Coal Combustion Waste Management
at Landfills and Surface Impoundments,
1994-2004
U.S. Department of Energy
and the
Office of Policy and International Affairs
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
-------
Availability of This Report
This report is available, at no cost, at http://www.osti.gov/bndge. It is also available
on paper to the U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, for a processing fee, from:
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
phone (865) 576-8401
fax (865) 576-5728
reports@adonis.osti.gov
Disclaimer
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any agency thereof, nor The University of Chicago, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express
or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus,
product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights Reference herein to any specific
commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply
its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of
document authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof,
Argonne National Laboratory, or The University of Chicago.
-------
DOE/PI-0004
ANL-EVS/06-4
Coal Combustion Waste Management
at Landfills and Surface Impoundments,
1994-2004
by
Deborah Elcock and Nancy L. Ranek
Environmental Science Division
Argonne National Laboratory
955 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W.
Washington, DC 20024
August 2006
work sponsored by
U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Fossil Energy and the Office of Policy and International Affairs
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) project team—Debra Jo
Littleton, the initiator of the study and the DOE project manager (DOE Office of Fossil Energy),
and David O. Moses (DOE Office of Policy and International Affairs)—and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) project team—Alexander Livnat, the EPA project
manager for the study, and Steve Souders and Richard Kinch (EPA Office of Solid Waste). We
also wish to thank Jim Roewer of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group for coordinating the
survey responses and facilitating the collection of more than 60 permits. We also acknowledge
the operators of the fossil fuel power industry's disposal units for responding to the
questionnaires and follow-up questions, as well as the State regulators who provided information
to the project team. We thank Elizabeth K. Hocking and Markus G. Puder of Argonne National
Laboratory for their support in data collection and analysis. Finally, we would like to thank the
peer reviewers, who represent the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials, the Clean Air Task Force, and the Utility Water Act Group, for their comments
and input.
-------
IV
-------
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
NOTATION xiii
SUMMARY S-l
1 INTRODUCTION 1
.1 Description of Coal Combustion Wastes 1
.2 Regulatory History 2
.3 CCW Generation, Use, and Disposition 3
.4 Importance of CCW Regulatory Determination to DOE 6
.5 Study Objective 7
.6 Study Scope 7
2 APPROACH 9
2.1 Recent and Current CCW Industry Surface Disposal
Management Practices 9
2.2 State Regulatory Requirements for CCW Management 11
2.3 Implementation of State Requirements 13
3 FINDINGS 15
3.1 Recent and Current CCW Industry Surface Disposal
Management Practices 15
3.1.1 Identified Units 15
3.1.2 Sample Coverage 18
3.1.2.1 CCW Proxy 19
3.1.2.2 Coal-Fired Generating Capacity Proxy 19
3.1.3 Characteristics of Identified Units 21
3.1.3.1 Share of Landfills Relative to Surface Impoundments 21
3.1.3.2 Share of Newly Constructed Units Relative to Expansions 22
3.1.3.3 Trends in Unit Completions and Openings over Time 23
3.1.4 Wastes Disposed 25
3.1.5 Permit Information 26
3.1.5.1 Landfill Permit Requirements 27
3.1.5.2 Surface Impoundment Permit Requirements 29
3.1.6 Liners 31
3.1.6.1 Liner Use at Disposal Units 31
3.1.6.2 Liner Integrity 32
3.1.7 Groundwater Monitoring 34
3.1.8 Regulatory Inspections 36
-------
CONTENTS (Cont.)
3.1.9 Testing for Potential Misrepresentation of Data Caused by the
Exclusion of Supplemental Units 37
3.2 State Requirements 40
3.2.1 Overview 40
3.2.1.1 Permitting Requirements for Landfills 40
3.2.1.2 Permitting Requirements for Surface Impoundments 47
3.2.2 Findings 48
3.3 Implementation of State Requirements 51
3.3.1 Overview of Variance Requests 52
3.3.2 Discussion of Variance Requests by Category 53
3.3.2.1 Liner Variance Requests 55
3.3.2.2 Groundwater-Monitoring Variance Requests 56
3.3.2.3 Closure/Post-Closure Requirements 56
3.3.2.4 Cover/Dust Controls 56
3.3.2.5 Ground water-Protection Standards 58
3.3.2.6 Other Variance Requests 62
4 CONCLUSIONS 67
5 REFERENCES 69
APPENDIX A: State-Specific Regulatory Reviews A-l
APPENDIX B: Questionnaire for Newly Permitted, Built, or Laterally Expanded
Disposal/Management Units B-l
APPENDIX C: Survey Response Rate and Sample Size Based on Coal-Fired
Power Plant Generating Capacity C'-l
APPENDIX D: Reconciliation of Units Identified by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency D-l
APPENDIX E: Unit Completion Data E-l
APPENDIX F: Materials Disposed of at Surveyed Units F-l
APPENDIX G: Permits Issued for Surveyed Units G-l
APPENDIX H: Liner Data H-1
APPENDIX I: Groundwater-Monitoring Data for Surveyed Units as Reported
in the Surveys 1-1
VI
-------
CONTENTS (Cont.)
APPENDIX J: Variance Requests by State and Category of Requirement J-l
APPENDIX K: Variance Request Descriptions and Regulatory Summaries K-l
APPENDIX L: Variance Granting Rationale, Revocation Provisions,
and Comments L-l
FIGURES
1 Disposal Unit Completions by Year 24
2 Liners in Identified New or Expanded Disposal Units since 1994 32
3 Liner Types Reported for Landfills 33
4 Liner Types Reported for Surface Impoundments 34
A. 1 Graded Approach to Regulating Nonhazardous Solid Waste Landfills
in Selected States A-9
TABLES
S-l CCW Units in Study S-2
S-2 Summary Results from Chronological Comparisons of Regulatory Controls
for Landfills in States Reviewed S-8
1 CCW Generation and Beneficial Use by State, 2004 5
2 Units Included in the Analysis 17
3 Supplemental Units Not Included in the Analysis 18
4 Results of the January 2006 Follow-up to the USWAG Survey 21
5 Distribution of Identified Disposal Units by State 22
6 Distribution of New and Expanded Units by State 23
-------
TABLES (Cont.)
7 Trends in Construction Completions by Year 24
8 Percentages of Wastes Disposed of at Surveyed Units 26
9 Numbers and Types of Permits Issued for Surveyed Units 28
10 Permit Requirements for Surveyed Landfills 29
11 Liner and Groundwater-Monitoring Requirements for Surveyed
Surface Impoundments 30
12 Other Permit Requirements for Surveyed Surface Impoundments 30
13 Liner Types at Recently Constructed Landfills and Surface Impoundments 33
14 Disposal Units with Groundwater Monitoring by State 35
15 Summary Statistics on Groundwater-Monitoring Wells and Locations
within and outside the Boundaries of Surveyed Units 37
16 Summary Statistics on Groundwater-Monitoring Wells and Locations
Upgradient and Downgradient of Surveyed Units 37
17 Comparison of Key Results for Surveyed, Nonsurveyed,
and Supplemental Units 39
18 Areas of Regulatory Control Reviewed by State 41
19 Description of Permitting Exemptions in Five States 42
20 Solid Waste Permitting Requirements by State 44
21 Power Generation Capacity, CCW Generation, and CCW Beneficial
Use in States with Solid Waste Permitting Exemptions, 2004 45
22 Summary Results from Chronological Comparisons of Regulatory Controls
for Landfills in States Reviewed 49
23 Variance Requests and Disposition by State for Surveyed CCW Units 54
24 Summary of Variance Request Categories by State for Surveyed CCW Units 55
25 Disposition of Liner Variance Requests for Surveyed Units 57
vm
-------
TABLES (Cont.)
26 Variance Requests by Surveyed Units Pertaining to Closure
and Post-Closure Requirements 58
27 Variance Requests by Surveyed Units Pertaining to Daily and Intermediate
Cover Requirements 59
28 Variance Requests by Surveyed Units Pertaining to Groundwater-
Protection Standards 63
29 Variance Requests by Surveyed Units Pertaining to "Other" Regulatory
Requirements 66
A.I Areas of Regulatory Control Investigated by State Reviewed A-6
A.2 Summary of Regulatory Designations for CCWs in Selected States A-7
A.3 Chronological Comparison of Designation of CCWs for Disposal
in Landfills in Selected States A-l 1
A.4 Permits Required for CCW Management Units in Selected States A-15
A.5 Chronological Comparison of Permitting Requirements for Landfills
in Selected States A-20
A.6 Summary of Liner Requirements for CCW Management Units
in Selected States A-28
A.7 Chronological Comparison of Liner Requirements for Landfills
in Selected States A-35
A.8 Georgia Maximum Aquifer Contamination Levels A-38
A.9 Illinois Landfill Liner Requirements A-39
A.10 Indiana Landfill Liner Requirements A-40
A. 11 Ohio Landfill Liner Requirements A-41
A. 12 Pennsylvania Landfill Liner Requirements A-42
A. 13 Summary of Groundwater-Monitoring Requirements for CCW Management
Units in Selected States A-45
-------
TABLES (Cont.)
A. 14 Chronological Comparison of Groundwater-Monitoring Requirements
for Landfills in Selected States A-48
A. 15 Summary of Leachate-Collection System Requirements for CCW Management
Units in Selected States A-56
A. 16 Chronological Comparison of Leachate-Collection System Requirements
for Landfills in Selected States A-59
A. 17 Summary of Closure/Post-Closure Requirements for CCW Management
Units in the Pilot States A-64
A. 18 Chronological Comparison of Closure/Post-Closure Requirements
for CCW Management Units in the Pilot States A-66
A. 19 Summary of Corrective Action Requirements for CCW Management
Units in the Pilot States A-69
A.20 Summary of Siting Controls for CCW Management Units in the Pilot States A-73
A.21 Chronological Comparison of Siting Controls for Landfills in Selected States A-75
A.22 Summary of Financial Assurance Requirements for CCW Management
Units in the Pilot States A-78
A.23 Chronological Comparison of Financial Assurance Requirements
for Landfills in the Pilot States A-79
A.24 Summary of Additional Information Collected for Landfills
in the Pilot States A-81
A.25 Summary of Additional Information Collected for Surface Impoundments
in the Pilot States A-82
A.26 Summary of Chronological Comparisons of Regulatory Controls
for Landfills in the States Reviewed A-84
A.27 Summary of States with "Neutral" Changes A-89
C. 1 Results of the January 2006 Follow-up to the USWAG Survey C-6
D. 1 Reconciliation of Units Identified by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency D-3
-------
TABLES (Cont.)
E.I Trends in Unit Completion E-3
F.I Materials Disposed of at Surveyed Units F-3
G. 1 Permits Issued for Surveyed Units G-3
H.I Liner Data H-3
1.1 Groundwater-Monitoring Data for Surveyed Units as Reported
in the Surveys 1-3
J. 1 Variance Requests by State and Category of Requirement J-3
K. 1 Variance Request Descriptions and Regulatory Summaries K-3
L. 1 Variance Granting Rationale, Revocation Provisions, and Comments L-3
-------
11X
-------
NOTATION
The following is a list of the abbreviations, acronyms, and units of measure used in this
document. (Some acronyms and abbreviations used only in tables may be defined only in those
tables.)
GENERAL ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACAA American Coal Ash Association
ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Adm. Code Administrative Code
AGA American Gas Association
APPA American Public Power Association
CCB coal combustion by-product
CCR coal combustion residue
CCW coal combustion waste
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CSR Code of State Regulations
DEP Department of Environmental Protection
DNR Department of Natural Resources
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
EEI Edison Electric Institute
EIA Energy Information Administration
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
FAC Florida Administrative Code
FBC fluidized bed combustion
FGD flue gas desulfurization
FR Federal Register
FS Florida Statutes
GDNR Georgia Department of Natural Resources
HDPE high-density polyethylene
IAC Indiana Administrative Code
IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management
IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
ILCS Illinois Compiled Statutes
ISWLF Industrial Solid Waste Landfill
IWDR Rule Industrial Waste Disposal and Reuse Rule
.Kill
-------
MCL
MoDNR
NETL
NPDES
NR
NRECA
OAC
OEPA
ORC
maximum contaminant level
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
National Energy Technology Laboratory
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Natural Resources (chapter designation in WAC)
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Ohio Administrative Code
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Ohio Revised Code
PADEP
PAL
PPSA
RCRA
RD
RTC
SMCRA
SSI
TAG
TCEQ
TCLP
TRI
USWAG
VAC
VDEQ
VPDES
WAC
WDNR
WEPA
WPDES
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
preventive action limit
Power Plant Siting Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Regulatory Determination
Report to Congress
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
statistically significant increase
Texas Administrative Code
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Toxic Release Inventory
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Virginia Administrative Code
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Wisconsin Administrative Code
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Environmental Protection Agency
Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
XIV
-------
UNITS OF MEASURE
cm centimeter(s) mg milligram(s)
ft foot (feet) mi mile(s)
gal gallon(s) MW megawatt(s)
GW gigawatt(s) psi pound(s) per square inch (lb/in.2)
in. inch(es) ^g microgram(s)
L liter(s) j^m micrometer(s)
Ib pound(s) s second(s)
m meter(s)
-------
-------
S-l
SUMMARY
On May 22, 2000, as required by Congress in its 1980 Amendments to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
issued a Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels. On the basis
of information contained in its 1999 Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil
Fuels, the EPA concluded that coal combustion wastes (CCWs), also known as coal combustion
by-products (CCBs), did not warrant regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA, and it retained the
existing hazardous waste exemption for these materials under RCRA Section 3001(b)(3)(C).
However, the EPA also determined that national regulations under Subtitle D of RCRA were
warranted for CCWs that are disposed of in landfills or surface impoundments. The EPA made
this determination in part on the basis of its findings that "present disposal practices are such
that, in 1995, these wastes were being managed in 40 percent to 70 percent of landfills and
surface impoundments without reasonable controls in place, particularly in the area of
groundwater monitoring; and while there have been substantive improvements in state regulatory
programs, we have also identified gaps in State oversight" (EPA 2000).
The 1999 Report to Congress (RTC), however, may not have reflected the changes in
CCW disposal practices that occurred since the cutoff date (1995) of its database and subsequent
developments. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the EPA discussed this issue and
decided to conduct a joint DOE/EPA study to collect new information on the recent CCW
management practices by the power industry. It was agreed that such information would provide
a perspective on the chronological adoption of control measures in CCW units based on State
regulations. A team of experts from the EPA, industry, and DOE (with support from Argonne
National Laboratory) was established to develop a mutually acceptable approach for collecting
and analyzing data on CCW disposal practices and State regulatory requirements at landfills and
surface impoundments that were permitted, built, or laterally expanded between January 1, 1994,
and December 31, 2004. The scope of the study excluded waste units that manage CCWs in
active or abandoned coal mines.
The EPA identified the following three areas of interest:
1. Recent and current CCW industry surface disposal management practices,
2. State regulatory requirements for CCW management, and
3. Implementation of State requirements (i.e., the extent to which States grant or
deny operator requests to waive or vary regulatory requirements and the
rationales for doing so).
DOE and the EPA obtained data on recent and current disposal practices from a
questionnaire that the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) distributed to its members
that own or operate coal-fired power plants. USWAG, formed in 1978, is responsible for
addressing solid and hazardous waste issues on behalf of the utility industry. It is an informal
consortium of approximately 80 utility operating companies, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI),
-------
5-2
the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), the American Public Power
Association (APPA), and the American Gas Association (AGA). EEI is the principal national
association of investor-owned electric power and light companies. NRECA is the national
association of rural electric cooperatives. APPA is the national association of publicly owned
electric utilities. AGA is the national association of natural gas utilities. Together, USWAG
member companies and trade associations represent more than 85% of the total electric
generating capacity of the United States and service more than 95% of the nation's consumers of
electricity. To verify the survey findings, the EPA also asked State regulators from nine selected
States that are leading consumers of coal for electricity generation for information on disposal
units that may not have been covered in the USWAG survey. The selected States were Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, and Texas. A total of
56 waste units were identified, and information from these units1 formed the basis for the
analysis of recent and current surface disposal management practices. Table S-l summarizes the
numbers of units for the various categories covered in this study.
The total number of CCW disposal units permitted, built, or laterally expanded between
January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2004 ("new units"') is not known, as no industry organization
or government agency tracks this information. However, by using coal-fired power plant
generating capacity as a proxy for calculating sample coverage, we estimate that the 56 units on
which the analysis is based represent at least 63% of the total universe of new or expanded
TABLE S-l CCW Units in Study
Number
Unit Category
as Defined in
This Study
Description
Questionnaire
Sent and
Returned
Surface
Landfill Impoundment Total
Surveyed Identified in December 2004 Yes 29 16 45
USWAG survey
Nonsurveyed Identified by the EPA No 9 2 11
Identified Sum of surveyed and 45 yes 38 18 56
nonsurveyed units 11 no
Supplemental3 Identified in 2006 USWAG No 4 26
follow-up
Total Sum of identified and 45 yes 42 20 62
supplemental units
a Supplemental units were identified in a 2006 USWAG follow-up to identify any units that were not
reported in the 2004 survey. The supplemental units were not included in the analysis.
Identified units included 45 surveyed units, or units that returned the questionnaires, and 11 nonsurveyed units,
or units that resulted from the EPA investigation (no complete questionnaires).
-------
S-3
disposal units. In addition, a January 2006 follow-up identified six supplemental disposal units
from four utilities that had not responded to the December 2004 survey. Adding the capacities of
these utilities to the total brings the response rate up to 71%, using the capacity proxy. This is a
conservative estimate for the following reasons: (1) the actual coal-fired power plant capacity
requiring CCW disposal capacity is much less than the generating capacity that was used to
calculate the sample coverage rate; (2) the total U.S. coal-fired power plant capacity (335.2 GW
in 2004) includes those power plants that are on standby and produce neither power nor CCWs;
(3) a significant portion (between 35% and 40%, according to different sources) of CCWs are
beneficially used, thus requiring no disposal in waste units; and (4) because less than 3% of the
total coal-fired generating capacity has been added during the period that closely corresponds to
the survey period, new disposal capacity would be required for only a small portion of the total
generating capacity.
For the State regulatory analysis, our initial objective was to compare current CCW-
related regulatory requirements with comparable information from earlier reports. It was evident
from the outset, however, that a nationwide study of the CCW regulations and their
chronological changes in the States that have coal-fired generating capacity would not be
feasible under the time and resource constraints of this study. Therefore, an alternative approach
was undertaken, namely reviewing the current regulatory programs applicable to CCWs in States
that contain units of one or more of the following types and comparing the results with
corresponding information from earlier reports: (1) new CCW disposal units (i.e., those
permitted, constructed, or laterally expanded between 1994 and 2004) and (2) units that are the
basis of proven, potential, or alleged damage cases.2 Of the 26 States identified as meeting the
selection criteria, a pilot study involving five States (Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Virginia,
and Wisconsin) was conducted to determine whether it would be feasible, within the established
budget and schedule constraints, to collect enough data for all 26 States to allow comparisons of
current regulatory requirements with comparable information from earlier reports and identify
changes.
Information collected during the pilot study covered the following categories of
regulatory control:
• Regulatory designation of CCWs for disposal,
• Permitting requirements,
• Liner requirements,
In comments to the EPA. public interest groups have identified cases in whieh they allege that damage to
human health or the environment was caused by fossil-fuel-combuslion waste management units. As of
May 2006. 86 of the alleged damage eases have been investigated by the EPA to verily the existence and cause
of the damage. As defined in the 1999 RTC. proven damage cases are those with exceedences of primary
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or other health-based standards in groundwater or surface water off-site
or at a distance from the waste management unit sufficient to conclude that they could cause human health
concerns, while potential damage eases are those with (I) documented exceedences of primary MCLs or other
health-based standards on-site or beneath or close to the waste source, and/or (2) documented exeeedences of
secondary MCLs or other non-health-based standards on-site or off-site.
-------
S-4
• Groundwater-monitoring requirements,
• Leachate-collection system requirements,
• Corrective action requirements,
• Closure/post-closure requirements,
• Siting controls, and
• Financial assurance requirements.
The pilot study was resource intensive, and we discovered that comparisons between the
current regulatory requirements and comparable information reported in earlier reports could
rarely be made at the same level of detail. In light of this, the EPA revisited information already
available from other sources about current State CCW regulatory programs and concluded that
our priority should be on updating how States were actually implementing programs, rather than
simply gathering further information on State regulations. Accordingly, we did not conduct
comprehensive reviews of State regulations for all of the 26 States mentioned above. Rather, the
EPA identified particular aspects of the regulatory programs in specified States that were of
interest, and we focused our investigation of regulations on those States in addition to the five
pilot States. In all, six additional States (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, and Texas)
were reviewed beyond those in the pilot study. For these additional States, we concentrated on
the following five of the nine areas of regulatory control that were reviewed for the pilot States,
because these areas have greater potential to affect whether releases to groundwater are
controlled:
• Regulatory designation of CCWs for disposal,
• Permitting requirements,
• Liner requirements,
• Groundwater-monitoring requirements, and
• Leachate-collection system requirements.
For each State reviewed, an effort was made to identify regulations applicable to disposal
of CCWs in landfills and surface impoundments, regardless of the program (e.g., solid waste,
special waste, residual waste, wastewater) into which the State may place such regulations.
Regulations covering beneficial use of CCWs and placement of CCWs in mines were not
reviewed.
To address the third issue—implementation of State requirements—we conducted a
detailed review of all 65 permits received for the surveyed disposal units to determine the nature
and extent of variance requests, and how those requests were treated by the regulatory agencies.
-------
S-5
The analysis of identified units and State regulations produced the following findings:
1. Between 1994 and 2004, the amount and quality of environmental controls
used at CCW management units appear to have increased. A trend toward
management in landfills (dry handling) and away from surface impoundments
(wet handling) is also evident.
• The share of landfills developed for disposal has increased, while that for
surface impoundments has decreased. Over the 1994 to 2004 period,
landfills made up approximately two-thirds of the identified units, and
surface impoundments made up one-third of the identified units. None of
the identified units used sand and gravel pits for disposal. In the 1999
RTC,3 just under half of the co-management units were landfills.4 DOE
and the EPA recognize that disposal capacity for new and expanded units
may be a better indicator of the amount of waste that has shifted from dry
to wet handling, but the survey respondents did not provide disposal
capacity information.
• All of the surveyed units either underwent a pre-permit site
characterization, or a site characterization was required as part of the
permit.
• One hundred percent of the surveyed landfills and surface impoundments
were authorized by one or more permits. In contrast, the 1999 RTC
reported that 94% of the landfills and 85% of the impoundments had one
or more permits. For the surveyed units, an average of 1.9 permits (1.8 for
landfills and 2.1 for surface impoundments) were issued.
• The use of liners has become essentially ubiquitous. Fifty-five of the
56 identified units have liners, including all of the 45 surveyed units and
10 of the 11 nonsurveyed units. The one unit with no liner is a landfill that
Here, as well as in the following bullets in this section, the cited 1999 RTC percentages are based on the 1997
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) database referred to in the RTC.
The RTC surveyed only co-management units, while the current study included co-management and ash-only
landfills and surface impoundments. Co-management units are disposal units that manage the large-volume
wastes (fly ash, bottom ash. boiler slag, and Hue gas emission control wastes from the combustion of coal by
electric utility power plants) with one or more low-volume wastes that result from supporting processes that are
ancillary to the combustion and power-generation processes. Low-volume wastes include, but are nol limited to.
coal pile runoff, boiler blowdown. coal mill rejects, floor drain wastes, and water treatment wastes. Ash-only
units are those that manage only the large-volume wastes. Because the 2000 regulatory determination stated that
any new Subtitle D rules would apply to both co-management and ash-only units, the survey for the current
study was not concerned with, nor did it ask. whether the unit was a co-management or ash-only unit. However.
the survey did ask about material disposed. Assuming that a unit thai reported management of only fly ash.
boiler slag, or flue gas desulfuri/ation sludge was an "ash-only" unit and not a co-management unit, it appears
that of the surveyed units. 14 landfills are co-management units and 2 surface impoundments arc
co-management units. If this is true, the (rend from co-management surface impoundments to landfills is even
more pronounced, with 88% of the new co-management units being landfills and 12% being surface
impoundments.
-------
5-6
receives only material that the State's regulations classify as inert bottom
ash, and thus requires no liner. This compares with liners installed in 75%
and 60% of those landfills and surface impoundments, respectively, that
were established between 1985 and 1995.
The protective qualities of the liner materials have improved over the past
decade for both landfills and surface impoundments. Most of the liners in
the identified newly constructed or expanded units are engineered liners
made of compacted clay, synthetic clay, geomembrane, or a combination
of these materials. The percentage of combination and multiple liners
increased for landfills from less than 10% in the 1999 RTC to more than
50% in the newly constructed/expanded units. Similarly for
impoundments, the share of combination/multiple liners increased from
2% in the 1999 RTC to more than 50% in the newly constructed/expanded
units.
The vast majority (91%) of the identified units (landfills and surface
impoundments) built or expanded between 1994 and 2004 have
groundwater monitoring:
- Thirty-seven of the 38 landfills (97%) monitor groundwater. The one
landfill that does not conduct groundwater monitoring manages only
bottom ash, which the State has classified as inert and thus does not
require groundwater monitoring. Between 1985 and 1995, 88% of the
landfills established had groundwater monitoring.
- Nearly 80% of the 18 surface impoundments built or expanded
between 1994 and 2004 monitor groundwater. While the share of
surface impoundments that monitor groundwater is lower than that of
landfills, it is still higher than the 65% of surface impoundments
established between 1985 and 1995 that had groundwater monitoring.
Landfills and surface impoundments monitor for a variety of hazardous
and nonhazardous constituents at numerous well locations inside and
outside the unit boundaries, both upgradient and downgradient, as required
by the State agency having jurisdiction. Not all units are required to
monitor for the same constituents (e.g., the regulatory agency may have
used waste characterization data to determine that certain constituents are
not present in the CCWs and thus testing for such constituents is
unnecessary). However, commonly monitored constituents include
mercury, molybdenum, vanadium, arsenic, cadmium, copper, nickel, zinc,
barium, boron, chromium III, chromium VI, lead, selenium, silver, and tin
(toxic metals); and ammonia, nitrogen, nitrite, nitrate, phosphorus, sulfate,
potassium, iron, manganese, aluminum, dissolved oxygen, oxidation
potential, alkalinity, calcium, magnesium, sodium, chloride, total
dissolved solids, total suspended solids, temperature, pH, specific
-------
5-7
conductance, and appearance (secondary MCLs and other water quality
parameters). Monitoring frequency at the surveyed units ranges from
monthly to semiannually. The average number of monitoring wells at
surveyed landfills that reported monitoring data is 9, and the average at
surveyed surface impoundments is 12. Collection of groundwater quality
information (e.g., contaminant concentrations) at surveyed sites was
beyond the scope of this study.
2. In eight areas of regulatory control reviewed for this report,5 more CCWs
destined for landfills in the States reviewed had tightened6 regulatory controls
than had relaxed controls between the times data were collected for the
1988 RTC and for this report.
• Table S-2 indicates which of the States reviewed for this report tightened,
relaxed, or had no change ("neutral") in regulatory controls in eight areas
applicable to landfills between the times data were collected for the
1988 RTC and for this report. For each area of regulatory control, the total
net disposable CCWs7 generated during 2004 in reviewed States that
tightened controls is compared with the same quantity in reviewed States
that relaxed controls. The comparisons suggest that in all eight areas of
regulatory control reviewed, more net disposable CCWs in the States
reviewed had a tightening of regulatory controls than had a relaxation of
controls between the times data were collected for the 1988 RTC and for
this report.
- In the area of regulatory designation of CCWs, seven States (Illinois,
Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin)
underwent tightened controls and one State (Alabama) underwent
relaxed controls, with a ratio of net disposable CCWs (relaxed:
tightened) of 0.1:1.0.
-1 A total of nine areas of regulatory control were reviewed for this report: regulatory designation of CCWs. solid
waste permitting, liners, groundwater monitoring, leachate collection, corrective action, closure and post-
closure, siting, and financial assurance. Because corrective action was not addressed in either the 1988 RTC or
the 1999 RTC, no evaluation of changes over time in State regulations was made for corrective action.
Similarly, the information in the 1988 and 1999 RTCs was insufficient to support an evaluation of changes over
lime in State regulations applicable to surface impoundments. Therefore, these changes over time arc not
evaluated for this report.
" "Tightened" means that during the time frame considered, specific requirements for controls were added to the
State's regulations where either none existed before, or prior requirements were less tailored to the
characteristics of the wastes being regulated.
7 "Net disposable CCWs" were determined for each Stale by subtracting the total amount of CCWs beneficially
used in the State during 2004 from the total amount of CCWs generated in the Slate during 2004, on the basis of
data from the EIA. The "total net disposable CCWs" were calculated for each type of change in a regulatory
category (i.e., tightened, neutral, or relaxed) by summing the net disposable CCWs for all States reviewed for
this report that experienced that type of change.
-------
S-8
TABLE S-2 Summary Results from Chronological Comparisons of Regulatory Controls for
Landfills in States Reviewed3
Category of Regulatory
Control
Type of Change
Regulatory Designation of
CCWsd
Tightenede
Neutralf
Relaxed?
Solid Waste Permitting11
Tightened
Neutral
Relaxed
Linersd
Tightened
Neutral
Relaxed
Groundwater Monitoring13
Tightened
Neutral
Relaxed
Leachate Collection'1
Tightened
Neutral
Relaxed
Closure and Post-Closure11
Tightened
Neutral
Relaxed
Siting11
Tightened
Neutral
Relaxed
EPA
Number
7
3
1
4
5
2
8
0
3
8
1
2
8
2
1
3
2
0
3
2
0
1988 to 2005b
States
IL, IN, MO, OH,
PA, TX, WI
FL, GA, VA
AL
IN, MO, OH, PA
FL, GA, TX, VA,
WI
AL, IL
GA, IL, IN, MO,
OH, PA, VA, WI
AL, FL, TX
GA, IL, IN, MO,
OH, PA, VA, WI
FL
AL. TX
GA, IL, IN. MO,
OH, PA, VA, WI
AL, TX
FL
IN, PA. VA
IL, WI
IL, IN, VA
PA, WI
Total Net
Disposable CCWsc Ratio of Net
(thousand short Disposable CCWs
tons) (Relaxed: Tightened)
26,652
6,279 0.1:1.0
2,745
15,435
15,045 0.34:1.0
5,196
22.462
0 0.59:1.0
13.214
22,462
1,921 0.50:1.0
11,293
22,462
11.293 0.086:1.0
1 ,92 1
11,706
2,669 0.0:1.0
0
11,216
3,159 0.0:1.0
0
-------
S-9
TABLE S-2 (Cont.)
Category of Regulatory Total Net
Control EPA I988lo20()5b Disposable CCWsc Ratio of Net
(thousand short Disposable CCWs
Type of Change Number States Ions) (Relaxed:Tightened)
Financial Assurance11
Tightened
Neutral
Relaxed
2
3
0
IN, VA
IL, PA, WI
8.765
5.610
0
0.0:1.0
a A chronological comparison was not possible for corrective action requirements because the historical EPA
documents from which data were obtained did not address this area of regulatory control.
b For each category of regulatory control, a chronological comparison is provided for the time period "EPA 1988
to 2005 Data," which is the time period between the time data were collected for the 1988 RTC: Wastes from the
Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants and the time data were collected for this report.
c "Net Disposable CCWs" were determined for each State by subtracting the total amount of CCWs beneficially
used in the State during 2004 from the total amount of CCWs generated in the State during 2004, on the basis of
data from the El A. "Total Net Disposable CCWs" were calculated for each type of change in a regulatory
category (i.e., tightened, neutral, or relaxed) by summing the Net Disposable CCWs for all States that were
reviewed for this report which experienced that type of change.
d States reviewed for this regulatory category were Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Florida, Georgia. Missouri. Ohio,
Pennsylvania. Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
e "Tightened" means that during the time frame indicated in the column heading, specific requirements for
controls were added to the State's regulations where either none existed before, or prior requirements were less
tailored to the characteristics of the wastes being regulated.
f "Neutral" means that either it could not be ascertained from the information reviewed whether any change
occurred during the time frame indicated in the column heading, or the information reviewed suggests that no
change occurred.
§ "Relaxed" means that the information reviewed suggests that some or all pre-existing regulatory controls in the
category of interest were removed during the time frame indicated in the column heading.
h States reviewed for this regulatory category were Illinois. Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
In the area of solid waste permitting, four States (Illinois, Missouri,
Ohio, and Pennsylvania) had tightened controls, and two States
(Alabama and Illinois) had relaxed controls, with a ratio of net
disposable CCWs (relaxed:tightened) of 0.34:1.0.
In the area of liner requirements, eight States (Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin)
experienced tightened controls, and three States (Alabama, Florida,
and Texas) experienced relaxed controls, with a ratio of net disposable
CCWs (relaxed:tightened) of 0.59:1.0.
-------
S-10
In the area of groundwater-monitoring requirements, eight States
(Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
and Wisconsin) experienced tightened controls, and two States
(Alabama and Texas) experienced relaxed controls, with a ratio of net
disposable CCWs (relaxed:tightened) of 0.50:1.0.
- In the area of leachate-collection requirements, eight States (Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
Wisconsin) experienced tightened controls, and one State (Florida)
experienced relaxed controls, with a ratio of net disposable CCWs
(relaxedrtightened) of 0.086:1.0.
- In the area of closure and post-closure requirements, three States
(Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) experienced tightened controls,
and no States experienced relaxed controls, with a ratio of net
disposable CCWs (relaxed:tightened) of 0.0:1.0.
- In the area of siting requirements, three States (Illinois, Indiana, and
Virginia) experienced tightened controls, and no States experienced
relaxed controls, with a ratio of net disposable CCWs (relaxed:
tightened) of 0.0:1.0.
- In the area of financial assurance requirements, two States (Indiana
and Virginia) experienced tightened controls, and no States
experienced relaxed controls, with a ratio of net disposable CCWs
(relaxed:tightened) of 0.0:1.0.
3. In the 16 States hosting surveyed units, we found that State regulators did not
issue variances unless there were sound scientific bases to support the
variance requests.
• A comprehensive review of 65 permits, covering 39 newly constructed or
expanded units in the time frame of 1994 to 2004, found that
approximately half of the units had requested one or more variances.8 In
this review, we erred on the side of overestimating the number of variance
requests; anything in a permit that looked like it might be a variance was
included, even if the permit itself identified no variances. A total of
52 variance requests in 9 of the 16 States containing surveyed units were
identified. Eighteen of the units requesting variances were landfills; one
was a surface impoundment.
• Of the 52 variance requests identified, 5 were rejected and 47 were
granted. Of the 47 granted, 16 were granted with provisions that would
Copies of the 65 permits (of a total of 85 permits reported for the surveyed units) were received from 39 of the
45 surveyed units. Some of these units have multiple permits (e.g., solid waste, construction, and dam safety).
-------
S-/7
revoke or alter the variance if certain conditions were not met. Twelve
were granted because the requirement for which the variance was sought
(e.g., landfill gas monitoring) was not appropriate or necessary for a
disposal unit that manages CCW wastes. Ten variances were granted
because the State allows variances for which it can be demonstrated that a
proposed alternative meets or exceeds the environmental performance of
the otherwise applicable requirement. Finally, six were identified and
included as granted variances, even though the permit to which these
variances pertained did not characterize them as variances.
• Most of the requests reviewed (with the exception of those that were not
appropriate because the regulations were developed for wastes other than
CCWs) were not to exempt the unit from requirements, but rather to allow
for an alternative approach or material that would accomplish the same
objective.
• In States where solid waste permits are required for units managing
CCWs, few of the variance requests were for liners or groundwater
monitoring.
- There were seven variance requests (covering six units) for variances
to liner requirements, but none requested exceptions. Rather, they
requested changes to the construction method or liner material that
would provide equal or greater protection than that afforded by the
regulations.
Four variance requests addressed groundwater monitoring, and each
request was for a variance only from the requirement to monitor for
organic constituents not contained in CCWs; each of the requesting
units already conducts groundwater monitoring for numerous other
constituents.
• For the variance requests reviewed, those pertaining to cell height, fire
protection, landfill gas/methane, leachate collection, location, pre-siting,
signs, solid waste management plans, and standards for sewage works
were granted with stipulations or were granted because the requirements
were not appropriate for CCWs.
The data and analyses documented in this report provide new information that appears to
show improved management of CCWs in both landfills and surface impoundments.
-------
S-12
-------
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 DESCRIPTION OF COAL COMBUSTION WASTES
Coal is fired in boilers to heat water in order to generate high-pressure steam, which in
turn drives generators that produce electricity. Electric utilities generally use pulverized coal
boilers, where the coal is crushed to fine particles and blown into the boiler furnace for
combustion. Another type of furnace, used mostly by smaller power generators, is the fluidized
bed, which can burn coal of poorer quality or grade and be used for the economical production of
electricity. The uncombusted residue is called coal combustion waste (CCW), coal combustion
by-product (CCB), or coal combustion residue (CCR).
