Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities, 35128-35264 [2010-12286]
Download as PDF
35128
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 257, 261, 264, 265, 268,
271 and 302
[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2009–0640; FRL–9149–4]
RIN–2050–AE81
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or Agency) is proposing to
regulate for the first time, coal
combustion residuals (CCRs) under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) to address the risks from the
disposal of CCRs generated from the
combustion of coal at electric utilities
and independent power producers.
However, the Agency is considering two
options in this proposal and, thus, is
proposing two alternative regulations.
Under the first proposal, EPA would
reverse its August 1993 and May 2000
Bevill Regulatory Determinations
regarding coal combustion residuals
(CCRs) and 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 the
second proposal, EPA would leave the
Bevill determination in place and
regulate disposal of such materials
under subtitle D of RCRA by issuing
national minimum criteria. Under both
alternatives EPA is proposing to
establish dam safety requirements to
address the structural integrity of
surface impoundments to prevent
catastrophic releases.
EPA is not proposing to change the
May 2000 Regulatory Determination for
beneficially used CCRs, which are
currently exempt from the hazardous
waste regulations under Section
3001(b)(3)(A) of RCRA. However, EPA is
clarifying this determination and
seeking comment on potential
refinements for certain beneficial uses.
EPA is also not proposing to address the
placement of CCRs in mines, or nonminefill uses of CCRs at coal mine sites
in this action.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 20, 2010. EPA will
provide an opportunity for a public
hearing on the rule upon request.
Requests for a public meeting should be
submitted to EPA’s Office of Resource
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
RCRA–2009–0640, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: Comments may be sent by
electronic mail (e-mail) to rcradocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2009–0640. 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 email 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.
• Fax: Comments may be faxed to
202–566–0272; Attention Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–RCRA–2009–0640.
• Mail: Send your comments to the
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Identification and Listing of Special
Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion
Residuals From Electric Utilities Docket,
Attention Docket ID No., EPA–HQ–
RCRA–2009–0640, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5305T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a
total of two copies.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver two copies
of your comments to the Hazardous
Waste Management System;
Identification and Listing of Special
Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion
Residuals From Electric Utilities Docket,
Attention Docket ID No., EPA–HQ–
RCRA–2009–0640, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460. 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–2009–
0640. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
ADDRESSES:
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Management System; Identification
and Listing of Special Wastes;
Disposal of Coal Combustion
Residuals From Electric Utilities
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Conservation and Recovery by July 21,
2010. See the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section for contact information.
Should EPA receive requests for public
meetings within this timeframe, EPA
will publish a document in the Federal
Register providing the details of such
meetings.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site 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 comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
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 https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal
Combustion Residuals From Electric
Utilities Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460. 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 open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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 technical information on the
CERCLA aspects of this rule, contact
Lynn Beasley, Office of Emergency
Management, Regulation and Policy
Development Division (5104A), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, [E-mail address
and telephone number:
Beasley.lynn@epa.gov (202–564–1965).]
For more information on this
rulemaking please visit https://
www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/
industrial/special/fossil/index.htm.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Does this action apply to me?
The proposed rule would apply to all
coal combustion residuals (CCRs)
generated by electric utilities and
independent power producers.
However, this proposed rule does not
address the placement of CCRs in
minefills. The U. S. Department of
Interior (DOI) and EPA will address the
management of CCRs in minefills in a
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.1 In addition,
under either alternative proposal, EPA
is not proposing to affect the current
status of coal combustion residuals that
are beneficially used.2 (See section IV.
D for further details on proposed
clarifications of beneficial use.) CCRs
from non-utility boilers burning coal are
not included within today’s proposed
rule. EPA will decide on an appropriate
1 The National Research Council (NRC)
Committee on Mine Placement of Coal Combustion
Wastes stated: ‘‘The committee believes 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.’’ National Academy of
Sciences. Managing Coal Combustion Residues in
Mines; The National Academies Press, Washington,
DC, 2006.
2 The NRC committee recommended ‘‘that
secondary uses of CCRs that pose minimal risks to
human health and the environment be strongly
encouraged.’’ Ibid.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
action for these wastes after completing
this rulemaking effort.
The proposed rule may affect the
following entities: electric utility
facilities and independent power
producers that fall under the North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) code 221112, and
hazardous waste treatment and disposal
facilities that fall under NAICS code
562211. 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 contained in
section IV of this preamble. 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 should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting confidential business
information (CBI). Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI
through https://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 No, EPA–
HQ–RCRA–2009–0640. You may claim
information that you submit to EPA as
CBI by marking any part or all of the
information as CBI (if you submit CBI
on a 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
claimed as 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 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. 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
questions about CBI or the procedures
for claiming CBI, please contact: LaShan
Haynes, Office of Resource Conservation
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35129
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.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
• Follow directions—The Agency
may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by
referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section
number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree,
suggest alternatives, and substitute
language for your requested changes,
and explain your interest in the issue
you are attempting to address.
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
3. Docket Copying Costs. The first
100-copied pages are free. Thereafter,
the charge for making copies of Docket
materials is 15 cents per page.
C. Definitions, Abbreviations and
Acronyms Used in This Preamble (Note:
Any term used in this proposed
rulemaking that is not defined in this
section will either have its normal
dictionary meaning, or is defined in 40
CFR 260.10.)
Acre-foot means the volume of one
acre of surface area to a depth of one
foot.
Beneficial Use of Coal Combustion
Products (CCPs) means 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 scientificallysupported quantities required for
enhancing soil properties and/or crop
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35130
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
yields), placed as fill in sand and gravel
pits, or used in large scale fill projects,
such as for restructuring the landscape,
are excluded from this definition.
Boiler slag means the molten bottom
ash collected at the base of slag tap and
cyclone type furnaces that is quenched
with water. It is made up of hard, black,
angular particles that have a smooth,
glassy appearance.
Bottom ash means the agglomerated,
angular ash particles, formed in
pulverized coal furnaces that are too
large to be carried in the flue gases and
collect on the furnace walls or fall
through open grates to an ash hopper at
the bottom of the furnace.
CCR Landfill means a disposal facility
or part of a facility where CCRs 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
proposed rule, 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.
CCR Surface Impoundment or
impoundment means 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 CCRs
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 CCRs
that 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.
Cenospheres are lightweight, inert,
hollow spheres comprised largely of
silica and alumina glass.
Coal Combustion Products (CCPs)
means fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag,
or flue gas desulfurization materials,
that are beneficially used.
Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs)
means fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag,
and flue gas desulfurization materials
destined for disposal. CCRs are also
known as coal combustion wastes
(CCWs) and fossil fuel combustion
(FFC) wastes, when destined for
disposal.
Electric Power Sector (Electric
Utilities and Independent Power
Producers) means that sector of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
power generating industry that
comprises electricity-only and
combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plants
whose primary business is to sell
electricity, or electricity and heat, to the
public.
Existing CCR Landfill means a landfill
which was in operation or for which
construction commenced prior to the
effective date of the final rule. 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.
Existing CCR Surface Impoundment
means a surface impoundment which
was in operation or for which
construction commenced prior to the
effective date of the final rule. 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 on-site, physical
construction program has begun; or
(2) The owner or operator has entered
into contractual obligations—which can
not be cancelled or modified without
substantial loss—for physical
construction of the CCR surface
impoundment to be completed within a
reasonable time.
Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD)
material means the material produced
through a process used to reduce sulfur
dioxide (SO2) emissions from the
exhaust gas system of a coal-fired boiler.
The physical nature of these materials
varies from a wet sludge to a dry
powdered material, depending on the
process, and their composition
comprises either sulfites, sulfates or a
mixture thereof.
Fly ash means the very fine globular
particles of silica glass which is a
product of burning finely ground coal in
a boiler to produce electricity, and is
removed from the plant exhaust gases
by air emission control devices.
Hazard potential means the possible
adverse incremental consequences that
result from the release of water or stored
contents due to failure of a dam (or
impoundment) or mis-operation of the
dam or appurtenances.3
3 The Hazard Potential Classification System for
Dams was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for the National Inventory of Dams (see
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
High hazard potential surface
impoundment means a surface
impoundment where failure or misoperation will probably cause loss of
human life.
Significant hazard potential surface
impoundment means a surface
impoundment where failure or misoperation results in no probable loss of
human life, but can cause economic
loss, environment damage, disruption of
lifeline facilities, or impact other
concerns.
Low hazard potential surface
impoundment means a surface
impoundment where failure or misoperation 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.
Less than low hazard potential
surface impoundment means a surface
impoundment not meeting the
definitions for High, Significant, or Low
Hazard Potential.
Independent registered professional
engineer or hydrologist means a scientist
or engineer who is not an employee of
the owner or operator of a CCR landfill
or surface impoundment who has
received a baccalaureate or postgraduate degree in the natural sciences
or engineering and 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 judgments
regarding groundwater monitoring,
contaminant fate and transport, and
corrective action.
Lateral expansion means a horizontal
expansion of the waste boundaries of an
existing CCR landfill, or existing CCR
surface impoundment made after the
effective date of the final rule.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
means the highest level of a
contaminant that is allowed in drinking
water under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA). MCLs are set as close to
the MCL goals as feasible using the best
available treatment technology and
taking cost into consideration. MCLs are
enforceable standards for drinking
water.
Minefill means a project involving the
placement of CCRs in coal mine voids
for use as fill, grouting, subsidence
control, capping, mine sealing, and
https://rsgis.crrel.usace.army.mil/apex/
f?p=397:1:913698079375545). Hazard potential
ratings do not provide an estimate of the probability
of failure or mis-operation, but rather what the
consequences of such a failure or mis-operation
would be.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
treating acid mine drainage, whether for
purposes of disposal or for beneficial
use, such as mine reclamation.
Natural water table means the natural
level at which water stands in a shallow
well open along its length and
penetrating the surficial deposits just
deeply enough to encounter standing
water at the bottom. This level is
uninfluenced by groundwater pumping
or other engineered activities.
Organosilanes are organic compounds
containing at least one carbon to silicon
bond, and are typically used to promote
adhesion.
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.
Pozzolanic material means primarily
vitreous siliceous materials, such as
many types of CCRs that, when
combined with calcium hydroxide and
in the presence of water, exhibit
cementitious properties.
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.
Sand and gravel pit, and/or quarry
means an excavation for the commercial
extraction of aggregate for use in
construction projects. CCRs have
historically been used to fill sand and
gravel pits and quarries. CCRs are not
known to be used to fill metal mines.
Secondary Drinking Water Standards
are non-enforceable federal guidelines
regarding cosmetic effects (such as tooth
or skin discoloration) or aesthetic effects
(such as taste, odor, or color) of drinking
water.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:14 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
Special Wastes means any of the
following wastes that are managed
under the modified subtitle C
requirements: CCRs destined for
disposal.
Surface Water means all water
naturally open to the atmosphere
(rivers, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, streams,
impoundments, seas, estuaries, etc.).
Uniquely associated wastes means
low-volume wastes other than those
defined as CCRs that are related to the
coal combustion process. Examples of
uniquely associated wastes are
precipitation runoff from coal storage
piles at the electric utility, waste coal or
coal mill rejects that are not of sufficient
quality to burn as a fuel, and wastes
from cleaning boilers used to generate
steam.
CCPs Coal Combustion Products
CCRs Coal Combustion Residuals
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
m/L milligrams per liter
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NRC National Response Center
PDWS Primary Drinking Water Standard
OSM Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the
Interior
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (42 USCA 6901)
RQ Reportable Quantity
SDWS Secondary Drinking Water Standard
SMCRA Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act
μg/L micrograms per liter
WQC Federal water quality criteria
D. The Contents of This Preamble Are
Listed in the Following Outline
I. Background
A. Why is EPA proposing two options?
1. Basis of Why EPA Is Proceeding With
Today’s Co-Proposals
2. Brief Description of Today’s CoProposals
3. Summary of Estimated Regulatory Costs
and Benefits
B. What is the statutory authority for this
action?
C. Regulation of Wastes Under RCRA
Subtitle C
D. Regulation of Solid Wastes Under RCRA
Subtitle D
E. Summary of the 1993 and 2000
Regulatory Determinations
F. What are CCRs?
1. Chemical Constituents in CCRs
2. Recent EPA Research on Constituent
Leaching From CCRs
G. Current Federal Regulations or
Standards Applicable to the Placement
of CCRs in Landfills and Surface
Impoundments
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35131
II. New Information on the Placement of
CCRs in Landfills and Surface
Impoundments
A. New Developments Since the May 2000
Regulatory Determination
B. CCR Risk Assessment
C. Damage Cases
III. Overview and Summary of the Bevill
Regulatory Determination and the
Proposed Subtitle C and Subtitle D
Regulatory Options
A. Summary of Subtitle C Proposal
B. Summary of Subtitle D Proposal
IV. Bevill Regulatory Determination Relating
to CCRs From Electric Utilities
A. Basis for Reconsideration of May 2000
Regulatory Determination
B. RCRA Section 8002(n) Study Factors
Environmental Benefits
C. Preliminary Bevill Conclusions and
Impact of Reconsideration
D. EPA Is Not Reconsidering the
Regulatory Determination Regarding
Beneficial Use
1. Why is EPA not proposing to change the
determination that CCRs that are
beneficially used do not warrant federal
regulation?
2. What constitutes beneficial use?
3. Disposal of CCRs in Sand and Gravel
Pits and Large Scale Fill Operations Is
Not Considered a Beneficial Use
4. Issues Associated With Unencapsulated
Beneficial Uses
E. Placement of CCRs in Minefilling
Operations
F. EPA Is Not Proposing To Revise the
Bevill Determination for CCRs Generated
by Non-Utilities
V. Co-Proposed Listing of CCRs as a Special
Waste Under RCRA Subtitle C and
Special Requirements for Disposal of
CCRs Generated by Electric Utilities
A. What is the basis for listing CCRs as a
special waste?
1. Criteria for Listing CCRs as a Special
Waste and Background on 2010 Risk
Assessment
B. Background on EPA’s 2010 Risk
Assessment
1. Human Health Risks
2. Ecological Risks
C. Consideration of Individual Listing
Criteria
1. Toxicity—Factor (i)
2. Concentration of Constituents in
Waste—Factor (ii)
3. Migration, Persistence, Degradation, and
Bioaccumulation—Factors (iii), (iv), (v),
and (vi)
4. Plausible Types of Mismanagement,
Quantities of the Waste Generated,
Nature and Severity of Effects From
Mismanagement—Factors (vii), (viii) and
(ix)
5. Action Taken by Other Governmental
Agencies or Regulatory Programs Based
on the Health or Environmental Hazard
Posed by the Waste or Waste
Constituent—Factor (x)
6. Other Factors—Factor (xi)
VI. Summary of the Co-Proposed Subtitle C
Regulations
A. Special Waste Listing
B. Proposed Special Requirements for
CCRs
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35132
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
1. Modification of Technical Standards
Under 3004(x)
i. Modification of CCR Landfills and
Surface Impoundments From the Section
3004(o) Liner and Leak Detection
Requirements
ii. Fugitive Dust Controls
iii. Special Requirements for Stability of
CCR Surface Impoundments
iv. Wet-Handling of CCRs, Closure, and
Interim Status for Surface
Impoundments
v. Proposed Land Disposal Restrictions
2. Proposed Treatment Standards for NonWastewaters (Dry CCRs)
3. Proposed Treatment Standards for
Wastewaters (Wet-Handled CCRs)
4. Effective Date of the LDR Prohibitions
C. Applicability of Subtitle C Regulations
D. CERCLA Designation and Reportable
Quantities
1. Reporting Requirements
2. Basis for RQs and Adjustments
3. Application of the CERCLA Mixture
Rule to Listed CCR
4. Correction of Table of Maximum
Observed Constituent Concentrations
Identified by EPA
E. Listing of CCR as Special Wastes To
Address Perceived Stigma Issue
VII. How would the proposed subtitle C
requirements be implemented?
A. Effective Dates
B. What are the requirements with which
facilities must comply?
1. Generators and Transporters
2. Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities (TSDs)
C. RCRA Section 3010 Notification
D. Permit Requirements
1. Facilities Newly Subject to RCRA Permit
Requirements
2. Existing Interim Status Facilities
3. Permitted Facilities
E. Requirements in 40 CFR Parts 264 and
265
VIII. Impacts of a Subtitle C Rule on State
Authorization
A. Applicability of the Rule in Authorized
States
B. Effect on State Authorization
IX. Summary of the Co-Proposal Regulating
CCRs Under Subtitle D Regulations
A. Overview and General Issues
1. Regulatory Approach
2. Notifications
B. Section-by-Section Discussion of RCRA
Subtitle D Criteria
1. Proposed Modifications to Part 257,
Subpart A
2. General Provisions
3. Definitions
4. Location Restrictions
5. Design Requirements
6. Operating Requirements
7. Ground Water Monitoring/Corrective
Action
8. Closure and Post-Closure Care
9. Financial Assurance
10. Off-Site Disposal
11. Alternative RCRA Subtitle D
Approaches
X. How would the proposed subtitle D
regulations be implemented?
A. Effective Dates
B. Implementation and Enforcement of
Subtitle D Requirements
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
XI. Impact of a Subtitle D Regulation on State
Programs
XII. Impacts of the Proposed Regulatory
Alternatives
A. What are the economic impacts of the
proposed regulatory alternatives?
B. Benefits Not Quantified in the RIA
1. Non-Quantified Plant and Wildlife
Protection Benefits
2. Non-Quantified Surface Water
Protection Benefits
3. Non-Quantified Ambient Air Protection
Benefits
C. Comparison of Costs to Benefits for the
Regulatory Alternatives
D. What are the potential environmental
and public health impacts of the
proposed regulatory alternatives?
1. Environmental and Public Health
Impacts Estimated in the RIA
2. Environmental and Public Health
Impacts Not Estimated in the RIA
XIII. Other Alternatives EPA Considered
XIV. Is the EPA soliciting comments on
specific issues?
XV. Executive Orders and Laws Addressed in
This Action
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health &
Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
APPENDIX to the Preamble: Documented
Damages From CCR Management
Practices
I. Background
A. Why is EPA proposing two options?
1. Basis of Why EPA Is Proceeding With
Today’s Co-Proposals
EPA is revisiting its regulatory
determination for CCRs under the Bevill
amendment. This decision is driven in
part by the failure of a surface
impoundment retaining wall in
Kingston, TN in December 2009.
Deciding upon the appropriate course of
action to address over 100 million tons
per year of CCRs is an extremely
important step. In developing this
proposal, EPA conducted considerable
data gathering and analysis. While the
public was able to comment on
significant portions of our analyses in
August 2007, as part of a Notice of Data
Availability, there are differing views
regarding the meaning of EPA’s
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
information and what course of action
EPA should take. In part, the differing
views are fueled by the complex data,
analyses, legislation, implications of
available options, possible unintended
consequences, and a decision process,
all of which pose considerations that
could justify EPA selecting a RCRA
subtitle C approach or selecting a RCRA
subtitle D approach.
Deciding whether or not to maintain
the Bevill exemption for CCRs, entails
an evaluation of the eight RCRA Section
8002(n) study factors:
• Source and volumes of CCRs
generated per year
• Present disposal and utilization
practices
• Potential danger, if any, to human
health and the environment from the
disposal and reuse of CCRs
• Documented cases in which danger
to human health or the environment
from surface runoff or leachate has been
proved
• Alternatives to current disposal
methods
• The cost of such alternatives
• The impact of the alternatives on
the use of coal and other natural
resources
• The current and potential
utilization of CCRs
Ultimately, the approach selected will
need to ensure that catastrophic releases
such as occurred at the Tennessee
Valley Authority’s (TVA’s) Kingston,
Tennessee facility do not occur and that
other types of damage cases associated
with CCR surface impoundments and
landfills are prevented. Thus, this
process requires EPA to balance the
eight factors, which ultimately rests on
a policy judgment. This is further
complicated in this case because the
facts identified under each of the
individual factors are even subject to
widely varying perspectives. For
example, in considering the alternatives
to current disposal methods, some claim
that RCRA subtitle C would
significantly lessen beneficial use while
others see beneficial use expanding as
disposal becomes more costly; some see
damage cases as substantial, while
others note very few incidences of
significant off-site contamination.
Given the inherently discretionary
nature of the decision, the complexities
of the scientific analyses, and the
controversy of the issue, EPA wants to
ensure that the ultimate decision is
based on the best available data, and is
taken with the fullest possible extent of
public input. As discussed in section IV
in greater detail, there are a number of
issues on which additional or more
recent information would be useful in
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
allowing the Agency to reach a final
decision. In the absence of this
information, EPA has not yet reached a
conclusion as to how to strike the
appropriate balance among these eight
factors and so is presenting two
proposals for federal regulation of CCRs.
As EPA weighs the eight Bevill study
factors to reach our ultimate decision,
EPA will be guided by the following
principles, which are reflected in the
discussions throughout this preamble.
The first is that EPA’s actions must
ultimately be protective of human
health and the environment. Second,
any decision must be based on sound
science. Finally, in conducting this
rulemaking, EPA wants to ensure that
our decision processes are transparent
and encourage the greatest degree of
public participation. Consequently, to
further the public’s understanding and
ability to comment on all the issues
facing the Agency, within this proposal,
EPA identifies a series of scientific,
economic, and materials management
issues on which we are seeking
comment from the public to strengthen
our knowledge of the impact of EPA’s
decision.
There are three key areas of analyses
where EPA is seeking comment: The
extent of existing damage cases, the
extent of the risks posed by the
mismanagement of CCRs, and the
adequacy of State programs to ensure
proper management of CCRs (e.g., is
groundwater monitoring required of
CCR landfills and surface
impoundments). Since the 2007 NODA,
EPA received new reports from industry
and environmental and citizen groups
regarding damage cases. Industry
provided information indicating that
many of EPA’s listed proven damage
cases do not meet EPA’s criteria for a
damage case to be proven.
Environmental and citizen groups, on
the other hand, reported that there are
additional damage cases of which EPA
is unaware. EPA’s analysis, as well as
the additional information from
industry and environmental and citizen
groups, which is in the docket for this
proposal, needs to undergo public
review, with the end result being a
better understanding of the nature and
number of damage cases. In addition, as
discussed at length in sections II and IV,
a number of technical questions have
been raised regarding EPA’s quantitative
groundwater risk assessment. The
Agency would implement similar
technical controls under RCRA subtitle
C or D. Therefore, a central issue is the
adequacy of State programs. Under
either regulatory approach, State
programs will have key implementation
roles. This is a very complex area to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
evaluate. For example, as EPA reports
that 36% of the States do not have
minimum liner requirements for CCR
landfills, and 67% do not have liner
requirements for CCR surface
impoundments, we also observe that
nearly all new CCR landfills and surface
impoundments are constructed with
liners. It should also be recognized that
while states currently have considerable
expertise in their State dam safety
programs, those programs do not tend to
be part of State solid waste or clean
water act programs, and so, oversight
may not be adequately captured in
EPA’s existing data. In several areas,
there are these types of analytical
tensions that warrant careful
consideration by the public and EPA.
This proposal requests states and others
to provide further information on state
programs, including the prevalence of
groundwater monitoring at existing
facilities (an area where our information
is nearly 15 years old) and why state
programs may address groundwater
monitoring and risks differently for
surface impoundments located
proximate to rivers.
The results of the risk analysis
demonstrate significant risks from
surface impoundments. A common
industry practice, however, is to place
surface impoundments right next to
water bodies. While the Agency’s
population risk assessment analysis
accounted for adjacent water bodies, the
draft risk assessment that presents
individual risk estimates does not
account for the presence of adjacent
water bodies in the same manner that
the population risk assessment did. EPA
is requesting public comment on the
exact locations of CCR waste
management units so that the Agency
can more fully account for water bodies
that may exist between a waste
management unit and a drinking water
well (and thus, could potentially
intercept a contaminated groundwater
plume). EPA is also requesting
comments on how the risk assessment
should inform the final decision.
While the Agency believes the
analyses conducted are sound, today’s
co-proposal of two options reflects our
commitment to use the public process
fully to ensure the best available
scientific and regulatory impact
analyses are considered in our decision.
The final course of action will fully
consider these legitimate and complex
issues, and will result in the selection
of a regulatory structure that best
addresses the eight study factors
identified in section 8002(n) of RCRA,
and ensures protection of human health
and the environment.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35133
2. Brief Description of Today’s CoProposals
a. Summary of Subtitle C Proposal
In combination with its proposal to
reverse the Bevill determination for
CCRs destined for disposal, EPA is
proposing to list as a special waste, to
be regulated under the RCRA subtitle C
regulations, CCRs from electric utilities
and independent power producers
when destined for disposal in a landfill
or surface impoundment. These CCRs
would be regulated from the point of
their generation to the point of their
final disposition, including during and
after closure of any disposal unit. This
would include the generator and
transporter requirements and the
requirements for facilities managing
CCRs, such as siting, liners (with
modification), run-on and run-off
controls, groundwater monitoring,
fugitive dust controls, financial
assurance, corrective action, including
facility-wide corrective action, closure
of units, and post-closure care (with
certain modifications). In addition,
facilities that dispose of, treat, or, in
many cases, store, CCRs also would be
required to obtain permits for the units
in which such materials are disposed,
treated, and stored. The rule would also
regulate the disposal of CCRs in sand
and gravel pits, quarries, and other large
fill operations as a landfill.
To address the potential for
catastrophic releases from surface
impoundments, we also are proposing
requirements for dam safety and
stability for impoundments that, by the
effective date of the final rule, have not
closed consistent with the requirements.
We are also proposing land disposal
restrictions and treatment standards for
CCRs, as well as a prohibition on the
disposal of treated CCRs below the
natural water table.
b. Summary of Subtitle D Proposal
In combination with today’s proposal
to leave the Bevill determination in
place, EPA is proposing to regulate
CCRs disposed of in surface
impoundments or landfills under RCRA
subtitle D requirements which would
establish national criteria to ensure the
safe disposal of CCRs in these units. The
units would be subject to, among other
things, location standards, composite
liner requirements (new landfills and
surface impoundments would require
composite liners; existing surface
impoundments without liners would
have to retrofit within five years, or
cease receiving CCRs and close);
groundwater monitoring and corrective
action standards for releases from the
unit; closure and post-closure care
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35134
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
requirements; and requirements to
address the stability of surface
impoundments. We are also soliciting
comments on requiring financial
assurance. The rule would also regulate
the disposal of CCRs in sand and gravel
pits, quarries, and other large fill
operations as a landfill. The rule would
not regulate the generation, storage or
treatment of CCRs prior to disposal.
Because of the scope of subtitle D
authority, the rule would not require
permits, nor could EPA enforce the
requirements. Instead, states or citizens
could enforce the requirements under
RCRA citizen suit authority; the states
could also enforce any state regulation
under their independent state
enforcement authority.
EPA is also considering a potential
modification to the subtitle D option,
called ‘‘D prime’’ in the following table.
Under this option, existing surface
impoundments would not have to close
or install composite liners but could
continue to operate for their useful life.
In the ‘‘D prime’’ option, the other
elements of the subtitle D option would
remain the same.
3. Summary of Estimated Regulatory
Costs and Benefits
For the purposes of comparing the
estimated regulatory compliance costs
to the monetized benefits for each
regulatory option, the Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) computed two
comparison indicators: Net benefits (i.e.,
benefits minus costs), and benefit/cost
ratio (i.e., benefits divided by costs).
Table 1 below provides a summary of
estimated regulatory costs and benefits
for three regulatory options, based on
the 7% discount rate base case and the
50-year period-of-analysis applied in the
RIA. Furthermore, this benefit and cost
summary table displays ranges of net
benefit and benefit/cost results across
three different scenarios concerning the
potential impacts of each option on the
future annual beneficial use of CCRs
under each option. The first scenario
presents the potential impact scenario
that assumes that the increased future
annual cost of RCRA-regulated CCR
disposal will induce coal-fired electric
utility plants to increase beneficial use
of CCRs. The second scenario presents
a potential market stigma effect under
the subtitle C option which will induce
a decrease in future annual CCR
beneficial use. The third scenario
assumed that beneficial use of CCRs
continues according to its recent trend
line without any future change as a
result of any of the regulatory options.
The RIA estimates both the first and
second scenario incrementally in
relation to the third scenario no change
trend line. Table 1 shows the range of
impacts and associated ranges of net
benefits and benefit-cost ratios across
these three beneficial use scenarios for
each regulatory option. While each of
these three scenario outcomes may be
possible, EPA’s experience with the
RCRA program indicates that industrial
generators of RCRA-regulated wastes are
often able to increase recycling and
materials recovery rates after a subtitle
C regulation. Section XII in this
preamble provides additional
discussion of these estimates.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY TABLE COMPARISON OF REGULATORY BENEFITS TO COSTS—RANGING OVER ALL THREE BENEFICIAL
USE SCENARIOS
[$Millions @ 2009$ prices and @ 7% discount rate over 50-year future period-of-analysis 2012 to 2061]
Subtitle C ‘‘Special waste’’
A. Present Values:
1. Regulatory Costs: ................
2. Regulatory Benefits: ............
3. Net Benefits (2–1) ................
4. Benefit/Cost Ratio (2/1) .......
B. Average Annualized Equivalent
Values:*
1. Regulatory Costs .................
2. Regulatory Benefits: ............
3. Net Benefits (2–1) ................
4. Benefit/Cost Ratio (2/1) .......
Subtitle D
Subtitle ‘‘D prime’’
$20,349 ........................................
$87,221 to $102,191 ....................
($251,166) to $81,842 ..................
(11.343) to 5.022 ..........................
$8,095 ..........................................
$34,964 to $41,761 ......................
($6,927) to $33,666 ......................
0.144 to 5.159 ..............................
$3,259.
$14,111 to $17,501.
($2,666) to $14,242.
0.182 to 5.370.
$1,474 ..........................................
$6,320 to $7,405 ..........................
($18,199) to $5,930 ......................
(11.347) to 5.022 ..........................
$587 .............................................
$2,533 to $3,026 ..........................
($502) to $2,439 ...........................
0.145 to 5.159 ..............................
$236.
$1,023 to $1,268.
($193) to $1,032.
0.182 to 5.370.
* Note: Average annualized equivalent values calculated by multiplying 50-year present values by a 50-year 7% discount rate ‘‘capital recovery
factor’’ of 0.07246.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. What is the statutory authority for
this action?
These regulations are being proposed
under the authority of sections 1008(a),
2002(a), 3001, 3004, 3005, and 4004 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. 6907(a), 6912(a), 6921,6924, 6925
and 6944. These statutes, combined, are
commonly referred to as ‘‘RCRA.’’
RCRA section 1008(a) authorizes EPA
to publish ‘‘suggested guidelines for
solid waste management.’’ 42 U.S.C.
6907(a). Such guidelines must provide a
technical and economic description of
the level of performance that can be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:14 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
achieved by available solid waste
management practices that provide for
protection of human health and the
environment.
RCRA section 2002 grants EPA broad
authority to prescribe, in consultation
with federal, State, and regional
authorities, such regulations as are
necessary to carry out the functions
under federal solid waste disposal laws.
(42 U.S.C. 6912(a)).
RCRA section 3001(b) requires EPA to
list particular wastes that will be subject
to the requirements established under
subtitle C. (42 U.S.C. 6921(b)). The
regulation listing such wastes must be
based on the listing criteria established
pursuant to section 3001(a), and
codified at 40 CFR 261.11.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Section 3001(b)(3)(A) of RCRA
established a temporary exemption for
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,
among others, and required the Agency
to conduct a study of those wastes and,
after public hearings and an opportunity
for comment, determine whether these
wastes should be regulated pursuant to
subtitle C requirements (42 U.S.C. 6921
(b)(3)(A)).
Section 3004 of RCRA generally
requires EPA to establish standards
applicable to the treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous waste to ensure
that human health and the environment
are protected. 42 U.S.C. 6924. Sections
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
3004(c) and (d) prohibit free liquids in
hazardous waste landfills. Sections
3004(g) and (m) prohibit land disposal
of hazardous wastes, unless, before
disposal, those wastes meet treatment
standards established by EPA that will
‘‘substantially diminish the toxicity of
the waste or substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste so that
short-term and long-term threats are
minimized.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6924(c), (d), (g),
and (m)).
RCRA section 3004(x) allows the
Administrator to tailor certain specified
requirements for particular categories of
wastes, including those that are the
subject of today’s proposal, namely ‘‘fly
ash waste, bottom ash waste, and flue
gas emission control wastes generated
primarily from the combustion of coal
or other fossil fuels’’ (42 U.S.C. 6924(x)).
EPA is authorized to modify the
requirements of sections 3004 (c), (d),
(e), (f), (g), (o), and (u), and section
3005(j), to take into account the special
characteristics of the wastes, the
practical difficulties associated with
implementation of such requirements,
and site-specific characteristics,
including but not limited to the climate,
geology, hydrology and soil chemistry at
the site. EPA may only make such
modifications, provided the modified
requirements assure protection of
human health and the environment. (42
U.S.C. 6924(x)).
RCRA section 3005 generally requires
any facility that treats, stores, or
disposes of wastes identified or listed
under subtitle C, to have a permit. 42
U.S.C. 6925(a). This section also
generally imposes requirements on
facilities that become newly subject to
the permitting requirements as a result
of regulatory changes, and so can
continue to operate for a period until
they obtain a permit—i.e., ‘‘interim
status facilities.’’ 42 U.S.C. 6925(e), (i),
(j). Congress imposed special
requirements on interim status surface
impoundments in section 3005(j). In
order to continue receiving wastes,
interim status surface impoundments
are generally required to retrofit the
impoundment within 4 years, to install
a double liner, with a leachate
collection system, and groundwater
monitoring. 42 U.S.C. 6925(j)(6). In
addition, wastes disposed into interim
status surface impoundments must meet
the land disposal restrictions in EPA’s
regulations, or the unit must be
annually dredged. 42 U.S.C. 6925(j)(11).
RCRA Section 4004 generally requires
EPA to promulgate regulations
containing criteria for determining
which facilities shall be classified as
sanitary landfills (and not open dumps)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
so that there is no reasonable probability
of adverse effects on health or the
environment from disposal of solid
wastes at such facilities.
C. Regulation of Wastes Under RCRA
Subtitle C
Solid wastes may become subject to
regulation under subtitle C of RCRA in
one of two ways. A waste may be
subject to regulation if it exhibits certain
hazardous properties, called
‘‘characteristics,’’ or if EPA has
specifically listed the waste as
hazardous. See 42 U.S.C. 6921(a). EPA’s
regulations in the Code of Federal
Regulations (40 CFR) define four
hazardous waste characteristic
properties: Ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or toxicity (See 40 CFR
261.21–261.24). All generators must
determine whether or not a waste
exhibits any of these characteristics by
testing the waste, or by using knowledge
of the process that generated the waste
(see § 262.11(c)). While not required to
sample the waste, generators will be
subject to enforcement actions if found
to be improperly managing wastes that
exhibit one or more of the
characteristics.
EPA may also conduct a more specific
assessment of a waste or category of
wastes and ‘‘list’’ them if they meet the
criteria set out in 40 CFR 261.11. Under
the third criterion, at 40 CFR
261.11(a)(3), a waste will be listed if it
contains hazardous constituents
identified in 40 CFR part 261, Appendix
VIII, and if, after considering the factors
noted in this section of the regulations,
we ‘‘conclude that the waste is capable
of posing a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, or disposed of, or
otherwise managed.’’ We place a
chemical on the list of hazardous
constituents on Appendix VIII only if
scientific studies have shown a
chemical has toxic effects on humans or
other life forms. When listing a waste,
we also add the hazardous constituents
that serve as the basis for listing the
waste to 40 CFR part 261, Appendix VII.
The regulations at 40 CFR 261.31
through 261.33 contain the various
hazardous wastes that EPA has listed to
date. Section 261.31 lists wastes
generated from non-specific sources,
known as ‘‘F-wastes,’’ that are usually
generated by various industries or types
of facilities, such as ‘‘wastewater
treatment sludges from electroplating
operations’’ (see EPA Hazardous Waste
No. F006). Section 261.32 lists wastes
generated from specific industry
sources, known as ‘‘K-wastes,’’ such as
‘‘Spent potliners from primary
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35135
aluminum production’’ (see EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K088). Section
261.33 contains lists of commercial
chemical products and other materials,
known as ‘‘P-wastes’’ or ‘‘U-wastes,’’ that
become hazardous wastes when they are
discarded or intended to be discarded.
As discussed in greater detail later in
this proposal, EPA is considering
whether to codify a listing of CCRs that
are disposed of in landfills or surface
impoundments, in a new section of the
regulations, as ‘‘Special Wastes.’’ EPA is
considering creating this new category
of wastes, in part, to reflect the fact that
these wastes would be subject to
modified regulatory requirements using
the authority provided under section
3004(x) of RCRA (e.g., the modified 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).
If a waste exhibits a hazardous
characteristic or is listed under subtitle
C, then it is subject to the requirements
of RCRA subtitle C, and the
implementing regulations found in 40
CFR parts 260 through 268, parts 270 to
279, and part 124. These requirements
apply to persons who generate,
transport, treat, store or dispose of such
waste and establish rules governing
every phase of the waste’s management
from its generation to its final
disposition and beyond. Facilities that
treat, store or dispose of hazardous
wastes require a permit which
incorporates all of the design and
operating standards established by EPA
rules, including standards for piles,
landfills, and surface impoundments.
Under RCRA subtitle C requirements,
land disposal of hazardous waste is
prohibited unless the waste is first
treated to meet the treatment standards
(or meets the treatment standards as
generated) established by EPA that
minimize threats to human health and
the environment posed by the land
disposal of the waste, or unless the
waste is disposed in a unit from which
there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents for as long as the waste
remains hazardous. In addition, RCRA
subtitle C facilities are required to clean
up any releases of hazardous waste or
constituents from solid waste
management units at the facility, as well
as beyond the facility boundary, as
necessary to protect human health and
the environment. RCRA subtitle C also
requires that permitted facilities
demonstrate that they have adequate
financial resources (i.e., financial
assurance) for obligations, such as
closure, post-closure care, necessary
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35136
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
clean up, and any liability from facility
operations.
The RCRA subtitle C requirements are
generally implemented under state
programs that EPA has authorized to
operate in lieu of the federal program,
based upon a determination that the
state program is no less stringent than
the federal program. In a state that
operates under an authorized program,
any revisions made to EPA requirements
are generally effective as part of the
federal RCRA program in that state only
after the state adopts the revised
requirement, and EPA authorizes the
state requirement. The exception
applies with respect to requirements
implementing statutory provisions
added to subtitle C by the 1984
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments to RCRA; such
requirements are immediately effective
in all states, and are enforced by EPA.
All RCRA hazardous wastes are also
hazardous substances under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA), as defined in section
101(14)(C) of the CERCLA statute. This
applies to wastes listed in §§ 261.31
through 261.33, as well as any wastes
that exhibits a RCRA hazardous
characteristic. Table 302.4 at 40 CFR
302.4 lists the CERCLA hazardous
substances along with their reportable
quantities (RQs). Anyone spilling or
releasing a hazardous substance at or
above its RQ must report the release to
the National Response Center, as
required in CERCLA Section 103. In
addition, Section 304 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act (EPCRA) requires facilities to
report the release of a CERCLA
hazardous substance at or above its RQ
to State and local authorities. Today’s
rule proposes an approach for
estimating whether released CCRs
exceed an RQ. Wastes listed as special
wastes will generally be subject to the
same requirements under RCRA subtitle
C and CERCLA as are hazardous wastes,
although as discussed elsewhere in this
preamble, EPA is proposing to revise
certain requirements under the
authority of section 3004(x) of RCRA to
account for the large volumes and
unique characteristics of these wastes.
D. Regulation of Solid Wastes Under
RCRA Subtitle D
Solid wastes that are neither a listed
and/or 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
nonhazardous solid waste. The federal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
role in this arrangement is to establish
the overall regulatory direction, by
providing minimum nationwide
standards for protecting human health
and the environment, and to providing
technical assistance to states for
planning and developing their own
environmentally sound waste
management practices. The actual
planning and direct implementation of
solid waste programs under RCRA
subtitle D, however, remains a state and
local function, and the act authorizes
States to devise programs to deal with
State-specific conditions and needs.
That is, EPA has no role in the planning
and direct implementation of solid
waste programs under RCRA subtitle D.
Under the authority of sections
1008(a)(3) and 4004(a) of subtitle D of
RCRA, EPA first promulgated the
Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities and Practices (40
CFR part 257) on September 13, 1979.
These subtitle D Criteria establish
minimum national performance
standards necessary to ensure that ‘‘no
reasonable probability of adverse effects
on health or the environment’’ will
result from solid waste disposal
facilities or practices. Practices not
complying with the criteria constitute
‘‘open dumping’’ for purposes of the
Federal prohibition on open dumping in
section 4005(a). EPA does not have the
authority to enforce the prohibition
directly (except in situations involving
the disposal or handling of sludge from
publicly-owned treatment works, where
Federal enforcement of POTW sludgehandling facilities is authorized under
the CWA). States and citizens may
enforce the prohibition on open
dumping using the authority under
RCRA section 7002. EPA, however, may
act only if the handling, storage,
treatment, transportation, or disposal of
such wastes may present an imminent
and substantial endangerment to health
or the environment (RCRA 7003). In
addition, the prohibition may be
enforced by States and other persons
under section 7002 of RCRA.
In contrast to subtitle C, RCRA
subtitle D requirements relate only to
the disposal of the solid waste, and EPA
does not have the authority to establish
requirements governing the generation,
transportation, storage, or treatment of
such wastes prior to disposal. Moreover,
EPA would not have administrative
enforcement authority to enforce any
RCRA subtitle D criteria for CCR
facilities, authority to require states to
issue permits for them or oversee those
permits, nor authority for EPA to
determine whether any state permitting
program for CCR facilities is adequate.
Subtitle D of RCRA also provides less
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
extensive authority to establish
requirements relating to the cleanup (or
corrective action) and financial
assurance at solid waste facilities.
EPA regulations affecting RCRA
subtitle D facilities are found at 40 CFR
parts 240 through 247, and 255 through
258. The existing part 257 criteria
include general environmental
performance standards addressing eight
major topics: Floodplains (§ 257.3–1),
endangered species (§ 257.3–2), surface
water (§ 257.3–3), ground water
(§ 257.3–4), land application (§ 257.35),
disease (§ 257.3–6), air (§ 257.3–7), and
safety (§ 257.3–8). EPA has also
established regulations for RCRA
subtitle D landfills that accept
conditionally exempt small quantity
generator hazardous wastes, and
household hazardous wastes (i.e.,
‘‘municipal solid waste’’) at 40 CFR Part
258, but these are of limited relevance
to CCRs, which fall into neither category
of wastes.
E. Summary of the 1993 and 2000
Regulatory Determinations
Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i) of RCRA
(known as the Bevill exclusion or
exemption) excluded certain largevolume wastes generated primarily from
the combustion of coal or other fossil
fuels from being regulated as hazardous
waste under subtitle C of RCRA,
pending completion of a Report to
Congress required by Section 8002(n) of
RCRA and a determination by the EPA
Administrator either to promulgate
regulations under RCRA subtitle C or to
determine that such regulations are
unwarranted.
In 1988, EPA published a Report to
Congress on Wastes from the
Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility
Power Plants (EPA, 1988). The report,
however, did not address co-managed
utility CCRs, other fossil fuel wastes that
are generated by utilities, and wastes
from non-utility boilers burning any
type of fossil fuel. Further, because of
other priorities, EPA did not complete
its Regulatory Determination on fossil
fuel combustion (FFC) wastes at that
time.
In 1991, a suit was filed against EPA
for failure to complete a Regulatory
Determination on FFC wastes (Gearhart
v. Reilly Civil No. 91–2345 (D.D.C.), and
on June 30, 1992, the Agency entered
into a Consent Decree that established a
schedule for EPA to complete the
Regulatory Determinations for all FFC
wastes. Specifically, FFC wastes were
divided into two categories: (1) Fly ash,
bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas
emission control waste from the
combustion of coal by electric utilities
and independent commercial power
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
producers, and (2) all remaining wastes
subject to RCRA Sections
3001(b)(3)(A)(i) and 8002(n)—that is,
large volume coal combustion wastes
generated at electric utility and
independent power producing facilities
that are co-managed together with
certain other coal combustion wastes;
coal combustion wastes generated at
non-utilities; coal combustion wastes
generated at facilities with fluidized bed
combustion technology; petroleum coke
combustion wastes; wastes from the
combustion of mixtures of coal and
other fuels (i.e., co-burning of coal with
other fuels where coal is at least 50% of
the total fuel); wastes from the
combustion of oil; and wastes from the
combustion of natural gas.
On August 9, 1993, EPA published its
Regulatory Determination for the first
category of wastes (58 FR 42466,
https://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/
industrial/special/mineral/080993.pdf),
concluding that regulation under
subtitle C of RCRA for these wastes was
not warranted. To make an appropriate
determination for the second category,
or ‘‘remaining wastes,’’ EPA concluded
that additional study was necessary.
Under the court-ordered deadlines, the
Agency was required to complete a
Report to Congress by March 31, 1999,
and issue a Regulatory Determination by
October 1, 1999.
In keeping with its court-ordered
schedule, and pursuant to the
requirements of Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i)
and Section 8002(n) of RCRA, EPA
prepared a Report to Congress on the
remaining FFC wastes in March 1999
(https://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/
fossil/volume_2.pdf). The report
addresses the eight study factors
required by Section 8002(n) of RCRA for
FFC wastes (see discussion in section
IV. B).
On May 22, 2000, EPA published its
Regulatory Determination on wastes
from the combustion of fossil fuels for
the remaining wastes (65 FR 32214,
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/
EPA-WASTE/2000/May/Day-22/
f11138.htm). In its Regulatory
Determination, EPA concluded that the
remaining wastes were largely identical
to the high-volume monofilled wastes,
which remained exempt based on the
1993 Regulatory Determination. The
high volume wastes simply dominate
the waste characteristics even when comanaged with other wastes, and thus
the May 2000 Regulatory Determination
addressed not only the remaining
wastes, but effectively reopened the
decision on CCRs that went to
monofills.
EPA concluded that these wastes
could pose significant risks if not
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
properly managed, although the risk
information was limited. EPA identified
and discussed a number of documented
proven damage cases, as well as cases
indicating at least a potential for damage
to human health and the environment,
but did not rely on its quantitative
groundwater risk assessment, as EPA
concluded that it was not sufficiently
reliable. However, EPA concluded that
significant improvements were being
made in waste management practices
due to increasing state oversight,
although gaps remained in the current
regulatory regime. On this basis, the
Agency concluded to retain the Bevill
exemption, and stated we would issue
a regulation under subtitle D of RCRA,
establishing minimum national
standards. Those subtitle D standards
have not yet been issued. (Today’s
proposal could result in the
development of the subtitle D standards
consistent with the May 2000
Regulatory Determination, or with a
revision of the determination, or the
issuance of subtitle C standards under
RCRA.)
EPA also explicitly stated in the May
2000 Regulatory Determination that the
Agency would continue to review the
issues, and would reconsider its
decision that subtitle C regulations were
unwarranted based on a number of
factors. EPA noted that its ongoing
review would include (1) ‘‘the extent to
which [the wastes] have caused damage
to human health or the environment;’’
(2) the adequacy of existing regulation
of the wastes; (3) the results of an NAS
report regarding the adverse human
health effects of mercury; 4 and (4) ‘‘risk
posed by managing coal combustion
solid wastes if levels of mercury or other
hazardous constituents change due to
any future Clean Air Act air pollution
control requirements for coal burning
utilities’’ and that these efforts could
result in a subsequent revision to the
Regulatory Determination. For a further
discussion of the basis for the Agency’s
determination, see section IV below.
F. What are CCRs?
CCRs are residuals from the
combustion of coal. For purposes of this
proposal, CCRs are fly ash, bottom ash,
boiler slag (all composed predominantly
of silica and aluminosilicates), and flue
gas desulfurization materials
(predominantly Ca-SOX compounds)
that were generated from processes
intended to generate power.
4 Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury,
National Academy of Sciences, July 2000 (https://
books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9899#toc).
EPA has not taken any actions regarding the May
2000 Regulatory Determination as a result of the
NAS report.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35137
Fly ash is a product of burning finely
ground coal in a boiler to produce
electricity. Fly ash is removed from the
plant exhaust gases primarily by
electrostatic precipitators or baghouses
and secondarily by wet scrubber
systems. Physically, fly ash is a very
fine, powdery material, composed
mostly of silica. Nearly all particles are
spherical in shape.
Bottom ash is comprised of
agglomerated coal ash particles that are
too large to be carried in the flue gas.
Bottom ash is formed in pulverized coal
furnaces and is collected by impinging
on the furnace walls or falling through
open grates to an ash hopper at the
bottom of the furnace. Physically,
bottom ash is coarse, with grain sizes
spanning from fine sand to fine gravel,
typically grey to black in color, and is
quite angular with a porous surface
structure.
Boiler slag is the molten bottom ash
collected at the base of slag tap and
cyclone type furnaces that is quenched
with water. When the molten slag comes
in contact with the quenching water, it
fractures, crystallizes, and forms pellets.
This boiler slag material is made up of
hard, black, angular particles that have
a smooth, glassy appearance.
Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD)
material is produced through a process
used to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions from the exhaust gas system
of a coal-fired boiler. The physical
nature of these materials varies from a
wet sludge to a dry powdered material,
depending on the process. The wet
sludge generated from the wet scrubbing
process using a lime-based reagent is
predominantly calcium sulfite, while
the wet sludge generated from the wet
scrubbing process using a limestonebased reagent is predominantly calcium
sulfate. The dry powdered material from
dry scrubbers that is captured in a
baghouse consists of a mixture of
sulfites and sulfates.
CCRs are managed in either wet or dry
disposal systems. In wet systems,
materials are generally sluiced via pipe
to a surface impoundment. The material
can be generated wet, such as FGD, or
generated dry and water added to
facilitate transport (i.e. sluiced) through
pipes. In dry systems, CCRs are
transported in its dry form to landfills
for disposal.
1. Chemical Constituents in CCRs
The chemical characteristics of CCRs
depend on the type and source of coal,
the combustion technology, and the
pollution control technology employed.
For the 1999 Report to Congress and the
May 2000 Regulatory Determination,
EPA developed an extensive database
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35138
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
on the leaching potential of CCR
constituents using the toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP) from a number of sources. More
recent data on the composition of CCRs,
including their leaching potential, have
been collected and are discussed in the
next sub-section. The CCR constituent
database (available in the docket to this
proposal) contains data on more than 40
constituents. Table 2 presents the
median compositions of trace element
TCLP leachates of each of the main four
types of large volume CCRs (fly ash,
bottom ash, boiler slag, and FGD
gypsum). (Additional information,
including the range of TCLP values, is
available in the docket or on-line in the
documents identified in the footnotes to
the following table.)
TABLE 2—TCLP MEDIAN COMPOSITIONS OF COAL-FIRED UTILITY LARGE-VOLUME CCRS 5 (MG/L)
Constituent
Fly ash
As .....................................................................................................................
Ba .....................................................................................................................
B .......................................................................................................................
Cd ....................................................................................................................
CrVI ...................................................................................................................
Cu ....................................................................................................................
Pb .....................................................................................................................
Hg ....................................................................................................................
Se .....................................................................................................................
Ag .....................................................................................................................
V .......................................................................................................................
Zn .....................................................................................................................
Bottom ash
0.066
0.289
0.933
0.012
0.203
n/a
0.025
0.0001
0.020
0.005
0.111
0.285
0.002
0.290
0.163
0.005
0.010
n/a
0.005
0.0001
0.0013
0.0050
0.0050
0.015
Boiler slag
0.002
0.260
n/a
0.0018
0.003
0.050
0.0025
0.0002
0.0025
0.0001
0.010
0.075
FGD
0.290
0.532
—
0.010
0.120
n/a
0.120
0.0001
0.280
0.060
—
—
n/a = data not available.
-- = too few data points to calculate statistics.
Source: Data from supporting documentation to the 1993 Regulatory Determination; values below the detection limit were treated as one-half
the detection limit.
The composition of FGD gypsum
depends on the position within the air
emissions control system where the SO2
component is subject to scrubbing: If
scrubbing takes place up stream of the
removal of fly ash particulates, the FGD
would actually comprise a mix of both
components. Table 3 presents mean
TCLP trace element compositions of
FGD gypsum generated by a scrubbing
operation that is located down stream
from the particulate collection elements
of the air emissions control system; it
therefore represents an ‘end member’
FGD gypsum.
TABLE 3—FGD GYPSUM TCLP COMPOSITIONS (MG/L) FROM: (1) TWO OHIO POWER PLANTS *6 (MEAN DATA); (2) 12
SAMPLES OF COMMERCIAL WALLBOARD PRODUCED FROM SYNTHETIC GYPSUM **7(MEDIAN DATA)
Constituent
Bruce Mansfield
Plant *
Cardinal Plant *
As .....................................................................................................................................
Ba .....................................................................................................................................
B .......................................................................................................................................
Cd ....................................................................................................................................
Cr .....................................................................................................................................
Cu ....................................................................................................................................
Pb .....................................................................................................................................
Hg ....................................................................................................................................
Se .....................................................................................................................................
V .......................................................................................................................................
Zn .....................................................................................................................................
Ag .....................................................................................................................................
<0.006
0.373
0.137
0.00167
0.00587
<0.001
<0.003
1.8×10¥5
0.0123
<0.001
0.170
n/a
0.0075
0.270
0.0255
0.00055
0.00575
<0.001
<0.003
2.6×10¥6
<0.011
0.002
0.0560
n/a
Synthetic Gypsum **
0.00235
0.043
n/a
0.00145
0.0047
n/a
0.0006
<0.0003
0.044
n/a
n/a
<0.00005
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
n/a = data not available.
The contaminants of most
environmental concern in CCRs are
antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium,
cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury,
nickel, selenium, silver and thallium.
Although these metals rarely exceed the
RCRA hazardous waste toxicity
characteristic (TC), because of the
mobility of metals and the large size of
typical disposal units, metals (especially
arsenic) have leached at levels of
concern from unlined landfills and
surface impoundments. In addition, it
should also be noted that since the
Agency announced its May 2000
Regulatory Determination, EPA has
revised the maximum contaminant level
(MCL) for arsenic,8 without a
corresponding revision of the TC. As a
result, while arsenic levels are typically
well below the TC, drinking water risks
from contaminated groundwater due to
releases from landfills and
impoundments may still be high. Also,
as discussed below, a considerable body
of evidence has emerged indicating that
the TCLP alone is not a good predictor
5 Compiled from Tables 3–1, 3–3, 3–5 and 3–7, in:
Technical Background Document for the Report to
Congress on Remaining Wastes from Fossil Fuel
Combustion: Waste Characteristics, March 15, 1999
(https://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/
special/fossil/ffc2_399.pdf).
6 Compiled from: Table 3–5, in: An Evaluation of
Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum for Abandoned
Mine Land Reclamation, Rachael A. Pasini, Thesis,
The Ohio State University, 2009.
7 Compiled from: Table 10, in: Fate of Mercury in
Synthetic Gypsum Used for Wallboard Production,
J. Sanderson et al., USG Corporation, Final Report
prepared for NETL, June 2008.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
35139
post-combustion NOX controls (i.e.,
selective catalytic reduction), FGD
scrubbers, and enhanced sorbents for
mercury capture. A series of reports
have been developed to document the
results from the ORD research: The first
report (Characterization of MercuryEnriched Coal Combustion Residuals
from Electric Utilities Using Enhanced
Sorbents for Mercury Control, EPA–600/
R–06/008, February 2006; https://
www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/
600r06008/600r06008.pdf) was
developed to document changes in fly
ash resulting from the addition of
sorbents for enhanced mercury capture.
The second report (Characterization of
Coal Combustion Residuals from
Electric Utilities Using Wet Scrubbers
for Multi-Pollutant Control; EPA–600/
R–08/077, July 2008, https://
www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r08077/
600r08077.pdf) was developed to
evaluate residues from the expanded
use of wet scrubbers. The third report
(Characterization of Coal Combustion
Residues from Electric Utilities—
Leaching and Characterization Data,
EPA–600/R–09/151, December 2009,
https://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/
600r09151/600r09151.html) updates the
data in the earlier reports and provides
data on an additional 40 samples to
cover the range of coal types and air
pollution control configurations,
including some not covered in the two
previous reports.
Data from these studies is being used
to identify potential trends in the
composition and leaching behavior of
CCRs resulting from changes in air
pollution controls. Summary data on the
higher volume CCRs is provided for 34
fly ashes (Table 4) and 20 FGD gypsum
samples (Table 5). The report provides
analysis of other types of CCRs (i.e.,
non-gypsum scrubber residues
(primarily scrubber sludge containing
calcium sulfite), blended CCRs (nongypsum scrubber residues, fly ash, and
lime), and wastewater treatment filter
cake). For each of the metals that are
reported (Sb, As, Ba, B, Cd Cr, Co, Hg,
Pb, Mo, Se, and Tl) from the leaching
test results, ‘‘box and whisker’’ plots
have been developed comparing the
different materials and providing
comparison to field leachate data.
The purpose of this research was to
try to understand how power plant air
pollution control residues, and their
leaching potential, are likely to change
with the increased use of multipollutant and mercury controls,
anticipated in response to new Clean
Air Act regulations. An initial focus was
to identify appropriate leach testing
methods to assess leaching potential
under known or expected CCR
Continued
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
of the mobility of metals in CCRs under
a variety of different conditions. This
issue is further discussed in the
following subsection.
From Tables 2 and 3 above, it is
evident that each of the main four types
of CCRs, when subjected to a TCLP
leach test, yields a different amount of
trace element constituents. EPA is
soliciting public comments on whether,
in light of these differences in the
mobility of hazardous metals between
the four major types of CCRs, regulatory
oversight should be equally applied to
each of these CCR types when destined
for disposal.
2. Recent EPA Research on Constituent
Leaching From CCRs
Changes to fly ash and other CCRs are
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 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
more advanced air pollution control
technology 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. The impact of changes
in air pollution control on the
characteristics of CCRs and the leaching
potential of metals is the focus of
ongoing research by EPA’s Office of
Research and Development (ORD). This
research is being conducted to identify
any potential cross-media transfers of
mercury and other metals and to meet
EPA’s commitment in the Mercury
Roadmap (https://www.epa.gov/hg/
roadmap.htm) to report on the fate of
mercury and other metals from
implementation of multi-pollutant
control at coal-fired power plants.
Over the last few years, in cooperation
with Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI) and the utility industry, EPA
obtained 73 different CCRs from 31 coalfired boilers spanning a range of coal
types and air pollution control
configurations. Samples of CCRs were
collected to evaluate differences in air
pollution control, such as addition of
8 See https://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic/
regulations.html.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
management conditions (beneficial use
or disposal). The EPA’s Science
Advisory Board and the National
Academy of Sciences have in the past
raised concerns over the use of singlepoint pH tests that do not reflect the
range of actual conditions under which
wastes are plausibly managed.9 Because
metal leaching rates change with
changing environmental conditions
(especially pH), single point tests may
not be the most accurate predictor of
potential environmental release of
mercury or other metals because they do
not provide estimates of leaching under
some disposal or reuse conditions that
can plausibly occur.
In response to these concerns, a
review of available leaching test
methods was conducted. A leaching test
method 10 based on research conducted
at Vanderbilt University in the United
States and the Energy Research Center
of the Netherlands, among others, was
selected to address some of these
concerns.
While EPA/ORD’s research relied on
the Vanderbilt method, similar methods
(i.e, tests evaluating leaching at different
plausible disposal pH values) have been
used to evaluate the leaching behavior
and support hazardous waste listings of
other materials as well.11 Because of
their general utility, the research
methods have been drafted into the
appropriate format and are being
evaluated for inclusion in EPA’s waste
analytical methods guidance, SW–846 12
9 National Academy of Sciences, Managing Coal
Combustion Residues in Mines; The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2006.
10 Kosson, D.S.; Van Der Sloot, H.A.; Sanchez, F.;
Garrabrants, A.C., An Integrated Framework for
Evaluating Leaching in Waste Management and
Utilization of Secondary Materials. Environmental
Engineering Science 2002, 19, 159–204.
11 See 65 FR 67100 (November 8, 2000) for a
discussion of EPA’s use of multi-pH leach testing
in support of listing a mercury-bearing sludge from
VCM–A production, and EPA/600/R–02/019,
September 2001, Stabilization and Testing of
Mercury Containing Wastes: Borden Catalyst.
12 Five different methods have been developed for
use depending upon the information needed and
the waste form.
1. Draft Method 1313—Liquid-Solid Partitioning
as a Function of Eluate pH using a Parallel Batch
Extraction Test
2. Draft Method 1314—Liquid-Solid Partitioning
as a Function of Liquid-Solid Ratio Using an Upflow Column Test
3. Draft Method 1315—Mass Transfer in
Monolithic or Compacted Granular Materials Using
a Semi-dynamic Tank Leach Test
4. Draft Method 1316—Liquid-Solid Partitioning
as a Function of Liquid-Solid Ratio Using a Parallel
Batch Test
5. Draft Method 1317—Concise Test for
Determining Consistency in Leaching Behavior
The test methods were developed to identify
differences in the constituent leaching rate resulting
from the form of the tested material, as well as the
effects of pH and the liquid/solid ratio. Fine grained
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35140
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
to facilitate their routine use for
evaluating other wastes or reuse
materials (https://www.epa.gov/osw/
hazard/testmethods/sw846/index.htm).
For the ORD research, equilibrium
batch test methods that identify changes
in leaching at different pH and liquid/
solid ratio values were used to evaluate
CCRs resulting from different air
pollution controls at coal-fired power
plants. This allowed evaluation of
leaching potential over a range of field
conditions under which CCRs are
anticipated to be managed during either
disposal or beneficial use applications.
Landfill field leachate data from EPA 13
and EPRI 14 studies were used to
establish the range of pH conditions
expected to be found in actual disposal.
From this data set, and excluding the
extreme values (below 5th percentile
and above 95th percentile), a pH range
of 5.4 and 12.4 was determined to
represent the range of plausible
management conditions (with regard to
pH) for CCRs. This means that
approximately 5% of the values had a
pH below 5.4 and approximately 5% of
the values had a pH greater than 12.4.
However, it is important to note that 9
materials (e.g., particle sizes of 2 mm or less) will
have greater contact with leaching solutions (in a
lab test) or rainfall (in the environment) than will
solid materials such as concrete or CCRs that are
pozzolanic when exposed to water. In applying
these methods to CCRs or other materials, batch
tests that are designed to reach equilibrium are used
with fine-grained or particle-size reduced materials.
For solid materials, the tests were designed to
evaluate constituent leaching from the exposed
surface (leaching of constituents that are either at
the surface, or that have migrated over time to the
surface), can be used. Testing at equilibrium
provides an upper bound estimate of constituent
leaching at each set of conditions tested. In some
instances, these results may represent the real
situation, since when rainfall percolation through a
material in the environment is slow, the constituent
concentration in the water passing through the
materials may reach, or nearly reach equilibrium.
Testing of solid (or ‘‘monolithic’’) materials
evaluates constituent leaching from materials of low
permeability for which most rainfall flows around
the material rather than percolating through it. This
results in less contact between the rainfall and the
material, and so typically, a lower rate of
constituent leaching. For monolithic materials, both
the equilibrium and monolith tests are conducted
to understand the likely initial rates of leaching
from the monolith (while it remains solid), and the
upper bound on likely leaching, when the monolith
degrades over time, exposing more surface area to
percolating rainwater, and typically, higher
constituent leaching rates. It may also be possible
to avoid the cost of testing solid, monolithic
materials, if the material leaches at low constituent
concentrations under the equilibrium testing
conditions.
13 U.S. EPA (2000) Characterization and
evaluation of landfill leachate, Draft Report. 68–
W6–0068, Sept 2000.
14 EPRI (2006) Characterization of Field Leachates
at Coal Combustion Product Management Sites:
Arsenic, Selenium, Chromium, and Mercury
Speciation, EPRI Report Number 1012578. EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA and U.S. Department of Energy,
Pittsburgh, PA.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
of the 34 fly ash samples generated a pH
in deionized water (i.e., the pH
generated by the tested material itself)
below pH 5.4. Therefore, these results
might understate CCR leaching potential
if actual field conditions extend beyond
the pH range of 5.4 and 12.4.
In Tables 4 and 5, the total metals
content of the fly ash and FGD gypsum
samples evaluated is provided along
with the leach test results. Reference
indicators (i.e., MCL,15 TC,16 and
DWEL 17) are also provided to provide
some context in understanding the leach
results. It is critical to bear in mind that
the leach test results represent a
distribution of potential constituent
release from the material as disposed or
used on the land. The data presented do
not include any attempt to estimate the
amount of constituent that may reach an
aquifer or drinking water well. Leachate
leaving a landfill is invariably diluted in
ground water to some degree when it
reaches the water table, or constituent
concentrations are attenuated by
sorption and other chemical reactions in
groundwater and sediment. Also,
groundwater pH may be different from
the pH at the site of contaminant
release, and so the solubility and
mobility of leached contaminants may
change when they reach groundwater.
None of these dilution or attenuation
processes is incorporated into the
leaching values presented. That is, no
dilution and attenuation factor, or
DAF,18 has been applied to these
results. Thus, comparisons with
regulatory health values, particularly
drinking water values, must be done
with caution. Groundwater transport
and fate modeling would be needed to
generate an assessment of the likely risk
that may result from the CCRs
represented by these data.
In reviewing the data and keeping
these caveats in mind, conclusions to
date from the research include:
(1) Review of the fly ash and FGD
gypsum data (Tables 4 and 5) show a
range of total constituent concentration
values that vary over a much broader
range than do the leach data. This much
15 MCL is the maximum concentration limit for
contaminants in drinking water.
16 TC is the toxicity characteristic and is a
threshold for hazardous waste determinations.
17 DWEL is the drinking water equivalent level to
be protective for non-carcinogenic endpoints of
toxicity over a lifetime of exposure. DWEL was
developed for chemicals that have a significant
carcinogenic potential and provides the risk
manager with evaluation on non-cancer endpoints,
but infers that carcinogenicity should be considered
the toxic effect of greatest concern (https://
www.epa.gov/safewater/pubs/gloss2.html#D).
18 For example, EPA used a generic DAF values
of 100 in the Toxicity Characteristic final
regulation. (See: 55 FR 11827, March 29, 1990)
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
greater range of leaching values only
partially illustrates what more detailed
review of the data shows: That for these
CCRs, the rate of constituent release to
the environment is affected by leaching
conditions (in some cases dramatically
so), and that leaching evaluation under
a single set of conditions may, to the
degree that single point leach tests fail
to consider actual management
conditions, lead to inaccurate
conclusions about expected leaching in
the field.
(2) Comparison of the ranges of totals
values and leachate data from the
complete data set supports earlier
conclusions 5119 20 21 that the rate of
constituent leaching cannot be reliably
estimated based on total constituent
concentration alone.
(3) From the more complete data in
Report 3, distinctive patterns in
leaching behavior have been identified
over the range of pH values that would
plausibly be encountered for CCR
disposal, depending on the type of
material sampled and the element. This
reinforces the above conclusions based
on the summary data.
(4) Based on the data (summarized in
Table 4), on the leach results from
evaluation of 34 fly ashes across the
plausible management pH range of 5.4
to 12.4,
Æ The leach results at the upper end
of the leachate concentration range
exceed the TC values for As, Ba, Cr, and
Se (indicated by the shading in the
table).
(5) Based on the data (summarized in
Table 5), on the leach results from
evaluation of 20 FGD gypsums across
the plausible management pH range of
5.4 to 12.4,
Æ The leach results at the upper end
of the leachate concentration ranges
exceed the TC value for Se.
(6) The variability in total content and
the leaching of constituents within a
material type (e.g., fly ash, gypsum) is
such that, while leaching of many
samples exceeds one or more of the
available health indicators, many of the
other samples within the material type
may be lower than the available
regulatory or health indicators.
19 Senior, C; Thorneloe, S.; Khan, B.; Goss, D. Fate
of Mercury Collected from Air Pollution Control
Devices; EM, July 2009, 15–21.
20 U.S. EPA, Characterization of MercuryEnriched Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric
Utilities Using Enhanced Sorbents for Mercury
Control, EPA–600/R–06/008, Feb. 2006; https://
www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/600r06008/
600r06008.pdf.
21 U.S. EPA, Characterization of Coal Combustion
Residuals from Electric Utilities Using Wet
Scrubbers for Multi-Pollutant Control; EPA–600/R–
08/077, July 2008, https://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/
600r08077/600r08077.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
35141
made publicly available when
completed.
Finally, the Agency recognizes that
this research has generated a substantial
amount of data, and believes this data
set can be useful as a reference for
assessing additional CCR samples in the
future. The docket for today’s rule
therefore includes the full dataset, in the
form of a database to provide easier
access to EPA’s updated leach data.23
DWEL values are intended to represent
concentrations at a well and the point of
exposure; leachate dilution and attenuation
processes that would occur in groundwater
before leachate reaches a well are not
accounted for, and so MCL and DWEL values
cannot be directly compared with leachate
values.
22 Sanchez, F., and D. S. Kosson, 2005.
Probabilistic approach for estimating the release of
contaminants under field management scenarios.
Waste Management 25(5), 643–472 (2005).
23 The database, called ‘‘Leach XS Lite’’ can be
used to estimate the leaching potential of CCRs
under any specified set of pH or infiltration
conditions that may occur in the field. While the
database is presented as a ‘‘Beta’’ version, and may
be further developed, the data presented in the data
base are final data, from the three EPA research
reports cited above.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
EP21JN10.000
release potential for a wider range of
CCR management scenarios, including
beneficial use applications. This will
include calculating potential release
rates over a specified time for a range of
management scenarios, including use in
engineering and commercial
applications using probabilistic
assessment modeling (Sanchez and
Kosson, 2005).22 This report will be
Note: The dark shading is used to indicate
where there could be a potential concern for
a metal when comparing the leach results to
the MCL, DWEL, or concentration level used
to determine the TC. Note that MCL and
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Additional or more refined assessment
of the dataset may allow some
distinctions regarding release potential
to be made among particular sources of
some CCRs, which may be particularly
useful in evaluating CCRs in reuse
applications.
EPA anticipates development of a
fourth report that presents such
additional analysis of the leaching data
to provide more insight into constituent
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Note: The dark shading is used to indicate
where there could be a potential concern for
a metal when comparing the leach results to
the MCL, DWEL, or concentration level used
to determine the TC. Note that MCL and
DWEL values are intended to represent
concentrations at a well and the point of
exposure; leachate dilution and attenuation
processes that would occur in groundwater
before leachate reaches a well are not
accounted for, and so MCL and DWEL values
cannot be directly compared with leachate
values.
G. Current Federal Regulations or
Standards Applicable to the Placement
of CCRs in Landfills and Surface
Impoundments.
CCR disposal operations are typically
regulated by state solid waste
management programs, although in
some instances, surface impoundments
are regulated under the states water
programs. However, there are limited
regulations of CCRs at the federal level.
The discharge of pollutants from CCR
management units to waters of the
United States are regulated under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) at 40 CFR
Part 122, authorized by the Clean Water
Act (CWA). NPDES permits generally
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
specify an acceptable level of a
pollutant or pollutant parameter in a
discharge. NPDES permits ensure that a
state’s mandatory standards for clean
water and the federal minimums are
being met. A number of the damage
cases discussed in the preamble also
involved surface water contamination,
which were violations of the NPDES
permit requirements.
II. New Information on the Placement
of CCRs in Landfills and Surface
Impoundments
A. New Developments Since the May
2000 Regulatory Determination.
Since publication of the May 2000
Regulatory Determination, new
information and data have become
available, including additional damage
cases, risk modeling, updated
information on current management
practices and state regulations
associated with the disposal of CCRs,
petitions from environmental and
citizens groups for EPA to develop rules
for the management of CCRs, an
industry voluntary agreement on how
they would manage CCRs, and a
proposal from environmental and
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
citizens groups for a CCR rule. Much of
this new information was made
available to the public in August 2007
through a Notice of Data Availability
(NODA) at 72 FR 49714 (https://
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/
2007/August/Day-29/f17138.pdf). EPA
has received extensive comments from
environmental groups, industry, states
and others in response to the NODA and
as we have moved toward rulemaking.
All of the comments and subsequent
information we have received are
included in the docket to this proposal.
The new information on risks and the
damage cases are discussed briefly
below and in more detail in subsequent
sections of this proposed rule; a more
detailed discussion of this new
information is discussed in other
sections of the preamble.
At the time of the May 2000
Regulatory Determination, the Agency
was aware of 14 cases of proven
damages 24 and 36 cases of potential
damages resulting from the disposal of
24 As discussed later in the preamble, 11 of these
documented cases of damage were to human health
and the environment, while four of these cases were
cases of ecological damage, one of which has now
been reclassified as a potential damage case.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
EP21JN10.001
35142
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
CCRs. The Agency has since learned of
an additional 13 cases of proven
damages and 4 cases of potential
damages, including a catastrophic
release of CCRs from a disposal unit at
the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Kingston facility in Harriman,
Tennessee in December 2008. In total,
EPA has documented 27 cases of proven
damages and 40 cases of potential
damages resulting from the disposal of
CCRs. Proven damage cases have been
documented in 12 states, and potential
damage cases—in 17 states. See section
II.C. and the Appendix to this proposal
for more detailed discussions of EPA’s
CCR damage cases.
As part of the process for making the
May 2000 Regulatory Determination for
CCRs, EPA prepared a draft quantitative
risk assessment. However, because of
time constraints, the Agency was unable
to address public comments on the draft
risk assessment in time for the
Regulatory Determination. Between
2000 and 2006, EPA addressed the
public comments and updated the
quantitative risk assessment for the
management of CCR in landfills and
surface impoundments. The revised risk
assessment was made available for
public comment in the August 2007
draft report titled ‘‘Human and
Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal
Combustion Wastes.’’
In the May 2000 Regulatory
Determination, the Agency concluded
that the utility industry had made
significant improvements in its waste
management practices for new landfills
and surface impoundments since the
practices reflected in the 1999 Report to
Congress, and that most state regulatory
programs had similarly improved. To
verify its conclusion, in 2005, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) and EPA
conducted a joint study to collect more
recent information on the management
practices for CCRs by the electric power
industry, and state programs in 11
states. The results of the study were
published in the report titled ‘‘Coal
Combustion Waste Management at
Landfills and Surface Impoundments,
1994–2004.’’ Additionally, we are aware
of at least one state (Maryland) that has
recently amended its regulatory
requirements for the management of
CCRs.
In February 2004, 125 environmental
and citizens groups petitioned the EPA
Administrator for a rulemaking
prohibiting the disposal of coal power
plant wastes into groundwater and
surface water until such time as EPA
promulgates federally enforceable
regulations pursuant to RCRA. A copy
of the petition is available at https://
www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
component/main?/
main=DocumentDetail
&o=09000064801cf8d1.
In October 2006, the utility industry
through their trade association, the
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
(USWAG) submitted to EPA a ‘‘Utility
Industry Action Plan for the
Management of Coal Combustion
Products.’’ The plan outlines the utility
industry’s commitment to adopt
groundwater performance standards and
monitoring, conduct risk assessments
prior to placement of CCRs in sand and
gravel pits, and to consider dryhandling prior to constructing new
disposal units.
In January 2007, environmental and
citizens groups submitted to EPA a
‘‘Proposal for the Federal Regulation of
Coal Combustion Waste.’’ The proposal
provides a framework for
comprehensive regulation under subtitle
D of RCRA for waste disposed of in
landfills and surface impoundments
generated by coal-fired power plants.
Then in July 2009, environmental and
citizens groups filed a second petition
requesting that the EPA Administrator
promulgate regulations that designate
CCRs as hazardous waste under subtitle
C of RCRA.25 In support of their
petition, the environmental groups cited
‘‘numerous reports and data produced
by the Agency since EPA’s final
Regulatory Determination * * * which
quantify the waste’s toxicity, threat to
human health and the environment,
inadequate state regulatory programs,
and the damage caused by
mismanagement.’’ A copy of the petition
is available in the docket to this
proposal. The Agency has, as yet, not
made a decision as to whether to lift the
Bevill exemption, and, while it has
determined that federal regulation is
appropriate, it has not made a
determination as to whether regulations
should be promulgated under subtitles
C or D of RCRA. Consequently, EPA is
deferring its response to the petitioner.
However, the preamble discusses the
issues raised in these petitions at length.
In addition, the Agency is deferring its
proposed response to the petitioners’
request regarding the placement of CCRs
in minefills as the Agency will work
with OSM to address the management of
CCRs in minefills in a separate
rulemaking action. (See discussion in
other parts of the preamble for the
Agency’s basis for its decisions.)
In August 2007, EPA published a
NODA (72 FR 49714, https://
25 This rulemaking petition was filed by:
Earthjustice; the Sierra Club; the Environmental
Integrity Project; the Natural Resources Defense
Council; the Southern Environmental Law Center;
and Kentucky Resources Council.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35143
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/
2007/August/Day-29/f17138.htm) which
made public, and sought comment on,
the new information we received since
the May 2000 Regulatory Determination
through 2007, except for the July 2009
petition entitled, Petition for
Rulemaking Pursuant to Section 7004(a)
of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Concerning the Regulation
of Coal Combustion Waste and the Basis
for Reconsideration of the 2000
Regulatory Determination Concerning
Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil
Fuels. The new information included
the joint DOE and EPA report entitled:
Coal Combustion Waste Management at
Landfills and Surface Impoundments,
1994–2004; the draft risk assessment;
and EPA’s damage case assessment. EPA
also included in the docket to the
NODA the February 2004 Petition for
Rulemaking submitted by a number of
environmental and citizens’ groups to
prohibit the placement or disposal of
CCRs into ground water and surface
water; and two suggested approaches for
managing CCRs in landfills and surface
impoundments. One approach is the
Voluntary Action Plan that was
formulated by the electric utility
industry. The second approach was the
January 2007 framework prepared by a
number of environmental and citizens’
groups proposing federal regulation
under subtitle D of RCRA for CCRs
generated by U.S. coal-fired power
plants and disposed of in landfills and
surface impoundments. The Agency
received a total of 396 comments on the
NODA from 375 citizens and citizen and
environmental groups, 16 industry
groups, and 5 state and local
government organizations. In general,
citizens, citizens groups, and
environmental groups commented that
state regulations are inadequate and
called on EPA to develop enforceable
regulations for the disposal of CCRs
under the hazardous waste provisions of
RCRA. Industry groups, on the other
hand, stated that the significant recent
improvement in industry management
and state regulatory oversight of CCR
disposal demonstrates that the
conditions that once led EPA to
determine that federal subtitle D
regulations were warranted no longer
exist and therefore, further development
of subtitle D regulations is no longer
necessary. In September 2008, the
Environmental Council of the States
(ECOS) issued a resolution that states
already have regulations in place that
apply to CCRs, and a federal regulation
is not necessary. The 2008 ECOS
resolution was revised in March 2010
and calls upon EPA to conclude that
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35144
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
additional federal CCR regulations
would be duplicative of most state
programs, are unnecessary, and should
not be adopted, but if adopted must be
developed under RCRA subtitle D rather
than RCRA subtitle C (see https://
www.ecos.org/files/4018_file
_Resolution_08_14_2010_version.doc).
Comments on the NODA are available in
the docket to the NODA at https://
www.regulations.gov, docket number
EPA–HQ–RCRA–2006–0796.
Finally, in July and August of 2008,
EPA conducted a peer review of the
2007 draft risk assessment ‘‘Human and
Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal
Combustion Wastes.’’ The peer review
was conducted by a team of five experts
in groundwater modeling,
environmental fate and transport
modeling, and human health and
ecological risk assessment. EPA has
revised its risk assessment based on the
peer review comments. Results of the
peer review and the revised risk
assessment are included in the docket to
this proposal. Also, see section II.B.
below and the document titled ‘‘What
Are the Environmental and Health
Effects Associated with Disposing of
CCRs in Landfills and Surface
Impoundments?’’ available from the
docket to this notice for more detailed
discussions of the risk assessment.
In summary, since the May 2000
Regulatory Determination, the Agency
has (1) Documented an additional 17
cases of damage from the disposal of
CCRs (13 proven and 3 potential); (2)
gathered additional information on
industry practices; (3) revised its risk
assessment, based on comments
received on the 1999 Report to
Congress, conducted a peer review of
the revised risk assessment, and further
revised its risk assessment based on
peer review comments and comments
received on the August 2007 NODA; (4)
received a voluntary action plan from
the utility industry; (5) received two
petitions for rulemaking from
environmental and citizens groups; and
(6) received a proposal for regulating the
management of CCRs in landfills and
surface impoundments from
environmental and citizens groups. EPA
has considered all of this information in
making the decisions on the proposals
in this notice.
B. CCR Risk Assessment
In making the May 2000 Regulatory
Determination for CCRs, EPA prepared
a draft quantitative risk assessment
based on groundwater modeling.
However, commenters from all sides
raised fundamental scientific questions
with the study, and raised issues that
went beyond groundwater modeling
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
capability at the time. EPA was unable
to address these issues in the available
time, and therefore did not rely on the
draft risk assessment as part of its basis
in making its May 2000 Regulatory
Determination; rather we relied on the
damage cases identified, as well as other
information. In this regard, it is worth
noting that EPA did not conclude that
the available information regarding the
extent or nature of the risks were
equivocal. Rather, EPA noted that we
had not definitively assessed the ground
water risks, due to the criticisms of our
draft risk assessment, but still
concluded that there were ‘‘risks from
arsenic that we cannot dismiss.’’ Largely
what drove the risks in the original risk
assessment were the old units that
lacked liners and ground water
monitoring (for landfills, only 57% of
the units had liners and 85% of the
units had ground water monitoring,
while for surface impoundments, only
26% of the units had liners and only
38% of the units had ground water
monitoring).
Between 2000 and 2006, EPA
addressed public comments and
updated the quantitative risk assessment
for the management of CCRs in landfills
and surface impoundments. The
purpose of the risk assessment is to
identify CCR constituents, waste types,
liner types, receptors, and exposure
pathways with potential risks and to
provide information that EPA can use as
we continue to evaluate the risks posed
by CCRs disposed of in landfills and
surface impoundments. The risk
assessment was designed to develop
national human and ecological risk
estimates that are representative of
onsite CCR management settings
throughout the United States. A revised
draft risk assessment was made
available to the public through the
August 2007 NODA (which is discussed
in other sections of the preamble) and
is available at https://www.regulations.
gov/fdmspublic/component/
main?main=DocumentDetail
&o=090000648027b9cc.
EPA submitted the revised draft risk
assessment report, together with public
comments on the report in response to
the 2007 NODA, to a peer review panel.
EPA completed the risk assessment,
taking into account peer review
comments, in a final report titled
‘‘Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment of Coal Combustion
Wastes,’’ (September 2009). The report,
peer review comments, and EPA’s
response to the peer review comments
are available in the docket for this
proposal.
For purposes of this rulemaking, EPA
defined the target level of protection for
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
human health to be an incremental
lifetime cancer risk of no greater than
one in 100,000 (10¥5) for carcinogenic
chemicals and a hazard quotient of 1.0
for noncarcinogenic chemicals. The
hazard quotient is the ratio of an
individual’s chronic daily dose of a
constituent to the reference dose for that
constituent, where the reference dose is
an estimate of the daily dose that is
likely to be without appreciable risk of
deleterious effects over a lifetime. These
are the target levels that EPA typically
uses in its listing decisions. (See, for
example, the final rule for
Nonwastewaters From Productions of
Dyes, Pigments, and Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Colorants (70 FR 9144) at
https://www.epa.gov/wastes/laws-regs/
state/revision/frs/fr206.pdf.)
The results of this risk assessment
provide further confirmation of the high
risks presented in the mismanagement
of CCRs disposed in landfills and
surface impoundments. The assessment
does confirm that there are methods to
manage CCRs safely, although it calls
into question the reliability of clay
liners, especially in surface
impoundments, and it points to very
high potential risks from unlined
surface impoundments.
Specifically, the revised draft CCR
risk assessment presents results at a
typical exposure (50th percentile), as
well as a high-end exposure (90th
percentile) risk based on a probabilistic
analysis. The revised draft CCR risk
assessment results at the 90th percentile
suggest that the management of CCRs in
unlined or clay-lined waste
management units (WMUs) result in
risks greater than the risk criteria of
10¥5 for excess cancer risk to humans
or an HQ greater than 1 for noncancer
effects to both human and ecological
receptors which are the criteria
generally used in EPA’s listing
determination procedure.26 While still
above the criteria, clay-lined units
tended to have lower risks than unlined
units. However, it was the compositelined units that effectively reduced risks
from all pathways and constituents
below the risk criteria. More
specifically:
Æ For humans exposed via the
groundwater-to-drinking-water
pathway, estimated risks from claylined landfills that dispose of CCRs or
26 EPA’s hazardous waste listing determination
policy is described in the notice of proposed
rulemaking for wastes from the dye and pigment
industries at 59 FR 66075–66077 available at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/1994/
December/Day-22/pr-98.html and in the final rule
for Nonwastewaters From Productions of Dyes,
Pigments, and Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Colorants
(70 FR 9144) at https://www.epa.gov/wastes/lawsregs/state/revision/frs/fr206.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
CCRs co-managed with coal refuse are
lower than those for unlined landfills.
However, the 90th percentile risk
estimates, for arsenic that leaks from
clay-lined landfills are still above the
risk criteria—as high as 1 in 5,000
individual lifetime excess cancer risk.27
When landfills are unlined, estimated
risks above the criteria occur for
antimony and molybdenum, as well as
arsenic (as high as 1 in 2,000 individual
lifetime excess cancer risk). In addition
to arsenic, clay-lined fluidized bed
combustion (FBC) landfills also
presented estimated 90th percentile
risks above the criteria for antimony.
However, unlined FBC landfills differed
in that they were estimated to exceed
the risk criteria only for arsenic.28 At the
50th percentile, only trivalent arsenic
from CCRs codisposed with coal refuse
was estimated to exceed the risk criteria
with cancer risks of 1 in 50,000.
Æ Arsenic and cobalt were the
constituents with the highest estimated
risks for surface impoundments. Claylined surface impoundments were
estimated to present 90th percentile
risks above the criteria for arsenic,
boron, cadmium, cobalt, molybdenum,
and nitrate. The 90th percentile claylined impoundment estimated risks and
hazard quotients (HQs) were as follows:
for arsenic, the estimated risk was as
high as 1 in 140; cobalt’s estimated HQ
as high as 200, while the estimated HQs
for boron, cadmium, molybdenum and
nitrate ranged from 2 to 20. The 90th
percentile unlined surface
impoundment estimates were above the
criteria for constituents that include
arsenic, lead, cobalt and selenium:
estimated arsenic cancer risks are as
high as 1 in 50, and non-cancer effects
estimates for cobalt ranged from an
estimated HQ of 0.9 to 500 depending
on whether CCRs were co-managed with
coal refuse. At the 50th percentile, the
only surface impoundment results
estimated to exceed the risk criteria
were arsenic and cobalt: unlined
impoundments had estimated arsenic
cancer risks as high as 6 in 10,000,
while clay-lined impoundments had
estimated arsenic cancer risks as high as
1 in 5,000. The 50th percentile
noncancer HQs due to cobalt in
drinking water were estimated to be as
high as 20 and 6 for unlined and claylined surface impoundments,
respectively.
Æ Composite liners, as modeled in
this assessment, effectively reduce risks
27 Excess cancer risk means risk in addition to
pre-existing, ‘‘background’’ risk from other
exposures.
28 Unlined FBC landfills showed less risk as
modeled; note that the number of FBC landfills
modeled was very small (seven).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
35145
from all constituents to below the risk
criteria for both landfills and surface
impoundments at the 90th and 50th
percentiles.
Æ The model generally predicts that
groundwater risks will occur centuries
later for landfills than for surface
impoundments. For the groundwater-todrinking water pathway for unlined
landfills, arrival times of the peak
concentrations at a receptor well peaked
in the hundreds or thousands of years,
while unlined surface impoundment
risks typically peaked within the first
100 years. Clay liners resulted in later
arrival of peak risks, nearly always in
the thousands of years for landfills but
still in the first few hundred years for
surface impoundments. Finally, while
composite liners often resulted in a
failure of the plume to reach
groundwater wells, composite-lined
landfills with plumes that were
estimated to reach groundwater wells
eventually had peak arsenic-ingroundwater concentrations at
approximately 10,000 years, while
composite-lined surface impoundments’
plumes peaked in the thousands of
years.
Æ For humans exposed via the
groundwater-to-surface-water (fish
consumption) pathway, unlined and
clay-lined surface impoundments were
estimated to pose risks above the criteria
at the 90th percentile. For CCRs
managed alone in surface
impoundments, these exceedances came
from selenium (estimated HQs of 3 and
2 for unlined and clay-lined units,
respectively). For CCRs co-managed
with coal refuse, these exceedences
came from arsenic (3 in 100,000 and 2
in 100,000 estimated excess cancer risks
for unlined and clay-lined units,
respectively). All 50th percentile surface
impoundment risks are estimated to be
below the risk criteria. No constituents
pose estimated risks above the risk
criteria for landfills (including FBC
landfills) at the 90th or 50th percentile.
Æ EPA also conducted a separate draft
fugitive dust screening assessment
which indicates that, without fugitive
dust controls, there could be
exceedances of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for fine
particulate matter in the air at
residences near CCR landfills.29 The
1998 risk assessment 30 also showed
risks from inhalation of chromium in
fugitive dust but at levels below the
criteria.31
EPA recognizes that there are
significant uncertainties in national risk
assessments of this nature, although it
did attempt to address potential
uncertainties through Monte Carlo and
sensitivity analyses. Uncertainties
discussed in the revised risk assessment
include:
• The locations and characteristics of
currently operating facilities;
• The failure to account for direct
discharges to surface water;
• Changing conditions over the
10,000-year period modeled;
• Shifting populations and ecological
receptors;
• Additive risks from multiple
constituents or multiple pathways;
• Clean closure of surface
impoundments;
• The speciation and bioavailability
of constituents;
• The effect of compacting CCRs
before disposal;
• The assumption that all disposal
units are above the water table;
• Full mixing of the groundwater
plume;
• The choice of iron sorbent in the
soil;
• The appropriateness of the leachate
data used and the treatment of
nondetects;
• The distance to receptor wells and
surface water bodies; and
• The potential conservativeness of
human health benchmarks.
The Agency, however, does solicit
comment on several specific aspects of
the underlying risk assessment. In
particular, EPA requests comment on
whether clay liners designed to meet a
1x10¥7 cm/sec hydraulic conductivity
might perform differently in practice
than modeled in the risk assessment.
Thus, EPA solicits specific data on the
hydraulic conductivity of clay liners
associated with CCR disposal units. In
addition to the effectiveness of various
liner systems, the hydraulic
conductivity of coal ash can be reduced
with the appropriate addition of
moisture followed by compaction to
attain 95% of the standard Proctor
29 EPA’s decision to address fugitive dust was
based on a peer review comment to the draft Risk
Assessment, stakeholder NODA comments,
photographic documentation of fugitive dust
associated with the hauling and disposal of CCRs,
Agency efforts to control fugitive dust emissions
from the TVA Kingston spill (see e.g., https://
www.epakingstontva.com/
EPA%20Air%20Audits%20and%20Reviews/
Kingston%20Fly%20Ash%20-
%20EPA%20Audit.pdf), and OSHA’s requirement
for MSDS sheets for coal ash.
30 Non-Groundwater Pathways, Human Health
and Ecological Risk Analysis for Fossil Fuel
Combustion Phase 2 (FFC2): Draft Final Report
(https://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/
special/fossil/ngwrsk1.pdf).
31 All chromium present in the particulate matter
was assumed to be in the more toxic, hexavalent
form.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35146
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
maximum dry density value.32 This
concept, it has been reported, could
potentially be taken further with the use
of compaction coupled with the
addition of organosilanes. According to
recent studies, organosilanes could take
the hydraulic conductivity to zero.33
EPA solicits comments on the
effectiveness of such additives,
including any analysis that would
reflect long-term performance, as well as
the appropriateness of a performance
standard that would allow such control
measures in lieu of composite liners.
EPA has also observed that surface
impoundments are often placed right
next to surface water bodies which may
present complex subsurface
environments not considered by the
groundwater model, and therefore EPA
seeks data on the distance of surface
impoundments to water bodies, site
specific groundwater risk analysis
which accounts for the presence of a
nearby surface water body, and
groundwater monitoring data associated
with such sites.
In characterizing CCRs and utilizing
such data for the risk analysis, EPA
gathered a variety of data over a long
period of time. As a general matter, EPA
finds these data to be an accurate
characterization, and that the values are
in line with recent studies EPA has
conducted to characterize new air
pollution controls. However, with
respect to a few of the highest surface
impoundment porewater concentrations
(for arsenic in particular), questions
have been raised regarding the
representativeness of these individual
data points. In one case, a facility with
the highest arsenic pore water
concentration (86.0 mg/L) involved
values that were measured in a section
of a surface impoundment where coal
refuse (defined as coal waste from coal
handling, crushing, and sizing
operations) was disposed of at the water
surface. Pore water samples taken in the
coal ash sediment beneath the coal
refuse involved concentrations of
arsenic as low as 0.003 mg/L. Thus,
there is the question of whether those
pore water samples measured in the
32 The standard and modified Proctor compaction
tests (ASTM D 698 and D 1557 respectively) are
used to determine the maximum achievable density
of soils and aggregates by compacting the soil or
aggregate in a standardized mould at a standardized
compactive force. The maximum dry density value
(or maximum achievable dry density value) is
determined by dividing the mass of the compacted
material (weight divided by the gravitational force)
by the volume of the compacted material.
33 ‘‘Organo-silane Chemistry: A Water Repellant
Technology for Coal Ash and Soils,’’ John L.
Daniels, Mimi S. Hourani, and Larry S. Harper,
2009 World of Coal Ash Conference. Available at
https://www.flyash.info/2009/025-daniels2009.pdf
and in the docket to this proposal.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
coal refuse represent what leaches out of
the bottom of the surface impoundment.
The next highest arsenic values (an
average of 5.37 mg/L over 4 samples
with the highest concentration being
15.5 mg/L) came from site CASJ (known
as SJA in the EPRI report). The concern
is that arsenic in the pore water was
orders of magnitude higher than in the
pond water. That type of change doesn’t
appear to occur for other constituents in
these samples or for arsenic in samples
from other surface impoundments. EPA
recently attempted to obtain further
information that could assist us to better
characterize these specific data, but the
data are old, the impoundment is no
longer in operation, and there are
apparently no additional records upon
which to draw conclusions.
Additional high concentration values,
especially for lead, are associated with
ash data provided by Freeman United
Mining, which acquired ash for a
minefilling project. None of this ash
data is associated with electric utilities,
but rather with other coal combusters
such as John Deere, American
Cyanamid, and Washington University
in St. Louis, Missouri. The Agency is
uncertain whether the high lead levels
are associated with lead levels in the
source coal, the operations at these
facilities, or whether other wastes were
mixed with the CCRs.
While these concerns are associated
with a small fraction of the data, these
data reflect the highest concentrations,
and thus can be important
considerations in the risk analysis.
Based on the above concerns, EPA
solicits comment on several questions.
• For the highest concentrations in
EPA’s database, such as the examples
mentioned above, are there values that
do not appropriately represent leaching
to groundwater, and if so, why not?
• Are there any additional data that
are representative of CCR constituents
in surface impoundment or landfill
leachate (from literature, state files,
industry or other sources) that EPA has
not identified?
• EPA understands that the disposal
practices associated with coal refuse in
surface impoundments may have
improved based on the development of
an industry guide.34 EPA solicits
information on the degree to which coal
refuse management practices have
changed since the issuance of the guide
and the impacts of those changes (e.g.,
have concentrations of arsenic been
reduced in leach samples that have been
34 Guidance for Comanagement of Mill Rejects at
Coal-Fired Power Plants, Electric Power Research
Institute, 1999. Available in the docket to this
proposal.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
taken at facilities operating in concert
with the industry guide).
• For CCR surface impoundments, are
there any examples of pore water
concentrations for arsenic increasing
orders of magnitude over pond water
concentrations?
For more detailed discussions of the
CCR risk assessment, see the document
titled: ‘‘What Are the Environmental and
Health Effects Associated with
Disposing of CCRs in Landfills and
Surface Impoundments?’’ and the report
titled ‘‘Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes’’
which are included in the docket to this
notice.
