***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

 6560-50-P

Page 1 of 35

EO12866_Coal Combustion Residuals_2050 AE81_NODA_NODA_20120202

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028; FRL- ]

RIN 2050-AE81

Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Identification and Listing of 

Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals fromFrom Electric Utilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Data Availabilitydata availability (NODA) and Requestrequest for 

Commentcomment.

_____________________________________________________________

SUMMARY: This Notice announces andThe U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the Agency) invites comment on additional information obtained by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Agency or EPA) in conjunction with the 

proposed rule: Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Identification and 

Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric 

Utilities that was published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2010. This information 

is generally categorized as: (1) Facility and waste management unitadditional data; (2) 

Supplemental data for the Risk Assessment; (3) Supplemental data for to supplement the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and; (4) Information on Large Scale Fill. EPA is 

specifically soliciting comments on the validity and propriety of the use of all newand 

risk assessment, information, data, and potential analyses being noticed today. on large 

scale fill, and data on the surface impoundment structural integrity assessments. EPA is 

also seeking comment on two issues associated with the requirements for coal 

Formatted: Level 1
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 2 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

combustion residual management units. The Agency is only requesting comment on the 

information presented or described in this Notice and is not reopening any other aspect of 

the proposal or the underlying support documents that were previously available for 

comment. Comments submitted on , and will consider comments on any issues other than 

those specifically identified in this Notice will raised in the NODA to be considered “late 

comments,” and EPA will not respond to such comments, nor will they be considered

part of the rulemaking record. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before [insert date 30 days after publication in the 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA2012-0028, by one of the following methods:

1) www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

2) Email: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to rcra-docket@epa.gov, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028. In contrast to EPA’s 

electronic public docket, EPA’s e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA’s 

electronic public docket, EPA’s e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail 

address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA’s e-mail system are 

included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made 

available in EPA’s electronic public docket.

3) Fax: Comments may be faxed to 202-566-9744. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQRCRA-2012-0028.

Formatted: Font: Font color: Black, (Intl)

Arial Unicode MS

Formatted: Font: Font color: Black, (Intl)

Arial Unicode MS

Formatted: Font: Font color: Black, (Intl)

Arial Unicode MS

Formatted: Font: Font color: Black, (Intl)

Arial Unicode MS

Formatted: Font: Italic
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 3 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

4) Mail: Send two copies of your comments to Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Management System: Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of 

Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities: Notice of Data Availability 

and Request for Comment., Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No.

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028.

5) Hand Delivery: Deliver two copies of your comments to the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Management System: Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; 

Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities: Notice of Data 

Availability and Request for Comment Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No.

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 

boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028.

EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available on-line at www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov website is 

an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 4 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed 

in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot 

read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For 

additional information about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center 

homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 

Noticenotice. 

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Identification and 

Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric 

Utilities: Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment Docket, EPA/DC, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The Docket telephone number is (202) 566-0270. The Public Reading Room is 

Formatted: Font: Italic

Formatted: Font: Italic
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 5 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Souders, Office of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery (5304P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460–0002, telephone (703) 308–8431, email address souders.steve@epa.gov. For more information on this rulemaking, please 

visit: www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/index.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or by e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to 

the following address: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery (5305P), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028. You 

may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that 

information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk 

or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 

specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed, except in 

accordance with the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as 

CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA’s electronic public 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 6 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not 

marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA’s electronic public docket 

without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming 

CBI, please contact: LaShan Haynes, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

(5305P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20460–0002, telephone (703) 605–0516, e-mail address 

haynes.lashan@epa.gov.

II. What is the Purpose of this NoticeNODA?

With this NoticeNODA, EPA is reopening the comment period on the proposed rule: 

Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Identification and Listing of 

Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals fromFrom Electric Utilities

(75 FR 35127, June 21, 2010), herein referred to as the “2010 proposed rule,”” for thetwo

limited purpose of obtainingpurposes. The first is to obtain public comment on additional 

information that may be relevant to the development of a final rule, that was obtained 

based on further EPA research conducted both duringCoal Combustion Residuals (CCR)

rule under the Resource Conservation and afterRecovery Act (RCRA), herein referred to 

as the close of the public comment periods.“final rule.”

1

This includes new information 

and data we have received that could be used in potential updates and enhancements to 

the risk assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) or risk assessment for the final 

 

1 EPA issued a Notice of Data AvailabilityNODA on October 12, 2011 (76 FR 63252) that announced and 

invited comment on other additional information that may be relevant to the development of a final rule 

that was obtained by EPA after the close of the public comment period on the proposed rule. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 7 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

rule.2EPA is still in the process of evaluating this information, and we cannot definitively 

state that this information will provide support for any final rule provisions, or that the 

Agency haswe have determined that it is appropriate to rely on this information in 

developing the final rule. In addition, it should not be assumed that the specific 

information identified in this NoticeNODA is the full sum of the information that will be 

considered or that will influence the Agency’s decisions in this rulemaking. However, in 

the interests of ensuring that the public has had a full and complete opportunity to 

comment on the information that EPA has identified to date as having the potential to 

weigh in EPA’s decisions However, EPA is reopening the comment period only for the 

limited purpose of allowing the public to comment on the validity and propriety of using 

this information,these data, and potential analyses in developing the final rule; this action 

will provide the public with a full and complete opportunity to comment on the 

information that EPA has identified to date as having the potential to weigh significantly 

in our decisions. If EPA determines that it is appropriate to rely on any of the information 

provided in today’s notice to support decisions and/or provisions in the final rulemaking, 

EPA will take the necessary steps to ensure the data is of sufficient quality before relying 

on it in deliberations on the final rule.3EPA will use its Information Quality Guidelines, 

 

2

The cited risk assessment, “Draft: Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes,” 

April 2010 (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-0002), and RIA, “Regulatory Impact Analysis for EPA’s 

Proposed RCRA Regulation Of Coal Combustion Residues (CCR) Generated by the Electric Utility 

Industry, “April 2010 (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-0003) are available in the docket for the 2010 proposed 

rule.