CCWs can be classified as large-volume CCWs and low-volume CCWs. The large-
volume CCWs include fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas emission control (or flue gas
desulfurization [FGD]) waste. Fly ash is a silt-sized residue (typically between 10 and 100 iim),
composed mainly of amorphous spherical particles, that is transported from the combustion
chamber by exhaust gases and collected by paniculate emission control devices before entering
the boiler stack. Bottom ash is a dry, coarse material with sintered and agglomerated amorphous
particles taken from the bottom of the boiler furnace either in its dry form or as a slurry (via the
addition of water). Boiler slag is also taken from the bottom of the furnace, but emerges in a
molten form; it is usually quenched immediately in water and forms large, glassy pellets. Flue
gas desulfurization residues are generated by units that remove sulfur dioxide (SC>2) from flue
gas. "Wet" FGD systems are found most frequently at large coal-burning utilities; these systems
are installed downstream of the paniculate control devices and produce residues that consist
mainly of calcium sulfate or calcium sulfite salts. However, a small but growing percentage of
FGD residues come from "dry" FGD systems or fluidized bed combustion (FBC) systems that
remove sulfur upstream of the paniculate control devices; therefore, these "FGD residues" are
inseparable mixtures of fly ash, bottom ash, and calcium sulfates/sulfites. Fly ash and "wet"
FGD comprise the largest quantity of these four waste types.
Low-volume CCWs result from supporting processes that are ancillary to the combustion
and power generation processes. They include the following:
• Coal pile runoff,
• Coal mill rejects/pyrites,
• Boiler blowdown,
• Cooling tower blowdown and sludge,
• Water treatment sludge,
• Regeneration waste streams,
-------
• Air heater and precipitator wash water,
• Boiler chemical cleaning waste,
• Floor and yard drains and sumps,
• Laboratory wastes, and
• Waste water treatment sludge.
A number of these "low-volume" wastes are considered to be uniquely associated with
electricity production if they contact and take on at least some of the chemical characteristics of
the coal or CCW (e.g., coal storage pile runoff and waste from the cleaning of boilers to remove
chemical deposits and combustion residue). These wastes are typically co-disposed of or
co-managed with the four large-volume CCWs. The 1999 Report to Congress: Wastes from the
Combustion of Fossil Fuels (EPA 1999a) provides more information on co-managed wastes.
1.2 REGULATORY HISTORY
In the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980, which amended the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Congress temporarily exempted from regulation as
hazardous under RCRA Subtitle C certain large-volume wastes generated primarily from the
combustion of coal or other fossil fuels (RCRA Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(i)). These large-volume
wastes are fly ash, bottom ash, slag waste, and flue gas emission control (or FGD) wastes. In
RCRA Section 8002(n), Congress directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
conduct a study and submit a Report to Congress (RTC) on the adverse effects on human health
and the environment, if any, of the disposal and utilization of these materials. It also directed that
within six months of submitting the RTC that the EPA (1) determine whether regulation of the
management of the temporarily exempt CCWs as hazardous was warranted and (2) publish its
Regulatory Determination (RD) in the Federal Register. In February 1988, the EPA submitted an
RTC, Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants (EPA 1988), in
which it tentatively determined that the large-volume wastes did not warrant regulation under
Subtitle C. Because it did not publish the RD for CCWs within the required time frame, a
citizens group filed suit against the EPA. In 1992, the EPA entered into a consent decree that
divided CCWs into the following two categories: (1) fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and FGD
waste from the combustion of coal by electric utility and independent power-producing facilities,
and (2) all remaining wastes subject to RCRA Sections 3001 (b) and 8002(n).1 The consent
decree contained separate schedules for providing the RDs for each category.
The remaining wastes include large-volume CCWs generated at electric utility and independent power-
producing facilities that are co-managed with certain other CCWs; CCWs generated by nonutilities; CCWs
generated at facilities with FBC technology; petroleum coke combustion wastes; wastes from the combustion of
mixtures of coal and other fuels (i.e., co-burning); wastes from the combustion of oil; and wastes from the
combustion of natural gas.
-------
In August 1993, the EPA issued an RD in which it determined that the first category
(large-volume CCWs generated at electric utility and independent power-producing facilities)
did not warrant regulation as hazardous when managed alone. In that determination, the EPA
concluded that regulation of these large-volume wastes under Subtitle C of RCRA is
inappropriate "because of the limited risks posed by them and the existence of generally
adequate State and Federal regulatory programs" (EPA 1993).
In March 1999, the EPA issued an RTC (EPA 1999a) on the remaining wastes, in which
it tentatively concluded that disposal of these wastes should remain exempt from RCRA
Subtitle C. In its May 22, 2000, RD (EPA 2000), the EPA concluded that the remaining wastes
"do not warrant regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA and [that it] is retaining the hazardous
waste exemption under RCRA Section 3001 (b) (3) (C)." However, the EPA also determined that
"national regulations under Subtitle D of RCRA are warranted for CCWs when they are disposed
of in landfills or surface impoundments, and that regulations under Subtitle D of RCRA (and/or
possibly modifications to existing regulations established under authority of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act [SMCRA]) are warranted when these wastes are used to fill surface
or underground mines." The EPA stated that to ensure that CCWs are "consistently regulated
across all waste management scenarios," it also planned to "make these national regulations for
disposal in surface impoundments and landfills and minefilling applicable to CCWs generated at
electric utility and independent power-producing facilities that are not co-managed with
low-volume wastes" (EPA 2000).
The EPA based its decision to write Subtitle D regulations on information in the
1999 RTC, which contained the most comprehensive and current information available at the
time. However, much of the information pertained to management practices and State regulations
that were in effect prior to 1995. For example, the EPA stated that it based its decision to write
Subtitle D regulations for CCWs, in part, on its findings that in 1995, CCWs "were being
managed in 40 percent to 70 percent of landfills and surface impoundments without reasonable
controls in place, particularly in the area of groundwater monitoring; and while there have been
substantive improvements in State regulatory programs, we have also identified gaps in State
oversight" (EPA 2000).
1.3 CCW GENERATION, USE, AND DISPOSITION
In 2004, according to U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Information
Administration (EIA) data, approximately 129 million tons of CCWs were produced
(EIA 2004a; 2006a,b).2 More than half of these CCWs (56%) were fly ash, 24% were FGD
The EIA data reported that 7,016 thousand tons of CCWs were generated in Connecticut (EIA 20()4a). In a
comparison between coal-i'ired generating capacity and CCW generation, this amount seemed high. Similarly,
there appeared to be an error in reporting of CCWs for a plant in Kentucky. We asked the EIA for a clarification
of these issues, and the EIA responded that the data for Connecticut and Kentucky were in fact misreported.
Also, the amount of CCWs reported for Delaware, 3,662 thousand tons (EIA 2004a), appeared to be high, and
communications between the EPA and EIA revealed that one Delaware plant had misreported its data to the
EIA, thereby producing the high number for the State. The numbers in the text and in Table 1 reflect the
corrected Connecticut and Kentucky values (EIA 2006a) and the corrected Delaware values (EIA 2006b).
-------
wastes, and 17% were bottom ash. The remaining CCWs were "other by-products."3 The ElA
does not report boiler slag separately, but this material is generally recognized to compose less
than 3% of the total CCWs generated. The American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) also
reported CCW generation data for 2004. It reported a total of approximately 122 million tons of
CCWs, with the following components: fly ash (58%), FGD wastes (26%), bottom ash (14%),
boiler slag (2%), and FBC ash (1%). Discrepancies in the CCW generation amounts between the
EIA and the ACAA may reflect differences in reporting requirements. The EIA does not require
reporting of CCW generation amounts for power plants with capacities less than 100 MW; the
ACAA figures are industrywide estimates based on voluntary data received from electric utilities
that are representative of the utility power plants in the United States (ACAA 2004).
Significant amounts of CCW are used beneficially. The single most common beneficial
application of CCW is the use of fly ash as a partial substitute for Portland cement in concrete.
CCWs are also used for road-base materials, manufactured aggregates, flowable fills, structural
fills and embankments, roofing tiles and shingles, snow and ice control, soil modification, and to
replace natural materials in the production of Portland cement. Gypsum (calcium sulfate) from
FGD waste is commonly used as a raw material in wallboard manufacturing. Any wastes used
beneficially do not require disposal in waste management units of the types considered for this
study. The EIA data indicate that in 2004, approximately 44.7 million tons (35%) of the
129 million tons of CCWs generated was beneficially used,4 while the ACAA estimates that
about 49.1 million tons (40%) of the 122 million tons of CCWs generated was beneficially used
in 2004.5 The EIA provides CCW generation and use data at the State level, but the ACAA does
not.6 Table 1 shows the amounts of CCWs generated and beneficially used by State in 2004, as
reported by the EIA. Among the larger CCW-generating States, Florida (62%) and Tennessee
(57%) beneficially use well above the EIA national average of 35%, and North Carolina (46%),
Missouri (46%), and Illinois (45%) have above-average rates of beneficial use.
CCWs that are not used must be otherwise managed. Management occurs in disposal
units (landfills and surface impoundments) and in mines (minefill). In 1995, an estimated 8% of
CCWs were managed as minefill (EPA 2000). Disposal units can be located at the power plant
"Other by-products" is an entry on Form 767, which the EIA uses to collect data on power plants. The EIA does
not define this term; rather it allows utilities to enter volumes in this category that have not been reported in any
of the other categories. A review of the data indicates that few if any utilities have specified the materials
reported in this category.
The 44.7-million ton estimate is likely an underestimate, because the EIA does not require utilities to report
amounts of CCWs beneficially used by plants that have less than 100 MW of generating capacity.
Another possible explanation for the discrepancy between the EIA and the ACAA estimates of beneficial reuse
may lie in the way the data are reported. Because the EIA data reporting form asks for the amount of CCWs
"sold," it does not consider the possibility that the CCWs may have been "given away" for use off-site as a
structural fill, for off-site mine reclamation, etc. Depending on how the generator reported the data, these
practices could be classified as "off-site disposal" by the EIA but as "beneficial use" by the ACAA; in any
event, the CCW materials would not be disposed into a waste management unit of any kind.
The ACAA data are disaggregated by clusters of States corresponding to the EPA's regions.
-------
TABLE 1 CCW Generation and Beneficial Use by State, 2004
State3
KYd
TX
IN
PA
WV
OH
FL
IL
TN
NM
NC
AL
GA
AZ
ND
VA
MO
UT
WA
sc
MI
WY
MD
MS
LA
MN
CO
WI
KS
NY
OK
IA
MT
NV
AR
NJ
NE
MA
CTd
NH
DEe
SD
OR
CA
HI
Total CCWs Generated11
(thousand short tons)
14,537
12,943
9,549
9,545
7,220
6,980
5,092
4,419
3,803
3,668
3,545
3.408
3,141
2,764
2,757
2,442
2,348
2,341
2,301
2,172
2,145
2,106
1,983
1,758
1,588
1,561
1,548
1,437
1 ,399
1 ,379
1.277
1,260
952
825
688
600
469
310
181
141
121
105
95
50
48
Total CCWs
Used Beneficially0
(thousand short tons)
2,521
4,395
3,023
2,941
2,401
2,290
3,171
1,968
2,163
864
1,641
663
1,022
1,161
731
203
1,070
812
1 ,683
1,169
614
508
646
681
716
387
252
1,219
575
.368
625
750
51
314
324
112
299
130
0
57
24
28
81
0
0
% CCWs
Used Beneficially
17
34
32
31
33
33
62
45
57
24
46
19
33
42
27
8
46
35
73
54
29
24
33
39
45
25
16
85
41
27
49
60
5
38
47
19
64
42
0
40
20
27
84
0
0
-------
TABLE 1 (Cont.)
Total CCWs
Total CCWs Generated5 Used Beneficially1' % CCWs
State3 (thousand short tons) (thousand short tons) Used Beneficially
ME 36 0 0
Total 129.037 44,653 35
a States in bold are States with identified new (1994-2004) CCW disposal units.
The following States reported no CCW generation: Alaska, Idaho, Rhode
Island, and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia. The totals in the
table reflect only the data on CCW generation and use reported to the EIA;
however, the EPA's 2003 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data suggest that
Alaska produced approximately 43 tons of CCWs.
b CCWs include fly ash, bottom ash, sludge, gypsum, and other by-products.
c Beneficial use includes CCWs that were identified as sold and those that were
identified as "on-site use and storage," which is assumed to reflect a
combination of storage of CCWs en route for sale and CCWs used for local
engineering fill.
d CCW generation and beneficial use amounts revised per the EIA (EIA 2006a).
e CCW generation and beneficial use amounts revised per the EIA (EIA 2006b).
Sources: EIA (2004a; 2006a,b).
facility (on-site) or away from the facility (off-site). Surface impoundments are almost always
on-site, because the material disposed of in them is typically sluiced directly from the pov/er
plant to the impoundment, and moving such waste off-site would entail large transportation
costs. Off-site landfills are generally used by smaller power plants, whereas larger power plants
manage their CCWs in either on-site or off-site landfills.7
1.4 IMPORTANCE OF CCW REGULATORY DETERMINATION TO DOE
In the last several years, DOE has conducted further investigation into current disposal
practices of the remaining wastes, as defined in the 1999 RTC (EPA 1999a). A significant basis
of the EPA's 2000 RD had been the concern that many landfills and surface impoundments for
managing the so-called "remaining wastes" (also known as "co-managed and co-burned" wastes)
do not have appropriate controls in place. Because of comments and representations made by
Utility Solid Waste Activity Group (USWAG) members, DOE thought it possible that
7 However, many of the off-site landfills are also owned by the power-generating utilities, because of the
economic advantage of avoiding the high tipping fees charged by nonutility owners of municipal waste
landfills. Analysis of data from the EPA's TRI may have provided additional information on the proportion of
on-site versus off-site disposal volumes, but TRI data of suitable quality to perform such analyses were not
available in time for inclusion in this report.
-------
management practices may have improved to the point where concerns over environmental
exposures have been mitigated, minimized, or possibly eliminated. Therefore, DOE, in
consultation with the EPA, conducted further investigation into current disposal practices for
these remaining wastes with the objective of updating the 1995 information base on management
practices. If, in fact, controls and State oversight have improved since 1995, this development
would have a bearing on how the EPA would describe any further controls that might be
necessary to protect human health and the environment, which could minimize costs to industry
and its customers.
1.5 STUDY OBJECTIVE
The information on which the EPA based its 2000 RD—a 1997 Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) study reflecting information up to 1995 (EPA 1999a)—does not account for
changes in industry disposal and State regulatory practices pertaining to CCWs that might have
occurred since 1995. DOE was concerned that the imposition of additional regulations could
increase energy costs for consumers without a significant concomitant improvement in human
health or environmental quality. DOE and the EPA agreed to conduct a joint study to examine
data on CCW disposal practices; State regulatory practices; and the numbers, types, and
rationales for variances to regulatory requirements granted by States between 1994 and 2004.
This report describes the approach used to collect and analyze the data and the findings produced
by that analysis.
The objective of this study is to collect, analyze, and provide accurate, current, and
verifiable data on CCW management practices, State regulatory requirements, and the
implementation of those requirements. Its findings will be used to assist the EPA in determining
what requirements are appropriate in developing a Federal regulation of CCWs under a RCRA
Subtitle D rule.
1.6 STUDY SCOPE
The EPA identified the following three areas of interest:
1. Recent and current CCW industry surface disposal management practices,
2. State regulatory requirements for CCW management, and
3. Implementation of State requirements (e.g., the extent to which States grant or
deny operator requests to waive or vary regulatory requirements and the
rationales for doing so).
For each of these factors, the EPA is most interested in the extent to which liners and
groundwater monitoring are incorporated into new and expanded disposal units. This study,
therefore, focuses on liners and groundwater monitoring.
-------
The remainder of this report contains three chapters. Chapter 2 details the methodologies
used to collect and analyze information to address each of the EPA's primary interest areas.
Chapter 3 details the findings of the analyses for each of the three interest areas, and Chapter 4
provides conclusions. Twelve appendices provide detailed data tables and other supporting
information. Appendix A describes the approach used to study State regulatory requirements,
summarizes the current status of pertinent regulatory controls in 11 States, and lists relevant
findings. Appendices B through D contain information on the data collection process;
Appendices E through I provide data on recent and current CCW industry management disposal
unit practices; and Appendices J through L contain information on the extent to which States
grant and deny permit variance requests.
-------
2 APPROACH
This chapter explains the approach used to collect and analyze the data. The following
three tasks were undertaken to address the primary areas of interest for the EPA:
1. Collect, assemble, and analyze data on CCW disposal unit management
practices for new and expanded units between January 1, 1994, and
December 31,2004;
2. Collect information on State regulatory requirements governing CCW
disposal units in targeted States selected in the manner described in
Subsection 2.2; and
3. Collect and analyze information on variances to CCW disposal unit permit
requirements in States hosting new units addressed under (1) above.
The following sections provide detail on the specific methodologies used to complete
each of these tasks.
2.1 RECENT AND CURRENT CCW INDUSTRY DISPOSAL MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
The first task was to identify the data that would be needed to determine whether
improvements have been made in disposal unit permitting, construction, and management over
the past 11 years. The following kinds of information were particularly important:
• Use of liners,
• Use of groundwater monitoring, and
• An indication that variances to permit conditions that may circumvent the
regulatory requirements were not being granted without due consideration of
site-specific conditions.
The EPA also indicated that information on pre-permit site characterization and permit
requirements would be useful.
DOE and the EPA used information collected from a survey conducted by USWAG to
identify and obtain data on new units that were not considered in the 1999 RTC. "New units" are
those that were permitted, built, or laterally expanded between January 1, 1994, and
December 31, 2004. In December 2004, USWAG distributed the questionnaire to all of its
member companies that own or operate coal-fired power plants. (These companies represent
224 GW, or 67% of total U.S. utility coal-fired capacity.) Appendix B provides a copy of the
questionnaire. In addition, because the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
-------
10
(NRECA) and the American Public Power Association (APPA) are members of USWAG, these
trade associations distributed the questionnaire to their member companies, and their responses
are included in the analysis. Rural electric cooperatives are private, independent electric utilities
that supply electricity in rural areas. They include generation, transmission, and distribution
systems, and they are generally much smaller than investor-owned facilities. The 70 NRECA
coal-fired plants represent about 24 GW, or 7% of total coal-fired generating capacity, and range
in size from 15 to 1,180 MW, with an average of 353 MW. APPA utilities are not-for-profit,
community, and state-owned electric utilities that also represent about 24 GW of coal-fired
capacity. The 177 publicly owned coal-fired power plants range in capacity from less than 1 to
820 MW, with an average of 137 MW. The 279 investor-owned USWAG coal-fired plants range
in capacity from 11 to 3,564 MW, with an average of 804 MW. USWAG, NRECA, and APPA
requested that their member companies return completed questionnaires for all units permitted,
built, or laterally expanded between 1994 and 2004, and provide copies of all permits issued for
these units.
Because a response (in the form of a returned, completed survey) was requested only if a
company had new units, a lack of response was assumed to mean that the member company had
no new units. In January 2006, USWAG contacted members that did not respond to the 2004
survey to verify that assumption. As explained in detail in Section 3.1.1, the results of the
December 2004 survey combined with the January 2006 follow-up resulted in responses from
100% of USWAG's coal-fired utilities. To verify independently the assumption that a lack of
response meant that the utility had no new units, and to obtain information on units that may
have been missed by the 2004 USWAG survey, as well as on units owned by non-USWAG,
non-NRECA, and non-APPA members, the EPA asked State regulators from nine selected
States8 for information on new units that may not have been identified in the USWAG survey.
Appendix C contains additional details on the approach taken to ensure that as many new units as
possible were captured for the analysis.
The EPA obtained information on the locations of these units, date of permit,
construction and/or lateral expansion, and whether they had liners and groundwater monitoring.
However, the EPA did not ask States identifying these new units to have operators of these units
complete the questionnaire and, therefore, no additional information about unit operations was
collected for these units.
The completed questionnaires and the data provided to the EPA by the State regulators
were reviewed to verify that (1) all units were, in fact, surface disposal units (i.e., landfills or
surface impoundments and not minefills), (2) all units were permitted, built or laterally expanded
between 1994 and 2004, and (3) there were no duplications between the USWAG survey and the
EPA verification units. The data for the resulting units were then entered into a database
developed specifically to store, sort, and query the disposal unit data. Finally, the disposal unit
The EPA's selected States were those (hat top the list of consumption of coal for electricity generation and/or
CCW generation. The selected states, however, do not include those States with extensive coal-mining
operations where significant portions of the CCWs are inferred to be disposed of as mincfill, and those that do
not require permits for disposal of dry ash and, therefore, lack pertinent records. The selected states were
Georgia. Illinois. Indiana. Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, and Texas.
-------
11
data were analyzed to identify trends and patterns in permitting, construction, and management
practices. Where possible, the findings for the newly constructed/expanded units were compared
with the findings in the 1999 RTC (EPA 1999a). However, the findings may not be entirely
comparable because of differences in the types of units covered in the two studies. That is, the
data on management unit practices and controls in the 1999 RTC came from a 1997 EPRI report
of survey results for a sample of existing co-management units (i.e., units managing a
combination of large-volume wastes and remaining wastes). The current study is limited to
landfills and surface impoundments that were permitted, built, or laterally expanded between
1994 and 2004, but it is not restricted to co-management units, and it includes some units that
manage only the large-volume wastes that the 1993 RD concluded did not warrant regulation as
hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle C. Despite the differences in the data sets for the two
studies, we believe the comparisons of findings are instructive, because the Subtitle D
regulations would apply to all CCW disposal units, not just co-management units.
2.2 STATE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR CCW MANAGEMENT
In the RD issued on May 22, 2000, the EPA stated that CCWs do not warrant regulation
as hazardous wastes under RCRA; the EPA also expressed a concern, however, that gaps may
exist in some State regulatory programs that could lead to future environmental damages. This
section describes the approach used to investigate this concern.
It was evident from the outset that a nationwide study of the CCW regulations and their
chronological changes in all States that address CCWs would not be feasible under the time and
resource constraints of this study. Therefore, an alternative approach was undertaken, namely the
review of the current regulatory programs applicable to CCWs in States that contain identified
units of one or both of the following types and comparison of the results with corresponding
information from earlier reports: (1) new CCW disposal units (i.e., those permitted, constructed,
or laterally expanded between 1994 and 2004), and (2) units that are the basis of proven,
potential, or alleged damage cases.9 Of the 26 States identified as meeting the selection criteria, a
pilot study involving five States (Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, and Wisconsin) was
conducted to determine whether it would be feasible, within the established budget and schedule
constraints, to collect enough data for all 26 States to allow comparisons of current regulatory
requirements with comparable information from earlier reports and to identify changes.
In commenis to the EPA, public interest groups have identified cases in which they allege that damage to
human health or the environment was caused by fossil fuel combustion waste management units. As of
May 2006. 86 of the alleged damage cases have been investigated by the EPA to verify the existence and cause
of the damage. As defined in the 1999 RTC, proven damage cases are those with exceedences of primary
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or other health-based standards in groundwatcr or surface water off-site
or at a distance from the waste management unit sufficient to conclude that they could cause human health
concerns, while potential damage cases are those with (1) documented exceedences of primary MCLs or other
health-based standards on-site or beneath or close to the waste source, and/or (2) documented exceedences of
secondary MCLs or other non-health-based standards on-site or off-site.
-------
12
Information collected during the pilot study covered the following categories of regulatory
control:
• Regulatory designation of CCWs for disposal,
• Permitting requirements,
• Liner requirements,
• Groundwater-monitoring requirements,
• Leachate-collection system requirements,
• Corrective action requirements,
• Closure/post-closure requirements,
• Siting controls, and
• Financial assurance requirements.
During the course of the resource-intensive pilot study, we discovered that comparisons
between the current regulatory requirements and comparable information in the earlier reports
could rarely be made at the same level of detail. For example, the 1999 RTC (EPA 1999a) and its
supporting technical background documents (EPA 1999b) provide primarily aggregated
information regarding State regulatory controls. Thus, in the case of liner requirements, the
1999 RTC indicates that 43 States adopted liner requirements for landfills before data were
collected. It does not, however, explain what types of liner materials or design requirements were
specified by any particular State. Similarly, the report does not explain whether, at the time data
were collected, particular States had differing requirements for landfills receiving wastes with
differing toxicity levels. Furthermore, the names of States for which information was aggregated
are not provided in the 1999 RTC. Similar difficulties were identified for all areas of regulatory
control, which hindered most State-specific comparisons between current regulations and the
regulations in effect at the time data were collected for the 1999 RTC.
In light of this, the EPA revisited information already available from other sources about
current State CCW regulatory programs and concluded that our priority should be to update how
States were actually implementing programs, rather than simply to gather further information on
State regulations. Accordingly, we did not conduct comprehensive reviews of State regulations
for all of the 26 States mentioned above. Instead, the EPA identified particular aspects of the
regulatory programs in specified States that were of interest, and we focused our investigation of
State regulations on those States, in addition to the five pilot States. In all, six additional States
were reviewed beyond those in the pilot study: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, and
Texas. For these additional States, we concentrated on the following five of the nine areas of
-------
13
regulatory control that were reviewed for the pilot States, because these areas are most closely
associated with the control of potential releases to groundwater:
• Regulatory designation of CCWs for disposal,
• Permitting requirements,
• Liner requirements,
• Groundwater-monitoring requirements, and
• Leachate collection system requirements.
For each State reviewed, an effort was made to identify regulations applicable to disposal
of CCWs in landfills and surface impoundments, regardless of the regulatory program (e.g., solid
waste, special waste, residual waste, or wastewater) into which the State may place such
regulations. Regulations covering beneficial use of CCWs and placement of CCWs in mines
were not reviewed. The data collected are reported in Appendix A. The findings are provided in
Section 3.2. The remainder of the investigation focused on State implementation of the
regulatory requirements, as described in Section 2.3.
2.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE REQUIREMENTS
The EPA, DOE, and industry agreed that an identification and examination of variances
to State regulations in disposal unit permits granted by regulators would provide a good
indication of the degree to which the State regulations were being implemented as intended. The
analysis team took the following steps to conduct this assessment:
• Reviewed responses to the survey questions regarding variances. (The
questionnaire asked if the permit granted any variances and, if so, for an
explanation of the variances.)
• Obtained copies of permits issued for each of the surveyed units. Because
some units had multiple permits (e.g., solid waste, discharge), the number of
permits received was greater than the number of completed questionnaires
received.
• Conducted an independent review of each permit to identify any variances or
other waivers that may have been requested but not identified in the
questionnaire responses, and, if so, whether they had been granted.
• For each identified variance request, collected the following additional
information (where available) from the permit:
-------
14
- Type of variance (e.g., closure/post-closure, cover/dust controls,
groundwater monitoring, groundwater-protection standards, liners, and
other).
- Regulatory citation for the requirement(s) to which the variance request
applied.
- The text and a summary of the regulatory requirements corresponding to
the variance request.
- Whether the request was granted. If the request was granted:
* Regulator's rationale for granting the variance,
* Provisions for revoking the variance,
* Duration of the variance, and
* Triggers that could alter the variance provisions.
If the request was rejected, the regulator's reason(s) for the rejection.
• Entered the collected information into the database and reviewed it for clarity,
consistency, and completeness.
• In cases where the permit information was unclear, inconsistent, or
incomplete, developed a list of questions to ask the unit manager or State
regulator.
• Contacted operators of each unit where there were variance questions, and
obtained either written or verbal clarifications. For the verbal clarifications,
the response was documented, and verification from the operator that the
documented information was correct was obtained.
• Analyzed the results to determine the types of variances that were requested,
the extent to which variance requests were granted, and the circumstances
under which they were granted. We sought to identify, for each case where a
variance was granted, the scientific or other basis upon which the regulator
based the decision. The results were used to assess whether the regulations
were being implemented as intended and whether there were science-based
reasons for granting or rejecting variance requests.
-------
75
3 FINDINGS
This chapter presents the findings obtained for each of the three investigation areas:
recent and current. CCW industry surface disposal management practices, State requirements for
CCW management, and implementation of State requirements.
3.1 RECENT AND CURRENT CCW INDUSTRY SURFACE DISPOSAL
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The findings presented in this section were derived primarily from the responses received
from unit operators who completed and returned the questionnaires. Supplemental information
came from disposal unit data provided by the EPA. However, because the EPA obtained this
information from State regulators, and not unit operators, only a subset of the data requested in
the questionnaires is available for these units.
3.1.1 Identified Units
The number and completeness of the survey responses provided a substantial database
from which to identify trends in CCW management and disposal practices over the past 11 years.
Fifty-three completed questionnaires were received from the December 2004 survey conducted
by USWAG.10 Of the completed questionnaires, 45 were useable, and the remaining 8 could not
be used because of one or both of the following reasons:
• The returned questionnaire addressed a minefill rather than a surface disposal
unit, so it was not appropriate for this study, or
• The unit did not meet the criterion of being permitted, built, or laterally
expanded during the 1994 to 2004 period.
In the remainder of this report, the 45 units for which completed, useable surveys were
received are referred to as the surveyed units.
The EPA provided DOE with a subset of data (location, unit type, liner, and
groundwater-monitoring information) for 17 additional units. The EPA obtained this information
through its data verification process, by contacting State regulatory agencies.'' To avoid
'" In addition, six companies responded that they had no new units, even though no response was required unless
the company had new units.
'' The EPA's selected States were those that top the list of consumption of coal for electricity generation and/or
CCW generation. The selected Stales, however, do not include those States with extensive coal-mining
operations where significant portions of the CCWs are inferred to be disposed of as minefill. and those that do
not require permits for disposal of dry ash and. therefore, lack pertinent records. The selected States were
Georgia. Illinois. Indiana. Michigan. Missouri. North Carolina. North Dakota, Ohio, and Texas.
-------
76
potential duplication with the surveyed units, we compared the surveyed units with the
EPA-identified units. We found that some of the EPA-identified units were already included in
the surveyed units. We also reviewed the EPA-identified units (as we did the USWAG-identified
units) to verify that the criteria that the units were surface disposal (and not minefill) units and
that they were permitted or constructed between 1994 and 2004 were met. Several
EPA-identified units did not meet these criteria. Presented with the results of this comparative
analysis, representatives from the EPA, USWAG, and DOE began a process to reconcile the
discrepancies. In the meantime, the EPA obtained information on six additional units, which
were included in the reconciliation process. The reconciliation was that a total of 11 units
identified by the EPA, and not already included in the set of surveyed units, met the criteria and
would be added. In the remainder of this report, these 11 units are referred to as the nonsurveyed
units. Appendix D summarizes the reconciliation of the EPA-identified units.
As mentioned in Section 2.1, in January 2006, USWAG contacted utilities that did not
respond to the 2004 survey to verify the assumption that a nonresponse meant that the utility had
no new units. During this follow-up, four companies identified six units that met the criteria for
new units and that should have been included in the original December 2004 survey. Because
this information was received late, these units were not included in the analysis presented in this
report. However, we did review basic information about these units to ascertain how the
inclusion of these "supplemental units" might have altered the findings and conclusions of the
report. A comparison showing that the liner and ground-monitoring practices for these
supplemental units were consistent with those of units identified by USWAG in December 2004
and by the EPA is presented in Section 3.1.9. It should be noted that between the December 2004
survey and the January 2006 follow-up, responses (either in the form of a completed survey or a
statement that the utility had no new disposal units) were received from 100% of the USWAG
utilities with coal-fired capacity.
Information from the surveyed and nonsurveyed units was entered into a database
specifically developed to store unit information and facilitate analysis. The surveyed and
nonsurveyed units compose what is referred to in the remainder of this report as the identified
units, the analysis units, or the units. The total number of identified units, that is, those used to
conduct the study analysis, is 56 (45 surveyed plus 11 nonsurveyed) units, located in 17 States.
These States with identified units have a combined coal-fired generating capacity of 207 GW or
62% of all coal-fired generating capacity in the United States. Supplemental units added an
additional two States, for a total of 19 States, representing 67% of U.S. coal-fired capacity.12
Table 2 lists the identified units, the States and counties in which they are located, whether they
are landfills or surface impoundments, and whether they were surveyed. Table 3 lists the
supplemental units, the States and counties in which they are located, and whether they are
landfills or surface impoundments. Appendix C provides additional detail on the response rates
to the USWAG survey and the verification efforts.
'2 For comparison, there were 323 units in the EPRI survey used in the 1999 RTC (the EPRI survey covered units
built between 1960 and 1995).
-------
77
TABLE 2 Units Included in the Analysis
IDa
232
218
206
246
215
216
211
210
253C
213
212
214
228
226
223
222
248
237
236
235
233
224
247
244
245
331
227
219
359
220
252
221
358
345
225
361
360
229
207
362
351
352
201
202
Unit Name
Tampa Electric Company Polk Power Station
Georgia Power Company Plant Arkwright Private Industry Landfill
Hutsonville Power Station
Newton Power Station
Wood River West Ash Pond System - Polishing Pond
Wood River West Ash Pond System - Primary Cell
Havana East Ash Pond Cell #3
Havana East Ash Pond Cell #2
Coffeen Power Station Landfill
Hennepin PS New East Ash Pond - Raise Liner
Hennepin PS New East Ash Pond - New Unit
Vermilion East Ash Pond
Gibson FSS Restricted Waste Type II Landfill
NIPSCO R.M. Schahfer Generating Station RWS I Phase III
IPL - Petersburg Generating Station
Hoosier Energy REC, Merom Generating Station
Wabash River Station Flyash Pond
Presque Isle Power Plant Ash Landfill #3
Sherco 3 Ash Landfill
Sherco Pond # 3
A.S. King Landfill (Moelter Site)
Hawthorn Utility Waste Landfill
Sioux Plant
Meramec Plant 22-4788
Meramec Plant 498
Marshall Plant FGD Residue LF, Catawba Co.
Roxboro Steam Electric Plant Dry Ash Landfill
Great River Energy - Coal Creek Station (Section 16)
Great River Energy (Underwood) SP-174
Great River Energy - Stanton Station (GlenHarold Mine)
Great River Energy - Stanton Station (Stanton Station - Surface
Impoundment)
Great River Energy - Stanton Station (Stanton Station - Landfill)
Basin Electric Power Coop - AVS SP-160
Montana Dakota Utilities - Heskett Station SP-087
Flue Gas Desulfurization Sludge Disposal Facility
Otter Tail Power Company Coyote Station Blue Pit SP-182
Minnkota Power Cooperative - M.R. Young Station Bottom Ash
IT-205
Merrimack Station Coal Ash Landfill
Arizona Public Service Company. Four Corners Power Plant
Dayton Power & Light Stuart Fly Ash Landfill #1 1
Dayton Power & Light Stuart Fly Ash Impoundment #10
Tonkovich Monofill Expansion
Conesville Residual Waste Landfill
AEP Gavin Plant Landfill
State
FL
GA
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
MI
MN
MN
MN
MO
MO
MO
MO
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NH
NM
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
County
Polk
Bibb
Crawford
Jasper
Madison
Madison
Mason
Mason
Montgomery
Putman
Putnam
Vermillion
Gibson
Jasper
Pike
Sullivan
Vigo
Marquette
Sherburne
Sherburne
Washington
Jackson
St. Charles
St. Louis
St. Louis
Catawba
Person
McLean
McLean
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Mercer
Morton
Oliver
Oliver
Oliver
Merrimack
San Juan
Adams
Adams
Belmont
Coshocton
Gallia
Unit
Typeb
LF
LF
SI
LF
SI
SI
SI
SI
LF
SI
SI
SI
LF
LF
LF
LF
SI
LF
LF
SI
LF
LF
SI
SI
SI
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
SI
LF
LF
LF
SI
LF
LF
LF
SI
LF
SI
LF
LF
LF
Surveyed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
-------
18
TABLE 2 (Cont.)
IDa
353
217
239
230
240
363
203
241
200
209
204
205
Unit Name
Ohio Valley Electric-Kyger Creek Power Plant Impoundments
(OVEC)
Westwood Ash Facility
Keystone Generating Station Ash Disposal Site
Shawville Generating Station Ash Disposal Site
Conemaugh Generating Station Ash Disposal Site
Welsh Bottom Ash Pond
Appalachian Power Glen Lyn Landfill
Clover Power Station Industrial Landfill
Appalachian Power Clinch River Industrial Waste Landfill
Alma Off-Site Phase IV
AEP Little Broad Run Landfill - Area 5
AEP Quarrier Landfill - Area B
State
OH
OH
PA
PA
PA
TX
VA
VA
VA
WI
WV
WV
County
Gallia
Lorain
Armstrong
Clearfield
Indiana
Camp
Giles
Halifax
Russell
Buffalo
Mason
Putnam
Unit
Typeb
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
SI
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
Surveyed
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
An ID number was assigned to each unit to facilitate data collection and retrieval. (In general, units in the
200 series were surveyed; units in the 300 series were not.)
LF = landfill: SI = surface impoundment.
For tracking purposes, this unit was originally a nonsurveyed unit identified by the EPA (ID #357). However, the
unit operator subsequently submitted a completed questionnaire, and it thus became a surveyed unit. To maintain
consistency, its ID number was changed to a 200-series number.
TABLE 3 Supplemental Units Not Included in the Analysis
Unit Name
State
County
Unit" Type
Williams Station
McMeckim Station
Cope Station
Johnsonville North Rail Loop Dredge Cell
Taconite Harbor Energy Center
Monticello Plant
SC
SC
SC
TN
MN
TX
Berkeley
Lexington
Orangeburg
Humphries
Cook
Titus
LF
LF
LF
SI
LF
SI
LF = landfill: SI = surface impoundment.
3.1.2 Sample Coverage
The size of the universe, that is, the total number of CCW disposal units permitted, built,
or laterally expanded between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2004 ("new units"), is riot
known. No industry organization or government agency tracks this information. Because the
number of new units is not known, we considered the use of two different proxies to assess the
sample coverage. The first uses the amount of CCWs available for disposal in States that have
-------
19
coal-fired power plant capacity, and the second uses the coal-fired generating capacity of utilities
owning the identified disposal units.
