury Barium Lead Silver

Cadmium Selenium Beryllium Molybdenum Vanadium

Cobalt Thallium Boron Nickel

Fluoride Cadmium Selenium

Lead Chloride Silver

LithiumMolybdenum Chromium Vanadium

MolybdenumThallium Cobalt Zinc

Thallium

These screening analyses also identified potential risks to ecological receptors from direct 

exposure to impoundment wastewater. Unlike the other exposure pathways, no dilution or 

attenuation will occur within impoundment wastewater prior to ecological exposures. Thus, the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

600

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

direct exposures considered in the screening analysis provide a reasonable, order-of-magnitude 

estimate of potential risks. ThereforeBased on the screening analyses, EPA concludesconcluded

that there is the potentialHQs for risks to ecological receptors exceeded 1 from the following 

constituents, (listed from highest to lowest potential:): arsenic (100), barium (50), aluminum 

(30), boron (30), selenium (20), cadmium (10), vanadium (10), beryllium (2), chloride (2) and 

chromium (2). Because the screening analysis provides sufficient characterization of these 

exposures, this pathway was not carried forward for further analysis.

3. Probabilistic Analysis

EPA conducted a national-scale, probabilistic analysis to better characterize the potential 

risks to human and ecological receptors associated with leachate released from surface 

impoundments and landfills. The specific exposure routes evaluated for these releases were 

human ingestion of ground water used as a source of drinking water and fish caught from 

freshwater lakes or streams, as well as ecological contact with and ingestion of surface water and 

sediment. A combination of models was used to predict COPC fate and transport through the 

environment, receptor exposures, and the resulting risks. Site-specific data were used, 

supplemented by regional and national data sets, to capture the national variability of disposal 

practices, environmental conditions and receptor behavior. EPA modeled risks for both highly 

exposed individuals (90th percentile risks) and more moderately exposed individuals (50th 

percentile risks). In instances where the speciation of a COPC has been shown to greatly affect 

fate and transport, EPA modeled multiple species to provide a bounding on potential exposures.

Table 3 shows the 90th percentile human health risks to the most sensitive age cohorts 

for constituents that exceeded the risk criteria. Risks are presented for arsenic modeled entirely 

as two different species (III and V) to provide a bounding on potential risks. Values that exceed 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

601

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

the selected risk criteria are shown in bold. No 90th percentile risks above ecological criteria 

were identified for either surface impoundment or landfills. No 50th percentile risks above 

human health or ecological criteria were identified for either surface impoundment or landfills. 

Table 3. 90th Percentile Nationwide Probabilistic Risk Results 

COPC

Ingestion of Ground Water

Surface 

Impoundments

Landfills

Cancer Risks

Arsenic III 2 × 10-4

5 × 10-6

Arsenic V 1 × 10-5

7 × 10-8

Noncancer Risks

Arsenic III 5 0.1

Arsenic V 0.4 < 0.01

Lithium 2 --

a

Molybdenum 2 < 0.01

a) Leachate data were not available to model this COPC for landfills.

Surface Impoundments: 

Ingestion of ground water was the only exposure pathway that resulted in risks above 

human health criteria.1x10-5. 90th percentile cancer risks above 1×10-5 were identified for 

arsenic III (2×10-4), while risks still within the full EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response (OSWER) risk range were identified for arsenic V (1×10-5).). The 90th percentile 

noncancer risks above an HQ of 1 were identified for arsenic III (5)), lithium (2), and 

molybdenum (2). 

Landfills: 

Formatted Table

Formatted: Left, Indent: First line: 0", Line spacing:

Multiple 1.15 li
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

602

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Ingestion of ground water was the only exposure pathway that resulted in risks above the 

relevant criteria. 90th percentile cancer risks within the full OSWER risk range were identified 

for arsenic III (5×10-6). All 90th percentile noncancer risks were below human health criteria.

High-end risks identified for surface impoundments are consistently higher than those for 

landfills. These results are attributed to the higher infiltration rates through surface 

impoundments, which are driven by the hydraulic head of the ponded water. Median risks for 

both surface impoundments and landfills were substantially lower than both the high-end risks in 

this risk assessment and the median risks modeled in the 2010 Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 

2010a). This decrease is attributed primarily to the interception of ground water by surface water 

bodies, which is accounted for in the revised risk assessment to provide a more accurate mass 

balance of constituent mass during transport. It is common for coal-fired utilities to be located 

near water bodies, which are used as a source of cooling water and conveyance of waste. As a 

result, in the majority of model iterations, the interception of ground water by surface water 

bodies resulted in negligible downstream well concentrations.

Based on the results of the probabilistic analysis, EPA concludes that leaching from CCR 

waste management units has the potential to pose risk to receptors. Arsenic and molybdenum are 

the chemical constituents found to pose the greatest risks from surface impoundments, while 

arsenic posed the greatest risks from landfills. Risks from arsenic ingestion are linked to an 

increased likelihood of cancer in the skin, liver, bladder and lungs, as well as nausea, vomiting, 

abnormal heart rhythm, and damage to blood vessels. Risks;

192 risks from lithium ingestion are 

 

192 Profile for arsenic available online at: www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0278.htm and www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp2.pdf
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

603

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

linked to neurological and psychiatric effects, decreased thyroid function, renal effects, 

cardiovascular effects, skin eruptions, and gastrointestinal effects;193 and risks from molybdenum 

ingestion are linked to higher levels of uric acid in the blood, gout-like symptoms, and anemia.194

4. Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis

The modeled probabilistic risks capture the range of current, nationwide CCR disposal 

practices. However, because of the broad scope of the analysis, there are a number of sources of 

variability and uncertainty present. Therefore, to confirm the results of the probabilistic analysis 

and to better understand whether any particular subset of disposal practices drives the risks 

identified, EPA conducted additional sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. 

EPA reviewed the models used, as well as the data and assumptions input into these 

models, to better understand the sources of variability and uncertainty inherent in the 

probabilistic analysis. The Agency then qualitatively and, to the extent possible, quantitatively 

analyzed these sources to understand the potential effects each may have on the modeled risk 

results. During this review, specific attention was focused on the parameters shown to have the 

greatest influence on model results. As a further method of validation, EPA compared the results 

of the sensitivity and uncertainty analyses with proven and potential damage cases. Together 

these analyses and comparisons show that there is a high degree of confidence in the principal 

findings of the probabilistic analysis. However, the review of sensitive parameters revealed some 

specific disposal practices that may result in greater risks than identified in the probabilistic 

modeling.

 

193 Profile for lithium available online at: hhpprtv.ornl.gov/issue_papers/Lithium.pdf

194 Profile for molybdenum available online at: www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0425.htm
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

604

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Through these additional sensitivity and uncertainty analyses, which explored different 

subsets of national disposal practices, EPA identified the potential for higher risks than those 

identified in the broader, national analysis. In particular, consideration of different waste pH 

values showed higher risks for arsenic at more acidic and basic pH values, as well as additional 

risks for boron, cobalt, fluoride and mercury at these more extreme pH values. Consideration of 

specific liner types showed that ground water risks are driven by disposal in unlined units and, in 

particular, unlined surface impoundments. For these units, EPA identified higher risks for arsenic 

and molybdenum, as well as additional risks for thallium. Clay-lined units were found to pose

risks that, while lower than unlined units, still fall within the OSWER risk range. Compositelined units were found to be the most protective disposal practice, resulting in risks far below all 

criteria identified in this risk assessment. 

C. Conclusions

Based on the analyses presented in this document, EPA concludes that current 

management practice of placing CCR waste in surface impoundments and landfills has the 

potential to pose riskposes risks to human health and the environment in the range that OSWER 

typically regulates. On a national scale, surface impoundments presented higher risks than 

landfills. Risks to ecological receptors were identified from exposures to aluminum, arsenic, 

barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chloride, chromium, selenium and vanadium through direct 

exposure to impoundment wastewater. Risks to residential receptors were identified primarily 

from exposures to arsenic and molybdenum in ground water used as a source of drinking water, 

but additional risks from boron, cadmium, cobalt, fluoride, mercury and thallium were identified 

for specific subsets of national disposal practices. 

Sensitivity analyses on liner type indicate that disposal of CCR wastes in unlined surface 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

605

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

impoundments and landfills presents the greatest risks to human health and the environment. As 

modeled, the national risks from clay-lined units are lower than those for unlined units, but have 

the potential tosuch units can exceed risk criteria based on site-specific considerationsat 

individual sites. Composite liners were the only liner type modeled that effectively reduced risks 

from all pathways and constituents far below human health and ecological criteria forin every 

sensitivity analysis conducted. Sensitivity analyses on waste type indicate that the acidic 

conditions that result from codisposal of CCR waste with coal refuse and the basic conditions 

that result from disposal of FGD waste result in higher risks from arsenic and other constituents 

than CCR waste disposed alone. 

The risk results are consistent with the ground water damage cases compiled by EPA. 

These damage cases were primarily associated with unlined units and were most frequently 

associated with releases of arsenic. Recent surveys of the industry indicate the majority of newly 

constructed units are lined, and that that the practice of codisposal with coal refuse has declined. 

However, this risk assessment presents a static snapshot of current disposal practices. While 

newer units may be managed in a more protective manner, older units, which still comprise the 

majority of current units, continue to operate in a manner that may poseposes risks to human 

health and the environment. that OSWER typically regulates.

XI. Summary of Damage Cases

EPA’s RCRA programEPA has a long history of considering damage cases in its 

regulatory decisions under RCRA. As discussed earlier in this sectionpreamble, the statute 

specifically directs EPA to consider “documented cases in which danger to human health and the 

environment from surface runoff or leachate has been proved,” in reaching its Regulatory 

Determination for these wastes, demonstrating that such information is to carry great weight in 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

606

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

decisions under this section. 42 U.S.C. § 6982(n)(4). Damage cases, even if only potential 

damage cases, are also relevant under the third Bevill factor: “potential danger, if any, to human 

health and the environment from the disposal and reuse of such materials.” 42 U.S.C. § 

6982(n)(4). In addition, damage cases are among the criteria EPA must consider under its 

regulations for determining whether to list a waste as a “hazardous waste.” See 40 CFR 

261.11(a)(3)(ix)(“) (“The nature and severity of the human health and environmental damage 

that has occurred as a result of the improper management of waste containing the constituent.”). 

Damage cases generally provide extremely potent evidence in hazardous waste listings. In this 

regard, EPA notes that 139the number of damage cases collected for this rulemaking (157) is by 

far the largest number of documented cases in the history of the RCRA program. 

EPA considers that both proven and potential damage cases provide information directly 

relevant to this rulemaking. First, damage cases provide evidence of both the [extent and nature 

of the] potential risks to human health and the environment. The primary difference between a 

proven and a potential damage case is whether the contamination has migrated off-site of the 

facility. But the mere fact that groundwater contamination has not yet migrated off-site does not 

change the fact that a potentially harmful constituent has leached from the unit into groundwater. 

Whether the constituent ultimately causes further damage by migrating into drinking water wells 

does not diminish the significance of the environmental damage caused to the groundwater under 

the site, even where it is only a future source of drinking water. As EPA explained in the 

preamble to the original 1979 open dumping criteria, which are currently applicable to these 

facilities, EPA is concerned with groundwater contamination even if the aquifer is not currently 

used as a source of drinking water. Sources of drinking water are finite, and future users’ 

interests must also be protected. (See, 44 FR at 53445-53448..) ("The Act and its legislative Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

607

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

history clearly reflect Congressional intent that protection of groundwater is to be a prime 

concern of the criterion....EPA believes that solid waste activities should not be allowed to 

contaminate underground drinking water sources to exceed established drinking water standards. 

Future users of the aquifer will not be protected unless such an approach is taken.")

In the June 21, 2010 proposed rule, EPA presented for public comment an assessment of 

CCR damage cases, and requested comments and other information related to damage cases EPA 

had previously received from industry, environmental groups, and citizen groups. EPA later 

requested public comment on additional damage case information in a Notice of Data 

Availability (NODA) published in the federal register on October 12, 2011 (76 FR 63252). As 

discussed in Section IV of this preamble, the Agency is deferring making a Bevill determination; 

however, EPA is still presenting its findings with regard to damage cases (including information

submitted during the comment periods for the June 2010 proposal and the October 2011 NODA) 

because as described above, this information supports actions taken in the present final rule.195

A. Damage Cases Presented in June 21, 2010 Proposed Rule 

In the June 2010 proposed rule, the Agency summarized its database on damage cases that had 

expanded since the May 2000 Regulatory Determination.196 This summary included two cases 

of CCR slurry spill caused by surface impoundment dike failures (the 2005 Martins Creek, 

Pennsylvania, and the 2008 TVA Kingston, Tennessee), and two cases involving structural fill 

(the use, between 1995-2007, of CCR in the reclamation of two sand and gravel pits in 

 

195 [supporting background documents on damage cases prepared by EPA] Damage Case Compendium 

(Technical Support Document on Damage Cases), US EPA, December 2014.

196 See June 21, 2010 Federal Register -- Appendix to the Preamble: Documented Damages from CCR 

Management Practices.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

608

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Gambrills, Maryland; and for contouring the Battlefield Golf Course, in Chesapeake, Virginia, in 

the early 2000s). In the June 2010 proposed rule, the Battlefield Golf Course site was designated 

as a potential damage case, whereas the other three sites were designated as proven damage 

cases.197

B. Additional Information and Studies

Shortly prior to the publication of the June 2010 proposed rule and immediately 

thereafter, several stakeholder groups provided the Agency with new information on damage 

cases. In November 2009, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) issued a two-volume

draft report198 analyzing the 24 proven and 43 potential damage cases established in EPA’s 2007

damage case report199 accompanying the August 2007 Notice of Data Availability (NODA).200 

EPRI claimed that in the great majority of damage cases there is no record of primary MCL

contaminants migrating off-site that would justify designating them as proven damage cases. 

EPRI also disagreed with several ecologic damage cases that had been predicated on fish 

advisories in Texas, on the grounds that the selenium toxicity standard that triggered these fish 

advisories was later revised by the state, and subsequently the fish advisories were rescinded. In 

February and August 2010, The Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), jointly with other citizen 

 

197 See 75 FR at 35131 for definitions of “proven” and “potential” damage cases.

198 Evaluations of CCP Damage Cases: These two volumes were finalized in July and September 2010, 

respectively: 

http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=413&&PageID=230509&mode=2&cached=true

199 Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, July 9, 2007. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0796-0015.

200 Notice of Data Availability on the Disposal of Coal Combustion Wastes in Landfills and Surface 

Impoundments, 72 FR 49714, August 29, 2007 federal register..
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

609

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

groups, issued two reports, identifying 70 alleged damage cases.

201, 202 Fifty of these cases were 

submitted to the EPA for the first time. 

In response to EPRI’s report, the EPA reassessed the 24 proven damage cases identified 

in EPA’s 2007 Damage Case report, as well as three additional proven damage cases cited in the 

proposed rule. In addition, in response to EIP’s reports, the Agency assessed the 70 alleged

damage cases. The approach used by EPA , to independently confirm the allegations in the 

report. In reviewing203 these reviews204 of the alleged damage cases comprised one or more of 

the following , EPA took a number of measures: (1) reference to . First, to the extent the 

information was available, EPA consulted tabulated monitoring well data, to validate the 

exceedance data presented in comments; and studied well- and waste-unit location maps, 

geohydrologic studies, and groundwater potentiometric maps, to validate both whether the wells 

were up-gradient vs.or down-gradient wells and instances of groundwater mounding; (2) 

contacting. EPA also contacted state regulators for confirmation of EIP’sto confirm the reports’

exceedance information, and assessingclaims of contamination, particularly contamination 

exceeding state or federal water quality standards, and conducted internet research (focusing on 

state regulatory information) pertaining to the sites in question. EPA also thoroughly assessed

state comments submitted to EPA in response to the June 2010 proposed rule and the October 

 

201 In Harm’s Way: Lack Of Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans and Their Environment. 

Environmental Integrity Project, EarthJustice, and Sierra Club:

http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/08_26_10.php.

202 Out of Control: Mounting Damages from Coal Ash Waste Sites. Environmental Integrity Project and 

EarthJustice: http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/news_02_24_10.php

203 See Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, 

October 2010.

204 See Assessment of Previously Identified Proven Damage and Recently Alleged Damage Cases, 

October 2010.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Space Before: 0 pt,

After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

610

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

2011 NODA; and (3) identifying. Third, EPA identified state/ or federal administrative 

measures applied to utilities (e.g., consent orders, notices of violation, penalties for noncompliance, etc.) and/or legal motions (e.g., law-suits, motions for injunctive relief, and out-ofcourt settlements) submittedfiled by the states or citizen groups to the court of law, in order to 

identify any alleged instances of non-compliance by the utilities that have resulted in

documented impacts to water resources.

EPA’s review confirmed that 13 of the 27 damage cases previously designated as proven 

did meet the criteria used by EPA for identifying proven damage cases; however, EPA also 

found that six of the 27 cases only meet the criteria for a potential damage case, while the 

remaining eight cases were altogether rejected (i.e., EPA determined that a damage case has not 

occurred, and/or test of proof criteria were not satisfied, and/or CCR was not the only or 

predominant waste component). Regarding the 70 alleged damage cases in the two EIP reports,

EPA concluded that ten of them qualify as proven damage cases, 45 as potential damage cases,

and the remainder were either rejected or, due to the lack of adequate information, defined as 

indeterminate. 

In November 2011, the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) submitted to the 

docket of the October 2011 NODA a critical review of EIP’s 70 alleged damage cases from 

2010.205 USWAG’s review concluded that “the overwhelming majority of the allegations 

regarding the 70 sites...fail to provide the requisite ‘test of proof’ documentation necessary for 

 

205 Evaluation of Alleged CCR Damage Cases in the October 2011 NODA, 76 Fed. Reg. 63252 

(Oct. 12, 2011); USWAG, November 14, 2011. Attachment A to EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392-0211.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

611

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

EPA to characterize virtually any of the sites as proven damage cases.” Also, in November 2011 

EIP submitted to the docket of the October 2011 NODA a report alleging 20 new damage 

cases.206

Following review of the comments on the proposed rule and the October 2011 NODA,207

EPA has revisited some of its earlier damage case findings. Our post-proposal studies have 

resulted in: 1) rejection of 1417 of the previously-established and newly-alleged damage cases, 

either due to inappropriate scope (e.g., oil combustion waste, non-utility CCRsCCR, or 

CCRsCCR disposed-off in abandoned coal mine pits), or co-mingling with non-CCR waste;

208 2) 

two damage cases remaining unresolved due to , or inadequate information; and 3 to ascertain 

that contaminants are derived from CCR; 2) two of the damage cases that had been previously 

designated as ‘rejected’ in EPA’s 2007 damage case report were re-categorized as proven 

 

206 EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392-0259. Nineteen of the cases involve groundwater impact, and one 

involves soil contaminated by the placement of coal ash and clinkers from train engine boilers for railroad 

tracks bed. A hard copy of the report, Risky Business: Coal Ash Threatens America’s Groundwater 

Resources at 19 More Sites, was issued on December 12, 2011

207 The comment period for the proposed rule closed on November 19, 2010, and for the October 

2011 NODA - on November 14, 2011. The October 2011 NODA can be accessed at: Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Management System: Identification and Listing of Special Wastes: Disposal of Coal Combustion 

Residuals from Electric Utilities, Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / 

Proposed Rules: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392-0001.

208 The newly rejected damage cases (namely, on top of those already designated as ‘rejected’ in 

EPA’s July 2007 Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments report) include three formerly 

proven damage cases (Salem Acres, Salem, MA and Vitale Fly ash Pit, Beverly, MA, and VEPCO 

Possum Point, Dumfries, VA); and six formerly potential damage cases (Mitchell Generating Station, 

Moundsville, WV; New England Power, Brayton Point, MA; Elrama Plant, PA; and Florida Power and 

Light Port Everglades Plant, Port Riviera Plant, and P. L. Bartow Plant, all in Florida). The remaining five 

rejected cases (APS Four Corners, NM, and Antelope Valley Station, Beulah, ND – CCR disposed in coal 

mine pits; Industrial Excess Landfill Superfund Site, Uniontown, OH, and Big Stone Power Plant, Big 

Stone City, SD – non-CCR commingled waste; and Rocky Acres Coal Combustion By-Product Disposal 

Site, Oakwood, IL- non-utility CCR waste) are among the 70 alleged damage cases submitted by EIP in 

their two 2010 reports, as are also two cases with inadequate information (Lansing Station Ash Ponds, IA, 

and Boardman Plant, OR).

Formatted: Don't adjust space between Latin and

Asian text, Don't adjust space between Asian text and

numbers
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

612

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

damage cases209 and foursix others, all sited in Ohio, were re-categorized as potential damage 

cases.

210; and 3) one damage case site reported in Risky Business occurred next to a site that had 

already been previously reported. 

In summary, at the present time the Agency has established that 40 proven and 95113

potential damage cases. In addition, the proposal’s rulemaking docket contains four additional, 

state-endorsed damage cases from Wisconsin. While EPA has insufficiently-detailed information 

(including the extent, if any, that the contaminants have migrated off site) to designate these four 

additional sites as potential or proven, because the state has identified them to us as damage 

cases, we have included them in our overall total of 139.211157. 

C. Stakeholder Comments on Damage Cases 

All of the comments submitted by stakeholders to the dockets of the proposed rule and 

the October 2011 NODA were captured, as well as EPA’s responses, are included in the 

Technical Support Document to CCR Damage Cases which is available in the RCRA docket 

supporting this rule. The following is a summary of the salient comments submitted by the 

various stakeholder groups. 

1. Utility Industry’s Comments 

The utility industry claimsEPA received several comments from utilities arguing that: (1) 

An an incident should not be considered to be a “damage case” if the environmental damage has 

been addressed or is no longer occurring (forand/or if the State Director is satisfied that no 

further action is required. (Note: For those damage cases known to the Agency prior to EIP’s 

 

209 Lake Erie, OH, and Clinch River, VA.

210 Muskingum River Power Plant Impoundments, Beverly; Gavin Impoundments, Cheshire; 

Cardinal Fly Ash Reservoir II Impoundment; and Cardinal PFBC Monofill, Beverly.

211 See EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-6416 (Appendix, Table 2). 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

613

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

2010 reports, remediation is completed or underway at all sites where remediation was known to 

be required), and/or if the State Director is satisfied.) These commenters also argued that no 

further action is required; (2) no damage occurs ifEPA should disregard cases in which there are 

no downstream contaminant receptors to be harmed by the contamination. These commenters 

also alleged damage (about two-thirds of the damage cases preceding the 2010 EIP reports have 

little potential for down-gradient receptors); and (3) that only “proven” damage cases should be 

entered into the calculus of documented riskconsidered to human health and the environment,

becausebe relevant as only they conform to the statutory requirement that for the disposal of 

CCRs they comprisethese are “documented cases in which danger to human health or the 

environment from surface runoff or leachate has been proved” [RCRA Section 8002(n)].,” 42 

U.S.C. § 6982(n)(4). . 

Industry commenters also made a number of other points. They stated that most damage 

cases occurred in older facilities commissioned before current state landfill regulations were 

promulgated, where most waste units lack liners and leachate collection systems, and that in 

most cases, exceedances of state or federal water quality standards were contained on site, and 

these exceedances are mostly for constituents (e.g., sulfate and boron) that do not have federal,

health-based drinking water quality standards. These commenters also saidclaimed that the 

actual number of proven damage case record (namely, proven cases) is very sparse: of the 24

proven damage cases established in EPA’s 2007 report,212 they argued that only three had 

documented off-site groundwater exceedances of health-based MCLs that can be attributed to 

CCR impacts, and. They also claimed that of the 70 alleged damage cases in EIP’s 2010 reports 

 

212 Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, ibid. Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

614

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(In Harm’s Way and Out of Control), 64 did not meet EPA’s “test of proof” criteria for 

characterizing the site as a proven damage case. For the remaining six sites, where the 

allegations on their face could arguably be viewed as meetingmet EPA’s definition of a proven 

damage case, these commenters statedclaimed that the alleged damagethese cases should be 

discounted because they involved either sites that are either no longer active andor where the 

damages havehad been already remediated or are undergoing remediation with federal/state 

oversight. These commenters also said that 12 of the 70 EIP-alleged damage cases were 

previously addressed in EPA’s 2007 Damage Case report, and of these, five sites had been 

rejected by the EPA due to lack of evidence of damage or lack of evidence of damage uniquely 

associated with CCRsCCR, and seven sites had been characterized as indeterminate due to 

insufficient information. According to industry’s commentsthese commenters, no new 

information regarding these 12 sites was contained in the two EIP reports that warrants their 

designation as proven damage cases.

213

2. Individual State Comments

EPA also received a significant number of comments from individual states. In their 

comments to the proposed rule and to the October 2011 NODA, many of the states addressed 

selected damage cases that occurred within their jurisdiction, subject to their authority. Key 

comments included:

 AgreementSeveral states agreed with established and allegedEPA’s assessment of the

damage cases; for instance, Wisconsin and Michigan complimented EPA’s database of 

 

213 EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392-0211, ibid.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

615

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

damage cases;

 Agreement. Other commenters agreed with some of the newly alleged damage cases’

exceedance reports, while disagreeing of groundwater contamination exceeding 

regulatory standards, but disagreed with EIP’s conclusions that enforcement was 

inadequate, tardy, or absent. According to some state commenters, the lack of 

enforcement is explained bywas not necessary or appropriate in those instances. For 

example, some states (e.g., North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Florida) argued 

that the contamination did not pose public health risks because the contaminants 

beingwere confined to state-established Compliance Boundaries (known also as 

Groundwater Mixing Zones)214 and/or considering the lack ofbecause there was no

evidence forthe contamination had migrated off-site contaminant migration, they do not 

pose public health risk (e.g., North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Florida);

 Confirming. Several other states (e.g., Maryland, Virginia, and Texas) confirmed EPA’s 

established damage cases as well as some of the newly alleged damage cases, but

claimingclaimed that these cases arewere associated with presently outdated practices, 

and that conform to obsolete regulatory requirements (e.g., Maryland, Virginia, and 

Texas);

 

214 A Zone of Discharge or Zone of Mixing is a three dimensional region containing groundwater being 

managed to mitigate impairment caused by the release of contaminants from a waste disposal site; by 

definition, it is inside the detection boundary area, hence it is exempt from compliance with MCL and 

SMCL standards (e.g., in Florida, Illinois, South Carolina, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania).
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

616

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

 Confirming exceedanceshave since been revised to prohibit such practices. Two states 

(South Dakota and Pennsylvania) confirmed that contamination above federal or state 

regulatory standards had occurred, but attributing source of attributed the contaminant(s) 

to sources other than CCR legacy issuesunits, e.g., coal mining pits associated with coal 

refuse; and/or nearby, up-gradient unlined municipal solid waste landfillsMSWLFs, 

cooling water evaporation ponds, or natural background soil compositions (e.g., South 

Dakota and Pennsylvania);

 An . For certain cases, the states explained that required assessment monitoring required 

by the state was still ongoing to establish the source, scope, and extent of the 

contamination is still ongoing , and so had reached no conclusions about the specific 

allegations (North Carolina, North Dakota, and Tennessee); and

 Conceding). Finally Ohio acknowledged that the extent of groundwater 

contamination risk within the state is poorly-documented due to the scarcity of monitoring wells 

down gradient from unlined disposal units (Ohio)..

3. State Association Comments

The Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

(ASTSWMO) stated in its comments to EPAargued that the 24 proven damage cases reported in 

EPA’s 2007 Damage Case report do not reflect current land disposal practices, and so are 

irrelevant to which the proposed regulations would apply.rule. For example, disposal “units” 

involved in several damage cases included five sand and gravel pits, two quarries, and one lake 

impoundment. ASTSWMO commented that half of thethese sites began operating in 1970 or 

earlier, including at least six sites that began operating in the early 1950s. In reference 

toASTSWMO claimed that much of the information cited in the two EIP 2010 alleged damage 

Formatted: Normal, No bullets or numbering
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

617

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

case reports, ASTSWMO stated that much of the information cited there is incomplete, incorrect 

and/or misleading. For example:

 Claims of damage were made without providing, their comments alleged that EIP failed 

to provide pertinent information on specific monitoring wells, sample/analytical dates, 

and hydrogeological data; 

 Assumptions. ASTSWMO also claimed that many of the assumptions about 

groundwater flow were based on a topographic maps rather than on potentiometric maps that are 

based on subsurface groundwater flow data;. They also claim that data in state files contradicted

claims in the reports, and that EIP’s reports contained numerous technical errors, such as 

reporting values for naturally occurring constituents as contamination, reported data without 

distinguishing between down-gradient and up-gradient wells, ignoring the potential contribution 

from sources other than CCR-related units (e.g., coal mining legacy), and claims that information 

provided by state program staff was misconstrued/misrepresented.

 Data in state files contradict claims in the reports; and 

 Technical errors such as reported values for naturally occurring constituents, reported 

data that is detected in both down-gradient and up-gradient wells, ignoring exceedances 

associated with other than CCR-related sources (e.g., coal mining legacy), and 

information provided by state program staff that was misconstrued/misrepresented.

4. Citizens Group Comments

 Citizen groups claimgenerally argued that the fact that damage has occurred 

should be part of the weight of evidence documenting the potential for harm at all CCR 

disposal sites;

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5", No bullets or

numbering

Formatted: Don't add space between paragraphs of

the same style
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

618

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

 While, without regard to whether the damage cases were categorized as “proven” or 

“potential.” These commenters also raised a number of arguments in direct response to 

the comments provided by the utilities and the states. For example, these commenters 

argued that the presence of downstream receptors is a valid factor to consider when 

setting priorities for mitigating damage, it isbut does not a justification forjustify allowing 

contamination to migrate off of the disposal site. These commenters statedclaimed that 

about one-fifth of EPA’s damage cases preceding the 2010 EIP reports show evidence of 

contamination of private and public drinking water wells;

 State. In addition, these commenters allege that state regulatory agencies have done little 

to respond to contamination from CCR disposal sites, and, even in those cases where 

action has been taken, rarely is any action is taken beyond assessment monitoring. 

According to these commenters, off-site monitoring has only occurred at a limited 

number of sites, and mostly such monitoring was performed voluntarily by the utilities;

 Whereas and was not reported to state regulators. These commenters also claimed that

although less than half of EPA’s damage cases preceding the 2010 EIP reports involve 

active landfills, almost three-quarters of the newly alleged damage cases (EIP’s 2010 

reports) involve active landfills;

 The. They further alleged that a large majority of EPA’s surface impoundment damage 

cases preceding the 2010 EIP reports are active sites, indicating that the absence of liners 

is contributing to the contamination problems. OneThey noted that one quarter of the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

619

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

damage cases in EIP’s 2010 reports haveinvolved units with liners, indicating that the 

mere presence of any liner provides no assurancesassurance that migration of 

contaminated groundwater from a waste unit is not occurring. Overall, they claimed that 

surface impoundments remain “woefully unregulated” when compared to landfills.

 Over one third of EIPrd alleged groundwater damage cases show migration of 

contamination off-site. Also, a quarter of EPAow migration of preceding the 2010 EIP reports

involve contamination of surface water, and 15 percent of these damage cases show ecologic 

damage. Finally, these commenters note that several of the Secondary Contaminant Maximum 

Levels (SMCLs) constituents still might cause harm to recipients residing next to CCR disposal 

sites. 215

 While boron, manganese, and sulfate are considered Secondary Contaminant Maximum 

Levels (SCMLs) constituents, they might cause potential harm to recipients residing next 

to CCR disposal sites.

216

D. Response to theKey Stakeholder Comments 

Considering that the purpose of compiling and classifying damage cases is to document 

 

215 Examples include boron’s One-Day and Ten-Day Health Advisory (3.0 mg/L) and the Longer Term 

Health Advisory (2.0 mg/L) levels for children; manganese’s Long Term Health Advisory (LTHA: 0.3 

mg/L) level; and sulfate’s Drinking Water Advisory (DWA: 500 mg/L) level in groundwater have been 

exceeded each in between over 60 and close to 80 of both the alleged and damage case sites and those 

sites preceding the 2010 EIP reports. 

216 Examples include boron’s One-Day and Ten-Day Health Advisory (3.0 mg/L) and the Longer 

Term Health Advisory (2.0 mg/L) levels for children; manganese’s Long Term Health Advisory (LTHA: 

0.3 mg/L) level; and sulfate’s Drinking Water Advisory (DWA: 500 mg/L) level in groundwater have 

been exceeded each in between over 60 and close to 80 of both the alleged and damage case sites and 

those sites preceding the 2010 EIP reports. 

Formatted: Normal, No bullets or numbering

Formatted: Font: Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

620

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

actual and potential human health and environmental risks associated with industry’s waste 

management practices, we disagree In many instances EPA did not have access to information 

that would either substantiate or refute the claims in EIP’s reports. In many instances public 

commenters submitted information that clarifies, rebuts or otherwise calls into question some of 

the allegations contained in the various damage case reports. For example, there are instances in 

which claims were made that a contaminant plume had migrated offsite even though there were 

no offsite monitoring wells to confirm the claim. Due to the dearth of groundwater monitoring 

on facilities’ boundaries (or beyond) EPA could not identify offsite plume migration for most 

sites, except in the rare instances drinking water wells had been contaminated. Consequently, 

only 10 of the 70 alleged cases submitted by EIP in 2010 were designated as proven damage

cases. 

In addition, factual errors were identified in certain instances; for example, certain 

allegations of groundwater contamination were based on surface water standards (rather than 

groundwater standards). Corrections or updated facts are reflected in EPA’s damage case 

assessment. Nevertheless, EPA was able to validate a significant number of EIP’s claims; for 

example, as of 2011, EPA was able to confirm that a significant portion of the damage cases in 

EIPs 2010 report involved both landfills and surface impoundments, most of which involved 

units with either no liner or a substandard liner system. And for many of EIP’s damage cases, 

EPA was able to confirm sufficient details to classify them as potential damage cases. 

However, EPA disagrees with most of the utility industry’s arguments for minimizing the 

significance of the damage case record, namely that: damage cases that have been remediated 

should be expunged from the record;. First, cases where contamination has been remediated 

remain relevant to this rulemaking. EPA is relying on the damage cases to evaluate the extent 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

621

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

and nature of the risks associated with particular CCR management practices. Facts 

demonstrating the consequences from particular activities therefore remain relevant, particularly 

(although not solely) where the management practices continue to occur. In other words, what 

matters in this regard are facts that provide information on the reasons that unit leaked, the 

particular contaminants that were present, the levels of those contaminants, and the nature of any 

impacts caused by that contamination. None of these facts are affected by whether the damage is 

ultimately mitigated or remedied. This is entirely consistent with RCRA section 8002(n), which 

requires EPA to evaluate the “potential danger, if any, to human health and the environment 

from the disposal and reuse of such materials” in addition to “documented” damage cases. 42 

U.S.C. §§ 6982(n)(3)-(4). Accordingly, the fact that any contamination has subsequently been

remediated is not a basis for disregarding a damage case. Moreover, EPA is not relying on these 

damage cases to evaluate the adequacy of state programs, although it may ultimately provide 

information relevant to such findings. Therefore the adequacy of the state’s response, or the lack 

thereof, is also not relevant to whether particular damage cases are appropriately considered as 

part of this rulemaking. 

EPA also disagrees that only the presence of receptors within the impact sphere of a 

contaminating facility would meritmerits consideration of a particular damage case. EPA’s 

longstanding and consistent policy across numerous regulatory programs has been that 

groundwater contamination is a significant concern that merits regulatory action in its rating as a 

damage case;own right, whether or not the aquifer is not currently used as a source of drinking 

water. Sources of drinking water are finite, and future users’ interests must also be protected. 

The absence of current receptors is therefore also not an appropriate basis on which to discount 

damage cases. And for all of the reasons discussed above, EPA also disagrees that only 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

622

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

exceedances of health-based standards of contaminants that have migrated off-site (i.e., only 

proven damage cases) should be accounted for; and most of the damage cases reflect outdated 

regulatory regimes. as part of this rulemaking. 

The Agency also disagrees particularly with the comments citing claims that the limited 

recordnumber of damage cases with exceedances of a health-based standard, andis “sparse,” the 

claim that most damage cases reflect majority of which involve only “outdated CCR 

management practices.” in older facilities, and therefore are not relevant to determining the 

current risks from CCR mismanagement. Even assuming that only “proven” damage cases were 

relevant, to date, EPA has confirmed a total of 40 proven damage cases, which is hardly 

“sparse.” And when “potential” damage cases are considered, the totals rise to 157; this is the 

largest number of damage cases in the history of the RCRA program. Further, these numbers 

likely underestimate the true number of cases in which CCR units are contaminating 

groundwater. In reality, the damage case record represents only a subset of those CCR waste 

units that have effective groundwater monitoring. EPA recognizes that As discussed in Unit 

IV.A., a significant portion of CCR surface impoundments still lack groundwater monitoring, 

and that the percentage of impoundments with groundwater monitoring that have been only 

approximately 80% of the recently commissioned recently impoundments (i.e., since about 

1994) is only around 80 percent. The Agency also recognizes thathave groundwater monitoring. 