C. Damage Cases
Under the Bevill Amendment for the
‘‘special waste’’ categories of RCRA, EPA
was statutorily required to examine
‘‘documented cases in which danger to
human health or the environment from
surface runoff or leachate has been
proved’’ from the disposal of coal
combustion wastes (RCRA Section
8002(n)). The criteria used to determine
whether danger to human health and
the environment has been proven are
described in detail in the May 2000
Regulatory Determination at 65 FR
32224.35
At the time of the May 2000
Regulatory Determination, the Agency
was aware of 11 documented cases of
proven damage to ground water and 36
cases of potential damage to human
health and the environment from the
improper management of CCRs in
landfills and surface impoundments.
Additionally, the Agency determined
that another four cases were
documented cases of ecological
damages.36 However, for the May 2000
Regulatory Determination, EPA did not
consider these ecological damage cases
because all involved some form of
discharge from waste management units
to nearby lakes or creeks that would be
subject to the Clean Water Act
regulations. Moreover, EPA concluded
that the threats in those cases were not
substantial enough to cause large scale,
system level ecological disruptions. On
review, EPA has concluded that the
ecological damage cases are appropriate
for consideration because, while they
might involve CWA violations, they
nevertheless reflect damages from CCR
disposal that might be handled under
RCRA controls. And, while they may or
may not have involved ‘‘systems-level’’
35 For definition of ‘‘proven damage case,’’ see
section C in the Supplementary Information
section.
36 Ecological damages are damages to mammals,
amphibians, fish, benthic layer organisms and
plants.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
disruption, they were significant enough
to lead to state response actions, e.g.,
fish advisories. EPA now believes that
ecological damages warranting state
environmental response are generally
appropriate for inclusion as damage
cases, and to fail to include them would
lead to an undercounting of real and
recognized damages. Accordingly, at the
time of the May 2000 Regulatory
Determination, in total, 15 cases of
proven damages had occurred.
Subsequently, one of the 15 proven
damage cases has been reclassified as a
potential damage case, resulting in a
total of 14 proven cases of damage, as
of the May 2000 Regulatory
Determination.
Since the May 2000 Regulatory
Determination, additional damage cases,
including ecological damage cases, have
occurred, and were discussed in the
August 2007 NODA. Specifically, EPA
has gathered or received information on
135 alleged damage cases. Six of the
alleged damage cases have been
excluded from this analysis because
they involved minefills, a management
method which is outside the scope of
this proposal, while sixty-two of the
damage cases have not been further
assessed because there was little or no
information supporting the concerns
identified. Of the remaining 67 damage
cases evaluated, EPA determined that 24
were proven cases of damage (which
includes the 14 proven damage cases
from the May 2000 Regulatory
Determination); of the 24 damage cases,
eight were determined to be proven
damages to surface water and sixteen
were determined to be proven damages
to ground water, with four of the cases
to groundwater being from unlined
landfills, five coming from unlined
surface impoundments, one was from a
surface impoundment where it was
unclear whether it was lined, and the
remaining six cases coming from
unlined sand and gravel pits. Another
43 cases (which includes the 36
potential damage cases from the May
2000 Regulatory Determination) were
determined to be potential damages to
groundwater or surface water; however,
four of the potential damage cases were
attributable to oil combustion wastes
and thus are outside the scope of this
proposal; therefore, resulting in 39 CCR
potential damage cases. The remaining
10 alleged damage cases were not
considered to be proven or potential
damage cases due to a lack of evidence
that damages were uniquely associated
with CCRs; therefore, they were not
considered to be CCR damage cases.
Finally, within the last couple of
years, EPA has learned of an additional
five cases of claimed damage. Two of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
the cases involve the structural failure
of the surface impoundment; i.e., dam
safety and structural integrity issues, a
pathway which EPA did not consider at
the time of the May 2000 Regulatory
Determination. These cases are (1) a 0.5
million cubic yard release of water and
fly ash to the Delaware River at the
Martin’s Creek Power Plant in
Pennsylvania in 2005, leading to a
response action costing $37 million, and
(2) the catastrophic failure of a dike at
TVA’s Kingston, Tennessee facility,
leading to the release of 5.4 million
cubic yards of fly ash sludge over an
approximately 300 acre area and into a
branch of the Emory River, followed by
a massive cleanup operation overseen
by EPA and the state of Tennessee. EPA
classifies these as proven damage cases.
Another case involved the failure of a
discharge pipe at the TVA Widows
Creek plant in Stevenson, Alabama,
resulting in a 6.1 million gallon release
from an FGD pond, leading to $9.2
million in cleanup costs. EPA did not
classify this as a damage case, because
samples at relevant points of potential
exposure did not exceed applicable
standards. Two other cases involved the
placement of coal ash in large scale fill
operations. The first case, the BBBS
Sand and Gravel Quarries in Gambrills,
Maryland, 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 for contouring
of a golf course. Groundwater
contamination above drinking water
levels 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
consider this site a proven damage case.
However, due to the onsite groundwater
contamination, EPA considers this site
to be a potential damage case. Thus, the
Agency has classified three of the five
new cases as proven damage cases, one
as a potential damage case, and the
other as not being a damage case (i.e.,
not meeting the criteria to be considered
either a proven or potential damage
case). This brings the total number of
proven damage cases to 27 and 40
potential cases of damage from the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35147
mismanagement of CCRs being
disposed.
The Martins Creek and TVA Kingston
fly ash impoundment failures
underscore the need for surface
impoundment integrity requirements. In
the case of the Martins Creek failure, 0.5
million cubic yards of fly ash slurry was
released into the Delaware River when
a dike failed. Fortunately, there are no
homes in the path of the release and all
the damage was confined to power plant
property and the Delaware River. On the
other hand, the 5.4 million cubic yards
of fly ash sludge released as a result of
the TVA Kingston impoundment failure
covered an area of approximately 300
acres, flowed into a branch of the Emory
River, disrupted power, ruptured a gas
line, knocked one home off its
foundation and damaged others.
Fortunately, there were no injuries.
While much of our risk modeling
deals with ground water contamination,
based on historical facts, EPA
recognizes that failures of large CCR
impoundments can lead to catastrophic
environmental releases and large
cleanup costs. It is critical to understand
as well, however, that the structural
integrity requirements and the
requirements for conversion or
retrofitting of existing or new
impoundments are designed to avoid
such releases and that the benefits of
avoiding such catastrophic failures are
very significant. As discussed in more
detail in Section XII of today’s proposal
and as fully explained in our Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA), EPA estimated
the benefits of avoiding the future
cleanup costs of or impoundment
failures. Depending on the regulatory
option chosen, the annualized benefits
range from $29 million to $1,212
million per year, and the net present
value of these ranges from $405 million
to $16,732 million. In addition, the RIA
did not quantify or monetize several
other additional benefits consisting of
future avoided social costs associated
with ecological and socio-economic
damages. These include avoided
damages to natural resources, damages
to property and physical infrastructure,
avoided litigation costs associated with
such events, and reduction of toxic
chemical-contaminated effluent
discharges from impoundments to
surface waters.
In December 2009, EPA received a
new report from EPRI challenging our
conclusions on many of the proven
damage cases often noting that there
was not significant off-site
contamination.
The report, ‘‘Evaluation of Coal
Combustion Product Damage Cases
(Volumes 1 and 2), Draft Report,
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35148
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
November 2009,’’ is available in the
docket to this proposal. EPA solicits
comments on EPRI’s report and
welcomes additional data regarding the
proven damage cases identified by EPA,
especially the degree to which there was
off-site contamination.
EPA notes that several stakeholders
have very recently identified additional
claimed damage cases, and the agency
has not had the time to review them
closely.37 Similarly, other stakeholders
have recently provided valuable
information on CCR risks, costs of
different possible options, and
characterization data, which EPA has
also not had time to review in detail or
to respond to. Generally, these reports
include information that is relevant to
today’s proposal. EPA will review this
information carefully as we proceed to
a final rule, and we encourage
commenters on the proposal to consider
this material, which EPA has placed in
the rulemaking docket, as they prepare
comments.
For a more detailed discussion of the
damage cases, see the Appendix to this
notice, the table ‘‘Summary of Proven
Cases with Damages to Groundwater
and to Surface Water’’ at the end of the
Appendix, and the document ‘‘Coal
Combustion Wastes Damage Case
Assessments’’ available at https://
www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/
component/
main?main=DocumentDetail&d=EPAHQ-RCRA-2006-0796-0015.
III. Overview and Summary of the
Bevill Regulatory Determination and
the Proposed Subtitle C and Subtitle D
Regulatory Options
In today’s notice, EPA is reevaluating
its August 1993 and May 2000 Bevill
Regulatory Determinations regarding
CCRs generated at electric utilities and
independent power producers. In the
May 2000 determination, EPA
concluded that disposal of CCRs did not
warrant regulation under RCRA subtitle
C as a hazardous waste, but did warrant
federal regulation as a solid waste under
subtitle D of RCRA. However, EPA
never issued federal regulations under
subtitle D of RCRA for CCRs. (As noted
previously, today’s proposal could
result in the development of subtitle D
standards consistent with the May 2000
Regulatory Determination, or with a
revision of the determination, or the
issuance of subtitle C standards under
RCRA.) Today, EPA is reconsidering
37 On February 24, the Environmental Integrity
Project and EarthJustice issued a report on 31 ’new’
alleged CCRs damage cases which is available at:
https://www.environmentalintegrity.org/
news_reports/documents/OutofControlMountingDamagesFromCoalAshWasteSites.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
this determination, and is soliciting
comments on two alternative options:
(1) to reverse the Bevill determination
(with respect to disposal of CCRs in
surface impoundments and landfills),
and regulate such CCRs as special
wastes under RCRA subtitle C, and (2)
to leave the Bevill determination in
place and regulate CCRs going to
disposal under federal RCRA subtitle D
standards. Today’s co-proposal provides
regulatory text for both options.
In determining whether or not to
exclude a Bevill waste from regulation
under RCRA subtitle C, EPA must
evaluate and weigh eight factors. In
section IV. B. of this preamble, EPA
discusses CCRs from electric utilities in
light of these factors, and we highlight
the considerations that might lead us to
reversing the August 1993 and May
2000 Regulatory Determinations (and
therefore regulate CCR disposal under
RCRA subtitle C), or to leave the
determination in place (and regulate
CCR disposal under RCRA subtitle D).
At the same time, EPA continues to
believe the Bevill exclusion should
remain in place for CCRs going to
certain beneficial uses, because of the
important benefits to the environment
and the economy from these uses, and
because the management scenarios for
these products are very different from
the risk case being considered for CCR
disposal in surface impoundments and
landfills. EPA makes it clear that CCRs
in sand and gravel pits, quarries, and
other large fill operations is not
beneficial use, but disposal. As such, it
would be regulated under whichever
option is finalized. EPA solicits
comments, however, on whether
unencapsulated uses of CCRs warrant
tighter federal control.
A. Summary of Subtitle C Proposal
In combination with its proposal to
reverse the Bevill determination for
CCRs destined for disposal, EPA is
proposing to list as a special waste,
CCRs from electric utilities and
independent power producers when
destined for disposal in a landfill or
surface impoundment. These CCRs
would be regulated under the RCRA
subtitle C rules (as proposed to be
amended here) from the point of their
generation to the point of their final
disposition, which includes both during
and after closure of any disposal unit. In
addition, EPA is proposing that all
existing units that have not closed in
accordance with the criteria outlined in
this proposal, by the effective date of the
final rule, would be subject to all of the
requirements of subtitle C, including the
permitting requirements at 40 CFR parts
124 and 270. As such, persons who
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
generate, transport and treat, store or
dispose of CCRs would be subject to the
existing cradle-to-grave subtitle C waste
management requirements at 40 CFR
parts 260 through 268, parts 270 to 279,
and part 124 including the generator
and transporter requirements and the
requirements for facilities managing
CCRs, such as siting, liners (with
modification), run-on and run-off
controls, groundwater monitoring,
fugitive dust controls, financial
assurance, corrective action, including
facility-wide corrective action, closure
of units, and post-closure care (with
certain modifications). In addition,
facilities that dispose of, treat, or, in
many cases, store, CCRs also would be
required to obtain permits for the units
in which such materials are disposed,
treated, and stored. EPA is also
considering and seeking comment on a
modification, which would not require
the closure or installation of composite
liners in existing surface
impoundments; rather, these surface
impoundments could continue to
operate for the remainder of their useful
life. The rule would also regulate the
disposal of CCRs in sand and gravel
pits, quarries, and other large fill
operations as a landfill.
To address the potential for
catastrophic releases from surface
impoundments, we also are proposing
requirements for dam safety and
stability for impoundments that, by the
effective date of the final rule, have not
closed consistent with the requirements.
Finally, we are proposing land disposal
restrictions and treatment standards for
CCRs, as well as a prohibition on the
disposal of treated CCRs below the
natural water table.
B. Summary of Subtitle D Proposal
In combination with its proposal to
leave the Bevill determination in place,
EPA is proposing to regulate CCRs
disposed of in surface impoundments or
landfills under the RCRA subtitle D
requirements, which would establish
national criteria to ensure the safe
disposal of CCRs in these units. The
units would be subject to, among other
things, location standards, composite
liner requirements (new landfills and
surface impoundments would require
composite liners; existing surface
impoundments without liners would
have to retrofit within five years, or
cease receiving CCRs and close);
groundwater monitoring and corrective
action for releases from the unit
standards; closure and post-closure care
requirements; and requirements to
address the stability of surface
impoundments. We solicit comments on
requiring financial assurance and on
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
how the requirements apply to surface
impoundments that continue to receive
CCRs after the effective date of the rule;
specifically, EPA is requesting comment
on an alternative under which existing
surface impoundments would be
allowed to continue to operate without
requiring the facility to retrofit the unit
to install a composite liner. The rule
would also regulate the disposal of
CCRs in sand and gravel pits, quarries,
and other large fill operations as a
landfill. The rule would not regulate the
generation, storage or treatment of CCRs
prior to disposal. Because of the scope
of subtitle D authority, the rule would
not require permits, nor could EPA
enforce the requirements. Instead, states
or citizens could enforce the
requirements under RCRA citizen suit
authority; the states could also enforce
any state regulation under their
independent state enforcement
authority.
EPA is also considering, and is
seeking comment on, a potential
modification to the subtitle D option,
called ‘‘D prime.’’ Under the ‘‘D prime’’
option, existing surface impoundments
would not have to close or install
composite liners but could continue to
operate for their useful life. In the ‘‘D
prime’’ option, the other elements of the
subtitle D option would remain the
same.
IV. Bevill Regulatory Determination
Relating to CCRs From Electric Utilities
As discussed in the preceding
sections, EPA originally conditioned its
May 2000 Regulatory Determination on
continued review of, among other
factors, ‘‘the extent to which [the wastes]
have caused damage to human health or
the environment; and the adequacy of
existing regulation of the wastes.’’ (See
65 FR 32218.) Review of the information
developed over the past ten years has
confirmed EPA’s original risk concerns,
and has raised significant questions
regarding the accuracy of the Agency’s
predictions regarding anticipated
improvements in management and state
regulatory oversight of these wastes.
Consequently, the Agency has
determined that reconsideration of its
May 2000 Regulatory Determination is
appropriate, and is revaluating whether
regulation of CCRs under RCRA subtitle
C is necessary in light of the most recent
information. The scientific analyses,
however, are complex and present
legitimate questions for comment and
further consideration. Thus, while EPA
has concluded that federal regulation of
this material is necessary, the Agency
has yet not reached a conclusion as to
whether the Bevill determination
should be revised, or whether regulation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
under RCRA subtitle C or D is
appropriate, but is soliciting comments
on the two options described in the
previous section.
As stated earlier, EPA’s application of
its discretion in weighing the eight
Bevill factors—and consequently our
ultimate decision—will be guided by
the following principles. The first is that
EPA’s actions must be protective of
human health and the environment.
Second, any decision must be based on
sound science. Finally, in conducting
this rulemaking, EPA will ensure that its
decision processes are transparent, and
encourage the greatest degree of public
participation. Consequently, to further
the public’s understanding and ability
to comment on the issues facing the
Agency, EPA provides an extensive
discussion of the technical issues
associated with the available
information, as well as the policy
considerations and the key factors that
will weigh in the Agency’s ultimate
decision.
A. Basis for Reconsideration of May
2000 Regulatory Determination
EPA decided in May 2000 that
regulation under RCRA subtitle C was
not warranted in light of the trends in
present disposal and utilization
practices, the current and potential
utilization of the wastes, and the
concerns expressed against duplication
of efforts by other federal and state
agencies. In addition, EPA noted that
the utility industry has made significant
improvements in its waste management
practices with respect to new
management units over recent years,
and most state regulatory programs are
similarly improving. In particular, EPA
noted that, of the new units constructed
between 1985 and 1995, 60% of the new
surface impoundments were lined and
65% had groundwater monitoring.
Further, the risk information available
was limited, although we also noted that
we expected that the limited number of
damage cases identified in the
Regulatory Determination was an
underestimate. However, EPA did not
conclude that the available information
regarding the extent or nature of the
risks were equivocal. However, the
Agency noted that ‘‘* * * we identified
a potential for risks from arsenic that we
cannot dismiss * * *.’’ 38 EPA further
noted that ‘‘[i]n the absence of a more
complete groundwater risk assessment,
we are unable at this time to draw
quantitative conclusions regarding the
risks due to arsenic or other
38 See 65 FR 32216 at https://www.epa.gov/
epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ff2ffr.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35149
contaminants posed by improper waste
management.’’ Existing older units that
lacked liners and groundwater
monitoring (for surface impoundments,
only 26% of all units had liners and
only 38% of all units had groundwater
monitoring) were the major risk drivers
in the study.
As discussed in greater detail in
section II.B, EPA has revised the draft
quantitative risk assessment made
available when it solicited public
comment on the 1999 Report to
Congress to account for the concerns
raised by the public during the public
comment period. The results of these
risk analyses show that certain
management practices—the disposal of
both wet and dry CCRs in unlined waste
management units, but particularly in
unlined surface impoundments, and the
prevalence of wet handling, can pose
significant risks to human health and
the environment from releases of CCR
toxic constituents to ground water and
surface water. The Agency has
estimated that there are approximately
300 CCR landfills and 584 CCR surface
impoundments or similar management
units in use at roughly 495 coal-fired
power plants. (Data also indicate that a
small number of utilities dispose of
CCRs off-site, typically near the
generating utility.) Many of these
units—particularly surface
impoundments—lack liners and
groundwater monitoring systems. EPA’s
revised CCR risk assessment 39
estimated the cancer risk from arsenic 40
that leaches into groundwater from
CCRs managed in units without
composite liners to exceed EPA’s typical
risk thresholds of 10¥4 to 10¥6. For
example, depending on various
assumptions about disposal practices
(e.g., whether CCRs are co-disposed
with coal refuse), groundwater
interception and arsenic speciation, the
90th percentile risks from unlined
surface impoundments ranged from
2×10¥2 to 1×10¥4. The risks from claylined surface impoundments ranged
from 7×103 to 4×10¥5. Similarly,
estimated risks from unlined landfills
ranged between 5×10¥4 to 3×10¥6, and
39 ‘‘Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of
Coal Combustion Wastes,’’ (April 2010).
40 The risk estimates for arsenic presented in the
revised risk assessment are based on the existing
cancer slope factor of 1.5 mg/kg/d¥1 in EPA’s
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
However, EPA is currently evaluating the arsenic
cancer slope factor and it is likely to increase. In
addition, the National Resources Council (NRC) of
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) made new
recommendations regarding new toxicity
information in the NRC document, ‘‘Arsenic in
Drinking Water, 2001 Update.’’ Using this NRC data
analysis, EPA calculated a new cancer slope factor
of 26 mg/kg/d¥1 which would increase the
individual risk estimates by about 17 times.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35150
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
from 2×10¥4 to 5×10¥9 for clay-lined
landfills. EPA’s risk assessment also
estimated HQs above 1 for other metals,
including selenium and lead in unlined
and clay-lined units. EPA also notes in
this regard that recent research indicates
that traditional leach procedures (e.g.,
TCLP and SPLP) may underestimate the
actual leach rates of toxic constituents
from CCRs under different field
conditions.
Recent events also have demonstrated
that, if not properly controlled, these
wastes have caused greater damage to
human health and the environment than
EPA originally estimated in its risk
assessments. On December 22, 2008, a
failure of the northeastern dike used to
contain fly ash occurred at the
dewatering area of the TVA’s Kingston
Fossil Plant in Harriman, Tennessee.
Subsequently, approximately 5.4
million cubic yards of fly ash sludge
was released over an approximately 300
acre area. The ash slide disrupted
power, ruptured a gas line, knocked one
home off its foundation and damaged
others. A root-cause analysis report
developed for TVA, accessible at
https://www.tva.gov/kingston/rca/
index.htm, established that the dike
failed because it was expanded by
successive vertical additions, to a point
where a thin, weak layer of fly ash
(‘slime’) on which it had been founded,
failed by sliding. The direct costs to
clean up the damage from the TVA
Kingston incident are well into the
billions, and is currently estimated to
exceed $1.2 billion.41
Although the TVA spill was the
largest, it was not the only damage case
to involve impoundment stability. A
smaller, but still significant incident
occurred in August 2005, when a gate in
a dam confining a 40-acre CCR surface
impoundment in eastern Pennsylvania
failed. The dam failure, a violation of
the facility’s state-issued solid waste
disposal permit and Section 402 of the
41 $3.0 billion is EPA’s ‘‘social cost’’ estimate
assigned in the April 2010 RIA to the December
2008 TVA Kingston, TN impoundment release
event. Social cost represents the opportunity costs
incurred by society, not just the monetary costs for
cleanup. OMB’s 2003 ‘‘Circular A–4: Regulatory
Analysis’’ (page 18) instructs Federal agencies to
estimate ‘‘opportunity costs’’ for purpose of valuing
benefits and costs in RIAs. This $3.0 billion social
cost estimate is larger than TVA’s $933 million to
$1.2 billion cleanup cost estimate (i.e., TVA’s
estimate as of 03 Feb 2010), because EPA’s social
cost estimate consists of three other social cost
elements in addition to TVA’s cleanup cost
estimate: (a) TVA cleanup cost, (b) response,
oversight and ancillary costs associated with local,
state, and other Federal agencies, (c) ecological
damages, and (d) local (community) socio-economic
damages. Appendix Q to the April 2010 RIA
provides EPA’s documentation and calculation of
these four cost elements, which total $3.0 billion in
social cost.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
Clean Water Act, resulted in the
discharge of 0.5 million cubic yards of
coal-ash and contaminated water into
the Oughoughton Creek and the
Delaware River.
Moreover, documented cases of the
type of damage that EPA originally
identified to result from improper
management of CCR have continued to
occur, leading EPA to question whether
the risks that EPA originally identified
have been sufficiently mitigated since
our May 2000 Regulatory
Determination. As discussed in more
detail below, and in materials contained
in the docket, there is a growing record
of proven damage cases to groundwater
and surface water, as well as a large
number of potential damage cases. Since
the May 2000 Regulatory Determination,
EPA has documented an additional 13
proven damage cases and 4 potential
damage cases.
Further, recently collected
information regarding the existing state
regulatory programs 42 calls into
question whether those programs, in the
absence of national minimum standards,
have sufficiently improved to address
the gaps that EPA had identified in its
May 2000 Regulatory Determination
such that EPA can continue to conclude
that in the absence of federal oversight,
the management of these wastes will be
adequate to protect human health and
the environment. Many state regulatory
programs for the management of CCRs,
including requirements for liners and
groundwater monitoring, are lacking,
and while industry practices may be
improving, EPA continues to see cases
of inappropriate management or cases in
which key protections (e.g.,
groundwater monitoring at existing
units) are absent. Although the joint
DOE and EPA study entitled, Coal
Combustion Waste Management at
Landfills and Surface Impoundments,
1994–2004, indicates that most new
units appear to be better designed, in
that they are lined and have installed
groundwater monitoring systems, and
therefore the total percentages of
unprotected units have decreased, it
appears that a large amount of waste is
still being disposed into units that lack
the necessary protections of liners, and
groundwater monitoring. Furthermore,
while corrective action has generally
been taken at the proven damage cases,
the RCRA regulatory program is
designed to prevent contamination in
the first place, if at all practicable, rather
than one in which contamination is
42 ASTSWMO Survey Conducted Feb.—Mar.
2009 (Excel spreadsheet) available in the docket for
this proposal.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
simply remedied after discovery.43 This
information also highlights that EPA
still lacks details regarding the manner
and degree to which states are
regulating the management of this
material. All of these factors emphasize
the need for prompt federal rulemaking
and have led EPA to reconsider its May
2000 Regulatory Determination.
In sum, as a result of the significant
new information accumulated on two of
the four considerations specifically
identified in the May 2000 Regulatory
Determination (65 FR 32218), the
Agency has determined that
reevaluation of its original conclusions
in light of all of the RCRA Section
8002(n) study factors is necessary.
Based on its consideration of these
statutory factors, EPA has not yet
reached a decision on whether to revise
the Bevill Regulatory Determination.
Rather, EPA has summarized the
information available for each of the
factors, and identifies those
considerations on which EPA believes
that critical information is lacking.
Accordingly, EPA is soliciting further
information and public input on each of
these considerations that will factor into
the Agency’s determination as to
whether regulation under RCRA subtitle
C or D is warranted.
As stated previously and as fully
explained in Section XII of today’s
proposal and in our Regulatory Impact
Analysis, our proposed requirements for
surface impoundment structural
stability and conversion or retrofitting of
units, will have substantial benefits in
avoided future clean up costs.
B. RCRA Section 8002(n) Study Factors
Section 8002(n) of RCRA requires the
Administrator to conduct a detailed and
comprehensive study and submit a
report on the adverse effects on human
health and the environment, if any, of
the disposal and utilization of fly ash
waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste, flue
gas emission control waste, and other
by-product materials generated
primarily from the combustion of coal
or other fossil fuels. The study was to
include an analysis of the eight factors
required under section 8002(n) of
RCRA. EPA addressed these study
factors in the 1988 and 1999 Reports to
43 As noted in Appendix I on Damage Cases, of
the 16 proven cases of damages to groundwater, the
Agency has been able to confirm that corrective
actions have been completed in seven cases and are
ongoing in the remaining nine cases. Corrective
action measures at these CCR management units
vary depending on site specific circumstances and
include formal closure of the unit, capping, regrading of ash and the installation of liners over the
ash, groundwater treatment, ground-water
monitoring, installation of a barrier wall, and
combinations of these measures.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Congress. The findings of these two
Reports to Congress were the basis for
our decisions in the August 1993 and
the May 2000 Regulatory
Determinations to maintain the Bevill
exemption for CCRs. In considering
whether to retain or to reverse the
August 1993 and May 2000 Regulatory
Determinations regarding the Bevill
exemption of CCRs destined for
disposal, we have reexamined the RCRA
section 8002(n) study factors against the
data on which we made the May 2000
Regulatory Determination, as well as the
most recent data we have available.
1. Source and volumes of CCR
generated per year: In the mid-1990s,
according to various sources, between
62 and 71 million tons of CCRs were
generated by coal-fired electric power
plants.44 In comparison, much larger
volumes are being generated now
(primarily due to the increase in coalfired power plants), with 136 million
tons of CCRs generated by coal-fired
electric power plants in 2008.45
2. Present disposal and utilization
practices: In 2008, 34% (46 million
tons) of CCRs were landfilled, 22% (29.4
million tons) were disposed into surface
impoundments,46 nearly 37% (50.1
million tons) were beneficially used
(excluding minefill operations), and
nearly 8% (10.5 million tons) were
placed in mines. This compares to
approximately 23% (26.2 million tons)
landfilled, 46% (53.2 million tons)
disposed of into surface impoundments,
23% beneficially used (excluding
minefill operations), and 8% (9 million
tons) placed in mines in 1995. Thus,
while the overall volume of CCRs going
to disposal in surface impoundments
and landfills has remained relatively
constant, the total volume going to
surface impoundments has decreased,
and the total volume going to landfills
has increased.
The Agency has estimated that there
are approximately 300 CCR landfills and
584 CCR surface impoundments or
similar management units in use at
roughly 495 coal-fired power plants.
The age of the disposal units varies
considerably. For example, while there
are new surface impoundments, 75%
are greater than 25 years old, with 10%
being greater than 50 years old.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
44 Cited
in ‘‘Technical Background Document for
the Report to Congress on Remaining Wastes from
Fossil Fuel Combustion: Industry Statistics and
Waste Management Practices,’’ March 1999.
45 ACAA (American Coal Ash Association). 2009.
2008 Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production &
Use Survey Report. https://acaa.affiniscape.com/
associations/8003/files/
2008_ACAA_CCP_Survey_Report_FINAL_100509.
46 Estimated from the 2009 ACAA survey and
Energy Information Administration 2005 F767
Power Plant database.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
Similarly, information from an EPRI
survey used in the 1999 Report to
Congress indicates that the average
planned life expectancy of a landfill is
approximately 31 years, with about 12%
having planned life expectancy over 50
years (with one planning for over 100
years). Many of these units—
particularly surface impoundments, lack
liners and ground water monitoring
systems. EPA has estimated that in
2004, 31% of the CCR landfills and 62%
of the CCR surface impoundments
lacked liners, and 10% of the CCR
landfills and 58% of the CCR surface
impoundments lacked groundwater
monitoring.47 In the mid-1990s, there
were approximately 275 CCR landfills
and 286 CCR surface impoundments in
use.48 EPA does not believe the
increased number of surface
impoundments identified in today’s rule
reflects an actual change of practice, but
rather more stringent definitions, as
well as possibly, the greater availability
of more accurate information. For
example, much of the increase in
surface impoundments likely results
from counting units that receive
wastewater that has been in contact
with even small amounts of coal ash,
and thus includes many units which
were not included in EPA’s mid-1990
estimates.
a. Existing State Regulatory Oversight.
The results of the joint DOE and EPA
study entitled, Coal Combustion Waste
Management at Landfills and Surface
Impoundments, 1994–2004 indicates
that of the states evaluated in this
report, state regulations have generally
improved since 2000. In addition, it
would appear that the industry itself is
changing and improving its
management practices. For example, all
new surface impoundments and nearly
all new landfills (97%) identified in the
survey that were constructed between
1994 and 2004 were constructed with
liners. Regarding the prevalence of
groundwater monitoring at new units,
the joint DOE/EPA study suggests that
nearly all new landfills (98%) and most
new surface impoundments (81%)
constructed between 1994 and 2004
were constructed with groundwater
monitoring systems. Moreover, the
frequency of dry handling in landfills
appears to have increased;
approximately two-thirds of the new
units are landfills, while the remaining
one-third are surface impoundments.
47 Estimated from the 1995 data reported in the
May 2000 Regulatory Determination and the data
for new units from 1994 to 2004 reported in the
2006 DOE/EPA report ‘‘Coal Combustion Waste
Management at Landfills and Surface
Impoundments, 1994–2004.’’
48 Technical Background Document, Ibid.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35151
The number of new units from 1994 to
2004 was 56. Assuming that
replacement continued at a rate of 5.6
per year since 2004, we would have an
additional 34 new units, but it would
still be decades at this rate to replace the
large collection of older units.
The DOE/EPA study also identifies
significant gaps that remain under
existing state regulation. For example,
only 19% (3 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 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 CCRs generated is potentially
entirely exempt from the state solid
waste permitting requirements 49 (EPA/
DOE Report at pages 45–46). For
example, Alabama does not currently
regulate CCR disposal under any state
waste authority and does not currently
have a dam safety program (although the
state has an initiative to develop one).
Texas (the largest coal ash producer)
does not require permits for waste
managed on-site.50 Tennessee currently
does not regulate surface impoundments
under its waste authority, but is now
reconsidering this, in light of the TVA
spill. Finally, a number of states only
regulate surface impoundments under
Clean Water Act authorities, and
consequently primarily address the risks
from effluent discharges to navigable
waters, but do not require liners or
groundwater monitoring.
The Agency recognizes that these
statistics may be difficult to interpret
due to the limitations of the study. The
study focused on only eleven states,
which account for approximately half
the CCRs generated in the U.S., and it
may not address all of the existing
regulatory requirements that states may
or could impose through other
authorities to control these units. As one
example, the DOE/EPA report notes that
four of the six states that do not require
solid waste permits rely on other state
authorities to regulate these units: ‘‘In
49 38.7 million tons of out of 129 million tons
generated CCRs (Based on DOE/EIA 2004 data).
50 In Texas, on-site means the same or
geographically contiguous property which may be
divided by public or private rights-of-way, provided
the entrance and exit between the properties is at
a cross-roads intersection, and access is by crossing,
as opposed to going along, the right-of-way.
Noncontiguous properties owned by the same
person but connected by a right-of-way which he
controls and to which the public does not have
access, is also considered on-site property. (Title 30
TAC 335.1)
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35152
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Florida, if CCWs are disposed in an onsite landfill at a coal-fired electric
generating plant authorized under the
Florida Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA),
no separate permits, including solid
waste construction and operation
permits, are required. Instead, the entire
facility is covered under the PPSA
certification, which will contain the
same substantive requirements as would
otherwise have been imposed by other
permits.’’ (EPA/DOE Report at page 46).
The DOE/EPA report identified whether
states tightened, relaxed, or were neutral
with regard to program changes. From
the time of the 1999 Report to Congress
to 2005, most all programs were neutral,
with a couple of programs tightening
requirements and none relaxing
requirements. Going back to the period
of the 1988 Report to Congress to 2005,
two states (Alabama and Florida) are
reported to have relaxed portions of
their standards, while not tightening
any other portions of their program. Part
of the difficulty in interpreting this
information stems from the fact that the
survey responses contained little or no
details of the state requirements; rather,
the responses merely indicated (by
checking a box) whether states imposed
some sort of requirement relating to the
issue. Consequently, the Agency lacks
detailed information on the content of
the requirements, and whether, for
example, performance based
requirements or other state programs are
used to address the risks from these
units. EPA also received detailed
comments on this report authored by
several environmental groups, who
criticized several of the general
conclusions. These comments are
included in the rule docket (see
comment attachment submitted by
Marty Rustan on behalf of Lisa Evans,
Attorney, Earthjustice; EPA–HQ–RCRA–
2006–0796–0446.5).
A more recent survey conducted by
the Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials
(ASTSWMO) seems to support the view
that the states still have not yet
adequately implemented regulatory
programs over CCR management units,
although like the DOE/EPA study, it
lacks details on the substance of the
state requirements. According to a 2009
ASTSWMO survey of states with coal
ash generation 51 (available in the
docket), of the 42 states with coal fired
utilities, at least 36 have permit
programs for landfills used to manage
CCRs, and of the 36 states that have CCR
surface impoundments, 25 have permit
programs. Permitting is particularly
51 ASTSWMO Survey Conducted Feb.–Mar. 2009
(Excel spreadsheet).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
important to provide oversight and to
approve implementation plans such as
the placement of groundwater
monitoring wells. Without a state permit
program, regulatory flexibility is
limited, and certification by an
independent registered professional
engineer is necessary. With regard to
liner requirements, 36% (15 of the 42
states that responded to this question)
do not have minimum 52 liner
requirements for CCR landfills, while
67% (24 of the 36 states that responded
to this question) do not have CCR liner
requirements for surface
impoundments. Similarly, 19% (8 of the
42 states that responded to this
question) do not have minimum
groundwater monitoring requirements
for landfills and 61% (22 of the 36 states
that responded to this question) do not
have groundwater monitoring
requirements for surface
impoundments.53 These findings are
particularly significant as groundwater
monitoring for these kinds of units is a
minimum for any credible regulatory
regime. The 2009 ASTSWMO survey
also indicates that only 36 percent of the
states regulate the structural stability of
surface impoundments, and only 31
percent of the states require financial
assurance for surface impoundments.
Because structural stability of surface
impoundments is largely regulated by
state dam safety programs which are
separate from state solid waste
programs, EPA recognizes that
information from the dam safety
programs would be a much more
meaningful measure of state regulation
of the structural stability of surface
impoundments, and solicits such
information.
Thus, while the states seem to be
regulating landfills to a greater extent,
given the significant risks associated
with surface impoundments, these
results suggest that there continue to be
significant gaps in state regulatory
programs for the disposal of CCRs. (See
Letter from ASTSWMO to Matt Hale
dated April 1, 2009, a copy of which is
in the docket to today’s proposed rule
for complete results of the survey.)
EPA is also aware of some additional
information from ASTSWMO. There are
15 states (Colorado, Florida, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,
52 For both landfills and surface impoundments,
most of the states that responded to questions
addressing their liner and groundwater monitoring
program provisions had less stringent requirements,
e.g., allowing variance, exemption, or a case-by-case
evaluation. In the absence of state-specific
information, we are unable to translate these
statistics into a concrete number of affected waste
units.
53 Additionally, the July 2009 Petition pointed
out deficiencies in state regulatory programs.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia) that were
considering changes to their CCR
regulations at the time of the
ASTSWMO survey (February 2009). In
late November 2009, ASTSWMO also
identified 15 states (Arizona, Delaware,
Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maryland, Mississippi, North Dakota,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington,
Wisconsin, and West Virginia) that had
revised their CCR requirements since
2000. Finally, ASTSWMO identified 8
states (Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
South Carolina) which are requiring
groundwater monitoring at existing
facilities that previously did not have
groundwater monitoring.
Several issues complicate this
assessment, however. As noted
previously, EPA lacks any real details
regarding how states, in practice,
oversee the management of these
materials when treated as wastes. For
example, some states may use
performance based standards or
implement requirements to control CCR
landfills and surface impoundments
under other state programs. Also, most
of the new data primarily focuses on the
requirements applicable to new
management units, which represent
approximately 10% of the disposal
units. EPA has little, if any information,
that describes the extent to which states
and utilities have implemented
requirements—such as groundwater
monitoring, for existing units, for the
many landfills and surface
impoundments that receive CCRs. The
information currently in the record with
respect to existing units is fifteen years
old. EPA expects that it would be
unlikely that states would have required
existing units to install liners, states
would have been more likely to have
imposed groundwater monitoring for
such units over the last 15 years.
Finally, as discussed in the next section,
the fact that many of the surface
impoundments are located adjacent to
water bodies—which is not accounted
for in EPA’s groundwater risk
assessment—may affect our assessment
of the extent of the liner and
groundwater monitoring requirements
that would be necessary. Therefore, EPA
solicits detailed comments specifically
on the current management practices of
state programs, not only under state
waste authorities, but under other
authorities as well. The adequacy of
state regulation is one of the key issues
before the Agency, as it will address
some of the more significant questions
remaining regarding the extent of the
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
risks presented by the disposal of CCRs.
Accordingly, the Agency specifically
solicits information, whether from state
regulatory authorities or from members
of the public, regarding details on the
entire state regulatory structure,
including the specific requirements that
states have in place to regulate CCRs,
and to provide oversight of these units.
EPA would also welcome more detailed
information regarding the states’ historic
practice in implementing its existing
requirements, including for example,
the states’ record of enforcement and its
practice in providing for public
participation in the development and
implementation of any existing
permitting requirements. EPA is
particularly interested in information on
the extent to which states have
implemented requirements applicable to
the older, existing units, which
represent the majority of the units into
which CCRs are currently disposed
(approximately 90%). EPA also requests
information on the extent to which
EPA’s current information adequately
reflects changes in industry practices,
adopted independent of state
requirements.
b. Beneficial Use. In the May 2000
Regulatory Determination, EPA stated:
‘‘The Agency has concluded that no
additional regulations are warranted for
coal combustion wastes that are used
beneficially (other than for minefilling)
and for oil and gas combustion wastes.
We do not wish to place any
unnecessary barriers on the beneficial
use of fossil fuel combustion wastes so
that they can be used in applications
that conserve natural resources and
reduce disposal costs.’’ (65 FR 32214)
(See separate discussion regarding
minefilling in section IV. E of this
preamble.) EPA identified specific
beneficial uses as covered by the May
2000 determination. In particular, EPA
stated that: ‘‘Beneficial purposes include
waste stabilization, beneficial
construction applications (e.g., cement,
concrete, brick and concrete products,
road bed, structural fill, blasting grit,
wall board, insulation, roofing
materials), agricultural applications
(e.g., as a substitute for lime) and other
applications (absorbents, filter media,
paints, plastics and metals manufacture,
snow and ice control, waste
stabilization).’’ (See 65 FR 32229) These
beneficial uses are described in more
detail in EPA’s Report to Congress on
Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil
Fuels in March 1999 (see Volume 2,
Section 3.3.5).
Since EPA’s Regulatory Determination
in May 2000, there has been a
significant increase in the use of CCRs
and the development of established
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
commercial sectors that utilize and
depend on the beneficial use of CCRs.
Additional uses have been identified;
for example, the use of CCRs as
ingredients in specific products, such as
resin-bound products or mineral filler in
asphalt. New applications of CCRs have
been developed, which may hold great
green house gas (GHG) benefits (for
example, fly ash bricks and a process to
use CO2 emissions to produce cement).
Further, EPA expects that uses could
shift in the future because the
composition and characteristics of CCRs
are likely to change due to the addition
of new air pollution controls at coalfired utilities. (See section IV. D. below
for a more detailed discussion on the
beneficial use of CCRs.)
3. Potential danger, if any, to human
health and the environment from the
disposal and reuse of CCRs:
a. From Disposal. The contaminants
of concern in CCRs include antimony,
arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, nickel,
selenium, silver and thallium. Potential
human exposure pathways for these
contaminants from the disposal of CCRs
are ground water ingestion, inhalation,
and the consumption of fish exposed to
contaminants. Ecological impacts
include surface water contamination,
contamination of wetlands, and aquatic
life exposure to contaminants of
concern. As discussed in section II. B,
V., and the Regulatory Impact Analysis,
the risks modeled for the 2010 risk
assessment often exceeded EPA’s
typical regulatory levels of concern.
With very few exceptions, the risks
modeled for the 2010 risk assessment
correspond with ground water
exceedances of constituents observed in
EPA’s damage case assessments (e.g.,
arsenic, boron, cadmium, lead,
molybdenum, and selenium were
modeled and found to exceed the risk
criteria in at least some instances, and
were also found in at least some of the
damage cases). Additionally, as
discussed in section I.F.2, the potential
exists for the chemical characteristics of
certain CCRs (e.g., fly ash and FGD) to
increase, which could result in
increases in releases from management
units, particularly if such wastes are
placed in old unlined units, as a result
of the increased use and application of
advanced air pollution control
technologies in coal-fired power plants.
Further details on the results of EPA’s
quantitative groundwater risk
assessment, and the technical issues
that remain to be addressed, and on the
unquantified human and ecological
risks can be found in section II and in
the Regulatory Impact Analysis for
today’s proposal.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35153
EPA also conducted a population risk
assessment for the groundwater-arsenic
pathway, as a complement to the
individual risk analysis. While the
RCRA program necessarily focuses on
individual risks, and individual risks
have been the basis of previous Bevill
and hazardous waste determinations,
the population risk estimate provides
perspective, and was used to develop
the Agency’s cost benefit analyses of
different regulatory approaches
(discussed in section XII.A of this
preamble). In this analysis, EPA
calculated a best estimate that current
risks from arsenic via the groundwater
used as drinking water pathway are
2,509 total excess cancers, over a 75year period.54 (A 75-year period was
used in this analysis to capture peak
risk while the RIA generally covers 50
years.) These estimates are based on a
cancer slope factor which represents the
most recent science derived from a 2001
National Resources Council review of
arsenic toxicity. It should be noted that
the analysis did not include risks from
other pathways or constituents, as
explained in section 5A of the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for this
proposal.
Of the approximately 584 surface
impoundments currently operating in
the United States, a certain percentage
of these 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 recent CERCLA
104(e) information request letters 109
impoundments have either a high or
significant hazard potential rating,55
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: 56 units are
older than 50 years, 96 are older than 40
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
54 Chapter 5, Page 121 of the Regulatory Impact
Analysis for this proposal.
55 429 of these impoundments currently have no
rating. Thus, the Agency expects the number of
surface impoundments with a high or significant
hazard rating may increase as additional
impoundments are assigned ratings. See the
definitions in the Summary section of this notice
for the definitions of high and significant hazard
potential.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35154
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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. Further,
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. Additional details
regarding these releases can be found in
the docket for this rulemaking. EPA
continues its assessments of CCR
surface impoundments. The most recent
information on these can be found on
EPA’s internet site at https://
www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/
industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/
index.htm#surveyresults.
b. From Beneficial Use. The risks
associated with the disposal of CCRs
stem from the specific nature of that
activity and the specific risks it
involves; that is, the disposal of CCRs in
(often unlined) landfills or surface
impoundments, with hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of tons
placed in a single concentrated location.
And in the case of surface
impoundments, the CCRs are managed
with water, under a hydraulic head,
which promotes more rapid leaching of
contaminants into neighboring
groundwater than do landfills. The
beneficial uses identified as excluded
under the Bevill amendment for the
most part present a significantly
different picture, and a significantly
different risk profile.
In 1999 EPA conducted a risk
assessment of certain agricultural uses
of CCRs,56 since the use of CCRs in this
manner was considered the most likely
to raise concerns from a human health
and environmental point of view. EPA’s
risk assessment estimated the risks
associated with such uses to be within
the range of 1×10¥6. The results of the
risk assessment, as well as EPA’s belief
that the use of CCRs in agricultural
settings was the most likely use to raise
concerns, resulted in EPA concluding
that none of the identified beneficial
uses 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 these uses of coal
combustion wastes present a significant
risk to human health or the
56 1998
Draft Final Report; Non-groundwater
Pathways, Human Health and Ecological Risk
Analysis for Fossil Fuel Combustion Phase 2 (FFC2)
and its appendices (A through J); available at
https://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/
fossil/fsltech.htm.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
environment.’’ (65 FR 32230, May 22,
2000.) EPA also cited the importance of
beneficially using secondary materials
and of resource conservation, as an
alternative to disposal.
To date, EPA has still seen no
evidence of damages from the beneficial
uses of CCRs that EPA identified in its
original Regulatory Determination. For
example, there is wide acceptance of the
use of CCRs in encapsulated uses, such
as wallboard, concrete, and bricks
because the CCRs are bound into
products. The Agency believes that such
beneficial uses of CCRs offer significant
environmental benefits.
As we discuss in other sections of this
preamble, there are situations where
large quantities of CCRs have been used
indiscriminately as unencapsulated,
general fill. The Agency does not
consider this a beneficial use under
today’s proposal, but rather considers it
waste management.
Environmental Benefits
The beneficial use of CCRs offers
significant environmental benefits,
including greenhouse gas (GHG)
reduction, energy conservation,
reduction in land disposal (i.e.,
avoidance of potential CCR disposal
impacts), and reduction in the need to
mine and process virgin materials and
the associated environmental impacts.
Specifically:
Greenhouse Gas and Energy Benefits.
The beneficial use of CCRs reduces
energy consumption and GHG
emissions in a number of ways. One of
the most widely recognized beneficial
applications of CCRs is the use of coal
fly ash as a substitute for Portland
cement in the manufacture of concrete.
Reducing the amount of cement
produced by beneficially using fly ash
as a substitute for cement leads to large
supply chain-wide reductions in energy
use and GHG emissions.57 For example,
fly ash typically replaces between 15
and 30 percent of the cement in
concrete, although the percentages can
and have been higher. However,
assuming a 15 to 30 percent fly ash to
cement replacement rate, and
considering the approximate amount of
cement that is produced each year,
would result in a reduction of GHG
emissions by approximately 12.5 to 25
million tons of CO2 equivalent and a
reduction in oil consumption by 26.8 to
53.6 million barrels of oil.58 This
57 Waste and Materials-Flow Benchmark Sector
Report: Beneficial Use of Secondary Materials—
Coal Combustion Products, February 12, 2008.
58 Avoided GHG and energy saving estimates
based on energy and environmental benefits
estimates in the EPA report entitled, ‘‘Study on
Increasing the Usage of Recovered Mineral
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
estimate is likely to underestimate the
total benefits that can be achieved. As
an added benefit, 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.
Benefits From Reducing the Need To
Mine and Process Virgin Materials.
CCRs can be substituted for many virgin
materials that would otherwise have to
be 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 them, 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.
Benefits From Reducing the Disposal
of CCRs. Beneficially using CCRs
instead of disposing of them 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.
disposed of over 75 million tons of
CCRs in landfills and surface
impoundments in 2008, which is
equivalent to the space required of
26,240 quarter-acre home sites under 8
feet of CCRs.
While the Agency recognizes the need
for regulations for the management of
CCRs in landfills and surface
impoundments, we strongly support the
beneficial use of CCRs in an
environmentally sound manner because
of the significant environmental benefits
that accrue both locally and globally. As
discussed below in section XII.A, the
current beneficial use of CCRs 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,
Components in Federally Funded Projects Involving
Procurement of Cement or Concrete’’ available at
https://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/epg/pdf/
rtc/report4-08.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
beneficially using CCRs as a substitute
for industrial raw materials contributes
(a) $4.89 billion per year in energy
savings, (b) $0.081 billion per year in
water savings, (c) $0.239 billion per year
in GHG 59 (i.e., carbon dioxide and
methane) emissions reduction, and (d)
$17.8 billion per year in other air
pollution reduction. In addition, these
applications also result in annual
material and disposal cost savings of
approximately $2.93 billion. All
together, the beneficial use of CCRs
provides $25.9 billion in annual
national economic and environmental
benefits (relative to 2005 tonnage).60
However, as discussed in the next
section, there are cases where large
quantities of CCRs have been ‘‘used’’
indiscriminately as unencapsulated
‘‘fill,’’ e.g., to fill sand and gravel pits or
quarries, or as general fill (e.g., Pines,
Indiana and the Battlefield Golf Course
in Chesapeake, Virginia 61). Although
EPA does not consider these practices to
be legitimate beneficial uses, others
classify them as such. In any case, EPA
has concluded that these practices raise
significant environmental concerns.
4. Documented cases in which danger
to human health or the environment
from surface runoff or leachate has been
proved: As described previously, EPA
has 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
59 The RIA monetizes the annual tonnage of
greenhouse gas effects associated with the CCR
beneficial use life cycle analysis, based on the 2009
interim social cost of carbon (i.e., interim SCC) of
Table III.H.6–3, page 29617 of the joint EPA and
DOT–NHTSA ‘‘Proposed Rulemaking to Establish
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards,’’ Federal Register, Volume 74, No. 186,
28 Sept 2009. The value applied in the RIA is the
$19.50 per ton median value from the $5 to $56 per
ton range displayed in the 2007 column in that
source. Furthermore, the RIA updated the 2007$
median value from 2007 to 2009 dollars using the
NASA Gross Domestic Product Deflator Inflation
Calculator at https://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/
inflateGDP.html. EPA is aware that final SCC values
were published on March 9, 2010 in conjunction
with a Department of Energy final rule. EPA intends
to use the final SCC values for the CCR final rule
RIA. The final SCC values are published in the
Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency &
Renewable Energy Building Technologies Program,
‘‘Small Electric Motors Final Rule Technical
Support Document: Chapter 16—Regulatory Impact
Analysis,’’ March 9, 2010 at https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/commercial/
sem_finalrule_tsd.html).
60 These benefits estimates are further discussed
in Chapter 5C of the RIA which is available in the
docket for this proposal.
61 These instances are associated with 7 proven
damage cases and 1 potential damage case.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
unit, it is unknown whether there was
a liner. We have also identified 40
potential damage cases to groundwater
and surface water. These numbers
compare to 14 proven damage cases and
36 potential cases of damage when the
Agency announced its Regulatory
Determination in May 2000. The Agency
believes that these numbers likely
underestimate the number of proven
and potential damage cases and that it
is likely 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.
Several of the new damage cases
involve activities that differ from prior
damage cases, which were focused on
groundwater contamination from
landfills and surface impoundments.
These new cases present additional risk
concerns that EPA did not evaluate in
the May 2000 Regulatory Determination.
Specifically, some of the recent proven
damage cases involved the catastrophic
release due to the structural failure of
CCR surface impoundments, such as the
dam failures that occurred in Martins
Creek, Pennsylvania and Kingston,
Tennessee.
In addition, a number of proven
damage cases involve the large-scale
placement, akin to disposal, of CCRs,
under the guise of ‘‘beneficial use.’’ The
‘‘beneficial use’’ in these cases involved
the filling of old, unlined quarries or
gravel pits, or the regrading of landscape
with large quantities of CCRs. For
example, the 216-acre Battlefield Golf
Course was contoured with 1.5 million
yards of fly ash to develop the golf
course. In late 2008, groundwater and
surface water sampling was conducted.
There were exceedances of primary
drinking water standards in on-site
groundwater for contaminants typically
found in fly ash. In addition, there were
exceedances of secondary drinking
water standards in both on-site and offsite groundwater (in nine residential
wells); however, the natural levels of
both manganese and iron in the area’s
shallow aquifer are very high (0.14 mg/
L to 0.24.mg/L and 5.0 mg/L to 13.0 mg/
L, respectively), and, thus, it could not
be ruled out that the elevated levels of
manganese and iron are a result of the
natural background levels of these two
contaminants. Surface water samples
showed elevated levels of aluminum,
chromium, iron, lead, manganese, and
thallium in one or more on-site samples.
The lone off-site surface water sample
had elevated levels of aluminum, iron,
and manganese. In April 2010 EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35155
issued a Final Site Inspection Report 62
which concluded that (i) metals
contaminants were below MCLs and
Safe Drinking Water Act action levels in
all residential wells that EPA tested; (2)
the residential well data indicate that
metals are not migrating from the fly ash
to residential wells; and (iii) there are
no adverse health effects expected from
human exposure to surface water or
sediments on the Battlefield Golf Course
site as the metal concentrations were
below the ATSDR standards for
drinking water and soil. Additionally,
the sediments samples in the ponds
were below EPA Biological Technical
Assistance Group screening levels and
are not expected to pose a threat to
ecological receptors. Similarly,
beginning in 1995, the BBBS sand and
gravel quarries in Gambrills, Maryland,
used fly ash and bottom ash from two
Maryland power plants to fill excavated
portions of two sand and gravel
quarries. Groundwater samples
collected in 2006 and 2007 from
residential drinking water wells near the
site indicated that, in certain locations,
contaminants, including heavy metals
and sulfates, were present at or above
groundwater quality standards. Private
wells in 83 homes and businesses in
areas around the disposal site were
tested. MCLs were exceeded in 34 wells
[arsenic (1), beryllium (1), cadmium (6),
lead (20),63 and thallium (6)]. SMCLs
were exceeded in 63 wells [aluminum
(44), manganese (14), and sulfate (5)].
The state concluded that leachate from
the placement of CCRs at the site
resulted in the discharge of pollutants to
waters of the state.
Further details on these additional
damage cases are provided in section
II. C (above), and in the Appendix to
this notice.
As mentioned in section II.C, during
the development of this proposal, EPA
received new reports from industry and
citizen groups regarding damage cases.
Industry provided information that, they
suggested, shows that many of EPA’s
listed proven damage cases do not meet
EPA’s criteria for a damage case to be
proven. On the other hand, citizen
groups recently identified additional
alleged damage cases. The Agency has
not yet had an opportunity to evaluate
this additional information. EPA’s
analysis, as well as the additional
information from industry and citizen
groups, all of which is available in the
docket to this proposed rule, would
62 https://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/CurrentIssues/
finalr-battlefield_golf_club_site/redacted_DTN_
0978_Final_Battlefield_SI_Report.pdf.
63 It is uncertain whether lead exceedances were
due to CCRs or lead in the plumbing and water
holding tanks.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35156
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
benefit from public input and further
review, in the interest of reaching a
more complete understanding of the
nature and number of damage cases.
EPA encourages commenters to consider
all of these analyses in developing their
comments.
5. Alternatives to current disposal
methods: There are no meaningful
disposal alternatives other than land
disposal. Improved disposal
management practices are practical (e.g.,
liners, groundwater monitoring, dust
control), although EPA has not
identified meaningful or practical
treatment options prior to disposal,
other than dewatering. (There are,
however, available technologies, or
technologies under development, to
process CCRs now likely destined for
disposal so that they can effectively be
converted to appropriate beneficial
uses.) The beneficial use of these
materials as products continues to be an
important alternative to disposal.
6. The cost of such alternative
disposal methods: The Agency has
estimated the nationwide costs to the
electric utility industry (or to electric
rate payers) for each alternative
considered for this proposal. These
estimates are discussed in the regulatory
impact analysis presented within
section XII.A of this preamble.
7. The impact of the alternative
disposal methods on the use of coal and
other natural resources: The alternative
disposal methods mentioned above are
not expected to impact the use of coal
or other natural resources. However, we
would note that some surface
impoundments at coal-fired utilities are
also used as wastewater treatment
systems for other non-CCR wastewaters.
Therefore, if facilities switch from wet
to dry handling of CCRs, construction of
alternative wastewater treatment
systems could become necessary for
other non-CCR wastewaters, especially
if they involved acidic wastes that are
currently neutralized by the coal ash.
(Note that the issue of beneficial uses of
CCRs is discussed below; if the effect of
a subtitle C approach is to increase
beneficial uses, it could lead to a
decrease in the use of virgin materials
like ingredients in cement making,
aggregate, mined gypsum, etc. On the
other hand, if the effect of that approach
were to decrease beneficial uses, as
some commenters suggested, it would
have the opposite effect on the use of
natural resources.)
8. The current and potential
utilization of CCRs: In 2008, nearly 37%
(50.1 million tons) of CCRs were
beneficially used (excluding minefill
operations) and nearly 8% (10.5 million
tons) were placed in minefills. (This
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
compares to 23% of CCRs that were
beneficially used, excluding minefilling,
at the time of the May 2000 Regulatory
Determination, and represents a
significant increase.)
Parties have commented that any
regulation of CCRs under RCRA subtitle
C will impose a crippling stigma on
their beneficial use, and eliminate or
significantly curtail these uses, even if
EPA were to regulate only CCRs
destined for disposal, without
modifying the regulatory status of
beneficial reuse. On the other hand,
other parties have commented that
increasing the cost of disposal of CCRs
through regulation under subtitle C will
actually increase their usage in nonregulated beneficial uses, simply as a
result of the economics of supply and
demand. States, at the same time, have
commented that, by operation of state
law, the beneficial use of CCRs would
be prohibited under the states’
beneficial use programs, if EPA
designated CCRs as hazardous waste
when disposed of in landfills or surface
impoundments. At the time of the May
2000 Regulatory Determination,
commenters had raised this similar
concern, and without agreeing that
regulation under RCRA subtitle C would
necessarily affect the beneficial reuse of
this material, EPA nevertheless strongly
expressed concern that beneficial use
not be adversely affected.
EPA is interested in additional
information supporting the claims that
‘‘stigma’’ will drive people away from
the use of valuable products, or that
states will prohibit the reuse of CCRs
under their beneficial use programs if
EPA regulates any aspect of CCR
management under subtitle C.
Specifically, the Agency requests that
commenters provide analyses and other
data and information that demonstrate
this to be the case. To date, we have
received statements and declarations
that regulation under subtitle C will
have devastating effects on beneficial
uses of CCRs. In addition, for those
commenters who suggest that regulating
CCRs under subtitle C of RCRA would
raise liability issues, EPA requests that
commenters describe the types of
liability and the basis, data, and
information on which these claims are
based. The issue of beneficial use and
stigma are more fully discussed in
section VI, where we discuss the
alternative of regulating CCRs under
subtitle C of RCRA. EPA would also be
interested in suggestions on methods by
which the Agency could reduce any
stigmatic impact that might indirectly
arise as a result of regulation of CCRs
destined for disposal as a ‘‘special’’
waste under RCRA subtitle C.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
C. Preliminary Bevill Conclusions and
Impact of Reconsideration
The Agency is proposing two different
approaches to regulating CCRs:
Regulation as a ‘‘special’’ waste listed
under RCRA subtitle C if EPA decides
to lift the Bevill exemption with respect
to disposal; and regulation as a solid
waste under RCRA subtitle D, if the
Bevill exemption is retained for
disposal. Under both of these
approaches, requirements for liners and
groundwater monitoring would be
established, although there are
differences with respect to the other
types of requirements that can be
promulgated by EPA under RCRA
subtitle C and D. In addition, as
discussed in greater detail below, one of
the primary differences between the
various approaches relates to the degree
and extent of federal oversight, as this
varies considerably between the
alternatives. As noted previously, EPA
has not yet reached a decision on
whether to regulate CCRs under RCRA
subtitle D or C, but continues to
evaluate each of these options in light
of the 8002(n) factors.
In determining the level of regulation
appropriate for the management of
CCRs, several considerations weigh
heavily with the Agency; information on
these issues will therefore be important
for commenters to consider as they
prepare their comments. One
particularly critical question relates to
the extent of the risks posed by the
current management of this material,
along with the corresponding degree of
Federal oversight and control necessary
to protect human health and the
environment. As discussed in the
preceding sections, since EPA’s
Regulatory Determination in May 2000,
new information has called into
question EPA’s original assessment of
the risks posed by the current
management of CCRs that are disposed
of. In summary, this includes (1) The
results of EPA’s 2010 risk assessment,
which indicates that certain
management practices—particularly
units without composite liners and the
prevalence of wet handling can pose
significant risks; (2) the growing record
of proven damage cases to ground water
and surface water, as well as a large
number of potential damage cases; (3)
recent events, which have demonstrated
that these wastes have caused greater
damage to human health and the
environment than originally estimated
(i.e., catastrophic environmental
impacts from surface impoundment
breaches, and damage resulting from
‘‘sham beneficial uses’’); and (4)
questions regarding the adequacy of
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
state regulatory programs for the
management of CCRs, as many states
appear to lack key protective
requirements for liners and groundwater
monitoring and a permitting program to
ensure that such provisions are being
properly implemented, even though
overall industry practices appear to be
improving. All of these considerations
illustrate that in many cases CCRs have
not been properly managed. The
question is whether federal regulation is
more appropriate under subtitle C or
subtitle D of RCRA.
Several significant uncertainties
remain with respect to all of the
identified considerations. For example,
as discussed previously, the data and
analyses associated with this proposal
are complex, and several uncertainties
remain in EPA’s quantitative risk
analysis. One of these uncertainties is
the evolving character/composition of
CCRs due to electric utility upgrades
and retrofits needed to comply with the
emerging CAA requirements, which
could present new or otherwise
unforeseen contaminant issues (e.g.,
hexavalent chromium from post-NOX
controls). Other uncertainties relate 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, and the extent to which
releases from surface impoundments
located in close proximity to water
bodies intercept drinking water wells.
For example, as explained earlier in the
preamble, 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. There are also
technical issues associated with releases
from surface impoundments located in
close proximity to water bodies which
intercept 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.
As mentioned previously, EPA has
received additional reports on damage
cases, one from industry and one from
citizen groups. Closer analyses of these
reports could have the potential to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
significantly affect the Agency’s
conclusions.
An equally significant component of
the overall picture, if not more so,
relates to how effectively state
regulatory programs address the risks
associated with improper management
of this material. As discussed earlier in
this preamble, the continued damage
cases and the reports on state regulatory
programs call into question whether the
trend in improving state regulatory
regimes that EPA identified in May 2000
has materialized to the degree
anticipated in the Regulatory
Determination. Although recent
information indicates that significant
gaps remain, EPA continues to lack
substantial details regarding the full
extent of state regulatory authority over
these materials, and the manner in
which states have in practice,
implemented this oversight.
Nevertheless, based on the information
made available on state programs, the
Agency is reticent to establish a
regulatory program without any federal
oversight. Thus, EPA seeks additional
details on regulation of CCRs by states
to ensure that EPA’s understanding of
state programs is as complete as
possible. While EPA recognizes that the
extent of regulation of CCRs varies
between states, EPA is not yet prepared
to draw overall conclusions on the
adequacy of state programs, as a general
matter. EPA is, therefore, requesting that
commenters, and particularly state
regulatory authorities, provide detailed
information regarding the extent of
available state regulatory authorities,
and the manner in which these have
been, and are currently implemented. In
this regard, EPA notes that ‘‘survey’’ type
information that does not provide these
details is unlikely to be able to resolve
the concerns arising from the recent
information developed since the May
2000 Regulatory Determination. EPA is
also soliciting comments on the extent
to which the information currently
available to the Agency reflects current
industry practices at both older and new
units. For example, EPA would be
particularly interested in information
that indicates how many facilities
currently have groundwater monitoring
systems in place, how those systems are
designed and monitored, and what, if
anything, they have detected.
EPA has identified several issues that
will be relevant as it continues to
evaluate the overall adequacy of state
regulatory programs. Specifically, EPA
intends to 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
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35157
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 CCRs; (6)
whether financial responsibility
requirements are in place for the
management of CCRs; (7) the 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, postclosure 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.
Directly related to the level of risk
presented by improper management of
CCRs, EPA is also weighing the differing
levels of Federal oversight and control,
and the practical implementation
challenges, associated with the level
and type of regulation under RCRA
subtitles C and D. In the interest of
furthering the public understanding of
this topic, EPA presents an extensive
discussion of the differences and
concerns raised between regulation
under subtitles C and D of RCRA,
including a comparison of the
advantages and disadvantages of each.
The subtitle C approach proposed
today would provide full national
cradle-to-grave control over CCRs
destined for disposal, consistently
managed under federally enforceable
standards and through federal permits,
or permits issued by the states that EPA
has authorized to regulate CCRs in lieu
of EPA. Permits can be a particularly
important mechanism, because they
allow the regulatory Agency to
scrutinize the design of disposal units
and the management practices of the
permit applicant. They also allow the
regulator to tailor the permit conditions
to the facility site conditions, including
the ability to impose additional specific
conditions where it deems current or
proposed facility practices to be
inadequate to protect human health or
the environment, pursuant to the
omnibus authority in RCRA section
3005(c). Additionally, permitting
processes provide the public and the
local community the opportunity to
participate in regulatory decisions. The
combined requirements under subtitle C
would effectively phase-out all wet
handling of CCRs and prohibit the
disposal of CCRs in surface
impoundments. Moreover, the subtitle C
approach is the only approach that
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35158
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
allows direct federal enforcement of the
rule’s requirements. The many damage
cases, including more recent damage
cases, suggest the value of control and
oversight at the federal level.
At the same time, EPA acknowledges
concerns with a subtitle C approach on
the part of states, the utilities, and users
of CCR-derived products. The states
have expressed concern that any federal
approach, including a subtitle D
approach, has the potential to cause
disruption to the states’ implementation
of CCR regulatory programs under their
own authority. For example, the state of
Maryland has recently upgraded its
disposal standards for CCRs under its
state solid waste authority, and the new
state regulations address the major
points in today’s proposal (except the
stability requirement for impoundments
and the prohibition against surface
impoundments). The state has
expressed concern about having to
revise its regulations again, and repermit disposal units under subtitle C of
RCRA. A subtitle D approach, as
described in today’s proposal, would
eliminate or significantly reduce these
concerns. EPA acknowledges these
concerns, and certainly does not wish to
force the states to go through
unnecessary process steps. EPA
nevertheless solicits comment on this
issue, including more specifics on the
potential for procedural difficulties for
state programs, and measures that EPA
might adopt to try to mitigate these
effects.
Two additional substantive concerns
with regulation of CCRs under subtitle
C have been raised by commenters: the
effect of listing CCRs as hazardous waste
under RCRA on beneficial uses, and the
availability of existing subtitle C landfill
capacity to manage CCRs. As explained
previously, EPA shares the concern that
beneficial uses not be inadvertently
adversely affected by the regulation of
CCRs destined for disposal. EPA
continues to believe that certain
beneficial use, when performed
properly, is the environmentally
preferable destination for these
materials and, therefore, wants to
address any potential stigma that might
arise from designating CCRs as
hazardous wastes. Thus, EPA is seeking
data and information, including detailed
analyses, of why the subtitle C
regulation outlined in today’s proposal
will have the impact that some
commenters have identified. As
explained at length in section VI of this
preamble, EPA believes it can generally
address the concerns that have been
raised regarding the effect of subtitle C
regulation on legitimate beneficial uses
in today’s proposal through several of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
the actions outlined in today’s proposal.
The most important of these is that EPA
is not proposing to revise its May 2000
Regulatory Determination that beneficial
uses retain the Bevill exemption and do
not warrant federal regulation.
Nevertheless, EPA agrees that ‘‘stigma’’
is an important consideration in the
Agency’s decision, and solicits
information and data that will help the
Agency quantify the potential effects of
any stigma arising from association with
CCR disposal regulated under subtitle C.
On the question of hazardous waste
disposal capacity, EPA believes that
management patterns of CCRs will
continue: That landfills and surface
impoundments currently receiving
CCRs will obtain interim status and
convert to RCRA subtitle C status, and
that the proposal will not shift disposal
patterns in a way that substantially
increases the disposal of CCRs off-site
from generating utilities to commercial
hazardous waste landfills. Therefore,
EPA’s regulatory analysis assumes
disposal patterns will remain generally
the same. As commenters have pointed
out, CCRs do, in theory, have the
potential to overwhelm the current
hazardous waste capacity in the United
States. EPA’s Biennial Report indicates
that approximately two million tons of
hazardous waste are disposed of
annually in hazardous waste landfills,
and EPA estimates that the current total
national commercial hazardous waste
landfill disposal capacity is between
23.5 and 30.3 million tons, while the
annual amount of CCRs currently going
to land disposal is 46 million tons (with
an additional 29.4 million tons going to
surface impoundments).64 These figures
illustrate the very large volume of CCR
material involved, and how it could
overwhelm existing subtitle C disposal
capacity. While a DOE survey reports
that 70% of disposal involves ‘‘company
on-site’’ disposal units and 30%
involves ‘‘off-site’’ disposal units, DOE
indicated that off-site disposal capacity
can be company owned or commercial
disposal units. In communications with
USWAG, they indicated, in some cases
smaller facilities may send ash to a
commercial operation, but believed that
is in no way representative of the
industry as a whole. In some cases, the
disposal facility may be operated by a
contractor for the utility, and the
landfill is a captive facility that does not
receive other industrial wastes. At the
same time, EPA points out that, to the
extent that new capacity is needed, the
64 These figures reflect the total current capacity,
not annual capacity. The annual capacity is
significantly less: modifications to annual capacity
would require modifications to existing permits.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
implementation of today’s rule, if the
subtitle C alternative is selected, will
take place over a number of years,
providing time for industry and state
permitting authorities to address the
issue. However, this is an issue on
which EPA would find further
information to be helpful. Therefore,
EPA solicits detailed information on
this topic, to aid in further quantifying
the extent to which existing capacity
may be insufficient. For example, EPA
is interested in detailed information on
the volume of CCRs now going off-site
for disposal; the nature of off-site
disposal sites (e.g., commercial subtitle
D landfills versus dedicated CCR
landfills owned by the utility); and the
amount of available land on utility sites
for added disposal capacity.
Finally, the states have expressed
concern that the RCRA subtitle C
requirements will be considerably more
expensive for them to implement than a
RCRA subtitle D regulation, without
providing commensurate benefits. For
example, the states have reported that
regulation under RCRA subtitle C,
versus subtitle D, would cost them an
additional $17 million per year to
implement. EPA acknowledges the
concern that the RCRA subtitle C
requirements can be costly to
implement, and could put more
pressure on diminishing state budgets.
However, were states to utilize the
subtitle D requirements of today’s
proposal, the cost of implementing a
RCRA subtitle D program will also be
expensive. Thus, EPA is aware of the
pressures on state budgets and will
consider potential impacts when
making a final determination for this
rulemaking. Nevertheless, in the event
that EPA determines that RCRA subtitle
C regulation is warranted, it will be
because EPA has determined that there
are serious environmental and human
health risks that can only be remedied
by regulation under subtitle C. Further,
under the subtitle C scenario, we believe
that most states should be able to
address any shortfalls through
hazardous waste generator or disposal
fees. EPA specifically solicits comments
from states as to the extent to which
such fees would be able to offset the
costs of administering permit,
inspection, and enforcement programs.
EPA notes that its estimates of costs
of compliance with the subtitle C
requirements have increased since its
estimates in the 1999 Report to
Congress; as explained later in this
preamble, EPA believes these costs are
commensurate with the benefits to be
derived from the controls, and that the
costs of regulation under RCRA subtitle
D are substantial as well. For example,
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
one of the major potential costs under
either the subtitle C or subtitle D option
is associated with the required closure
of all existing surface impoundments
that do not meet the rule’s technical
requirements, which EPA is proposing
under both the subtitle C and subtitle D
co-proposals. Further, the technical unit
design and groundwater monitoring
requirements that will effectively
protect human health and the
environment under either option are
quite similar. Finally, EPA is proposing
to modify certain aspects of the RCRA
subtitle C framework to address some of
the practical implementation challenges
associated with applying the existing
regulatory framework to these wastes.
However, commenters have suggested
that EPA has underestimated the costs
of compliance under the subtitle C
requirements upstream of surface
impoundments and landfills (e.g., for
storage). Commenters, however, have
not provided specific cost estimates
associated with storage of CCRs. EPA
specifically solicits substantiating detail
from commenters.
One disadvantage of a RCRA subtitle
C approach, compared to a RCRA
subtitle D approach, is that the subtitle
C approach, in most states, will not go
into effect as quickly as subtitle D. That
is, the subtitle C regulations require an
administrative process before they
become effective and federally
enforceable (except in the two states
that are not authorized to manage the
RCRA program). The RCRA hazardous
waste implementation and authorization
process is described in detail in sections
VII and VIII of this preamble. But to
summarize, federal regulations under
subtitle C would not go into effect and
become federally enforceable until
RCRA-authorized states 65 have adopted
the requirements under their own state
laws, and EPA has authorized the state
revisions. Under the RCRA subtitle C
regulations, when EPA promulgates
more stringent regulations, states are
required to adopt those rules within one
year, if they can do so by regulation, and
two years if required by legislative
action. If a state does not adopt new
regulations promptly, EPA’s only
recourse is to withdraw the entire state
hazardous waste program. If EPA
determines that a subtitle C rule is
warranted, the Agency will place a high
priority on ensuring that states promptly
pick up the new rules and become
authorized, and EPA will work
aggressively toward this end. Three
decades of history in the RCRA
program, however, suggest that this
65 Currently, all but two states are authorized for
the base RCRA program.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
process will take two to five years (if not
longer) for rules to become federally
enforceable.66
At the same time, EPA believes there
may be benefits in a RCRA subtitle D
approach that establishes specific selfimplementing requirements that utilities
and others managing regulated CCRs
would have to comply with, even in the
absence of permitting or direct
regulatory oversight. EPA recognizes
that many of the states have regulatory
programs in place, albeit with varying
requirements, for the disposal of CCRs,
and that industry practices have been
improving. The RCRA subtitle D
approach would complement existing
state programs and practices by filling
in gaps, and set forth criteria for
disposing of CCRs to meet the national
minimum standards that are designed to
address key risks identified in damage
cases and the risk assessment—
including the risk of surface
impoundment failure, which has been
identified as a concern appropriate for
control.
The co-proposed RCRA subtitle D
option is less costly than the coproposed RCRA subtitle C option,
according to EPA’s Regulatory Impact
Assessment. The main differences in the
costs are based on the assumption that
there will be less compliance, or slower
compliance, under a RCRA subtitle D
option. In addition, the industry and
state commenters suggested that a RCRA
subtitle D approach would eliminate
two of their concerns: (1) That a RCRA
subtitle C approach would
inappropriately stigmatize uses of CCRs
that provide significant environmental
or economic benefits, or that (according
to those commenters) hold significant
potential promise, and (2) that the
volume of CCR wastes generated—
particularly if requirements of a RCRA
subtitle C regulation led to more off-site
disposal—would overwhelm existing
subtitle C capacity based on the large
volumes of CCRs that are generated and
would need to be disposed of. It would
also reduce or eliminate expressed
industry concerns about the effect of
RCRA subtitle C requirements on plant
operations, and state concerns related to
the burden of the RCRA subtitle C
permitting process. Related to the
capacity issue, these same commenters
have also suggested that, under the
RCRA subtitle C regulations, future
cleanup of poorly sited or leaking
disposal sites (including historical or
66 In addition, existing facilities would generally
operate under self-implementing interim status
provisions until the state issued a RCRA permit,
which is a several year process, although
presumably the facility might remain under state
solid waste permits, depending on state law.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35159
legacy sites) would be considerably
more expensive, especially where offsite disposal was chosen as the option.
(EPA’s RIA does not quantify this last
issue, but the RIA does discuss two
recent cases as examples; EPA solicits
more detailed comment on this issue,
preferably with specific examples.) As
stated earlier, EPA does not have
sufficient information to conclude that
regulation under RCRA subtitle C will
stigmatize CCRs destined for beneficial
use, for the reasons discussed elsewhere
in today’s preamble, and the Agency
does not at this point have reason to
assume that use of off-site commercial
disposal of CCRs will increase
significantly.
EPA also notes that many of the
requirements discussed above would go
into effect more quickly under RCRA
subtitle D. Under subtitle D of RCRA,
EPA would set a specific nationwide
compliance date and industry would be
subject to the requirements on that date,
although as discussed elsewhere in
today’s preamble, EPA’s ability to
enforce those requirements is limited.
(Of course, certain requirements, such
as closure of existing surface
impoundments, would have a delayed
compliance date set to reflect practical
compliance realities, but other
requirements, for example, groundwater
monitoring or the requirement that new
surface impoundments be constructed
with composite liners could be imposed
substantially sooner than under a RCRA
subtitle C rule.) The possible exception
would be if EPA decided to establish
financial assurance requirements
through a regulatory process currently
underway that would establish financial
assurance requirements for several
industries pursuant to CERCLA 108(b),
including the Electric Power
Generation, Transmission and
Distribution Industry. For a more
detailed discussion of these issues see
section IX.
However, there are also disadvantages
to any approach under RCRA subtitle D.
Subtitle D provides no Federal oversight
of state programs as it relates to CCRs.
It establishes a framework for Federal,
state, and local government cooperation
in controlling the management of
nonhazardous solid waste. The Federal
role in this arrangement is to establish
the overall regulatory direction, by
providing minimum nationwide
standards for protecting human health
and the environment, and to provide
technical assistance to states for
planning and developing their own
environmentally sound waste
management practices. The co-proposed
subtitle D alternative in this proposal
would establish national minimum
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35160
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
standards specifically for CCRs for the
first time. The actual planning and
direct implementation of solid waste
programs under RCRA subtitle D,
however, remain state and local
functions, and the act authorizes states
to devise programs to deal with statespecific conditions and needs.
In further contrast to subtitle C, RCRA
subtitle D requirements would regulate
only the disposal of solid waste, and
EPA does not have the authority to
establish requirements governing the
transportation, storage, or treatment of
such wastes prior to disposal. Under
RCRA sections 4004 and 4005(a), EPA
cannot require that facilities obtain a
permit for these units. EPA also does
not have the authority to determine
whether any state permitting program
for CCR facilities is adequate. This
complicates the Agency’s ability to
develop regulations that can be
effectively implemented and tailored to
individual site conditions. Moreover,
EPA does not have the authority to
enforce the regulations, although, the
‘‘open dumping’’ prohibition may be
enforced by states and citizens under
section 7002 of RCRA.
D. EPA Is Not Reconsidering the
Regulatory Determination Regarding
Beneficial Use
As noted previously, in the May 2000
Regulatory Determination, EPA
concluded that federal regulation was
not warranted for the beneficial uses
identified in the notice, because: ‘‘(a) We
have not identified any other beneficial
uses that are likely to present significant
risks to human health or the
environment; and (b) no documented
cases of damage to human health or the
environment have been identified.
Additionally, we do not want to place
any unnecessary barriers on the
beneficial uses of coal combustion
wastes so they can be used in
applications that conserve natural
resources and reduce disposal costs.’’
(See 65 FR 32221) EPA did not conduct
specific risk assessments for the
beneficial use of these materials, except
as noted below and elsewhere in this
preamble. Instead, it generally described
the uses and benefits of CCRs, and cited
the importance of beneficially using
secondary materials and of resource
conservation, as an alternative to
disposal. However, EPA did conduct a
detailed risk assessment of certain
agricultural uses of CCRs,67 since the
67 Draft Final Report; Non-groundwater Pathways,
Human Health and Ecological Risk Analysis for
Fossil Fuel Combustion Phase 2 (FFC2) and its
appendices (A through J); available at https://
www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/
fsltech.htm.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
use of CCRs in this manner is most
likely to raise concerns from an
environmental point of view. Overall,
EPA concluded at the time that the
identified uses of CCRs provided
significant benefits (environmental and
economic), that we did not want to
impose an unnecessary stigma on these
uses and therefore, we did not see a
justification for regulating these uses at
the federal level.
Since EPA’s Regulatory Determination
in May 2000, the Agency has gathered
additional information. In addition to
the evolving character/composition of
CCRs due to electric utility upgrades
and retrofits needed to comply with the
emerging CAA requirements, which
could present new or otherwise
unforeseen contaminant issues (e.g.,
hexavalent chromium from post-NOX
controls), changes include: (1) A
significant increase in the use of CCRs,
and the development of established
commercial sectors that utilize and
depend on the beneficial use of CCRs,
(2) the recognition that the beneficial
use of CCRs (and, in particular, specific
beneficial uses of CCRs, such as using
fly ash as a substitute for Portland
cement in the production of concrete)
provide significant environmental
benefits, including the reduction of
GHG emissions, (3) the development of
new applications of CCRs, which may
hold even greater GHG benefits (for
example, fly ash bricks and a process to
use CO2 emissions to produce cement),
(4) new research by EPA and others
indicating that the standard leach
tests—e.g., the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) that have
generally been used may not accurately
represent the performance of varying
types of CCRs under variable field
conditions, (5) new studies and research
by academia and federal agencies on the
use of CCRs, including studies on the
performance of CCR-derived materials
in concrete, road construction,68 and
agriculture,69 and studies of the risks
that may or may not be associated with
the different uses of CCRs, including
uses of unencapsulated CCRs, and (6)
the continuing development of state
‘‘beneficial use’’ regulatory programs
under state solid waste authorities.
Some of these changes confirm or
strengthen EPA’s Regulatory
Determination in May 2000 (e.g., the
growth and maturation of state
beneficial use programs and the growing
recognition that the beneficial use of
CCRs is a critical component in
68 See https://www.epa.gov/osw/partnerships/
c2p2/cases/index.htm.
69 See https://www.epa.gov/osw/partnerships/
c2p2/pubs/fgd-fs.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
strategies to reduce GHG emissions);
other developments raise critical
questions regarding this determination
(e.g., the potentially changing
composition of CCRs as a result of
improved air pollution control and the
new science on metals leaching). EPA
solicits information and data on these
developments and how the beneficial
use of CCRs will be affected (e.g.,
increased use of fly ash in cement and
concrete).
However, on balance, after
considering all of these issues and the
information available to us at this time,
EPA believes that the most appropriate
approach toward beneficial use is to
leave the May 2000 Regulatory
Determination in place, as the Agency,
other federal agencies, academia, and
society more broadly investigate these
critical questions and clarify the
appropriate beneficial use of these
materials. This section provides EPA’s
basis for leaving the Bevill exemption in
place for these beneficial uses, although
as discussed throughout this section,
EPA is also soliciting comment on
unencapsulated uses of CCRs and
whether they should continue to be
exempted as a beneficial use under the
Bevill exemption.
EPA is proposing this approach in
recognition that some uses of CCRs,
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. That is, from
information available to date, EPA
believes that encapsulated uses of CCR,
as is common in many consumer
products, does not merit regulation. On
the other hand, unencapsulated uses
have raised concerns and merit closer
attention. For example, the placement of
unencapsulated CCRs on the land, such
as in road embankments or in
agricultural uses, presents a set of
issues, which may pose similar
concerns as those that are causing the
Agency to propose to regulate CCRs
destined for disposal. Still, the amounts
and, in some cases, the manner in
which they are used—i.e., subject to
engineering specifications and material
requirements rather than landfilling
techniques—are very different from land
disposal. EPA also notes that
stakeholders, such as Earthjustice have
petitioned EPA to ban particular uses of
CCR; for example, the placement of
CCRs in direct contact with water
bodies.
Due to such issues as the changing
characteristics of CCRs, as a result of
more widespread use of air pollution
control technologies and the new
information becoming available on the
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
leaching of metals from CCRs, we are
considering approaches such as, better
defining beneficial use or developing
detailed guidance on the beneficial use
of CCRs to supplement the regulations.
The Agency solicits information and
data on these and other approaches that
EPA could take in identifying when
uses of CCRs constitute a ‘‘beneficial
use,’’ and consequently will remain
exempt.
Other alternative approaches—for
example, to regulate the beneficial use
of CCRs under the regulations that apply
to ‘‘use constituting disposal,’’ to
prohibit unencapsulated uses outright,
including CCRs used in direct contact
with water matrices, including the
seasonal high groundwater table, or to
require front-end CCR and site
characterization through the use of
leach tests adapted for specific uses of
CCR, prior to CCR management
decisions—could address concerns that
have been expressed over the land
placement of CCRs. However, EPA is
trying to balance concerns that
proposing one or more of these
alternatives might have the effect of
stifling economic activities and
innovation in areas that have potential
for environmental benefits, while also
providing adequate protection of human
health and the environment.
At the same time, EPA recognizes that
seven proven damage cases involving
the large-scale placement, akin to
disposal, of CCRs has occurred under
the guise of ‘‘beneficial use’’—the
‘‘beneficial’’ use being the filling up of
old quarries or gravel pits, or the
regrading of landscape with large
quantities of CCRs. EPA did not
consider this type of use as a
‘‘beneficial’’ use in its May 2000
Regulatory Determination, and does not
consider this type of use to be covered
by the exclusion. Therefore, today’s
proposed rule explicitly removes these
types of uses from the category of
beneficial use, such that they would be
subject to the management standards
that EPA finally promulgates. EPA also
seeks information and data on whether
it should take a similar approach in
today’s proposal to unencapsulated uses
of CCRs, such as the placement of
unencapsulated CCRs on the land—e.g.,
agricultural uses. Alternatively, EPA is
also soliciting comment on whether the
Agency should promulgate standards
allowing such uses, on a site-specific
basis, based on a site specific risk
assessment, taking into consideration,
inter alia, the CCRs character and
composition, their leaching potential
under the range of conditions under
which CCRs will be managed, and the
context in which the CCRs will be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
applied, such as location, volume, rate
of application, and proximity to water.
Before getting into a detailed
discussion of the materials in question,
EPA would reiterate that CCRs, when
beneficially used will conserve
resources, provide improved material
properties, reduce GHG emissions,
lessen the need for waste disposal units,
and provide significant domestic
economic benefits (as noted above in
section XII). At the same time, EPA
recognizes that there are important
issues and uncertainties associated with
specific uses of specific CCRs, that there
has been considerable recent and
ongoing research on these uses, and that
the composition of CCRs are likely
changing as a result of more aggressive
air pollution controls. EPA is
particularly concerned that we avoid the
possibility of cross-media transfers
stemming from CAA regulations
requiring the removal of hazardous air
pollutants (e.g., arsenic, mercury,
selenium) from utility stacks being
released back into the soil and
groundwater media through
inappropriate ‘‘beneficial’’ uses.
EPA has received numerous
comments on specific uses of CCRs, and
we have been working with states to
help them develop effective beneficial
use programs (which apply to a wide
range of secondary materials, not just
CCRs). EPA, other federal agencies, and
academia have conducted research on
specific uses, and have provided
guidance and best management
practices on using CCRs in an
environmentally sound manner in a
range of applications. For example,
EPA, working with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOE, the
American Coal Ash Association
(ACAA), and USWAG issued guidance
in April 2005 on the appropriate use of
coal ash in highway construction. EPA
understands that the composition of
CCRs, the nature of different CCR uses,
and the specific environment in which
CCRs are used, can affect the
effectiveness and the environmentally
sound use of particular projects. In
today’s proposal, EPA is suggesting that
an appropriate balance can be met by (1)
determining that the placement of CCRs
in sand and gravel pits, as well as the
use of large volumes of CCRs in
restructuring landscapes to constitute
disposal, rather than the beneficial use
of CCRs, and at the same time (2)
leaving in place its determination that
the beneficial uses of CCRs—e.g., those
identified in the May 2000 Regulatory
Determination as clarified in this
notice—should not be prohibited from
continuing. As described later in this
section of today’s notice, EPA solicits
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35161
comment on whether an alternative
approach is appropriate, particularly for
unencapsulated uses of CCRs on the
land.
1. Why is EPA not proposing to change
the determination that CCRs that are
beneficially used do not warrant federal
regulation?
As an initial matter, we would note
that for some of the beneficial uses,
CCRs are a raw material used as an
ingredient in a manufacturing process
that have never been ‘‘discarded,70’’ and
thus, would not be solid wastes under
the existing hazardous waste rules. For
example, 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
CCRs that meet product specifications
would not be affected by today’s
proposed rule in any case, regardless of
the option taken.
With that said, today’s proposed
action would leave in place EPA’s May
2000 Regulatory Determination that
beneficially used CCRs do not warrant
federal regulation under subtitle C or D
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.) Since that
time, EPA is not aware of data or other
information to indicate that existing
70 In order for EPA to regulate a material under
RCRA, the material must be a solid waste, which
the statute defines as materials that have been
discarded. See Section 1004(27) of RCRA for
definition of solid waste.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35162
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
efforts of states, EPA and other federal
agencies are not adequate to address
environmental issues associated with
the beneficial uses of CCRs, that were
originally identified in the Regulatory
Determination. Therefore, at this time,
EPA is not proposing to reverse that
determination. Specifically: (1) EPA
believes today’s proposal will ensure
that inappropriate beneficial use
situations, like the Gambrills, MD site,
will be regulated as disposal; (2) many
states are developing effective beneficial
use programs which, in many cases,
allow the use of CCRs as long as they
are demonstrated to be non-hazardous
materials, and (3) EPA does not wish to
inhibit or eliminate the significant and
measurable environmental and
economic benefits derived from the use
of this valuable material without a
demonstration of an environmental or
health threat.
EPA also wants to make clear that
wastes that consist of or contain these
Bevill-exempt beneficially used
materials, including demolition debris
from beneficially used CCRs in
wallboard or concrete that were
generated because the products have
reached the end of their useful lives—
would also not be listed as a special
waste subject to subtitle C of RCRA,
from the point of their generation to
their ultimate disposal.
In summary, EPA continues to believe
that the beneficial use of CCRs, when
performed properly and in an
environmentally sound manner, is the
environmentally preferable outcome for
CCRs and, therefore, is concerned about
regulatory decisions that would limit
beneficial uses, including research on
beneficial uses. Thus, EPA is not
proposing to modify the existing Bevill
exemption for CCRs (sometimes referred
to as CCPs when beneficially used), and
instead is proposing to leave the current
determination in place. However, EPA
recognizes that there is a disparity in the
quality of state programs dealing with
beneficial uses, uncertainty relative to
the future characteristics of CCRs and,
therefore, uncertainty concerning the
risks associated with some beneficial
uses. At the same time, EPA recognizes
the potential environmental benefits
with regard to the uses of CCRs. For
these reasons, EPA is requesting
information and data on the appropriate
means of characterizing beneficial uses
that are both protective of human health
and the environment and provide
benefits. EPA is also requesting
information and data demonstrating
where the federal and state programs are
or have been inadequate in being
environmentally protective and,
conversely, where states have, or are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
developing, increasingly effective
beneficial use programs.
As previously discussed, and
discussed in section VI, some
stakeholders have commented that EPA
should not regulate CCRs when
disposed of in landfills or surface
impoundments as a hazardous waste,
because such an approach would
stigmatize the beneficial use of CCRs,
and these uses would disappear.
Although it remains unclear whether
any stigmatic effect from regulating
CCRs destined for disposal as hazardous
waste would decrease the beneficial use
of CCRs, and irrespective of whether
EPA ultimately concludes to promulgate
regulations under RCRA subtitles C or
D, EPA is convinced that regulating the
beneficial use of CCRs under RCRA
subtitle C as hazardous waste would be
unnecessary, in light of the potential
risks associated with these uses. For
example, use of fly ash as a replacement
for Portland cement is one of the most
environmentally beneficial uses of CCRs
(as discussed below), yet regulating this
beneficial use under RCRA subtitle C
requirements would substantially
increase the cost and regulatory
difficulties of using this material,
without providing any corresponding
risk reduction. Regulating the use of
coal ash as a cement ingredient under
RCRA subtitle C would subject the coal
ash to full hazardous waste
requirements up to the point that it is
made into concrete, including
requirements for generators, manifesting
for transportation, and permits for
storage. In addition, ready-mix operators
would be subject to the land disposal
restrictions and other requirements, as
use of the concrete would constitute
disposal if placed on the land. EPA
instead is proposing an approach that
would allow beneficial uses to continue,
under state controls, EPA guidance, and
current industrial standards and
practices. Where specific problems are
identified, EPA believes they can be
safely addressed, but we do not believe
that an approach that eliminates a wide
range of uses that would add
considerably to the costs of the rule, and
that would disrupt and potentially close
ongoing businesses legitimately using
CCRs is justified, on the strength of the
existing evidence.
EPA’s May 2000 Regulatory
Determination not to regulate various
beneficial uses under the hazardous
waste requirements, and today’s
proposal to leave that determination in
place, does not conflict with EPA’s view
that certain beneficial uses, e.g., use in
road construction or agriculture, should
be conducted with care, according to
appropriate management practices, and
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
with appropriate characterization of the
material and the site where the
materials would be placed. In this
respect, CCRs are similar to other
materials used in this manner—
including raw materials derived from
quarried aggregates, secondary materials
from other industrial processes, and
materials derived from natural ores.
Rather, EPA concludes that, based on
our knowledge of how CCRs are used,
that potential risks of these uses do not
warrant federal regulation, but can be
addressed, if necessary, in other ways,
as discussed previously, such as the
State of Wisconsin has an extensive
beneficial use program that supports the
use of CCRs in a variety of
circumstances, including in road base
construction and agriculture uses,
provided certain criteria are met.
Similarly, EPA is working with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to develop
guidance on the use of FGD gypsum in
agriculture.
2. What constitutes beneficial use?
As discussed previously, EPA is not
proposing to change the regulatory
status of those CCRs that are beneficially
used. However, because EPA is
proposing to draw a distinction between
CCRs that are destined for disposal and
those that are beneficially used, we
believe it is necessary and appropriate
to distinguish between beneficial use
and operations that would constitute
disposal operations—such as large
volumes of CCRs that are used in sand
and gravel pits or for restructuring the
landscape. EPA believes the following
criteria can be used to define legitimate
beneficial uses appropriately, and are
consistent with EPA’s approach in the
May 2000 Regulatory Determination,
although such criteria were not
specifically identified at that time:
Æ The material used must provide a
functional benefit. For example, CCRs 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; CCRs as a soil
amendment adjusts the pH of soil to
promote plant growth.
Æ 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
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
lieu of portland cement reduces the
need for cement. CCRs used in road bed
replace quarried aggregate or other
industrial materials. These CCRs
substitute for another ingredient in an
industrial or commercial product.
Æ 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. Typically,
when CCRs are used as a commercial
product, the amount of CCRs used is
controlled by product 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 CCRs
are used—i.e., greater than were
necessary for a specific project,—that
could be grounds for a determination
that the use was subject to regulations
for disposal.
Æ In the case of agricultural uses,
CCRs 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 CCRs as soil amendments, EPA
would consider application of CCRs 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.71 EPA also recognizes that the
characteristics of CCRs are such that
total concentrations of metals, as
biosolids are assessed, may not be the
most appropriate standard, as CCRs
have been shown to leach metals with
significant variability.
EPA is proposing that these criteria be
included in the regulations as part of the
definition of beneficial use. EPA
requests comment on these criteria, as
well as suggestions for other criteria that
may need to be included to ensure that
legitimate beneficial uses can be
identified and enforcement action can
be taken against inappropriate uses.
Each of the uses identified in the May
2000 Regulatory Determination, CCRs
can and have been utilized in a manner
that is beneficial. The discussion that
follows provides a brief summary of
how certain of the beneficial uses meet
the various criteria. EPA solicits
71 See
40 CFR part 503.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
comment on the need to provide a
formal listing of all beneficial uses. To
this end, EPA solicits comment on
whether additional uses of CCRs have
been established since the May 2000
Regulatory Determination that have not
been discussed elsewhere in today’s
preamble should be regarded as
beneficial. Of particular concern in this
regard are reports that CCRs are being
used in producing counter tops, bowling
balls, and in the production of makeup.