3.1.2.1 CCW Proxy
This proxy uses the amount of CCWs available for disposal (i.e., the amount generated
less the amount recycled [used beneficially]) in those states with identified disposal units and
compares it with the total CCWs available for disposal in all States with coal-fired electrical
power capacity. With this approach (using the data in Table 1, Section 1.3), the coverage is
estimated to be 61%. This is calculated by dividing the amount of CCWs available for disposal
in the 17 States with identified units—51 million tons (79 million tons generated less 28 million
tons used beneficially)—by the amount available for disposal in all States with coal-fired
generating capacity, which is 84 million tons (129 million tons generated less 45 million tons
used beneficially). The result is that an estimated 61% of the CCWs requiring disposal in the
United States is covered in the study.
The January 2006 USWAG follow-up identified units in two additional States beyond the
17 States hosting units identified in the 2004 USWAG survey and the EPA verification
investigation. Adding the amounts of CCWs available for disposal—3 million tons—in these two
States (Tennessee and South Carolina) to the 51 million tons available for disposal in the
previously identified 17 States brings the total amount available for disposal in the covered
States to 54 million tons, or 64% of the 84 million tons available for disposal in all States with
coal-fired generating capacity. The weakness of this proxy is that without data on available
disposal capacity in the period of the study's time frame (1994 to 2004), it is impossible to
predict which States have had the need for additional waste-disposal capacity. In addition,
disposal capacity for new plants is generally designed and built to last 40 years, to match the life
expectancy of newly constructed power-generation units, and thus there would be no need to
build or expand disposal capacity for a power plant until a time approaching roughly 40 years
since it was built or last expanded. We, therefore, resorted to using the other proxy, the coal-fired
generating capacity of the utilities owning the identified disposal units, for estimating sample
coverage.
3.1.2.2 Coal-Fired Generating Capacity Proxy
The use of coal-fired generating capacity as a proxy probably underestimates coverage
significantly. This is because the denominator (total U.S. coal-fired power plant generating
capacity—335.2 GW) is much larger than the actual coal-fired generating capacity for which
new disposal capacity is needed. Actual generating capacity requiring new disposal capacity
from 1994 to 2004 is lower than the total U.S. coal-fired generating capacity for the following
reasons:
• Total U.S. generating capacity includes the capacity of all coal-fired units,
most of which have a life span of more than 40 years. Many of these units are
standby units that produce neither power nor CCWs.
-------
20
• Because new power plants built during the past decade added only about
9 GW (less that 3% of total capacity), new disposal units would be required
for only a small portion of the total generating capacity.
• Newly constructed plants may recycle the by-products for beneficial use,
obviating the need for disposal. The amount of beneficially used CCWs is
estimated to be approximately 35%'3 according to data obtained from the
EIA (2004a; 2006a,b), and about 40% according to data provided by the
ACAA (2004).
The following paragraphs describe how the coverage of the sample was estimated.
Additional detail is provided in Appendix C.
The 23 USWAG members that responded to the original survey with completed
questionnaires for new units had coal-fired power plants totaling 138.4 GW of capacity.14 In
2004, total USWAG coal-fired generating capacity was 224.2 GW. Thus, the responses received
from those that reported new units covered roughly 62% of USWAG coal-fired capacity. This
response rate includes the two NRECA companies that responded to the survey. (Total NRECA
member coal-fired generating capacity is about 24 GW.)
The EPA's efforts to obtain information on units that may have been missed by the
USWAG survey and on units owned by non-USWAG members identified 11 additional units at
utilities that have a combined coal-fired generating capacity of 14 MW (or 4% of the total
U.S. coal-fired power plant generating capacity of 335.2 GW).
The January 2006 USWAG follow-up indicated that of the 29 members that did not
respond to the 2004 survey, or that previously responded that they had no new units,
25 (representing 58.2 GW of generating capacity) indeed had no new units that met the criteria,
and 4 (with 27.5 GW of generating capacity) had 6 units that met the criteria and were missed in
the original (2004) survey (Table 4).
By dividing the sum of the generating capacities of the USWAG units that responded
with a completed survey (138.4 GW) or a statement that they had no new units (58.2 GW) plus
the capacities of the EPA-identified units (14.0 GW) and the generating capacities of the
companies with the supplemental units (27.5 GW) by the total U.S. coal-fired generating
capacity (335.2 GW), the overall sample coverage rate is estimated to be 71%. This represents
the percentage of total generating capacity covered by the utilities with new disposal units and
those reporting that they had no disposal units. If we omit the generating capacity of the utilities
'- The 35% estimate is likely an underestimate, beeause the EIA does not require utilities to report amounts of
CCWs beneficially used by plants that have less than 100 MW of generating eapaeity.
'4 USWAG asked for a response from each member company (in the form of a returned, completed survey) only if
the company had any "new units." A given utility could provide more than one survey if it had power plants
operating different disposal units.
-------
21
TABLE 4 Results of the January 2006 Follow-up to the USWAG Survey
Coal-Fired Capacity
Utility Companies (USWAG members)" Number (GW) (2004)
Number not responding to survey or responding that they had no new units in 29 85.7
the original survey
Number verifying that they had no new units in the follow-up 25 58.2
Number indicating that they did have new units that should have been included 4 27.5
in the survey
Number that did not respond to follow-up calls 0 0
a A utility company may have multiple generating plants or facilities and thus multiple disposal units.
with the supplemental units newly identified in the 2006 follow-up (since they were not included
in the analysis), the sample coverage is 63%.
On the basis of the above findings on sample coverage, we believe that the information
obtained and analyzed can be used to identify general trends in CCW disposal practices from
1994 to 2004.
3.1.3 Characteristics of Identified Units
This subsection describes the share of landfills relative to surface impoundments, share of
newly constructed units relative to expansions, and trends in unit completions and openings over
time.
3.1.3.1 Share of Landfills Relative to Surface Impoundments
Identified units include 38 landfills (about two-thirds of the total identified units) and
18 surface impoundments (about one-third of the identified units). No sand and gravel pits were
identified by USWAG or the EPA as being new or expanded disposal units for the 1994 to 2004
time period. The EPRI data used in the 1999 RTC (EPA 1999a) of 323 existing co-management
units showed that by 1995, just under half of the total units were landfills. Thus, for the
management of CCWs, the trend for new units is toward more landfills than impoundments. Part
of this shift may relate to New Source Performance Standards under the Clean Water Act that
require zero discharge for fly-ash-handling water in surface impoundments.15 Also, landfills
provide more capacity per square foot than do surface impoundments and, therefore, are more
cost effective. (DOE and the EPA recognize that disposal capacity for new and expanded units
may be a better indicator of the amount of waste that has shitted from dry to wet handling than
15 See 40 CFR Part 423, 47 FR 52290-52309, November 19, 1982.
-------
22
the number of new and expanded units; however, the survey respondents did not provide unit
disposal capacity information.)
Table 5 shows the distribution of units by type and State. States with the largest numbers
of identified new and expanded units include Illinois (two landfills and eight surface
impoundments), North Dakota (eight landfills and two surface impoundments), and Ohio
(six landfills and one surface impoundment). Except for Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico, and
Texas, States with identified units have been building or expanding more landfills than surface
impoundments over the last 11 years.
3.1.3.2 Share of Newly Constructed Units Relative to Expansions
Forty-three percent of the identified units were newly constructed, 30% were lateral
expansions, while 16% were "other" (e.g., both new unit and lateral expansion). For 11% of the
units, no information was provided about whether the unit was new or an expansion. Table 6
shows the distribution of new units and expansions by State.
TABLE 5 Distribution of Identified Disposal
Units by State
Number of Units
State
Surface
Landfills Impoundments Total
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
North Carolina
North Dakota
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
1
1
9
4
1
2
1
2
8
1
0
6
3
0
3
2
1
0
0
8
1
0
1
3
0
2
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
10
5
1
3
4
2
10
1
1
7
3
1
3
2
1
Total
38
18
56
-------
23
TABLE 6 Distribution of New and Expanded Units by State
Number of Units
State
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Total
New
1
1
6
0
1
1
2
0
0
1
4
3
0
1
1
1
1
24
Lateral
Expansion
0
0
0
5
0
2
0
1
0
1
3
1
2
0
1
1
0
17
Othera
0
0
4
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
9
Not
Specified
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
6
Total
1
1
10
5
1
3
4
1
1
9
10
7
3
1
3
T
L
1
56
a "Other" typically includes both lateral and vertical expansion or new
unit and lateral expansion.
3.1.3.3 Trends in Unit Completions and Openings over Time
Unit operators (for the surveyed units) and State regulators (for the nonsurveyed units)
were asked to provide the dates of unit completion and unit opening. Some provided both, some
provided one date but not the other, and some provided neither. For 45 (83%) of the units
reporting data, construction was completed between 1994 and 2004, while 9 of the units had not
opened, either because construction had not been completed or for other reasons (e.g., scrubbers
had not been installed in the associated power-generating facility). For two of the units, no dates
were provided. There appear to be no discernable trends regarding construction timing.
Appendix E shows, for each disposal unit, the year of construction completion and unit opening.
Table 7 shows the total number of landfills and surface impoundments that were completed by
year. For units where the construction completion date was not provided but where the opening
date was provided, the opening date is used. The results are shown in Figure 1.
-------
24
TABLE 7 Trends in Construction
Completions by Year
Year
Construction
Completed3
Not complete
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
Not specified
Total
Landfills
8
0
5
3
4
0
0
0
3
4
4
5
2
38
Number of Units
Surface
Impoundments
1
0
3
2
0
4
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
18
Total
9
0
8
5
4
4
0
2
5
4
6
7
2
56
a For 12 units where the construction completion
date was not provided but the opening date was
provided, the year ot the unit opening was used.
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Not
Complete
Year Construction Completed ovum
FIGURE 1 Disposal Unit Completions by Year (Note: Two units did not specify a
completion date.)
-------
25
3.1.4 Wastes Disposed
As explained in Section 1.2, in 1988, the EPA released an RTC (EPA 1988) for large-
volume CCWs (fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and FGD waste) generated by coal-fired electric
utilities. In its 1993 RD (EPA 1993), the EPA stated that the regulation of the large-volume
CCWs as hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA was not warranted. The RD stated that the
1988 RTC found that the majority of the materials present in the four large-volume wastes were
not of major concern. The EPA also found that potentially hazardous constituents in CCWs,
including arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and selenium, have the potential
to leach into groundwater under certain conditions, but that the data suggest that contamination
stems from older, unlined units representing past practices (EPA 1993). The EPA said that the
"results of its analysis indicate that the wastes rarely exhibit any characteristics of hazardous
waste and the wastes pose very limited risk to human health or the environment" (EPA 1993). It
concluded that "current management practices and regulatory controls are adequate for managing
the four large-volume fossil-fuel combustion wastes" (EPA 1993). In its 2000 RD (EPA 2000),
the EPA stated that while large-volume CCWs that are co-managed with other CCWs derive
their characteristics largely from these large-volume wastes, both the large-volume CCWs and
the co-managed CCWs warrant the promulgation of national regulations under Subtitle D of
RCRA (RCRA Sections 1008(a) and 4004(a)).
Table 8 summarizes the percentages of the various wastes disposed of at surveyed
landfills and surface impoundments based on the responses to the questionnaire, and Appendix F
provides this information for each unit. Of the wastes managed at the 42 units reporting amounts,
more than 95% are, on average, the large-volume wastes that the EPA found to not have
unacceptable risks when managed alone, and virtually no risk when managed in lined units. (The
three units that did not report percentages were all landfills.) The percentage of large-volume
wastes managed at surface impoundments (99%) is greater than that managed at landfills (92%).
Eleven units (26% of the 42 units that reported amounts of wastes disposed of) reported
that fly ash comprised more than 90% of the total wastes disposed of at their facilities. The
majority of units (93%) manage at least some fly ash. Bottom ash comprises an average of 19%,
and FGD comprises an average of 16% of the wastes disposed of at the units. Boiler slag
comprises less than 1%. None of the surveyed units reported disposal of the following materials:
FBC ash, petroleum coke combustion waste, oil combustion waste, or natural gas combustion
waste.
Thirteen of the 29 surveyed landfills reported disposing of wastes in addition to or instead
of the four large-volume wastes. Three of the surveyed landfills reported disposal of co-managed
wastes, which were further identified as coal mill rejects commingled with the fly ash, cooling
tower sediment, coal pile pond sediment, etc. At these units, the co-managed wastes composed
from 1% to 8% of the total wastes disposed of. One landfill reported disposal of nonutility
wastes (2.5% of total wastes disposed of), and 10 reported disposal of "other" wastes. (One
landfill reported disposal of both nonutility and "other" wastes.) "Other" wastes included general
plant trash and miscellaneous industrial wastes from power plant operations such as sandblast
grit, demolition debris, and intake-structure cleaning wastes. The percentages of these other
-------
26
TABLE 8 Percentages of Wastes Disposed of at Surveyed Units
Percentage of Wastes Disposed of at Surveyed Units3
Landfills
Type of Waste
Disposed of
Large-volume wastes
Coal fly ash
Coal bottom ash
Boiler slag
Wet FGD waste
Dry FGD waste
Subtotal large-volume
Other wastes
Co-managed waste
Nonutility CCWs
Other materials
Subtotal other
Number of units
reporting data
Average
57.3
13.2
0.7
15.9
4.6
91.8
0.4
0.1
7.8
8.3
26
Range
0-100
0-95
0-15
0-98
0-85
0-8
0-3
0-100
Surface
Impoundments
Average
63.6
28.9
0.3
6.5
0
99.3
0.3
0
0.3
0.6
16
Range
0-100
0-95
0-5
0-80
0
0-5
0
0-5
All Units
Average
59.7
19.2
0.5
12.6
3.2
95.2
0.4
0.1
4.9
5.4
42
Range
0-100
0-95
0-15
0-98
0-85
0-8
0-3
0-100
a The data are for 42 units currently managing wastes that reported percentages. Averages
were calculated using the unit-specific percentages for each type of waste shown in
Appendix F. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
wastes generally ranged from 1% to 5% of the total. However, one landfill reported 100% of its
wastes as other, which consisted of slag produced by the plant's integrated gasification
combined-cycle gasifier. Another reported 75% of its wastes as other (70% clinker ash and 5%
ancillary small-volume wastes).
Only 2 of the 16 surveyed surface impoundments manage wastes other than the 4 large-
volume wastes. One unit co-manages boiler cleaning wastes (about 5% of the total waste
co-managed at the unit), and the other unit co-manages plant drains and demineralizer regenerant
(less than 5% of the total). Also, while liners and other protective measures are discussed in more
detail later in this report, it should be noted here that both of these units have liners and
groundwater-monitoring requirements.
3.1.5 Permit Information
For all of the surveyed units, a pre-permit site characterization was conducted, or a site
characterization was required as part of the permit. Typically, the pre-permit characterization
includes a hydrogeological report, but it can also include more detailed investigations, such as
-------
27
archeological investigations, soil borings, and/or determinations of the nearest groundwater and
wetlands.
All of the surveyed units were authorized by one or more permits. As noted in the
1999 RTC (EPA 1999a), permits are important because they can dictate use of specific operating
practices and control technologies. The 1999 RTC reported that 94% of the landfills and 85% of
the impoundments had permits; 100% of the 45 surveyed units in the current study have permits,
and many have more than one.
On average, 1.9 permits have been issued for each of the surveyed units. For landfills, the
average is 1.8 permits per unit, and for surface impoundments the average is 2.1. As noted, a
given unit can have multiple permits. For example, six surface impoundments have each of the
following three State-issued permits: dam safety, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES), and construction/operating. The highest share of permits issued (29 permits,
or 34% of the total) were waste permits, followed by NPDES permits (20 permits, or 24% of the
total). State solid-waste regulatory programs applicable to CCWs often exclude units that are
regulated under State water pollution control programs. Although most of the surveyed surface
impoundments are not subject to regulation as solid waste storage or disposal units, they are
regulated as wastewater treatment facilities, which are evaluated on a case-specific basis to
determine the need for groundwater-protection measures such as liners and groundwater
monitoring.
Table 9 shows the numbers and types of permits issued for the surveyed units.
Appendix G shows, for each of the surveyed units, the unit type (landfill or surface
impoundment), permit type, State, issuing agency, and, where available, the dates of permit issue
and expiration. It also indicates whether a copy of the permit was received.
We received and analyzed a total of 65 permits (33 for landfills and 32 for surface
impoundments) of a total of 85 permits reported as issued by the surveyed units. The following
two sections describe specific permit requirements for landfills and surface impoundments,
respectively. Discussions of the use of liners and groundwater monitoring at all identified units
(as opposed to the permit requirements for liners and groundwater monitoring for surveyed units
only) are provided in Sections 3.1.6 and 3.1.7, respectively.
3.1.5.1 Landfill Permit Requirements
Of the 29 surveyed landfills, 100% have permits that require both liners and groundwater
monitoring. As detailed in Table 10, between 90% and 100% of the landfills, depending on the
requirement, also have permit requirements for groundwater protection,16 corrective action,
'" Groundwater-protection requirements differ from groundwater-monitoring requirements. Groundwater-
proteetion standards are contaminant eoneentrations in groundwater that cannot be exceeded. They can include
primary and secondary drinking water standards, background concentration levels, and preventive action limits.
Groundwaler-monitoring requirements arc requirements to monitor, and possibly record or report, concentration
levels of one or more specified contaminants in groundwater.
-------
28
TABLE 9 Numbers and Types of Permits Issued for
Surveyed Units
Number Issued
Surface
Permit Type Landfills Impoundments Total
Construction
Construction/operating
Dam safety
NPDES
Wastea
Otherb
3
0
0
10
27
11
6
8
7
10
2
1
9
8
7
20
29
12
Total permits 51 34 85
Number of units 29 [6 45
a Includes waste. State waste, restricted waste, and residual
waste permits
b Includes air, conditional use, health department, operating,
industrial landfill, groundwater, storm water, and wastewater.
closure/post-closure, inspections, and bonding/financial assurance. Roughly 45% of the landfills
have additional permitting requirements for areas such as air monitoring, surface water
monitoring, quality assurance standards for liner and cover construction, storm-water permits,
requirements for preoperational and operational plans, periodic ash testing, storm-water runoff
controls, construction documentation, leachate-collection systems, and operating plans. In
addition to the permit requirements listed in Table 10, two landfill units in Ohio (one of which
does not have permit requirements for groundwater-protection standards per se) have the
following requirements: rainfall runoff and leachate collection and treatment; NPDES permit;
groundwater intercept and drainage system under clay liner; 5-ft isolation zone between
uppermost aquifer and bottom of clay liner; fugitive dust control; statistical analysis of
groundwater data; annual operating report to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; annual
operating license from the Ohio Department of Health; off-site rainfall diversion away from
landfill area; and daily operating and maintenance logs.
The 1999 RTC did not include a review of specific permit requirements, but it did report
the shares of units that employed various controls. It found that 94% of the landfills had
closure/post-closure controls (covers), compared with 100% of the landfills built or expanded
from 1994 to 2004. It also found that 77% of the landfills had groundwater-protection standards,
compared with 90% of the landfills built since 1994. This RTC did not contain data for
corrective action, bonding/financial assurance, or inspection controls or requirements.
Comparisons of the 1999 RTC and the current study regarding use of liners and groundwater
monitoring are contained in Sections 3.1.6.1 and 3.1.7, respectively.
-------
29
TABLE 10 Permit Requirements for Surveyed
Landfills
Surveyed Landfills
with Requirement
in Permit (29 total
surveyed landfills)
Requirement Number
Liners
Groundwater monitoring
Groundwater-protection standards
Corrective aetiona
Closure/post-closure
Inspections of the unit
Bonding/financial assurance
Otherh
29
29
26
27
29
29
26
13
100
100
90
93
100
100
90
45
a These requirements are for operators to take
corrective action should it he needed to contain, clean
up, and eliminate the future potential for migration of
contaminants from a CCW disposal unit via above-
ground pathways or leaching to groundwater. The
questionnaire did not ask for permit-specific details
on specific corrective action and remediation triggers
and requirements.
h Examples of other permit requirements for landfills
include air monitoring, surface water monitoring,
quality assurance standards for liner and cover
construction, storm-water permits, requirements for
pre-operational and operational plans, periodic ash
testing, storm-water runoff controls, construction
documentation, leachale-collection systems, and
operating plans.
3.1.5.2 Surface Impoundment Permit Requirements
For the 16 surveyed surface impoundments, 12 (75%) have liner requirements in their
permits. The remaining four units (25%) have voluntarily installed liners. Thus, 100% of the
surveyed surface impoundments have liners. Permits for 10 of the surveyed surface
impoundments (63%) require groundwater monitoring, and for two additional surface
impoundments groundwater monitoring is conducted voluntarily. Thus, groundwater monitoring
is conducted for 75% of the surveyed surface impoundments (Table 11).
In addition to liner and groundwater-monitoring requirements, surface impoundments
have permit requirements for groundwater protection, corrective action, unit inspections, closure
and post-closure, bonding/financial assurance, and other areas (Table 12).
-------
30
TABLE 11 Liner and Groundwater-Monitoring Requirements for Surveyed
Surface Impoundments
Requirement
Liners
Groundwater monitoring
Surveyed Units
with Requirement
in Permit
Number %
12 75
10 63
Surveyed Units
That Conduct
Activity
Voluntarily
Number %
4 25
2 12
Total Surveyed
Units That
Conduct Activity
Number %
16 100
12a 75
a Three of the surface impoundments without groundwater monitoring are in Missouri. Missouri
regulates CCW settling basins as water pollution control units subject to the Missouri Clean
Water Law. The Missouri Clean Water Law requires such units to obtain construction and
operating permits from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Protection
Program, but does not require them to obtain solid waste permits (10 CSR 80-2.020(9)(A)7).
The Missouri DNR Water Protection Program has authority to impose groundwater-monitoring
requirements for water pollution control units on a case-specific basis (10 CSR 20-6.010), but
did not do so for the three units in this table.
TABLE 12 Other Permit Requirements for
Surveyed Surface Impoundments
Requirement
Units with
Requirement in Permit
(16 Surveyed Surface
Impoundments)
Number %
Groundwater-protection standards
Corrective action2
Closure/post-closure
Inspections of the unit
Bonding/financial assurance
Otherb
3
10
3
11
2
1
19
63
19
69
12
6
These requirements are for operators to take corrective
action should it be needed to contain, clean up, and
eliminate the future potential for migration of
contaminants from a CCW disposal unit via
aboveground pathways or leaching to groundwater. The
questionnaire did not ask for permit-specific details on
specific corrective action and remediation triggers and
requirements.
Other requirements include construction/closure, quality
assurance/quality control, and NPDES discharge permit.
-------
31
The data indicate that, in general, the percentage of landfills subject to the various types
of permit requirements, such as groundwater-protection standards, closure/post-closure,
bonding/financial assurance, as well as others, is greater than the percentage of surface
impoundments subject to the same requirements. This observation can be explained largely by
the fact that many State solid-waste regulatory programs applicable to CCWs have exemptions
or exclusions for units that are regulated under State water pollution control programs. As a
result, most of the surface impoundments included in this study are not subject to regulation as
solid waste storage or disposal units. Nevertheless, they are regulated as wastewater treatment
facilities, which are evaluated on a case-specific basis to determine the need for groundwater-
protection measures such as liners and groundwater monitoring. Section 3.2.1.2 provides
additional information regarding State regulatory programs applicable to surface impoundments
that receive CCWs.
3.1.6 Liners
The previous section addressed how many of the 45 surveyed landfills and surface
impoundments that were built or expanded between 1994 and 2004 have liners, that is, the new
units that reported liners required by permits. This section describes the use of liners at all
identified disposal units—both surveyed and nonsurveyed—built or expanded between 1994 and
2004. It also addresses changes in the liner materials, which provide an indication of liner
integrity.
3.1.6.1 Liner Use at Disposal Units
The vast majority (98%) of the 56 identified units (both landfills and surface
impoundments) have liners. This includes all of the 45 surveyed units and 10 of the
11 nonsurveyed units. The one unit lacking a liner is a landfill in North Dakota that receives only
bottom ash, which the State considers inert and, therefore, no liner is required. Figure 2
compares the number of landfills and surface impoundments that have been constructed with the
number that have been constructed with liners (since 1994). It shows that the trend is for more
construction of landfills than surface impoundments and that, with the aforementioned exception,
virtually all new and expanded disposal units have been constructed with liners. (The number of
units constructed by year, as opposed to the cumulative yearly total numbers, is shown in
Figure 1.)
It is not possible to provide a direct comparison of the findings regarding the newly
constructed and expanded units in the current study with the findings regarding the disposal units
in the 1999 RTC. The 1999 RTC uses data from a 1997 EPRI survey intended to include all co-
management units, regardless of their construction date, while this study includes only recently
constructed or expanded units, but includes co-management and ash-only units. However, 1995
data compiled from industry and DOE surveys for the 2000 RD indicate that the corresponding
values for liners in landfills and surface impoundments constructed between 1985 and 1995 were
-------
32
CO
03
-O
E
40
35
30
25
20
D Landfills
• Landfills lined
E3 Surface impoundments
122 Surface impoundments lined
O
CD
.S 15
10
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Not
Complete
Year Construction Completed
FIGURE 2 Liners in Identified New or Expanded Disposal Units since 1994 (cumulative yearly
total numbers)
75% and 60%, respectively. The current data indicate that virtually all newly constructed
landfills and all newly constructed impoundments are lined, whether as a permit requirement or
voluntarily.
3.1.6.2 Liner Integrity
The protective qualities of the liner materials have improved over the past decade for
both landfills and surface impoundments. Most of the liners in these newly constructed or
expanded units are engineered liners made of compacted clay or synthetic clay, or a
geomembrane (specialized plastic sheeting), or a combination thereof. In general, single liners
consist of one type of liner, composite liners consist of a geomembrane combined with a clay
liner, and double liners consist either of two single liners, two composite liners, or a single and a
composite liner. Some units reported multiple types of liners. For example, a single unit
indicating double, synthetic, and compacted clay liners would be reported as having multiple
types. Liner type information was collected for each of the 56 identified disposal units, but
terminologies varied and may be inconsistent. Table 13 summarizes the numbers and types of
liner systems reported for landfills and impoundments. The relative shares of liner types are
shown in Figure 3 for landfills and in Figure 4 for surface impoundments. Appendix H contains
detailed data on the materials, thicknesses, and permeabilities for these liner systems.
-------
33
TABLE 13 Liner Types at Recently Constructed Landfills and Surface
Impoundments
Landfills
Liner Type
Clay/compacted clay
Single/synthetic
Double
Combination
Multiple typesa
Subtotal units with liners'1
Not lined0
Total units'1
Number
11
4
2
7
13
37
1
38
%
29
11
5
18
34
97
3
68
Surface
Impoundments
Number
3
6
0
8
1
18
0
18
%
17
33
0
44
6
100
0
32
Total
Number
14
10
2
15
14
55
1
56
%
25
18
4
27
25
99
2
100
a Multiple types refers to cases where the survey response provided multiple liner classifications.
For example, a case in which a respondent checked double, synthetic, and compacted clay is
reported under multiple types.
b Percentage total has been rounded.
c Inert bottom ash, as defined by the State.
H Clay/Compacted Clay
E3 Single/Synthetic
ED Double
D Combination
C3 Multiple Types
• Not Lined
DE70603
FIGURE 3 Liner Types Reported for Landfills (Note: One unit is
unlined because the material disposed of was classified by the State
as inert bottom ash, and, therefore, no liner is required.)
-------
34
B Clay/Compacted Clay
E3 Single/Synthetic
D Combination
Q Multiple Types
DE70604
FIGURE 4 Liner Types Reported for Surface Impoundments
The 1999 RTC categorized liner types differently than does this study, so direct
comparisons are not possible. Nonetheless, it appears that liner materials and types have
improved since 1994. For example, the 1999 RTC reported that 43% of the landfills and 74% of
the surface impoundments constructed between 1985 and 1995 had no liners or soil-only liners.
Since 1994, only one landfill (less than 3%) was constructed without a liner (and only because
the State within which the landfill is located has classified the waste-managed bottom ash as
inert). All of the surface impoundments reported a liner other than compacted in situ soil. While
about 9% of the units in the 1999 RTC used compacted ash, no units used solely compacted ash
since 1994. The percentage of clay liners remained about the same or decreased slightly, to about
29% for landfills and 17% for surface impoundments. The percentage of double liners increased
slightly for landfills, from 1% to 5%. Finally, the percentage of combination and multiple liners
increased for landfills, from less than 10% in the 1999 RTC to more than 50% in the newly
constructed/expanded units. For impoundments, the percentage of combination/multiple liners
increased from 2% to more than 50% since 1994.
3.1.7 Groundwater Monitoring
The vast majority (91%) of the 56 identified newly constructed or expanded units
(landfills and surface impoundments) monitor groundwater. All but one of the 38 landfills (97%)
conduct groundwater monitoring, and because this landfill manages only bottom-ash waste,
which the State has classified as inert, groundwater monitoring is not required. Of the 18 surface
impoundments, 14, or 78%, monitor groundwater.17 Table 14 shows the percentage of identified
'' Two surface impoundments that were not surveyed—and. therefore, are not included in Section 3.1.5.2, which
addressed only the 45 surveyed units (29 landfills and 16 surface impoundments)—reported groundwater
monitoring. Thus, of the total 18 identified surface impoundments (surveyed and nonsurveyed), 14 conduct
groundwater monitoring.
-------
TABLE 14 Disposal Units with Groundwater Monitoring by State
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Total
Slate
FL
GA
IL
IN
MI
MN
MO
NC
ND
NH
NM
OH
PA
TX
VA
WI
wv
Total
Total
1
1
2
4
1
*>
1
0
8
1
0
6
3
0
3
1
7
38
Units with
Ground-
water
Monitoring
1
1
o
4
1
~i
1
">
7h
1
0
6
3
0
3
1
0
37
% Units
with Ground-
water
Monitoring
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
88
100
-
100
100
-
100
100
100
97
Total
0
0
8
1
0
1
3
0
2
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
18
Units with
Ground-
water
Monitoring
0
0
8
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
14
% Units
with Ground-
water
Monitoring
_a
-
100
0
-
100
0
-
100
-
100
100
-
100
-
-
-
78
Total
1
1
10
5
1
3
4
T
10
1
1
7
3
1
3
1
i
56
Units with
Ground-
water
Monitoring
1
1
10
4
1
3
1
->
9
1
1
7
3
1
3
1
•>
51
% Units
with Ground-
water
Monitoring
100
100
100
80
100
100
25
100
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
91
a - = not applicable.
h Inert bottom ash (as defined hy the Stale) in one landfill: groundwater monitoring not required.
landfills and surface impoundments that monitor groundwater for each State. While the
percentage of surface impoundments that monitor groundwater is less than the percentage of
landfills, it is higher than the percentage reported in the 1999 RTC for units constructed between
1985 and 1995 (65%). The percentage of landfills in the 1999 RTC with groundwater monitoring
was 88%; thus, there has been an increase in groundwater monitoring for both landfills and
surface impoundments since 1994. Table 14 also shows that the surface impoundments that did
not report groundwater-monitoring were in two States, Indiana and Missouri. These two States
impose groundwater monitoring requirements for surface impoundments on a case-specific basis
in water pollution control permits. The unit in Indiana is permitted under the NPDES program.
Missouri regulates CCW settling basins as wastewater treatment units subject to the Missouri
Clean Water Law. The Clean Water Law requires such units to obtain construction and operating
permits from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Protection Program,
but does not require them to obtain solid waste permits (10 CSR 80-2.020(9)(A)7). The Missouri
DNR Water Protection Program has authority to impose groundwater-monitoring requirements
for wastewater treatment facilities on a case-specific basis (10 CSR 20-6.010), but did not do so
for these three units.
For the surveyed units, information was obtained on the groundwater constituents
monitored, the monitoring frequency, and the number of monitoring wells and their locations.
Appendix I presents detailed data on groundwater monitoring; key findings are highlighted
below.
-------
36
Constituents monitored. Landfills and surface impoundments monitor for a
variety of hazardous and nonhazardous constituents. Thirty of the 37 landfills
and 12 of the 14 surface impoundments that monitor groundwater listed the
constituents monitored in their response to the survey. Not all units are
required to monitor for the same constituents (e.g., the regulatory agency may
have used waste characterization data to determine that certain constituents
are not present in the CCWs and, thus, testing for such constituents is not
necessary). However, commonly monitored constituents include mercury,
molybdenum, vanadium, arsenic, cadmium, copper, nickel, zinc, barium,
boron, chromium III, chromium VI, lead, selenium, silver, and tin (toxic
metals); and ammonia, nitrogen, nitrite, nitrate, phosphorus, sulfate,
potassium, iron, manganese, aluminum, dissolved oxygen, oxidation potential,
alkalinity, calcium, magnesium, sodium, chloride, total dissolved solids, total
suspended solids, temperature, pH, specific conductance, and appearance
(secondary MCLs and other water quality parameters).
Monitoring frequency. Monitoring frequency ranges from monthly to
semiannually. Of the 37 landfills at which groundwater monitoring is
conducted, 29 reported the frequency of their monitoring activities. Of these,
15 monitor quarterly, and 14 monitor semiannually. Of the 14 surface
impoundments at which groundwater monitoring is conducted, 12 reported
frequency. Of these, 1 monitors monthly, 9 monitor quarterly, and 2 monitor
semiannually.
Number of and location of wells. For the 28 landfills and 12 surface
impoundments that reported monitoring well numbers, the number of wells at
landfills ranges from 4 to 41, with an average of 9. At surface impoundments,
the range is from 5 to 22, with an average of 12. Survey respondents were
asked to indicate not only the number of monitoring wells, but the location of
the wells with respect to the disposal unit (i.e., upgradient of unit or
downgradient of unit, inside the unit boundaries or outside the unit
boundaries). Although most of the responses provided the number of wells in
the various locations, the responses were inconsistent on reporting of
locations. Thus, it is not possible to determine the relationship between
upgradient and downgradient wells, and whether the wells are located
inside/outside the unit boundary. Table 15 shows the ranges in number and the
average number of wells inside and outside the unit boundaries, and Table 16
shows the ranges in number and average number of wells upgradient and
downgradient of the units.
3.1.8 Regulatory Inspections
The questionnaire asked respondents to indicate whether any regulators had inspected
their units. Of the 45 surveyed units, 37 (82%) said that regulators had inspected their units.
-------
37
TABLE 15 Summary Statistics on Groundwater-Monitoring Wells and Locations
within and outside the Boundaries of Surveyed Units
Landfills Surface Impoundments
Number of Wells Number of Wells
Monitoring Wells Range Average Range Average
Within boundaries of unit
Outside boundaries of unit
0-25
0-41
7
6
0-17
0-22
5
7
Number of units reporting locations of wells 21 11
within and outside boundaries of unit
TABLE 16 Summary Statistics on Groundwater-Monitoring Wells and
Locations Upgradient and Downgradient of Surveyed Units
Landfills Surface Impoundments
Number of Wells Number of Wells
Monitoring Wells Range Average Range Average
Upgradient of unit
Downgradient of unit
1-12
3-29
3
8
1-7
4-20
3
8
Number of units reporting locations of 27 12
upgradient and downgradient wells
Twenty-seven of the 29 surveyed landfills have been inspected; the 2 that have not been
inspected have not been built yet. Ten of the 16 surveyed surface impoundments (63%) indicated
that they have been inspected. Respondents indicated that inspections ranged in frequency from
monthly to annually. The six surface impoundments that did not report any inspections are in
Illinois. The questionnaire did not ask for information on inspection findings.
3.1.9 Testing for Potential Misrepresentation of Data Caused by the Exclusion
of Supplemental Units
As explained in Section 3.1.1, the analysis in this report is based on information for
56 disposal units that were permitted, built, or laterally expanded between January 1, 1994, and
December 31, 2004. Information on these units was obtained from (1) the results of USWAG's
December 2004 survey (29 landfills and 16 surface impoundments), and (2) the EPA's
subsequent effort to identify units not included in the USWAG survey (9 landfills and 2 surface
-------
38
impoundments). The analysis does not include the six supplemental units identified by
USWAG's January 2006 follow-up that was conducted to identify any units that had not
responded to the 2004 survey.18 To determine if the exclusion of these six units from the
analysis may have produced findings that were not representative of the 56 units that comprised
the analysis, we compared the results for the key parameters of interest (liners and groundwater
monitoring) for the following groups of units:
• USWAG-surveyed units (from December 2004 survey),
• EPA-identified units, and
• USWAG supplemental units (identified by USWAG in the 2006 follow-up).
The results are summarized in Table 17 and are described below:
• Liners. The percentage of USWAG units identified as having liners in the
2004 survey was 100% (45 of 45); the percentage of EPA-identified units was
91% (10 of 11); and the percentage of supplemental units was 67% (4 of 6).
All of the surface impoundments (surveyed, nonsurveyed, and supplemental)
have liners. The three landfills with no liners (of the total 42 landfills) include
the following:
- One EPA-identified landfill that manages only bottom ash in North
Dakota. North Dakota regulations classify bottom ash as inert, and inert
wastes in the State do not require liners.19
- Two supplemental units (owned by the same utility company) in South
Carolina. One of these landfills is located over a thick geologic unit (marl)
that has a permeability of < 1 x 10~6 cm/s (the required permeability of
liners) and receives CCWs that are classified by the State as low-toxicity
'° These units were not included because of time and resource constraints.