In addition, under many of the state programs, existing impoundments are exempt from 

groundwater monitoring through grandfathering, and that once such monitoring is put in place, 

monitoring data in support of new damage cases quickly emerge. This is illustrated by two lines 

of evidence: first, there are two states that, in the wake of the 2008 TVA Kingston CCR spill,

two states required utilities tofor the first time to install groundwater monitoring. Illinois 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

623

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

required facilities to install groundwater monitoring down gradient from their surface 

impoundments (Illinois) or install additional down gradient wells (North Carolina). . As a result, 

within only about two years, Illinois detected seven new instances of primary MCL exceedances 

and of five additional instances with exceedances of SMCLs (all. The data for all twelve sites 

were gathered from onsite; it appears none of these facilities had been required to monitor 

groundwater off-site);

217 and in, so whether the contamination had migrated off-site is currently 

unknown.218 Similarly, North Caroline required facilities to install additional down gradient 

wells. In January 2012, officials from the North Carolina Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources/Division of Water Quality disclosed that elevated levels of metals have been 

found in groundwater near surface- impoundments at all of the State’s 14 coal-fired power 

plants.

219

 

Second, states with effective programs for groundwater monitoring tend to have a larger 

record of damage cases (e.g., Wisconsin, nationally ranked as the 32nd CCR disposer in 2011, has 

five proven- and eight potential14 damage cases) as compared to states with less stringent 

requirements of groundwater monitoring requirements (e.g., Texas, nationally ranked as the 

 

217 See EIP's December 2011 Risky Business: Coal ash Threatens America's Ground Water 

Resources at 19 More Sites www.environmentalintegrity.org/.../121311EIPThirdDamageReport.pdf and 

Illinois EPA’s Ash Impoundment Strategy Progress Reports, February 10 and October 2011, accessed 

Online July 15, 2014: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/groundwater/publications/ash-impoundmentprogress.pdf and

http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ash-impoundment/documents/ash-impoundment-progress102511.pdf

218 See EIP's December 2011 Risky Business: Coal ash Threatens America's Ground Water Resources at 

19 More Sites, docket document EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392-0259, Appendix A3.

www.environmentalintegrity.org/.../121311EIPThirdDamageReport.pdf and Illinois EPA’s Ash 

Impoundment Strategy Progress Reports, February 10 and October 2011, accessed Online July 15, 2014: 

http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/groundwater/publications/ash-impoundment-progress.pdf and

http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ash-impoundment/documents/ash-impoundment-progress-102511.pdf

219 Groundwater Monitoring Data for Coal Ash Ponds, NC DENR: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/hottopics/coalashregulation/gwatermonitoring. Accessed Online July 15, 2014.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

624

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

second largest CCR disposer in 2011, has only onethree confirmed, potential damage case).

Finally, about

Nor is it accurate that the majority of these damage cases involve older units that no 

longer reflect current management practices or state requirements. The commenters point to the 

fact that the majority of cases involve units constructed before current state landfill regulations 

were promulgated, and thus lack liners and leachate collection systems. EPA agrees that the 

majority of cases do involve such units, but this hardly reflects “outdated” or irrelevant 

management practices. As discussed in Unit IV.A, the majority of CCR continues to be 

managed in older (i.e., constructed pre-1994) units that lack liners and leachate collection 

systems, and will in fact continue to be managed in such units for at least the near future. 

Approximately six percent of the waste units associated with groundwater impacts have been 

constructed from 1990 onwards. Considering there is a lag time between the construction of 

many of the disposal units and the first detection of their groundwater impact by subsequently 

installed groundwater monitoring wells, the Agency believes that the damage case record in hand 

is far from complete and skewed towards older waste units.absence of damage cases associated 

with newer units is neither unexpected nor dispositive as to the level of risk such units pose. 

Another argument frequently raised by bothFinally, a number of other factors support the 

utilities and some states is where a state has made the decisionconclusion that no corrective 

action is warrantedthe current number of damage cases likely underestimate the current risks. 

First, the combined effect of a number of current state regulatory provisions is to decrease the 

instances in a particular damage case, that case should no longerwhich off-site contamination 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Don't adjust space

between Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust space

between Asian text and numbers
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

625

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

will be identified as a damage case. The following observations challenge this argument:220

 Risk-based tiered standards: At times, there is a discrepancy between EPA’s singular 

health-based water quality standards and the sliding-scale standards adopted by certain states. 

Thesedetected (or on-site contamination will need to be remediated). For example, several states 

have adopted tiered groundwater quality systems that allow for lower comparative levels of 

contamination in residential or drinking water areas and higher levels in industrial areas. Other

states have implemented tiered standards for groundwater, with lower levels requiring a lower 

level of responsiveness, while the higher levels require more immediate action. For example, 

Preventative Action Levels (PALs) at approximately 10 percent of the Enforcement Standards 

(ESs; equivalent to MCLs) are based, in part, on health criteria. Wisconsin’s PAL, for instance, 

is either 10 percent for cancer-causing substances, 20 percent for substances with other health 

effects, or 50 percent for substances having aesthetic or other public-welfare concerns of the ES 

as specified by statute based on the health-related characteristics of the particular substance. 

EPA’s current damage case ‘test-of-proof’ classification criteria do not account for this type of 

sliding-scale standards. 

 Compliance-excluded conditions: Several states have adopted a concept of ‘”buffer zone’

approachzones” where certain standards may not apply. For example, under Florida’s ; 

 

220 The observations cited in the following pertain to groundwater quality. Regarding surface 

water quality, NPDES permits in many states commonly have very limited requirements for monitoring 

discharge constituents, excluding all or most of the heavy metals.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

626

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Florida designates certain areas as a “Zone of Discharge” (ZOD) designation,), in which

numerical primary and secondary drinking water standards do not apply; this exemption 

extends even beyond the ZOD, unless ordered specifically by the state; and. In addition,

secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCLs) are not applicable to existing industrial 

facilities discharging to groundwater in the state.221 In other instances, states grant 

waivers to certain facilities that exceed health-based standards several-fold. Again, such 

an approach is not consistent with how EPA’s singular set of health-based water quality 

standards is used in evaluating alleged damage cases.

 Purchase of impacted residential property by the impacting facility: There are several 

instances where, once the contaminant plume has migrated off-site and impacted private 

water wells, the utility has moved to purchase these properties.222 At times, this practice 

(which is condoned by the state) has expanded the ZOD to well beyond its original 

boundary. This has resulted in changing the status of the contaminant plume from offsite migration, which requires remedial action, back to onsite containment, which can 

affect whether or not corrective action is required of the utility by the state.

 Exemption of periodically dredged impoundments from solid waste regulations:

 

221 Illinois uses a similar concept: Groundwater Mixing Zone; North Carolina waives any compliance 

requirements for constituents in exceedance of the state’s groundwater standards that are confined to 

monitoring wells within the Compliance Boundary; and in Pennsylvania and Tennessee, state laws do not 

require state response to onsite exceedances of secondary MCLs.

222 The observations cited in the following pertain to groundwater quality. Regarding surface water 

quality, NPDES permits in many states commonly have very limited requirements for monitoring 

discharge constituents, excluding all or most of the heavy metals.

Formatted: Normal, No bullets or numbering

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

627

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Certain states (e.g., Indiana) consider surface impoundments as temporary storage facilities as 

long as they are dredged on a periodic basis (e.g., annually). Under these statesmonitoring wells 

future. of cases involvany solid waste regulations that would require groundwater monitoring,

and from requirements for corrective action.223 Such requirements are likely to decrease the 

instances in which contamination above an MCL has migrated off-site will be detected.

Second, the record documents several instances where, once the contaminant plume has 

migrated off-site and impacted private water wells, the utility has purchased these properties, 

thereby rendering the off-site contamination, s migrated At times, this practice (which is 

condoned by the state) has expanded the ZOD to well beyond its original boundary. solid waste 

regulations and from requirements for corrective action.224Once the status of the contaminant 

plume changes from off-site migration, which typically requires remedial action, back to onsite 

containment, this can affect the kind of corrective action the state requires of the utility (or 

indeed whether any will be required).

In summary, many state CCR regulatory programs do not lend themselves to an acrossthe-board application of a single set of standards, compliance boundaries, and definitions of 

potential and proven impacts on human health and the environment, of the sort that the Agency 

has been applying to CCR damage cases at least since its May 2000 Regulatory Determination.

E. Contaminants and Characterization of Impacts Associated with CCR Disposal Units

Associated with Impacts

1. CCR Waste Unit Types Associated With Damage Cases

 

223 E.g., Duke Energy’s Gibson Generating Station, Princeton, Indiana, a proven damage case.

224 E.g., Duke Energy’s Gibson Generating Station proven damage case, Princeton, Indiana.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

628

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

EPA’s documented record of confirmed damage cases is dominated by wet-disposal and 

treatment modes: surface impoundments, cooling ponds, and artificial wetlands constitute about 

43 percentclose to half of the total number of implicated waste units. In comparison, dry 

disposal modes such as landfills, sand and gravel pits, storage piles for coal ash and FGD, and 

certain structural fills account for about 36 percentone third of the confirmed damage cases.

225

Sand and gravel pits and quarries as well as structural fills, comprise about ten percent of all the 

unit types that are associated with damage cases. Citizens’ groups stated in their comments that 

structural fills are under-represented in the damage cases records, because state programs exempt 

them from disposal safeguards, including groundwater monitoring.

2. Contaminants of Concern (COCs)

Because the list of constituents to be monitored in groundwater varies from permit to 

permit and among states, it is impossible to rankaccurate estimates of the frequency of 

constituents associated with groundwater impacts. Still nationwide cannot be made with 

confidence. Based on the available monitoring records, the most prevalent 

constituentcontaminant among the primary MCLs, as identified in damage cases, is arsenic, 

whereas the most prevalent constituentscontaminants identified among the secondary MCLs are 

sulfate and boron. Similarly, disparities from one permit to another as to which constituents are 

monitored in NPDES discharges from CCR impoundments limit EPA’s ability to identify trends 

for constituentsassociated with contaminants of concern. Based on the Agency’s record of all of 

 

225 Facilities with both wet and dry disposal waste units are implicated in less than twenty percent of the 

cases.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

629

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

the confirmed damage cases, it can be only established that the most prevalent Contaminants of 

Concern (COCs) with respect to Primary Water Quality Criteria (WQCs) exceedances in surface 

water, and/or of cleanup standards in sediments and soils are selenium and arsenic, and for 

Secondary WQCs or cleanup standard exceedances, are boron and iron.

226

The high mobility of boron and sulfate explains the prevalence of these constituents in 

damage cases that are associated with groundwater impacts. Damage cases impacting surface 

water that have also a documented ecologic impact comprise the largest subset of proven damage 

cases (over 40 percent). The most prevalent COC here is selenium, the bioaccumulative effects 

of which have caused abnormal mortality rates and sublethal effects such as histopathological 

changes and damage to reproductive and developmental success, adversely impacting aquatic 

populations and communities of fish and amphibians. Such impacted communities, residing both 

in lentic (e.g., cooling water lakes) and lotic (e.g., small to medium-size streams) settings that 

receive regulated (i.e., via permitted outfalls) and unregulated (i.e., via seepage) discharge from 

CCR impoundments were documented and rather extensively studied in several sites (e.g., in 

Texas, North Carolina, and South Carolina).227, 228

It is possible that the limitedThere are fewer recorded instances whereof surface water

 

226 For a list of the key metals found in CCR wastewater and examples of the environmental concerns 

associated with them, see Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: Final Detailed Study 

Report; EPA 821-R-09-008, October 2009: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steamelectric/upload/Steam-Electric_Detailed-Study-Report_2009.pdf

227 In validation of the findings of the Risk Assessment accompanying this rule, EPA has documented 

numerous damage cases where selenium in CCR wastewater discharge into surface waters triggered the 

issuance of fish-consumption advisories as well as selenium MCL exceedances in ground water, 

suggesting that selenium concentrations in CCR wastewater constitute a human health risk.

228 According to the draft Steam Industry’s Effluent Guidelines EA, the total pollutant loadings from 

steam electric power plants are significant with the steam electric power sector accountingis responsible

for at least 60 percenta significant fraction of the toxic pollutants reported to be discharged in industrial 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

630

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

damage cases involving the heavy metal COCs such as antimony, beryllium, mercury, and 

thallium were identified in confirmed damage cases in surface water impacted by CCR 

discharges is not merely a direct reflection of their actual scarcity. Whereas intrinsicthan of 

groundwater damage cases. It is unclear whether this genuinely reflects lower potential risks via 

this route of exposure. Intrinsic differences inbetween the chemical and physical parameters of 

surface water versus those ofand groundwater (e.g., the higher redox potential of the latter and 

the larger flow-rate of the former) would accelerate the removal of many metals from surface 

water through precipitation and/or adsorption and facilitate a greater dilution, it cannot be ruled 

out that the limited list of constituents the monitoring of which is required under NPDES permits 

also contributes to the fewer recorded instances of surface water damage cases as compared to 

the recorded instances of groundwater damage cases by the same constituents.229. However, as 

noted, NPDES permits in many states commonly have very limited requirements for monitoring 

discharge constituents, excluding all or most of the heavy metals, so this cannot be ruled out as at 

least a contributing factor230 

3. Failure/Impact Modes

 

229 This issue is illustrated by the very limited monitoring record on mercury exceedances in 

surface water as compared to the extensive documentation of mercury impacts revealed in studied surface 

water that receive steam industry effluents. These studies have documented fish and invertebrates 

exposed to mercury from CCR wastewater exhibiting elevated levels of mercury in their tissues and 

developing sublethal effects such as reduced growth and reproductive failure. For an excellent summary 

of surface water ecologic and human health risks and impacts study results, see the cited Steam Electric 

Power study report.

230 This issue is illustrated by the very limited monitoring record on mercury exceedances in surface water 

as compared to the extensive documentation of mercury impacts revealed in studied surface water that 

receive steam industry effluents. These studies have documented fish and invertebrates exposed to 

mercury from CCR wastewater exhibiting elevated levels of mercury in their tissues and developing 

sublethal effects such as reduced growth and reproductive failure. For an excellent summary of surface 

water ecologic and human health risks and impacts study results, see the cited Steam Electric Power study 

report.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

631

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The CCR damage case record shows the following prevalent impact modes (more than 

one possible impact type per generating facility site is possible): slightly over half of the 

recorded impact cases are associated with groundwater; about eleventen percent are associated 

with surface water, which quite frequently is also accompanied by documented ecological 

impacts and/or with the contamination of soils and/or river sediments; over one third –are 

associated with both groundwater and surface water impacts; and about four percent –are 

associated with catastrophic surface impoundment dike failures. 

The established damage case record includes ten sites involving exceedances of primary 

MCLs that have impacted drinking water wells. In all of these cases, the implicated electrical 

utility provided alternative potable water to well water users. 231 TwoThree of the proven

damage cases were listed on the National Priority List as Superfund sites,232 and one is a 

Superfund Alternative (SA) site.233 In the course of reassessing the pre-EIP 2010 damage cases 

 

231 These proven damage cases include one instanceeight cases where the utility was directed by the state 

to provide an alternative water supply (NIPSCO Yard 520, IN; Constellation Energy Gambrills, MD; Don 

Frame Trucking, NY; Bruce Mansfield, PA; Trans Ash Landfill, TN; VEPCO Chisman Creek, VA; 

Stoneman, WI; and WEPCO Highway 59, WI); and two instances in which the utility provides substitute 

water to residents on a voluntary basis; in (Gibson Station, IN, and Colstrip, MT). In three additional, 

potential damage cases, (Oak Creek, WI; Battlefield Golf Course, VA; and Joliet Station 9, IL), the 

utilities provide substitute water – out of abundance caution – to adjacent residential properties whose 

water wells were impacted by secondary MCL exceedances, and in onetwo additional casecases, the 

electrical utility was instructed by state regulators to provide substitute water to residential properties 

which either have had their drinking water wells impacted by trace amounts of thallium, within the State 

and the federal standards. (Asheville, NC) or by exceedances of boron (Sutton, NC). Finally, in one case

(Belews Creek, NC) the electric utility agreed to co-fund upgrading of potable water treatment plants in 

two municipalities to eliminate trihalomethanes, a carcinogenic by-product of power plant scrubber, 

bromide-containing river water subject to water treatment employing chlorine.

232 OU-12, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (an NPL site between 1989 and 1997), and); VEPCO, Chisman Creek, 

Virginia (an NPL site between 1983 and 1988); and the Lemberger Landfill, Wisconsin (1986 to present).

233 Town of Pines Groundwater Plume, Indiana (SA: 2003-Present): 

http://www.epa.gov/region5/superfund/npl/sas_sites/INN000508071.htm. The Site is not listed on the 

National Priority List (NPL) although it qualifies for such listing. The SA approach uses the same 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

632

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

and vetting EIP’s alleged damage cases, the Agency rejected two other Superfund damage cases, 

because in addition to CCRsCCR, these site had also accepted large volume of non-CCR 

waste.234

Four major releases of CCR sludge associated with surface impoundment dike or pipe 

failure resulted in significant coal slurry releases,235 causing fish kills and other ecologic damage, 

and in some instances also damage to infrastructure. In the Clinch River spill, for instance, it was 

estimated that 217,000 fish were killed in a 90-mile stretch of the river in Virginia and

Tennessee. The Clinch River plant coal ash had a high free lime content, which reacted with 

water in the settling pond to form an alkaline calcium hydroxide. As a result, during the release, 

pH was elevated to levels as high as 12.7. The high-toxicity shock also decimated benthic macroinvertebrate populations for a distance of over three miles below the spill site, and snails and 

mussels were eliminated for over 11 miles below the Clinch River power plant. 

As demonstrated in the aftermath of the 2008 coal ash spill in TVA Kingston, Tennessee, 

large impoundment dike breach incidents result in impacts to soil and river sediments. In a study 

conducted few months after the spill, Emory River’s downstream sediments showed high 

 

investigation and cleanup process and standards that are used for sites listed on the NPL, while it can 

potentially save the time and resources associated with listing a site on the NPL. As long as a PRP enters 

into an SA approach agreement with EPA, there is no need for EPA to list the site on the NPL. 

234 These are the formerly proven damage case of Salem Acres, Massachusetts (originally addressed in the 

2007 Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments Report), and Industrial Excess Landfill, 

Uniontown, Ohio, an alleged damage case submitted by EIP in In Harm’s Way, 2010.

235 These catastrophic releases involved the release of 1.1 x 109

, 2.7 x 108, 1.3 x 108, and 1 x 108 gallons of 

CCR slurry at the spills of the 2008 Kingston TVA, Tennessee; the 2014 Dan River, North Carolina; the 

1967 Clinch River, Virginia; and the 2005 Martins Creek, Pennsylvania, respectively.) In addition, the 

possible ecologic impacts of two consecutive, 30 million gallons each, of CCR slurry releases (in 2007 

and 2008) by the Eagle Valley power plant in Indiana have not been assessed.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

633

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

mercury concentrations similar to those detected in the coal ash (115-130 μg/kg).236 According to 

this study, the ecological effects of mercury in the coal ash and sediments depend on the 

chemical mobility of mercury in the solids and the potential for mercury methylation in the 

impacted area. Previous studies have shown that sulfate addition can promote methylation in 

freshwater ecosystems by stimulating sulfate reducing bacteria, the primary organisms 

responsible for producing methylmercury in the environment. In coal-ash-containing waters, a 

10- to 20-fold increase in SO4

-2

concentrations was observed in the Emory River Cove area 

relative to unaffected upstream sites. Therefore, the methylation potential of mercury from this 

material could be high because the coal ash also provides an essential nutrient (SO4

-2

) that 

encourages microbial methylation. In addition, leaching of contaminants from the coal ash 

caused contamination of surface waters in areas of restricted water exchange and slight elevation 

down gradient. The accumulation of arsenic-rich fly ash in bottom sediment in the Emory 

River’s aquatic system could cause fish poisoning via both food chains and decrease of benthic 

fauna that is a vital food source. Another recent study estimates that the damage to fish and other 

wildlife incurred by both permitted and unpermitted CCR effluent discharge at some 22 sites 

amounts to over $2.3 billion.237

a. Construction Year and First Detection Year

Slightly over half of the CCR waste units identified as the source of groundwater 

impactingcontamination in the damage cases were commissioned in the 1970s and 1980s, two 

 

236 Survey of the Potential Environmental and Health Impacts in the Immediate Aftermath of the Coal Ash 

Spill in Kingston, Tennessee. Laura Ruhl et al., Environ. Sci. Technol. Published online on May 4, 2009. 

Volume 43 (16), pp 6326–6333: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es900714p

237 A. Dennis Lemly and Joseph P. Skorupa: Wildlife and the Coal Waste policy Debate: Proposed Rules 

for Coal Waste Disposal Ignore Lessons from 45 Years of Wildlife Poisoning. Environ. Sci. Technol., 27 

July, 2012.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

634

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

boom decades of coal-fueled power generation growth in the U.S. Whereas the majority of the 

CCR waste units associated with damage cases were constructed before 1990, approximately six

percent of the units in the damage cases (where the commissioning date is known) became 

operational after 1990. For 61 units with known commissioning dates, the median lag time 

between commissioning and the first detection of impact to groundwater is about 20 years. 

However, considering the large range of lag time values (between less than one year and 50 

years) the recorded median lag time most probably reflects additional variables. Such 

possiblePossible variables include monitoring wells that were installed after many of the waste 

units were already well into their operating stage, and the variable hydraulic conductivity of the 

impoundment’s substrate (including the effectiveness of its liner, if any), both determiningof 

which will determine how soonquickly groundwater impactcontamination is first noted.detected. 

Overall, the evidence about the lag time between the commissioning of a waste unit and the first 

detection of the impact of its leakage challengesimplies that most likely there are prospective 

damage cases that have not yet been identified, challenging industry’s claims that the damage 

cases represent the legacy of a bygone regulatory regime.

b. Liners

Of the waste units implicated in damage cases to groundwater with information on liners, 

over 9290 percent have either no liners, some sort of ash-based liners (e.g., Poz-O-Tec, an 

FGD/lime-conditioned liner), or only partial- or high- permeability (e.g., concrete) liners. The 

majority of the remaining CCR waste units is either clay-lined and/or has a recognizably-failed 

liner. Considering that over a half of CCR waste units associated with groundwater impacts were 

constructed in the 1970s and 1980s, historic information on liner prevalence and composition is 

highly pertinent. According to the February 1988 Report to Congress on coal combustion wastes 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

635

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(“RTC I”), before 1975 less than 20 percent of all generating facility units managed their 

CCRsCCR in lined disposal units, and in generating facility units constructed since 1975, the 

share of lined units grew to over 40 percent.238 However, as late as in the mid-1980s, about threequarters of all CCR units (87 percent of surface impoundments and 39 percent of landfills) were 

still unlined.239

In the mid-1990s, the estimated prevalence of unlined landfills still ranged between 43-57 

percent, and between 71-72 percent for surface impoundments.240 According to the March 1999 

Report to Congress on wastes from the combustion of fossil fuels (“(RTC II”),), the most 

prevalent liner type was compacted clay (about one-half of all lined landfills, and about 80-

percent of all lined surface impoundments). Composite and/or synthetic liners were significantly 

more prevalent in landfills than in surface impoundments. Based on recent EPA data,241 the use 

of liners is still more prevalent in landfills than in surface impoundments. 

 

238 Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants (First Report to Congress), 

EPA/530-SW-88-002, February, 1988, pages 4-30 to 4-33: 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/coal-rtc.pdf.

239 These statistics are based on about 42 percent of the total CCR disposal units at that time, for which 

liner information was available. RTC I attributes this low percentage to the common practice of disposal 

in off-site units, for which liner information was not available.

240

 Based on three different partial surveys cited in the Second Report to Congress (RTC II, 1999): 

Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels, Volume 2 – Methods, Findings, and Recommendations

(Second Report to Congress), EPA 530-R-99-010, March 1999: 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/volume_2.pdf

241 EPA compiled the baseline use of bottom liners by CCR landfills and surface impoundments from the 

following sources: 1) Impoundment data from EPA/OSWER’s 2009-2011 impoundment dam integrity 

site inspections; http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/index.htm; 2) 

Impoundment data from ORCR’s 2009 Information Collection Request (ICR) addressing power plants 

with impoundments; http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/coalashletter.htm; and 3) 

Landfill and impoundment data from EPA Office of Water’s 2010 ICR addressing power plants to be 

affected by the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines: 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam_index.cfm#point6.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

636

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

c. Geographic Distribution

Close to 70 percent of all the established damage cases occur in EPA Regions 5, 4, and 3 

(in descending frequency, Region 5: 34 percent; Region 4: 28 percent; and Region 3: seven 

percent).

242 This distribution correlates well with the regional distribution of unlined CCR 

disposal units in the mid-1980s.243

d. Current CCR Waste Unit Status

As of mid-2011, close to half of the combined (proven and potential) damage case CCR 

waste units were still active; about a quarter were inactive due to either closure of the individual 

disposal unit, a fuel switch (e.g., from coal to gas) ofby the generating facility, or the 

decommissioning of the facility; and another. Another quarter or so represented power 

generating facilities where non-compliant CCR waste units (primarily impoundments) that failed 

to comply with state requirements had been closed and replaced by other, new disposal units, 

and/or the generating facilities switched from wet- to dry disposal mode. Since mid-2011, the 

percentage of no longer activeinactive CCR disposal units associated with groundwater damage 

cases has further increased as a result of, due to the continued drop in power demand during the 

economic recession, which has resulted in power station temporary removal from active service

(i.e., mothballing) and closures, combined with an increasing switch ofby many of the generating 

facilities to a more cost-effective fossil fuel. (i.e., natural gas).

E. Conclusions

 

242 See http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/#regional for a list of states covered by each EPA Regional office. 

243 According to the Report to Congress I (1988), in the mid-1980s, the distribution of unlined CCR waste 

units across EPA regions was as follows: For surface impoundments: 31.7% percent (Region 4); 18.6%

percent (Region 5); 6.2% percent (Region 7); and 3.5% percent (Region 3). For landfills: 11.1% percent

(Region 5); 2.9% percent (Region 3); and 2.4% percent (Region 4).
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

637

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

WeEPA now havehas a significantly better understanding of CCR damage cases than we 

had when the proposed rule was issued. First, damage cases turn out to beare more numerous 

than previously contemplated, and in addition, as more monitoring well systems are installed

(e.g., in response to the present rule’s groundwater monitoring requirements), the number of 

damage cases is likely to increase. Second, ourthe CCR damage case record supportscorroborates

the findings of the risk analysis accompanying the present rule by demonstrating the greater 

vulnerability of groundwater (and surface water) to wet disposal (i.e., surface impoundments). 

Third, the record on damage cases supporting the present rule showsshow a direct correlation 

between the absence of liners and groundwater impacts, and illustratesillustrate that whereas in 

general the protective design of waste units – particularly surface impoundments – has been 

improving withimproved over time, a notable portion of CCR impoundments constructed in the 

last two decades still lack a protective liner, thus becomingpresenting a potential threat to 

groundwater. Finally, a recent CCR spill incident244 demonstrates that inactive surface 

impoundments that have not been properly decommissioned (i.e., by breaching, dewatering, and 

capping or by clean-closing) continue to pose a significant risk to human health and the 

environment.

XII: Summary of Regulatory Impact Analysis

EPA estimated the costs and benefits of the final rule. The Regulatory Impact Analysis 

(RIA) is available to the public in the docket for today’s action. 

A. Costs of the Final Rule

The estimated costs of the final rule are summarized in Exhibit XIII-A below. These are 

 

244 The Duke Energy’s Dan River, North Carolina, February 2, 2014 CCR slurry spill.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

638

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

the incremental costs above the “baseline.” i.e., the current costs for managing CCRsCCR absent 

this regulation. The baseline takes into account existing state regulations for managing 

CCRsCCR now and into the future. To the extent that some states may have granted waivers or 

variances for certain provisions of State requirements, or in other instances may have added extra 

pollution control requirements above existing regulatory requirements to some specific permits 

issued to electric utility plants for operating CCR management units, the RIA did not take those 

actions into account. 

EPA used the following data sources to create a model for the RIA that estimates the 

costs and benefits of the rule: (1) 2012 DOE EIA-923 database; (2) ORCR’s 2009-2012 CCR 

impoundment site inspections; (3) impoundment data from ORCR’s 2009 mail survey to plants 

with CCR impoundments; (4) landfill and impoundment data from EPA Office of Water’s 2010 

mail survey to power plants forin support of the 2013 proposed Steam Electric Power Generating 

Effluent Limitation Guidelines; (5) Integrated Planning Model (IPM) v. 5.13 (for the future 

projection of coal useconsumption by electric utility plants); and (6) the 1995 Electric Power 

Research Institute (EPRI) Co-management Survey.

Exhibit XII-A 

Estimated Cost of Pollution Controls Required by the CCR Final Rule (millions 2013$)

@ 3% Discount Rate @ 7% Discount Rate

CCR Pollution 

Control

Annualized 

Values

Present 

Values

Annualized 

Values

Present 

Values

1. Groundwater 

monitoring $4.79 $151 $2.80 $39.9

2. Bottom liners $491 $15,500 $297 $4,230

3. Leachate 

collection system 

(landfills only)

$51.6 $1,630 $18.4 $263

4. Fugitive CCR 

dust controls $7.09 $224 $3.36 $48.0

5. Stormwater runon/run-off controls $18.8 $594 $13.0 $186
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

639

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

6. Location 

restrictions $43.6 $1,380 $20.0 $285

7. Closure capping $20.1 $630 $12.0 $171

8. Post-closure 

groundwater 

monitoring (30 

years)

$0.08 $2.40 $0.04 $0.61

9. 

StructuralImpoundm

ent structural

integrity 

inspectionsrequirem

ents

$10.9 $344 $11.1 $158

10. Corrective action 

(CCR contaminated 

groundwater 

cleanup)

$19.0 $600 $19.1 $273

11. Reporting and 

recordkeeping $26.3 $831 $27.3 $389

12. Conversion to 

dry CCR handling $29.0 $916 $57.3 $818
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

640

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

B. Benefits of the Final Rule

The RIA contains two categories of benefits (1) benefits that are monetized and (2) nonmonetized benefits. The RIA estimates 11 categories of expected future human health and 

environmental benefits and cost savings for the CCR rule. These include reduced future CCR 

impoundment structural release prevention;failure releases; reduced future CCR groundwater 

contamination prevention; improved air quality from reduced power plant air pollution; and 

surface water quality benefits. The estimated value of each of the 11 monetized benefits is 

presented in Exhibit XIII-B below.

Exhibit XII-A 

Estimated Cost of Pollution Controls Required by the CCR Final Rule (millions 2013$)

@ 3% Discount Rate @ 7% Discount Rate

CCR Pollution 

Control

Annualize

d Values

Present 

Values

Annualized 

Values

Present 

Values

13. Costs for 

inactiveInactive

impoundments 

(dewater and closure 

cap)

$12.0 $380 $26.7 $381

14. Subtotal industry 

costs (1+...+13) $734 $23,200 $508 $7,240

State Agency 

Burden Costs

15. Impoundment 

structural integrity 

requirements

$0.22 $6.88 $0.22 $3.16

16. Corrective action $0.38 $12.0 $0.38 $5.45

17. Reporting and 

recordkeeping $0.53 $16.6 $0.55 $7.78

18. Subtotal State 

agency burden costs 

(15+16+17)

$1.12 $35.5 $1.15 $16.4

19. Total cost 

(14+18) $735 $23,200 $509 $7,260

Formatted Table

Formatted Table
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

641

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Table XII-B

EPA Estimated Monetized Benefits offor the CCR Final Rule

(millions 2013$ over 100-year period of analysis 2016-2114)

3% discount rate 7% discount rate

Annualized Present 

Value Annualized Present Value

B. Monetized Benefits

1. Prevention 

ofReduced CCR 

impoundment 

structural 

failure releases 

$151 $4,760 $138 $1,960

2. Reduced

CCR landfill & 

impoundment 

groundwater 

contamination

prevention

$12.8 $405 $9.86 $141 

3. Induced 

increase in 

future annual 

CCR beneficial 

uses 

$117 $3,130 $79.0 $1,120 

4. Reduced 

incidence of 

cancer from 

CCR exposure

< $0.1 $0.17 < $0.1 < $0.1 

5. Avoided IQ 

losses from 

mercury in 

CCR

$0.28 $8.80 < $0.1 $0.35 

6. Avoided IQ 

losses from lead

in CCR

$0.186 $5.87 < $0.1 $0.23 

7. Reduced 

need for 

specialized 

education

(associated with 

5 & 6 above)

< $0.1 < $0.1 < $0.1 < $0.1 

8. Non-market 

surface water 

quality benefits

$2.26 $71.4 $1.89 $27.0 

9. Protection of 

threatened & $0.91 $28.7 $0.76 $10.8 Formatted Table
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

642

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

endangered 

species near 

CCR 

impoundments
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

643

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Table XII-B

EPA Estimated Monetized Benefits for the CCR Final Rule

(millions 2013$ over 100-year period of analysis 2016-2114)

3% discount rate 7% discount rate

Annualized Present 

Value Annualized Present Value

10. Improved 

air quality from 

induced 

changes to 

power plant 

emissions

$4.66 $147 $2.04 $29.1 

11. Reduced 

power plant 

groundwater 

withdrawals

< $0.1 < $0.1 < $0.1 < $0.1

12 Total 

monetized 

benefits (1 

+...+ 11)

$289 $8,550 $232 $3,290

In addition to the monetized benefit categories, the RIA describes 11 additional nonmonetized benefit categories. Due to uncertainties and weaknesses in supporting documentation 

for quantifying and monetizing these benefits, the RIA presents these benefits separately from 

the benefits listed above, and does not include them in the quantified comparison of benefits and 

costs. These non-monetized benefits include:

1. Financial market benefits

2. Reduced community dread of CCR impoundment structural failure releases

Table XII-B

EPA Estimated Benefits of the CCR Rule

(millions 2013$ over 100-year period of analysis 2016-2114)

3% discount rate 7% discount rate

Annualized Present 

Value Annualized Present Value

B. Monetized Benefits

Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to:

Column, Vertical: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal:

0", Wrap Around

Formatted Table

Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to:

Column, Vertical: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal:

0", Wrap Around

Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to:

Column, Vertical: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal:

0", Wrap Around

Formatted: Right, Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to:

Column, Vertical: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal:

0", Wrap Around

Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Left, Relative to:

Column, Vertical: In line, Relative to: Margin, Horizontal:

0", Wrap Around
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

644

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

3. Reduced health and property nuisance impacts from CCR fugitive dust 

4. Cancer and non-cancer human health benefitbenefits from reduced CCR contamination of

fish consumptionconsumed by recreational anglers and subsistence fisher households in 

surface waters near power plants (additional to monetized avoided health effects)

5. Cancer and non-cancer human health benefits from reduced CCR exposure by other 

recreational usesusers of surface waters near power plants (additional to monetized 

avoided health effects)

6. Avoided sedimentCCR contamination of sediments in surface waters near power plants

7. Water quality benefits from avoided CCR contamination treatment costs for use of 

surface waters for drinking and irrigation water supply

8. Commercial fisheries benefit in surface waters near power plants

9. Increased participation in water-based recreation near power plants

10. Avoided fish impingement and entrainment mortality from power plant water intakes

(induced conversion to dry CCR handling reduces future water demand for CCR sluicing)

11. Increased property values surrounding electric utility plants (from closure capping and revegetation of CCR surface impoundments)

The total monetized benefits less the total costs of the rule provide the net monetized 

benefits of the rule. Exhibit XIII-C summarizes the total costs and benefits as well as the net 

benefits of the rule. 

Exhibit XII-C

EPA Estimated Incremental Costs & Benefits of the CCR Rule

(millions 2013$ over 100-year period of analysis 2015-2114)

3% 

discount rate

7% 

discount rate

A. Annualized Values

A1. Total Costs $735 $509
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

645

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Exhibit XII-C

EPA Estimated Incremental Costs & Benefits of the CCR Rule

(millions 2013$ over 100-year period of analysis 2015-2114)

A2 Total monetized 

benefits $289 $232

A3. Net Benefits (A2 - A1) ($446) ($277)

A4. Benefit to Cost Ratio 

(A3 / A1) 0.39 0.46

B. Present Value

B1. Total Costs $23,200 $7,260

B2 Total monetized 

benefits $8,550 $3,290

B3. Net Benefits (B2 - B1) ($14,650) ($3,970)

B4. Benefit to Cost Ratio 

(B2/ B1) 0.37 0.45

XIII. Uniquely Associated Wastes

By way of this rule, EPA is codifying in § 261.4(b) (4) a list of low volume waste that 

when co-disposed with CCRsCCR are not subject to hazardous waste regulations. These wastes 

are also referred to as uniquely associated wastes. However, these uniquely associated wastes 

are subject to hazardous waste regulations when they are not co-disposed with CCRsCCR. 