The Agency solicits comment on
whether use of CCRs in consumer
products of this kind can be safely
undertaken. The Agency further solicits
comments for any new uses of CCR, as
well as the information and data that
supports that it is beneficially used in
an environmentally sound manner. The
concern with such an alternative is that
new and innovative uses that are not on
the list would be subject to disposal
regulations, until EPA revised its rule.
In the uses where the CCR is
encapsulated in the product, such as
cement, concrete, brick and concrete
products, wallboard, and roofing
materials—the CCRs provide a
functional benefit—that is, the CCRs
provide a cementitious or structural
function, the CCRs substitute for
cement, gypsum, and aggregate and thus
save resources that would otherwise
need to be mined and processed, and
the CCRs are subject to product
specifications, such as ASTM standards.
Some of the uses, such as CCRs in
paints and plastics not only provide
benefits, but EPA generally does not
consider materials used in these ways to
be waste—that is, they have not been
discarded. Use of CCRs in highway
projects is a significant practice
covering road bed and embankments.
CCRs used according to FHA/DOT
standards provide an important function
in road building, replacing material that
would otherwise need to be obtained,
such as aggregate or clay. In many cases,
the CCRs can lead to better road
performance. For snow and ice controls,
the beneficial use is limited to boiler
slag and bottom ash, which replaces fine
aggregate that would otherwise need to
be used to prevent skidding, and
amounts used are in line with the
materials they replace.72
3. Disposal of CCRs in Sand and Gravel
Pits and Large Scale Fill Operations Is
Not Considered a Beneficial Use
As indicated earlier, EPA has
identified several proven damage cases
72 According to the ACAA survey, 80% of boiler
slag—a vitreous material often used as an
abrasive—is reused, although industry has reported
that the demand for boiler slag products is high,
and virtually all of the slag is currently used.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35163
associated with the placement of CCRs
in sand and gravel pits. There has also
been significant community concern
with large-scale fill operations. Because
of the damage cases and the concern
that sand and gravel pits and large scale
fill operations are essentially landfills
under a different name, EPA is
clarifying and, thus, proposing to define
the placement of CCRs in sand and
gravel pits and large scale fill projects as
land disposal that would be subject to
either the proposed RCRA subtitle C or
D regulations. Sites that are excavated
so that more coal ash can be used as fill
are also considered CCR landfills.
However, EPA recognizes that we
need to define or provide guidance on
the meaning of ‘‘a large scale fill
operation.’’ EPA solicits comments on
appropriate criteria to distinguish
between legitimate beneficial uses and
inappropriate operations, such as, for
example, a comparison to features
associated with relatively small landfills
used by the utility industry, and
whether characteristics of the materials
would allow their safe use for a
particular application in a particular
setting (i.e., characterize both the
materials for the presence of leachable
metals and the area where the materials
will be placed).
4. Issues Associated With
Unencapsulated Beneficial Uses
Since the May 2000 Regulatory
Determination, the major issues
associated with the placement of CCRs
on the land for beneficial use has
involved the Gambrills, MD site which
involves a sand and gravel pit and the
Battlefield golf course, which was a
large scale fill operation. These are the
types of operations that EPA is
proposing would be subject to any
disposal regulations proposed in today’s
rule. However, because the Gambrills
and Battlefield sites involved the
unencapsulated placement of CCRs on
the land, it raises questions regarding
the beneficial use of unencapsulated
uses of CCRs; accordingly, in this
section, the Agency presents
information on the issues on which it is
specifically soliciting comment.
First, we identify the array of
environmental issues associated with
unencapsulated uses. CCRs 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.
• The importance of characterizing
CCRs prior to their utilization is that
CCRs from certain facilities may be
acceptable under particular beneficial
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35164
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
use scenarios, while the same material
type from a different facility or from the
same facility, but generated under
different operating conditions (e.g.,
different air pollution controls or
configurations) may not be acceptable
for the same management scenario.
Changes in air pollution controls will
result in fly ash and other CCRs
presenting new contaminant issues (e.g.,
hexavalent chromium from post-NOx
controls). Additionally, as described in
section I. F. 2, there is significant
variability in total metals content and
leach characteristics.
• 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.
• Unencapsulated fly ash used for
structural fill is moistened and
compacted in layers, and placed on a
drainage layer. By moistening and
compacting the fly ash in layers, the
hydraulic conductivity can be greatly
reduced, sometimes achieving levels
similar to liner systems. This limits the
transport of water through the ash and
thus acts to protect groundwater. The
drainage layer prevents capillary effects
and thus also limits the amount of water
that remains in contact with the fly ash.
Although EPA is not aware of the use of
organosilanes for beneficial use
operations in the U.S., if mixed with fly
ash, it is reported to be able to
essentially render the fly ash
impermeable to water, and thus there
may be emerging placement techniques
that can also greatly influence the
environmental assessment.
• Site conditions are important
factors. Hydraulic conductivity of the
subsurface, the rainfall in the area, the
depth to groundwater, and other factors
(e.g., changes in characteristics due to
the addition of advanced air pollution
controls) are important considerations
in whether a specific beneficial use will
remain protective of the environment.
Second, EPA notes the work and
research being done by states, federal
agencies, and academics to assess,
provide guidance on, or regulate to
address the environmental issues that
may be associated with beneficial use.
In addition to the recent EPA research
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
on constituent leaching from CCRs
described earlier in the preamble, a few
highlights include:
• Many states have beneficial use
programs. The ASTSWMO 2006
Beneficial Use Survey Report states: ‘‘A
total of 34 of the 40 reporting States, or
85 percent, indicated they had either
formal or informal decision-making
processes or beneficial use programs
relating to the use of solid wastes.’’ 73
(https://www.astswmo.org/files/
publications/solidwaste/
2007BUSurveyReport11–30–07.pdf) For
example, Wisconsin’s Department of
Natural Resources has developed a
regulation (NR 538 Wis. Adm. Code),
which includes a five-category system to
allow for the beneficial use of industrial
by-products, including coal ash. The
state has approved CCRs in a full range
of uses, including road construction and
agricultural uses.
• EPA and USDA are conducting a
multi-year study on the use of FGD
gypsum in agriculture. The results of
that study should be available in late
2012.
• EPA developed an easy to use risk
model for assessing the use of recycled
industrial materials in highways. This
model is shared with states to facilitate
assessments to determine if such
beneficial use projects will be
environmentally protective.74
• There is also considerable study
and research by states and academic
institutions, which EPA views as
valuable in not only guiding the parties
to appropriate uses, but also in
informing EPA. A few examples are:
Æ Li L, Benson CH, Edil TB,
Hatipoglu B. Groundwater impacts from
coal ash in highways. Waste and
Management Resources
2006;159(WR4):151–63.
Æ Friend M, Bloom P, Halbach T,
Grosenheider K, Johnson M. Screening
tool for using waste materials in paving
projects (STUWMPP). Office of Research
Services, Minnesota Dept. of
Transportation, Minnesota; 2004. Report
nr MN/RC–2005–03.
73 Part of EPA’s efforts with the states is 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
https://www.newmoa.org/solidwaste/bud.cfm. This
database helps states share information on
beneficial use decisions providing for more
consistent and informed decisions.
74 See a Final Report titled, ‘‘Use of EPA’s
Industrial Waste Management Evaluation Model
(IWEM) to Support Beneficial Use Determinations’’
at https://www.epa.gov/partnerships/c2p2/pubs/
iwem-report.pdf and the Industrial Waste
Management Evaluation Model (IWEM) at https://
www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/tools/iwem.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Æ Sauer JJ, Benson CH, Edil TB.
Metals leaching from highway test
sections constructed with industrial
byproducts. University of Wisconsin—
Madison, Madison, WI: Geo
Engineering, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering; 2005
December 27, Geo Engineering Report
No. 05–21.
Overall, federal agencies, states, and
others are doing a great amount of work
to promote environmentally sound
beneficial use practices, to advance our
understanding, and to consider
emerging science and practices.
Furthermore, the beneficial use of CCRs
is a world wide activity, so there is also
considerable work and effort from
around the globe. In Europe, nearly all
CCRs are beneficially used, and when
used are considered to be products
rather than wastes. Sweden, for
example, actively supports the use of
CCRs in road construction, and has
conducted long-term tests of its use in
this manner.
While recognizing the many
beneficial use opportunities for CCRs,
EPA believes it is imperative to gather
a full range of views on the issue of
unencapsulated uses in order to ensure
the protection of human health and the
environment. EPA is fully prepared to
reconsider our proposed approach for
these uses if comments provide
information and data to demonstrate
that it is inappropriate. For example,
previous risk analyses do not address
many of the use applications currently
being implemented, and have not
addressed the changes to CCR
composition with more advanced air
pollution control methods and
improved leachate characterization. In
addition, some scientific literature
indicates that the uncontrolled (i.e.,
excessive) application of CCRs can lead
to the potentially toxic accumulation of
metals (e.g., in agricultural
applications 75 and as fill material 76).
Thus, while EPA does not want to
negatively impact the legitimate
beneficial use of CCRs unnecessarily,
we are also aware of the need to fully
consider the risks, management
practices, state controls, research, and
any other pertinent information. Thus,
to help EPA determine whether to revise
75 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 https://www.springerlink.com/content/
3c5gaq2qrkr5unvp/fulltext.pdf.
76 See information regarding the Town of Pines
Groundwater Plume at https://www.epa.gov/
region5superfund/npl/sas_sites/
INN000508071.htm. Also see additional
information for this site at https://www.epa.gov/
region5/sites/pines/#updates.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
its approach and regulate, for example,
unencapsulated uses of CCRs on the
land, we solicit comments on whether
to regulate, and if so, the most
appropriate regulatory approach to be
taken. For example, EPA might consider
a prohibition on these uses, except
where, as part of a case-by-case, or
material-by-material petition process
where appropriate characterization of
the material is used (including taking
into account the pH to which the
material will be exposed) and a risk
assessment, approved by a regulatory
Agency, shows that the risks were
within acceptable ranges.77 Moreover, if
regulating these uses under the RCRA
hazardous waste authority is deemed
warranted, the risk assessment would
have to be approved, through a noticeand-comment process, by EPA or an
authorized state. EPA expects that the
risk assessment would be based on
actual leach data from the material. (See
request for comment below on material
characterization.)
In reaching its decision on whether to
regulate unencapsulated uses, EPA
would be interested in comments and
data on the following:
• We would like comment on
whether persons should be required to
use a leaching assessment tool in
combination with the Draft SW–846
leaching test methods described in
Section I. F. 2 and other tools (e.g.,
USEPA’s Industrial Waste Management
Evaluation Model (IWEM)) to aid
prospective beneficial users in
calculating potential release rates over a
specified period of time for a range of
management scenarios, including use in
engineering and commercial
applications using probabilistic
assessment modeling.
• As discussed previously, EPA is
working with USDA to study
agricultural use of FGD gypsum to
provide further knowledge in this area.
The Agency is interested in comments
relating to the focus of these
assessments, the use of historical data,
the impact of pH on leaching potential
of metals, the scope of management
scenarios, the variable and changing
nature of CCRs, and variable site
conditions. Commenters interested in
the EPA/USDA effort should consider
the characteristics of FGD gypsum (see
https://www.epa.gov/epawaste/
partnerships/c2p2/pubs/fgdgyp.pdf) and
information on the current study (see
https://www.epa.gov/epawaste/
partnerships/c2p2/pubs/fgd-fs.pdf).
77 As part of the petition application, the
petitioner would also need to demonstrate that the
CCRs are being beneficially used.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
• If EPA determines that regulations
are needed, should EPA consider
removing the Bevill exemption for such
unencapsulated uses and regulate these
under RCRA subtitle C or should EPA
develop regulations under RCRA
subtitle D?
• If materials characterization is
required, what type of characterization
is most appropriate? If the CCRs exceed
the toxicity characteristic at pH levels
different from the TCLP, should they be
excluded from beneficial use? When are
total levels relevant? EPA solicits
information and data on the extent to
which states request and evaluate CCR
characterization data prior to the use of
unencapsulated CCRs (keeping in mind
that EPA ORD studies generally show
that measurement of total
concentrations for metals do not
correlate well with metal leachate
concentrations).
• If regulations are developed, should
they cover specific practices, for
example, restricting fill operations to
those that moisten and compact fly ash
in layers to attain 95% of the standard
Proctor maximum dry density value and
provide a drainage layer? Are such
construction practices largely followed
now?
• Historically, EPA has proposed or
imposed conditions on other types of
hazardous wastes destined for land
placement (e.g., maximum application
rates and risk-based concentration limits
for cement kiln dust used as a liming
agent in agricultural applications (see 64
FR 45639; August 20, 1999); maximum
allowable total concentrations for nonnutritive and toxic metals in zinc
fertilizers produced from recycled
hazardous secondary materials (see 67
FR 48393; July 24, 2002). Comments are
solicited as to whether EPA should
establish standards or rely on
implementing states to impose CCR-/
site-specific limits based on front-end
characterization that ensures individual
beneficial uses remain protective.
• Whether to exclude from beneficial
use unencapsulated uses in direct
contact with water bodies (including the
seasonal high groundwater table)?
E. Placement of CCRs in Minefilling
Operations
In today’s proposal, EPA is not
addressing its Regulatory Determination
on minefilling, and instead will work
with the OSM to develop effective
federal regulations to ensure that 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35165
studied the health, safety, and
environmental risks associated with the
placement of CCRs 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 (CCRs) in Mines,’’ which is
available at https://books.nap.edu/
openbook.php?isbn=0309100496.
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 CCRs 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. Therefore, the Agency is not
addressing minefilling operations in this
proposed rule.
F. EPA Is Not Proposing To Revise the
Bevill Determination for CCRs
Generated by Non-Utilities
In this notice, EPA is not proposing to
revise the Bevill exclusion for CCRs
generated at facilities that are not part
of the electric power sector and which
use coal as the fuel in non-utility
boilers, such as manufacturing facilities,
universities, and hospitals. The Agency
lacks sufficient information at this time
to determine an appropriate course of
action for the wastes from these
facilities.
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
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35166
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
any excess may be sold in the wholesale
market.78 According to the Energy
Information Administration (EIA), CHPs
produced 2.7% of the total electricity
generated from coal combustion in
2007 79 and burned 2.3% of the total
coal consumed for electricity generation
(24 million tons) 80 at 2,967 facilities.81
EPA estimates that CHPs generate
approximately 3 million tons of CCRs
annually or an average of just over 1,000
tons per facility. This is in comparison
to electric utilities, which generated 136
million tons of CCRs in 2008, or an
average of approximately 275,000 tons
per facility. In addition, these
manufacturing facilities generate other
types of waste, many of which are
generated in much larger quantities than
CCRs, and thus, they are likely to be
mixed or co-managed together. As a
result, the composition of any comanaged waste might be fundamentally
different from the CCRs that are
generated by electric utilities. Presently,
EPA lacks critical data from these
facilities sufficient to address key Bevill
criteria such as current management
practices, damage cases, risks, and
waste characterization. Thus, EPA
solicits information and data on CCRs
that are generated by these other
industries, such as volumes generated,
characteristics of the CCRs, whether
they are co-managed with other wastes
generated by the industry, as well as
other such information. In addition,
EPA does not currently have enough
information on non-utilities to
determine whether a regulatory
flexibility analysis would be required
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
nor to conduct one if it is necessary.
Therefore, the Agency has decided not
to assess these operations in today’s
proposal, and will instead focus on the
nearly 98% of CCRs that are generated
at electric utilities.
V. Co-Proposed Listing of CCRs as a
Special Waste Under RCRA Subtitle C
and Special Requirements for Disposal
of CCRs Generated by Electric Utilities
One of the alternatives in today’s coproposal is to add a new category of
wastes that would be subject to
regulation under subtitle C of RCRA, by
adding to 40 CFR part 261, Subpart F—
Special Wastes Subject to Subtitle C
Regulations for CCRs destined for
78 Energy Information Administration (https://
www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/prim2/
toc2.html#non).
79 https://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/
epaxlfile1_1.pdf.
80 https://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/
epaxlfile4_1.pdf.
81 https://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/
epaxlfile2_3.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
disposal. Under this alternative, the
Agency further proposes to list CCRs
destined for disposal as a special waste
and CCRs would then be subject to
regulation under 40 CFR parts 260
through 268 and 270 to 279 and 124,
and subject to the notification
requirements of section 3010 of RCRA.
This listing would apply to all CCRs
destined for disposal. This section
provides EPA’s basis for regulating
CCRs under subtitle C of RCRA when
disposed. As described in this preamble,
the proposed listing would not apply to
CCRs that are beneficially used (see
section IV), CCRs that are part of a state
or federally required cleanup that
commenced prior to the effective date of
the final rule (see section VI), or CCRs
generated by facilities outside the
electric power sector (see section IV).
A. What is the basis for listing CCRs as
a special waste?
Many of the underlying facts on
which EPA would rely on to support its
proposed special waste listing have
been discussed in the previous sections,
which lay out reasons why the Agency
may decide to reverse the Bevill
Regulatory Determination and
exemption. Rather than repeat that
discussion here, EPA simply references
the discussion in the earlier sections. In
addition, EPA would be relying on the
various risk assessments conducted on
CCRs to provide significant support for
a listing determination. EPA’s risk
assessment work includes four analyses:
(1) U.S. EPA 1998, ‘‘Draft Final Report:
Non-groundwater Pathways, Human
Health and Ecological Risk Analysis for
Fossil Fuel Combustion Phase 2 (FFC2)’’
(June 5, 1998) referred to hereafter as the
1998 Non-groundwater risk assessment
(available in docket # F–1999–FF2P–
FFFFF in the RCRA Information Center,
and on the EPA Web site at https://
www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/
special/fossil/ngwrsk1.pdf); (2)
preliminary groundwater and ecological
risk screening of selected constituents in
U.S. EPA 2002, ‘‘Constituent Screening
for Coal Combustion Wastes,’’
(contractor deliverable dated October
2002, available in docket EPA–HQ–
RCRA–2006–0796 as Document # EPA–
HQ–RCRA–2006–0796–0470); referred
to hereafter as the 2002 screening
analysis; (3) U.S. EPA 2010a, ‘‘Human
and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal
Combustion Wastes’’ (April 2010)
available in the docket for this proposed
rule, and referred to hereafter as the
2010 risk assessment; and (4) U.S. EPA
2010b, ‘‘Inhalation of Fugitive Dust: A
Screening Assessment of the Risks
Posed by Coal Combustion Waste
Landfills—DRAFT’’ available in the
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
docket for this proposed rule. As
explained below, the 2010 risk
assessment correlates closely with the
listing criteria in EPA’s regulations.
1. Criteria for Listing CCRs as a Special
Waste and Background on 2010 Risk
Assessment
In making listing determinations
under subtitle C of RCRA, the Agency
considers the listing criteria set out in
40 CFR 261.11. EPA considered these
same criteria in making the proposed
special waste listing decision.
The criteria provided in 40 CFR
261.11(a)(3) include eleven factors that
EPA must consider in determining
whether the waste poses a ‘‘substantial
present or potential hazard to human
health and the environment when
improperly treated, stored, transported
or disposed of or otherwise managed.’’
Nine of these factors, as described
generally below, are incorporated or are
considered in EPA’s risk assessment for
the waste streams of concern:
Æ Toxicity (Sec. 261.11(a)(3)(i)) is
considered in developing the health
benchmarks used in the risk assessment
modeling.
Æ Constituent concentrations (Sec.
261.11(a)(3)(ii)) and the quantities of
waste generated (Sec. 261.11(a)(3)(viii))
are combined in the calculation of the
levels of the CCR constituents that pose
a hazard.
Æ Potential of the hazardous
constituents and any degradation
products to migrate, persist, degrade,
and bioaccumulate (sections
261(a)(3)(iii), 261.11(a)(3)(iv),
261.11(a)(3)(v), and 261.11(a)(3)(vi)) are
all considered in the design of the fate
and transport models used to determine
the concentration of the contaminants to
which individuals are exposed.
Æ Two of the factors, plausible
mismanagement and the regulatory
actions taken by other governmental
entities based on the damage caused by
the constituents ((§§ 261.11(a)(3)(vii)
and 261.11(a)(3)(x)), were used in
establishing the waste management
scenario(s) modeled in the risk
assessment.
One of the remaining factors of the
eleven listed in 261.11(a)(3) is
consideration of damage cases
(§ 261.11(a)(3)(ix)); these are discussed
in section II. C. The final factor allows
EPA to consider other factors as
appropriate (§ 261.11(a)(3)(xi)).
As discussed earlier, EPA conducted
analyses of the risks posed by CCRs and
determined (subject to consideration of
public comment) that it would meet the
criteria for listing set forth in 40 CFR
261.11(a)(3). The criteria for listing
determinations found at 40 CFR part
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
261.11 require the Administrator to list
a solid waste as a hazardous waste (and
thus subject to subtitle C regulation)
upon determining that the solid waste
meets one of three criteria in 40 CFR
261.11(a)(1)-(3). As just noted, the
criteria considered by EPA in
determining that listing is warranted
pursuant to 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3) are:
• Whether the waste contains any of
the toxic constituents listed in
Appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261
(Hazardous Waste Constituents) and,
after considering the following factors,
the Administrator concludes that the
waste is capable of posing a substantial
present or potential hazard to human
health or the environment when
improperly treated, stored, transported
or disposed of, or otherwise managed:
(i) The nature of the toxicity
presented by the constituent.
(ii) The concentration of the
constituent in the waste.
(iii) The potential of the constituent or
any toxic degradation product of the
constituent to migrate from the waste
into the environment under the types of
improper management considered in
paragraph (vii).
(iv) The persistence of the constituent
or any toxic degradation product of the
constituent.
(v) The potential for the constituent or
any toxic degradation product of the
constituent to degrade into non-harmful
constituents and the rate of degradation.
(vi) The degree to which the
constituent or any degradation product
of the constituent bioaccumulates in
ecosystems.
(vii) The plausible types of improper
management to which the waste could
be subjected.
(viii) The quantities of the waste
generated at individual generation sites
or on a regional or national basis.
(ix) The nature and severity of the
human health and environmental
damage that has occurred as a result of
the improper management of wastes
containing the constituent.
(x) Action taken by other
governmental agencies or regulatory
programs based on the health or
environmental hazard posed by the
waste or waste constituent.
(xi) Such other factors as may be
appropriate.
In 1994, EPA published a policy
statement regarding how the Agency
uses human health and environmental
risk estimates in making listing
decisions, given the uncertainty that can
co-exist with risk estimates.
Specifically:
‘‘* * * the Agency’s listing determination
policy utilizes a ‘‘weight of evidence’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
approach in which risk is a key factor * * *
however, risk levels themselves do not
necessarily represent the sole basis for a
listing. There can be uncertainty in
calculated risk values and so other factors are
used in conjunction with risk in making a
listing decision. * * *. EPA’s current listing
determination procedure * * * uses as an
initial cancer risk ‘‘level of concern’’ a
calculated risk level of 1 × 10¥5 (one in one
hundred thousand) * * * (1) Waste streams
for which the calculated high-end individual
cancer-risk level is 1 × 10 ¥5 or higher
generally are considered candidates for a list
decision * * * (2) Waste streams for which
these risks are calculated to be 1 × 10 ¥4 or
higher * * * generally will be considered to
pose a substantial present or potential hazard
to human health and the environment and
generally will be listed as hazardous waste.
Such waste streams fall into a category
presumptively assumed to present sufficient
risk to require their listing as hazardous
waste. However, even for these waste streams
there can in some cases be factors which
could mitigate the high hazard presumption.
These additional factors * * * will also be
considered by the Agency in making a final
determination. (3) Waste streams for which
the calculated high-end individual cancerrisk level is lower than 1 × 10¥5 generally are
considered initial candidates for a no-list
decision. (4) Waste streams for which these
risks are calculated to be 1 × 10¥6 or 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 be listed as hazardous
waste. Such waste streams fall into a category
presumptively assumed not to pose sufficient
risk as to require their listing as hazardous
waste. However, even for these waste
streams, in some cases, there can be factors
that could mitigate the low hazard
presumption. These also will be considered
by the Agency in making a final
determination. (5) Waste streams where the
calculated high-end individual cancer-risk
level is between 1 × 10¥4 and 1 × 10¥6 fall
in the category for which there is a
presumption of candidacy for either listing
(risk > 10¥5) or no listing (risk < 10¥5).
However, this presumption is not as strong
as when risks are outside this range.
Therefore, listing determinations for waste
streams would always involve assessment of
the additional factors discussed below. * * *
Additional factors. b. The following factors
will be considered in making listing
determinations, particularly for wastes falling
into the risk range between 1 × 10¥4 and
1 × 10¥6. (1) Certainty of waste
characterization; (2) Certainty in risk
assessment methodology; (3) Coverage by
other regulatory programs; (4) Waste volume;
(5) Evidence of co-occurrence; (6) Damage
cases showing actual impact to human health
or the environment; (7) Presence of
toxicant(s) of unknown or unquantifiable
risk.’’ See 59 FR 66075–66077, December 22,
1994.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35167
B. Background on EPA’s 2010 Risk
Assessment
1. Human Health Risks
Individuals can be exposed to the
constituents of concern found in CCRs
through a number of exposure routes.
Potential contaminant releases from
landfills and surface impoundments
include: leaching to ground water;
overland transport from erosion and
runoff; and air emissions. The potential
of human exposure from any one of
these exposure pathways for a particular
chemical is dependent on the physical
and chemical characteristics of the
chemical, the properties of the waste
stream, and the environmental setting.
EPA has conducted a peer-reviewed risk
assessment of potential human health
risks from CCR constituents leaching to
groundwater that subsequently migrate
either to a nearby drinking water well,
or to nearby surface water, and is
ingested as drinking water or through
fish consumption (U.S. EPA 2010a).
EPA has also performed preliminary
analyses of human health effects from
CCR constituents that have eroded or
have run off from CCR waste
management units (U.S. EPA 2002), and
of human health effects from breathing
windblown particulate matter from CCR
landfill disposal operations (the 1998
risk assessment and U.S. EPA 2010b).
Longstanding EPA policy is for EPA
risk assessments to include a
characterization of the risks at two
points on a distribution (i.e., range) of
risk estimates: a central tendency
estimate that represents conditions
likely to be encountered in a typical
exposure situation, and a high end
estimate that represents conditions
likely to be encountered by individuals
with higher exposures (U.S. EPA
1995).82 Examples of factors that would
influence a nearby resident’s exposure
are the residence’s distance from a CCR
waste management unit, and an
individual’s behavior or activity
patterns. In the 2010 risk assessment,
the high end risk estimates are the 90th
percentile estimates from a probabilistic
analysis.
The comparisons that EPA used in
this rule to judge whether either a high
end or central tendency estimated risk
82 Guidance for Risk Characterization, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1995; accessible
at https://www.epa.gov/OSA/spc/pdfs/rcguide.pdf,
which states that ‘‘For the Agency’s purposes, high
end risk descriptors are plausible estimates of the
individual risk for those persons at the upper end
of the risk distribution,’’ or conceptually,
individuals with ‘‘exposure above about the 90th
percentile of the population distribution’’. As
suggested in the Guidance, we also provide 50th
percentile results as the central tendency estimate
of that risk distribution.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35168
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
is of concern are the risk criteria
discussed in the 1995 policy. As noted
under that policy, for an individual’s
cancer risk, the risk criteria are in the
range of 1 × 10¥6, or one in one million
‘‘excess’’ (above and beyond pre-existing
risk) probability of developing cancer
during a lifetime, to 1 × 10¥4 (one in ten
thousand),83 with 1 × 10¥5 (one in one
hundred thousand) being the ‘‘point of
departure’’ for listing a waste and
subjecting it to regulation under subtitle
C of RCRA.84 For human non-cancer
hazard, the risk criterion is an estimated
exposure above the level at which no
adverse health effects would be
expected to occur (expressed as a ratio
of the estimated exposure to the
exposure at which it is likely that there
would be no adverse health effects; this
ratio is also called a hazard quotient
(HQ), and a risk of concern equates to
a HQ greater than one, or, in certain
cases of drinking water exposure, water
concentrations above the MCL
established under the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
The exposure pathways for humans
that EPA has evaluated for CCR landfills
and surface impoundments are nearby
residents’ groundwater ingestion and air
inhalation, and fish consumption by
recreational fishers.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Ecological Risks
For ecological non-cancer hazards
that are modeled, the risk criterion is a
hazard quotient that represents impacts
on individual organisms, with a risk of
concern being an estimated HQ greater
than one. In some instances, EPA also
considered documented evidence of
ecological harm, such as field studies
published in peer-reviewed scientific
literature. Such evidence is often
sufficient to determine adverse
ecological effects in lieu of or in
addition to modeling potential
ecological risks.
Two types of exposures can occur for
ecological receptors: exposures in which
ecological receptors inhabit a waste
management unit directly, and
exposures in which CCRs or its
chemical constituents migrate, or move,
out of the waste management unit and
contaminate nearby soil, surface water,
or sediment.
C. Consideration of Individual Listing
Criteria
CCRs contain the following Appendix
VIII toxic constituents: antimony,
arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium,
83 See
40 CFR 300.430.
noted previously, EPA’s hazardous waste
listing determination policy is described in the
notice of proposed rulemaking for wastes from the
dye and pigment industries at 59 FR 66075–66077.
84 As
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
chromium, lead, mercury, nickel,
selenium, silver, and thallium. These
Appendix VIII constituents are
frequently found in CCRs, as has been
reported by the U.S. EPA (1988, 1999,
2002, 2006, 2008, and 2010).85 These are
discussed below with respect to the
factors outlined in § 261.11(a)(3)(i)–(xi),
and the Agency’s findings. In the
following discussion of the eleven
listing factors, we combined factors iii
(Migration), iv (Persistence), v
(Degradation) and vi (Bioaccumulation);
and factors vii (Plausible Types of
Mismanagement), viii (Quantities of the
Waste Generated), and ix (Nature and
Severity of Effects from
Mismanagement) for a more lucid
presentation of our arguments.
1. Toxicity—Factor (i)
Toxicity is considered in developing
the health benchmarks used in risk
assessment modeling. The Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) ToxFAQs,86 the EPA
Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS),87 and the Toxicology Data
Network (TOXNET) of the National
Institutes of Health 88 are all sources of
toxicological data on the Appendix VIII
hazardous constituents found in CCRs.
(The information from these data
sources on the toxicity of the metals
identified is included in the docket to
today’s proposed rule.) Two types of
85 Full references: U.S. EPA (Environmental
Protection Agency). 1988. Wastes from the
Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power
Plants—Report to Congress. EPA–530–SW–88–002.
U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Washington, DC. November.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).
1999. Report to Congress: Wastes from the
Combustion of Fossil Fuels—Volume II, EPA 530–
S–99–010. Office of Solid Waste. March.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).
2002. Constituent Screening for Coal Combustion
Wastes. Draft Report prepared by Research Triangle
Institute for Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC.
September.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).
2006. Characterization of Mercury-Enriched Coal
Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities Using
Enhanced Sorbents for Mercury Control. EPA 600/
R–06/008. Office of Research and Development.
Research Triangle Park, NC. January.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).
2008. Characterization of Coal Combustion
Residuals from Electric Utilities Using Wet
Scrubbers for Multi-Pollutant Control. EPA/600/R–
08/077. Report to U.S. EPA Office of Research and
Development, Air Pollution Control Division.
Research Triangle Park, NC. July.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).
2010. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of
Coal Combustion Wastes. Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery, Washington, DC. April.
86 https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html.
87 https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm?
fuseaction=iris.showSubstanceList&list_
type=alpha&view=B.
88 https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/
htmlgen?HSDB.
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ingestion benchmarks are developed.
For carcinogens, a cancer slope factor
(CSF) is developed. A CSF is the slope
of the curve representing the
relationship between dose and cancer
risk. It is used to calculate the
probability that the toxic nature of a
constituent ingested at a specific daily
dose will cause cancer. For noncarcinogens, a reference dose (RfD) is
developed. The RfD (expressed in units
of mg of substance/kg body weight-day)
is defined as an estimate (with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order
of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the
human population (including sensitive
subgroups) that is likely to be without
an appreciable risk of deleterious effects
during a lifetime. The constituents of
concern associated with CCRs include
antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium,
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, lead,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and
thallium. Based on the information in
ASTDR’s Tox FAQs, EPA’s IRIS system
and TOXNET, the Agency believes that
the metals identified are sufficiently
toxic that they are capable of posing a
substantial present or potential hazard
to human health and the environment
when improperly treated, stored,
transported disposed of, or otherwise
managed. A brief summary of the toxic
effects associated with these
constituents is presented below,
including for the four Appendix VIII
hazardous constituents that were
estimated in the draft groundwater risk
assessment to pose high-end (90th
percentile) risks at or above the risk
criteria in one or more situations, and
that were also found to present risk to
human health in one or more damage
cases (arsenic, cadmium, lead, and
selenium):
Arsenic. Ingestion of arsenic has been
shown to cause skin cancer and cancer
in the liver, bladder and lungs.89
Antimony. Antimony is associated
with altered glucose and cholesterol
levels, myocardial effects, and
spontaneous abortions. EPA has set a
limit of 145 ppb in lakes and streams to
protect human health from the harmful
effects of antimony taken in through
water and contaminated fish and
shellfish.90
Barium. Barium has been found to
potentially cause gastrointestinal
disturbances and muscular weaknesses
when people are exposed to it at levels
above the EPA drinking water standards
for relatively short periods of time.91
89 ATSDR ToxFAQs. Available at: https://
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html.
90 Ibid.
91 Ibid.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Beryllium. Beryllium can be harmful
if you breathe it. If beryllium air levels
are high enough (greater than 1,000 ug/
m3), an acute condition can result. This
condition resembles pneumonia and is
called acute beryllium disease.92
Cadmium and Lead. Cadmium and
lead have the following effects: kidney
disease, lung disease, fragile bone,
decreased nervous system function,
high blood pressure, and anemia.93
Hexavalent Chromium. Hexavalent
chromium has been shown to cause
lung cancer when inhaled.94
Mercury. Exposure to high levels of
metallic, inorganic, or organic mercury
can permanently damage the brain,
kidneys, and developing fetus.95
Nickel. The most common harmful
health effect of nickel in humans is an
allergic reaction. Approximately 10–
20% of the population is sensitive to
nickel. The most common reaction is a
skin rash at the site of contact. Less
frequently, some people who are
sensitive to nickel have asthma attacks
following exposure to nickel. Some
sensitized people react when they
consume food or water containing
nickel or breathe dust containing it.96
Selenium. Selenium is associated
with selenosis.97
Silver. Exposure to high levels of
silver for a long period of time may
result in a condition called arygria, a
35169
blue-gray discoloration of the skin and
other body tissues.98
Thallium. Thallium exposure is
associated with hair loss, as well as
nervous and reproductive system
damage.99
2. Concentration of Constituents in
Waste—Factor (ii)
A CCR constituent database was
developed for the Regulatory
Determination in May 2000 and in
followup work leading to today’s coproposal. This database contained data
on the total CCR constituents listed
above, as well as many others, with the
Appendix VIII constituents found in
varying concentrations (see Table 6).100
TABLE 6—TOTAL METALS CONCENTRATIONS FOUND IN CCRS
[ppm]
Constituent
Mean
Antimony ..................................................................................................................................................
Arsenic .....................................................................................................................................................
Barium ......................................................................................................................................................
Beryllium ..................................................................................................................................................
Cadmium ..................................................................................................................................................
Chromium ................................................................................................................................................
Lead .........................................................................................................................................................
Mercury ....................................................................................................................................................
Nickel .......................................................................................................................................................
Selenium ..................................................................................................................................................
Silver ........................................................................................................................................................
Thallium ...................................................................................................................................................
The data in Table 6 show that many
of these metals are contained in CCRs at
relatively high concentrations, such that
if CCRs were improperly managed, they
could leach out and pose a substantial
present or potential hazard to human
health or the environment when
improperly treated, stored, transported
or disposed of or otherwise managed.
The risk assessment that was conducted
confirms this finding, as do the many
damage cases that have been
documented and presented in today’s
co-proposal, including documents
contained in the docket to today’s
proposed rule.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Migration, Persistence, Degradation,
and Bioaccumulation—Factors (iii), (iv),
(v), and (vi)
The potential of the hazardous
constituents and any degradation
products to migrate, persist, degrade
and/or bioaccumulate in the
environment are all factors that EPA
considered and evaluated in the design
of the fate and transport models that
were used in assessing the
concentrations of the toxic constituents
to which humans and ecological
receptors may be exposed. However,
before discussing the hazardous
constituents in the fate and transport
models, the Agency would note that the
toxic constituents for CCRs are all toxic
metals—antimony, arsenic, barium,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver and
thallium, which do not decompose or
degrade with the passage of time. Thus,
these toxic metals will persist in the
environment for very long periods of
time, and if they escape from the
disposal site, will continue to provide a
potential source of long-term
contamination.
The purpose of the risk assessment
was to use the fate and transport models
to assess likely migration of the CCR
toxic constituents from different waste
types through different exposure
pathways, to receptors and to predict
whether CCRs under different
management scenarios may produce
6.32
24.7
246.75
2.8
1.05
27.8
25
0.18
32
2.4075
0.6965
1.75
Minimum
0.00125
0.00394
0.002
0.025
0.000115
0.005
0.0074
0.000035
0.0025
0.0002
0
0.09
Maximum
3100
773
7230
31
760.25
5970
1453
384.2
54055
673
3800
100
risks to human health and the
environment. To estimate the risks
posed by the management of CCRs in
landfills and surface impoundments, the
risk assessment estimated the release of
the CCR toxic constituents from
landfills and surface impoundments, the
concentrations of these constituents in
environmental media surrounding coalfired utility power plants, and the risks
that these concentrations pose to human
and ecological receptors. The risk
estimates were based on a groundwater
fate and transport model in which
constituents leached to groundwater
consumed as drinking water, migrated
to surface water and bioaccumulated in
recreationally caught and consumed
fish, and on direct ecological exposure.
The specific 50th and 90th percentile
risk assessment results for relevant
Appendix VIII constituents are
discussed below. While these results are
based on a subset of CCR disposal units,
they are likely representative of the risks
posed by other similar disposal units.
As discussed previously, the risk
92 Ibid.
95 Ibid.
98 Ibid.
93 Ibid.
96 Ibid.
99 Ibid.
94 Ibid.
97 Ibid.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
100 Additional data on the waste characteristics of
fly ash and FGD are presented in section I.F.2.
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35170
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
assessment demonstrates that if CCRs
are improperly managed, they have the
potential to present a hazard to human
health and the environment above a 1 ×
10¥4 to 1 × 10¥6 cancer range or an HQ
of 1. A detailed discussion of the
modeling and risks from this pathway
can be found in U.S. EPA 2009a
(available in the docket for this
proposal). This report presents the
methodology, results, and uncertainties
of EPA’s assessment of human health
risks resulting from groundwater
contamination from coal-fired electric
utilities.
Ingestion of Groundwater: The risk
assessment predicted that CCRs pose an
estimated trivalent arsenic cancer risk of
4 in 10,000 for unlined landfills and 2
in 10,000 for clay-lined landfills at the
90th percentile. No cancer risks above 1
in 100,000 were found at the 50th
percentile. The 90th percentile results
also estimated that thallium is ingested
at three times the reference dose and
antimony at twice the reference dose for
unlined landfills. For clay-lined
landfills, only thallium is estimated to
exceed the reference dose, with a 90th
percentile ingestion of twice the
reference dose.
CCRs co-managed with coal refuse in
landfills are estimated to pose arsenic
cancer risks of 5 in 10,000 for an
unlined landfill and 2 in 10,000 for a
clay-lined landfill at the 90th percentile.
EPA estimates that arsenic poses a 2 in
100,000 risk of cancer at the 50th
percentile for unlined landfills, but
poses cancer risks of less than 1 in
100,000 for clay or composite-lined
landfills. For CCRs co-managed with
coal refule, thallium is estimated at two
times the reference dose in unlined
landfills at the 90th percentile, but did
not exceed the reference dose at the 0th
percentile for any liner type.
For unlined landfills managing FBC
waste, arsenic is estimated to have a
cancer risk of three in one hundred
thousand at the 90th percentile. For
clay-lined landfills managing FBC
waste, arsenic is estimated to have a
cancer risk of six in one hundred
thousand at the 90th percentile, while
thallium is estimated to have an HQ of
4, and antimony is estimated to have an
HQ of 3.
The Appendix VIII constituents in
CCRs managed in landfills are not all
estimated to arrive at the drinking water
well at the same time. For unlined
landfills, the median number of years
until peak well water concentrations are
estimated to occur is approximately
2,800 to 9,700 years for arsenic, 2,600 to
10,000 years for selenium, and 2,300
years for thallium. For clay-lined
landfills, the median estimated time
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
until peak well concentrations is
approximately 4,000 to 10,000 years for
arsenic, 5,100 to more than 10,000 years
for selenium, and 4,300 years for
thallium. Of the contaminated
groundwater plumes that are estimated
to reach the receptor wells from
composite-lined units, the median time
to peak well concentration as not
estimated to sour in the 10,000 year
time period that was modeled.101
For surface impoundments, the risk
estimates differ. CCRs managed alone,
that is, without coal refuse in the same
impoundment, are found to pose an
arsenic cancer risk of 2 in 1,000 for
unlined surface impoundments and 9 in
10,000 for clay-lined surface
impoundments at the 90th percentile.
For unlined surface impoundments at
the 90th percentile, selenium’s HQ is
two and lead’s is three. At the 50th
percentile, none of the constituents
assessed for non-cancer effects exceed
their reference dose in any scenario, but
arsenic did pose estimated cancer risks
of 1 in 10,000 and 6 in 100,000 for
unlined and clay-lined units,
respectively. For the surface
impoundments with composite liners,
arsenic did not exceed cancer risks of 1
in 100,000, nor did selenium exceed its
reference dose.
Co-disposed CCRs and coal refuse
managed in surface impoundments
resulted in the highest risks. For the
90th percentile, arsenic’s estimated
cancer risk is 2 in 100 and 7 in 1,000
for unlined and clay-lined surface
impoundments, respectively.102 At the
50th percentile, these units still resulted
in estimated arsenic cancer risks of 6 in
10,000 for the unlined surface
impoundment and 2 in 10,000 for the
clay-lined surface impoundment.
Cadmium and lead both are estimated to
exceed the reference dose by nine times
at the 90th percentile for unlined
surface impoundments. In clay-lined
surface impoundments, cadmium has an
estimated cadmium HQ of 3. When
managed in surface impoundments with
composite liners, these constituents’
estimated cancer risks did not exceed 1
in 100,000, nor are they estimated to
exceed their reference doses.
As with landfills, the modeling shows
differing arrival times of various
101 The risk model used by EPA evaluates
conditions over a 10,000 year period, and considers
constituent concentrations during that period. In
some cases, peak concentrations do not occur
during the 10,000 year period.
102 Including data with very high leach levels in
surface impoundments where pyritic wastes were
managed. As mentioned earlier, management of
CCRs with coal refuse may have changed, and some
pore water data from the coal refuse may not
represent the management of these materials today.
EPA has solicited comments on these issues.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
constituents at the modeled well
locations. Due to differences in
behaviors when interacting in soil, some
chemical constituents move more
quickly than others through the
subsurface environment. For unlined
surface impoundments, the median
number of years until peak well water
concentrations would occur is estimated
to be 74 years for hexavalent selenium
and 78 years for arsenic. For clay-lined
surface impoundments, the median
number of years was estimated to be 90
years for hexavalent selenium and 110
years for trivalent arsenic. Of the
plumes that did reach the receptor wells
from composite-lined units,103 the
median number of years was estimated
to be 4,600 years for hexavalent
selenium and 8,600 years for trivalent
arsenic.
While hexavalent chromium, and
nickel were not modeled using the fate
and transport models, they did show the
potential for excess risk at the screening
stage.104 Risk attenuation factors were
developed for each of these constituents
at the 50th and 10th percentiles. Here,
attenuation refers to the dilution of the
concentration of a constituent. Thus, the
10th percentile (not the 90th percentile)
was developed to represent the high-end
risks. These risk attenuation factors
were calculated by dividing the
screening risk results by the full-scale
risk results, across all unit types
combined, for the constituents modeled
in the full-scale assessment. Using the
risk attenuation factors, none of the
constituents were estimated to exceed
an HQ of 1 at either the 50th or 10th
percentile for landfills. For surface
impoundments, hexavalent chromium
was estimated to exceed an HQ of 1 at
the 50th percentile, while hexavalent
chromium was estimated to exceed an
HQ of 1 at the 10th percentile. The HQ
for nickel under the surface
103 In other words, based on the results from this
subset of the total number of Monte Carlo
realizations.
104 Previous risk assessment results for CCR (U.S.
EPA, 1998) indicated concern for the groundwater
pathway and limited concern for aboveground
pathways for human and ecological receptors. The
primary purpose of subsequent risk analyses was to
update those results by incorporating new waste
characterization data received since 1998 and by
applying current data and methodologies to the risk
analyses. The initial step in this process is
screening and constituent selection for a more
detailed analysis. The goal of screening is to
identify CCR constituents, waste types, receptors,
and exposure pathways with risks below the level
of concern and eliminate those combinations from
further analysis. The screening analysis (U.S. EPA,
2002) compared the 90th percentile leachate values
directly to the human health benchmarks identified
above. In other words, it was assumed that a human
receptor was drinking leachate directly from a CCR
landfill or surface impoundment with no
attenuation or variation in exposure.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
impoundment scenario was less than 1
using the 50th and 10th percentile
values. However, the use of risk
attenuation factors in place of
probabilistic fate and transport
modeling increases the uncertainty
associated with these results. This
analysis was conducted only for the
drinking water exposure pathway.
Consumption of Recreationally
Caught Fish: For the unlined, clay-lined,
or composite-lined landfills, none of the
modeled Appendix VIII hazardous
constituents posed a cancer risk greater
than 1 in 100,000, nor did they exceed
their reference doses. However, for
surface impoundments co-disposing of
CCRs with coal refuse, trivalent
arsenic’s 90th percentile estimates are 3
in 100,000 and 2 in 100,000 excess
cancer risk for unlined and clay-lined
units, respectively. Pentavalent arsenic’s
90th percentile estimate is 2 in 100,000
excess cancer risk for unlined
impoundments. For all other liner and
management unit scenarios at the 90th
percentile, and all scenarios at the 50th
percentile, there were no arsenic cancer
risks above 1 in 100,000. Hexavalent
selenium is estimated to result in
exposures at three times the reference
dose and twice the reference dose in the
unlined and clay-lined surface
impoundment scenarios, respectively, at
the 90th percentile. However, selenium
is not estimated to exceed the reference
dose in the composite lined scenario at
the 90th percentile, or any scenario at
the 50th percentile.
Particulate Matter Inhalation: Air
emissions from CCR disposal and
storage sites can originate from waste
unloading operations, spreading and
compacting operations, the resuspension of particulates from
vehicular traffic, and from wind erosion.
Air inhalation exposures may cause
adverse human health effects, either due
to inhalation of small-diameter (less
than 10 microns) ‘‘respirable’’ particulate
matter that causes adverse effects (PM10
and smaller particles which penetrate to
and potentially deposit in the thoracic
regions of the respiratory tract), which
particles are associated with a host of
cardio and pulmonary mortality and
morbidity effects. See e.g. 71 FR at
61151–62 and 61178–85 (Oct. 6, 2006);
see also 40 CFR 50.6 and 50.13
(National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for thoracic coarse particles
and fine particles).
To evaluate the potential exposure of
residents to particulate matter that live
near landfills that have disposed of
CCRs, EPA has performed a screeninglevel analysis using the SCREEN3
model. This analysis, in Inhalation of
Fugitive Dust: A Screening Assessment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
of the Risks Posed by Coal Combustion
Waste Landfills—DRAFT (U.S. EPA
2010b, copy of which is in the docket
for this proposed rule), indicates that,
without fugitive dust controls, there
could be exceedances of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for fine particulate matter in
the air at residences near CCR landfills.
EPA requests comment and data on the
screening analysis, on the results of any
ambient air monitoring for particulate
matter that has been conducted, where
air monitoring stations are located near
CCR landfills, along with information
on any techniques, such as wetting,
compaction, or daily cover that may be
employed to reduce such exposures.
A description of the modeling and
risks from this pathway for disposal of
CCRs in landfills and surface
impoundments can be found in the
Draft Final Report: Non-ground Water
Pathways, Human Health and Ecological
Risk Analysis for Fossil Fuel
Combustion Phase 2 (FFC2); June 5,
1998.105 This analysis did not address
the issue of enrichment of toxic
constituents present in the finer,
inhalable fraction of the overall
particulate matter size distribution,106
but used the total constituent
concentrations to represent the
concentrations of constituents present
on the inhaled particulate matter. Based
on the analysis, at landfills, the highest
estimated risk value was an individual
excess lifetime risk of 4 in one million
for the farmer, due to inhalation of
chromium (all chromium present in the
particulate matter was assumed to be in
the more toxic, hexavalent form). For
surface impoundments, the highest risk
value was 2 in one million for the
farmer (again assuming all chromium
present was hexavalent). The Agency
requests comment on the analysis, as
presented in the draft final report, as
well as any data, including air
monitoring data that may be available
regarding the potential for residents to
be exposed to toxic constituents by this
exposure pathway.
Ecological Exposure: Where species
were directly exposed to surface
impoundments, the risk assessment
found ecological risks due to selenium,
silver, nickel, chromium, arsenic,
cadmium, barium, lead, and mercury.
For scenarios where species were
exposed to constituents that had
migrated from the groundwater to
105 https://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/
industrial/special/fossil/ngwrsk1.pdf.
106 See, for example, Vouk, V. and Piver, W.
‘‘Metallic Elements in Fossil Fuel Combustion
Products: Amounts and Form of Emissions and
Evaluation of Carcinogenicity and Mutagenicity.’’
Env Health Perspec 1983:47(201–225).
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35171
surface water and sediment, ecological
risk exceedances were found for lead,
selenium, arsenic, barium, antimony,
and cadmium at the 90th percentile, but
not at the 50th percentile. EPA’s risk
assessment, confirmed by the existing
damage cases and field studies
published in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, show elevated
selenium levels in migratory birds, and
elevated contaminant levels in
mammals as a result of environmental
uptake, fish deformities, and inhibited
fish reproductive capacity. Because of
the large size of these management
units, many being 100’s of acres to one
that is about 2,600 acres, receptors can
often inhabit these waste management
units. There are a number of recent
references in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature specific to CCRs
managed in surface impoundments that
confirm the 1998 risk assessment results
and provide additional pertinent
information of potential ecological
damage. Hopkins, et al. (2006) 107
observed deformities and reproductive
effects in amphibians living on or near
CCR disposal sites in Georgia. Rowe, et
al. (2002) 108 provided a thorough
review of laboratory and field studies
that relate to the impact of CCR surface
impoundment management practices’
on aquatic organisms and communities.
Examples of studies cited in Rowe, et al.
(2002) that illustrates the impact of
CCRs on aquatic organisms in direct
contact with surface impoundment
waters and/or sediments include
Benson and Birge (1985),109 Coutant, et
al. (1978) 110 and Rowe, et al. (2001),111
while examples of studies cited in
Rowe, et al. 2002 that illustrates the
impact of CCRs on aquatic organisms in
water bodies near CCR surface
107 Hopkins, W.A., S.E. DuRant, B.P. Staub, C.L.
Rowe, and B.P. Jackson. 2006. Reproduction,
embryonic development, and maternal transfer of
contaminants in the amphibian Gastrophryne
carolinensis. Environmental Health Perspectives.
114(5):661–666.
108 Rowe, C., Hopkins, W., Congdon, G.
‘‘Ecotoxicological Implications of Aquatic Disposal
of Coal Combustion Residuals in the United States:
A Review.’’ Env Monit Assess 2002: 80(270–276).
109 Benson, W. and Birge, W. ‘‘Heavy metal
tolerance and metallothionein induction in fathead
minnows: results from field and laboratory
investigations.’’ Environ Toxicol Chem 1985:4(209–
217).
110 Coutant, C., Wasserman, C., Chung, M., Rubin,
D., Manning, M. ‘‘Chemistry and biological hazard
of a coal-ash seepage stream.’’ J. Water Poll. Control
Fed. 1978:50(757–743).
111 Rowe C., Hopkins, W., and Coffman, V.
‘‘Failed recruitment of southern toads (Bufo
terrestris) in a trace-element contaminated breeding
habitat: direct and indirect effects that may lead to
a local population sink.’’ Arch. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol. 2001:40(399–405).
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35172
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
impoundments include Lemly (1993),112
Sorensen, et al. (1982) 113 and (1988).114
This latter category may reflect CCR
impacts attributable to three constituent
migration mechanisms: (1) NPDESpermitted discharges from
impoundments; (2) overtopping of
impoundments; and (3) groundwater-tosurface-water discharges (modeled in
US EPA 2010a), as well as other, nonCCR-related, sources of pollutants.
Although chromium, beryllium, and
silver were not modeled, they were
analyzed using dilution attenuation
factors developed for the 50th and 10th
percentiles in the same manner as
described above. The only exceedance
of the HQ of 1 was for silver at the 10th
percentile under the landfill scenario.
The only exceedances of the ecological
criteria for surface impoundments of the
40 CFR part 261 Appendix VIII
constituents was for chromium at the
10th percentile. Since full-scale
modeling was not conducted, the results
for these constituents are uncertain.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Plausible Types of Mismanagement,
Quantities of the Waste Generated,
Nature and Severity of Effects From
Mismanagement—Factors (vii), (viii)
and (ix)
As discussed earlier, approximately
46 million tons of CCRs were managed
in calendar year 2008 in landfills (34%)
and nearly 29.4 million tons were
managed in surface impoundments
(22%).115 EPA has estimated that in
2004, 69% of the CCR landfills and 38%
of the CCR surface impoundments had
liners. As shown in the risk assessment
and damage cases, the disposal of CCRs
into unlined landfills and surface
impoundments is likely to pose
significant risks to human health and
the environment. Additionally,
documented damage cases have helped
to confirm the actuality and magnitude
of risks posed by these unlined disposal
units.
The CCR waste stream is generated in
very large volumes and is increasing.
The ACAA estimates that the
production of CCRs has increased
steadily from approximately 30 million
tons in the 1960s to over 120 million
112 Lemly A., ‘‘Guidelines for evaluating selenium
data from aquatic monitoring and assessment
studies.’’ Environ. Monit. Assess. 1993:28(83–100).
113 Sorensen, E., Bauer, T., Bell, J., Harlan, C.
‘‘Selenium accumulation and cytotoxicity in teleosts
following chronic, environmental exposure.’’ Bull.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1982:29(688–696).
114 Sorenson, E. ‘‘Selenium accumulation,
reproductive status, and histopathological changes
in environmentally exposed redear sunfish.’’ Arch
Toxicol 1988:61(324–329).
115 Estimated from the 2009 ACAA survey and
Energy Information Administration 2005 F767
Power Plant database.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:14 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
tons in the 2000s.116 A recent ACAA
survey estimates a total CCR production
of just over 136 million tons in 2008.117
This is a substantially large waste
stream when compared to the 6.9
million tons of non-wastewater
hazardous wastes disposed by all other
sectors in 2007, and the 2 million tons
of hazardous waste being reported as
disposed of in landfills and surface
impoundments in 2005.118
EPA currently has documented
evidence of proven damages to
groundwater and surface water from 27
disposal sites and potential damages at
40 sites which are discussed in detail
above and in the Appendix to this
proposal. The damage cases resulting
from CCR constituents migrating into
groundwater were generally the same
with those predicted in the risk
assessment with respect to constituents
which migrated, the concentrations
reaching receptors, and the consequent
magnitude of risk to those receptors. Of
the constituents in Appendix VIII of
Part 261, four were found at levels of
concern in both the risk assessment and
the damage cases (arsenic, cadmium,
lead, and selenium). Two additional
Appendix VIII (Part 261) constituents
(chromium and nickel) were found in
damage cases, and showed the potential
for risk in the risk assessment, but were
not modeled through fate and transport
modeling. Finally, there were two
Appendix VIII (Part 261) constituents
(antimony and thallium) that were
projected to be capable of migrating and
reaching receptors at levels of concern
in the risk assessment, but have yet to
be identified in any of our groundwater
damage cases.119
The damages to surface water from
Appendix VIII (Part 261) constituents do
not reflect a ground water to surface
water pathway, but rather reflect surface
water discharges. Five damage cases
resulted in selenium fish consumption
advisories consistent with the risk
116 ACAA (American Coal Ash Association).
2008. Production & Use Chart (1966–2007). https://
www.acaa-usa.org/associations/8003/files/
Revised_1966_2007_CCP_Prod_v_Use_Chart.pdf.
117 ACAA (American Coal Ash Association).
2009. 2008 Coal Combustion Product (CCP)
Production & Use Survey Results. https://www.acaausa.org/associations/8003/files/
2007_ACAA_CCP_Survey_Report_Form%2809-1508%29.pdf.
118 The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste
Report (2007) available at https://www.epa.gov/
epawaste/inforesources/data/br07/national07.pdf.
119 While this could indicate a potential
conservatism in the model with respect to these two
constituents, it is more likely to result from a failure
to sample for these constituents as frequently. This
is consistent with the data reported in Table 4–29
of the revised risk assessment (only 11 samples
taken for antimony and thallium in surface
impoundments versus hundreds for various other
constituents).
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
assessment’s prediction that selenium
consumption from fish in water bodies
affected by CCR disposal units would
result in excess ecologic and human
health risk. We are aware that at least
three of the fish advisories were
subsequently rescinded when the
criteria was reassessed and revised. The
risk assessment also predicts that
arsenic would pose such risks.
However, while no arsenic fish
advisories have been linked to CCR
disposal at this time, the risk assessment
predicts that selenium will migrate
faster than arsenic.
In addition to the impacts on human
health from groundwater and surface
water contaminated by CCR released
from disposal units, the damage cases
have also shown the following adverse
effects to plants and wildlife: Elevated
selenium levels in migratory birds,
wetland vegetative damage, fish kills,
amphibian deformities, snake metabolic
effects, plant toxicity, mammal uptake,
fish deformities, and inhibited fish
reproductive capacity. Although these
effects cannot easily be linked to the
results of the risk assessment as was
done for groundwater and surface water
above, the risk assessment generally
agreed with the damage cases because it
sometimes showed very high risks to
ecological receptors. For additional
information on ecological damages, see
the document titled ‘‘What Are the
Environmental and Health Effects
Associated with Disposing of CCRs in
Landfills and Surface Impoundments?’’
in the docket to this proposal.
Furthermore, four of the 27 proven
damage case disposal sites have been
listed on the EPA’s National Priorities
List (NPL). The NPL is the list of
national priority sites with known
releases or threatened releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United
States and its territories. The Hazard
Ranking System (HRS), the scoring
system EPA uses to assess the relative
threat associated with a release from a
site, is the primary method used to
determine whether a site should be
placed on the NPL.120 The HRS takes
into account the three elements of
environmental and human health risk:
(1) Probability of release; (2) exposure;
and (3) toxicity. EPA generally will list
sites with scores of 28.5 or above. The
HRS is a proven tool for evaluating and
prioritizing the releases that may pose
threats to human health and the
environment throughout the nation.
120 U.S. EPA 2007. ‘‘Introduction to the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS).’’ Accessed at: https://
www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/npl_hrs/
hrsint.htm.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Whereas each of those 4 NPL sites also
contains waste other than CCRs, CCRs
are one of the prevalent waste types in
each case.121
In addition, the Kingston, Tennessee
damage case (see the Appendix) helps to
illustrate the additional threats to
human health and the environment that
can be caused by the failure of a CCR
waste management unit. At TVA’s
Kingston facility, there were four failure
conditions: The presence of an
unusually weak fly ash (‘‘Slimes’’)
foundation; the fill geometry and
setbacks; increased loads due to higher
fill; and hydraulically placed loose wet
ash. If owners or operators do not
maintain due diligence regarding the
structural integrity of surface
impoundments, significant damage to
human health and the environment
could be a likely outcome. In summary,
while the preponderance of documented
damage cases were the result of releases
from unlined landfills and surface
impoundments, EPA believes that the
above data identify situations (e.g.,
adverse impacts on migratory birds)
illustrative of potential problems
occurring from the management of CCRs
in any type of surface impoundment.
5. Action Taken by Other Governmental
Agencies or Regulatory Programs Based
on the Health or Environmental Hazard
Posed by the Waste or Waste
Constituent—Factor (x)
As a result of the mismanagement of
CCRs, EPA and states have taken steps
to compel cleanup in several situations.
Specifically, in addition to EPA placing
sites on the NPL due to the disposal or
indiscriminant placement of CCRs, at
least 12 states have issued
administrative orders for corrective
actions at CCR disposal sites. Corrective
action measures at these CCR
management units vary depending on
the site specific circumstances and
include formal closure of the unit,
capping, re-grading of ash and the
installation of liners over the ash,
ground water treatment, groundwater
monitoring, and combinations of these
measures.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
6. Other Factors—Factor (xi)
The damage cases and the risk
assessment also found excess risks for
human and ecological receptors that
resulted from non-Appendix VIII (Part
261) constituents.122 While not
121 For specifics, please see https://
www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/
main?main=DocumentDetail&d=EPA-HQ-RCRA2006-0796-0015.
122 Aluminum, boron, chloride, cobalt, copper,
fluoride, iron, lithium, manganese, molybdenum,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:14 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
currently identified under RCRA as
hazardous or toxic constituents, several
of these constituents have the same
toxic endpoints as the Appendix VIII
(Part 261) constituents found in CCRs,
while nitrate is associated with
pregnancy complications and
methemoglobinemia (blue baby
syndrome).123 Although these nonAppendix VIII (Part 261) constituents do
not provide an independent basis for
listing CCRs, EPA finds their presence
in the damage cases and risk assessment
results to be relevant to the listing
decision because of the potential to
cause additive or synergistic effects to
the Appendix VIII constituents. For
instance, exposure to high levels of
cobalt (cobalt has an HQ of 500 when
rounded to 1 significant digit) can result
in lung and heart effects, the same
endpoints as exposure to high levels of
antimony. Thus, these two constituents
could act additively or synergistically
on both the heart and lungs. The risk
assessment showed 90th percentile
cobalt drinking water ingestion to be
500 times the reference dose. Thus,
cobalt could exacerbate the heart and
lung effects due to CCR antimony
exposures.
Therefore, based on our examination
of CCRs against the criteria for listing,
a listing determination for CCRs
destined for disposal can be based on
such factors as (1) The continued
evidence that CCRs in landfills and
surface impoundments may not be
properly managed—e.g., the lack of
groundwater monitoring for many
existing units; (2) the continued gaps in
some state regulations; (3) the damage
cases we have documented to date,
including the damage done by the
recent catastrophic release of CCRs from
the impoundment failure in Kingston,
Tennessee; and (4) the results of the risk
assessment, which indicates high-end
risks associated with disposal of CCRs
in unlined and clay-lined CCR landfills
and surface impoundments far
exceeding acceptable levels (e.g.,
exceeding a cancer risk threshold of
1 × 10¥5) 124 and the non-cancer risk
threshold (HQ greater than 1).
nitrate/nitrite, strontium, sulfate, vanadium, and
zinc.
123 ATSDR CSEM. Available at: https://
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/nitrate/
no3physiologic_effects.html.
124 This risk level is consistent with those
discussed in EPA’s hazardous waste listing
determination policy (see the discussion in a
proposed listing for wastes from the dye and
pigment industries, December 22, 1994; 59 FR
66072).
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35173
VI. Summary of the Co-Proposed
Subtitle C Regulations
Under the subtitle C alternative, EPA
would list CCRs from electric utilities
and independent power producers
intended for disposal in landfills and
surface impoundments as a special
waste, which would make them 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
271–272.125 These regulations establish,
among other things, location
restrictions; standards for liners,
leachate collection and removal
systems, and groundwater monitoring
for land disposal units; fugitive dust
control; closure and post-closure care
requirements; storage requirements;
corrective action; financial assurance;
waste characterization; and permitting
requirements. These regulations also
impose requirements on generators and
transporters of CCRs destined for
disposal, including manifesting (if the
CCRs destined for disposal are sent off
site). As discussed in detail in section
IV. E of today’s preamble, EPA is
proposing to leave the Bevill
determination in place for CCRs used
beneficially. Thus, CCRs beneficially
used would not be subject to regulation
from the point of generation or from the
point they are recovered from landfills
or surface impoundments, to the point
where they are used beneficially. In
addition, when beneficially used (e.g.,
in wallboard and concrete), the CCRs
become part of a new product; these
products do not carry the special waste
listing. When these products reach the
end of their useful life and are to be
disposed of, this represents a new point
of generation. This new waste would be
subject to RCRA subtitle C if the waste
exhibits a characteristic of hazardous
waste (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or toxicity).
In the majority of cases, EPA is
proposing that CCRs be subject to the
existing subtitle C requirements without
modification. Accordingly, for those
regulatory requirements that we propose
not to modify or for which EPA does not
specifically solicit comment, EPA is not
proposing to reopen any aspect of those
requirements, and will not respond to
any unsolicited comments submitted
during this rulemaking. However, where
EPA has determined that special
125 As discussed in section VI. D of the preamble,
as part of the proposal to list CCRs as a special
waste, as is done routinely with listed wastes, EPA
is also proposing to subject CCRs that are disposed
of to the notification requirements under CERCLA
at 40 CFR part 302.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35174
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
characteristics of these wastes warrant
changes; e.g., where implementation of
existing requirements would present
practical difficulties, or where
additional requirements are necessary
due to the special characteristics of
these wastes, EPA is proposing to revise
the requirements to account for these
considerations. For example, EPA is
proposing tailored design criteria for
new CCR disposal units, pursuant to its
authority under section 3004(x) of
RCRA.126 Similarly, under the authority
of section 3004(x) of RCRA, EPA is
proposing to modify the CCR landfill
and surface impoundment liner and
leak detection system requirements and
the effective dates for the land disposal
restrictions, and the surface
impoundment retrofit requirements.
EPA is also proposing to establish new
land disposal prohibitions and
treatment standards for both wastewater
and non-wastewater CCRs. In addition,
to address dam safety and stability
issues, EPA is proposing design and
inspection requirements for surface
impoundments, similar to those of the
Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) design requirements for slurry
impoundments at 30 CFR part 77.216
for surface impoundments. Further, EPA
is proposing that all existing surface
impoundments that have not closed in
accordance with the rule’s requirements
by the effective date of this rule would
be subject to all of the requirements of
this rule, including the need to obtain
a permit, irrespective of whether the
unit continues to receive CCRs or the
facility otherwise engages in the active
management of those units.
Finally, we would note that if the
Agency concludes to reverse the Bevill
determinations and list CCRs as a
special waste, EPA would make in any
final rule conforming changes to 40 CFR
parts 260 through 268 and 270 through
272 so that it is clear that these
requirements apply to all facilities
regulated under the authority of RCRA
subtitle C that generate, transport, treat,
store, or dispose of special wastes as
well as to those facilities that generate,
treat, store, or dispose of special wastes.
The following paragraphs set out the
details of this subtitle C proposal, with
the modified or new requirement
discussed in Section B. and the existing
126 Section 3004(x) of RCRA provides EPA the
authority to modify certain statutory provision (i.e.,
3004(c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (o), and (u) and 3005(j)
taking into account the special characteristics of
such wastes, the practical difficulties associated
with implementation of such requirements, and
site-specific characteristics, including, but not
limited to, climate, geology, hydrology, and soil
chemistry at the site, so long as such modified
requirements are protective of human health and
the environment.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
subtitle C requirements discussed in
Section C.
A. Special Waste Listing
Under this regulatory option, EPA is
proposing to list CCRs generated by
electric utilities and independent power
producers destined for disposal as a
special waste subject to the
requirements of RCRA subtitle C by
amending 40 CFR part 261 and to add
Subpart F—Special Wastes Subject to
Subtitle C Regulations. The Agency
believes this would be the appropriate
manner for listing these wastes, and, as
discussed in detail later in this section,
the Agency believes that listing CCRs
destined for disposal as a special waste,
rather than a hazardous waste could, in
large measure, address potential issues
of stigma.
B. Proposed Special Requirements for
CCRs
The following paragraphs discuss the
special requirements the Agency is
proposing for CCRs. These requirements
modify or are in addition to the general
subtitle C requirements found at 40 CFR
parts 264–268 and 270–272.
1. Modification of Technical Standards
Under 3004(x)
Section 3004(x) of RCRA authorizes
the Administrator to modify the
statutory requirements of sections
3004(c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (o), (u), and
3005(j) of RCRA in the case of landfills
or surface impoundments receiving
Bevill wastes, including CCRs that EPA
determines to regulate under subtitle C,
to take into account the special
characteristics of the wastes, the
practical difficulties associated with
implementation of such requirements,
and site-specific characteristics,
including, but not limited to the
climate, geology, hydrology and soil
chemistry at the site, so long as such
modified requirements assure protection
of human health and the environment.
The Agency is proposing to modify,
through its authority under RCRA
3004(x), 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.
i. Modification of CCR Landfills and
Surface Impoundments From the
Section 3004(o) Liner and Leak
Detection Requirements
The minimum technological
requirements set out in RCRA Section
3004(o)(1)(A)(i) requires that new
hazardous waste landfills and surface
impoundments, replacements of
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
existing landfills and impoundments,
and lateral expansions of existing
landfills and impoundments,127 to
install two or more liners and a leachate
collection and removal system above (in
the case of a landfill) and between such
liners. Section 3004(o)(4)(A) also
requires these units to install a leak
detection system. Landfills and surface
impoundments covered under the
regulations at 40 CFR part 264 are
required to have a double liner system,
and a leachate collection and removal
system that can also serve as a leak
detection system as described in 40 CFR
sections 264.221 and 264.301. Under
section 3005 (j)(1) (and, as explained
below, effectively under section 3005
(j)(11) as well), existing surface
impoundments are required to meet all
of these requirements as well.
EPA is proposing to modify the
double liner and leachate collection and
removal system requirement by
substituting a requirement to install a
composite liner and leachate collection
and removal system. As modeled in
EPA’s risk assessment, composite liners
effectively reduce risks from all
constituents to below the risk criteria for
both landfills and surface
impoundments. Therefore, the Agency
believes a composite liner system would
be adequately protective of human
health and the environment and a
double liner system would be
unnecessarily burdensome. The
modified standards specify a composite
liner system that consists of two
components: the upper component must
consist of a minimum 30-mil flexible
membrane liner (FML), and the lower
component must consist of at least a
two-foot layer of compacted soil with a
hydraulic conductivity of no more than
1×10¥7 cm/sec. FML components
consisting of high density polyethylene
(HDPE) shall be at least 60-mil thick.
The FML component must be installed
in direct and uniform contact with the
compacted soil component. The
leachate collection system must be
designed and constructed to maintain
less than a 30-cm depth of leachate over
the liner.
127 Replacement unit means a landfill, surface
impoundment, or waste pile unit (1) from which all
or substantially all of the waste is removed, and (2)
that is subsequently reused to treat, store, or
dispose of such waste. ‘‘Replacement unit’’ does not
apply to a unit from which waste is removed during
closure, if the subsequent reuse solely involves the
disposal of waste from that unit and other closing
units or corrective action areas at the facility, in
accordance with an approved closure plan or EPA
or State approved corrective action. Lateral
expansion means a horizontal expansion of the
waste boundaries of an existing landfill or surface
impoundment.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
EPA has concluded that these liner
and leachate collection requirements
will be protective of human health and
the environment from the release of
contaminants to groundwater from CCRs
in landfills and surface impoundments.
Specifically, the risk assessment
indicates that risks from disposal units
with composite liners will be less than
the 1 × 10¥5 for carcinogens and less
than an HQ of one for other hazardous
constituents—levels that EPA has
considered protective for the
management of hazardous wastes. (The
results of EPA’s risk analyses are
discussed in section II.B, and in the full
risk assessment document, which is in
the docket for today’s proposed
rulemaking.) Further support is
provided by the damage cases, as none
of the proven damage cases involved
lined landfills or surface impoundments
(with the possible exception of one unit,
which in any case did not have a
composite liner). In addition, the
proposed modified requirements are the
design standards for composite liners
specified for municipal solid waste
landfills at 40 CFR part 258; based on
EPA’s experience, such liner design
would be expected to be effective in
mitigating the risks of leaching to
groundwater for a waste, such as CCRs.
For example, CCRs do not contain
volatile organics, such as ethylbenzene,
which has recently been shown to be
problematic for synthetic liners.
Although EPA has not confirmed
damage cases involving the failure of
clay liners, it is not proposing to allow
new disposal units to be built solely
with clay liners. EPA’s modeling in its
risk assessment indicated that clay
liners could be of concern; EPA also
believes that composite liners reflect
today’s best practices for new units,
and, as such, can therefore be feasibly
implemented.128 Nevertheless, EPA
solicits comments on whether clay
liners should also be allowed under
EPA’s regulations. To assist EPA in its
review, we request that commenters
provide data on the hydraulic
conductivity of clay liners associated
with coal ash disposal units, and
information on the protectiveness of
clay liner designs based on site-specific
analyses.
Thus, we are proposing to amend the
current requirements of 40 CFR 264.220,
and 264.300 to require that CCR surface
impoundments and landfills install a
composite liner and leachate collection
and removal system. EPA would codify
128 EPA notes that the state of Maryland, in
developing new standards for CCR disposal units
under its subtitle D authorities, prescribes
composite liners.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
these requirements, as well as other
special requirements for CCR wastes in
a new subpart FF of 40 CFR part 264.
EPA also notes that section 3004(o)(2)
allows the Agency to approve alternate
liner designs, based on site-specific
demonstrations that the alternate design
and operating practices, together with
location characteristics, will prevent the
migration of any hazardous constituents
into ground or surface water at least as
effectively as the double-liner system
(42 U.S.C. 6924(o)(2)). EPA solicits
comment on whether, in addition to the
flexibility provided by section
3004(o)(2), EPA’s regulations should
also provide for alternative liner designs
based on, for example, a specific
performance standard, such as the
subtitle D performance standard in 40
CFR 258.40(a)(1), or a site specific risk
assessment, or a standard that the
alternative liner, such as a clay liner,
was at least as effective as the composite
liner. Such an approach might be
appropriate, for example, in situations
where groundwater is particularly deep
and/or infiltration rates are low, or
where alternative liner systems provide
an equivalent level of protection.
Subtitle C of RCRA requires only new
hazardous waste landfills (or new
portions of existing landfills) to meet
the minimum technology requirements
for liners and leachate collection and
removal systems. RCRA section 3004
(o)(1)(A). The statute thus does not
require existing landfills that are
brought into the subtitle C system
because they are receiving newly listed
hazardous wastes, or the new category
of listed special wastes proposed in this
notice, to be retrofitted with a new
minimum-technology liner/leachate
collection and removal system (or to
close). They can continue to receive
hazardous or special waste, and
continue to operate as compliant
hazardous or special waste landfills.
Following from these provisions, EPA
has not typically required existing
landfills to be retrofitted to meet the
new requirements. Congress specifically
established this approach under subtitle
C, and EPA sees no reason or special
argument to adopt more stringent
requirements for CCR landfills,
particularly given the volume of the
material and the disruption that would
be involved with any other approach.
However, under the proposal, existing
units would have to meet the
groundwater monitoring, corrective
action, and other requirements of the
subtitle C regulations to assure that any
groundwater releases from the unit were
identified and promptly remediated.
This is consistent with the manner in
which EPA has historically
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35175
implemented the hazardous waste
requirements. EPA believes that
maintaining this approach in this
context will be protective, in part,
because, unless facilities ship all of their
wastes off-site (which EPA believes is
highly unlikely), they will need a permit
for on-site management of CCRs, which
will provide regulatory oversight that
could, as necessary, address the risks
from the existing (unpermitted)
landfills.
By contrast, Congress was
significantly more concerned about the
risks associated with unlined surface
impoundments managing newly listed
hazardous wastes (see 42 U.S.C. Section
6924, October 21, 1976). This is
addressed in more detail in section (iv)
below titled ‘‘Wet-Handling of CCRs,
Closure, and Interim Status for Surface
Impoundments.’’
ii. Fugitive Dust Controls
The proposed subtitle C approach
would require that surface
impoundments and landfills be
managed in a manner that controls
fugitive dust consistent with any
applicable requirements developed
under a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
or issued by EPA under section 110 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA). Specifically,
EPA is proposing to adopt as a standard
the 35 μg/m3 level established as the
level of the 24-hour NAAQS for fine
particulate matter (PM–2.5). In addition,
CCR facilities would be required to
control fugitive dust by either covering
or otherwise managing CCRs to control
wind dispersal of dust, emplacement as
wet conditioned CCRs to control wind
dispersal, when stored in piles, or
storage in tanks or buildings. For
purposes of the proposal, wet
conditioning means wetting CCRs with
water to a moisture content that
prevents wind dispersal, facilitates
compaction, but does not result in free
liquids. Trucks or other vehicles
transporting CCRs are to be covered or
otherwise managed to control wind
dispersal of dust. EPA is proposing this
requirement based on the results of a
screening level analysis of the risks
posed by fugitive dusts from CCR
landfills, which showed that, without
fugitive dust controls, levels at nearby
locations could exceed the 35 μg/m3
level established as the level of the 24hour PM 2.5 NAAQS for fine
particulate.
iii. Special Requirements for Stability of
CCR Surface Impoundments
To detect and prevent potential
catastrophic releases, EPA is proposing
requirements for periodic inspections of
surface impoundments. The Agency
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35176
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
believes that such a requirement is
critical to ensure that the owner and
operator of the surface impoundment
becomes aware of any problems that
may arise with the structural stability of
the unit before they occur and, thus,
prevent the past types of catastrophic
releases, such as at Martins Creek,
Pennsylvania and TVA’s Kingston,
Tennessee facility. Therefore, EPA is
proposing that inspections be conducted
every seven days by a person qualified
to recognize specific signs of structural
instability and other hazardous
conditions by visual observation and, if
applicable, to monitor instrumentation.
If a potentially hazardous condition
develops, the owner or operator shall
immediately take action to eliminate the
potentially hazardous condition; notify
the Regional Administrator or the
authorized State Director; and notify
and prepare to evacuate, if necessary, all
personnel from the property which may
be affected by the potentially hazardous
condition(s). Additionally, the owner or
operator must notify state and local
emergency response personnel if
conditions warrant so that people living
in the area down gradient from the
surface impoundment can be evacuated.
Reports of inspections are to be
maintained in the facility operating
record.
To address surface impoundment (or
impoundment) integrity (dam safety),
EPA considered two options. One
option, which is the option proposed in
this notice, is to establish standards
under RCRA for CCR surface
impoundments similar to those
promulgated for coal slurry
impoundments regulated by the Mine
Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) at 30 CFR 77.216. Facilities
relying on CCR impoundments would
need to (1) submit to EPA or the
authorized state plans for the design,
construction, and maintenance of
existing impoundments, (2) submit to
EPA or the authorized state plans for
closure, (3) conduct periodic
inspections by trained personnel who
are knowledgeable in impoundment
design and safety, and (4) provide an
annual certification by an independent
registered professional engineer that all
construction, operation, and
maintenance of impoundments is in
accordance with the approved plan.
When problematic stability and safety
issues are identified, owners and
operators would be required to address
these issues in a timely manner.
In developing these proposed
regulations for structural integrity of
CCR impoundments, EPA sought advice
from the federal agencies charged with
managing the safety of dams in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
United States. Many agencies in the
federal government are charged with
dam safety, including the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), the
Department of Defense (DOD), the
Department of Energy (DOE), the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
the Department of Interior (DOI), and
the Department of Labor (DOL), MSHA.
EPA looked particularly to MSHA,
whose charge and jurisdiction appeared
to EPA to be the most similar to our
task. MSHA’s jurisdiction extends to all
dams used as part of an active mining
operation and their regulations cover
‘‘water, sediment or slurry
impoundments’’ so they include dams
for waste disposal, freshwater supply,
water treatment, and sediment control.
In fact, MSHA’s current impoundment
regulations were created as a result of
the dam failure at Buffalo Creek, West
Virginia on February 26, 1972. (This
failure released 138 million gallons of
stormwater run-off and fine coal refuse,
and resulted in 125 persons being
killed, another 1,000 were injured, over
500 homes were completely
demolished, and nearly 1,000 others
were damaged.)
MSHA has nearly 40 years of
experience writing regulations and
inspecting dams associated with coal
mining, which is directly relevant to the
issues presented by CCRs in this rule. In
our review of the MSHA regulations, we
found them to be comprehensive and
directly applicable to the dams used in
surface impoundments at coal-fired
utilities to manage CCRs. We also
believe that, based on the record
compiled by MSHA for its rulemaking,
and on MSHA’s 40 years of experience
implementing these regulations, these
requirements will prevent the
catastrophic release of CCRs from
surface impoundments, as occurred at
TVA’s facility in Kingston, Tennessee,
and will generally meet RCRA’s
mandate to ensure the protection of
humans and the environment. Thus, we
have modeled our proposal on the
MSHA regulations in 30 CFR Part 77
and we have placed the text of the
salient portions of the MSHA
regulations in the docket for this
rulemaking. The Agency requests
comment on EPA’s proposal to adopt
the MSHA standards (with limited
modifications to deal with issues
specific to CCR impoundments) to
address surface impoundment integrity
under RCRA.
MSHA’s regulations cover
impoundments which can present a
hazard and which impound water,
sediment or slurry to an elevation of
more than five (5) feet and have a
storage volume of 20 acre-feet or more
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and those that impound water,
sediment, or slurry to an elevation of 20
feet or more. EPA seeks comment on
whether to cover all CCR
impoundments for stability, 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. If commenters believe
that other regulations or size cut-offs
should be adopted (and not the size-cut
offs established in the MSHA
regulations), we request that
commenters provide the basis and
technical support for their position.
The second option that EPA
considered, but is not being proposed
today, is to establish impoundment
integrity requirements under the Clean
Water Act’s NPDES permit system.
Existing regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(e)
require that permittees properly operate
and maintain all facilities of treatment
and control used to achieve compliance
with their permits. In addition,
regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(k) allow
the use of best management practices for
the control and abatement of the
discharge of toxic pollutants. Guidance
could be developed to use best
management practices to address
impoundment construction, operation,
and maintenance, consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR 122.41(e) and
122.44(k). Associated permit conditions
could require that surface
impoundments be designed and
constructed in accordance with relevant
state and federal regulations. The
Agency requests comments regarding
the alternate use of NPDES permits
rather than the development of RCRA
regulations to address dam safety and
structural integrity.
iv. Wet-Handling of CCRs, Closure, and
Interim Status for Surface
Impoundments
Where a nonhazardous waste surface
impoundment is storing a waste that
becomes newly subject to the RCRA
hazardous waste requirements, RCRA
subtitle C and the implementing
regulations require these surface
impoundments either to be closed or
upgraded to meet the minimum
technology requirements within four
years. RCRA section 3005 (j)(6), is
implemented by 40 CFR 268.14.129 In
order to be eligible for this four year
grace period, the impoundment must be
in compliance with the applicable
129 40 CFR 268.14 allows owners and operators of
newly regulated surface impoundments to continue
managing hazardous waste without complying with
the minimum technology requirements for a period
up to four years before upgrading or closing the
unit.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
groundwater monitoring provision
under Part 40 CFR 265, Subpart F
within 12 months of the promulgation
of the new hazardous listing or
characteristic.
RCRA section 3005 (j)(11) allows the
placement of untreated hazardous waste
(i.e. hazardous waste otherwise
prohibited from land disposal which
has not been treated to meet EPAestablished treatment standards before
land disposal) in surface impoundments
under limited circumstances. Such
hazardous wastes may be placed in
impoundments for purposes of
treatment provided the impoundments
meet the minimum technology
requirements and provided that any
treatment residues which either do not
meet the treatment standards or which
remain classified as hazardous wastes
are removed from the impoundment
annually. See the implementing rules in
40 CFR section 268.4. EPA has
interpreted this provision so as not to
nullify the provisions of section
3005(j)(6), the upshot being that
impoundments receiving newly
identified or listed wastes would have
four years to close or retrofit under all
circumstances. See 56 FR 37194. If the
surface impoundment continues to treat
hazardous wastes after the four year
period, it must then be in compliance
with 40 CFR 268.4 (Treatment Surface
Impoundment Exemption).
Section 3005(j) of RCRA generally
requires that existing surface
impoundments cannot obtain interim
status and continue to receive or store
newly regulated hazardous waste for
more than four years after the
promulgation of the listing—unless the
facility owner retrofits the unit by
installing a liner that meets the
requirements of section 3004(o)(1)(A), or
meets the conditions specified in
section 3005(j)(2). Under section
3005(j)(2), a surface impoundment may
obtain interim status and continue to
receive or store hazardous waste after
the four-year deadline if (1) The unit has
at least one liner, and there is no
evidence it is leaking, (2) is located
more than one-quarter mile from an
underground source of drinking water;
and (3) complies with the groundwater
monitoring requirements applicable to
permitted facilities. In this case, under
section 3005(j)(9), the facility owner, at
the closure of the unit, would have to
remove or decontaminate all waste
residues, all contaminated liner
material, and contaminated soil to the
extent practicable.
As part of the requirement to assure
that surface impoundments will be
safely phased out, EPA also proposes to
regulate surface impoundments that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
have not completed closure prior to the
effective date of the rule. Under that
scenario, these units would be subject to
the interim status closure requirements
of 40 CFR 265.111 and 265.228(a)(2).
For surface impoundments that have not
met the interim status requirements by
the effective date of the rule, they would
be subject to the full RCRA subtitle C
closure requirements (e.g., obtain a Part
A permit and comply with the interim
status regulations).
EPA recognizes that for regulatory
purposes, it has historically not required
disposal units that cease receiving new
listed or characteristic wastes before the
effective date of RCRA subtitle C to
comply with the requirements.
However, EPA believes that a revised
approach is necessary to protect human
health and the environment, in this
particular case, given the size of the
CCR surface impoundments in question;
the enormous volumes of CCRs they
typically contain (which typically
represent overwhelming mass of the
material in place); the fact that the CCRs
are typically destined for permanent
entombment when the unit is eventually
closed (typically with limited removal);
the presence of very large hydraulic
head leading to continued release—even
where the impoundment has been
drained—that is, improperly closed CCR
impoundments remain open to
precipitation and infiltration; and the
continuing threat to human health and
the environment through catastrophic
failure, if the impoundments are not
properly closed.
EPA’s authority under subtitle C of
RCRA extends to wastes that are treated,
stored, or disposed of; the statutory
definition of disposal has been broadly
interpreted to include passive leaking.
But historically, EPA has construed the
definition of disposal for regulatory
purposes to be narrower than the
statutory definition of disposal.
Although in some situations, postplacement management has been
considered disposal, triggering RCRA
subtitle C regulatory requirements e.g.,
multiple dredging of impoundments or
management of leachate, EPA has
generally interpreted the statute to
require a permit only if a facility treats,
stores, or disposes of the waste, after the
effective date of its designation as a
hazardous waste. See, e.g., 43 FR 58984
(Dec. 18, 1978; 45 FR 33074 (May 1980).
The consequence of this
interpretation is that, for example, no
permit would be required if, after the
rule’s effective date, a facility neither
continued to accept the listed wastes for
disposal, nor continued to ‘‘manage the
wastes’’ in the existing unit. In other
words, under this interpretation, facility
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35177
owners could abandon the unit before
the effective date of the rule without
incurring any regulatory obligations
under RCRA subtitle C (presuming no
other regulated unit is present on-site).
Given the particularly significant risk
associated with CCR impoundments
described above, as well as the fact that
these risks are primarily driven by the
existing disposal units, EPA believes a
broader interpretation of disposal is
appropriate in this case. This is
reinforced by the fact that the continued
release of constituents to surrounding
soil and groundwater through the
continued infiltration of precipitation
through inappropriately closed CCR
impoundments (or failure to remove the
impoundment waters, which provides a
hydraulic head) properly constitute
regulatory disposal in this specific
situation.
As a practical matter, EPA believes
that owners of facilities where CCRs are
managed in existing surface
impoundments being brought under
RCRA subtitle C by today’s proposal
would choose not to, or would not be
able to, comply with either of these
alternatives (i.e., retrofit or clean
closure), given the size of the units and
the volume of CCRs involved. Therefore,
EPA believes that the section 3005(j)
requirements, for all practical purposes,
will have the effect of requiring the
closure of existing surface
impoundments receiving CCRs within
four years of the effective date of today’s
proposed rule (unless they already meet
the liner requirements).130
Section 3004(x), however, gives EPA
the authority to modify section 3005(j)
requirements, if the specific criteria
listed in that section are met. In today’s
notice, EPA is proposing to modify the
time required for retrofitting surface
impoundments under section 3005(j),
because of the special characteristics
(i.e., extremely large volumes) of CCRs
and the practical difficulties associated
with requiring facilities to cease to store
CCRs within four years of the effective
date of today’s rule.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to modify
the section 3005(j) requirements by
extending the time limit for unit
closure. The modified standard in
today’s proposal would require facilities
operating surface impoundments that do
not meet minimum technology
130 The HSWA surface impoundment retrofit
requirements, as they applied to impoundments in
existence at the time RCRA was amended in 1984,
went into effect in 1988. EPA is not aware of any
facility owner/operator managing an existing
surface impoundment at the time who chose to
retrofit its impoundment, rather than to close it.
EPA believes facilities managing surface
impoundments today, will similarly choose to close
the surface impoundment rather than retrofit.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35178
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
requirements and are receiving CCRs to
stop receiving those CCRs no later than
five years after the effective date of the
final regulation and to close the unit
within two years after that date. In other
words, the time required for closure
would be up to seven years rather than
four years.
EPA believes that the four-year
deadline in RCRA section 3005(j)
receiving CCRs will be extraordinarily
difficult if not impossible for many
facilities to meet, given the size of the
units and limitations in available
alternative subtitle C disposal capacity.
Facility owners choosing to close
surface impoundments may have to
make significant engineering and
process changes, e.g., to convert from
wet- to dry-handling of wastes, which
cannot necessarily be accomplished
within four years. For example, USWAG
has raised concerns that there is limited
manufacturing capacity for key
conversion equipment, which could
reasonably be expected to complicate
the utilities’ ability to collectively make
the necessary engineering changes
within a four-year timeframe. An
additional consideration is that EPA
expects that many facilities would need
to obtain permits for new units or find
alternative subtitle C capacity to receive
the wastes diverted from surface
impoundments. Also, facilities that use
surface impoundments receiving CCRs
to manage stormwater and
nonhazardous wastewater will have to
site and get permits for new stormwater
management units before facility owners
can cease utilizing existing units. The
amount of time to achieve either of
these alternatives relies, to some extent,
on events beyond the facility’s control;
for example, the timeframes to obtain a
permit for a new unit can vary
substantially and, in large measure, are
ultimately dictated by the permitting
authority, rather than the applicant.
This may be further complicated by the
fact that location standards or on-site
space limitations can restrict the
opportunity for siting new units at the
generating facility, requiring utilities to
find off-site disposal facilities able to
receive the special waste in the volumes
in question.
In the 1984 amendments, Congress
only allowed surface impoundments
four years to cease receiving hazardous
waste (or comply with minimum
technological design requirements, etc.).
Given the enormously greater volume of
waste involved with CCR surface
impoundments and the process changes
that the facilities will need to
implement to convert to dry handling,
EPA believes it not practicable to
require surface impoundments to cease
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
receiving CCR waste or comply with the
minimum technological requirements
four years and that additional time is
appropriate. (As noted below, facilities
in most states will have significantly
more time for planning, because the
rules will not become effective in states
authorized for the RCRA program before
those states have amended their
requirements consistent with today’s
rule; the state regulatory process will
likely take several years.) On the other
hand, as the risks predicted in the risk
assessment are extraordinarily high (up
to 2 × 10¥2), EPA believes that closure
within the shortest practicable time is
important.
Any modifications of section 3005(j)
must meet the section 3004(x) stricture
that the modification must still ‘‘assure
protection of human health and the
environment (42 U.S.C. 6924(x).’’ EPA
believes that allowing three additional
years for closure, under today’s
proposal, would be protective because
surface impoundments subject to the
closure requirements would be required
(during this interim period) to have
groundwater monitoring systems
sufficient to detect releases of hazardous
constituents into the groundwater, and
take corrective action where releases
were detected above drinking water
levels.131 Additionally, the median
number of years until peak well water
concentrations are reached for selenium
and arsenic are estimated at 74 and 78
years, respectively, for unlined surface
impoundments and 90 and 110 years,
respectively, for clay-lined surface
impoundments, reducing the likely risks
posed over this five-year period.
In addition, although not directly
relevant to leaching from these surface
impoundments, we would also note (as
described previously in this section)
that the facility would be required to
have an independent registered
professional engineer certify that design
of the impoundment is in accordance
with recognized and generally accepted
good engineering practices
(RAGAGEP) 132 for the maximum
volume of CCR slurry and wastewater
that will be impounded therein, and
131 The Agency is also modifying the requirement
that surface impoundments be dredged annually,
based on RCRA section 3004(x). This is discussed
in detail in section v (Proposed Land Disposal
Restrictions) below.
132 Recognized and generally accepted good
engineering practices (RAGAGEPs) are engineering,
operation, or maintenance activities based on
established codes, standards, published technical
reports or recommended practices (RP) or a similar
document. RAGAGEPs detail generally approved
ways to perform specific engineering, inspection or
mechanical integrity activities. See https://
www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CPL_03-00010.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
that the design and management
features ensure dam stability. Finally,
the facilities will be required to conduct
weekly inspections to ensure that any
potentially hazardous condition or
structural weakness will be quickly
identified. Therefore, the additional
timeframe that EPA is proposing to
allow—needed to address practical
realities—will ‘‘assure protection of
human health and the environment.
While groundwater monitoring,
corrective action, and close oversight of
these units is not, we believe, the most
appropriate long-term solution, we do
believe that these steps will protect
public health and the environment in
the short term while the permanent
solutions are being implemented.
EPA recognizes that the costs of these
requirements will be significant,
especially for existing surface
impoundments and similar units that
handle wet CCRs. EPA also
acknowledges that the date by which
impoundments have to close is an
important issue, affecting the costs of
phase-out of wet handling and the
ability of industry to comply. USWAG
has argued strenuously against a closure
requirement in the first place, and has
asserted that, if such a requirement were
imposed, industry would require ten
years to comply.133
EPA is not persuaded by these
comments. We appreciate the cost
considerations but also believe it is
important that these surface
impoundments cease receiving wethandled CCRs and proceed to closure as
soon as practicable. The Agency
believes that the time period proposed
today is sufficient to provide industry
the time necessary to convert from wet
handling to dry handling of these
wastes, close out existing units, and find
or put in place new disposal capacity
for these wastes. In addition, the Agency
notes that TVA and other utilities have
already decided, or are being required
by states, to close existing
impoundments, regardless of the
requirements of today’s proposed rule.
As a result, EPA believes today’s
proposal would have less effect than
industry commenters suggest because
some facilities may be making these
changes anyway and they reflect best
management practices in today’s
environment. However, EPA solicits
comments on whether seven years (5
years to cease receiving waste and 2
years to close) from the effective date to
implement these provisions is an
achievable time for facilities to comply.
133 In developing cost estimates for closing its
surface impoundments, TVA also assumed that the
process would take place over ten years.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
EPA is interested in comments on
procedural, as well as technical, issues
(e.g., time to allow permit modifications
for new capacity or EPA or state
approval of closure plans). As stated
earlier, EPA does note that, in the 1984
amendments to RCRA, Congress
required existing hazardous waste
surface impoundments without liners to
retrofit within four years if they are to
continue operating. Congress also
required impoundments which place
hazardous wastes into impoundments to
either treat the wastes first, or to use
minimum technology impoundments,
including a requirement to dredge the
impoundment annually. See discussion
of section 3005(j)(11) and implementing
regulations above. As a practical matter,
this meant that all but a very few surface
impoundments ceased receiving
hazardous wastes within this time
period. Thus, a requirement that surface
impoundments cease receiving liquid
wastes in five years and close in seven
years is consistent with Congressional
direction on appropriate time periods to
phase out the management of CCRs in
surface impoundments. Further, as
noted previously, these specific
requirements will not go into effect in
most cases until a state is authorized for
this aspect of the RCRA program, which
normally takes from two to five years
after the regulations become federally
effective (with some estimates as long as
eight years), giving facilities substantial
advance notice. (See discussion on
when the rules become effective in
section VII of this preamble.) For
commenters who suggest a longer time
period is needed, EPA solicits comment
on how a longer time period would
meet the section 3004(x) risk standard.