*" According to ND Chapter 33-20-01.1, "inert waste" means nonputrescible solid waste that will not generally
contaminate water or form a contaminated leachate. Inert waste does not serve as food for vectors. It includes,
but is not limited to, construction and demolition material such as metal, wood, bricks, masonry, and cement
concrete; asphalt concrete; tree branches; bottom ash from coal-fired boilers; and waste coal fines from air
pollution control equipment.
-------
39
TABLE 17 Comparison of Key Results for Surveyed, Nonsurveyed, and Supplemental Units
All units
All units with liners
All units with groundwater
monitoring
All landfills
Landfills with liners
Landfills with groundwater
monitoring
All surface impoundments
Surface impoundments with
Surveyed Nonsurveyed
Units Units
(USWAG) (EPA)
Number % Number %
45 11
45 100 10a 91
41 91 l()a 91
29 9
29 100 8a 89
29 100 8a 89
16 2
16 100 2 100
Supplemental
Units
(USWAG)
Number %
6
4b 67
6 100
4
2h 50
4 100
2
2 100
Total
(All Units)
Number
62
59
57
42
39
41
20
20
%
95
92
93
98
100
liners
Surface impoundments with
groundwater monitoring
12C
75
100
100
16
80
a One landfill has neither a liner nor groundwater monitoring, because the Slate within which the landfill is
located has classified bottom ash as inert.
b Two units in South Carolina do not have liners. However, one of these landfills is located over a thick
geologic unit (marl) that has a permeability less than that required for liners (1 x 10 6 cm/s). The other unit
is a lateral expansion of an existing waste unit that required extensive hydrogeological characterization
prior to permitting. In addition, groundwater has been monitored at the site since 1987.
c Three of the surface impoundments without groundwater monitoring are in Missouri. Missouri regulates
CCW settling basins as wastewater treatment units subject to the Missouri Clean Water Law. The Missouri
Clean Water Law requires such units to obtain construction and operating permits from the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Protection Program, but does not require solid waste
permits (10 CSR 80-2.020(9)(A)7). The Missouri DNR Water Protection Program has authority to impose
groundwater-monitoring requirements for wastewater treatment facilities on a case-specific basis in
construction and operating permits (10 CSR 20-6.010), but did not do so for the three units in this table.
-------
40
(Class I) wastes for which no liners are required.20 The other unit is a
lateral expansion of an existing landfill that also receives CCWs classified
by the State as Class I wastes.
Groundwater monitoring. The percentage of USWAG units identified in the
2004 survey with groundwater monitoring was 91% (41 of 45); the percentage
of EPA-identified units with groundwater monitoring was also 91% (10 of
11); and the percentage of USWAG supplemental units with groundwater
monitoring was 100% (6 of 6).
For all new units (surveyed, nonsurveyed, and supplemental), 95% have liners
and 92% have groundwater monitoring.
3.2 STATE REQUIREMENTS
3.2.1 Overview
As explained in Section 2.2, a pilot study was performed consisting of detailed reviews in
nine categories of regulatory controls that apply to landfills and surface impoundments in
Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. For six additional States—Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, and Texas—detailed reviews were conducted in the five
regulatory categories most closely associated with the control of potential releases to
groundwater. Information about regulatory controls applicable to CCW disposal was collected
from 11 States as shown in Table 18. The detailed data are reported in Appendix A.
3.2.1.1 Permitting Requirements for Landfills
Permitting requirements applicable to the disposal of CCWs in landfills were reviewed
for the 5 pilot States (Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin) and 6 additional
20 The South Carolina regulations (R. 61-107.16) for Industrial Solid Waste Landfills (ISWLFs) require that the
waste streams be characterized and that the TCLP results from characterization are compared with ranges based
on the drinking water MCLs. The utility's coal ash landfills have so far tested as a Class I material (Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure [TCLP]) results are < 10 x drinking water MCLs). A Class I waste does not
require a liner. A Class II waste (> 10 but < 30 x drinking water MCLs) would require a clay liner system. A
Class III waste (>30 x drinking water MCLs) requires a synthetic liner system. Waste streams must be
characterized every 5 years or if a process change occurs that may change the characteristics (on a per-
occurrence basis). This may occur, for instance, with the installation of a selective catalytic reduction unit or
change in traditional coal source. The regulations are crafted such that the status of a permitted landfill is
monitored over time on the basis of the tested character of the waste. At this time, no characterization work has
indicated that a reevaluation of the Class status for any ash landfill is required. In addition, groundwater
monitoring, statistical analysis of groundwater data, corrective action, closure/post-closure, and financial
mechanisms are required for ISWLFs in South Carolina.
-------
TABLE 18 Areas of Regulatory Control Reviewed by State3
Stateb
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Missouri
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Virginia
Wisconsin
Regulatory
Designation
ofCCWs
for Disposal
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Permitting
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Liners
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Groundwatcr
Monitoring
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Leac hate-
Col lection
System
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Closure and
Post-Closure
X
X
X
X
X
Corrective
Action
X
X
X
X
X
Siting
Controls
X
X
X
X
X
Financial
Assurance
X
X
X
X
X
a "X" indicates that the area of control described in the column heading was reviewed for the State, while a blank cell indicates that the area of
control described in the column heading was not reviewed for the State. All 11 States were reviewed for the five areas having greater
potential to affect whether releases to groundwater are controlled.
b The pilot review covered Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin, which are indicated in boldface type. Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Missouri. Ohio, and Texas were selected for supplemental reviews in the regulatory areas having greater potential to affect whether
releases to groundwater are controlled.
-------
42
States (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, and Texas). All 11 States have regulations
that expressly exclude CCWs from the definition of hazardous waste. Thus, in general, landfills
that receive CCWs in any of the 11 States reviewed are not required to obtain hazardous waste
disposal permits, although Missouri requires fly ash to be disposed of in a hazardous waste
disposal facility if it fails the TCLP. Ten States designate CCWs as a type of nonhazardous
industrial solid waste and regulate landfills receiving CCWs under their solid waste regulatory
programs. Alabama regulations exclude CCWs from the definition of solid waste.
Detailed examination of CCW landfill permitting requirements in the 11 States reviewed
revealed that 6 States (Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin)
require solid waste permits for all landfills receiving CCWs for disposal. The other 5 States
(Alabama, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, and Texas) have adopted laws and regulations that result in
exemptions from solid waste permitting requirements for certain CCW landfills. The exemptions
are described in Table 19. Section A.3.3 in Appendix A provides State-specific discussions.
TABLE 19 Description of Permitting Exemptions in Five States
State Description of Exemption
Alabama CCWs are expressly excluded from the definition of solid waste in Alabama. Hence, CCW landfills,
whether located on-site or off-site, are not required to obtain solid waste permits.
Florida3 On-siteb landfills may have Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) certifications in lieu of solid waste
permits, if they are located at power plants; OR
If the site of a landfill is not subject to the PPSA, an on-site landfill may, in lieu of solid waste
permits, obtain either another permit issued by the Florida Department of Natural Resources or an
approved groundwater-monitoring plan, which addresses or authorizes the environmental effects on
groundwater and surface water.
Illinois For on-site landfills, initial notice to the permitting agency is required, as are quarterly and annual
groundwater reports, bul no solid waste permit is required.
Ohio If the landfill is a monofill that receives only "nontoxic" fly ash, bottom ash, and/or foundry sand (as
determined by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency),1-' solid waste permits are not required.
Texas On-site landfills must be registered with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and
provide updated information when changes occur, but solid waste permits are not required.
a In Florida, the PPSA (FS 403.501 through 518) provides for certification (licensure) of steam electric power
plants that are 75 MW or larger in size. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection is the lead
agency for coordination of the power plant siting process conducted pursuant to the PPSA and has
jurisdiction over many of the activities that the PPSA certification process may replace.
b "On-site" means located at the same site where the CCWs were generated. In Texas, an "on-site" landfill
may be located at a nearby facility (i.e., within 50 mi) having the same owner.
c Wastes are considered "nontoxic" in Ohio if leachate obtained by using the TCLP or modified TCLP
contains (1) concentrations of arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and/or mercury that are less than
30 times the limits established by the EPA for these metals in drinking water and/or (2) a concentration of
selenium of 1 mg/L or less, which the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has established as the
"nontoxic" criterion for selenium (USWAG 2005).
-------
43
Because permits are techniques by which States ensure environmental control of waste
management activities, the fact that 5 of the 11 States reviewed have solid waste permitting
exemptions for certain CCW landfills raised a question during peer review of this report, even
though an absence of solid waste permitting does not mean the absence of regulatory oversight.
Specifically, peer reviewers were interested in whether the adoption of similar solid waste
permitting exemptions for landfills might be prevalent among many States. Accordingly,
USWAG member companies provided input regarding CCW landfill solid waste permitting
practices in States that have coal-fired electric generating capacity. The results are reported in
Table 20.
As Table 20 indicates, USWAG confirmed that 30 States with coal-fired electric
generating capacity require solid waste permits for all CCW landfills under their nonhazardous
solid waste programs. Six States were confirmed to not require solid waste permits for disposal
units receiving CCWs, if the CCWs being disposed of were generated at the same site as the
landfill (and in Texas, at a nearby facility [i.e., within 50 mi] and having the same owner). One
State, Alabama, which expressly excludes all nonhazardous CCWs from the definition of solid
waste, does not require a solid waste permit for a landfill that receives only CCWs. Another
State, Ohio, expressly excludes "nontoxic" fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag from the
definition of solid waste. According to USWAG, virtually all coal ash and slag produced in Ohio
meets the "nontoxic" criteria for the metals of concern (USWAG 2005). This means that of all
CCWs in Ohio, only landfills receiving FGD residues typically require solid waste permits.
Appendix A provides detailed reviews of the solid waste regulatory programs in three of the six
States that exempt CCWs from solid waste permitting (Florida, Illinois, and Texas). The areas of
regulatory control covered for these States are designation of CCWs for disposal, permitting,
liner requirements, groundwater-monitoring requirements, and leachate-collection system
requirements. Appendix A also provides detailed reviews of the same areas of regulatory control
for the two States (Alabama and Ohio) that exempt some or all CCWs from the definition of
solid waste.
Table 21 shows how the States with solid waste permitting exemptions compare with the
nation in coal-fired generating capacity, rate of CCW generation, and beneficial use of CCW.
As Table 21 reports, the total quantity of CCWs generated by facilities located in all
States having coal-fired generating capacity in the United States was approximately 129 million
tons in 2004. In comparison, the States that do not either exempt on-site CCW landfills from
solid waste permitting requirements or exclude CCWs from the definition of solid waste
generated a total of approximately 60 million tons of net disposable CCWs in 2004, which is
approximately 71 % of the total net disposable CCWs generated for all States. The six States that
have solid waste permitting exemptions for certain on-site CCW landfills generated a total of
approximately 17 million tons of net disposable CCWs in 2004, which is 20% of the total net
disposable CCWs generated for all States. The one State that excludes CCWs from all solid
waste regulations, Alabama, generated a total of approximately 2.7 million tons of net disposable
CCWs in 2004, which is about 3.3% of the total net disposable CCWs generated in all States.
Ohio, which excludes "nontoxic" fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag from solid waste
regulations, generated a total of 5.9 million tons of these wastes and 1.1 million tons of FGD
-------
44
TABLE 20 Solid Waste Permitting Requirements by State3
States That Do Not Exempt On-Site
CCW Landfills from State Solid
Waste Permitting Requirements
Arizona New Hampshire
Arkansas New Jersey
Connecticut New Mexico
Delaware New York
Georgia North Carolina
Indiana North Dakota
Iowa Oklahoma
Kansas Pennsylvania
Kentucky South Carolina
Louisiana South Dakota
Michigan Tennessee
Minnesota Virginia
Mississippi West Virginia
Missouri Wisconsin
Montana Wyoming
States That
Exempt Certain
On-Site CCW States That
Landfills from Exclude CCWs
State Solid Waste from All Solid
Permitting Waste
Requirements Regulations
Colorado Alabama
Florida Ohiob
Illinois
Maryland
Texas
Utah
Solid waste permitting requirements for Nebraska, Nevada. Oregon, and
Washington were not confirmed because there are no USWAG member
companies with facilities located in those States. Solid waste permitting
requirements for Massachusetts were not confirmed because of time and
resource constraints. Note that none of the States with coal-fired generating
capacity absent from this table is a major generator of CCWs, and that the
rates of beneficial use in the States absent from the table are normally either
above or well above the national average (42% to 84% of total CCW
generated in the State is beneficially used) (see Section 1.3).
Ohio expressly excludes ''nontoxic" fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag
from the definition of solid waste. Wastes are considered "nontoxic" in Ohio
if leachate obtained by using the TCLP or modified TCLP contains
(1) concentrations of arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and/or
mercury that are less than 30 times the limits established by the EPA for
these metals in drinking water and/or (2) a concentration of selenium of
1 mg/L or less, which the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has
established as the "nontoxic" criterion for selenium. According to USWAG,
virtually all coal ash and slag meet the "nontoxic" criteria (USWAG 2005).
-------
45
TABLE 21 Power Generation Capacity, CCW Generation, and CCW Beneficial Use in States
with Solid Waste Permitting Exemptions, 2004
States That Exempt
Certain On-Site CCW
Landfills from Solid
Waste Permitting
Requirements
Colorado
Florida
Illinois
Maryland
Texas
Utah
States that exclude
CCWs from all solid
waste regulations
Alabama
Ohioa
Power Generation
Capacity
MW
5,309
11,378
17,462
5,236
21,155
4,973
12,458
24,028
%of
Total
U.S.
1.6
3.4
5.2
1.6
6.3
1.5
3.7
7.2
CCW Generation
Thousand
Tons
1,548
5,092
4,419
1,983
12,943
2,341
3,408
6,980
% of
Total
U.S.
1.2
3.9
3.4
1.5
10.0
1.8
2.6
5.4
CCWs
Used
Beneficially
Thousand
Tons
252
3,171
1,968
646
4,395
812
663
2,290
Net
Disposable
CCWs
Thousand
Tons
1,296
1,921
2,451
1,337
8,548
1.529
2,745
4,690
Total of above States
Total United States
101,969 30.4
335,243
38,714
129,037
30.0
14,197
44,653
24,517
84,384
a Of the total CCWs generated in Ohio, 5,883 thousand tons (84%) are fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag,
which are excluded from State solid waste regulations, and 1,096 (16%) are FGD wastes, which are not
excluded from regulation. Of the 2,290 thousand tons of CCWs that are beneficially used, 1,302 thousand
tons (57%) are fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag, and 987 thousand tons (43%) are FGD wastes.
Sources: EIA (2004a,b; 2006a,b).
wastes (about 7 million tons total) in 2004. Of these amounts, about 1.3 million tons of
"nontoxic" fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag are beneficially used and about 1 million tons of
FGD sludge are beneficially used. Hence, the net disposable CCWs that were potentially exempt
from solid waste permitting requirements in Ohio in 2004 (i.e., "nontoxic" fly ash, bottom ash,
and boiler slag) amount to about 4.6 million tons (5.9 million minus 1.3 million). Flue gas
desulfurization wastes in Ohio are subject to full regulation as solid waste. Thus, the amount of
net disposable CCWs in Ohio that is potentially exempt from solid waste permitting
requirements represents about 5.4% of the total net disposable CCWs generated for all States.
Overall, the portion of the net disposable CCWs that is potentially exempt from solid waste
permitting requirements is approximately 24 million tons, which corresponds to 29% of the total
net disposable CCWs generated in the United States during 2004.
In terms of electric generating capacity, the six States that have solid waste permitting
exemptions for certain on-site CCW landfills generated a total of approximately 66,000 MW,
which is approximately 20% of the total coal-fired electric generating capacity in the
-------
46
United States in 2004. The one State that excludes CCWs from all solid waste regulations,
Alabama, generated a total of approximately 12,000 MW in 2004, which is about 3.7% of the
total. Ohio, which excludes "nontoxic" fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag from solid waste
regulations, generated a total of about 24,000 MW in 2004. This represents about 7.2% of the
total coal-fired electric generating capacity in the United States. Overall, the portion of the coal-
fired electric generating capacity in the States that potentially exempt CCW landfills from solid
waste permitting requirements and that exclude certain CCWs from all solid waste regulation is
approximately 102,000 MW, which corresponds to about 30% of the total coal-fired electric
generating capacity in the United States in 2004.
Four of the six States not requiring solid waste permits for disposal units receiving only
CCWs generated on-site (Colorado, Florida, Illinois, and Texas) have other mechanisms for
identifying and tracking such exempt facilities. While the mechanisms vary from State to State,
they suggest that the absence of a solid waste permit in these four States does not mean the
absence of regulatory oversight. A brief summary of these alternative mechanisms is provided
below.
In Florida, if CCWs are disposed of in an on-site 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. In addition, if a solid
waste generator other than an electric generating plant disposes of solid waste (including CCWs)
that resulted from its own activities on its own property, a solid waste permit is not required
provided that the environmental effects of such disposal on groundwater and surface water are
addressed or authorized by another permit issued by the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection or by an approved groundwater-monitoring plan (FAC 62-701.320).
In Illinois, a CCW landfill that qualifies for an exemption from solid waste permitting as
a result of on-site disposal must comply with the design, construction, and operating standards
applicable to other nonhazardous solid waste landfills that receive chemical wastes (35 111. Adm.
Code 816.500(a)). These standards include requirements for liner systems, leachate-collection
systems, and groundwater-monitoring programs (35 111. Adm. Code 811, Subpart C). In addition,
exempt CCW landfills in Illinois must file an initial facility report containing information on
facility location and disposal practices. Other reporting requirements for such landfills include
quarterly reports containing groundwater monitoring results and annual reports containing raw
data from groundwater and leachate-system monitoring networks (35 111. Adm. Code 815.203).
In Texas, if a CCW landfill is exempt from solid waste permitting because it receives
nonhazardous industrial waste generated only by its owner, the generator of the waste is required
to register with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) (30 TAG 335.6(a)).
With the registration, the TCEQ requires submission of information, including, but not limited
to, information concerning waste composition, waste management methods, facility engineering
plans and specifications, or the geology where the facility is located (30 TAC 335.6(b)). In
addition, the landfill is subject to general prohibitions against polluting water, creating a
nuisance, and endangering public health and welfare (30 TAC 335.4).
-------
47
Finally, in Colorado, if a CCW landfill is exempt from solid waste permitting
requirements because it is located on the waste generator's site and receives only waste
generated on that site, a Special Use Permit must be obtained from the local governing authority
(typically a County) for the landfill. Colorado law authorizes each local government to plan for
and regulate the use of land within its respective jurisdiction. To accomplish this, local
governments in Colorado have enacted land-use regulations that require approvals, including
Special Use Permits, for development. Special Use Permits are typically required for large-scale
industrial projects such as power plants (see, e.g., Rio Blanco County 2002).
3.2.1.2 Permitting Requirements for Surface Impoundments
Permitting requirements applicable to surface impoundments were reviewed for the five
pilot States (Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin) and six additional States
(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, and Texas). Pennsylvania is the only State reviewed
that requires a solid waste permit for all surface impoundments that receive CCWs. Wisconsin
also regulates surface impoundments used for disposal as solid waste landfills. Otherwise, in the
States reviewed, surface impoundments are regulated as water pollution control facilities rather
than as solid waste management units. In general, water pollution control facilities treat or store
wastewater, including industrial wastewater, and discharge it directly or indirectly into waters of
a State, which usually encompass both surface water and groundwater located wholly or partially
within the State.
All 11 States require surface impoundments that discharge wastewater from a point
source into State waters to obtain an NPDES permit (or the State equivalent), although
Wisconsin exempts from this requirement surface impoundments used for disposal, which are
thereby subject to regulation as solid waste disposal units. For surface impoundments receiving
CCWs that do not discharge from a point source (and thus are not required to obtain an NPDES
permit), seven of the States reviewed (Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, and
Virginia) require alternative water pollution control permits, and Texas requires compliance with
permitting requirements for solid waste landfills. Indiana, Missouri, and Virginia expressly
exclude surface impoundments that obtain water pollution control permits from solid waste
permitting requirements.
Ten of the 11 States reviewed allow requirements (e.g., installation of groundwater-
monitoring systems, liner systems, and leachate-control systems) to be placed in NPDES
permits, and other water pollution control permits, to protect human health and the environment.
In Pennsylvania, such requirements are placed into solid waste permits. It should also be noted
that in Florida such requirements may be placed into the PPSA certification rather than in water
pollution control permits for CCW surface impoundments located on-site at an electric
generating company.
-------
48
3.2.2 Findings
Table 22 summarizes the chronological comparisons of regulatory controls for landfills in
the States reviewed. As Section 2.2 explains, a total of 11 States—Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin—were reviewed
for regulatory designation of CCWs for disposal, permitting requirements, liner requirements,
groundwater-monitoring requirements, and leachate-collection system requirements. Five of the
11 States (i.e., the pilot study States)—Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
Wisconsin—were also reviewed for closure and post-closure requirements, corrective action
requirements, siting controls, and financial assurance.21 Because corrective action was not
addressed in either the 1988 RTC (EPA 1988) or the 1999 RTC (EPA 1999a), no chronological
comparison was made for corrective action. Similarly, the information in these RTCs was
insufficient to support an evaluation of changes over time in State regulations applicable to
surface impoundments. Therefore, changes over time were not evaluated for this report.
The terms used in Table 22 to describe the types of change observed during two time
periods—the period between collection of data for the 1999 RTC and collection of data for this
report (2005), and the period between collection of data for the 1988 RTC and 2005—are
defined in the footnotes. "Neutral" means that either it could not be ascertained from the
information reviewed whether any change occurred during the time frame indicated, or that the
information review suggested that no change occurred. For the period between collection of data
for the 1999 RTC and 2005, the change observed was "neutral" for either all or all but one State
in every category of regulatory control. This suggests that the absence of details about regulatory
controls in most States reviewed in the 1999 RTC and its supporting technical documents made
it difficult to ascertain whether regulatory changes occurred before or after data were collected
for the 1999 RTC for the majority of the States. However, for the period between data collection
for the 1988 RTC and 2005, the type of change observed for most States was either "tightened"
or "relaxed." Therefore, from these data it was possible to confirm that, during the period
between data collection for the 1988 RTC and 2005, the regulation of landfill liners, leachate-
collection systems, and groundwater monitoring tightened in most States reviewed.
Table 22 indicates which of the States reviewed for this report tightened, relaxed, or were
neutral with respect to regulatory controls in eight areas applicable to landfills between the times
data were collected for the 1988 RTC and for this report. For each area of regulatory control, the
total net disposable CCWs22 generated in 2004 in reviewed States that tightened controls were
2' For each State reviewed, an effort was made to identify regulations applicable to the disposal of CCWs in
landfills and surface impoundments, regardless of the program (e.g., solid waste, special waste, residual waste,
or wastewater) into which the State may place such regulations. Regulations covering beneficial use of CCWs
and placement of CCWs in mines were not reviewed.
22 "Net disposable CCWs" were determined for each State by subtracting the total amount of CCWs beneficially
used in the State during 2004 from the total amount of CCWs generated in the State during 2004, on the basis of
data from EIA (2004a). The "total net disposable CCWs" were calculated for each type of change in a
regulatory category (i.e., tightened, neutral, or relaxed) by summing the net disposable CCWs for all States
reviewed for this report that experienced that type of change.
-------
49
TABLE 22 Summary Results from Chronological Comparisons of Regulatory Controls for
Landfills in States Reviewed3
Category of Regulatory
Control
Type of Change
Regulatory Designation of
CCWsc
Tightened11
NeutraP
Relaxed*
Solid Waste Permitting1'
Tightened
Neutral
Relaxed
Liners'-'
Tightened
Neutral
Relaxed
Groundwater Monitoring0
Tightened
Neutral
Relaxed
Leachate Collection0
Tightened
Neutral
Relaxed
Closure and Post-Closure"
Tightened
Neutral
Relaxed
EPA /999to2005b
Number State
1
10
0
1
10
0
0
11
0
0
11
0
0
11
0
0
5
0
WI
AL, FL, GA, IL, IN,
MO, OH, PA, TX, VA
MO
AL, FL, GA, IL, IN,
OH. PA, TX, VA, WI
AL, FL, GA. IL, IN,
MO, OH, PA, TX, VA,
WI
AL, FL, GA, IL, IN,
MO, OH, PA, TX, VA.
WI
AL, FL. GA, IL, IN.
MO, OH. PA, TX, VA,
WI
IL, IN, PA, VA. WI
EPA 1988 to 2005
Number State
7 IL, IN, MO, OH, PA, TX,
WI
3 FL, GA, VA
1 AL
4 IN, MO, OH, PA
5 FL, GA, TX, VA, WI
2 AL, IL
8 GA. IL. IN, MO, OH, PA,
VA, WI
0
3 AL. FL, TX
8 GA. IL, IN, MO. OH, PA.
VA, WI
1 FL
2 AL. TX
8 GA, IL, IN, MO. OH, PA.
VA. WI
2 AL, TX
1 FL
3 IN, PA, VA
2 IL, WI
0
-------
TABLE 22 (Cont.)
Category of Regulatory
Control EPA 1999 to 2005b EPA 1988 to 2005
Type of Change Number State Number State
Sitingg
Tightened
Neutral
Relaxed
0
5 IL, IN, PA, VA, WI
0
3
2
0
IL, IN, VA
PA, WI
Financial Assurances
Tightened 0 2 IN, VA
Neutral 5 IL, IN, PA. VA, WI 3 IL, PA, WI
Relaxed 0 0
a A chronological comparison was not possible for corrective action requirements because the historical EPA
documents from which data were obtained did not address this area of regulatory control.
h For each category of regulatory control, a chronological comparison is provided for two time periods: (1) "EPA
1999 to 2005 Data," which is the time period between the time data were collected for the 1999 EPA Report to
Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuel (EPA 1999a) and the time data were collected for this
report, and (2) "EPA 1988 to 2005 Data," which is the time period between the time data were collected for the
1988 EPA Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants
(EPA 1988) and the time data were collected for this report.
c States reviewed for this regulatory category were Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
d "Tightened" means that during the time frame indicated in the column heading, specific requirements for
controls were added to the State's regulations where either none existed before, or prior requirements were less
tailored to the characteristics of the wastes being regulated.
e "Neutral" means that either it could not be ascertained from the information reviewed whether any change
occurred during the time frame indicated in the column heading, or the information reviewed suggested that no
change occurred.
f "Relaxed" means that the information reviewed suggested that some or all pre-existing regulatory controls in
the category of interest were removed during the time frame indicated in the column heading.
8 States reviewed for this regulatory category were Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
calculated from Table 1 and compared with the same quantity in reviewed States that relaxed
controls. The comparisons suggest that in all eight of the areas of regulatory control reviewed,
more net disposable CCWs in the States reviewed underwent a tightening of regulatory controls
than underwent a relaxation between the times data were collected for the 1988 RTC and for this
report. A summary of the comparison for each area of regulatory control is provided below.
• In the area of regulatory designation of CCWs, seven States (Illinois, Indiana,
Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin) experienced tightened
-------
57
controls, and one State (Alabama) experienced relaxed controls, with a ratio
of net disposable CCWs (relaxed:tightened) of 0.1:1.0.
In the area of solid waste permitting, four States (Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania) experienced tightened controls, and two States (Alabama and
Illinois) experienced relaxed controls, with a ratio of net disposable CCWs
(relaxed:tightened) of 0.34:1.0.
In the area of liner requirements, eight States (Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin) experienced
tightened controls, and three States (Alabama, Florida, and Texas)
experienced relaxed controls, with a ratio of net disposable CCWs (relaxed:
tightened) of 0.59:1.0.
In the area of groundwater-monitoring requirements, eight States (Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin)
experienced tightened controls, and two States (Alabama and Texas)
experienced relaxed controls, with a ratio of net disposable CCWs
(relaxed:tightened) of 0.50:1.0.
In the area of leachate-collection requirements, eight States (Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin) experienced
tightened controls, and one State (Florida) experienced relaxed controls, with
a ratio of net disposable CCWs (relaxed:tightened) of 0.086:1.0.
In the area of closure and post-closure requirements, three States (Indiana,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia) experienced tightened controls, and no States
experienced relaxed controls, with a ratio of net disposable CCWs
(relaxed:tightened) of 0.0:1.0.
In the area of siting requirements, three States (Illinois, Indiana, and Virginia)
experienced tightened controls, and no States experienced relaxed controls,
with a ratio of net disposable CCWs (relaxed:tightened) of 0.0:1.0.
In the area of financial assurance requirements, two States (Indiana and
Virginia) experienced tightened controls and no States experienced relaxed
controls, with a ratio of net disposable CCWs (relaxed:tightened) of 0.0:1.0.
3.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE REQUIREMENTS
Although current State regulatory programs to address the risks associated with CCW
disposal in landfills and surface impoundments examined in this report appear to have improved,
we did not have sufficient information on actual program implementation to confirm that the
intended protections were occurring. To assess the level to which regulators were implementing
the laws and regulations that had been enacted and promulgated, a review of permits issued for
-------
52
the surveyed units was conducted to identify the nature and extent of any variances to the
regulatory requirements. This section describes the findings associated with the review of
information in the CCW permits and follow-up interviews with utilities and States, where
necessary, to ascertain the degree to which regulators are implementing State requirements as
intended.
3.3.1 Overview of Variance Requests
The permit review found that from 1994 to 2004, 52 variances were requested by
operators of new or recently expanded disposal units in 9 of the 16 States containing surveyed
units: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia and
Wisconsin. No variance requests were identified in the remaining seven States: Michigan,
Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania. The
review also found that few of these requests were related to liners or groundwater monitoring.
For example, only four variances to groundwater-monitoring requirements were requested.
While all four were granted, they applied only to organic constituents not found in CCWs.
Similarly, only seven variances to liner requirements were requested. These were not to exempt
the units from using liners, but rather to allow the use of alternative construction methods or liner
materials. Of the seven liner variance requests, two were rejected, three were granted with
stipulations, and two were granted only after the protectiveness of the proposed alternatives was
demonstrated to the regulators. For one of the two liner requests granted, approval of a request to
use an alternative (unconventional) method to consolidate subgrade foundation soils was granted
after the success of the alternative approach was demonstrated at the specific site for which it
was requested. In the second case, permeability data for an alternative liner material (soil
combined with compacted Poz-O-Tec) submitted by the company demonstrated that the
permeability of the combination liner would be no greater than that allowed for the 3-ft
compacted soil liner specified in the regulations.
The following paragraphs describe the overall review of the variances requested and the
State agency responses; Section 3.3.2 describes specific variance requests. Appendix J
summarizes variance requests by State and category of requirement (e.g., liner, groundwater
protection standards); Appendix K provides, for each of the 52 variance requests, the variance
category, a description of the specific request, whether it was granted or not, a summary of the
regulation to which the variance applies, the citation of the regulation, and the host State of the
unit for which the variance was requested; and Appendix L provides, for each variance request,
the granting rationale (if granted), the revocation provisions (if any), and any comments that
further explain the variance.
In their survey responses, operators of surveyed units reported that 11 units in 6 States
had one or more variances in their permits. All were for landfills. Because the information in the
survey responses lacked the detail needed to investigate the variance issue thoroughly, we
examined all 65 permits received from unit operators (whether or not the associated survey
reported a variance) to determine whether variances had been requested and granted and, if so,
the rationale behind the decision.
-------
53
The survey responses reported that a total of 85 permits had been issued for the
45 surveyed units. (Section 3.1.5 describes the types of permits issued.) We asked for copies of
all 85 permits and received 65. These 65 permits were issued for 39 of the 45 surveyed units. The
analysis of all 65 permits found that 21 had variance requests, representing 19 units (2 units each
had 2 separate permits with variance requests). Eighteen of the units requesting variances were
landfills, and one was a surface impoundment. Of the 16 States with surveyed units, 9 had
permits with variance requests and 8 had granted variances. The review was conservative in that
it captured everything that could be construed as a variance. Thus, several conditions that we
considered to be variances were not identified as such in the permits. For example, a landfill in
Georgia has a design and operational plan that contains numerous conditions, such as "Methane
gas control is not necessary as no gases are generated from coal ash," which is not identified as a
variance in either the plan or the permit. Because some States consider such conditions
variances, we included them as such in this study. As a result, if anything, the number of
variances for the surveyed units for the permits reviewed is overestimated rather than
underestimated.
Because individual permits often contain multiple variance requests (e.g., 1 permit had
6 variance requests), the total number of requests was 52. Of the 52 requests, 5 were rejected and
47 were granted. Of the 47 granted, 16 were granted with stipulations (e.g., provisions that would
revoke or alter the variance if certain conditions are not met). Twelve were granted because the
requirement from which the variance was sought (e.g., landfill gas monitoring) applied to a
municipal solid waste or commercial landfill and was not appropriate to a CCW disposal unit.
Six were identified and included as granted variances even though the permit itself did not
characterize them as variances. All 6 of these variances were associated with 1 permit. They
were included as variance requests in the database because sometimes other States consider
waivers of the types of requirements covered to be variances. For example, one of these requests
was to waive the fire protection measures otherwise required by the State regulations. Ten
variances were granted because the State regulations provide for variances if it can be
demonstrated that the proposed alternative meets or exceeds the environmental performance of
the requirement from which the variance is requested. Three variances were granted for other
reasons. For example, in one case, it appears that the regulator included the variance in a permit
because an identical variance was granted for an earlier stage of the landfill.
Table 23 shows, for each State that received variance requests, the number of units
requesting variances and the number of variances requested, rejected, and granted. It also
identifies, for the variances that were granted, the number granted with restrictions, the number
that were for requirements not germane to CCWs, the number that the regulations expressly
allow if performance meets or exceeds the standards, and the number that were granted for other
reasons.
3.3.2 Discussion of Variance Requests by Category
Variances were requested in the following categories: liners, groundwater monitoring,
closure and post-closure, cover/dust controls, groundwater protection, and "other." The "other"
-------
TABLE 23 Variance Requests and Disposition by State for Surveyed CCW Units
Variances
Summary Explanations for Granted Variances8
State
FL
GA
IL
IN
MN
OH
VA
WI
WV
Total
No.
of
Units
1
1
3
4
2
2
3
1
2
19
Requested
2
6
4
8
4
5
8
4
11
52
Rejected
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
5
Granted
0
6
4
8
4
3
8
3
11
47
Restrictions
on Variance
0
0
0
7
1
1
4
3
0
16
Requirement
Not Germane
to CCWb
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
8
12
Not
Considered
Variance in
Permit0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Regulations Allow
Flexibility with
Demonstrated
Performance
0
0
3
1
1
2
1
0
2
10
Otherd
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
3
a Included in variances granted.
h For example, a regulation developed for municipal solid waste or commercial landfill.
c Included because other States treat request as a variance.
For example, in one case it appears that the regulator included a variance in the landfill permit because it was granted for an
earlier stage of the landfill. In another case, wetlands must be added in a 2:1 ratio to compensate for location nearer surface water
than allowed, and in yet a third case, a variance was granted on the basis of findings in the engineering report.
-------
55
category includes several one-of-a-kind or other rarely requested variances, such as fire
protection and signage. It is important to note that most of the requests (with the exception of
those addressing requirements that were developed for municipal solid waste or commercial
landfills that are not appropriate to CCW disposal units) were not to exempt the unit from the
requirement, but rather to allow for an alternative approach or material that would accomplish
the same objective.
Table 24 summarizes the categories of variance requests by State, and the following
sections discuss individual categories of variances. Three appendices provide additional variance
information. Appendix J shows the number of identified variance requests for all variance
categories (including the individual types within the "other" category) for the States with
surveyed units; Appendix K provides, for each disposal unit, a description of the variance, the
variance category, the regulation for which the variance was requested, and whether it was
granted or not; and Appendix L provides, for each unit and variance request, the granting
rationale (if appropriate), any revocation provisions, and additional comments.
3.3.2.1 Liner Variance Requests
Seven requests (covering six units) were made for variances to liner requirements. All
were for landfills. None of the applicants asked that their units be exempted from the installation
of liners. Rather, the requests were for technical variances to construction method, liner
materials, or liner requirements for the leachate-collection system that would provide protection
equal to or greater than the liner system specified in the regulations. Variance requests were
made in four States (Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana, and Wisconsin). Before granting a variance
TABLE 24 Summary of Variance Request Categories by State for Surveyed CCW Units
Category of Variance Request
Surveyed
States with
Variance
Requests
FL
GA
IL
IN
MN
OH
VA
WI
wv
Total
Total
T
6
4
8
4
5
8
4
11
52
Liner
Requirements
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
1
2
7
Groundwater
Monitoring
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
Closure/
Post-
Closure
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
Cover/Dust
Controls
0
1
3
5
0
o
0
0
4
15
Groundwater-
Protection
Standards
2
0
0
0
1
0
3
"i
0
8
Othera
0
4
1
0
3
0
1
1
5
15
Includes cell height, fire protection, landfill gas/methane, leachale collection, location, pre-sitint
signs, solid waste management plans, and standards for sewage works.
-------
56
request, the State regulatory agencies require operators to demonstrate that proposed alternatives
provide equal or better environmental performance, and include permit provisions that allow
variances to be revisited based on environmental performance. Table 25 summarizes the types of
liner variance requests, whether they were granted or rejected, and the granting/rejection
rationale.
