32242 MessageID: <046E31A232FBBD4C80534730AC30DF7A0D26201900@MAILMBX03.MAIL.LA.GOV> From: Donelson Caffery <Donelson.Caffery@LA.GOV> Sent: 11/10/2010 11:14:45 AM Subject: Comments on Proposed Rule - Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities - Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) is submitting the following comments on the Proposed Rule published on June 21, 2010.

LDEQ supports the goal of establishing protective and enforceable management standards for Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs). The December 2008 TVA impoundment failure in Kingston, TN, and the other 26 damage cases documented in the Proposed Rule, highlight this need. We note that in many of these cases, unfortunately, there appears to have been a complete lack of engineering foresight or standards, such as in placing CCRs in abandoned gravel pits, with direct communication to groundwater.

Since 1983, LDEQ has had success in regulating CCRs under our state solid waste regulatory program. All CCR management units in Louisiana are already regulated and subject to groundwater monitoring requirements under this program. All existing Louisiana CCR impoundments were built with engineered, compacted clay liners. We believe that our requirements are protective of human health and the environment of our state.

For the most part, the standards for design and construction, groundwater monitoring, etc. in the proposed 40 CFR 257.Subpart D appear to follow a reasonable, commonsense approach toward preventing a reoccurrence of another Kingston incident. Specifically, the “D-prime” option would phase in the requirement for synthetic liners gradually, and would avoid the enormous, virtually immediate economic impact of a 5-year deadline. A gain, we suggest that permitted impoundments, already built to engineering standards, should not be penalized by being put in the same category as gravel pits.

LDEQ does not see the need to regulate CCRs as a RCRA hazardous waste. There does not appear to be clear-cut evidence that these materials, which are already used very widely, pose a threat to human health or the environment. Tables 2 and 4 of the Proposed Rule, showing the results of TCLP and other leaching studies, appear to support the existing Bevill exclusion of 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4). Mercury, for example, is at very low levels in leachate from fly ash in the EPA results.

Page 132242

Moreover, LDEQ believes that regulating CCRs as hazardous waste would have a substantial detrimental effect on beneficial reuse of these materials. CCRs presently have a broad acceptance and use in a number of sectors of the economy of our state. This option would also be extremely expensive for electric utilities, and rate-paying Louisiana citizens. We do not believe that simply using the term “special waste” under RCRA Subtitle C will alleviate these effects.

We look forward to continuing our partnership with EPA in developing protective and commonsense environmental rules. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Sam Phillips, Waste Permits Division A dministrator, at (225) 219-3393.

Sincerely,

Don Caffery, P.E.

Engineer 6 DCL

Waste Permits Division

LA Department of Environmental Quality

(225) 219-3056

Page 2