Whatever time period EPA selects, the
Agency solicits comment on whether it
should include a provision that would
allow the regulatory Agency to provide
additional time on a case-by-case basis
because of site-specific issues (e.g.,
particular technical difficulties or
equipment availability outside the
utility’s control, as well as permitting
delays). This provision might be
modeled after the provision of 40 CFR
264.112 and 265.112 (Amendment of
Plans), allowing facilities to delay
closure of hazardous waste management
units.
Commenters have also stated that,
while it may be appropriate to require
closure of most existing impoundments,
some may be clearly safe. For example,
existing impoundments theoretically
may already have a composite liner, and
present minimal threat of release (e.g.,
because they are below grade or not far
above grade). EPA solicits comment on
whether a variance process would be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
appropriate allowing some
impoundments or similar units that
manage wet-handled CCRs to remain in
operation because they present minimal
risk to groundwater (e.g., because they
have a composite liner) and minimal
risk of a catastrophic release (e.g., as
indicated by a low potential hazard
rating under the Federal Guidelines for
Dam Safety established by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency). It
should be noted that the statute already
provides such a mechanism in section
3005 (j)(4) and (5) (based on making a
so-called ‘no-migration’
demonstration—evidently Congress’
view of what level of control is
considered protective for hazardous
waste impoundments not utilizing
minimum technology controls 134) and
commenters should address whether
this existing case-by-case mechanism
should be utilized here. In such cases,
the wastes might also meet current LDR
treatment standards.
v. Proposed Land Disposal Restrictions
Through RCRA sections 3004 (d), (e),
(f), and (g), Congress has prohibited the
land disposal of hazardous waste unless
the waste meets treatment standards
established by EPA before the waste is
disposed of, or is disposed of in units
from which there will be no migration
of hazardous constituents for as long as
the waste remains hazardous. The
treatment standards may be either a
treatment level or a specified treatment
method, and the treatment must
substantially diminish the toxicity of
the waste or substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste so that
short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment are
minimized (RCRA section 3004(m)). If
the hazardous waste has been treated to
the level or by a method specified in the
regulations (or if the waste as generated
meets the treatment standard), the waste
is not subject to any land disposal
prohibition and may be disposed of in
a land disposal unit which meets the
requirements of 40 CFR parts 264 or 265
(the exception being for surface
impoundments discussed in the
preceding subsection and further
below). For hazardous wastes identified
or listed under RCRA section 3001 after
the date of the 1984 amendments to
RCRA subtitle C (the situation here),
EPA is required to determine whether
134 See RCRA section 3004 (d), (e), (f), and (g) all
of which define a land disposal unit as protective
of human health and the environment if ‘‘it has been
demonstrated to a reasonable degree of certainty
that there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the disposal unit * * * for as
long as the wastes remain hazardous’’.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35179
the waste shall be prohibited from one
or more methods of land disposal
within six months after the date of such
identification or listing, and if EPA
determines that one or more methods
are prohibited, the Agency is also
required to specify treatment levels or
methods of treatment for the waste
(RCRA section 3004(g)(4)).
In an effort to make treatment
standards as uniform as possible, while
adhering to the fundamental
requirement that the standards must
minimize threats to human health and
the environment before hazardous
wastes can be land disposed, EPA
developed the Universal Treatment
Standards (UTS) (codified at 40 CFR
268.48). Under the UTS, whenever
technically and legally possible, the
Agency adopts the same technologybased numerical limit for a hazardous
constituent regardless of the type of
hazardous waste in which the
constituent is present. See 63 FR 28560
(May 26, 1998); 59 FR 47982 (September
19, 1994). The UTS, in turn, reflect the
performance of Best Demonstrated
Available Technologies (BDAT) of the
constituents in question. These
treatment standards can be met by any
type of treatment, other than
impermissible dilution, and wastes can
satisfy the treatment standards as
generated (i.e., without being treated).
As explained above, section 3004(x)
of RCRA authorizes the EPA
Administrator to modify the
requirements of sections (d), (e), (f), and
(g) of section 3004 for Bevill wastes,
including CCRs that EPA determines to
regulate as hazardous, to take into
account the special characteristics of the
wastes, the practical difficulties
associated with implementation of the
requirements, and site-specific
characteristics, so long as such modified
requirements assure protection of
human health and the environment.
In conjunction with a proposed
listing, EPA is proposing to prohibit the
land disposal of CCRs, unless they meet
the applicable treatment standards. In
addition, although CCRs could be
disposed of without treatment in
landfills and impoundments from
which there will be no migration of
hazardous constituents for as long as the
waste remains hazardous, EPA doubts
that such a unit exists, given the
volumes of CCRs and their many
(documented) release pathways
discussed above. In any case, nomigration determinations are
necessarily made on a case-by-case
basis, and the burden is on petitioners
to show that individual land disposal
units satisfy the exacting standard. See
40 CFR section 268.6.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35180
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Proposed Treatment Standards for
Non-Wastewaters (Dry CCRs)
For non-wastewaters (i.e., dry CCRs),
EPA is proposing that CCRs be subject
to the UTS. As EPA has found
repeatedly, this standard reflects the
performance of Best Demonstrated
Available Technology and so satisfies
the requirements of section 3004 (m)
(see Hazardous Waste Treatment
Council v. EPA, 886 F. 2d 355, 363 (D.C.
Cir. 1989)), and also does not force
treatment past the point at which threats
to human health and the environment
are minimized (see 55 FR 6640, 6641–
42 (Feb. 26, 1990)). These standards
should be achievable by application of
various available technologies, although
data 135 indicate that a great portion (if
not virtually all) dry CCRs meet these
standards as generated.
3. Proposed Treatment Standards for
Wastewaters (Wet-Handled CCRs)
EPA is also proposing standards for
wastewater CCRs. As an initial matter,
EPA is proposing to adopt a specific and
different definition of wastewater for
CCRs. Under the existing RCRA subtitle
C rules, a wastewater is defined as one
that contains less than 1% by weight
total organic carbon (TOC) and less than
1% by weight total suspended solids
(i.e., the current wastewater definition
for purposes of LDRs; see 40 CFR part
268.2 (f)). Functionally, the current
definition of wastewaters would not
include slurried fly ash or slurried FGD
from wet air pollution control systems.
EPA believes it important to distinguish
between nonwastewaters which involve
dry coal ash and surface impoundment
systems which are commonly viewed as
involving wastewaters. EPA, therefore,
is proposing to create the distinction
between wastewater and nonwastewater
CCRs by classifying CCRs as
wastewaters if the moisture content of
the waste exceeds 50%. Thus, if CCRs
contain more water than solids, the CCR
would be classified as a wastewater, and
would be subject to the LDR treatment
standard for wastewaters. By proposing
the criteria at 50% moisture, EPA
believes new methods for pumping and
disposal of high solids material without
free liquids are still viable. EPA is
proposing this definition to
appropriately address risks associated
with CCRs surface impoundments,
which contain free liquids. However,
the Agency requests comment on this
alternative definition of wastewaters for
purposes of determining which
treatment standards the CCRs would be
subject to.
135 EPA’s CCR constituent database which is
available from the docket to this proposal.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
4. Effective Date of the LDR Prohibitions
Land disposal prohibitions are to be
effective immediately unless EPA finds
that there is insufficient alternative
protective treatment, recovery or
disposal capacity for the wastes. RCRA
section 3004(h)(2). National capacity
variances can be for up to two years
from the date of the prohibition. During
the duration of a national capacity
variance, the wastes do not require
treatment in order to be land disposed.
If they are disposed of in a landfill or
surface impoundment, however, that
unit must meet the minimum
technology requirements of RCRA
section 3004(o). RCRA section 3004 (h)
and 40 CFR section 268.5 (h).137
In this case, EPA is proposing that the
prohibition and treatment standards for
nonwastewaters take effect within 6
months from the date of promulgation of
the listing of CCRs as a special waste.
We are proposing 6 months to allow
time for owners and operators to set up
analytic capacity and record-keeping
mechanisms for dry CCR wastes, as well
as for federal and state agencies to
assure that implementation mechanisms
are in place. We are not allocating
additional time for treatment because
our expectation is that all or virtually all
dry CCRs meet the proposed treatment
standards as generated. However, EPA
solicits comment on this issue. EPA also
notes that the proposed LDR prohibition
and treatment standards would not take
effect until programs in authorized
states are authorized and the state
implementing rules take effect, so this
proposal effectively is for the
prohibition and treatment standard
requirement to take effect 6 months
following the conclusion of the
authorization process and effective date
of authorized state rules. This should be
ample time to come into compliance.
For wastewaters, however, under the
authority of section 3004 (x), we are
proposing that the prohibition and
treatment standards take effect within
five years of the prohibition. In practice,
these requirements will have the effect
of prohibiting disposal of wet-handled
CCRs in surface impoundments after
that date. The proposed date for the
wastewater treatment standards would
thus be the same as the proposed date
that impoundments would stop
receiving CCRs, and is being proposed
for many of the same reasons. Surface
impoundments, of course, are the land
disposal units in which wastewaters are
managed, so the issues are necessarily
connected. As discussed in section VI.
B. above, the statute allows owners and
operators up to four years to retrofit
existing surface impoundments to meet
136 Although TSS is not a hazardous constituent,
it is a reasonable surrogate of effective treatment
performance here because TSS necessarily contain
the metal hazardous constituents which are the
object of treatment, and these metals will
necessarily be removed as TSS are removed. See
e.g.; National Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 234 F. 3d 625, 639
(D.C. Cir. 2000) (even though particulate matter is
not a hazardous air pollutant, it can be used as a
permissible surrogate for treatment of hazardous air
pollutant metals since those metals are removed by
treatment as PM is removed).
137 EPA is also authorized to grant up to a oneyear extension, renewable for another year, of a
prohibition effective date on a case-by-case basis.
RCRA section 3004 (h)(3). Applicants must
demonstrate that adequate alternative treatment,
recovery, or disposal capacity for the petitioners
waste cannot reasonably be made available by the
effective date due to circumstances beyond the
applicant’s control, and that the petitioner has
entered into a binding contractual commitment to
construct or otherwise provide such capacity. 40
CFR 268.5.
As part of the proposed treatment
standard, EPA is proposing that these
wastewaters undergo solids removal so
that the wastewaters contain no greater
than 100 mg/l total suspended solids
(TSS) and meet the UTS for
wastewaters. This proposed level is
consistent with wastewater treatment
requirements based on Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available
for the Electric Power Generating Point
Source Category (40 CFR section
423.12).136 Solids separation is a base
level water pollution control
technology, which assures that the vast
majority of coal ash and associated
contaminants are removed and managed
in landfills.
EPA is proposing that wastewaters
meet the UTS for wastewaters at 40 CFR
section 268.48 as the treatment standard
for the liquid fraction. (The CCR solids
removed from the wastewater stream
would be a non-wastewater and would
be subject to the UTS for nonwastewaters.) EPA believes dry disposal
of the CCR solids will protect human
health and the environment. As
previously discussed, this is borne out
by the results of the Agency’s risk
assessment and damage case
assessments, which show that wet
disposal poses the greatest risks of
contaminant releases.
The Agency believes the proposed
treatment methods will diminish the
toxicity of the waste or substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of
toxic constituents from the waste so that
short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment are
minimized. If finalized, EPA will add
new treatment method codes to the table
of Technology Codes and Description of
Technology-Based Standards at 40 CFR
268.42. EPA seeks comments on the
proposed treatment standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the minimum technology requirements
(or to close such surface
impoundments), and EPA has
interpreted this provision as applying to
treatment surface impoundments
receiving hazardous wastes otherwise
prohibited from land disposal. See
RCRA sections 3005 (j)(6) and 3005
(j)(11). As further explained above, EPA
believes that an additional three years is
needed for owners and operators to
close surface impoundments—i.e. seven
years in all—and is thus proposing a
two year national capacity variance (as
provided in RCRA section 3004(h)(2))
and a five year period for impoundment
retrofitting yielding a seven year
extension.
The legal basis for the proposal is
3004 (x) (which specifically authorizes
modification of the section 3005 (j)
requirements). Section 3005 (j) (11)
allows untreated wastewaters to be
managed in surface impoundments that
do not meet the minimum technology
requirements, but requires that residues
in the impoundment be dredged at least
annually for management elsewhere.
Given the enormous volume of CCRs
currently managed in surface
impoundments, estimated at 29.4
million tons per year (within EPA’s
estimated range of 23.5 to 30.3 million
tons for the total available U.S.
hazardous waste disposal capacity), and
the absence of alternative disposal
capacity in the short-term, EPA believes
annual dredging is impractical and
would defeat the purpose of providing
additional time to convert to the dry
handling of CCRs. Moreover, in this
short time, the utilities will be working
to convert their processes to dry
handling and it is not practicable or
necessary to impose this additional
requirement. Finally, as discussed
previously, in the interim period before
surface impoundments cease taking
waste and are closed, numerous
safeguards will be in place to protect
public health and the environment,
including ground water monitoring and
the requirement to act on any releases
quickly. Thus, while such measures are
not a long-term solution, they will
‘‘assure protection of human health and
the environment’’ in the short-term.
As this discussion clarifies, the issue
of a national capacity extension for CCR
wastewaters is really an issue of how
long it will take to convert to dry
handling and to find management
capacity for solids dredged from
impoundments, i.e. issues arising under
section 3005 (j)(11) of the statute. EPA,
therefore, believes it has the authority
and that it is appropriate to use section
3004 (x) to extend the national capacity
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
period in order to convert to dry
handling.138
EPA is further proposing that during
the national capacity variance (the
initial two years of the proposed two
years plus five year extension of
otherwise-applicable requirements),
CCR wastewaters could continue to be
managed in impoundments that do not
meet the minimum technology
requirements. The reasons are identical
to those allowing such impoundments
to receive CCRs for the remainder of the
proposed extension period.
EPA solicits comment on these
proposals, including comment on
whether further time extensions are
actually needed in light of the already
extended time which will be afforded by
the state authorization process.
C. Applicability of Subtitle C
Regulations
The discussion in this section
describes the existing technical
standards required in 40 CFR parts 264/
265/267. However, persons who
generate and transport CCRs, under the
subtitle C alternative, would also be
subject to the generator (40 CFR part
262) and transporter (40 CFR part 263)
requirements. Although EPA presents
this to provide the public with
background information as noted
previously, EPA is not proposing to
modify these standards, nor to reopen
the requirements.
1. General Facility Requirements,
including Location Restrictions. Under
the existing regulations, all of the
following requirements would apply:
the general facility standards of 40 CFR
parts 264/265/267 (Subpart B), the
preparedness and prevention standards
of 40 CFR parts 264/265/267 (Subpart
C), the contingency plan and emergency
procedures of 40 CFR parts 264/265/267
(Subpart D), and the manifest system,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of 40 CFR parts 264/265/
267 (Subpart E). Consistent with section
264.18, the regulations would include
location standards prohibiting the siting
of new treatment, storage, or disposal
units in a 100-year floodplain (unless
the facility made a specific
138 EPA notes in addition that it is authorized
under section 3004 (x) to modify the requirements
of LDR prohibitions under section 3004 (g), and
EPA views capacity variances related to such
prohibitions as within the scope of that section
3004 (x) authorization.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35181
demonstration)139 and seismic impact
areas would be prohibited.140
2. Ground water monitoring/corrective
action for regulated units. The subtitle
C alternative to today’s proposed rule
would require the current ground water
monitoring and corrective action
requirements of 40 CFR parts 264/265
for regulated landfills and surface
impoundments, without modification.
Consistent with 40 CFR 265.90, existing
CCR disposal units would be required to
install groundwater monitoring systems
within one year of the effective date of
these regulations. The facility would
operate under the self-implementing
interim status requirements of 40 CFR
part 265 until the regulatory authority
imposed the specific requirements of 40
CFR part 264 through the RCRA
permitting process. Generally, 40 CFR
parts 264/265 require groundwater
monitoring systems that consist of
enough wells, installed at appropriate
locations and depths, to yield ground
water samples from the uppermost
aquifer that represent the quality of
background groundwater that has not
been affected by leakage from the
disposal unit. A detection monitoring
program would be required to detect
releases to groundwater of CCR
constituents listed in the facility permit
(these constituents, we believe, would
be the metals typically identified as
constituents of concern in CCRs).
Monitoring frequency is determined by
the EPA Regional Administrator or,
more typically the authorized state, and
required in the RCRA permit. If any of
the constituents listed in the facility
permit are detected at levels that
constitute statistically significant
evidence of contamination, the owner or
operator must initiate a compliance
monitoring program to determine
whether the disposal units are in
139 A 100-year flood means a flood that as a onepercent or greater chance of recurring in any given
year or a flood of a magnitude equaled or exceeded
once in 100 years on the average over a significantly
long period.
140 A seismic impact area means an area with a
two percent or greater probability that the
maximum horizontal acceleration in lithified earth
material, expressed as a percentage of the earth’s
gravitational pull (g), will exceed 0.10 g in 50 years.
Note that in the pre-1997 editions of the NEHRP
(National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program)
provisions, seismic hazards around the nation were
defined at a uniform 10 percent probability of
exceedance in 50 years. Since the 1997 NEHRP
Provisions, however, the seismic design maps have
been redefined such that for most regions of the
nation, the maximum considered earthquake
ground motion is defined with uniform probability
of exceedance of 2 percent in 50 years. The change
in the exceedance probability (from 10% to 2%)
was responsive to comments that the use of 10
percent probability of exceedance in 50 years is not
sufficiently conservative in the central and eastern
United States where earthquakes are expected to
occur infrequently.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35182
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
compliance with the groundwater
protection standards established by EPA
or the state and specified in the permit.
(See 40 CFR part 264, subpart F.)
Under 40 CFR part 264, subpart F, if
the results of the compliance monitoring
program indicate exceedances of any of
the constituent levels listed in the
permit for the groundwater protection
standard, the owner or operator would
have to initiate corrective action to
achieve compliance with the
groundwater protection standards.
3. Storage. EPA is not proposing to
modify the existing 40 CFR parts 264/
265/267 storage standards. These
regulations establish design and
operating requirements for containers,
tanks, and buildings used to treat or
store hazardous wastes. For containers,
the regulations establish requirements
for the storage of hazardous waste,
including a requirement for secondary
containment. However, if the wastes do
not contain free liquids, they need not
require a secondary containment
system, provided the storage area is
sloped or is otherwise designed and
operated to drain and remove liquid
resulting from precipitation or the
containers are elevated or otherwise
protected from contact with
accumulated liquid.
For new tanks, owners or operators
must submit to EPA or the authorized
states an assessment certified by an
independent registered professional
engineer that the foundation, structural
support, seams, connections, and
pressure controls (if applicable) are
adequately designed and that the tank
system has sufficient structural strength,
compatibility with the waste(s) to be
stored or treated, and corrosion
protection to ensure that the tank will
not collapse, rupture, or fail. Tank
systems are required to have secondary
containment under section 264.193,
unless they receive a specific variance;
however, tanks that contain no free
liquids and are in buildings with an
impermeable floor do not require
secondary containment. New tanks (that
are required to have secondary
containment) must have secondary
containment when constructed; existing
tanks (that are required to have
secondary containment) must come into
compliance within two years of the
rule’s effective date (or when the tank
has reached fifteen years of age). Section
264.193 specifically describes the
secondary containment required, and
the variance process.
Containment buildings must be
completely enclosed with a floor, walls,
and a roof to prevent exposure to the
elements (e.g., precipitation, wind, runon), and to assure containment of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
managed wastes. Buildings must be
designed so that they have sufficient
structural strength to prevent collapse or
other failure, and all surfaces to be in
contact with hazardous wastes must be
chemically compatible with those
wastes.
Recently, representatives of the utility
industry have stated their view that
CCRs cannot be practically or cost
effectively managed under the existing
40 CFR parts 264/265/267 storage
standards, and that these standards
impose significant costs without
meaningful benefits when applied
specifically to CCRs.141 In particular,
they cite the very large volume of wastes
that must be handled on a daily basis,
and the extensive storage and other
infrastructure already in place that
might have to be retrofitted if the
existing 40 CFR parts 264/265/267
storage requirements applied. For
example, they state that some CCRs are
stored prior to disposal in silos which
are not located within a building and
may contain free liquids. As a result,
under the subtitle C requirements, the
owner or operator would be required to
construct a building with an
impermeable floor, or construct a
secondary containment system around
the silo (alternatively, they could go
through a variance process with the
regulatory Agency).
EPA believes that the variance process
allowing alternatives to secondary
containment would address the
concerns raised by industry. The
Agency, however, recognizes that the
variance process imposes time and
resource burdens not only on industry,
but on the regulatory agencies. EPA
notes that, in the case of larger volume,
higher toxicity mineral processing
materials being reclaimed, the Agency
developed special storage standards
under RCRA subtitle C, and it solicits
comments on whether those or similartype standards would be appropriate for
CCRs.142
Namely, in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(17), EPA
required that tanks, containers, and
buildings handling this material must be
free standing and not a surface
impoundment (as defined in the
definitions section of this proposal) and
141 While the utility industry did not specifically
mention the 40 CFR part 267 storage standards, we
presume that they would make the same technical
arguments with respect to those standards.
142 Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV: Final
Rule Promulgating Treatment Standards for Metal
Wastes and Mineral Processing Wastes; Mineral
Processing Secondary Materials and Bevill
Exclusion Issues; Treatment Standards for
Hazardous Soils, and Exclusion of Recycled Wood
Preserving Wastewaters; Final Rule (https://
www.epa.gov/EPA-WASTE/1998/May/Day-26/
f989.htm).
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
be manufactured of a material suitable
for storage of its contents. (While not
specifically mentioned in this section,
we would also consider a requirement
that such materials meet appropriate
specifications, such as those established
either by the American Society of
Testing Materials (ASTM), the American
Petroleum Institute (API), or
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL)
standards.) Buildings must be manmade structures and have floors
constructed from non-earthen materials,
have walls, and have a roof suitable for
diverting rainwater away from the
foundation. A building may also have
doors or removable sections to enable
trucks or machines access.
EPA solicits comments on the
practicality of the proposed subtitle C
storage requirements for CCRs, the
workability of the existing variance
process, and the alternative
requirements based, for example, on the
mining and mineral processing wastes
storage requirements. EPA has not
developed cost estimates for managing
CCRs in compliance with the 40 CFR
parts 264/265/267 storage standards.
EPA solicits specific comments on these
potential costs.
4. Closure and Post-Closure Care.
Under the RCRA subtitle C alternative to
this co-proposal, all of the requirements
for closure and post-closure care of
landfills and surface impoundments
would apply to those landfills that
continue to receive CCRs, or otherwise
actively manage them, and to those
surface impoundments that have not
completed closure, when the
requirements of a final rule become
effective. The 40 CFR parts 264/265
landfill and surface impoundment
requirements establish cover
requirements (e.g., the cover must have
a permeability less than or equal to the
permeability of any bottom liner system
and must minimize the migration of
liquids through the closed landfill).
These requirements are generally
applied through a closure-plan or
permit approval process. Also, the
regulations require 30 years of postclosure care, including maintenance of
the cap and ground-water monitoring,
unless an alternative post-closure period
is established by EPA or the authorized
state.
5. Corrective action. EPA is also not
proposing to modify the existing
corrective action requirements,
including the facility-wide corrective
action requirements of RCRA under
section 3004(u), section 3008(h), and 40
CFR 264.101. Under these requirements,
landfills that continue to receive CCRs
or otherwise actively manage them, and
surface impoundments that have not
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
completed closure on the date the final
rule becomes effective, will be requires
to characterize, and as necessary
remediate, releases of CCRs or
hazardous constituents. Section 3004(x)
provides EPA the flexibility to modify
corrective action requirements for
facilities managing CCRs, including
facility-wide corrective action
(assuming EPA can reasonably
determine that an alternative is
protective of human health and the
environment). The facility-wide
corrective action requirement applies to
all solid waste management units from
which there have been releases of
hazardous wastes or hazardous
constituents; however, EPA does not see
a compelling reason to change the
corrective action requirements.
Imposing corrective action
requirements, including facility-wide
corrective action, will assure that closed
and inactive units at the facility are
properly characterized and, if necessary,
remediated, especially since many of
these closed or inactive units are
unlined. Nevertheless, EPA solicits
comment on whether EPA should
modify the corrective action
requirements under section 3004(x) of
RCRA. Commenters should specifically
address the issue of how other
alternatives could be protective without
mandating corrective action as needed
for all solid waste management units
from which there have been releases of
hazardous waste or hazardous
constituents at the facility.
6. Financial assurance. EPA is also
not proposing to modify the existing
financial assurance requirements at 40
CFR parts 264/265/267, subpart H.
Financial assurance must be adequate to
cover the estimated costs of closure and
post-closure care (including facilitywide corrective action, as needed), and
specific levels of financial assurance are
required to cover liability for bodily
injury and property damage to third
parties caused by sudden accidental
occurrences arising from operations of
the facility. Allowable financial
assurance mechanisms are trust funds,
surety bonds, letters of credit, insurance
policies, corporate guarantees, and
demonstrations and documentation that
owners or operators of the facility have
sufficient assets to cover closure, postclosure care, and liability. The
regulations also require financial
assurance for corrective action under
section 264.101.
As we have estimated that 53 local
governments own and operate coal-fired
electric utilities, EPA seeks comment on
whether a financial test similar to that
in 40 CFR 258.74(f) in the Criteria for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills should
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
be established for local governments
that own and operate coal-fired power
plants.
7. Permitting requirements. Under the
RCRA subtitle C alternative, facilities
that manage CCRs (in this case, facilities
with landfills and surface
impoundments, and other possible
management units used to store or
dispose of CCRs, or generating facilities
that store CCRs destined for off-site
disposal) must obtain a permit from
EPA or from the authorized state. The
effect of EPA’s proposed listing would
extend these permitting requirements to
those facilities managing special wastes
regulated under subtitle C of RCRA.
Parts 124, 267 and 270 detail the
specific procedures for the issuance and
modification of permits, including
public participation, and through the
permit process regulatory agencies
impose technical design and
management standards of 40 CFR parts
264/267. Facilities with landfills that
are in existence on the effective date of
the regulation (which in this case would
generally be the effective date of the
state regulations establishing the federal
CCR requirements)—which receive
CCRs or actively manage CCRs—are
eligible for ‘‘interim status’’ under
federal regulations, providing they
comply with the requirements of 40 CFR
section 270.70. By contrast, facilities
with surface impoundments that have
not completed closure as outlined in
this proposal would be subject to the
existing permitting requirements,
irrespective of whether they continue to
receive CCRs into the unit or to actively
manage CCRs. While facilities are in
interim status, they are subject to the
largely self-implementing requirements
of 40 CFR part 265. As noted previously,
in a final regulation, EPA would make
conforming changes to these parts of the
CFR to make it clear that the
requirements apply to facilities that
manage either hazardous wastes or
special wastes regulated under subtitle
C.
8. EPA is Not Proposing to Apply the
Subtitle C Requirements to CCRs from
Certain On-Going State or Federally
Required Cleanups. Under the subtitle C
alternative, the Agency is proposing to
allow state or federally-required
cleanups commenced prior to the
effective date of the final rule to be
completed in accordance with the
requirements determined to be
appropriate for the specific cleanup.
EPA’s rationale for this decision is twofold. First, for state or federally required
cleanups that already commenced and
are continuing, the state or federal
government has entered into an
administrative agreement with the
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35183
facility owner or operator which
specifies remedies, clean-up goals, and
timelines that were determined to be
protective of human health and the
environment, based on the conditions at
the site. The overseeing Agency will
also be able to ensure that the cleanup
waste, if sent off-site (which may
sometimes be necessary) will go to
appropriately designed and permitted
facilities. Second, altering the
requirements for cleanups currently
underway would be disruptive and
could cause significant delays in
achieving clean-up goals. Once the rule
becomes final, EPA or the state will be
able to avail themselves of regulations
under RCRA designed specifically for
cleanup. However, the Agency takes
comment on this proposed provision.
D. CERCLA Designation and Reportable
Quantities
Under current law and regulations, all
hazardous wastes listed under RCRA
and codified in 40 CFR 261.31 through
261.33, and special wastes under 261.50
if the proposed special waste listing is
finalized, as well as any solid waste that
is not excluded from regulation as a
hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.4(b)
and that exhibits one or more of the
characteristics of a RCRA hazardous
waste (as defined in §§ 261.21 through
261.24), are hazardous substances under
CERCLA, as amended (see CERCLA
section 101(14)(C)). CERCLA hazardous
substances are listed in Table 302.4 at
40 CFR 302.4 along with their reportable
quantities (RQs). If a hazardous
substance is released in an amount that
equals or exceeds its RQ within a 24hour period, the release must be
reported immediately to the National
Response Center (NRC) pursuant to
CERCLA section 103.
Thus, under this subtitle C
alternative, and as EPA does with any
other listed waste, the Agency is
proposing to also list CCRs as a CERCLA
hazardous substance in Table 302.4 of
40 CFR 302.4. The key constituents of
concern in CCRs are already listed as
hazardous substances under CERCLA
(i.e., arsenic, cadmium, mercury,
selenium), and therefore persons who
spill or release CCRs already have
reporting obligations, depending on the
volume of the spill. Typically, under
current CERCLA requirements, a person
releasing CCRs, for example, would
report depending on his estimate of the
amount of arsenic or other constituents
contained in the release.
Typically, when EPA lists a new
waste subject to RCRA subtitle C, the
statutory one-pound RQ is applied to
the waste. However, EPA is proposing
two alternative methods to adjust the
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35184
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
one-pound statutory RQ. The first
method, one traditionally utilized by the
Agency, adjusts the RQ based on the
lowest RQ of the most toxic substance
present in the waste. The second
method, as part of the Agency’s effort to
review and re-evaluate its methods for
CERCLA designation and RQ
adjustment, adjusts the one-pound
statutory RQ based upon the Agency’s
characterization and physical properties
of the complex mixtures which
comprise the waste to be designated as
S001. The Agency invites comment on
both methods, and may, based upon
these comments and further
information, decide to go forward with
either method or both methods.
1. Reporting Requirements
Under CERCLA section 103(a), the
person in charge of a vessel or facility
from which a CERCLA hazardous
substance has been released in a
quantity that is equal to or exceeds its
RQ within a 24-hour period must
immediately notify the NRC as soon as
that person has knowledge of the
release. The toll-free telephone number
of the NRC is 1–800–424–8802; in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area, the
number is (202) 267–2675. In addition
to the reporting requirement under
CERCLA, section 304 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act (EPCRA) requires owners or
operators of certain facilities to report
releases of extremely hazardous
substances and CERCLA hazardous
substances to state and local authorities.
The EPCRA section 304 notification
must be given immediately after the
release of an RQ (or more) within a 24hour period to the community
emergency coordinator of the local
emergency planning committee (LEPC)
for any area likely to be affected by the
release and to the state emergency
response commission (SERC) of any
state likely to be affected by the release.
Under section 102(b) of CERCLA, all
hazardous substances (as defined by
CERCLA section 101(14)) have a
statutory RQ of one pound, unless and
until the RQ is adjusted by regulation.
In this rule, EPA is proposing to list
CCRs that are generated by electric
utility and independent power
producers that are intended for disposal
(and not beneficially used), as special
wastes subject to regulation under
subtitle C of RCRA. In order to
coordinate the RCRA and CERCLA
rulemakings with respect to the new
special waste listing, the Agency is also
proposing adjustments to the one-pound
statutory RQs for this special waste
stream.
2. Basis for RQs and Adjustments
EPA’s methodology for adjusting the
RQs of individual hazardous substances
begins with an evaluation of the
intrinsic physical, chemical, and
toxicological properties of each
hazardous substance. The intrinsic
properties examined, called ‘‘primary
criteria,’’ are aquatic toxicity,
mammalian toxicity (oral, dermal, and
inhalation), ignitability, reactivity,
chronic toxicity, and potential
carcinogenicity.
Generally, for each intrinsic property,
EPA ranks the hazardous substance on
a five-tier scale, associating a specific
range of values on each scale with an
RQ value of 1, 10, 100, 1,000, or 5,000
pounds. The data for each hazardous
substance are evaluated using the
various primary criteria; each hazardous
substance may receive several tentative
RQ values based on its particular
intrinsic properties. The lowest of the
tentative RQs becomes the ‘‘primary
criteria RQ’’ for that substance.
After the primary criteria RQ are
assigned, the substances are further
evaluated for their susceptibility to
certain degradative processes, which are
used as secondary adjustment criteria.
These natural degradative processes are
biodegradation, hydrolysis, and
photolysis (BHP). If a hazardous
substance, when released into the
environment, degrades relatively
rapidly to a less hazardous form by one
or more of the BHP processes, its RQ (as
determined by the primary RQ
adjustment criteria) is generally raised
by one level. Conversely, if a hazardous
substance degrades to a more hazardous
product after its release, the original
substance is assigned an RQ equal to the
RQ for the more hazardous substance,
which may be one or more levels lower
than the RQ for the original substance.
Table 7 presents the RQ for each of the
constituents of concern in CCRs taken
from Table 302.4—List of Hazardous
Substances and Reportable Quantities at
40 CFR 302.4.
TABLE 7—REPORTABLE QUANTITIES OF CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN
RQ Pounds
(Kg)
Constituent of concern
S001 ................................................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Hazardous waste No.
Antimony ................................................................................................
Arsenic ...................................................................................................
Barium ....................................................................................................
Beryllium ................................................................................................
Cadmium ................................................................................................
Chromium ..............................................................................................
Lead .......................................................................................................
Mercury ..................................................................................................
Nickel .....................................................................................................
Selenium ................................................................................................
Silver ......................................................................................................
Thallium .................................................................................................
The standard methodology used to
adjust the RQs for RCRA wastes is based
on an analysis of the hazardous
constituents of the waste streams. EPA
determines an RQ for each hazardous
constituent within the waste stream and
establishes the lowest RQ value of these
constituents as the adjusted RQ for the
waste stream. EPA is proposing to use
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
the same methodology to adjust RQs for
listed special wastes. In this notice, EPA
is proposing a one-pound RQ for listed
CCRs based on the one pound RQs for
arsenic and mercury (i.e., the two
constituents within CCRs with the
lowest RQ). In this same rule, however,
EPA is also proposing that an alternative
method for adjusting the RQ of the CCR
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
5000 (2270)
1 (0.454)
No RQ
10 (4.54)
10 (4.54)
5000 (2270)
10 (4.54)
1 (0.454)
100 (45.4)
100 (45.4)
1000 (454)
1000 (454)
wastes also can be used in lieu of the
one pound RQ.
3. Application of the CERCLA Mixture
Rule to Listed CCR
Although EPA is proposing a onepound RQ for CCRs listed as a special
waste, we are also proposing to allow
the owner or operator to use the
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35185
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
maximum observed concentrations of
the constituents within the listed CCR
wastes in determining when to report
releases of the waste.
For listed CCR wastes, where the
actual concentrations of the hazardous
constituents in the CCRs are not known
and the waste meets the S001 listing
description, EPA is proposing that
persons managing CCR waste have the
option of reporting on the basis of the
maximum observed concentrations that
have been identified by EPA (see Table
8 below). Thus, although actual
knowledge of constituent concentrations
may not be known, assumptions can be
made of the concentrations based on the
EPA identified maximum
concentrations. These assumptions are
based on actual sampling data,
specifically the maximum observed
concentrations of hazardous
constituents in CCRs.143 Table 7
identifies the hazardous constituents for
CCRs, their maximum observed
concentrations in parts per million
(ppm), the constituents’ RQs, and the
number of pounds of CCRs needed to
contain an RQ of each constituent for
the CCR to be reported.
TABLE 8—POUNDS REQUIRED TO CONTAIN RQ FOR EACH CONSTITUENT OF LISTED CCR
Maximum
ppm
CCR .........................................................................................................................................................
Antimony ..................................................................................................................................................
Arsenic .....................................................................................................................................................
Barium ......................................................................................................................................................
Beryllium ..................................................................................................................................................
Cadmium ..................................................................................................................................................
Chromium ................................................................................................................................................
Lead .........................................................................................................................................................
Mercury ....................................................................................................................................................
Nickel .......................................................................................................................................................
Selenium ..................................................................................................................................................
Silver ........................................................................................................................................................
Thallium ...................................................................................................................................................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Waste stream constituent
....................
3,100
773
7,230
31
760
5,970
1,453
384
6,301
673
338
100
For example, if listed CCR wastes are
released from a facility, and the actual
concentrations of the waste’s
constituents are not known, it may be
assumed that the concentrations will
not exceed those listed above in Table
8. Thus, applying the mixture rule, the
RQ threshold for arsenic in this waste is
1,294 pounds—that is, 1,294 pounds of
listed CCR waste would need to be
released to reach the RQ for arsenic.
Reporting would be required only when
an RQ or more of any hazardous
constituent is released.
Where the concentration levels of all
hazardous constituents are known, the
traditional mixture rule would apply.
Under this scenario, if the actual
concentration of arsenic is 100 ppm,
10,000 pounds of the listed CCR waste
would need to be released to reach the
RQ for arsenic. As applied to listed CCR
waste, EPA’s proposed approach
reduces the burden of notification
requirements for the regulated
community and adequately protects
human health and the environment.
The modified interpretation of the
mixture rule (40 CFR 302.6) as it applies
to listed CCR wastes in this proposal is
consistent with EPA’s approach in a
final rule listing four petroleum refining
wastes (K169, K170, K171, and K172) as
RCRA hazardous wastes and CERCLA
hazardous substances (see 63 FR 42110,
Aug. 6, 1998). In that rule, the Agency
promulgated a change to the regulations
and its interpretation of the mixture rule
to allow facilities to consider the
maximum observed concentrations for
the constituents of the petroleum
refining wastes in determining when to
report releases of the four wastes. EPA
codified this change to its mixture rule
interpretation in 40 CFR 302.6(b)(1) as
a new subparagraph (iii). In another
rule, EPA also followed this approach in
the final rule listing two chlorinated
aliphatic production wastes (K174 and
K175) as RCRA hazardous wastes and
CERCLA hazardous substances (see 65
FR 67068, Nov. 8, 2000). If the proposed
subtitle C alternative becomes final,
EPA may modify 40 CFR section
302.6(b)(1) to extend the modified
interpretation of the mixture rule to
include listed CCR wastes.
4. Correction of Table of Maximum
Observed Constituent Concentrations
Identified by EPA
When the final rule that listed
Chlorinated Aliphatics Production
Wastes was published in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), the existing
table that provided the maximum
observed constituent concentrations for
petroleum refining wastes (K169, K170,
K171, and K172) was inadvertently
replaced instead of amended to add the
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
1
5,000
1
No RQ
10
10
5,000
10
1
100
100
1,000
1,000
Pounds
required to
contain RQ
1,612,903
1,294
No RQ
322,581
13,158
837,521
6,883
2,604
15,871
148,588
2,958,580
10,000,000
maximum observed constituent
concentrations for the chlorinated
aliphatic production wastes (K174 and
K175). Therefore, the Agency is at this
time proposing to correct that
inadvertent removal of the petroleum
refining wastes by publishing a
complete table that includes, the
petroleum refining wastes, the
chlorinated aliphatic production wastes,
and now the CCR wastes (e.g., K169,
K170, K171, K172, K174, K175, and
S001).
E. Listing of CCR as Special Wastes To
Address Perceived Stigma Issue
Commenters suggested that the listing
of CCRs as a hazardous waste will
impose a stigma on their beneficial use,
and significantly curtail these uses. EPA
questions this assertion, in fact, our
experience suggests that the increased
costs of disposal of CCRs as a result of
regulation of CCRs under RCRA subtitle
C would create a strong economic
incentive for increased beneficial uses
of CCRs. We also believe that the
increased costs of disposal of CCRs, as
a result of regulation of CCR disposal,
but not beneficial uses, should achieve
increased usage in non-regulated
beneficial uses, simply as a result of the
economics of supply and demand. The
economic driver—availability of a lowcost, functionally equivalent or often
143 EPA’s CCR constituent concentrations
database is available in the docket to this notice.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
RQ (lbs)
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35186
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
superior substitute for other raw
materials—will continue to make CCRs
an increasingly desirable product.
Furthermore, it has been EPA’s
experience in developing and
implementing RCRA regulation and
elsewhere that material inevitably flows
to less regulated applications.
However, with that said, the electric
utility industry, the states, and those
companies that beneficially use CCRs
have nevertheless commented that
listing of CCRs as a RCRA subtitle C
waste will impose a stigma on their
beneficial use and significantly curtail
these uses. In their view, even an action
that regulates only CCRs destined for
disposal as RCRA subtitle C waste, but
retains the Bevill exemption for
beneficial uses, would have this adverse
effect. Finally, the states particularly
have commented that, by operation of
state law, the beneficial use of CCRs
would be prohibited under many states’
beneficial use programs, if EPA were to
designate CCRs destined for disposal as
a RCRA subtitle C waste. Unlike the
incentive effect introduced by increased
disposal costs in which firms rationally
try to avoid higher costs or seek lower
cost of raw materials, the idea that there
will be a stigma effect rests on an
assumption that stigma would alter
consumer preferences thereby
decreasing end-users’ willingness to pay
for products that include CCPs. This
would have the practical effect of
shifting the aggregate CCP demand
curve downward.
Some of the other comments that have
been made include: (1) Beneficially
used CCRs are the same material as that
which would be considered hazardous;
this asymmetry increases confusion and
the probability of lawsuits, however,
unwarranted, (2) while the supply of
CCRs to be beneficially used may
increase given the additional incentives
to avoid disposal costs, the consumer
demand may decrease as negative
perceptions are not always based on
reason, (3) any negative impact on
beneficial use will require more reliance
on virgin materials with higher GHG
and environmental footprints, (4) state
support may be weakened or
eliminated, even in states that are
friendly to beneficial use, (5)
competitors who use virgin or other
materials are taking advantage of the
hazardous waste designation by using
scare tactics and threats of litigation to
get customers to stop using products
containing CCRs, (6) customers are
already raising questions about the
safety of products that contain CCRs,
and (7) uncertainty is already hurting
business as customers are switching to
products where there is less regulatory
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
risk and potential for environmental
liabilities. For example, one commenter
stated that they have received requests
to stop selling boiler slag for ice control
due to potential liability.
EPA is concerned about potential
stigma and, as we have stated
previously, we do not wish to
discourage environmentally sound
beneficial uses of CCRs. In looking to
evaluate this issue, we believe it is first
important to understand that the
proposed rule (if the subtitle C
alternative is finalized) would regulate
CCRs under subtitle C of RCRA only if
they are destined for disposal in
landfills and surface impoundments,
and would leave the Bevill
determination in effect for the beneficial
use of CCRs. That is, the legal status of
CCRs that are beneficially used would
remain entirely unchanged (i.e., they
would not be regulated under subtitle C
of RCRA as a hazardous waste, nor
subject to any federal non-hazardous
waste requirements). EPA is proposing
to regulate the disposal of CCRs under
subtitle C of RCRA because of the
specific nature of disposal practices and
the specific risks these practices
involve—that is, the disposal of CCRs in
(often unlined) landfills or surface
impoundments, with millions of tons
placed in a concentrated location. The
beneficial uses that EPA identifies as
excluded under the Bevill amendment,
for the most part, present a significantly
different picture, and a significantly
different risk profile. As a result, EPA is
explicitly not proposing to change their
Bevill status (although we do take
comment on whether ‘‘unconsolidated
uses’’ of CCRs need to be subject to
federal regulation). (For further
discussion of the beneficial use of CCRs,
see section IV. D in this preamble.)
Furthermore, in today’s preamble, we
make it clear that certain uses of CCRs—
e.g., FGD gypsum in wallboard—do not
involve ‘‘waste’’ management at all;
rather, the material is a legitimate coproduct that, under most configurations,
has not been discarded in the first place
and, therefore, would not be considered
a ‘‘solid waste’’ under RCRA. Moreover,
EPA’s experience suggests that it is
unlikely that a material that is not a
waste in the first place would be
stigmatized, particularly when used in a
consolidated form and while continuing
to meet long established product
specifications.
In fact, EPA’s experience with past
waste regulation, and with how
hazardous waste and other hazardous
materials subject to regulation under
subtitle C are used and recycled,
suggests that a hazardous waste ‘‘label’’
does not impose a significant barrier to
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
its beneficial use and that non-regulated
uses will increase as the costs of
disposal increase. There are a number of
examples that illustrate these points,
although admittedly many of these
products are not used in residential
settings:
• Electric arc furnace dust is a listed
hazardous waste (K061), and yet it is a
highly recycled material. Specifically,
between 2001 and 2007, approximately
42% to 51% of K061 was recycled
(according to Biennial Reporting System
(BRS) data). Both currently and
historically, it has been used as an
ingredient in fertilizer and in making
steel, and in the production of zinc
products, including pharmaceutical
materials. Slag from the smelting of
K061 is in high demand for use in road
construction.144 In fact, there is little
doubt that without its regulation as a
hazardous waste, a significantly greater
amount of electric arc further dust
would be diverted from recycling to
disposal in non-hazardous waste
landfills.
• Electroplating wastewater sludge is
a listed hazardous waste (F006) that is
recycled for its copper, zinc, and nickel
content for use in the commercial
market. In 2007, approximately 35% of
F006 material was recycled (according
to BRS data). These materials do not
appear to be stigmatized in the
marketplace.
• Chat, a Superfund mining cleanup
waste with lead, cadmium and zinc
contamination, is used in road
construction in Oklahoma and the
surrounding states.145 In this case, the
very waste that has triggered an
expensive Superfund cleanup is
successfully offered in the marketplace
as a raw material in road building. The
alternative costs of disposal in this case
are a significant driver in the beneficial
use of this material, and the Superfund
origin of the material has not served as
a barrier to its use.
• Used oil is regulated under RCRA
subtitle C standards. While used oil that
is recycled is subject to a separate set of
standards under subtitle C (and is not
identified as a hazardous waste),
‘‘stigma’’ does not prevent home do-ityourselfers from collecting used oil, or
automotive shops from accepting it and
sending it on for recovery. Collected
used oil may be re-refined, reused, or
used as fuel in boilers, often at the site
144 According to the most recently available data,
in 2008 Horsehead produced about 300,000 tons
per year of an Iron-Rich Material (IRM) as a byproduct of its dust recycling process, and in 2009
Inmetco produced close to 20,000 tons per year.
PADEP asserts that these plants cannot meet the
demands for use of the slag by PennDOT.
145 40 CFR part 260, 39331–39353.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
where it is collected. Safety Kleen
reported that in 2008, the company
recycled 200 million gallons of used oil.
(This example is almost directly
analogous to the situation with respect
to CCRs, although for CCRs, we are not
proposing to subject them to any
management standards when used or
recycled, but, as in the case of used oil,
this alternative would avoid labeling
CCR’s as ‘‘hazardous waste,’’ even while
relying on subtitle C authority.)
• Spent etchants are directly used as
ingredients in the production of a
copper micronutrient for livestock; and
• Spent solvents that are generated
from metals parts washing and are
generally hazardous wastes before
reclamation are directly used in the
production of roofing shingles.
Furthermore, common products and
product ingredients routinely used at
home (e.g., motor oil; gasoline; many
common drain cleaners and household
cleaners; and cathode ray tube monitors
for TVs and computers) are hazardous
wastes in other contexts. This includes
fluorescent lamps (and CFLs) which are
potentially hazardous because of
mercury. Consumers are generally
comfortable with these products, and
their regulatory status does not
discourage their use. Given this level of
acceptance, EPA questions whether
CCR-based materials that might be used
in the home, like concrete or wallboard,
would be likely to raise concerns where
they are safely incorporated into a
product.
Certain commenters have also
expressed the concern that standardssetting organizations might prohibit the
use of CCRs in specific products or
materials in their voluntary standards.
Recently, chairpersons of the American
Standards and Testing Materials
(ASTM) International Committee C09,
and its subcommittee, C09.24, in a
December 23, 2009 letter indicated that
ASTM would remove fly ash from the
project specifications in its concrete
standard if EPA determined that CCRs
were a hazardous waste when disposed.
However, it remains unclear whether
ASTM would ultimately adopt this
position, in light of EPA’s decision not
to revise the regulatory status of CCRs
destined for beneficial use. Further
ASTM standards are developed through
an open consensus process, and they
currently apply to the use of numerous
hazardous materials in construction and
other activities. For example, ASTM
provides specifications for the reuse of
solvents and, thus, by implication, does
not appear to take issue with the use of
these recycled secondary materials,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
despite their classification as hazardous
wastes.146
Others take a different view on how
standard-setting organizations will
react. Most notably, a U.S. Green
Building Council representative was
referenced in the New York Times as
saying that LEED incentives for using fly
ash in concrete would remain in place,
even under an EPA hazardous waste
determination.147 If the Green Building
Council (along with EPA) continues to
recognize fly ash as an environmentally
beneficial substitute for Portland
cement, the use of this material is
unlikely to decrease solely because of
‘‘stigma’’ concerns. Additionally, we
believe it is unlikely that ASTM will
prohibit the use of fly ash in concrete
under its standards solely because of a
determination that fly ash is regulated
under subtitle C of RCRA when it is
discarded, especially given that this use
of fly ash is widely accepted throughout
the world as a practice that improves
the performance of concrete, it is one of
the most cost-effective near-term
strategies to reduce GHG emissions, and
there is no evidence of meaningful risk,
nor any reason to think there might be,
involved with its use in cement or
concrete.
Finally, many states commented that
their statutes or regulations prohibit the
use of hazardous wastes in their state
beneficial use programs and, therefore,
that if EPA lists CCRs as hazardous
wastes (even if only when intended for
disposal), their use would be precluded
in those states. EPA reviewed the
regulations of ten states with the highest
consumption of fly ash and concluded
that, while these states do not generally
allow the use of hazardous waste in
their beneficial use programs, this
general prohibition would not
necessarily prohibit the beneficial use of
CCRs under the proposal that EPA
outlines in this rule. Beneficially used
CCRs would remain Bevill-exempt solid
wastes, or in some cases, would not be
considered wastes at all and thus, the
legal status of such CCRs may not be
affected by EPA’s proposed RCRA
subtitle C rule. As an example, the use
of slag derived from electric furnace
dust (K061) is regulated under
Pennsylvania’s beneficial use program,
despite the fact that it is derived from
146 See, for example, ASTM Volume 15.05, Engine
Coolants, Halogenated Organic Solvents and Fire
Extinguishing Agents; Industrial and Specialty
Chemicals, at https://www.normas.com/ASTM/BOS/
volume1505.html. See also ASTM D5396—04
Standard Specification for Reclaimed
Perchloroethylene, at https://www.astm.org/
Standards/D5396.htm.
147 See https://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2020/01/
13/13greenwire-recycling-questions-complicate-epacoal-ash-de-90614.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35187
a listed hazardous waste. However, we
are also aware that, in the case of
Florida, its state definition of hazardous
waste would likely prohibit the
beneficial use of CCRs were the coproposed RCRA subtitle C regulation
finalized and were there no change to
Florida’s definition of hazardous waste.
The primary concern raised by these
commenters is the fact that CCRs would
be labeled a ‘‘hazardous waste’’ (even if
only when disposed) and will change
the public perception of products made
from CCRs. To address this concern,
EPA is proposing, as one alternative, to
codify the listing in a separate, unique
section of the regulations. Currently,
hazardous wastes are listed in 40 CFR
261, Subpart D, which identifies the
currently regulated industrial wastes,
and which is labeled, ‘‘Lists of
Hazardous Wastes.’’ EPA would create a
new Subpart F and label the section as
‘‘List of Special Wastes Subject to
Subtitle C,’’ to distinguish it from the
industrial hazardous wastes. The
regulations would identify CCRs as a
‘‘Special Waste’’ rather than a K-listed
hazardous waste, so that CCRs would
not automatically be identified with all
other hazardous wastes. See sections V
through VII for the full description of
our regulatory proposal.
EPA believes that this action could
significantly reduce the likelihood that
products made from or containing CCRs
would automatically be perceived as
universally ‘‘hazardous.’’ When taken in
combination with (1) the fact that
beneficially used CCRs will remain
exempt and (2) EPA’s continued
promotion of the beneficial use of CCRs,
we believe this will go a long way to
address any stigmatic impact that might
otherwise result from the regulation of
CCRs under subtitle C of RCRA. We are
seeking comment on other suggestions
on how EPA might promote the
beneficial use of CCRs, as well as
suggestions that would reduce any
perceived impacts resulting from
‘‘stigma’’ due to the identification of
CCRs as ‘‘special wastes regulated under
subtitle C authority.’’
In summary, based on our
experiences, we expect that it will be
more likely that the increased costs of
disposal of CCRs as a result of
regulation of CCR disposal under
subtitle C would increase their usage in
non-regulated beneficial uses, simply as
a result of the economics of supply and
demand. The economic driver—
availability of a low-cost, functionally
equivalent or often superior substitute
for other raw materials—would
continue to make CCRs an increasingly
desirable product.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35188
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
VII. How would the proposed subtitle c
requirements be implemented?
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Effective Dates
If EPA were to finalize the subtitle C
regulatory alternative proposed today,
the rule, as is the case with all RCRA
subtitle C rules, would become effective
six months after promulgation by the
appropriate regulatory authority—that
is, six months after promulgation of the
federal rule in States and other
jurisdictions where EPA implements the
hazardous waste program (Iowa, Alaska,
Indian Country, and the territories,
except Guam) and in authorized States,
six months after the State promulgates
its regulations that EPA has approved
via the authorization process (unless
State laws specify an alternative time).
This means that facilities managing
CCRs must be in compliance with the
provisions of these regulations on their
effective date, unless the compliance
date is extended. For this proposed
regulatory alternative, the compliance
dates for several of the proposed
requirements for existing units are being
extended due to the need for additional
time for facilities to modify their
existing units. The precise dates that
facilities will need to be in compliance
with the various requirements will
depend on whether they are in a
jurisdiction where EPA administers the
RCRA subtitle C program or whether
they are in a State authorized to
administer the RCRA subtitle C
program.
To summarize, (1) In States and
jurisdictions where EPA administers the
RCRA program (Iowa, Alaska, the
territories [except Guam], and Indian
Country), most of the subtitle C
requirements go into effect and are
enforceable by EPA six months after
promulgation of the final rule. This
includes the generator requirements,
transporter requirements, including the
manifest requirements, permitting
requirements for facilities managing
CCRs, interim status standards, surface
impoundment stability requirements,
and the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR)
treatment standards for non-wastewaters
in 40 CFR part 268. However, we are
proposing that existing CCR landfills
and surface impoundments (as defined
in this regulation) will be given
additional time to comply with several
of the proposed requirements as
specified later in this section. Any new
CCR landfills, including lateral
expansions (as defined in the
regulation), must be in compliance with
all the requirements of any final
regulation before CCRs can be placed in
the unit.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
(2) In States that are authorized to
administer the RCRA program, the
requirements that are part of the RCRA
base program (i.e., those promulgated
under the authority of RCRA and not the
HSWA amendments) will not be
effective until the State develops and
promulgates its regulations. Once those
regulations are effective in the States,
they are enforceable as a matter of State
law and facilities must comply with
those requirements under the schedule
established by the State. These RCRA
base requirements will become part of
the RCRA authorized program and
enforceable as a matter of federal law
once the State submits and EPA
approves a modification to the State’s
authorized program. (See the State
Authorization section (section VIII) for a
more detailed discussion.) The
requirements that are more stringent or
broader in scope than the existing
regulations and are promulgated
pursuant to HSWA authority will
become effective and federally
enforceable on the effective date of the
approved state law designating CCRs as
a special waste subject to subtitle C—
that is, they are federally enforceable
without waiting for authorization of the
program revision applicable to the
HSWA provisions. On the other hand,
any requirements that are promulgated
pursuant to HSWA authority, but are
less stringent than the existing subtitle
C requirements (e.g., modifications
promulgated pursuant to Section
3004(x)) will become effective only
when the State promulgates those
regulations (and federally enforceable
when the State program revision is
authorized), as the State has the
discretion to not adopt those less
stringent requirements.
B. What are the requirements with
which facilities must comply?
It is EPA’s intention that this
proposed alternative, if finalized, will
be implemented in the same manner as
previous regulations under RCRA
subtitle C have been. The following
paragraphs describe generally how this
proposal will be implemented. While
this notice provides some details on
specific requirements, it is EPA’s
intention that, unless otherwise noted,
all current Subtitle C requirements
become applicable to the facilities
generating, transporting, or treating,
storing or disposing of CCRs listed as
special wastes. While in this notice EPA
has described the major subtitle C
requirements, EPA has not undertaken a
comprehensive description of all of the
subtitle C regulatory requirements
which may be applicable; therefore, we
encourage commenters to refer to the
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
regulations at 40 CFR parts 260 to 268,
270 to 279, and 124 for details.
1. Generators and Transporters
i. Requirements
Under this proposed regulation,
regulated CCRs destined for disposal
become a newly listed special waste
subject to the subtitle C requirements.
Persons that generate this newly
identified waste is required to notify
EPA within 90 days after the wastes are
identified or listed 148 (by EPA or the
state) and obtain an EPA identification
number if they do not already have one
in accordance with 40 CFR 262.12. (If
the person who generates regulated
CCRs already has an EPA identification
number, EPA is proposing not to require
that they re-notify EPA; however, EPA
is seeking comment on this issue.)
Moreover, on the effective date of this
rule in the relevant state, generators of
CCRs must be in compliance with the
generator requirements set forth in 40
CFR part 262. These requirements
include standards for waste
determination (40 CFR 262.11),
compliance with the manifest (40 CFR
262.20 to 262.23), pre-transport
procedures (40 CFR 262.30 to 262.34),
generator accumulation (40 CFR
262.34), record keeping and reporting
(40 CFR 262.40 to 262.44), and the
import/export procedures (40 CFR
262.50 to 262.60). It should be noted
that the current generator accumulation
provisions of 40 CFR 262.34 allow
generators to accumulate hazardous
wastes without obtaining interim status
or a permit only in units that are
container accumulation units, tank
systems or containment buildings; the
regulations also place a limit on the
maximum amount of time that wastes
can be accumulated in these units. If
these wastes are managed in landfills,
surface impoundments or other units
that are not tank systems, containers, or
containment buildings, these units are
subject to the permitting requirements
of 40 CFR parts 264, 265, and 267 and
the generator is required to obtain
interim status and seek a permit (or
modify interim status or a permit, as
appropriate). These requirements would
be applied to special wastes as well.
Permit requirements are described in
Section VII.D below.
Transporters of CCRs destined for
disposal will be transporting a special
waste subject to subtitle C on the
effective date of this regulation. Persons
who transport these newly identified
wastes will be required to obtain an EPA
identification number as described
148 See
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
section 3010 of RCRA.
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
above and must comply with the
transporter requirements set forth in 40
CFR part 263 on the effective date of the
final rule. In addition, generators and
transporters of CCRs destined for
disposal should be aware that an EPA
identified waste subject to the EPA
waste manifest requirements under 40
CFR part 262 meets the definition for a
hazardous material under the
Department of Transportation’s
Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR;
49 CFR parts 171–180) and must be
offered and transported in accordance
with all applicable HMR requirements,
including materials classification,
packaging, and hazard
communication.149
ii. Effective Dates and Compliance
Deadlines
Generators must notify EPA within 90
days after the date that CCRs are
identified or listed as special wastes (by
EPA or the state). The other
requirements for generators and
transporters (in 40 CFR parts 262 and
263) are effective and generators and
transporters must be in compliance with
these requirements on the effective date
of the final rules. The effective date of
these rules is six months after
promulgation of the federal rule in nonauthorized States and in authorized
States generally six months after
promulgation of the State regulations.
(See previous section for a more
detailed discussion of effective dates.)
2. Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities (TSDs)
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
i. Requirements
Facilities treating, storing, or
disposing of the newly listed CCRs are
subject to the RCRA 3010 notification
requirements, the permit requirements
in 40 CFR part 270, and regulations in
40 CFR part 264 or 267 for permitted
facilities or part 265 for interim status
facilities, including the general facility
requirements in subpart B, the
preparedness and prevention
requirements in subpart C, the
contingency plan and emergency
procedure requirement in subpart D, the
manifest, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in subpart E, the closure
and post-closure requirements in
subpart G, the corrective action
requirements, including facility-wide
corrective action in subpart F, and the
financial assurance requirements in
subpart H.
149 See the definition for ‘‘hazardous waste’’ in 49
CFR 171.8.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
C. RCRA Section 3010 Notification
Pursuant to RCRA section 3010 and
40 CFR 270.1(b), facilities managing
these special wastes subject to subtitle
C must notify EPA of their waste
management activities within 90 days
after the wastes are identified or listed
as a special waste. (As noted above, for
facilities in States where EPA
administers the program, this will be 90
days from the date of promulgation of
the final federal regulation; in
authorized States, it will be 90 days
from the date of promulgation of listing
CCRs as a special waste by the state,
unless the state provides an alternative
timeframe.) This requirement may be
applied even to those TSDs that have
previously notified EPA with respect to
the management of hazardous wastes.
The Agency is proposing to waive this
notification requirement for persons
who handle CCRs and have already: (1)
Notified EPA that they manage
hazardous wastes, and (2) received an
EPA identification number because
requiring persons who have notified
EPA and received an EPA identification
number would be duplicative and
unnecessary, although the Agency
requests comment on whether it should
require such persons to re-notify the
Agency that they generate, transport,
treat, store or dispose of CCRs. However,
any person who treats, stores, or
disposes of CCRs and has not previously
received an EPA identification number
for other waste must obtain an
identification number pursuant to 40
CFR 262.12 to generate, transport, treat,
store, or dispose of CCRs within 90 days
after the wastes are identified or listed
as special wastes subject to subtitle C,
as described above.
D. Permit Requirements
As specified in 40 CFR 270.1(b), six
months after promulgation of a new
regulation, the treatment, storage or
disposal of hazardous waste or special
waste subject to subtitle C by any person
who has not applied for and received a
RCRA permit is prohibited from
managing such wastes. Existing
facilities, however, may satisfy the
permit requirement by submitting Part
A of the permit application. Timely
submission of Part A and the
notification qualifies a facility for
interim status under section 3005 of
RCRA and facilities with interim status
are treated as having been issued a
permit until a final decision is made on
a permit application.
The following paragraphs provide
addition details on how the permitting
requirements would apply to various
categories of facilities:
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35189
1. Facilities Newly Subject to RCRA
Permit Requirements
Facilities that treat, store, or dispose
of regulated CCRs at the time the rule
becomes effective would generally be
eligible for interim status pursuant to
section 3005 of RCRA. (See section
3005(e)(1)(A)(ii) of RCRA).150 EPA
believes most, if not all utilities
generating CCRs and most if not all offsite disposal sites will be in this
situation. In order to obtain interim
status based on treatment, storage, or
disposal of such newly listed CCRs,
eligible facilities are required to comply
with 40 CFR 270.70(a) and 270.10(e) (or
more likely with analogous state
regulations) by providing notice under
RCRA section 3010 (if they do not have
an EPA identification number) and
submitting a Part A permit application
no later than six months after date of
publication of the regulations which
first require them to comply with the
standards. (In most cases, these would
be the state regulations implementing
the federal program; however, in those
States and jurisdictions where EPA
implements the program, the deadline
will be six months after promulgation of
the final federal rule.) Such facilities are
subject to regulation under 40 CFR part
265 until EPA or the state issues a RCRA
permit. In addition, under section
3005(e)(3) and 40 CFR 270.73(d), not
later than 12 months after the effective
date of the regulations that render the
facility subject to the requirement to
have a RCRA permit and which is
granted interim status, land disposal
facilities newly qualifying for interim
status under section 3005(e)(1)(A)(ii)
also must submit a Part B permit
application and certify that the facility
is in compliance with all applicable
ground water monitoring and financial
responsibility requirements. If the
facility fails to submit these
certifications and the Part B permit
application, interim status will
terminate on that date.
2. Existing Interim Status Facilities
EPA is not aware of any utilities or
CCR treatment or disposal sites in RCRA
interim status currently, and therefore
150 Section 3005(e) of RCRA states, in part, that
‘‘Any person who * * * is in existence on the
effective date of statutory or regulatory changes
under this Act that render the facility subject to the
requirement to have a permit under this section
* * * shall be treated as having been issued such
permit until such time as final administrative
disposition of such application is made, unless the
Administrator or other plaintiff proves that final
administrative disposition of such application has
not been made because of the failure of the
applicant to furnish information reasonably
required or requested in order to process the
application.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35190
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA does not believe the standard
federal rules on changes in interim
status will apply. However, in case such
a situation exists, EPA describes below
the relevant provisions. Again, EPA is
describing the federal requirements, but
because the proposed requirements that
subject these facilities to permitting
requirements are part of the RCRA base
program, authorized state regulations
will govern the process, and the date
those regulations become effective in
the relevant state will trigger the
process.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 270.72(a)(1), all
existing hazardous waste management
facilities (as defined in 40 CFR 270.2)
that treat, store, or dispose of newly
identified hazardous wastes and are
currently operating pursuant to interim
status under section 3005(e) of RCRA,
must file an amended Part A permit
application with EPA no later than the
effective date of the final rule in the
State where the facility is located. By
doing this, the facility may continue
managing the newly listed wastes. If the
facility fails to file an amended Part A
application by such date, the facility
will not receive interim status for
management of the newly listed wastes
(in this case CCRs) and may not manage
those wastes until the facility receives
either a permit or a change in interim
status allowing such activity (40 CFR
270.10(g)). This requirement, if
applicable to any electric utilities, will
be applied to those facilities managing
CCRs destined for disposal since these
facilities will now be managing CCRs
subject to the subtitle C requirements.
3. Permitted Facilities
EPA also believes that no electric
utilities treating, storing, or disposing of
CCRs currently has a RCRA permit for
its CCR management unit(s), nor is EPA
aware of any on-going disposal of CCRs
at permitted hazardous waste TSDs,
although the latter situation is a
possibility. Federal procedures for how
permitted hazardous waste facilities
manage newly listed hazardous wastes
are described below, but again in
practice (with the exception of those
jurisdictions in which EPA administers
the hazardous waste program), the
authorized state regulations will govern
the process.
Under 40 CFR 270.42(g), facilities that
already have RCRA permits must
request permit modifications if they
want to continue managing the newly
listed wastes (see 40 CFR 270.42(g) for
details). This provision states that a
permittee may continue managing the
newly listed wastes by following certain
requirements, including submitting a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
Class 1 permit modification request on
or before the date on which the waste
or unit becomes subject to the new
regulatory requirements (i.e., the
effective date of the final federal rule in
those jurisdictions where EPA
administers the program or the effective
date of the State rule in authorized
States), complying with the applicable
standards of 40 CFR parts 265 and 266
and submitting a Class 2 or 3 permit
modification request within 180 days of
the effective date of the final rule.
Again, these requirements, if applicable
to any electric utilities, will be applied
to those facilities managing CCRs
destined for disposal since they are now
subject to the subtitle C requirements.
E. Requirements in 40 CFR Parts 264
and 265
The requirements of 40 CFR part 264
and 267 for permitted facilities or part
265 for interim status facilities,
including the general facility standards
in subpart B, the preparedness and
prevention requirements in subpart C,
the contingency plan and emergency
procedure requirements in subpart D,
the manifest, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements in subpart E, the
corrective action requirements,
including facility-wide corrective action
in subpart F, and the financial assurance
requirements in Subpart H, are
applicable to TSDs and TSDs must be in
compliance with those requirements on
the effective date of the final (usually
state) regulation, except as noted below.
These requirements will apply to those
facilities managing CCRs destined for
disposal.
Moreover, all units in which newly
identified hazardous wastes are treated,
stored, or disposed of after the effective
date of the final (usually state) rule that
are not excluded from the requirements
of 40 CFR parts 264, 265 and 267 will
be subject to both the general closure
and post-closure requirements of
subpart G of 40 CFR parts 264 and 265
and the unit-specific closure
requirements set forth in the applicable
unit technical standards in subparts 40
CFR parts 264 or 265 (e.g., subpart N for
landfill units). In addition, EPA
promulgated a final rule that allows,
under limited circumstances, regulated
landfills or surface impoundments, (or
land treatment units which is not used
for the management of CCR waste) to
cease managing hazardous waste, but to
delay subtitle C closure to allow the unit
to continue to manage non-hazardous
waste for a period of time prior to
closure of the unit (see 54 FR 33376,
August 14, 1989). Units for which
closure is delayed continue to be subject
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to all applicable 40 CFR parts 264 and
265 requirements. Dates and procedures
for submittal of necessary
demonstrations, permit applications,
and revised applications are detailed in
40 CFR 264.113(c) through (e) and
265.113(c) through (e). As stated earlier,
these requirements will be applicable to
those facilities managing CCRs destined
for disposal, since they will be
managing a newly listed waste subject
to subtitle C requirements.
Except as noted below, existing
facilities are required to be in
compliance with the surface
impoundment stability requirements,
the LDR treatment standards for nonwastewaters, and the fugitive dust
controls on the effective date of the final
rule.
For certain of the other requirements,
existing facilities will have:
(a) 60 days from the effective date of
the final rule to install a permanent
identification marker on each surface
impoundment as required by 40 CFR
264.1304(d) and 40 CFR 265.1304(d).
(b) 1 year from the effective date of
the final rule:
To submit plans for each surface
impoundments as required by
264.1304(b) and 265.1304(b).
To adopt and submit to the Regional
Administrator a plan for carrying out
the inspection requirements for each
surface impoundment in 40 CFR
264.1305 and 40 CFR 265.1305.
To comply with the groundwater
monitoring requirements for each
landfill and surface impoundment in 40
CFR 264, Subpart F and 265, Subpart F.
(c) 2 years from the effective date of
the final rule:
To install, operate, and maintain runon and run-off controls as required by
264.1304(g) and 265.1304(g) for surface
impoundments and by 264.1307(d) and
265.1307(d) for landfills.
(d) 5 years from the effective date of
the final rule:
To comply with the LDR wastewater
treatment standard.
To stop receiving CCR waste in
surface impoundments.
(e) 7 years from the effective date of
the final rule to close surface
impoundments handling CCRs.
Any new CCR landfills, including
lateral expansions of existing landfills
(as defined in the regulation), must be
in compliance with all the requirements
of the final regulation before CCRs can
be placed in the unit.
The table below (Table 9) provides a
summary of the effective dates for the
various requirements:
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
35191
TABLE 9—CCR RULE REQUIREMENTS
Compliance date
non authorized state
Compliance date
authorized state
Remove Bevill Exclusion ....................................
6 months after promulgation of final rule .........
Listing CCRs as a Special Waste Subject to
subtitle C.
Notification (generators and TSDs) ....................
Same ................................................................
6 months after State adopts regulations
(under State law); federally enforceable
when state program revision is authorized.
Same.
Generator requirements (40 CFR part 262) .......
Transporter Requirements (40 CFR part 263) ...
Permit Requirement/Interim Status ....................
Facility Standards in Part 264/265 .....................
Install a permanent identification marker on
each surface impoundment as required by 40
CFR 264.1304(d) and 40 CFR 265.1304(d).
Submit plans required by 264.1304(b) and
265.1304(b).
Adopt and submit to the Regional Administrator
a plan for carrying out the inspection requirements in 40 CFR 264.1305 and 40 CFR
265.1305.
Comply with ground water monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 264 Subpart F and 40 CFR
265 Subpart F.
Install, operate, and maintain run-on and run-off
controls as required by 264.1304 (g) and
265.1304 (g) for surface impoundments and
by 264.1307 (d) and 265.1307 (d) for landfills.
Comply with the LDR wastewater treatment
standard.
Close surface impoundments receiving CCR
waste.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
VIII. Impacts of a Subtitle C Rule on
State Authorization
A. Applicability of the Rule in
Authorized States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
authorizes qualified states to administer
their own hazardous waste programs in
lieu of the federal program within the
state. Following authorization, EPA
retains enforcement authority under
sections 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA,
although authorized states have primary
enforcement responsibility. The
standards and requirements for state
authorization are found at 40 CFR part
271.
Prior to enactment of the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA), a state with final RCRA
authorization administered its subtitle C
hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA
administering the federal program in
that state. The federal requirements no
longer apply in the authorized state, and
EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities in that state, since only the
state was authorized to issue RCRA
permits. When new, more stringent
federal requirements are promulgated,
the state was obligated to enact
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
90 days after rule promulgation (that is, the
date the CCRs are listed as a Special
Waste subject to subtitle C.
6 months after promulgation ............................
6 months after promulgation ............................
File Part A of the permit application within six
months of effective date of final rule.
On effective date unless specifically noted .....
60 days from the effective date of the final
rule.
1 year from the effective date of the final rule
90 days after State rule promulgation (that is,
the date the CCRs are listed as a Special
Waste subject to subtitle C.
On the effective date of the State regulations.
On the effective date of State regulations.
File Part A of the permit application within six
months of effective date of State final rule.
On effective date of state regulation unless
specifically noted.
60 days from the effective date of the State
regulation.
1 year from the effective date of the final rule
1 year from the effective date of the State
regulation.
1 year from the effective date of the State
regulation.
1 year from the effective date of the final rule
1 year from the effective date of the State
regulation.
2 years from the effective date of the final rule
2 years from the effective date of the State
regulation.
5 years from the effective date of the final rule
5 years from the effective date of the State
regulation.
7 years from the effective date of the State
regulation.
7 years from the effective date of the final rule
equivalent authorities within specified
time frames (one to two years). The new
more stringent federal requirements did
not take effect in the authorized state
until the state adopted the federal
requirements as state law, and the state
requirements are not federally
enforceable until EPA authorized the
state program. This remains true for all
of the requirements issued pursuant to
statutory provisions that existed prior to
HSWA.
In contrast, under RCRA section
3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), which was
added by HSWA, new requirements and
prohibitions imposed under HSWA
authority take effect in authorized states
at the same time that they take effect in
unauthorized states. EPA is directed by
the statute to implement these
requirements and prohibitions in
authorized states, until the state is
granted authorization to do so. While
states must still adopt new more
stringent HSWA related provisions as
state law to retain final authorization,
EPA implements the HSWA provisions
in authorized states until the states do
so.
Authorized states are required to
modify their programs only when EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
enacts federal requirements that are
more stringent or broader in scope than
the existing federal requirements. RCRA
section 3009 allows the states to impose
standards more stringent than those in
the federal program (see also 40 CFR
271.1). Therefore, authorized states may,
but are not required to, adopt federal
regulations, both HSWA and nonHSWA, that are considered less
stringent than previous federal
regulations.
This alternative of the co-proposal is
considered more stringent and broader
in scope than current federal regulations
and therefore States would be required
to adopt regulations and modify their
programs if this alternative is finalized.
B. Effect on State Authorization
If finalized, a subtitle C rule for CCRs
would affect state authorization in the
same manner as any new RCRA subtitle
C requirement; i.e., (1) this alternative of
the co-proposal would be considered
broader in scope and more stringent
than the current federal program, so
authorized states must adopt regulations
so that their program remains at least as
stringent as the federal program; and (2)
they must receive authorization from
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35192
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
EPA for these program modifications.
The process and requirements for
modification of state programs at 40
CFR 271, specifically 271.21, will be
used.
However, this process is made more
complex due to the nature of this
particular rulemaking and the fact that
some of the provisions of this
alternative, if finalized, would be
finalized pursuant to the RCRA base
program authority and some pursuant to
HSWA authority. For RCRA base
program or non-HSWA requirements,
the general rule, as explained
previously, is that the new requirements
do not become enforceable as a matter
of federal law in authorized states until
states adopt the regulations, modify
their programs, and receive
authorization from EPA. For HSWA
requirements, the general rule is that
HSWA requirements are enforceable on
the effective date of the final federal
rule. If an authorized State has not
promulgated regulations, modified their
programs, and received authorization
from EPA, then EPA implements the
requirements until the State receives
program authorization.
In accord with 271.2(e)(2), authorized
states must modify their programs by
July 1 of each year to reflect changes to
the federal program occurring during
the ‘‘12 months preceding the previous
July 1.’’ Therefore, for example, if the
federal rule is promulgated in December
2011, the states would have until July 1,
2013 to modify their programs. States
may have an additional year to modify
their programs if an amendment to a
state statute is needed. See 40 CFR
271.21(e)(2)(v).
As noted above, this alternative to the
co-proposal is proposed pursuant in
part to HSWA authority and in part to
non-HSWA or RCRA base program
authority. The majority of this
alternative is proposed pursuant to nonHSWA authority. This includes, for
example, the listing of CCRs destined
for disposal as a special waste subject to
subtitle C and the impoundment
stability requirements. These
requirements will be applicable on the
effective date of the final federal rule
only in those states that do not have
final authorization for the RCRA
program. These requirements will be
effective in authorized states once a
state promulgates the regulations and
they will become a part of the
authorized RCRA program and thus
federally enforceable, once the state has
submitted a program modification and
received authorization for this program
modification.
The prohibition on land disposal
unless CCRs meet the treatment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
standards and modification of the
treatment standards in 40 CFR part 268
are proposed pursuant to HSWA
authority and would normally be
effective and federally enforceable in all
States on the effective date of the final
federal rule. However, because the land
disposal restrictions apply to those
CCRs that are regulated under subtitle C,
until authorized states revise their
programs and become authorized to
regulate CCRs as a special waste subject
to RCRA subtitle C, the land disposal
restriction requirements would apply
only in those States that currently do
not exclude CCRs from subtitle C
regulation (that is, CCRs are regulated
under subtitle C if they exhibit one or
more of the characteristics) and the
CCRs in fact exhibit one or more of the
RCRA subtitle C characteristics.
However, once the state has the
authority to regulate CCRs as a special
waste, the LDR requirements become
federally enforceable in all States.
In addition, the tailored management
standards promulgated pursuant to
section 3004(x) of RCRA are also
proposed pursuant to HSWA authority.
However, as these tailored standards are
less stringent than the existing RCRA
subtitle C requirements, States would
not be required to promulgate
regulations for these less stringent
standards—should a State decide not to
promulgate such regulations, the
facilities in that state would be required
to comply with the full subtitle C
standards. Therefore, the tailored
management standards will be effective
in authorized States only when States
promulgate such regulations.
Therefore, the Agency would add this
rule to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j), if this
alternative to the co-proposal is
finalized, which identifies the federal
program requirements that are
promulgated pursuant to HSWA and
take effect in all states, regardless of
their authorization status. Table 2 in 40
CFR 271.1(j) would be modified to
indicate that these requirements are selfimplementing. Until the states receive
authorization for the more stringent
HSWA provisions, EPA would
implement them, as described above. In
implementing the HSWA requirements,
EPA will work closely with the states to
avoid duplication of effort. Once
authorized, states adopt an equivalent
rule and receive authorization for such
rule from EPA, the authorized state rule
will apply in that state as the RCRA
subtitle C requirement in lieu of the
equivalent federal requirement.
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
IX. Summary of the Co-Proposal
Regulating CCRs Under Subtitle D
Regulations
A. Overview and General Issues
EPA is co-proposing and is soliciting
comment on an approach under which
the May 2000 Regulatory Determination
would remain in place, and EPA would
issue regulations governing the disposal
of CCRs under sections 1008(a), 2002,
4004 and 4005(a) of RCRA (i.e., ‘‘Subtitle
D’’ of RCRA). Under this approach, the
CCRs would remain classified as a nonhazardous RCRA solid waste, and EPA
would develop national minimum
criteria governing facilities for their
disposal. EPA’s co-proposed subtitle D
minimum criteria are discussed below.
Statutory standards for Subtitle D
approach. Under RCRA 4005(a), upon
promulgation of criteria under
1008(a)(3), any solid waste management
practice or disposal of solid waste
which constitutes the ‘‘open dumping’’
of solid waste is prohibited. The criteria
under RCRA 1008(a)(3) are those that
define the act of open dumping, and are
prohibited under 4005(a), and the
criteria under 4004(a) are those to be
used by states in their planning
processes to determine which facilities
are ‘‘open dumps’’ and which are
‘‘sanitary landfills.’’ EPA has in practice
defined the two sets of criteria
identically. See, e.g., Criteria for
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices, 44 FR 53438,
53438–39 (Sept. 13, 1979). EPA has
designed today’s co-proposed subtitle D
criteria to integrate with the existing
open dumping criteria in this respect, as
reflected in the proposed changes to
257.1.
Section 4004(a) of RCRA provides that
EPA shall promulgate regulations
containing criteria distinguishing which
facilities are to be classified as sanitary
landfills and which are open dumps.
This section provides a standard that
varies from that under RCRA subtitle C.
Specifically, subtitle C provides that
management standards for hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities are those ‘‘necessary to protect
human health or the environment.’’ See,
e.g., RCRA 3004(a). By contrast, Section
4004(a) provides that
[a]t a minimum, the such criteria shall
provide that a facility may be classified as a
sanitary landfill and not an open dump only
if there is no reasonable probability of
adverse effects on health or the environment
from disposal of solid waste at such facility.
Such regulations may provide for the
classification of the types of sanitary
landfills.
Thus, under the RCRA subtitle D
regulatory standard in 4004, EPA is to
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
develop requirements based on the
adverse effects on health or the
environment from disposal of solid
waste at a facility, and accordingly, EPA
looked at such effects in developing
today’s co-proposed Subtitle D rule.
At the same time, EPA believes that
the differing standards, in particular the
reference to the criteria as those which
are needed to assure that there is ‘‘no
reasonable probability’’ of adverse
effects, allows the Agency the ability to
adopt standards different from those
required under the subtitle C proposal
where appropriate. EPA notes that the
4004(a) standard refers to the
‘‘probability’’ of adverse effect on health
or the environment. In EPA’s view, this
provides it the discretion to establish
requirements that are less certain to
eliminate a risk to health or the
environment than otherwise might be
required under Subtitle C, and allows
additional flexibility in how those
criteria may be applied to facilities. At
the same time, however, EPA notes that
the requirements meeting the ‘‘no
reasonable probability’’ standard are
those ‘‘at a minimum’’—thus, EPA is not
constrained to limit itself to that
standard should it determine that
additional protections are appropriate.
Statements in the legislative history of
4004(a) are also consistent with EPA’s
interpretation of the statutory language.
While it provides little in the way of
guidance on the meaning of the
‘‘reasonable probability’’ standard, the
legislative history does indicate that
Congress was aware of effects from solid
waste disposal facilities that included
surface runoff, leachate contamination
of surface- and groundwaters, and also
identified concerns over the location
and operations of landfills. See H. Rep.
94–1491, at 37–8. In addition, the
legislative history confirms that the
standard in 4004(a) was intended to set
a minimum for the criteria. See H. Rep.
94–1491, at 40 (‘‘This legislation
requires that the Administrator define
sanitary landfill as disposal site at
which there is no reasonable chance of
adverse effects on health and the
environment from the disposal of
discarded material at the site. This is a
minimum requirement of this legislation
and does not preclude additional
requirements.’’ Emphasis added.)
1. Regulatory Approach
In developing the proposed RCRA
subtitle D option for CCRs, EPA
considered a number of existing
requirements as relevant models for
minimum national standards for the safe
disposal of CCRs. The primary source
was the existing requirements under 40
CFR part 258, applicable to municipal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
solid waste landfills, which provide a
comprehensive framework for all
aspects of disposal in land-based units,
such as CCR landfills. Based on the
Agency’s substantial experience with
these requirements, EPA believes that
the part 258 criteria represent a
reasonable balance between ensuring
the protection of human health and the
environment from the risks of these
wastes and the practical realities of
facilities’ ability to implement the
criteria. The engineered structures
regulated under part 258 are very
similar to those found at CCR disposal
facilities, and the regulations applicable
to such units would be expected to
address the risks presented by the
constituents in CCR wastes. Moreover,
CCR wastes do not contain the
constituents that are likely to require
modification of the existing part 258
requirements, such as organics; for
example, no adjustments would be
needed to ensure that groundwater
monitoring would be protective, as the
CCR constituents are all readily
distinguishable by standard analytical
chemistry. As discussed throughout this
preamble, each of the provisions
adopted for today’s subtitle D coproposal relies, in large measure, on the
record EPA developed to support the 40
CFR part 258 municipal solid waste
landfill criteria, along with the other
record evidence specific to CCRs,
discussed throughout the co-proposed
subtitle C alternative. EPA also relied on
the Agency’s Guide for Industrial Waste
Management (EPA530–R–03–001,
February 2003), to provide information
on existing best management practices
that facilities have likely adopted.
The Guide was developed by EPA and
state and tribal representatives, as well
as a focus group of industry and public
interest stakeholders chartered under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act,
and reflects a consensus view of best
practices for industrial waste
management. It also contains
recommendations based on more recent
scientific developments, and state-of-the
art disposal practices for solid wastes.
In addition, EPA considered that
many of the technical requirements that
EPA developed to specifically address
the risks from the disposal of CCRs as
part of the subtitle C alternative, would
be equally justified under a RCRA
subtitle D regime. Thus, for example,
EPA is proposing the same MSHA-based
standards for surface impoundments
that are discussed as part of the subtitle
C alternative. 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 Agency is
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35193
operating. Although the statutory
standards under subsections C and D
differ, EPA has historically interpreted
both statutory provisions to establish a
comparable level of protection,
corresponding to an acceptable risk
level ranging between 1 × 10–4 to 1 ×
10–6. In addition, EPA does not
interpret section 4004 to preclude the
Agency from establishing more stringent
requirements where EPA deems such
more stringent requirements
appropriate. 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, or are
modeled after the existing subtitle C
requirements. These provisions include
the following regulatory provisions
specific to CCRs that EPA is proposing
to establish: Scope, and applicability
(i.e., who will be subject to the rule
criteria/requirements), the Design
Criteria and Operating Criteria
(including provisions for surface
impoundment integrity), and several of
the provisions specifying appropriate
pollution control technologies.
Additional support for EPA’s decision
to specify appropriate monitoring,
corrective action, closure, and postclosure care requirements (since the
specific requirements correlate closely
with the existing 40 CFR 258
requirements) is found in the risk
analysis and damage case information.
Finally, many of the definitions are the
same in each section.
However, both the RCRA subtitle C
proposals and the existing 40 CFR part
258 requirements were developed to be
implemented in the context of a
permitting program, where an
overseeing authority evaluates the
requirements, and can adjust them, as
appropriate to account for site specific
conditions. Because there is no
corresponding guaranteed permit
mechanism under the RCRA subtitle D
regulations proposed today, 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. The
interim status requirements were
particularly relevant in developing the
proposed 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
they provide national requirements that
have proven to be protective for a
variety of wastes, under a wide variety
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35194
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
of site conditions. Past experience also
demonstrates that facilities can feasibly
implement these requirements.
Taking all of these considerations into
account, EPA has generally designed the
proposed RCRA subtitle D criteria to
create self-implementing requirements.
These self-implementing requirements
typically consist of a technical design
standard (e.g., the composite liner
requirement for new CCR landfills and
surface impoundments). In addition, for
many of these requirements, the Agency
also has established performance
criteria that the owner or operator can
meet, in place of the technical design
standard, which provides the facility
with flexibility in complying with the
minimum national criteria. EPA
generally has chosen to propose an
alternate performance standard for a
number of reasons. In several cases, the
alternative standard is intended to
address the circumstances where the
appropriate requirement is highly
dependent on site-specific conditions
(such as the spacing and location of
ground-water wells); consequently,
uniform, national standards that assure
the requisite level of protection are
extremely difficult to establish. EPA
could establish a minimum national
requirement, but to do so, EPA would
need to establish the most restrictive
criteria that would ensure protection of
the most vulnerable site conditions.
Because this would result in
overregulation of less vulnerable sites,
EPA questions whether such a
restrictive approach would be consistent
with the RCRA section 4004 standard of
ensuring ‘‘no reasonable probability of
adverse effects.’’ (emphasis added). The
existing 40 CFR part 258 requirements
provide the flexibility to address this
issue by establishing alternate
performance standards and relying on
the oversight resulting from state
permitting processes, and supported by
EPA approval of state plans. Indeed,
EPA made clear in the final MSWLF
rule that this was the reason that several
of the individual performance standards
in the existing 40 CFR part 258
requirements are available only in states
with EPA approved programs. See, e.g.,
56 FR 51096 (authorizing alternative
cover designs). However, EPA cannot
rely on these oversight mechanisms to
implement the RCRA 4004 subtitle D
requirements. Under these provisions of
RCRA, EPA lacks the authority to
require state permits, approve state
programs, and to enforce the criteria.
Moreover as discussed in Section IV, the
level of state oversight varies
appreciably among states. Consequently,
for these provisions EPA is also
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
proposing to require the owner or
operator of the facility to obtain
certifications by independent registered
professional engineers to provide
verification that these provisions are
properly applied. EPA has also
proposed to require certifications by
independent professional engineers
more broadly as a mechanism to
facilitate citizen oversight and
enforcement. As discussed in greater
detail below, EPA is proposing to
require minimum qualifications for the
professionals who are relied upon to
make such certifications. In general,
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, and that they operate
under penalty of losing their license.
EPA believes that these provisions
allow facilities the flexibility to account
for site conditions, by allowing them to
deviate from the specific technical
criteria, provided the alternative meets
a specified performance standard, yet
also provide some degree of third-party
verification of facility practices. The
availability of meaningful independent
verification is critical to EPA’s ability to
conclude that these performance
standards will meet the RCRA section
4004 protectiveness standard. EPA
recognizes that relying upon third party
certifications is not the same as relying
upon the state regulatory authority, and
will likely not provide the same level of
‘‘independence.’’ For example, although
not an employee, the engineer will still
have been hired by the utility. EPA
therefore broadly solicits comment on
whether this approach provides the
right balance between establishing
sufficient guarantee that the regulations
will be protective, and offering facilities
sufficient flexibility to be able to
feasibly implement requirements that
will be appropriate to the site
conditions. In this regard, EPA would
also be interested in receiving
suggestions for other mechanisms to
provide facility flexibility and/or
verification.
There is a broad range of the extent
to which states already have some of
these requirements in place under their
current RCRA subtitle D waste
management programs established
under state law, as explained previously
in this preamble. EPA and certain
commenters, however, have identified
significant gaps in state programs and
current practices. For example, EPA
does not believe that many, if any, states
currently have provisions that would
likely cause the closure of existing
surface impoundments, such as the
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
provisions in today’s proposed rule that
surface impoundments must either
retrofit to meet all requirements, such as
installing a composite liner, or stop
receiving CCRs within a maximum of
five years of the effective date of the
regulation. The RCRA subtitle D
proposal outlined here is intended to fill
such gaps and ensure national
minimum standards. EPA intends to
provide a complete set of requirements,
designed to ensure there will be no
reasonable probability of adverse effects
on health or the environment caused by
CCR landfills or surface impoundments.
EPA’s co-proposed RCRA subtitle D
minimum criteria are discussed below.
2. Notifications
In 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
proposed RCRA subtitle D standards by
providing for state and public
notifications of the third party
certifications, as well as other
information that documents the
decisions made or actions taken to
comply with the performance criteria.
As discussed in the section-by-section
analysis below, documentation of how
the various standards are met must be
placed in the operating record and the
state notified.
The owner or operator must also
maintain a web site available to the
public that contains the documentation
that the standard is met. EPA is
proposing that owners and operators
provide notification to the public by
posting notices and relevant information
on an internet site with a link clearly
identified as being a link to
notifications, reports, and
demonstrations required under the
regulations. EPA believes the internet is
currently the most convenient and
widely accessible means for gathering
information and disseminating it to the
public. However, the Agency solicits
comments regarding the methods for
providing notifications to the public and
the states. EPA also solicits comments
on whether there could be homeland
security implications with the
requirement to post information on an
internet site and whether posting certain
information on the internet may
duplicate information that is already
available to the public through the state.
The co-proposed subtitle D regulation
accordingly includes a number of public
notice provisions. In particular, to
ensure that persons residing near CCR
surface impoundments are protected
from potential catastrophic releases, we
are proposing that when a potentially
hazardous condition develops regarding
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the integrity of a surface impoundment,
that the owner or operator immediately
notify potentially affected persons and
the state. The Agency is also proposing
to require that owners or operators
notify the state, and place the report and
other supporting materials in the
operating record and on the company’s
internet site of various demonstrations,
documentation, and certifications.
Accordingly, notice must be provided:
(1) Of demonstrations that CCR landfills
or surface impoundments will not
adversely affect human health or the
environment; (2) of demonstrations of
alternative fugitive dust control
measures; (3) annually throughout the
active life and post-closure care period
that the landfill or surface
impoundment is in compliance with the
groundwater monitoring and corrective
action provisions; (4) when
documentation related to the design,
installation, development, and
decommission of any monitoring wells,
piezometers and other measurement,
sampling, and analytical devices has
been placed in the operating record; (5)
when certification of the groundwater
monitoring system by an independent
registered professional engineer or
hydrologist has been placed in the
operating record; (6) when groundwater
monitoring sampling and analysis
program documentation has been placed
in the operating record; (7) when the use
of an alternative statistical method is to
be used in evaluating groundwater
monitoring data and a justification for
the alternative statistical method has
been placed in the operating record; (8)
when the owner or operator finds that
there is a statistically significant
increase over background for one or
more of the constituents listed in
Appendix III of the proposed rule, at
any groundwater monitoring well; (9)
when a notice of the results of
assessment monitoring that may be
required under the groundwater
monitoring program is placed in the
operating record; (10) when a notice is
placed in the operating record that
constituent levels that triggered
assessment monitoring have returned to
or below background levels; (11) when
a notice of the intent to close the unit
has been placed in the operating record;
and (12) when a certification, signed by
an independent registered professional
engineer verifying that post-closure care
has been completed in accordance with
the post-closure plan, has been placed
in the operating record. Please consult
the proposed subtitle D regulation
provided with this notice for all the
proposed notification and
documentation requirements.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
As explained earlier, the RCRA
subtitle D approach relies on state and
citizen enforcement. 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 is a mechanism for states and
citizens to monitor the situation, such as
when groundwater monitoring shows
exceedances, so that they can determine
when intervention is appropriate. EPA
also believes that notifications, such as
those described above, will minimize
the danger of owners or operators
abusing the self-implementing system
through increased transparency and by
facilitating the citizen suit enforcement
mechanism.
EPA is proposing that owners and
operators provide notification to the
public by posting notices and relevant
information on an internet site with a
link clearly identified as being a link to
notifications, reports, and
demonstrations required under the
regulations. EPA believes the internet is
currently the most convenient and
widely accessible means for gathering
information. However, the Agency
solicits comments regarding the
methods for providing notifications to
the public and the states.
B. Section-by-Section Discussion of
RCRA Subtitle D Criteria
1. Proposed Modifications to Part 257,
Subpart A
EPA is proposing to modify the
existing open dumping criteria found in
40 CFR 257.1, Scope and Purpose, to
recognize the creation of a new subpart
D, which consolidates all of the criteria
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.
Facilities and practices failing to satisfy
these consolidated subpart D criteria
violate RCRA’s prohibition on open
dumping. The proposed regulation also
excludes CCR landfills and surface
impoundments subject to proposed
subpart D from subpart A, except as
otherwise provided in subpart D.
In general, these provisions are
intended to integrate the new
requirements with the existing open
dumping criteria, and have only been
modified to clarify that the proposed
RCRA subtitle D regulations define
which CCR landfills and surface
impoundments violate the federal
standards, and therefore may be
enforced by citizen suit under RCRA
4005(a) and 7002. EPA has also
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35195
proposed language to make clear that
those CCR landfills and surface
impoundments that are subject to the
new proposed Subpart D would not also
be subject to Subpart A, with the
exception of three of the existing
Subpart A criteria (257.3–1,
Floodplains, 257.3–2 Endangered
Species, 257.3–3 Surface water) that
would continue to apply to these
facilities. The applicability of these
three provisions to CCR disposal
facilities is discussed later in this
preamble.
Finally, EPA also notes that its intent
in excluding CCR landfills and surface
impoundments from 40 CFR 257
Subpart A in this manner is to
consolidate the requirements applicable
to those particular facilities in one set of
RCRA subtitle D regulations. EPA does
not intend to modify the coverage of 40
CFR 257 subpart A as to other disposal
facilities and practices for CCRs, such as
beneficial uses of CCRs when they are
applied to the land used for food-chain
crops. It is EPA’s intent that such
activities would continue to be subject
to the existing criteria under Subpart A.
2. General Provisions
The proposed general provisions
address the applicability of the new
proposed RCRA Subpart D
requirements, the continuing
applicability of certain of the existing
open dumping criteria, provide for an
effective date of 180 days after
promulgation, and define key terms for
the proposed criteria.