3

The Agency’s “Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of 

Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency contain“contains EPA’s policy and 

procedural guidance for ensuring and maximizing the quality of information that the Agency disseminates. 

They were developed in response to guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

under Section 515(a) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 

(Public Law 106-554; H.R. 5658). The EPA Information Quality Guidelines are available at: 

http://epa.gov/quality/infornationguidelines/documents/EPA_InfoQualityGuidelines.pdf.

http://www.epa.gov/QUALITY/informationguidelines/documents/EPA_InfoQualityGuidelines.pdf.

Formatted: Font: Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 8 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

as appropriate, to evaluate any information which supports theused to support a final

regulatory determinationdecision.

4

In addition, EPA will also rely on the EPA Science 

Policy Council Assessment Factors Guidance to evaluate the quality and relevance of the 

scientific and technical information.5

All of the information on which EPA is requesting comment is either specifically 

identified in this Notice or is located in the docket supporting this Notice. A summary 

table of this information is available in the docket. EPA is not reopening the comment 

period on any aspect of the proposed rule, other than as specifically discussed below. The second purpose of this NODA is to solicit additi

issues. Based on the issues raised in public comments, EPA has identified two areas that 

warrant additional public comment; EPA is seeking additional comments on (1) the 

feasibility of complying with the Agency’s proposed time frames for closing surface 

impoundments in the subtitle D option; and (2) how the technical requirements (including 

the design and operating requirements for new CCR landfills) relate to CCR overfill units 

that have been constructed on top of closed surface impoundments or landfills, which 

commenters have claimed is a common (and expanding) practice. 

EPA is not reopening the comment period on any other issue associated with its 

original proposal. This is not an opportunity for the public to supplement their comments 

on the proposed rule, or to raise issues that could have been raised during the original 

comment period. The only issues on which the Agency is soliciting comment relate to the 

 

4

Specific evaluation criteria are outlined in the Agency’s document titled, “Data Quality Assessment: A 

Reviewer’s Guide (“(EPA/240/B-06/002, February 2006) and in the checklist provided at 

http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/cklist-secondaryg9r-final.pdf.

5 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/OSA/spcstpc/pdfs/assess2.pdf.

Formatted: Font: Italic

Formatted: Font: Font color: Black, (Intl)

Arial Unicode MS

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 9 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

information in the docket supporting this NoticeNODA, EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028, or

the websites listed below, the potential revisions to the risk assessment and RIA based on 

this information, or the other two issues specifically described in this NoticeNODA. 

Comments submitted on any issues other than those specifically identified in this 

NoticeNODA will be considered “late comments” on the proposed rule. EPA will not 

respond to such comments, and they will not be considered part of the rulemaking record. 

III. Where Can the Additional Information Identified in This Notice bethis 

NODA Be Found?

Most of All the information that EPA is noticing today, including the 

specific comments, in this NODA can be found in the docket supporting this Notice, 

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028. Otherwise, the information or is available from websites 

at internet addresses provided in this notice. For example, EPA is considering using the 

fractions of state anglers in the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation (FHWAR) that was conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which There are being noticed below and are available at:

http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/NationalSurvey/nat_survey2006_final.pdf. In 

addition, to further assist the reader, we are also providing, where appropriate, the docket 

number of the comment as it is identifiedthree data sets for which hardcopy versions of 

the material cited is not included in the docket supporting the 2010 proposed rule, EPAHQ-RCRA-2009-0640. The docket number can be found in parentheses directly 

following the comment. With this additional information, the reader can also use the 

proposed rule docket to access the noticed information. 

Formatted: Font: Bold

Formatted: Font color: Auto
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 10 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Finally, most documents are available from the docket for viewing and 

downloading through www.regulations.gov; however, copyrighted documents are only 

available for viewing by visiting the docket for the proposed rule (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-

0640) at EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460. 

IV. What New Facility and Waste Management Data Are Being Noticed?

The Agency is considering the following additional information sources in support of 

the final rule. 

1. EPA’s Office of Water conducted a 2010 Information Collection Request, herein 

referred to as “2010 ICR,”and we are instead providing internet addresses. These are: (1) 

the Structural Integrity Surface Impoundment Assessments at: 

http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/industrial.special/fossil/surveys2/indexhtm; (2) the

Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines. Parts A and 

F of this ICR pertaining to coal plants were found to contain data relevant to this

rulemaking.6These data, excluding those confirmed to be CBI, are provided in a series of 

Excel spreadsheets in the docket.7Fourteen plants claimed CBI for their data; any data 

classified as CBI from this ICR, under consideration for use in the rulemaking will only 

be examined in aggregate to protect the confidentiality of the information. at: 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam-electric/questionnaire.cfm; and (3) 

 

6 U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power 

Generating Effluent Guidelines. OMB Control No. 2040-0281. Approved May 20, 2010.

7 Note that all coal plants in the target population answered Part A of the questionnaire, while only a 

statistically representative subset of the coal plants were selected to answer Part F of the questionnaire.

Formatted: Normal, No bullets or numbering

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 11 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

the National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDPlus) at: http://www.horizonsystems.com/nhdplus/. 

2. EPA created a list linking the location of each coal plant with the closest receiving 

water body. Each plant is identified by the corresponding Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) ID and each receiving water body is identified by the 

corresponding Common ID (COMID). These data are provided in an Excel 

spreadsheet available in the docket.