In a letter to EPA dated October 10, 1980 the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group 

(USWAG) suggested interpretive language that EPA should adopt regarding the amendments to 

the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980 which address fossil fuel combustion wastes. 

EPA replied to USWAG by letter dated January 13, 1981 (known as the 1981 Dietrich letter), 

and addressed, among other issues, other associated wastes generated in conjunction with the 

burning of fossil fuels.245 EPA stated that “We believe it is appropriate, in the light of 

Congressional intent, to interpret the §261.4(b) (4) exclusion to include other wastes that are 

 

245

 See letter from Gary N. Dietrich to Paul Elmer, USWAG, available in the docket to today’sfor this

rule.

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line spacing: single
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

646

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

generated in conjunction with the burning of fossil fuels and mixed with and co-disposed or cotreated with fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission control wastes.” When 

amendments to the 1980 Solid Waste Disposal Act were introduced, Congressmen Bevill and 

Rahall stated, respectively:

“It is the sponsor's intention that this list of waste materials in the amendment be read 

broadly, to incorporate the waste products generated in the real world as a result of the 

combustion of fossil fuels. We do not believe that these terms should be narrowly read and thus 

impose regulatory burdens upon those who seek to assist the Nation by burning coal. EPA 

should recognize that these "waste streams" often include not only the byproducts of the 

combustion of coal and other fossil fuels, but also relatively small proportions of other materials 

produced in conjunction with the combustion, even if not derived directly from these fuels. EPA 

should not regulate these waste streams because of the presence of these materials, if there is no 

evidence of any substantial environmental danger from these mixtures.” (126 Cong. Rec. 

H1102).

“In the real world, these waste materials do not include solely fly ash, bottom ash, slag, or 

scrubber sludge. Quite often, other materials are mixed with these large volume waste streams, 

with no environmentally harmful effects, and often with considerable benefit-as when, for 

example, boiler cleaning- acids are neutralized by being mixed with alkaline fly ash. These 

appear to me to be environmentally beneficial practices, which EPA should encourage. At the 

very least, however, the Agency should take no steps to discourage them until it has developed a 

full factual understanding of the situation. This amendment would assure that EPA allows all 

persons burning coal to avoid unnecessary regulation of the byproducts produced by that 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

647

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

combustion, as those byproducts are currently being managed in the real world, by real people, 

with real sense.” (126 Cong. Rec. H1104).

As such, EPA interpreted 40 CFR §261.4(b) (4) (the Bevill exemption) to mean that 

wastes produced in conjunction with the combustion of fossil fuels, which are necessarily 

associated with the production of energy, and which traditionally have been, and which actually 

are, mixed with and co-disposed or co-treated with fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, or flue gas 

emission control wastes from coal combustion are not hazardous wastes. In the Deitrich letter 

EPA stated that these other associated wastes include, but are not limited to the following wastes: 

(1) boiler cleaning solutions; (2) boiler blowdown; (3) demineralizer regenerant; (4) pyrites; and 

(5) cooling tower blowdown.

In a February 1988 Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by 

Electric Utility Power Plants EPA listed the following low-volume wastes commonly produced 

in conjunction with the burning of fossil fuels to produce electricity: (1) boiler blowdown; (2) 

coal pile runoff; (3) cooling tower blowdown; (4) demineralizer regenerants and rinses; (5) metal 

and boiler cleaning wastes; (6) pyrites; and (7) sump effluents. Presented for each type of lowvolume waste is a brief description of how the waste is generated, typical quantities produced, 

and the physical and chemical composition of the waste.246 The source of this information was 

primarily an August 1981 USWAG/Edison Electric Institute report in response to a request for 

information in the 1981 Dietrich letter.

 

246

 See http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/coal-rtc.pdf, pages 3-41 to 3-62. See 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/coal-rtc.pdf, pages 3-41 to 3-62. This report 

addressed wastes generated from the combustion of coal by electric utility power plants, and did not 

address comanaged utility coal combustion wastes, other fossil fuel combustion wastes, and wastes from 

non-utility boilers.

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

648

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

In an August 1, 1993 Regulatory Determination the Agency emphasized that comanagement of low-volume wastes and large-volume wastes (fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, or 

flue gas emission control wastes from coal combustion) makes the combined waste stream a 

remaining waste that would be subject to a subsequent Regulatory Determination and provided 

the list below of management practices that result in combined waste streams that are remaining 

wastes.247

 Discharge of boiler blowdown to a large-volume waste impoundment, 

 Discharge of demineralizer regenerant to a large-volume waste impoundment, 

 Discharge of metal cleaning wastes to a large-volume waste impoundment, 

 Discharge of boiler chemical cleaning wastes to a large-volume waste impoundment, 

 Discharge of plant wastewater treatment effluent to a large-volume waste impoundment, 

 Discharge of coal mill rejects to a large-volume waste impoundment,

 Disposal of oil ash in a large-volume waste landfill or impoundment, 

 Disposal of plant wastewater treatment sludge in a large-volume waste landfill.

In a 1999 Report to Congress on wastes from the combustion of fossil fuels248 EPA stated 

that low-volume wastes are generated as a result of supporting processes that are ancillary to, but 

a necessary part of, the combustion and power generation processes and provided the following 

list of low-volume wastes.

• Coal pile runoff. 

• Coal mill rejects/pyrites. 

 

247

 http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/mineral/080993.pdf 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/mineral/080993.pdf

248

 http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/volume_2.pdf 

http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/volume_2.pdf

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt

Formatted: Font: 11 pt
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

649

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

• Boiler blowdown. 

• Cooling tower blowdown and sludge. 

• Water treatment sludge. 

• Regeneration waste streams. 

• Air heater and precipitator washwater. 

• Boiler chemical cleaning waste. 

• Floor and yard drains and sumps. 

• Laboratory wastes. 

• Wastewater treatment sludge. 

The concept of uniquely associated wastes with respect to CCR was first introduced in 

the May 22, 2000 Regulatory Determination. Prior to this, these wastes were referred to as other 

wastes, remaining wastes, or low-volume wastes, that are generated in conjunction with the 

burning of fossil fuels and mixed with and co-disposed or co-treated with fly ash, bottom ash, 

boiler slag and flue gas emission control wastes. For the May 22, 2000 Regulatory 

determination, the Agency proposed the uniquely associated wastes concept with the intent of 

being consistent with other wastes covered under the Bevill Amendment (a.k.a., the Bevill 

exemption), such as mining and mineral processing wastes that the Agency refers to as uniquely 

associated wastes, and under the Bentsen Amendment for oil and gas exploration and production 

wastes which are referred to as associated wastes. The Agency recognized that determining 

whether a particular waste is uniquely associated with fossil fuel combustion involves an 

evaluation of the specific facts of each case. In the Agency’s view, the following qualitative 

criteria should be used to make such determinations on a case-by-case basis:
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

650

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(1) Wastes from ancillary operations are not ‘‘uniquely associated’’ because they are not 

properly viewed as being ‘‘from’’ fossil fuel combustion.

(2) In evaluating a waste from non-ancillary operations, one must consider the extent to 

which the waste originates or derives from the fossil fuels, the combustion process, or 

combustion residuals, and the extent to which these operations impart chemical characteristics to 

the waste.

EPA proposed the following list of wastes that the Agency considered to be uniquely 

associated wastes (i.e., uniquely associated with the combustion of coal for the generation of 

electricity at electric utilizes and independent power producers and, therefore, covered by the 

Bevill exemption).

 Coal Pile Runoff

 Coal Mill Rejects and Waste Coal

 Air Heater and Precipitator Washes

 Floor and Yard Drains and Sumps

 Wastewater Treatment Sludges

 Boiler Fireside Chemical Cleaning Wastes

EPA also proposed the following list of wastes that would not be considered uniquely 

associated wastes. 

 Boiler Blowdown

 Cooling Tower Blowdown and Sludges

 Intake or Makeup Water Treatment and Regeneration Wastes

 Boiler Waterside Cleaning Wastes

 Laboratory Wastes
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

651

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

 General Construction and Demolition Debris

 General Maintenance Wastes 

EPA requested comments on these proposed lists and received several comments from 

states, industry, and the environmental community. Industry opposed the “uniquely associated”

waste framework, and favors retaining the 1981"Dietrich Policy." 

Many commenters argued that the Dietrich policy has provided clear guidance on the 

scope of the Bevill exemption for the past 20 years, and that appropriate waste management 

practices have been implemented for these wastes. The Dietrich Policy has proven itself 

effective in furthering congressional intent to recognize certain historic co-management practices 

provided they are not environmentally harmful. The Association of State and Territorial Solid 

Waste Management Officials recommended that EPA contact States that have management 

programs for fossil fuel combustion wastes to determine how to best manage the waste that are 

uniquely associated or not uniquely associated with fossil fuel combustion wastes. The Hoosier 

Environmental Council opposed exempting coal wastes and stated that "coal mill rejects and coal 

pile runoff would not be uniquely associated wastes ... because neither of these wastes is derived 

from coal combustion."

EPA acknowledges that the Deitrich letter has been longstanding policy with regard to 

CCR uniquely associated wastes and that the Agency has not sought input from States on the 

issue. Moreover, as evident from the Congressional Record, the Congressional intent was to 

“include not only the byproducts of the combustion of coal and other fossil fuels, but also 

relatively small proportions of other materials produced in conjunction with the combustion, 

even if not derived directly from these fuels.” These other materials would include many of 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

652

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

those listed in the Dietrich letter as well as many of those listed in the May 2000 Regulatory 

determination.

After considering the 1981 Dietrich letter, a copy of which is included in the docket for 

today’sthis rule, the proposed guidance in the May 2000 Regulatory Determination, comments 

received on the May 2000 Regulatory Determination and the July 2010 proposed rule, EPA has 

concluded that the 1981 Dietrich letter accurately reflects the intent of Congress when they 

exempted CCR from hazardous waste regulations. EPA also believes that many of the wastes 

listed as uniquely associated wastes in the May 22, 2000 Regulatory Determination are also 

consistent with the Congressional intent. Therefore, the Agency is finalizing the following list of 

uniquely associated wastes that includes materials from both the Dietrich letter and the May 

2000 Regulatory Determination. 

 Coal pile run-off

 Boiler cleaning solutions,

 Boiler blowdown,

 Process water treatment and demineralizer regeneration wastes, 

 Cooling tower blowdown,

 Air heater and precipitator washes,

 Effluents from floor and yard drains and sumps, and

 Wastewater treatment sludges. 

This list is being codified in 40 CFR part 261.4(b): Solid wastes which are not hazardous 

wastes.

XIV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

653

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 

Under section 3(f) ()(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is an "economically significant regulatory action” because it is likely to have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million or more. The total annual cost of this final rule is 

estimated to be $509 million a year using a 7% discount rate. Accordingly, EPA submitted this 

action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

In addition, EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with 

this action. The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) estimated the costs and benefits for 

today’sthis action. The RIA estimated 12 regulatory costs: (1) groundwater monitoring; (2) 

bottom liner installation; (3) leachate collection system installation and management; (4) fugitive 

dust controls; (5) rain and surface water run-on/run-off controls; (6) disposal unit location 

restrictions (including water tables, floodplains, wetlands, fault areas, seismic zones, and karst 

terrain); (7) closure capping to cover units; (8) post-closure groundwater monitoring 

requirements; and (9) impoundment structural integrity requirements; (10) corrective actions 

(CCR contaminated groundwater cleanup); (11) paperwork reporting/recordkeeping; and (12) 

impoundment closures and conversion to dry handling. Using a 7% discount rate, the annualized 

costs are estimated at $509 million, and using a 3% discount rate, annualized costs are estimated 

to be $735 million. Using a 7% discount rate, the total present value costs are estimated at $7.3 

billion, and using a 3% discount rate the present value of estimated costs is $23.2 billion. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

654

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The RIA estimated 11 monetized benefits: (1) CCR impoundment release prevention; (2)

CCR landfill & impoundment groundwater contamination prevention; (3) induced increase in 

CCR beneficial uses (e.g., concrete, wallboard); (4) reduced incidence of cancer from CCR 

exposure; (5) avoided IQ losses from mercury; (6) avoided IQ losses from lead; (7) reduced need 

for specialized education; (8) non-market surface water quality benefits; (9) protection of 

threatened & endangered species near CCR impoundments; (10) improved air quality from 

induced changes to power plant emissions and (11) reduced power plant groundwater 

withdrawals. The annualized monetized benefits are estimated at $289 million (@ 3% discount 

rate) and $232 million (@ 7% discount rate). The total present value monetized benefits are 

estimated at $8.6 billion (@ 3% discount rate) and $3.3 billion (@ 7% discount rate).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

[OUTSTANDING]

The information collection activities in this rule will be submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request 

(ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1189.25, OMB 

control number 2050-0053. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, which will 

be available in the docket once the ICR has been submitted to OMB for review, and it is briefly 

summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB 

approves them.

These regulations, promulgated under subtitle D of RCRA, constitute national minimum 

criteria with which facilities must comply without oversight or intervention by a federal or state 

authority. To address concerns about the absence of regulatory oversight under a subtitle D 

regulation, EPA has developed a combination of mechanisms, including recordkeeping, 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

655

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

notification, and maintaining a publicly accessible internet site. The increased transparency 

resulting from these requirements will minimize the potential for owners or operators to abuse 

the self-implementing system established in this rule. In addition, these requirements provide 

interested parties the information necessary to determine whether the owner or operator is 

operating in compliance with the requirements of the rule and thus will facilitate enforcement by 

States and private citizens. EPA has consolidated the recordkeeping, notification, and internet 

posting requirements into a single section of the regulations in an effort to make these 

requirements easier to follow. It is important to note that EPA will not be collecting any 

information under this rule-instead, facilities must keep records, notify the state, and post 

information on a publicly available website. EPA has taken steps to minimize the burden to the 

regulated community while at the same time achieving the transparency needed to ensure proper 

implementation of this rule. In addition to the burden to owner and operators of CCR landfills, 

in an effort to ease implementation, EPA has reporting and record keeping requirements for 

certain beneficial uses and States. For beneficial use that meets the fourth criteria, the user must 

maintain records and provide documentation upon request. For States, States are encouraged to 

voluntarily adopt at least the federal minimum criteria through the revision of SWMPs. In 

addition, EPA estimated the burden on state government agencies associated with the receipt of 

various notification requirements in the rule. 

The respondents/affected entities are the owners/operators of electric utilities and 

independent power producers that fall within the NAICS code 221112. Specifically, these 

regulations apply to owners and operators of new and existing landfills and new and existing 

surface impoundments, including lateral expansions that of all landfills and surface 

impoundments that dispose or otherwise engage in solid waste management of CCR generated 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

656

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

from the combustion of coal at electric utilities. The rule also applies to CCR units located offsite of the electric utilities’ or independent power producers’ facilities that receive CCR for 

disposal. The rule applies to certain inactive CCR surface impoundments at active electric 

utilities’ or independent power producers’ facilities, if the CCR unit still contains CCR and 

liquids. Finally, the rule applies to certain beneficial users of CCR. The rule may also impact 

States that choose to revise their SWMPs. 

Respondents are obligated to keep records, make the required notifications, and maintain 

the publicly available internet site. These requirements are part of the minimum federal criteria 

under 40 CFR Part 257 and promulgated under the authority of sections 1006(b), 1008(a), 

2002(a), 3001, 4004, and 4005(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and 

Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HAS), 42 U.S.C 6906(b), 6907(a), 6912(a), 6944, and 

6945(a). 

Respondents/affected entities: EPA estimates the total number of respondents to be 486. 

This number represents the estimated number of coal-fired electric utility plants that will be 

affected by the rule. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: The recordkeeping, notification, and posting are part 

of the minimum national criteria being promulgated under Sections 1008, 4004, and 4005(a) of 

RCRA.

Estimated number of respondents: 486. 

Frequency of response: The frequency of response varies. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

657

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Total estimated burden: EPA estimates the total annual burden to respondents to be 

approximately 288,880 hours with a three year total estimated burden of 866,640 hours. Burden 

is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: The total estimated annual cost is approximately $51,768,757; this 

is composed of approximately $18,374,757 in annualized labor costs and $33,394,000 in 

annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. The three year total estimated costs are

$155,306,271 composed of $55,124,271 in labor costs and 100,182,000 in operations and 

maintenance.

In addition, developing a state SWMP (see Unit IX of this preamble) is not a requirement 

under this rule, however, EPA is encouraging states to develop these plans and has developed a 

burden estimate associated with this activity. The estimate for this one-time activity has been 

annualized over the three-year period covered by the ICR. The total estimated annual burden 

(for the 47 states and Puerto Rico where CCR are generated) is approximately 10,880 hours, and 

approximately $429,414 in annualized labor costs; this estimate assumes no annualized capital or 

operations and maintenance costs.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB 

control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB 

approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a 

technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved 

information collection activities contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

658

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 

requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities (SISNOSE). Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today'sthis rule on small entities, small entity is 

defined as: (1) a small business, based on the U.S. Small Business size standard for NAICS code 

221112 (fossil fuel electric utility plants), with fewer than 750 employees; (2) a small 

government jurisdiction, based on the RFA/SBREFA’s definition (5 U.S. Code section 601(5)), 

is the government of a city, county, town, township, village, school district, or special district 

with population under 50,000; (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which 

is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small entities, I certify that 

this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The small entities directly regulated by this final rule consist of one small county, 31 

small cities, 32 small companies, and 13 small cooperative owner entities that own at least one 

coal-burning power plant. There are 91 coal-burning power plants that are owned by the 77 small 

owner entities. Those plants fall into the following categories: one small county plant, 31 small 

city plants, 42 plants owned by small companies, and 17 small cooperative plants.

The RIA estimated CCR compliance costs as a percentage of revenues for each entity and 

found that for almost all small entities affected by the rule the estimated annualized costs were 

less than 1% of revenues. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

659

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Although this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small 

entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, 

requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their 

regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule 

contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 

Accordingly, EPA has prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a written statement which is 

summarized below.

The RIA estimates the rule may affect 414 coal-fired electric utility plants, and may have 

a nationwide average annualized cost of approximately $509 million per year (at a 7% discount 

rate). Of this amount, average annualized costs to State/local governments total $36 million, and 

the average annualized cost to the private sector totals approximately $436 million per year (the 

remainder of the total costs are the costs associated with compliance at federally-owned electric 

utility plants.)

Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of section 204 of the 

UMRA, EPA has initiated pre-proposal consultations with governmental entities affected by this 

rule. In developing the regulatory options for the CCR rule, EPA consulted with small 

governments according to EPA’s UMRA interim small government consultation plan developed 

pursuant to section 203 of UMRA. EPA’s interim plan provides for two types of possible small 

government input: technical input and administrative input. According to this plan, and 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5", Tab stops: Not at 0"

+ 0.5" + 0.75" + 1.25" + 1.75" + 2.25" + 2.75" +

3.25" + 3.75" + 4.25" + 4.75" + 6.38"

Formatted: Font color: Auto
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

660

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

consistent with section 204 of UMRA, early in EPA’s 2009 process for developing the CCR rule, 

EPA implemented a small government consultation process consisting of two consultation 

components: (1) a series of meetings in 2009 for purposes of acquiring technical input from State 

government officials, and (2) letters to 10 organizationorganizations representing smallelected 

State and local government elected officials, to inform and seek input for the rulerule’s

development, as well as to invite them to a meeting held September 16, 2009 in Washington DC 

to provide input on the rule. Following are the meetings held with State officials in 2009: (1) 

February 27 with the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials 

(ASTSWMO) Coal Ash Workgroup (Washington DC), (2) March 22-24 with the Environmental 

Council of States (ECOS) Spring Meeting (Alexandria VA), (3) April 15-16 with the 

ASTSWMO Mid-Year Meeting (Columbus OH), (4) May 12-13 with the EPA Region IV State 

Directors Meeting (Atlanta, GA), (5) June 17-18 with the ASTSWMO Solid Waste Managers 

Conference (New Orleans, LA), (6) July 21-23 with the ASTSWMO Board of Directors Meeting 

(Seattle, WA), and (7) August 12 with the ASTSWMO Hazardous Waste Subcommittee Meeting 

(Washington DC). ASTSWMO is an organization with a mission to work closely with the EPA 

to ensure that its State government members are aware of the most current developments related 

to State waste management programs. ECOS is a national non-profit, non-partisan association of 

State and territorial environmental agency leaders. As a result of these meetings EPA received 

letters in mid-2009 from 22 State governments as well as a letter from ASTSWMO expressing 

their stance on CCR regulatory options.

On August 24, 2009 letters were mailed to the following 10 organizations, which include 

representation from small government elected officials, to inform and seek input for the rule 

development, as well as to invite them to a meeting held September 16, 2009 in Washington DC: 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5", Adjust space

between Latin and Asian text, Adjust space between

Asian text and numbers
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

661

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(1) National Governors Association, (2) National Conference of State Legislatures, (3) Council 

of State Governments, (4) National League of Cities, (5) U.S. Conference of Mayors, (6) County 

Executives of America, (7) National Association of Counties, (8) International City/County 

Management Association, (9) National Association of Towns and Townships, and (10) 

Environmental Council of the States. These 10 organizations of smallrepresenting State and local

government elected officials are identified in EPA’s November 2008 Federalism guidance as the 

“Big 10” organizations appropriate to contact for purpose of consultation with small government 

elected officials. 

Consistent with section 205, EPA identified and considered a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives in the June 2010 proposed rule, and is adopting the least-costly approach 

(i.e. a modified version of the “D Prime” least costly approach presented in the 2010 proposed 

CCR rule). 

This rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains 

no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The 

threshold amount established for determining whether regulatory requirements could 

significantly affect small governments is $100 million annually. The RIA estimates a $1.2 

million annual cost for State/local government implementation of the rule, which is and $36 

million in annual direct compliance costs on 57 State or local governments. These estimates are

well below the $100 million annual threshold established under UMRA. However this rule does 

have over a $100 million dollar impact on industry. EPA selected one of the lower industry cost 

options for the final rule by selecting a RCRA Subtitle D rule instead of a RCRA Subtitle C rule.

E. Executive Order 13132 - Federalism
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

662

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue an action that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, 

unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs 

incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in 

the process of developing the proposed action.

The EPA has concluded that this action may have federalism implications because it may 

imposeimposes substantial direct compliance costs on State or local governments, and the 

Federal government will not provide the funds necessary to pay those costs. Based on the 

estimates in EPA’s RIA for this action, the final rule, if promulgated, may impose a $1.2 million 

annual cost for State/local government implementation of the rule and $36 million in annual 

direct compliance costs on 57 State or local governments. This amount exceeds the $25 million 

per year “substantial compliance cost” threshold defined in section 1.2(A) (1) of EPA’s 

November 2008 “Guidance on Executive Order 13132: Federalism.” There are 57 State and local 

governments which own 68 coal-burning power plants or 16% of the 414 electric utility plants 

expected to be affected by this rule. These 57 local governments consist of 7 State governments, 

31 small municipality governments, 18 non-small municipal governments and 1 (small) county 

government owner.

EPA guidance requires two economic tests to see if the compliance costs for State 

and local governments trigger Executive Order 13132. The first test is a check to see if aggregate 

expenditures for State and local governments exceeds $25 million or more in any one year. If 

expenditures exceed that amount then EPA may conclude the rule has Federalism implications 

with a few exceptions. The two exceptions to the $25 million threshold are: (1) if the rule is 

expressly required by statute without the use of any discretion by EPA or (2) federal funds are 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

663

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

available to cover the State and local governments’ compliance costs for the rule. The second 

test of Federalism implications is if the impact of the rule on small governments is likely to equal 

or exceed 1% of their annual revenues, then as a policy matter, the EPA may conclude the rule 

also has Federalism implications with a couple exceptions. The exceptions to the 1% of State 

and local government revenues test are if the rule is expressly required by statute without the use 

of any discretion by EPA or federal funds are available to cover the States and local 

governments’ compliance costs for the rule. If either of the two exceptions apply then the rule 

would not be considered to have Federalism implications. Accordingly, EPA provides the 

following federalism summary impact statement as required by section 6(b) of Executive Order 

13132. 

Based on the estimates in EPA’s RIA for today’s action, the final rule, if 

promulgated, may have federalism implications because the rule may impose $36 million in 

annual direct compliance costs on 57 State or local governments. This amount exceeds the $25

million per year ‘‘substantial compliance cost’’ threshold defined in section 1.2(A) (1) of EPA’s 

November 2008 ‘‘Guidance on Executive Order 13132: Federalism.’’ EPA has concluded that 

this proposed rule may have federalism implications, because it may impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on State or local governments which own these plants, and the Federal 

government may not provide the funds necessary to pay those costs. 

The EPA provides the following federalism summary impact statement. The EPA 

consulted with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed action to 

permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. In developing the 

regulatory options described in this final action, EPA consulted with 10 national organizations 

representing State and local elected officials to ensure meaningful and timely input by State/ 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

664

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

local governments, consisting of two consultation components. This consultation is described 

and summarized in the UMRA section above.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited 

comment on the proposed action from State and local officials. EPA received comments from 

over two hundred (200) entities representing State and local governments. The comments 

submitted primarily addressed the issue presented in the proposal of which approach to 

regulating CCR was appropriate – a regulation under subtitle C or under subtitle D of RCRA. 

The State and local government commenters overwhelming voiced their opposition to a 

regulation under subtitle C, citing impacts to State programs if EPA were to bring such a large 

number of facilities and a large volume of waste into the subtitle C universe. State governments 

were very concerned with the resources which would be required to issue subtitle C permits to 

these facilities and to develop and obtain EPA approval of revisions to their authorized RCRA 

subtitle C programs. They also expressed concerns about the limits in the existing hazardous 

waste disposal capacity in the United States to absorb such a large volume of new wastes, also 

citing the financial burden and potential liability problems for cities and towns that operate

landfills or use landfills to dispose of waste that might include coal ash.

In addition, States and local governments expressed concern that a subtitle C rule would 

have a negative effect on beneficial use of CCR and on State beneficial use programs. State and 

local governments fully supported continued beneficial use of CCR and continuation of the 

Bevill exemption for CCR beneficial use. They requested that EPA establish standards to ensure 

that beneficial uses are protective of human health and the environment and ensure consistency 

in management of these materials throughout the country. They specifically cited the use of CCR 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

665

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

in cement and concrete applications, highway construction projects and wallboard manufacture 

(among other uses) and the impacts to municipalities through increased costs and potential job 

loss if CCR is classified as a hazardous waste. They also noted an expectation that utility rates 

would rise as a result of CCR being disposed of in landfills rather than being used for beneficial 

purposes, due to limited availability of commercial hazardous waste disposal facilities and costs 

of transporting high volumes of CCR to these facilities. State Departments of Transportation 

expressed particular concern that a subtitle C rule would negatively affect the use of CCR in road 

bed. Commenters further supported continued beneficial use of CCR to reduce the need for 

mining for substitute products in cement and concrete. Finally, should CCR be classified as a 

hazardous waste, they indicated the need for EPA to clarify that products made using CCR are 

new products and not considered hazardous wastes, and may be treated in the same manner as 

similar products made without CCR. 

Since EPA is promulgating this regulation under subtitle D, the concerns over the 

potential effect of a subtitle C regulation on beneficial use are moot. Moreover in this final rule, 

EPA has established a definition for beneficial use which we believe makes clear the distinction 

between beneficial use and disposal. This is fully discussed in unit VI of this notice.

While States supported a rule under Subtitle D, they also voiced concern about the need 

for flexibility to address site-specific situations, as would be available under a state permitting 

program, and concern about potential inconsistencies between the new federal requirements and 

existing State programs. States suggested that regulation under Subtitle D should embrace the 

existing state permitting programs−allowing state permitting programs as the foundation for 

regulating CCR disposal−and requested financial incentives to implement federal criteria through 

state solid waste programs. They also emphasized the need to allow time for states to make 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

666

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

necessary changes in existing state rules and statutes to incorporate federal criteria. A few 

expressed the desire that financial assurance for closure, post closure care, and corrective action 

should be included in the final rule as a mechanism to ensure that funds will be provided by 

owners and operators to carry out these activities. 

As fully explained earlier in this notice, EPA is promulgating this rule under subtitle D of 

RCRA. As such, these regulations constitute the minimum federal requirements which apply to 

CCR disposal units. States are not required to adopt these regulations or to revise their state 

programs to incorporate the new federal requirements. As fully discussed in Unit V, 

“Development of the RCRA Subtitle D Regulatory Approach,” sections 1008(a), 4004, and 

4005(a) of RCRA (i.e., subtitle D) does not provide EPA with the ability to require states to issue 

permits, to approve state programs to operate in lieu of the Federal Program, or to enforce any of 

the requirements addressing the disposal of CCR. Consequently EPA designed the final rule to 

ensure protection of public health and the environment within these limitations. In addition, to 

help address potential implementation challenges that this statutory and resulting regulatory 

structure impose, as fully set out in Section IX of this notice, EPA is encouraging States to revise 

their Solid Waste Management Plans and to submit these to EPA for approval. 

A complete list of the comments from State and local governments has been provided to 

the Office of Management and Budget and has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. In 

addition, the detailed response to comments from these entities is contained in EPA’s response to 

comments document on this rulemaking. 

As required by section 8(a) of Executive Order 13132, EPA included a certification from

its Federalism Official stating that EPA had met the Executive Order’s requirements in a 

meaningful and timely manner when it sent the draft of this final action to OMB for review 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

667

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

pursuant to Executive Order 12866. A copy of this certification is included in the public version 

of the official record for this final action.

F. Executive Order 13175 – Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, 

and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to 

pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or EPA consults with tribal 

officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a tribal 

summary impact statement. 

EPA has concluded that this action may have tribal implications. However, it will neither 

impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. As 

identified in EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis for this action, there are no known tribal owner 

entities of the coal-fired electric utility plants affected by today’sthis action. Although there are 

three of the 414 coal-fired electric utility plants (in operation as of 2012) which are located on 

tribal lands, they are not owned by tribal governments. These are: (1) Navajo Generating Station 

in Coconino County, owned by the Arizona Salt River Project; (2) Bonanza Power Plant in 

Uintah County, Utah, owned by the Deseret Generation and Transmission Cooperative; and (3) 

Four Corners Power Plant in San Juan County, New Mexico owned by the Arizona Public 

Service Company. The Navajo Generating Station and the Four Corners Power Plant are on 

lands belonging to the Navajo Nation, while the Bonanza Power Plant is located on the Uintah 

and Ouray Reservation of the Ute Indian Tribe.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

668

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of developing this regulation to 

permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks

This action is subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is an 

economically significant regulatory action as defined by EO 12866, and EPA believes that the 

environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect 

on children. Accordingly, we have evaluated the environmental health or safety effects of Coal 

Combustion Residual constituents of potential concern on children. The results of this evaluation 

are contained in the Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes

available in the docket for today’sthis action.

As ordered by EO 13045 Section 1-101(a), EPA identified and assessed environmental 

health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children in the revised risk 

assessment. Pursuant to U.S. EPA’s Guidance on Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and 

Assessing Childhood Exposures to Environmental Contaminants, children are divided into seven 

distinct age cohorts: 1 to < 2 yr, 2 to < 3 yr, 3 to < 6 yr 6 to < 11 yr, 11 to < 16 yr, 16 to < 21 yr, 

and infants (< 1 yr). Using exposure factors for each of these cohorts, EPA calculated cancer and 

noncancer risk results in both the screening and probabilistic phases of the assessment. In 

general, risks to infants tended to be higher than other childhood cohorts, and also higher than 

risks to adults. However, for drinking water cancer risks, the longer exposures for adults led to 

the highest risks. Screening risks exceeded EPA’s human health criteria for children exposed to 

contaminated air, soil, and food resulting from fugitive dust emissions and runoff. Similarly, 90th

percentile child cancer and noncancer risks exceeded the human health criteria for the ground 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

669

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

water to drinking water pathway under the full probabilistic analysis (Table 5-17 in the Human 

and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes). As ordered by EO13045 Section 

101(b) EPA has ensured that the standard addresses disproportionate risks to children that result 

from environmental health risks. The results of the screening assessment finds that risks fell 

below the criteria when wetting and run-on/runoff controls required by the rule are considered.

Under the full probabilistic analysis, composite liners required by the rule for new waste 

management units showed the ability to reduce the 90th percentile child cancer and noncancer 

risks for the ground water to drinking water pathway to well below EPA’s criteria. Additionally, 

the ground water monitoring and corrective action required by the rule will reduce risks from 

current waste management units. Thus, EPA believes that this rule will be protective of 

children’s health.

In general, because the pollution control requirements under the CCR rule will reduce 

health and environmental exposure risks at all coal-fired electric utility plants, the CCR rule is 

not expected to create additional or new risks to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

[Note: This section will be revised once EPA completes its analysis of the impacts of this 

regulation using the “IPM model.”]

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) requires EPA to prepare and 

submit a Statement of Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for actions identified as 

“significant energy actions.” This action, which is a significant regulatory action under Executive 

Order 12866, is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

670

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

energy based on the results of the electricity price impact estimates of the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) for this action. We have prepared a Statement of Energy Effects for this action.

According to Executive Order 13211, the Statement should address (i) any adverse 

effects on energy supply, distribution, or use, (including a shortfall in supply, price increases, 

and increased use of foreign supplies) should the proposal be implemented, and (ii) reasonable 

alternatives to the action with adverse energy effects and the expected effects of such alternatives 

on energy supply, distribution, and use.

The potential impact of the final CCR rule on electricity prices is analyzed relative to the 

“in excess of one percent” threshold which is one of nine alternative numerical indicators 

established by OMB for defining “significant adverse effect” under Executive Order 13211.249 

The RIA estimates potential increases in wholesale electricity prices for 22 North American 

Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) regions. In addition, the analysis focuses on potential 

changes in electricity prices in 2019. The analysis focuses on this relatively early year in the 

analytic time horizon examined in the RIA to minimize uncertainty in the estimated electricity 

price impacts. In addition, under the provisions of the rule, the year 2019 is one year after 

impoundments undergo closure or wet/dry conversion if they are found to be leaking. Therefore, 

2019 represents a high-cost year relative to other years in the analytic time horizon, and the 

analysis presented here will likely yield conservative estimates of the rule’s impact on electricity 

prices.

 

249 OMB defines nine alternative numerical indicators of “significant adverse effect” on energy supply, 

distribution, or use in Section 4 of its “Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, 

and Independent Regulatory Agencies,” M-01-27, July 13, 2001.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

671

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Using a nationwide relationship between changes in electricity production costs and 

changes in wholesale electricity prices obtained from nearly 30 IPM runs for the year 2015 from 

other EPA IPM analyses. The weighted average nationwide potential increase in the wholesale 

price of electricity is not expected to exceed one percent (i.e., 0.61%). However, for one of the 

22 NERC regions (the Western Electricity Coordinating Council / Northwest Power Pool Area 

consisting of the States Washington; Oregon; Idaho; Wyoming; Montana; Nevada; and, Utah and 

a small portion of Northern California), the RIA projects a potential price increase above one 

percent (i.e., 1.11%).

Finally, any retail electricity price increases, if they occur, would have the effect of 

offsetting a portion of the compliance costs to electric utilities estimated in the RIA, as the 

utilities would be recovering costs through price increases to customers. Therefore, these impacts 

are not additive to total rule costs, but would instead offset costs to utilities estimated in the RIA.

Only one region may slightly exceed a one percent electricity price increase, which the 

RIA estimated without considering the potential reduction in such impact with the compliance 

deadline flexibility of today’sthis action for CCR surface impoundments. Thus all regions are 

likely to experience less than one percent electricity price impacts of today’sthis action.

Therefore, this Statement does not address reasonable alternatives to the action because EPA 

does not expect this action to have adverse energy effects as defined by OMB.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

672

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are 

developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 

applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to use the following 

technical standards in this rule: (1) RCRA Subpart D, Section 257.70 liner design criteria for 

new CCR landfills and any lateral expansion of a CCR landfill includes voluntary consensus 

standards developed by ASTM International and EPA test methods such as SW-846, (2) Section 

257.71 liner design criteria for existing CCR surface impoundments include voluntary consensus 

standards developed by ASTM International and EPA test methods such as SW-846, (3) Section 

257.72 liner design criteria for new CCR surface impoundments and any lateral expansion of a 

CCR surface impoundment include voluntary consensus standards developed by ASTM 

International and EPA test methods such as SW-846, and (4) Section 257.73 structural stability 

standards for new and existing surface impoundments use the ASTM D 698 and 1557 standards 

for embankment compaction.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

673

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 

including any minority or low-income population.