Applicability. The applicability
provisions identify those solid waste
disposal facilities subject to the new
proposed RCRA Subpart D (i.e., CCR
landfills and CCR surface
impoundments as defined under
proposed 257.40(b)). The applicability
section also identifies three of the
existing subpart A criteria that would
continue to apply to these facilities:
257.3–1, Floodplains, 257.3–2
Endangered Species, 257.3–3 Surface
water. The applicability of these
provisions to CCR disposal facilities is
discussed later in this preamble.
The applicability section also
specifies an effective date of 180 days
after publication of the final rule. EPA
believes that, with the specific
exceptions discussed below, this time
frame strikes a reasonable balance
between the time that owners and
operators of CCR units would need in
order to come into compliance with the
rule’s requirements, and the need to
implement the proposed requirements
in a timeframe that will maximize
protection of health and the
environment. We note that 180 days is
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35196
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
the timeframe for persons to come into
compliance with most of the
requirements under RCRA subtitle C,
and believe that if persons can meet the
hazardous waste provisions within this
time period under RCRA subtitle C, that
it is reasonable to conclude that persons
should be able to meet those same or
similar requirements under RCRA
subtitle D. EPA also notes that pending
finalization of any regulations, facilities
continue to be subject to the existing
part 257 open dumping criteria as they
may apply.
3. Definitions
This section of the proposed
regulation discusses the definitions of
some of the key terms used in the
proposed RCRA subtitle D rule that are
necessary for the proper interpretation
of the proposed criteria. Because EPA is
creating a separate section of the
regulations specific to CCR units, EPA is
also consolidating the existing
definitions in this section. However, by
simply incorporating these unmodified
definitions into this new section of the
regulations, EPA is not proposing to
reopen, or soliciting comments on these
requirements. Nor, for definitions where
the only modification relates to an
adjustment specific to CCRs, is EPA
proposing to revise or reopen the
existing part 257 or part 258 definitions
as they apply to other categories of
disposal facilities, as those will remain
unaltered. Accordingly, EPA will not
respond to any comments on these
definitions.
Aquifer. EPA has defined aquifer for
this proposal as a geologic formation,
group of formations, or portion of a
formation capable of yielding significant
quantities of ground water to wells or
springs. This is the same definition
currently used in EPA’s hazardous
waste program and MSWLF criteria in
40 CFR 258.2 and differs from the
original criteria definition (40 CFR
257.3–4(c)(1)) only in that it substitutes
the term ‘‘significant’’ for ‘‘usable.’’ The
Agency is proposing to adopt the
modified definition to make the subtitle
C and subtitle D alternatives consistent.
Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs)
means fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag,
and flue gas desulfurization wastes.
CCRs are also known as coal
combustion wastes (CCWs) and fossil
fuel combustion (FFC) wastes.
CCR Landfill. The co-proposed
criteria includes a definition of ‘‘CCR
landfill’’ to mean an area of land or an
excavation, including a lateral
expansion, in which CCRs are placed for
permanent disposal, and that is not a
land application unit, surface
impoundment, or injection well. For
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
purposes of this proposed rule, landfills
also include piles, sand and gravel pits,
quarries, and/or large scale fill
operations. EPA modeled this definition
after the definition of ‘‘Municipal solid
waste landfill (MSWLF) unit’’ contained
in the existing criteria for those
facilities. Although this is somewhat
different than the definition proposed
under the subtitle C alternative (which
is based on the existing part 260
definition), EPA intends for this
proposed definition to capture those
landfills and other large-scale disposal
practices that are described in EPA’s
damage cases and risk assessments
discussed in sections II, VI, and the RIA.
CCR Surface Impoundment. EPA has
proposed to define this term to mean a
facility or part of a facility, including a
lateral expansion, that is a natural
topographic depression, human-made
excavation, or diked area formed
primarily of earthen materials (although
it may be lined with human-made
materials), that is designed to hold an
accumulation of liquid CCR wastes or
CCR wastes containing free liquids and
that is not an injection well. EPA has
included as examples of surface
impoundments settling and aeration
pits, ponds, and lagoons. This is the
same definition that EPA is proposing as
part of the subtitle C alternative, and is
generally consistent with the definition
of ‘‘surface impoundment or
impoundment’’ contained in the existing
257.2 criteria.
EPA further proposes in the definition
a description of likely conditions at a
CCR surface impoundment, stating that
CCR surface impoundments often
receive CCRs that have been sluiced
(flushed or mixed with water to
facilitate movement), or wastes from wet
air pollution control devices. EPA
intends for this proposed definition to
capture those surface impoundments
that are described in EPA’s damage
cases and risk assessments described in
sections II, VI, and the RIA.
Existing CCR Landfill/Existing CCR
Surface Impoundment. EPA has
included a proposed definition of this
term to mean a CCR landfill or surface
impoundment, which was in operation
on, or for which construction
commenced prior to the effective date of
the final rule. The proposed definition
states that a CCR landfill or surface
impoundment has commenced
construction if: (1) The owner or
operator has obtained the Federal, State
and local approvals or permits
necessary to begin physical
construction; and (2) either (i) a
continuous on-site, physical
construction program has begun; or (ii)
the owner or operator has entered into
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
contractual obligations—which cannot
be cancelled or modified without
substantial loss—for physical
construction of the CCR landfill or
surface impoundment to be completed
within a reasonable time. These
definitions are identical to the coproposed subtitle C definitions,
described in section VI. EPA sees no
reason to establish separate definitions
of these units for purposes of RCRA
subtitle D since the question of whether
these units are existing should not differ
between whether they are regulated
under RCRA subtitles C or D.
Factor of Safety (Safety Factor). The
proposed definition is 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. This definition is
the same as the co-proposed subtitle C
definitions, described in section VI. EPA
sees no reason to establish a separate
definition for this term for purposes of
RCRA subtitle D since the question of
‘‘Factor of safety’’ should not differ
between units that would be regulated
under RCRA subtitles C or D.
Hazard potential classification. This
term is proposed to be defined as the
possible adverse incremental
consequences that result from the
release of water or stored contents due
to failure of a dam (or impoundment) or
misoperation of the dam or
appurtenances.
The proposed definition further
delineates the classification into four
categories:
—High hazard potential surface
impoundment which is a surface
impoundment where failure or
misoperation will probably cause loss
of human life;
—Significant hazard potential surface
impoundment which is a surface
impoundment where failure or
misoperation results in no probable
loss of human life, but can cause
economic loss, environmental
damage, disruption of lifeline
facilities, or impact other concerns;
and
—Low hazard potential surface
impoundment means a surface
impoundment where failure or misoperation 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.
—Less than low hazard potential
surface impoundment means a
surface impoundment not meeting the
definitions for High, Significant, or
Low Hazard Potential.
This definition, just like the proposed
RCRA subtitle C definition, follows the
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Hazard Potential Classification System
for Dams, developed by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for the National
Inventory of Dams. This system is a
widely-used definitional scheme for
classifying the hazard potential posed
by dams, and EPA expects that the
regulated community’s familiarity with
these requirements will make their
application to CCR surface
impoundments relatively
straightforward.
Independent registered professional
engineer or hydrologist. This term is
defined as a scientist or engineer who is
not an employee of the owner or
operator of a CCR landfill or surface
impoundment who has received a
baccalaureate or post-graduate degree in
the natural sciences or engineering and
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 judgments
regarding groundwater monitoring,
contaminant fate and transport, and
corrective action.
Because the proposed RCRA subtitle
D requirements cannot presuppose the
existence of a permit or state regulatory
oversight, the criteria in today’s
proposed rule are self-implementing.
However, as discussed earlier, to try to
minimize the potential for
overregulation, and to provide some
degree of flexibility, EPA is proposing to
allow facilities to deviate from the
criteria upon a demonstration that the
alternative meets a specified
performance standard. But to provide
for a minimum level of verification and
to reduce the opportunity for abuse, the
Agency believes it is imperative to have
an independent party review, and
certify the facility’s demonstrations. The
Agency also believes that those
professionals certifying the
requirements of today’s proposed rule
should meet certain minimum
qualifications. The Agency is proposing
to define a ‘‘qualified ground-water
scientist’’ to be a scientist or engineer
who has received a baccalaureate or
post-graduate degree in the natural
sciences or engineering and has
sufficient training and experience in
ground-water hydrology and related
fields as may be demonstrated by State
registration, professional certification,
or completion of accredited university
programs that enable that individual to
make sound professional judgments
regarding ground-water monitoring,
contaminant fate and transport, and
corrective action. This requirement is
the same as the current requirement at
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
§ 258.50(f). The Agency believes that
specialized coursework and training
should include, at a minimum, physical
geology, ground-water hydrology or
hydrogeology, and environmental
chemistry (e.g., soil chemistry or low
temperature geochemistry). Some
national organizations, such as the
American Institute of Hydrology and the
National Water Well Association,
currently certify or register groundwater professionals. States may of
course establish more stringent
requirements for these professionals,
including mandatory licensing or
certification. As discussed above, EPA
seeks comment on the proposed reliance
on independent professionals in
implementing the proposed flexibility of
performance standards.
Lateral expansion means a horizontal
expansion of the waste boundaries of an
existing CCR landfill, or existing CCR
surface impoundment made after the
effective date of the final rule. This
definition is identical to the coproposed subtitle C definition,
described in section VI. EPA sees no
reason to establish a separate definition
of this term for purposes of RCRA
subtitle D since whether a lateral
expansion has occurred at a CCR
landfill or surface impoundment should
not differ between those units regulated
under RCRA subtitles C or D.
New CCR landfill means a CCR
landfill from which there is placement
of CCRs without the presence of free
liquids, which began operation, or for
which the construction commenced
after the effective date of the rule. This
definition is identical to the coproposed subtitle C definition,
described in section VI. EPA sees no
reason to establish a separate definition
for this term for purposes of RCRA
subtitle D since whether a landfill is
new should not differ between those
landfills that are regulated under RCRA
subtitles C or D.
New CCR surface impoundment
means a CCR surface impoundment into
which CCRs with the presence of free
liquids have been placed, which began
operation, or for which the construction
commenced after the effective date of
the rule. EPA sees no reason to establish
a separate definition for this term for
purposes of RCRA subtitle D since
whether a surface impoundment is new
should not differ between those surface
impoundments that are regulated under
RCRA subtitles C or D.
Recognized and generally accepted
good engineering practices means
engineering maintenance or operation
activities based on established codes,
standards, published technical reports,
recommended practice, or similar
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35197
document. Such practices detail
generally approved ways to perform
specific engineering, inspection, or
mechanical integrity activities. In
several provisions, EPA requires that the
facility operate in accordance with
‘‘recognized and generally accepted
good engineering practices,’’ or requires
an independent engineer to certify that
a design or operating parameter meets
this standard. The definition references
but does not attempt to codify any
particular set of engineering practices,
but to allow the professional engineer
latitude to adopt improved practices
that reflect the state-of-the art practices,
as they develop over time. This
definition is the same as the definition
EPA is proposing under the subtitle C
alternative.
4. Location Restrictions
To provide for no reasonable
probability of adverse effects on health
or the environment from the disposal of
CCRs at CCR landfills and surface
impoundments, EPA believes that any
RCRA subtitle D regulation would need
to ensure that CCR disposal units were
appropriately sited. The proposed
location restrictions include
requirements relating to placement of
the CCRs above the water table,
wetlands, fault areas, seismic impact
zones, and unstable areas. In addition,
as previously noted, the location
standards in subpart A of 40 CFR part
257 for floodplains, endangered species,
and surface waters would also continue
to apply. Finally, the proposed
regulations also address the closure of
existing CCR landfills and surface
impoundments.
The location standards in this
proposal are primarily based on the
location standards developed for
municipal solid waste landfill units,
and represent provisions to ensure that
the structure of the disposal unit is not
adversely impacted by conditions at the
site, or that the location of a disposal
unit at the site would not increase risks
to human health or the environment.
The criteria for municipal solid waste
landfills provide restrictions on siting
units in wetlands, fault areas, seismic
impact zones, and unstable areas.151
151 The proposed definition of seismic impact
zone was modified from the part 258 definition as
explained in the ‘‘Discussion of Individual Location
Requirements’’ section below. The part 258 criteria
also include location restrictions relating to airport
safety and floodplains, in 258.10 and 258.11,
respectively. EPA has not proposed an analogue to
258.10 because the hazard addressed by that
criterion, bird strikes to aircraft, is inapplicable in
the context of CCR disposal units, which do not
tend to attract birds to them. As discussed in the
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
Continued
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35198
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Each of those factors is generally
recognized as having the potential to
impact the structure of a disposal unit
negatively or increase the risks to
human health and the environment. As
discussed below in more detail, each of
these provisions adopted for today’s
RCRA subtitle D co-proposal relies in
large measure, on the record EPA
developed to support the 40 CFR part
258 municipal solid waste landfill
criteria. EPA’s Guide for Industrial
Waste Management (EPA530–R–03–001,
February 2003) also identifies these
location restrictions as appropriate for
industrial waste management. These
proposed requirements are all discussed
in turn below, after a general
explanation of the Agency’s proposed
treatment of new CCR disposal units
compared to existing CCR disposal
units.
a. Differences in Location Restrictions
for Existing and New CCR Landfills and
Surface Impoundments, and Lateral
Expansions. EPA is proposing different
sets of location restrictions under the
Subtitle D approach, depending on
whether a unit is a CCR landfill or
surface impoundment, and whether it is
an existing or new unit. Lateral
expansions fall within the definitions of
new units, and are treated accordingly.
While new landfills would be
required to comply with all of the
location restrictions, EPA is proposing
to subject existing landfills to only two
of the location restrictions—floodplains,
and unstable areas—in today’s rule.
Existing landfills are already subject to
the floodplains location restriction
because it is contained in the existing 40
CFR part 257, subpart A criteria, which
have been in effect since 1979. Because
owners and operators of existing
landfills already should be in
compliance with this criterion, applying
this location restriction will have no
impact to the existing disposal capacity,
while continuing to provide protection
of human health and the environment.
The Agency decided to apply today’s
final unstable area location restriction to
existing CCR landfills, because the
Agency believes that the impacts to
human health and the environment that
would result from the rapid and
catastrophic destruction of these units
outweighs any disposal capacity
concerns resulting from the closure of
existing CCR disposal units.
On the other hand EPA is not
proposing to impose requirements on
existing CCR landfills in wetlands, fault
areas, or seismic impact areas. We base
this decision on the possibility that a
main text, EPA is proposing to maintain the existing
criterion in 257, subpart A for floodplains.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
significant number of CCR landfills may
be located in areas subject to this
requirement. The Agency believes that
such landfills pose less risks and are
structurally less vulnerable than surface
impoundments, and disposal capacity
shortfalls, which could result if existing
CCR landfills in these locations were
required to close, raise greater
environmental and public health
concerns than the potential risks caused
by existing units in these locations. For
example, if existing CCR landfills
located in wetlands were required to
close, there would be a significant
decrease in disposal capacity,
particularly given the Agency’s
expectation that many existing surface
impoundments will choose to close, in
response to this proposed rule. In
addition, wetlands are more prevalent
in some parts of the country (e.g.,
Florida and Louisiana). In these States,
the closure of all existing CCR landfills
located in wetlands could potentially
significantly disrupt statewide solid
waste management. Therefore, the
Agency believes that it may be
impracticable to require the closure of
existing CCR landfills located in
wetlands. However, EPA seeks comment
and additional information regarding
the number of existing CCR landfills
that are located in such areas.
Concern about impacts on solid waste
disposal capacity as well as the lower
level of risks and the structural
vulnerability of landfills, as compared
to surface impoundments, were also the
primary reasons the Agency is not
proposing to subject existing CCR
landfills to today’s proposed fault area
location restrictions. The closure of a
significant number of existing CCR
landfills located in fault areas could
result in a serious reduction of CCR
landfill capacity in certain regions of the
U.S. where movement along Holocene
faults is common, such as along the Gulf
Coast and in much of California and the
Pacific Northwest. The Agency,
however, does not have specific data
showing the number of units and the
distance between these disposal units
and the active faults, and therefore, is
unable to precisely estimate the number
of these existing CCR landfills that
would not meet today’s fault area
restrictions. EPA therefore solicits
comment and additional data and
information regarding the extent to
which existing CCR landfills are
currently located in such locations.
However, given the potential for
impacts on solid waste capacity and the
lower levels of risk associated with
landfills compared to surface
impoundments, EPA has concluded that
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
it may not be appropriate to subject
existing CCR landfills to the proposed
fault area requirements.
Similarly, the Agency is not
proposing to impose the seismic impact
zone restrictions on existing CCR
landfills located in these areas. As with
the other location restrictions, the
Agency anticipates that a significant
number of existing CCR disposal units
are located in these areas. EPA is
concerned that such facilities would be
unable to meet the requirements,
because retrofitting would be
prohibitively expensive and technically
very difficult in most cases, and would
therefore be forced to close.
EPA generally seeks comment and
additional information regarding the
extent to which CCR landfill capacity
would be affected by applying these
location restrictions to existing CCR
landfills. Information on the prevalence
of existing CCR landfills in such areas
would be of particular interest to the
Agency. EPA also notes that the
proposed location requirements do not
reflect a complete prohibition on siting
facilities in such areas, but provide a
performance standard that facilities
must meet in order to site a unit in such
a location. EPA therefore solicits
comment on the extent to which
facilities could comply with these
performance standards, and the
necessary costs that would be incurred
to retrofit the unit to meet these
standards.
As discussed earlier in this preamble,
this proposed approach is generally
consistent with the proposed approach
to existing landfills under subtitle C of
RCRA, and with Congressional
distinctions between the risks presented
by landfills and surface impoundments.
Existing landfills that are brought into
the hazardous waste system because
they are receiving newly listed
hazardous wastes are not generally
required to be retrofitted with a new
minimum-technology liner/leachate
collection and removal system (or to
close), and they would not be subject to
such requirements under today’s
proposal. EPA sees no reason or special
argument to adopt more stringent
requirements under the co-proposed
subtitle D criteria for CCR landfills,
particularly given the volume of the
material and the disruption that could
be involved if these design requirements
were applied to existing landfills.
By contrast, and consistent with its
approach to existing surface
impoundments under subtitle C, the
proposed regulations would apply all of
the location restrictions to existing
surface impoundments. This means that
facilities would need to either
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
demonstrate that the surface
impoundment meets the performance
standard that serves as the alternative to
the prohibition, retrofit the unit so that
it can meet the performance standard, or
close. EPA is making this distinction
because, as discussed in sections IV–VI,
the record indicates that the risks
associated with CCR surface
impoundments are substantially higher
than the risks posed by CCR landfills.
The impacts to human health and the
environment that would result from the
rapid and catastrophic destruction of
these units could result in injuries to
human health and the environment, that
are far more significant, as illustrated by
the impacts of the recent TVA spill in
Tennessee. The risks to human health
and the environment of such a
catastrophic collapse far outweigh the
costs of requiring surface
impoundments to retrofit or close.
Moreover, there are significant
economic costs associated with the
failure of a surface impoundment; as
noted earlier, the direct cost to clean up
the TVA spill is currently estimated to
exceed one billion dollars. Surface
impoundments also are more vulnerable
to structural problems if located in
unstable areas, fault areas and seismic
impact areas. Finally, as already noted,
the distinction EPA is making between
existing landfills and existing surface
impoundments is also consistent with
Congressional direction; as discussed in
section VI, Congress specifically
required existing surface impoundments
receiving hazardous wastes to retrofit to
meet the new statutory requirements or
to close, in direct contrast to their
treatment of existing landfills.
Although many surface
impoundments may close as a result of
these requirements, EPA believes that it
is proposing to take a number of actions
to alleviate concerns that this will
present significant difficulties with
regard to disposal capacity in the shortterm: e.g., ‘‘grandfathering’’ in existing
CCR landfills, allowing CCR landfills to
vertically expand without retrofitting,
and delayed implementation dates. At
the same time, as discussed in greater
detail in section VI, with regard to the
subtitle C co-proposal, EPA is soliciting
comment on the appropriate amount of
time necessary to meet these time
frames as well as measures that could
help to address the potential for
inadequate disposal capacity. EPA
notes, however, that unlike under the
subtitle C co-proposal, EPA is not
proposing to require facilities to cease
wet handling. Thus EPA expects that
both the impacts and the time frames
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
needed for facilities to come into
compliance would be lower.
While the proposed requirements
relating to the placement above the
water table, wetlands, fault areas, and
seismic impact zones would not apply
to existing CCR disposal units, all of
these restrictions apply to lateral
expansions of existing CCR disposal
units, as well as new CCR disposal
units. Therefore, under the proposal,
owners and operators of existing CCR
landfills could vertically expand their
existing facilities in these locations, but
must comply with the provisions
governing new units if they wish to
laterally expand. EPA expects that
allowing such vertical expansion will
allow for increased capacity, which will
be particularly important, if, as EPA
expects, many surface impoundments
would close, should this regulation be
adopted. At the same time, EPA believes
that the risks to human health or the
environment will be mitigated because
facilities will be required to otherwise
comply with the more stringent
environmental restrictions, such as the
corrective action and closure provisions
proposed below.
b. Discussion of Individual Location
Requirements
Placement above the water table. The
co-proposed subtitle D regulations
would prohibit new CCR landfills and
all surface impoundments from being
located within two feet of the upper
limit of the natural water table. EPA is
proposing to define the natural water
table as the natural level at which water
stands in a shallow well open along its
length and penetrating the surficial
deposits just deeply enough to
encounter standing water at the bottom.
This is the level of water that exists,
when uninfluenced by groundwater
pumping or other engineered activities.
Floodplains. CCR landfills and
surface impoundments are currently
subject to the open dumping criteria
contained in 40 CFR 257, Subpart A.
These minimum criteria include
restrictions on floodplain impacts under
257.3–1. As facilities should already be
complying with this requirement, EPA
is not proposing to modify it as part of
today’s rule. Accordingly, EPA is not
reopening this requirement.
Wetlands. The regulations require that
the facility prepare and make available
a written demonstration that such
engineering measures have been
incorporated into the unit’s design to
mitigate any potential adverse impact,
and require certification by an
independent registered professional
engineer either that the new CCR
disposal unit is not in a prohibited area,
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35199
as defined by the regulation, or that the
demonstration meets the regulatory
standards.
Today’s proposed wetland provisions
would apply only to new CCR landfills,
including lateral expansions of existing
CCR disposal units, and all surface
impoundments. New CCR landfills,
which include lateral expansions, as
well as all surface impoundments, are
barred from wetlands unless the owner
or operator of the disposal unit can
make the following demonstrations
certified by an independent registered
professional engineer or hydrologist.
First, the owner or operator must rebut
the presumption that a practicable
alternative to the proposed CCR
disposal unit or lateral expansion is
available that does not involve
wetlands. Second, the owner or operator
must 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 the
protection of a marine sanctuary. Third,
the owner or operator must demonstrate
that the CCR disposal unit or lateral
expansion will not cause or contribute
to significant degradation of wetlands.
To this end, the owner or operator must
ensure the integrity of the CCR disposal
unit, and its ability to protect ecological
resources by addressing: erosion,
stability, and migration potential of
native wetland soils, muds and deposits
used to support the unit; erosion,
stability, and migration potential of
dredged and fill materials used to
support the unit; the volume and
chemical nature of the CCRs; impacts on
fish, wildlife, and other aquatic
resources and their habitat from release
of CCRs; the potential effects of
catastrophic release of CCRs to the
wetland and the resulting impacts on
the environment; and any additional
factors, as necessary, to demonstrate
that ecological resources in the wetland
are sufficiently protected. Fourth, the
owner or operator must demonstrate
that steps have been taken to attempt to
achieve no net loss of wetlands by first
avoiding impacts to wetlands to the
maximum extent practicable, then
minimizing unavoidable impacts to the
maximum extent practicable, and finally
offsetting remaining unavoidable
wetland impacts through all appropriate
and practicable compensatory
mitigation actions. The owner or
operator must place the demonstrations
in the operating record and the
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35200
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
company’s Internet site, and notify the
state that the demonstrations have been
placed in the operating record.
For facilities that cannot make such a
demonstration, this proposed provision
effectively bans the siting of new CCR
landfills or surface impoundments in
wetlands, and would require existing
surface impoundments to close.
EPA notes that this section of the
proposal is consistent with regulatory
provisions currently governing the CWA
section 404 program, including the
definition of wetlands contained in
proposed 257.61. See 40 CFR 232.2(r).
EPA believes that wetlands are very
important, fragile ecosystems that must
be protected, and has identified
wetlands protection as a top priority.
Nevertheless, EPA has proposed to
continue to allow existing CCR landfills
to be sited in wetlands to minimize the
disruption to existing CCR disposal
facilities, as it is EPA’s understanding
that many existing CCR landfills are
located near surface water bodies, in
areas that also may qualify as wetlands
under the proposed criteria. Likewise,
EPA is concerned that an outright ban
of new CCR landfills in wetlands would
severely restrict the available sites or
expansion possibilities, given that EPA
is proposing to impose other conditions
on surface impoundments that may
cause many to ultimately close. As
noted in section VI, concerns have been
raised regarding the potential for
disposal capacity shortfalls, which
could lead to other health and
environmental impacts, such as the
transportation of large volumes of CCRs
over long distances to other sites.
Accordingly to provide additional
flexibility in the proposed RCRA
Subtitle D rules, and to address
concerns regarding the potential for
disposal capacity shortfalls, EPA is not
proposing an outright ban on siting of
existing CCR disposal units in wetlands.
However, EPA continues to believe
that siting new CCR disposal units in
wetlands should only be done under
very limited conditions. The Agency is
therefore proposing a comprehensive set
of demonstration requirements. In
addition, the Agency believes that when
such facilities are sited in a wetland,
that the owner or operator should offset
any impacts through appropriate and
practicable compensatory mitigation
actions (e.g., restoration of existing
degraded wetlands or creation of manmade wetlands). This approach is
consistent with the Agency’s goal of
achieving no overall net loss of the
nation’s remaining wetland base, as
defined by acreage and function.
Specifically, § 257.61(a)(4) requires
owners or operators of new CCR
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
landfills and surface impoundments to
demonstrate that steps have been taken
to achieve no net loss of wetlands (as
defined by acreage and function) by first
avoiding impacts to wetlands and then
minimizing such impacts to the
maximum extent feasible, and finally,
offsetting any remaining wetland
impacts through all appropriate and
feasible compensatory mitigation
actions (e.g., restoration of existing
degraded wetlands or creation of manmade wetlands).
The Agency has also included other
requirements to ensure that the
demonstrations required under the
proposed rule are comprehensive and
ensure no reasonable probability of
adverse effects to human health and the
environment. First, EPA has included
language in § 257.61(a)(2) clarifying that
the owner or operator must demonstrate
that both the construction and operation
of the unit will not result in violations
of the standards specified in
§ 257.61(a)(2)(i)–(iv). Second, in
§ 257.61(a)(3) EPA proposes to identify
the factors the owner or operator must
address in demonstrating that the unit
will not cause or contribute to
significant degradation of wetlands.
These factors, which were partially
derived from the section 404(b)(1)
guidelines, address the integrity of the
CCR unit and its ability to protect the
ecological resources of the wetland. In
addition, EPA is proposing
requirements for third-party
certification and state/public notice, to
provide some verification of facility
practices, and to generally assist
citizens’ ability to effectively intervene
and enforce the requirements, as
necessary.
Fault Areas. The proposed rule would
ban the location of new CCR landfills
and any surface impoundment within
200 feet (60 meters) of faults that have
experienced displacement during the
Holocene Epoch. The Holocene is a unit
of geologic time, extending from the end
of the Pleistocene Epoch to the present
and includes the past 11,000 years of
the Earth’s history. EPA is proposing to
define a fault to include a zone or zones
of rock fracturing in any geologic
material along which there has been an
observable amount of displacement of
the sides relative to each other. Faulting
does not always occur along a single
plane of movement (a ‘‘fault’’), but rather
along a zone of movement (a ‘‘fault
zone’’). Therefore, ‘‘zone of fracturing,’’
which means a fault zone in the context
of the definition, is included as part of
the definition of fault, and thus the 200foot setback distance will apply to the
outermost boundary of a fault or fault
zone.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The 200-foot setback was first adopted
by EPA in the criteria for municipal
solid waste landfills (MSWLFs),
codified at 40 CFR part 258. In the
course of that proceeding, EPA
documented that seismologists generally
believed that the structural integrity of
MSWLFs could not be unconditionally
guaranteed when they are built within
200-feet of a fault along which
movement is highly likely to occur.
Moreover, EPA relied on a study that
showed that damage to engineered
structures from earthquakes is most
severe when the structures were located
within 200-feet of the fault along which
displacement occurred. Because the
engineered structures found at MSWLFs
are similar to those found in CCR
disposal units, EPA expects that the
potential for damage to those structures
would be similar in the event of an
earthquake near a CCR landfill or
surface impoundment. Therefore, EPA
is proposing a similar setback
requirement for new CCR landfills and
all surface impoundments. In general,
EPA believes that the 200-foot buffer
zone is necessary to protect engineered
structures from seismic damages. EPA
also expects that the 200-foot buffer is
appropriate for CCR surface
impoundments, but seeks comment and
data on whether the buffer zone should
be greater for such units.
However, the Agency is also
concerned that the 200-foot setback may
be overly protective in some geologic
formations, but it is unable to provide
a clear definition of these geologic
formations. Therefore, the Agency is
proposing to allow the opportunity for
an owner or operator of a new CCR
disposal unit to demonstrate that an
alternative setback distance of less than
200 feet will prevent damage to the
structural integrity of facility and will
be protective of human health and the
environment. The demonstration must
be certified by an independent
registered professional engineer and the
owner or operator of the CCR disposal
unit must notify the state that the
demonstration has been placed in the
operating record and on the company’s
internet site. This approach is consistent
with other sections of today’s RCRA
subtitle D co-proposal for alternatives to
the specified self-implementing
requirement.
Seismic Impact Zones. As noted, the
proposed rule would also ban the
location of new CCR landfills and any
surface impoundments in seismic
impact zones, unless owners or
operators demonstrate that the unit is
designed to resist the maximum
horizontal acceleration in lithified earth
material for the site. The design features
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
to be protected include all containment
structures (i.e., liners, leachate
collection systems, and surface water
control systems). The demonstration
must be certified by an independent
registered professional engineer and the
owner or operator must notify the state
that the demonstration has been placed
in the operating record and on the
company’s internet site. For purposes of
this requirement, EPA is proposing to
define seismic impact zones as areas
having a 10 percent or greater
probability that the maximum expected
horizontal acceleration in hard rock,
expressed as a percentage of the earth’s
gravitation pull (g), will exceed 0.10g in
250 years. This is based on the existing
part 258.14 definition of seismic impact.
The maps for the 250-year intervals are
readily available for all of the U.S. in the
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 82–1033, entitled ‘‘Probabilistic
Estimates of Maximum Acceleration and
Velocity in Rock in the Contiguous
United States.’’
Another approach would be to adopt
criteria of the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) of
the U.S. Geological Survey used to
develop national seismic hazard maps.
The NEHRP uses ground motion
probabilities of 2, 5, and 10% in 50
years to provide a relative range of
seismic hazard across the country. The
larger probabilities indicate the level of
ground motion likely to cause problems
in the western U.S. The smaller
probabilities show how unlikely
damaging ground motions are in many
places of the eastern U.S. The maps are
available at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/
hazards/products/. A 50 year time
period is commonly used because it
represents the typical lifespan of a
building, and a 2% probability level is
generally considered an acceptable
hazard level for building codes. For
areas along known active faults,
deterministic and scenario ground
motion maps could be used to describe
the expected ground motions and effects
of specific hypothetical large
earthquakes (see https://
earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/
scenario/). The Agency solicits
comments on the proposed definition
and whether there are variants like
those used to develop the national
seismic hazard maps that could lessen
the burden on the industry and the
geographic areas covered by the
proposed definition. For additional
information on the National Seismic
Hazard Mapping Project, see https://
earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/about/.
Unstable Areas. EPA is proposing to
require owners or operators of all CCR
landfills, surface impoundments and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
lateral expansions located in unstable
areas to demonstrate that the integrity of
the structural components of the unit
will not be disrupted. EPA’s damage
cases have provided indirect evidence
of the kind of environmental and human
health risks that would be associated
with failure of the structural
components of the surface
impoundment from subsidence or other
instability of the earth at a CCR disposal
unit. Accordingly, EPA believes that, to
provide a reasonable probability of
preventing releases and consequent
damage to health and the environment
from CCRs released from landfills or
surface impoundments, limits on the
siting of such disposal units is
appropriate.
The proposed Subtitle D rule provides
that ‘‘unstable areas’’ are locations that
are susceptible to natural or humaninduced events or forces capable of
impairing the integrity of some or all of
the CCR disposal unit’s structural
components responsible for preventing
releases from such units. Unstable areas
are characterized by localized or
regional ground subsidence, settling
(either slowly, or very rapidly and
catastrophically) of overburden, or by
slope failure. The owner or operator
must consider the following factors
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 (on both the surface
and subsurface). The structural
components include liners, leachate
collection systems, final cover systems,
run-on and run-off control systems, and
any other component used in the
construction and operation of the CCR
landfill, surface impoundment or lateral
expansion that is necessary for
protection of human health and the
environment.
Unstable areas generally include:
(1) Poor foundation conditions—areas
where features exist that may result in
inadequate foundation support for the
structural components of the CCR
landfill, surface impoundment or lateral
expansion (this includes weak and
unstable soils);
(2) Areas susceptible to mass
movement—areas where the downslope
movement of soil and rock (either alone
or mixed with water) occurs under the
influence of gravity; and
(3) Karst terraces—areas that are
underlain by soluble bedrock, generally
limestone or dolomite, and may contain
extensive subterranean drainage systems
and relatively large subsurface voids
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35201
whose presence can lead to the rapid
development of sinkholes.
Karst areas are characterized by the
presence of certain physiographic
features such as sinkholes, sinkhole
plains, blind valleys, solution valleys,
losing streams, caves, and big springs,
although not all these features are
always present. EPA’s intent in this
proposed requirement is to include as
an unstable area only those karst
terraces in which rapid subsidence and
sinkhole development have been a
common occurrence in recent geologic
time. Many of the karst areas are shown
on the U.S. Geological Survey’s National
Atlas map entitled ‘‘Engineering Aspects
of Karst,’’ published in 1984.
Specific examples of such natural or
human-induced phenomena include:
Debris flows resulting from heavy
rainfall in a small watershed; the rapid
formation of a sinkhole as a result of
excessive local or regional ground-water
withdrawal; rockfalls along a cliff face
caused by vibrations set up by the
detonation of explosives, sonic booms,
or other mechanisms; or the sudden
liquefaction of a soil with the attendant
loss of shear strength following an
extended period of constant wetting and
drying. Various naturally-occurring
conditions can make an area unstable
and these can be very unpredictable and
destructive, especially if amplified by
human-induced changes to the
environment. Such conditions can
include the presence of weak soils, over
steepened slopes, large subsurface
voids, or simply the presence of large
quantities of unconsolidated material
near a watercourse.
The Agency recognizes that rapid
sinkhole formation that occurs in some
karst terraces can pose a serious threat
to human health and the environment
by damaging the structural integrity of
dams, liners, caps, run-on/run-off
control systems, and other engineered
structures. However, EPA is not
proposing an outright ban of CCR
landfills and surface impoundments in
all karst terraces because of concerns
regarding the impacts of such a ban in
certain regions of the country. For
example, several States (i.e., Kentucky,
Tennessee) are comprised mostly of
karst terraces and banning all CCR
disposal facilities in karst terraces
would cause severe statewide
disruptions in capacity available for
CCR disposal. Moreover, the Agency
believes that some karst terraces may
provide sufficient structural support for
CCR disposal units and has accordingly
tried to provide flexibility for siting in
these areas. Therefore, EPA is proposing
to allow the construction of new CCR
units, and the continued operation of
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35202
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
existing CCR landfills and surface
impoundments in karst terraces where
the owner or operator can demonstrate
that engineering measures have been
incorporated into the landfill, surface
impoundment, or lateral expansion
design to ensure that the integrity of the
structural components of the landfill or
surface impoundment will not be
disrupted. The demonstration must be
certified by an independent registered
professional engineer, and the owner or
operator must notify the state that the
demonstration has been placed in the
operating record and on the company’s
internet site.
Closure of Existing CCR Landfills and
Surface Impoundments. The proposed
rule would require owners and
operators of existing CCR landfills and
surface impoundments that cannot
make the demonstrations required
under § 257.62(a) after the effective date
of the rule, to close the landfill or
surface impoundment within five years
of the date of publication of the final
rule. Closure and post-closure care must
be done in accordance with § 257.100
and § 257.101. The proposed rule would
also allow for a case-by-case extension
for up to two more years if the facility
can demonstrate that there is no
alternative disposal capacity and there
is no immediate threat to health or the
environment. This demonstration must
be certified by an independent
registered professional engineer or
hydrologist. The owner or operator must
place the demonstration in the operating
record and on the company’s internet
site and notify the state that this action
was taken.
Thus, the proposed rule allows a
maximum of 7 years from the effective
date of the final rule if this alternative
is finally promulgated for existing CCR
landfills to comply with the unstable
area restrictions, and existing CCR
surface impoundments to comply with
the location restrictions or to close. As
discussed under the subtitle C option,
EPA believes that five years will, in
most cases, be adequate time to
complete proper and effective facility
closure and to arrange for alternative
waste management. However, there may
be cases where alternative waste
management capacity may not be
readily available or where the siting and
construction of a new facility may take
longer than five years. EPA believes the
two-year extension should provide
sufficient time to address these potential
problems. EPA continues to believe that
impacts on human health and the
environment need to be carefully
considered, and therefore, today’s
proposed rule requires the owner or
operator to demonstrate that there is no
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
available alternative disposal capacity
and there is no potential threat to
human health and the environment
before adopting the two-year extension.
These time frames are consistent with
those EPA is proposing under its
subtitle C co-proposal for surface
impoundments. EPA is aware of no
reason that the time frames would need
to differ under subtitle D, but solicits
comment on this issue.
5. Design Requirements
The CCR damage cases and EPA’s
quantitative groundwater risk
assessment clearly show the need for
effective liners—namely composite
liners—to very significantly reduce the
probability of adverse effects. The coproposed subtitle D design standards
would require that new landfills and all
surface impoundments that have not
completed closure prior to the effective
date of the rule, can only continue to
operate if composite liners and leachate
collection and removal systems have
been installed. Units must be retrofitted
or closed within five years of the
effective date of the final rule, which is
the time frame EPA is proposing for
surface impoundments to retrofit or
close under the subtitle C alternative.
EPA is proposing to require the same
liner and leachate collection and
removal systems as part of the subtitle
D criteria that are being proposed under
the RCRA subtitle C co-proposal. The
technical justification for these
requirements is equally applicable to
the wastes and the units, irrespective of
the statutory authority under which the
requirement is proposed.
EPA is also proposing to adopt the
same approach to new and existing
units under RCRA subtitle D that it is
proposing under RCRA subtitle C. EPA
would only require new landfills (or
new portions of existing landfills) to
meet these minimum technology
requirements for liners and leachate
collection and removal systems.
Existing landfills that continue to
receive CCRs after the effective date of
the final rule, would not be required to
be retrofitted with a new minimumtechnology liner/leachate collection and
removal system (or to close). They can
continue to receive CCRs, and continue
to operate as compliant landfills,
without violating the open dumping
prohibition. However, existing landfills
would have to meet groundwater
monitoring, corrective action, and other
requirements (except as noted) of the
subtitle D criteria, to assure that any
groundwater releases from the unit were
identified and promptly remediated.
EPA sees no reason or special argument
to adopt any different approach under
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the co-proposed subtitle D regulations
for CCR landfills, particularly given the
volume of the material and the
disruption that would be involved if
these design requirements were applied
to existing landfills.
By contrast, existing surface
impoundments that have not completed
closure by the effective date of the final
rule would be required to retrofit to
install a liner. This is consistent with,
but not identical to, the approach
proposed under the RCRA subtitle C
alternative. Under the subtitle C
alternative, EPA is not proposing to
require existing surface impoundments
to install the proposed liner systems
because the impoundments would only
continue to operate for a limited period
of time. EPA’s proposed treatment
standards—dewatering the wastes—will
effectively phase out wet handling of
CCRs. During this interim period (seven
years as proposed), EPA believes that it
would be infeasible to require surface
impoundments to retrofit, and that
compliance with the groundwater
monitoring and other subtitle C
requirements would be sufficiently
protective. EPA lacks the authority
under RCRA subtitle D to establish a
comparable requirement; EPA only has
the authority under RCRA section 4004
to establish standards relating to
‘‘disposal,’’ not treatment, of solid
wastes. Although EPA expects that
many surface impoundments will
choose to close rather than install a
liner, wet-handling of CCRs can
continue, even in existing units, and
EPA’s risk assessment confirms that the
long-term operation of such units would
not be protective without the
installation of the composite liner and
leachate collection system described
below.
The composite liner would consist of
two components: An upper component
consisting of a minimum 30-mil flexible
membrane liner (FML), and a lower
component consisting of at least a twofoot layer of compacted soil with a
hydraulic conductivity of no more than
1×10¥7cm/sec. The FML component
would be required to be installed in
direct and uniform contact with the
compacted soil component. (In other
words, the new landfill or new surface
impoundment would be required to
have a liner and leachate collection and
removal system meeting the same
design standard now included in EPA’s
municipal solid waste landfill criteria.)
EPA solicits comment, however, on
whether any subtitle D option should
allow facilities to use an alternative
design for new disposal units, so long as
the owner or operator of a unit could
obtain certification from an independent
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
registered professional engineer or
hydrologist that the alternative design
would ensure that the appropriate
concentration values for a set of
constituents typical of CCRs will not be
exceeded in the uppermost aquifer at
the relevant point of compliance—i.e.,
150 meters from the unit boundary
down gradient from the unit, or the
property boundary if the point of
compliance (i.e., the monitoring well) is
beyond the property boundary.
Although the existing part 258
requirements allow for such a
demonstration, EPA is not proposing
such a requirement in today’s rule.
EPA’s risk assessment shows that only
a composite liner would ensure that
disposal of CCR will meet the RCRA
section 4004 standard on a national
level, even though site specific
conditions could support the use of
alternate liner designs in individual
instances. In the absence of a strong
state oversight mechanism, such as a
permit, EPA is reluctant to allow
facilities to modify this key protection.
Nevertheless, EPA would be interested
in receiving data and information that
demonstrates whether under other site
conditions, an alternative liner would
be equally protective. In this regard,
EPA would also be interested in
information documenting the extent to
which such conditions currently exist at
CCR units. If EPA adopts such a
performance standard, EPA anticipates
adopting a requirement that is as
consistent as possible with the existing
part 258 requirements, and would
require the same documentation and
notification procedures as with the
other self-implementing provisions in
the co-proposed subtitle D option.
—Stability requirements for surface
impoundments. In our recent
assessment of surface impoundments
managing CCRs, EPA has identified
deficiencies in units currently receiving
wet-handled CCRs.152 The damage cases
also demonstrate the need for
requirements to address the stability of
surface impoundments, to prevent the
damages associated with a catastrophic
failure, such as occurred at the TVA
facility in 2008. EPA is therefore
proposing to adopt as part of the subtitle
D operating criteria for surface
impoundments, the same stability
requirements that are proposed as part
of the subtitle C alternative. As
explained in that section, these are
based on the long-standing MSHA
requirements, with only minor
152 For the findings of the assessment, see: https://
www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/
fossil/surveys/index.htm#surveyresults.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
modifications necessary to tailor the
requirements to CCR unit conditions.
For those surface impoundments
which continue to operate, (i.e., both
new and existing) the proposed
regulation would require that an
independent registered professional
engineer certify that the design of the
impoundment is in accordance with
recognized and generally accepted good
engineering practices for the maximum
volume of CCR slurry and wastewater
that will be impounded therein, and
that together design and management
features ensure dam stability. The
proposed regulation also requires the
facility to conduct weekly inspections to
ensure that any potentially hazardous
condition or structural weakness will be
quickly identified. As with the coproposed RCRA subtitle C option, the
proposed RCRA subtitle D regulation
also requires that existing and new CCR
surface impoundments be inspected
annually by an independent registered
professional engineer to assure that the
design, operation, and maintenance of
the 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. EPA
has concluded, subject to consideration
of public comment, that these
requirements are necessary to ensure
that major releases do not occur that
would cause adverse effects on health or
the environment.
6. Operating Requirements
EPA is proposing to establish specific
criteria to address the day-to-day
operations of the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment. The criteria were
developed to prevent the health and
environmental impacts from CCR
landfills and surface impoundments
identified in EPA’s quantitative risk
groundwater risk assessment and the
damage cases. Included among these
criteria are controls relating to runon
and runoff from the surface of the
facilities, discharges to surface waters,
and pollution caused by windblown
dust from landfills, and recordkeeping.
—Existing criteria for Endangered
Species and Surface Water. CCR
landfills and surface impoundments are
currently subject to the open dumping
criteria contained in 40 CFR 257,
Subpart A. These minimum criteria
include restrictions on impacts to
endangered species under 257.3–2, and
impacts to surface water under 257.3–3.
As facilities should already be
complying with these requirements,
EPA is not proposing to modify these
existing requirements in today’s coproposal. EPA notes that the surface
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35203
water criterion is not enforceable by
RCRA citizen suit. The extent to which
this criterion may be enforced is
governed by the remedies available
under the CWA, which is the source of
the requirement, rather than RCRA. See,
e.g., Arc Ecology v. U.S. Maritime
Admin., No. 02:07–cv–2320 (E.D. Cal.
Jan. 21, 2010); Guidelines for the
Development and Implementation of
State Solid Waste Management Plans
and Criteria for Classification of Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices,
46 Fed. Reg. 47048, 47050 (Sept. 23,
1981).
—Run-on and run-off controls. The
purpose of the run-on standard is to
minimize the amount of surface water
entering the landfill and surface
impoundment facility. Run-on controls
prevent (1) Erosion, which may damage
the physical structure of the landfill; (2)
the surface discharge of wastes in
solution or suspension; and (3) the
downward percolation of run-on
through wastes, creating leachate. The
proposed regulation requires run-on
control systems to prevent flow onto the
active portion of the CCR landfill or
surface impoundment during the peak
discharge from a 24-hour, 25-year storm.
This helps to ensure that run-off does
not cause an overflow of the surface
impoundment or scouring of material
from a landfill or the materials used to
build the surface impoundment.
Run-off is one of the major sources of
hazardous constituent releases from
mismanaged waste disposal facilities,
including CCR landfills and surface
impoundments. Additionally, run-off
control systems from the active portion
of CCR disposal units are required to
collect and control at least the water
volume resulting from a 24-hour, 25year storm. This protects surface water
that would otherwise flow untreated
into a body of water. The facility is
required to prepare a report, available to
the public, documenting how relevant
calculations were made, and how the
control systems meet the standard. A
registered professional engineer must
certify that the design of the control
systems meet the standard. Also, the
owner or operator is required to prepare
a report, certified by an independent
registered professional engineer, and
documenting how relevant calculations
were made, and how the control
systems meet the standard. The state
must be notified that the report was
placed in the operating record for the
site, and the owner or operator must
make it available to the public on the
owner’s or operator’s internet site.
Under the existing part 257
requirements, to which CCR units are
currently subject, runoff must not cause
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35204
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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 is not proposing to
revise the existing requirement, but is
merely incorporating it here for ease of
the regulated community.
The Agency chose the 24-hour period
because it is an average that includes
storms of high intensity with short
duration and storms of low intensity
with long duration. EPA believes that
this is a widely used standard, and is
also the current standard used for
hazardous waste landfills and
municipal solid waste landfill units
under 40 CFR Part 258. EPA has no
information that warrants a more
restrictive standard for CCR landfills
and surface impoundments than for
MSWLFs and hazardous waste landfills.
Fugitive dust requirements. EPA has
included under the co-proposed RCRA
subtitle D regulation requirements
similar to those included under the
Subtitle C co-proposal, based upon its
risk assessment findings that fugitive
dust control at 35 μg/m3 or less is
protective of human health or the
environment. This is discussed in
section VI above. Due to the lack of a
permitting oversight mechanism under
the RCRA Subtitle D alternative, and to
facilitate citizen-suit enforcement of the
criteria, EPA has provided for
certification by an independent
registered professional engineer,
notification to the state that the
documentation has been placed in the
operating record, and provisions making
available to the public on the owner’s or
operator’s internet site documentation
of the measures taken to comply with
the fugitive dust requirements.
Recordkeeping requirements. EPA
believes that it is appropriate for
interested states and citizens to be able
to access all of the information required
by the proposed rule in one place.
Therefore, the co-proposed Subtitle D
alternative requires the owner or
operator of a CCR landfill or surface
impoundment to record and retain near
the facility in an operating record which
contains all records, reports, studies or
other documentation required to
demonstrate compliance with §§ 257.60
through 257.83 (relating to the location
restrictions, design criteria, and
operating criteria) and 257.90 through
257.101 (relating to ground water
monitoring and corrective action, and
closure and post-closure care).
The proposed rule would also require
owners and operators of CCR surface
impoundments that have not been
closed in accordance with the closure
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
criteria to place in the operating record
a report containing several items of
information. The reports would be
required beginning every twelfth
months after existing CCR surface
impoundments would be required to
comply with the design requirements in
section 257.71 (that is, no later than
seven years after the effective date of the
final rule) and every twelfth month
following the date of the initial plan for
the design, construction, and
maintenance of new surface
impoundments and lateral expansions
required under § 257.72(b)) to address:
(1) Changes in the geometry of the
impounding structure for the reporting
period;
(2) Location and type of installed
instruments and the maximum and
minimum recorded readings of each
instrument for the reporting period;
(3) The minimum, maximum, and
present depth and elevation of the
impounded water, sediment, or slurry
for the reporting period;
(4) Storage capacity of the
impounding structure;
(5) The volume of the impounded
water, sediment, or slurry at the end of
the reporting period;
(6) Any other change which may have
affected the stability or operation of the
impounding structure that has occurred
during the reporting period; and
(7) A certification by an independent
registered professional engineer that all
construction, operation, and
maintenance were in accordance with
the plan. The owner or operator would
be required to notify the state that the
report has been placed in the operating
record and on the owner’s or operator’s
internet site.
These reporting requirements are
similar to those required under MSHA
regulations for coal slurry
impoundments (30 CFR 77.216–4). As
the Agency has stated previously,
MSHA has nearly 40 years of experience
writing regulations and inspecting dams
associated with coal mining, which is
directly relevant to the issues presented
by CCRs in this proposal. In our review
of the MSHA regulations, we found
them to be comprehensive and directly
applicable to and appropriate for the
dams used in surface impoundments at
coal-fired utilities to manage CCRs.
The proposed rule would also allow
the owner or operator to submit a
certification by an independent
registered professional engineer that
there have been no changes to the
information in items (1)–(6) above to the
surface impoundment instead of a full
report, although a full report would be
required at least every 5 years.
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7. Groundwater Monitoring/Corrective
Action
EPA’s damage cases and risk
assessments all indicate the potential for
CCR landfills and surface
impoundments to leach hazardous
constituents into groundwater,
impairing drinking water supplies and
causing adverse impacts on human
health and the environment. Indeed,
groundwater contamination is one of the
key environmental risks EPA has
identified with CCR landfills and
surface impoundments. Furthermore, as
mentioned previously, the legislative
history of RCRA section 4004
specifically evidences concerns over
groundwater contamination from open
dumps. To this end, 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, EPA believes that, in order for a
CCR landfill or 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 disposal
unit, and corrective action requirements
to address identified contamination, is
necessary.
Today’s co-proposed subtitle D
criteria require a system of monitoring
wells be installed at new and existing
CCR landfills and surface
impoundments. The co-proposed
criteria 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 facilities. The
Agency is proposing a groundwater
monitoring program consisting of
detection monitoring, assessment
monitoring, and a corrective action
program. This phased approach to
groundwater monitoring and corrective
action programs provide for a graduated
response over time to the problem of
groundwater contamination as the
evidence of such contamination
increases. This allows for proper
consideration of the transport
characteristics of CCR constituents in
ground water, while protecting human
health and the environment, and
minimizing unnecessary costs.
In EPA’s view, the objectives of a
groundwater monitoring and corrective
action regime and analytical techniques
for evaluating the quality of
groundwater are similar regardless of
the particular wastes in a disposal unit,
and regardless of whether the unit is a
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
landfill or surface impoundment.
Therefore, EPA has largely modeled the
proposed groundwater monitoring and
corrective action requirements for CCR
landfills and surface impoundments
after those for MSWLFs in the 40 CFR
part 258 criteria, and for disposal units
that may receive conditionally-exempt
small quantity generator (CESQG)
hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 257,
subpart B. EPA believes that the
underlying rationale for those
requirements is generally applicable to
groundwater monitoring and corrective
action for CCR landfills and surface
impoundments. Accordingly, EPA does
not discuss these requirements at length
in today’s preamble. Rather, EPA refers
the reader to the detailed discussions of
these requirements in the preambles to
the final and proposed rules for the
MSWLF criteria for more
information.153 See Solid Waste Disposal
Facility Criteria, 56 Fed. Reg. 50978
(Oct. 9, 1991) (final rule); Solid Waste
Disposal Facility Criteria, 53 Fed. Reg.
33314 (Aug. 30, 1988) (proposed rule).
However, for a number of the
requirements, EPA is proposing to
modify or revise these requirements.
Below, EPA discusses the particular
areas where the Agency is proposing to
make modifications, and solicits
comment on those specific differences.
EPA, more generally, solicits comment
on whether relying on the existing
groundwater monitoring and corrective
action requirements for MSWLFs and
CESQG facilities, as modified in today’s
proposal, are appropriate for CCR
landfills and surface impoundments.
Relying on the existing criteria in 40
CFR 258 and 257 Subpart B has several
advantages. Specifically, like the coproposed Subtitle D regulations for CCR
disposal, these requirements are
structured to be largely selfimplementing. In addition, states and
citizens should already be familiar with
those processes, which have been in
place since 1991, and EPA expects that
this familiarity with the processes may
facilitate the states’ creation of
regulatory programs for CCR disposal
facilities under state law, to the extent
they do not already exist, and thus
providing oversight (which EPA
believes is important in implementing
153 The preambles to the CESQG rules have more
limited discussions of these requirements. See
Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Requirements for Authorization
of State Hazardous Waste Programs, 61 FR 34252,
34259–61 (July 1, 1996) (final rule); Criteria for
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and
Practices; Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste; Requirements for Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Programs, 60 FR 30964, 30975–77
(June 12, 1995) (proposed rule).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
these rules) that is already found
through MSWLFs and CESQG landfill
permitting programs. Furthermore,
familiarity with the overall approach
may facilitate the states’ and citizens’
oversight of CCR disposal activities
through the citizen suit mechanism,
which is available, regardless of
whether a state has adopted a regulatory
program under state law for CCR
disposal facilities.
At the same time, however, EPA is
mindful of the differences in the
statutory authorities for establishing
criteria for CCR landfills and surface
impoundments versus MSWLFs and
CESQG facilities, and in particular, the
possibility that a state may lack a permit
program for CCR disposal units.
Accordingly, EPA has sought to tailor
these proposed requirements in the CCR
disposal context, in particular by
including in several of the proposed
requirements a certification by an
independent registered professional
engineer or, in some cases, hydrologist,
in lieu of the state approval mechanisms
that are used in the 40 CFR part 258/
257, Subpart B criteria. Such
certifications are found in proposed
§§ 257.95(h) (establishment of an
alternative groundwater protection
standard for constituents for which
MCLs have not been established); and
257.97(e) (determination that
remediation of a release of an Appendix
IV constituent from a CCR landfill or
surface impoundment is not necessary).
As discussed earlier in this preamble,
EPA believes that this provides an
important independent validation of the
particular route chosen. EPA solicits
comment in particular on the
appropriateness of relying on such a
mechanism under the proposed
groundwater monitoring and corrective
action criteria.
In other instances, however, EPA has
decided not to propose to allow
facilities to operate under an alternative
standard, such as the existing provisions
under 257.21(g) and 258.50(h)
(establishing alternative schedules for
groundwater monitoring and corrective
action); and 258.54(a)(1) and (2), and
257.24(a)(1) and (2), which allow the
Director of an approved State to delete
monitoring parameters, and establish an
alternative list of indicator parameters,
under specified circumstances. EPA is
proposing not to adopt these
alternatives for CCR disposal facilities
because groundwater monitoring is the
single most critical set of protective
measures on which EPA is relying to
protect human health and the
environment. EPA is not proposing to
require existing landfills to retrofit to
install a composite liner. Since these
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35205
units will continue to operate in the
absence of a composite liner,
groundwater monitoring is the primary
means to prevent groundwater
contamination. Although EPA is
proposing to require existing surface
impoundments to retrofit with
composite liners, these units are more
susceptible to leaking, and thus the
need for a rigorous groundwater
monitoring program is correspondingly
high. Moreover, EPA is concerned that
provisions allowing such modification
of these requirements are particularly
susceptible to abuse, since such
provisions would allow substantial cost
avoidance. Therefore, in the absence of
a state oversight mechanism in place to
ensure such modifications are
technically appropriate, such a
provision may operate at the expense of
protectiveness. In addition, given the
extremely technical nature of these
requirements, EPA is concerned that
such provisions would render the
requirements appreciably more difficult
for citizens to effectively enforce. In
some instances, including these
alternative standards would not be
workable. For example, establishing
alternative schedules under the
groundwater monitoring and corrective
action provisions (as currently provided
under 257.21(g) and 258.50(h)) the
Agency believes would not be workable
in the context of a self-implementing
rule, because there is no regulatory
entity to judge the reasonableness of the
desired alternatives. The Agency thus
solicits comments on these omissions
from today’s proposed rule, and also on
whether a more prescriptive approach
could or should be developed under
subtitle D of RCRA. EPA also solicits
comment on whether the requirement
for certification by an independent
professional engineer would be effective
or appropriate in such a case.
Applicability. The co-proposed
subtitle D criteria require facilities to
install a groundwater monitoring system
at existing landfills and surface
impoundments within one year of the
effective date of the regulation so that
any releases from these units will be
detected, thus providing an opportunity
to detect and, if necessary, take
corrective action to address any releases
from the facilities. The proposed rule
also provides that new CCR landfills
and surface impoundments comply with
the groundwater monitoring
requirements in the rule before CCRs
can be placed in the units. EPA expects
that the one-year timeframe for existing
units is a reasonable time for facilities
to install the necessary systems. This is
the same time frame provided to
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35206
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
facilities under the existing part 265
interim status regulations, and past
experience demonstrates this
implementation schedule would
generally be feasible. Although one year
for the installation of groundwater
monitoring is a shorter time frame than
EPA provided to facilities as part of the
original part 258 or part 257 subpart A
requirements, there are good reasons to
establish a shorter time frame here. As
discussed in section IV, many of the
existing units into which much of the
CCR is currently disposed are unlined,
and they are aging. Under these
circumstances, EPA believes that
installation of groundwater monitoring
is critical to ensure that releases from
these units are detected and addressed
appropriately. Moreover, EPA offered a
longer implementation period in 1991
based on a factual finding that a
shortage of drilling contractors existed;
in the 1995 rule establishing
groundwater monitoring requirements
for CESQG facilities, EPA determined
that this shortage had ended. EPA is
aware of no information to suggest that
a similar shortage exists today, but
specifically solicits comment on this
issue.
EPA has not included provisions for
suspension of ground water monitoring
that is currently allowed under
257.21(b) and 258.50(b). This is one of
those provisions discussed above, that
EPA believes are potentially,
particularly susceptible to abuse, and
EPA is reluctant to adopt a comparable
provision in the absence of an approved
state permit program. In addition, since
these proposed criteria are designed to
be applied even in the absence of state
action, EPA has not included provisions
for state establishment of a compliance
schedule under 257.21(d) and 258.50(d).
EPA solicits comment on whether these
types of provisions are appropriate for
CCR landfills and surface
impoundments.
Section 257.90 also requires that the
owner or operator of the CCR landfill or
surface impoundment must notify the
state once each year throughout the
active life and post-closure care period
that such landfill or surface
impoundment is in compliance with the
groundwater monitoring and corrective
action provisions of this subpart. This
notification must also be placed on the
owner or operator’s internet site. EPA
believes that annual notification will
facilitate state oversight of the
groundwater monitoring and corrective
action provisions.
Groundwater monitoring systems. The
co-proposed subtitle D criteria require
facilities to install, at a minimum, one
up gradient and three down gradient
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
wells at all CCR units. EPA is proposing
this requirement based on the subtitle C
interim status self-implementing
requirements.
The design of an appropriate
groundwater monitoring system is
particularly dependent on site
conditions relating to groundwater flow,
and the development of a system must
have 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
surface impoundments. EPA’s existing
requirements under parts 257, Subpart
B, 258, and 264 all recognize this, and
because they operate in a permitting
context, these requirements do not
generally establish inflexible minimum
requirements. Because the same
guarantee of permit oversight is not
available under the criteria developed
for this proposal, EPA believes that
establishing a minimum requirement is
necessary. Past 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. Moreover, in many
instances a more detailed groundwater
monitoring system may need to be in
place, and EPA is therefore requiring a
certification by the independent
registered professional engineer or
hydrologist that the groundwater
monitoring system is designed to detect
all significant groundwater
contamination.
Groundwater sampling and analysis
requirements. Owners and operators
need to ensure that consistent sampling
and analysis procedures are in place to
determine whether a statistically
significant increase in the level of a
hazardous constituent has occurred,
indicating the possibility of
groundwater contamination. The coproposed subtitle D criteria would
require the same provisions addressing
groundwater sampling and analysis
procedures with those already in use for
CESQG and MSWLF facilities, since
generally the same constituents and
analysis procedures would be
appropriate in both instances. However,
EPA is requesting comment on one issue
in particular. In the final MSWLF
criteria, EPA noted that in order to
ensure protection of human health and
the environment at MSWLFs, it was
important to make sure that the right
test methodology from among those
listed in this section was selected for the
conditions present at a particular
MSWLF. At the time, EPA indicated its
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
expectation that as states gained
program approval, they would take on
the responsibility of approving alternate
statistical tests proposed by the
facilities. See 56 Fed. Reg. 51071.
Because states may choose not to create
a regulatory oversight mechanism under
the co-proposed subtitle D rule for CCR
landfills and surface impoundments,
however, EPA is requesting comment on
whether the lack of such an oversight
mechanism will impair selection of
appropriate test methodologies, and
whether EPA should instead adopt a
different approach to ensure the
protection of human health and the
environment at CCR disposal facilities.
For example, one approach might be for
EPA to tailor a list of methodologies to
particular site conditions. EPA would
welcome suggestions from commenters
on alternative approaches to this issue.
Detection monitoring program. The
parameters to be used as indicators of
groundwater contamination are the
following: boron, chloride, conductivity,
fluoride, pH, sulphate, sulfide, and total
dissolved solids (TDS). In selecting the
parameters for detection monitoring,
EPA selected constituents that are
present in CCRs, and would rapidly
move through the subsurface and thus
provide an early detection as to whether
contaminants were migrating from the
disposal unit. EPA specifically solicits
comment on the appropriateness of this
list of parameters.
In this provision of the proposed
RCRA subtitle D co-proposed rule, EPA
has decided not to include provisions
parallel to 258.54(a)(1) and (2), and
257.24(a)(1) and (2) which allow the
Director of an approved State to delete
monitoring parameters, and establish an
alternative list of indicator parameters,
under specified circumstances. EPA is
not including these provisions because
it believes that a set of specified
parameters are necessary to ensure
adequate protectiveness, since EPA’s
information on CCRs indicates that their
composition would not be expected to
vary such that the parameters are
inappropriate. Under the proposed rule,
monitoring would be required no less
frequently than semi-annually. EPA has
again decided not to include a provision
that would allow an alternative
sampling frequency, because of the lack
of guaranteed state oversight and
potential for this provision to diminish
protection of human health and the
environment, as mentioned in the
introductory discussions above. EPA
solicits comments on whether it should
allow deletion of monitoring parameters
and alternative sampling frequencies,
based on compliance with a
performance standard that has been
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
documented by an independent
registered professional engineer or
hydrologist. Commenters interested in
supporting such an option are
encouraged to provide data to
demonstrate the conditions under
which such alternatives would be
protective, as well as information to
indicate the prevalence of such
conditions at CCR facilities.
Assessment monitoring program.
When a statistically significant increase
over background levels is detected for
any of the monitored constituents, the
rule would require the facility to begin
an assessment monitoring program to
detect releases of CCR constituents of
concern including aluminum, antimony,
arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron,
cadmium, chloride, chromium, copper,
fluoride, iron, lead, manganese,
mercury, molybdenum, pH, selenium,
sulphate, sulfide, thallium, and total
dissolved solids.
EPA specifically solicits comment on
the appropriateness of this list of
parameters. For the same reasons as
discussed under the proposed
requirements for detection monitoring,
EPA has chosen not to include in the
proposed requirements for assessment
monitoring provisions for allowing a
subset of wells to be sampled, the
deletion of assessment monitoring
parameters, or alternative sampling
frequencies. EPA again solicits comment
on whether these options are
appropriate for CCR landfills and
surface impoundments.
Assessment of corrective measures.
The proposed rule also requires that
whenever monitoring results indicate a
statistically significant level of any
appendix IV constituent exceeding the
groundwater protection standard, the
owner or operator must initiate an
assessment of corrective action
remedies. Unlike for the MSWLF and
CESQG criteria, the proposed rule
provides a discrete time frame for
completion of the assessment, at 90
days, while the earlier criteria provided
for its completion within a ‘‘reasonable
period of time.’’ EPA believes that
without a state oversight mechanism, a
finite time frame is appropriate. EPA
selected 90 days as the period over
which the assessment must be
completed because it expects that this
will be a sufficient length of time to
complete the required activities. EPA
solicits comment on the appropriateness
of the 90-day timeframe.
Selection of Remedy. The proposed
rule establishes a framework for remedy
selection based upon the existing
requirements for MSWLFs and CESQG
facilities. These provisions have been
modified to eliminate consideration of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
‘‘practicable capabilities’’ where such
considerations have been included in
the MSWLF and CESQG criteria. EPA
believes that it does not have the
discretion to include this consideration
under the RCRA subtitle D co-proposal,
because this consideration is explicitly
required under the terms of RCRA
section 4010. That section by its terms
applies to facilities that may receive
household hazardous wastes and
CESQG wastes, and so is inapplicable to
today’s co-proposed standards for CCR
landfills and surface impoundments.
See 42 U.S.C. 6949a(c)(1). EPA solicits
comment on these modifications,
specifically, on how this modification
may affect the ability of the regulated
community to comply with the
proposed criteria, and on how this
modification may affect the
protectiveness of the proposed
standards for human health and the
environment.
In the provisions discussing factors to
be considered in determining whether
interim measures are necessary, EPA
has modified proposed 257.98(a)(3)(vi),
to eliminate consideration of risks of fire
or explosion, since EPA does not expect
that these risks would be relevant to the
disposal of CCRs in CCR landfills and
surface impoundments.
Implementation of the corrective
action remedy. The co-proposed subtitle
D criteria require that the owner or
operator comply with several
requirements to implement the
corrective action program, again
modeled after the existing requirements
for MSWLFs and CESQG facilities.
Similar to proposed section 257.97,
these provisions have been made
consistent with the underlying statutory
authorities for this proposed rule. See
discussions above.
In these provisions, EPA has decided
not to include a provision that is
included in the MSWLF criteria in
258.58(e)(2) and 257.28(e)(2), allowing
an alternative length of time during
which the owner or operator must
demonstrate that concentrations of
constituents have not exceeded the
ground water protection standards, in
support of a determination that the
remedy is complete. See proposed
257.98(e)(2). Instead, the proposed rule
would require a set period of three
consecutive years. EPA solicits
comment on whether to allow for a
different period of time. EPA is
particularly concerned with whether
such a provision would provide
protection to human health or the
environment because of the lack of a
guaranteed state oversight mechanism.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35207
8. Closure and Post-Closure Care
Effective closure and post-closure care
requirements, such as requirements to
drain the surface impoundment, are
essential to ensuring the long-term
safety of disposal units. Closure
requirements, such as placing the cover
system on the disposal unit, ensure that
rainfall is diverted from the landfill or
surface impoundment, minimizing any
leaching that might occur based on the
hydraulic head placed on the material
in the unit. EPA’s Guide for Industrial
Waste Management, prepared in
consultation with industry experts, a
Tribal representative, state officials, and
environmental groups, documents the
general consensus on the need for
effective closure and post-closure
requirements.154 Post-closure care
requirements are also particularly
important for CCR units because the
time to peak concentrations for
selenium and arsenic, two of the more
problematic constituents contained in
CCR wastes, is particularly long, and
therefore the peak concentrations in
groundwater may not occur during the
active life of the unit. Continued
groundwater monitoring is therefore
necessary during the post-closure care
period to ensure the continued integrity
of the unit and the safety of human
health and the receiving environment.
For these provisions, then, EPA has
again modeled its proposed
requirements for CCR landfills on those
already in place for MSWLFs with
modifications to reflect the lack of a
mandatory permitting mechanism, and
other changes that it believes are
appropriate to ensure that there is no
reasonable probability of adverse effects
from the wastes that remain after a unit
has closed. For surface impoundments,
EPA has modeled its proposed
requirements on the part 265 interim
status closure requirements for surface
impoundments, as well as the MSHA
requirements. EPA solicits comment on
whether these proposed requirements
are appropriate for CCR landfills and
surface impoundments.
Requirements specific to closure of
CCR landfills and surface
impoundments include proposed
257.100(a)–(c). These provisions
provide that prior to closure of any CCR
unit, the owner or operator must
develop a plan describing the closure of
the unit, and a schedule for
implementation. The plan must describe
the steps necessary to close the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment at any
point during the active life in
154 Guide for Industrial Waste Management,
available at https://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/
industrial/guide/index.htm.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35208
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
accordance with the requirements in
paragraphs (c) and (d) or (e) of this
section, as applicable, and based on
recognized and generally accepted good
engineering practices. EPA is proposing
to define recognized and generally
accepted good engineering practices in
the same manner as it is proposing
under the subtitle C alternative. The
definition references but does not
attempt to codify any particular set of
engineering practices, but to allow the
professional engineer latitude in
adopting improved practices that reflect
the state-of-the art practices, as they
develop over time. The plan must be
certified by an independent registered
professional engineer. In addition, the
owner or operator must notify the state
that a plan has been placed in the
operating record and on the owner’s or
operator’s publically accessible Internet
site.
These provisions are modeled after
the closure plan requirements in
258.60(c). Of note here is that, while
EPA rejected a certification requirement
for MSWLF closure plans, EPA is
proposing to require one here to
increase the ability of citizens to
effectively enforce the rules. In the
MSWLF rule, EPA rejected a
certification requirement because ‘‘it
will be relatively easy to verify that the
plan meets the requirements,’’ due to the
specific design criteria specified in the
rule. However, this was in the context
of a state program, where EPA could
assure that states would play an active
role in overseeing and enforcing the
facility’s implementation of the
requirements.
EPA is also proposing that the closure
plan provide, at a minimum, the
information necessary to allow citizens
and states to determine whether the
facility’s closure plan is reasonable.
This includes an estimate of the largest
area of the CCR unit ever requiring a
final cover during the active life of the
unit, and an estimate of the maximum
inventory of CCRs ever on-site during
the active life of the unit.
Proposed 257.100(b) of the rule allows
closure of a CCR landfill or surface
impoundment with CCRs in place or
through CCR removal and
decontamination of all areas affected by
releases from the landfill or surface
impoundment. Proposed paragraph (c)
provides that CCR removal and
decontamination are complete when
constituent concentrations throughout
the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment and any areas affected by
releases from the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment do not exceed the
numeric cleanup levels for those CCR
constituents, to the extent that the state
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
has established such clean up levels in
which the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment is located. These ‘‘cleanclosure’’ provisions are modeled after
EPA’s ‘‘Guide for Industrial Waste
Management,’’ found at https://
www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/
industrial/guide/chap11s.htm. As
previously noted, the Guide represents
a consensus view of best practices for
industrial waste management, based on
involvement from EPA, and state and
tribal representatives, as well as a focus
group of industry and public interest
stakeholders chartered under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act. EPA
has included this provision to allow
some flexibility in the selfimplementing scheme for facilities in
their closure options, while providing
protection for health and the
environment under either option.
Although EPA anticipates that facilities
will mostly likely not clean close their
units, given the expense and difficulty
of such an operation, EPA believes that
they are generally preferable from the
standpoint of land re-use and
redevelopment, and so wishes explicitly
to allow for such action in the proposed
subtitle D rule. EPA is also considering
whether to adopt a further incentive for
clean closure, under which the owner or
operator of the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment could remove the deed
notation required under proposed
257.100(m), if all CCRs are removed
from the facility, and notification is
provided to the state. In the absence of
state cleanup levels, metals should be
removed to either statistically
equivalent background levels, or to
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs),
or health-based numbers. One tool that
can be used to help evaluate whether
waste removal is appropriate at the site
is the risk-based corrective action
process (RBCA) using recognized and
generally accepted good engineering
practices such as the ASTM Ec0–RBCA
process. EPA solicits comment on the
appropriateness of this provision under
a RCRA subtitle D rule, and information
on the number of facilities that may take
advantage of a clean-closure option.
For closure of surface impoundments
with CCRs in place, EPA has developed
substantive requirements modeled on a
combination of the existing 40 CFR part
265 interim status requirements for
surface impoundments, and the longstanding MSHA standards. At closure,
the owner or operator of a surface
impoundment would be required to
either drain the unit, or solidify the
remaining wastes. EPA is also proposing
to require that the wastes be stabilized
to a bearing capacity sufficient to
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
support the final cover. The proposed
criteria further require that, in addition
to the technical cover design
requirements applicable to landfills, any
final cover on a surface impoundment
would have to meet requirements
designed to address the nature of the
large volumes of remaining wastes.
Specifically, EPA is proposing that the
cover be designed to minimize, over the
long-term, the migration of liquids
through the closed impoundment;
promote drainage; and accommodate
settling and subsidence so that the
cover’s integrity is maintained. Finally,
closure of the unit is also subject to the
general performance standard that the
probability of future impoundment of
water, sediment, or slurry is precluded.
This general performance standard is
based on the MSHA regulations, and is
designed to ensure the long-term safety
of the surface impoundment.
The proposed RCRA subtitle D
regulation requires that CCR landfills
and surface impoundments have a final
cover system designed and constructed
to have a permeability less than or equal
to the permeability of any bottom liner
system or natural subsoils present, or a
permeability no greater than 1 × 10¥5
cm/sec, whichever is less; it also
requires an infiltration layer that
contains a minimum of 18 inches of
earthen material. The regulation also
requires an erosion layer that contains a
minimum of 6 inches of earthen
material that is capable of sustaining
native plant growth as a way to
minimize erosion of the final cover.
These requirements are generally
modeled after the performance standard
and technical requirements contained in
the existing RCRA subtitle D rules for
MSWLFs, in 258.60. EPA is also
proposing, however a fourth
requirement not found in those criteria
modeled after the interim status closure
requirements of 265.228(a)(iii)(D) that
accounts for the conditions found in
surface impoundments. Specifically,
EPA is proposing that the final cover be
designed to minimize the disruption of
the final cover through a design that
accommodates settling and subsidence.
EPA believes that these requirements
strike a reasonable balance between the
costs of a protective final cover, and
avoiding risks to health and the
environment from the remaining wastes
at the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment. The regulation requires
certification by an independent
registered professional engineer that
these standards were met. The design of
the final cover system, including the
certification, must be placed in the
operating record and on the owner’s or
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
operator’s Internet site. Based on the
MSHA standards, EPA is also proposing
that unit closure must provide for major
slope stability to prevent the sloughing
of the landfill over the long term.
Alternatively, the rule allows the
owner or operator of the CCR landfill or
surface impoundment to select an
alternative final cover design, provided
the alternative cover design is certified
by an independent registered
professional engineer and notification is
provided to the state that the alternative
cover design has been placed in the
operating record and on the owner’s or
operator’s Internet site. The alternative
final cover design must include a
infiltration layer that achieves an
equivalent reduction in infiltration, and
an erosion layer that provides
equivalent protection from wind and
water erosion, as the infiltration and
erosion layers specified in the technical
standards in paragraph (d). Under this
alternative, EPA expects that evapotranspiration covers may be an effective
alternative, which are not appropriately
evaluated based on permeability alone.
For example, an independent registered
professional engineer might certify an
alternative cover design that prevents
the same level of infiltration as the
system described above (i.e., no greater
than 1 × 10¥5 cm/sec, etc), based on: (1)
hydrologic modeling and lysimetry or
instrumentation using a field scale test
section, or (2) Hydrologic modeling and
comparison of the soil and climatic
conditions at the site with the soil and
climatic conditions at an analogous site
with substantially similar cover design.
In this case, the owner or operator of the
disposal unit must obtain certification
from an independent registered
professional engineer that the
alternative cover would minimize
infiltration at least as effectively as the
‘‘design’’ cover described above. As with
the other final covers, the design of the
evapo-transpiration cover must be
placed on the owner’s or operator’s
Internet site.
EPA has included this alternative
cover requirement to increase the
flexibility for the facility to account for
site-specific conditions. However, EPA
is specifically soliciting comment on
whether this degree of flexibility is
appropriate, given the lack of
guaranteed state oversight. In the final
MSWLF rule, EPA adopted a
comparable provision, but concluded
that this alternative would not be
available in States without approved
programs. See, 56 FR 51096. Given that
EPA can neither approve state programs,
nor rely on the existence of a state
permit process, EPA questions whether
this kind of requirement is appropriate.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
Commenters who believe this
requirement would be appropriate are
encouraged to include examples
documenting the need for flexibility in
developing cover requirements, as well
as data and information to demonstrate
that alternative cover designs would be
protective. EPA would also welcome
suggestions for other methods to allow
owners and operators of CCR landfills
and surface impoundment facilities to
account for site-specific conditions that
provide a lower degree of individual
facility discretion, such as a list of
approved cover designs.
The proposed rule includes the same
30- and 180-day deadlines for beginning
and completing closure, respectively,
that are contained in existing section
258.60(f) and (g) for MSWLFs. However,
EPA has decided not to propose to
include a provision under which the
owner and operator could extend those
deadlines under the MSWLF criteria.
EPA believes that extending the closure
deadlines in this context is
inappropriate because, in the absence of
an approved State program, the owner
or operator could unilaterally decide to
extend the time for closure of the unit,
without any basis, or oversight by a
regulatory authority.
The proposed closure requirements
also include a provision addressing
required deed notations. In this regard,
EPA is considering whether to include
a provision for removing the deed
notation once all CCRs are removed
from the facility, and notification is
provided to the state of this action. In
the MSWLF rule, we adopted such a
provision, but determined that state
oversight of such a provision was
essential, given the potential for abuse.
As we noted in the final MSWLF rule,
‘‘EPA strongly believes that a decision to
remove the deed notation must be
considered carefully and that in practice
very few owners or operators will be
able to take advantage of the provision.’’
EPA solicits comment on the propriety
of such a provision, and encourages
commenters who are interested in
supporting such an option, to suggest
alternatives to state oversight to provide
for facility accountability.
Following closure of the CCR
management unit, the co-proposed
subtitle D approach requires postclosure care modeled after the
requirements in 258.60. The owner or
operator of the disposal unit must
conduct post-closure care for 30 years.
EPA is proposing to allow facilities to
conduct post-closure care for a
decreased length of time if the owner or
operator demonstrates that (1) the
reduced period is sufficient to protect
human health and the environment, as
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35209
certified by an independent registered
professional engineer; (2) notice is
provided to the state that the
demonstration has been placed in the
operating record and on the owner’s or
operator’s Internet site; and (3) the
owner or operator notifies the state of
the company’s findings. The proposed
rule also allows an increase in this
period, again, with notification to the
state, if the owner or operator of the
CCR landfill or surface impoundment
determines that it is necessary to protect
human health and the environment. The
30-year period is consistent with the
period required under the criteria for
MSWLFs, as well as under the subtitle
C interim status requirements. EPA has
no information to indicate that a
different period would be appropriate
for post-closure care for CCR disposal
units. EPA recognizes 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, EPA also recognizes that there
is no set length of time for post-closure
care that will be appropriate for all
possible sites, and all possible
conditions. EPA therefore solicits
comment on alternative methods to
account for different conditions, yet still
provide methods of oversight to assure
facility accountability.
During post-closure care, the owner or
operator of the disposal unit is required
to maintain the integrity and
effectiveness of any final cover,
maintain and operate the leachate
collection and removal system in
accordance with the leachate collection
and removal system requirements
described above, maintain the
groundwater monitoring system and
monitor the groundwater in accordance
with the groundwater monitoring
requirements described above, and
place the maintenance plan in the
operating record and on the company’s
Internet site.
EPA is also considering whether to
adopt a number of provisions to
increase the flexibility available under
these requirements. For example, EPA is
considering a self-certified stoppage of
leachate management, such as provided
for in 258.61(a)(2), and is soliciting
public comment on the need for such a
provision, as well as its propriety, in
light of the absence of guaranteed state
oversight. EPA is also considering
whether to adopt a provision to allow
any other disturbance, provided that the
owner or operator of the CCR landfill or
surface impoundment demonstrates that
disturbance of the final cover, liner or
other component of the containment
system, including any removal of CCRs,
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35210
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
will not increase the potential threat to
human health or the environment. The
demonstration would need to be
certified by an independent registered
professional engineer, and notification
provided to the state that the
demonstration had been placed in the
operating record and on the owner’s or
operator’s Internet site. In the MSWLF
rule, EPA limited this option to
approved states, on the ground that,
‘‘under very limited circumstances it
may be possible or desirable to allow
certain post-closure uses of land,
including some recreational uses,
without posing a significant threat to
human health and the environment, but
such situations are likely to be very
limited and need to be considered very
carefully.’’ Commenters interested in
supporting such an option should
address why such a provision would
nevertheless be appropriate in this
context. In this regard, EPA would also
be interested in suggestions for other
mechanisms providing facility
flexibility and/or oversight.
requirements under CERCLA § 108(b).
See Identification of Additional Classes
of Facilities for Development of
Financial Responsibility Requirements
under CERCLA Section 108(b), 75 FR
816 (January 6, 2010). EPA solicits
comments on whether financial
responsibility requirements under
CERCLA § 108(b) should be a key
Agency focus should it regulate CCR
disposal under a RCRA subtitle D
approach. (By today’s proposed rule,
EPA is not reopening the comment
period on the January 2010 ANPRM,
which closed on April 6, 2010. See
Identification of Additional Classes of
Facilities for Development of Financial
Responsibility Requirements under
CERCLA Section 108(b), 75 FR 5715
(Feb. 4, 2010) (extending comment
period to April 6, 2010).) However, EPA
also solicits comment on existing state
waste programs for financial assurance
for CCR disposal facilities, and whether
and how the co-proposed RCRA subtitle
D regulatory approach might integrate
with those programs.
9. Financial Assurance
EPA currently requires showings of
financial assurance under multiple
programs, including for RCRA subtitle C
hazardous waste treatment, storage and
disposal facilities; the RCRA subtitle I
underground storage tank program; and
under other statutory authorities.
Financial assurance requirements
generally help ensure that owners and
operators adequately plan for future
costs, and help ensure that adequate
funds will be available when needed to
cover these costs if the owner or
operator is unable or unwilling to do so;
otherwise, additional governmental
expenditures may otherwise be
necessary to ensure continued
protection of human health and the
environment. Financial assurance
requirements also encourage the
development and implementation of
sound waste management practices both
during and at the end of active facility
operations, since the associated costs of
any financial assurance mechanism
should be less when activities occur in
an environmentally protective manner.
Today’s proposed RCRA subtitle D
alternative does not include proposed
financial responsibility requirements.
Any such requirements would be
proposed separately. Specifically, on
January 6, 2010, EPA issued an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking
(‘‘ANPRM’’), identifying classes of
facilities within the Electric Power
Generation, Transmission, and
Distribution industry, among others, as
those for which it plans to develop, as
necessary, financial responsibility
10. Off-Site Disposal
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
11. Alternative RCRA Subtitle D
Approaches
A potential modification to the
subtitle D option that was evaluated in
our Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) is
what we have termed a subtitle ‘‘D
prime’’ option. Under this modification,
the regulations would not require the
closure or installation of composite
liners in existing surface
impoundments; rather, these surface
impoundments could continue to
operate for the remainder of their useful
life. New surface impoundments would
be required to have composite liners.
The other co-proposed subtitle D
requirements would remain the same.
This modification results in
substantially lower costs, but also lower
benefits as described in section XII,
which presents costs and benefits of the
RCRA subtitle C, D, and D prime
options. EPA solicits comments on this
approach.
Finally, another approach that has
been suggested to EPA is a subtitle D
regulation with the same requirements
as spelled out in the co-proposal, for
example, composite liners for new
landfills and surface impoundments,
groundwater monitoring, corrective
action, closure, and post-closure care
requirements as co-proposed in this
notice; however, in lieu of the phase-out
of surface impoundments, EPA would
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
establish and fund a program for
conducting annual (or other frequency)
structural stability (assessments) of
impoundments having a ‘‘High’’ or
‘‘Significant’’ hazard potential rating as
defined by criteria developed by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the
National Inventory of Dams. 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 surface
impoundments. The theory behind this
suggested approach is that annual
inspections would be far more cost
effective than the phase-out of surface
impoundments—approximately $3.4
million annually for assessments versus
$876 million annually for phase-out.
EPA also solicits comments on this
approach and its effectiveness in
ensuring the structural integrity of CCR
surface impoundments.
X. How would the proposed subtitle D
regulations be implemented?
A. Effective Dates
The effective date of the proposed
RCRA subtitle D alternative, if this
alternative is ultimately promulgated,
would be 180 days after promulgation of
a final rule. Thus, except as noted
below, owners and operators of CCR
landfills and surface impoundments
would need to meet the proposed
minimum federal criteria 180 days after
promulgation of the final rule. As noted
elsewhere in today’s preamble (see
Section XI.), facilities would need to
comply with the RCRA subtitle D
criteria, irrespective of whether or not
the states have adopted the standards.
For the remaining requirements, the
compliance dates would be as follows:
• For new CCR landfills and surface
impoundments that are placed into
service after the effective date of the
final rule, the location restrictions and
design criteria would apply the date that
such CCR landfills and surface
impoundments are placed into service.
• For existing CCR surface
impoundments, the compliance date for
the liner requirement is five years after
the effective date of the final rule.
• For existing CCR landfills and
surface impoundments, the compliance
date for the groundwater monitoring
requirements is one year after the
effective date of the final rule.
• For new CCR landfills and surface
impoundments, and lateral expansions
of existing CCR landfills and surface
impoundments, the groundwater
monitoring requirement must be in
place and in compliance with the
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
groundwater monitoring requirements
before CCRs can be placed in the unit.
Note: As discussed in Section IX, if EPA
determines that financial assurance
requirements would be implemented
pursuant to CERCLA 108(b) authority, the
compliance date for this provision would be
the date specified in those regulations.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Implementation and Enforcement of
Subtitle D Requirements
As stated previously, EPA has no
authority to implement and enforce the
co-proposed RCRA subtitle D regulation.
Therefore, the proposed RCRA subtitle
D standards have been drafted so that
they can be self implementing—that is,
the facilities can comply without
interaction with a regulatory agency.
EPA can however take action under
section 7003 of RCRA to abate
conditions that ‘‘may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment
to health or the environment.’’ EPA
could also use the imminent and
substantial endangerment authorities
under CERCLA, or under other federal
authorities, such as the Clean Water Act,
to address those circumstances where a
unit may pose a threat.
In addition, the federal RCRA subtitle
D requirements would be enforceable by
states and by citizens using the citizen
suit provisions of RCRA 7002. Under
this section, any person may commence
a civil action on his own behalf against
any person, who (1) is alleged to be in
violation of any permit, standard,
regulation * * * which has become
effective pursuant to this chapter’’
Because a RCRA subtitle D proposal
relies heavily on citizen enforcement,
our proposal requires facilities to make
any significant information related to
their compliance with the proposed
requirements publicly available.
XI. Impact of a Subtitle D Regulation on
State Programs
Under today’s co-proposal, EPA is
proposing to establish minimum
nationwide criteria under RCRA subtitle
D as one alternative. If the Agency were
to choose to promulgate such
nationwide criteria, EPA would
encourage the states to adopt such
criteria; however, the Agency has no
authority to require states to adopt such
criteria, or to implement the criteria
upon their finalization. Nor does EPA
have authority in this instance to
require federal approval procedures for
state adoption of the minimum
nationwide criteria. States would be free
to develop their own regulations and/or
permitting programs using their solid
waste laws or other state authorities.
While states are not required to adopt
such minimum nationwide criteria,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
some states (about 25) incorporate
federal regulations by reference or have
specific state statutory requirements that
their state program can be no more
stringent than the federal regulations
(about 12, with varying degrees of
exceptions). In those cases, EPA would
expect that if the minimum nationwide
criteria were promulgated, these states
would adopt them, consistent with their
state laws and administrative
procedures.
If the states do not adopt or adopt
different standards for the management
of CCRs, facilities would still have to
comply with the co-proposed subtitle D
criteria, if finalized, independently of
those state regulations. Thus, even in
the absence of a state program, CCR
landfills and CCR surface
impoundments would be required to
meet the proposed federal minimum
criteria as set out in 40 CFR part 257,
subpart D. As a result and to make
compliance with the requirements as
straightforward as possible, we have
drafted the proposed criteria so that
facilities are able to implement the
standards without interaction with
regulatory officials—that is, the
requirements are self-implementing.
Also, even in the absence of a state
regulatory program for CCRs, these
federal minimum criteria are
enforceable by citizens and by states
using the citizen suit provision of RCRA
(Section 7002). EPA is also able to take
action under RCRA Section 7003 to
abate conditions that may pose an
imminent and substantial endangerment
to human health or the environment or
and can rely on other federal
authorities. See the previous section for
a full discussion of this issue.
XII. Impacts of the Proposed Regulatory
Alternatives
A. What are the economic impacts of
the proposed regulatory alternatives?
EPA prepared an analysis of the
potential costs and benefits associated
with this action contained in the
‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ (RIA). A
copy of the RIA is available in the
docket for this action and the analysis
is briefly summarized here. For
purposes of evaluating the potential
economic impacts of the proposed rule,
the RIA evaluated baseline (i.e., current)
management of CCRs consisting of two
baseline components: (1) The average
annual cost of baseline CCR disposal
practices by the electric utility industry,
and (2) the monetized value of existing
CCR beneficial uses in industrial
applications. Incremental to this
baseline, the RIA estimated (1) future
industry compliance costs for CCR
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35211
disposal associated with the regulatory
options described in today’s action, and
(2) although not completely quantified
or monetized, three categories of
potential future benefits from RCRA
regulation of CCR disposal consisting of
(a) Groundwater protection benefits at
CCR disposal sites, (b) CCR
impoundment structural failure
prevention benefits, and (c) induced
future annual increases in CCR
beneficial use. The findings from each
of these main sections of the RIA are
summarized below. These quantified
benefit results are based on EPA’s initial
analyses using existing information and
analytical techniques.
1. Characterization of Baseline Affected
Entities and CCR Management Practices
Today’s action will potentially affect
CCRs 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 2007 electricity
generation data published by the Energy
Information Administration (EIA), the
RIA estimated a total of 495 operational
coal-fired electric utility plants in this
NAICS code could be affected by today’s
action. These plants are owned by 200
entities consisting of 121 companies, 18
cooperative organizations, 60 state or
local governments, and one Federal
Agency. A sub-total of 51 of the 200
owner entities (i.e., 26%) may be
classified as small businesses, small
organizations, or small governments.
Based on the most recent (2005) EIA
data on annual CCR tonnages generated
and managed by electric utility plants
greater than 100 megawatts nameplate
capacity in size, supplemented with
additional estimates made in the RIA for
smaller sized electric utility plants
between 1 and 100 megawatts capacity,
these 495 plants generate about 140
million tons of CCRs annually, of which
311 plants dispose 57 million tons in
company-owned landfills, 158 plants
dispose 22 million tons in companyowned surface impoundments, and an
estimated 149 plants may send upwards
of 15 million tons of CCRs to offsite
disposal units owned by other
companies (e.g., NAICS 562 commercial
waste management service companies).
Based on lack of data on the type of
offsite CCR disposal units, and the fact
that it costs much more to transport wet
CCRs than dry CCRs (i.e., CCRs which
have been de-watered), the RIA assumes
all offsite CCR disposal units are
landfills. Because some plants use more
than one CCR management method,
these management plant counts exceed
495 total plants. Based on the estimates
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35212
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
developed for the RIA, total CCR
disposal is about 94 million tons
annually which is two-thirds of annual
CCR generation. (EPA notes that the
alternative, lower CCR generation and
disposal estimates of 131 million tons
and 75 million tons cited elsewhere in
today’s notice were derived from
different and less comprehensive ACAA
and EIA survey data sources,
respectively, that do not include
tonnage estimates for plants between 1
and 100 megawatt capacity.) In
addition, 272 of the 495 plants supply
CCRs which are not disposed for
beneficial uses in at least 14 industries,
of which 28 of the 272 plants solely
supply CCRs for beneficial uses. As of
2005, CCR beneficial uses (i.e.,
industrial applications) involved about
47 million tons annually representing
one-third of annual CCR generation,
which the RIA estimates may grow to an
annual quantity of 62 million tons by
2009. For 2008, the American Coal Ash
Association estimates CCR beneficial
use has grown to 60.6 million tons.155
2. Baseline CCR Disposal
For each of the 467 operating electric
utility plants which dispose CCRs onsite
or offsite (28 of the 495 total plants
solely send their CCRs for beneficial use
and not disposal), the RIA estimated
baseline engineering controls at CCR
disposal units and associated baseline
disposal costs for two types of CCR
disposal units: landfills and surface
impoundments. Impoundments are
sometimes named by electricity plant
personnel as basins, berms, canals, cells,
dams, embankments, lagoons, pits,
ponds, reservoirs, or sumps. The
baseline is defined as existing (current)
conditions with respect to the presence
or absence of 10 types of environmental
engineering controls and eight ancillary
regulatory elements, plus projection of
future baseline conditions of CCR
disposal units without regulation over
the 50-year future period-of-analysis—
2012 to 2061—applied in the RIA. A 50year future period was applied in the
RIA to account for impacts of the
proposed regulatory options which are
specific only to future new disposal
units given average lifespans of over 40years. Existing conditions were
determined based on review of a sample
of current state government regulations
of CCR disposal in 34 states, as well as
limited survey information on CCR
disposal units from studies published in
1995, 1996, and 2006 about voluntary
155 Note that ACAA’s definition of beneficial use
does not align with that used by EPA in this
rulemaking. For example, ACAA includes
minefilling as a beneficial use, where EPA classifies
it as a separate category of use.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
engineering controls installed for CCR
disposal units at some electric utility
plants. The 10 baseline engineering
controls evaluated in the RIA are (1)
Groundwater monitoring, (2) bottom
liners, (3) leachate collection and
removal systems, (4) dust controls, (5)
rainwater run-on and run-off controls,
(6) financial assurance for corrective
action, disposal unit closure, and postclosure care, (7) disposal unit location
restrictions, (8) closure capping of
disposal units, (9) post-closure
groundwater monitoring, and (10) CCR
storage design and operating standards
prior to disposal (Note: Although listed
here, this 10th element was not
estimated in the RIA because of EPA’s
lack of information on baseline CCR
storage practices). This specific set of
engineering controls represents the
elements of the RCRA 3004(x) customtailored technical standards proposed in
today’s notice for the RCRA subtitle C
option. The eight ancillary elements
evaluated in the RIA are (11) offsite
transport and disposal, (12) disposal
unit structural integrity inspections, (13)
electricity plant facility-wide
environmental investigations, (14)
facility-wide corrective action
requirements, (15) waste disposal
permits, (16) state government
regulatory enforcement inspections, (17)
environmental release remediation
requirements, and (18) recordkeeping
and reporting to regulatory agencies.