IV. What Data to Supplement the RIA and Risk Assessment Are Being Noticed?

On June 7, 2013, EPA published a proposed rule revising technology-based 

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

source category (ELG rule) (78 FR 34432). A principle source of information used in 

developing this proposal was the industry responses to a survey titled, The Questionnaire 

for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines, distributed by EPA under 

the authority of section 308 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1318. 8 EPA designed the 

industry survey to obtain technical information related to wastewater generation and 

treatment, and economic information such as costs of wastewater treatment technologies 

and financial characteristics of potentially affected companies. In June 2010, EPA 

mailed the survey to 733 plants. In general, plants were required to provide responses for 

the 2009 calendar year. (The reader is referred to the preamble discussion in the proposed 

ELG rule for additional information on the questionnaire and the data collected (78 FR at 

34442-34445.)) The Agency is considering whether to rely on all of the responding data 

 

8 U.S. EPA. Environmental Protection Agency: 2010 Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power 

Generating Effluent Guidelines. OMB Control No. 2040-0281. Approved May 20, 2010.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 12 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

in developing a revised RIA, risk assessment or other analyses. A Microsoft Access 

version of the data, a PDF of the original questions and mailing list, and an EXCEL 

version of the data element dictionary are all available at: 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam-electric/questionnaire.cfm; this is the 

same information on which EPA solicited public comment in the proposed ELG rule. 

EPA also notes that the Agency will work to harmonize the use of these data, to the 

extent possible, in the development of this final rule. 

V. What New Information to Update and Enhance Additional Data for the Risk 

Assessment Are Being Noticed?

EPA is consideringsoliciting comment on whether to consider the following 

additional information sources in thedeveloping a revised risk assessment in support of 

the final rule. The risk assessment prepared in support of the 2010 proposed rule titled, 

“Draft: Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes,” April 

2010 (“2010 Risk Assessment”) is available in the docket to the proposed rule (EPA-HQRCRA-2009-0640-0002). Although EPA is singling out the information and data 

specifically listed below and in the docket for further public comment, it should not be 

assumed that this information/data is the full sum of the information/data received in 

comments that will be considered or that will influence the Agency’s decisions in this 

rulemaking. 

1. EPA is considering updating the surface water flow rates. The average annual flow 

rates provided in the National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDPlus) wouldmay be 

used to supplement or replace the Reach File Version 1.0 (RF1) low flow (7Q10) data 

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 13 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

previously used to model surface water flow rates. These data can be found at:

http://www.horizon-systems.com/nhdplus/.

2.1.EPA is considering using pollutant loading estimates for ash ponds and FGD 

wastewater from EPA’s Office of Water. These loading data, which may be used as 

inputs for modeling, are provided in two Excel spreadsheets in the docket. EPA is 

requesting comment on whether this information should be considered in the final 

risk assessment.

3.2.Data from a report by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

titled, “2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated 

Recreation.” This report characterizes the percentage of residents in the urban and 

rural areas of each state who are fresh water fishers. EPA is considering applying the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service statistics for urban and rural areas from each state to 

current census population counts to estimate the total number of residents near each 

coal plant who are anglers.9This document is available at:

http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/NationalSurvey/nat_survey2006_final.pdf, as 

well as in the docket tosupporting this NoticeNODA. 

4.3.The EPA is considering using a mathematical procedure to model the interception of 

groundwater plumes by surface water bodies that may exist between a waste 

management unit and a down-gradient drinking water well. EPA is requesting 

comment on the validity of this procedure. Theoretical details of the procedure are 

provided in the document titled, “Plume Interception by a Stream and Contaminant 

 

9 At http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urdef.txt the9 The U.S. Census Bureau has defined urban 

and rural. EPA notes that according to this definition, “urban fringe generally consists of contiguous 

territory having a density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile.” Thus, a population of 3,142 

individualspersons within a 1-mile radius means a population density of 1,000 per square mile.

Formatted: List Paragraph
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 14 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Concentrations at Receptor Wells Located Downgradient from the Stream” that can 

be found in the docket supporting this NODA. 

5.4.On October 12, 2011, EPA issued a Notice of Data AvailabilityNODA (76 FR 

26086) seeking comments, among other things, on the CCR leaching data (Leaching 

Environmental Assessment Framework, or LEAF data) developed by EPA’s Office of 

Research and Development (ORD) and Vanderbilt University (UV). Based on the 

comments received and additional review, the EPA is considering updating the LEAF 

data; new pre-processing algorithms were developed to make the best use of the 

LEAF data by EPA’s Composite Model with Transformation Products (EPACMTP). 

EPA is providing further documentation related to the changes in the document titled, 

”Algorithms to Pre-Process Leaching Data to Generate Source Terms for Modeling 

Landfill Leachate Migration in Ground Water” that can be found in the docket

supporting this NODA. 

6. EPA obtained additional fish bio-concentration factors (BCFs) and other chemicalspecific data from literature for hazardous constituents.The EPA obtained additional 

fish bio-concentration factors (BCFs) and other chemical-specific data from literature 

for hazardous constituents. The chemical-specific data to be used as inputs for 

modeling are available in a file titled, “Chemical Specific Data” that can be found in 

the docket. supporting this NODA. EPA is only requesting comment on whether this 

informationthe revised BCFs should be considered in the final risk assessment. 

VI. What New Information to Update and Enhance the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Are Being Noticed?

Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Bold

Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Not Italic

Formatted: Font: Not Bold
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 15 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

5. EPA is considering using the following additional information sources in the revised 

RIA in support of the final rule. The RIA prepared in support of the 2010 proposed 

rule was titled, “Regulatory Impact Analysis for EPA’s Proposed RCRA Regulation 

of Coal Combustion Residues (CCR) Generated by the Electric Utility Industry,” 

April 2010 (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-0003). Although EPA is singling out the 

information and data specifically listed below and in the docket for further public 

comment, it should not be assumed that this information/data is the full sum of the 

information/data received in comments that will be considered or that will influence 

the Agency’s decisions in this rulemaking.

1. EPA created a list linking the location of each coal plant with the closest receiving 

water body for evaluating surface water risks as well as human health risks. Each 

plant is identified by the corresponding Energy Information Administration (EIA) ID 

and each receiving water body is identified by the corresponding Common ID 

(COMID). Data from a presentation by the Tennessee Valley Authority titled, “Flue 

Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Gypsum Production, Processing, and Disposal.” This 

presentation includes data on the cost of de-watering FGD gypsum, which the agency 

may use to update the costs resulting from the CCR rule. This document is available 

at:http://www.oardc.ohiostate.edu/agriculturalfgdnetwork/workshop_files/presentation/Session2/Miller%20-

%20FGD%20Gypsum%20Production,%20Processing,%20and%20Disposal.ppt, as well as 

in the docket to this Notice.

2. Data from a 2010 report by U.S. Department of Energy/National Energy Technology 

Laboratory (DOE/NETL) titled, “Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy 

Formatted: List Paragraph, Space After: 6 pt,

Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2,

3, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned

at: 0" + Indent at: 0.25"
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 16 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Plants, Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity DOE/NETL2007/1281.” This report includes data on the cost of de-watering FGD gypsum, which 

may be used to update the costs resulting from the CCR rule. This report is available 

on-line at a DOE/NETL Web Site at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/energyanalyses/pubs/BitBase_FinRep_Rev2.pdf, as well as in the docket to this Notice. 

6. VII. These data are provided in the EXCEL spreadsheet titled, “List of Coal 

Plant and Closest Receiving Water” that can be found in the docket supporting this 

NODA. We are soliciting comment regarding corrections or amendments to these 

data.

VI. What New Information on Large Scale Fill Is Being Noticed?

 In the June 2010 proposalproposed rule, the Agency proposed to define the 

placement of CCRs in sand and gravel pits, quarries, and other large scale fill operations 

as land disposal, rather than beneficial usesuse. 75 FR 35163. The preamble to the 

proposal discussed situations where large quantities of CCRs had been used as 

encapsulated general fill and the Agency stated that it considered that practice to be waste 

management. The preamble further stated that, “theThe amount of material placed can 

significantly impact whether placement of unencapsulated CCRs cause environmental 

risks. There are great differences between the amount of material disposed of in a landfill 

and in a beneficial use setting. For example, a stabilized fly ash base course for roadway 

construction may be on the order of 6 to 12 inches thick under the road where it is used –

these features differ considerably from the landfill and sand and gravel pit situations 

where hundreds of thousands to millions of tons of CCRs are disposed of and for which 

damage cases are documented.” Id at 35164. However, EPA did not propose a definition 

Formatted: Font: Italic
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 17 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

of the activities that would constitute large scale fill, nor propose a size criterion, but 

“solicit[ed] comments on appropriate criteria to distinguish between legitimate beneficial 

uses and inappropriate operations.” Id at 35163. 

In response, many commenters stated that EPA should have developed a size 

criterion to define large scale fill operations, but neither. The State of North Carolina

suggested 5,000 cubic yards as a size criterion, but did not provide a basis for this. Other 

commenters did not suggest a specific definition nor offeredor offer specific size 

limitations. In developing the CCR final rule and in defining large scale fill operations, 

EPA is considering whether to adopt an approach that relies on developing criteria, as 

originally proposed, or whether to develop a definition, either through guidance or an 

interpretive rule in the preamble, or through regulatory text that identifies the types of 

activities or factors the Agency will consider . 

In the proposed rule, the Agency recognized that the amount of waste alone did 

not result in situations that replicated landfills. For example: “The amount of material 

placed can significantly impact whether placement of unencapsulated CCRs causes 

environmental risks. There are great differences between the amount of material disposed 

of in a landfill and in beneficial use settings. For example, a stabilized fly ash base course 

for roadway construction may be on the order of 6 to 12 inches thick under the road 

where it is used - these features differ considerably from the landfill and sand and gravel 

pit situations where hundreds of thousands to millions of tons of CCRs are disposed of 

and for which damage cases are documented.” Id at 35164. Thus, EPA may exclude 

roadway construction from the definition of “CCR Landfill” or set a minimum depth 

reflective of CCR landfills and the damage cases associated with fill operations.

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 18 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

Whatever approach is chosen, EPA is aware of 3three different types of data sets 

that could provide information relevant to developing appropriate criteria or to otherwise 

defining what constitutes large scale fill. EPA is soliciting comment on the adequacy of 

these data, and whether EPA should consider them for the purpose of creating criteria or 

a definition. Specifically: 

The first data set involves the size of the structural fills that have resulted 

in damage cases.10 Size information on all 7seven sites was not in the 

docket to the proposed rule, but has been added to the docket for this 

Notice. NODA (See the document titled, “Structural Fills That Have 

Resulted in Damage Cases”). 

The second possible source of information that could be used is the 

distribution of landfill sizes, derived either from EPA’s Office of Water 

2010 Information Collection Request--Water’s questionnaire –which, as 

mentioned earlier, is part of the docket tosupporting this NODA--or from 

the landfill size distribution used in the proposed rule. The landfill size 

 

10

 The Agency provided definitions for proven damage cases and potential damage cases in the 2010 

proposal (see 75 FR at 35131.) As stated in the proposal, damage cases can be either a potential damage 

case or a proven damage case.