EPA’s risk assessment for this action did not separately evaluate either minority or low 

income populations. However, to evaluate the demographic characteristics of communities that 

may be affected by the CCR rule, the RIA compares the demographic characteristics of 

populations surrounding coal-fired electric utility plants with broader population data for two 

geographic areas: (1) one-mile radius from CCR management units (i.e., landfills and 

impoundments) likely to be affected by groundwater releases from both landfills and 

impoundments; and (2) watershed catchment areas downstream of surface impoundments that 

receive surface water runoff and releases from CCR impoundments and are at risk of being 

contaminated from CCR impoundment discharges (e.g., unintentional overflows, structural 

failures, and intentional periodic discharges). 

For the population as a whole 24.8% belong to a minority group and 11.3% falls below 

the Federal Poverty Level. For the population living within one mile of plants with surface 

impoundments 16.1% belong to a minority group and 13.2 % live below the Federal Poverty 

Level. These minority and low-income populations are not disproportionately high compared to 

the general population. The percentage of minority residents of the entire population living 

within the catchment areas downstream of surface impoundments is disproportionately high 

relative to the general population, i.e., 28.7%, versus 24.8% for the national population. Also, 

the percentage of the population within the catchment areas of surface impoundments that is 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

674

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

below the Federal Poverty Level is disproportionately high compared with the general 

population, i.e., 18.6% versus 11.3% nationally. 

Comparing the population percentages of minority and low income residents within one 

mile of landfills to those percentages in the general population, EPA found that minority and 

low-income residents make up a smaller percentage of the populations near landfills than they do 

in the general population, i.e., minorities comprised 16.6% of the population near landfills versus 

24.8% nationwide and low-income residents comprised 8.6% of the population near landfills 

versus 11.3% nationwide. In summary, although populations within the catchment areas of 

plants with surface impoundments appear to have disproportionately high percentages of 

minority and low-income residents relative to the nationwide average, populations surrounding 

plants with landfills do not. Because landfills are less likely than impoundments to experience 

surface water runoff and releases, catchment areas were not considered for landfills.

Because the CCR rule is risk-reducing, with reductions in risk occurring largely within 

the surface water catchment zones around, and groundwater beneath, coal-fired electric utility 

plants, the rule will not result in new disproportionate risks to minority or low-income 

populations.

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take 

effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the 

rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA 

will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the 

U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

675

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after 

it is published in the Federal Register. This action is a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). This rule will be effective 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects

40 CFR part 257

Environmental protection, beneficialBeneficial use, coalCoal combustion products, 

coalCoal combustion residuals, coalCoal combustion waste, disposal, hazardousDisposal, 

Hazardous waste, landfill, surfaceLandfill, Surface impoundment.

40 CFR part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: 

Gina McCarthy,

Administrator. Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

676

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 257—CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 

FACILITIES AND PRACTICES

1. The authority citation for part 257 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6907(a)(3), 6912(a)(1), 6944(a); 33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e).

2. Section 257.1 is amended by:

a. Adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (a) introductory text;

b. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2); and

c. Adding new paragraph (c)(12).

The revisions and additions read as follows: 

§ 257.1 Scope and purpose.

(a) * * * * Unless otherwise provided, the criteria in §§ 257.50 through 

257.107 are adopted for determining which CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments pose 

a reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment under sections 

1008(a)(3) and 4004(a) of the Act.

(1) Facilities failing to satisfy any of the criteria in §§ 257.1 through 257.4 or 

§§ 257.5 through 257.30 or §§ 257.50 through 257.107 are considered open dumps, which are 

prohibited under section 4005 of the Act.

(2) Practices failing to satisfy any of the criteria in §§ 257.1 through 257.4 or 

§§ 257.5 through 257.30 or §§ 257.50 through 257.107 constitute open dumping, which is 

prohibited under section 4005 of the Act.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

677

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

* * * * *

(c) * * * *

(12) Except as otherwise specifically provided in subpart D of this part, the 

criteria in subpart A of this part do not apply to CCR landfills, CCR surface impoundments, and 

lateral expansions of CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundmentsunits, as those terms are 

defined in subpart D of this part. Such units are instead subject to subpart D of this part.

3. Section 257.2 is amended by adding the in alphabetical order definitions offor

“CCR landfill” and “CCR surface impoundment” in alphabetical order to read as follows:

§ 257.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

CCR landfill means an area of land or an excavation that receives CCR and which is not a 

surface impoundment, an underground injection well, a salt dome formation, a salt bed 

formation, an underground or surface mine, or a cave. For purposes of this subpart, a CCR 

landfill also includes sand and gravel pits and quarries, that receive CCR, CCR piles, and 

practicesany practice that dodoes not meet the definition of a beneficial use of CCR.

CCR surface impoundment means a natural topographic depression, man-made 

excavation, or diked area, which is designed to hold an accumulation of CCR and liquids, 

regardless of whetherand the purpose is for treatment, storageunit treats, stores, or 

disposaldisposes of CCR.

* * * * *

4. Part 257 is amended by adding:

a. Adding and reserving a new Subpart C; and

b. Adding Subpart D to read as follows:

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic, No underline

Formatted: Font: Not Italic, No underline

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

678

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Subpart C—[Reserved]

5. Part 257 is amended by adding a new Subpart D to read as follows:

Subpart D—Standards for the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals in Landfills 

and Surface Impoundments

General Provisions

Sec.

257.50 Scope and purpose.

257.51 Effective date of this subpart.

257.52 Applicability of other regulations.

257.53 Definitions.

Location Restrictions

Sec.

257.60 Placement above the uppermost aquifer.

257.61 Wetlands.

257.62 Fault areas.

257.63 Seismic impact zones.

257.64 Unstable areas.

Design Criteria

Sec.

257.70 Liner designDesign criteria for new CCR landfills and any lateral expansion of 

a CCR landfill.

257.71 Liner design criteria for existing CCR surface impoundments.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Underline

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5", Tab stops: Not at

0.69"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0.5", Tab stops:

1.19", Left + Not at 0.69"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

679

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

257.72 Liner designDesign criteria for new CCR surface impoundments and any lateral 

expansion of a CCR surface impoundment.

257.73 Structural integrity criteria for existing CCR surface impoundments.

257.74 Structural integrity criteria for new CCR surface impoundments and any lateral 

expansion of a CCR surface impoundment.

Operating Criteria

Sec.

257.80 Air Criteriacriteria.

257.81 Run-on and run-off controls for CCR landfills.

257.82 Hydrologic and hydraulic capacity requirements for CCR surface impoundments.

257.83 Inspection requirements for CCR surface impoundments.

257.84 Inspection requirements for CCR landfills.

Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action

Sec.

257.90 Applicability.

257.91 Groundwater monitoring systems.

257.92 [Reserved].]

257.93 Groundwater sampling and analysis requirements.

257.94 Detection monitoring program.

257.95 Assessment monitoring program.

257.96 Assessment of corrective measures.

257.97 Selection of remedy.

257.98 Implementation of the corrective action program.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0.5", Tab stops:

Not at 0.69"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0.5", Tab stops:

Not at 0.69"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0.5", Tab stops:

Not at 0.69"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

680

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Closure and Post-Closure Care

Sec.

257.100 Inactive CCR surface impoundments.

257.101 Closure requirements applicable toof CCR landfills and CCR surface 

impoundments.

257.102 Criteria for conducting closure of CCR landfills and CCR surface 

impoundments.

257.103 Alternative closure requirements.

257.104 Post-closure care requirements.

Recordkeeping, Notification, and Posting of Information to the Internet

Sec.

257.105 Recordkeeping requirements.

257.106 Notification requirements.

257.107 Publicly accessible internet site requirements.

Subpart D—Standards for the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals in Landfills 

and Surface Impoundments

§ 257.50 Scope and purpose.

(a) This subpart establishes minimum national criteria for purposes of 

determining which solid waste disposal facilities and solid waste management practices do not 

pose a reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the environment under sections 

1008(a)(3) and 4004(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 

(b) This subpart applies to owners and operators of new and existing landfills 

and surface impoundments, including any lateral expansions of such units that dispose or 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

681

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

otherwise engage in solid waste management of CCR generated from the combustion of coal at 

electric utilities and independent power producers. Unless otherwise provided in this subpart, 

these requirements also apply to disposal units located off-site of the electric utility or 

independent power producer. This subpart also applies to any practice that does not meet the 

definition of a beneficial use of CCR.

(c) This subpart also applies to inactive CCR surface impoundments at active electric 

utilities or independent power producers, regardless of the fuel currently used at the facility to 

produce electricity.

(d) This subpart does not apply to CCR landfills that have ceased receiving CCR 

prior to [INSERT DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

(e) This subpart does not apply to electric utilities or independent power producers 

that have ceased producing electricity prior to [INSERT DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(f) This subpart does not apply to wastes, including fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, 

and flue gas desulfurization materials generated at facilities that are not part of an electric utility 

or independent power producer, such as manufacturing facilities, universities, and hospitals. 

This subpart also does not apply to fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization 

materials, generated primarily from the combustion of fuels (including other fossil fuels) other 

than coal, for the purpose of generating electricity unless the fuel burned consists of more than 

fifty percent (50%) coal on a total heat input or mass input basis, whichever results in the greater 

mass feed rate of coal. 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

682

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(g) This subpart does not apply to CCRpractices that is beneficially used.meet the 

definition of a beneficial use of CCR. 

(h) This subpart does not apply to CCR placement at active or abandoned 

underground or surface coal mines.

(i) This subpart does not apply to municipal solid waste landfills that receive CCR.

§ 257.51 Effective date of this subpart.

The requirements of this subpart take effect on [INSERT DATE 6 MONTHS 

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

§ 257.52 Applicability of other regulations.

(a) Compliance with the requirements of this subpart does not affect the need 

for the owner or operator of a CCR landfill, CCR surface impoundment, or lateral expansion of a 

CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundmentunit to comply with all other applicable federal, state, 

tribal, or local laws or other requirements.

(b) Any CCR landfill, CCR surface impoundment, or lateral expansion of a 

CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundmentunit continues to be subject to the requirements in §§

257.3-1, 257.3-2, and 257.3-3.

§ 257.53 Definitions.

The following definitions apply to this subpart. Terms not defined in this section 

have the meaning given by RCRA.

Acre foot means the volume of one acre of surface area to a depth of one foot.

Active facility or active electric utilities or independent power producers means any 

facility subject to the requirements of this subpart that is in operation on [INSERT DATE 180 

DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. An 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

683

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

electric utility or independent power producer is in operation if it is generating electricity that is 

provided to electric power transmission systems or to electric power distribution systems on or 

after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. An off-site disposal facility is in operation if it is accepting or 

managing CCR on or after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

Active life or in operation means the period of operation beginning with the initial 

placement of CCR in the CCR unit and ending at completion of closure activities in accordance 

with § 257.102.

Active portion means that part of the CCR unit that has received or is receiving CCR or 

non-CCR waste and that has not completed closure in accordance with § 257.102.

Aquifer means a geologic formation, group of formations, or portion of a formation 

capable of yielding usable quantities of groundwater to wells or springs.

Area-capacity curves means graphic curves which readily show the reservoir water 

surface area, in acres, at different elevations from the bottom of the reservoir to the maximum 

water surface, and the capacity or volume, in acre-feet, of the water contained in the reservoir at 

various elevations.

Areas susceptible to mass movement means those areas of influence (i.e., areas 

characterized as having an active or substantial possibility of mass movement) where, because of 

natural or human-induced events, the movement of earthen material at, beneath, or adjacent to 

the CCR unit results in the downslope transport of soil and rock material by means of 

gravitational influence. Areas of mass movement include, but are not limited to, landslides, 

avalanches, debris slides and flows, soil fluctuation, block sliding, and rock fall.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

684

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Beneficial use of CCR means the CCR meet all of the following conditions:

(1) The CCR must provide a functional benefit;

(2) The CCR must substitute for the use of a virgin material, conserving natural resources 

that would otherwise need to be obtained through practices, such as extraction;

(3) The use of the CCR must meet relevant product specifications, regulatory standards or 

design standards when available;, and when such standards are not available, the CCR is not 

used in excess quantities; and

(4) When unencapsulated use of CCR involving placement on the land of 12,400 tons or 

more in non-roadway applications, the user must demonstrate, and maintain a copy of that 

demonstration, showingkeep records, and provide such documentation upon request, that 

environmental releases to ground watergroundwater, surface water, soil and air are comparable 

to or lower than those from analogous products made without CCR, or that environmental 

releases to ground watergroundwater, surface water, soil and air will be at or below relevant 

regulatory and health-based benchmarks for human and ecological receptors during use.

Closed means placement of CCR in a CCR unit has ceased, and the owner or operator has 

completed closure of the CCR unit in accordance with § 257.102 and has initiated post-closure 

care in accordance with § 257.104.

Coal combustion residuals (CCR) means fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas 

desulfurization materials generated from burning coal for the purpose of generating electricity by 

electric utilities and independent power producers. 

CCR fugitive dust means solid airborne particulate matter that contains or is derived from 

CCR, emitted from any source other than a stack or chimney.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic, Underline

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

685

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

CCR landfill or landfill means an area of land or an excavation that receives CCR and 

which is not a surface impoundment, an underground injection well, a salt dome formation, a salt 

bed formation, an underground or surface mine, or a cave. For purposes of this subpart, a CCR 

landfill also includes sand and gravel pits and quarries, that receive CCR, CCR piles, and 

practicesany practice that dodoes not meet the definition of a beneficial use of CCR.

CCR pile or pile means any non-containerized accumulation of solid, non-flowing CCR 

that is placed on the land. CCR piles locatedthat is beneficially used off-site at either beneficial 

use sites or beneficial use facilities areis not pilesa CCR pile. 

CCR surface impoundment or impoundment means a natural topographic depression, 

man-made excavation, or diked area, which is designed to hold an accumulation of CCR and 

liquids, regardless of whetherand the purpose is for treatment, storageunit treats, stores, or 

disposaldisposes of CCR.

CCR unit means any CCR landfill, CCR surface impoundment, or lateral expansion of a 

CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundmentunit, or a combination of more than one of these 

units, based on the context of the paragraph(s) in which it is used. This term includes both new 

and existing units, unless otherwise specified.

Closed means placement of CCR in a CCR unit has ceased, and the owner or operator has 

completed closure of the CCR unit in accordance with §257.102 and has initiated post-closure 

care in accordance with §257.104.

Dike means an embankment, berm, or ridge of either natural or man-made materials used 

to prevent the movement of liquids, sludges, solids, or other materials.

Displacement means the relative movement of any two sides of a fault measured in any 

direction.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

686

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Disposal means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of 

any solid waste as defined in section 1004(27) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

into or on any land or water so that such solid waste, or constituent thereof, may enter the 

environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including ground 

waters.groundwaters. For purposes of this subpart, disposal does not include the storage or 

temporary staging of CCR, or the beneficial use of CCR. 

Downstream toe means the junction of the downstream slope or face of the CCR 

surface impoundment with the ground surface.

Encapsulated beneficial use means a beneficial use of CCR that binds the CCR into a 

solid matrix that minimizes its mobilization into the surrounding environment.

Existing CCR landfill means a CCR landfill that receives CCR both before and after 

[INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], or for which construction commenced prior to [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and receives 

CCR on or after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. A CCR landfill has commenced construction if the owner or 

operator has obtained the federal, state, and local approvals or permits necessary to begin 

physical construction and a continuous on-site, physical construction program had begun prior to 

[INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER].

Existing CCR surface impoundment means a CCR surface impoundment that receives 

CCR both before and after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or for which construction commenced 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

687

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

prior to [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER] and receives CCR on or after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER 

THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. A CCR surface 

impoundment has commenced construction if the owner or operator has obtained the federal, 

state, and local approvals or permits necessary to begin physical construction and a continuous 

on-site, physical construction program had begun prior to [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER 

THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

Facility means all contiguous land, and structures, other appurtenances, and 

improvements on the land, used for treating, storing, disposing, or otherwise conducting solid 

waste management of CCR. A facility may consist of several treatment, storage, or disposal 

operational units (e.g., one or more landfills, surface impoundments, or combinations of them).

Factor of safety (Safety factor) means the ratio of the forces tending to resist the failure of 

a structure to the forces tending to cause such failure as determined by accepted engineering 

practice.

Fault means a fracture or a zone of fractures in any material along which strata on one 

side have been displaced with respect to that on the other side.

Flood hydrograph means a graph showing, for a given point on a stream, the 

discharge, height, or other characteristic of a flood as a function of time.

Freeboard means the vertical distance between the lowest point on the crest of the 

impoundment dike and the surface of the waste contained therein.

Free liquids means liquids that readily separate from the solid portion of a waste under 

ambient temperature and pressure.

Groundwater means water below the land surface in a zone of saturation.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

688

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Hazard potential classification means the possible adverse incremental 

consequences that result from the release of water or stored contents due to failure of the diked 

CCR surface impoundment or mis-operation of the diked CCR surface impoundment or its 

appurtenances. The hazardous potential classifications include high hazard potential CCR 

surface impoundment, significant hazard potential CCR surface impoundment, and low hazard 

potential CCR surface impoundment, which terms mean:

(1) High hazard potential CCR surface impoundment means a diked surface 

impoundment where failure or mis-operation will probably cause loss of human life.

(2) Significant hazard potential CCR surface impoundment means a diked surface 

impoundment where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of human life, but can 

cause economic loss, environmental damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or impact other 

concerns.

(3) (2) Low hazard potential CCR surface impoundment means a diked surface 

impoundment where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of human life and low 

economic and/or environmental losses. Losses are principally limited to the surface 

impoundment owner’s property.

(3) Significant hazard potential CCR surface impoundment means a diked surface 

impoundment where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of human life, but can 

cause economic loss, environmental damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or impact other 

concerns.

Height means the vertical measurement from the downstream toe of the CCR surface 

impoundment at its lowest point to the lowest elevation of the crest of the CCR surface 

impoundment.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

689

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Holocene means the most recent epoch of the Quaternary period, extending from the end 

of the Pleistocene Epoch, at 11,700 years before present, to present.

Hydraulic conductivity means the rate at which water can move through a permeable 

medium (i.e., the coefficient of permeability).

Inactive CCR surface impoundment means a CCR surface impoundment that no longer 

receives CCR on or after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and still contains both CCR and liquids on 

or after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

Incised CCR surface impoundment means a CCR surface impoundment which is 

constructed by excavating entirely below the natural ground surface, holds an accumulation of 

CCR entirely below the adjacent natural ground surface, and does not consist of any constructed 

diked portion.

Indian country or Indian lands means: 

(1) All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the 

United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-ofway running throughout the reservation; 

(2) All dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether 

within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the 

limits of the State; and 

(3) All Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including 

rights of way running through the same. 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

690

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Indian Tribe or Tribe means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or community recognized by 

the Secretary of the Interior and exercising substantial governmental duties and powers on Indian 

lands. 

Inflow design flood means the flood hydrograph that is used in the design or modification 

of the CCR surface impoundments and its appurtenant works.

In operation means the same as active life.

Karst terrain means an area where karst topography, with its characteristic erosional 

surface and subterranean features, is developed as the result of dissolution of limestone, 

dolomite, or other soluble rock. Characteristic physiographic features present in karst terranes 

include, but are not limited to, dolines, collapse shafts (sinkholes), sinking streams, caves, seeps, 

large springs, and blind valleys.

Lateral expansion means a horizontal expansion of the waste boundaries of an existing 

CCR landfill or existing CCR surface impoundment made after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS 

FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

Liquefaction factor of safety means the factor of safety (safety factor) determined using 

analysis under liquefaction conditions.

Lithified earth material means all rock, including all naturally occurring and naturally 

formed aggregates or masses of minerals or small particles of older rock that formed by 

crystallization of magma or by induration of loose sediments. This term does not include manmade materials, such as fill, concrete, and asphalt, or unconsolidated earth materials, soil, or 

regolith lying at or near the earth surface.

Maximum horizontal acceleration in lithified earth material means the maximum 

expected horizontal acceleration at the ground surface as depicted on a seismic hazard map, with 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

691

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

a 98% or greater probability that the acceleration will not be exceeded in 50 years, or the 

maximum expected horizontal acceleration based on a site-specific seismic risk assessment.

New CCR landfill means a CCR landfill or lateral expansion of a CCR landfill that first 

receives CCR or commences construction after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS FROM THE 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. A new CCR landfill has 

commenced construction if the owner or operator has obtained the federal, state, and local 

approvals or permits necessary to begin physical construction and a continuous on-site, physical 

construction program had begun after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Overfills are also considered new CCR 

landfills.

New CCR surface impoundment means a CCR surface impoundment or lateral expansion 

of an existing or new CCR surface impoundment that first receives CCR or commences 

construction after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. A new CCR surface impoundment has commenced 

construction if the owner or operator has obtained the federal, state, and local approvals or 

permits necessary to begin physical construction and a continuous on-site, physical construction 

program had begun after [INSERT DATE 180 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

Operator means the person(s) responsible for the overall operation of a CCR unit.

Overfill means a new CCR landfill constructed over a closed CCR surface impoundment.

Owner means the person(s) who owns a CCR unit or part of a CCR unit.

Poor foundation conditions mean those areas where features exist which indicate that a 

natural or human-induced event may result in inadequate foundation support for the structural 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

692

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

components of an existing or new CCR unit. For example, failure to maintain static and seismic 

factors of safety as required in §§ 257.73(e) and 257.74(e) would cause a poor foundation 

condition.

Probable maximum flood means the flood that may be expected from the most 

severe combination of critical meteorologic and hydrologic conditions that are reasonably 

possible in the drainage basin.

Qualified person means a person or persons trained to recognize specific appearances of 

structural weakness and other conditions which are disrupting or have the potential to disrupt the 

operation or safety of the CCR unit by visual observation and, if applicable, to monitor 

instrumentation.

Qualified professional engineer means an individual who is licensed by a state as a 

Professional Engineer to practice one or more disciplines of engineering and who is qualified by 

education, technical knowledge and experience to make the specific technical certifications 

required under this subpart. Professional engineers making these certifications must be currently 

licensed in the state where the CCR unit(s) is located.

Recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices means engineering 

maintenance or operation activities based on established codes, widely accepted standards, 

published technical reports, or a practice widely recommended throughout the industry. Such 

practices generally detail approved ways to perform specific engineering, inspection, or 

mechanical integrity activities. 

Representative sample means a sample of a universe or whole (e.g., waste pile, lagoon, 

and groundwater) which can be expected to exhibit the average properties of the universe or 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

693

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

whole. See EPA publication SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, 

Physical/Chemical Methods, Chapter 9 for a discussion and examples of representative samples.

Run-off means any rainwater, leachate, or other liquid that drains over land from any part 

of a CCR landfill or lateral expansion of a CCR landfill.

Run-on means any rainwater, leachate, or other liquid that drains over land onto any part 

of a CCR landfill or lateral expansion of a CCR landfill.

Sand and gravel pit or quarry means an excavation for the extraction of aggregate, 

minerals or metals. The term sand and gravel pit and/or quarry does not include subsurface or 

surface coal mines.

Seismic factor of safety means the factor of safety (safety factor) determined using 

analysis under earthquake conditions using the peak ground acceleration for a seismic event with 

a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years, equivalent to a return period of approximately 2,500 

years, based on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) seismic hazard maps for seismic events with 

this return period for the region where the CCR surface impoundment is located.

Seismic impact zone means an area having a 2% or greater probability that the maximum 

expected horizontal acceleration, expressed as a percentage of the earth’s gravitational pull (g), 

will exceed 0.10 g in 50 years.

Slope protection means engineered or non-engineered measures installed on the upstream 

or downstream slope of the CCR surface impoundment to protect the slope against wave action 

or erosion, including but not limited to rock riprap, wooden pile, or concrete revetments, 

vegetated wave berms, concrete facing, gabions, geotextiles, or fascines.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

694

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Solid waste management or management means the systematic administration of the 

activities which provide for the collection, source separation, storage, transportation, processing, 

treatment, or disposal of solid waste.

State means any of the fifty States in addition to the District of Columbia, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

State Director means the chief administrative officer of the lead state agency responsible 

for implementing the state program regulating CCR disposal in CCR landfills and, CCR surface 

impoundments or any, and all lateral expansions of a CCR landfill or CCR surface 

impoundmentunit.

Static factor of safety means the factor of safety (safety factor) determined using analysis 

under the long-term, maximum storage pool loading condition, the maximum surcharge pool 

loading condition, and under the end-of-construction loading condition.

Structural components mean liners, leachate collection and removal systems, final covers, 

run-on and run-off systems, inflow design flood control systems, and any other component used 

in the construction and operation of the CCR unit that is necessary to ensure the integrity of the 

unit and that the contents of the unit are not released into the environment.

Temporary Staging means placing CCR on the land prior to transport for disposal or 

beneficial use of CCR.

Unstable area means a location that is susceptible to natural or human-induced events or 

forces capable of impairing the integrity, including structural components of some or all of the 

CCR unit that are responsible for preventing releases from such unit. Unstable areas can 

include poor foundation conditions, areas susceptible to mass movements, and karst terrains.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

695

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Uppermost aquifer means the geologic formation nearest the natural ground surface that 

is an aquifer, as well as lower aquifers that are hydraulically interconnected with this aquifer 

within the facility’s property boundary. Upper limit is measured at a point nearest to the natural 

ground surface to which the aquifer rises during the wet season.

Waste boundary means a vertical surface located at the hydraulically downgradient limit 

of the CCR unit. The vertical surface extends down into the uppermost aquifer.

Location Restrictions

§ 257.60 Placement above the uppermost aquifer.

(a) New CCR landfills, existing and new CCR surface impoundments, and all lateral 

expansions of CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundmentsunits must be constructed with a 

base that is located no less than 1.52 meters (five feet) above the upper limit of the uppermost 

aquifer., or must demonstrate that there will not be an intermittent, recurring, or sustained 

hydraulic connection between any portion of the base of the CCR unit and the uppermost aquifer 

due to normal fluctuations in groundwater elevations (including the seasonal high water table). 

The owner or operator must demonstrate by the dates specified in paragraph (c) of this section 

that the CCR unit meets the minimum requirements for placement above the uppermost aquifer.

(b) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must obtain a certification from a qualified 

professional engineer stating that the demonstration meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of 

this section.

(c) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must complete the demonstration required 

by paragraph (a) of this section by the date specified in either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this

section.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

696

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(1) For an existing CCR surface impoundment, the owner or operator must complete 

the demonstration no later than [INSERT DATE 1842 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(2) For a new CCR landfill, new CCR surface impoundment, or any lateral expansion 

of a CCR unit, the owner or operator must complete the demonstration no later than the date of 

initial receipt of CCR in the CCR unit.

(3) The owner or operator has completed the demonstration required by paragraph (a) 

of this section when the demonstration is placed in the facility’s operating record as required by 

§ 257.105(e).

(4) An owner or operator of an existing CCR surface impoundment who fails to 

demonstrate compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section by the date 

specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section is subject to the requirements of § 257.101(b)(1).

(5) An owner or operator of a new CCR landfill, new CCR surface impoundment, or 

any lateral expansion of a CCR unit who fails to make the demonstration showing compliance 

with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited from placing CCR in the CCR 

unit.

(5) An owner or operator of a new CCR landfill, new CCR surface impoundment, or 

any lateral expansion of a CCR unit who fails to make the demonstration showing compliance 

with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited from placing CCR in the CCR 

unit.

(d) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(e), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(e), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(e).
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

697

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

§ 257.61 Wetlands.

(a) New CCR landfills, existing and new CCR surface impoundments, and all 

lateral expansions of CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundmentsunits must not be located in 

wetlands, as defined in § 232.2 of this chapter, unless the owner or operator demonstrates by the 

dates specified in paragraph (c) of this section that the CCR unit meets the requirements of 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section.

(1) Where applicable under section 404 of the Clean Water Act or applicable 

state wetlands laws, a clear and objective rebuttal of the presumption that an alternative to the 

CCR unit is reasonably available that does not involve wetlands.

(2) The construction and operation of the CCR unit will not cause or 

contribute to any of the following:

(i) A violation of any applicable state or federal water quality standard;

(ii) A violation of any applicable toxic effluent standard or prohibition under 

section 307 of the Clean Water Act;

(iii) Jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or 

result in the destruction or adverse modification of a critical habitat, protected under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973; and

(iv) A violation of any requirement under the Marine Protection, Research, and 

Sanctuaries Act of 1972 for the protection of a marine sanctuary.

(3) The CCR unit will not cause or contribute to significant degradation of 

wetlands by addressing all of the following factors:

(i) Erosion, stability, and migration potential of native wetland soils, muds 

and deposits used to support the CCR unit;

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

698

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(ii) Erosion, stability, and migration potential of dredged and fill materials 

used to support the CCR unit;

(iii) The volume and chemical nature of the CCR;

(iv) Impacts on fish, wildlife, and other aquatic resources and their habitat 

from release of CCR;

(v) The potential effects of catastrophic release of CCR to the wetland and the 

resulting impacts on the environment; and

(vi) Any additional factors, as necessary, to demonstrate that ecological 

resources in the wetland are sufficiently protected.

(4) To the extent required under section 404 of the Clean Water Act or 

applicable state wetlands laws, steps have been taken to attempt to achieve no net loss of 

wetlands (as defined by acreage and function) by first avoiding impacts to wetlands to the 

maximum extent reasonable as required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, then minimizing 

unavoidable impacts to the maximum extent reasonable, and finally offsetting remaining 

unavoidable wetland impacts through all appropriate and reasonable compensatory mitigation 

actions (e.g., restoration of existing degraded wetlands or creation of man-made wetlands); and

(5) Sufficient information is available to make a reasoned determination with 

respect to the demonstrations in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.

(b) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must obtain a certification from a qualified 

professional engineer stating that the demonstration meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of 

this section.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

699

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(c) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must complete the demonstrations 

required by paragraph (a) of this section by the date specified in either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) 

of this section.

(1) For an existing CCR surface impoundment, the owner or operator must complete 

the demonstration no later than [INSERT DATE 42 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(2) For a new CCR landfill, new CCR surface impoundment, or any lateral expansion 

of a CCR unit, the owner or operator must complete the demonstration no later than the date of 

initial receipt of CCR in the CCR unit.

(3) The owner or operator has completed the demonstration required by paragraph (a) 

of this section when the demonstration is placed in the facility’s operating record as required by 

§ 257.105(e).

(4) An owner or operator of an existing CCR surface impoundment who fails to 

demonstrate compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section by the date 

specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section is subject to the requirements of § 257.101(b)(1).

(5) An owner or operator of a new CCR landfill, new CCR surface impoundment, or 

any lateral expansion of a CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundmentunit who fails to make the 

demonstrations showing compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section is 

prohibited from placing CCR in the CCR unit.

(d) The owner or operator must comply with the recordkeeping requirements 

specified in § 257.105(e), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(e), and the 

internet requirements specified in § 257.107(e).

§ 257.62 Fault areas.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

700

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(a) New CCR landfills, existing and new CCR surface impoundments, and all 

lateral expansions of CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundmentsunits must not be located 

within 60 meters (200 feet) of the outermost damage zone of a fault that has had displacement in 

Holocene time unless the owner or operator demonstrates by the dates specified in paragraph (c) 

of this section that an alternative setback distance of less than 60 meters (200 feet) will prevent 

damage to the structural integrity of the CCR unit.

(b) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must obtain a certification from a qualified 

professional engineer stating that the demonstration meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of 

this section.

(c) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must complete the demonstration required 

by paragraph (a) of this section by the date specified in either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this 

section.

(1) For an existing CCR surface impoundment, the owner or operator must complete 

the demonstration no later than [INSERT DATE 42 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(2) For a new CCR landfill, new CCR surface impoundment, or any lateral expansion

of a CCR unit, the owner or operator must complete the demonstration no later than the date of 

initial receipt of CCR in the CCR unit.

(3) The owner or operator has completed the demonstration required by paragraph (a) 

of this section when the demonstration is placed in the facility’s operating record as required by 

§ 257.105(e).

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

701

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(4) An owner or operator of an existing CCR surface impoundment who fails to 

demonstrate compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section by the date 

specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section is subject to the requirements of § 257.101(b)(1).

(5) An owner or operator of a new CCR landfill, new CCR surface impoundment, or 

any lateral expansion of a CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundmentunit who fails to make the 

demonstration showing compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section is 

prohibited from placing CCR in the CCR unit.

(d) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(e), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(e), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(e).

§ 257.63 Seismic impact zones.

(a) New CCR landfills, existing and new CCR surface impoundments, and all 

lateral expansions of CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundmentsunits must not be located in 

seismic impact zones unless the owner or operator demonstrates by the dates specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section that all structural components including liners, leachate collection 

and removal systems, and surface water control systems, are designed to resist the maximum 

horizontal acceleration in lithified earth material for the site.

(b) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must obtain a certification from a qualified 

professional engineer stating that the demonstration meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of 

this section.

(c) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must complete the demonstration required 

by paragraph (a) of this section by the date specified in either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this 

section.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

702

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(1) For an existing CCR surface impoundment, the owner or operator must complete 

the demonstration no later than [INSERT DATE 42 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(2) For a new CCR landfill, new CCR surface impoundment, or any lateral expansion 

of a CCR unit, the owner or operator must complete the demonstration no later than the date of 

initial receipt of CCR in the CCR unit.

(3) The owner or operator has completed the demonstration required by paragraph (a) 

of this section when the demonstration is placed in the facility’s operating record as required by 

§ 257.105(e).

(4) An owner or operator of an existing CCR surface impoundment who fails to 

demonstrate compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section by the date 

specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section is subject to the requirements of § 257.101(b)(1).

(5) An owner or operator of a new CCR landfill, new CCR surface impoundment, or 

any lateral expansion of a CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundment who fails to make the 

demonstration showing compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section is 

prohibited from placing CCR in the CCR unit.

(5) An owner or operator of a new CCR landfill, new CCR surface impoundment, or 

any lateral expansion of a CCR unit who fails to make the demonstration showing compliance 

with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited from placing CCR in the CCR 

unit.

(d) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(e), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(e), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(e).
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

703

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

§ 257.64 Unstable areas.

(a) An existing or new CCR landfill, existing or new CCR surface impoundment, or 

any lateral expansion of a CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundmentunit must not be located in 

an unstable area unless the owner or operator demonstrates by the dates specified in paragraph 

(d) of this section that recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices have been 

incorporated into the design of the CCR unit to ensure that the integrity of the structural 

components of the CCR unit will not be disrupted.

(b) The owner or operator must consider all of the following factors, at a 

minimum, when determining whether an area is unstable:

(1) On-site or local soil conditions that may result in significant differential 

settling;

(2) On-site or local geologic or geomorphologic features; and

(3) On-site or local human-made features or events (both surface and 

subsurface).

(c) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must obtain a certification from a qualified 

professional engineer stating that the demonstration meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of 

this section.

(d) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must complete the demonstration required 

by paragraph (a) of this section by the date specified in either paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this 

section.

(1) For an existing CCR landfill or existing CCR surface impoundment, the owner or 

operator must complete the demonstration no later than [INSERT DATE 42 MONTHS 

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

704

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(2) For a new CCR landfill, new CCR surface impoundment, or any lateral expansion 

of a CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundmentunit, the owner or operator must complete the 

demonstration no later than the date of initial receipt of CCR in the CCR unit.

(3) The owner or operator has completed the demonstration required by paragraph (a) 

of this section when the demonstration is placed in the facility’s operating record as required by 

§ 257.105(e).

(4) An owner or operator of an existing CCR surface impoundment or existing CCR 

landfill who fails to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section by the date specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section is subject to the requirements of §

257.101(b)(1) or (d)(1), respectively.

(5) An owner or operator of a new CCR landfill, new CCR surface impoundment, or 

any lateral expansion of a CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundmentunit who fails to make the 

demonstration showing compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section is 

prohibited from placing CCR in the CCR unit.

(e) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(e), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(e), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(e).

Design Criteria

§ 257.70 Liner designDesign criteria for new CCR landfills and any lateral expansion of a 

CCR landfill.

(a)(1) New CCR landfills and any lateral expansion of a CCR landfill must be 

designed, constructed, operated, and maintained with either a composite liner that meets the 

requirements of paragraph (b) of this section or an alternative composite liner that meets the 

Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

705

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

requirements in paragraph (c) of this section, and a leachate collection and removal system that 

meets the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section.