Some states require many of these
technical standards for future newlyconstructed CCR disposal units, some
states require them for existing units,
and some states have few or no
regulatory requirements specific to CCR
disposal and thus were not estimated in
the baseline cost. Furthermore, some of
the ancillary elements are only relevant
to the regulatory options based on
subtitle C as co-proposed in today’s
notice. The percentage of CCR landfills
with baseline controls ranged from 61%
to 81%, and the percentage of CCR
surface impoundments with baseline
controls ranged from 20% to 49%,
depending upon the type of control.
Based on this estimation methodology,
the RIA estimates the electric utility
industry spends an average of $5.6
billion per year for meeting staterequired and company voluntary
environmental standards for CCR
disposal. Depending upon state location
for any given electricity plant (which
determines baseline regulatory
requirements), and whether any given
plant disposes CCRs onsite or offsite,
this baseline cost is equivalent to an
average cost range of $2 to $80 per ton
of CCRs disposed of.
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
3. Baseline CCR Beneficial Use
In addition to evaluating baseline CCR
disposal practices, the RIA also
estimated the baseline net benefits
associated with the 47 million tons per
year (2005) of industrial beneficial uses
of CCRs. CCRs are beneficially used
nationwide as material ingredients in at
least 14 industrial applications
according to the American Coal Ash
Association: (1) Concrete, (2) cement, (3)
flowable fill, (4) structural fill, (5) road
base, (6) soil modification, (7) mineral
filler in asphalt, (8) snow/ice control, (9)
blasting grit, (10) roofing granules, (11)
placement in mine filling operations,156
(12) wallboard, (13) waste solidification,
and (14) agriculture. The baseline
annual sales revenues (as of 2005)
received by the electric utility industry
for sale of CCRs used in these industrial
applications are estimated at $177
million per year. In comparison,
substitute industrial ingredient
materials (e.g., portland cement,
quarried stone aggregate, limestone,
gypsum) would cost industries $2,477
million per year. Thus, the beneficial
use of CCRs provides $2,300 million in
annual cost savings to these industrial
applications, labeled economic benefits
in the RIA. Based on the lifecycle
materials and energy flow economic
framework presented in the RIA,
although only based on limited data
representing 47% of annual CCR
beneficial use tonnage involving only
three of the 14 industrial applications
(i.e., concrete, cement and wallboard),
baseline lifecycle benefits of beneficially
using CCRs compared to substitute
industrial materials are (a) $4,888
million per year in energy savings, (b)
$81 million per year in water
consumption savings, (c) $365 million
per year in greenhouse gas (i.e., carbon
dioxide and methane) emissions
reductions, and (d) $17,772 million per
year in other air pollution reductions.
Altogether, industrial beneficial uses of
CCRs provide over $23 billion in annual
environmental benefits as of 2005. In
addition, baseline CCR beneficial use
provides $1,830 million per year in
industrial raw materials costs savings to
beneficial users, and $2,927 million per
year in avoided CCR disposal cost to the
electric utility industry as of 2005. The
sum of environmental benefits,
156 While today’s proposed rule does not deal
directly with the mine filling of CCRs, the RIA
includes it as a baseline beneficial use because the
RIA uses the categories identified by the American
Coal Ash Association (https://acaa.affiniscape.com/
displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=3).
However, as noted previously in today’s notice, the
Agency is working with OSM of the Department of
Interior on the placement of CCRs in mine fill
operations.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
industrial raw materials costs savings,
and CCR disposal cost savings, $27.9
billion per year, gives the baseline level
of what the RIA has labeled social
benefits from the beneficial use of CCRs.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Estimated Costs for RCRA Regulation
of CCR Disposal
The RIA includes estimates of the
costs associated with the options
described in today’s notice are
summarized here: (1) RCRA subtitle C
regulation of CCRs as a ‘‘special waste’’;
(2) RCRA subtitle D regulation as ‘‘nonhazardous waste’’; and (3) the subtitle ‘‘D
prime’’ options. Full descriptions of
each option are presented in a prior
section of today’s notice. The RIA
assumes that the engineering controls
that would be established under the
RCRA subtitle C option would be
tailored on the basis of RCRA section
3004(x). The controls for the RCRA
subtitle D option are identical to the
subtitle C option. The controls under
the subtitle ‘‘D prime’’ option would be
identical as well, except that existing
surface impoundments would not have
to close or be dredged and have
composite liners installed within five
years of the effective date of the
regulation. The RIA also assumes all
three options retain the existing Bevill
exemption for CCR beneficial uses.
The estimated costs for each option
are incremental to the baseline, and are
estimated in the RIA using both an
average annualized and a present value
equivalent basis over a 50-year periodof-analysis (2012 to 2061) using both a
7% and an alternative 3% discount rate.
These two alternative discount rates are
required by the Office of Management
and Budget’s September 2003
‘‘Regulatory Analysis’’ Circular A–4. For
the purpose of summary here, only the
7% discount rate results are presented
for each option because the 7% rate
represents the ‘‘base case’’ in the RIA for
the reason that most of the regulatory
compliance costs will be incurred by
industry (i.e., private capital). On an
average annualized basis, the estimated
regulatory compliance costs for the
three options are $1,474 million
(subtitle C special waste), $587 million
(subtitle D), and $236 million (subtitle
‘‘D prime’’) per year. On a present value
basis discounted at 7% over the 50-year
future period-of-analysis applied in the
RIA, estimated future regulatory
compliance costs for the three options
total $20,349 million, $8,095 million,
and $3,259 million present value,
respectively. EPA requests public
comment on all data sources and
analytical approaches.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
5. Benefits for RCRA Regulation of CCR
Disposal
The potential environmental and
public health benefits of CCR regulation
estimated and monetized in the RIA
include three categories:
1. Groundwater protection benefits
consisting of (a) human cancer
prevention benefits and (b) avoided
groundwater remediation costs at CCR
disposal sites;
2. CCR impoundment structural
failure prevention benefits (i.e., cleanup
costs avoided); and
3. Induced future increase in
industrial beneficial uses of CCRs.
As was done with the cost estimates
described above, the RIA estimated
benefits both at the 7% and 3%
discount rates using the same 50-year
period-of-analysis. However, only the
benefit estimates based on the 7% rate
are summarized here. While the RIA
focused on monetizing these three
impact categories, there are also human
non-cancer prevention benefits,
ecological protection benefits, surface
water protection benefits, and ambient
air pollution prevention benefits, which
are not monetized in the RIA, but
qualitatively described below.
i. Groundwater Protection Benefits
The RIA estimated the benefits of
reduced human cancer risks and
avoided groundwater remediation costs
associated with controlling arsenic
leaching from CCR landfills and surface
impoundments. These estimates are
based on EPA’s risk assessment
(described elsewhere in today’s notice),
which predicts arsenic leaching rates
using SPLP and TCLP data.
Furthermore, recent research and
damage cases indicate that these
leaching tests under-predict risks from
dry disposal.157 Therefore, the
groundwater protection benefits may be
157 Recent EPA research demonstrates that CCRs
can leach significantly more aggressively under
different pH conditions potentially present in
disposal units. In the EPA Office of Research &
Development report ‘‘Characterization of Coal
Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities—
Leaching and Characterization Data,’’ EPA–600/R–
09/151, Research Triangle Park, NC, December
2009, CCRs from 19 of the 34 facilities evaluated
in the study exceeded at least one of the Toxicity
Characteristic regulatory values for at least one type
of CCR (e.g., fly ash or FGD residue) at the selfgenerated pH of the material. This behavior likely
explains the rapid migration of constituents from
disposal sites like Chesapeake, VA and Gambrills,
MD. See also the EPA Office of Research &
Development reports (a) ‘‘Characterization of
Mercury-Enriched Coal Combustion Residues from
Electric Utilities Using Enhanced Sorbents for
Mercury Control,’’ EPA 600/R–06/008, January
2006; and (b) Characterization of Coal Combustion
Residues from Electric Utilities Using Wet
Scrubbers for Multi-Pollutant Control, EPA/600/R–
08/077, July 2008.
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35213
underestimated in the RIA. The RIA
based estimation of future human
cancer cases avoided on the individual
‘‘excess’’ lifetime cancer probabilities
reported in the EPA risk assessment,
although the RIA also used more recent
(2001) science published by the
National Research Council on arsenic
carcinogenicity.
The RIA estimated groundwater
protection benefits by categorizing
electric utility plants according to their
individual types of CCR disposal units
(i.e., landfill or impoundment) and
presence/types of liners in those units.
For each category, GIS data were used
to determine the potentially affected
populations of groundwater drinkers
residing within 1-mile of the disposal
units. Results from the risk assessment
were applied to these populations by
using a linear extrapolation, starting
from a risk of zero to the peak future
risk as demonstrated by the risk
assessment. The count of people who
might potentially get cancer was then
adjusted upward to account for the more
recent and more widely accepted
arsenic carcinogenicity research by the
National Research Council.158 The RIA
then segregated the future cancer counts
into lung cancers and bladder cancers,
as well as into those that were predicted
to result in death versus those that were
not. The RIA monetized each of these
cancer sub-categories using EPApublished economic values for
statistical life and cost of illness.
The RIA further adjusted these
monetized future cancer counts, to take
into account existing state requirements
for groundwater monitoring at CCR
disposal units, such that fewer cancer
158 EPA’s current Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) has a cancer slope factor for arsenic
developed in 1995. This slope factor is based on
skin cancer incidence and was used in the 2010
EPA risk assessment. Skin cancer is a health
endpoint associated with lower fatality risk than
lung and bladder cancers induced by arsenic. Since
the IRIS slope factors were developed, quantitative
data on lung and bladder cancers have become
available, and the skin cancer based slope factors
no longer represent the current state of the science
for health risk assessment for arsenic. The National
Research Council (NRC) published the report,
‘‘Arsenic in Drinking Water: 2001 Update’’ (2001)
which reviewed the available toxicological,
epidemiological, and risk assessment literature on
the health effects of inorganic arsenic, building
upon the NRC’s prior report, ‘‘Arsenic in Drinking
Water’’ (NRC 1999). The 2001 report, developed by
an eminent committee of scientists with expertise
in arsenic toxicology and risk assessment provides
a scientifically sound and transparent assessment of
risks of bladder and lung cancers from inorganic
arsenic. EPA’s Science Advisory Board is currently
reviewing EPA’s new proposed IRIS cancer slope
factors based on bladder and lung cancer. Because
the more recent NRC scientific information is
available, the RIA (2010) uses the NRC arsenic
cancer data for the estimate of benefits associated
with cancers avoided by the proposed regulation of
CCR.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35214
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
cases than initially projected would
ultimately occur from early detection of
groundwater contamination in those
states. Therefore, a baseline was
established for the operation of state
regulatory and remedial programs
which led to a reduction in expected
cancer cases in states with existing
groundwater protection requirements.
However, once groundwater
contamination was found in those
states, remediation costs would be
incurred. Thus, the RIA also accounted
for these costs under each of the
regulatory options as well, thus
avoiding possible double-counting of
cancer cases and remediation costs. On
an average annualized basis, the human
cancer prevention component of the
groundwater protection benefit category
for the three options are $37 million
(RCRA subtitle C special waste), $15
million (RCRA subtitle D), and $8
million (subtitle ‘‘D prime’’) per year. On
a present value basis, the human cancer
prevention benefit totals $504 million,
$207 million, and $104 million present
value, respectively. On an average
annualized basis, the estimated avoided
groundwater remediation cost benefit
component of the groundwater
protection benefit category for the three
options are $34 million (RCRA subtitle
C special waste), $12 million (RCRA
subtitle D), and $6 million (subtitle ‘‘D
prime’’) per year. On a present value
basis, the avoided remediation cost
benefit totals to $466 million, $168
million, and $84 million present value,
respectively. Added together on an
average annualized basis, these two
groundwater protection benefit
components total to $71 million (RCRA
subtitle C special waste), $27 million
(RCRA subtitle D), and $14 million
(subtitle ‘‘D prime’’) per year. On a
present value basis, the groundwater
protection benefit category totals to
$970 million, $375 million, and $188
million present value, respectively.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
ii. Impoundment Structural Failure
Prevention Benefits
The December 2008 CCR surface
impoundment collapse at the Tennessee
Valley Authority’s Kingston, Tennessee
coal-fired electricity plant illustrated
that structural failures of large CCR
impoundments can lead to catastrophic
environmental releases and large
cleanup costs. The RIA estimated the
benefit of avoiding future cleanup costs
for impoundment failures, which the
structural integrity inspection
requirement of all regulatory options,
and the future conversion or retrofitting
of existing or new impoundments
(under the subtitle C, subtitle D, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
subtitle ‘‘D prime’’ options) would be
expected to prevent.
The RIA based the estimate of future
cleanup costs avoided on information
contained in EPA’s 2009 mail survey 159
of 584 CCR impoundments operated by
the electric utility industry. In response
to the survey request for information on
known spills or non-permitted releases
from CCR impoundments within the last
10 years, revealed 42 CCR
impoundment releases spanning 1995 to
2009. Particularly, there were five
significant releases between 4,950 cubic
yards and 5.4 million cubic yards of
CCRs, and one catastrophic release of
5.4 million cubic yards of CCRs during
this time period at coal fired power
plants. Given these historic releases, the
RIA projected the probability of future
impoundment releases using a Poisson
distribution. In addition to this
approach, the RIA formulated two
alternative failure scenarios based on 96
high-risk CCR impoundments identified
as at least 40 feet tall and at least 25
years old. The two alternative failure
scenarios assumed impoundment failure
rates involving these 96 impoundments
of 10% and 20%, respectively. On an
average annualized basis ranging across
these three alternative failure
probability estimation methods
(scenarios), the avoided cleanup cost
benefit category for the three options is
estimated at $128 million to $1,212
million (subtitle C special waste), $58
million to $550 million (subtitle D), and
$29 million to $275 million (subtitle ‘‘D
prime’’) per year. On a present value
basis, the avoided cleanup cost benefit
category totals $1,762 million to $16,732
million (RCRA subtitle C special waste),
$793 million to $7,590 million (RCRA
subtitle D), and $405 million to $3,795
million present value (RCRA subtitle ‘‘D
prime’’), respectively.
iii. Benefit of Induced Future Increase in
Industrial Beneficial Uses of CCRs
The third and final potential benefit
category evaluated in the RIA includes
the potential effects of RCRA regulation
of CCR disposal on future annual
tonnages of CCR beneficial use. As its
base case, the RIA estimates an expected
future increase in beneficial use
induced by the increased costs of
disposing CCR in RCRA-regulated
disposal units. The RIA also evaluates
the potential magnitude of a future
decrease in beneficial use as a result of
a potential ‘‘stigma’’ effect under the
subtitle C option. Both scenarios are
159 Descriptive information and electric utility
industry responses to EPA’s 2009 mail survey is
available at the survey webpage https://
www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/special/
fossil/surveys/.
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
based on a baseline consisting of (a)
projecting the future annual tonnage of
CCR generation by the electric utility
industry in relation to the Energy
Information Administration’s (EIA)
future annual projection of coal
consumption by the electric utility
industry, and (b) projecting the future
baseline growth in CCR beneficial use
relative to the historical growth
trendline (i.e., absent today’s proposed
regulation).
For the induced increase ‘‘base case’’
scenario, the compliance costs for each
regulatory option represent an ‘‘avoided
cost incentive’’ to the electric utility
industry to shift additional CCRs from
disposal to beneficial use. Proportional
to the estimated cost for each option, the
RIA applied a beneficial use market
elasticity factor to the projected baseline
future growth in beneficial use to
simulate the induced increase. On an
average annualized basis, the monetized
value—based on the same unitized (i.e.,
per-ton) monetized social values
assigned to the lifecycle benefits of
baseline CCR beneficial uses—of the
estimated potential induced increases in
future annual CCR beneficial use
tonnage for the three options are $6,122
million (RCRA subtitle C special waste),
$2,450 million (RCRA subtitle D), and
$980 million (subtitle ‘‘D prime’’) per
year. On a present value basis, the
potential induced increases in beneficial
use totals to $84,489 million (RCRA
subtitle C special waste), $33,796
million (RCRA subtitle D), and $13,518
million (subtitle ‘‘D prime’’) present
value, respectively.
The RIA also monetized the
alternative ‘‘stigma’’ scenario of future
reduction in beneficial use induced by
the RCRA subtitle C option. The RIA
formulated assumptions about the
percentage future annual tonnage
reductions which might result to some
of the 14 beneficial use markets. For
example, federally purchased concrete
was assumed to stay at baseline levels
because of the positive influence of
comprehensive procurement guidelines
that are already in place to encourage
such types of beneficial uses.
Conversely, the levels of non-federally
purchased concrete were assumed to
decrease relative to the baseline. On an
average annualized basis, the monetized
value—based on the same unitized (i.e.,
per-ton) monetized social values
assigned to the lifecycle benefits of
baseline CCR beneficial uses—of the
potential ‘‘stigma’’ reduction in future
annual CCR beneficial use for the RCRA
subtitle C option is $16,923 million per
year cost. On a present value basis, the
potential ‘‘stigma’’ reduction in
beneficial use totals to $233,549 million
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
present value cost. The RIA did not
estimate a potential ‘‘stigma’’ reduction
effect on the RCRA subtitle D or subtitle
‘‘D prime’’ regulatory options.
B. Benefits Not Quantified in the RIA
1. Non-Quantified Plant and Wildlife
Protection Benefits
EPA’s risk assessment estimated
significant risks of adverse effects to
plants and wildlife, which are
confirmed by the existing CCR damage
cases and field studies published in
peer-reviewed scientific literature. Such
reported adverse effects include: (a)
Elevated selenium levels in migratory
birds, (b) wetland vegetative damage, (c)
fish kills, (d) amphibian deformities, (e)
snake metabolic effects, (f) plant
toxicity, (g) elevated contaminant levels
in mammals as a result of
environmental uptake, (h) fish
deformities, and (i) inhibited fish
reproductive capacity. Requirements in
the proposed rule should prevent or
reduce these impacts in the future by
limiting the extent of environmental
contamination and thereby reducing the
levels directly available.
2. Non-Quantified Surface Water
Protection Benefits
In EPA’s risk assessment, recreational
fishers could be exposed to chemical
constituents in CCR via the
groundwater-to-surface water exposure
pathway. Furthermore, State Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)
and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) discharges
from CCR wet disposal (i.e.,
impoundments) likely exceed the
discharges from groundwater to surface
water. Thus, exposure to arsenic via fish
consumption could be significant.
However, EPA expects that most electric
utility plants will eventually switch to
dry CCR disposal (or to beneficial use),
a trend which is discussed in the RIA.
Such future switchover will reduce
potential future exposures to these
constituents from affected fish.
3. Non-Quantified Ambient Air
Protection Benefits
Another impact on public health not
discussed in the RIA is the potential
reduction of excess cancer cases
associated with hexavalent chromium
inhaled from the air. As estimated in the
RIA, over six million people live within
the Census population data ‘‘zip code
tabulation areas’’ for the 495 electric
utility plant locations. Thus, the
potential population health benefits of
RCRA regulation may be quite large.
Inhalation of hexavalent chromium has
been shown to cause lung cancer.160 By
requiring fugitive dust controls, the
proposed rule would reduce inhalation
exposure to hexavalent chromium near
CCR disposal units that are not
currently required to control fugitive
dust.
Furthermore, several non-cancer
health effects associated with CCRs are
a result of particulate matter inhalation
due to dry CCR disposal. Human health
effects for which EPA is evaluating
causality due to particulate matter
exposure include (a) Cardiovascular
morbidity, (b) respiratory morbidity, (c)
mortality, (d) reproductive effects, (e)
developmental effects, and (f) cancer.161
The potential for and extent of adverse
health effects due to fugitive dusts from
dry CCR disposal was demonstrated in
the 2009 EPA report ‘‘Inhalation of
Fugitive Dust: A Screening Assessment
of the Risks Posed by Coal Combustion
Waste Landfills—DRAFT,’’ which is
available in the docket for today’s coproposed rules. The co-proposed rules’
fugitive dust controls would serve to
manage such potential risks by bringing
them to acceptable levels.
CCR dust (and other types of
particulate matter) can also be carried
over long distances by wind and then
settle on ground or water. The effects of
this settling could include: (a) Changing
the pH of lakes and streams; (b)
changing the nutrient balance in coastal
waters and large river basins; (c)
depleting nutrients in soil; (d) damaging
sensitive forests and farm crops; and (e)
affecting the diversity of ecosystems.162
35215
Additionally, fine particulates are
known to contribute to haze.163 Thus,
the fugitive dust controls contained in
the proposed rule would improve
visibility, and reduce the environmental
impacts discussed above.
C. Comparison of Costs to Benefits for
the Regulatory Alternatives
For purposes of comparing the
estimated regulatory compliance costs
to the monetized benefits for each
regulatory option, the RIA computed
two comparison indicators: Net benefits
(i.e., benefits minus costs), and benefit/
cost ratio (i.e., benefits divided by
costs). The results of each indicator are
displayed in the following tables (Table
10, Table 11 and Table 12) for three
regulatory options, based on the 7%
discount rate and the 50-year period-ofanalysis applied in the RIA. There are
three tables because three different
scenarios were analyzed concerning
potential impacts on beneficial use of
CCRs impact under the regulatory
options.
The three tables below represent three
possible outcomes regarding impacts of
the rule upon the beneficial use of CCR.
In the first table, EPA presents the
potential impact scenario that we view
to be most likely. This first scenario
assumes that the increased cost of
disposal from regulation under subtitle
C will encourage industry to seek out
additional markets and greatly increase
their beneficial use of CCRs. In the
second table, EPA presents a negative
effect on beneficial use, based on
stigma, and the possibility of triggering
use restrictions under state regulation
and private sector standards due to
subtitle C regulation. In the final table,
EPA presents a scenario where
beneficial use continues on its current
path, without any changes as a result of
the rule. On the basis of past experience,
EPA believes that it is likely that
recycling rates will increase as
presented in the first scenario.
Comments are requested on the impact
of stigma on the beneficial use of CCRs.
TABLE 10—COMPARISON OF REGULATORY BENEFITS TO COSTS
[$Millions @ 2009$ prices and @ 7% discount rate over 50-year future period-of-analysis 2012 to 2061]
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Subtitle C ‘‘Special Waste’’
A. Present Values:
1. Regulatory Costs (1A+1B+1C):
1A. Engineering Controls ...........
Subtitle D
$20,349 .....................................
$6,780 .......................................
$8,095 .......................................
$3,254 .......................................
160 ATSDR Texas. Available at: https://
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html.
161 Source: EPA Office of Research &
Development report ‘‘Integrated Science Assessment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
for Particulate Matter: First External Review Draft,’’
EPA/600/R–08/139, 2008.
162 Source: U.S. EPA Office of Air & Radiation,
Particulate Matter ‘‘Health and Environment’’ Web
site at https://www.epa.gov/particles/health.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Subtitle ‘‘D prime’’
$3,259.
$3,254.
163 Ibid; and also see https://
www.intheairwebreathe.com/html/
photo_gallery.html.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35216
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 10—COMPARISON OF REGULATORY BENEFITS TO COSTS—Continued
[$Millions @ 2009$ prices and @ 7% discount rate over 50-year future period-of-analysis 2012 to 2061]
Subtitle C ‘‘Special Waste’’
1B. Ancillary Regulatory Requirements.
1C. Conversion to Dry CCR Disposal.
2.
Regulatory
Benefits
(2A+2B+2C+2D):
2A. Monetized Value of Human
Cancer Cases Avoided.
2B.Groundwater
Remediation
Costs Avoided.
2C. CCR Impoundment Failure
Cleanup Costs Avoided.
2D. Included Future Increase in
CCR Beneficial Use.
3. Net Benefits (2–1) .........................
4. Benefit/Cost Ratio ( 2/1 ) ..............
B. Average Annualized Equivalent Values:*.
1. Regulatory Costs (1A+1B+1C) .....
1A. Engineering Controls ...........
1B. Ancillary Regulatory Requirements.
1C. Conversion to Dry CCR Disposal.
2.
Regulatory
Benefits
(2A+2B+2C+2D):
2A. Monetized Value of Human
Cancer Cases Avoided.
2B. Groundwater Remediation
Costs Avoided.
2C. CCR Impoundment Failure
Cleanup Costs Avoided.
2D. Included Future Increase in
CCR Beneficial Use.
3. Net Benefits (2–1) .........................
4. Benefit/Cost Ratio (2/1) ................
Subtitle D
Subtitle ‘‘D prime’’
$1,480 .......................................
$5 ..............................................
$5.
$12,089 .....................................
$4,836 .......................................
$0.
$87,221 to $102,191 .................
$34,964 to $41,761 ...................
$14,111 to $17,501.
$504 ..........................................
$207 ..........................................
$104.
$466 ..........................................
$168 ..........................................
$84.
$1,762 to $16,732 .....................
$793 to $7,590 ..........................
$405 to $3,795.
$84,489 .....................................
$33,796 .....................................
$13,518.
$66,872 to $81,842 ...................
4.286 to 5.022 ...........................
$26,869 to $33,666 ...................
4.319 to 5.159 ...........................
$10,852 to $14,242.
4.330 to 5.370.
$1,474 .......................................
$491 ..........................................
$107 ..........................................
$587 ..........................................
$236 ..........................................
<$1 ............................................
$236.
$236.
<$1.
$876 ..........................................
$350 ..........................................
$0.
$6,320 to $7,405 .......................
$2,533 to $3,026 .......................
$1,023 to $1,268.
$37 ............................................
$15 ............................................
$8.
$34 ............................................
$12 ............................................
$6.
$128 to $1,212 ..........................
$58 to $550 ...............................
$29 to $275.
$6,122 .......................................
$2,450 .......................................
$980.
$4,845 to $5,930 .......................
4.286 to 5.022 ...........................
$1,947 to $2,439 .......................
4.319 to 5.159 ...........................
$786 to $1,032.
4.330 to 5.370.
* Note: Average annualized equivalent values calculated by multiplying the 50-year present values by a 50-year 7% discount rate ‘‘capital recovery factor’’ of 0.07246.
TABLE 11—COMPARISON OF REGULATORY BENEFITS TO COSTS UNDER SCENARIO #2—INDUCED BENEFICIAL USE
DECREASE
[$Millions @ 2009$ prices @ 7% discount rate over 50-year future period-of-analysis 2012 to 2061]
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Subtitle C ‘‘Special Waste’’
A. Present Values:
1. Regulatory Costs (1A+1B+1C):
1A. Engineering Controls ...........
1B. Ancillary Costs .....................
1C. Conversion to Dry CCR Disposal.
2.
Regulatory
Benefits
(2A+2B+2C+2D):
2A. Monetized Value of Human
Cancer Risks Avoided.
2B. Groundwater Remediation
Costs Avoided.
2C. CCR Impoundment Failure
Cleanup Costs Avoided.
2D. Induced Impact on CCR
Beneficial Use.
3. Net Benefits (2–1) .........................
4. Benefit/Cost Ratio (2/1) ................
B. Average Annualized Equivalent
Values*.
1. Regulatory Costs (1A+1B+1C):
1A. Engineering Controls ...........
1B. Ancillary Costs .....................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:14 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
Subtitle D
$20,349 .....................................
$6,780 .......................................
$1,480 .......................................
$12,089 .....................................
$8,095 .......................................
$3,254 .......................................
$5 ..............................................
4,836 .........................................
$3,259.
$3,254.
$5.
$0.
($230,817) to ($215,847) ..........
$1,168 to $7,965 .......................
$593 to $3,983.
$504 ..........................................
$207 ..........................................
$104.
$466 ..........................................
$168 ..........................................
$84.
$1,762 to $16,732 .....................
$793 to $7,590 ..........................
$405 to $3,795.
($233,549) .................................
N/A ............................................
N/A.
($251,166) to ($236,196) ..........
(11.343) to (10.607) ..................
($6,927) to ($130) .....................
0.144 to 0.984 ...........................
($2,666) to $724.
0.182 to 1.222.
$1,474 .......................................
$491 ..........................................
$107 ..........................................
$587 ..........................................
$236 ..........................................
$0.36 .........................................
$236.
$236.
$0.36.
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
Subtitle ‘‘D prime’’
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
35217
TABLE 11—COMPARISON OF REGULATORY BENEFITS TO COSTS UNDER SCENARIO #2—INDUCED BENEFICIAL USE
DECREASE—Continued
[$Millions @ 2009$ prices @ 7% discount rate over 50-year future period-of-analysis 2012 to 2061]
Subtitle C ‘‘Special Waste’’
1C. Conversion to Dry CCR Disposal.
2.
Regulatory
Benefits
(2A+2B+2C+2D):
2A. Monetized Value of Human
Cancer Risks Avoided.
2B. Groundwater Remediation Costs
Avoided.
2C. CCR Impoundment Failure
Cleanup Costs Avoided.
2D. Induced Impact on CCR
Beneficial Use.
3. Net Benefits (2–1) .........................
4. Benefit/Cost Ratio (2/1) ................
Subtitle D
Subtitle ‘‘D prime’’
$876 ..........................................
$350 ..........................................
$0.
($16,725) to ($15,640) ..............
$85 to $577 ...............................
$43 to $289.
$37 ............................................
$15 ............................................
$8.
$34 ............................................
$12 ............................................
$6.
$128 to $1,212 ..........................
$57 to $550 ...............................
$29 to $275.
($16,923) ...................................
NA .............................................
NA.
($18,199) to ($17,115) ..............
(11.347) to (10.610) ..................
($502) to ($9) ............................
0.145 to 0.983 ...........................
($193) to $52.
0.182 to 1.225.
* Note: Average annualized equivalent values calculated by multiplying 50-year present values by a 50-year 7% discount rate ‘‘capital recovery
factor’’ of 0.07246.
TABLE 12—COMPARISON OF REGULATORY BENEFITS TO COSTS UNDER SCENARIO #3—NO CHANGE TO BENEFICIAL USE
[$Millions @ 2009$ prices @ 7% discount rate over 50-year future period-of-analysis 2012 to 2061]
Subtitle C ‘‘Special Waste’’
Costs
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Present Values:
1. Regulatory Costs (1A+1B+1C):
1A. Engineering Controls ...........
1B. Ancillary Costs .....................
1C. Dry Conversion ...................
2.
Regulatory
Benefits
(2A+2B+2C+2D):
2A. Monetized Value of Human
Cancer Risks Avoided.
2B. Groundwater Remediation
Costs Avoided.
2C. CCR Impoundment Failure
Cleanup Costs Avoided.
2D. Induced Impact on CCR Beneficial Use.
3. Net Benefits (2–1) .........................
4. Benefit/Cost Ratio (2/1) ................
B. Average Annualized Equivalent Values.
1. Regulatory Costs (1A+1B+1C):
1A. Engineering Controls ...........
1B. Ancillary Costs .....................
1C. Dry Conversion ...................
2.
Regulatory
Benefits
(2A+2B+2C+2D):
2A. Monetized Value of Human
Cancer Risks Avoided.
2B. Groundwater Remediation
Costs Avoided.
2C. CCR Impoundment Failure
Cleanup Costs Avoided.
2D. Induced Impact on CCR
Beneficial Use.
3. Net Benefits (2–1) .........................
4. Benefit/Cost Ratio (2/1) ................
Subtitle D
Subtitle ‘‘D prime’’
$20,349 .....................................
$6,780 .......................................
$1,480 .......................................
$12,089 .....................................
$2,732 to $17,702 .....................
$8,095 .......................................
$3,254 .......................................
$5 ..............................................
4,836 .........................................
$1,168 to $7,965 .......................
$3,259.
$3,254.
$5.
$0.
$593 to $3,983.
$504 ..........................................
$207 ..........................................
$104.
$466 ..........................................
$168 ..........................................
$84.
$1,762 to $16,732 .....................
$793 to $7,590 ..........................
$405 to $3,795.
$0 ..............................................
$0 ..............................................
$0.
($17,617) to ($2,647) ................
0.134 to 0.870 ...........................
($6,927) to ($130) .....................
0.144 to 0.984 ...........................
($2,666) to $724.
0.182 to 1.222.
$1,474 .......................................
$491 ..........................................
$107 ..........................................
$876 ..........................................
$198 to $1,283 ..........................
$587 ..........................................
$236 ..........................................
$0.36 .........................................
$350 ..........................................
$85 to $577 ...............................
$236.
$236.
$0.36.
$0.
$43 to $289.
$37 ............................................
$15 ............................................
$8.
$34 ............................................
$12 ............................................
$6.
$128 to $1,212 ..........................
$57 to $550 ...............................
$29 to $275.
$0 ..............................................
$0 ..............................................
$0.
($1,277) to ($192) .....................
0.134 to 0.870 ...........................
($502) to ($9) ............................
0.145 to 0.983 ...........................
($193) to $52.
0.182 to 1.225.
* Note: Average annualized equivalent values calculated by multiplying 50-year present values by a 50-year 7% discount rate ‘‘capital recovery
factor’’ of 0.07246.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:14 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35218
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
EPA seeks comment on data and
findings presented in the RIA, as well as
on the cost and benefit estimation
uncertainty factors identified in the RIA.
D. What are the potential environmental
and public health impacts of the
proposed regulatory alternatives?
The potential environmental and
public health impacts of CCR regulation
assessed within the RIA include the
following three categories:
• Groundwater Benefits (human
health benefits and cleanup costs
avoided)
• Catastrophic Failure Benefits
(catastrophic and significant releases
avoided)
• Beneficial Use Benefits
The analyses of the groundwater
impacts for the RIA were derived based
on results from the risk assessment that
was conducted for coal combustion
residue landfills and surface
impoundments. The second category of
catastrophic impacts in the RIA was
assessed, primarily based upon data on
releases, as reported in EPA’s 2009
Information Collection Request. And
finally, the RIA assessment of beneficial
use impacts was conducted using lifecycle analyses of current types and
quantities of CCR beneficial use in the
U.S. While the RIA focuses on
monetizing these three impact
categories, EPA notes that there are also
likely noncancer health impacts,
ecological impacts, other surface water
impacts, and impacts on the ambient
air, which are not monetized in this
RIA.
1. Environmental and Public Health
Impacts Estimated in the RIA
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Groundwater Impacts
In the RIA, EPA estimated the benefits
of reduced cancer risks and avoided
groundwater remediation costs
associated with controlling arsenic from
landfills and surface impoundments
that manage coal combustion residuals
(CCRs). These estimates are based on
EPA’s risk assessment, which predicts
leaching behavior using SPLP and TCLP
data. Furthermore, recent research and
damage cases indicate that these
leaching tests may under-predict risks
from dry disposal.164 Therefore, the
164 Recent EPA research demonstrates that CCRs
can leach significantly more aggressively under
different pH conditions potentially present in
disposal units. In U.S. EPA (2009c), a recent ORD
study of 34 facilities, CCRs from 19 facilities
exceeded at least one of the Toxicity Characteristic
regulatory values for at least one type of CCR (e.g.,
fly ash or FGD residue) at the self-generated pH of
the material. This behavior likely explains the rapid
migration of constituents from disposal sites like
Chesapeake, VA and Gambrills, MD. See also U.S.
EPA (2006, 2008b).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
benefits estimated in this section are
likely to underestimate the actual
benefits provided by the proposed rule.
EPA bases the cancer cases avoided on
the individual ‘‘excess’’ lifetime cancer
probabilities reported in the risk
assessment, although for the present
analysis, EPA uses more recent science
on arsenic carcinogenicity, reflected in
more recent NRC research.
The RIA began its groundwater
impacts assessment by first segregating
facilities by their individual type of
liner and their respective Waste
Management Unit (WMU) designations.
For each class of facility, GIS data were
used to determine the potentially
affected populations of groundwater
drinkers within 1-mile of the WMU.
Results from the risk assessment were
applied to these populations by using a
linear extrapolation, starting from a risk
of zero—to the peak future risk as
demonstrated by the risk assessment.
The number of people who might
potentially get cancer was then adjusted
to account for more recent research by
the NRC.
Given the number of total potential
cancers, EPA was able to use the same
NRC data to split these cancers into lung
cancers and bladder cancers, as well as
into those that resulted in death versus
those that did not. Once this
subdivision was complete, EPA was
then able to monetize these cancers
using accepted economic values for a
statistical life and cost of illness. In
doing so, EPA was able to take account
of both the potential lag in cancer
cessation and the increase in value of a
statistical life due to increases in
income.
EPA also recognized that due to the
relevant pre-existing state regulations in
this area, fewer cancers than the number
projected would ultimately occur.
Therefore, a baseline was established for
the operation of state regulatory and
remedial programs. This led to the
exclusion of some cancers where states
would likely fill the gap in the absence
of any EPA regulations. However, once
contamination was found by states,
cleanup costs would be incurred. Thus,
EPA accounted for these costs under
each of the regulatory options as well.
Once groundwater remediation costs
and cancer costs under the baseline and
each regulatory option were estimated,
the aggregate benefits from each
regulatory option were calculated (in
comparison to the baseline). Net present
value estimates were generated both at
the 3% and 7% discount rate, as
discussed in further detail within the
RIA. To summarize, at a discount rate of
7%, the net present value of the
groundwater benefits (including both
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the avoided cleanup costs and the value
of cancer cases avoided) from the
proposed rule totaled $970 million
under the subtitle C option, and $375
million under the subtitle D option.
Catastrophic Failure Impacts
The 2008 surface impoundment
failure at the TVA’s Kingston, TN power
plant illustrated that the improper
handling of CCRs can lead to
catastrophic releases. EPA’s co-proposal
for the management of CCRs includes
requirements that would lead to all
plants with surface impoundments
converting to dry handling in landfills
within 5-years of rule implementation.
In the RIA, EPA estimated the avoided
catastrophic failures and associated
cleanup cost savings resulting from this
provision of the rule.
First, EPA began by characterizing the
releases reported in its 2009 Information
Collection Request. In this data set, 42
releases were reported for the years
1995 through 2009. Particularly, there
were 5 significant releases of between 1
million and 1 billion gallons, and one
catastrophic release of over 1 billion
gallons during this time period at coal
fired power plants. Given these historic
releases, EPA projected the occurrence
of future releases using a Poisson
distribution. EPA then estimated future
avoided cleanup costs under the two
proposed rules, and determined net
present values of these benefits using
both a 3% and 7% discount rate across
the average and upper percentiles of risk
demonstrated by the results of the
Poisson distribution. The full details of
these analyses are reported in the RIA.
To summarize the results here at the 7%
discount rate, the estimated net present
value of avoided releases under the
subtitle C requirements total $1,762
million on average (with the upperbound estimates reaching from $3,140 to
$4,177 million for the 90th and 99th
percentiles). And under the subtitle D
requirements and discount rate of 7%,
the estimated net present value of
avoided releases total $793 million on
average (with the upper-bound
estimates reaching from $1,413 to
$1,880 million for the 90th and 99th
percentiles).
In addition, a second Poisson
distribution was developed as a
sensitivity analysis, using an alternative
historical rate of occurrence. This was
done to see to what extent an increased
release rate would pose in terms of
greater risks. Given the age of many CCR
surface impoundments, an increase in
the release rate might be expected. The
cleanup costs avoided under the two coproposed rules were again calculated as
described above and included in the
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
RIA, given this alternative higher
occurrence rate. To summarize the
results of this sensitivity analysis, at a
7% discount rate the estimated net
present value of avoided releases under
the subtitle C requirements total $5,154
million on average (with the upperbound estimates reaching from $7,356 to
$9,423 million for the 90th and 99th
percentiles). And under the subtitle D
requirements and same discount rate of
7%, the estimated net present value of
avoided releases total $2,319 million on
average (with the upper-bound
estimates reaching from $3,310 to
$4,240 million for the 90th and 99th
percentiles).
Finally, a further sensitivity analysis
was also performed to determine the
extent to which these benefits would
change if the catastrophic failures
occurred sooner than projected by the
Poisson distribution. Here, 96
impoundments were identified that
were at least 40 feet tall and at least 25
years old. For the purposes of the
assessment, benefit estimates were
calculated based on assumed
impoundment failure rates of both 10%
and 20%. The RIA includes net present
value estimates of the avoided cleanup
costs under the two co-proposed rules
for these two assumed failure rates,
which are calculated using both 3% and
7% discount rates. Given the potential
earlier releases, the analyses in the RIA
find that at a 7% discount rate and a
10% failure rate, the net present value
of avoided catastrophic failure costs is
$8,366 under subtitle C, versus $3,795
million under subtitle D. Furthermore,
when assuming a failure rate of 20%
rather than 10%, the estimated net
present value of avoided catastrophic
failure costs increases to $16,732
million under Subtitle C, versus $7,590
million under subtitle D.
Beneficial Use Impacts
The last category of such impacts
assessed within the RIA includes the
potential effects that the different
regulatory options for disposal of coal
combustion residuals (CCRs) may have
upon the quantities of CCRs that are
being beneficially used. In the RIA, EPA
estimates the expected increase in
beneficial use associated with the
increased costs of disposing CCRs, and
also evaluates potential future changes
in the beneficial uses of CCRs as a result
of a potential ‘‘stigma’’ effect.
To begin, EPA projected the quantity
of CCRs that will be produced in the
future, based upon Energy Information
Administration’s (EIA) estimates of
future coal supply and demand. At the
same time, EPA also projected the
growth in the percent of beneficial use
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
that would take place absent any EPA
rule. Combining these, EPA was able to
project the total quantities of
beneficially used CCRs under the
baseline of no federal rule.
However, it is anticipated that the
increased CCR disposal costs associated
with a federal RCRA subtitle C rule, and
the continued application of the Bevill
exclusion to CCRs that are beneficially
used, would provide significant
incentive to electric utilities avoid
higher disposal costs by increasing the
quantity of CCRs going to beneficial use.
Using the cost projections from the RIA
for CCR disposal, EPA assumed that
there would initially be unit elasticity
with respect to cost, but that the
elasticity would decrease with
increasing market saturation. Based
upon these assumptions, EPA projected
the increased growth in beneficial use
under a subtitle C rule. EPA then took
the monetized benefits of current
beneficial use, and applied them to our
projected increases in beneficial use
under the rule.
When monetized, the values of these
increases are extremely large, summing
to a net present value of $5,560 million
in economic benefits at a 7% discount
rate. Furthermore, when considering
total social benefits (e.g., decreased GHG
emissions) the numbers are even greater,
resulting in $84,489 million at a 7%
discount rate. (Please note that because
the total social benefits overlap with the
economic benefits, these numbers
should not be added together.) This
number represents EPA’s lower-bound
estimate of the potential increase that it
anticipates will occur.
On the basis of past experience, EPA
believes it is realistic to expect that
there is a possibility that recycling rates
will increase under a subtitle C rule,
increasing the beneficial use of CCRs.
However, stakeholders have raised the
potential issue of ‘‘stigma.’’ Thus, the
RIA also assesses this potential stigma
effect and develops estimates of its
potential impacts. Here, assumptions
were made about what losses or
reductions might result among the
various sectors involved in the
beneficial use of CCRs. For example,
federally purchased concrete was
assumed to stay at baseline levels
because of the positive influence of
comprehensive procurement guidelines
that are already in place to encourage
such types of beneficial uses.
Conversely, for the purposes of
assessing potential stigma effects, the
levels of non-federally purchased
concrete were assumed to decrease
relative to the baseline.
When monetized, the values of these
decreases are also large, summing to a
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35219
net present value of $18,744 million in
economic costs at a 7% discount rate.
Furthermore, when considering total
social benefits (e.g., GHG emissions) the
numbers are even greater, resulting in
$233,549 million in economic costs at a
7% discount rate. This number
represents EPA’s estimate of the
potential worst-case decrease that could
occur in the event of potential stigma
effect.
Since the potential increases in
beneficial use as discussed above are
driven largely by increases in disposal
costs under the subtitle C option, EPA
further estimated the effects that would
result under a subtitle D rule by
applying a ratio of the rule’s respective
costs under both the C and D options.
Using the ratio of the subtitle D costs to
the subtitle C costs (a ratio of 0.40:1);
the net present value of social benefits
associated with increased beneficial use
under subtitle D would be
approximately $33,796 million (at an
assumed discount rate of 7%). It is
important to note further that under the
subtitle D option for the proposed rule,
no such stigma effect would exist and is,
therefore, not accounted for in our
analyses. However, to the extent that a
stigma effect is real, it could just as
easily decrease beneficial use under a
subtitle D option.
2. Environmental and Public Health
Impacts Not Estimated in the RIA
Impacts on Plants and Wildlife
The risk assessment estimated
significant risk of adverse effects to
plants and wildlife, which is confirmed
by the many impacts seen in the
existing damage cases and field studies
published in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature. These include:
elevated selenium levels in migratory
birds, wetland vegetative damage, fish
kills, amphibian deformities, snake
metabolic effects, plant toxicity,
elevated contaminant levels in
mammals as a result of environmental
uptake, fish deformities, and inhibited
fish reproductive capacity.
Requirements in the proposed rule
should prevent or reduce these impacts
in the future by limiting the extent of
environmental contamination and
thereby reducing the levels directly
available.
Impacts on Surface Water Not Captured
in the RIA
In EPA’s risk assessment, recreational
fishers could be exposed to constituents
via the groundwater to surface water
pathway. Furthermore, State Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)
and National Pollutant Discharge
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35220
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Elimination System (NPDES) discharges
from wet handling likely exceed the
discharges from groundwater to surface
water. Thus, exposure to arsenic via fish
consumption could be significant.
However, EPA expects that most
facilities will eventually switch to dry
handling of CCRs, a trend which is
discussed in the RIA. This will reduce
potential exposures to these
constituents from affected fish.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Impacts on Ambient Air
Another impact on public health not
discussed in the RIA is the potential
reduction of excess cancer cases
associated with hexavalent chromium
inhaled from the air. Since over six
million individuals are estimated to live
within the Census population data ‘‘zip
code tabulation areas’’ for the plant
location zip codes of coal-fired power
plants affected by this proposed rule,165
the potential population health effects
may be quite large. Inhalation of
hexavalent chromium has been shown
to cause lung cancer.166 By requiring
fugitive dust controls, the proposed rule
would reduce inhalation exposure to
hexavalent chromium near waste
management units that are not currently
required to control fugitive dust.
settling include: changing the pH of
lakes and streams; changing the nutrient
balance in coastal waters and large river
basins; depleting nutrients in soil;
damaging sensitive forests and farm
crops; and affecting the diversity of
ecosystems.168 Additionally, fine
particulates are known to contribute to
haze.169 Thus, the fugitive dust controls
contained in the proposed rule would
improve visibility, and reduce the
environmental impacts discussed above.
XIII. Other Alternatives EPA
Considered
In determining the level of regulation
appropriate for the management of
CCRs, taking into account both the need
for regulations to protect human health
and the environment and the practical
difficulties associated with
implementation of such regulations, the
Agency considered a number of
approaches in addition to regulating
CCRs under subtitle C or subtitle D of
RCRA. Specifically, the Agency also
considered several combination
approaches, such as regulating surface
impoundments under subtitle C of
RCRA, while regulating landfills under
subtitle D of RCRA.
Under all of the approaches EPA
considered, CCRs that were beneficially
Non-Cancer Health Effects Associated
used would retain the Bevill exemption.
With CCR Particulate Matter
In addition, under all the approaches,
There are several non-cancer health
requirements for liners and ground
effects associated with CCRs are a result water monitoring would be established,
of particulate matter inhalation due to
as well as annual inspections of all CCR
dry handling. Human health effects for
surface impoundments by an
which EPA is evaluating causality due
independent registered professional
to particulate matter exposure include
engineer to ensure that the design,
cardiovascular morbidity, respiratory
operation, and maintenance of surface
morbidity, and mortality, reproductive
impoundments are in accordance with
and developmental effects, and
recognized and generally accepted good
cancer.167 The potential for and extent
engineering standards. However, the
of adverse health effects due to fugitive
degree and extent of EPA’s authority to
dusts from dry handling of CCRs was
promulgate certain requirements, such
demonstrated in U.S. EPA 2010b,
as permitting, financial assurance,
‘‘Inhalation of Fugitive Dust: A
facility-wide corrective action, varies
Screening Assessment of the Risks
under RCRA subtitle C versus subtitle D.
Posed by Coal Combustion Waste
In addition, the degree and extent of
Landfills—DRAFT.’’ The proposed rule’s federal oversight, including
fugitive dust controls would serve to
enforcement, varies based on whether a
manage such potential risks by bringing regulation is promulgated under RCRA
them to acceptable levels.
subtitle C or subtitle D authority. (See
Particles can also be carried over long Section IV. for a more detailed
distances by wind and then settle on
discussion on the differences in EPA’s
ground or water. The effects of this
authorities under RCRA subtitle C and
subtitle D.)
165 U.S. EPA. Regulatory Impact Analysis for
Under one such approach, wetEPA’s Proposed Regulation of Coal Combustion
handled CCRs—that is, those CCRs
Wastes Generated by the Electric Utility Industry,
managed in surface impoundments or
2009. Office of Resource Conservation and
similar management units—would be
Recovery.
166 ATSDR Texas. Available at: https://
regulated as a hazardous or special
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html.
waste under RCRA subtitle C, while dry
167 Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate
handled CCRs—that is, those CCRs
Matter: First External Review Draft. EPA/600/R–08/
139. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development. 2008.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
168 https://www.epa.gov/particles/health.html.
169 Ibid.
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
managed in landfills—would be
regulated under RCRA subtitle D. Wethandled CCR wastes would be regulated
under the co-proposed subtitle C
alternative described earlier in the
preamble (see section VI), while dryhandled CCRs would be regulated under
the co-proposed RCRA subtitle D
alternative described earlier in the
preamble (see section IX). In addition,
EPA would retain the existing Bevill
exemption for CCRs that are beneficially
used. Under this approach, EPA would
establish modified requirements for wethandled CCRs, pursuant to RCRA
3004(x), as laid out in the co-proposed
subtitle C alternative.
This approach would have many of
the benefits of both of today’s coproposed regulations. For example, this
approach provides a high degree of
federal oversight, including permit
requirements and federally enforceable
requirements, for surface
impoundments and similar units that
manage wet CCRs. Based on the results
of our ground water risk assessment, it
would also provide a higher level of
protection for those wastes whose
method of management presents the
greatest risks (i.e., surface
impoundments). On the other hand, dry
CCRs managed in landfills, while still
presenting a risk if the CCRs are not
properly managed, clearly present a
lower risk, according to the risk
assessment and, therefore, a subtitle D
approach might be more appropriate.
Also, landfills that manage CCRs are
unlikely to present a risk of catastrophic
failure, such as that posed by surface
impoundments that contain large
volumes of wet-handled CCRs. EPA also
believes this approach could address the
concerns of many commenters who
expressed their views that subtitle C
regulations would overwhelm off-site
disposal capacity and would place a
stigma on beneficial uses of CCRs.
Of course, this approach also shares
the disadvantages of the subtitle C
approach, as it applies to surface
impoundments, and of the subtitle D
approach, as it applies to landfills. For
example, portions of the rules
applicable to surface impoundments
would not become enforceable until
authorized states adopt the subtitle C
regulations and become authorized; and
rules applicable to landfills would not
be directly federally enforceable. For a
full discussion of the advantages and
disadvantages of the subtitle C and
subtitle D options see sections VI and
IX.
Under another approach considered
by EPA, the Agency would issue the
proposed subtitle C regulations, but they
would not go into effect for some time
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
period, such as three years, as an
example, after promulgation. The rule
would include a condition that would
exclude CCRs from regulation under
subtitle C of RCRA in states that: (l) Had
developed final enforceable subtitle D
regulations that are protective of human
health and the environment,170 (2) had
submitted those regulations to EPA for
review within two years after the
promulgation date of EPA’s subtitle C
rule, and (3) EPA had approved within
one year, through a process allowing for
notice and comment, possibly
comparable to the current MSW subtitle
D approval process. If a state failed to
develop such a program within the two
year timeframe for state adoption of the
regulations or if EPA did not approve a
state program within the one-year
timeframe for state approval, the
hazardous waste or special waste listing
would become effective. Under this
alternative, each state would be
evaluated individually, which could
lead to a situation where CCRs were
managed as hazardous or special wastes
in certain states, while in other states,
they would be managed as nonhazardous wastes. Such an approach
could present some implementation
issues, particularly if CCRs were
transported across state lines. In
addition, EPA has serious questions as
to whether RCRA, as currently drafted,
would allow EPA to promulgate such a
regulation. However, EPA solicits
comments on this option, both generally
and with respect to the specific time
frames.
Commenters also have suggested an
approach similar to that proposed for
cement kiln dust (CKD) in an August 20,
1999 proposed rule (see 64 FR 45632
available at https://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA–WASTE/1999/August/
Day-20/f20546.htm). Under the CKD
approach, the Agency would establish
detailed management standards under
subtitle D of RCRA. CCRs managed in
accordance with the standards would
not be a hazardous or special waste.
However, CCRs that were in egregious
violation of these requirements, such as
disposal in land-based disposal units
that were not monitored for
groundwater releases or in new units
built without liners, would be
considered listed hazardous or special
waste and subject to the tailored subtitle
C requirements. (EPA is soliciting
comment on this approach because
commenters have suggested it;
170 Under this approach, EPA also would
establish minimum national standards that ensure
that CCRs that are managed under the ‘‘D’’
regulations would be protective of human health
and the environment.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
interested commenters may wish to
consult the CKD proposal for more
detail on how it would work. See 64 FR
45632 available at https://www.epa.gov/
epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/
ckd/ckd/ckd-fr.pdf). Like the previous
approach, EPA is evaluating (and in fact
is re-evaluating) this approach, and
whether RCRA provides EPA the
authority to promulgate such a rule.
Other commenters suggested yet
another approach whereby EPA would
regulate CCRs going for disposal under
RCRA subtitle C, but they assert that
EPA would not have to specifically list
CCR as a hazardous waste using the
criteria established in 40 CFR 261.11.
These commenters believe that RCRA
§ 3001(b)(3)(A) (the so-called Bevill
Amendment) authorizes the Agency to
regulate CCRs under subtitle C as long
as the Agency determines that subtitle C
regulation is warranted based on the
consideration of the eight factors
identified in RCRA § 8002(n). The
commenters analysis of their approach
is set forth in a memorandum submitted
to the Agency and is in the docket for
today’s notice. EPA has not adopted the
commenters suggested reading of the
statute, but solicits comments on it. (See
‘‘EPA Has Clear Authority to Regulate
CCW under RCRA’s Subtitle C without
Making a Formal Listing
Determination,’’ White Paper from Eric
Schaeffer, Environmental Integrity
Project which is available in the docket
for this proposal.)
Finally, some commenters have
suggested that EPA not promulgate any
standards, whether it be RCRA subtitle
C or D, but continue to rely on the states
to regulate CCRs under their existing or
new state authority, and that EPA could
rely on RCRA section 7003 (imminent
and substantial endangerment)
authority, to the extent the Agency had
information that a problem existed that
it needed to address. The Agency does
not believe that such an approach is at
all acceptable, and that national
regulations whether it be under RCRA
subtitle C or D needs to be promulgated.
First, RCRA was designed as a
preventative statute and not one where
EPA would get involved only after a
problem has been discovered. Thus,
such an approach would not be
consistent with the purpose and
objectives of RCRA. In addition, this
approach would basically implement
the status quo—that is, the control of
CCRs over the last decade, which the
Agency believes has not shown to be at
all acceptable. Furthermore, imminent
and substantial endangerment authority
is facility-specific and resource
intensive. That is, such authority can
only be used when EPA has sufficient
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35221
information to determine that disposal
of CCRs are contributing to an imminent
and substantial endangerment. Thus,
relying on this authority, without
national regulations, is poorly suited to
address the many problems that have
occurred, and are likely to occur in the
future. Nevertheless, the Agency solicits
comment on such an approach.
EPA solicits comments on all of the
approaches discussed above. The
Agency is still considering all of these
approaches, as well as our legal
authorities to promulgate them, and will
continue to do so as we move toward
finalizing the regulations applicable to
the disposal of CCRs.
XIV. Is the EPA soliciting comments on
specific issues?
Throughout today’s preamble, the
Agency has identified many issues for
which it is soliciting comment along
with supporting information and data.
In order to assist readers in providing
EPA comments and supporting
information, in this section EPA is
identifying many of the major issues on
which comments with supporting
information and data are requested.
Management of CCRs
• Whether regulatory approaches
should be established individually for
the four Bevill CCR wastes (fly ash,
bottom ash, boiler slag, and FGD
sludges) when destined for disposal.
• The extent to which the information
currently available to EPA reflects
current industry practices at both older
and new units.
• The regulatory approaches
proposed in the notice and the
alternative approaches EPA is
considering as discussed in Section XIII
of the preamble.
• The Agency has documented,
through proven damage cases and risk
analyses, that the wet handling of CCRs
in surface impoundments poses higher
risks to human health and the
environment than the dry handling of
CCRs in landfills. EPA seeks comments
on the standards proposed in this notice
to protect human health and the
environment from the wet handling of
CCRs. For example, in light of the TVA
Kingston, Tennessee, and the Martins
Creek, Pennsylvania CCR impoundment
failures, should the Agency require that
owners or operators of existing and new
CCR surface impoundments submit
emergency response plans to the
regulatory authority if wet handling of
CCRs is practiced?
• The degree to which coal refuse
management practices have changed
and the impacts of those changes or, for
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35222
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
example, groundwater monitoring and
the use of liners.
• Information and data on CCRs that
are generated by non-utility industries,
such as volumes generated,
characteristics of the CCRs, and whether
they are co-managed with other wastes
generated by the non-utility industry.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Risk Assessment
• Are there any additional data that
are representative of CCR constituents
in surface impoundment or landfill
leachate (from literature, state files,
industry or other sources) that EPA has
not identified and should be used in
evaluating the risks presented by the
land disposal of CCRs?
• The screening analysis conducted
to estimate risks from fugitive CCR dust;
data from any ambient air monitoring
for particulate matter that has been
conducted; where air monitoring
stations are located near CCR landfills
or surface impoundments; and
information on any techniques, such as
wetting, compaction, or daily cover that
are or can be employed to reduce such
exposures.
• Whether site-averaged porewater
data used in model runs in EPA’s risk
analyses are representative of leachate
from surface impoundments.
• Information and data regarding the
existence of drinking water wells that
are down-gradient of CCR disposal
units, any monitoring data that exists on
those monitoring wells and the potential
of these wells to be intercepted by
surface water bodies.
Liners
• Whether, in addition to the
flexibility provided by section
3004(o)(2), regulations should also
provide for alternative liner designs
based on, for example, a specific
performance standard, such as the
performance standard in 40 CFR
258.40(a)(1), or a site specific risk
assessment, or a standard that the
alternative liner, such as a clay liner,
was at least as effective as the composite
liner.
• Whether clay liners designed to
meet a 1 × 10¥7 cm/sec hydraulic
conductivity might perform differently
in practice than modeled in the risk
assessment, including specific data on
the hydraulic conductivity of clay liners
associated with CCR disposal units.
• The effectiveness of such additives
as organosilanes, including any analyses
that would reflect long-term
performance of the additives, as well as
the appropriateness of a performance
standard that would allow the use of
these additives in lieu of composite
liners.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
Beneficial Use
• The growth and maturation of state
beneficial use programs and the growing
recognition that the beneficial use of
CCRs is a critical component in
strategies to reduce GHG emissions
taking into account the potentially
changing composition of CCRs as a
result of improved air pollution controls
and the new science on metals leaching.
• Information and data on the extent
to which states request and evaluate
CCR characterization data prior to the
beneficial use of unencapsulated CCRs.
• The appropriate means of
characterizing beneficial uses that are
both protective of human health and the
environment and provide benefits. EPA
is also requesting information and data
demonstrating where the federal and
state programs could improve on being
environmentally protective and, where
states have, or are developing,
increasingly effective beneficial use
programs.
• Whether certain uses of CCRs (e.g.,
uses involving unencapsulated uses of
CCRs) warrant tighter control and why
such tighter control is necessary.
• If EPA determines that regulations
are needed for the beneficial use of
CCRs, should EPA consider removing
the Bevill exemption for such uses and
regulate these uses under RCRA subtitle
C, develop regulations under RCRA
subtitle D or some other statutory
authority, such as under the Toxic
Substances Control Act?
• Whether it is necessary to define
beneficial use better or develop detailed
guidance on the beneficial use of CCRs
to ensure protection of human health
and the environment, including whether
certain unencapsulated beneficial uses
should be prohibited.
• Whether the Agency should
promulgate standards allowing uses on
the land, on a site-specific basis, based
on site specific risk assessments, taking
into consideration the composition of
CCRs, their leaching potential under the
range of conditions under which the
CCRs would be managed, and the
context in which CCRs would be
applied, such as location, volume, rate
of application, and proximity to water.
• If materials characterization is
required, what type of characterization
is most appropriate? If the CCRs exceed
the toxicity characteristic at pH levels
different from the TCLP, should they be
excluded from beneficial use? When are
totals levels relevant?
• Whether EPA should fully develop
a leaching assessment tool in
combination with the Draft SW–846
leaching test methods described in
Section I. F. 2 and other tools (e.g.,
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
USEPA’s Industrial Waste Management
Evaluation Model (IWEM)) to aid
prospective beneficial users in
calculating potential release rates over a
specified period of time for a range of
management scenarios.
• Information and data relating to the
agricultural use of FGD gypsum,
including the submission of historical
data, taking into account the impact of
pH on leaching potential of metals, the
variable and changing nature of CCRs,
and variable site conditions.
• Historically, EPA has proposed or
imposed conditions on other types of
hazardous wastes used in a manner
constituting disposal (e.g., maximum
application rates and risk-based
concentration limits for cement kiln
dust used as a liming agent in
agricultural applications (see 64 FR
45639; August 20, 1999); maximum
allowable total concentrations for nonnutritive and toxic metals in zinc
fertilizers produced from recycled
hazardous secondary materials (see 67
FR 48393; July 24, 2002). Should EPA
establish standards, such as maximum/
minimum thresholds, or rely on
implementing states to impose CCR sitespecific limits based on front-end
characterization that ensures individual
beneficial uses remain protective?
• Whether additional beneficial uses
of CCRs have been established, since the
May 2000 Regulatory Determination,
that have not been discussed elsewhere
in today’s preamble. The Agency solicits
comment on any new uses of CCR, as
well as the information and data which
support that CCRs are beneficially used
in an environmentally sound manner.
• Whether there are incentives that
could be provided that would increase
the amount of CCRs that are beneficially
used and comment on specific
incentives that EPA could adopt that
would further encourage the beneficial
use of CCRs.
• Information and data on the best
means for estimating current and future
quantities and changes in the beneficial
use of CCRs, as well as on the price
elasticity of CCR applications in the
beneficial use market.
Stigma
• If EPA were to regulate CCRs as a
‘‘special waste’’ under subtitle C of
RCRA, and stigma turns out to be an
issue, suggestions on methods by which
the Agency could reduce any stigmatic
impact that might indirectly arise. We
are seeking information on actual
instances where ‘‘stigma’’ has adversely
affected the beneficial use of CCRs and
the causes of these adverse effects.
• The issue of ‘‘stigma’’ and its impact
on beneficial uses of CCRs, including
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
more specifics on the potential for
procedural difficulties for state
programs, and measures that EPA might
adopt to try to mitigate these effects.
• For those commenters who argue
that regulating CCRs under subtitle C of
RCRA would raise liability issues, EPA
requests that commenters describe the
types of liability and the basis/data/
information on which these claims are
based.
• EPA furthermore welcomes ideas
on how to best estimate these effects for
purposes of conducting regulatory
impact analysis, and requests any data
or methods that would assist in this
effort.
Today’s Co-Proposed Regulations
General
• Some commenters have suggested
that EPA not promulgate any standards,
whether they be RCRA subtitle C or D,
but continue to rely on the states to
regulate CCRs under their existing or
new state authorities. The Agency
solicits comment on such an approach,
including how such an approach would
be protective of human health and the
environment.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
RCRA Subtitle C Regulations
• Whether EPA should modify the
corrective action requirements for
facility-wide corrective action under the
subtitle C co-proposal under the
authority of section 3004(x) of RCRA. If
so, how such modification would be
protective of human health and the
environment.
• Pursuant to RCRA section 3010 and
40 CFR 270.1(b), facilities managing
these special wastes subject to RCRA
subtitle C must notify EPA of their
waste management activities within 90
days after the wastes are identified or
listed as a special waste. The Agency is
proposing to waive this notification
requirement for persons who handle
CCRs and have already: (1) notified EPA
that they manage hazardous wastes, and
(2) received an EPA identification
number. Should such persons be
required to re-notify the Agency that
they generate, transport, treat, store or
dispose of CCRs?
• Representatives of the utility
industry have stated their view that
CCRs cannot be practically or cost
effectively managed under the existing
RCRA subtitle C storage standards, and
that these standards impose significant
costs without meaningful benefits when
applied specifically to CCRs. Comments
are solicited on the practicality of the
proposed subtitle C storage
requirements for CCRs, the workability
of the existing variance process allowing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
alternatives to secondary containment,
and the alternative requirements based,
for example, on the mining and mineral
processing waste storage requirements.
RCRA Subtitle D Regulations
• EPA broadly solicits comment on
the approach of relying on certifications
by independent registered professional
hydrologists or engineers of the
adequacy of actions taken at coal-fired
utilities to design and operate safe waste
management systems.
• The Agency does not have specific
data showing the number of CCR
landfills located in fault areas where
movement along Holocene faults is
common, and the distance between
these units and the active faults and,
thus, is unable to precisely estimate the
number of these existing CCR landfills
that would not meet today’s proposed
fault area restrictions. Additional
information regarding the extent to
which existing landfills are currently
located in such locations is solicited.
• In general, EPA believes that a 200foot buffer zone is necessary to protect
engineered structures from seismic
damages and also expects that the 200foot buffer is appropriate for CCR
surface impoundments. The Agency
seeks comment and data on whether the
buffer zone should be greater for surface
impoundments.
• Additional information regarding
the extent to which landfill capacity
would be affected by applying the
proposed subtitle D location restrictions
to existing CCR landfills.
• The proposed location requirements
do not reflect a complete prohibition on
siting facilities in areas of concern, but
provide a performance standard that
facilities must meet in order to site a
unit in such a location. Information on
the extent to which facilities could
comply with the proposed performance
standards, and the necessary costs that
would be incurred to retrofit CCR
disposal units to meet these standards is
solicited.
• The proposed definition of seismic
impact zones and whether there are
variants that could lessen the burden on
the industry and the geographic areas
covered by the proposed definition.
• Whether the subtitle D option, if
promulgated, should allow facilities to
use alternative designs for new disposal
units, so long as the owner or operator
of a unit could obtain certification from
an independent registered professional
engineer or hydrologist that the
alternative design would ensure that the
appropriate concentration values for a
set of constituents typical of CCRs will
not be exceeded in the uppermost
aquifer at the relevant point of
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35223
compliance (i.e., 150 meters from the
unit boundary down gradient from the
unit, or the property boundary if the
point of compliance is beyond the
property boundary).
• Whether there could be homeland
security implications with the
requirement to post information on an
internet site and whether posting certain
information on the internet may
duplicate information that is already
available to the public through the State.
• Whether the subtitle ‘‘D prime’’
option is protective of human health
and the environment.
• EPA is proposing that existing CCR
landfills and surface impoundments
that cannot make a showing that a CCR
landfill or surface impoundment can be
operated safely in a floodplain or
unstable area must close within five
years after the effective date of the rule.
EPA solicits comment on the
appropriate amount of time necessary to
meet this requirement, as well as
measures that could help to address the
potential for inadequate disposal
capacity.
• The effectiveness of annual surface
impoundment assessments in ensuring
the structural integrity of CCR surface
impoundments over the long term.
Surface Impoundment Closeout
• Whether the Agency should provide
for a variance process allowing some
surface impoundments that manage wethandled CCRs to remain in operation
because they present minimal risk to
groundwater (e.g., because they have a
composite liner) and minimal risk of a
catastrophic release (e.g., as indicated
by a low or less than low potential
hazard rating under the Federal
Guidelines for Dam Safety established
by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency).
Surface Impoundment Stability
• The adequacy of EPA’s proposals to
address surface impoundment integrity
under RCRA.
• Whether to address all CCR
impoundments for stability, 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. If commenters believe
that other regulations or different size
cut-offs should be adopted, we request
that commenters provide the basis and
technical support for their position.
• Whether surface impoundment
integrity should be addressed under
EPA’s NPDES permit program, rather
than the development of regulations
under RCRA, whether it be RCRA
subtitles C or D.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35224
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Financial Assurance
• EPA broadly solicits comments on
whether financial assurance should be a
key program element under a subtitle D
approach, if the decision is made to
promulgate regulations under RCRA
subtitle D.
• Whether financial responsibility
requirements under CERCLA § 108(b)
should be a key Agency focus for
ensuring that funds are available for
addressing the mismanagement of CCRs.
• How the financial assurance
requirements might apply to surface
impoundments that cease receiving
CCRs before the effective date of the
rule.
• Whether a financial test similar to
that in 40 CFR 258.74(f) in the Criteria
for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
should be established for local
governments that own and operate coalfired power plants.
State Programs
• Detailed information on current and
past individual state regulatory and
non-regulatory approaches taken to
ensure the safe management of CCRs,
not only under State waste authorities,
but under other authorities as well,
including the implementation of those
approaches.
• The potential of federal regulations
to cause disruption to States’
implementation of CCR regulatory
programs under their own authorities,
including more specifics on the
potential for procedural difficulties for
State programs, and measures that EPA
might adopt to try to mitigate these
effects.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Damage Cases
• EPRI’s report and additional data
regarding the proven damage cases
identified by EPA, especially the degree
to which there was off-site
contamination.
• The report of additional damage
cases submitted to EPA on February 24,
2010 by the Environmental Integrity
Project and EarthJustice.
Regulatory Impact Analysis
• Data and findings presented in the
RIA, as well as on the cost and benefit
estimation uncertainty factors identified
in the RIA.
• Data on the costs of converting coal
fired power plants from wet handling to
dry handling with respect to the various
air pollution controls, transportation
systems, disposal units, and other
heterogeneous factors.
• Relevant RCRA corrective actions
and related costs that would be useful
in characterizing the potential costs for
future actions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
• Information on other significant and
catastrophic surface impoundment
releases of CCRs or other similar
materials and cleanup costs associated
with these releases?
• Data on the costs of storage of CCRs
in tanks or tank systems, on pads, or in
buildings.
• EPA has also quantified and
monetized the benefits of this rule to the
extent possible based on available data
and modeling tools, but welcomes
additional data that may be available
that would assist the Agency in
expanding and refining our existing
benefit estimates.
XV. Executive Orders and Laws
Addressed in This Action
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive
Order (EO) 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
(section 3(f)(1)). This determination is
based on the regulatory cost estimates
provided in EPA’s ‘‘Regulatory Impact
Analysis’’ (RIA) which is available in the
docket for this proposal. The RIA
estimated regulatory implementation
and compliance costs, benefits and net
benefits for a number of regulatory
options, including a subtitle C ‘‘special
waste’’ option, a subtitle D option and,
a subtitle ‘‘D prime’’ option. The subtitle
D prime option was briefly described in
the Preamble and is more fully
discussed in the RIA to the co-proposal.
On an average annualized basis, the
estimated regulatory compliance costs
for the three options in today’s proposed
action are $1,474 million (subtitle C
special waste), $587 million (subtitle D),
and $236 million (subtitle ‘‘D prime’’)
per year. On an average annualized
basis, the estimated regulatory benefits
for the three options in today’s proposed
action are $6,320 to $7,405 million
(subtitle C special waste), $2,533 to
$3,026 million (subtitle D), and $1,023
to $1,268 million (subtitle ‘‘D prime’’)
per year. On an average annualized
basis, the estimated regulatory net
benefits for the three options in today’s
proposed action are $4,845 to $5,930
million (subtitle C special waste),
$1,947 to $2,439 million (subtitle D),
and $786 to $1,032 million (subtitle ‘‘D
prime’’) per year. All options exceed
$100 million in expected future annual
effect. Accordingly, EPA submitted this
action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under EO
12866, and changes made in response to
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
OMB recommendations are documented
in the docket for this proposal.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements contained in this proposed
rule has been submitted for approval to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 1189.22.
Today’s action co-proposes two
regulatory alternatives that would
regulate the disposal of CCRs under
RCRA. The regulatory options described
in today’s notice contain mandatory
information collection requirements.
One of the regulatory options (subtitle C
special waste option) would also trigger
mandatory emergency notification
requirements for releases of hazardous
substances to the environment under
CERCLA and EPCRA. The labor hour
burden and associated cost for these
requirements are estimated in the ICR
‘‘Supporting Statement’’ for today’s
proposed action. The Supporting
Statement identifies and estimates the
burden for the following nine categories
of information collection: (the proposed
options also contain other regulatory
requirements not listed here because
they do not involve information
collection).
1. Groundwater monitoring
2. Post-closure groundwater monitoring
3. RCRA manifest cost (for subtitle C
only)
4. Added cost of RCRA subtitle C
permits for all offsite CCR landfills
5. Structural integrity inspections
6. RCRA facility-wide investigation (for
subtitle C only)
7. RCRA TSDF hazardous waste
disposal permit (for subtitle C only)
8. RCRA enforcement inspection (for
subtitle C only)
9. Recordkeeping requirements
Based on the same data and cost
calculations applied in the ‘‘Regulatory
Impact Analysis’’ (RIA) for today’s
action, but using the burden estimation
methods for ICRs, the ICR ‘‘Supporting
Statement’’ estimates an average annual
labor hour burden of 2.88 million hours
for the subtitle C ‘‘special waste’’ option
and 1.38 million hours for both the
subtitle D and ‘‘D prime’’ options at an
average annual cost of $192.93 million
for the subtitle C ‘‘special waste’’ option
and $92.6 million for both the subtitle
D options. One-time capital and hourly
costs are included in these estimates
based on a three-year annualization
period. The estimated number of likely
respondents (under the options) ranges
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
from 90 to 495, depending on the
information category enumerated above.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
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
EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed
in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency’s need for
this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any
suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, EPA has established
a public docket for this rule, which
includes this ICR, under Docket ID
number EPA–HQ–RCRA–2009–0640.
Submit any comments related to the ICR
to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this notice
for where to submit comments to EPA.
Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.
Since OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after June 21, 2010, a
comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it
by July 21, 2010. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s rule on small entities in the
electric utility industry, small entity is
defined as: (1) A small fossil fuel
electric utility plant as defined by
NAICS code 221112 with a threshold of
less than four million megawatt-hours of
electricity output generated per year
(based on Small Business
Administration size standards); (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government based on municipalities
with a population of less than 50,000;
and (3) a small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:14 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
EPA certifies that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
(i.e., no SISNOSE). EPA nonetheless
continues to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcomes
comments on issues related to such
impacts, including our estimated count
of small entities that own the 495
electric utility plants covered by this
rule. This certification is based on the
small business analysis contained in the
RIA for today’s proposal, which
contains the following findings and
estimates.
• The RIA identifies 495 electric
utility plants likely affected by the
proposed rule, based on 2007 data. The
RIA estimates these 495 plants are
owned by 200 entities consisting of 121
companies, 18 cooperative
organizations, 60 state or local
governmental jurisdictions, and one
Federal government Agency. The RIA
estimates that 51 of these 200 owner
entities (i.e., 26%) may be classified as
small entities, consisting of 33 small
municipal governments, 11 small
companies, 6 small cooperatives, plus 1
small county government.
• The RIA includes a set of higher
cost estimates for the regulatory options
and the RFA evaluation is based on
these estimates and therefore
overestimates potential impacts of our
proposed regulations. The RIA
estimated that (a) None of the 51 small
entities may experience average
annualized regulatory compliance costs
of greater than three percent of annual
revenues, (b) one to five of the 51 small
entities (i.e., 2% to 10%) may
experience regulatory costs greater than
one percent of annual revenues, and (c)
46 to 50 of the small entities (i.e., 90%
to 98%) may experience regulatory costs
less than one percent of annual
revenues. These percentages constitute
the basis for today’s no-SISNOSE
certification.
As analyzed in the RIA, there are two
electricity market factors which may be
expected to reduce or eliminate these
potential revenue impacts on small
entities, as well as for the other owner
entities for the 495 plants:
• Electric utility plants have a
mechanism to cover operating cost
increases via rate hike petitions to
public utility commissions in states
which regulate public utilities, and via
market price increases in the 18 states
(as of 2008) which have de-regulated
electric utilities, and
• The residential, commercial,
industrial, and transportation sector
economic demand for (i.e., consumption
of) electricity is relatively price
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35225
inelastic, which suggests that electric
utility plants may succeed in passing
through most or all regulatory costs to
their electricity customers.
However, because the Agency is
sensitive to any potential impacts its
regulations may have on small entities,
the Agency requests comment on its
analysis, and its finding that this action
is not expected to have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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 co-proposal contains a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or for the private sector, in any one year.
The RIA includes a set of higher cost
estimates for the regulatory options and
the UMRA evaluation is based on these
estimates and therefore overestimates
the potential impacts of this coproposal. Accordingly, EPA has
prepared under section 202 of the
UMRA a ‘‘Written Statement’’ (an
appendix to the RIA) which is
summarized below. Today’s co-proposal
will likely affect 495 electric utility
plants owned by an estimated 200
entities, of which 139 private sector
electric utility companies and
cooperatives may incur between $415
million to $1,999 million in future
annual direct costs across the high-end
options in the RIA, which exceed the
$100 million UMRA direct cost
threshold under each of the regulatory
options. In addition, 60 entities are state
or local governments which may incur
between $56 million to $97 million in
future annual direct costs across the
regulatory options, the upper-end of
which is slightly under the $100 million
UMRA direct cost threshold. The
remainder single entity is a Federal
government Agency (i.e., Tennessee
Valley Authority).
Although the estimated annual direct
cost on state or local governments is less
than the $100 million UMRA threshold,
(a) because the highest-cost regulatory
option is only 3% less than the $100
million annual direct cost threshold,
and (b) because there are a number of
uncertainty factors (as identified in the
RIA) which could result in regulatory
costs being lower or higher than
estimated, EPA consulted with small
governments according to EPA’s UMRA
interim small government consultation
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35226
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
plan developed pursuant to section 203
of the UMRA. EPA’s interim plan
provides for two types of possible small
government input: technical input and
administrative input. According to this
plan, and consistent with section 204 of
the UMRA, early in the process for
developing today’s co-proposal, the
Agency implemented a small
government consultation process
consisting of two consultation
components.
• A series of meetings in calendar
year 2009 were held with the purpose
of acquiring small government technical
input, including: (1) A February 27
meeting with ASTSWMO’s Coal Ash
Workgroup (Washington, DC); (2) a
March 22–24 meeting with ECOS at
their Spring Meeting (Alexandria VA);
(3) a April 15–16 meeting with
ASTSWMO at their Mid-Year Meeting
(Columbus OH), (4) a May 12–13
meeting at the EPA Region IV State
Directors Meeting (Atlanta, GA), (5) a
June 17–18 meeting at the ASTSWMO
Solid Waste Managers Conference (New
Orleans, LA), (6) a July 21–23 meeting
at ASTSWMO’s Board of Directors
Meeting (Seattle, WA), and (7) an
August 12 meeting at ASTSWMO’s
Hazardous Waste Subcommittee
Meeting (Washington, DC). ASTSWMO
is an organization with a mission to
work closely with EPA to ensure that its
state government members are aware of
the most current developments related
to their 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 disposal regulatory options.
Letters were mailed on August 24,
2009 to the following 10 organizations
representing state and local elected
officials, to inform them and seek their
input for today’s proposed rulemaking,
as well as to invite them to a meeting
held on September 16, 2009 in
Washington, DC: (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) ECOS.
These 10 organizations of elected state
and local officials are identified in
EPA’s November 2008 Federalism
guidance as the ‘‘Big 10’’ organizations
appropriate to contact for purpose of
consultation with elected officials. EPA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
has received written comments from a
number of these organizations and a
copy of their comments has been placed
in the docket for this rulemaking. The
commenters express significant
concerns with classifying CCRs as a
hazardous waste. Their major concerns
are that federal regulation could
undercut or be duplicative of State
regulations; that any federal regulation
will have a great impact on already
limited State resources; and that such a
rule would have a negative effect on
beneficial use. A number of commenters
also raise the issue of the cost to their
facilities of a subtitle C rule, particularly
increased disposal costs and the
potential shortage of hazardous waste
disposal capacity.
Consistent with section 205 of UMRA,
EPA identified and considered a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives. Today’s proposed rule
identifies a number of regulatory
options, and EPA’s RIA estimates that
the average annual direct cost to
industry across the three originally
considered options (e.g. as reflected in
the RIA in Exhibit 7L) may range
between $415 million to $1,999 million.
Section 205 of the UMRA requires
Federal agencies to select the least
costly or most cost-effective regulatory
alternative unless the Agency publishes
with the final rule an explanation of
why such alternative was not adopted.
We are co-proposing two regulatory
options in today’s notice involving
RCRA subtitle C ‘‘special waste’’ and
subtitle D. The justification for coproposing the higher-cost options is that
this provides for greater benefits and
protection of public health and the
environment by phasing out surface
impoundments, compared to the lower
cost subtitle D prime option.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ are defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
Under Executive Order 13132, EPA
may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, and
that is not required by statute, unless
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
regulation.
EPA has concluded that this proposed
rule may have federalism implications,
because it may impose substantial direct
compliance costs on State or local
governments, and the Federal
government may not provide the funds
necessary to pay those costs.
Accordingly, EPA provides the
following federalism summary impact
statement as required by section 6(b) of
Executive Order 13132.
The RIA includes a set of higher cost
estimates for the regulatory options and
the Federalism evaluation is based on
these estimates and, therefore,
overestimates the potential impacts of
our proposal.
Based on the estimates in EPA’s RIA
for today’s action, the proposed
regulatory options, if promulgated, may
have federalism implications because
the options may impose between $56
million to $97 million in annual direct
compliance costs on 60 state or local
governments. These 60 state and local
governments consist of 33 small
municipal government jurisdictions, 19
non-small municipal government
jurisdictions, 7 state government
jurisdictions, and one county
government jurisdiction. In addition,
the 48 state governments with RCRAauthorized programs for the proposed
regulatory options may incur between
$0.05 million to over $5.4 million in
added annual administrative costs
involving the 495 electric utility plants
for reviewing and enforcing the various
requirements. Based on these estimates,
the expected annual cost to state and
local governments for at least one of the
regulatory options described in today’s
notice 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.’’ In developing
the regulatory options described in
today’s notice, EPA consulted with 10
national organizations representing state
and local elected officials to ensure
meaningful and timely input by state/
local governments, consisting of two
consultation components, which is
described under the UMRA Executive
Order discussion.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA
and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this co-
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
proposal from elected State and local
government officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249–
67252, November 9, 2000) requires
Federal agencies to provide funds to
tribes, consult with tribes, and to
conduct a tribal summary impact
statement, for regulations and other
actions which are expected to impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
one or more Indian tribal governments.
Today’s co-proposal, whether under
subtitle C or subtitle D authority, is
likely to impose direct compliance costs
on an estimated 495 coal-fired electric
utility plants. This estimated plant
count is based on operating plants
according to the most recent (2007) data
available as of mid-2009 from the DOE’s
Energy Information Administration
‘‘Existing Generating Units in the United
States by State, Company and Plant
2007.’’ Based on information published
by the Center for Media and
Democracy,171 three of the 495 plants
are located on tribal lands, but are not
owned by tribal governments: (1) Navajo
Generating Station in Coconino County,
Arizona owned by the 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. According to this same
information source, there is one
additional coal-fired electric utility
plant planned for construction on
Navajo Nation tribal land near
Farmington, New Mexico, but to be
owned by a non-tribal entity (the Desert
Rock Energy Facility to be owned by the
Desert Rock Energy Company, a Sithe
Global Power subsidiary). Because none
of the 495 plants are owned by tribal
governments, this action does not have
tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this
action. EPA solicits comment on the
171 The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD)
was founded in 1993 as an independent, non-profit,
non-partisan, public interest organization.
Information about electric utility plants located on
tribal lands is from CMD’s SourceWatch
Encyclopedia at: https://www.sourcewatch.org/
index.php?title=Coal_and_Native_American_tribal
_lands.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
accuracy of the information used for this
determination. EPA met with a Tribal
President, whose Tribe owns a cement
plant, and who was concerned about the
adverse impact of designating coal
combustion residuals as a hazardous
waste and the effect that a hazardous
waste designation would have on the
plant’s business. We assured the Tribal
President that we are aware of the
‘‘stigma’’ concerns related to a hazardous
waste listing and will be analyzing that
issue throughout the rulemaking
process.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health &
Safety Risks
Executive Order (EO) 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) establishes
federal executive policy on children’s
health and safety risks. Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make it a high
priority to identify and assess
environmental health risks and safety
risks that may disproportionately affect
children in the United States. EPA has
conducted a risk assessment which
includes evaluation of child exposure
scenarios, as well as has evaluated
Census child population data
surrounding the 495 plants affected by
today’s co-proposal, because today’s
action meets both of the two criteria for
‘‘covered regulatory actions’’ defined by
Section 2–202 of EO 13045: (a) today’s
co-proposal is expected to be an
‘‘economically significant’’ regulatory
action as defined by EO 12866, and (b)
based on the risk analysis discussed
elsewhere in today’s notice, the
environmental and safety hazards
addressed by this action may have a
disproportionate effect on children.
For each covered regulatory action,
such as today’s action, Section 5 of EO
13045 requires federal agencies (a) to
evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned regulation
on children, and (b) to explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the
Agency. The remainder of this section
below addresses both of these
requirements, as well as presents a
summary of the human health risk
assessment findings with respect to
child exposure scenarios, and the
results of the child demographic data
evaluation.
G1. Evaluation of Environmental Health
and Safety Effects on Children
EPA conducted a risk evaluation
consisting of two steps, focusing on
environmental and health effects to
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35227
adults and to children that may occur
due to groundwater contamination. The
first step, conducted in 2002, was a
screening effort targeting selected
hazardous chemical constituents that
appeared to be the most likely to pose
risks. The second step, conducted
between 2003 and 2009, consisted of
more detailed ‘‘probabilistic’’ modeling
for those constituents identified in the
screening as needing further evaluation.
Constituents that may cause either
cancer or non-cancer effects in humans
(i.e., both adults and children) were
evaluated under modeling scenarios
where they migrate from a CCR landfill
or surface impoundment toward a
drinking water well or nearby surface
water body, and where humans ingest
the constituents either by drinking the
contaminated groundwater or by eating
fish caught in surface water bodies
affected by the contaminated
groundwater.
As described elsewhere in today’s
notice, EPA found that for the noncancer health effects in the
groundwater-to-drinking-water pathway
and in the fish consumption pathways
evaluated in the probabilistic modeling,
children rather than adults had the
higher exposures. This result stems from
the fact that while at a given exposure
point (e.g., a drinking water well located
a certain distance and direction downgradient from the landfill or surface
impoundment), the modeled
groundwater concentration is the same
regardless of whether the receptor is an
adult or a child. Thus the other
variables in the exposure equations (that
relate drinking water intakes or fish
consumption rates and body weight to
a daily ‘‘dose’’ of the constituent) mean
that, on a per-kilogram-body-weight
basis, children are exposed to higher
levels of constituents than adults.
G2. Evaluation of Children’s Population
Census Data Surrounding Affected
Electric Utility Plants
The RIA for today’s co-proposal
contains an evaluation of whether
children may disproportionately live
near the 495 electric utility plants
potentially affected by this rulemaking.
This demographic data analysis is
supplemental to and separate from the
risk assessment summarized above. To
make this determination, the RIA
compares Census demographic data on
child populations residing near each of
the 495 affected plants, to statewide
children population data. The results of
that evaluation are summarized here.
• Of the 495 electric utility plants,
383 of the plants (77%) operate CCR
disposal units on-site (i.e., onsite
landfills or onsite surface
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35228
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
impoundments), 84 electric utility
plants solely transport CCRs to offsite
disposal units operated by other
companies (e.g., commercial waste
management companies), and 28 other
electric utility plants generate CCRs that
are solely beneficially used rather than
disposed. Child demographic data is
evaluated in the RIA for all 495 plants
because some regulatory options could
affect the future CCR management
method (i.e., disposal versus beneficial
use) for some plants.
• The RIA provides three
complementary approaches to
comparison of child populations
surrounding the 495 plants to statewide
child population data: (a) Plant-by-plant
comparison basis, (b) state-by-state
aggregation comparison basis, and (c)
nationwide total comparison basis.
There are year 2000 Census data for 464
(94%) of the 495 electric utility plants
which the RIA used for these
comparisons and extrapolated to all 495
plants. Statewide children population
benchmark percentages range from
21.5% (Maine) to 30.9% (Utah), with a
nationwide average of 24.7%.
• For purpose of determining the
relative degree by which children may
exceed these statewide percentages, the
percentages are not only compared in
absolute terms, but also compared as a
numerical ratio whereby a ratio of 1.00
indicates that the child population
percentage living near an electric utility
plant is equal to the statewide average,
a ratio greater than 1.00 indicates the
child population percentage near the
electric utility plant is higher than the
statewide population, and a ratio less
than 1.00 indicates the child population
is less than the respective statewide
average.
• Using the plant-by-plant basis, 310
electric utility plants (63%) have
surrounding child populations which
exceed their statewide children
benchmark percentages, whereas 185 of
the electric utility plants (37%) have
children populations below their
statewide benchmarks, which represents
a ratio of 1.68 (i.e., 310/185). Since this
ratio is much greater than 1.00, this
finding indicates that a disproportionate
number of electric utility plants have
surrounding child population
percentages which exceed their
statewide benchmark. Using the stateby-state aggregation basis, 27 of the 47
states (57%) where the 495 electric
utility plants are located have
disproportionate percentages of children
residing near the plants compared to the
statewide averages, which also indicates
a disproportionate surrounding child
population. Using the nationwide
aggregation basis across all 495 electric
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
utility plants in all 47 states where the
plants are located, 6.08 million people
reside near these electric utility plants,
including 1.54 million children (25.4%).
Comparison of this percentage to the
national aggregate benchmark across all
states of 24.7% children yields a ratio of
1.03 (i.e., 25.4%/24.7%). This ratio
indicates a slightly higher
disproportionate child population
surrounding the 495 electric utility
plants.
These three alternative comparisons
indicate that the current (baseline)
environmental and human health
hazards and risks from electric utility
CCR disposal units, and the expected
future benefits of the regulatory options
being considered in today’s co-proposal
may have a disproportionately higher
effect on child populations.
The public is invited to submit
comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of
early life exposure to CCRs managed in
landfills and surface impoundments.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This co-proposal, if either of the
options being considered is
promulgated, is not expected to be a
‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because the regulatory
options described in today’s co-proposal
are not expected to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This
determination is based on the energy
price analysis presented in EPA’s
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for
this proposed rule. The following is the
basis for this conclusion.
The Office of Management and
Budget’s (OMB) July 13, 2001
Memorandum M–01–27 guidance for
implementing this Executive Order
identifies nine numerical indicators
(thresholds) of potential adverse energy
effects, three of which are relevant for
evaluating potential energy effects of
this proposed rule: (a) Increases in the
cost of energy production in excess of
1%; (b) increases in the cost of energy
distribution in excess of 1%; or (c) other
similarly adverse outcomes.
Because EPA does not have data on
energy production costs or energy
distribution costs for the 495 electric
utility plants likely affected by this
rulemaking, EPA in its RIA for today’s
action evaluated the potential impact on
electricity prices (for the regulatory
options) as measured relative to the 1%
numerical threshold of these two
Executive Order indicators to represent
an ‘‘other similarly adverse outcome.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The RIA calculated the potential
increase in electricity prices of affected
plants that the industry might induce
under each regulatory option. Because
the price analysis in the RIA is based
only on the 495 coal-fired electric utility
plants that would likely be affected by
the co-proposal (with 333,500
megawatts nameplate capacity), rather
than on all electric utility and
independent electricity producer plants
in each state using other fuels, such as
natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, etc.
(with 678,200 megawatts nameplate
capacity), the price effects estimated in
the RIA are higher than would be if the
regulatory costs were averaged over the
entire electric utility and independent
electricity producer supply (totaling
1,011,700 megawatts, not counting an
additional 76,100 megawatts of
combined heat and electricity
producers).
The price effect calculation in the RIA
involved estimating plant-by-plant
annual revenues, plant-by-plant average
annualized regulatory compliance costs
for each regulatory option, and
comparison with statewide average
electricity prices for the 495 electric
utility plants. In its analysis, the Agency
used the May 2009 statewide average
retail prices for electricity published by
DOE’s, Energy Information
Administration; these costs ranged from
$0.0620 (Idaho & Wyoming) to $0.1892
(Hawaii) per kilowatt-hour, and the
nationwide average for the 495 plants
was $0.0884. Based on a 100%
regulatory cost pass-thru scenario
representing an upper-bound potential
electricity price increase for each plant,
the RIA estimated the potential target
electricity sales revenue needed to cover
these costs for each plant. The RIA then
compared the higher target revenue to
recent annual revenue estimates per
plant, to calculate the potential price
effect of this cost pass-thru scenario on
electricity prices for each of the 495
electric utility plants, as well as on a
state-by-state sub-total basis and on a
nationwide basis across all 495 electric
utility plants.
The RIA includes a set of higher cost
estimates for the regulatory options and
this Executive Order 13211 evaluation is
based on the higher estimates and,
therefore, overestimates the potential
impacts of our proposal.
The RIA indicates that on a
nationwide basis for all 495 electric
utility plants, compared to the estimated
average electricity price of $0.0884 per
kilowatt-hour, the 100% regulatory cost
pass-thru scenario may increase prices
for the 495 electric utility plants by
0.172% to 0.795% across the original
regulatory options; the high-end is the
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
estimate associated with a regulatory
cost pass-thru scenario increase for the
495 electric utility plants for the subtitle
C ‘‘special waste’’ option. Based on this
analysis, the Agency does not expect
that either of the options being coproposed today would have a significant
adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. However,
the Agency solicits comments on our
analysis and findings.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 (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 proposed rulemaking does not
involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629, February 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 low-income (i.e., below
poverty line) populations in the United
States.
Furthermore, Section 3–302(b) of EO
12898 states that Federal agencies,
whenever practicable and appropriate,
shall collect, maintain and analyze
information on minority and lowincome populations for areas
surrounding facilities or sites expected
to have substantial environmental,
human health, or economic effects on
the surrounding populations, when
such facilities or sites become the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
subject of a substantial Federal
environmental administrative or judicial
action. While EO 12898 does not
establish quantitative thresholds for this
‘‘substantial effect’’ criterion, EPA has
collected and analyzed population data
for today’s co-proposal because of the
substantial hazards and adverse risks to
the environment and human health
described elsewhere in today’s notice.
The RIA for today’s action presents
comparisons of minority and lowincome population Census data for each
of the 495 electric utility plant
locations, to respective statewide
population data, in order to identify
whether these two demographic groups
may disproportionately reside near
electric utility plants. The result of these
comparisons indicate (a) whether
existing hazards associated with CCR
disposal at electric utility plants to
community safety, human health, and
the environment may disproportionately
affect minority and low-income
populations surrounding the plants, and
(b) whether the expected effects (i.e.,
benefits and costs) of the regulatory
action described in today’s co-proposal
rule may disproportionately affect
minority and low-income populations.
Of the 495 electric utility plants, 383
of the plants (77%) operate CCR
disposal units onsite (i.e., onsite
landfills or onsite surface
impoundments), 84 electric utility
plants solely transport CCRs to offsite
disposal units operated by other
companies (e.g., commercial waste
management companies), and 28 of the
electric utility plants generate CCRs that
are solely beneficially used rather than
disposed. The minority and low-income
Census data evaluation is conducted for
all 495 plants because some regulatory
options could affect the future CCR
management method (i.e., disposal
versus beneficial use) for some plants.
In addition to this Census data
evaluation, the RIA identifies three
other possible affects of the co-proposal
on (a) populations surrounding offsite
CCR landfills, (b) populations
surrounding the potential siting of new
CCR landfills and (c) populations within
the customer service areas of the 495
electric utility plants who may incur
electricity price increases resulting from
regulatory cost pass-thru. These three
Census data evaluations are also
summarized below.
J.1. Findings of Environmental Justice
Analysis for Electric Utility Plants
For the first comparison, the RIA
provides three complementary
approaches to evaluating the Census
data on minority and low-income
populations: (a) Itemized plant-by-plant
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35229
comparisons to statewide percentages,
(b) state-by-state aggregation
comparisons, and (c) nationwide
aggregate comparisons. There are year
2000 Census data for 464 (94%) of the
495 electric utility plants which the RIA
used for these comparisons and
extrapolated to all 495 plants. Statewide
minority population benchmark
percentages range from 3.1% (Maine) to
75.7% (Hawaii), with a nationwide
average of 24.9%, and statewide lowincome population percentages range
from 7.3% (Maryland) to 19.3% (New
Mexico), with a nationwide average of
11.9%.