Potential damage case means those cases with documented MCL exceedances that were measured in 

ground water beneath or close to the waste source. In these cases, while the association with CCRs has 

been established, the documented exceedances had not been demonstrated at a sufficient distance from the 

waste management unit to indicate that waste constituents had migrated to the extent that they could cause 

human health concerns.

Proven damage case means those cases with (i) documented exceedances of primary maximum 

contaminant levels (MCLs) or other health-based standards measured in ground water at sufficient distance 

from the waste management unit to indicate that hazardous constituents have migrated to the extent that 

they could cause human health concerns, and/or (ii) where a scientific study provides documented evidence 

of another type of damage to human health or the environment (e.g., ecological damage), and/or (iii) where 

there has been an administrative ruling or court decision with an explicit finding of specific damage to 

human health or the environment. In cases of co-management of CCRs with other industrial waste types, 

CCRs must be clearly implicated in the reported damage.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 19 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

data set may provide relevant information that could be used to develop 

size criteria for distinguishing between large scale fill operations and sham 

disposal, as discussed in the proposed rule. See 75 FR at 35155

The third potential data set is the document titled, “North Carolina 

Documented Cases of Structural Fills Using Coal Ash as of January 2010. 

”.This data has set does not discuss damage cases but presents a size 

distribution for large scale fills that have been constructed in North 

Carolina.

These data have been placed in the docket supporting this NODA. 

 

____________VII. What Data on Surface Impoundment Structural Integrity 

Assessments Are Being Noticed?

On October 13, 2010, EPA described and solicited comment (See 76 FR 63252) 

on information that had been obtained from EPA’s effort to assess the structural integrity 

of surface impoundments. At that time, EPA had completed the assessments and the final 

reports for 53 units. Since that time, EPA has continued this assessment effort and has 

posted on its web site (see:

http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/industrial.special/fossil/surveys2/indexhtm) draft and 

final reports for a total of 522 units and 209 facilities. 

The Agency solicits comments on all this information, including the assessments 

that were noticed on October 13, 2010, as to the extent to which both the CCR surface 

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", Hanging:

0.25"
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 20 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

impoundment survey responses and assessment materials on the structural integrity of 

these impoundments should be factored into EPA's final rule.

IX. Request for Additional Public Comment on Two Technical Issues Related to 

Surface Impoundment/Landfill Closure and Requirements for Overfills. 

EPA received comments in two general areas relating to its proposed rule for 

CCR management units: (1) the feasibility of complying with the Agency’s proposed time 

frames for closing surface impoundments in the subtitle D option; and (2) how these 

requirements (as well as the construction and operation requirements) relate to the 

construction of new CCR overfill units on top of closed surface impoundments or 

landfills. These specific requirements present some of the most complex and difficult 

technical issues and are re-opening the comment period for these two issues only. EPA 

notes however that comments submitted on any other aspect of the proposed technical 

requirements for CCR management units other than those specifically discussed below 

will be considered late comments that are not part of the rulemaking record, and the 

Agency will not respond to them. 

A. Closure Time Frames. 

Under the subtitle D option, EPA proposed to establish time frames for closing 

waste disposal units. EPA proposed that closure activities must commence no later than 

30 days following the known final receipt of CCRs. The proposed rule also provided that 

the 30-day deadline to commence closure activities could be extended to one year after 

the most recent receipt of CCRs if the CCR waste disposal unit had remaining capacity 

and there was a reasonable likelihood that the CCR waste disposal unit will receive 

additional CCRs. In addition, EPA proposed that an owner and operator complete 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 21 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

closure activities within 180 days following the start of closure activities. Thus, the 

maximum amount of time a facility would have to initiate and complete closure of a 

disposal unit was seven months. 

EPA received numerous comments from both states and individual electric utility 

facilities raising concerns that these time frames would essentially be “impossible to 

meet” for surface impoundments located in certain geographic and climatic conditions, as 

well as for the larger units. With respect to the time frames to complete closure, 

commenters raised concerns that dewatering of very large surface impoundments (e.g., 

100 acres or more) can take several years under certain climatic and weather conditions. 

Concerns were also raised that the time frames for both initiating and completing closure 

failed to account for the time needed to obtain any state permits or regulatory approvals 

that might be needed to conduct certain closure activities, and that these time frames were 

incompatible in light of normal operating practices. EPA’s original proposal was 

modeled on the closure requirements applicable to municipal solid waste landfills and the 

interim status requirements for hazardous waste surface impoundments. As discussed in 

more detail below, the commenters have convinced EPA that it did not adequately 

account for the complexities inherent in electric generating facility operations, and the 

different characteristics of CCR surface impoundments in its original proposal. 

Consequently, EPA is evaluating several different options to address these concerns.

1. Time frame for initiating closure.

To address concerns about “inactive” or abandoned units, EPA proposed to 

require that facilities initiate closure within 30 days of either (1) the “known final receipt” 

of waste or (2) no later than one year after the most recent receipt of waste (i.e., if the unit 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 22 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

has not received waste for a year, the owner or operator must initiate closure). EPA is 

aware of several examples of routine and legitimate circumstances in which disposal 

units would not receive CCRs for longer than one year, even though the facility intends to 

continue to use the unit. Although EPA is singling out the information specifically listed 

below and in the docket for further public comment, it should not be assumed that this 

information is the full sum of the information received in comments that will be 

considered or that will influence the Agency’s decisions in this rulemaking. Specifically:

The surface impoundment structural integrity assessment report titled 

“Assessment of Dam Safety Coal Combustion Surface Impoundments 

(Task 3) Final Report, Allegheny Energy, R. Paul Smith Station, 

Williamsport, Maryland” provides an example of a power plant that 

alternates the use of surface impoundments in order to make the most of 

existing capacity on-site (i.e., CCRs are removed and re-used/disposed 

elsewhere). This facility alternates between two surface impoundments, 

only one of which is operational at a time. Once one impoundment has 

reached capacity, the facility dewaters the unit, and begins to send CCRs 

to the second impoundment. Once the unit is dewatered, the CCRs are 

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 CCRs is two years, perhaps longer, during which the other 

unit is “idle,” in that it does not “receive CCRs,” but it remains 

operational.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 23 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

The surface impoundment structural integrity assessment report titled 

“Coal Combustion Waste Impoundment Task 3 – Dam Assessment 

Report, John E. Amos Plant (Site 26), Bottom Ash Dam, American 

Electric Power, St. Albans, West Virginia” provides another example of a 

facility that alternates between two surface impoundments, only one of 

which is operational at a time. According to this report, the active and 

inactive status alters between the two impoundments every one or two 

years.

The information request response from Xcel Energy titled “Response to 

Request for Information Relating to Surface Impoundments Under 104(e) 

of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9604(e)” contains another example of a facility 

that alternates use of two surface impoundments, only one of these 

impoundments is typically active and used at any one time. Xcel Energy’s 

Valmont Station in Boulder, Colorado practice is to clean out and switch 

the active pond every year. This report, and the two reports discussed 

above, can be found in the docket supporting this NODA.

Similarly, some electric generating units may be placed into long-term reserve 

status or temporarily idled in response to low demand. As a result, associated surface 

impoundments may not be used for extended periods, but need to be available when the 

electric generating units are restarted. In addition, facilities that use other fuels than coal 

may not use the associated coal ash disposal units for extended periods. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 24 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

EPA agrees that there can be legitimate operational reasons for facilities to 

maintain waste disposal units even though there may be extended periods where CCRs 

are not placed in the unit. Consequently, EPA is soliciting comment on possible 

approaches to address these issues, including all aspects of the alternatives discussed 

below.

One approach under consideration could be to establish a rebuttable presumption 

that if the unit has not received waste within a particular time frame, the disposal unit 

would be considered inactive and unit closure must begin within a specified time. For 

example, the rule could establish a presumption that facilities must initiate closure within 

18 months to two years from the last receipt of waste, unless the facility could document 

certain findings. These findings could include, but are not limited to, any of the 

following situations: (1) a written demonstration by the owner or operator documenting 

that a CCR waste disposal unit is dedicated to a temporarily idled electric generating unit 

and that there is a reasonable likelihood that CCRs will be disposed in the waste disposal 

unit after the electric generating unit resumes operation; (2) a written demonstration by 

the owner or operator documenting that a CCR waste disposal unit is dedicated to an 

electric generating unit designed to burn coal and another fuel(s) (e.g., natural gas) and 

the reason that the waste disposal unit has not received CCRs within a particular time 

frame is that a non-coal fuel is being burned by the electric generating unit and showing 

that there is a reasonable likelihood that CCRs will be disposed in the waste disposal unit 

after the electric generating unit resumes burning coal; or (3) a written demonstration by 

the owner or operator documenting that normal plant operations include periods during 

which the CCR waste disposal unit does not receive CCRs and that there is a reasonable 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 25 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

likelihood that CCR waste disposal operations will resume in the future. The facility 

would need to substantiate those findings, which would include the reason why the owner 

or operator believes “that there is a reasonable likelihood that CCRs will be disposed in 

the waste disposal unit” (which would also need to be certified by an independent 

registered professional engineer and/or the waste disposal unit owner or operator), and 

would be required to notify the state regulatory authority that those findings have been 

placed in the operating record and publicly posted to the internet. 

The approach discussed above does not include a time limit on how long a CCR 

waste disposal unit could remain idle from the perspective of the unit receiving CCRs. 

That is, an owner or operator could maintain a waste disposal unit for many years with 

the expectation of one day resuming CCR disposal operations in the unit. EPA does have 

concerns about extending the deadline to initiate closure activities using such an approach 

because, due to the self-implementing nature of the regulations, it is possible that the 

owner or operator could unilaterally decide to extend closure activities longer than 

necessary or that would be protective.

Another approach that EPA is considering is to put a limit on how long an owner 

or operator can maintain a waste disposal unit without placing CCRs in the unit. For 

example, the rule could establish the rebuttable presumption approach discussed above, 

but also include a limit on how much time can pass without CCRs being placed in the 

waste disposal unit before the CCR waste disposal unit must begin closure (e.g., five 

years). EPA solicits comment on the feasibility and propriety of this approach. 

Commenters who believe the flexibility provided by the rebuttable presumption approach 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 26 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

is appropriate are encouraged to include examples documenting the need for such 

flexibility.

2. Time frames to complete closure.

Information that the Agency has received or independently collected since the 

close of the comment period confirms the commenters’ claims that the time frames 

originally proposed to complete closure of surface impoundments will be practicably 

infeasible for the largest impoundments.11 EPA acknowledges that it will need to 

establish different deadlines, at least for these larger units. However, any ultimate time 

frame that EPA provides that would be practicable for the largest units will be far too 

long to justify the time frames for closure of smaller impoundments. EPA is examining 

available closure-related information for CCR surface impoundments to determine 

whether there are consistent time frames or other factors that EPA could adopt as part of 

the regulations. Although EPA is singling out the information specifically listed below 

and in the docket for further public comment, it should not be assumed that this 

information is the full sum of the information received in comments that will be 

considered or that will influence the Agency’s decisions in this rulemaking. Specifically:

The surface impoundment structural integrity assessment report titled 

“Coal Combustion Waste Impoundment Dam Assessment Report, Martins 

Creek Steam Electric Station, PPL Generation, Bangor, Pennsylvania”

contains closure-related information for the facility’s Ash Basin No. 4. 