(2) Prior to construction of an overfill the underlying surface impoundment 

must meet the requirements of §257.102(d).

(b) A composite liner must consist of two components; the upper component 

consisting of, at a minimum, a 30-mil geomembrane liner (GM), and the lower component 

consisting of at least a two-foot layer of compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity of no more 

than 1x10-7centimeters per second (cm/sec). GM components consisting of high density 

polyethylene (HDPE) must be at least 60-mil thick. The GM or upper liner component must be 

installed in direct and uniform contact with the compacted soil or lower liner component. The 

composite liner must be:

(1) Constructed of materials that have appropriate chemical properties and 

sufficient strength and thickness to prevent failure due to pressure gradients (including static 

head and external hydrogeologic forces), physical contact with the CCR or leachate to which 

they are exposed, climatic conditions, the stress of installation, and the stress of daily operation;

(2) Constructed of materials that provide appropriate shear resistance of the 

upper and lower component interface to prevent sliding of the upper component including on 

slopes;

(3) Placed upon a foundation or base capable of providing support to the liner 

and resistance to pressure gradients above and below the liner to prevent failure of the liner due 

to settlement, compression, or uplift; and

(4) Installed to cover all surrounding earth likely to be in contact with the 

CCR or leachate.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

706

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(c) If the owner or operator elects to install an alternative composite liner, all of the 

following requirements must be met: 

(1) An alternative composite liner must consist of two components; the upper 

component consisting of, at a minimum, a 30-mil GM, and a lower component, that is not a 

geomembrane, with a liquid flow rate no greater than the liquid flow rate of two feet of 

compacted soil with a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1x10-7cm/sec. GM components 

consisting of high density polyethylene (HDPE) must be at least 60-mil thick. If the lower 

component of the alternative liner is compacted soil, the GM must be installed in direct and 

uniform contact with the compacted soil.

(2) The owner or operator must obtain certification from a qualified professional 

engineer that the liquid flow rate through the lower component of the alternative composite liner 

is no greater than the liquid flow rate through two feet of compacted soil with a hydraulic 

conductivity of 1x10-7cm/sec. The hydraulic conductivity for the two feet of compacted soil 

used in the comparison shall be no greater than 1x10-7cm/sec. The hydraulic conductivity of 

any alternative to the two feet of compacted soil must be determined using recognized and 

generally accepted methods. The liquid flow rate comparison must be made using Equation 1 of 

this section, which is derived from Darcy’s Law for gravity flow through porous media.

(Eq. 1):

Q

A

= q = k (

h

t

+ 1)

Where,

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Cambria Math
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

707

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Q = flow rate (cubic centimeters/second);

A = surface area of the liner (squared centimeters);

q = flow rate per unit area (cubic centimeters/second/squared centimeter);

k = hydraulic conductivity of the liner (centimeters/second);

h = hydraulic head above the liner (centimeters); and

t = thickness of the liner (centimeters).

(3) The alternative composite liner must meet the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) of this section.

(d) The leachate collection and removal system must be designed, 

constructed, operated, and maintained to collect and remove leachate from the landfill during the 

active life and post-closure care period. The leachate collection and removal system must be:

(1) Designed and operated to maintain less than a 30-centimeter depth of 

leachate over the composite liner or alternative composite liner;

(2) Constructed of materials that are chemically resistant to the CCR and any 

non-CCR waste managed in the CCR unit and the leachate expected to be generated, and of 

sufficient strength and thickness to prevent collapse under the pressures exerted by overlying 

waste, waste cover materials, and equipment used at the CCR unit; and

(3) Designed and operated to minimize clogging during the active life and 

post-closure care period.

(e) Prior to construction of the CCR landfill or any lateral expansion of a CCR 

landfill, the owner or operator must obtain a certification from a qualified professional engineer 

that the design of the composite liner (or, if applicable, alternative composite liner) and the 

leachate collection and removal system meets the requirements of this section.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

708

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(f) Upon completion of construction of the CCR landfill or any lateral expansion of a 

CCR landfill, the owner or operator must obtain a certification from a qualified professional 

engineer that the composite liner (or, if applicable, alternative composite liner) and the leachate 

collection and removal system has been constructed in accordance with the requirements of this 

section.

(g) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(f), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(f), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(f).

§ 257.71 Liner design criteria for existing CCR surface impoundments.

(a) ()(1) No later than [INSERT DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner or operator of an existing CCR 

surface impoundment must document whether or not such unit was constructed with any one of 

the following:

(i) A liner consisting of a minimum of two feet of compacted soil with a hydraulic 

conductivity of no more than 1x10-7cm/sec; 

(ii) A composite liner that meets the requirements of § 257.70(b); or 

(iii) An alternative composite liner that meets the requirements of § 257.70(c).

(2) The hydraulic conductivity of the compacted soil must be determined using 

recognized and generally accepted methods.

(3) An existing CCR surface impoundment is considered to be an existing unlined 

CCR surface impoundment if either:
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

709

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(i) The owner or operator of the CCR unit determines that the CCR unit is not 

constructed with a liner that meets the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), or 

(a)(1)(iii) of this section; or

(ii) The owner or operator of the CCR unit fails to document whether the CCR unit 

was constructed with a liner that meets the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), or 

(a)(1)(iii) of this section.

(4) All existing unlined CCR surface impoundments are subject to the requirements 

of § 257.101(a).

(b) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must obtain a certification from a 

qualified professional engineer attesting that the documentation as to whether a CCR unit meets 

the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section is accurate.

(c) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(f), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(f), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(f).

§ 257.72 Liner design criteria for new CCR surface impoundments and any lateral 

expansion of a CCR surface impoundment.

(a) New CCR surface impoundments and lateral expansions of existing and 

new CCR surface impoundments must be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained with 

either a composite liner or an alternative composite liner that meets the requirements of §

257.70(b) or (c).

(b) Any liner specified in this section must be installed to cover all 

surrounding earth likely to be in contact with CCR. Dikes shall not be constructed on top of the 

composite liner.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

710

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(c) Prior to construction of the CCR surface impoundment or any lateral expansion of 

a CCR surface impoundment, the owner or operator must obtain certification from a qualified 

professional engineer that the design of the composite liner or, if applicable, the design of an 

alternative composite liner complies with the requirements of this section.

(d) Upon completion, the owner or operator must obtain certification from a qualified 

professional engineer that the composite liner or if applicable, the alternative composite liner has 

been constructed in accordance with the requirements of this section.

(e) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(f), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(f), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(f).

§ 257.73 Structural integrity criteria for existing CCR surface impoundments.

(a) The requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section apply 

to all existing CCR surface impoundments, except for those existing CCR surface impoundments 

that are incised CCR units. If an incised CCR surface impoundment is subsequently modified

(e.g., a dike is constructed) such that the CCR unit no longer meets the definition of an incised 

CCR unit, the CCR unit is subject to the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this 

section.

(1) No later than, [INSERT DATE 8 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner or operator of the CCR unit 

must place on or immediately adjacent to the CCR unit a permanent identification marker, at 

least six feet high showing the identification number of the CCR unit, if one has been assigned 

by the state, the name associated with the CCR unit and the name of the owner or operator of the 

CCR unit.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

711

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(2) Periodic hazard potential classification assessments. (i) The owner or operator of 

the CCR unit must conduct initial and periodic hazard potential classification assessments of the 

CCR unit according to the (2)Periodic hazard potential classification assessments. (i) The 

owner or operator of the CCR unit must conduct initial and periodic hazard potential 

classification assessments of the CCR unit according to the time framestimeframes specified in 

paragraph (f) of this section. The owner or operator must document the hazard potential 

classification of each CCR unit as either a high hazard potential CCR surface impoundment, a 

significant hazard potential CCR surface impoundment, or a low hazard potential CCR surface 

impoundment. The owner or operator must also document the basis for each hazard potential 

classification.

(ii) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must obtain a certification from a qualified 

professional engineer stating that the initial hazard potential classification and each subsequent 

periodic classification specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section was conducted in 

accordance with the requirements of this section.

(3) Emergency Action Plan (EAP). (i) Development of the plan. No later than 

[INSERT DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], the owner or operator of a CCR unit determined to be either a high hazard 

potential CCR surface impoundment or a significant hazard potential CCR surface impoundment 

under paragraph (a)(2) of this section must prepare and maintain a written EAP. At a minimum, 

the EAP must:

(A) Define the events or circumstances involving the CCR unit that represent a safety 

emergency, along with a description of the procedures that will be followed to detect a safety 

emergency in a timely manner;

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

712

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(B) Define responsible persons, their respective responsibilities, and notification 

procedures in the event of a safety emergency involving the CCR unit;

(C) Provide contact information of emergency responders;

(D) Include a map which delineates the downstream area which would be affected in 

the event of a CCR unit failure and a physical description of the CCR unit; and

(E) Include provisions for an annual face-to-face meeting or exercise between 

representatives of the owner or operator of the CCR unit and the local emergency responders.

(ii) Amendment of the plan. (A) The owner or operator of a CCR unit subject to the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section may amend the written EAP at any time 

provided the revised plan is placed in the facility’s operating record as required by 

§257.105(f)(6). The owner or operator must amend the written EAP whenever there is a change 

in conditions that would substantially affect the EAP in effect.

(B) The written EAP must be evaluated, at a minimum, every five years to ensure the 

information required in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section is accurate. As necessary, the EAP 

must be updated and a revised EAP placed in the facility’s operating record as required by §

257.105(f)(6). The owner or operator must amend the written EAP whenever there is a change 

in conditions that would substantially affect the EAP in effect.

257.105(f)(6).

(B) The written EAP must be evaluated, at a minimum, every five years to ensure the 

information required in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section is accurate. As necessary, the EAP 

must be updated and a revised EAP placed in the facility’s operating record as required by § 

257.105(f)(6).

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

713

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(iii) Changes in hazard potential classification. (A) If the owner or operator of a CCR 

unit determines during a periodic hazard potential assessment that the CCR unit is no longer 

classified as either a high hazard potential CCR surface impoundment or a significant hazard 

potential CCR surface impoundment, then the owner or operator of the CCR unit is no longer 

subject to the requirement to prepare and maintain a written EAP beginning on the date the 

periodic hazard potential assessment documentation is placed in the facility’s operating record as 

required by § 257.105(f)(5).

(B) If the owner or operator of a CCR unit classified as a low hazard potential CCR 

surface impoundment subsequently determines that the CCR unit is properly re-classified as 

either a high hazard potential CCR surface impoundment or a significant hazard potential CCR 

surface impoundment, then the owner or operator of the CCR unit must prepare a written EAP 

for the CCR unit as required by paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section within six months of 

completing such periodic hazard potential assessment.

(iv) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must obtain a certification from a qualified 

professional engineer stating that the written EAP, and any subsequent amendment of the EAP, 

meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

(v) Activation of the EAP. The EAP must be implemented once events or 

circumstances involving the CCR unit that represent a safety emergency are detected, including 

conditions identified during periodic structural stability assessments, annual inspections, and 

inspections by a qualified person.

(4) The CCR unit and surrounding areas must be designed, constructed, operated, and 

maintained with vegetated slopes of dikes not to exceed a height of 6 inches above the slope of 

the dike, except for slopes which are protected with an alternate form(s) of slope protection.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

714

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(b) The requirements of paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section apply to an owner 

or operator of an existing CCR surface impoundment that either:

(1) Has a height of five feet or more and a storage volume of 20 acre-feet or more; or

(2) Has a height of 20 feet or more.

(c) ()(1) No later than [INSERT DATE 618 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner or operator of the CCR unit 

must compile a history of construction, which shall contain, to the extent feasible, the 

information specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(xi) of this section.

(i) The name and address of the person(s) owning or operating the CCR unit; the 

name associated with the CCR unit; and the identification number of the CCR unit if one has 

been assigned by the state.

(ii) The location of the CCR unit identified on the most recent U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) 71⁄2 minute or 15 minute topographic quadrangle map, or a topographic map of 

equivalent scale if a USGS map is not available.

(iii) A statement of the purpose for which the CCR unit is being used.

(iv) The name and size in acres of the watershed within which the CCR unit is located.

(v) A description of the physical and engineering properties of the foundation and 

abutment materials on which the CCR unit is constructed.

(vi) A statement of the type, size, range, and physical and engineering properties of 

the materials used in constructing each zone or stage of the CCR unit; the method of site 

preparation and construction of each zone of the CCR unit; and the approximate dates of 

construction of each successive stage of construction of the CCR unit.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

715

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(vii) At a scale that details engineering structures and appurtenances relevant to the 

design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the CCR unit, detailed dimensional drawings 

of the CCR unit, including a plan view and cross sections of the length and width of the CCR 

unit, showing all zones, foundation improvements, drainage provisions, spillways, diversion 

ditches, outlets, instrument locations, and slope protection, in addition to the normal operating 

pool surface elevation and the maximum pool surface elevation following peak discharge from 

the inflow design flood, the expected maximum depth of CCR within the CCR surface 

impoundment, and any identifiable natural or manmade features that could adversely affect 

operation of the CCR unit due to malfunction or mis-operation.

(viii) A description of the type, purpose, and location of existing 

instrumentation.

(ix) Area-capacity curves for the CCR unit.

(x) A description of each spillway and diversion design features and 

capacities and calculations used in their determination.

(xi) The construction specifications and provisions for surveillance, 

maintenance, and repair of the CCR unit.

(xii) Any record or knowledge of structural instability of the CCR unit.

(2) Changes to the history of construction. If there is a significant change to 

any information compiled under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the owner or operator of the 

CCR unit must update the relevant information and place it in the facility’s operating record as 

required by § 257.105(f)(9).

(d) Periodic structural stability assessments. (1) The owner or operator of the 

CCR unit must conduct initial and periodic structural stability assessments and document 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

716

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

whether the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the CCR unit is consistent with 

recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices for the maximum volume of CCR 

and CCR wastewater which can be impounded therein. The assessment must, at a minimum, 

document whether the CCR unit has been designed, constructed, operated, and maintained with:

(i) Stable foundations and abutments;

(ii) Adequate slope protection to protect against surface erosion, wave action, 

and adverse effects of sudden drawdown;

(iii) Dikes mechanically compacted to a density sufficient to withstand the 

range of loading conditions in the CCR unit;

(iv) Vegetated slopes of dikes and surrounding areas not to exceed a height of 

6 inches above the slope of the dike, except for slopes which have an alternate form or forms of 

slope protection;

(v) A single spillway or a combination of spillways configured as specified in 

paragraph (d)(1)(v)(A) of this section. The combined capacity of all spillways must be designed, 

constructed, operated, and maintained to adequately manage flow during and following the peak 

discharge from the event specified in paragraph (d)(1)(v)(B) of this section.

(A) All spillways must be either:

(1) Of non-erodible construction and designed to carry sustained flows; or

(2) Earth- or grass-lined and designed to carry short-term, infrequent flows at 

non-erosive velocities where sustained flows are not expected.

(B) The combined capacity of all spillways must adequately manage flow 

during and following the peak discharge from a:

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

717

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(1) Probable maximum flood (PMF) for a high hazard potential CCR surface 

impoundment; or

(2) 1000-year flood for a significant hazard potential CCR surface 

impoundment; or

(3) 100-year flood for a low hazard potential CCR surface impoundment. 

(vi) Hydraulic structures underlying the base of the CCR unit or passing 

through the dike of the CCR unit that maintain structural integrity and are free of significant 

deterioration, deformation, distortion, bedding deficiencies, sedimentation, and debris which may 

negatively affect the operation of the hydraulic structure; and

(vii) For CCR units with downstream slopes which can be inundated by the 

pool of an adjacent water body, such as a river, stream or lake, downstream slopes that maintain 

structural stability during low pool of the adjacent water body or sudden drawdown of the 

adjacent water body.

(2) The periodic assessment described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section must 

identify any structural stability deficiencies associated with the CCR unit in addition to 

recommending corrective measures. If a deficiency or a release is identified during the periodic 

assessment, the owner or operator of the CCR unit must develop and implement an action plan to 

remedy the deficiency or release as soon as feasible.

(3) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must obtain a certification from a qualified 

professional engineer stating that the initial assessment and each subsequent periodic assessment 

was conducted in accordance with the requirements of this section.

(e) Periodic safety factor assessments. (3) The owner or operator of the CCR 

unit must obtain a certification from a qualified professional engineer stating that the initial 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

718

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

assessment and each subsequent periodic assessment was conducted in accordance with the 

requirements of this section.

(e) Periodic safety factor assessments. (1) The owner or operator of the 

facility must conduct an initial and periodic safety factor assessments for each CCR unit and 

document whether the calculated factors of safety for each CCR unit achieve the minimum 

safety factors specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iv) of this section. for the critical 

cross section of the embankment. The critical cross section is the cross section anticipated to be 

the most susceptible of all cross sections to structural failure based on appropriate engineering 

considerations, including loading conditions. The safety factor assessments must be supported 

by appropriate engineering calculations.

(i) The calculated static factor of safety under the long-term, maximum 

storage pool loading condition must equal or exceed 1.50.

(ii) The calculated static factor of safety under the maximum surcharge pool 

loading condition must equal or exceed 1.40.

(iii) The calculated seismic factor of safety must equal or exceed 1.00.

(iv) For dikes constructed of soils that have susceptibility to liquefaction, the 

calculated liquefaction factor of safety must equal or exceed 1.0020.

(2) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must obtain a certification from a 

qualified professional engineer stating that the initial assessment and each subsequent periodic 

assessment specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section meets the requirements of this section.

(f) Time framesTimeframes for periodic assessments. (1) Initial assessments. 

Except as provided by paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the owner or operator of the CCR unit 

must complete the initial assessments required by paragraphs (a)(2), (d), and (e) of this section

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

719

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

no later than [INSERT DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. The owner or operator has completed an initial assessment when the 

owner or operator has placed the assessment required by paragraphs (a)(2), (d), and (e) of this 

section in the facility’s operating record as required by § 257.105(f)(5), (f)(10), and (f)(12).

(2) Use of a previously completed assessment(s) in lieu of the initial 

assessment(s). The owner or operator of the CCR unit may elect to use a previously completed 

assessment to serve as the initial assessment required by paragraphs (a)(2), (d), and (e) of this 

section provided that the previously completed assessment(s):

(i) Was completed no earlier than 42 months prior to [INSERT DATE 18 

MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]; and

(ii) Meets the applicable requirements of paragraphs (a)(2), (d), and (e) of this 

section.

(3) Frequency for conducting periodic assessments. The owner or operator of 

the CCR unit must conduct and complete the assessments required by paragraphs (a)(2), (d), and 

(e) of this section every five years. The date of completing the initial assessment is the basis for 

establishing the deadline to complete the first subsequent assessment. If the owner or operator 

elects to use a previously completed assessment(s) in lieu of the initial assessment as provided by 

paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the date of the report for the previously completed assessment is 

the basis for establishing the deadline to complete the first subsequent assessment. The owner or 

operator may complete any required assessment prior to the required deadline provided the 

owner or operator places the completed assessment(s) into the facility’s operating record within a 

reasonable amount of time. In all cases, the deadline for completing subsequent assessments is 

based on the date of completing the previous assessment. For purposes of this paragraph, the 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

720

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

owner or operator has completed an assessment when the relevant assessment(s) required by 

paragraphs (a)(2), (d), and (e) of this section has been placed in the facility’s operating record as 

required by § 257.105(f)(5), (f)(10), and (f)(12).

(4) Closure of the CCR unit. An owner or operator of a CCR unit who either fails to 

complete a timely safety factor assessment or fails to demonstrate minimum safety factors as 

required by paragraph (e) of this section is subject to the requirements of § 257.101(b)(2).

(g) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the 

recordkeeping requirements specified in § 257.105(f), the notification requirements specified in 

§ 257.106(f), and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(f).

§ 257.74 Structural integrity criteria for new CCR surface impoundments and any lateral 

expansion of a CCR surface impoundment.

(a) The requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section apply 

to all new CCR surface impoundments and any lateral expansion of a CCR surface 

impoundment, except for those new CCR surface impoundments that are incised CCR units. If 

an incised CCR surface impoundment is subsequently modified (e.g., a dike is constructed) such 

that the CCR unit no longer meets the definition of an incised CCR unit, the CCR unit is subject 

to the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.

(1) No later than the initial receipt of CCR, the owner or operator of the CCR 

unit must place on or immediately adjacent to the CCR unit a permanent identification marker, at 

least six feet high showing the identification number of the CCR unit, if one has been assigned 

by the state, the name associated with the CCR unit and the name of the owner or operator of the 

CCR unit.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

721

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(2) Periodic hazard potential classification assessments. (i) The owner or operator of 

the CCR unit must conduct initial and periodic hazard potential classification assessments of the 

CCR unit according to the time frames(2) Periodic hazard potential classification assessments. 

(i) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must conduct initial and periodic hazard potential 

classification assessments of the CCR unit according to the timeframes specified in paragraph (f) 

of this section. The owner or operator must document the hazard potential classification of each 

CCR unit as either a high hazard potential CCR surface impoundment, a significant hazard 

potential CCR surface impoundment, or a low hazard potential CCR surface impoundment. The 

owner or operator must also document the basis for each hazard potential classification.

(ii) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must obtain a certification from a qualified 

professional engineer stating that the initial hazard potential classification and each subsequent 

periodic classification specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section was conducted in 

accordance with the requirements of this section.

(3) Emergency Action Plan (EAP). (i) Development of the plan. Prior to the 

initial receipt of CCR in the CCR unit, the owner or operator of a CCR unit determined to be 

either a high hazard potential CCR surface impoundment or a significant hazard potential CCR 

surface impoundment under paragraph (a)(2) of this section must prepare and maintain a written 

EAP. At a minimum, the EAP must:

(A) Define the events or circumstances involving the CCR unit that represent a safety 

emergency, along with a description of the procedures that will be followed to detect a safety 

emergency in a timely manner;

(B) Define responsible persons, their respective responsibilities, and notification 

procedures in the event of a safety emergency involving the CCR unit;

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

722

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(C) Provide contact information of emergency responders;

(D) Include a map which delineates the downstream area which would be affected in 

the event of a CCR unit failure and a physical description of the CCR unit; and

(E) Include provisions for an annual face-to-face meeting or exercise between 

representatives of the owner or operator of the CCR unit and the local emergency responders.

(ii) Amendment of the plan. (A) The owner or operator of a CCR unit subject to the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section may amend the written EAP at any time 

provided the revised plan is placed in the facility’s operating record as required by §

257.105(f)(6). The owner or operator must amend the written EAP whenever there is a change 

in conditions that would substantially affect the EAP in effect.

(B) The written EAP must be evaluated, at a minimum, every five years to ensure the 

information required in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section is accurate. As necessary, the EAP 

must be updated and a revised EAP placed in the facility’s operating record as required by 

§257.105(f)(6). 257.105(f)(6).

The owner or operator must amend the written EAP whenever there is a change in 

conditions that would substantially affect the EAP in effect.

(B) The written EAP must be evaluated, at a minimum, every five years to ensure the 

information required in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section is accurate. As necessary, the EAP 

must be updated and a revised EAP placed in the facility’s operating record as required by 

§257.105(f)(6).

(iii) Changes in hazard potential classification. (A) If the owner or operator of 

a CCR unit determines during a periodic hazard potential assessment that the CCR unit is no 

longer classified as either a high hazard potential CCR surface impoundment or a significant 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

723

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

hazard potential CCR surface impoundment, then the owner or operator of the CCR unit is no 

longer subject to the requirement to prepare and maintain a written EAP beginning on the date 

the periodic hazard potential assessment documentation is placed in the facility’s operating 

record as required by § 257.105(f)(5).

(B) If the owner or operator of a CCR unit classified as a low hazard potential 

CCR surface impoundment subsequently determines that the CCR unit is properly re-classified 

as either a high hazard potential CCR surface impoundment or a significant hazard potential 

CCR surface impoundment, then the owner or operator of the CCR unit must prepare a written 

EAP for the CCR unit as required by paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section within six months of 

completing such periodic hazard potential assessment.

(iv) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must obtain a certification from a 

qualified professional engineer stating that the written EAP, and any subsequent amendment of 

the EAP, meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

(v) Activation of the EAP. The EAP must be implemented once events or 

circumstances involving the CCR unit that represent a safety emergency are detected, including 

conditions identified during periodic structural stability assessments, annual inspections, and 

inspections by a qualified person.

(4) The CCR unit and surrounding areas must be designed, constructed, operated, and 

maintained with vegetated slopes of dikes not to exceed a height of 6 inches above the slope of 

the dike, except for slopes which are protected with an alternate form(s) of slope protection.

(b) The requirements of paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section apply to an owner 

or operator of a new CCR surface impoundment and any lateral expansion of a CCR surface 

impoundment that either:

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

724

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(1) Has a height of five feet or more and a storage volume of 20 acre-feet or 

more; or

(2) Has a height of 20 feet or more.

(c) (1) No later than the initial receipt of CCR in the CCR unit, the owner or 

operator unit must compile the design and construction plans for the CCR unit, which must 

include, to the extent feasible, the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(xi) 

of this section.

(i) The name and address of the person(s) owning or operating the CCR unit; 

the name associated with the CCR unit; and the identification number of the CCR unit if one has 

been assigned by the state.

(ii) The location of the CCR unit identified on the most recent U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) 71⁄2 minute or 15 minute topographic quadrangle map, or a topographic map of 

equivalent scale if a USGS map is not available.

(iii) A statement of the purpose for which the CCR unit is being used.

(iv) The name and size in acres of the watershed within which the CCR unit is 

located.

(v) A description of the physical and engineering properties of the foundation 

and abutment materials on which the CCR unit is constructed.

(vi) A statement of the type, size, range, and physical and engineering 

properties of the materials used in constructing each zone or stage of the CCR unit; the method 

of site preparation and construction of each zone of the CCR unit; and the dates of construction 

of each successive stage of construction of the CCR unit.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

725

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(vii) At a scale that details engineering structures and appurtenances relevant to 

the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the CCR unit, detailed dimensional 

drawings of the CCR unit, including a plan view and cross sections of the length and width of the 

CCR unit, showing all zones, foundation improvements, drainage provisions, spillways, 

diversion ditches, outlets, instrument locations, and slope protection, in addition to the normal 

operating pool surface elevation and the maximum pool surface elevation following peak 

discharge from the inflow design flood, the expected maximum depth of CCR within the CCR 

surface impoundment, and any identifiable natural or manmade features that could adversely 

affect operation of the CCR unit due to malfunction or mis-operation.

(viii) A description of the type, purpose, and location of existing instrumentation.

(ix) Area-capacity curves for the CCR unit. 

(x) A description of each spillway and diversion design features and capacities and 

calculations used in their determination.

(xi) The construction specifications and provisions for surveillance, maintenance, and 

repair of the CCR unit.

(xii) Any record or knowledge of structural instability of the CCR unit.

(2) Changes in the design and construction. If there is a significant change to any 

information compiled under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the owner or operator of the CCR 

unit must update the relevant information and place it in the facility’s operating record as 

required by § 257.105(f)(13).

(d) Periodic structural stability assessments. (1) The owner or operator of the CCR 

unit must conduct initial and periodic structural stability assessments and document whether the 

design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the CCR unit is consistent with recognized 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

726

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

and generally accepted good engineering practices for the maximum volume of CCR and CCR 

wastewater which can be impounded therein. The assessment must, at a minimum, document 

whether the CCR unit has been designed, constructed, operated, and maintained with:

(i) Stable foundations and abutments;

(ii) Adequate slope protection to protect against surface erosion, wave action, and 

adverse effects of sudden drawdown;

(iii) Dikes mechanically compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard maximum 

dry unit weight using ASTM International D698, or at least 90 percent of the modified maximum 

dry unit weight using ASTM International D1557, or at least 70 percent relative density if ASTM 

International D698 or ASTM International D1557 testing is not appropriate;

(iii) Dikes mechanically compacted to a density sufficient to withstand the range of 

loading conditions in the CCR unit;

(iv) Vegetated slopes of dikes and surrounding areas not to exceed a height of 6 inches 

above the slope of the dike, except for slopes which have an alternate form or forms of slope 

protection;

(v) A single spillway or a combination of spillways configured as specified in 

paragraph (d)(1)(v)(A) of this section. The combined capacity of all spillways must be designed, 

constructed, operated, and maintained to adequately manage flow during and following the peak 

discharge from the event specified in paragraph (d)(1)(v)(B) of this section.

(A) All spillways must be either:

(1) Of non-erodible construction and designed to carry sustained flows; or

(2) Earth- or grass-lined and designed to carry short-term, infrequent flows at nonerosive velocities where sustained flows are not expected.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

727

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(B) The combined capacity of all spillways must adequately manage flow during and 

following the peak discharge from a:

(1) Probable maximum flood (PMF) for a high hazard potential CCR surface 

impoundment; or

(2) 1000-year flood for a significant hazard potential CCR surface impoundment; or

(3) 100-year flood for a low hazard potential CCR surface impoundment. 

(vi) Hydraulic structures underlying the base of the CCR unit or passing through the 

dike of the CCR unit that maintain structural integrity and are free of significant deterioration, 

deformation, distortion, bedding deficiencies, sedimentation, and debris which may negatively 

affect the operation of the hydraulic structure; and

(vii) For CCR units with downstream slopes which can be inundated by the pool of an 

adjacent water body, such as a river, stream or lake, downstream slopes that maintain structural 

stability during low pool of the adjacent water body or sudden drawdown of the adjacent water 

body.

(2) The periodic assessment described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section must 

identify any structural stability deficiencies associated with the CCR unit in addition to 

recommending corrective measures. If a deficiency or a release is identified during the periodic 

assessment, the owner or operator of the CCR unit must develop and implement an action plan to 

remedy the deficiency or release as soon as feasible.

(3) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must obtain a certification from a qualified 

professional engineer stating that the initial assessment and each subsequent periodic assessment 

was conducted in accordance with the requirements of this section.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

728

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(e) Periodic safety factor assessments. (3) The owner or operator of the CCR 

unit must obtain a certification from a qualified professional engineer stating that the initial 

assessment and each subsequent periodic assessment was conducted in accordance with the 

requirements of this section.

(e) Periodic safety factor assessments. (1) The owner or operator of the facility must 

conduct an initial and periodic safety factor assessments for each CCR unit and document 

whether the calculated factors of safety for each CCR unit achieve the minimum safety factors 

specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(v) of this section. for the critical cross section of 

the embankment. The critical cross section is the cross section anticipated to be the most 

susceptible of all cross sections to structural failure based on appropriate engineering 

considerations, including loading conditions. The safety factor assessments must be supported 

by appropriate engineering calculations.

(i) The calculated static factor of safety under the end-of-construction loading 

condition must equal or exceed 1.30. The assessment of this loading condition is only required 

for the initial safety factor assessment and is not required for subsequent assessments.

(ii) The calculated static factor of safety under the long-term, maximum storage pool 

loading condition must equal or exceed 1.50.

(iii) The calculated static factor of safety under the maximum surcharge pool loading 

condition must equal or exceed 1.40.

(iv) The calculated seismic factor of safety must equal or exceed 1.00.

(v) For dikes constructed of soils that have susceptibility to liquefaction, the 

calculated liquefaction factor of safety must equal or exceed 1.0020.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

729

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(2) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must obtain a certification from a qualified 

professional engineer stating that the initial assessment and each subsequent periodic assessment 

specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section meets the requirements of this section.

(f) Time framesTimeframes for periodic assessments. (1) Initial assessments. Except 

as provided by paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the owner or operator of the CCR unit must 

complete the initial assessments required by paragraphs (a)(2), (d), and (e) of this section prior to 

the initial receipt of CCR in the unit. The owner or operator has completed an initial assessment 

when the owner or operator has placed the assessment required by paragraphs (a)(2), (d), and (e) 

of this section in the facility’s operating record as required by § 257.105(f)(5), (f)(10), and 

(f)(12).

(2) Frequency for conducting periodic assessments. The owner or operator of the 

CCR unit must conduct and complete the assessments required by paragraphs (a)(2), (d), and (e) 

of this section every five years. The date of completing the initial assessment is the basis for 

establishing the deadline to complete the first subsequent assessment. The owner or operator 

may complete any required assessment prior to the required deadline provided the owner or 

operator places the completed assessment(s) into the facility’s operating record within a 

reasonable amount of time. In all cases, the deadline for completing subsequent assessments is 

based on the date of completing the previous assessment. For purposes of this paragraph, the 

owner or operator has completed an assessment when the relevant assessment(s) required by 

paragraphs (a)(2), (d), and (e) of this section has been placed in the facility’s operating record as 

required by § 257.105(f)(5), (f)(10), and (f)(12).

(3) Failure to document minimum safety factors during the initial assessment. Until 

the date an owner or operator of a CCR unit documents that the calculated factors of safety 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

730

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

achieve the minimum safety factors specified in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(v) of this 

section, the owner or operator is prohibited from placing CCR in such unit.

(4) Closure of the CCR unit. An owner or operator of a CCR unit who either fails to 

complete a timely periodic safety factor assessment or fails to demonstrate minimum safety 

factors as required by paragraph (e) of this section is subject to the requirements of § 257.101(c).

(g) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the 

recordkeeping requirements specified in § 257.105(f), the notification requirements specified in 

§ 257.106(f), and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(f).

Operating Criteria

§ 257.80 Air criteria.

(a) The owner or operator of a CCR landfill, CCR surface impoundment, or any 

lateral expansion of a CCR unit must take all reasonable precautions toadopt measures that will 

effectively minimize CCR from becoming airborne at the facility, including CCR fugitive dust 

originating from CCR units, roads, and other CCR management and material handling activities.

(b) CCR fugitive dust control plan. The owner or operator of the CCR unit must 

prepare and operate in accordance with a CCR fugitive dust control plan as specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(7) of this section. This requirement applies in addition to, not in 

place of, any applicable standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

(1) The CCR fugitive dust control plan must identify and describe the CCR fugitive 

dust control measures the owner or operator will use to minimize CCR from becoming airborne 

at the facility. The owner or operator must select, and include in the CCR fugitive dust control 

plan, the CCR fugitive dust control measures that are most appropriate for site conditions, along 

with an explanation of how the measures selected are applicable and appropriate for site 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

731

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

conditions. Examples of control measures that may be appropriate include: locating CCR inside 

an enclosure or partial enclosure; operating a water spray or fogging system; reducing fall 

distances at material drop points; using wind barriers, compaction, or vegetative covers; 

establishing and enforcing reduced vehicle speed limits; paving and sweeping roads; covering 

trucks transporting CCR; reducing or halting operations during high wind events; or applying a 

daily cover.

(2) If the owner or operator operates a CCR landfill or any lateral expansion of a 

CCR landfill, the CCR fugitive dust control plan must include procedures to emplace CCR as 

conditioned CCR. Conditioned CCR means wetting CCR with water to a moisture content that 

will prevent wind dispersal, but will not result in free liquids. In lieu of water, CCR conditioning 

may be accomplished with an appropriate chemical dust suppression agent.

(3) The CCR fugitive dust control plan must include procedures to log citizen 

complaints received by the owner or operator involving CCR fugitive dust events at the facility.

(4) The CCR fugitive dust control plan must include a description of the procedures 

the owner or operator will follow to periodically assess the effectiveness of the control plan.

(5) The owner or operator of a CCR unit must prepare an initial CCR fugitive dust 

control plan for the facility no later than [INSERT DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], or by initial receipt of CCR in any CCR 

unit at the facility if the owner or operator becomes subject to this subpart after [INSERT DATE 

6 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The 

owner or operator has completed the initial CCR fugitive dust control plan when the plan has 

been placed in the facility’s operating record as required by § 257.105(g)(1).
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

732

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(6) Amendment of the plan. The owner or operator of a CCR unit subject to the 

requirements of this section may amend the written CCR fugitive dust control plan at any time 

provided the revised plan is placed in the facility’s operating record as required by §

257.105(g)(1). The owner or operator must amend the written plan whenever there is a change 

in conditions that would substantially affect the written plan in effect, such as the construction 

and operation of a new CCR unit.

(7) The owner or operator must obtain a certification from a qualified professional 

engineer that the initial CCR fugitive dust control plan, or any subsequent amendment of it, 

meets the requirements of this section.

(c) Annual CCR fugitive dust control report. The owner or operator of a CCR unit 

must prepare an annual CCR fugitive dust control report that includes a description of the actions 

taken by the owner or operator to control CCR fugitive dust, a record of all citizen complaints, 

and a summary of any corrective measures taken. The initial annual report must be completed 

no later than 14 months after placing the initial CCR fugitive dust control plan in the facility’s 

operating record. The deadline for completing a subsequent report is one year after the date of 

completing the previous report. For purposes of this paragraph, the owner or operator has 

completed the annual CCR fugitive dust control report when the plan has been placed in the 

facility’s operating record as required by § 257.105(g)(2).