3.3.2.2 Groundwater-Monitoring Variance Requests
Three of the 45 surveyed units requested variances to the groundwater-monitoring
requirements. One unit requested two variances, but for different stages of unit development;
thus, there were a total four variance requests. All of these requests were for Virginia landfills,
and each requested a variance only to the broad nonhazardous industrial waste requirement to
monitor for organic constituents. In the State of Virginia, the disposal of CCWs not beneficially
used is regulated in the same manner as disposal of other nonhazardous industrial solid wastes.
This includes a requirement that groundwater be monitored for a set of constituents that includes
organics. CCWs do not contain appreciable levels of organics. However, the permit requirements
for each of these landfills call for the monitoring of numerous other constituents, including
mercury, as well as other toxic metals and inorganics. The number of monitoring wells at each of
the three units ranges from 11 to 17.
3.3.2.3 Closure/Post-Closure Requirements
Three of the surveyed units, all landfills, requested variances for some aspect of
closure/post-closure controls. Two were requested in Indiana, and one in Georgia. Both of the
variances requested in Indiana were granted with the stipulation that the variance would be
revoked if the conditions included as part of the regulatory agency's decision were not met.
Table 26 summarizes the closure and post-closure variances requested by the surveyed units.
3.3.2.4 Cover/Dust Controls
Fifteen requests (for 10 units) were made for variances to daily or intermediate cover
requirements. All were for landfills. Of these, seven were granted with stipulations, three were
granted because the regulations provide for alternatives that offer equal or better environmental
protection, and five were granted because the requirements were designed to protect against
vectors at municipal solid waste landfills. Cover variances were requested and granted in Ohio
(two, both for the same unit), West Virginia (four [two each: one daily and one intermediate] for
two separate units), Georgia (one), Indiana (five, two each for two separate units plus one for a
third unit), and Illinois (three, two of which were for the same unit). Table 27 summarizes the
daily and intermediate cover variance requests.
-------
57
TABLE 25 Disposition of Liner Variance Requests for Surveyed Units
Variance Request
State
Granted or
Rejected
Granting/Rejection Rationale
To use a coarser material to construct
the liner than that required by the
reeulations.
To use an alternative means for
densifying the suhgrade foundation
soils below the liner system prior to
constructing the liner system.
To waive the requirement that a
surface impoundment receiving
leachate from a landfill's drainage
system have a double liner.a
To waive the requirement that a
surface impoundment receiving
leachate from a landfill's drainage
system have a double liner.a
To allow a penetration through a side-
slope of the liner to accommodate a
gravity drain to the leachate-collection
tank.
To use an alternative means for
densifying the subgrade foundation
soils below the liner system prior to
constructing the liner system.
To allow the use of 1 ft of soil and 2 ft
of compacted Poz-O-Tec (a blended
mixture of FGD scaibber sludge, fly
ash, and lime) for a liner, rather than
3 ft of soil, as specified in the
reeulations.
OH Rejected
WV Granted,
with
stipulations
OH Rejected The variance request was for a larger particle size than required
in the regulations for an isolation zone, not the liner itself. The
request was rejected because the data used in the request were
based on a nearby facility and the regulator wanted data from
the specific facility at which the substitute material would be
used.
The request was not a variance from any regulatory
requirements, but to use an alternative (unconventional) method
to consolidate subgrade foundation soils. Nonetheless, it was
rejected because its success had not been demonstrated.
The West Virginia Solid Waste Management Rule allows
options for liner systems for surface impoundments receiving
leachate (as distinguished from surface impoundments
receiving CCWs). The rule requires that an appropriate
groundwater interceptor drainage system be installed under all
liner systems. Thus, the CCW landfill has a leachate collection
system under its 2-ft compacted clay liner, and a leachate
collection pond (surface impoundment) receives any collected
leachate. The variance applies to the liner for the landfill's
leachate collection pond.
WV Granted, The West Virginia Solid Waste Management Rule allows
with options for liner systems for surface impoundments receiving
stipulations leachale (as distinguished from surface impoundments
receiving CCWs). The rule requires that an appropriate
groundwater interceptor drainage system be installed under all
liner systems. Thus, the CCW landfill has a leachate collection
system under its 2-ft compacted clay liner, and a leachate
collection pond (surface impoundment) receives any collected
leachate. The variance applies to the liner for the landfill's
leachate collection pond.
WI Granted, The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources reserves the
with right to require the submittal of additional information and to
stipulations modify this approval at any time, if in the Department's
opinion, modifications are necessary.
OH Granted The request was not a variance from any regulatory
requirements, but to use an alternative (unconventional) method
to consolidate subgrade foundation soils. Approval was granted
once the success of the alternative approach was demonstrated
at the specific site for which it was requested.
IN Granted Permeability data for compacted Poz-O-Tec submitted by the
company demonstrated that the permeability of the soil/
Poz-O-Tec combination liner would be no greater than that
allowed for the .Vt't compacted soil liner specified in the
regulations. The variance applies to an expansion area in the
landfill that has not yet been constructed.
These are two separate landfills in two separate locations.
-------
58
TABLE 26 Variance Requests by Surveyed Units Pertaining to Closure and Post-Closure
Requirements
Variance Request
State
Granted or
Rejected
Granting/Rejection Rationale
To allow the use of 2.5 ft of fine
sandy loam soils for the final cover
rather than 2 ft of soil of Unified Soil
Classification and 6 in. of vegetative
topsoil, as specified in the
regulations.
To allow the use of ash, ash/soil
mixture, and 40-mil low-density
polyethylene as final cover, rather
than compacted soil as the
regulations specify.
To waive the leachate collection and
treatment otherwise required during
the post-closure care period.
IN Granted, State regulations allow the use of alternative cover material if it
with can be demonstrated that an alternate cover or site design will
stipulations provide an adequate level of environmental protection. The
material being placed into the landfill (Poz-O-Tec) is an
engineered material containing a mixture of FGD sludges and fly
ashes that are stabilized with lime. Poz-O-Tec is a relatively
impermeable material that is not significantly infiltrated by
rainwater. Thus, it is important to provide lateral drainage at the
interface between the final cover on the landfill and the Poz-O-
Tec; the composition of the final cover specified in the variance
accomplishes this better than the composition specified in the
regulations. Also, Poz-O-Tec leaches significantly fewer toxic
constituents than materials in a municipal landfill, which is the
landfill type for which the regulations were intended. If
vegetation is not established to the satisfaction of the State, soils
specified in the regulation will be required.
IN Granted, State regulations allow the use of alternative cover material if it
with can be demonstrated that an alternate cover or site design will
stipulations provide an adequate level of environmental protection. The
alternative requested provides a more protective final cover than
would be provided by 2 ft of soil as otherwise required by the
regulations. The variance will be revoked if the permittee chooses
not to use the mixtures described or if the mixture cannot be
proven to have a permeability of I x 10° cm/s.
GA Granted Leachate collection and treatment are not deemed necessary
during post-closure care because of the nontoxic, nonhazardous
nature of the ash to be disposed of in the monofill. (The materials
disposed of are 75% fly ash and 25% bottom ash.)
3.3.2.5 Groundwater-Protection Standards
Eight requests, covering five units, were made for variances to the groundwater-
protection standards. Three units requested two variances each, and two requested one variance
each. All of these requests were for landfills. Two requests were granted, three were rejected,
and three were granted with stipulations. The requests were made in the following four States:
Virginia (three, two for the same unit), Florida (two, both for the same unit), Wisconsin (two,
both for the same unit), and Minnesota (one). The granted variances did not authorize
exceedences of any generally applicable groundwater protection standards. In one case, the State
(Minnesota) used variance provisions in the regulations as the mechanism for incorporating
updated health-based standards into the permit in place of the standards specified in the
regulations. In the other case, groundwater-protection standards at solid waste management units
are established for constituents that lack background data or EPA-established MCLs based on
case-specific proposals submitted by unit operators. Because the operator had not yet submitted
proposed groundwater-protection standards, it did not yet consider itself to have been granted the
-------
59
TABLE 27 Variance Requests by Surveyed Units Pertaining to Daily and Intermediate Cover
Requirements
Variance Request
State
Granted or
Rejected
Granting/Rejection Rationale
To allow the cementitious surface that
forms when the FGD waste is placed
in the Phase B area of the landfill to
he a substitute for the required
intermediate cover consisting of a
12-in.-thick layer of soil.a
To allow the cementitious surface that
forms when the FGD waste is placed
in the Phase A area of the landfill to
be a substitute for the required
intermediate cover consisting of a
12-in.-thick layer of soil.11
To waive the requirement for a cover
with greater than 6 in. of compacted
cover material at the end of each
operating day.h
To waive the requirement for cover
with greater than 6 in. of compacted
cover material at the end of each
operating day.b
To waive the regulatory requirement
that 12 in. of compacted intermediate
cover material be placed on landfill
areas exposed to weather for periods
in excess of 30 days.c
To waive the regulatory requirement
that 12 in. of compacted intermediate
cover material be placed on landfill
areas exposed to weather for periods
in excess of 30 days.c
To waive the daily cover otherwise
required by the regulations.
OH Granted, The variance will not create a nuisance or a health hazard and is
with unlikely to result in the violation of any regulations. If the lack
stipulations of an intermediate soil cover proves ineffective in minimizing
infiltration, or is otherwise unsatisfactory to the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, or likely to result in a
nuisance or health hazard or violation of any regulations, then
the variance may be revoked. Upon revocation, placement of an
intermediate cover must immediately begin in accordance with
the requirements of the otherwise applicable Ohio
Administrative Code rule.
OH Granted. The variance will not create a nuisance or a health hazard and is
with unlikely to result in the violation of any regulations. If the lack
stipulations of intermediate soil cover proves ineffective in minimizing
infiltration, or is otherwise unsatisfactory to the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, or likely to result in a
nuisance or health hazard or violation of any regulations, then
the variance may be revoked. Upon revocation, placement of an
intermediate cover must immediately begin in accordance with
the requirements of the otherwise applicable Ohio
Administrative Code rule.
WV Granted Requirements for daily cover are not necessary for this unit
because coal ash should not cause vector problems, windblown
litter, or other problems associated with municipal waste. Also.
this facility is to be constructed as a structural landfill and thus
would not utilize cells or daily cover.
WV Granted Requirements for daily cover are not necessary for this unit
because of the fact that coal ash should not cause vector
problems, windblown litter, or other problems associated with
municipal waste. Also, this facility is to be constructed as a
structural landfill and thus would not utilize cells or daily
cover.
WV Granted Requirements for intermediate cover are not necessary because
coal ash is not expected to cause vector problems, windblown
litter, or other problems associated with municipal waste. Also,
the facility is to he constructed as a structural landfill and thus
would not utilize cells or daily cover.
WV Granted Requirements for an intermediate cover are not necessary
because coal ash is not expected to cause vector problems,
windblown litter, or other problems associated with municipal
waste. Also, the facility is to be constructed as a structural
landfill and thus would not utilize cells or daily cover.
GA Granted CCWs will be loaded, transported, unloaded, and placed in a
condition at, or near, optimum moisture content. When
compacted at, or near, optimum moisture, the CCW will form a
surface crust that will prevent blowing dust, thereby
eliminating the need for operational cover. Since no blowing
trash or disease vectors will be present, a daily cover is not
ret
-------
60
TABLE 27 (Cent.)
Variance Request
Granted or
State Rejected
Granting/Rejection Rationale
To waive the monthly cover and
semiannual permeability testing
otherwise required by the
regulations.d
IN Granted.
with
stipulations
To allow the use of Soil-Sement , a
polymer-based material, as an
intermediate cover rather than 1 ft of
clay type soil, as the regulations
specify."1
IN
Granted,
with
stipulations
To waive the intermediate cover
otherwise required by the regulations.
IN
Granted,
with
stipulations
To allow the use of sandy loam soil
for intermediate cover rather than soil
of Unified Soil Classification, as
specified in the regulations.
IN Granted,
with
stipulations
The Phase III design includes a composite liner constructed by
using 12 in. of clay having a permeability of 1 x 10"7, a 60-mil
high-density polyethylene geomembrane, and a leachate-
collection system. Accordingly, the State agreed to eliminate
the semiannual permeability testing requirement for the lined
cell and to lengthen the time period between required
application of an intermediate cover (from monthly to 90 days
in unused areas), provided that adequate dust control measures
remain in place. The variance can be revoked if dust emissions
are not satisfactorily controlled.
The regulator has the authority to approve an alternative cover
if it can be demonstrated that the alternative will provide an
adequate level of environmental protection. The operator plans
to use the Soil-Sement polymer as an intermediate cover to
control dust in unused or seldom-used fill areas and to control
rainfall infiltration to minimize leachate formation. Properly
applied Soil-Sement is more effective at repelling storm water
than the soil cover specified in the regulations. Agency
personnel observed an area of the landfill treated with this
product, were familiar with use of Soil-Sement at other coal
combustion facilities in the State, and have been satisfied that
Soil-Sement is an effective alternative to soil cover for this
type of facility. In the event that the alternative cover material
does not perform as intended, or does not appear to be
equivalent to I ft of intermediate cover soil, 1 ft of an
intermediate cover of clay type soil may be required by
329 IAC l()-28-12(a)(3).
The regulations were developed for municipal landfills, for
which vectors and fugitive dust are problems. Because the
CCWs (fly ash and FGD sludge) are composed of inorganic
constituents, vector control is not needed. Also, dusting from
coal combustion products can be controlled by using
compaction techniques and water. The facility has developed
and implemented a fugitive dust control plan. The variance can
be revoked if there is a documented violation of the
requirement to maintain sediment control structures and
drainage ditches or if it is documented that fugitive dust is
creating a nuisance.
State regulations allow for the use of covers other than the
designated soil types if it can be demonstrated that an alternate
cover or site design will provide an adequate level of
environmental protection. The material being placed into the
landfill is Poz-O-Tec, an engineered material containing a
mixture of FGD sludges and fly ashes that are stabilized with
lime. Poz-O-Tec is a relatively impermeable material that is not
infiltrated significantly by rainwater. Thus, it is important to
provide lateral drainage at the interface between the
intermediate cover on the landfill and the Poz-O-Tec. The
composition of the intermediate cover specified in the variance
-------
61
TABLE 27 (Cont.)
Variance Request
State
Granted or
Rejected
Granting/Rejection Rationale
To allow the use of conditioned fly
ash as an alternative daily cover
rather than at least 6 in. of clean soil,
as the regulations specify.
accomplishes this better than the composition specified in the
regulations. In addition, Poz-O-Tec in this coal combustion
by-product monofill leaches significantly less toxic
constituents than materials in a municipal landfill, which is the
landfill type to which the regulations were intended to apply. If
vegetation is not established to the satisfaction of the State,
soils specified in the regulation will be required.
IL Granted The daily cover regulations allow alternative materials or
procedures as long as they meet the same standards of
performance as 6 in. of soil. Data included in the permit
application included an analysis of the conditioned fly ash and
a description of its properties to demonstrate that, when
hardened, it is an even better sealant than the standard 6 in. of
soil. The permit specifies that the conditioned fly ash must be
used in compliance with the way its use was described in the
permit application.
IL Granted State regulations allow flexibility in cover design, as long as
the alternative can meet the same performance standard as the
design specified in the regulations. Data included in the permit
application included an analysis of the conditioned fly ash and
a description of its properties to demonstrate that, when
hardened, it is a better filter than the standard 6 in. of soil.
IL Granted State regulations allow flexibility in cover design, as long as
the alternative can meet the same performance standard as the
design specified in the regulations. Data included in the permit
application included an analysis of the conditioned fly ash and
a description of its properties to demonstrate that, when
hardened, it is a better filter than the standard 12 in. of soil.
IN Granted, Almost 90% of the materials disposed of at the landfill are wet
with FGD sludge. The company's landfill operating plan, which was
stipulations the basis for the variance request and which was approved by
the regulatory agency, requires compacting and curing of
stabilized sludge to minimize wind and water erosion and
fugitive dust generation, and it also requires plant water trucks
to moisten surfaces where vehicular dust may be generated.
Variance can be revoked if there is a documented violation of
the requirement to maintain sediment control structures and
drainage ditches or documented evidence that fugitive dust is
creating a nuisance.
To allow the use of conditioned fly
ash as an alternative daily cover
rather than at least 6 in. of clean soil,
as the regulations specify.6
To allow the use of conditioned fly
ash as an intermediate cover rather
than 1 ft of compacted clean soil
material, as required by the
regulations.6
To waive the intermediate cover
otherwise required by the regulations.
a These variances are for the same unit.
h These are two separate units in two separate locations.
c These are two separate units in two separate locations.
d These variances are for the same unit.
e These variances are for the same unit.
-------
62
variance. However, the State (Virginia) appears to have included the variance language in the
permit for the purpose of administrative efficiency. Two other stages of the same landfill have
already been approved for this variance, and the operator plans to apply for the variance as soon
as adequate supporting data are collected, which is likely to occur before the existing permit
requires renewal. Although no revocation provisions were specified, in a parallel variance for
earlier-stage landfills at the same site, the permit provided that if any of the conditions in the
variance were violated, the variance would be immediately withdrawn. Table 28 summarizes the
variance requests pertaining to groundwater-protection standards.
3.3.2.6 Other Variance Requests
Other variance requests pertain to the following types of requirements: cell height, fire
protection, landfill gas/methane, leachate collection, location, pre-siting, signs, solid waste
management plans, and standards for sewage works. Information on these requests is provided in
Table 29 and is summarized below. Appendices K and L provide further details.
For each of the following types—cell height, fire protection, pre-siting, signs, solid waste
management plans, and standards for sewage works—one variance was requested. All six of
these requests were granted, because the regulations for which the variance was requested were
not germane to CCW disposal.
Five requests pertained to landfill gas/methane monitoring requirements. Three were
requests to waive the requirement for management (monitoring, collection and treatment) of
decomposition gases generated within a landfill. All three were granted, because the waste
disposed of does not produce waste gases. Two requests were to waive the requirements to
monitor for methane or decomposition gas. Both were granted for the same reason (the waste
does not produce gases). In one case, the State (Minnesota) stated that if operational records or
other reports indicate possible decomposition gas production in or around the facility, the
Commissioner reserves the right to require monitoring.
Two requests pertained to leachate collection. One requested a waiver to the leachate-
collection and treatment system otherwise required by the regulations. It was granted because the
ash being disposed of is nontoxic. The other requested a variance to allow leachate to flow more
than 130 ft across the base of the liner before encountering a perforated leachate-collection pipe.
This variance was granted, but the State (Wisconsin) regulator reserved the right to require the
submittal of additional information and to modify the approval at any time, if, in the regulator's
opinion, modifications were necessary.
Two of the requests pertained to location requirements. One was to waive the prohibition
on locating a new solid waste landfill above an underground mine. This request was granted
because the State (West Virginia) Department of Environmental Protection found that the site
had an acceptable margin of safety. The second request was to allow the unit to be located within
100 ft of a regularly flowing surface water body or river, which the regulations otherwise
prohibit. This request was granted, but the permit requires the company to mitigate 2.8 acres of
affected wetlands by adding emergent wetlands in a 2:1 ratio and imposes additional conditions.
-------
63
TABLE 28 Variance Requests by Surveyed Units Pertaining to Groundwater-Protection
Standards
Variance Request
State
Granted or
Rejected
Granting/Rejection Rationale
To allow the use of alternative
concentration limits (ACLs) as
groundwater-protection standards for
copper, silver, and zinc rather than
the maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) or background
concentrations as otherwise required
by the regulations.
To allow development of a landfill in
an area where the preventive action
limit (PAL) for lead in ground water
has been attained or exceeded rather
than prohibiting such development,
as the regulations specify.3
To allow development of a landfill in
an area where the PAL for selenium
in groundwater has been attained or
exceeded.11
VA Granted, The director may grant a variance to State groundwater-
with protection standards to an owner or operator of a solid waste
stipulations disposal facility by establishing an ACL for a solid waste
constituent if the owner or operator shows to the satisfaction of
the director that the constituent will not pose a substantial
present or potential hazard to human health or the environment
as long as the ACL is not exceeded. The Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality rationale for granting the variance was
based on using groundwater as a future potential source of
drinking water. It used conservative calculations for the most
receptive sensor, a child. If an MCL is promulgated under
Section 1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act for any of the
constituents covered by the variance, the new MCL will be used
as the groundwater-protection standard for that respective
constituent.
WI Rejected Mean baseline concentrations at three wells approach, but do
not exceed the PAL for lead. No lead exemption is needed at
these wells since six of the eight test results are nondetect. A
company representative explained that the variance was
requested because there had been lead mining in the area
surrounding the landfill, which suggested the possibility that
background lead levels in groundwater might be at or higher
than the PAL. Notwithstanding, baseline monitoring showed
that mean baseline concentrations at three wells approach, but
do not exceed, the PAL for lead, which signaled that no
variance was needed. Since compliance monitoring began in
June 2001, no lead has been detected.
Wl Granted, Groundwater concentrations for selenium that exceed
with groundwater standards are due to baseline groundwater quality.
stipulations The proposed unit will not cause the concentration of selenium
to exceed the enforcement standard for selenium at the point of
standards application because of the landfill's liner and
leachate-collection system design. Granting the exemption will
not inhibit compliance with Wisconsin solid waste management
standards. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
reserves the right to require the submittal of additional
information and to modify this approval at any time, if in the
Department's opinion, modifications are necessary.
-------
64
TABLE 28 (Cont.)
Variance Request
State
Granted or
Rejected
Granting/Rejection Rationale
To allow ambient values for iron and
color in groundwater to exceed the
secondary drinking water quality
standards rather than comply with
the secondary drinking water
standards, as the regulations specify.b
FL Rejected Consideration of the variance request was postponed until
2 years after start of plant operations, awaiting a demonstration
that levels of iron and color in the groundwater already exceed
the secondary drinking water standards.
A company representative explained that because the facility
did not pursue any further consideration of the variance request,
no action was taken by the regulatory agency on approving or
denying it. The request had been included in the permit
application as a placeholder based on predictive modeling that
iron and color in the groundwater might exceed the secondary
drinking water standard. The model included historical data and
site conditions; the area on which the utility facility was built in
1995 was an area tilled with mine pits. The area had not been in
use for several years prior to 1995 and was leveled to allow for
utility facility construction. Note: The company requested two
variances based on predictive modeling. The agency deferred
consideration of the variance requests for 2 years pending
collection of actual groundwater monitoring data. The company
never submitted groundwater-monitoring data or pursued the
variances further.
FL Rejected Consideration of the variance request was postponed until
2 years after start of plant operations, awaiting a demonstration
that levels of antimony in the cooling pond exceed the drinking
water standards. A company representative explained that
because the facility did not pursue any further consideration of
the variance request, no action was taken by the regulatory
agency on approving or denying it. The request had been
included in the permit application as a placeholder based on
predictive modeling that antimony in the groundwater might
exceed the secondary drinking water standard. The model
included historical data and site conditions; the area on which
the utility facility was built in 1995 was an area filled with mine
pits. The area had not been in use for several years prior to 1995
and was leveled to allow for utility facility constaiction. Note:
The company requested two variances based on predictive
modeling. The agency deferred consideration of the variance
requests for 2 years pending collection of actual groundwater-
monitoring data. The company never submitted groundwater-
monitoring data or pursued the variances further.
MN Granted The alternative groundwater-performance standards are based
on the Minnesota Department of Health, Health Risk Limits.
The analytical limits set forth in the permit do not constitute a
variance: the State uses variance provisions in the regulations as
the basis for incorporating updated health-based standards into
permits in place of the standards specified in the regulations.
Apparently this is more efficient than changing the regulations
every time_health-based_stand_a_rds_are undated.
To allow the concentration of
antimony in groundwater to exceed
the drinking water quality standard,
rather than comply with the drinking
water standard, as the regulations
specify.b
To establish analytical limits set
forth in the Limits Table in the
permit as groundwater-protection
standards rather than the otherwise-
applicable groundwater protection
standards.
-------
TABLE 28 (Cont.)
65
Variance Request
State
Granted or
Rejected
Granting/Rejection Rationale
To allow Landfill Stages I and II to
use ACLs as groundwater-protection
standards (GPSs) for specified
constituents that lack background
data or an EPA MCL.C
To allow Landfill Stage III to use
ACLs as GPSs for specified
constituents that lack background
data, or an EPA MCL.C
VA Granted, The owner or operator may request and the director may
with establish alternate concentration levels as groundwater-
stipulations protection standards for any constituent for which MCLs have
not been established or for which site-specific background data
are unavailable. If any of the conditions in the variance are
violated in any form or manner, the variance will be
immediately withdrawn.
VA Granted11 The owner/operator may request and the director may establish
ACLs as GPSs for any constituent for which site-specific
background data are unavailable. Although no revocation
provisions were specified, in a parallel variance for Stages I and
II landfills, the variance provides that if any of the conditions in
the variance are violated in any form or manner, the variance
will be immediately withdrawn.
a These variance requests are for the same unit.
b These variance requests are for the same unit.
c These variance requests are for the same unit.
d Since the company has not yet submitted proposed groundwater-protection standards and does not yet consider itself to
have been granted this variance for ACLs and GPSs, the company believes that the State included the variance language in
the permit for the purpose of administrative efficiency.
-------
66
TABLE 29 Variance Requests by Surveyed Units Pertaining to "Other" Regulatory
Requirements
Number of Variances
Variance
Type
State Granted
Granted with
Restrictions
Granting Rationale
Cell height
Fire
protection
Landfill
gas/methane
WV
GA
MN
WV
0 Unit is constructed as a structural landfill and does not utilize
cells; coal ash does not cause vector problems, windblown
litter, or other problems associated with municipal waste.
0 Fire protection measures are not required for a coal combustion
by-products monofill.
1 Waste being disposed of is not putrescible or biodegradable;
waste disposed of does not produce waste gases. Therefore, no
need for gas management.
Leachate
collection
GA
WI
Location
requirements
VA
WV
Pre-siting
Signs
Solid waste
management
plan
Standards for
sewage
works
WV
GA
MN
IL
WI: Upon review of engineering design, regulator was
satisfied that it would provide adequate drainage, thus
protecting human health and the environment. The Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources reserves the right to require
the submittal of additional information and to modify this
approval at any time, if in the Department's opinion,
modifications are necessary.
GA: Leachate collection and treatment deemed unnecessary
due to the nontoxic, nonhazardous nature of the ash to be
disposed of in the monofill.
VA: Because no other siting options were available for
treatment pond expansion, a variance allowing the unit to be
located within 100 ft of the water body was requested and
granted, and mitigation of the impacted wetland area was
required.
WV: An engineering company report on the safety of locating
the unit above an underground mine was reviewed by the West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, and it was
found that the site had an acceptable margin of safety.
Requirements (waiver of requirement to serve public notice)
are for commercial facilities, and the unit is not a commercial
Because only utility personnel are to use this site, no
directional or informational signs are required.
Waste management plan is not necessary because waste
disposal operations are restricted to specified waste types
The piping system was not expected to be an integral part of a
sewage works system; thus, sewage works standards were not
appropriate.
-------
67
4 CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of information presented in the 1999 RTC, the EPA determined in its
May 2000 RD that national Subtitle D regulations for CCW disposal in landfills and surface
impoundments were warranted. The data collection and analysis documented in this report
provide new information on the management of CCWs from 1994 to 2004. This information
indicates that improved disposal unit management practices and State application of
environmental regulations appear to be occurring.
A comprehensive review of information on the 56 identified landfills and surface
impoundments permitted, built, or expanded between 1994 and 2004 indicates that disposal
management practices and the enforcement of State requirements has resulted in liners for
virtually all newly built or expanded units (97% of landfills and 100% of surface impoundments)
and groundwater monitoring for the majority of units (97% of landfills and nearly 80% of
surface impoundments).
A review of the regulations for 11 States indicates that between the time when data were
collected for the 1988 RTC and the time of this study, a majority of the States reviewed for this
report tightened regulation of landfill liners, leachate-collection systems, and groundwater
monitoring. In addition, comparisons of the total net disposable CCWs generated during 2004 in
reviewed States that tightened controls with the same quantity in reviewed States that relaxed
controls suggest that more net disposable CCWs in the States reviewed underwent a tightening
rather than a relaxation of regulatory controls in eight regulatory areas, between the times data
were collected for the 1988 RTC and for this report. However, the absence of details about most
States' regulatory controls in the 1999 RTC and its supporting technical documents made it not
possible to ascertain whether particular regulatory changes occurred before or after data were
collected for the 1999 RTC in most of the States reviewed.
A detailed analysis of variance requests in 65 permits in 16 States indicates that State
regulators have not issued variances unless a sound scientific basis supports the request.
Variances are generally granted only when the underlying regulation was developed for settings
unlike those of CCW units (e.g., a municipal solid waste or commercial landfill where landfill
gas or vectors are issues), or when the operator has demonstrated that an alternative approach or
material will achieve the same objective as intended by the regulation.
-------
o
Oc
-------
69
5 REFERENCES
ACAA 2004
EIA 2004a
EIA 2004b
EIA 2006a
EIA 2006b
EPA 1988
EPA 1993
EPA 1999a
EPA 1999b
American Coal Ash Association, 2004, "Coal Combustion Product (CCP)
Production and Use Survey." Available at http://www.acaa-usa.org/PDF/
2004 CCP Survey(9-9-05).pdf.
Energy Information Administration, 2004a, "Annual Steam-Electric Plant
Operation and Design Data, EIA-767 Data Files." Available at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia767.html.
Energy Information Administration, 2004b, "Existing Generating Units in
the United States by State, Company and Plant." Available at http://www.
eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/capacity/newunits2004.xls.
Energy Information Administration, 2006a, e-mail message from N. Ko
(Survey Manager, EIA 767, Electric Power Division, Energy Information
Administration) regarding data clarification for Kentucky and Connecticut
to D. Littleton (U.S. Department of Energy), April 15.
Energy Information Administration, 2006b, e-mail message from N. Ko
(Survey Manager, EIA 767, Electric Power Division, Energy Information
Administration) regarding data clarification for Delaware to M.A. Hunt
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III), July 20.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, Report to Congress: Wastes
from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants, EPA/530-
SW-88-002 (based on data reported in Utility Solid Waste Activity Group,
Survey of State Laws and Regulations Governing Disposal of Utility Coal-
Combustion Byproducts, 1983), Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993, "Final Regulatory
Determination on Four Large-Volume Wastes from the Combustion of
Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants, 40 CFR Part 261, 58 Federal
Register 42466, Aug. 9.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999a, Report to Congress:
Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels, EPA 530-R-99-010,
Washington, DC, March.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999b, Technical Background
Document for the Report to Congress on Remaining Wastes from Fossil
Fuel Combustion: Existing State Regulatory Controls, Washington, DC,
March 15.
-------
70
EPA 2000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, "Regulatory Determination
on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels: Final Rule, 40 CFR
Part 261, 65 Federal Register 32214, May 22.
Rio Blanco Rio Blanco County Development Department, 2002, Rio Blanco County
County 2002 Land Use Resolution, "County Zoning, Subdivision Rules, Approval
Processes, and Standards," Revision B, Section 224, Meeker, Colorado,
Dec. 9.
USWAG2005 Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, 2005, Letter from J. Roewer
(USWAG) regarding regulation of coal ash in Ohio and Texas to
D. Littleton (DOE) and D. Elcock (Argonne National Laboratory),
Oct. 18.
-------
A-l
APPENDIX A:
STATE-SPECIFIC REGULATORY REVIEWS
-------
A-2
-------
A-3
APPENDIX A:
STATE-SPECIFIC REGULATORY REVIEWS
A.I APPROACH
In the regulatory determination (RD) issued on May 22, 2000 (EPA 2000), the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that coal combustion wastes (CCWs) do not
warrant regulation as hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA); the EPA expressed a concern, however, that gaps may exist in some State regulatory
programs that could lead to future environmental damages. This section describes the approach
used to investigate this concern.
It was evident from the outset that a nationwide study of the CCW regulations and their
chronological changes in all States that address CCWs would not be feasible under the time and
resource constraints of this study. Therefore, an alternative approach was assessed, namely
reviewing the current regulatory programs applicable to CCWs in States that contain units of one
or more of the following types and comparing the results with corresponding information from
earlier reports: (1) new CCW disposal units (i.e., those permitted, constructed, or laterally
expanded between 1994 and 2004) and (2) units that are the basis of proven, potential, or alleged
damage cases.1 Of the 26 States identified as meeting the selection criteria, a pilot study
involving five States (Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, and Wisconsin) was conducted to
determine whether it would be feasible, within the established budget and schedule constraints,
to collect enough data for all 26 States to allow comparisons of current regulatory requirements
with comparable information from earlier reports and to identify changes. Information collected
during the pilot study covers the following categories of regulatory control:
• Regulatory designation of CCWs for disposal,
• Permitting requirements,
• Liner requirements,
• Groundwater-monitoring requirements,
• Leachate-collection system requirements,
In comments to the EPA. public interest groups have identified cases in which they allege that damage to
human health or the environment was caused by fossil fuel combustion waste management units. As of
May 2006, 86 of the alleged damage cases have been investigated by the EPA to verify the existence and cause
of the damage. As defined in the 1999 Report to Congress (RTC) (EPA 1999a), proven damage cases are those
with exceedences of primary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or other health-based standards in
groundwater or surface water off-site or at a distance from the waste management unit sufficient to conclude
that they could cause human health concerns, while potential damage cases are those with (1) documented
exceedences of primary MCLs or other health-based standards on-site or beneath or close to the waste source,
and/or (2) documented exceedences of secondary MCLs or other non-health-based standards on-site or off-site.
-------
A -4
• Corrective action requirements,
• Closure/post-closure requirements,
• Siting controls, and
• Financial assurance requirements.
The pilot study was resource intensive, and we discovered that comparisons between the
current regulatory requirements and comparable information reported in the earlier reports could
rarely be made at the same level of detail. For example, the 1999 Report to Congress (RTC) and
its supporting technical background documents provide primarily aggregated information
regarding State regulatory controls. Hence, in the case of liner requirements, the report indicates
that a total of 43 States adopted liner requirements for landfills before data were collected for the
RTC (EPA J999a). It does not, however, explain what types of liner materials or design
requirements were specified by any particular State. Similarly, the report does not explain
whether, at the time data were collected, particular States had differing requirements for landfills
receiving wastes with differing toxicity levels. Furthermore, the names of States for which
information was aggregated are not provided in the 1999 RTC. Similar difficulties were
identified for all areas of regulatory control, which hindered most State-specific comparisons
between current regulations and the regulations in effect at the time data were collected for the
1999 RTC.
In light of this, the EPA revisited information already available from other sources about
current State CCW regulatory programs and concluded that our priority should be to update how
States were actually implementing programs, rather than to simply gather further information on
State regulations. Accordingly, we did not conduct comprehensive reviews of State regulations
for all of the 26 States mentioned above. Instead, the EPA identified particular aspects of the
regulatory programs in specified States that were of interest, and we focused our investigation of
State regulations on those States in addition to the five pilot States. In all, six additional States
were reviewed beyond those in the pilot study: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, and
Texas. For these additional States, we concentrated on the following five of the nine areas of
regulatory control that were reviewed for the pilot States, because these areas have greater
potential to affect whether releases to groundwater are controlled:
• Regulatory designation of CCWs for disposal,
• Permitting requirements,
• Liner requirements,
• Groundwater-monitoring requirements, and
• Leachate-collection system requirements.
-------
A-5
For each State reviewed, an effort was made to identify regulations applicable to the disposal of
CCWs in landfills and surface impoundments, regardless of the regulatory program (e.g., solid
waste, special waste, residual waste, wastewater) into which the State may place such
regulations. Regulations covering beneficial use of CCWs and placement of CCWs in mines
were not reviewed.
Overall, information was collected about regulatory controls applicable to CCW disposal
for the 11 States, as shown in Table A. 1.
Sections A.2 through A.6 summarize the current status of requirements in the 5 areas of
regulatory control reviewed for all 11 States, which are indicated on Table A.I. Sections A.7
through A. 10 cover the current status of requirements in the remaining 4 areas of regulatory
control—closure and post-closure requirements, corrective action, siting controls, and financial
assurance—for only the 5 pilot States. For each category of regulatory control, a chronological
comparison of requirements applicable to landfills is also provided, which is based on the data
gathered for this report and data from the two following reports:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress: Wastes from the
Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants (EPA 1988); and
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Background Document for
the Report to Congress on Remaining Wastes from Fossil Fuel Combustion:
Existing State Regulatory Controls (EPA 1999b).
The chronological comparisons are limited to landfills because the historical reports did not
provide sufficient data to support similar comparisons for surface impoundments.
Section A. 11 summarizes additional information collected during the pilot study that is
not reported elsewhere, and Section A. 12 lists findings.
A.2 REGULATORY DESIGNATION OF COAL COMBUSTION WASTES
FOR DISPOSAL IN SELECTED STATES
A.2.1 Summary
Table A.2 summarizes the regulatory designations given to CCWs in Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. As the
table indicates, all States have regulations that expressly exclude CCWs from the definition of
hazardous waste, either by reference to the Federal exclusion in Title 40, Section 261.4(b)(4) of
the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 261.4(b)(4)) or by exclusionary text in the State's
regulations themselves. However, in Missouri, fly ash that fails the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) must be disposed of in a hazardous waste disposal facility. In
-------
TABLE A.I Areas of Regulatory Control Investigated by State Reviewed3
Stateh
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Missouri
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Virginia
Wisconsin
Regulatory
Designation
ofCCWsfor
Disposal
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Permitting
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Liners
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Groundwater
Monitoring
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Leachate-
Collection
System
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Closure and
Post-closure
X
X
X
X
X
Corrective
Action
X
X
X
X
X
Siting
Controls
X
X
X
X
X
Financial
Assurance
X
X
X
X
X
a "X" indicates that the area of control described by the column heading was reviewed for the named State, while a blank cell indicates that the
area of control described in the column heading was not investigated for the named State. All 11 States were reviewed for the 5 areas having
greater potential to affect whether releases to groundwater are controlled.
h The pilot review covered Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin, which are indicated in boldface type. Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Missouri. Ohio, and Texas were selected for supplemental reviews in the areas of regulatory control having greater potential to affect
whether releases to groundwater are controlled.