 

11 The information available to the Agency indicates that this issue is unique to surface impoundments. 

EPA is therefore not reopening for public comment the closure time frames for CCR landfills. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 27 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

This 37-acre surface impoundment no longer receives CCRs and is being 

formally closed. The closure plan indicates that the dewatering and cap 

installation process will take approximately three years to complete.

The proposed plan to close the two surface impoundments at Santee 

Cooper’s Grainger Generating Station as provided in a letter (with 

attachments) from Santee Cooper to the South Carolina Department of 

Health and Environmental Control dated March 18, 2013. Under the 

proposed option, it is estimated that closure of the impoundments (one unit 

has a surface area of 42 acres and the second unit has a surface area of 39 

acres) could be accomplished during a three-year period.

A paper presented at the 2013 World of Coal Ash Conference titled 

“Challenges of Closing Large Fly Ash Ponds,” which discusses the 

engineering, regulatory and constructability challenges of closing a 300 

acre surface impoundment over a projected four-year period. This report, 

and the two reports discussed above, can be found in the docket 

supporting this NODA.

EPA is also considering a variety of approaches for revising its overall regulatory 

structure. One approach could be to establish categories of time frames that distinguish 

between impoundments based on a variety of factors. At a minimum, this could include 

the size of the impoundment, as well as the final volume of material (both CCR and 

liquid) contained in the unit at the time of closure. For example, some commenters 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 28 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

proposed a tiered approach for landfills and surface impoundments that grouped units 

into four categories: (1) units smaller than 20 acres, would be subject to a one year 

deadline to complete closure; (2) units between 20 and 50 acres would be subject to a 

two year deadline to complete closure; (3) units between 50 and 75 acres would be 

subject to a three year deadline to complete closure; and (4) units greater than 75 acres 

would be subject to a “site specific” deadline to complete closure.12 

While the commenters’ tiered approach has appeal, the precise basis for the 

commenters’ distinctions and the time frames is not clear; at a minimum, factors other 

than size, such as climate, geography, and waste disposal unit configuration would also 

appear to be relevant, and any time frames should account for those other factors. EPA 

solicits comment on ways to establish categories of time frames that take into 

consideration the various factors affecting the amount of time needed to properly close a 

surface impoundment, and encourages commenters who are interested in supporting such 

a tiered approach, to provide the rationale and data to support any suggested categories of 

time frames. In addition, the Agency believes that the concept of having a “site-specific” 

deadline may not be practicable, unless EPA were to establish a “variance” process as 

part of the rule. Under such a variance approach, the rule 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 also allow facilities to petition EPA for a site-specific 

rule to establish an alternate deadline. This is because, as discussed at length in the 

proposal, under any subtitle D approach, EPA cannot rely on the existence of a state 

 

12

 This tiered approach is presented in docket items EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-6424 and EPA-HQRCRA-2009-0640-6832.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 29 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

permitting authority to implement the RCRA subtitle D requirements (since EPA cannot 

require that states regulate, including issuing permits under RCRA 4004(a)). (75 FR at 

35193-94) 

Another approach, similar to the approach EPA is considering with respect to the 

time frames for initiating closure, would be to establish time frames with a rebuttable 

presumption. For example, the rule could establish a presumption that facilities must 

complete closure within a specified time frame, such as, five years, unless the facility 

could document certain findings, such as the owner or operating providing a written 

demonstration that closure activities (e.g., eliminating free liquids from the surface 

impoundment, stabilizing the remaining CCR wastes to support the final cover, 

constructing the final cover system) are not feasible to complete within the specified time 

frame. The facility would need to document those findings (which, consistent with the 

proposal, would also need to be certified by an independent registered professional 

engineer), and would be required to notify the state regulatory authority that the plan has 

been placed in the operating record and publicly posted to the internet. 

EPA is soliciting comments on whether any of these potential approaches, a 

combination of them, or other approaches would effectively address the practical 

concerns raised by the commenters, in a way that could assure that the closure of CCR 

waste disposal units will protect human health and the environment. EPA is primarily 

interested in comments that include data or other documentation (e.g., specific closure 

plans).

B. New CCR Overfills Constructed Over Closed CCR Surface 

Impoundments or Landfills.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 30 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

One issue presented in public comments addressed how the 

Agency intends to regulate CCR landfills, also known as overfills, that are 

constructed over a closed CCR surface impoundment or landfill. An overfill is 

additional CCR disposal capacity located partially or entirely above a surface 

impoundment or landfill previously used for the disposal or storage of CCRs. 

Overfills can be defined as new, self-contained units that are distinct and separate 

from the unit upon which it is located. 

EPA is aware of only one state, North Carolina, that has specific 

regulatory requirements for the design and construction of overfills. In 2007, 

North Carolina enacted design requirements for CCR landfills, i.e., overfills 

constructed partially or entirely within areas that have been formerly used for the 

storage or disposal of CCRs. These management units are required to be 

constructed to ensure that the upper unit (i.e., overfill) does not leach into the 

lower unit (i.e., closed surface impoundment or landfill). By reducing infiltration, 

contaminants will not spread through to the lower unit and to the groundwater. 

North Carolina requires the installation of a double-liner leak detection system 

consisting of three components. The upper two components consist of two 

separate flexible membrane liners with leak detection between the two liners. The 

third component consists of a minimum of two feet of soil underneath the bottom 

of the liners, with a maximum permeability of 1 x10-7 centimeters per second. 