(d) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(g), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(g), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(g).

§ 257.81 Run-on and run-off controls for CCR landfills.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

733

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(a) The owner or operator of an existing or new CCR landfill or any lateral expansion 

of a CCR landfill must design, construct, operate, and maintain:

(1) A run-on control system to prevent flow onto the active portion of the CCR unit 

during the peak discharge from a 24-hour, 25-year storm; and

(2) A run-off control system from the active portion of the CCR unit to collect and 

control at least the water volume resulting from a 24-hour, 25-year storm.

(b) Run-off from the active portion of the CCR unit must be handled in accordance 

with the surface water requirements under § 257.3-3.

(c) Run-on and run-off control system plan. (1) Content of the plan. The owner or 

operator must prepare initial and periodic run-on and run-off control system plans for the CCR 

unit according to the compliance datestimeframes specified in paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) of this 

section. These plans must document how the run-on and run-off control systems have been 

designed and constructed to meet the applicable requirements of this section. Each plan must be 

supported by appropriate engineering calculations. The owner or operator has completed the 

initial run-on and run-off control system plan when the plan has been placed in the facility’s 

operating record as required by § 257.105(g)(3).

(2) Amendment of the plan. The owner or operator may amend the written run-on 

and run-off control system plan at any time provided the revised plan is placed in the facility’s 

operating record as required by § 257.105(g)(3). The owner or operator must amend the written 

run-on and run-off control system plan whenever there is a change in conditions that would 

substantially affect the written plan in effect.

(3) Time framesTimeframes for preparing the initial plan. (i) Existing CCR landfills. 

The owner or operator of the CCR unit must prepare the initial run-on and run-off control system 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

734

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

plan no later than [INSERT DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(ii) New CCR landfills and any lateral expansion of a CCR landfill. The owner or 

operator must prepare the initial run-on and run-off control system plan no later than the date of 

initial receipt of CCR in the CCR unit.

(4) Frequency for revising the plan. The owner or operator of the CCR unit must 

prepare periodic run-on and run-off control system plans required by paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section every five years. The date of completing the initial plan is the basis for establishing the 

deadline to complete the first subsequent plan. The owner or operator may complete any 

required plan prior to the required deadline provided the owner or operator places the completed 

plan into the facility’s operating record within a reasonable amount of time. In all cases, the 

deadline for completing a subsequent plan is based on the date of completing the previous plan. 

For purposes of this paragraph, the owner or operator has completed a periodic run-on and runoff control system plan when the plan has been placed in the facility’s operating record as 

required by § 257.105(g)(3).

(5) The owner or operator must obtain a certification from a qualified 

professional engineer stating that the initial and periodic run-on and run-off control system plans 

meet the requirements of this section.

(d) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(g), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(g), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(g).

§ 257.82 Hydrologic and hydraulic capacity requirements for CCR surface 

impoundments.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

735

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(a) The owner or operator of an existing or new CCR surface impoundment or any 

lateral expansion of a CCR surface impoundment must design, construct, operate, and maintain 

an inflow design flood control system as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.

(1) The inflow design flood control system must adequately manage flow into the 

CCR unit during and following the peak discharge of the inflow design flood specified in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

(2) The inflow design flood control system must adequately manage flow from the 

CCR unit to collect and control the peak discharge resulting from the inflow design flood 

specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

(3) The inflow design flood is:

(i) For a high hazard potential CCR surface impoundment, as determined under §

257.73(a)(2) or § 257.74(a)(2), the probable maximum flood;

(ii) For a significant hazard potential CCR surface impoundment, as determined 

under § 257.73(a)(2) or § 257.74(a)(2), the 1,000-year flood;

(iii) For a low hazard potential CCR surface impoundment, as determined under §

257.73(a)(2) or § 257.74(a)(2), the 100-year flood; or

(iv) For an incised CCR surface impoundment, the 25-year flood.

(b) Discharge from the CCR unit must be handled in accordance with the surface 

water requirements under § 257.3-3.

(c) Inflow design flood control system plan. (1) Content of the plan. The owner or 

operator must prepare initial and periodic inflow design flood control system plans for the CCR 

unit according to the time framestimeframes specified in paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) of this 

section. These plans must document how the inflow design flood control system has been 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

736

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

designed and constructed to meet the requirements of this section. Each plan must be supported 

by appropriate engineering calculations. The owner or operator of the CCR unit has completed 

the inflow design flood control system plan when the plan has been placed in the facility’s 

operating record as required by § 257.105(g)(4).

(2) Amendment of the plan. The owner or operator of the CCR unit may amend the 

written inflow design flood control system plan at any time provided the revised plan is placed in 

the facility’s operating record as required by § 257.105(g)(4). The owner or operator must 

amend the written inflow design flood control system plan whenever there is a change in 

conditions that would substantially affect the written plan in effect.

(3) Time framesTimeframes for preparing the initial plan. (i) Existing CCR surface 

impoundments. The owner or operator of the CCR unit must prepare the initial inflow design 

flood control system plan no later than [INSERT DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

(ii) New CCR surface impoundments and any lateral expansion of a CCR surface 

impoundment. The owner or operator must prepare the initial inflow design flood control system 

plan no later than the date of initial receipt of CCR in the CCR unit.

(4) Frequency for revising the plan. The owner or operator must prepare periodic 

inflow design flood control system plans required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section every five 

years. The date of completing the initial plan is the basis for establishing the deadline to 

complete the first periodic plan. The owner or operator may complete any required plan prior to 

the required deadline provided the owner or operator places the completed plan into the facility’s 

operating record within a reasonable amount of time. In all cases, the deadline for completing a 

subsequent plan is based on the date of completing the previous plan. For purposes of this 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

737

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

paragraph, the owner or operator has completed an inflow design flood control system plan when 

the plan has been placed in the facility’s operating record as required by § 257.105(g)(4).

(5) The owner or operator must obtain a certification from a qualified 

professional engineer stating that the initial and periodic inflow design flood control system 

plans meet the requirements of this section.

(d) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(g), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(g), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(g).

§ 257.83 Inspection requirements for CCR surface impoundments.

(a) Inspections by a qualified person. (a) Inspections by a qualified person. 

(1) All CCR surface impoundments and any lateral expansion of a CCR surface impoundment 

must be examined by a qualified person as follows:

(i) At intervals not exceeding 7 days, inspect for any appearances of actual or 

potential structural weakness and other conditions which are disrupting or have the potential to 

disrupt the operation or safety of the CCR unit;

(ii) At intervals not exceeding 7 days, inspect the discharge of all outlets of 

hydraulic structures which pass underneath the base of the surface impoundment or through the 

dike of the CCR unit for abnormal discoloration, flow or discharge of debris or sediment; and

(iii) At intervals not exceeding 30 days, monitor all CCR unit instrumentation.

(iv) The results of the inspection by a qualified person must be recorded in the 

facility’s operating record as required by § 257.105(g)(5).

(2) Time framesTimeframes for inspections by a qualified person. (i) Existing 

CCR surface impoundments. The owner or operator of the CCR unit must initiate the 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

738

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

inspections required under paragraph (a) of this section no later than [INSERT DATE 6 

MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(ii) New CCR surface impoundments and any lateral expansion of a CCR 

surface impoundment. The owner or operator of the CCR unit must initiate the inspections 

required under paragraph (a) of this section upon initial receipt of CCR by the CCR unit.

(b) InspectionsAnnual inspections by a qualified professional engineer. (1) If 

the existing or new CCR surface impoundment or any lateral expansion of the CCR surface 

impoundment is subject to the periodic structural stability assessment requirements under §

257.73(d) or § 257.74(d), the CCR unit must additionally be inspected on a periodic basis by a 

qualified professional engineer to ensure that the design, construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the CCR unit is consistent with recognized and generally accepted good 

engineering standards. The inspection must, at a minimum, include:

(i) A review of available information regarding the status and condition of the 

CCR unit, including, but not limited to, files available in the operating record (e.g., CCR unit 

design and construction information required by §§ 257.73(c)(1) and 257.74(c)(1), previous 

periodic structural stability assessments required under §§ 257.73(d) and 257.74(d), the results of 

inspections by a qualified person, and results of previous annual inspections);

(ii) A visual inspection of the CCR unit to identify signs of distress or 

malfunction of the CCR unit and appurtenant structures; and

(iii) A visual inspection of any hydraulic structures underlying the base of the 

CCR unit or passing through the dike of the CCR unit for structural integrity and continued safe 

and reliable operation.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

739

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(2) Inspection report. The qualified professional engineer must prepare a 

report following each inspection that addresses the following:

(i) Any changes in geometry of the impounding structure since the previous 

annual inspection;

(ii) The location and type of existing instrumentation and the maximum 

recorded readings of each instrument since the previous annual inspection;

(iii) The approximate minimum, maximum, and present depth and elevation of 

the impounded water and CCR since the previous annual inspection;

(iv) The storage capacity of the impounding structure at the time of the 

inspection;

(v) The approximate volume of the impounded water and CCR at the time of 

the inspection;

(vi) Any appearances of an actual or potential structural weakness of the CCR 

unit, in addition to any existing conditions that are disrupting or have the potential to disrupt the 

operation and safety of the CCR unit and appurtenant structures; and

(vii) Any other change(s) which may have affected the stability or operation of 

the impounding structure since the previous annual inspection.

(3) Time framesTimeframes for conducting the initial inspection. (i) Existing 

CCR surface impoundments. The owner or operator of the CCR unit must complete the initial 

inspection required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section no later than [INSERT DATE 

9 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(ii) New CCR surface impoundments and any lateral expansion of a CCR surface 

impoundment. The owner or operator of the CCR unit must complete the initial annual 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

740

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

inspection required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section is completed no later than 14 

months following the date of initial receipt of CCR in the CCR unit.

(4) Frequency forof inspections. (i) Except as provided for in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of 

this section, the owner or operator of the CCR unit must conduct the inspection required by 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section on an annual basis. The date of completing the initial 

inspection report is the basis for establishing the deadline to complete the first subsequent 

inspection. Any required inspection may be conducted prior to the required deadline provided 

the owner or operator places the completed inspection report into the facility’s operating record 

within a reasonable amount of time. In all cases, the deadline for completing subsequent 

inspection reports is based on the date of completing the previous inspection report. For 

purposes of this section, the owner or operator has completed an inspection when the inspection 

report has been placed in the facility’s operating record as required by § 257.105(g)(6).

(ii) In any calendar year in which both the periodic inspection by a qualified 

professional engineer and the quinquennial (occurring every 5 years) structural stability 

assessment by a qualified professional engineer required by §§ 257.73(d) and 257.74(d) are 

required to be completed, the annual inspection is not required, provided the structural stability 

assessment is completed during the calendar year. If the annual inspection is not conducted in a 

year as provided by this paragraph, the deadline for completing the next annual inspection is one 

year from the date of completing the quinquennial structural stability assessment.

(5) If a deficiency or release is identified during an inspection, the owner or operator 

of the CCR unit must develop and implement an action plan to remedy the structural weakness or 

disrupting conditiondeficiency or release as soon as feasible. 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

741

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(c) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(g), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(g), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(g).

257.84 Inspection requirements for CCR landfills.

257.84 Inspection requirements for CCR landfills.

(a) Inspections by a qualified person. (1) All CCR landfills and any lateral 

expansion of a CCR landfill must be examined by a qualified person as follows:

(i) At intervals not exceeding 7 days, inspect for any appearances of actual or 

potential structural weakness and other conditions which are disrupting or have the potential to 

disrupt the operation or safety of the CCR unit; and

(ii) The results of the inspection by a qualified person must be recorded in the 

facility’s operating record as required by § 257.105(g)(8).

(2) Time framesTimeframes for inspections by a qualified person. (i) Existing 

CCR surface impoundments. The owner or operator of the CCR unit must initiate the 

inspections required under paragraph (a) of this section no later than [INSERT DATE 6 

MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(ii) New CCR surface impoundments and any lateral expansion of a CCR 

surface impoundment. The owner or operator of the CCR unit must initiate the inspections 

required under paragraph (a) of this section upon initial receipt of CCR by the CCR unit.

(b) InspectionsAnnual inspections by a qualified professional engineer. (1) 

The existing orExisting and new CCR landfill orlandfills and any lateral expansion of thea CCR 

landfill must be inspected on a periodic basis by a qualified professional engineer to ensure that 

the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the CCR unit is consistent with 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

742

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

recognized and generally accepted good engineering standards. The inspection must, at a 

minimum, include:

(i) A review of available information regarding the status and condition of the 

CCR unit, including, but not limited to, files available in the operating record (e.g., the results of 

inspections by a qualified person, and results of previous annual inspections); and

(ii) A visual inspection of the CCR unit to identify signs of distress or 

malfunction of the CCR unit.

(2) Inspection report. The qualified professional engineer must prepare a 

report following each inspection that addresses the following:

(i) Any changes in geometry of the structure since the previous annual 

inspection;

(ii) The approximate volume of CCR at the time of the inspection;

(iii) Any appearances of an actual or potential structural weakness of the CCR 

unit, in addition to any existing conditions that are disrupting or have the potential to disrupt the 

operation and safety of the CCR unit; and

(iv) Any other change(s) which may have affected the stability or operation of 

the CCR unit since the previous annual inspection.

(3) Time framesTimeframes for conducting the initial inspection. (i) Existing

CCR landfills. The owner or operator of the CCR unit must complete the initial inspection 

required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section no later than [INSERT DATE 9 

MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(ii) New CCR landfills and any lateral expansion of a CCR landfill. The owner or 

operator of the CCR unit must complete the initial annual inspection required by paragraphs

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

743

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section is completed no later than 14 months following the date of initial 

receipt of CCR in the CCR unit.

(4) Frequency forof inspections. The owner or operator of the CCR unit must 

conduct the inspection required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section on an annual 

basis. The date of completing the initial inspection report is the basis for establishing the 

deadline to complete the first subsequent inspection. Any required inspection may be conducted 

prior to the required deadline provided the owner or operator places the completed inspection 

report into the facility’s operating record within a reasonable amount of time. In all cases, the 

deadline for completing subsequent inspection reports is based on the date of completing the 

previous inspection report. For purposes of this section, the owner or operator has completed an 

inspection when the inspection report has been placed in the facility’s operating record as 

required by § 257.105(g)(9).

(5) If a deficiency or release is identified during an inspection, the owner or operator 

of the CCR unit must develop and implement an action plan to remedy the structural weakness or 

disrupting conditiondeficiency or release as soon as feasible. 

(c) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(g), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(g), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(g).

Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action.

§ 257.90 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided for in § 257.100 for inactive CCR surface impoundments, all 

CCR landfills, CCR surface impoundments, and lateral expansions of CCR units are subject to 

the groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements under §§ 257.90 through 257.98.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

744

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(b) Initial time framestimeframes. (1) Existing CCR landfills and existing CCR 

surface impoundments. No later than [INSERT DATE 30 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner or operator of the CCR unit 

must be in compliance with the following groundwater monitoring requirements:

(i) Install the groundwater monitoring system as required by § 257.91;

(ii) Develop the groundwater sampling and analysis program to include selection of 

the statistical procedures to be used for evaluating groundwater monitoring data as required by §

257.93;

(iii) Initiate the detection monitoring program to include obtaining a minimum of eight 

independent samples for each background and downgradient well as required by § 257.94(b); 

and

(iv) Begin evaluating the groundwater monitoring data for statistically significant 

increases over background levels for the constituents listed in Appendix III of this part as 

required by § 257.94.

(2) New CCR landfills, new CCR surface impoundments, and all lateral expansions 

of CCR units. Prior to initial receipt of CCR by the CCR unit, the owner or operator must be in 

compliance with the groundwater monitoring requirements specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) and 

(b)(1)(ii) of this section. In addition, the owner or operator of the CCR unit must initiate the 

detection monitoring program to include obtaining a minimum of eight independent samples for 

each background well as required by § 257.94(b).

(c) Once a groundwater monitoring system and groundwater monitoring program has 

been established at the CCR unit as required by this subpart, the owner or operator must conduct 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

745

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

groundwater monitoring and, if necessary, corrective action throughout the active life and postclosure care period of the CCR unit.

(d) In the event of a release from a CCR unit, the owner or operator must 

immediately take all necessary measures to control the source(s) of releases so as to reduce or 

eliminate, to the maximum extent practicablefeasible, further releases of contaminants into the 

environment. The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with all applicable 

requirements in §§ 257.96, 257.97, and 257.98.

(e) Annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action report. For existing CCR 

landfills and existing CCR surface impoundments, no later than January 31, 20162018, and 

annually thereafter, the owner and operator must prepare an annual groundwater monitoring and 

corrective action report. For new CCR landfills, new CCR surface impoundments, and all lateral 

expansions of CCR units, the owner and operator must prepare the initial annual groundwater 

monitoring and corrective action report no later than January 31 of the year following the 

calendar year a groundwater monitoring system has been established for such CCR unit as 

required by this subpart, and annually thereafter. For the preceding calendar year, the annual 

report must document the status of the groundwater monitoring and corrective action program 

for the CCR unit, summarize key actions completed, describe any problems encountered, discuss 

actions to resolve the problems, and project key activities for the upcoming year. For purposes 

of this section, the owner or operator has prepared the annual report when the report is placed in 

the facility’s operating record as required by § 257.105(h)(1). At a minimum, the annual 

groundwater monitoring and corrective action report must contain the following information, to 

the extent available:

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

746

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(1) A map, aerial image, or diagram showing the CCR unit and all background (or 

upgradient) and downgradient monitoring wells, to include the well identification numbers, that

are part of the groundwater monitoring program for the CCR unit;

(2) Identification of any monitoring wells that were installed or decommissioned 

during the preceding year, along with a narrative description of why those actions were taken; 

(3) A summary including the number of groundwater samples that were collected for 

analysis for each background and downgradient well, the dates the samples were collected, and 

whether the sample was required by the detection monitoring or assessment monitoring 

programs;

(4) A narrative discussion of any transition between monitoring programs (e.g., the 

date and circumstances for transitioning from detection monitoring to assessment monitoring in 

addition to identifying the constituent(s) detected at a statistically significant increase over 

background levels); and

(5) Other information required to be included in the annual report as specified in §§

257.90 through 257.98.

(f) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the 

recordkeeping requirements specified in § 257.105(h), the notification requirements specified in 

§ 257.106(h), and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(h).

§ 257.91 Groundwater monitoring systems.

(a) Performance standard. The owner or operator of a CCR unit must install a 

groundwater monitoring system that consists of a sufficient number of wells, installed at 

appropriate locations and depths, to yield groundwater samples from the uppermost aquifer that:

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

747

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(1) Accurately represent the quality of background groundwater that has not been 

affected by leakage from a CCR unit. A determination of background quality may include 

sampling of wells that are not hydraulically upgradient of the CCR management area where:

(i) Hydrogeologic conditions do not allow the owner or operator of the CCR unit to 

determine what wells are hydraulically upgradient; or

(ii) Sampling at other wells will provide an indication of background groundwater 

quality that is as representative or more representative than that provided by the upgradient 

wells; and

(2) Accurately represent the quality of groundwater passing the waste boundary of 

the CCR unit. The downgradient monitoring system must be installed at the waste boundary that 

ensures detection of groundwater contamination in the uppermost aquifer. All potential 

contaminant pathways must be monitored.

(b) The number, spacing, and depths of monitoring systems shall be determined 

based upon site-specific technical information that must include thorough characterization of:

(1) Aquifer thickness, groundwater flow rate, groundwater flow direction including 

seasonal and temporal fluctuations in groundwater flow; and

(2) Saturated and unsaturated geologic units and fill materials overlying the 

uppermost aquifer, materials comprising the uppermost aquifer, and materials comprising the 

confining unit defining the lower boundary of the uppermost aquifer, including, but not limited 

to, thicknesses, stratigraphy, lithology, hydraulic conductivities, porosities and effective 

porosities.

(c) The groundwater monitoring system must include the minimum number of 

monitoring wells necessary to meet the performance standards specified in paragraph (a) of this 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

748

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

section, based on the site-specific information specified in paragraph (b) of this section. The 

groundwater monitoring system must contain:

(1) A minimum of one upgradient and three downgradient monitoring wells; and

(2) Additional monitoring wells as necessary to accurately represent the quality of 

background groundwater that has not been affected by leakage from the CCR unit and the quality 

of groundwater passing the waste boundary of the CCR unit.

(d) The owner or operator of multiple CCR units may install a multiunit groundwater 

monitoring system instead of separate groundwater monitoring systems for each CCR unit.

(1) The multiunit groundwater monitoring system must be equally as capable of 

detecting monitored constituents at the waste boundary of the CCR unit as the individual 

groundwater monitoring system specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section for each 

CCR unit based on the following factors:

(i) Number, spacing, and orientation of each CCR unit;

(ii) Hydrogeologic setting;

(iii) Site history; and

(iv) Engineering design of the CCR unit.

(2) If the owner or operator elects to install a multiunit groundwater monitoring 

system, and if the multiunit system includes at least one existing unlined CCR surface 

impoundment as determined by § 257.71(a), and if at any time after [INSERT DATE 6 

MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] the owner 

or operator determines in any sampling event that the concentrations of one or more constituents 

listed in Appendix IV to this part are detected at statistically significant levels above the 

groundwater protection standard established under § 257.95(h) for the multiunit system, then all 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

749

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

unlined CCR surface impoundments comprising the multiunit groundwater monitoring system 

are subject to the closure requirements under § 257.101(a).

(e) Monitoring wells must be cased in a manner that maintains the integrity of the 

monitoring well bore hole. This casing must be screened or perforated and packed with gravel or 

sand, where necessary, to enable collection of groundwater samples. The annular space (i.e., the 

space between the bore hole and well casing) above the sampling depth must be sealed to prevent 

contamination of samples and the groundwater.

(1) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must document and include in the 

operating record the design, installation, development, and decommissioning of any monitoring

wells, piezometers and other measurement, sampling, and analytical devices. The qualified 

professional engineer must be given access to this documentation when completing the 

groundwater monitoring system certification required under paragraph (f) of this section.

(2) The monitoring wells, piezometers, and other measurement, sampling, and 

analytical devices must be operated and maintained so that they perform to the design 

specifications throughout the life of the monitoring program.

(f) The owner or operator must obtain a certification from a qualified professional 

engineer stating that the groundwater monitoring system has been designed and constructed to 

meet the requirements of this section. If the groundwater monitoring system includes the 

minimum number of monitoring wells specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the 

certification must document the basis supporting this determination.

(g) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(h), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(h), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(h).
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

750

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

§ 257.92 [Reserved].]

§ 257.93 Groundwater sampling and analysis requirements.

(a) The groundwater monitoring program must include consistent sampling and 

analysis procedures that are designed to ensure monitoring results that provide an accurate 

representation of groundwater quality at the background and downgradient wells required by §

257.91. The owner or operator of the CCR unit must develop a sampling and analysis program 

that includes procedures and techniques for:

(1) Sample collection;

(2) Sample preservation and shipment;

(3) Analytical procedures;

(4) Chain of custody control; and

(5) Quality assurance and quality control.

(b) The groundwater monitoring program must include sampling and analytical 

methods that are appropriate for groundwater sampling and that accurately measure hazardous 

constituents and other monitoring parameters in groundwater samples. For purposes of §§

257.90 through 257.98, the term constituent refers to both hazardous constituents and other 

monitoring parameters listed in either Appendix III or IV of this part. 

(c) Groundwater elevations must be measured in each well immediately prior to 

purging, each time groundwater is sampled. The owner or operator of the CCR unit must 

determine the rate and direction of groundwater flow each time groundwater is sampled. 

Groundwater elevations in wells which monitor the same CCR management area must be 

measured within a period of time short enough to avoid temporal variations in groundwater flow 

which could preclude accurate determination of groundwater flow rate and direction.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

751

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(d) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must establish background groundwater 

quality in a hydraulically upgradient or background well(s) for each of the constituents required 

in the particular groundwater monitoring program that applies to the CCR unit as determined 

under § 257.94(a) or § 257.95(a). Background groundwater quality may be established at wells 

that are not located hydraulically upgradient from the CCR unit if it meets the requirements of §

257.91(a)(1).

(e) The number of samples collected when conducting detection monitoring and 

assessment monitoring (for both downgradient and background wells) must be consistent with 

the statistical procedures chosen under paragraph (f) of this section and the performance 

standards under paragraph (g) of this section. The sampling procedures shall be those specified 

under § 257.94(b) through (d) for detection monitoring, § 257.95(b) through (d) for assessment 

monitoring, and § 257.96(b) for corrective action.

(f) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must select one of the statistical methods 

specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(5) of this section to be used in evaluating groundwater 

monitoring data for each specified constituent. The statistical test chosen shall be conducted 

separately for each constituent in each monitoring well.

(1) A parametric analysis of variance followed by multiple comparison procedures to 

identify statistically significant evidence of contamination. The method must include estimation 

and testing of the contrasts between each compliance well's mean and the background mean 

levels for each constituent.

(2) An analysis of variance based on ranks followed by multiple comparison 

procedures to identify statistically significant evidence of contamination. The method must 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

752

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

include estimation and testing of the contrasts between each compliance well's median and the 

background median levels for each constituent.

(3) A tolerance or prediction interval procedure, in which an interval for each 

constituent is established from the distribution of the background data, and the level of each 

constituent in each compliance well is compared to the upper tolerance or prediction limit.

(4) A control chart approach that gives control limits for each constituent.

(5) Another statistical test method that meets the performance standards of paragraph 

(g) of this section.

(6) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must obtain a certification from a qualified 

professional engineer stating that the selected statistical method is appropriate for evaluating the 

groundwater monitoring data for the CCR management area. The certification must include a 

narrative description of the statistical method selected to evaluate the groundwater monitoring 

data.

(g) Any statistical method chosen under paragraph (f) of this section shall comply 

with the following performance standards, as appropriate, based on the statistical test method 

used:

(1) The statistical method used to evaluate groundwater monitoring data shall be 

appropriate for the distribution of constituents. Normal distributions of data values shall use 

parametric methods. Non-normal distributions shall use non-parametric methods. If the 

distribution of the constituents is shown by the owner or operator of the CCR unit to be 

inappropriate for a normal theory test, then the data must be transformed or a distribution-free 

(non-parametric) theory test must be used. If the distributions for the constituents differ, more 

than one statistical method may be needed.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

753

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(2) If an individual well comparison procedure is used to compare an individual

compliance well constituent concentration with background constituent concentrations or a 

groundwater protection standard, the test shall be done at a Type I error level no less than 0.01 

for each testing period. If a multiple comparison procedure is used, the Type I experiment wise 

error rate for each testing period shall be no less than 0.05; however, the Type I error of no less 

than 0.01 for individual well comparisons must be maintained. This performance standard does 

not apply to tolerance intervals, prediction intervals, or control charts.

(3) If a control chart approach is used to evaluate groundwater monitoring data, the 

specific type of control chart and its associated parameter values shall be such that this approach 

is at least as effective as any other approach in this section for evaluating groundwater data. The 

parameter values shall be determined after considering the number of samples in the background 

data base, the data distribution, and the range of the concentration values for each constituent of 

concern.

(4) If a tolerance interval or a predictional interval is used to evaluate groundwater 

monitoring data, the levels of confidence and, for tolerance intervals, the percentage of the 

population that the interval must contain, shall be such that this approach is at least as effective 

as any other approach in this section for evaluating groundwater data. These parameters shall be 

determined after considering the number of samples in the background data base, the data 

distribution, and the range of the concentration values for each constituent of concern.

(5) The statistical method must account for data below the limit of detection with one 

or more statistical procedures that shall at least as effective as any other approach in this section 

for evaluating groundwater data. Any practical quantitation limit that is used in the statistical 

method shall be the lowest concentration level that can be reliably achieved within specified 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

754

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

limits of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions that are available 

to the facility.

(6) If necessary, the statistical method must include procedures to control or correct 

for seasonal and spatial variability as well as temporal correlation in the data.

(h) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must determine whether or not there is a 

statistically significant increase over background values for each constituent required in the 

particular groundwater monitoring program that applies to the CCR unit, as determined under §

257.94(a) or § 257.95(a).

(1) In determining whether a statistically significant increase has occurred, the owner 

or operator must compare the groundwater quality of each constituent at each monitoring well 

designated pursuant to § 257.91(a)(2) or (d)(1) to the background value of that constituent, 

according to the statistical procedures and performance standards specified under paragraphs (f) 

and (g) of this section.

(2) Within 90 days after completing sampling and analysis, the owner or operator 

must determine whether there has been a statistically significant increase over background for 

any constituent at each monitoring well.

(i) The owner or operator must measure “total recoverable metals”concentrations in 

measuring groundwater quality. Measurement of total recoverable metals captures both the 

particulate fraction and dissolved fraction of metals in natural waters. Groundwater samples 

shall not be field-filtered prior to analysis.

(j) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(h), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(h), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(h).
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

755

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

§ 257.94 Detection monitoring program.

(a) The owner or operator of a CCR unit must conduct detection monitoring at all 

groundwater monitoring wells consistent with this section. At a minimum, a detection 

monitoring program must include groundwater monitoring for all constituents listed in Appendix 

III to this part.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the monitoring frequency for 

the constituents listed in Appendix III to this part shall be at least semiannual during the active 

life of the CCR unit and the post-closure period. For existing CCR landfills and existing CCR 

surface impoundments, a minimum of eight independent samples from each background and 

downgradient well must be collected and analyzed for the constituents listed in Appendix III to 

this part during the first six months of sampling.and Appendix IV to this part no later than 

[INSERT DATE 30 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. For new CCR landfills, new CCR surface impoundments, and all lateral 

expansions of CCR units, a minimum of eight independent samples for each background well 

must be collected and analyzed for the constituents listed in Appendix III and Appendix IV to 

this part during the first six months of sampling. 

(c) The number of samples collected and analyzed for each background well and 

downgradient well during subsequent semiannual sampling events must be consistent with §

257.93(e), and must account for any unique characteristics of the site, but must be at least one 

sample from each background and downgradient well. 

(d) The owner or operator of a CCR unit may demonstrate the need for an alternative 

monitoring frequency for repeated sampling and analysis for constituents listed in Appendix III 

to this part during the active life and the post-closure care period based on the availability of 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

756

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

groundwater. If there is not adequate groundwater flow to sample wells semiannuallysemiannually, the alternative frequency shall be no less than annual. The need to vary 

monitoring frequency must be evaluated on a site-specific basis. The demonstration must be 

supported by, at a minimum, the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this 

section.

(1) Information documenting that the need for less frequent sampling. The 

alternative frequency must be based on consideration of the following factors:

(i) Lithology of the aquifer and unsaturated zone;

(ii) Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer and unsaturated zone; and

(iii) Ground-waterGroundwater flow rates.

(2) Information documenting that the alternative frequency will be no less effective in 

ensuring that any leakage from the CCR unit will be discovered within a time frametimeframe

that will not materially delay establishment of an assessment monitoring program.

(3) The owner or operator must obtain a certification from a qualified professional 

engineer stating that the demonstration for an alternative groundwater sampling and analysis 

frequency meets the requirements of this section. The owner or operator must include the 

demonstration providing the basis for the alternative monitoring frequency and the certification 

by a qualified professional engineer in the annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action 

report required by § 257.90(e). 

(e) If the owner or operator of the CCR unit determines, pursuant to § 257.93(h) that 

there is a statistically significant increase over background levels for one or more of the 

constituents listed in Appendix III to this part at any monitoring well at the waste boundary 

specified under § 257.91(a)(2), the owner or operator must:
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

757

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(1) Except as provided for in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, within 90 days of 

detecting a statistically significant increase over background levels for any constituent, establish 

an assessment monitoring program meeting the requirements of § 257.95.

(2) The owner or operator may demonstrate that a source other than the CCR unit 

caused the statistically significant increase over background levels for a constituent or that the 

statistically significant increase resulted from error in sampling, analysis, statistical evaluation, 

or natural variation in groundwater quality. The owner or operator must complete the written 

demonstration within 90 days of detecting a statistically significant increase over background 

levels to include obtaining a certification from a qualified professional engineer verifying the 

accuracy of the information in the report. If a successful demonstration is completed within the 

90-day period, the owner or operator of the CCR unit may continue with a detection monitoring 

program under this section. If a successful demonstration is not completed within the 90-day 

period, the owner or operator of the CCR unit must initiate an assessment monitoring program as 

required under § 257.95. The owner or operator must also include the demonstration in the 

annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action report required by § 257.90(e), in addition 

to the certification by a qualified professional engineer.

(3) The owner or operator of a CCR unit must prepare a notification stating that an 

assessment monitoring program has been established. The owner or operator has completed the 

notification when the notification is placed in the facility’s operating record as required by §

257.105(h)(5).

(f) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(h), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(h), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(h).
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

758

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

§ 257.95 Assessment monitoring program.

(a) Assessment monitoring is required whenever a statistically significant increase 

over background levels has been detected for one or more of the constituents listed in Appendix 

III to this part.

(b) Within 90 days of triggering an assessment monitoring program, and annually 

thereafter, the owner or operator of the CCR unit must sample and analyze the groundwater for 

all constituents listed in Appendix IV to this part. The number of samples collected and 

analyzed for each downgradient well during each sampling event must be consistent with §

257.93(e), and must account for any unique characteristics of the site, but must be at least one 

sample from each downgradient well. For any constituent detected in one or more of the 

downgradient wells as a result of the complete analysis of constituents listed in Appendix IV of 

this part, a minimum of eight independent samples from each well (background and 

downgradient) must be collected and analyzed over the initial six month time period following 

commencement of the assessment monitoring program to establish background levels for the 

constituent(s). well.

(c) The owner or operator of a CCR unit may demonstrate the need for an alternative 

monitoring frequency for repeated sampling and analysis for constituents listed in Appendix IV 

to this part during the active life and the post-closure care period based on the availability of 

groundwater. If there is not adequate groundwater flow to sample wells semiannuallysemiannually, the alternative frequency shall be no less than annual. The need to vary 

monitoring frequency must be evaluated on a site-specific basis. The demonstration must be 

supported by, at a minimum, the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this 

section.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

759

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(1) Information documenting that the need for less frequent sampling. The 

alternative frequency must be based on consideration of the following factors:

(i) Lithology of the aquifer and unsaturated zone;

(ii) Hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer and unsaturated zone; and

(iii) Ground-waterGroundwater flow rates.

(2) Information documenting that the alternative frequency will be no less effective in 

ensuring that any leakage from the CCR unit will be discovered within a time frametimeframe

that will not materially delay the initiation of any necessary remediation measures.

(3) The owner or operator must obtain a certification from a qualified professional 

engineer stating that the demonstration for an alternative groundwater sampling and analysis 

frequency meets the requirements of this section. The owner or operator must include the 

demonstration providing the basis for the alternative monitoring frequency and the certification 

by a qualified professional engineer in the annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action 

report required by § 257.90(e).

(d) After obtaining the results from the initial and subsequent sampling events 

required in paragraph (b) of this section, the owner or operator must:

(1) Within 90 days of obtaining the results, and on at least a semiannual basis 

thereafter, resample all wells that were installed pursuant to the requirements of § 257.91, 

conduct analyses for all parameters in Appendix III to this part and for those constituents in 

Appendix IV to this part that are detected in response to paragraph (b) of this section, and record 

their concentrations in the facility operating record. The number of samples collected and 

analyzed for each background well and downgradient well during subsequent semiannual 

sampling events must be consistent with § 257.93(e), and must account for any unique 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

760

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

characteristics of the site, but must be at least one sample from each background and 

downgradient well.;

(2) Establish background concentrations for any constituents detected pursuant to 

paragraph (b) or (d)(1) of this section; 

(3(2) Establish groundwater protection standards for all constituents detected pursuant 

to paragraph (b) or (d) of this section. The groundwater protection standards must be established 

in accordance with paragraph (h) of this section; and

(43) Include the recorded concentrations required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section, 

identify the background concentrations established under paragraph (d)(2) of this section,§ 

257.94(b), and identify the groundwater protection standards established under paragraph (d)(32) 

of this section in the annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action report required by §

257.90(e).

(e) If the concentrations of all constituents listed in Appendix III and Appendix IV to 

this part are shown to be at or below background values, using the statistical procedures in §

257.93(g), for two consecutive sampling events, the owner or operator may return to detection 

monitoring of the CCR unit. The owner or operator must prepare a notification stating that 

detection monitoring is resuming for the CCR unit. The owner or operator has completed the 

notification when the notification is placed in the facility’s operating record as required by §

257.105(h)(7).