For purpose of determining the
relative degree by which either group
may exceed these statewide percentages,
in addition to a comparison of absolute
percentages, the percentages are
compared as a numerical ratio whereby
a ratio of 1.00 indicates that the group
population percentage living near an
electric utility plant is equal to the
statewide average, a ratio greater than
1.00 indicates the group population
percentage near the electric utility plant
is higher than the statewide population,
and a ratio less than 1.00 indicates the
group population is less than the
respective statewide average.
Using the plant-by-plant comparison,
138 electric utility plants (28%) have
surrounding minority populations
which exceed their statewide minority
benchmark percentages, whereas 357 of
the electric utility plants (72%) have
minority populations below their
statewide benchmarks, which represents
a ratio of 0.39 (i.e., 138/357). Because
this ratio is less than 1.00, this finding
indicates a relatively small number of
the electric utility plants have
surrounding minority population
percentages which disproportionately
exceed their statewide benchmarks. On
a plant zip code tabulation area basis,
256 electric utility plants (52%) have
surrounding low-income populations
which exceed their respective statewide
benchmarks, whereas 239 plants (48%)
have surrounding low-income
populations below their statewide
benchmarks, which represents a ratio of
1.07 (i.e., 256/239). Because this ratio is
above 1.00, it indicates that a slightly
disproportionate higher number of
electric utility plants have surrounding
low-income population percentages
which exceed their statewide
benchmarks.
Using the state-by-state aggregation
comparison, the percentages of minority
and low-income populations
surrounding the plants were compared
to their respective statewide population
benchmarks. From this analysis, state
ratios revealed that 24 of the 47 states
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35230
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
(51%) have higher minority percentages,
and 29 of the 47 states (62%) have
higher low-income percentages
surrounding the 495 electric utility
plants, suggesting a slightly
disproportionate higher minority
surrounding population and a higher
disproportionate, higher low-income
surrounding population. However, in
comparison to the other two numerical
comparisons—the plant-by-plant basis
and the nationwide aggregation basis,
this approach does not include
numerically weighting of state plant
counts or state surrounding populations,
which explains why this comparison
method yields a different numerical
result.
Using the nationwide aggregation
comparison across all 495 electric utility
plants in all 47 states where the plants
are located, 6.08 million people reside
near these plants, including 1.32 million
(21.7%) minority and 0.8 million
(12.9%) low-income persons. A
comparison of these percentages to the
national benchmark of 24.9% minority
and 11.9% low-income, represents a
minority ratio of 0.87 (i.e., 21.7%/
24.9%) and a low-income ratio of 1.08
(i.e., 12.9%/11.9%). These nationwide
aggregate ratios indicate a
disproportionately lower minority
population surrounding the 495 electric
utility plants, and a disproportionately
higher low-income population
surrounding these plants.
These demographic data comparisons
indicate that the current (baseline)
environmental and human health
hazards and risks from electric utility
CCR disposal units, and the expected
future effects (i.e., benefits and costs) of
the regulatory options described in
today’s co-proposal may have a
disproportionately lower effect on
minority populations and may have a
disproportionately higher effect on lowincome populations.
J.2. Environmental Justice Analysis for
Offsite Landfills, Siting of New
Landfills, and Electricity Service Area
Customers
There are three other potential
differential effects of the regulatory
options on three other population
groups: (a) Populations surrounding
offsite landfills, (b) populations
surrounding the potential siting of new
landfills and (c) populations within the
customer service areas of the 495
electric utility plants. The RIA for
today’s notice does not quantify these
potential effects so only a qualitative
discussion appears below.
The potential effect on offsite landfills
as evaluated in the RIA only involves
the RCRA subtitle C ‘‘special waste’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
based regulatory option described in
today’s co-proposal, whereby electric
utility plants may switch the
management of CCRs, in whole or in
part, from current onsite disposal to
offsite commercial RCRA-permitted
landfills. In addition, some or all of the
CCRs which are currently disposed in
offsite landfills that do not have RCRA
operating permits may also switch to
RCRA-permitted commercial landfills.
Another fraction of annual CCR
generation which could also switch to
offsite commercial RCRA-permitted
landfills are CCRs which are currently
supplied for industrial beneficial use
applications if such use is curtailed.
The future addition of any or all of
these three fractions of CCR generation
to offsite commercial hazardous waste
landfills could exceed their capacity
considering that a much smaller
quantity of about 2 million tons per year
of existing RCRA-regulated hazardous
waste is currently disposed of in RCRA
subtitle C permitted landfills in the U.S.
As of 2009, there are 19 commercial
landfills with RCRA hazardous waste
permits to receive and dispose of RCRAregulated hazardous wastes located in
15 states (AL, CA, CO, ID, IL, IN, LA,
MI, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, TX, UT). This
potential shift could have a
disproportionate effect on populations
surrounding these locations, and in
particular, minority and low-income
populations surrounding commercial
hazardous waste facilities, for the reason
that a recent (2007) study determined
that minority and low-income
populations disproportionately live near
commercial hazardous waste facilities.
However, the study included other
types of commercial hazardous waste
treatment and disposal facilities in
addition to commercial hazardous waste
landfills.
The siting of new landfills is another
potential effect due to possible changes
in the management of CCRs, especially
if the switch to offsite commercial
hazardous waste landfills causes a
capacity shortage (as described above)
under subtitle C option. However, since
it is unknown where these new landfills
might possibly be sited, two
possibilities were examined: (a) An
expansion of existing commercial
subtitle C landfills offsite from electric
utility plants, and (b) an expansion of
existing electric utility plant onsite
landfills. If an expansion of existing
commercial subtitle C landfills were to
occur, this potential shift could have a
disproportionate effect on populations
surrounding these locations, as
described previously.
The other possibility is the expansion
of electric utility plant onsite landfills.
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
That is, these landfills become
permitted under RCRA subtitle C and
expand existing onsite landfills or build
new ones onsite. If this were to occur,
the environmental justice impacts could
be similar to the demographic
comparison findings previously
discussed, which indicates that the
current environmental and human
health hazards and risks from electric
utility CCR disposal units, and the
expected future effects (i.e., benefits and
costs) of the regulatory options, may
have a disproportionately lower effect
on minority populations, but may have
a disproportionately higher effect on
low-income populations.
A third potential effect of the
regulatory options described in today’s
notice is the increase in price of
electricity supplied by some or all of the
affected 495 electric utility plants to
cover the cost of regulatory compliance
(as evaluated in a previous section of
today’s notice). Thus, customers in
electric utility service areas could
experience price increases, as described
above in the Federalism sub-section of
today’s notice. The RIA for today’s
action did not evaluate the
demographics of the customer service
area populations for the 495 electric
utility plants.
Appendix to the Preamble: Documented
Damages From CCR Management
Practices
EPA has gathered or received through
comments on the 1999 Report to
Congress and the May 2000 Regulatory
Determination, and through allegations,
135 possible damage cases. Six cases
involved minefills and, therefore, are
outside the scope of today’s proposed
rule. Sixty-two cases have not been
further assessed because there was little
or no supporting information to assess
the allegations.
Of the remaining 67 cases, EPA
determined that 24 were proven damage
cases. Sixteen were determined to be
proven damage cases to ground water
and eight were determined to be proven
damages cases to surface water, as a
result of elevated levels of contaminants
from CCRs.172 Four of the proven
ground water damage cases were from
unlined landfills, five were from
unlined surface impoundments, one
172 Of the 16 proven cases of damages to ground
water, the Agency has been able to confirm that
corrective action has been completed in seven cases
and are ongoing in the remaining nine cases.
Corrective action measures at these CCR
management units vary depending on site specific
circumstances and include formal closure of the
unit, capping, re-grading of ash and the installation
of liners over the ash, ground water treatment,
groundwater monitoring, and combinations of these
measures.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
involved a surface impoundment for
which it is not clear whether the unit
was lined, and the remaining six were
from unlined sand and gravel pits.
Another 43 alleged cases were
determined to be potential damage cases
to ground water or surface water.
However, four of these potential damage
cases were attributable to oil
combustion wastes, which are outside
the scope of this notice. Therefore, we
have determined that there were a total
of 40 potential damage cases attributable
to CCRs. (The concern with wastes from
the combustion of oil involved unlined
surface impoundments. Prior to the May
2000 Regulatory Determination, the
unlined oil ash impoundments were
closed, and thus EPA decided regulatory
action to address oil ash was
unnecessary.) These cases are discussed
in more detail in the document ‘‘Coal
Combustion Wastes Damage Case
Assessments’’ available in the docket to
the 2007 NODA at https://
www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/
component/
main?main=DocumentDetail&d=EPAHQ-RCRA-2006-0796-0015. Three
proven damage cases are sites that have
been listed on EPA’s National Priorities
List (NPL). The sites, and links to
additional information are: (1) Chisman
Creek, Virginia (https://www.epa.gov/
reg3hwmd/npl/VAD980712913.htm), (2)
Salem Acres, Massachusetts (https://
yosemite.epa.gov/r1/npl_pad.nsf/
f52fa5c31fa8f5c885256adc0050b631/
C8A4A5BEC0121
F048525691F0063F6F3?
OpenDocument), and (3) U.S.
Department of Energy Oak Ridge
Reservation, Tennessee (https://
www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/npltn/
oakridtn.htm). One potential damage
case has also been listed on the NPL:
Lemberger Landfill, Wisconsin (https://
www.epa.gov/region5/superfund/npl/
wisconsin/WID980901243.htm).
Another site has undergone remediation
under EPA enforcement action: Town of
Pines (https://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/
cursites/cactinfo.cfm?id=0508071).
In response to the 2007 NODA (see
section II. A.), EPA received information
on 21 alleged damage cases. Of these, 18
pertain to alleged violations of state
solid waste permits, and 3 to alleged
violations of NPDES permits. Upon
review of this information, we conclude
that 13 of the alleged RCRA violations
are new, and one of the alleged NPDES
violations is new; the other damage
cases have previously been submitted to
EPA and evaluated. In addition, five
new alleged damage cases have been
brought to EPA’s attention since
February 2005 (the closure date of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
damage cases assessed by the NODA’s
companion documents). For the most
part, these cases involve activities that
are different from the prior damage
cases and the focus of the regulatory
determination on groundwater
contamination from landfills and
surface impoundments. Specifically:
Æ Two of the new alleged cases
involve the structural failure of surface
impoundments; i.e., dam safety and
structural integrity issues, which were
not a consideration at the time of the
May 2000 Regulatory Determination. In
both cases, there were Clean Water Act
violations.
Æ One other alleged case involves the
failure of an old discharge pipe, and is
clearly a regulated NPDES permit issue.
Æ Two other alleged cases involve the
use of coal ash in large scale structural
fill operations, one of which involves an
unlined sand and gravel pit. The
Agency is considering whether to
regulate this method of disposal as a
landfill or whether to address the issue
separately as part of its rulemaking to
address minefilling. EPA is soliciting
comments on those alternatives.
The Agency has classified three of the
five new cases as proven damage cases
(BBBS Sand and Gravel Quarries,
Martins Creek Power Plant, TVA
Kingston Power Plant), one as a
potential damage case (Battlefield Golf
Course), and the other as not being a
damage case under RCRA (TVA Widows
Creek). Several of the recently submitted
damage cases are discussed briefly
below. The following descriptions
further illustrate that there are
additional risk concerns (dam safety,
and fill operations) which EPA did not
evaluate when it completed its the May
2000 Regulatory Determination, in
which EPA primarily was concerned
with groundwater contamination
associated with landfills and surface
impoundments and the beneficial use of
CCRs. Additional information on these
damage cases is included in the docket.
Recent Cases
BBBS Sand and Gravel Quarries—
Gambrills, Maryland
On October 1, 2007, the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE)
filed a consent order in Anne Arundel
County, Maryland Circuit Court to settle
an environmental enforcement action
that was taken against the owner of a
sand and gravel quarry and the owner
of coal fired power plants (defendants)
for contamination of public drinking
water wells in the vicinity of the sand
and gravel quarry.
Specifically, beginning in 1995, the
defendants used fly ash and bottom ash
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35231
from two Maryland power plants to fill
excavated portions of two sand and
gravel quarries. Ground water samples
collected in 2006 and 2007 from
residential drinking water wells near the
site indicated that, in certain locations,
contaminants, including heavy metals
and sulfates were present at or above
ground water quality standards. The
Anne Arundel County, Maryland
Department of Health tested private
wells in 83 homes and businesses in
areas around the disposal site. MCLs
were exceeded in 34 wells [arsenic (1),
beryllium (1), cadmium (6), lead (20),173
and thallium (6)]. The actual number of
wells affected by fly ash and bottom ash
is undetermined since some of the
sample results may reflect natural
minerals in the area. SMCLs were
exceeded in 63 wells [aluminum (44),
manganese (14), and sulfate (5)]. MDE
concluded that leachate from the
placement of CCRs at the site resulted
in the discharge of pollutants to waters
of the state. Based on these findings, as
well as an MDE consent order, EPA has
concluded that the Gambrills site is a
proven case of damage to ground water
resulting from the placement of CCRs in
unlined sand and gravel quarries.
Under the terms of the consent order,
the defendants are required to pay a
fine, remediate the ground water in the
area and provide replacement water
supplies for 40 properties. A retail
development is now planned for the site
with a cap over the fill designed to
reduce infiltration and subsequent
leaching from the site. An MDE fact
sheet on this site is available at https://
www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/
AA_Fly_Ash_QA.pdf.
Battlefield Golf Course—Chesapeake,
Virginia
On July 16, 2008, the City of
Chesapeake, Virginia sent a letter to the
EPA Region III Regional Administrator
requesting assistance to perform an
assessment of the Battlefield Golf
Course. The 216 acre site was contoured
with 1.5 million cubic yards of fly ash,
amended with 1.7% to 2.3% cement
kiln dust to develop the golf course.
Virginia’s Administrative Code allowed
the use of fly ash as fill material
(considered a beneficial use under
Virginia’s Administrative Code) without
a liner as long as the fly ash was placed
at least two feet above groundwater and
covered by an 18-inch soil cap.
Because of ground water
contamination discovered at another
site where fly ash was used, the City of
173 It is uncertain whether lead exceedances were
due to CCRs or lead in plumbing and water holding
tanks.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35232
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Chesapeake initiated a drinking water
well sampling assessment at residences
surrounding the golf course.
Additionally, 13 monitoring points were
installed around the site. No monitoring
points were installed through the fly ash
area to avoid creating an additional path
of contaminant migration. EPA
conducted a site investigation by
reviewing analytical data from fly ash,
soil, surface water, sediment, and
groundwater sampling events completed
in 2001, 2008 and 2009. The sampling
results of the City of Chesapeake ground
water and surface water sampling 174
indicated that the highest detections of
metals occurred in monitoring wells
located on the golf course property. The
concentrations of arsenic, boron,
chromium, copper, lead and vanadium
detected in groundwater collected from
on-site monitoring wells were
considered to be significantly above
background concentrations. Of these
compounds, only boron has been
detected in approximately 25 drinking
water wells.
Although not a primary contaminant
of concern, boron is suspected to be the
leading indicator of fly ash migration.
The highest level of boron reported in
a residential well was 596 μg/L which
was significantly below the health-based
regional screening level for boron in tap
water of 7,300 μg/L. Additionally, the
secondary drinking water standard for
manganese (0.05 mg/L) was exceeded in
nine residential wells; however, the
natural levels of both manganese and
iron in the area’s shallow aquifer are
very high and, thus, it could not be
ruled out that the elevated levels of
manganese and iron are a result of the
natural background levels of these two
contaminants.
Metal contaminants were below MCLs
and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
action levels in all residential wells that
EPA tested, except for lead. Lead has
been detected during EPA sampling
events above the action level of 15 μg/
L in six residential wells. The lead in
these wells, however, does not appear to
come from the fly ash. Lead
concentrations are lower in groundwater
collected from monitoring wells on the
golf course (1.1 to 1.6 μg/L) than in
these residential wells; and lead
concentrations in the fly ash are not
higher than background concentrations
of lead in soil.
The recently issued EPA Final Site
Inspection Report 175 concluded that (i)
174 Available at https://cityofchesapeake.net/
services/citizen_info/battlefieldgolfclub/
index.shtml.
175 https://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/CurrentIssues/
finalr-battlefield_golf_club_site/redacted_DTN
_0978_Final_Battlefield_SI_Report.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
Metal contaminants were below MCLs
and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
action levels in all residential wells that
EPA tested; (2) the residential well data
indicate that metals are not migrating
from the fly ash to residential wells; and
(iii) there are no adverse health effects
expected from human exposure to
surface water or sediments on the
Battlefield Golf Course site as the metal
concentrations were below the ATSDR
standards for drinking water and soil.
Additionally, the sediment samples in
the ponds were below EPA Biological
Technical Assistance Group screening
levels and are not expected to pose a
threat to ecological receptors. Based on
these findings, EPA has categorized the
Battlefield Golf Club site as a potential
damage case, as there is a possibility
that leaching could cause levels of toxic
constituents to increase over time and
that groundwater could become
contaminated at off-site locations if due
diligence is not practiced.
Martins Creek Power Plant—Martins
Creek, Pennsylvania
In August 2005, a dam confining a 40
acre CCR surface impoundment in
eastern Pennsylvania failed. The dam
failure, a violation of the State’s solid
waste disposal permit, resulted in the
discharge of 0.5 million cubic yards of
coal-ash and contaminated water into
the Oughoughton Creek and the
Delaware River.
Ground-water monitoring results from
approximately 20 on-site monitoring
wells found selenium concentrations
exceeding Pennsylvania’s Statewide
Health Standards and Federal primary
drinking water standards. There was
also one exceedance of the primary MCL
for chromium and two exceedances of
the secondary MCL for iron.
Surface water samples were also taken
from a number of locations along the
Delaware River upstream and
downstream of the spill. Sampling
began soon after the spill in August
2005 and continued through November
2005. Several samples exceeded the
Federal Water Quality Criteria (WQC)
for aluminum, copper, iron, manganese,
and silver (see https://www.epa.gov/
waterscience/criteria/wqctable/
index.html). Four samples also
exceeded the WQC for arsenic—three of
which were taken near the outfall to the
river. Lead, nickel and zinc were also
detected above the WQC in samples
taken near the outfall to the river.
Sampling results are available from the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP) at
https://www.depweb.state.pa.us/
northeastro/cwp/
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
view.asp?a=1226&q=478264
&northeastroNav=⎢.
As a result of the exceedances of
primary and secondary MCLs in on-site
ground water, and exceedances of
federal water quality criteria in off-site
surface water, in addition to a PADEP
consent order for clean up, the Agency
considers this site to be a proven
damage case.
TVA Kingston—Harriman, Tennessee
On December 22, 2008, a failure of the
northeastern dike used to contain fly
ash occurred at the dewatering area of
the Tennessee Valley Authority’s
(TVA’s) Kingston Fossil Plant in
Harriman, Tennessee. Subsequently,
approximately 5.4 million cubic yards
of fly ash sludge was released over an
approximately 300 acre area and into a
branch of the Emory River. The ash
slide disrupted power, ruptured a gas
line, knocked one home off its
foundation and damaged others. The
state-issued NPDES permit requires that
TVA properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems for collection and
treatment, and expressly prohibits
overflows of wastes to land or water
from any portion of the collection,
transmission, or treatment system other
than through permitted outfalls.
Therefore, the release was a violation of
the NPDES permit. A root-cause
analysis report developed for TVA,
accessible at https://www.tva.gov/
kingston/rca/index.htm, established that
the dike failed because it was expanded
by successive vertical additions, to a
point where a thin, weak layer of fly ash
(‘slime’) on which it had been founded,
failed by sliding. Additional
information on the TVA Kingston
incident is available at https://
www.epa.gov/region4/kingston/
index.html and https://www.tva.gov/
kingston/.
EPA joined TVA, the Tennessee
Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC), and other state
and local agencies in a coordinated
response. EPA provided oversight and
technical advice to TVA, and conducted
independent water sampling and air
monitoring to evaluate public health
and environmental threats.
Following the incident, EPA sampled
the coal ash and residential soil to
determine if the release posed an
immediate threat to human health.
Sampling results for the contaminated
residential soil showed arsenic, cobalt,
iron, and thallium levels above the
residential Superfund soil screening
levels.176 Sampling results also showed
176 Soil screening levels (SSLs) for contaminants
in soil are used to identify sites needing further
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
average arsenic levels above the EPA
Region 4 Residential Removal Action
Level (RAL) 177 of 39 mg/L, but below
EPA Region 4’s Industrial RAL of 177
mg/L. All residential soil results were
below the Residential RAL.
Shortly after the release, samples were
also collected of untreated river water,
which showed elevated levels of
suspended ash and heavy metals known
to be associated with coal ash. Nearly
800 surface water samples were taken
by TVA and TDEC, ranging from two
miles upstream of the release on the
Emory River to approximately eight
miles downstream on the Clinch River.
Sampling results of untreated river
water showed elevated levels of arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, and lead just after
the incident. This was also observed
again after a heavy rainfall. In early
January 2009, the Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency (TWRA) issued a fish
advisory stating that until further notice,
fishing should be avoided in the lower
section of the Emory River. TWRA plans
to resample fish tissue on a semiannual
basis and expects that the assessment of
the impact of this release on wildlife
resources and habitat will require
repeated sampling and evaluation over
the next three to five years.
Constituent concentrations measured
in drinking water on December 23,
2008, near the intake of the Kingston
Water Treatment Plant, located
downstream of the release, were below
federal MCLs for drinking water, with
the exception of elevated thallium
levels. Subsequent EPA testing on
December 30, 2008, of samples at the
same intake found that concentration
levels for thallium had fallen below the
MCL. Subsequent testing of treated
drinking water from the Kingston Water
Treatment Plant showed that the
drinking water from the treatment plant
met all federal drinking water standards.
Additionally, EPA and TDEC
identified and sampled potentially
impacted private wells that are used as
a source for drinking water. More than
100 wells have been tested to date and
all have met drinking water standards.
To address potential risks from
windblown ash, TVA, under EPA
oversight, began air monitoring for
coarse and fine particles. EPA also
conducted independent monitoring to
investigation. SSLs alone do not trigger the need for
a response action or define ‘‘unacceptable’’ levels of
contaminants in soil. Generally, at sites where
contaminant concentrations fall below the SSLs, no
further action or study is warranted under CERCLA.
However, where contaminant concentrations equal
or exceed the SSLs, further study or investigation,
but not necessarily cleanup, is warranted.
177 RALs are used to trigger time-critical removal
actions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
validate TVA’s findings. To date, all of
the more than 25,000 air samples from
this area have measured levels below
the NAAQS for particulates.
On January 12, 2009, TDEC issued an
order to TVA to, among other things,
continue to implement measures to
prevent the movement of contaminated
materials into waters of the state and,
where feasible, minimize further downstream migration of contaminated
sediments.
Than on May 11, 2009, TVA agreed to
clean up more than 5 million tons of
coal ash spilled from its Kingston Fossil
Fuel Plant under an administrative
order and agreement on consent. TVA
and EPA entered into the agreement
under CERCLA. The order requires TVA
to perform a thorough cleanup of coal
ash from the Emory River and
surrounding areas and EPA will oversee
the removal. Based on the consent
order, EPA has identified this site as a
proven damage case.
TVA Widows Creek—Stevenson,
Alabama
On Friday, January 9, 2009, a cap in
an unused discharge pipe became
dislodged, resulting in a discharge from
an FGD pond at a Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) coal-burning power
plant in Stevenson, Alabama. FGD is a
residual of a process that reduces sulfur
dioxide emissions from coal-fired
boilers Some 5,000 cubic yards of FGD
material containing water and a mixture
of predominantly gypsum and some fly
ash, was released from the pond into
Widows Creek which flows into the
Tennessee River.178 Information on the
TVA Widows Creek incident is available
at https://www.epa.gov/region4/
stevenson/.
EPA joined TVA and the Alabama
Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) in a coordinated
response. EPA is supporting the
response by coordinating environmental
sampling and monitoring response
operations by TVA. EPA has also
collected surface water samples from
both Widows Creek and the Tennessee
River to determine if there have been
any environmental impacts. Samples
have also been taken from the FGD pond
to characterize the material that was
released into the creek fully. The
drinking water intake for Scottsboro,
Alabama, about 20 miles downstream,
has also been sampled.
EPA Region 4 has received final
results of its independent
environmental sampling activities for
the TVA Widows Creek Fossil Plant
178 https://www.tva.gov/emergency/wc_1-2909.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35233
FGD pond release. Specifically, the
concentrations of metals, solids and
nutrients detected in samples drawn
from the drinking water intake for
Scottsboro, Alabama, along with
samples collected from two locations in
Widows Creek and three other locations
in the Tennessee River, are all below
national primary drinking water
standards and/or other health-based
levels. The pH of all these samples also
fell within the standard range and no oil
or grease was detected in any of the
samples.
Four waste samples and one water
sample collected from the bank along
the ditch connecting TVA’s permitted
discharge outfall and the Tennessee
River, and from TVA’s permitted
discharge outfall showed elevated pH
and elevated concentrations of metals,
nutrients, and suspended and dissolved
solids. However, because samples
drawn downstream at the drinking
water intake and from locations where
individuals would likely come into
contact with the water were below the
primary drinking water standards, EPA
does not expect the release to pose a
threat to the public. On July 7, 2009,
TVA issued a finding of no significant
impact and final environmental
assessment for the Gypsum Removal
Project from Widows Creek.179
Therefore, EPA has not classified the
TVA Widows Creek fly ash release as a
damage case.
Summary
In summary, as discussed above, the
Agency has documented evidence of
proven damages to ground water or
surface water in 27 cases 180—17 cases
of damage to ground water, and ten
cases of damage to surface water,
including ecological damages in seven
of the ten. Sixteen of the 17 proven
damages to ground water involved
disposal in unlined units (for the
remaining unit, it is unclear whether a
liner was present). We have also
identified 40 cases of potential damage
to ground water or surface water.181
Another two cases were determined to
be potential ecological damage cases.
Finally, the more recently documented
damage cases also provide evidence that
current management practices can pose
additional risks that EPA had not
179 https://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/
widows_creek/wcf_gypsum_removal_fonsi.pdf.
180 The 24 cases identified in the Damage Cases
Assessment report, plus Martin Creek, PA;
Gambrills, MD; and Kingston/TVA, TN.
181 The 39 cases of potential damages from CCR
identified in the Damage Cases Assessment report
(excludes the 4 damage cases from oil combustion
wastes), plus the Battlefield Golf Course,
Chesapeake, Virginia.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35234
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
previously studied—that is, from
catastrophic releases due to the
structural failure of CCR surface
impoundments.
TABLE OF EPA’S PROVEN DAMAGE CASES
Damage case, State
Constituents of
concern
Affected media
Brief description
Basis for consideration as a proven
damage case
Scientific—Although the boron standard
was not health-based at the time of the
exceedances, the boron levels reported
for the facility would have exceeded the
State’s recently promulgated healthbased ES for boron, and
Administrative—The State required a
groundwater investigation, and the facility took action to remediate groundwater
contamination and prevent further contamination.
Scientific—Cadmium and chromium exceeded (health-based) primary MCLs,
and contamination migrated to nearby,
private drinking water wells, and
Administrative—The State required closure of the facility.
Groundwater .....
Arsenic, Selenium,
Sulfate, Boron,
Flourine.
The LF 182 was originally
constructed in the early
1960’s as a series of settling basins for sluiced
ash and permitted by the
State in 1979.
Dairyland Power E.J.
Stoneman, WI.
Groundwater .....
Cadmium, Chromium,
Sulfate, Manganese,
Iron, Zinc.
WEPCO Cedar Sauk
Ash Landfill/WEPCO,
WI.
Groundwater .....
Selenium, Boron, Sulfate.
Unlined SI 183, on permeable substrate, that
managed ash,
demineralizer regenerant,
and sand filter backwash
between the 1950’and
1987.
An abandoned sand and
gravel pit that received
CCW from the WEPCO
Port Washington Power
Plant from 1969 to 1979.
WEPCO Highway 59
Landfill/We Energies
59, WI.
Groundwater .....
Arsenic, Boron,
Chlorides, Iron,
Manganese, Sulfate.
Located in an old sand and
gravel pit that received fly
ash and bottom ash between 1969 and 1978.
WEPCO Port Washington Facility/
Druecker Quarry Fly
Ash Site, WI.
Groundwater .....
Boron, Selenium ........
SC Electric & Gas
Canadys Plant, SC.
Groundwater .....
Arsenic, Nickel ...........
The power company placed
40–60 feet deep column
of fly ash in a sand &
gravel pit from 1948–
1971. A well located
∼ 250′ south of the old
quarry was impacted.
Ash from the Canadys
power plant was mixed
with water and managed
in a SI. The facility operated an unlined, 80-acre
SI from 1974 to 1989.
PEPCO Morgantown
Generating Station
Faulkner Off-site Disposal Facility, MD.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Alliant Nelson Dewey
Ash Landfill, WI.
Groundwater .....
Iron, pH ......................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00108
LFs at this shallow groundwater site manage fly
ash, bottom ash, and pyrites from the Morgantown
Generating Station starting in 1970. Unlined settling ponds also are used
at the site to manage
stormwater runoff and
leachate from the ash disposal area.
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Scientific—Selenium in groundwater exceeded the (health-based) primary MCL,
and there was clear evidence of vegetative damage, and
Administrative—The State required remedial action.
Scientific—Although the boron standard
was not health-based at the time of the
exceedances, the boron levels reported
for the facility would have exceeded the
State’s recently promulgated healthbased ES for boron; and contamination
from the facility appears to have migrated to off-site private wells, and
Administrative—As a result of the various
PAL 184 and ES 185 exceedances, the
State required a groundwater investigation.
Scientific—The off-site exceedance of a
health-based standard for selenium.
Scientific—There are exceedances of the
health-based standard for arsenic at this
site. While there are no known human
exposure points nearby, some recent
exceedances have been detected outside an established regulatory boundary.
Scientific—Ground water contamination
migrated off-site, and
Administrative—The State required remedial action.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
35235
TABLE OF EPA’S PROVEN DAMAGE CASES—Continued
Affected media
Constituents of
concern
Brief description
Basis for consideration as a proven
damage case
Don Frame Trucking,
Inc., Fly Ash Landfill,
NY.
Groundwater .....
Lead, Manganese ......
This LF has been used for
disposal of fly ash, bottom
ash, and other material
including yard sweepings
generated by the Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation’s Dunkirk Steam Station. The age of the facility is unknown.
Salem Acres, MA ..........
Groundwater .....
Antimony, Arsenic,
Manganese.
Fly ash disposal occurred at
this site—a LF and SI,
from at least 1952 to
1969.
Vitale Fly Ash Pit, MA ...
Groundwater .....
Aluminum, Arsenic,
Iron, Manganese,
Selenium.
An abandoned gravel and
sand pit that was used as
an unpermitted LF between the 1950s and the
mid-1970s. The Vitale
Brothers, the site owners
until 1980, accepted and
disposed saltwaterquenched fly ash from
New England Power
Company along with other
wastes.
Town of Pines, IN .........
Groundwater .....
Boron, Molybdenum ...
Groundwater .....
Lithium, Selenium ......
Basin Electric, W.J.
Neal Plant, ND.
Groundwater .....
Aluminum, Arsenic,
Barium, Copper,
Manganese, Zinc.
NIPSCO’s Bailly and Michigan City power plants
have deposited ∼ 1 million
tons of fly ash in the
Town of Pines since
1983. Fly ash was buried
in the LF and used as
construction fill in the
town. The ash is pervasive on site, visible in
roads and driveways.
The North Lansing Landfill
(NLL), an unlined, former
gravel quarry pit with an
elevated groundwater
table, was licensed in
1974 for disposal of inert
fill materials including soil,
concrete, and brick. From
1980 to 1997, the NLL
was used for disposal of
coal ash from the Lansing
Board of Water and Light
electric and steam generating plants.
An unlined, 44-acre SI that
received fly ash and
scrubber sludge from a
coal-fired power plant,
along with other wastes
(including ash from the
combustion of sunflower
seed hulls), between the
1950s and the late 1980s.
Scientific—The lead levels found in downgradient wells exceed the primary MCL
Action Level.
Administrative—The State has required remedial action as a result of the contamination, and the owner was directed, by
the Supreme Court of the State of New
York County of Chautauqua (July 22,
1988), to cease receiving the aforementioned wastes at the facility no later than
October 15, 1988.
Scientific—Arsenic and chromium exceeded (health-based) primary MCLs, and
Administrative—The site was placed on
the NPL list, and EPA signed a Consent
Order with the owner to clean up the lagoons.
This case was not counted as a proven
damage case in the 1999 RTC 186 because it was a case of illegal disposal
not representative of historical or current
disposal practices. However, it otherwise meets the criteria for a proven
damage case for the following reasons:
Scientific—(i) Selenium and arsenic exceeded (health-based) primary MCLs,
and (ii) there is evidence of contamination of nearby wetlands and surface waters, and
Administrative—the facility was the subject
of several citations and the State has
enforced remedial actions.
Scientific—Evidence for boron, molybdenum, arsenic and lead exceeding
health-based standards in water wells
away from the Pines Yard 520 Landfill
site, and
Administrative—Orders of consent signed
between the EPA and IDEM with responsible parties for continued work at
the site.
North Lansing Landfill,
MI.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Damage case, State
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:14 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Scientific—Observation
of
off-site
exceedances of the State’s healthbased standard for lithium.
Scientific—Several constituents have exceeded their (health-based) primary
MCLs in down-gradient groundwater,
and the site inspection found documentation of releases to ground water
and surface water from the site, and
Administrative—The State required closure of the facility.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35236
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE OF EPA’S PROVEN DAMAGE CASES—Continued
Affected media
Constituents of
concern
Brief description
Basis for consideration as a proven
damage case
Great River Energy
(GRE)—(formerly Cooperative Power Association/United
Power) Coal Creek
Station, ND.
Groundwater .....
Arsenic, Selenium ......
Groundwater .....
Selenium, Sulfate, Vanadium.
VEPCO Possum Point,
VA.
Groundwater .....
Cadmium, Nickel ........
BBBS Sand and Gravel
Quarries, Gambrills,
MD.
Groundwater .....
Aluminum, Arsenic,
Beryllium, Cadmium, Lead, Manganese, Sulfate,
Thallium.
This site includes a number
of evaporation ponds and
SIs that were constructed
in 1978 and 1979. Both
the SIs and the evaporation ponds leaked significantly upon plant startup. A ND DOH regulator
was uncertain as to
whether a liner was initially installed, although
the plant may have
thought they were placing
some sort of liner. The
surficial soils were mostly
sandy materials with a
high water table.
Between 1957 and 1974,
abandoned sand and
gravel pits at the site received fly ash from the
combustion of coal and
petroleum coke at the
Yorktown Power Station.
Disposal at the site ended
in 1974 when Virginia
Power began burning oil
at the Yorktown plant. In
1980, nearby shallow residential wells became
contaminated with vanadium and selenium.
At this site, oil ash, pyrites,
boiler chemical cleaning
wastes, coal fly ash, and
coal bottom ash were comanaged in an unlined
SI, with solids dredged to
a second pond.
As of 1995, the defendants
used fly ash and bottom
ash from two Maryland
power plants to fill excavated portions of two unlined sand and gravel
quarries. GW samples
collected in 2006/07 from
residential drinking water
wells near the site indicated contaminants at or
above GW quality standards. Testing of private
wells in 83 homes and
businesses in areas
around the disposal site
revealed MCL
exceedances in 34 wells,
and SMCLs exceedances
in 63 wells.
Scientific—Arsenic and selenium exceeded (health-based) primary MCLs, and
Administrative—The State required remedial action.
VEPCO Chisman Creek,
VA.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Damage case, State
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:14 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Designated as a proven damage case in
the 1999 RTC.
Scientific—(i) Drinking water wells contained selenium above the (healthbased) primary MCL and (ii) There is
evidence of surface water and sediment
contamination, and
Administrative—The site was remediated
under CERCLA.
Damage case described in the 1999 RTC.
Administrative—Action pursued by the
State
based
on
evidence
on
exceedances of cadmium and nickel, by
requiring the removal of the waste.
Scientific—Documented exceedances of
MCLs in numerous off-site drinking
water wells.
Administrative—On October 1, 2007, the
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) filed a consent order in
Anne Arundel County, Maryland Circuit
Court to settle an environmental enforcement action against the owner of a
sand and gravel quarry and the owner
of coal fired power plants for contamination of public drinking water wells in the
vicinity of the sand and gravel quarry.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
35237
TABLE OF EPA’S PROVEN DAMAGE CASES—Continued
Affected media
Constituents of
concern
Brief description
Basis for consideration as a proven
damage case
Hyco Lake, Roxboro,
NC.
Surface Water ...
Selenium ....................
Scientific—Declines in fish populations
were observed (1970s & 1980s).
Administrative—The State concluded that
the impacts were attributable to the ash
ponds, and issued a fish consumption
advisory as a result of the contamination.
Georgia Power Company, Plant Bowen,
Cartersville, GA.
Surface Water ...
Ash Slurry ..................
Department of Energy—
Oak Ridge Y–12 Plant
Chestnut Ridge Operable Unit 2, DOE Oak
Ridge Reservation,
Oak Ridge, TN.
Surface Water ...
Aluminum, Arsenic,
Iron, Manganese.
Belews Lake, NC ..........
Surface Water ...
Selenium ....................
Hyco Lake was constructed
in 1964 as a cooling
water source for the Electric Plant. The lake received discharges from
the plant’s ash-settling
ponds containing high levels of selenium. The selenium accumulated in the
fish in the lake, affecting
reproduction and causing
declines in fish populations in the late 1970s
and 1980s.
This unlined SI was put in
service in 1968. On July
28, 2002, a sinkhole developed in the SI that ultimately reached four acres
in area. An estimated
2.25 million gallons of
ash/water mixture was released to a tributary of
the Euharlee Creek, containing 281 tons of ash.
The Filled Coal Ash Pond
(FCAP) is an ash retention SI used to dispose of
coal ash slurry from the
Y–12 steam plant. It was
constructed in 1955 by
building an earthen dam
across a northern tributary of Upper McCoy
Branch. After the SI was
filled to capacity, the slurry was released directly
into Upper McCoy
Branch. Erosion of both
the spillway and the ash
itself resulted in releases
of ash into Upper McCoy
Branch.
This Lake was impounded
in the early 1970s to
serve as a cooling reservoir for a large coalfired power plant. Fly ash
was disposed in a settling
basin, which released selenium-laden effluent in
return flows to the Lake.
Sixteen of the 20 fish
species originally present
in the reservoir were entirely eliminated.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Damage case, State
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Scientific—Unpermitted discharge of water
containing ash slurry into the Euharlee
Creek resulting in a temporary degradation of public waters.
Administrative—Georgia Department of
Natural Resources issued a consent
order requiring, among others, a fine
and corrective action.
Scientific—Exceedances of primary and
secondary MCLs were detected in onsite monitoring locations.
Administrative—Federal RCRA and the
Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation (TDEC) requirements, including placement of the entire
Oak Ridge Reservation on the NPL.
Scientific—Evidence of extensive impacts
on fish populations due to direct discharge to a surface water body.
Administrative—The
State
required
changes in operating practices to mitigate the contamination.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35238
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE OF EPA’S PROVEN DAMAGE CASES—Continued
Affected media
Constituents of
concern
Brief description
Basis for consideration as a proven
damage case
U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River
Project, SC.
Surface Water ...
Not cited .....................
Surface Water ...
Selenium ....................
Southwestern Electric
Power Company
Welsh Reservoir, TX.
Surface Water ...
Selenium ....................
Texas Utilities Electric
Martin Lake Reservoir, TX.
Surface Water ...
Selenium ....................
Martins Creek Power
Plant, Martins Creek,
PA.
Groundwater
and Surface
Water.
Aluminum, Arsenic,
Chromium, Copper,
Iron, Lead, Manganese, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, Zinc.
A coal-fired power plant
sluices fly ash to a series
of open settling basins. A
continuous flow of sluice
water exits the basins,
overflows, and enters a
swamp that in turn discharges to Beaver Dam
Creek. Bullfrog tadpoles
inhabiting the site have
oral deformities and impaired swimming and
predator avoidance abilities, and there also is evidence of metabolic impacts on water snakes inhabiting the site.
A power plant cooling reservoir built in 1983 for
Southwestern Electric
Power Company’s Pirkey
Power Plant. The cooling
reservoir received discharges from SIs containing elevated levels of
selenium.
This Lake was constructed
in 1976 to serve as a
cooling reservoir for a
power plant and receives
discharges from an open
SI. The Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department’s
monitoring documents
elevated levels of selenium and other metals in
fish.
This Lake was constructed
in 1974 to serve as a
cooling reservoir for a
power plant and was the
site of a series of major
fish kills in 1978 and
1979. Investigations determined that unpermitted
discharges from ash settling ponds resulted in
elevated levels of selenium in the water and fish.
In August 2005, a dam confining a 40 acre CCR SI
failed. The dam failure, a
violation of the State’s
solid waste disposal permit, resulted in the discharge of 100 million gallons of coal-ash and contaminated water into the
Oughoughton Creek and
the Delaware River.
Ground-water monitoring
found Se and Cr concentrations exceeding
Pennsylvania’s Statewide
Health Standards and
Federal primary drinking
water standards, and
there were also
exceedances of the secondary MCL for iron.
Scientific—Evidence of impacts on several
species in a nearby wetland caused by
releases from the ash settling ponds.
Brandy Branch Reservoir, TX.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Damage case, State
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Scientific—Observations of impacts on fish
populations were confirmed by scientific
study, based on which the State concluded that the impacts were attributable to the ash ponds.
Administrative—The State issued a fish
consumption advisory as a result of the
contamination.
Scientific—Selenium accumulation in fish
may be attributable to the ash settling
ponds.
Administrative—The State has issued a
fish consumption advisory as a result of
the contamination.
Scientific—Evidence of adverse effects on
wildlife—impacts on fish populations
were observed, and the State concluded
that the impacts were attributable to the
ash setting ponds.
Administrative—The State has issued a
fish consumption advisory as a result of
the contamination.
Scientific—Exceedances of primary and
secondary MCLs in on-site ground
water, and exceedances of federal
water quality criteria in off-site surface
water, and
Administrative—PA DEP issued a consent
order for cleanup.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
35239
TABLE OF EPA’S PROVEN DAMAGE CASES—Continued
Damage case, State
TVA Kingston, Harriman, TN.
Constituents of
concern
Affected media
Surface Water ...
Arsenic, Cobalt, Iron,
Thallium.
40 CFR Part 257
Environmental Protection, coal
combustion products, coal combustion
residuals, coal combustion waste,
beneficial use, disposal, hazardous
waste, landfill, surface impoundment.
40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous waste, Recycling,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
40 CFR Part 264
Air pollution control, Hazardous
waste, Insurance, Packaging and
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Surety
bonds.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
40 CFR Part 302
Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous
waste, Intergovernmental relations,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
On December 22, 2008, the
northeastern dike of a SI
failed. About 5.4 million
cubic yards of fly ash
sludge was released over
about a 300 acre area
and into a branch of the
Emory River, disrupting
power, rupturing a gas
line, and destroying or
damaging scores of
homes.
Sampling results for the
contaminated residential
soil showed arsenic, cobalt, iron, and thallium
levels above the residential Superfund soil screening levels.
Administrative—On May 11, 2009, TVA
agreed to clean up more than 5 million
tons of spilled coal ash under an administrative order and agreement on consent under CERCLA issued by the
USEPA, and In early January 2009, the
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
(TWRA) issued a fish advisory stating
that until further notice, fishing should
be avoided in the lower section of the
Emory River.
Dated: May 4, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 271
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Hazardous materials
transportation, Hazardous waste,
Indians-lands, Intergovernmental
relations, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Basis for consideration as a proven
damage case
Natural resources, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund,
Water pollution control, Water supply.
Abbreviations key:
1 LF—Landfill
2 SI—Surface Impoundment
3 PAL—Prevention Action Level
4 ES—Enforcement Standard
5 RTC—Report to Congress
40 CFR Part 268
Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Brief description
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
Alternative 1: Co-Proposal Under
Authority of Subtitle D
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), and 6949a(c); 33 U.S.C.
1345(d) and (e).
2. Section 257.1 is amended by
revising the last sentence of paragraph
(a) introductory text, revising
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), and adding
new paragraph (c)(12) to read as follows:
§ 257.1
Scope and purpose.
(a) * * * Unless otherwise provided,
the criteria §§ 257.51 through 257.101
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 either
the criteria in §§ 257.1 through 257.4 or
§§ 257.5 through 257.30 or §§ 257.51
through 257.101 are considered open
dumps, which are prohibited under
section 4005 of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(2) Practices failing to satisfy either
the criteria in §§ 257.1 through 257.4 or
§§ 257.5 through 257.30 or §§ 257.51
through 257.101 constitute open
dumping, which is prohibited under
section 4005 of the Act.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(12) Except as otherwise provided in
subpart C, the criteria in subpart A of
this part do not apply to CCR landfills
and CCR surface impoundments subject
to subpart C of this part.
3. Section 257.2 is amended by
adding definitions of ‘‘CCR landfill ’’ and
‘‘CCR surface impoundment or
impoundment’’ to read as follows:
§ 257.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
CCR landfill means a disposal facility
or part of a facility where CCRs 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, 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.
CCR surface impoundment or
impoundment means 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 CCRs
containing free liquids, and which is not
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35240
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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 CCRs
that 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.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Part 257 is amended by adding and
reserving Subpart C.
5. Part 257 is amended by adding
Subpart D to part 257 to read as follows:
Subpart D—Standards for the Receipt
of Coal Combustion Residuals in
Landfills and Surface Impoundments
General Provisions
Sec.
257.40 Disposal standards for owners/
operators of CCR landfills and CCR
surface impoundments.
257.42–257.49 [Reserved]
General Requirements
257.50 Applicability of other regulations.
257.51–257.59 [Reserved]
Location Restrictions
257.60 Placement above the natural water
table.
257.61 Wetlands.
257.62 Fault areas.
257.63 Seismic impact zones.
257.64 Unstable areas.
257.65 Closure of existing CCR landfills and
surface impoundments.
257.66–257.69 [Reserved]
Design Criteria
257.70 Design criteria for new CCR landfills
and lateral expansions.
257.71 Design criteria for existing CCR
surface impoundments.
257.72 Design criteria for new CCR surface
impoundments and lateral expansions.
257.73–257.79 [Reserved]
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Operating Criteria
257.80 Air criteria.
257.81 Run-on and run-off controls.
257.82 Surface water requirements.
257.83 Surface impoundment inspection
requirements.
257.84 Recordkeeping requirements.
257.85–257.89 [Reserved]
Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective
Action
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.
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
Closure and Post-Closure Care
257.100 Closure criteria.
257.101 Post-closure care requirements.
257.102–257.109 [Reserved]
Subpart D—Standards for the Receipt
of Coal Combustion Residuals in
Landfills and Surface Impoundments
General Provisions
Subpart C—[Added and Reserved]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
257.98 Implementation of the corrective
action program.
257.99 [Reserved]
§ 257.40 Disposal standards for owners/
operators of CCR landfills and CCR surface
impoundments.
(a) Applicability. (1) The requirements
of this subpart apply to owners or
operators of CCR landfills and CCR
surface impoundments. Any CCR
landfill and surface impoundment
continues to be subject to the
requirements in §§ 257.3–1, 257.3–2,
and 257.3–3.
(2) Except as otherwise specified in
this Subpart, all of the requirements in
this Subpart are applicable [date 180
days after the effective date of the final
rule].
(b) Definitions. As used in this
subpart:
Acre-foot means the volume of one
acre of surface area to a depth of one
foot.
Active life means the period of
operation beginning with the initial
placement of CCRs in the landfill or
surface impoundment and ending at
completion of closure activities in
accordance with § 257.110.
Aquifer means a geological formation,
group of formations, or portion of a
formation capable of yielding significant
quantities of groundwater to wells.
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.
Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs)
means fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag,
and flue gas desulfurization materials.
CCRs are also known as coal
combustion wastes (CCWs) and fossil
fuel combustion (FFC) wastes.
CCR landfill means a disposal facility
or part of a facility where CCRs 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
subpart, landfills also include piles,
sand and gravel pits, quarries, and/or
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
large scale fill operations. Sites that are
excavated so that more coal ash can be
used as fill are also considered CCR
landfills.
CCR surface impoundment or
impoundment means 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 CCRs
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 CCRs
that 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.
Existing CCR landfill means a CCR
landfill which was in operation on, or
for which construction commenced
prior to [the effective date of the final
rule]. 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.
Existing CCR surface impoundment
means a surface impoundment which
was in operation on, or for which
construction commenced prior to [the
effective date of the final rule]. 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 on-site, physical
construction program has begun; or
(2) The owner or operator has entered
into contractual obligations—which can
not be cancelled or modified without
substantial loss—for physical
construction of the CCR surface
impoundment to be completed within a
reasonable time.
Facility means all contiguous land
and structures, other appurtenances,
and improvements on the land used for
the disposal of CCRs.
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.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Freeboard means the vertical distance
between the slurry or liquid elevation in
an impoundment and the lowest point
on the crest of the impoundment
embankment.
Groundwater means water below the
land surface in a zone of saturation.
Hazard potential classification means
the possible adverse incremental
consequences that result from the
release of water or stored contents due
to failure of a dam (or impoundment) or
mis-operation of the dam or
appurtenances. (Note: The Hazard
Potential Classification System for Dams
was developed by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers for the National Inventory
of Dams.)
(1) High hazard potential surface
impoundment means a surface
impoundment where failure or misoperation will probably cause loss of
human life.
(2) Significant hazard potential
surface impoundment means a surface
impoundment where failure or misoperation results in no probable loss of
human life, but can cause economic
loss, environmental damage, disruption
of lifeline facilities, or impact other
concerns.
(3) Low hazard potential surface
impoundment means a surface
impoundment where failure or misoperation 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.
Independent registered professional
engineer or hydrologist means a scientist
or engineer who is not an employee of
the owner or operator of a CCR landfill
or surface impoundment who has
received a baccalaureate or postgraduate degree in the natural sciences
or engineering and 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 judgments
regarding the technical information for
which a certification under this subpart
is necessary.
Lateral expansion means a horizontal
expansion of the waste boundaries of an
existing CCR landfill, or existing CCR
surface impoundment made after [the
effective date of the final rule].
New CCR landfill means a CCR
landfill in which there is placement of
CCRs without the presence of free
liquids, which began operation, or for
which the construction commenced
after [the effective date of the final rule].
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
New CCR surface impoundment
means a CCR surface impoundment
from which there is placement of CCRs
with the presence of free liquids, which
began operation, or for which the
construction commenced after [the
effective date of the final rule].
Operator means the person(s)
responsible for the overall operation of
a facility.
Owner means the person(s) who owns
a facility or part of a facility.
Probable maximum precipitation
means the value for a particular area
which represents an envelopment of
depth-duration-area rainfall relations for
all storm types affecting that area
adjusted meteorologically to maximum
conditions.
Recognized and generally accepted
good engineering practices means
engineering maintenance or operation
activities based on established codes,
standards, published technical reports,
recommended practice, or similar
document. Such practices detail
generally 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, groundwater) which
can be expected to exhibit the average
properties of the universe or whole.
Run-off means any rainwater,
leachate, or other liquid that drains over
land from any part of a CCR landfill or
surface impoundment.
Run-on means any rainwater,
leachate, or other liquid that drains over
land onto any part of a CCR landfill or
surface impoundment.
Sand and gravel pit or quarry means
an excavation for the commercial
extraction of aggregate for use in
construction projects.
State means any of the several States,
the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.
Surface water means all water
naturally open to the atmosphere
(rivers, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, streams,
impoundments, seas, estuaries, etc.).
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.
Waste boundary means a vertical
surface located at the hydraulically
downgradient limit of the CCR landfill
or CCR surface impoundment, or lateral
expansion. The vertical surface extends
down into the uppermost aquifer.
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§§ 257.42–257.49
35241
[Reserved]
General Requirements
§ 257.50
Applicability of other regulations.
(a) The owner or operator of a CCR
landfill or CCR surface impoundment
must comply with any other applicable
federal, state, tribal, or local laws or
other requirements.
§§ 257.51–257.59
[Reserved]
Location Restrictions
§ 257.60 Placement above the natural
water table.
(a) New CCR landfills and new CCR
surface impoundments and lateral
expansions must be constructed with a
base that is located a minimum of two
feet above the upper limit of the natural
water table.
(b) For purposes of this section,
natural water table means the natural
level at which water stands in a shallow
well open along its length and
penetrating the surficial deposits just
deeply enough to encounter standing
water at the bottom. This level is
uninfluenced by groundwater pumping
or other engineered activities.
§ 257.61
Wetlands.
(a) New CCR landfills, new CCR
surface impoundments, and lateral
expansions shall not be located in
wetlands, unless the owner or operator
can make the following demonstrations,
certified by an independent registered
professional engineer or hydrologist.
The owner or operator must place the
demonstrations in the operating record
and the owner’s or operator’s publicly
accessible internet site, and notify the
state of this action.
(1) Where applicable under section
404 of the Clean Water Act or applicable
state wetlands laws, the presumption
that a practicable alternative to the
proposed landfill, surface
impoundment, or lateral expansion is
available which does not involve
wetlands is clearly rebutted; and
(2) The construction and operation of
the new CCR landfill, new CCR surface
impoundment, or lateral expansion will
not:
(i) Cause or contribute to violations of
any applicable state water quality
standard,
(ii) Violate 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
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35242
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
(iv) Violate any requirement under the
Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 for the
protection of a marine sanctuary; and
(3) The new CCR landfill, new CCR
surface impoundment, or lateral
expansion will not cause or contribute
to significant degradation of wetlands.
The owner or operator must
demonstrate the integrity of the new
CCR landfill, new CCR surface
impoundment, or lateral expansion and
its ability to protect ecological resources
by addressing the following factors:
(i) Erosion, stability, and migration
potential of native wetland soils, muds
and deposits used to support the new
CCR landfill, new CCR surface
impoundment, or lateral expansion;
(ii) Erosion, stability, and migration
potential of dredged and fill materials
used to support the landfill or surface
impoundment.
(iii) The volume and chemical nature
of the CCRs.
(iv) Impacts on fish, wildlife, and
other aquatic resources and their habitat
from release of CCRs.
(v) The potential effects of
catastrophic release of CCRs 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; and
(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 practicable as required by
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, then
minimizing unavoidable impacts to the
maximum extent practicable, and finally
offsetting remaining unavoidable
wetland impacts through all appropriate
and practicable 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 reasonable determination
with respect to these demonstrations.
(b) For purposes of this section,
wetlands means those areas defined in
40 CFR 232.2.
§ 257.62
Fault areas.
(a) New CCR landfills, new CCR
surface impoundments and lateral
expansions shall not be located within
200 feet (60 meters) of a fault that has
had displacement in Holocene time
unless the owner or operator
demonstrates that an alternative setback
distance of less than 200 feet (60 meters)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
will prevent damage to the structural
integrity of the new CCR landfill, new
CCR surface impoundment and lateral
expansion and will be protective of
human health and the environment. The
demonstration must be certified by an
independent registered professional
engineer and the owner or operator
must notify the state that the
demonstration has been placed in the
operating record and on the owner’s or
operator’s publicly accessible Internet
site.
(b) For the purposes of this section:
(1) 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.
(2) Displacement means the relative
movement of any two sides of a fault
measured in any direction.
(3) Holocene means the most recent
epoch of the Quaternary period,
extending from the end of the
Pleistocene Epoch to the present.
§ 257.63
Seismic impact zones.
(a) New CCR landfills, new CCR
surface impoundments and lateral
expansions shall not be located in
seismic impact zones, unless the owner
or operator demonstrates 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 for the site. The demonstration
must be certified by an independent
registered professional engineer and the
owner or operator must notify the state
that the demonstration has been placed
in the operating record and on the
owner’s or operator’ publicly accessible
internet site.
(b) For the purposes of this section:
(1) Seismic impact zone means an
area with a ten percent or greater
probability that the maximum
horizontal acceleration in lithified earth
material, expressed as a percentage of
the earth’s gravitational pull (g), will
exceed 0.10g in 250 years.
(2) Maximum horizontal acceleration
in lithified earth material means the
maximum expected horizontal
acceleration depicted on a seismic
hazard map, with a 98 percent 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.
(3) 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
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sediments. This term does not include
man-made materials, such as fill,
concrete, and asphalt, or unconsolidated
earth materials, soil, or regolith lying at
or near the earth surface.
§ 257.64
Unstable areas.
(a) Owners or operators of new or
existing CCR landfills, new or existing
CCR surface impoundments and lateral
expansions located in an unstable area
must demonstrate that engineering
measures have been incorporated into
the landfill, surface impoundment, or
lateral expansion design to ensure that
the integrity of the structural
components of the landfill or surface
impoundment will not be disrupted.
The demonstration must be certified by
an independent registered professional
engineer. The owner or operator must
notify the state that the demonstration
has been placed in the operating record
and on the owner’s or operator’s
publicly accessible internet site. The
owner or operator must consider 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).
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) Unstable area means a location
that is susceptible to natural or humaninduced events or forces capable of
impairing the integrity of some or all of
the CCR landfill or CCR surface
impoundment or lateral expansion
structural components responsible for
preventing releases from a landfill or
surface impoundment. Unstable areas
can include poor foundation conditions,
areas susceptible to mass movements,
and Karst terrains.
(2) Structural components means
liners, leachate collection systems, final
covers, run-on/run-off systems, and any
other component used in the
construction and operation of the CCR
landfill or CCR surface impoundment or
lateral expansion that is necessary for
protection of human health and the
environment.
(3) Poor foundation conditions means
those areas where features exist which
indicate that a natural or man-induced
event may result in inadequate
foundation support for the structural
components of a CCR landfill, CCR
surface impoundment, or lateral
expansion.
(4) Areas susceptible to mass
movement means those areas of
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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 landfill,
CCR surface impoundment, or lateral
expansion, because of natural or maninduced 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, soil fluction, block sliding, and
rock fall.
(5) Karst terranes means areas where
karst topography, with its characteristic
surface and subterranean features, has
developed as a result of dissolution of
limestone, dolomite, or other soluble
rock. Characteristic physiographic
features present in karst terranes
include, but are not limited to,
sinkholes, sinking streams, caves, large
springs, and blind valleys.
§ 257.65 Closure of existing CCR landfills
and surface impoundments.
(a) Existing CCR landfills and surface
impoundments that cannot make the
demonstration specified in § 257.64 (a)
pertaining to unstable areas, must close
by [date five years after the effective
date of the final rule], in accordance
with § 257.100 and conduct post-closure
activities in accordance with § 257.101.
(b) The deadline for closure required
by paragraph (a) of this section may be
extended up to two years if the owner
or operator can demonstrate that:
(1) There is no available alternative
disposal capacity;
(2) There is no immediate threat to
human health and the environment.
(c) The demonstration in paragraph
(b) of this section must be certified by
an independent registered professional
engineer or hydrologist.
(d) The owner or operator must place
the demonstration in paragraph (b) of
this section in the operating record and
on the owner’s or operator’s publicly
accessible internet site and notify the
state that this action was taken.
§§ 257.66–257.69
[Reserved]
Design Criteria
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 257.70 Design criteria for new CCR
landfills and lateral expansions.
(a) New CCR landfills and lateral
expansions of CCR landfills shall be
constructed:
(1) With a composite liner, as defined
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and a
leachate collection system that is
designed and constructed to maintain
less than a 30-cm depth of leachate over
the liner. The design of the composite
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
liner and leachate collection system
must be prepared by, or under the
direction of, and certified by an
independent registered, professional
engineer.
(2) For purposes of this section,
composite liner means a system
consisting of two components; the
upper component must consist of a
minimum 30-mil flexible membrane
liner (FML), and the lower component
must consist of at least a two-foot layer
of compacted soil with a hydraulic
conductivity of no more than 1×10¥7
cm/sec. FML components consisting of
high density polyethylene (HDPE) shall
be at least 60-mil thick. The FML
component must be installed in direct
and uniform contact with the
compacted soil component.
(3) For purpose of this section,
hydraulic conductivity means the rate at
which water can move through a
permeable medium. (i.e., the coefficient
of permeability).
(b) [Reserved]
§ 257.71 Design criteria for existing CCR
surface impoundments.
(a) No later than [five years after
effective date of final rule] existing CCR
surface impoundments shall be
constructed:
(1) With a composite liner, as defined
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and a
leachate collection system between the
upper and lower components of the
composite liner. The design shall be in
accordance with a design prepared by,
or under the direction of, and certified
by an independent registered
professional engineer.
(2) For purposes of this section,
composite liner means a system
consisting of two components; the
upper component must consist of a
minimum 30-mil flexible membrane
line (FML), and the lower component
must consist of at least two-foot layer of
compacted soil with a hydraulic
conductivity of no more than 1×10¥7
cm/sec. FML components consisting of
high density polyethylene (HDPE) shall
be at least 60-mil thick. The FML
component must be installed in direct
and uniform contact with the
compacted soil component.
(3) For purposes of this section,
hydraulic conductivity means the rate at
which water can move through a
permeable medium (i.e., the coefficient
of permeability).
(b) The owner or operator of an
existing CCR surface impoundment
shall place in the operating record and
on the owner’s or operator’s publicly
accessible internet site, and provide to
the state a history of construction, and
any record or knowledge of structural
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35243
instability if the existing surface
impoundment can:
(1) Impound CCRs 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) Impound CCRs to an elevation of
20 feet or more above the upstream toe
of the structure.
(c) For purposes of this subpart,
upstream toe means, for an embankment
dam, the junction of the upstream slope
of the dam with the ground surface.
(Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety,
Glossary of Terms, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, April 2004.)
(d) The history of construction
specified in paragraph (b) of this section
shall contain, at a minimum, the
following information as may be
available:
(1) The name and address of the
persons owning or operating the CCR
surface impoundment; the name
associated with the CCR surface
impoundment; and the identification
number of the CCR surface
impoundment if one has been assigned
by the state.
(2) The location of the CCR surface
impoundment indicated on the most
recent USGS 71⁄2 minute or 15 minute
topographic quadrangle map, or a
topographic map of equivalent scale if a
USGS map is not available.
(3) A statement of the purpose for
which the CCR surface impoundment is
being used.
(4) The name and size in acres of the
watershed affecting the CCR surface
impoundment.
(5) A description of the physical and
engineering properties of the foundation
materials on which the CCR surface
impoundment is constructed.
(6) 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 surface impoundment; the method
of site preparation and construction of
each zone of the CCR surface
impoundment; and the approximate
dates of construction, and each
successive stage of construction of the
CCR surface impoundment.
(7) At a scale not to exceed 1 inch =
100 feet, detailed dimensional drawings
of the CCR surface impoundment,
including a plan view and cross sections
of the length and width of the CCR
surface impoundment, showing all
zones, foundation improvements,
drainage provisions, spillways,
diversion ditches, outlets, instrument
locations, and slope protection, in
addition to the measurement of the
minimum vertical distance between the
crest of the CCR surface impoundment
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35244
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
and the reservoir surface at present and
under design storm conditions, CCR
slurry level and CCR waste water level,
and any identifiable natural or
manmade features which could affect
operation of the CCR surface
impoundment.
(8) A description of the type and
purpose of existing or proposed
instrumentation.
(9) Graphs showing area-capacity
curves.
(10) The hazard potential
classification for which the facility is
designed and a detailed explanation of
the basis for this classification.
(11) A description of the spillway and
diversion design features and capacities
and calculations used in their
determination.
(12) The computed minimum factor of
safety for slope stability of the CCR
retaining structure(s) and the analyses
used in their determinations.
(13) A certification by an independent
registered 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; or, in lieu of the
certification, a report indicating what
additional investigations, analyses, or
improvement work are necessary before
such a certification can be made by an
independent registered professional
engineer, including what provisions
have been made to carry out such work
in addition to a schedule for completion
of such work. Upon completion of such
work, the owner or operator shall place
the certification in the operating record
and on the owner’s or operator’s
publicly accessible internet site and
provide to the state notice of such
certification.
(14) The construction specifications
and provisions for surveillance,
maintenance, and repair of the CCR
surface impoundment.
(15) General provisions for closure.
(e) A permanent identification
marker, at least six feet high and
showing the identification number of
the existing CCR surface impoundment,
if one has been assigned by the state, the
name associated with the CCR surface
impoundment and the name of the
person owning or operating the
structure, shall be located on or
immediately adjacent to each existing
CCR surface impoundment. This
requirement becomes effective [date 60
days after the effective date of the final
rule].
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
(f) For existing CCR surface
impoundments classified as having a
high or significant hazard potential, as
certified by an independent registered
professional engineer, the owner or
operator shall develop and maintain in
the operating record, and on the owner’s
or operator’ publicly accessible internet
site, an Emergency Action Plan which:
defines responsible persons and the
actions to be taken in the event of a
dam-safety emergency; provides contact
information for emergency responders;
includes a map which delineates the
downstream area which would be
affected in the event of a dam failure;
and includes provisions for an annual
face-to-face meeting or exercise between
representatives of the facility owner and
the local emergency responders.
(g) CCR surface impoundments shall
be dredged of CCRs and lined with a
composite liner system, as defined in
paragraph (d)(2) of this section, by [date
five years after the effective date of the
final rule] or closed in accordance with
§ 257.100.
§ 257.72 Design criteria for new CCR
surface impoundments and lateral
expansions.
(a) New CCR surface impoundments
and lateral expansions of CCR landfills
or surface impoundments shall be
constructed:
(1) With a composite liner, as defined
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and a
leachate collection system between the
upper and lower components of the
composite liner. The design of the
composite liner and leachate collection
system must be prepared by, or under
the direction of, and certified by an
independent registered, professional
engineer.
(2) For purposes of this section,
composite liner means a system
consisting of two components; the
upper component must consist of a
minimum 30-mil flexible membrane
liner (FML), and the lower component
must consist of at least a two-foot layer
of compacted soil with a hydraulic
conductivity of no more than 1×10¥7
cm/sec. FML components consisting of
high density polyethylene (HDPE) shall
be at least 60-mil thick. The FML
component must be installed in direct
and uniform contact with the
compacted soil component.
(3) For purpose of this section,
hydraulic conductivity means the rate at
which water can move through a
permeable medium (i.e., the coefficient
of permeability).
(b) Plans for the design, construction,
and maintenance of new CCR surface
impoundments and lateral expansions
shall be placed in the operating record
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and be submitted to the state upon
certification by an independent
registered professional engineer, and a
notice shall be placed on the owner’s or
operator’s publicly accessible internet
site that such plans have been placed in
the operating record and submitted to
the state, if such proposed surface
impoundment or lateral expansion can:
(1) Impound CCRs 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) Impound CCRs to an elevation of
20 feet or more above the upstream toe
of the structure.
(c) A permanent identification
marker, at least six feet high and
showing the identification number of
the CCR surface impoundment, if one
has been assigned by the state, the name
associated with the CCR surface
impoundment and the name of the
person owning or operating the
structure, shall be located on or
immediately adjacent to each CCR
surface impoundment. This requirement
becomes effective [date 60 days after the
effective date of the final rule].
(d) The plan specified in paragraph
(b) of this section, shall contain at a
minimum the following information:
(1) The name and address of the
persons owning or operating the CCR
surface impoundment; the name
associated with the CCR surface
impoundment; and the identification
number of the CCR surface
impoundment if one has been assigned
by the state.
(2) The location of the CCR surface
impoundment indicated on the most
recent USGS 71⁄2 minute or 15 minute
topographic quadrangle map, or a
topographic map of equivalent scale if a
USGS map is not available.
(3) A statement of the purpose for
which the CCR surface impoundment is
being used.
(4) The name and size in acres of the
watershed affecting the CCR surface
impoundment.
(5) A description of the physical and
engineering properties of the foundation
materials on which the CCR surface
impoundment is constructed.
(6) 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 surface impoundment; the method
of site preparation and construction of
each zone of the CCR surface
impoundment; and the approximate
dates of construction, and each
successive stage of construction of the
CCR surface impoundment.
(7) At a scale not to exceed 1 inch =
100 feet, detailed dimensional drawings
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
of the CCR surface impoundment,
including a plan view and cross sections
of the length and width of the CCR
surface impoundment, showing all
zones, foundation improvements,
drainage provisions, spillways,
diversion ditches, outlets, instrument
locations, and slope protection, in
addition to the measurement of the
minimum vertical distance between the
crest of the CCR surface impoundment
and the reservoir surface at present and
under design storm conditions, CCR
slurry level and CCR waste water level,
and any identifiable natural or
manmade features which could affect
operation of the CCR surface
impoundment.
(8) A description of the type and
purpose of existing or proposed
instrumentation.
(9) Graphs showing area-capacity
curves.
(10) The hazard potential
classification for which the facility is
designed and a detailed explanation of
the basis for this classification.
(11) A description of the spillway and
diversion design features and capacities
and calculations used in their
determination.
(12) The computed minimum factor of
safety for slope stability of the CCR
retaining structure(s) and the analyses
used in their determinations.
(13) The construction specifications
and provisions for surveillance,
maintenance, and repair of the CCR
surface impoundment.
(14) General provisions for closure.
(15) A certification by an independent
registered professional engineer that the
design of the CCR surface impoundment
is in accordance with generally accepted
engineering standards 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. The owner or operator
shall place the certification in the
operating record and on the owner’s or
operator’s publicly accessible internet
site and notify the state that these
actions have been taken.
(e) Any changes or modifications to
the plans for CCR surface
impoundments shall be certified by an
independent registered professional
engineer and provided to the state prior
to the initiation of such changes or
modifications. The certification required
in this paragraph shall be placed on the
owner’s or operator’s publicly accessible
internet site.
(f) For CCR surface impoundments
classified by as having a high or
significant hazard potential, as certified
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
by an independent registered
professional engineer, the owner or
operator shall develop and maintain in
the operating record and on the owner’s
or operator’s publicly accessible internet
site, an Emergency Action Plan which:
Defines responsible persons and the
actions to be taken in the event of a
dam-safety emergency; provides contact
information for emergency responders;
includes a map which delineates the
downstream area which would be
affected in the event of a dam failure;
and includes provisions for an annual
face-to-face meeting or exercise between
representatives of the facility owner and
the local emergency responders.
§§ 257.73–257.79
[Reserved]
Operating Criteria
§ 257.80
Air criteria.
(a) CCR surface impoundments and
CCR landfills must be managed in a
manner that fugitive dusts do not
exceed 35 μg/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.
(b) CCR surface impoundments must
be managed to control wind dispersal of
dusts, consistent with the standard in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) CCR landfills must be managed to
control wind dispersal of dusts,
consistent with the standard in
paragraph (a). CCRs must be emplaced
as conditioned CCRs as defied in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) For purposes of this section,
conditioning means wetting CCRs with
water to a moisture content that will
prevent wind dispersal, but will not
result in free liquids.
(e) Documentation of the measures
taken to comply with the requirements
of this section must be certified by an
independent registered professional
engineer and notification provided to
the state that the documentation has
been placed in the operating record and
on the owner’s or operator’s publicly
accessible internet site.
§ 257.81
Run-on and run-off controls.
(a) Owners or operators of all CCR
landfills and surface impoundments
must design, construct, and maintain:
(1) A run-on control system to prevent
flow onto the active portion of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment during
the peak discharge from a 24-hour, 25year storm;
(2) A run-off control system from the
active portion of the CCR landfill or
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35245
surface impoundment to collect and
control at least the water volume
resulting from a 24-hour, 25-year storm.
(b) The design required in paragraph
(a) of this section must be certified by
an independent registered professional
engineer that the design meets the
requirements of this section. The owner
or operator must notify the state that the
design has been placed in the operating
record and on the owner’s or operator’s
publicly accessible internet site.
(c) The owner or operator must
prepare a report, certified by an
independent registered professional
engineer, that documents how relevant
calculations were made, and how the
control systems meet the requirements
of this subpart and notify the state that
the report has been placed in the
operating record and made available to
the public on the owner’s or operator’s
publicly accessible internet site.
(d) Run-off from the active portion of
the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment must be handled in
accordance with § 257.3–3.
§ 257.82
Surface water requirements.
(a) CCR landfills and surface
impoundments shall not:
(1) Cause a discharge of pollutants
into waters of the United States,
including wetlands, that violates any
requirements of the Clean Water Act,
including, but not limited to, the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements, pursuant to section 402 of
the Clean Water Act.
(2) Cause the discharge of a nonpoint
source of pollution to waters of the
United States, including wetlands, that
violates any requirement of an areawide or State-wide water quality
management plan that has been
approved under section 208 or 319 of
the Clean Water Act, as amended.
(b) [Reserved]
§ 257.83 Surface impoundment inspection
requirements.
(a) All existing CCR surface
impoundments shall be examined as
follows:
(1) At intervals not exceeding 7 days
for appearances of structural weakness
and other hazardous conditions.
(2) At intervals not exceeding 7 days
all instruments shall be monitored.
(3) All inspections required by
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section
shall be performed by a qualified
person, as defined in paragraph (e) of
this section, designated by the person
owning or operating the CCR surface
impoundment.
(4) All existing CCR surface
impoundments shall be inspected
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35246
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
annually by an independent registered
professional engineer to assure that the
design, operation, and maintenance of
the surface impoundment is in
accordance with generally accepted
engineering standards. The owner or
operator must notify the state that a
certification by the independent
registered professional engineer that the
design, operation, and maintenance of
the surface impoundment is in
accordance with generally accepted
engineering standards has been placed
in the operating record and on the
owner’s or operator’s publicly accessible
internet site.
(b) When a potentially hazardous
condition develops, the person owning
or operating the CCR surface
impoundment shall immediately:
(1) Take action to eliminate the
potentially hazardous condition;
(2) Notify potentially affected persons
and state and local first responders;
(3) Notify and prepare to evacuate, if
necessary, all personnel from the owner
or operator’s property which may be
affected by the potentially hazardous
conditions; and
(4) 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.
(c) After each inspection and
instrumentation monitoring referred to
in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,
each qualified person who conducted
all or any part of the inspection or
instrumentation monitoring shall
promptly record the results of such
inspection or instrumentation
monitoring in a book which shall be
available in the operating record and
such qualified person shall also
promptly report the results of the
inspection or monitoring to the state. A
report of each inspection and
instrumentation monitoring shall also
be placed on the owner’s or operator’s
publicly accessible internet site.
(d) All inspection and
instrumentation monitoring reports
recorded in accordance with paragraph
(c) of this section shall include a report
of the action taken to abate hazardous
conditions and shall be promptly signed
by the person designated by the owner
or operator as responsible for health and
safety at the owner or operator’s facility.
(e) The qualified person or persons
referred to in this section shall be
trained to recognize specific signs of
structural instability and other
hazardous conditions by visual
observation and, if applicable, to
monitor instrumentation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
§ 257.84
Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of a CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must
record and retain near the facility in an
operating record and on the owner’s or
operator’s publicly accessible internet
site, all records, reports, studies or other
documentation required to demonstrate
compliance with §§ 257.60 through
257.83 and 257.90 through 257.101.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph
(c) of this section, every twelfth month
following [the effective date of the final
rule] for CCR surface impoundments
addressed under § 257.71, and every
twelfth month following the date of the
initial plan for the design (including
lateral expansions), construction, and
maintenance of the surface
impoundments addressed under
§ 257.72(b), the owner or operator of
such CCR surface impoundments that
have not been closed in accordance with
§ 257.100 shall place in the operating
record and on the owner’s or operator’s
publicly accessible internet site, a report
containing the following information.
The owner or operator shall notify the
state that the report has been placed in
the operating record and on the owner’s
or operator’s publicly accessible internet
site.
(1) Changes in the geometry of the
impounding structure for the reporting
period.
(2) Location and type of installed
instruments and the maximum and
minimum recorded readings of each
instrument for the reporting period.
(3) The minimum, maximum, and
present depth and elevation of the
impounded water, sediment, or slurry
for the reporting period.
(4) Storage capacity of the
impounding structure.
(5) The volume of the impounded
water, sediment, or slurry at the end of
the reporting period.
(6) Any other change which may have
affected the stability or operation of the
impounding structure that has occurred
during the reporting period.
(7) A certification by an independent
registered professional engineer that all
construction, operation, and
maintenance were in accordance with
the approved plan.
(c) A report is not required under this
section when the owner or operator
provides the state with a certification by
an independent registered professional
engineer that there have been no
changes under paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(6) of this section to the surface
impoundment. However, a report
containing the information set out in
paragraph (b) of this section shall be
placed in the operating record and on
the owner’s or operator’s publicly
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
accessible internet site and notification
submitted to the state at least every 5
years.
§§ 257.85–257.89
[Reserved]
Groundwater Monitoring and
Corrective Action
§ 257.90
Applicability.
(a) Owners and operators of all CCR
landfills, surface impoundments subject
to this subpart must comply with the
groundwater monitoring requirements
according to the following schedule:
(1) Existing CCR landfills and surface
impoundments must comply with the
groundwater monitoring requirements
specified in §§ 257.91 through 257.95
within [one year after the effective date
of the final rule];
(2) New CCR landfills and surface
impoundments must comply with the
groundwater monitoring requirements
specified in §§ 257.91 through 257.95
before CCR can be disposed of in the
CCR landfill or surface impoundment.
(b) The owner or operator must notify
the state once each year throughout the
active life and post-closure care period
that the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment is in compliance with the
groundwater monitoring and corrective
action provisions of this subpart.
(c) Once established at a CCR landfill
or surface impoundment, groundwater
monitoring shall be conducted
throughout the active life and postclosure care period of that CCR landfill
or surface impoundment as specified in
§ 257.101.
§ 257.91 Groundwater monitoring
systems.
(a) A groundwater monitoring system
must be installed that consists of a
sufficient number of wells, installed at
appropriate locations and depths, to
yield groundwater samples from the
uppermost aquifer (as defined in
§ 257.41) that:
(1) Represent the quality of
background groundwater that has not
been affected by leakage from a CCR
landfill or surface impoundment. 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 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) Represent the quality of
groundwater passing the waste
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
boundary. The downgradient
monitoring system must be installed at
the waste boundary that ensures
detection of groundwater contamination
in the uppermost aquifer.
(b) The groundwater monitoring
system must include at a minimum one
up gradient and three downgradient
wells.
(c) A multiunit groundwater
monitoring system may be installed
instead of separate groundwater
monitoring systems for each CCR
landfill or surface impoundment when
the facility has several units, provided
the multi-unit groundwater monitoring
system meets the requirement of
§ 257.91(a) and will be as protective of
human health and the environment as
individual monitoring systems for each
CCR landfill or surface impoundment,
based on the following factors:
(1) Number, spacing, and orientation
of the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment;
(2) Hydrogeologic setting;
(3) Site history;
(4) Engineering design of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment; and
(d) 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
landfill or surface impoundment must
notify the state that the design,
installation, development, and
decommission of any monitoring wells,
piezometers and other measurement,
sampling, and analytical devices
documentation has been placed in the
operating record and on the owner’s or
operator’s publicly accessible internet
site; and
(2) The monitoring wells,
piezometers, and other measurement,
sampling, and analytical devices must
be operated and maintained so that they
perform to design specifications
throughout the life of the monitoring
program.
(e) The number, spacing, and depths
of monitoring systems shall be:
(1) Determined based upon sitespecific technical information that must
include thorough characterization of:
(i) Aquifer thickness, groundwater
flow rate, groundwater flow direction
including seasonal and temporal
fluctuations in groundwater flow; and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
(ii) 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.
(2) Certified by an independent
registered professional engineer or
hydrologist. Within 14 days of this
certification, the owner or operator must
notify the state that the certification has
been placed in the operating record and
on the owner’s or operator’s publicly
accessible internet site.
§ 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
installed in compliance with § 257.91.
The owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must
notify the State that the sampling and
analysis program documentation has
been placed in the operating record and
on the owner’s or operator’s publicly
accessible internet site and the program
must include 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.
Groundwater samples shall not be fieldfiltered prior to laboratory analysis.
(c) The sampling procedures and
frequency must be protective of human
health and the environment.
(d) Groundwater elevations must be
measured in each well immediately
prior to purging, each time groundwater
is sampled. The owner or operator of the
CCR landfill or surface impoundment
must determine the rate and direction of
groundwater flow each time
groundwater is sampled. Groundwater
elevations in wells which monitor the
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35247
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.
(e) The owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must
establish background groundwater
quality in a hydraulically upgradient or
background well(s) for each of the
monitoring parameters or constituents
required in the particular groundwater
monitoring program that applies to the
CCR landfill or surface impoundment,
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 landfill or surface
impoundment if it meets the
requirements of § 257.91(a)(1).
(f) The number of samples collected to
establish groundwater quality data must
be consistent with the appropriate
statistical procedures determined
pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section.
The sampling procedures shall be those
specified under § 257.94(b) for detection
monitoring, § 257.95(b) and (c) for
assessment monitoring, and § 257.96(b)
for corrective action.
(g) The owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must
specify in the operating record and on
the owner’s or operator’s publicly
accessible Internet site, one of the
following statistical methods to be used
in evaluating groundwater monitoring
data for each hazardous constituent. The
statistical test chosen shall be
conducted separately for each
hazardous constituent in each well.
(1) A parametric analysis of variance
(ANOVA) 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 (ANOVA)
based on ranks 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 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.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35248
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(4) A control chart approach that gives
control limits for each constituent.
(5) Another statistical test method that
meets the performance standards of
paragraph (h) of this section. The owner
or operator of the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment must place a justification
for this alternative in the operating
record and on the owner’s or operator’s
publicly accessible internet site and
notify the state of the use of this
alternative test. The justification must
demonstrate that the alternative method
meets the performance standards of
paragraph (h) of this section.
(h) Any statistical method chosen
under paragraph (g) of this section shall
comply with the following performance
standards, as appropriate:
(1) The statistical method used to
evaluate groundwater monitoring data
shall be appropriate for the distribution
of chemical parameters or hazardous
constituents. If the distribution of the
chemical parameters or hazardous
constituents is shown by the owner or
operator of the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment to be inappropriate for a
normal theory test, then the data should
be transformed or a distribution-free
theory test should be used. If the
distributions for the constituents differ,
more than one statistical method may be
needed.
(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 protective of human health and
the environment. The 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.
(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 protective of human
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
health and the environment. 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 shall
account for data below the limit of
detection with one or more statistical
procedures that are protective of human
health and the environment. Any
practical quantitation limit (pql) that is
used in the statistical method shall be
the lowest concentration level that can
be reliably achieved within specified
limits of precision and accuracy during
routine laboratory operating conditions
that are available to the facility.
(6) If necessary, the statistical method
shall include procedures to control or
correct for seasonal and spatial
variability as well as temporal
correlation in the data.
(i) The owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must
determine whether or not there is a
statistically significant increase over
background values for each parameter or
constituent required in the particular
groundwater monitoring program that
applies to the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment, 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 parameter or constituent at each
monitoring well designated pursuant to
§ 257.91(a)(2) to the background value of
that constituent, according to the
statistical procedures and performance
standards specified under paragraphs (g)
and (h) of this section.
(2) 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.
§ 257.94
Detection monitoring program.
(a) Detection monitoring is required at
CCR landfills and surface
impoundments at all groundwater
monitoring wells. At a minimum, a
detection monitoring program must
include monitoring for the parameters
listed in Appendix III to this part.
(b) The monitoring frequency for all
parameters listed in Appendix III to this
part shall be at least semiannual during
the active life of the CCR landfill or
surface impoundment (including
closure) and the post-closure period. A
minimum of four independent samples
from each background and
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
downgradient well must be collected
and analyzed for the Appendix III
parameters during the first semiannual
sampling event.
(c) At least one sample from each
background and downgradient well
must be collected and analyzed during
subsequent semiannual sampling
events.
(d) If the owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment
determines, pursuant to § 257.93(g) that
there is a statistically significant
increase over background for one or
more of the parameters 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:
(1) Must, within 14 days of this
finding, place a notice in the operating
record and on the owner’s or operator’s
publicly accessible internet site
indicating which parameters have
shown statistically significant changes
from background levels, and notify the
state that this notice was placed in the
operating record and on the owner’s or
operator’s publicly accessible internet
site; and
(2) Must establish an assessment
monitoring program meeting the
requirements of § 257.95 of this part
within 90 days except as provided for in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(3) The owner/operator may
demonstrate that a source other than the
CCR landfill or surface impoundment
caused the statistically significant
increase or that the statistically
significant increase resulted from error
in sampling, analysis, statistical
evaluation, or natural variation in
groundwater quality. A report
documenting this demonstration must
be certified by an independent
registered professional engineer or
hydrologist and be placed in the
operating record and on the owner’s or
operator’s publicly accessible internet
site and the state notified of this finding.
If a successful demonstration is made
and documented, the owner or operator
of the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment may continue detection
monitoring as specified in this section.
If, after 90 days, a successful
demonstration is not made, the owner or
operator of the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment must initiate an
assessment monitoring program as
required in § 257.95.
§ 257.95
Assessment monitoring program.
(a) Assessment monitoring is required
whenever a statistically significant
increase over background has been
detected for one or more of the
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
constituents listed in the 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 landfill or surface
impoundment must sample and analyze
the groundwater for all constituents
identified in Appendix IV to this part.
A minimum of one sample from each
downgradient well must be collected
and analyzed during each sampling
event. For any constituent detected in
the downgradient wells as a result of the
complete Appendix IV analysis, a
minimum of four independent samples
from each well (background and
downgradient) must be collected and
analyzed to establish background for the
constituents.
(c) After obtaining the results from the
initial or subsequent sampling events
required in paragraph (b) of this section,
the owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must:
(1) Within 14 days, place a notice in
the operating record and on the owner’s
or operator’s publicly accessible internet
site identifying the Appendix IV
constituents that have been detected
and notify the state that this notice has
been placed in the operating record and
on the owner’s or operator’s publicly
accessible internet site;
(2) Within 90 days, and on at least a
semiannual basis thereafter, resample
all wells specified by § 257.91(a),
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 and place the results
on the owner’s or operator’s publicly
accessible internet site. At least one
sample from each well (background and
downgradient) must be collected and
analyzed during these sampling events.
(3) Establish background
concentrations for any constituents
detected pursuant to paragraph (b) or
(c)(2) of this section; and
(4) Establish groundwater protection
standards for all constituents detected
pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this
section. The groundwater protection
standards shall be established in
accordance with paragraphs (g) or (h) of
this section.
(d) If the concentrations of all
Appendix IV constituents 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 of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must
place that information in the operating
record and on the owner’s or operator’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
publicly accessible internet site and
notify the state of this finding and may
return to detection monitoring.
(e) If the concentrations of any
Appendix IV constituents are above
background values, but all
concentrations are below the
groundwater protection standard
established under paragraphs (g) or (h)
of this section, using the statistical
procedures in § 257.93(g), the owner or
operator must continue assessment
monitoring in accordance with this
section.
(f) If one or more Appendix IV
constituents are detected at statistically
significant levels above the groundwater
protection standard established under
paragraphs (g) or (h) of this section in
any sampling event, the owner or
operator must, within 14 days of this
finding, place a notice in the operating
record and on the owner’s or operator’s
publicly accessible internet site
identifying the Appendix IV
constituents that have exceeded the
groundwater protection standard and
notify the state and all appropriate local
government officials that the notice has
been placed in the operating record and
on the owner’s or operator’s publicly
accessible internet site. The owner or
operator of the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment also must:
(1)(i) Characterize the nature and
extent of the release by installing
additional monitoring wells as
necessary;
(ii) 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 (c)(2) of this
section;
(iii) 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 (f)(1) of this section; and
(iv) Initiate an assessment of
corrective measures as required by
§ 257.96 of this part within 90 days; or
(2) May demonstrate that a source
other than the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment caused the
contamination, or that the statistically
significant increase resulted from error
in sampling, analysis, statistical
evaluation, or natural variation in
groundwater quality. A report
documenting this demonstration must
be certified by an independent
registered professional engineer or
hydrologist and placed in the operating
record and on the owner’s or operator’s
publicly accessible internet site, and the
state notified of this action. If a
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35249
successful demonstration is made the
owner or operator of the CCR landfill or
surface impoundment must continue
monitoring in accordance with the
assessment monitoring program
pursuant to this section, and may return
to detection monitoring if the Appendix
IV constituents are at or below
background as specified in paragraph
(d) of this section. Until a successful
demonstration is made, the owner or
operator of the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment must comply with
paragraph (f) of this section including
initiating an assessment of corrective
measures.
(g) The owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must
establish a groundwater protection
standard for each Appendix IV
constituent detected in the groundwater.
The groundwater protection standard
shall be:
(1) For constituents for which a
maximum contaminant level (MCL) has
been promulgated under section 1412 of
the Safe Drinking Water Act (codified)
under 40 CFR part 141, the MCL for that
constituent;
(2) For constituents for which MCLs
have not been promulgated, the
background concentration for the
constituent established from wells in
accordance with § 257.91(a)(1); or
(3) For constituents for which the
background level is higher than the
MCL identified under paragraph (g)(1)
of this section or health based levels
identified under paragraph (h)(1) of this
section, the background concentration.
(h) The owner or operator may
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 record and
on the owner’s or operator’s publicly
accessible internet site. These
groundwater protection standards shall
be appropriate health based levels that
satisfy the following criteria:
(1) The level is derived in a manner
consistent with Agency guidelines for
assessing the health risks of
environmental pollutants;
(2) The level is based on scientifically
valid studies conducted in accordance
with the Toxic Substances Control Act
Good Laboratory Practice Standards (40
CFR part 792) or equivalent;
(3) For carcinogens, the level
represents a concentration associated
with an excess lifetime cancer risk level
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35250
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(due to continuous lifetime exposure)
within the 1×10¥4 to 1×10¥6 range; and
(4) For systemic toxicants, the level
represents a concentration to which the
human population (including sensitive
subgroups) could be exposed to on a
daily basis that is likely to be without
appreciable risk of deleterious effects
during a lifetime. For purposes of this
subpart, systemic toxicants include
toxic chemicals that cause effects other
than cancer or mutation.
(i) In establishing groundwater
protection standards under paragraph
(h) of this section, the owner or operator
of the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment may consider the
following:
(1) Multiple contaminants in the
groundwater;
(2) Exposure threats to sensitive
environmental receptors; and
(3) Other site-specific exposure or
potential exposure to groundwater.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 257.96 Assessment of corrective
measures.
(a) 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
defined under § 257.95 (g) or (h) of this
part, the owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must
initiate an assessment of corrective
measures. Such an assessment must be
completed within 90 days.
(b) The owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must
continue to monitor in accordance with
the assessment monitoring program as
specified in § 257.95.
(c) The assessment shall 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 costs of remedy
implementation; and
(4) 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).
(d) The owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must
provide notification of the corrective
measures assessment to the state and the
public.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
(e) The owner or operator must
discuss the results of the corrective
measures assessment, prior to the
selection of remedy, in a public meeting
with interested and affected parties.
§ 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 landfill or surface
impoundment must select a remedy
that, at a minimum, meets the standards
listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
The owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must
notify the state and the public within 14
days of selecting a remedy, that a report
certified by an independent registered
professional engineer or hydrologist
describing the selected remedy, has
been placed in the operating record and
on the owner’s or operator’s publicly
accessible internet site, and how it
meets the standards in paragraph (b) of
this section.
(b) Remedies must:
(1) Be protective of human health and
the environment;
(2) Attain the groundwater protection
standard as specified pursuant to
§§ 257.95 (g) or (h);
(3) Control the source(s) of releases so
as to reduce or eliminate, to the
maximum extent practicable, further
releases of Appendix IV of this part
constituents into the environment that
may pose a threat to human health or
the environment; and
(4) 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 landfill or surface impoundment
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 CCRs 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
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
environment associated with
excavation, transportation, and
redisposal of containment;
(v) Time until full protection is
achieved;
(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, redisposal,
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;
(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 of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment shall
specify as part of the selected remedy a
schedule(s) for initiating and
completing remedial activities. Such a
schedule must require the initiation of
remedial activities within a reasonable
period of time taking into consideration
the factors set forth in paragraphs (d) (1)
through (8) of this section. The owner or
operator of the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment must consider the
following factors in determining the
schedule of remedial activities:
(1) Extent and nature of
contamination;
(2) Reasonable probabilities of
remedial technologies in achieving
compliance with the groundwater
protection standards established under
§ 257.95 (f) or (g) and other objectives of
the remedy;
(3) Availability of treatment or
disposal capacity for CCRs managed
during implementation of the remedy;
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(4) 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;
(5) Potential risks to human health
and the environment from exposure to
contamination prior to completion of
the remedy;
(6) 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;
(vi) Groundwater removal and
treatment costs; and
(vii) The cost and availability of
alternative water supplies.
(7) Other relevant factors.
(e) The owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment may
determine that remediation of a release
of an Appendix IV constituent from a
CCR landfill or surface impoundment is
not necessary if the owner or operator
of the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment demonstrates the
following, and notifies the state that the
demonstration, certified by an
independent registered professional
engineer or hydrologist, has been placed
in the operating record and on the
owner’s or operator’s publicly accessible
internet site:
(1) The groundwater is additionally
contaminated by substances that have
originated from a source other than a
CCR landfill or surface impoundment
and those substances are present in
concentrations such that cleanup of the
release from the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment would provide no
significant reduction in risk to actual or
potential receptors; or
(2) The constituent(s) is present in
groundwater that:
(i) Is not currently or reasonably
expected to be a source of drinking
water; and
(ii) Is not hydraulically connected
with waters to which the hazardous
constituents are migrating or are likely
to migrate in a concentration(s) that
would exceed the ground-water
protection standards established under
§ 257.95 (g) or (h); or
(3) Remediation of the release(s) is
technically impracticable; or
(4) Remediation results in
unacceptable cross-media impacts.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
(f) A determination by the owner or
operator pursuant to paragraph (e) of
this section shall not affect the
obligation of the owner or operator to
undertake source control measures or
other measures that may be necessary to
eliminate or minimize further releases
to the groundwater, to prevent exposure
to the groundwater, or to remediate the
groundwater to concentrations that are
reasonable and significantly reduce
threats to human health or the
environment.
§ 257.98 Implementation of the corrective
action program.
(a) Based on the schedule established
under § 257.97(d) for initiation 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) Indicates the effectiveness of the
corrective action remedy; and
(iii) Demonstrates compliance with
ground-water protection standard
pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section.
(2) Implement the corrective action
remedy selected under § 257.97; and
(3) Take any interim measures
necessary to ensure the protection of
human health and the environment.
Interim measures should, to the greatest
extent practicable, 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 Appendix IV
constituents;
(iii) Actual or potential contamination
of drinking water supplies or sensitive
ecosystems;
(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 Appendix IV of this part
constituents to migrate or be released;
(vi) Potential for exposure to any of
the Appendix IV of this part
constituents 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) An owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment may
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35251
determine, based on information
developed after implementation of the
remedy has begun or other information,
that compliance with requirements of
§ 257.97(b) are not being achieved
through the remedy selected. In such
cases, the owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must
implement other methods or techniques
that could reasonably achieve
compliance with the requirements,
unless the owner or operator makes the
determination under paragraph (c) of
this section.
(c) If the owner or operator
determines that compliance with
requirements under § 257.97(b) cannot
be reasonably achieved with any
currently available methods, the owner
or operator of the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment must:
(1) Obtain certification of an
independent registered professional
engineer or hydrologist that compliance
with requirements under § 257.97(b)
cannot be reasonably achieved with any
currently available methods;
(2) Implement alternate measures to
control exposure of humans or the
environment to residual contamination,
as necessary to protect human health
and the environment; and
(3) Implement alternate measures for
control of the sources of contamination
or for removal or decontamination of
equipment, units, devices, or structures
that are consistent with the overall
objective of the remedy.
(4) Notify the state within 14 days that
a report, including the certification
required in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section, justifying the alternative
measures prior to implementing the
alternative measures has been placed in
the operating record and on the owner’s
or operator’s publicly accessible internet
site.
(d) All CCRs 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:
(1) That is protective of human health
and the environment; and
(2) That complies with applicable
RCRA requirements.