-------
TABLE A.2 Summary of Regulatory Designations for CCWs in Selected States
State3
Expressly Excluded from Definition of Hazardous Waste?
Regulatory Designation if Disposed of
Alabama Yes.b
Florida Federal exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(h)(4) is adopted by reference.
Georgia Federal exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4) is adopted by reference.
Illinois Yes.
Indiana Federal exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4) is adopted by reference.
Missouri
Ohio
Expressly excluded from the definition of industrial solid waste.
Nonhazardous solid waste.
Nonhazardous industrial waste.
Special (non-RCRA) wastec OR
Declassified wasted (toxicity determination required).
Restricted waste, if disposed of in a monoflll6
OR
Nonhazardous industrial solid waste, if co-disposed of with
dissimilar wastes.
Federal exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4) is adopted by reference, except
that fly ash that is not otherwise exempt from regulation as solid waste
and fails the TCLP is not subject to the exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4)
and must be disposed of in a permitted hazardous waste facility.
Yes.
Utility waste.
Pennsylvania Federal exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4) is adopted by reference.
Texas Federal exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4) is adopted by reference.
Virginia Federal exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4) is adopted by reference.
Wisconsin Yes.
Residual waste^ OR
Expressly excluded from the definition of solid waste if
"nontoxic"h (fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag only).
Residual waste.'
Nonhazardous industrial solid waste.
Nonhazardous industrial solid waste.
Nonhazardous industrial solid waste
AND
High-volume industrial waste (fly ash and bottom ash).
Footnotes on next page.
-------
TABLE A.2 (Cont.)
a The pilot study covered Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin in this category of regulatory control. Alabama and Ohio are
supplemental review States.
'' "Yes" means that the State has adopted regulations that expressly exclude fly ash, bottom ash, slag, and flue gas emission control residues generated
primarily from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels from the definition of hazardous waste.
c "Special (non-RCRA) wastes" are defined in Illinois to include any industrial process wastes or pollution control wastes that are not hazardous waste as
defined in 40 CFR Part 261 (promulgated to implement the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA]) and have not been "declassified."
'' Wastes are "declassified'" in Illinois when the generator certifies that the source, physical and chemical characteristics, and degree of hazard of the waste
meet defined declassification criteria.
e "Restricted wastes" in Indiana are industrial solid wastes that have been divided into four types (I-IV) on the basis of the concentrations of arsenic,
barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver that leach when the TCLP is applied, as specified in 329 Indiana Administrative Code
(IAC) 10-9-4.
1 "Utility waste" in Missouri means 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.
& "Residual waste" in Ohio is a type of solid waste that the Ohio regulations define as including the following wastes generated by, among other things,
burning coal: air pollution control wastes, water pollution control wastes, and other wastes with similar characteristics that are approved by the director
or his authorized representative. There are four classes of residual waste (I-IV). The concentrations of specified constituents are evaluated with the use
of a leach test and the methodology detailed in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-30-03.
h Wastes are considered "nontoxic" in Ohio if leachate obtained by using the TCLP or modified TCLP contains (1) concentrations of arsenic, barium,
cadmium, chromium, lead, and/or mercury that are less than 30 times the limits established by the EPA for these metals in drinking water and/or (2) a
concentration of selenium of 1 mg/L or less, which the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has established as the "nontoxic" criterion for selenium.
1 "Residual waste" in Pennsylvania includes any industrial waste not classified by law as hazardous. It includes waste materials—solid, liquid, or gas—
produced by industrial, mining, and agricultural operations. Certain coal-mining wastes are excluded. There are three classes of residual waste disposal
units (I-III) designated on the basis of the potential for wastes received at a disposal unit to adversely affect groundwater. Class I disposal units receive
waste that are most likely to affect groundwater, and Class III units receive wastes that are least likely to do so.
-------
A-9
addition, the regulations in Alabama expressly exclude CCWs from the definition of industrial
solid waste, and the regulations in Ohio expressly exclude "nontoxic"2 fly ash, bottom ash, and
boiler slag from the definition of solid waste. The consequences of the Alabama and Ohio
exclusions with respect to the applicability of regulatory controls in those States are further
described in Section A.2.3.
Several of the States reviewed, including Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas,
and Wisconsin, take a graded approach to regulating nonhazardous solid wastes, which is
illustrated in Figure A.I. These States subdivide nonhazardous solid wastes into groups. Each
group of wastes is assigned a name as a method of designating the applicable subset of the
State's solid waste regulations. Typical first-tier groups are municipal solid waste, nonhazardous
industrial waste, and construction and demolition wastes. Nonhazardous industrial wastes are
then further subdivided based on the degree of hazard associated with handling and disposing of
them. Section A.2.3 provides more detailed information about the graded approach adopted by
each State.
SOLID WASTE
Hazardous Waste
Nonhazardous Waste
r
i
[ Municipal Solid 1 f Industrial Solid j f Construction and j
[ Waste J [ Waste J [ Demolition Debris J
MO
TO
i
>
LE
m
RE
KICl (-)nio J 1 Indiana J [Pennsylvania] [ Wisconsin J ( Illinois J [ Texas )
i i i
k [ Class 1 Residual J Codisposed [ Class 1 Residual ] Nonhazardous ] f Special ( Class 1 Industrial ]
[ Class II
[ Class III
[ Class IV
Nontoxk
and Bof
r
ss
KIC
Dissimilar industrial waste j (non-HUHA)
,-, .j ,1 Nonhazardous < „, ,, _ . , , •> Waste t ... . \
J iriUUbinai WdSie v. ) llinhwnlnmp ' *• J
' Industrial Wa^te nfiriaRsififirj
Residual ] [ Type 1 Restricted ] [ Class III Residual ] "(Fly-Ash and'" [ Waste j [ Class 3 ndustrial )
| [ Bottom-Ash) DE70605
Residual] [Type II Restricted ]
: Fly Ash ] [Type III Restricted]
om Ash J
[Type IV Restricted]
FIGURE A.I Graded Approach to Regulating Nonhazardous Solid Waste Landfills
in Selected States
As defined by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (see Table A.2. footnote h).
-------
A-IO
A.2.2 Chronological Comparison of Regulatory Designations of CCWs for Disposal
Table A.3 compares the current designations for CCWs destined for disposal in the
five pilot States and six supplemental States ("2005 Data" column) with the historical
designations for CCWs in these States as reported in two EPA documents (EPA 1988 and
EPA 1999b). Between the times data were collected for the 1988 RTC (EPA 1988) and this
report, the regulations in several States appear to have been changed to incorporate a graded
approach for designating nonhazardous industrial solid wastes destined for disposal. Each graded
designation system allows nonhazardous industrial waste management facilities to be regulated
more or less stringently, depending on the toxicity of the wastes they receive.
A.2.3 State-Specific Discussions of Designation for Disposal
Alabama—The definitions of the terms "industrial solid waste" and "ash" provided in the
Alabama solid waste regulations expressly exclude fly ash waste, bottom ash waste, boiler slag
waste, and flue gas emission control waste that result from the combustion of coal or other fossil
fuels at electric- or steam-generating plants (Alabama Department of Environmental
Management [ADEM] Administrative [Adm.] Code R.335-13-l-.03(12) and (63)). ADEM
personnel confirmed that, because of this exclusion, CCW management units (landfills and
surface impoundments) are unregulated under the Alabama solid waste program (ADEM 2005a).
Confirmation was important because the ADEM Adm. Code also defines "special waste" as
follows: "those wastes requiring specific processing, handling, or disposal techniques as
determined necessary by the [ADEM] which are different from the techniques normally utilized
for handling or disposal. Examples of such waste types may include, but are not limited to:
mining waste; fly ash; bottom ash...." (ADEM Adm. Code R.335-13-1-.05(134)). This definition
creates some ambiguity about whether, despite the express exclusions from the definitions of ash
and industrial solid waste, fly ash and bottom ash from coal combustion might be considered
special waste.
Florida—Florida regulations adopt the Federal RCRA regulations exempting CCWs
from regulation as hazardous waste (Florida Adm. Code [FAC] 62-730.030); if CCWs are
disposed of, they are currently regulated as nonhazardous solid waste. However, in July 2003,
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced that a new industrial
waste disposal and reuse (IWDR) Rule is being developed: it will have sections addressing
waste-to-energy ash, electric generation facility wastes, pulp and paper wastes, and wastes from
other industrial operations. At the time of the announcement, the Florida DEP expected to
develop requirements for the design, operation, and closure of storage and disposal facilities for
each type of waste addressed in the rule. The rule was also expected to address requirements or
protocols for beneficial use of these waste types. The rule development process is still ongoing
and, when complete, may substantially change how the Florida solid waste regulations address
the management of CCWs.
Georgia—The Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Act and its implementing
regulations adopt by reference the Federal definition of hazardous waste, including
-------
TABLE A.3 Chronological Comparison of Designation of CCWs for Disposal in Landfills in Selected States
State
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
EPA 1988
Solid waste
Solid waste
Solid waste
Solid waste
Solid waste
EPA 1999b
NCa
NC
NC
NC
Restricted waste (TCLP require
Designation of CCWs for Disposal
2005 Data
Excluded from the definition of solid waste
Nonha/ardous solid waste
Nonhazardous industrial waste
Special (non-RCRA) waste, unless declassified (toxicity determination required)
:d Solid waste that may be disposed of in either a restricted waste site or a
Missouri
Ohio
unless disposed of in Type I
landfill)13
Solid waste NC
Exempt
NC
Pennsylvania Solid waste Residual waste (TCLP required)
Texas Solid waste NCe
Virginia Solid waste Solid waste
Wisconsin Solid waste Solid waste
nonmunicipal solid waste landfill (TCLP required to determine waste type unless
disposed of in a Type I restricted waste landfill)
Utility waste, but if fly ash fails the TCLP, it must be disposed of in a hazardous
waste disposal facility
Residual waste OR
Excluded from the definition of solid waste if waste is "nontoxic" (fly ash,
bottom ash, and boiler slag only) (TCLP or modified TCLP leachate test
required)
Residual waste (TCLP required)
Nonhazardous industrial waste (Class 1, 2, or 3)
Nonhazardous industrial solid waste
Nonhazardous industrial waste AND
High-volume industrial waste (fly ash and bottom ash only)
a NC = Not covered in the source report.
b In 1996, Indiana adopted its graded approach for classification of solid wastes.
c In 1994, the Texas tiered classification system for solid waste took effect.
-------
A-12
40CFR261.4, which exempts CCWs from the definition of hazardous waste (Georgia
Department of Natural Resources [GDNR] Rule 391-3-11-.07). CCWs are regulated as
nonhazardous industrial wastes when disposed of (GDNR Rule 391-3-4-.01 (27)).
Illinois—Each waste generator in Illinois must determine whether waste destined for
disposal is hazardous waste or "special (non-RCRA) waste." Status as special (non-RCRA)
waste is determined on the basis of the source, degree of hazard, and other characteristics of
nonhazardous waste (35 Illinois [111.] Adm. Code 808.100 and 808.245). CCWs destined for
disposal in Illinois are exempt from the definition of hazardous waste. Accordingly, they are
considered special (non-RCRA) waste unless the generator certifies their eligibility for
declassification. If CCWs are declassified, they may be disposed of, without restriction, in any
solid waste disposal unit. In comparison, CCWs that are special (non-RCRA) wastes must be
disposed of in facilities that either meet the requirements for an exemption from solid waste
permitting or have permits that expressly allow CCW disposal. To qualify for an exemption from
permitting, a solid waste treatment, storage, or disposal unit must receive only wastes generated
by the owner's own activities. Additional information about requirements applicable to units that
are exempt from permitting in Illinois is provided in Section A.3.3.
The eligibility of a waste for declassification in Illinois is determined either by computing
a toxic score for the waste using the methodology specified in the regulations or by employing a
bioassay procedure that must be approved by the Illinois EPA (35 111. Adm. Code 808.245).
Declassification using the computational method involves first determining (from a specified
database) the waste's toxic amount on the basis of the concentration and toxicity of the waste's
components. If a waste has a toxic amount that is less than 100, its toxic score is zero. If the toxic
amount is greater than or equal to 100 and less than 1,000, the waste's toxic score is 1. For a
toxic amount greater than 1,000 and less than 10,000, the waste's toxic score is 2, and for an
amount greater than or equal to 10,000, the toxic score is 3. To qualify for declassification, the
toxic score for a waste must be zero. (35 111. Adm. Code 808, Appendix B)
Indiana—Indiana designates CCWs as solid waste that may be disposed of in restricted
waste sites (329 Indiana Administrative Code [IAC] 10-9-4(d)) or in nonmunicipal solid waste
landfills. A "restricted waste site" is a land disposal facility for solid waste that is designed and
operated to accommodate one of four specific types of solid waste designated as Types I through
IV. Type I restricted waste sites have the most stringent design requirements, and Type IV have
the least stringent. Restricted waste sites cannot receive more than one solid waste type (i.e., they
are monofills). The criteria for the types of restricted waste are specified in 329 IAC 10-9-4.
Testing is not required for CCWs that will be disposed of in a restricted waste site designed for
Type I waste, which is waste that leaches one or more of eight toxic metals in amounts
comparable to those that define the RCRA hazardous waste toxicity characteristic defined in
40 CFR Part 261. For management in a restricted waste site designed for Type II, III, or IV
waste, CCWs must be tested for metals by using the TCLP to verify that metal concentrations
fall within the appropriate ranges for the specified waste type. In addition, retesting must be
completed (l)at 5-year intervals, (2) whenever the characteristics of the coal change,
(3) whenever the process generating the waste changes, or (4) according to a schedule specified
by the regulatory agency on the basis of the variability noted in previous sampling and other
factors affecting the predictability of waste characteristics.
-------
A-13
A disposal facility in Indiana that co-disposes of nonhazardous CCWs with dissimilar
solid wastes must meet the requirements for a nonmunicipal solid waste landfill.
Missouri—Since July 30, 1997, CCWs have been designated in the Missouri Department
of Natural Resources (MoDNR) solid waste regulations as "utility waste" (10 Code of State
Regulations [CSR] 80-2.010(111)), and a separate set of solid waste regulations has been applied
to the design and operation of utility waste landfills (10 CSR 80-11.010).
Ohio—In Ohio, "nontoxic fly ash and bottom ash, including at least ash that results from
the combustion of coal and ... slag" are excluded from the definition of solid waste (Ohio
Revised Code [ORC] 3734.01(E)). Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) residue is not excluded and is
regulated as industrial solid waste or, more specifically, residual waste. Ohio law does not define
the term "nontoxic," and Ohio courts have not interpreted it. As a matter of policy, the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) has developed criteria for evaluating whether fly ash,
bottom ash, and boiler slag are "nontoxic." Specifically, the OEPA considers these wastes
nontoxic if leachate obtained by using a specified leachate test (i.e., the TCLP or modified
TCLP) contains concentrations of arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury that
are less than 30 times the EPA limits in drinking water in place for these metals at the time the
OEPA established its criteria. The "nontoxic" concentrations are 1.5 mg/L for arsenic, 60 mg/L
for barium, 0.15 mg/L for cadmium, 3 mg/L for chromium, 1.5 mg/L for lead, and 0.06 mg/L for
mercury. In addition, the selenium concentration in the leachate must be 1 mg/L or less.
According to the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), virtually all coal ash and slag
produced in Ohio meets the "nontoxic" criteria for the metals of concern (USWAG 2005). This
means that of all CCWs, only FGD residues are typically regulated as residual solid wastes in
Ohio.
Pennsylvania—Coal ash not being beneficially used in Pennsylvania is regulated as
residual waste destined for disposal. "Residual waste" is a category of solid wastes that includes
garbage and refuse and other discarded materials, if they are otherwise not hazardous wastes,
including materials resulting from industrial operations and sludge resulting from industrial
wastewater treatment facilities or air pollution control facilities (25 Pennsylvania [Pa]
Code 287.1). In addition to coal ash, Pennsylvania designates all other CCWs as residual wastes,
including slag and FGD wastes.
Chemical, physical, and leachate analyses are used on a case-specific basis to determine
the design standards applicable to a residual waste landfill. The Pennsylvania regulations specify
design standards for three classes of residual waste landfills (I, II, and III) and two classes of
surface impoundments (I and II). The classification systems are based on the potential for wastes
received at the landfill to adversely affect groundwater, with Class I facilities receiving waste
that are most likely to affect groundwater and Class III facilities receiving wastes that are least
likely to do so. The regulations applicable to residual wastes destined for disposal were
significantly revised in July 1992 to provide consistency with the Pennsylvania municipal waste
regulations, to expand reporting, and to encourage residual waste source reduction.
Texas—Texas regulations adopt by reference the Federal regulation (40 CFR 261.4) that
exempts CCWs from the definition of hazardous waste (30 Texas Administrative Code [TAG]
-------
A-14
335.1(62)). In Texas, wastes from electric power generation plants, including CCWs, are
considered industrial wastes, which if destined for disposal may be further categorized into one
of three classes. Class 1 industrial solid wastes include any nonhazardous wastes or mixtures of
their wastes that, because of concentration or physical or chemical characteristics, are toxic,
corrosive, flammable, pose a substantial danger to human health or the environment, or have
other similar characteristics. Class 3 wastes are wastes that are inert, essentially insoluble, and
pose no threat to human health or the environment. Class 2 wastes are wastes that are neither
hazardous nor Class 1 or Class 3 wastes. This tiered system for designating wastes was adopted
in 1993 and took effect in 1994. While a nominal number of power plants have produced CCWs
that qualified as Class 1 industrial wastes and some bottom ashes have been categorized as
Class 3, most CCWs generated in Texas are Class 2 industrial wastes when disposed of
(Buckley 2005).
Virginia—When destined for disposal in Virginia, CCWs are designated as
nonhazardous, industrial solid waste. Facilities intended primarily for the disposal of
nonhazardous, industrial solid waste are regulated as industrial waste disposal facilities
(9 Virginia Adm. Code [VAC] 20-80-270). The facilities are subject to design and operational
requirements depending on the volume and the physical, chemical, and biological nature of the
waste. Additional requirements, to include groundwater and decomposition gas monitoring, may
be imposed, depending on the volume and the nature of the waste involved, as necessary to
protect health or the environment.
Wisconsin—When destined for disposal in Wisconsin, CCWs are designated as
nonhazardous industrial wastes. Fly ash and bottom ash are further designated as high-volume
industrial wastes (Wisconsin Adm. Code [WAC] Natural Resources [NR] Chapter 500.03(101)).
The owner/operator of a high-volume industrial waste landfill is allowed to propose either a
design consistent with the design criteria for solid waste landfills specified in the Wisconsin
regulations, or an alternative design that the owner/operator must demonstrate will adequately
protect public health, welfare, and the environment and meet or exceed the otherwise applicable
location and performance standards (WAC NR 504.10).
A.3 PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CCWs IN SELECTED STATES
A.3.1 Summary
While permits and design standards themselves are not control technologies, they are
techniques used to ensure environmental control of waste management practices. For example,
permits can dictate the use of specific operating practices and control technologies, either
because these are mandated in regulations or because they have been determined to be
appropriate on a case-specific basis to ensure protection of human health and the environment.
Table A.4 lists the permits required for CCW land disposal units (landfills and surface
impoundments) in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Further discussion of permitting requirements in each State is
provided in Section A.3.3.
-------
TABLE A.4 Permits Required for CCW Management Units in Selected States
Permitting Requirements
Statea
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Alabama No permit required for disposal in landfills because CCWs are
expressly excluded from the definition of solid waste
Florida Power Plant Siting Act certification (for steam electric power
plants >75 MW only) [Note: This certification contains the
same substantive requirements as would solid waste
construction and operating permits. Hence, if a power plant
obtains this certification, no separate permits are required.]
OR
Solid waste construction permit and operating permit, unless
landfill receives only wastes resulting from activities on the
landfill owner's property (captive wastes) and the
environmental effects on groundwater and surface water are
addressed or authorized by another permit issued by the
Florida DNR or an approved groundwater-moniloring plan.
Georgia Solid waste handling permit
Illinois Development permit, unless landfill receives only wastes
generated on-site (captive wastes), AND
Operating permit, unless landfill receives only captive wastes.
Landfills receiving only captive wastes are not required to
have solid waste permits.
Indiana Restricted waste site construction and operating permits
(co-disposal only with wastes of the same type [i.e., I, II, or
III]).
Nonmunicipal solid waste landfill construction and operating
permits (co-disposal with wastes of multiple types).
NPDES permit, if there is a point source discharge to State waters.
NPDES/State wastewater permit, if there is a point source discharge to surface
waters, OR
State wastewater permit, if no NPDES permit is required, AND
Groundwater discharge permit, if groundwater-discharge considerations are
not addressed in the NPDES/State wastewater permit.
NPDES permit, if there is a point source discharge of pollutants to State
waters; OR
Written approval from the GDNR Environmental Protection Division, if a
discharge of pollutants to State waters from a non-point source is proposed.
NPDES permit, if there is a point source discharge to State waters, OR
Construction/operating permit, if no NPDES permit is required.
Water pollution control facility construction permit AND
NPDES permit, if there is a point source discharge to State waters, OR
Permit to operate, if State regulators believe facility operation poses a threat to
the environment and no NPDES permit is required.
Units that obtain water pollution control permits are expressly exempt from the
Indiana solid waste permitting program. ^ ^_
-------
TABLE A.4 (Cont.)
Permitting Requirements
Statea
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Missouri Solid waste construction permit and operating permit for
utility waste landfills
Ohio Permit to install for residual waste landfills, unless the landfill
receives only fly ash. bottom ash, and/or foundry sand that the
OEPA has determined to be "nontoxic."
No permit to install is required for a landfill receiving only
"nontoxic" fly ash, bottom ash, and/or foundry sand.'1
Pennsylvania Class I, II, or HI residual wasteb landfill permits.
Texas Solid waste permit, unless landfill receives only wastes
generated on-site (captive wastes).
No solid waste permits required for an on-site landfill
receiving only captive wastes.
Virginia Industrial waste landfill permit.
Wisconsin Local approvals.
Feasibility determination.
Plan of operation approval.
Operating license.
Construction permit and operating permit from the Missouri Clean Water
Commission, whether or not the design allows discharge.
Expressly exempt from the requirement to obtain solid waste permits, if they
obtain permits from the Missouri Clean Water Commission and file a survey
plat upon closure, as required for disposal facilities by the solid waste
regulations.
Permit to install a treatment or disposal unit; AND
NPDES permit, if there is a point source discharge to State waters.
Class I or II residual wasteb disposal impoundment permits AND
NPDES Permit, if there is a point source discharge to State waters.
NPDES permit, if there is a point source discharge to State waters OR
Solid waste permit, if there is no point source, unless the impoundment
receives only wastes generated on-site (captive wastes) or at a facility within
50 mi that has the same owner.
Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit, if there is a
point source discharge to State waters, OR
Virginia pollution abatement permit, if no VPDES permit is required.
Units that obtain water pollution control permits are expressly exempt from the
Virginia solid waste permitting program.
Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit, if there
is a point source discharge to State waters. OR
Operating license, if the facility is used for solid waste disposal (these facilities
are expressly exempt from WPDES permitting requirements).
o\
Footnotes on next page.
-------
TABLE A.4 (Cont.)
The pilot study covered this category of regulatory control for Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Alabama, Florida, Missouri, Ohio,
and Texas are supplemental Stales.
In Pennsylvania, permits are issued for landfills that receive Class I, II, or III residual wastes and for surface impoundments that receive Class I or II, but not
Class III, residual wastes.
Texas defines a tank as a stationary device designed to contain an accumulation of solid waste and constructed primarily of nonearthen materials
(e.g., wood, concrete, steel, plastic) that provide structural support (30 TAG 335.1(138) and (160)(C)).
Wastes arc considered "nontoxic" in Ohio if leachate obtained by using the TCLP or modified TCLP contains (1) concentrations of arsenic, barium,
cadmium, chromium, lead, and/or mercury that are less than 30 times the limits established by the EPA for these metals in drinking water and/or (2) a
concentration of selenium of 1 mg/L or less, which the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has established as the "nontoxic" criterion for selenium.
X)
-------
A-18
Landfills—As Table A.4 indicates, Alabama excludes CCWs from the definition of solid
waste. Therefore, in Alabama, landfills that receive only CCWs are not required to have solid
waste permits. However, surface impoundments in Alabama that have a point source discharge
must have NPDES permits.
Ohio excludes "nontoxic" fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag from the definition of solid
waste. As was reported in Section A.2.3, virtually all coal ash and slag produced in Ohio meets
the "nontoxic" criteria for the metals of concern. This means that of all CCW landfills, only
landfills receiving FGD residues are typically required to have permits under the solid waste
program in Ohio.
Illinois and Texas exempt landfills that receive captive wastes and are located on-site at
coal combustion facilities from the requirement to have solid waste disposal permits. However,
in these States, the permitting exemption does not mean the absence of regulation, as is further
explained in Section A.3.3.
In Florida, all CCW landfills must have solid waste construction and operation permits,
with three exceptions:
1. If CCWs are disposed of in an on-site 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.
2. No solid waste permit is required for disposal of solid waste resulting from a
person's own activities on his/her own property if such disposal occurred
before October 1, 1988 (Section 403.707(2)(d), F.S.).
3. No solid waste permit is required for disposal of solid waste resulting from a
person's own activities on his/her own property if such disposal occurred after
October 1, 1988, provided that the environmental effects of such disposal on
groundwater and surface water are addressed or authorized by another permit
issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or by an
approved groundwater-monitoring plan (Section 403.707(2)(d), F.S.).
The remaining six States (Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
Wisconsin) require permits under their solid waste programs for both on-site and off-site
landfills receiving CCWs.
Surface Impoundments—Permitting requirements applicable to surface impoundments
were reviewed for the five pilot States (Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin)
and six additional States (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, and Texas). Pennsylvania
is the only State reviewed that requires a solid waste permit for all surface impoundments that
receive CCWs. Wisconsin also regulates surface impoundments used for disposal as solid waste
-------
A-19
landfills. Otherwise, surface impoundments are regulated as water pollution control facilities
rather than solid waste management units in the States reviewed. In general, water pollution
control facilities treat or store wastewater, including industrial wastewater, and discharge it
directly or indirectly into waters of a State, which usually encompass both surface water and
groundwater located wholly or partially within the State.
All 11 States require a surface impoundment that discharges wastewater from a point
source into waters of the State to have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit (or the State equivalent), although Wisconsin exempts surface impoundments
used for disposal, which are thereby subject to regulation as solid waste disposal units, from this
requirement. If a surface impoundment receiving CCWs does not discharge from a point source
and is thus not required to have a NPDES permit, seven of the States reviewed (Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, and Virginia) require alternative water pollution control
permits, and Texas requires compliance with permitting requirements for solid waste landfills.
Indiana, Missouri, and Virginia expressly exclude surface impoundments that have water
pollution control permits from solid waste permitting requirements.
Ten of the 11 States reviewed allow requirements (such as the installation of
groundwater-monitoring systems, liner systems, and leachate control systems) to be placed in
NPDES permits and other water pollution control permits, to protect human health and the
environment. In Pennsylvania, such requirements are placed into solid waste permits. It should
also be noted that in Florida, such requirements may be placed into the PPSA certification rather
than in water pollution control permits for CCW surface impoundments located on-site at an
electric generating company.
A.3.2 Chronological Comparison of Permitting Requirements for Landfills
in Selected States
Table A.5 compares the findings regarding permitting requirements in the five pilot
States and six supplemental States ("2005 Data" column) with the historical permitting
requirements in these States as reported in EPA 1988 and EPA 1999b.
A.3.3 State-Specific Discussion of Permitting Requirements
Alabama—No permits are required under the Alabama solid waste regulatory program
for landfills receiving CCWs for disposal because the definitions of the terms "industrial solid
waste" and "ash" provided in the Alabama solid waste regulations expressly exclude fly ash
waste, bottom ash waste, boiler slag waste, and flue gas emission control waste, which result
from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels at electric- or steam-generating plants (ADEM
Adm. Code R.335-I3-1-.03(12) and (63)). However, the ADEM has general authority to regulate
activities that may impact groundwater, and the Hydrogeology Unit of the ADEM Groundwater
Branch implements a Groundwater-Protection Program. Through this program, the ADEM may
exert its general groundwater-protection authority, if necessary, on a case-specific basis.
-------
TABLE A.5 Chronological Comparison of Permitting Requirements for Landfills in Selected States
Permitting Requirements for Landfills"
State
EPA 1988
EPA 1999a
2005 Data
Alabama On-site and off-site
Florida
Off-site
Georgia On-site and off-site
Illinois On-site and off-site
Indiana On-site and off-sitecl
Missouri On-site and off-site
Ohio Not applicable
Pennsylvania On-site and off-site
Texas Off-site
Virginia On-site and off-site
Wisconsin On-site and off-site
NCb CCWs are expressly excluded from the definition of solid waste in Alabama. Hence, CCW landfills,
whether located on-site or off-site, are not required to have solid waste permits.
NC Off-site (on-site landfill may have PPSAC certification in lieu of solid waste permits if located at a power
plant, OR may, in lieu of solid waste permits, obtain either another permit issued by the Florida DNR or an
approved groundwater-monitoring plan which addresses or authorizes the environmental effects on
groundwater and surface water).
On-site and off-site for industrial solid wastes (including CCWs)
NC Off-site (on-site landfill is required to give initial notice to the permitting agency, plus quarterly and annual
groundwater reports, but no solid waste permit is required)
NC On-site and off-site for landfills receiving CCWs that are nonmunicipal solid waste landfills or Type I, II,
or III restricted waste sites; Type IV restricted waste sites do not require permits.
NC' On-site and off-site for utility waste landfills
NC On-site and off-site for residual waste landfills receiving CCWs, unless the landfill is a monofill which
receives only "nontoxic" (as determined by the OEPA) fly ash. bottom ash, and/or foundry sand. Solid
waste permits are not required for monofills that receive only such wastes.
Yese On-site and off-site for landfills in Classes I, II. and III
NC Off-site (on-site landfills must register with the TCEQ and provide updated information when changes
occur)
Yes On-site and off-site
Yes On-site and off-site
Footnotes on next page.
-------
TABLE A.5 (Cont.)
"On-site" means this State is reported to require on-site CCW landfills to have permits. "Off-site" means this State is reported to require off-site CCW
landfills to have permits. "Yes" means this State is reported to require CCW landfills to have permits, but the source document does not differentiate between
on-site and off-site landfills. "None" means this State is reported to require no permits for CCW landfills, whether they are located on or off-site.
NC — Not covered in the source report.
PPSA (FS 403.501 through 518) provides for certification (licensure) of steam electric power plants that are 75 MW or larger in size. The Florida DEP is the
lead agency for coordination of the power plant siting process conducted pursuant to the PPSA and has jurisdiction over many of the activities that the PPSA
certification process may replace.
Research for this report (2005 data) suggests that on-sitc landfills in Indiana may have been exempt from permitting requirements before 1996.
Pennsylvania adopted its graded approach for landfills in 1992.
Research for this report (2005 data) revealed that Missouri implemented its utility waste landfill regulations in 1997.
KJ
-------
A-22
Surface impoundments that receive CCWs in Alabama are regulated as industrial waste
treatment facilities, which must have National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits for discharges to waters of the State, including groundwater (335 ADEM Adm. Code
R.335-6-6-.02 and R.335-6-6-.03). The ADEM has authority to impose requirements in NPDES
permits for liners or groundwater monitoring if a potential for groundwater contamination from a
surface impoundment is believed to exist (ADEM 2005b; ADEM Adm. Code
R.335-6-6-.08(l)(j)).
Florida—The PPSA (Florida Statutes [FS] 403.501 through 518) provides for
certification (licensure) of steam electric power plants that are 75 MW or larger in size. The Act
was created by the Florida legislature in 1973. Power plants constructed before 1973 were not
required to obtain a PPSA certification. On-site management of CCWs in landfills at power
plants required to have PPSA certifications would not require any other solid waste permits.
However, if CCWs are disposed of in an off-site landfill or at a power plant not required to have
a PPSA certification, the landfill must have a solid waste permit, or obtain either another permit
issued by the Florida DNR or an approved groundwater-monitoring plan, which addresses or
authorizes the environmental effects on groundwater and surface water.
Under the PPSA, the Florida DEP is the lead agency for coordination of the siting process
and has jurisdiction over many regulatory programs for which the certification substitutes. Thus,
the DEP "wears two hats," one for supporting the "Siting Board," and the other for its standard
jurisdictional activities, which include implementation of Federally approved or delegated permit
programs, wetlands permits, State lands oversight, coastal protection, and so forth. As a part of
the PPSA certification application, permit applications for Federally delegated or approved
permit programs must be submitted. Currently, these include NPDES and wastewater program
permits as well as solid waste program permits. The review of these permit applications is
interwoven with the PPSA certification process.
The Florida solid waste regulations require disposal facilities to obtain permits from the
Florida DEP before construction, operation, modification, and closure, with the following three
exceptions:
1. If CCWs are disposed of in an on-site 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.
2. No solid waste permit is required for disposal of solid waste resulting from a
person's own activities on his/her own property if such disposal occurred
before October 1, 1988 (Section 403.707(2)(d), F.S.).
3. No solid waste permit is required for disposal of solid waste resulting from a
person's own activities on his/her own property if such disposal occurred after
October 1, 1988, provided that the environmental effects of such disposal on
-------
A-23
groundwater and surface water are addressed or authorized by another permit
issued by the Florida DEP or by an approved groundwater-monitoring plan
(Section 403.707(2)(d), F.S.).
Surface impoundments that receive CCWs in Florida are regulated as industrial
wastewater treatment facilities. If a surface impoundment would receive CCWs and have a point
source discharge into waters of the State, it must have a NPDES/State wastewater permit
(FAC 62-620), unless the facility is a power plant that must obtain a PPSA certification, in which
case the PPSA certification would substitute for the NPDES permit. If the surface impoundment
would also discharge contaminants into groundwater, either the NPDES/State wastewater permit
or a separate groundwater-discharge permit must address groundwater-discharge considerations
(FAC 62-522-300). Alternatively, groundwater considerations could be addressed in a PPSA
certification for an electric power company required to obtain this certification. Wastewater
permitting for power plants is unique in that permitting is done through the Industrial
Wastewater Section at the Florida DEP headquarters, in Tallahassee, instead of through the
district offices.
Georgia—In Georgia, landfill facilities that dispose of CCWs or other industrial wastes
must obtain solid waste handling permits before construction and operation begins (GA Rule
391-3-4-.02).
Surface impoundments that receive CCWs in Georgia are regulated as potential sources
of pollutant discharges to waters of the State, which include groundwaters. If a surface
impoundment would have a point source discharge, it must have a NPDES permit (GA Rule 391 -
3-6-.06(3)(a)). If a surface impoundment would have a non-point source discharge, written
approval from the GDNR Environmental Protection Division would be required (GA Rule 391-
3-6-.06(3)(b)). In either case, the facility would be required to use best management practices to
minimize to the extent feasible the introduction of pollutants into State waters.
Illinois—CCWs destined for disposal in Illinois are considered special (non-RCRA)
wastes unless the generator certifies their eligibility for declassification. If CCWs are
declassified, they may be disposed of, without restriction, in any solid waste disposal unit. In
comparison, CCWs that are special (non-RCRA) wastes must be disposed of in facilities that
either meet the requirements for an exemption from solid waste permitting or hold permits that
expressly allow CCW disposal.
Illinois requires a "development permit" before construction or modification of any
facility that stores, treats, or disposes of solid wastes, including both declassified and special
(non-RCRA) wastes. In addition, an "operating permit" is required before using or operating
such a facility, unless (1) the facility is a landfill used only for disposal of waste generated on-
site or (2) the facility is a surface impoundment receiving special (non-RCRA) waste that is
expressly listed in a NPDES permit (415 Illinois Compiled Statutes [ILCS] 5/2l(d) and 35 111.
Adm. Code 807.201 and 807.202).
A CCW landfill that qualifies for the statutory solid waste permitting exemption must
notify the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) of its operations and file annual
-------
A-24
reports (35 111. Adm. Code 815.301). In addition, landfills receiving solely CCWs produced by
coal combustion power generating facilities must be designed, constructed, and operated in
compliance with applicable sections of the regulatory standards for landfills (35 111. Adm.
Code 816.500). Sections applicable to landfills receiving CCWs (which fall within the definition
of chemical waste) are located in 35 111. Adm. Code 811, and address liners, leachate systems,
and groundwater monitoring. A chemical waste is a nonputrescible solid for which any
contaminated leachate is expected to be formed through chemical or physical processes rather
than biological processes, and no gas is expected to be formed as a result (35 111. Adm. Code
810.103).
Surface impoundments that receive CCWs in Illinois are regulated as wastewater
treatment facilities. If a surface impoundment would have a point source discharge into waters of
the State, it must have a NPDES permit (35 111. Adm. Code 309.102). If a surface impoundment
would receive CCWs, but not have a point source discharge, a State construction/operating
permit would be required (35 111. Adm. Code 309.201).