(f) If the concentrations of any constituent in Appendix III and Appendix IV to this 

part are above background values, but all concentrations are below the groundwater protection 

standard established under paragraph (h) of this section, using the statistical procedures in §
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

761

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

257.93(g), the owner or operator must continue assessment monitoring in accordance with this 

section.

(g) If one or more constituents in Appendix IV to this part are detected at statistically 

significant levels above the groundwater protection standard established under paragraph (h) of 

this section in any sampling event, the owner or operator must prepare a notification identifying 

the constituents in Appendix IV to this part that have exceeded the groundwater protection 

standard. The owner or operator has completed the notification when the notification is placed in 

the facility’s operating record as required by § 257.105(h)(8). The owner or operator of the CCR 

unit also must:

(1) Characterize the nature and extent of the release and any relevant site conditions 

that may affect the remedy ultimately selected. The characterization must be sufficient to 

support a complete and accurate assessment of the corrective measures necessary to effectively 

clean up all releases from the CCR unit pursuant to § 257.96. Characterization of the release 

includes the following minimum measures: 

(i) Install additional monitoring wells necessary to define the contaminant plume(s); 

(ii) Collect data on the nature and estimated quantity of material released including 

specific information on the constituents listed in Appendix IV of this part and the levels at which 

they are present in the material released; 

(iii) Install at least one additional monitoring well at the facility boundary in the 

direction of contaminant migration and sample this well in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section; and

(iv) Sample all wells in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section to 

characterize the nature and extent of the release.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

762

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(2) Notify all persons who own the land or reside on the land that directly overlies 

any part of the plume of contamination if contaminants have migrated off-site if indicated by 

sampling of wells in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this section. The owner or operator has 

completed the notifications when they are placed in the facility’s operating record as required by 

§ 257.105(h)(8).

(3) Within 90 days of finding that any of the constituents listed in Appendix IV to 

this part have been detected at a statistically significant level exceeding the groundwater 

protection standards the owner or operator must either:

(i) Initiate an assessment of corrective measures as required by § 257.96; or

(ii) Demonstrate that a source other than the CCR unit caused the contamination, or 

that the statistically significant increase resulted from error in sampling, analysis, statistical 

evaluation, or natural variation in groundwater quality. Any such demonstration must be 

supported by a report that includes the factual or evidentiary basis for any conclusions and must 

be certified to be accurate by a qualified professional engineer. If a successful demonstration is 

made, the owner or operator must continue monitoring in accordance with the assessment 

monitoring program pursuant to this section, and may return to detection monitoring if the 

constituents in Appendix III and Appendix IV to this part are at or below background as 

specified in paragraph (e) of this section. The owner or operator must also include the 

demonstration in the annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action report required by §

257.90(e), in addition to the certification by a qualified professional engineer.

(4) If a successful demonstration has not been made at the end of the 90 day 

period provided by paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this section, the owner or operator of the CCR unit 

must initiate the assessment of corrective measures requirements under § 257.96.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

763

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(5) If an assessment of corrective measures is required under § 257.96 by either 

paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (g)(4) of this section, and if the CCR unit is an existing unlined CCR 

surface impoundment as determined by § 257.71(a), then the CCR unit is subject to the closure 

requirements under § 257.101(a). In addition, the owner or operator must prepare a notification 

stating that an assessment of corrective measures has been initiated.

(h) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must establish a groundwater protection 

standard for each constituent in Appendix IV to this part detected in the groundwater. The 

groundwater protection standard shall be:

(1) For constituents for which a maximum contaminant level (MCL) has been 

established under §§141.62 and 141.66 of this title, the MCL for that constituent;

(2) For constituents for which MCLs havean MCL has not been established, the 

background concentration for the constituent established from wells in accordance with §

257.91; or

(3) For constituents for which the background level is higher than the MCL identified 

under paragraph (h)(1) of this section, the background concentration.

(i) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(h), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(h), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(h).

§ 257.96 Assessment of corrective measures.

(a) Within 90 days of finding that any constituent listed in Appendix IV to this part 

has been detected at a statistically significant level exceeding the groundwater protection 

standard defined under § 257.95(h), or immediately upon detection of a release from a CCR unit, 

the owner or operator must initiate an assessment of corrective measures to prevent further 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

764

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

releases, to remediate any releases and to restore affected area to original conditions. The 

assessment of corrective measures must be completed within 90 days, unless the owner or 

operator demonstrates the need for additional time to complete the assessment of corrective 

measures due to site-specific conditions or circumstances. The owner or operator must obtain a 

certification from a qualified professional engineer attesting that the demonstration is accurate. 

The 90-day deadline to complete the assessment of corrective measures may be extended for no 

longer than 60 days. The owner or operator must also include the demonstration in the annual 

groundwater monitoring and corrective action report required by § 257.90(e), in addition to the 

certification by a qualified professional engineer.

(b) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must continue to monitor groundwater in 

accordance with the assessment monitoring program as specified in § 257.95.

(c) The assessment under paragraph (a) of this section must include an analysis of the 

effectiveness of potential corrective measures in meeting all of the requirements and objectives 

of the remedy as described under § 257.97 addressing at least the following:

(1) The performance, reliability, ease of implementation, and potential impacts of 

appropriate potential remedies, including safety impacts, cross-media impacts, and control of 

exposure to any residual contamination;

(2) The time required to begin and complete the remedy;

(3) The institutional requirements, such as state or local permit requirements or other 

environmental or public health requirements that may substantially affect implementation of the 

remedy(s).
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

765

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(d) The owner or operator must place the completed assessment of corrective 

measures in the facility’s operating record. The assessment has been completed when it is placed 

in the facility’s operating record as required by § 257.105(h)(7).

(e) The owner or operator must discuss the results of the corrective measures 

assessment at least 30 days prior to the selection of remedy, in a public meeting with interested 

and affected parties.

(f) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(h), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(h), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(h).

§ 257.97 Selection of remedy.

(a) Based on the results of the corrective measures assessment conducted under §

257.96, the owner or operator of the CCR unit must, as soon as feasible, select a remedy that, at a 

minimum, meets the standards listed in paragraph (b) of this section. This requirement applies 

to, not in place of, any applicable standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The 

owner or operator must prepare a semiannual report describing the progress in selecting and 

designing the remedy. Upon selection of a remedy, the owner or operator must prepare a final 

report describing the selected remedy and how it meets the standards specified in paragraph (b) 

of this section. The owner or operator must obtain a certification from a qualified professional 

engineer that the remedy selected meets the requirements of this section. The report has been 

completed when it is placed in the operating record as required by § 257.105(h)(12). 

(b) Remedies must:

(1) Be protective of human health and the environment;

(2) Attain the groundwater protection standard as specified pursuant to § 257.95(h);
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

766

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(3) Control the source(s) of releases so as to reduce or eliminate, to the maximum 

extent practicablefeasible, further releases of constituents in Appendix IV to this part into the 

environment;

(4) Remove from the environment as much of the contaminated material that was 

released from the CCR unit as is feasible, taking into account factors such as avoiding 

inappropriate disturbance of sensitive ecosystems;

(5) Comply with standards for management of wastes as specified in § 257.98(d).

(c) In selecting a remedy that meets the standards of paragraph (b) of this section, the 

owner or operator of the CCR unit shall consider the following evaluation factors:

(1) The long- and short-term effectiveness and protectiveness of the potential 

remedy(s), along with the degree of certainty that the remedy will prove successful based on 

consideration of the following:

(i) Magnitude of reduction of existing risks;

(ii) Magnitude of residual risks in terms of likelihood of further releases due to CCR 

remaining following implementation of a remedy;

(iii) The type and degree of long-term management required, including monitoring, 

operation, and maintenance;

(iv) Short-term risks that might be posed to the community, workers, or the 

environment during implementation of such a remedy, including potential threats to human 

health and the environment associated with excavation, transportation, and re-disposal of 

contaminant;

(v) Time until full protection is achieved;
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

767

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(vi) Potential for exposure of humans and environmental receptors to remaining 

wastes, considering the potential threat to human health and the environment associated with 

excavation, transportation, re-disposal, or containment;

(vii) Long-term reliability of the engineering and institutional controls; and

(viii) Potential need for replacement of the remedy.

(2) The effectiveness of the remedy in controlling the source to reduce further 

releases based on consideration of the following factors:

(i) The extent to which containment practices will reduce further releases; and

(ii) The extent to which treatment technologies may be used.

(3) The ease or difficulty of implementing a potential remedy(s) based on 

consideration of the following types of factors:

(i) Degree of difficulty associated with constructing the technology;

(ii) Expected operational reliability of the technologies;

(iii) Need to coordinate with and obtain necessary approvals and permits from other 

agencies;

(iv) Availability of necessary equipment and specialists; and

(v) Available capacity and location of needed treatment, storage, and disposal 

services.

(4) The degree to which community concerns are addressed by a potential remedy(s).

(d) The owner or operator must specify as part of the selected remedy a schedule(s)

for implementing and completing remedial activities. Such a schedule must require the 

completion of remedial activities within a reasonable period of time taking into consideration the 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

768

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

factors set forth in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(6) of this section. The owner or operator of the 

CCR unit must consider the following factors in determining the schedule of remedial activities:

(1) Extent and nature of contamination, as determined by the characterization 

required under § 257.95(g);

(2) Reasonable probabilities of remedial technologies in achieving compliance with 

the groundwater protection standards established under § 257.95(h) and other objectives of the 

remedy;

(3) Availability of treatment or disposal capacity for CCR managed during 

implementation of the remedy;

(4) Potential risks to human health and the environment from exposure to 

contamination prior to completion of the remedy;

(5) Resource value of the aquifer including:

(i) Current and future uses;

(ii) Proximity and withdrawal rate of users;

(iii) Groundwater quantity and quality;

(iv) The potential damage to wildlife, crops, vegetation, and physical structures 

caused by exposure to CCR constituents;

(v) The hydrogeologic characteristic of the facility and surrounding land; and

(vi) The availability of alternative water supplies.; and

(6) Other relevant factors.

(e) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(h), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(h), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(h).
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

769

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

§ 257.98 Implementation of the corrective action program.

(a) Within 90 days of selecting a remedy under § 257.97, the owner or operator must 

initiate remedial activities. Based on the schedule established under § 257.97(d) for 

implementation and completion of remedial activities the owner or operator must:

(1) Establish and implement a corrective action groundwater monitoring program 

that:

(i) At a minimum, meets the requirements of an assessment monitoring program 

under § 257.95;

(ii) Documents the effectiveness of the corrective action remedy; and

(iii) Demonstrates compliance with the groundwater protection standard pursuant to 

paragraph (c) of this section.

(2) Implement the corrective action remedy selected under § 257.97; and

(3) Take any interim measures necessary to reduce the contaminants leaching from 

the CCR unit, and/or potential exposures to human or ecological receptors. Interim measures 

must, to the greatest extent feasible, be consistent with the objectives of and contribute to the 

performance of any remedy that may be required pursuant to § 257.97. The following factors 

must be considered by an owner or operator in determining whether interim measures are 

necessary:

(i) Time required to develop and implement a final remedy;

(ii) Actual or potential exposure of nearby populations or environmental receptors to 

any of the constituents listed in Appendix IV of this part;

(iii) Actual or potential contamination of drinking water supplies or sensitive 

ecosystems;
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

770

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(iv) Further degradation of the groundwater that may occur if remedial action is not 

initiated expeditiously;

(v) Weather conditions that may cause any of the constituents listed in Appendix IV 

to this part to migrate or be released;

(vi) Potential for exposure to any of the constituents listed in Appendix IV to this part 

as a result of an accident or failure of a container or handling system; and

(vii) Other situations that may pose threats to human health and the environment.

(b) If an owner or operator of the CCR unit, determines, at any time, that compliance 

with the requirements of § 257.97(b) is not being achieved through the remedy selected, the 

owner or operator must implement other methods or techniques that could feasibly achieve 

compliance with the requirements.

(c) Remedies selected pursuant to § 257.97 shall be considered complete when:

(1) The owner or operator of the CCR unit demonstrates compliance with the 

groundwater protection standards established under § 257.95(h) has been achieved at all points 

within the plume of contamination that lie beyond the groundwater monitoring well system 

established under § 257.91.

(2) Compliance with the groundwater protection standards established under § 257.95 

(h) has been achieved by demonstrating that concentrations of constituents listed in Appendix IV 

to this part have not exceeded the groundwater protection standard(s) for a period of three 

consecutive years using the statistical procedures and performance standards in § 257.93(f) and 

(g). 

(3) All actions required to complete the remedy have been satisfied.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

771

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(d) All CCR that are managed pursuant to a remedy required under § 257.97, or an 

interim measure required under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, shall be managed in a manner 

that complies with all applicable RCRA requirements.

(e) Upon completion of the remedy, the owner or operator must prepare a notification 

stating that the remedy has been completed. The owner or operator must obtain a certification 

from a qualified professional engineer attesting that the remedy has been completed in 

compliance with the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section. The report has been 

completed when it is placed in the operating record as required by § 257.105(h)(13).

(f) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(h), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(h), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(h).

Closure and Post-Closure Care.

§ 257.100Inactive CCR surface impoundments.

(a) Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this section, inactive CCR surface 

impoundments are subject to all of the requirements of this subpart applicable to existing CCR 

surface impoundments. 

(b) An owner or operator of an inactive CCR surface impoundment that completes 

closure of such CCR unit, and meets all of the requirements of either paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(b)(4) of this section or paragraph (b)(5) of this section no later than [INSERT DATE 36 

MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], is exempt 

from all other requirements of this subpart.

(1) Closure by leaving CCR in place. If the owner or operator of the inactive CCR 

surface impoundment elects to close the CCR surface impoundment by leaving CCR in place, 

Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

772

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

the owner or operator must ensure that, at a minimum, the CCR unit is closed in a manner that 

will:

(i) Control, minimize or eliminate, to the maximum extent 

practicablefeasible, post-closure infiltration of liquids into the waste and releases of CCR, 

leachate, or contaminated run-off to the ground or surface waters or to the atmosphere;

(ii) Preclude the probability of future impoundment of water, sediment, or 

slurry;

(ii) Preclude the probability of future impoundment of water, sediment, or 

slurry;

(iii) ProvideInclude measures that provide for major slope stability to prevent 

the sloughing or movement of the final cover system during closure and throughout the postclosure care period; and

(iv) Minimize the need for further maintenance of the CCR unit.

(2) The owner or operator of the inactive CCR surface impoundment must meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of this section prior to installing the final 

cover system required under paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

(i) Free liquids must be eliminated by removing liquid wastes or solidifying 

the remaining wastes and waste residues.

(ii) Remaining wastes must be stabilized sufficient to support the final cover system.

(3) The owner or operator must install a final cover system that is designed to 

minimize infiltration and erosion, and at a minimum, meets the requirements of paragraph 

(b)(3)(i) of this section, or the requirements of an alternative final cover system specified in 

paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

773

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(i) The final cover system must be designed and constructed to meet the criteria 

specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) through (b)(3)(i)(D) of this section.

(A) The permeability of the final cover system must be less than or equal to the 

permeability of any bottom liner system or natural subsoils present, or a permeability no greater 

than 1x10-5centimeters/second, whichever is less.

(B) The infiltration of liquids through the CCR unit must be minimized by the use of 

an infiltration layer that contains a minimum of 18 inches of earthen material.

(C) The erosion of the final cover system must be minimized by the use of an erosion 

layer that contains a minimum of 6 inches of earthen material that is capable of sustaining native 

plant growth.

(D) The disruption of the integrity of the final cover system must be minimized 

through a design that accommodates settling and subsidence.

(ii) The owner or operator may select an alternative final cover system design, 

provided the alternative final cover system is designed and constructed to meet the criteria in 

paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(A) through (b)(3)(ii)(C) of this section.

(A) The design of the final cover system must include an infiltration layer that 

achieves an equivalent reduction in infiltration as the infiltration layer specified in paragraphs 

(b)(3)(i)(A) and (b)(3)(i)(B) of this section.

(B) The design of the final cover system must include an erosion layer that provides 

equivalent protection from wind or water erosion as the erosion layer specified in paragraph 

(b)(3)(i)(C) of this section.

(C) The disruption of the integrity of the final cover system must be minimized 

through a design that accommodates settling and subsidence.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

774

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(4) The owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment must obtain a written 

certification from a qualified professional engineer stating that the design of the final cover 

system meets either the requirements of paragraphs (b)(13)(i) or (b)(13)(ii) of this section.

(5) Closure through removal of CCR. The owner or operator may 

alternatively elect to close an inactive CCR surface impoundment by removing and 

decontaminating all areas affected by releases from the CCR surface impoundment. CCR 

removal and decontamination of the CCR surface impoundment are complete when all CCR in 

the inactive CCR surface impoundment is removed, including the bottom liner of the CCR unit.

(6) The owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment must obtain a 

written certification from a qualified professional engineer that closure of the CCR surface 

impoundment under either paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4) or (b)(5) of this section is technically 

feasible within the time frametimeframe in paragraph (b) of this section.

(7) If the owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment fails to 

complete closure of the inactive CCR surface impoundment within the time frametimeframe in 

paragraph (b) of this section, the CCR unit must comply with all of the requirements applicable 

to existing CCR surface impoundments under this subpart.

(c) Required notices and progress reports. An owner or operator of an 

inactive CCR surface impoundment that closes in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section 

must complete the notices and progress reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of 

this section.

(1) No later than [INSERT DATE 8 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner or operator must prepare and 

place in the facility’s operating record a notification of intent to initiate closure of the CCR 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

775

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

surface impoundment. The notification must state that the CCR surface impoundment is an 

inactive CCR surface impoundment closing under the requirements of paragraph (b) of this 

section. The notification must also include a narrative description of how the CCR surface 

impoundment will be closed, a schedule for completing closure activities, and the required 

certifications under paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(6) of this section, if applicable.

(2) The owner or operator must prepare periodic progress reports 

summarizing the progress of closure implementation, including a description of the actions 

completed to date, any problems encountered and a description of the actions taken to resolve the 

problems, and projected closure activities for the upcoming year. The annual progress reports 

must be completed according to the following schedule:

(i) The first annual progress report must be prepared no later than 13 months 

after completing the notification of intent to initiate closure required by paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section.

(ii) The second annual progress report must be prepared no later than 12 

months after completing the first progress report required by paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section.

(iii) The owner or operator has completed the progress reports specified in paragraph 

(c)(2) of this section when the reports are placed in the facility’s operating record as required by 

§ 257.105(i)(2).

(3) The owner or operator must prepare and place in the facility’s operating 

record a notification of completion of closure of the CCR surface impoundment. The 

notification must be submitted within 60 days of completing closure of the CCR surface 

impoundment and must include a written certification from a qualified professional engineer 
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

776

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

stating that the CCR surface impoundment was closed in accordance with the requirements of 

either paragraph (b)(1) through (b)(4) or (b)(5) of this section.

(d) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(i), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(i), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(i).

§ 257.101Closure of CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments.

(a) The owner or operator of an existing unlined CCR surface impoundment, 

as determined under § 257.71(a), is subject to the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section.

(1) Except as provided by paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if at any time after 

[INSERT DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER] an owner or operator of an existing unlined CCR surface impoundment determines 

in any sampling event that the concentrations of one or more constituents listed in Appendix IV 

to this part are detected at statistically significant levels above the groundwater protection 

standard established under § 257.95(h) for such CCR unit, within six months of making such 

determination, the owner or operator of the existing unlined CCR surface impoundment must 

cease placing CCR and non-CCR wastestreams into such CCR surface impoundment and close 

the CCR unit in accordance with the requirements of § 257.102.

(2) An owner or operator of an existing unlined CCR surface impoundment that 

closes in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section must include a statement in the 

notification required under § 257.102(g) that the CCR surface impoundment is closing under the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

777

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(3) The time frametimeframe specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section does not 

apply if the owner or operator complies with the alternative closure procedures specified in §

257.103.

(b) The owner or operator of an existing CCR surface impoundment is subject to the 

requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(1) Except as provided by paragraph (b)(4) of this section, within six months of 

determining that an existing CCR surface impoundment has not demonstrated compliance with 

any location standard specified in §§ 257.60(a), 257.61(a), 257.62(a), 257.63(a), and 257.64(a), 

the owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment must cease placing CCR and non-CCR 

wastestreams into such CCR unit and close the CCR unit in accordance with the requirements of 

§ 257.102.

(2) Within six months of either failing to complete the initial or any subsequent 

periodic safety factor assessment required by § 257.73(e) by the deadlines specified in §

257.73(f)(1) through (f)(3) or failing to document that the calculated factors of safety for the 

existing CCR surface impoundment achieve the minimum safety factors specified in §

257.73(e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iv), the owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment must 

cease placing CCR and non-CCR wastestreams into such CCR unit and close the CCR unit in 

accordance with the requirements of § 257.102.

(3) An owner or operator of an existing CCR surface impoundment that closes in 

accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section must include a statement in the 

notification required under § 257.102(g) that the CCR surface impoundment is closing under the 

requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section.
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

778

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(4) The time frametimeframe specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not 

apply if the owner or operator complies with the alternative closure procedures specified in §

257.103.

(c) The owner or operator of a new CCR surface impoundment is subject to the 

requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

(1) Within six months of either failing to complete the initial or any 

subsequent periodic safety factor assessment required by § 257.74(e) by the deadlines specified 

in § 257.74(f)(1) through (f)(3) or failing to document that the calculated factors of safety for the 

new CCR surface impoundment achieve the minimum safety factors specified in §

257.74(e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(v), the owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment must 

cease placing CCR and non-CCR wastestreams into such CCR unit and close the CCR unit in 

accordance with the requirements of § 257.102.

(2) An owner or operator of an new CCR surface impoundment that closes in 

accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section must include a statement in the notification 

required under § 257.102(g) that the CCR surface impoundment is closing under the 

requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

(d) The owner or operator of an existing CCR landfill is subject to the 

requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

(1) Except as provided by paragraph (d)(3) of this section, within six months 

of determining that an existing CCR landfill has not demonstrated compliance with the location 

restriction for unstable areas specified in § 257.64(a), the owner or operator of the CCR unit 

must cease placing CCR and non-CCR wastestreams into such CCR landfill and close the CCR 

unit in accordance with the requirements of § 257.102.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

779

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(2) An owner or operator of an existing CCR landfill that closes in accordance with 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section must include a statement in the notification required under §

257.102(g) that the CCR landfill is closing under the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section.

(3) The time frametimeframe specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section does 

not apply if the owner or operator complies with the alternative closure procedures specified in §

257.103.

§ 257.102Criteria for conducting closure of CCR landfills and CCR surface 

impoundments.

(a) Closure of a CCR landfill, CCR surface impoundment, or any lateral 

expansion of a CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundmentunit must be completed either by 

leaving the CCR in place and installing a final cover system or through removal of the CCR and 

decontamination of the CCR unit, as described in this section.

(b) Written Closure Plan. (1) Content of the plan. The owner or operator of a CCR 

unit must prepare a written closure plan that describes the steps necessary to close the CCR unit 

at any point during the active life of the CCR unit consistent with recognized and generally 

accepted good engineering practices. The written closure plan must include, at a minimum, the 

information specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(vi) of this section.

(i) A narrative description of how the CCR unit will be closed in accordance with 

this section.

(ii) If closure of the CCR unit will be accomplished through removal of CCR from 

the CCR unit, a description of the procedures to remove the CCR and decontaminate the CCR 

unit in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

780

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(iii) If closure of the CCR unit will be accomplished by leaving CCR in place, a 

description of the final cover system, designed in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section, 

and the methods and procedures to be used to install the final cover. The closure plan must also 

discuss how the final cover system will achieve the performance standards specified in paragraph 

(d) of this section.

(iv) An estimate of the maximum inventory of CCR ever on-site over the active life of 

the CCR unit.

(v) An estimate of the largest area of the CCR unit ever requiring a final cover as 

required by paragraph (d) of this section at any time during the CCR unit’s active life.

(vi) A schedule for completing all activities necessary to satisfy the closure criteria in 

this section, including an estimate of the year in which all closure activities for the CCR unit will 

be completed. The schedule should provide sufficient information to describe the sequential 

steps that will be taken to close the CCR unit, including identification of major milestones such 

as coordinating with and obtaining necessary approvals and permits from other agencies, the 

dewatering and stabilization phases of CCR surface impoundment closure, or installation of the 

final cover system, and the estimated time framestimeframes to complete each step or phase of 

CCR unit closure. When preparing the written closure plan, if the owner or operator of a CCR 

unit estimates that the time required to complete closure will exceed the time framestimeframes

specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the written closure plan must include the sitespecific information, factors and considerations that would support any time extension sought 

under paragraph (f)(2) of this section. 

(2) Deadline to prepareTimeframes for preparing the initial written closure 

plan. (i) Existing CCR landfills and existing CCR surface impoundments. No later than 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

781

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

[INSERT DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], the owner or operator of the CCR unit must prepare an initial written closure plan 

consistent with the requirements specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(ii) New CCR landfills and new CCR surface impoundments, and any lateral 

expansion of a CCR unit. No later than the date of the initial receipt of CCR in the CCR unit, the 

owner or operator must prepare an initial written closure plan consistent with the requirements 

specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

(iii) The owner or operator has completed the written closure plan when the 

plan, including the certification required by paragraph (b)(4) of this section, has been placed in 

the facility’s operating record as required by § 257.105(i)(4).

(3) Amendment of a written closure plan. (i) The owner or operator may 

amend the initial or any subsequent written closure plan developed pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section at any time.

(ii) The owner or operator must amend the written closure plan whenever:

(A) There is a change in the operation of the CCR unit that would substantially 

affect the written closure plan in effect; or

(B) Before or after closure activities have commenced, unanticipated events 

necessitate a revision of the written closure plan.

(iii) The owner or operator must amend the closure plan at least 60 days prior 

to a planned change in the operation of the facility or CCR unit, or no later than 60 days after an 

unanticipated event requires the need to revise an existing written closure plan. If a written 

closure plan is revised after closure activities have commenced for a CCR unit, the owner or 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

782

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

operator must amend the current closure plan no later than 30 days following the triggering 

event.

(4) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must obtain a written certification from a 

qualified professional engineer that the initial and any amendment of the written closure plan 

meets the requirements of this section.

(c) Closure by removal of CCR. An owner or operator may elect to close a

CCR unit by removing and decontaminating all areas affected by releases from the CCR unit. 

CCR removal and decontamination of the CCR unit are complete when constituent 

concentrations throughout the CCR unit and any areas affected by releases from the CCR unit 

have been removed and groundwater monitoring concentrations do not exceed the groundwater 

protection standard established pursuant to § 257.95(h) for constituents listed in Appendix IV to 

this part.

(d) Closure performance standard when leaving CCR in place. (1) The owner 

or operator of a CCR unit must ensure that, at a minimum, the CCR unit is closed in a manner 

that will:

(i) Control, minimize or eliminate, to the maximum extent 

practicablefeasible, post-closure infiltration of liquids into the waste and releases of CCR, 

leachate, or contaminated run-off to the ground or surface waters or to the atmosphere;

(ii) Preclude the probability of future impoundment of water, sediment, or slurry;

(iii) ProvideInclude measures that provide for major slope stability to prevent 

the sloughing or movement of the CCR unit overfinal cover system during the long termclosure 

and post-closure care period;

(iv) Minimize the need for further maintenance of the CCR unit; and

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

783

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(v) Be completed in the shortest amount of time consistent with recognized and 

generally accepted good engineering practices.

(2) Drainage and stabilization of CCR surface impoundments. The owner or operator 

of a CCR surface impoundment or any lateral expansion of a CCR surface impoundment must 

meet the requirements of paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) of this section prior to installing the 

final cover system required under paragraph (d)(3) of this section.

(i) Free liquids must be eliminated by removing liquid wastes or solidifying 

the remaining wastes and waste residues.

(ii) Remaining wastes must be stabilized sufficient to support the final cover 

system.

(3) Final cover system. If a CCR unit is closed by leaving CCR in place, the owner 

or operator must install a final cover system that is designed to minimize infiltration and erosion, 

and at a minimum, meets the requirements of paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section, or the 

requirements of the alternative final cover system specified in paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section.

(i) The final cover system must be designed and constructed to meet the criteria in 

paragraphs (d)(3)(i)(A) through (d)(3)(i)(D) of this section. The design of the final cover system 

must be included in the written closure plan required by paragraph (b) of this section.

(A) The permeability of the final cover system must be less than or equal to the 

permeability of any bottom liner system or natural subsoils present, or a permeability no greater 

than 1x10-5cm/sec, whichever is less.

(B) The infiltration of liquids through the closed CCR unit must be minimized by the 

use of an infiltration layer that contains a minimum of 18 inches of earthen material.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

784

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(C) The erosion of the final cover system must be minimized by the use of an erosion 

layer that contains a minimum of 6 inches of earthen material that is capable of sustaining native 

plant growth.

(D) The disruption of the integrity of the final cover system must be minimized 

through a design that accommodates settling and subsidence.

(ii) The owner or operator may select an alternative final cover system design, 

provided the alternative final cover system is designed and constructed to meet the criteria in 

paragraphs (f)(3)(ii)(A) through (f)(3)(ii)(D) of this section. The design of the final cover system 

must be included in the written closure plan required by paragraph (b) of this section.

(A) The design of the final cover system must include an infiltration layer that 

achieves an equivalent reduction in infiltration as the infiltration layer specified in paragraphs 

(d)(3)(i)(A) and (d)(3)(i)(B) of this section.

(B) The design of the final cover system must include an erosion layer that provides 

equivalent protection from wind or water erosion as the erosion layer specified in paragraph 

(d)(3)(i)(C) of this section.

(C) The disruption of the integrity of the final cover system must be minimized 

through a design that accommodates settling and subsidence.

(iii) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must obtain a written certification from a 

qualified professional engineer that the design of the final cover system meets the requirements 

of this section.

(e) Initiation of closure activities. Except as provided for in paragraph (e)(4) 

of this section and § 257.103, the owner or operator of a CCR unit must commence closure of the 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

785

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

CCR unit no later than the applicable time framestimeframes specified in either paragraph (e)(1) 

or (e)(2) of this section.

(1) The owner or operator must commence closure of the CCR unit no later 

than 30 days after the date on which the CCR unit either:

(i) Receives the known final receipt of waste, either CCR; or any non-CCR 

wastestream; or

(ii) No longer is removing significant quantities Removes the known final 

volume of CCR from the CCR unit for the purpose of beneficial use of CCR; or.

(iii) Receives the known final receipt of any non-CCR wastestream, such as low 

volume wastewaters or stormwater.

(2) ()(i) Except as provided by paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section, the owner 

or operator must commence closure of a CCR unit that has not received CCR or any non-CCR 

wastestream or is no longer removing CCR for the purpose of beneficial use within two years of 

the last receipt of waste or within two years of the last removal of CCR material for the purpose 

of beneficial use.

(ii) If the owner or operator has not resumed disposal in the CCR unit within 

two years or has not started removing CCR for the purposeNotwithstanding paragraph (e)(2)(i)

of beneficial usethis section, the owner or operator of the CCR unit may nevertheless secure an 

additional two years before initiatingto initiate closure of the inactiveidle unit provided the 

owner or operator provides written documentation that the CCR unit will continue to accept 

wastes or will start removing CCR for the purpose of beneficial use. The documentation must be 

supported by, at a minimum, the information specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(ii)(A) and 

(e)(2)(ii)(B) of this section. The owner or operator may obtain two-year extensions provided the 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

786

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

owner or operator continues to be able to demonstrate that there is reasonable likelihood that the 

CCR unit will accept wastes in the foreseeable future or will remove CCR from the unit for the 

purpose of beneficial use. The owner or operator must place each completed demonstration, if 

more than one time extension is sought, in the facility’s operating record as required by §

257.105(i)(5) prior to the end of any two-year period.

(A) Information documenting that the CCR unit has remaining storage or 

disposal capacity or that the CCR unit can have CCR removed for the purpose of beneficial use; 

and

(B) Information demonstrating that that there is a reasonable likelihood that 

the CCR unit will resume receiving CCR or non-CCR wastestreams in the foreseeable future or 

that CCR can be removed for the purpose of beneficial use. The narrative must include a best 

estimate as to when the CCR unit will resume receiving CCR or non-CCR wastestreams. The 

situations listed in paragraphs (e)(2)(ii)(B)(1) through (e)(2)(ii)(B)(4) of this section are 

examples of situations that would support a determination that the CCR unit will resume 

receiving CCR or non-CCR wastestreams in the foreseeable future.

(1) Normal plant operations include periods during which the CCR unit does 

not receive CCR or non-CCR wastestreams, such as the alternating use of two or more CCR 

units whereby at any point in time one CCR unit is receiving CCR while CCR is being removed 

from a second CCR unit after its dewatering.

(2) The CCR unit is dedicated to a coal-fired boiler unit that is temporarily 

idled (i.e.g., CCR is not being generated) and there is a reasonable likelihood that the coal-fired 

boiler will resume operations in the future.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

787

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(3) The CCR unit is dedicated to an operating coal-fired boiler (i.e., CCR is 

being generated); however, no CCR are being placed in the CCR unit because the CCR are being 

entirely diverted to beneficial uses, but there is a reasonable likelihood that the CCR unit will 

again be used in the foreseeable future.

(4) The CCR unit currently receives only non-CCR wastestreams and those 

non-CCR wastestreams are not generated for an extended period of time, but there is a 

reasonable likelihood that the CCR unit will again receive non-CCR wastestreams in the future.

(iii) In order to obtain additional time extension(s) to initiate closure of a CCR 

unit beyond the two years provided by paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, the owner or operator 

of the CCR unit must include with the demonstration required by paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this 

section the following statement signed by the owner or operator or an authorized representative:

I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am 

familiar with the information submitted in this demonstration and all attached 

documents, and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately 

responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted information 

is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for 

submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.

(3) For purposes of this subpart, closure of the CCR unit has commenced if 

the owner or operator has commenced closure activities if owner or operatorceased placing waste 

and completes any of the following actions or activities:

(i(i) Taken any steps necessary to implement the written closure plan required 

by paragraph (b) of this section;

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: 12 pt

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Right: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

788

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(ii) Submitted a completed application for any required state or agency permit or 

permit modification; or

(ii(iii) Taken any steps necessary to comply with any state or other agency 

standards that are a prerequisite, or are otherwise applicable, to initiating or completing the 

closure of a CCR unit.

(4) The timeframes specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section do 

not apply to any of the following owners or operators:

(i) An owner or operator of an inactive CCR surface impoundment closing 

the CCR unit as required by § 257.100(b);

(ii) An owner or operator of an existing unlined CCR surface impoundment 

closing the CCR unit as required by § 257.101(a); 

(iii) An owner or operator of an existing CCR surface impoundment closing 

the CCR unit as required by § 257.101(b);

(iv) An owner or operator of a new CCR surface impoundment closing the CCR unit 

as required by § 257.101(c); or

(v) An owner or operator of an existing CCR landfill closing the CCR unit as 

required by § 257.101(d).

(f) Completion of closure activities. (1) Except as provided for in paragraph (f)(2) of 

this section, the owner or operator must complete closure of the CCR unit:

(i) For existing and new CCR landfills and any lateral expansion of a CCR landfill, 

within six months of commencing closure activities pursuant to either paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) 

of this section.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

789

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(ii) For existing and new CCR surface impoundments and any lateral expansion of a 

CCR surface impoundment, within five years of commencing closure activities pursuant to either 

paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this section.

(2) ()(i) Extensions of closure time framestimeframes. The time framestimeframes

for completing closure of a CCR unit specified under paragraphs (f)(1) of this section may be 

extended if the owner or operator can demonstrate that it was not feasible to complete closure of 

the CCR unit within the required time framestimeframes due to factors beyond the facility’s 

control. If the owner or operator is seeking a time extension beyond the time specified in the 

written closure plan as required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the demonstration must 

include a narrative discussion providing the basis for additional time beyond that specified in the 

closure plan. The owner or operator must place each completed demonstration, if more than one 

time extension is sought, in the facility’s operating record as required by § 257.105(i)(6) prior to 

the end of any two-year period. Factors that may support such a demonstration include:

(A) Complications stemming from the climate and weather, such as unusual amounts 

of precipitation or a significantly shortened construction season;

(B) Time required to dewater a surface impoundment due to the volume of CCR 

contained in the CCR unit or the characteristics of the CCR in the unit;

(C) The geology and terrain surrounding the CCR unit will affect the amount of 

material needed to close the CCR unit; or 

(D) Time required or delays caused by the need to coordinate with and obtain 

necessary approvals and permits from a state or other agency.