(e) Remedies selected pursuant to
§ 257.97 shall be considered complete
when:
(1) The owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment
complies with the groundwater
protection standards established under
§§ 257.95 (h) or (i) at all points within
the plume of contamination that lie
beyond the groundwater monitoring
well system established under
§ 257.91(a).
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35252
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(2) Compliance with the groundwater
protection standards established under
§§ 257.95 (h) or (h) has been achieved
by demonstrating that concentrations of
Appendix IV constituents 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 (g) and (h).
(3) All actions required to complete
the remedy have been satisfied.
(f) Upon completion of the remedy,
the owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must
notify the state within 14 days that a
certification that the remedy has been
completed in compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (e) of this
section has been placed in the operating
record and on the owner’s or operator’s
publicly accessible internet site. The
certification must be signed by the
owner or operator and by an
independent registered professional
engineer or hydrologist.
§ 257.99
[Reserved]
Closure and Post-Closure Care
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 257.100
Closure criteria.
(a) Prior to closure of any CCR landfill
or surface impoundment covered by this
subpart, the owner or operator shall
submit to the state, a plan for closure of
the unit based on recognized and
generally accepted good engineering
practices and certified by an
independent registered professional
engineer. The closure plan shall be
consistent with paragraph (g) of this
section and provide for major slope
stability, include a schedule for the
plan’s implementation and contain
provisions to preclude the probability of
future impoundment of water, sediment,
or slurry. The closure plan shall be
placed in the operating record and on
the owner’s or operator’s publicly
accessible internet site.
(b) Closure of a CCR landfill or surface
impoundment may be accomplished
with CCRs in place or through CCR
removal and decontamination of all
areas affected by releases from the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment. CCR
removal and decontamination are
complete when constituent
concentrations throughout the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment and
any areas affected by releases from the
CCR landfill or surface impoundment
do not exceed numeric cleanup levels
for those constituents found in the CCRs
established by the state in which the
CCR landfill or surface impoundment is
located.
(c) At closure, the owner or operator
of a surface impoundment must:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
(1) Eliminate free liquids by removing
liquid wastes or solidifying the
remaining wastes and waste residues;
(2) Stabilize remaining wastes to a
bearing capacity sufficient to support
the final cover; and
(3) Cover the surface impoundment
with a final cover designed and
constructed to:
(i) Provide long-term minimization of
the migration of liquids through the
closed impoundment;
(ii) Function with minimum
maintenance; and
(iii) Promote drainage and minimize
erosion or abrasion of the cover;
(iv) Accommodate settling and
subsidence so that the cover’s integrity
is maintained; and
(v) Have a final cover system that
meets the requirements of subsection
(d).
(d) For closure with CCRs in place, a
final cover system must be installed at
all CCR landfills and surface
impoundments that is designed to
minimize infiltration and erosion. The
final cover system must be designed and
constructed to:
(1) Have a permeability less than or
equal to the permeability of any bottom
liner system or natural subsoils present,
or a permeability no greater than 1×10¥5
cm/sec, whichever is less, and
(2) Minimize infiltration through the
closed CCR landfill or surface
impoundment by the use of an
infiltration layer that contains a
minimum 18-inches of earthen material,
and
(3) Minimize erosion of the final cover
by the use of an erosion layer that
contains a minimum 6-inches of earthen
material that is capable of sustaining
native plant growth, and
(4) Minimize the disruption of the
final cover through a design that
accommodates settling and subsidence.
(e) The owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment may
select an alternative final cover design,
provided the alternative cover design is
certified by an independent registered
professional engineer and notification is
provided to the state and the EPA
Regional Administrator that the
alternative cover design has been placed
in the operating record and on the
owner’s or operator’s publicly accessible
internet site. The alternative final cover
design must include:
(1) An infiltration layer that achieves
an equivalent reduction in infiltration as
the infiltration layer specified in
paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this
section, and
(2) An erosion layer that provides
equivalent protection from wind and
water erosion as the erosion layer
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this
section.
(f) The design of the final cover
system shall be placed on the owner’s
or operator’s publicly accessible internet
site.
(g) The owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must
prepare a written closure plan that
describes the steps necessary to close
the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment at any point during the
active life in accordance with the cover
design requirements in paragraph (d) or
(e) of this section, as applicable. The
closure plan, at a minimum, must
include the following information:
(1) A description of the final cover,
designed in accordance with paragraph
(d) or (e) of this section and the methods
and procedures to be used to install the
cover;
(2) An estimate of the largest area of
the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment ever requiring a final
cover as required under paragraph (d) or
(e) of this section at any time during the
active life;
(3) An estimate of the maximum
inventory of CCRs ever on-site over the
active life of the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment; and
(4) A schedule for completing all
activities necessary to satisfy the closure
criteria in this section.
(h) The owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must
notify the state that a closure plan,
certified by an independent registered
professional engineer, has been
prepared and placed in the operating
record and on the owner’s or operator’s
publicly accessible internet site no later
than the effective date of this part, or by
the initial receipt of CCRs, whichever is
later.
(i) Prior to beginning closure of each
CCR landfill or surface impoundment as
specified in paragraph (j) of this section,
an owner or operator of a CCR landfill
or surface impoundment must notify the
state that a notice of the intent to close
the unit has been placed in the
operating record and on the owner’s or
operator’s publicly accessible internet
site.
(j) The owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must
begin closure activities no later than 30
days after the date on which the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment
receives the known final receipt of CCR
or, if the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment has remaining capacity
and there is a reasonable likelihood that
the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment will receive additional
CCRs, no later than one year after the
most recent receipt of CCRs.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(k) The owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must
complete closure activities in
accordance with the closure plan within
180 days following the beginning of
closure as specified in paragraph (j) of
this section.
(l) Following closure of each CCR
landfill or surface impoundment, the
owner or operator of the CCR landfill or
surface impoundment must notify the
state that a certification, signed by an
independent registered professional
engineer, verifying that closure has been
completed in accordance with the
closure plan and the requirements of
this subpart that has been placed in the
operating record and on the owner’s or
operator’s publicly accessible internet
site.
(m)(1) Following closure of all CCR
landfills or surface impoundments, the
owner or operator of the CCR landfill or
surface impoundment must record a
notation on the deed to the property, or
some other instrument that is normally
examined during title search, and notify
the state that the notation has been
recorded and a copy has been placed in
the operating record and on the owner’s
or operator’s publicly accessible internet
site.
(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
landfill or surface impoundment; and
(ii) Its use is restricted under
§ 257.101(c)(3).
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 257.101
Post-closure care requirements.
(a) Following closure of each CCR
landfill or surface impoundment, the
owner or operator must conduct postclosure care. Post-closure care must be
conducted for 30 years, except as
provided under paragraph (b) of this
section, and consist of at least the
following:
(1) Maintaining the integrity and
effectiveness of any final cover,
including making repairs to the cover as
necessary to correct the effects of
settlement, subsidence, erosion, or other
events, and preventing run-on and runoff from eroding or otherwise damaging
the final cover;
(2) 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, 257.71, and 257.72.
(3) Maintaining the groundwater
monitoring system and monitoring the
groundwater in accordance with the
requirements of §§ 257.91 through
257.98 of this part.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
(b) The length of the post-closure care
period may be:
(1) Decreased if the owner or operator
of the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment demonstrates that the
reduced period is sufficient to protect
human health and the environment and
this demonstration is certified by an
independent registered professional
engineer and notice is provided to the
state that the demonstration has been
placed in the operating record and on
the owner’s or operator’s publicly
accessible Internet site; or
(2) Increased if the owner or operator
of the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment determines that a
lengthened period is necessary to
protect human health and the
environment.
(c) The owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must
prepare a written post-closure plan,
certified by an independent registered
professional engineer that includes, at a
minimum, the following information:
(1) A description of the monitoring
and maintenance activities required in
paragraph (a) of this section for each
CCR landfill or surface impoundment,
and the frequency at which these
activities will be performed;
(2) Name, address, and telephone
number of the person or office to contact
about the facility during the postclosure period; and
(3) 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
components 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 the
owner or operator of the CCR landfill or
surface impoundment demonstrates that
disturbance of the final cover, liner or
other component of the containment
system, including any removal of CCRs,
will not increase the potential threat to
human health or the environment. The
demonstration must be certified by an
independent registered professional
engineer, and notification shall be
provided to the state that the
demonstration has been placed in the
operating record and on the owner’s or
operator’s publicly accessible internet
site.
(d) The owner or operator of the CCR
landfill or surface impoundment must
notify the state that a post-closure plan
has been prepared and placed in the
operating record and on the owner’s or
operator’s publicly accessible internet
site no later than the effective date of
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35253
this rule, or by the initial receipt of
CCRs, whichever is later.
(e) Following completion of the postclosure care period for the CCR landfill
or surface impoundment, the owner or
operator of the CCR landfill or surface
impoundment must notify the state that
a certification, signed by an
independent registered professional
engineer, verifying that post-closure
care has been completed in accordance
with the post-closure plan has been
placed in the operating record and on
the owner’s or operator’s publicly
accessible internet site.
§§ 257.102–257.109
[Reserved]
6. Add Appendixes III and IV to Part
257 to read as follows:
Appendix III to Part 257—Constituents
for Detection Monitoring
Common Name 1
Boron
Chloride
Conductivity
Fluoride
pH
Sulphate
Sulfide
Total Dissolved Solids
1 Common names are those widely used in
government regulations, scientific publications,
and commerce; synonyms exist for many
chemicals.
Appendix IV to Part 257—Constituents
for Assessment Monitoring
Common Name 1
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chloride
Chromium (total)
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
pH
Selenium
Sulphate
Sulfide
Thallium
Total Dissolved Solids
1 Common names are those widely used in
government regulations, scientific publications,
and commerce; synonyms exist for many
chemicals.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35254
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Alternative 2: Co-Proposal Under
Authority of Subtitle C
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
6a. 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.
7. Section 261.4 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as
follows.
§ 261.4
Exclusions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4)(i) Fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag,
and flue gas emission control wastes,
generated primarily from the
combustion of coal for the purpose of
generating electricity by the electric
power sector if the fly ash, bottom ash,
boiler slag, and flue gas emission
control wastes are beneficially used or
placed in minefilling operations.
Beneficial Use of Coal Combustion
Products (CCPs) means 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, placed as
fill in sand and gravel pits, or used in
large scale fill projects, such as for
restructuring the landscape, are not
considered beneficial uses.
(ii) Fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag,
and flue gas emission control wastes
generated primarily from the
combustion of coal for the purpose of
generating electricity by facilities
outside of the electric power sector (i.e.,
not included in NAICS code 221112).
Industry and EPA special waste
No.
Coal Combustion Residuals:
S001 ..................................
(iii) Fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag,
and flue gas emission control wastes,
generated primarily from the
combustion of fossil fuels other than
coal, for the purpose of generating
electricity, except as provided by
§ 266.112 of this chapter for facilities
that burn or process hazardous waste.
*
*
*
*
*
8. Part 261 is amended by adding
Subpart F to read as follows.
Subpart F—Special Wastes Subject to
Subtitle C Regulations
§ 261.50
General.
(a) The following solid wastes are
special wastes subject to regulation
under parts 262 through 268, and parts
270, 271, and 124 of this chapter, and
to the notification requirements of
section 3010 of RCRA,
Special waste
Hazard code
Coal combustion residuals generated by the electric power sector (Electric Utilities and Independent Power Producers).
(T)
(b) For the purposes of the S001
listing, the electric power sector is
defined as electricity-only and
combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plants
whose primary business is to sell
electricity, or electricity and heat, to the
public; i.e., NAICS code 221112 plants.
Coal combustion residuals are defined
to include fly ash, bottom ash, boiler
slag, and flue gas desulfurization
materials generated by the electric
utility industry. This listing does not
apply to coal combustion residuals that
are:
(1) Uniquely associated wastes as
defined in paragraph (c) of this section;
(2) Beneficially used as defined in
paragraph (d) of this section;
(3) Placed in minefilling operations;
(4) Generated by facilities outside the
electric power sector (i.e., not included
in NAICS code 22112); or
(5) Generated from clean-up activities
that are conducted as part of a state or
federally required clean-up that
commenced prior to the effective date of
this rule.
(c) Uniquely associated wastes are
low-volume wastes other than those
defined as coal combustion residuals in
paragraph (a) of this section that are
related to the coal combustion process.
Examples of uniquely associated wastes
are precipitation runoff from coal
storage piles at the facility, waste coal
or coal mill rejects that are not of
sufficient quality to burn as fuel, and
wastes from cleaning the boilers used to
generate steam.
(d) Beneficial Use of Coal Combustion
Products (CCPs) means 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, placed as
fill in sand and gravel pits, or used in
large scale fill projects, such as for
restructuring the landscape, are not
considered beneficial uses.
9. Part 261 is amended by adding
Appendix X to read as follows.
Appendix X to Part 261—Basis for
Listing Special Wastes
Hazardous constituents for which listed
S001 ................................................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA special waste No.
Antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium.
11. Section 264.1 is amended by
adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
§ 264.1
10. The authority citation for part 264
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924,
and 6925.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
Purpose, scope and applicability.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) Owners or operators who treat,
store or dispose of EPA Special Waste
Number S001, also referred to as coal
combustion residuals are subject to the
requirements of this part, except as
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
specifically provided otherwise in this
part. In addition, subpart FF of this part
includes additional requirements for the
treatment, storage or disposal of EPA
Special Waste Number S001.
12. Section 264.140 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
§ 264.140
Applicability.
(a) The requirements of §§ 264.142,
264.143, and 264.147 through 264.151
apply to owners and operators of all
hazardous waste facilities and facilities
that treat, store or dispose of special
wastes, except as provided otherwise in
this section, or in § 264.1.
*
*
*
*
*
13. Part 264 is amended by adding
subpart FF to read as follows:
Subpart FF—Special Requirements for Coal
Combustion Residual (S001) Wastes
Sec.
264.1300 Applicability.
264.1301 Definitions.
264.1302 Reporting.
264.1303 Surface impoundments.
264.1304 Inspection requirements for
surface impoundments.
264.1305 Requirements for surface
impoundment closure.
264.1306 Landfills.
264.1307 Surface water requirements.
264.1308 Air requirements.
Subpart FF—Special Requirements for
Coal Combustion Residual (S001)
Wastes
§ 264.1300
Applicability.
(a) The regulations in this subpart
apply to owners or operators of facilities
that treat, store or dispose of EPA
Special Waste Number S001.
(b) Owners or operators of surface
impoundments that cease receiving EPA
Special Waste Number S001, must
comply with the closure requirements
in 40 CFR 265.111 and 40 CFR 265.228.
Facilities that have not met these
closure requirements by the effective
date of this regulation would be subject
to the requirements in Parts 260 through
268, and 270 through 272, of this
chapter.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 264.1301
Definitions.
This section contains definitions for
terms that appear throughout this
subpart; additional definitions appear in
40 CFR 260.10 or the specific sections
to which they apply.
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.
CCR landfill means a disposal facility
or part of a facility where CCRs 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
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.
CCR surface impoundment or
impoundment means 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 CCRs
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 CCRs
that 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.
Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs)
means fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag,
and flue gas desulfurization materials,
destined for disposal. CCRs are also
known as coal combustion wastes
(CCWs) and fossil fuel combustion
(FFC) wastes, when destined for
disposal.
Existing CCR landfill means a landfill
which was in operation or for which
construction commenced prior to the
effective date of the final rule. 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.
Existing CCR surface impoundment
means a surface impoundment which
was in operation or for which
construction commenced prior to the
effective date of the final rule. 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 on-site, physical
construction program has begun; or
(2) The owner or operator has entered
into contractual obligations—which can
not be cancelled or modified without
substantial loss—for physical
construction of the CCR surface
impoundment to be completed within a
reasonable time.
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35255
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 recognized and generally
accepted good engineering practices.
Hazard potential means the possible
adverse incremental consequences that
result from the release of water or stored
contents due to failure of a dam (or
impoundment) or mis-operation of the
dam or appurtenances.
(1) High hazard potential surface
impoundment means a surface
impoundment where failure or misoperation will probably cause loss of
human life.
(2) Significant hazard potential
surface impoundment means a surface
impoundment where failure or misoperation results in no probable loss of
human life, but can cause economic
loss, environment damage, disruption of
lifeline facilities, or impact other
concerns.
(3) Low hazard potential surface
impoundment means a surface
impoundment where failure or misoperation 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.
(4) Less than low hazard potential
surface impoundment means a surface
impoundment not meeting the
definitions for High, Significant, or Low
Hazard Potential.
Lateral expansion means a horizontal
expansion of the waste boundaries of an
existing CCR landfill, or CCR surface
impoundment made after the effective
date of the final rule.
New CCR landfill means a landfill,
including lateral expansions, or
installation from which there is or may
be placement of CCRs without the
presence of free liquids, which began
operation, or for which the construction
commenced after the effective date of
the final rule.
New CCR surface impoundment
means a surface impoundment,
including lateral expansions, or
installation from which there is or may
be placement of CCRs with the presence
of free liquids, which began operation,
or for which the construction
commenced after the effective date of
the final rule.
Probable maximum precipitation
means the value for a particular area
which represents an envelopment of
depth-duration-area rainfall relations for
all storm types affecting that area
adjusted meteorologically to maximum
conditions.
Recognized and generally accepted
good engineering practices (RAGAGEPs)
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35256
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
means engineering, operation, or
maintenance activities based on
established codes, standards, published
technical reports or recommended
practices (RP) or a similar document.
RAGAGEPs detail generally approved
ways to perform specific engineering,
inspection or mechanical integrity
activities.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 264.1302
Reporting.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, every twelfth month
following the date of the initial plan
approval required in § 264.1303, the
person owning or operating a CCR
surface impoundment that has not been
properly closed in accordance with an
approved plan shall submit to the
Regional Administrator a report
containing the following information:
(1) Changes in the geometry of the
CCR surface impoundment for the
reporting period.
(2) Location and type of installed
instruments and the maximum and
minimum recorded readings of each
instrument for the reporting period.
(3) The minimum, maximum, and
present depth and elevation of the CCR
slurry and CCR wastewater in the CCR
surface impoundment for the reporting
period.
(4) The storage capacity of the CCR
surface impoundment.
(5) The volume of the CCR slurry and
CCR wastewater in the CCR surface
impoundment at the end of the
reporting period.
(6) Any other change which may have
affected the stability or operation of the
CCR surface impoundment that has
occurred during the reporting period.
(7) A certification by an independent
registered professional engineer that all
construction, operation, and
maintenance are in accordance with the
approved plan prepared in accordance
with § 264.1303.
(b) A report is not required under this
section when the person owning or
operating the CCR surface
impoundment provides the Regional
Administrator with a certification by an
independent registered professional
engineer that there have been no
changes in the operation of the CCR
surface impoundment or to any of the
parameters previously reported under
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this
section. However, a report containing
the information set out in paragraph (a)
of this section shall be submitted to the
Regional Administrator at least every 5
years.
§ 264.1303
Surface impoundments.
(a) In addition to the requirements in
subpart K of this part, EPA Special
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
Waste No. S001 is subject to the
requirements in this section.
(b) Plans for the design, construction,
and maintenance of existing CCR
surface impoundments shall be required
if such a unit can:
(1) Impound CCRs 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) Impound CCRs to an elevation of
20 feet or more above the upstream toe
of the structure.
(c) Plans required under paragraph (b)
of this section shall be submitted in
triplicate to the Regional Administrator
on or before [date one year after the
effective date of the final rule].
(d) A permanent identification
marker, at least six feet high and
showing the identification number of
the CCR surface impoundment as
assigned by the Regional Administrator,
the name associated with the CCR
surface impoundment and the name of
the person owning or operating the
structure, shall be located on or
immediately adjacent to each CCR
surface impoundment by [date 60 days
after the effective date of the final rule].
(e) The plan specified in paragraph (b)
of this section, shall contain at a
minimum the following information:
(1) The name and address of the
persons owning or operating the CCR
surface impoundment; the name
associated with the CCR surface
impoundment; and the identification
number of the CCR surface
impoundment as assigned by the
Regional Administrator.
(2) The location of the CCR surface
impoundment indicated on the most
recent USGS 71⁄2 minute or 15 minute
topographic quadrangle map, or a
topographic map of equivalent scale if a
USGS map is not available.
(3) A statement of the purpose for
which the CCR surface impoundment is
being used.
(4) The name and size in acres of the
watershed affecting the CCR surface
impoundment.
(5) A description of the physical and
engineering properties of the foundation
materials on which the CCR surface
impoundment is constructed.
(6) 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 surface impoundment; the method
of site preparation and construction of
each zone of the CCR surface
impoundment; the approximate dates of
construction, and each successive stage
of construction of the CCR surface
impoundment; and for existing CCR
surface impoundments, such history of
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
construction as may be available, and
any record or knowledge of structural
instability.
(7) At a scale not to exceed 1 inch =
100 feet, detailed dimensional drawings
of the CCR surface impoundment,
including a plan view and cross sections
of the length and width of the CCR
surface impoundment, showing all
zones, foundation improvements,
drainage provisions, spillways,
diversion ditches, outlets, instrument
locations, and slope protection, in
addition to the measurement of the
minimum vertical distance between the
crest of the CCR surface impoundment
and the reservoir surface at present and
under design storm conditions, CCR
slurry level and CCR wastewater level,
and other information pertinent to the
CCR surface impoundment itself,
including any identifiable natural or
manmade features which could affect
operation of the CCR surface
impoundment.
(8) A description of the type and
purpose of existing or proposed
instrumentation.
(9) Graphs showing area-capacity
curves.
(10) The hazard potential
classification for which the facility is
designed and a detailed explanation of
the basis for this classification.
(11) A statement of the runoff
attributable to the storm for which the
CCR surface impoundment is designed
and the calculations used in
determining such runoff and the
minimum freeboard during the design
storm.
(12) A description of the spillway and
diversion design features and capacities
and calculations used in their
determination.
(13) The computed minimum factor of
safety for slope stability of the CCR
retaining structure(s) and the analyses
used in their determinations.
(14) The construction specifications
and provisions for surveillance,
maintenance, and repair of the CCR
surface impoundment.
(15) General provisions for closure.
(16) Such other information
pertaining to the CCR surface
impoundment which may be requested
by the Regional Administrator.
(17) A certification by an independent
registered professional engineer that the
design of the CCR surface impoundment
is in accordance with recognized and
generally accepted good engineering
practices for the maximum volume of
CCR slurry and CCR wastewater which
can be impounded therein and for the
passage of runoff from the design storm
which exceeds the capacity of the CCR
surface impoundment; or, in lieu of the
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
certification, a report indicating what
additional investigations, analyses, or
improvement work are necessary before
such a certification can be made by an
independent registered professional
engineer, including what provisions
have been made to carry out such work
in addition to a schedule for completion
of such work.
(f) Any changes or modifications to
the plans for CCR surface
impoundments shall be approved by the
Regional Administrator prior to the
initiation of such changes or
modifications.
(g) Effective [date two years after the
effective date of the final rule], all
existing CCR surface impoundments
that receive CCRs shall be operated and
maintained with:
(1) A run-on control system to prevent
flow onto the active portion of the CCR
surface impoundment during the peak
discharge from a 24-hour, 25-year storm;
(2) A run-off control system from the
active portion of the CCR surface
impoundment to collect and control at
least the water volume resulting from a
24-hour, 25-year storm. Run-off from the
active portion of the CCR surface
impoundment must be handled in
accordance with § 264.1307.
(h) For CCR surface impoundments
classified as having high or significant
hazard potential, the owner or operator
shall develop and maintain in the
operating record an Emergency Action
Plan which: defines responsible persons
and the actions to be taken in the event
of a dam-safety emergency; provides
contact information for emergency
responders; includes a map which
delineates the downstream area which
would be affected in the event of a dam
failure; and includes provisions for an
annual face-to-face meeting or exercise
between representatives of the facility
owner and the local emergency
responders.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 264.1304 Inspection requirements for
surface impoundments.
(a) In addition to the inspection
requirements in § 264.226 of this part,
all CCR surface impoundments that
meet the requirements of § 264.1303(b)
of this subpart shall be inspected by the
owner or operator as follows:
(1) At intervals not exceeding 7 days,
or as otherwise approved by the
Regional Administrator, for appearances
of structural weakness and other
hazardous conditions.
(2) At intervals not exceeding 7 days,
or as otherwise approved by the
Regional Administrator, all instruments
shall be monitored.
(3) Longer inspection or monitoring
intervals approved under this paragraph
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
shall be justified by the owner or
operator of the CCR surface
impoundment based on the hazard
potential and performance of the CCR
surface impoundment, and shall include
a requirement for inspection
immediately after a specified event
approved by the Regional
Administrator.
(4) All inspections required by
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) shall be
performed by a qualified person, as
defined in paragraph (e) of this section,
designated by the person owning or
operating the CCR surface
impoundment.
(5) All CCR surface impoundments
that meet the requirements of
§ 264.1303(b) of this subpart shall be
inspected annually by an independent
registered professional engineer to
assure that the design, operation, and
maintenance of the surface
impoundment is in accordance with
recognized and generally accepted good
engineering standards. The owner or
operator must notify the state and the
EPA Regional Administrator that a
certification by the registered
professional engineer that the design,
operation, and maintenance of the
surface impoundment is in accordance
with recognized and generally accepted
good engineering standards has been
placed in the operating record.
(b) When a potentially hazardous
condition develops, the person owning
or operating the CCR surface
impoundment shall immediately:
(1) Take action to eliminate the
potentially hazardous condition;
(2) Notify the Regional Administrator
and State and local first responders;
(3) Notify and prepare to evacuate, if
necessary, all personnel from the owner
or operator’s property which may be
affected by the potentially hazardous
conditions; and
(4) 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
Regional Administrator.
(c) After each inspection and
instrumentation monitoring referred to
in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,
each qualified person who conducted
all or any part of the inspection or
instrumentation monitoring shall
promptly record the results of such
inspection or instrumentation
monitoring in a book which shall be
available in the operating record for
inspection by an authorized
representative of the Regional
Administrator and such qualified
person shall also promptly report the
results of the inspection or monitoring
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35257
to one of the persons specified in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) All inspection and
instrumentation monitoring reports
recorded in accordance with paragraph
(c) of this section shall include a report
of the action taken to abate hazardous
conditions and shall be promptly signed
or countersigned by the person
designated by the owner or operator as
responsible for health and safety at the
owner or operator’s facility.
(e) The qualified person or persons
referred to in this section shall be
trained to recognize specific signs of
structural instability and other
hazardous conditions by visual
observation and, if applicable, to
monitor instrumentation.
§ 264.1305 Requirements for surface
impoundment closure.
Prior to the closure of any CCR
surface impoundment which meets the
requirements of § 264.1303(b) of this
subpart, the person owning or operating
such CCR surface impoundment shall
submit to and obtain approval from the
Regional Administrator, a plan for
closure in accordance with the
requirements of § 264.228 and subpart G
of this part. This plan shall provide for
major slope stability, include a schedule
for the plan’s implementation and,
contain provisions to preclude the
probability of future impoundment of
water.
§ 264.1306
Landfills.
(a) Owners or operators of new CCR
landfills and lateral expansions of
existing landfills are exempt from the
double liner and leachate collection
system requirements of § 264.301(c),
and the requirements of § 264.302,
provided the owner or operator is in
compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section. Owners or
operators of existing landfills are also
exempt from the liner requirements of
paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
provided they comply with the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this
section and the requirements at 40 CFR
part 264 subparts F, G, H, and N.
(b) Prior to placement of CCRs in new
landfills and lateral expansions of new
and existing landfills, new landfills and
lateral expansions shall be constructed:
(1) With a composite liner, as defined
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and
a leachate collection and removal
system that is designed and constructed
to maintain less than a 30-cm depth of
leachate over the liner.
(2) For purposes of this subpart,
composite liner means a system
consisting of two components; the
upper component must consist of a
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35258
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
minimum 30-mil flexible membrane
liner (FML), and the lower component
must consist of at least a two-foot layer
of compacted soil with a hydraulic
conductivity of no more than 1 × 10¥7
cm/sec. FML components consisting of
high density polyethylene (HDPE) shall
be at least 60-mil thick. The FML
component must be installed in direct
and uniform contact with the
compacted soil component.
(3) For purpose of this subpart,
hydraulic conductivity means the rate at
which water can move through a
permeable medium (i.e., the coefficient
of permeability).
(c) Effective [date two years after the
effective date of the final rule], all
existing landfills that receive CCRs shall
be operated and maintained with:
(1) A run-on control system to prevent
flow onto the active portion of the CCR
landfill during the peak discharge from
a 24-hour, 25-year storm;
(2) A run-off control system from the
active portion of the CCR landfill to
collect and control at least the water
volume resulting from a 24-hour, 25year storm. Run-off from the active
portion of the CCR landfill must be
handled in accordance with § 264.1307
of this subpart.
§ 264.1307
Surface water requirements.
(a) Permits for CCR surface
impoundments and CCR landfills shall
include conditions to ensure that:
(1) The operation of the unit will not
cause any violation of any requirements
of the Clean Water Act, including, but
not limited to, the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements, pursuant to section 402 of
the Clean Water Act.
(2) The operation of the unit will not
cause any violation of any requirement
of an area-wide or state-wide water
quality management plan that has been
approved under section 208 or 319 of
the Clean Water Act, as amended.
(b) [Reserved]
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 264.1308
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
14. The authority citation for part 265
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6906, 6912,
6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 6935, 6936, and
6937.
15. Section 265.1 is amended by
adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§ 265.1
Purpose, scope, and applicability.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Owners or operators who treat,
store or dispose of EPA Special Waste
Number S001, also referred to as coal
combustion residuals (CCRs) are subject
to the requirements of this part, except
as specifically provided otherwise in
this part. In addition, subpart FF of this
part includes additional requirements
for the treatment storage or disposal of
EPA Special Waste No. S001.
*
*
*
*
*
16. Section 265.140 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 265.140
Air requirements.
(a) CCR surface impoundments and
CCR landfills must be managed in a
manner that fugitive dusts do not
exceed 35 μg/m3, unless an alternative
standard has been established by the
Regional Administrator.
(b) CCR surface impoundments must
be managed to control wind dispersal of
dusts consistent with the standard in
paragraph (a) of this section unless an
alternative standard has been
established by the Regional
Administrator.
(c) CCR landfills must be managed to
control wind dispersal of dusts
consistent with the standard in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
paragraph (a) of this section unless an
alternative standard has been
established by the Regional
Administrator. CCRs placed in landfills
as wet conditioned CCRs shall not result
in the formation of free liquids.
(d) Tanks, containers, buildings and
pads used for the storage must be
managed to control the dispersal of
dust. Pads must have wind protection
that will ensure comparable levels of
control.
(e) CCRs transported in trucks or other
vehicles must be covered or otherwise
managed to control the wind dispersal
of dust consistent with the standard in
paragraph (a) of this section unless an
alternative standard has been
established by the Regional
Administrator.
Jkt 220001
Applicability.
(a) The requirements of §§ 265.142,
265.143 and 265.147 through 265.150
apply to owners or operators of all
hazardous and special waste facilities,
except as provided otherwise in this
section, or in § 265.1.
*
*
*
*
*
17. Part 265 is amended by adding
Subpart FF to read as follows:
Subpart FF—Special Requirements for S001
Wastes
Sec.
265.1300 Applicability.
265.1301 Definitions.
265.1302 Reporting.
265.1303 Surface impoundments.
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
265.1304 Inspection requirements for
surface impoundments.
265.1305 Requirements for surface
impoundment closure.
265.1306 Landfills.
265.1307 Surface water requirements.
265.1308 Air requirements.
Subpart FF—Special Requirements for S001
Wastes
§ 265.1300
Applicability.
(a) The regulations in this subpart
apply to owners or operators of
hazardous waste facilities that treat,
store or dispose of EPA Hazardous
Waste Number S001.
(b) Owners or operators of surface
impoundments that cease receiving EPA
Special Waste Number S001,must
comply with the closure requirements
in 40 CFR Part 265.111 and 40 CFR
265.228. Facilities that have not met
these closure requirements by the
effective date of this regulation would
be subject to the requirements in Parts
260 through 268, and 270 through 272,
of this chapter.
§ 265.1301
Definitions.
This section contains definitions for
terms that appear throughout this
subpart; additional definitions appear in
40 CFR 260.10 or the specific sections
to which they apply.
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.
Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs)
means fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag,
and flue gas desulfurization materials,
destined for disposal. CCRs are also
known as coal combustion wastes
(CCWs) and fossil fuel combustion
(FFC) wastes, when destined for
disposal, and as coal combustion
products (CCPs) when beneficially used.
CCR landfill means a disposal facility
or part of a facility where CCRs 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
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.
CCR surface impoundment or
impoundment means a facility or part of
a facility which is a natural topographic
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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 CCRs
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 CCRs
that 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.
Existing CCR landfill means a landfill
which was in operation or for which
construction commenced prior to the
effective date of the final rule 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.
Existing CCR surface impoundment
means a surface impoundment which
was in operation or for which
construction commenced prior to the
effective date of the final rule. 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 on-site, physical
construction program has begun; or
(2) The owner or operator has entered
into contractual obligations—which can
not be cancelled or modified without
substantial loss—for physical
construction of the CCR surface
impoundment to be completed within a
reasonable time.
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 recognized and accepted
good engineering practices.
Hazard potential means the possible
adverse incremental consequences that
result from the release of water or stored
contents due to failure of a dam (or
impoundment) or mis-operation of the
dam or appurtenances.
(1) High hazard potential surface
impoundment means a surface
impoundment where failure or misoperation will probably cause loss of
human life.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
(2) Significant hazard potential
surface impoundment means a surface
impoundment where failure or misoperation results in no probable loss of
human life, but can cause economic
loss, environment damage, disruption of
lifeline facilities, or impact other
concerns.
(3) Low hazard potential surface
impoundment means a surface
impoundment where failure or misoperation 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.
(4) Less than low hazard potential
surface impoundment means a surface
impoundment not meeting the
definitions for High, Significant, or Low
Hazard Potential.
Lateral expansion means a horizontal
expansion of the waste boundaries of an
existing CCR landfill, or CCR surface
impoundment made after the effective
date of the final rule.
New CCR landfill means a landfill,
including lateral expansions, or
installation from which there is or may
be placement of CCRs without the
presence of free liquids, which began
operation, or for which the construction
commenced after the effective date of
the final rule.
New CCR surface impoundment
means a surface impoundment,
including lateral expansion, or
installation from which there is or may
be placement of CCRs with the presence
of free liquids, which began operation,
or for which the construction
commenced after the effective date of
the final rule.
Probable maximum precipitation
means the value for a particular area
which represents an envelopment of
depth-duration-area rainfall relations for
all storm types affecting that area
adjusted meteorologically to maximum
conditions.
Recognized and generally accepted
good engineering practices (RAGAGEPs)
means engineering, operation, or
maintenance activities based on
established codes, standards, published
technical reports or recommended
practices (RP) or a similar document.
RAGAGEPs detail generally approved
ways to perform specific engineering,
inspection or mechanical integrity
activities.
§ 265.1302
Reporting.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, every twelfth month
following the date of the initial plan
approval required in § 265.1303 of this
subpart, the person owning or operating
a CCR surface impoundment that has
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35259
not been properly closed in accordance
with an approved plan shall submit to
the Regional Administrator a report
containing the following information:
(1) Changes in the geometry of the
CCR surface impoundment for the
reporting period.
(2) Location and type of installed
instruments and the maximum and
minimum recorded readings of each
instrument for the reporting period.
(3) The minimum, maximum, and
present depth and elevation of the CCR
slurry and CCR waste water in the CCR
surface impoundment for the reporting
period.
(4) The storage capacity of the CCR
surface impoundment.
(5) The volume of the CCR slurry and
CCR waste water in the CCR surface
impoundment at the end of the
reporting period.
(6) Any other change which may have
affected the stability or operation of the
CCR surface impoundment that has
occurred during the reporting period.
(7) A certification by an independent
registered professional engineer that all
construction, operation, and
maintenance are in accordance with the
approved plan prepared in accordance
with § 265.1303.
(b) A report is not required under this
section when the person owning or
operating the CCR surface
impoundment provides the Regional
Administrator with a certification by an
independent registered professional
engineer that there have been no
changes in the operation of the CCR
surface impoundment or to any of the
parameters previously reported under
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this
section. However, a report containing
the information set out in paragraph (a)
of this section shall be submitted to the
Regional Administrator at least every 5
years.
§ 265.1303
Surface impoundments.
(a) In addition to the requirements in
subpart K of this part, EPA Special
Waste No. S001 is subject to the
requirements in this section.
(b) Plans for the design, construction,
and maintenance of existing CCR
surface impoundments shall be required
if such a unit can:
(1) Impound CCRs 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) Impound CCRs to an elevation of
20 feet or more above the upstream toe
of the structure.
(c) Plans required under paragraph (b)
of this section shall be submitted in
triplicate to the Regional Administrator
on or before [date one year after the
effective date of the final rule].
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
35260
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(d) A marker, at least six feet high and
showing the identification number of
the CCR surface impoundment as
assigned by the Regional Administrator,
the name associated with the CCR
surface impoundment and the name of
the person owning or operating the
structure, shall be located on or
immediately adjacent to each CCR
surface impoundment permanent
identification by [date 60 days after the
effective date of the final rule].
(e) The plan specified in paragraph (b)
of this section, shall contain at a
minimum the following information:
(1) The name and address of the
persons owning or operating the CCR
surface impoundment; the name
associated with the CCR surface
impoundment; and the identification
number of the CCR surface
impoundment as assigned by the
Regional Administrator.
(2) The location of the CCR surface
impoundment indicated on the most
recent USGS 71⁄2 minute or 15 minute
topographic quadrangle map, or a
topographic map of equivalent scale if a
USGS map is not available.
(3) A statement of the purpose for
which the CCR surface impoundment is
being used.
(4) The name and size in acres of the
watershed affecting the CCR surface
impoundment.
(5) A description of the physical and
engineering properties of the foundation
materials on which the CCR surface
impoundment is constructed.
(6) 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 surface impoundment; the method
of site preparation and construction of
each zone of the CCR surface
impoundment; the approximate dates of
construction, and each successive stage
of construction of the CCR surface
impoundment; and for existing CCR
surface impoundments, such history of
construction as may be available, and
any record or knowledge of structural
instability.
(7) At a scale not to exceed 1 inch =
100 feet, detailed dimensional drawings
of the CCR surface impoundment,
including a plan view and cross sections
of the length and width of the CCR
surface impoundment, showing all
zones, foundation improvements,
drainage provisions, spillways,
diversion ditches, outlets, instrument
locations, and slope protection, in
addition to the measurement of the
minimum vertical distance between the
crest of the CCR surface impoundment
and the reservoir surface at present and
under design storm conditions, CCR
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
slurry level or CCR waste water level,
and other information pertinent to the
CCR surface impoundment itself,
including any identifiable natural or
manmade features which could affect
operation of the CCR surface
impoundment.
(8) A description of the type and
purpose of existing or proposed
instrumentation.
(9) Graphs showing area-capacity
curves.
(10) The hazard potential
classification for which the facility is
designed and a detailed explanation of
the basis for this classification.
(11) A statement of the runoff
attributable to the storm for which the
CCR surface impoundment is designed
and the calculations used in
determining such runoff and the
minimum freeboard during the design
storm.
(12) A description of the spillway and
diversion design features and capacities
and calculations used in their
determination.
(13) The computed minimum factor of
safety for slope stability of the CCR
retaining structure(s) and the analyses
used in their determinations.
(14) The construction specifications
and provisions for surveillance,
maintenance, and repair of the CCR
surface impoundment.
(15) General provisions for closure.
(16) Such other information
pertaining to the stability of the CCR
surface impoundment which may be
requested by the Regional
Administrator.
(17) A certification by an independent
registered professional engineer that the
design of the CCR surface impoundment
is in accordance with recognized and
generally accepted good 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; or, in lieu of the
certification, a report indicating what
additional investigations, analyses, or
improvement work are necessary before
such a certification can be made by an
independent registered professional
engineer, including what provisions
have been made to carry out such work
in addition to a schedule for completion
of such work.
(f) Any changes or modifications to
the plans for CCR surface
impoundments shall be approved by the
Regional Administrator prior to the
initiation of such changes or
modifications.
(g) Effective [date two years after the
effective date of the final rule], all
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
existing surface impoundments that
receive CCRs shall be operated and
maintained with:
(1) A run-on control system to prevent
flow onto the active portion of the CCR
surface impoundment during the peak
discharge from a 24-hour, 25-year storm;
(2) A run-off control system from the
active portion of the CCR surface
impoundment to collect and control at
least the water volume resulting from a
24-hour, 25-year storm. Run-off from the
active portion of the CCR surface
impoundment must be handled in
accordance with § 265.1307 of this
subpart.
(h) For CCR surface impoundments
classified as having high or significant
hazard potential, the owner or operator
shall develop and maintain in the
operating record an Emergency Action
Plan which: defines responsible persons
and the actions to be taken in the event
of a dam-safety emergency; provides
contact information for emergency
responders; includes a map which
delineates the downstream area which
would be affected in the event of a dam
failure; and includes provisions for an
annual face-to-face meeting or exercise
between representatives of the facility
owner and the local emergency
responders.
§ 265.1304 Inspection requirements for
surface impoundments.
(a) In addition to the inspection
requirements in § 265.226, all CCR
surface impoundments that meet the
requirements of § 265.1303(b) of this
subpart shall be inspected by the owner
or operator as follows:
(1) At intervals not exceeding 7 days,
or as otherwise approved by the
Regional Administrator, for appearances
of structural weakness and other
hazardous conditions.
(2) At intervals not exceeding 7 days,
or as otherwise approved by the
Regional Administrator, all instruments
shall be monitored.
(3) Longer inspection or monitoring
intervals approved under this paragraph
shall be justified by the owner or
operator of the CCR surface
impoundment based on the hazard
potential and performance of the CCR
surface impoundment, and shall include
a requirement for inspection
immediately after a specified event
approved by the Regional
Administrator.
(4) All inspections required by
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section
shall be performed by a qualified
person, as defined in paragraph (e) of
this section, designated by the person
owning or operating the CCR surface
impoundment.
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(5) All CCR surface impoundments
that meet the requirements of
§ 265.1303(b) of this subpart shall be
inspected annually by an independent
registered professional engineer to
assure that the design, operation, and
maintenance of the surface
impoundment is in accordance with
recognized and generally accepted good
engineering practices. The owner or
operator must notify the state and the
EPA Regional Administrator that a
certification by the independent
registered professional engineer that the
design, operation, and maintenance of
the surface impoundment is in
accordance with recognized and
generally accepted good engineering
practices has been placed in the
operating record.
(b) When a potentially hazardous
condition develops, the person owning
or operating the CCR surface
impoundment shall immediately:
(1) Take action to eliminate the
potentially hazardous condition;
(2) Notify the Regional Administrator
and State and local first responders;
(3) Notify and prepare to evacuate, if
necessary, all personnel from the owner
or operator’s property which may be
affected by the potentially hazardous
conditions; and
(4) 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
Regional Administrator.
(c) After each inspection and
instrumentation monitoring referred to
in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,
each qualified person who conducted
all or any part of the inspection or
instrumentation monitoring shall
promptly record the results of such
inspection or instrumentation
monitoring in a book which shall be
available in the operating record for
inspection by an authorized
representative of the Regional
Administrator and such qualified
person shall also promptly report the
results of the inspection or monitoring
to one of the persons specified in
paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) All inspection and
instrumentation monitoring reports
recorded in accordance with paragraph
(c) of this section shall include a report
of the action taken to abate hazardous
conditions and shall be promptly signed
or countersigned by the person
designated by the owner or operator as
responsible for health and safety at the
owner or operator’s facility.
(e) The qualified person or persons
referred to in this section shall be
trained to recognize specific signs of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
structural instability and other
hazardous conditions by visual
observation and, if applicable, to
monitor instrumentation.
§ 265.1305 Requirements for surface
impoundment closure.
Prior to the closure of any CCR
surface impoundment which meets the
requirements of § 264.1303(b) of this
subpart, the person owning or operating
such CCR surface impoundment shall
submit to and obtain approval from the
Regional Administrator, a plan for
closure in accordance with the
requirements of § 265.228 and part 265
subpart G. This plan shall provide for
major slope stability, include a schedule
for the plan’s implementation, and
contain provisions to preclude the
probability of future impoundment of
water.
§ 265.1306
Landfills.
(a) Owners or operators of new CCR
landfills and lateral expansions of
existing landfills are exempt from the
double liner and leachate collection
system requirements of § 265.301(c),
and the requirements of § 265.302,
provided the owner or operator is in
compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section. Owners or
operators of existing landfills are also
exempt from the liner requirements of
paragraph (b)(1) of this section,
provided they comply with the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this
section and the requirements at 40 CFR
part 265 subparts F, G, H, and N.
(b) Prior to placement of CCRs in new
landfills and lateral expansions, new
landfills and lateral expansions shall be
constructed:
(1) With a composite liner, as defined
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and
a leachate collection and removal
system that is designed and constructed
to maintain less than a 30-cm depth of
leachate over the liner.
(2) For purposes of this subpart,
composite liner means a system
consisting of two components; the
upper component must consist of a
minimum 30-mil flexible membrane
liner (FML), and the lower component
must consist of at least a two-foot layer
of compacted soil with a hydraulic
conductivity of no more than 1 × 10¥7
cm/sec. FML components consisting of
high density polyethylene (HDPE) shall
be at least 60-mil thick. The FML
component must be installed in direct
and uniform contact with the
compacted soil component.
(3) For purposes of this subpart,
hydraulic conductivity means the rate at
which water can move through a
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
35261
permeable medium. (i.e., the coefficient
of permeability.)
(c) Effective [date two years after the
effective date of the final rule], all
existing landfills that receive CCRs shall
be operated and maintained with:
(1) A run-on control system to prevent
flow onto the active portion of the CCR
landfill during the peak discharge from
a 24-hour, 25-year storm;
(2) A run-off control system from the
active portion of the CCR landfill to
collect and control at least the water
volume resulting from a 24-hour, 25year storm. Run-off from the active
portion of the CCR landfill must be
handled in accordance with § 265.1307
of this subpart.
§ 265.1307
Surface water requirements.
(a) Permits for CCR surface
impoundments and CCR landfills shall
include conditions to ensure that:
(1) The operation of the unit will not
cause any violation of any requirements
of the Clean Water Act, including, but
not limited to, the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements, pursuant to section 402 of
the Clean Water Act.
(2) The operation of the unit will not
cause any violation of any requirement
of an area-wide or state-wide water
quality management plan that has been
approved under section 208 or 319 of
the Clean Water Act, as amended.
(b) [Reserved]
§ 265.1308
Air requirements.
(a) CCR surface impoundments and
CCR landfills must be managed in a
manner that fugitive dusts do not
exceed 35 μg/m3, unless an alternative
standard has been established by the
Regional Administrator.
(b) CCR surface impoundments must
be managed to control wind dispersal of
dusts consistent with the standard in
paragraph (a) of this section unless an
alternative standard has been
established by the Regional
Administrator.
(c) CCR landfills must be managed to
control wind dispersal of dusts
consistent with the standard in
paragraph (a) of this section unless an
alternative standard has been
established by the Regional
Administrator. CCRs placed in landfills
as wet conditioned CCRs shall not result
in the formation of free liquids.
(d) Tanks, containers, buildings and
pads used for the storage must be
managed to control the dispersal of
dust. Pads must have wind protection
that will ensure comparable levels of
control.
(e) CCRs transported in trucks or other
vehicles must be covered or otherwise
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35262
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
managed to control the wind dispersal
of dust consistent with the standard in
paragraph (a) of this section unless an
alternative standard has been
established by the Regional
Administrator.
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
18. The authority citation for part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
and 6924.
19. Section 268.2 is amended by
revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 268.2
Definitions applicable in this part.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Wastewaters are wastes that
contain less than 1% by weight total
organic carbon (TOC) and less than 1%
by weight total suspended solids (TSS),
except for coal combustion residuals,
[waste code S001], which are
wastewaters if the moisture content
exceeds 50%.
*
*
*
*
*
20. Section 268.14 is amended by
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 268.14 Surface impoundment
exemptions.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) The waste specified in 40 CFR Part
261 as EPA Special Waste Number S001
may continue to be placed in an existing
CCR surface impoundment of this
subpart for 60 months after the
promulgation date of listing the waste
provided the existing CCR surface
impoundment is in compliance with the
requirements of subpart F of part 265 of
this chapter within 12 months after the
promulgation of the new listing. Closure
in accordance with subpart G of part
264 must be completed within two years
after placement of waste in the existing
CCR surface impoundment ceases.
21. Section 268.21 is added to Subpart
C to read as follows:
§ 268.21 Waste specific prohibitions—Coal
combustion residuals.
(a) Effective [date six months after the
effective date of the final rule],
nonwastewaters specified in 40 CFR
part 261 as EPA Special Waste Number
S001 are prohibited from land disposal.
(b) Effective [date 60 months after the
effective date of the final rule],
wastewaters specified in 40 CFR part
261 as EPA Special Waste Number S001
are prohibited from land disposal.
(c) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section do not apply if:
(1) The wastes meet the applicable
treatment standards specified in subpart
D of this Part;
(2) Persons have been granted an
exemption from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition under § 268.6, with respect
to those wastes and units covered by the
petition;
(3) The wastes meet the applicable
treatment standards established
pursuant to a petition granted under
§ 268.44;
(4) Persons have been granted an
extension to the effective date of a
prohibition pursuant to § 268.5, with
respect to these wastes covered by the
extension.
22. In § 268.40, the table ‘‘Treatment
Standards for Hazardous Wastes’’ is
amended by adding in alphanumeric
order the new entry for S001 to read as
follows:
§ 268.40 Applicability of treatment
standards.
*
*
*
*
*
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES
[Note: NA means not applicable]
Regulated hazardous
constituent
Waste code
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
S001 ..............
*
Waste description and treatment/
regulatory subcategory 1
Common
name
*
*
*
Coal combustion wastes generated by the electric Antimony
power sector. For purposes of this listing, the elec- Arsenic ........
tric power sector is defined as electricity-only and Barium .........
combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plants whose pri- Beryllium .....
mary business is to sell electricity, or electricity and Cadmium .....
heat, to the public; i.e., NAICS code 221112 plants. Chromium ...
For the purposes of this listing, coal combustion Lead ............
wastes are defined as fly ash, bottom ash, boiler Mercury .......
slag, and flue gas desulfurization materials gen- Nickel ..........
erated by the electric power sector. This listing Selenium .....
does not apply to coal combustion residuals that Silver ...........
are: (1) Uniquely associated wastes with wastes Thallium ......
from the burning of coal; (2) beneficially used; (3)
placed in minefilling operations; (4) generated by facilities that are outside the electric power sector; or
(5) generated from clean-up activities that are conducted as part of a state or federally required cleanup that commenced prior to the effective date of
this rule..
*
*
*
CAS 2 No.
*
7440–36–0
7440–38–2
7440–39–3
7440–41–7
7440–43–9
7440–47–3
7439–92–1
7439–97–6
7440–02–0
7782–49–2
7440–22–4
7440–28–0
Wastewaters
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/L 3, or technology code 4
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as ‘‘mg/L
TCLP’’, or technology code
*
TSS of 100mg/l
and meet
§ 268.48.
*
*
*
Meet § 268.48.
*
Footnotes to Treatment Standard Table 268.40
waste descriptions provided in this table do not replace waste descriptions in 40 CFR 261. Descriptions of Treatment/Regulatory Subcategories are provided, as needed, to distinguish between applicability of different standards.
2 CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents are described as a combination of a chemical
with its salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only.
3 Concentration standards for wastewaters are expressed in mg/L and are based on analysis of composite samples.
1 The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
35263
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
4 All treatment standards expressed as a Technology Code or combination of Technology Codes are explained in detail in 40 CFR 268.42
Table 1—Technology Codes and Descriptions of Technology-Based Standards.
5 Except for Metals (EP or TCLP) and Cyanides (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards expressed as a concentration
were established, in part, based upon incineration in units operated in accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart O
or Part 265 Subpart O, or based upon combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical requirements. A facility may comply with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.40(d). All concentration standards for nonwastewaters
are based on analysis of grab samples.
*
*
*
*
*
23. In § 268.42, Table 1 is amended by
adding an entry for ‘‘RSLDS’’ to read as
follows:
TABLE 1—TECHNOLOGY CODES AND PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
DESCRIPTION
OF
TECHNOLOGY- AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
BASED STANDARDS
Technology
code
§ 268.42 Treatment standards expressed
as specified technologies.
*
*
*
*
Description of technology-based
standards
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and
6926.
*
*
*
*
RSLDS ....
*
24. The authority citation for part 271
continues to read as follows:
*
*
Removal of solids and meet
§ 268.48 treatment levels.
*
*
*
*
25. Section 271.1(j) is amended by
adding the following entries to Table 1
and Table 2 in chronological order by
date of publication to read as follows.
§ 271.1
*
*
*
*
*
*
Purpose and scope.
*
*
(j) * * *
*
*
TABLE 1—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation date
Title of regulation
*
*
[date of signature of final rule] ......
Federal Register reference
Effective date
*
*
*
Listing of Special Waste S001 ...... [Federal Register page numbers
for final rule].
*
*
[effective date of final rule].
TABLE 2—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Effective date
Self-implementing provision
*
[effective date of final
rule].
RCRA citation
*
*
*
Prohibition on land disposal of S001 waste with
free liquids and prohibition on the disposal of
S001 waste below the natural water table. For
purposes of this provision, free liquids means
liquids which readily separate from the solid
portion of a waste under ambient temperature
and pressure.
Federal Register reference
*
3001(b)(3)(A) and
3004(g)(4)(C).
*
*
[date of publication date of final rule
Federal Register page numbers]
[FR page numbers].
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, and 9604;
33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361.
PART 302—DESIGNATION,
REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND
NOTIFICATION
26. The authority citation for part 302
continues to read as follows:
alphanumeric order to the table to read
as follows:
27. In § 302.4, Table 302.4 is amended
by adding the following new entry in
§ 302.4 Designation of hazardous
substances.
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 302.4—LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
[Note: All comments/notes are located at the end of this table]
Hazardous substance
*
*
S001f Coal combustion residuals
generated by the electric power
sector (Electric Utilities and
Independent Power Producers)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Statutory
code†
CASRN
*
*
*
*
....................................................................................................
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4701
RCRA
waste No.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
4
21JNP2
Final RQ
pounds
(Kg)
*
S001
1 (0. 4536)
35264
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 302.4—LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES—Continued
[Note: All comments/notes are located at the end of this table]
Hazardous substance
*
Statutory
code†
CASRN
*
*
*
*
RCRA
waste No.
*
Final RQ
pounds
(Kg)
*
† Indicates the statutory source defined by 1, 2, 3, and 4, as described in the note preceding Table 302.4.
* * * * *
f See 40 CFR 302.6(b)(1) for application of the mixture rule to this hazardous waste.
* * * * *
28. Section 302.6 is amended by
amending paragraph (b)(1)(iii),
including the Table, to read as follows:
§ 302.6
*
*
Notification requirements.
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) For waste streams K169, K170,
K171, K172, K174, K175, and S001,
knowledge of the quantity of all of the
hazardous constituent(s) may be
assumed, based on the following
maximum observed constituent
concentrations identified by EPA:
Waste
Constituent
K169 ........................................................................
K170 ........................................................................
Benzene ..........................................................................................................
Benzene ..........................................................................................................
Benzo (a) pyrene .............................................................................................
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene ..................................................................................
Benzo (a) anthracene ......................................................................................
Benzo (b) fluoranthene ....................................................................................
Benzo (k) fluoranthene ....................................................................................
3–Methylcholanthrene .....................................................................................
7,12–Dimethylbenz (a) anthracene .................................................................
Benzene ..........................................................................................................
Arsenic .............................................................................................................
Benzene ..........................................................................................................
Arsenic .............................................................................................................
2,3,7,8TCDD ....................................................................................................
1,2,3,7,8–PeCDD ............................................................................................
1,2,3,4,7,8–HxCDD .........................................................................................
1,2,3,6,7,8–HxCDD .........................................................................................
1,2,3,7,8,9–HxCDD .........................................................................................
1,2,3,4,6,7,8–HpCDD ......................................................................................
OCDD ..............................................................................................................
2,3,7,8–TCDF ..................................................................................................
1,2,3,7,8–PeCDF .............................................................................................
2,3,4,7,8–PeCDF .............................................................................................
1,2,3,4,7,8–HxCDF ..........................................................................................
1,2,3,6,7,8–HxCDF ..........................................................................................
1,2,3,7,8,9–HxCDF ..........................................................................................
2,3,4,6,7,8–HxCDF ..........................................................................................
1,2,3,4,6,7,8–HpCDF .......................................................................................
1,2,3,4,7,8,9–HpCDF .......................................................................................
OCDF ..............................................................................................................
Mercury ............................................................................................................
Antimony ..........................................................................................................
Arsenic .............................................................................................................
Barium .............................................................................................................
Beryllium ..........................................................................................................
Cadmium .........................................................................................................
Chromium ........................................................................................................
Lead .................................................................................................................
Mercury ............................................................................................................
Nickel ...............................................................................................................
Selenium ..........................................................................................................
Silver ................................................................................................................
Thallium ...........................................................................................................
K171 ........................................................................
K172 ........................................................................
K174 ........................................................................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
K175 ........................................................................
S001 ........................................................................
*
*
*
*
Max ppm
*
[FR Doc. 2010–12286 Filed 6–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jun 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\21JNP2.SGM
21JNP2
220.0
1.2
230.0
49.0
390.0
110.0
110.0
27.0
1,200.0
500.0
1,600.0
100.0
730.0
0.000039
0.0000108
0.0000241
0.000083
0.000062
0.00123
0.0129
0.000145
0.0000777
0.000127
0.001425
0.000281
0.00014
0.000648
0.0207
0.0135
0.212
9,200
3,100
773
7,230
31
760
5,970
1,453
384
6,301
673
338
100
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 118 (Monday, June 21, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35128-35264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12286]
[[Page 35127]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 257, 261, 264 et al.
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing
of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric
Utilities; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 118 / Monday, June 21, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 35128]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 257, 261, 264, 265, 268, 271 and 302
[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640; FRL-9149-4]
RIN-2050-AE81
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and
Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From
Electric Utilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is
proposing to regulate for the first time, coal combustion residuals
(CCRs) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to
address the risks from the disposal of CCRs generated from the
combustion of coal at electric utilities and independent power
producers. However, the Agency is considering two options in this
proposal and, thus, is proposing two alternative regulations. Under the
first proposal, EPA would reverse its August 1993 and May 2000 Bevill
Regulatory Determinations regarding coal combustion residuals (CCRs)
and 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 the second proposal, EPA would leave the
Bevill determination in place and regulate disposal of such materials
under subtitle D of RCRA by issuing national minimum criteria. Under
both alternatives EPA is proposing to establish dam safety requirements
to address the structural integrity of surface impoundments to prevent
catastrophic releases.
EPA is not proposing to change the May 2000 Regulatory
Determination for beneficially used CCRs, which are currently exempt
from the hazardous waste regulations under Section 3001(b)(3)(A) of
RCRA. However, EPA is clarifying this determination and seeking comment
on potential refinements for certain beneficial uses. EPA is also not
proposing to address the placement of CCRs in mines, or non-minefill
uses of CCRs at coal mine sites in this action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 20, 2010. EPA
will provide an opportunity for a public hearing on the rule upon
request. Requests for a public meeting should be submitted to EPA's
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery by July 21, 2010. See the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for contact information. Should
EPA receive requests for public meetings within this timeframe, EPA
will publish a document in the Federal Register providing the details
of such meetings.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2009-0640, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail)
to rcra-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640.
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.
Fax: Comments may be faxed to 202-566-0272; Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640.
Mail: Send your comments to the Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal
Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities Docket, Attention Docket
ID No., EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 5305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Please include a total of two copies.
Hand Delivery: Deliver two copies of your comments to the
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric
Utilities Docket, Attention Docket ID No., EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460. 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-
2009-0640. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
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 comment directly to EPA without
going through https://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 https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Hazardous Waste
Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes;
Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities Docket,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460. 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 open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
[[Page 35129]]
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Livnat, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery, Environmental Protection Agency, 5304P;
telephone number: (703) 308-7251; fax number: (703) 605-0595; e-mail
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; e-mail
address: souders.steve@epa.gov. For technical information on the CERCLA
aspects of this rule, contact Lynn Beasley, Office of Emergency
Management, Regulation and Policy Development Division (5104A), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, [E-mail address and telephone number:
Beasley.lynn@epa.gov (202-564-1965).]
For more information on this rulemaking please visit https://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/index.htm.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Does this action apply to me?
The proposed rule would apply to all coal combustion residuals
(CCRs) generated by electric utilities and independent power producers.
However, this proposed rule does not address the placement of CCRs in
minefills. The U. S. Department of Interior (DOI) and EPA will address
the management of CCRs in minefills in a 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.\1\ In addition, under either
alternative proposal, EPA is not proposing to affect the current status
of coal combustion residuals that are beneficially used.\2\ (See
section IV. D for further details on proposed clarifications of
beneficial use.) CCRs from non-utility boilers burning coal are not
included within today's proposed rule. EPA will decide on an
appropriate action for these wastes after completing this rulemaking
effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Mine
Placement of Coal Combustion Wastes stated: ``The committee believes
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.'' National
Academy of Sciences. Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines; The
National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2006.
\2\ The NRC committee recommended ``that secondary uses of CCRs
that pose minimal risks to human health and the environment be
strongly encouraged.'' Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule may affect the following entities: electric
utility facilities and independent power producers that fall under the
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 221112, and
hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities that fall under NAICS
code 562211. 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 contained in section IV of this preamble. 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 should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting confidential business information (CBI). Do not
submit information that you consider to be CBI through https://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 No, EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640. You may claim information that you
submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of the information as
CBI (if you submit CBI on a 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 claimed as 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 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. 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 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.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes, and explain your
interest in the issue you are attempting to address.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
3. Docket Copying Costs. The first 100-copied pages are free.
Thereafter, the charge for making copies of Docket materials is 15
cents per page.
C. Definitions, Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in This Preamble (Note:
Any term used in this proposed rulemaking that is not defined in this
section will either have its normal dictionary meaning, or is defined
in 40 CFR 260.10.)
Acre-foot means the volume of one acre of surface area to a depth
of one foot.
Beneficial Use of Coal Combustion Products (CCPs) means 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
[[Page 35130]]
yields), placed as fill in sand and gravel pits, or used in large scale
fill projects, such as for restructuring the landscape, are excluded
from this definition.
Boiler slag means the molten bottom ash collected at the base of
slag tap and cyclone type furnaces that is quenched with water. It is
made up of hard, black, angular particles that have a smooth, glassy
appearance.
Bottom ash means the agglomerated, angular ash particles, formed in
pulverized coal furnaces that are too large to be carried in the flue
gases and collect on the furnace walls or fall through open grates to
an ash hopper at the bottom of the furnace.
CCR Landfill means a disposal facility or part of a facility where
CCRs 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 proposed rule,
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.
CCR Surface Impoundment or impoundment means 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 CCRs 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 CCRs that 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.
Cenospheres are lightweight, inert, hollow spheres comprised
largely of silica and alumina glass.
Coal Combustion Products (CCPs) means fly ash, bottom ash, boiler
slag, or flue gas desulfurization materials, that are beneficially
used.
Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs) means fly ash, bottom ash, boiler
slag, and flue gas desulfurization materials destined for disposal.
CCRs are also known as coal combustion wastes (CCWs) and fossil fuel
combustion (FFC) wastes, when destined for disposal.
Electric Power Sector (Electric Utilities and Independent Power
Producers) means that sector of the power generating industry that
comprises electricity-only and combined-heat-and-power (CHP) plants
whose primary business is to sell electricity, or electricity and heat,
to the public.
Existing CCR Landfill means a landfill which was in operation or
for which construction commenced prior to the effective date of the
final rule. 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.
Existing CCR Surface Impoundment means a surface impoundment which
was in operation or for which construction commenced prior to the
effective date of the final rule. 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 on-site, physical construction program has begun;
or
(2) The owner or operator has entered into contractual
obligations--which can not be cancelled or modified without substantial
loss--for physical construction of the CCR surface impoundment to be
completed within a reasonable time.
Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) material means the material produced
through a process used to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions from the exhaust gas system of a coal-fired boiler. The
physical nature of these materials varies from a wet sludge to a dry
powdered material, depending on the process, and their composition
comprises either sulfites, sulfates or a mixture thereof.
Fly ash means the very fine globular particles of silica glass
which is a product of burning finely ground coal in a boiler to produce
electricity, and is removed from the plant exhaust gases by air
emission control devices.
Hazard potential means the possible adverse incremental
consequences that result from the release of water or stored contents
due to failure of a dam (or impoundment) or mis-operation of the dam or
appurtenances.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Hazard Potential Classification System for Dams was
developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the National
Inventory of Dams (see https://rsgis.crrel.usace.army.mil/apex/f?p=397:1:913698079375545). Hazard potential ratings do not provide
an estimate of the probability of failure or mis-operation, but
rather what the consequences of such a failure or mis-operation
would be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High hazard potential surface impoundment means a surface
impoundment where failure or mis-operation will probably cause loss of
human life.
Significant hazard potential surface impoundment means a surface
impoundment 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.
Low hazard potential surface impoundment means a 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.
Less than low hazard potential surface impoundment means a surface
impoundment not meeting the definitions for High, Significant, or Low
Hazard Potential.
Independent registered professional engineer or hydrologist means a
scientist or engineer who is not an employee of the owner or operator
of a CCR landfill or surface impoundment who has received a
baccalaureate or post-graduate degree in the natural sciences or
engineering and 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 judgments regarding groundwater monitoring, contaminant
fate and transport, and corrective action.
Lateral expansion means a horizontal expansion of the waste
boundaries of an existing CCR landfill, or existing CCR surface
impoundment made after the effective date of the final rule.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) means the highest level of a
contaminant that is allowed in drinking water under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). MCLs are set as close to the MCL goals as feasible
using the best available treatment technology and taking cost into
consideration. MCLs are enforceable standards for drinking water.
Minefill means a project involving the placement of CCRs in coal
mine voids for use as fill, grouting, subsidence control, capping, mine
sealing, and
[[Page 35131]]
treating acid mine drainage, whether for purposes of disposal or for
beneficial use, such as mine reclamation.
Natural water table means the natural level at which water stands
in a shallow well open along its length and penetrating the surficial
deposits just deeply enough to encounter standing water at the bottom.
This level is uninfluenced by groundwater pumping or other engineered
activities.
Organosilanes are organic compounds containing at least one carbon
to silicon bond, and are typically used to promote adhesion.
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.
Pozzolanic material means primarily vitreous siliceous materials,
such as many types of CCRs that, when combined with calcium hydroxide
and in the presence of water, exhibit cementitious properties.
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.
Sand and gravel pit, and/or quarry means an excavation for the
commercial extraction of aggregate for use in construction projects.
CCRs have historically been used to fill sand and gravel pits and
quarries. CCRs are not known to be used to fill metal mines.
Secondary Drinking Water Standards are non-enforceable federal
guidelines regarding cosmetic effects (such as tooth or skin
discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) of
drinking water.
Special Wastes means any of the following wastes that are managed
under the modified subtitle C requirements: CCRs destined for disposal.
Surface Water means all water naturally open to the atmosphere
(rivers, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, streams, impoundments, seas,
estuaries, etc.).
Uniquely associated wastes means low-volume wastes other than those
defined as CCRs that are related to the coal combustion process.
Examples of uniquely associated wastes are precipitation runoff from
coal storage piles at the electric utility, waste coal or coal mill
rejects that are not of sufficient quality to burn as a fuel, and
wastes from cleaning boilers used to generate steam.
CCPs Coal Combustion Products
CCRs Coal Combustion Residuals
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
m/L milligrams per liter
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRC National Response Center
PDWS Primary Drinking Water Standard
OSM Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S.
Department of the Interior
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 USCA 6901)
RQ Reportable Quantity
SDWS Secondary Drinking Water Standard
SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
[mu]g/L micrograms per liter
WQC Federal water quality criteria
D. The Contents of This Preamble Are Listed in the Following Outline
I. Background
A. Why is EPA proposing two options?
1. Basis of Why EPA Is Proceeding With Today's Co-Proposals
2. Brief Description of Today's Co-Proposals
3. Summary of Estimated Regulatory Costs and Benefits
B. What is the statutory authority for this action?
C. Regulation of Wastes Under RCRA Subtitle C
D. Regulation of Solid Wastes Under RCRA Subtitle D
E. Summary of the 1993 and 2000 Regulatory Determinations
F. What are CCRs?
1. Chemical Constituents in CCRs
2. Recent EPA Research on Constituent Leaching From CCRs
G. Current Federal Regulations or Standards Applicable to the
Placement of CCRs in Landfills and Surface Impoundments
II. New Information on the Placement of CCRs in Landfills and
Surface Impoundments
A. New Developments Since the May 2000 Regulatory Determination
B. CCR Risk Assessment
C. Damage Cases
III. Overview and Summary of the Bevill Regulatory Determination and
the Proposed Subtitle C and Subtitle D Regulatory Options
A. Summary of Subtitle C Proposal
B. Summary of Subtitle D Proposal
IV. Bevill Regulatory Determination Relating to CCRs From Electric
Utilities
A. Basis for Reconsideration of May 2000 Regulatory
Determination
B. RCRA Section 8002(n) Study Factors Environmental Benefits
C. Preliminary Bevill Conclusions and Impact of Reconsideration
D. EPA Is Not Reconsidering the Regulatory Determination
Regarding Beneficial Use
1. Why is EPA not proposing to change the determination that
CCRs that are beneficially used do not warrant federal regulation?
2. What constitutes beneficial use?
3. Disposal of CCRs in Sand and Gravel Pits and Large Scale Fill
Operations Is Not Considered a Beneficial Use
4. Issues Associated With Unencapsulated Beneficial Uses
E. Placement of CCRs in Minefilling Operations
F. EPA Is Not Proposing To Revise the Bevill Determination for
CCRs Generated by Non-Utilities
V. Co-Proposed Listing of CCRs as a Special Waste Under RCRA
Subtitle C and Special Requirements for Disposal of CCRs Generated
by Electric Utilities
A. What is the basis for listing CCRs as a special waste?
1. Criteria for Listing CCRs as a Special Waste and Background
on 2010 Risk Assessment
B. Background on EPA's 2010 Risk Assessment
1. Human Health Risks
2. Ecological Risks
C. Consideration of Individual Listing Criteria
1. Toxicity--Factor (i)
2. Concentration of Constituents in Waste--Factor (ii)
3. Migration, Persistence, Degradation, and Bioaccumulation--
Factors (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi)
4. Plausible Types of Mismanagement, Quantities of the Waste
Generated, Nature and Severity of Effects From Mismanagement--
Factors (vii), (viii) and (ix)
5. Action Taken by Other Governmental Agencies or Regulatory
Programs Based on the Health or Environmental Hazard Posed by the
Waste or Waste Constituent--Factor (x)
6. Other Factors--Factor (xi)
VI. Summary of the Co-Proposed Subtitle C Regulations
A. Special Waste Listing
B. Proposed Special Requirements for CCRs
[[Page 35132]]
1. Modification of Technical Standards Under 3004(x)
i. Modification of CCR Landfills and Surface Impoundments From
the Section 3004(o) Liner and Leak Detection Requirements
ii. Fugitive Dust Controls
iii. Special Requirements for Stability of CCR Surface
Impoundments
iv. Wet-Handling of CCRs, Closure, and Interim Status for
Surface Impoundments
v. Proposed Land Disposal Restrictions
2. Proposed Treatment Standards for Non-Wastewaters (Dry CCRs)
3. Proposed Treatment Standards for Wastewaters (Wet-Handled
CCRs)
4. Effective Date of the LDR Prohibitions
C. Applicability of Subtitle C Regulations
D. CERCLA Designation and Reportable Quantities
1. Reporting Requirements
2. Basis for RQs and Adjustments
3. Application of the CERCLA Mixture Rule to Listed CCR
4. Correction of Table of Maximum Observed Constituent
Concentrations Identified by EPA
E. Listing of CCR as Special Wastes To Address Perceived Stigma
Issue
VII. How would the proposed subtitle C requirements be implemented?
A. Effective Dates
B. What are the requirements with which facilities must comply?
1. Generators and Transporters
2. Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDs)
C. RCRA Section 3010 Notification
D. Permit Requirements
1. Facilities Newly Subject to RCRA Permit Requirements
2. Existing Interim Status Facilities
3. Permitted Facilities
E. Requirements in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265
VIII. Impacts of a Subtitle C Rule on State Authorization
A. Applicability of the Rule in Authorized States
B. Effect on State Authorization
IX. Summary of the Co-Proposal Regulating CCRs Under Subtitle D
Regulations
A. Overview and General Issues
1. Regulatory Approach
2. Notifications
B. Section-by-Section Discussion of RCRA Subtitle D Criteria
1. Proposed Modifications to Part 257, Subpart A
2. General Provisions
3. Definitions
4. Location Restrictions
5. Design Requirements
6. Operating Requirements
7. Ground Water Monitoring/Corrective Action
8. Closure and Post-Closure Care
9. Financial Assurance
10. Off-Site Disposal
11. Alternative RCRA Subtitle D Approaches
X. How would the proposed subtitle D regulations be implemented?
A. Effective Dates
B. Implementation and Enforcement of Subtitle D Requirements
XI. Impact of a Subtitle D Regulation on State Programs
XII. Impacts of the Proposed Regulatory Alternatives
A. What are the economic impacts of the proposed regulatory
alternatives?
B. Benefits Not Quantified in the RIA
1. Non-Quantified Plant and Wildlife Protection Benefits
2. Non-Quantified Surface Water Protection Benefits
3. Non-Quantified Ambient Air Protection Benefits
C. Comparison of Costs to Benefits for the Regulatory
Alternatives
D. What are the potential environmental and public health
impacts of the proposed regulatory alternatives?
1. Environmental and Public Health Impacts Estimated in the RIA
2. Environmental and Public Health Impacts Not Estimated in the
RIA
XIII. Other Alternatives EPA Considered
XIV. Is the EPA soliciting comments on specific issues?
XV. Executive Orders and Laws Addressed in This Action
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
APPENDIX to the Preamble: Documented Damages From CCR Management
Practices
I. Background
A. Why is EPA proposing two options?
1. Basis of Why EPA Is Proceeding With Today's Co-Proposals
EPA is revisiting its regulatory determination for CCRs under the
Bevill amendment. This decision is driven in part by the failure of a
surface impoundment retaining wall in Kingston, TN in December 2009.
Deciding upon the appropriate course of action to address over 100
million tons per year of CCRs is an extremely important step. In
developing this proposal, EPA conducted considerable data gathering and
analysis. While the public was able to comment on significant portions
of our analyses in August 2007, as part of a Notice of Data
Availability, there are differing views regarding the meaning of EPA's
information and what course of action EPA should take. In part, the
differing views are fueled by the complex data, analyses, legislation,
implications of available options, possible unintended consequences,
and a decision process, all of which pose considerations that could
justify EPA selecting a RCRA subtitle C approach or selecting a RCRA
subtitle D approach.
Deciding whether or not to maintain the Bevill exemption for CCRs,
entails an evaluation of the eight RCRA Section 8002(n) study factors:
Source and volumes of CCRs generated per year
Present disposal and utilization practices
Potential danger, if any, to human health and the
environment from the disposal and reuse of CCRs
Documented cases in which danger to human health or the
environment from surface runoff or leachate has been proved
Alternatives to current disposal methods
The cost of such alternatives
The impact of the alternatives on the use of coal and
other natural resources
The current and potential utilization of CCRs
Ultimately, the approach selected will need to ensure that catastrophic
releases such as occurred at the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA's)
Kingston, Tennessee facility do not occur and that other types of
damage cases associated with CCR surface impoundments and landfills are
prevented. Thus, this process requires EPA to balance the eight
factors, which ultimately rests on a policy judgment. This is further
complicated in this case because the facts identified under each of the
individual factors are even subject to widely varying perspectives. For
example, in considering the alternatives to current disposal methods,
some claim that RCRA subtitle C would significantly lessen beneficial
use while others see beneficial use expanding as disposal becomes more
costly; some see damage cases as substantial, while others note very
few incidences of significant off-site contamination.
Given the inherently discretionary nature of the decision, the
complexities of the scientific analyses, and the controversy of the
issue, EPA wants to ensure that the ultimate decision is based on the
best available data, and is taken with the fullest possible extent of
public input. As discussed in section IV in greater detail, there are a
number of issues on which additional or more recent information would
be useful in
[[Page 35133]]
allowing the Agency to reach a final decision. In the absence of this
information, EPA has not yet reached a conclusion as to how to strike
the appropriate balance among these eight factors and so is presenting
two proposals for federal regulation of CCRs.
As EPA weighs the eight Bevill study factors to reach our ultimate
decision, EPA will be guided by the following principles, which are
reflected in the discussions throughout this preamble. The first is
that EPA's actions must ultimately be protective of human health and
the environment. Second, any decision must be based on sound science.
Finally, in conducting this rulemaking, EPA wants to ensure that our
decision processes are transparent and encourage the greatest degree of
public participation. Consequently, to further the public's
understanding and ability to comment on all the issues facing the
Agency, within this proposal, EPA identifies a series of scientific,
economic, and materials management issues on which we are seeking
comment from the public to strengthen our knowledge of the impact of
EPA's decision.
There are three key areas of analyses where EPA is seeking comment:
The extent of existing damage cases, the extent of the risks posed by
the mismanagement of CCRs, and the adequacy of State programs to ensure
proper management of CCRs (e.g., is groundwater monitoring required of
CCR landfills and surface impoundments). Since the 2007 NODA, EPA
received new reports from industry and environmental and citizen groups
regarding damage cases. Industry provided information indicating that
many of EPA's listed proven damage cases do not meet EPA's criteria for
a damage case to be proven. Environmental and citizen groups, on the
other hand, reported that there are additional damage cases of which
EPA is unaware. EPA's analysis, as well as the additional information
from industry and environmental and citizen groups, which is in the
docket for this proposal, needs to undergo public review, with the end
result being a better understanding of the nature and number of damage
cases. In addition, as discussed at length in sections II and IV, a
number of technical questions have been raised regarding EPA's
quantitative groundwater risk assessment. The Agency would implement
similar technical controls under RCRA subtitle C or D. Therefore, a
central issue is the adequacy of State programs. Under either
regulatory approach, State programs will have key implementation roles.
This is a very complex area to evaluate. For example, as EPA reports
that 36% of the States do not have minimum liner requirements for CCR
landfills, and 67% do not have liner requirements for CCR surface
impoundments, we also observe that nearly all new CCR landfills and
surface impoundments are constructed with liners. It should also be
recognized that while states currently have considerable expertise in
their State dam safety programs, those programs do not tend to be part
of State solid waste or clean water act programs, and so, oversight may
not be adequately captured in EPA's existing data. In several areas,
there are these types of analytical tensions that warrant careful
consideration by the public and EPA. This proposal requests states and
others to provide further information on state programs, including the
prevalence of groundwater monitoring at existing facilities (an area
where our information is nearly 15 years old) and why state programs
may address groundwater monitoring and risks differently for surface
impoundments located proximate to rivers.
The results of the risk analysis demonstrate significant risks from
surface impoundments. A common industry practice, however, is to place
surface impoundments right next to water bodies. While the Agency's
population risk assessment analysis accounted for adjacent water
bodies, the draft risk assessment that presents individual risk
estimates does not account for the presence of adjacent water bodies in
the same manner that the population risk assessment did. EPA is
requesting public comment on the exact locations of CCR waste
management units so that the Agency can more fully account for water
bodies that may exist between a waste management unit and a drinking
water well (and thus, could potentially intercept a contaminated
groundwater plume). EPA is also requesting comments on how the risk
assessment should inform the final decision.
While the Agency believes the analyses conducted are sound, today's
co-proposal of two options reflects our commitment to use the public
process fully to ensure the best available scientific and regulatory
impact analyses are considered in our decision. The final course of
action will fully consider these legitimate and complex issues, and
will result in the selection of a regulatory structure that best
addresses the eight study factors identified in section 8002(n) of
RCRA, and ensures protection of human health and the environment.
2. Brief Description of Today's Co-Proposals
a. Summary of Subtitle C Proposal
In combination with its proposal to reverse the Bevill
determination for CCRs destined for disposal, EPA is proposing to list
as a special waste, to be regulated under the RCRA subtitle C
regulations, CCRs from electric utilities and independent power
producers when destined for disposal in a landfill or surface
impoundment. These CCRs would be regulated from the point of their
generation to the point of their final disposition, including during
and after closure of any disposal unit. This would include the
generator and transporter requirements and the requirements for
facilities managing CCRs, such as siting, liners (with modification),
run-on and run-off controls, groundwater monitoring, fugitive dust
controls, financial assurance, corrective action, including facility-
wide corrective action, closure of units, and post-closure care (with
certain modifications). In addition, facilities that dispose of, treat,
or, in many cases, store, CCRs also would be required to obtain permits
for the units in which such materials are disposed, treated, and
stored. The rule would also regulate the disposal of CCRs in sand and
gravel pits, quarries, and other large fill operations as a landfill.
To address the potential for catastrophic releases from surface
impoundments, we also are proposing requirements for dam safety and
stability for impoundments that, by the effective date of the final
rule, have not closed consistent with the requirements. We are also
proposing land disposal restrictions and treatment standards for CCRs,
as well as a prohibition on the disposal of treated CCRs below the
natural water table.
b. Summary of Subtitle D Proposal
In combination with today's proposal to leave the Bevill
determination in place, EPA is proposing to regulate CCRs disposed of
in surface impoundments or landfills under RCRA subtitle D requirements
which would establish national criteria to ensure the safe disposal of
CCRs in these units. The units would be subject to, among other things,
location standards, composite liner requirements (new landfills and
surface impoundments would require composite liners; existing surface
impoundments without liners would have to retrofit within five years,
or cease receiving CCRs and close); groundwater monitoring and
corrective action standards for releases from the unit; closure and
post-closure care
[[Page 35134]]
requirements; and requirements to address the stability of surface
impoundments. We are also soliciting comments on requiring financial
assurance. The rule would also regulate the disposal of CCRs in sand
and gravel pits, quarries, and other large fill operations as a
landfill. The rule would not regulate the generation, storage or
treatment of CCRs prior to disposal. Because of the scope of subtitle D
authority, the rule would not require permits, nor could EPA enforce
the requirements. Instead, states or citizens could enforce the
requirements under RCRA citizen suit authority; the states could also
enforce any state regulation under their independent state enforcement
authority.
EPA is also considering a potential modification to the subtitle D
option, called ``D prime'' in the following table. Under this option,
existing surface impoundments would not have to close or install
composite liners but could continue to operate for their useful life.
In the ``D prime'' option, the other elements of the subtitle D option
would remain the same.
3. Summary of Estimated Regulatory Costs and Benefits
For the purposes of comparing the estimated regulatory compliance
costs to the monetized benefits for each regulatory option, the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) computed two comparison indicators:
Net benefits (i.e., benefits minus costs), and benefit/cost ratio
(i.e., benefits divided by costs). Table 1 below provides a summary of
estimated regulatory costs and benefits for three regulatory options,
based on the 7% discount rate base case and the 50-year period-of-
analysis applied in the RIA. Furthermore, this benefit and cost summary
table displays ranges of net benefit and benefit/cost results across
three different scenarios concerning the potential impacts of each
option on the future annual beneficial use of CCRs under each option.
The first scenario presents the potential impact scenario that assumes
that the increased future annual cost of RCRA-regulated CCR disposal
will induce coal-fired electric utility plants to increase beneficial
use of CCRs. The second scenario presents a potential market stigma
effect under the subtitle C option which will induce a decrease in
future annual CCR beneficial use. The third scenario assumed that
beneficial use of CCRs continues according to its recent trend line
without any future change as a result of any of the regulatory options.
The RIA estimates both the first and second scenario incrementally in
relation to the third scenario no change trend line. Table 1 shows the
range of impacts and associated ranges of net benefits and benefit-cost
ratios across these three beneficial use scenarios for each regulatory
option. While each of these three scenario outcomes may be possible,
EPA's experience with the RCRA program indicates that industrial
generators of RCRA-regulated wastes are often able to increase
recycling and materials recovery rates after a subtitle C regulation.
Section XII in this preamble provides additional discussion of these
estimates.
Table 1--Summary Table Comparison of Regulatory Benefits to Costs--Ranging Over All Three Beneficial Use
Scenarios
[$Millions @ 2009$ prices and @ 7% discount rate over 50-year future period-of-analysis 2012 to 2061]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtitle C ``Special
waste'' Subtitle D Subtitle ``D prime''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Present Values:
1. Regulatory Costs:......... $20,349.................. $8,095.................. $3,259.
2. Regulatory Benefits:...... $87,221 to $102,191...... $34,964 to $41,761...... $14,111 to $17,501.
3. Net Benefits (2-1)........ ($251,166) to $81,842.... ($6,927) to $33,666..... ($2,666) to $14,242.
4. Benefit/Cost Ratio (2/1).. (11.343) to 5.022........ 0.144 to 5.159.......... 0.182 to 5.370.
B. Average Annualized Equivalent
Values:*
1. Regulatory Costs.......... $1,474................... $587.................... $236.
2. Regulatory Benefits:...... $6,320 to $7,405......... $2,533 to $3,026........ $1,023 to $1,268.
3. Net Benefits (2-1)........ ($18,199) to $5,930...... ($502) to $2,439........ ($193) to $1,032.
4. Benefit/Cost Ratio (2/1).. (11.347) to 5.022........ 0.145 to 5.159.......... 0.182 to 5.370.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Note: Average annualized equivalent values calculated by multiplying 50-year present values by a 50-year 7%
discount rate ``capital recovery factor'' of 0.07246.
B. What is the statutory authority for this action?
These regulations are being proposed under the authority of
sections 1008(a), 2002(a), 3001, 3004, 3005, and 4004 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. 6907(a), 6912(a), 6921,6924,
6925 and 6944. These statutes, combined, are commonly referred to as
``RCRA.''
RCRA section 1008(a) authorizes EPA to publish ``suggested
guidelines for solid waste management.'' 42 U.S.C. 6907(a). Such
guidelines must provide a technical and economic description of the
level of performance that can be achieved by available solid waste
management practices that provide for protection of human health and
the environment.
RCRA section 2002 grants EPA broad authority to prescribe, in
consultation with federal, State, and regional authorities, such
regulations as are necessary to carry out the functions under federal
solid waste disposal laws. (42 U.S.C. 6912(a)).
RCRA section 3001(b) requires EPA to list particular wastes that
will be subject to the requirements established under subtitle C. (42
U.S.C. 6921(b)). The regulation listing such wastes must be based on
the listing criteria established pursuant to section 3001(a), and
codified at 40 CFR 261.11.
Section 3001(b)(3)(A) of RCRA established a temporary exemption for
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, among others, and required the Agency to conduct a study
of those wastes and, after public hearings and an opportunity for
comment, determine whether these wastes should be regulated pursuant to
subtitle C requirements (42 U.S.C. 6921 (b)(3)(A)).
Section 3004 of RCRA generally requires EPA to establish standards
applicable to the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste
to ensure that human health and the environment are protected. 42
U.S.C. 6924. Sections
[[Page 35135]]
3004(c) and (d) prohibit free liquids in hazardous waste landfills.
Sections 3004(g) and (m) prohibit land disposal of hazardous wastes,
unless, before disposal, those wastes meet treatment standards
established by EPA that will ``substantially diminish the toxicity of
the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term
threats are minimized.'' (42 U.S.C. 6924(c), (d), (g), and (m)).
RCRA section 3004(x) allows the Administrator to tailor certain
specified requirements for particular categories of wastes, including
those that are the subject of today's proposal, namely ``fly ash waste,
bottom ash waste, and flue gas emission control wastes generated
primarily from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels'' (42
U.S.C. 6924(x)). EPA is authorized to modify the requirements of
sections 3004 (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (o), and (u), and section
3005(j), to take into account the special characteristics of the
wastes, the practical difficulties associated with implementation of
such requirements, and site-specific characteristics, including but not
limited to the climate, geology, hydrology and soil chemistry at the
site. EPA may only make such modifications, provided the modified
requirements assure protection of human health and the environment. (42
U.S.C. 6924(x)).
RCRA section 3005 generally requires any facility that treats,
stores, or disposes of wastes identified or listed under subtitle C, to
have a permit. 42 U.S.C. 6925(a). This section also generally imposes
requirements on facilities that become newly subject to the permitting
requirements as a result of regulatory changes, and so can continue to
operate for a period until they obtain a permit--i.e., ``interim status
facilities.'' 42 U.S.C. 6925(e), (i), (j). Congress imposed special
requirements on interim status surface impoundments in section 3005(j).
In order to continue receiving wastes, interim status surface
impoundments are generally required to retrofit the impoundment within
4 years, to install a double liner, with a leachate collection system,
and groundwater monitoring. 42 U.S.C. 6925(j)(6). In addition, wastes
disposed into interim status surface impoundments must meet the land
disposal restrictions in EPA's regulations, or the unit must be
annually dredged. 42 U.S.C. 6925(j)(11).
RCRA Section 4004 generally requires EPA to promulgate regulations
containing criteria for determining which facilities shall be
classified as sanitary landfills (and not open dumps) so that there is
no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the
environment from disposal of solid wastes at such facilities.
C. Regulation of Wastes Under RCRA Subtitle C
Solid wastes may become subject to regulation under subtitle C of
RCRA in one of two ways. A waste may be subject to regulation if it
exhibits certain hazardous properties, called ``characteristics,'' or
if EPA has specifically listed the waste as hazardous. See 42 U.S.C.
6921(a). EPA's regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR)
define four hazardous waste characteristic properties: Ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (See 40 CFR 261.21-261.24). All
generators must determine whether or not a waste exhibits any of these
characteristics by testing the waste, or by using knowledge of the
process that generated the waste (see Sec. 262.11(c)). While not
required to sample the waste, generators will be subject to enforcement
actions if found to be improperly managing wastes that exhibit one or
more of the characteristics.
EPA may also conduct a more specific assessment of a waste or
category of wastes and ``list'' them if they meet the criteria set out
in 40 CFR 261.11. Under the third criterion, at 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3), a
waste will be listed if it contains hazardous constituents identified
in 40 CFR part 261, Appendix VIII, and if, after considering the
factors noted in this section of the regulations, we ``conclude that
the waste is capable of posing a substantial present or potential
hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.'' We place a
chemical on the list of hazardous constituents on Appendix VIII only if
scientific studies have shown a chemical has toxic effects on humans or
other life forms. When listing a waste, we also add the hazardous
constituents that serve as the basis for listing the waste to 40 CFR
part 261, Appendix VII.
The regulations at 40 CFR 261.31 through 261.33 contain the various
hazardous wastes that EPA has listed to date. Section 261.31 lists
wastes generated from non-specific sources, known as ``F-wastes,'' that
are usually generated by various industries or types of facilities,
such as ``wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations''
(see EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006). Section 261.32 lists wastes
generated from specific industry sources, known as ``K-wastes,'' such
as ``Spent potliners from primary aluminum production'' (see EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K088). Section 261.33 contains lists of commercial
chemical products and other materials, known as ``P-wastes'' or ``U-
wastes,'' that become hazardous wastes when they are discarded or
intended to be discarded.
As discussed in greater detail later in this proposal, EPA is
considering whether to codify a listing of CCRs that are disposed of in
landfills or surface impoundments, in a new section of the regulations,
as ``Special Wastes.'' EPA is considering creating this new category of
wastes, in part, to reflect the fact that these wastes would be subject
to modified regulatory requirements using the authority provided under
section 3004(x) of RCRA (e.g., the modified 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).
If a waste exhibits a hazardous characteristic or is listed under
subtitle C, then it is subject to the requirements of RCRA subtitle C,
and the implementing regulations found in 40 CFR parts 260 through 268,
parts 270 to 279, and part 124. These requirements apply to persons who
generate, transport, treat, store or dispose of such waste and
establish rules governing every phase of the waste's management from
its generation to its final disposition and beyond. Facilities that
treat, store or dispose of hazardous wastes require a permit which
incorporates all of the design and operating standards established by
EPA rules, including standards for piles, landfills, and surface
impoundments. Under RCRA subtitle C requirements, land disposal of
hazardous waste is prohibited unless the waste is first treated to meet
the treatment standards (or meets the treatment standards as generated)
established by EPA that minimize threats to human health and the
environment posed by the land disposal of the waste, or unless the
waste is disposed in a unit from which there will be no migration of
hazardous constituents for as long as the waste remains hazardous. In
addition, RCRA subtitle C facilities are required to clean up any
releases of hazardous waste or constituents from solid waste management
units at the facility, as well as beyond the facility boundary, as
necessary to protect human health and the environment. RCRA subtitle C
also requires that permitted facilities demonstrate that they have
adequate financial resources (i.e., financial assurance) for
obligations, such as closure, post-closure care, necessary
[[Page 35136]]
clean up, and any liability from facility operations.
The RCRA subtitle C requirements are generally implemented under
state programs that EPA has authorized to operate in lieu of the
federal program, based upon a determination that the state program is
no less stringent than the federal program. In a state that operates
under an authorized program, any revisions made to EPA requirements are
generally effective as part of the federal RCRA program in that state
only after the state adopts the revised requirement, and EPA authorizes
the state requirement. The exception applies with respect to
requirements implementing statutory provisions added to subtitle C by
the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA; such
requirements are immediately effective in all states, and are enforced
by EPA.
All RCRA hazardous wastes are also hazardous substances under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), as defined in section 101(14)(C) of the CERCLA statute. This
applies to wastes listed in Sec. Sec. 261.31 through 261.33, as well
as any wastes that exhibits a RCRA hazardous characteristic. Table
302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4 lists the CERCLA hazardous substances along with
their reportable quantities (RQs). Anyone spilling or releasing a
hazardous substance at or above its RQ must report the release to the
National Response Center, as required in CERCLA Section 103. In
addition, Section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act (EPCRA) requires facilities to report the release of a CERCLA
hazardous substance at or above its RQ to State and local authorities.
Today's rule proposes an approach for estimating whether released CCRs
exceed an RQ. Wastes listed as special wastes will generally be subject
to the same requirements under RCRA subtitle C and CERCLA as are
hazardous wastes, although as discussed elsewhere in this preamble, EPA
is proposing to revise certain requirements under the authority of
section 3004(x) of RCRA to account for the large volumes and unique
characteristics of these wastes.
D. Regulation of Solid Wastes Under RCRA Subtitle D
Solid wastes that are neither a listed and/or 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
nonhazardous solid waste. The federal role in this arrangement is to
establish the overall regulatory direction, by providing minimum
nationwide standards for protecting human health and the environment,
and to providing technical assistance to states for planning and
developing their own environmentally sound waste management practices.
The actual planning and direct implementation of solid waste programs
under RCRA subtitle D, however, remains a state and local function, and
the act authorizes States to devise programs to deal with State-
specific conditions and needs. That is, EPA has no role in the planning
and direct implementation of solid waste programs under RCRA subtitle
D.
Under the authority of sections 1008(a)(3) and 4004(a) of subtitle
D of RCRA, EPA first promulgated the Criteria for Classification of
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices (40 CFR part 257) on
September 13, 1979. These subtitle D Criteria establish minimum
national performance standards necessary to ensure that ``no reasonable
probability of adverse effects on health or the environment'' will
result from solid waste disposal facilities or practices. Practices not
complying with the criteria constitute ``open dumping'' for purposes of
the Federal prohibition on open dumping in section 4005(a). EPA does
not have the authority to enforce the prohibition directly (except in
situations involving the disposal or handling of sludge from publicly-
owned treatment works, where Federal enforcement of POTW sludge-
handling facilities is authorized under the CWA). States and citizens
may enforce the prohibition on open dumping using the authority under
RCRA section 7002. EPA, however, may act only if the handling, storage,
treatment, transportation, or disposal of such wastes may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment
(RCRA 7003). In addition, the prohibition may be enforced by States and
other persons under section 7002 of RCRA.
In contrast to subtitle C, RCRA subtitle D requirements relate only
to the disposal of the solid waste, and EPA does not have the authority
to establish requirements governing the generation, transportation,
storage, or treatment of such wastes prior to disposal. Moreover, EPA
would not have administrativ