Indiana—Indiana designates CCWs as solid waste that may be disposed of in either
restricted waste sites or nonmunicipal solid waste landfills. Restricted waste sites can receive
wastes of only one type. A site that accepts only wastes of Type I, II, or III is required to obtain a
restricted waste site permit before starting construction and operation (329 IAC 10-11-1). No
permit is required for a restricted waste site that accepts only Type IV solid wastes.
A facility in which CCWs would be co-disposed of with dissimilar wastes is required to
obtain a nonmunicipal solid waste landfill permit before construction and operation
(329 IAC 10-11-1). The permit must specify that the landfill is allowed to receive CCWs
(329 IAC 10-9-5).
Indiana's restricted waste site and nonmunicipal solid waste landfill permitting programs
do not distinguish between on-site and off-site facilities. However, industrial facilities operating
in Indiana before 1996 that disposed of solid waste, including CCWs, in disposal units that were
located either (1) on the site where the waste was generated or (2) off the site but were owned
and operated by the generator for its exclusive use, may not have been required to obtain permits.
In 1996, such facilities, as well as new solid waste disposal units, became subject to the
permitting requirements indicated above (329 IAC 10-5).
In Indiana, any ash pond that receives coal ash transported into it by water is exempt
from both the solid waste permitting requirements and the solid waste facility design standards
imposed by the Indiana solid waste program (329 IAC 10-3-1). Even so, ash ponds and other
surface impoundments that receive CCWs may be categorized as water pollution
treatment/control facilities, which include units or structures used to control, prevent, pretreat, or
treat pollutant discharges into waters of the State, including surface and underground waters
(327 IAC 3-1-2). As such, new construction of these facilities may require water pollution
control facility construction permits. Furthermore, once a facility with one or more point source
discharges to waters of the State is constructed, the owner/operator must obtain an NPDES
permit, which acts as an operating permit (327 IAC 5-2-2). If a water pollution treatment/control
facility is not subject to the NPDES permit program (e.g., because there is no point source
-------
A-25
discharge), the facility may still be required, at the State's discretion, to obtain a permit to
operate. Generally, such permits are required only if the State believes operation of the facility
will pose a significant threat to the environment (327 IAC 3-4-2).
Missouri—All solid waste disposal areas, including utility waste landfills, in Missouri
are required to have construction permits and operating permits from the MoDNR (10 CSR
80-2.020(2)).
Surface impoundments that receive solid wastes in Missouri are expressly exempt from
the requirement to have solid waste permits, if they obtain construction and operating permits
from the Missouri Clean Water Commission and comply with the requirement in the solid waste
regulations regarding filing of a survey plat upon closure (10 CSR 80-2.020(9)). The Missouri
Clean Water Law requires construction and operating permits for surface impoundments,
whether or not they are designed to discharge wastewater (10 CSR 20-6.010 and .015).
Ohio—The owner or operator of a residual waste landfill in Ohio must obtain a permit to
install before construction of the landfill begins (ORC 3734.05 and OAC 3745-30-05(A)).
Surface impoundments are regulated under the OEPA water pollution control program.
As such, they are expressly exempt from the OEPA solid waste regulations (OAC 3745-27-
03(A)(8)). The water pollution control regulations require that, before starting construction,
surface impoundments receiving industrial wastes, such as CCWs, must have permits to install
based on an application and engineering plan, which must demonstrate that the surface
impoundment will: (1) not prevent or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of applicable
water quality standards; (2) not result in a violation of any applicable laws; and (3) employ the
best available technology (OAC 3745-42-03 and -04). In addition, if a surface impoundment
would have a point source discharge into waters of the State, an NPDES permit would be
required (OAC 3745-33-02).
Pennsylvania—Pennsylvania designates CCWs as a "residual waste," which includes
garbage, refuse, other discarded material, or other waste, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or
contained gaseous materials resulting from industrial, mining, and agricultural operations and
sludge from an industrial, mining, or agricultural water supply treatment facility, wastewater
treatment facility, or air pollution control facility, if it is not hazardous (25 Pa. Code 287.1).
Pennsylvania has a distinct regulatory program for residual wastes, which requires operators of
residual waste processing and disposal facilities to have permits to build, operate, expand, and
close facilities. Under this program, a CCW processing or disposal facility must have a permit to
operate, unless the facility is engaged in the beneficial use of coal ash (25 Pa. Code 287.101(b)).
CCW landfills must have Class I, II, or III residual waste landfill permits, and surface
impoundments that dispose of CCWs must have Class I or II residual waste disposal
impoundment permits. Surface impoundments that discharge to surface water must also have
NPDES permits (25 Pa. Code 92.3). Regulations distinguish between captive facilities (i.e., an
on-site facility used solely for the generator's residual waste) and noncaptive facilities, allowing
more flexibility concerning matters such as roads, signs, and access control at captive facilities,
but not affecting permitting requirements.
-------
A-26
Texas—If CCWs are disposed of, they are regulated as industrial waste in Texas. If a
generator stores, treats, or disposes of its own nonhazardous industrial waste (either on-site or at
another facility it owns located within 50 mi), a nonhazardous industrial waste permit is not
required (30 TAG 335.2(d)(l)), but the generator must register with the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) (30 TAG 335.6(a)). Information that must be submitted with the
registration includes, but is not limited to, waste composition, waste management methods,
facility engineering plans and specifications, and the geology where the facility is located. This
information is used by the TCEQ to determine whether storage, processing, or disposal is
compliant with the requirements of the regulations. The generator also has a continuing
obligation to notify TCEQ of subsequent changes or additional information concerning waste
composition, waste management methods, facility engineering plans and specifications, or the
geology of the facility's location (30 TAG 335.6(b)). Furthermore, the landfill is subject to
general prohibitions against polluting the water, creating a nuisance, and endangering public
health and welfare (30 TAG 335.4), which allow the TCEQ to respond to potential releases of
pollutants into or adjacent to waters in the State. Other regulatory requirements applicable to
nonpermitted landfills include a requirement to record in county deed records a metes and
bounds description of the land on which disposal has occurred (30 TAG 335.5) and a
requirement to close and remediate the facility in accordance with the Texas Risk Reduction
Program (30 TAG 350). Also, the TCEQ has published technical guidelines concerning landfill
site selection, liner systems, and leachate-collection systems, with which nonpermitted landfills
are encouraged to comply.
Like landfills, surface impoundments that receive CCWs only from on-site and/or from
facilities located within 50 mi that have the same owner are not required to have solid waste
permits in Texas, but must register with the TCEQ, as described above. Since CCWs are
typically moved to surface impoundments by means of water sluicing, most surface
impoundments that receive CCWs are located on-site to avoid long-distance sluicing. Hence,
surface impoundments that receive CCWs usually do not need solid waste permits. An NPDES
permit is required, however, if a surface impoundment discharges wastewater to waters of the
State. For such surface impoundments, TCEQ has established technical guidelines containing
design standards for liners, leak detection, and groundwater monitoring (TCEQ 2004b).
Virginia—Virginia designates CCWs destined for disposal as nonhazardous industrial
solid waste. Landfills that accept CCWs in Virginia must have industrial waste landfill permits
before construction or modification of the landfill begins (9 VAC 20-80-480(A)). The Virginia
solid waste permitting requirements for industrial waste landfills do not distinguish between on-
site and off-site landfills.
Surface impoundments that manage nonhazardous industrial solid wastes such as CCWs
are regulated under Virginia water control law. During the operating life of these facilities, the
Virginia regulations governing solid waste management facilities do not apply
(9 VAC 20-80-380). A Virginia pollution abatement permit is required for impoundments that do
not discharge to sewage treatment works or to State waters (9 VAC 25-32-30). Surface
impoundments that discharge must have Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(VPDES) permits (9 VAC 25-31-50).
-------
A-27
Wisconsin—Wisconsin designates CCWs destined for disposal as nonhazardous
industrial solid wastes, with fly ash and bottom ash being further designated as high-volume
industrial wastes. An operating license must be obtained before a solid waste disposal facility in
Wisconsin can be operated (WAC Natural Resources [NR] Chapter 500.6).
For a solid-fuel-fired power plant, the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA)
process applies to the feasibility determination. It must consider impacts caused by any landfill
required to dispose of ash or other solid waste at the plant site. This process is intended to
address the technical issues of site feasibility, including the need for the landfill and its ability to
meet design and performance standards and protect public health and welfare and the
environment.
If a power plant is deemed feasible, the applicant submits a plan of operation, which must
meet performance standards and include specific design elements to address potential impacts. If
a plan of operation is approved, the applicant may construct the facility, including the landfill.
The Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit program
regulates industrial wastewater discharges to both surface water and groundwater. However,
industrial solid waste facilities required to obtain operating licenses are exempt from the WPDES
permitting program requirements.
In general, industrial waste landfills are required to have solid waste operating licenses,
and surface impoundments containing industrial wastewaters are required to have WPDES
permits. The Wisconsin permitting requirements do not distinguish between on-site and off-site
landfills.
A.4 LINER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS IN SELECTED STATES
A.4.1 Summary
States may impose liner requirements on land-based waste management units to prevent
contaminants from being released into groundwater. If a liner is required, standards may include
specifications for maximum liner hydraulic conductivity, the type of liner material and its
thickness, and the number of liners. Since coal combustion ash may have pozzolanic or
cementitious properties, a few States also provide specifications for using the ash as a liner in
landfills, either alone or in combination with other materials. Table A.6 summarizes liner
requirements for CCW land disposal units (landfills and surface impoundments) in Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and
Wisconsin. Additional details are provided in Section A.4.3.
-------
TABLE A.6 Summary of Liner Requirements for CCW Management Units in Selected States
State3
Liner Requirements
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Alabama • CCW mono/ills: No applicable liner requirements.
• Co-disposal with other wastes in a municipal waste landfill: Composite liner
• Co-disposal with other wastes in an industrial waste landfill: Liners specified by the
ADEM on a case-specific basis when natural hydrogeologic conditions are determined
to be insufficient to minimize the impact of leachate on waters
Florida Industrial waste landfills: The need for a liner and the specifications for the liner system,
if one is needed, are evaluated on a case-specific basis and documented in the solid waste
permit or PPSA certification. In lieu of making a case-specific demonstration, an
applicant may elect tosign the facility to meet the current requirements applicable to a
Class I (municipal sol waste) landfill.
Georgia • Industrial waste monofills: Liner and leachate-collection system are required, the
design of which must be demonstrated to ensure that specified chemicals do not
exceed maximum contaminant levels in the uppermost aquifer, OR
• A variance from the requirement to install a liner and leachate-collection system may
be obtained by monofills that receive waste only from a single industry.
Illinois • Special (non-RCRA) waste landfills: A leachate drainage and collection system and a
compacted earth liner designed as an integrated system are required, as follows:
- Earth liner:
• Permeability < 1 x 10~7 cm/s
• Thickness > 5 ft, OR
- Composite liner consisting of:
• Earth liner:
» Permeability < 1 x 10~7 cm/s
» Thickness > 3 ft, overlain by
• Geomembrane liner:
« Thickness > 60 mil, OR
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis
in NPDES permit.
Established, as necessarv on a case-specific basis
and documented in an NPDES permit, a
groundwater-discharge permit, or a PPSA
certification.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis
in NPDES permit or discharge approval letter.
^
00
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis
in NPDES OR construction/operating permit.
-------
TABLE A.6 (Cont.)
Liner Requirements
State£
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Illinois - Other liner configurations, if:
(Cont.) • They provide equivalent or superior performance;
• They have been used successfully in at least one similar operation; and
• Quality assurance can he implemented.
• CCW mono/ills: Poz-O-Tecb liners and caps made from CCWs are allowed to replace
liner requirements for other solid waste landfills if:
- Poz-O-Tec is:
• Produced and tested according to specifications provided in the regulations;
AND
• Permeability < 1 x 10~7 cm/s
• Thickness > 3 ft
Compress!ve strength > 150 lb/in.2 or psi
Indiana • Types 1, II, or III restricted waste sites: Earth liner having equivalent hydraulic
conductivity of 1 x 10"6 cm/s and a minimum thickness as follows:
- Type I: 15 ft, or 10 ft with a demonstration that the equivalent hydraulic
conductivity of the waste through the barrier will be less than 1 x 10"" cm/s.
- Type II: Ranging from 5 to 10 ft depending on waste permeability.
- Type III: 3 ft.
• Type IV restricted waste sites: No liner required.
• Nnnmunicipal solid waste landfills:
- Leachate-collection system coupled with earth liner > 10 ft having hydraulic
conductivity of 1 xlO~6 cm/s, OR
- Earth liner > 50 ft having hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10~6 cm/s.
Missouri Utility waste landfill: Composite or clay liner meeting required thickness, compaction Soil or synthetic liner meeting required thickness,
percentage, and hydraulic conductivity specifications (landfills constructed after compaction percentage, and permeability
July_ 30, 1997). specifications. ^
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis
in water pollution control permits.
-------
TABLE A.6 (Cont.)
Liner Requirements
Statea Landfills Surface Impoundments
Ohio • "Nontoxic" fly ash and bottom ash mono/ill: No liner required. Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis
• Class IV residual waste landfill: in water pollution control permits.
- Soil liner > 3 ft having hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10~7 cm/c, OR
- Geomembrane plus 18 in. of soil having hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10~7 cm/s,
AND
- Leachate-management system.
• Class /// residual waste landfill:
- Soil liner > 3 ft having hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10~7 cm/s, OR
- Geomembrane plus 18 in. of soil having hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10~7 cm/s,
AND
- Leachate-management system.
• Class II residual waste landfill: -f*
- Geomembrane plus 3 ft of soil having hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10~7 cm/s <2
AND
- Leachate-management system.
• Class I residual waste landfill:
- Geomembrane plus 5 ft of soil having hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10~7 cm/s
AND
• Leachate-management sj/ste_m.
-------
TABLE A.6 (Cont.)
Liner Requirements
State0
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Pennsylvania Class I residual waste landfill:
(}) Subhase prepared of soil or earthen materials;
(2) Secondary liner placed on the subbase;
(3) Leachate-detection zone placed on the secondary liner;
(4) Primary liner placed on the leachate-detection zone;
(5) Protective cover and leachate-collection zone placed over the primary liner. Either the
primary liner or the secondary liner must be a composite liner, which is a continuous
layer of synthetic material over earthen materials. The other liner must be composed of
synthetic materials.
Class II residual waste landfill:
(\) Subbase prepared of soil or earthen materials;
(2) Leachate-detection zone placed on the subbase;
(3) Composite liner of synthetic material over earthen materials placed on the leachate-
detection zone;
(4) Protective cover and leachate-collection zone placed over the liner.
Class III residual waste landfill: Attenuating soil must exist naturally or have been placed
over the entire disposal area, and:
(1) The seasonal high water table, perched water table, or bedrock must be separated from
the lowest area where waste is deposited by at least 4 ft.
(2) The regional groundwater table must be separated from the lowest area where waste is
deposited by at least 8 ft.
Class I residual waste disposal impoundment:
(1) Subbase prepared of soil or earthen materials;
(2) Secondary liner placed on the subbase;
(3) Leachate-detection zone placed on the
secondary liner;
(4) Primary liner placed on the leachate-detection
zone;
(5) Protective cover and leachate-collection zone
placed over the primary liner.
Either the primary liner or the secondary liner
must be a composite liner, which is a
continuous layer of synthetic material over
earthen materials.
Class II residual waste disposal impoundment:
(1) Subbase prepared of soil or earthen materials;
(2) Leachate-detection zone placed on the
subbase;
(3) Composite liner of synthetic material over
earthen materials placed on the leachate-
detection zone;
(4) Protective cover and leaehate-colleclion zone
placed over the liner.
-------
TABLE A.6 (Cont.)
State3
Liner Requirements
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Texas
Virginia
No liner requirements are specified in the regulations.
TCEQ Recommendation for landfills receiving Class J and Class 2 wastes'.1' Composite
liner (compacted clay immediately beneath a synthetic membrane liner)
Monofills receiving only bottom ash, fly ash, or FGD residues have been found to not
require a membrane.
>1 ft compacted soil with permeability < 1 x 10~7 cm/s; OR
Either > 30-mil synthetic flexible membrane or > 60-mil high-density polyethylene
(HOPE) having proven compatibility with waste and its leachate; OR
Other augmented compacted clays or soils with thickness and permeabilities
equivalent to those specified above for compacted soil, as documented by
appropriate laboratory tests; OR
Natural and undisturbed soil with thickness and permeabilities equivalent to those
specified above for compacted soil.
Double liner may_ be required on a site-specific ba_sis.
No liner requirements are specified in the
regulations.
TCEQ Recommendation for surface impoundments
receiving Class 2 wastes:
• Geomembrane (polyethylene 60 mil, other types
30 mil) and underlying leak detection system;
OR
• Compacted clay (2 ft); OR
• Equivalent in-situ clay; OR
• Geosynthetic clay liner overlain by protective
soil (1 ft)
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis
in water pollution control permits.
a*
i
N>
-------
TABLE A.6 (Cont.)
State"
Liner Requirements
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Wisconsin For industrial solid waste landfills:
• Composite liner:
- > 60-mil geomembrane upper layer overlain by a 1- to 3-t't soil protective layer,
and
- > 4 ft compacted clay lower layer, OR
• Compacted clay:
- Permeability < 1 x 10~7 cm/s
- Thickness > 5 ft AND
• At least 10-ft distance to bedrock from bottom of clay layer for either liner type, OR
For fly ash or bottom ash landfills only:
• Alternative design:
- Feasibility report required demonstrating that landfill meets or exceeds
otherwise applicable location and performance standards.
For zone-of-saturation landfills:
* Special requirements.
For smface impoundments licensed as industrial
solid waste disposal facilities:
• Same liner requirements as for landfills.
For all other lagoons that receive industrial
wastewaters and associated sludges or by-product
solids and any resulting leachates, unless an
exemption is granted:
• Water losses must not exceed 500 gal per acre
per day AND
• Compacted natural soil or soil-bentonite
mixture:
- Thickness > 6 in.
- Permeability < 1 x 10~7 cm/s, OR
• Synthetic material:
- Thickness > 30 mil.
a The pilot study covered this category of regulatory control for Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Georgia, Ohio, and Missouri are
supplemental States.
b "Poz-O-Tec" is produced by a stabilization process that blends a mixture of FGD scrubber sludge, fly ash, and lime to produce a relatively impermeable
material that is not infiltrated significantly by rainwater.
c As Section A.2.3 explains, CCWs in Texas are nearly always designated as Class 2 industrial solid wastes.
-------
A-34
A.4.2 Chronological Comparison of Liner Requirements for Landfills in Selected States
Table A.7 compares the findings in this report ("2005 Data") regarding liner
requirements for landfills that receive CCWs for disposal in the five pilot States and
six supplemental States with the liner requirements for CCW landfills reported in EPA 1988 and
EPA 1999b.
A.4.3 State-Specific Discussion of Liner Requirements
Alabama—Because CCWs are expressly excluded from the definition of solid waste in
Alabama, landfills that receive only CCWs are not subject to the Alabama solid waste
regulations. Therefore, CCW monofills are not required to have liners in Alabama. However, if
CCWs are disposed of in a landfill that receives other types of solid waste, such as a commercial
industrial waste landfill or a municipal waste landfill, that landfill may be subject to liner
requirements, as indicated in ADEM Adm. Code R.335-13. At a minimum, municipal waste
landfills must have composite liners. For industrial landfills, the ADEM determines liner
requirements on a case-specific basis when natural hydrogeologic conditions are determined to
be insufficient to minimize the impact of leachate on waters. Multiple liners, including
composite liners, maybe required if determined necessary (ADEM Adm. Code R.335-13-4-.18).
Similarly, surface impoundments in Alabama that receive only CCWs are not subject to
the Alabama solid waste regulations. However, if there are discharges of pollutants to waters of
the State (including groundwater) from such surface impoundments, NPDES permits would be
required. The ADEM has authority to include conditions in an NPDES permit on a case-specific
basis requiring a surface impoundment to install a liner and other structures if necessary to
prevent pollutant discharges to groundwater (ADEM Adm. Code R.335-6-6-.08(j)).
Florida—Florida does not have specific liner or leachate-control system requirements for
industrial waste landfills. Instead, these facilities are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It is the
responsibility of the applicant for a solid waste permit to provide reasonable assurance that the
proposed facility will not pollute ground or surface waters given the site-specific conditions. In
lieu of making this demonstration, an applicant may elect to design the facility to meet current
requirements for a Class I (municipal solid waste) landfill.
Florida also does not have specific liner or leachate-control system requirements for
surface impoundments. As with landfills, the facilities are evaluated on a case-specific basis.
Georgia—In Georgia, CCWs are industrial wastes (GDNR Rule 391-3-4-.01). For
industrial waste landfills, groundwater and surface water monitoring are required in accordance
with approved plans (GDNR Rule 391-3-4-.07(3)). In addition, industrial waste disposal
facilities must demonstrate that they have liner and leachate-collection system designs that
ensure that the concentrations in the uppermost aquifer at the relevant point of compliance do not
exceed those listed in Table A.8 for the specified chemicals. Industrial waste disposal facilities
permitted to receive only a single type of industrial waste (i.e., monofills) or to receive only
-------
TABLE A.7 Chronological Comparison of Liner Requirements for Landfills in Selected States
Liner Requirements for Landfills
State
EPA 1988
EPA1999b
2005 Data
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
May
Yesc
Noa
No
Indiana
No
Missouri
No
NCb
NC
NC
NC
Waste Type I: 10 ft clay
Waste Type II: 5 ft to 10 ft clay
Waste Type III: 3 ft clay
Waste Type IV: No liner required
NC (Note: Research for this report
indicates that Missouri implemented its
requirements for utility waste landfills,
jncludiji[gJjne_rjrequirenTents, in 1997)
No applicable liner requirements unless CCWs are co-disposed of
with other wastes in industrial or municipal waste landfills.
Specified on a case-specific basis in the PPSA solid waste permit,
unless the owner/operator decides to install the liner required for a
Class I (municipal solid waste) landfill.
Liner and leachate-collection system is required, the design of
which must be demonstrated to ensure that specified chemicals do
not exceed maximum contaminant levels in the uppermost aquifer.
• 5 ft clay with < 10~7 cm/s permeability, OR
• 3 ft clay with < 10"7 cm/s permeability overlain by 60-mil
geomembrane, OR
• Other equivalent liner, OR
• 3 ft Poz-O-Tec with < 10"7 cm/s permeability and > 150 lb/in.2
or psi compressibility (CCW monofills only).
Type I: 15 ft clay or 10 ft clay having < 10"6 cm/s permeability.
Type II: 5 to 10 ft clay, depending on waste permeability.
Type III: 3 ft clay having < 10~6 cm/s permeability.
Type IV: No liner required.
Nonmunicipal solid waste landfills: Leachate-collection system
coupled with >10 ft earth having < 10~6 cm/s permeability, OR
>50 ft earth having < 10"6 cm/s permeability.
Composite or clay liner meeting required thickness, compaction
percentage, and hydraulic conductivity specifications (landfills
constructed after July 30, 1997).
-------
TABLE A.7 (Cont.)
Liner Requirements for Landfills
State
EPA 1988
EPA1999b
2005 Data
Ohio
Exempt
NC
Pennsylvania No
Class I: composite liner + clay or
synthetic liner
Class II: composite liner
Class III: 4 ft of attenuating soil
Texas
May
NC
Nontoxice fly ash and bottom ash monofill: No liner required.
Class I residual waste: Geomembrane plus 5 ft soil having < 10~7
cm/s permeability.
Class II residual waste: Geomembrane plus 3 ft soil having < 10"7
cm/s permeability.
Class III residual waste:
>3 ft soil having hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10~7 cm/s. OR
geomembrane plus 18 in. of soil having < 10~7 cm/s permeability.
Class IV residual waste:
>3 ft soil having hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10 7 cm/s, OR
geomembrane plus 18 in. of soil having < 10~7 cm/s permeability.
Class I: Secondary liner (clay or synthetic) + primary (composite).
Class II: Composite liner.
Class III: > 4 ft of attenuating soil above seasonal high
groundwater table and > 8 ft of vertical separation above regional
groundwater table, OR
Poz-O-Tec material can be substituted as liner material in Class I,
II. and III landfills.
No liner specifications in regulations.
TCEQ guidance for landfills receiving Class 1 and Class 2 wastes
recommends composite liner (compacted clay immediately
beneath a synthetic membrane liner). (Note: According to TCEQ
guidance, monotllls receiving only bottom ash, fly ash, or FGD
residues have been found to not require a membrane at some
landfills.)
-------
TABLE A.7 (Cont.)
Liner Requirements for Landfills
State
EPA 1988
EPA 1999b
2005 Data
Virginia
No
Yes
Wisconsin
Mayd
Yes
> 1 ft compacted soil with permeability < 1 x 10"7 cm/s covered
with >1 ft drainage layer with permeability > 1 x 10^ cm/s, OR
Either > 30-mil synthetic flexible membrane or > 60-mil high-
density polyethylene (HOPE) having proven compatibility with
waste and its leachate, OR
Other augmented soil or natural soil meeting specifications
equivalent to compacted soil liner.
Composite having lower layer of > 4 ft compacted clay having < 1
x 10~7 cm/s permeability, overlain by > 60-mil geomembrane,
overlain by > 1 ft to 3 ft of soil, OR
> 5 ft compacted clay having permeability < 1 x IP"7 cm/s.
a No = The source report indicates that State regulations do not impose liner requirements.
h NC = Not covered in the source report.
c Yes = The source report indicates that State regulations impose liner requirements.
d May = The source report indicates that the State regulations provide for a case-by-case decision on the need for liner requirements.
e Wastes are considered "nontoxic" in Ohio if leachate obtained by using the TCLP or modified TCLP contains (1) concentrations of arsenic,
barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and/or mercury that are less than 30 times the limits established by the EPA for these metals in drinking
water and/or (2) a concentration of selenium of 1 mg/L or less, which the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has established as the
"nontoxic" criterion for selenium.
-------
A-38
wastes from a single industry are eligible for variances from the requirements to install liners,
leachate-collection systems, and groundwater and surface water monitoring systems, if it can be
demonstrated in the permit application that the waste to be disposed of would not cause
groundwater or surface water contamination. In the absence of a variance, disposal facilities
accepting wastes from more than one industrial source, unless the facility is a monofill, must
meet all standards applicable to municipal solid waste landfills (GDNR Rule 391-3-4.07(4)).
The design standards for industrial waste landfills in Georgia do not apply to surface
impoundments. However, a surface impoundment that receives industrial wastes such as CCWs
must have an NPDES permit if it will discharge any pollutant from a point source into waters of
the State, including both surface waters and subsurface waters (GDNR Rule 391-3-6-.06 (3)(a)).
If there will be a nonpoint-source discharge, a surface impoundment that receives industrial
wastes such as CCWs must have written approval for the discharge, either in the NPDES permit,
if there is also a point-source discharge, or in a letter. In either case, liner requirements may be
established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis to protect subsurface waters (GDNR Rule 391-
3-6(14)).
TABLE A.8 Georgia Maximum Aquifer
Contamination Levels
Chemical
Maximum
Contaminant
Level (mg/L)
Arsenic 0.05
Barium 1.0
Benzene 0.005
Cadmium 0.01
Carbon tetrachloride 0.005
Chromium (hexavalent) 0.05
2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid 0.1
1.4-Dichloroben/ene 0.075
1.2-Dichlorocthane 0.005
1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.007
Endrin 0.0002
Fluoride 4
Lindane 0.004
Lead 0.05
Mercury 0.002
Methoxychlor 0.1
Nitrate 10
Selenium 0.01
Silver 0.05
Toxaphene 0.005
1,1.1-Trichloromethane 0.2
Trichloroethylene 0.005
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy acetic acid 0.01
Vinyl chloride 0.002
-------
A-39
Illinois—In Illinois, landfills receiving CCWs for disposal must be designed,
constructed, and operated in compliance with the same requirements as those that are applicable
to other solid waste landfills (111. Adm. Code 816.500(a)). Such units must be equipped with an
integrated leachate drainage, leachate collection, and compacted earth liner system.
Alternatively, a composite liner meeting defined specifications could be used, or a demonstration
of equivalency for another liner configuration could be made. The required liner specifications
are summarized in Table A.9 for solid waste landfills in Illinois. As the table mentions, if a
landfill receives solely CCWs produced by coal-fired electricity-gene rating plants (i.e., it is a
monofill), a Poz-O-Tec liner made from FGD sludge and coal combustion ash may be
substituted, provided that certain specifications are met (111. Adm. Code 816.510).
The design standards for solid waste landfills in Illinois do not apply to surface
impoundments (35 111. Adm. Code 810.103). However, a solid waste surface impoundment that
receives CCWs must have either an NPDES permit or a construction/operating permit. In either
case, liner requirements may be established in the permit, as necessary, on a case-specific basis,
to protect groundwater. The Illinois Environmental Protection Act (IEPA) prohibits any person
from releasing contaminants to groundwater such that (1) a groundwater quality standard would
be exceeded, (2) an existing or potential use would be precluded, or (3) treatment or additional
treatment would be needed to continue an existing groundwater use or assure a potential future
use (35 111. Adm. Code 620.301).
Indiana—As explained in the discussions of permitting requirements and how CCWs are
designated for regulatory purposes, CCWs may be disposed of in either restricted waste sites or
nonmunicipal solid waste landfills in Indiana. Type I restricted waste sites have the most
stringent design requirements, and Type IV have the least stringent. Among other things,
TABLE A.9 Illinois Landfill Liner Requirements
Special (Non-RCRA) waste landfills: A leachate drainage and collection system and a compacted earth liner
designed as an integrated system is required, as follows:
• Earth liner:
- Permeability < 1 x 10~7 cm/s
- Thickness > 5 ft. OR
• Composite liner consisting of:
- Earth liner with a permeability < 1 x 10~7 cm/s and thickness > 3 ft; overlain by
- Geomembrane liner with a thickness > 60 mil; OR
• Other liner configurations, if:
- They provide equivalent or superior performance;
- They have been used successfully in at least one similar operation; and
- Quality assurance can be implemented.
CCW mono/ills: Po/-()-Tec liners and caps made from CCWs are allowed to replace liner requirements for other
solid waste landfills if the Poz-O-Tec:
• Is produced and tested according to specifications provided in the regulations,
• Has a permeability < I x 10~7 cm/s.
• Has a thickness > 3 ft. and
• Has a compress! ve strength of > 150 lb/in.2 or psi.
-------
A-40
restricted waste site Types I, II, and III, as well as nonmunicipal solid waste landfills, are
required to create barriers between the waste and groundwater. The barriers must consist of soil
(undisturbed, constructed, or a combination) with an equivalent hydraulic conductivity of less
than or equal to 1 x 10~6 cm/s. Indiana regulations also specify minimum thicknesses for such
soil barriers in Type I, II, and III restricted waste sites and in nonmunicipal solid waste landfills,
as indicated in Table A. 10. There are no liner requirements for Type IV restricted waste sites.
Solid waste regulations do not apply to disposal of coal ash transported by water into an
ash pond that has received a water pollution control facility construction permit in Indiana
(329 IAC 10-3-1). As necessary, however, liner requirements may be specified for a coal ash
pond on a case-specific basis in the construction permit or in an NPDES and/or operating permit.
A surface impoundment containing CCWs other than coal ash, such as FGD sludge, would also
be subject to case-specific liner requirements specified in a water pollution control facility permit
or an NPDES permit. When evaluating an application for a surface impoundment construction
permit, an NPDES permit, or an operating permit, the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) has the authority to ensure that facility equipment, practices, and activities
are designed and managed to eliminate or minimize, to the extent feasible, potential adverse
impacts to existing groundwater quality by applying controls such as liner requirements
(327 IAC 2-11-2).
Missouri—CCWs are designated in the MoDNR solid waste regulations as "utility
waste" (10 CSR 80-2.010(111)). A separate set of regulations that apply to the design and
operation of utility waste landfills has been adopted by MoDNR (10 CSR 80-11.010). Utility
waste landfills constructed after the effective date of the regulations (July 30, 1997) are required
to install a composite liner or a clay liner. In both cases, the regulations specify the minimum
thickness, compaction percentage, and hydraulic conductivity for clay in the liner. Minimum
specifications are also provided for the synthetic geomembrane barrier if a composite liner is to
be used. If the owner chooses the single compacted clay liner option, a demonstration justifying
omission of the geomembrane based on site-specific conditions and waste characteristics must be
provided (10 CSR 80-11.010(9)).
TABLE A.10 Indiana Landfill Liner Requirements
Type I, II, or III restricted waste sites: Earth liner having an equivalent hydraulic conductivity of
1 x 10"(l cm/s and a minimum thickness as follows:
• Type I: 15 ft, or 10 ft with a demonstration that the equivalent hydraulic conductivity of the waste through the
barrier will be less than 1 x 1()~6 cm/s.
• Type II: Ranging from 5 ft to 10 ft depending on waste permeability.
• Type III: 3 ft.
Type IV restricted waste sites: No liner required.
Nonmunicipal solid waste landfills:
• Leachate-collection system coupled with Earth liner > 10 ft having hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10 6 cm/s,
OR
* Earth liner > 50 ft having hydraulic conductivity of I x IP'6 cm/s.
-------
A-41
The design standards for utility waste landfills in Missouri do not apply to surface
impoundments. A surface impoundment that receives CCWs is subject to the regulations in
Missouri that establish design guides for wastewater treatment ponds (10 CSR 20-8.200). Such
regulations require that wastewater treatment ponds be sealed with soil or synthetic liners that
can be satisfactorily demonstrated to achieve an adequate seal. Thickness, compaction, and
permeability are specified for soil liners. Synthetic liners are required to have a seepage loss
equivalent to that specified for soil liners (10 CSR 20-8.200(6)).
Ohio—Table A. 11 summarizes the landfill liner requirements for Ohio.
Pennsylvania—A residual waste landfill is a facility for the disposal of residual waste.
The term does not include a residual waste disposal impoundment or a facility for the land
application of residual waste. The regulations distinguish three types of residual waste landfills,
all of which must be permitted. Class I residual waste landfills involve the disposal of residual
wastes that have the greatest potential for adversely affecting groundwater and the greatest
potential for impacts on public health and safety and the environment. Class II residual waste
landfills involve the disposal of residual waste having an intermediate degree of potential for
adversely affecting groundwater and an intermediate degree of potential for impacts on public
health and safety and the environment. Class III residual waste landfills involve the disposal of
residual wastes having the least potential for adversely affecting groundwater and the least
potential for having impacts on public health and safety and the environment (25 Pa. Code
288. l(b)). Hence, as is indicated in Table A. 12, the regulations establish the most stringent liner
requirements for Class I residual waste landfills and progressively less stringent requirements for
Class II and Class III residual waste landfills.
TABLE A.ll Ohio Landfill Liner Requirements
"Nontoxic" fly ash and bottom ash monofill:
No liner required.
Class IV residual waste landfill:
• Soil liner > 3 ft having hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10 7 cm/s, OR
• Geomembrane plus 18 in. of soil having hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10 7 cm/s AND
• Leachatc-management system.
Class III residual waste landfill:
• Soil liner > 3 ft having hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10"7 cm/s, OR
• Geomembrane plus 18 in. of soil having hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10 7 cm/s. AND
• Leachate-management system.
Class II residual waste landfill:
• Geomembrane plus 3 ft of soil having hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10~7 cm/s. AND
• Leachate-management system.
Class I residual waste landfill:
• Geomembrane plus 5 ft of soil having hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 1()~7 cm/s, AND
» Leachate-management system.
-------
A-42
Similarly, the Pennsylvania regulations establish two types of residual waste disposal
impoundments. Class I residual waste disposal impoundments involve the disposal of residual
wastes that have the greatest potential for adversely affecting groundwater and the greatest
potential for having impacts on public health and safety and the environment. Class II residual
waste disposal impoundments involve the disposal of residual wastes that have an intermediate
degree of potential for adversely affecting groundwater and an intermediate degree of potential
for having impacts on public health and safety, and the environment (25 Pa. Code 289. l(b)). The
regulations establish the most stringent liner requirements for Class I residual waste disposal
impoundments and less stringent requirements for Class II residual waste disposal
impoundments.
Texas—Texas has no specific regulations for the use of liners in landfills or surface
impoundments. However, there are general prohibitions in the Texas regulations on (1) causing
the discharge or imminent threat of discharge of industrial solid waste into or adjacent to waters
of the State without authorization, (2) creating and maintaining a nuisance, and (3) endangering
the public health and welfare. To foster compliance, the TCEQ has developed guidance
documents, Technical Guideline Nos. 3 and 4, which outline methods for the use of liner systems
designed to aid in the prevention of the prohibited conditions at landfills and surface
impoundments (TCEQ 2004a and 2004b).
TABLE A.12 Pennsylvania Landfill Liner Requirements
Class I residual waste landfill:
• Subbase prepared of soil or earthen materials.
• Secondary liner placed on the subbase,
• Leachate-detection zone placed on the secondary liner.
• Primary liner placed on the leachate detection-zone, and
• Protective cover and leachale-collection zone placed over the primary liner.
Either the primary liner or the secondary liner must be a composite liner, which is a continuous layer of synthetic
material over earthen materials. The other liner must be composed of synthetic materials.
Class II residual waste landfill:
• Subbase prepared of soil or earthen materials,
• Leachate-detection /one placed on the subbase.
• Composite liner of synthetic material over earthen materials placed on the leachate-detection zone, and
• Protective cover and leachate-collection zone placed over the liner.