(ii) Maximum time extensions. (A) CCR surface impoundments of 40 acres or 

smaller may extend the time to complete closure by no longer than two years.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

790

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(B) CCR surface impoundments larger than 40 acres may extend the time 

frametimeframe to complete closure of the CCR unit multiple times, in two-year increments. For 

each two-year extension sought, the owner or operator must substantiate the factual 

circumstances demonstrating the need for the extension. No more than a total of five two-year 

extensions may be obtained for any CCR surface impoundment.

(C) CCR landfills may extend the time frametimeframe to complete closure of the 

CCR unit multiple times, in one-year increments. For each one-year extension sought, the owner 

or operator must substantiate the factual circumstances demonstrating the need for the extension. 

No more than a total of two one-year extensions may be obtained for any CCR landfill.

(iii) In order to obtain additional time extension(s) to complete closure of a 

CCR unit beyond the times provided by paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the owner or operator of 

the CCR unit must include with the demonstration required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section 

the following statement signed by the owner or operator or an authorized representative:

I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am 

familiar with the information submitted in this demonstration and all attached 

documents, and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately 

responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the submitted information 

is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for 

submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.

(3) Upon completion, the owner or operator of the CCR unit must obtain a 

certification from a qualified professional engineer verifying that closure has been completed in 

accordance with the closure plan specified in paragraph (b) of this section and the requirements 

of this section.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: 12 pt

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Right: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

791

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(g) No later than the date the owner or operator initiates closure of a CCR unit, the 

owner or operator must prepare a notification of intent to close a CCR unit. The notification 

must include the certification by a qualified professional engineer for the design of the final 

cover system as required by § 257.102(d)(3)(iii), if applicable. The owner or operator has 

completed the notification when it has been placed in the facility’s operating record as required 

by § 257.105(i)(7).

(h) Within 30 days of completion of closure of the CCR unit, the owner or operator 

must prepare a notification of closure of a CCR unit. The notification must include the 

certification by a qualified professional engineer as required by § 257.102(f)(3). The owner or 

operator has completed the notification when it has been placed in the facility’s operating record 

as required by § 257.105(i)(8).

(i) Deed notations. (1) FollowingExcept as provided by paragraph (i)(4) of 

this section, following closure of a CCR unit, the owner or operator of the CCR unit must record, 

in a timely manner and in accordance with state law, a notation on the deed to the property, or 

some other instrument that is normally examined during title search.

(2) The notation on the deed must in perpetuity notify any potential purchaser of the 

property that:

(2) The notation on the deed must in perpetuity notify any potential purchaser 

of the property that:

(i) The land has been used as a CCR unit; and

(ii) Its use is restricted under the post-closure care requirements as provided 

by § 257.104(d)(1)(iii).

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

792

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(3) Within 30 days of recording a notation on the deed to the property, the 

owner or operator must prepare a notification stating that the notation has been recorded. The 

owner or operator has completed the notification when it has been placed in the facility’s 

operating record as required by § 257.105(i)(9).

(4) An owner or operator that closes a CCR unit in accordance with paragraph (c) of 

this section is not subject to the requirements of paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(3) of this section.

(j) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(i), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(i), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(i).

§ 257.103 Alternative closure requirements.

The owner or operator of a CCR landfill, CCR surface impoundment, or any 

lateral expansion of a CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundment unit that is subject to closure 

pursuant to § 257.101(a), (b)(1), or (d) may continue to receive to receive CCR in the unit 

provided the owner or operator meets the requirements of either paragraph (a) or (b) of this 

section.

(a) (1) No alternative CCR disposal capacity. Notwithstanding the provisions of §

257.101(a), (b)(1), or (d), a CCR unit may continue to receive CCR if the owner or operator of 

the CCR unit certifies that the CCR must continue to be managed in that CCR unit due to the 

absence of alternative disposal capacity both on-site and off-site of the facility. To qualify under 

this paragraph, the owner or operator of the CCR unit must document that all of the following 

conditions have been met: 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

793

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(i) No alternative disposal capacity is available on-site or off-site. An increase in 

costs or the inconvenience of existing capacity is not sufficient to support qualification under this 

section.;

(ii) The owner or operator has made, and continues to make, efforts to obtain 

additional capacity. Qualification under this subsection lasts only as long as no alternative 

capacity is available. Once alternative capacity is identified, the owner or operator must arrange 

to use such capacity as soon as feasible.;

(iii) The owner or operator must remain in compliance with all other requirements of 

this subpart, including the requirement to conduct any necessary corrective action; and

(iv) The owner or operator must prepare an annual progress report documenting the 

continued lack of alternative capacity and the progress towards the development of alternative 

CCR disposal capacity.

(2) Once alternative capacity is available, the CCR unit must cease receiving CCR 

and initiate closure following the time framestimeframes in § 257.102(e) and (f).

(3) If no alternative capacity is identified within 5 years after the initial certification, 

the CCR unit must cease receiving CCR and close in accordance with the time framestimeframes

in § 257.102(e) and (f).

(b) ()(1) Permanent cessation of a coal-fired boiler(s) by a date certain. 

Notwithstanding the provisions of § 257.101(a), (b)(1), and (d), a CCR unit may continue to 

receive CCR if the owner or operator certifies that the facility will cease operation of the coalfired boilers within the time framestimeframes specified in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4) of 

this section, but in the interim period (prior to closure of the coal-fired boiler), the facility must 

continue to use the CCR unit due to the absence of alternative disposal capacity both on-site and 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

794

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

off-site of the facility. To qualify under this paragraph, the owner or operator of the CCR unit 

must document that all of the following conditions have been met:

(i) No alternative disposal capacity is available on-site or off-site. An increase in 

costs or the inconvenience of existing capacity is not sufficient to support qualification under this 

section.

(ii) The owner or operator must remain in compliance with all other requirements of 

this subpart, including the requirement to conduct any necessary corrective action; and

(iii) The owner or operator must prepare an annual progress report documenting the 

continued lack of alternative capacity and the progress towards the closure of the coal-fired 

boiler.

(2) For a CCR surface impoundment that is 40 acres or smaller, the coal-fired boiler 

must cease operation and the CCR surface impoundment must have completed closure no later 

than [INSERT DATE 102 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

(3) For a CCR surface impoundment that is larger than 40 acres, the coal-fired boiler 

must cease operation, and the CCR surface impoundment must complete closure no later than 

[INSERT DATE 162 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER].

(4) For a CCR landfill, the coal-fired boiler must cease operation, and the CCR 

landfill must complete closure no later than [INSERT DATE 72 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

795

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(c) Required notices and progress reports. An owner or operator of a CCR unit that 

closes in accordance with paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section must complete the notices and 

progress reports specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section.

(1) Within six months of becoming subject to closure pursuant to § 257.101(a), 

(b)(1), or (d), the owner or operator must prepare and place in the facility’s operating record a 

notification of intent to comply with the alternative closure requirements of this section. The 

notification must describe why the CCR unit qualifies for the alternative closure provisions 

under either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, in addition to providing the documentation and 

certifications required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.

(2) The owner or operator must prepare the periodic progress reports required by 

paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) or (b)(1)(iii), in addition to describing any problems encountered and a 

description of the actions taken to resolve the problems. The annual progress reports must be 

completed according to the following schedule:

(i) The first annual progress report must be prepared no later than 13 months after 

completing the notification of intent to comply with the alternative closure requirements 

required by paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

(ii) The second annual progress report must be prepared no later than 12 months after 

completing the first annual progress report. Additional annual progress reports must be prepared 

within 12 months of completing the previous annual progress report.

(iii) The owner or operator has completed the progress reports specified in paragraphs 

(c)(2) of this section when the reports are placed in the facility’s operating record as required by 

§ 257.105(i)(10).
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

796

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(3) An owner or operator of a CCR unit must also prepare the notification of intent to 

close a CCR unit as required by § 257.102(g).

(d) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(i), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(i), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(i).

§ 257.104Post-closure care requirements.

(a) Applicability. (1) Except as provided by either paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this 

section, § 257.104 applies to the owners or operators of CCR landfills, CCR surface 

impoundments, and all lateral expansions of CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundmentsunits

that are subject to the closure criteria under § 257.102.

(2) An owner or operator of a CCR unit that elects to close a CCR unit by removing 

CCR as provided by § 257.102(c) is not subject to the post-closure care criteria under this 

section.

(3) An owner or operator of an inactive CCR surface impoundment that elects to 

close a CCR unit pursuant to the requirements under § 257.100(b) is not subject to the postclosure care criteria under this section.

(b) Post-closure care maintenance requirements. Following closure of the CCR unit, 

the owner or operator must conduct post-closure care for the CCR unit, which must consist of at 

least the following:

(1) Maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the final cover system, including 

making repairs to the final cover as necessary to correct the effects of settlement, subsidence, 

erosion, or other events, and preventing run-on and run-off from eroding or otherwise damaging 

the final cover;

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

797

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(2) If the CCR unit is subject to the design criteria under § 257.70, maintaining the 

integrity and effectiveness of the leachate collection and removal system and operating the 

leachate collection and removal system in accordance with the requirements of § 257.70; and

(3) Maintaining the groundwater monitoring system and monitoring the groundwater 

in accordance with the requirements of §§ 257.90 through 257.98.

(c) Post-closure care period. (1) Except as provided by paragraph (c)(2) of 

this section, the owner or operator of the CCR unit must conduct post-closure care for 30 years.

(2) If at the end of the post-closure care period the owner or operator of the CCR unit 

is operating under assessment monitoring in accordance with § 257.95, the owner or operator 

must continue to conduct post-closure care until the owner or operator returns to detection 

monitoring in accordance with § 257.95.

(d) Written post-closure plan. (1) Content of the plan. The owner or operator of a 

CCR unit must prepare a written post-closure plan that includes, at a minimum, the information 

specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(iii) of this section.

(i) A description of the monitoring and maintenance activities required in paragraph 

(b) of this section for the CCR unit, and the frequency at which these activities will be 

performed;

(ii) The name, address, telephone number, and e-mail address of the person or office 

to contact about the facility during the post-closure care period; and

(iii) A description of the planned uses of the property during the post-closure period. 

Post-closure use of the property shall not disturb the integrity of the final cover, liner(s), or any 

other component of the containment system, or the function of the monitoring systems unless 

necessary to comply with the requirements in this subpart. Any other disturbance is allowed if 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

798

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

the owner or operator of the CCR unit demonstrates that disturbance of the final cover, liner, or 

other component of the containment system, including any removal of CCR, will not increase the 

potential threat to human health or the environment. The demonstration must be certified by a 

qualified professional engineer, and notification shall be provided to the State Director that the 

demonstration has been placed in the operating record and on the owners or operator’s publicly 

accessible internet site.

(2) Deadline to prepare the initial written post-closure plan. (i) Existing CCR 

landfills and existing CCR surface impoundments. No later than [INSERT DATE 18 

MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the 

owner or operator of the CCR unit must prepare an initial written post-closure plan consistent 

with the requirements specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

(ii) New CCR landfills, new CCR surface impoundments, and any lateral

expansion of a CCR landfill or CCR surface impoundment.unit. No later than the date of the 

initial receipt of CCR in the CCR unit, the owner or operator must prepare an initial written postclosure plan consistent with the requirements specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

(iii) The owner or operator has completed the written post-closure plan when 

the plan, including the certification required by paragraph (d)(4) of this section, has been placed 

in the facility’s operating record as required by § 257.105(i)(4).

(3) Amendment of a written post-closure plan. (i) The owner or operator may 

amend the initial or any subsequent written post-closure plan developed pursuant to paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section at any time.

(ii) The owner or operator must amend the written closure plan whenever:

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

799

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(A) There is a change in the operation of the CCR unit that would substantially 

affect the written post-closure plan in effect; or

(B) After post-closure activities have commenced, unanticipated events 

necessitate a revision of the written post-closure plan.

(iii) The owner or operator must amend the written post-closure plan at least 

60 days prior to a planned change in the operation of the facility or CCR unit, or no later than 60 

days after an unanticipated event requires the need to revise an existing written post-closure plan. 

If a written post-closure plan is revised after post-closure activities have commenced for a CCR 

unit, the owner or operator must amend the written post-closure plan no later than 30 days 

following the triggering event.

(4) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must obtain a written certification from a 

qualified professional engineer that the initial and any amendment of the written post-closure 

plan meets the requirements of this section.

(e) Notification of completion of post-closure care period. (1) No later than 60 days 

following the completion of the post-closure care period, the owner or operator of the CCR unit 

must prepare a notification verifying that post-closure care has been completed. The notification 

must include the certification by a qualified professional engineer verifying that post-closure care 

has been completed in accordance with the closure plan specified in paragraph (d) of this section 

and the requirements of this section. The owner or operator has completed the notification when 

it has been placed in the facility’s operating record as required by § 257.105(i)(13).

(f) The owner or operator of the CCR unit must comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements specified in § 257.105(i), the notification requirements specified in § 257.106(i), 

and the internet requirements specified in § 257.107(i).

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

800

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Recordkeeping, Notification, and Posting of Information to the Internet

§ 257.105 Recordkeeping requirements.

(a) Each owner or operator of a CCR unit subject to the requirements of this 

subpart must maintain files of all information required by this section in a written operating 

record at their facility.

(b) Unless specified otherwise, each file must be retained for at least threefive years 

following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, 

record, or study.

(c) An owner or operator of more than one CCR unit subject to the provisions of this 

subpart may comply with the requirements of this section in one recordkeeping system provided 

the system identifies each file by the name of each CCR unit. The files may be maintained on 

microfilm, on a computer, on computer disks, on a storage system accessible by a computer, on 

magnetic tape disks, or on microfiche. 

(d) The owner or operator of a CCR unit must submit to the State Director and/or 

appropriate Tribal authority any demonstration or documentation required by this subpart, if 

requested, when such information is not otherwise available on the owner or operator’s publicly 

accessible internet site.

(e) Location restrictions. The owner or operator of a CCR unit subject to this subpart 

must place the demonstrations documenting whether or not the CCR unit is in compliance with 

the requirements under §§ 257.60(a), 257.61(a), 257.62(a), 257.63(a), and 257.64(a), as it 

becomes available, in the facility’s operating record.

(f) Design criteria. The owner or operator of a CCR unit subject to this subpart must 

place the following information, as it becomes available, in the facility’s operating record:

Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 0.69"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

801

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(1) The design and construction certifications as required by § 257.70(e) and (f).

(2) The documentation of liner type as required by § 257.71(a).

(3) The design and construction certifications as required by § 257.72(c) and (d).

(4) Documentation prepared by the owner or operator stating that the permanent 

identification marker was installed as required by §§ 257.73(a)(1) and 257.74(a)(1).

(5) The initial and periodic hazard potential classification assessments as required by 

§§ 257.73(a)(2) and 257.74(a)(2), except that these files must be maintained for five years.).

(6) The emergency action plan (EAP), and any amendment of the EAP, as required 

by §§ 257.73(a)(3) and 257.74(a)(3), except that only the most recent EAP must be maintained in 

the facility’s operating record irrespective of the time requirement specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section.

(7) Documentation prepared by the owner or operator recording the annual face-toface meeting or exercise between representatives of the owner or operator of the CCR unit and 

the local emergency responders as required by §§ 257.73(a)(3)(i)(E) and 257.74(a)(3)(i)(E).

(8) Documentation prepared by the owner or operator recording all activations of the 

emergency action plan as required by §§ 257.73(a)(3)(v) and 257.74(a)(3)(v), except that these 

files must be maintained for five years.).

(9) The history of construction, and any revisions of it, as required by § 257.73(c), 

except that these files must be maintained until the CCR unit completes closure of the unit in 

accordance with § 257.102.

(10) The initial and periodic structural stability assessments as required by §§

257.73(d) and 257.74(d), except that these files must be maintained for five years.).
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

802

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(11) The action plan to remedy structural stability deficiencies as required by §§

257.73(d)(2) and 257.74(d)(2).

(12) The initial and periodic safety factor assessments as required by §§ 257.73(e) and 

257.74(e), except that these files must be maintained for five years.).

(13) The design and construction plans, and any revisions of it, as required by §

257.74(c), except that these files must be maintained until the CCR unit completes closure of the 

unit in accordance with § 257.102.

(g) Operating criteria. The owner or operator of a CCR unit subject to this subpart 

must place the following information, as it becomes available, in the facility’s operating record:

(1) The CCR fugitive dust control plan, and any subsequent amendment of the plan, 

required by § 257.80(b), except that only the most recent control plan must be maintained in the 

facility’s operating record irrespective of the time requirement specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section.

(2) The annual CCR fugitive dust control report required by § 257.80(c).

(3) The initial and periodic run-on and run-off control system plans as required by §

257.81(c).

(4) The initial and periodic inflow design flood control system plan as required by §

257.82(c). 

(5) Documentation recording the results of each inspection and instrumentation 

monitoring by a qualified person as required by §257.83(a), except that these files must be 

maintained for five years. 257.83(a).

(6) The periodic inspection report as required by § 257.83(b)(2), except that this 

report must be maintained for five years.).

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

803

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(7) The action plan as required by § 257.83(b)(5), except that this plan must be 

maintained for five years.).

(8) Documentation recording the results of the weekly inspection by a qualified 

person as required by § 257.84(a).

(9) The periodic inspection report as required by § 257.84(b)(2).

(h) Groundwater monitoring and corrective action. The owner or operator of a CCR 

unit subject to this subpart must place the following information, as it becomes available, in the 

facility’s operating record:

(1) The annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action report as required by §

257.90(e).

(2) Documentation of the design, installation, development, and decommissioning of 

any monitoring wells, piezometers and other measurement, sampling, and analytical devices as 

required by § 257.91(e)(1).

(3) The groundwater monitoring system certification as required by § 257.91(f).

(4) The selection of a statistical method certification as required by § 257.93(f)(6).

(5) Within 30 days of establishing an assessment monitoring program, the 

notification as required by § 257.94(e)(3).

(6) The results of the Appendix III to this part and Appendix IV to this part 

constituent concentrations as required by § 257.95(d)(1).

(7) Within 30 days of returning to a detection monitoring program, the notification as 

required by § 257.94(e).

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

804

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(8) Within 30 days of detecting one or more constituents in Appendix IV to this part 

at statistically significant levels above the groundwater protection standard, the notifications as 

required by § 257.94(g) and (g)(2).

(9) Within 30 days of initiating the assessment of corrective measures requirements, 

the notification as required by § 257.95(g)(5).

(10) The completed assessment of corrective measures as required by § 257.96(d).

(11) Documentation prepared by the owner or operator recording the public meeting 

for the corrective measures assessment as required by § 257.96(e).

(12) The semiannual report describing the progress in selecting and designing the 

remedy and the selection of remedy report as required by § 257.97(a), except that this planthe 

selection of remedy report must be maintained until the remedy has been completed.

(13) Within 30 days of completing the remedy, the notification as required by §

257.98(e).

(i) Closure and post-closure care. The owner or operator of a CCR unit subject to 

this subpart must place the following information, as it becomes available, in the facility’s 

operating record:

(1) The notification of intent to initiate closure of the CCR unit as required by §

257.100(c)(1).

(2) The annual progress reports of closure implementation as required by §

257.100(c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii).

(3) The notification of closure completion as required by § 257.100(c)(3).

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

805

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(4) The written closure plan, and any amendment of the plan, as required by §

257.102(b).), except that only the most recent closure plan must be maintained in the facility’s 

operating record irrespective of the time requirement specified in paragraph (b) of this section.

(5) The written demonstration(s), including the certification required by §

257.102(e)(2)(iii), for a time extension for initiating closure as required by § 257.102(e)(2)(ii).

(6) The written demonstration(s), including the certification required by §

257.102(f)(2)(iii), for a time extension for completing closure as required by § 257.102(f)(2)(i).

(7) The notification of intent to close a CCR unit as required by § 257.102(g).

(8) The notification of completion of closure of a CCR unit as required by §

257.102(h).

(9) The notification recording a notation on the deed as required by § 257.102(i).

(10) The notification of intent to comply with the alternative closure requirements as 

required by § 257.103(c)(1).

(11) The annual progress reports under the alternative closure requirements as required 

by § 257.103(c)(2).

(12) The written post-closure plan, and any amendment of the plan, as required by §

257.104(d).), except that only the most recent closure plan must be maintained in the facility’s 

operating record irrespective of the time requirement specified in paragraph (b) of this section.

(13) The notification of completion of post-closure care period as required by §

257.104(e).

§ 257.106 Notification requirements.

(a) The notifications required under paragraphs (e) through (i) of this section must be 

sent to the relevant State Director and/or appropriate Tribal authority before the close of business 

Formatted: Tab stops: Not at 0.69"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

806

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

on the day the notification is required to be completed. For purposes of this section, before the 

close of business means the notification must be postmarked or sent by electronic mail (e-mail). 

If a notification deadline falls on a weekend or federal holiday, the notification deadline is 

automatically extended to the next business day.

(b) If any CCR unit is located in its entirety within Indian Country, the notifications 

of this section must be sent to the appropriate Tribal authority. If any CCR unit is located in part 

within Indian Country, the notifications of this section must be sent both to the appropriate State 

Director and Tribal authority.

(c) Notifications may be combined as long as the deadline requirement for each 

notification is met.

(d) Unless otherwise required in this section, the notifications specified in this section 

must be sent to the State Director and/or appropriate Tribal authority within 30 days of placing in 

the operating record the information required by § 257.105.

(e) Location restrictions. The owner or operator of a CCR unit subject to the 

requirements of this subpart must notify the State Director and/or appropriate Tribal authority 

that each demonstration specified under § 257.105(e) has been placed in the operating record and 

on the owner or operator’s publicly accessible internet site.

(f) Design criteria. The owner or operator of a CCR unit subject to this subpart must 

notify the State Director and/or appropriate Tribal authority when information has been placed in 

the operating record and on the owner or operator’s publicly accessible internet site. The owner 

or operator must:

(1) Within 60 days of commencing construction of a new CCR unit, provide 

notification of the availability of the design certification specified under § 257.105(f)(1) or (f)(3). 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

807

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

If the owner or operator of the CCR unit elects to install an alternative composite liner, the owner 

or operator must also submit to the State Director and/or appropriate Tribal authority a copy of 

the alternative composite liner design.

(2) No later than the date of initial receipt of CCR by a new CCR unit, provide 

notification of the availability of the construction certification specified under § 257.105(f)(1) or 

(f)(3).

(3) Provide notification of the availability of the documentation of liner type 

specified under § 257.105(f)(2).

(4) Provide notification of the availability of the initial and periodic hazard potential 

classification assessments specified under § 257.105(f)(5).

(5) Provide notification of the availability of emergency action plan (EAP), and any 

revisions of the EAP, specified under § 257.105(f)(6).

(6) Provide notification of the availability of documentation prepared by the owner or 

operator recording the annual face-to-face meeting or exercise between representatives of the 

owner or operator of the CCR unit and the local emergency responders specified under §

257.105(f)(7).

(7) Provide notification of documentation prepared by the owner or operator 

recording all activations of the emergency action plan specified under § 257.105(f)(8).

(8) Provide notification of the availability of the history of construction, and any 

revision of it, specified under § 257.105(f)(9).

(9) Provide notification of the availability of the initial and periodic structural 

stability assessments specified under § 257.105(f)(10).
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

808

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(10) Provide notification of the availability of the action plan to remedy structural 

stability deficiencies specified under § 257.105(f)(11).

(11) Provide notification of the availability of the initial and periodic safety factor 

assessments specified under § 257.105(f)(12).

(12) Provide notification of the availability of the design and construction plans, and 

any revision of them, specified under § 257.105(f)(13).

(g) Operating criteria. The owner or operator of a CCR unit subject to this subpart 

must notify the State Director and/or appropriate Tribal authority when information has been 

placed in the operating record and on the owner or operator’s publicly accessible internet site. 

The owner or operator must:

(1) Provide notification of the availability of the CCR fugitive dust control plan, or 

any subsequent amendment of the plan, specified under § 257.105(g)(1).

(2) Provide notification of the availability of the annual CCR fugitive dust control 

report specified under § 257.105(g)(2).

(3) Provide notification of the availability of the initial and periodic run-on and runoff control system plans specified under § 257.105(g)(3).

(4) Provide notification of the availability of the initial and periodic inflow design 

flood control system plans specified under § 257.105(g)(4).

(5) Provide notification of the availability of the periodic inspection reports specified 

under § 257.105(g)(6).

(6) Provide notification of the availability of the action plan specified under §

257.105(g)(7).

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

809

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(7) Provide notification of the availability of the periodic inspection reports specified 

under § 257.105(g)(9).

(h) Groundwater monitoring and corrective action. The owner or operator of a CCR 

unit subject to this subpart must notify the State Director and/or appropriate Tribal authority 

when information has been placed in the operating record and on the owner or operator’s 

publicly accessible internet site. The owner or operator must:

(1) Provide notification of the availability of the annual groundwater monitoring and 

corrective action report specified under § 257.105(h)(1).

(2) Provide notification of the availability of the groundwater monitoring system 

certification specified under § 257.105(h)(3).

(3) Provide notification of the availability of the selection of a statistical method 

certification specified under § 257.105(h)(4).

(4) Provide notification that an assessment monitoring programs has been established 

specified under § 257.105(h)(5).

(5) Provide notification that the CCR unit is returning to a detection monitoring 

program specified under § 257.105(h)(7).

(6) Provide notification that one or more constituents in Appendix IV to this part 

have been detected at statistically significant levels above the groundwater protection standard 

and the notifications to land owners specified under § 257.105(h)(8).

(7) Provide notification that an assessment of corrective measures has been initiated 

specified under § 257.105(h)(9).

(8) Provide notification of the availability of assessment of corrective measures 

specified under § 257.105(h)(10).

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

810

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(9) Provide notification of the availability of the semiannual report describing the 

progress in selecting and designing the remedy and the selection of remedy report specified 

under § 257.105(h)(12).

(10) Provide notification of the completion of the remedy specified under §

257.105(h)(13).

(i) Closure and post-closure care. The owner or operator of a CCR unit subject to 

this subpart must notify the State Director and/or appropriate Tribal authority when information 

has been placed in the operating record and on the owner or operator’s publicly accessible 

internet site. The owner or operator must: 

(1) Provide notification of the intent to initiate closure of the CCR unit specified 

under § 257.105(i)(1).

(2) Provide notification of the availability of the annual progress reports of closure 

implementation specified under § 257.105(i)(2).

(3) Provide notification of closure completion specified under § 257.105(i)(3).

(4) Provide notification of the availability of the written closure plan, and any 

amendment of the plan, specified under § 257.105(i)(4).

(5) Provide notification of the availability of the demonstration(s) for a time 

extension for initiating closure specified under § 257.105(i)(5).

(6) Provide notification of the availability of the demonstration(s) for a time 

extension for completing closure specified under § 257.105(i)(6).

(7) Provide notification of intent to close a CCR unit specified under § 257.105(i)(7).

(8) Provide notification of completion of closure of a CCR unit specified under §

257.105(i)(8).

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

811

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(9) Provide notification of the deed notation as required by § 257.105(i)(9).

(10) Provide notification of intent to comply with the alternative closure requirements 

specified under § 257.105(i)(10).

(11) The annual progress reports under the alternative closure requirements as required 

by § 257.105(i)(11).

(12) Provide notification of the availability of the written post-closure plan, and any 

amendment of the plan, specified under § 257.105(i)(12).

(13) Provide notification of completion of post-closure care specified under §

257.105(i)(13).

§ 257.107Publicly accessible internet site requirements.

(a) Each owner or operator of a CCR unit subject to the requirements of this 

subpart must maintain a publicly accessible internet site (CCR website) containing the 

information specified in this section. The owner or operator’s website must be titled “CCR Rule 

Compliance Data and Information.”

(b) An owner or operator of more than one CCR unit subject to the provisions of this 

subpart may comply with the requirements of this section by using the same internet site for 

multiple CCR units provided the CCR website clearly delineates information by the name of 

each unit.

(c) Unless otherwise required in this section, the information required to be posted to 

the CCR website must be made available to the public for at least threefive years following the 

date on which the information was first posted to the CCR website.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

812

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(d) Unless otherwise required in this section, the information must be posted to the 

CCR website within 30 days of placing the pertinent information required by § 257.105 in the 

operating record.

(e) Location restrictions. The owner or operator of a CCR unit subject to this subpart 

must place each demonstration specified under § 257.105(e) on the owner or operator’s CCR 

website.

(f) Design criteria. The owner or operator of a CCR unit subject to this subpart must 

place the following information on the owner or operator’s CCR website:

(1) Within 60 days of commencing construction of a new unit, the design certification 

specified under § 257.105(f)(1) or (f)(3).

(2) No later than the date of initial receipt of CCR by a new CCR unit, the 

construction certification specified under § 257.105(f)(1) or (f)(3).

(3) The documentation of liner type specified under § 257.105(f)(2).

(4) The initial and periodic hazard potential classification assessments specified 

under § 257.105(f)(5), except that this information must be maintained on the CCR website for 

five years.).

(5) The emergency action plan (EAP) specified under § 257.105(f)(6), except that 

only the most recent EAP must be maintained on the CCR website irrespective of the time 

requirement specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

(6) Documentation prepared by the owner or operator recording the annual face-toface meeting or exercise between representatives of the owner or operator of the CCR unit and 

the local emergency responders specified under § 257.105(f)(7).

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

813

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(7) Documentation prepared by the owner or operator recording any activation of the 

emergency action plan specified under § 257.105(f)(8).

(8) The history of construction, and any revisions of it, specified under §

257.105(f)(9).

(9) The initial and periodic structural stability assessments specified under §

257.105(f)(10), except that this information must be maintained on the CCR website for five 

years.).

(10) The action plan to remedy structural stability deficiencies specified under §

257.105(f)(11).

(11) The initial and periodic safety factor assessments specified under §

257.105(f)(12), except that this information must be maintained on the CCR website for five 

years.).

(12) The design and construction plans, and any revisions of them, specified under §

257.105(f)(13).

(g) Operating criteria. The owner or operator of a CCR unit subject to this subpart 

must place the following information on the owner or operator’s CCR website:

(1) The CCR fugitive dust control plan, or any subsequent amendment of the plan, 

specified under § 257.105(g)(1).) except that only the most recent plan must be maintained on 

the CCR website irrespective of the time requirement specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

(2) The annual CCR fugitive dust control report specified under § 257.105(g)(2).

(3) The initial and periodic run-on and run-off control system plans specified under §

257.105(g)(3).

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

814

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(4) The initial and periodic inflow design flood control system plans specified under 

§ 257.105(g)(4).

(5) The periodic inspection reports specified under § 257.105(g)(6).

(6) The action plan specified under § 257.105(g)(7).

(7) The periodic inspection reports specified under § 257.105(g)(9).

(h) Groundwater monitoring and corrective action. The owner or operator of a CCR 

unit subject to this subpart must place the following information on the owner or operator’s CCR 

website:

(1) The annual groundwater monitoring and corrective action report specified under §

257.105(h)(1).

(2) The groundwater monitoring system certification specified under § 257.105(h)(3).

(3) The selection of a statistical method certification specified under § 257.105(h)(4).

(4) The notification that an assessment monitoring programs has been established 

specified under § 257.105(h)(5).

(5) The notification that the CCR unit is returning to a detection monitoring program 

specified under § 257.105(h)(7).

(6) The notification that one or more constituents in Appendix IV to this part have 

been detected at statistically significant levels above the groundwater protection standard and the 

notifications to land owners specified under § 257.105(h)(8).

(7) The notification that an assessment of corrective measures has been initiated 

specified under § 257.105(h)(9).

(8) The assessment of corrective measures specified under § 257.105(h)(10).

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

815

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(9) The semiannual reports describing the progress in selecting and designing remedy 

and the selection of remedy report specified under § 257.105(h)(12), except that this planthe 

selection of the remedy report must be maintained until the remedy has been completed.

(10) The notification that the remedy has been completed specified under §

257.105(h)(13).

(i) Closure and post-closure care. The owner or operator of a CCR unit subject to 

this subpart must place the following information on the owner or operator’s CCR website:

(1) The notification of intent to initiate closure of the CCR unit specified under §

257.105(i)(1).

(2) The annual progress reports of closure implementation specified under §

257.105(i)(2).

(3) The notification of closure completion specified under § 257.105(i)(3).

(4) The written closure plan, and any amendment of the plan, specified under §

257.105(i)(4).

(5) The demonstration(s) for a time extension for initiating closure specified 

under § 257.105(i)(5).

(6) The demonstration(s) for a time extension for completing closure specified under 

§ 257.105(i)(6).

(7) The notification of intent to close a CCR unit specified under § 257.105(i)(7).

(8) The notification of completion of closure of a CCR unit specified under §

257.105(i)(8).

(9) The notification recording a notation on the deed as required by § 257.105(i)(9).

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5", Line spacing:

Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

816

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(10) The notification of intent to comply with the alternative closure requirements as 

required by § 257.105(i)(10).

(11) The annual progress reports under the alternative closure requirements as required 

by § 257.105(i)(11).

(12) The written post-closure plan, and any amendment of the plan, specified under §

257.105(i)(12).

(13) The notification of completion of post-closure care specified under §

257.105(i)(13).

6. New 5. Amend part 257 by adding “Appendix III is added to part 257 Part 257” and 

“Appendix IV to Part 257” to read as follows:

APPENDIXAppendix III TO PARTto Part 257—CONSTITUENTS FOR DETECTION 

MONITORINGConstituents for Detection Monitoring

Common Name1

Boron

Calcium

Chloride

Fluoride

pH

Sulfate

Total Dissolved Solids 

(TDS)

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

817

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

1 Common names are those widely used in government regulations, scientific 

publications, and commerce; synonyms exist for many chemicals.

7. New Appendix IV is added to partPart 257 to read as follows:—Constituents for 

Assessment Monitoring

APPENDIX IV TO PART 257—CONSTITUENTS FOR ASSESSMENT MONITORING

Common Name1

Antimony

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Chromium

Cobalt

Fluoride

Lead

Lithium

Mercury

Molybdenum

Selenium

Thallium

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0", Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Font: Bold

Formatted: Font: Bold

Formatted: Font: Bold

Formatted: Font: Bold

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

818

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Radium 226 and 228 

combined

1 Common names are those widely used in government regulations, scientific 

publications, and commerce; synonyms exist for many chemicals.

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

86. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921; 6922, 6924(y), and 6938.

97. Section 261.4 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:

§ 261.4 Exclusions.

* * * * *

(b) * * * *

(4) ()(i) Fly ash waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste, and flue gas emission control 

waste generated primarily from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels, except as provided 

by § 266.112 of this chapter for facilities that burn or process hazardous waste.

(ii) The following wastes generated primarily from processes that support the 

combustion of coal or other fossil fuels that are co-disposed with the wastes in paragraph 

(b)(4)(i) of this section, except as provided by § 266.112 of this chapter for facilities that burn or 

process hazardous waste:

(A) Coal pile run-off. For purposes of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, coal pile runoff means any precipitation that drains off coal piles.

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Line spacing: Double

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5", Tab stops: Not at

0.5" + 0.75"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

819

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

(B) Boiler cleaning solutions. For purposes of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, boiler 

cleaning solutions means water solutions and chemical solutions used to clean the fire-side and 

water-side of the boiler.

(C) Boiler blowdown. For purposes of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, boiler 

blowdown means water purged from boilers used to generate steam.

(D) Process water treatment and demineralizer regeneration wastes. For purposes of 

paragraph (b)(4) of this section, process water treatment and demineralizer regeneration wastes 

means sludges, rinses, and spent resins generated from processes to remove dissolved gases, 

suspended solids, and dissolved chemical salts from combustion system process water. 

(E) Cooling tower blowdown. For purposes of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, 

cooling tower blowdown means water purged from a closed cycle cooling system. Closed cycle 

cooling systems include cooling towers, cooling ponds, or spray canals.

(F) Air heater and precipitator washes. For purposes of paragraph (b)(4) of this 

section, air heater and precipitator washes means wastes from cleaning air preheaters and 

electrostatic precipitators.

(G) Effluents from floor and yard drains and sumps. For purposes of paragraph (b)(4) 

of this section, effluents from floor and yard drains and sumps means wastewaters, such as wash 

water, collected by or from floor drains, equipment drains, and sumps located inside the power 

plant building; and wastewaters, such as rain runoff, collected by yard drains and sumps located 

outside the power plant building. 

(H) Wastewater treatment sludges. For purposes of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, 

wastewater treatment sludges refers to sludges generated from the treatment of wastewaters 

specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(A) through (b)(4)(ii)(F) of this section.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***Document submitted to conclude E.O.12866 Review—Draft—Do Not Cite, Quote, or 

Release During Review***

820

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

* * * * * * * Formatted: Underline color: Auto, Font color: Auto

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5", Line spacing:

Double, Tab stops: 0.25", Left + 1", Left

Formatted: Underline color: Auto, Font color: Auto