Additionally, North Carolina requires the development of a response plan that 

describes the circumstances under which corrective action measure is to be taken 

at the overfill in the event of the detection of leaks in the leak detection system. 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 31 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

In developing the proposed rule, EPA was not aware that CCRs were 

managed in this fashion (i.e., in overfills), and so we did not either evaluate this 

specific management scenario or propose technical requirements specifically 

tailored to this type of management unit. Under the proposed rule, these types of 

units would 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. For example, this would include the location and 

design requirements applicable to new landfills (e.g., composite liners) as well as 

the operating requirements (e.g., groundwater monitoring). 

Since the close of the comment period, the Agency has learned that the 

practice of constructing overfills for the disposal of CCRs is conducted with some 

regularity. EPA has also obtained additional technical information, which is 

included in the docket supporting today’s NODA on how these units are typically 

designed and operated, which has raised questions as to whether these types of 

units would be effectively regulated under our proposed technical requirements.13 

 

13

 Seymour, J. and Houlihan, M. F. (2011) Advances in Design of Landfills Over CCR Ponds and CCR 

Landfills, Proceedings of the e 2011 World of Coal Ash (WOCA) Conference – May 9-12, 2011,Denver, 

Colorado, http://www.flyash.info/. 

Schmitt, N. and Cole, M. (2013) Use of Bottom Ash in the Reinforced Zone of a Mechanically Stabilized 

Earth Wall for the Vertical Expansion of a Sluiced CCR Pond at the Trimble County Generating Station. 

Proceedings of the 2013 World of Coal Ash (WOCA) Conference – April 22-25, 2013, Lexington, KY 

http://www.flyash.info/. 

Houlihan, M.,Advances in Design of Landfills Over CCB Ponds and Landfills. 16 January 2013.

North Carolina statute allowing landfills on top of surface impoundments. http://law.onecle.com/northcarolina/130a-public-health/130a-295.4.html

Docket item EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-6877. Comment to the proposed rule from The Detroit Edison 

Company.
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 32 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

All of the information collected to date leads the Agency to believe that 

technical issues unique to these units may warrant some modifications to the 

technical standards. At a minimum, this could include changes to the technical 

requirements to clarify how they apply to overfills (e.g., revisions to the definition 

of a “new unit;” clarifications as to how the liner requirements for the new landfill 

relate to the capping requirements for closed units). This could, however, also 

include substantive modifications to the technical standards and the development 

of a tailored set of requirements specific to this kind of disposal unit. Specifically, 

this could include substantive modifications to the location restrictions, design 

criteria, inspection requirements, groundwater monitoring, and closure.

To aid in the development of final requirements, EPA is soliciting data or 

information that directly addresses existing engineering guidelines or practices, as 

well as any regulatory requirements (other than North Carolina’s) governing the 

siting, design, construction and long-term protectiveness of these units. In 

addition, the Agency is specifically requesting information or data that would 

allow EPA to address the following set of questions as they relate to CCR overfill 

units.

Are the location restrictions included in the proposed rule adequate 

to ensure protection of human health and the environment or 

should they be adjusted? For example, should the Agency 

consider prohibiting the construction of such overfills in certain 

locations or situations, such as over surface impoundments and 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 33 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

landfills that were not closed in accordance with the closure 

criteria in the June 2010 proposed rule?

Should the Agency allow for a CCR overfill unit to be constructed 

over a partially closed surface impoundment or landfill? If so, 

would the proposed technical requirements for new units (e.g.,

composite liners) be adequately protective? Are the ground water 

monitoring requirements that were proposed in the CCR proposal 

adequate or are there situations where they could they be 

inadequate? 

Are there situations where implementing the proposed ground 

water monitoring requirements would create the potential to 

damage the integrity of the closed surface impoundment or 

landfill? In situations where an overfill is constructed partially over 

a closed landfill or surface impoundment, the proposed rule would 

require the placement of the groundwater monitoring wells at the 

waste boundary (i.e., at the boundary of the overfill). This 

placement, within the parameter of the closed unit, could possibly 

jeopardize the integrity of the closed unit (e.g., cause damage to 

the liner). Would this problem be adequately resolved by allowing 

the groundwater monitoring wells installed to monitor the “closed” 

landfill or surface impoundment to operate in lieu of separate 

groundwater monitoring wells at the overfill waste boundary? 

Should ground water monitoring be required for a longer period, 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 34 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

since contamination could be released from the closed surface 

impoundment or landfill, as well as the overfill unit?

Should the Agency allow for a CCR overfill unit to not meet the 

liner and leachate collection requirements if the closed surface 

impoundment or landfill was equipped and continued to maintain a 

composite liner and leachate collection system as well as 

groundwater monitoring? Conversely, should the Agency require 

an overfill to have a double-liner leak detection system installed 

and forego groundwater monitoring until such time as a leak of the 

primary liner is detected? 

Should overfills be subject to the same inspection requirements 

that EPA originally proposed for surface impoundments (see 

proposed section 257.83, requiring weekly inspections by qualified 

personnel and annual inspections by an independent registered 

professional engineer). Would this adequately address any issues 

relating to the long-term structural integrity of these units and 

whether their inherent stability will be maintained through the 

active life of the unit as well as during post closure care. As an 

alternative, would it suffice to only require annual inspections of 

the overfill? Would it matter if the inspection requirement was

paired with a revised certification in the locations restrictions 

section of the rule? How long should any inspection requirement 

continue under post-closure care? 
***E.O. 12866 Review- Draft- Do not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 35 of 35

Formatted: Font: Bold

Field Code Changed

______ _______________________________________

Dated: Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator,

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

Formatted: Line spacing: single