Class III residual waste landfill:
• Attenuating soil must exist naturally or have been placed over the entire disposal area.
• The seasonal high water table, perched water table, or bedrock must be separated from the lowest area where
waste is deposited by at least 4 ft, and
• The regional groundwater table must be separated from the lowest area where waste is deposited by at least
8 ft.
-------
A-43
According to Technical Guideline No. 3, Landfills, at landfills receiving Class 1 and
Class 2 wastes, the TCEQ recommends the use of a composite liner composed of compacted clay
immediately beneath a synthetic membrane liner (high-density polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride,
chlorinated polyethylene, butyl rubbers, etc.). However, a monofill that contains only certain
specific, consistent, well-characterized wastes that have been found to have low migration
potential in a landfill normally would not require a membrane in the liner. "The wastes that have
been found to be suitable for placement in clay-lined monofills are asbestos, coal bottom ash,
coal fly ash, coal FGD residue, and stabilized steel mill scale" (TCEQ 2004a). TCEQ
recommends that high-density polyethylene (HDPE), if used as a liner material, should be at
least 60 mil thick.
Technical Guideline No. 4, Nonhazardous Industrial Solid Waste Surface Impoundments,
advises that waste characteristics are the primary consideration when choosing a surface
impoundment liner. Other considerations are the physical aspects of the site, including geology,
hydrology, and climate. TCEQ (2004b) suggests that these considerations be used in choosing
among the following liner system types (minimum recommended thicknesses are provided in
parentheses):
• Geomembrane (polyethylene 60 mil, other types 30 mil) and underlying leak
detection system; or
• Compacted clay (2 ft); or
• Equivalent in-situ clay; or
• Geosynthetic clay liner overlain by protective soil (1 ft).
Virginia—In Virginia, an industrial solid waste landfill is required to have a liner system
consisting of a primary liner made from compacted soil, synthetic materials, other materials, or
in-place soil, provided that specified criteria are met. Regulations establish design and
installation standards for double liners when they are either required or used in lieu of
groundwater monitoring (9 VAC 20-80-300.B.14).
Virginia regulations contain no liner requirements for surface impoundments. However,
the Virginia State Water Control Board has established groundwater standards
(9 VAC 25-280-10 et seq.), and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) has
authority under State water control law to incorporate special conditions in water permits
(e.g., VPDES permits and Virginia pollution abatement permits), as necessary, on a case-specific
basis, to ensure that activities at the permitted facility will not result in violations of those
standards. VDEQ permit writers are instructed to consider whether a water permit for an
industrial facility that operates a wastewater treatment lagoon should contain a special condition
requiring the permittee to demonstrate that the permeability of the lagoon does not exceed
10-6cm/s (VDEQ 2004).
Wisconsin—Primarily on the basis of the landfill performance and design experience it
had gained during the 1980s, Wisconsin established a revised set of solid waste rules
-------
A-44
(WAC NR 500-520) in 1988. The 1988 rules required all landfills to be designed with a 5-ft-
thick clay liner and a leachate-collection system.
Wisconsin has established minimum design and construction criteria for landfill liners
and leachate-collection systems.
Wisconsin requires that any surface impoundments that are not required to have solid
waste operating licenses must be sealed to prevent water losses that exceed 500 gal per acre per
day (WAC NR 213.10(2)). Natural soil materials, soil-bentonite mixtures, or synthetic liners may
be used for sealing. The bottom of each impoundment must be compacted to a depth of 6 in., and
an additional inorganic layer to protect the liner may be required. The permeability of a soil or
soil-bentonite liner must not exceed 1 x 10~7 cm/s. Specific requirements for soil, soil-bentonite,
and synthetic liners are identified in the regulations. Synthetic liners must be at least 30 mil
thick. All liners must be compatible with the contents of the impoundment.
A.5 GROUNDWATER MONITORING-REQUIREMENTS IN SELECTED STATES
A.5.1 Summary
Groundwater monitoring is used to assess the performance of a CCW land disposal
facility design in preventing contaminants from being released to groundwater. When
groundwater monitoring is required, specifications typically include the location(s) of the
point(s) of compliance; number, spacing, and design of wells; constituents for which testing is
required; and sampling frequency. Table A. 13 summarizes the groundwater-monitoring
requirements for landfills and surface impoundments in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Additional details are
provided in Section A.5.3.
A.5.2 Chronological Comparison of Groundwater-Monitoring Regulations for Landfills
Table A. 14 compares the findings on groundwater-monitoring requirements for landfills
that receive CCWs in the five pilot States and six supplemental States described in this report
("2005 Data") with the groundwater-monitoring requirements for CCW landfills reported in EPA
1988 and EPA 1999b.
A.5.3 State-Specific Discussion of Groundwater-Monitoring Requirements
Alabama—Because CCWs are expressly excluded from the definition of solid waste in
Alabama, landfills that receive only CCWs are not subject to the Alabama solid waste
regulations. Therefore, CCW monofills are not required to have groundwater monitoring in
Alabama. However, if CCWs are disposed of in a landfill that receives other types of solid waste,
-------
TABLE A.13 Summary of Groundwater-Monitoring Requirements for CCW Management Units in Selected States
State3
Groundwater-Monitoring Requirements
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Alabama CCW mono/ills: No applicable groundwater-monitoring requirements.
Co-disposal with other wastes in a municipal waste landfill:
• At least enough wells at locations and depths to yield groundwater samples
from the first saturated zone that are representative of both background and
down-gradient water quality
Co-disposal with other wastes in an industrial waste landfill: Groundwater-
monitoring requirements are specified by the ADEM on a case-specific.
Florida Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis in either the solid waste
Construction and Operating Permits, or in the PPSA certification if one
substitutes for the solid waste permits.
Georgia • Samples must be collected semiannually and tested for metals and volatile
organic compounds (metals may be replaced with indicators upon approval).
• The point of compliance defined in the permit must not be more than 150 ft
from the waste boundary.
Illinois • Groundwater monitoring is required during the active life of the landfill and
during the post-closure care period.
• Upgradient monitoring is required to establish background concentration
levels.
• Monitoring intervals are to be no shorter than quarterly for 5 years, then
semiannual.
• Under certain circumstances, monitoring can be done annually, but it must
return to a quarterly schedule at any well where a statistically significant
increase is determined to have occurred in the concentration of any
constituent.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis
in NPDES permit.
Established, as necessary, on a case specific basis
in NPDES permit, groundwater-monitoring permit,
or PPSA certification.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis
in land disposal system permit.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis
in NPDES or construction/operating permits.
-------
TABLE A.13 (Cont.)
Slate1
Groundwater-Moniloring Requirements
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Indiana
Missouri
Ohio
Type I and II restricted waste sites and nonmunicipal solid waste landfills:
• Groundwater monitoring is required during the aetive life of the landfill and
during the post-closure care period.
• At least one upgradient well and three downgradient wells must be installed.
• Samples must he collected semiannually.
Type 111 and IV restricted waste sites:
• No groundwater monitoring is required.
• Baseline groundwater quality data are required for at least 1 year.
• Thereafter, detection monitoring must he established.
• At least one upgradient well and three downgradient wells are required.
• Samples must be collected at least semiannually for specified constituents.
• Class I, II. and If! residual waste landfills:
— Hydrologic site investigation is required.
- Upgradient sampling is required quarterly for the first year to establish
background levels.
- Downgradient sampling is required semiannually for indicator parameters.
- Downgradient sampling is required annually for water quality parameters
(metals plus total organic carbon, total dissolved solids, chloride, sodium,
and radionuclides).
• Class IV residual waste landfills:
- No groundwater monitoring is required unless leachate concentrations
exceed background groundwater concentrations.
- Requirements are same as above for Classes I, II, and III if leachate
concentrations exceed background groundwater concentrations.
• Nontoxic fly ash and bottom ash monofills: No groundwater monitoring is
ret
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis in
water pollution control permits.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis in
wastewater treatment unit permits.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis in
water pollution control permits.
-------
TABLE A.13 (Cont.)
Groundwater-Monitoring Requirements
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Pennsylvania • At least one upgradient well and three downgradient wells loeated within
200 It of the disposal area are required.
• Monitoring intervals must be no shorter than:
- Quarterly for indicator parameters,
- Annually for metals and volatile organic compounds.
Texas • No groundwater-monitoring requirements are specified in the regulations.
• TCEQ Recommendation for landfills receiving Class 1 and Class 2 wastes:
Groundwater-monitoring system following the recommendations in TCEQ
Technical Guideline No. 6, Monitoring Systems (TCEQ 2004c)
• Monofills receiving only bottom ash, fly ash, or FGD residues have been
found to not require a membrane
Virginia • Groundwater monitoring is required during the active life of the landfill and
during the post-closure care period, unless a double liner having the following
components is used: bottom (secondary) liner of clay or composite materials,
leachate-collection system, primary liner of clay or composite materials, and
12-in. drainage layer covered by 6-in. protective layer.
• At least one upgradient and three downgradient wells are required.
Wisconsin • Baseline groundwater quality must be established, unless a waiver is granted.
• Sampling is required semiannually.
• The number of monitoring points must be approved on a case-specific basis,
taking into consideration waste type and facility design, and hydrogeologic
and geologic setting.
• The monitoring program must be adequate to determine upgradient and
downgradient water quality, determine horizontal and vertical gradients, and
detect impacts on groundwater quality.
• At least one upgradient well and three downgradient
wells located within 200 ft of the disposal area.
• Monitoring intervals no shorter than:
- Quarterly for indicator parameters;
- Annually for metals and volatile organic
compounds.
No groundwater-monitoring requirements are specified
in the regulations.
TCEQ Recommendation for surface impoundments
receiving Class 1 and Class 2 wastes: At least 3 wells to
determine the groundwater-flow direction and enough
wells, as determined on a case-specific basis, to detect
releases from the unit.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis in
water control permits.
Ua.
I
XI
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis in
water control permits.
a The pilot study covered this category of regulatory control for Illinois, Indiana. Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Georgia, Missouri, and Ohio are
supplemental States.
-------
A-48
TABLE A.14 Chronological Comparison of Groundwater-Monitoring Requirements for
Landfills in Selected States
State
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Missouri
Groundwater-Monitoring
EPA 1988 EPA 1999b
Yes NCh
Yes NC
Noa NC
No NC
Mayd Type I: Yes
Type II: Yes
Type III: No
Type IV: No
No NC (Research for this report
indicates that Missouri
implemented standards for
utility waste landfills,
including groundwater-
monitoring standards in
1997.)
Requirements for Landfills
2005 Data
No, unless CCWs are co-disposed of with other
industrial solid wastes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Type I: Yes
Type II: Yes
Type III: No
Type IV: No
Nonmunicipal solid waste landfill: Yes
Yes
Ohio
Exempt
NC
Pennsylvania May
Texas
Virginia
Wisconsin
May
No
Mayd
Class I: Yes
Class II: Yes
Class III: Yes
NC
Yes, unless double liner is
used
Yesc
Nontoxic monofills: No
Class I: Yes
Class II: Yes
Class III: Yes
Class IV: No. unless leachate concentrations
exceed background levels
Class I: Yes
Class II: Yes
Class III: Yes
Recommended by TCEQ. but not required
Yes, unless double liner is used
Yes
a No = The source report indicates that State regulations do not impose groundwater-monitoring requirements.
h NC = Not covered in the source report.
c Yes = The source report indicates that State regulations impose groundwater-monitoring requirements.
d May = The source report indicates that the State regulations provide for a case-by-case decision on the need
for groundwater-monitoring requirements.
-------
A -49
such as a commercial industrial waste landfill or a municipal waste landfill, that landfill may be
subject to groundwater-monitoring requirements, as indicated in ADEM Adm. Code
R.335-13-4-.27. At a minimum, municipal waste landfills must have groundwater-monitoring
systems that consist of a sufficient number of wells, installed at appropriate locations and depths,
to yield groundwater samples from the first saturated zone that represent both background and
downgradient groundwater quality. The wells must be constructed and sampled in accordance
with specifications in the regulations. For industrial landfills, the ADEM determines
groundwater-monitoring requirements on a case-specific basis (ADEM Adm. Code
R.335-13-4-.27).
Similarly, surface impoundments in Alabama that receive only CCWs are not subject to
the Alabama solid waste regulations. However, if there are discharges of pollutants to waters of
the State (including groundwater) from such surface impoundments, NPDES permits would be
required. The ADEM has authority to include conditions in an NPDES permit, on a case-specific
basis, requiring a surface impoundment to install structures, such as groundwater-monitoring
wells, if necessary to prevent pollutant discharges to groundwater (ADEM Adm. Code R.335-
6-6-.08).
Florida—Florida does not have solid waste regulations that govern groundwater
monitoring at CCW landfills. However, under Florida water law, any facility that can reasonably
be expected to be a source of water pollution affecting State waters (including groundwater)
must have a permit [FAC R62-620.100(2)(b)]. Through this permitting process, Florida has
authority to impose groundwater-monitoring requirements on a case-specific basis at any landfill
or surface impoundment that receives CCWs. Any facility that discharges to groundwater under
a permit is required to establish a groundwater-monitoring program (FAC R62-522.600) and
submit a groundwater-monitoring plan to the Florida DEP.
Georgia—In Georgia, owners or operators of industrial waste landfills must conduct
groundwater monitoring. The groundwater-monitoring data must be evaluated by the owner or
operator to determine if "established standards" have been exceeded. All exceedances of
"established standards" must be promptly reported. The established standards for analytical
constituents are the following:
• The primary standards that are enforceable as maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) defined in the Georgia Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended
in 1986 et seq., and the Rules for Safe Drinking Water, revised in July 1992.
• The background level of the constituent when this level is higher than the
MCL.
• When there is no MCL for a constituent, the established standard will be
derived from a statistical analysis. The number of samples needed to establish
a statistical base must be consistent with appropriate statistical methods
defined in the regulations. If a statistically significant increase (SSI) above
background occurs, the established standard for the constituent has been
exceeded.
-------
A-50
Illinois — In Illinois landfills that receive CCWs, groundwater monitoring is required as
soon as the waste is emplaced. The monitoring must continue during the active life of the unit
and for a minimum period of 15 years after closure. Monitoring points must be positioned at
appropriate upgradient locations to establish background concentrations and at enough
downgradient locations to detect any discharge of contaminants chosen for monitoring. At least
one downgradient well is required. All monitoring points must be sampled quarterly for 5 years,
after which the monitoring frequency can be semiannual. Under certain circumstances,
monitoring can be done annually, but it must return to a quarterly schedule at any well where a
statistically significant increase is determined to have occurred in the concentration of any
constituent (35 III. Adm. Code 811.318 and 319(a)(l)).
The operator must monitor each well for constituents that provide a means for detecting
groundwater contamination. A constituent must be chosen for monitoring if it is expected to
appear in the leachate and the State has established a protection or quality standard for it in either
public water supplies or groundwater, respectively. A baseline test and subsequent biannual tests
for certain organic constituents are also required in each monitoring well (35 111. Adm. Code
Groundwater quality at or beyond the zone of attenuation must be maintained with regard
to all constituents. The applicable groundwater-quality standard established for any constituent
must be the background concentration or the standard established as a State groundwater quality
standard. If increases in contaminant concentrations are observed, additional samples may be
required to confirm the observed increase and to identify the source of the increase. If the landfill
is confirmed to be the source of the increase, an assessment of the potential impacts to
groundwater outside the zone of attenuation is required to determine if remedial action is needed
(35 111. Adm. Code 8 11. 3 19).
The groundwater monitoring requirements for solid waste landfills in Illinois do not
apply to surface impoundments (35 111. Adm. Code 810.103). However, a surface impoundment
that receives CCWs must have an NPDES permit or a construction/operating permit. In either
case, groundwater-monitoring requirements may be established in the permit, as necessary, on a
case-specific basis, to protect groundwater. The Illinois Environmental Protection Act prohibits
any person from releasing contaminants to groundwater such that (l)a groundwater-quality
standard would be exceeded, (2) an existing or potential use would be precluded, or (3) treatment
or additional treatment would be needed to continue an existing groundwater use or assure a
potential future use (35 111. Adm. Code 620.301).
Indiana — In Indiana, restricted waste site Types I and II must conduct groundwater
monitoring throughout the active life and the post-closure care period of the facilities. Type I and
II restricted waste sites must have groundwater-monitoring systems consisting of a sufficient
number of monitoring devices, installed at appropriate locations and depths, to yield groundwater
samples that represent both background water quality and the quality of potentially affected
groundwater that passes the monitoring boundary of the facility. A minimum of four
groundwater-monitoring devices (one upgradient and three downgradient) must be installed.
Type III and IV restricted waste sites are not required to conduct groundwater monitoring
(329 IAC 10-29-10).
-------
A-51
The Indiana regulations do not specify groundwater monitoring-requirements for surface
impoundments. However, IDEM may specify water pollution control permit conditions as
necessary to assure that any pollutants released or threatened to be released by the unit into the
environment will not cause or contribute to violations of applicable water quality standards, or
otherwise cause a significant adverse impact on the environment or public health
(327 IAC 3-4-3).
Missouri—In Missouri, utility waste landfills are required to implement groundwater
monitoring capable of determining the impact of the landfill on the quality of the underlying
groundwater (10 CSR 80-11.010(11)). Monitoring wells must be installed both hydraulically
upgradient (at least one well) and hydraulically downgradient (at least three wells) from the
utility waste landfill. The actual number, location, and depth of wells must be determined on the
basis of site-specific information to ensure detection of any significant amounts of fluids that
migrate from the landfill to groundwater. A groundwater sampling and analysis program must be
submitted for State approval. Baseline monitoring to establish background groundwater quality is
required for constituents of concern. For baseline monitoring, a minimum of four quarterly
samples is required for at least one year. Thereafter, detection monitoring (i.e., routine
monitoring) must be performed during May and November of each calendar year for specified
constituents and for the water level in each well. The sampling data must be statistically
evaluated. If a statistically significant change in the pH or increase in a constituent level occurs
and is confirmed, the owner/operator of the landfill must submit a plan for assessment
monitoring to better define the extent of groundwater contamination. During assessment
monitoring, quarterly sampling is required. If one or more constituents exceed the groundwater-
protection standard, the owner/operator must submit a report to the State assessing potential
corrective measures.
A surface impoundment that receives CCWs for disposal in Missouri is subject to the
regulations that establish design guides for wastewater treatment ponds (10 CSR 20-8.200). Such
regulations do not require that every wastewater treatment pond have a groundwater-monitoring
system. However, groundwater-monitoring requirements may be imposed on a case-specific
basis in construction and operating permits for facilities with point source discharges to waters of
the State or in no-discharge permits for facilities that do not discharge (10 CSR 20.8-200(8)(E);
10 CSR 20-6.015 (4)(B)5).
Ohio—Owners and operators of residual waste landfills in Ohio are required to
implement and maintain groundwater-monitoring programs capable of determining the impact of
their landfill facilities on the quality of the underlying groundwater. Class I, II, and III residual
waste landfills are required to conduct a hydrologic site investigation, install monitoring wells,
and conduct sampling as follows (OAC 3745-30-08):
• Upgradient sampling quarterly for first year to establish background,
• Downgradient sampling semiannually for indicator parameters, and
-------
A -52
• Downgradient sampling annually for water quality parameters (metals plus
total organic carbon, total dissolved solids, chloride, sodium, and
radionuclides).
No groundwater monitoring is required at Class IV residual waste landfills, unless
leachate concentrations exceed background groundwater concentrations. If leachate
concentrations exceed background levels, the same schedule of sampling as that described above
for Class I, II, and III landfills must be implemented.
No groundwater monitoring is required at nontoxic fly ash and bottom ash monofills.
The Ohio regulations do not specify groundwater-monitoring requirements for surface
impoundments. However, the OEPA may establish groundwater-monitoring requirements for
surface impoundments on a case-specific basis in water pollution control permits.
Pennsylvania—The Pennsylvania regulations require a groundwater-quality monitoring
plan and a monitoring system located within 200 ft upgradient (at least one well) and
downgradient (at least three wells) from the disposal area associated with either a residual waste
landfill or disposal impoundment. The regulations provide for the following monitoring
intervals: (1) quarterly for various indicators (ammonia-nitrogen, bicarbonate, calcium, chloride,
fluoride, chemical oxygen demand, nitrate-nitrogen, pH, specific conductance, sulfate, total
alkalinity, total organic carbon, total dissolved solids, turbidity, iron, manganese, magnesium,
potassium, and sodium) and (2) annually for metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc) and volatile organic compounds
(tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,2-dibromoethane, 1,1-
dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene (cis and trans isomers), vinyl chloride, 1,1-dichloroethane,
1,2-dichloroethane, methylene chloride, toluene, ethylbenzene, benzene, and xylene). Triggers
are established for the need to prepare a groundwater assessment plan and an abatement plan.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) may approve alternative
designs for well casings and alternative sampling and analysis requirements. However, PADEP
is not allowed to grant variances from the minimum number of wells or to waive the
groundwater-monitoring requirements altogether (25 Pa. Code 288.251-288.258 for landfills;
25 Pa. Code 289.261-289.268 for disposal impoundments).
Abatement standards at compliance points (at and beyond 150 m of the perimeter of the
permitted residual waste disposal area or at and beyond the property boundary, whichever is
closer) include: (1) statewide health standards, (2) background standards, or (3) risk-based
standards calculated in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, if there are no
primary MCLs under Federal and State law (25 Pa. Code 288.257(c) for landfills; 25 Pa. Code
289.267(c) for disposal impoundments).
Texas—Texas has no specific regulations for groundwater monitoring at landfills or
surface impoundments. However, there are general prohibitions in the Texas regulations on:
(1) causing the discharge or imminent threat of discharge of industrial solid waste into or
adjacent to waters of the State without authorization, (2) creating and maintaining a nuisance,
and (3) endangering the public health and welfare. To foster compliance, the TCEQ has
-------
A-53
developed guidance documents, Technical Guideline Nos. 3 and 4, which recommend
installation of groundwater-monitoring systems at landfills and surface impoundments (TCEQ
2004a and 2004b).
According to Technical Guideline No. 3, Landfills, at landfills receiving Class 1 and
Class 2 wastes, the TCEQ recommends installation of a groundwater monitoring-system
designed as suggested in Technical Guideline No. 6, Ground-Water Monitoring (TCEQ 2004c),
with monitoring 30 years after closure.
Technical Guideline No. 4, Nonhazardous Industrial Solid Waste Surface Impoundments,
recommends groundwater monitoring at surface impoundments receiving Class 1 and Class 2
wastes, unless it can be shown that there is no potential for migration of waste constituents to the
uppermost water-bearing zone during the active life of the unit, including the closure period and
the post-closure care period. This Technical Guideline further recommends installing a sufficient
number of wells at appropriate locations and depths to yield groundwater samples, with a
minimum of three wells to determine the groundwater-flow direction, as well as enough wells (as
determined on a site-specific basis) to detect releases from the unit. Semiannual groundwater
monitoring is recommended during the active life and post-closure period of the unit.
Virginia—A groundwater-monitoring program is required at each industrial waste
landfill in Virginia (9 VAC 20-80-300). At least one upgradient well and three downgradient
wells are required, but the total number, spacing, and depths of monitoring wells are determined
on the basis of site-specific technical information. The program must be capable of yielding
groundwater samples from the uppermost aquifer that represent both background water quality
and water quality at the waste management unit boundary. The downgradient monitoring system
must be installed at the waste management unit boundary, unless a variance has been granted.
A groundwater-monitoring plan must specify sampling and analytical methods as well as
the statistical methods to be used in evaluating monitoring data for each parameter or constituent
in each well. Phase I monitoring is to be conducted at least semiannually for indicator parameters
(specific conductance, pH, total organic carbon, total organic halogens), unless and until a
statistically significant increase (or decrease, for pH) occurs. Phase II monitoring is instituted
within 90 days after a statistically significant change in any indicator parameter is detected.
Phase II monitoring includes the semiannual analysis of parameters listed in Table 5.5 of
VAC, Title 9, Section 20-80-300 and, if required, any detected constituents in Table 5.1. Phase II
monitoring continues until a demonstration justifies reinstituting Phase I monitoring or until a
corrective action monitoring program is implemented.
Virginia regulations contain no requirements that surface impoundments implement
groundwater monitoring. However, VDEQ has established groundwater standards (9 VAC
25-280-10 et seq.) and has the authority under State water control law to incorporate special
conditions in water permits (e.g., VPDES permits and Virginia pollution abatement permits), as
necessary on a case-specific basis, to ensure that activities at the permitted facility will not result
in violations of the standards. VDEQ permit writers are instructed to consider whether a water
-------
A-54
permit for an industrial facility that operates a wastewater treatment lagoon should contain a
special condition requiring a groundwater-monitoring plan (VDEQ 2004).
Wisconsin—By the mid-to-late 1970s, groundwater-monitoring data from numerous
unlined landfills in Wisconsin provided documentation that such "natural attenuation" sites were
causing significant impacts on groundwater quality. As a result, many were required to close. In
1984, the Wisconsin legislature passed a comprehensive groundwater law, which assigned the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) responsibility for establishing a list of
substances that either had been detected in groundwater or had a reasonable probability of
entering groundwater. Since October 1, 1985, all new solid waste landfills in Wisconsin have
been required to be designed to meet preventive action limits (PALs) for groundwater. The PALs
are trigger levels for constituents that have been detected in groundwater or have a reasonable
probability of entering groundwater. They are based on the threat that a particular contaminant
poses to public health and the environment. The PALs are applicable at any location where
groundwater is monitored, including directly beneath a landfill. To ensure compliance,
Wisconsin requires periodic groundwater monitoring of industrial landfills. Prior to 1996, routine
monitoring was required quarterly. In 1996, the requirements for landfill design features were
upgraded, and the minimum frequency for monitoring at new landfills was reduced to
semiannual. However, WDNR may approve other frequencies (more or less often) on the basis
of site-specific considerations. The number and locations of monitoring points must be approved
on a case-specific basis, taking into consideration the waste type and facility size, design, and
hydrogeologic and geologic setting. Detection monitoring (i.e., routine monitoring) must be
implemented, unless written approval is obtained for an alternative program. The regulations
specify detection monitoring parameters for fly ash and/or bottom ash landfills. For other CCWs,
such as FGD waste, detection monitoring parameters will be established on a case-specific basis
in the operating license (WAC NR 507.06). The detection monitoring program must be adequate
to determine upgradient and downgradient water quality, determine horizontal and vertical
gradients, and detect impacts to groundwater quality.
In Wisconsin, surface impoundments must be designed and operated to minimize the
level of substances in groundwater and to prevent exceedances of the groundwater PALs, to the
extent technically and economically feasible (WAC NR 213.08). Surface impoundments that are
not required to have solid waste operating licenses may be required to conduct groundwater
monitoring to provide long-term information on the effects of such impoundments on
groundwater. When a groundwater-monitoring system is required, the parameters to be
monitored and the monitoring frequency are to be established on a case-by-case basis.
A.6 LEACHATE-COLLECTION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS IN SELECTED STATES
A.6.1 Summary
Leachate-collection systems are frequently required in conjunction with liners to detect
contaminants and prevent them from leaking out of CCW land disposal facilities into
-------
-55
groundwater. Table A. 15 summarizes the leachate-collection system requirements for landfills
and surface impoundments in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Additional details are provided in Section A.6.3.
A.6.2 Chronological Comparison of Leachate-Collection System Requirements
for Landfills in Selected States
Table A. 16 compares the findings on requirements for leachate-collection systems in
landfills that receive CCWs in the five pilot States and six additional States ("2005 Data") with
the leachate-collection system requirements for CCW landfills reported in EPA 1988 and
EPA 1999b.
A.6.3 State-Specific Discussion of Leachate-Collection System Requirements
Alabama—Because CCWs are expressly excluded from the definition of solid waste in
Alabama, landfills that receive only CCWs are not subject to the Alabama solid waste
regulations. Therefore, CCW monofills are not required to install leachate-collection systems in
Alabama. However, if CCWs are disposed of in a landfill that receives other types of solid waste,
such as a commercial industrial waste landfill or a municipal waste landfill, that landfill may be
subject to leachate collection requirements, as indicated in ADEM Adm. Code R.335-13-4-.18.
According to that regulatory section, a leachate-collection system is required in either landfill
type, if the landfill is designed and constructed to maintain less than a 30 cm depth of leachate
over the liner.
Similarly, surface impoundments in Alabama that receive only CCWs are not subject to
the Alabama solid waste regulations. However, if there are discharges of pollutants to waters of
the State (including groundwater) from surface impoundments, NPDES permits would be
required. The ADEM has authority to include conditions in an NPDES permit on a case-specific
basis requiring a surface impoundment to install structures, such as leachate-collection systems,
if necessary to prevent pollutant discharges to groundwater (ADEM Adm. Code R.335-6-6-.08).
Florida—Florida does not have solid waste regulations that specify leachate-control
system requirements at CCW landfills. However, under Florida water law, any facility that can
reasonably be expected to be a source of water pollution affecting State waters (including
groundwater) must have a permit to construct, modify, and operate the facility
[FAC 62-620.100(2)(b)]. Through this permitting process, the Florida DEP has authority to
impose leachate-collection system requirements at any landfill that receives CCWs on a case-
specific basis.
Georgia—In Georgia, all industrial waste disposal facilities are required to have leachate-
collection systems. If a permit application is filed indicating that a landfill would receive only a
single type of industrial waste (i.e., it would be a monofill) or would receive only wastes from a
single industry, the landfill would be eligible for variances from the requirements to install liners,
-------
TABLE A.15 Summary of Leachate-Collection System Requirements for CCW Management Units in Selected States
Leachate-Collection System Requirements
State
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Alabama CCW inonofills: No applicable leachatt'-collection svstem requirements.
Co-disposal with other wastes in a municipal waste landfill or industrial waste landfill:
A leachate-collection system is required that is designed and constructed to maintain
less than a 30-cm depth ofleuchute over the liner.
Florida No specific requirements, but may be established in a permit or PPSA certification, as
appropriate.
Georgia Industrial waste landfills: A leachate collection-system is required.
Industrial waste monofills: A variance from the requirement to install a leachate-
collection system is available to permit applicants who demonstrate that the waste to be
disposed of would not cause groundwater or surface water contamination.
Illinois A leachate drainage layer at least 1 ft thick is required in conjunction with a leachate-
collection system and a leachate-management system consisting of any combination of
storage, treatment, pretreatment, and disposal options that meet specified requirements.
Indiana Type I. II and 111 restricted waste sites:
No leachate-collection system is required, but one may be used on a case-specific basis
lo reduce liner thickness.
Type IV restricted waste sites: No leachate-collection system is required.
Nonnuinicipal solid waste landfill:
• A leachate drainage layer at least 1 ft thick with a hydraulic conductivity of
>1 x 10"3 cm/s is required.
• The upper 3 ft of material beneath the drainage layer must have an equivalent
hydraulic conductivity of <1 x 10"7 cm/s.
• It must be designed to limit the leachate level above the landfill base to I ft or less
after the final cover has been placed.
Missouri Utility waste landfills: Leachate-collection systems are required, unless the owner or
operator can demonstrate that a leachate collection-system is not needed
• The leachate-collection system must be designed to maintain less than 1 ft of
leachate head on the liner.
• Material thickness, hydraulic conductivity, and particle size are determined on a
case-specific basis.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis in NPDES
permits.
No specific requirements, but may be established in a permit or
PPSA certification, as appropriate.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis in NPDES
permits.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis in NPDES or
construction/operating permits.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis in water pollution
control permits.
Not required for wastewater treatment ponds.
-------
TABLE A.15 (Cont.)
State
Leachate-Collection System Requirements
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Design and construction specifications for leachate-management systems are
provided.
Among other things, the leachate-management system must be designed to do the
following:
- Limit the level of leachate over the liner to a maximum of 1 ft,
- Contain granular material used as a drainage medium that has permeability of
no less than Ix 10"^ cm/s,
- Function without clogging, and
— Be chemically resistant to attack by the residual waste, leachate, or any other
material it may contact.
Performance and design standards for leachate-detection zones in Class I and II
residual waste landfills are specified.
Among other things, leachate-detection zones must:
- Be at least 12 in. thick,
- Contain no particles that exceed 0.5 in.,
- Have a flow zone with a hydraulic conductivity of >1 x 10~2 cm/s,
- Function without clogging,
- Withstand chemical attack from waste and leachate, and
— Be monitored weekly.
The permit may specify alternative performance and design standards for the
leachate system in Class I and II residual waste landfills.
- Class I and II residual waste landfills must be equipped with a leachate-
collection system meeting specified design and performance standards. The
leachate-collection system must, among other things, ensure that the depth of
leachate on or above the primary liner does not exceed 1 ft.
Recommended by TCEQ, but not required by the regulations.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis in permits to
install or NPDES permits.
• Performance and design standards for leachate-detection zones
in Class I and II residual waste disposal impoundments are
specified.
• Among other things, leachate detection zones must:
- Be at least 12 in. thick,
— Contain no particles that exceed 0.5 in.,
— Have a flow zone with a hydraulic conductivity of
>1 x 10'2 cm/s,
— Function without clogging,
- Withstand chemical attack from waste and leachate, and
- Be monitored weekly.
• A permit may specify alternative performance and design
standards for the leachate system in Class I and II residual
waste disposal impoundments.
• Class 1 and II residual waste disposal impoundments must be
equipped with a leachate-collection system that meets specified
design and performance standards.
Not required by the regulations, but leak detection is recommended
-------
TABLE A.15 (Cont.)
Leachate-Colleciiun System Requirements
State Landfills Surface Impoundments
Virginia • A leachate-collection system consisting of a drainage layer >1 ft thick with a Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis in water pollution
hydraulic conductivity of >1 x 10"3 cm/s is required. control permits.
• The leachate system must prevent the accumulation of more than a 1 -ft head over the
liner.
• The leachate-storage impoundments must be lined with a synthetic component that
provides protection at least equal to that of the landfill cell liner.
Wisconsin • The leachate system shall prevent the accumulation of more than a 1 -ft head over the Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis in water pollution
liner. control permits.
For fly ash or bottom ash landfills—alternative design:
• Feasibility report required demonstrating that the landfill design meets or exceeds
otherwise applicable location and performance standards.
is.
00
-------
A-59
TABLE A.16 Chronological Comparison of Leachate-Collection System Requirements for
Landfills in Selected States
State
Leachate-Collection System Requirements for Landfills
EPA 1988
EPA 1999b
2005 Data
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Missouri
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Virginia
Wisconsin
No
Yes
No
NC
NC
NC
Noa
No
NCh
No, but may be used on case-
specific basis to relax liner
thickness
May NC
Not applicable NC
No Class I: Yes
Class II: Yes
Class III: No
No
No
May
NC
Yes
Yes
No, unless CCWs are co-disposed of
with other industrial solid wastes.
No specific requirements, but may be
established in a permit or PPSA
certification, as appropriate.
Yes, unless the landfill is a monofill
and a demonstration has been made
that the waste to be disposed of would
not cause groundwater or surface water
contamination.
Yes
Types I, II, and III: No, but may be
used on a case-specific basis to relax
liner thickness.
Type IV: No
Nonmunicipal solid waste landfill: Yes
Utility waste landfill: Yes
Residual waste landfill: Yes
Class I: Yes
Class II: Yes
Class III: No
Recommended by TCEQ, but not
required.
Yes
Yes
a No = The source report indicates that State regulations do not impose leachate system requirements.
h NC = Not covered in the source report.
c Yes = The source report indicates that State regulations impose leachate system requirements.
d May = The source report indicates that the Slate regulations provide for a case-by-case decision on the need
for leachate system requirements.
-------
A-60
leachate-collection systems, and groundwater and surface water monitoring systems, provided
the permit application demonstrates that the waste to be disposed of would not cause
groundwater or surface water contamination. In the absence of a variance, industrial waste
disposal facilities must demonstrate that their designs ensure that the concentrations in the
uppermost aquifer at the relevant point of compliance do not exceed those listed in Table A.8 for
the specified chemicals. Disposal facilities accepting wastes from more than one industrial
source, unless the facility is a monofill, must meet all standards applicable to municipal solid
waste landfills (GDNR Rule 391-3-4.07(4)).
The design standards for industrial waste landfills in Georgia do not apply to surface
impoundments. However, best management practices are to be incorporated into NPDES permits
and nonpoint-source discharge approval letters (GA Rule 391-3-6-.06(3)).
Illinois—Landfills that receive CCWs in Illinois must have leachate drainage, collection,
and management systems designed and built to function for the operational life of the landfills.
The drainage layer must cover the entire liner and maintain the leachate head above the liner
below 1 ft. The leachate layer must be at least 1-ft thick and have a hydraulic conductivity of
1 x 10-3 cm/s (35 in Adm. Code 811.307). Collection pipes must be designed for open-channel
flow to convey leachate. Materials used in the system must be chemically resistant to the
leachate expected to be produced. Collection pipes must be constructed within a coarse gravel
envelope by the use of a graded filter or geotextile, as necessary, to minimize clogging (35 111.
Adm. Code 811.308). A leachate-management system consisting of any combination of multiple
treatment and storage structures must be designed and constructed as specified in the regulations
(35111. Adm. Code 811.309).
The leachate-collection system design standards for solid waste landfills in Illinois do not
apply to surface impoundments (35 111. Adm. Code 810.103). However, a surface impoundment
that receives CCWs in Illinois must have an NPDES permit or a construction/operating permit.
In either case, leachate collection system requirements may be established in the permit, as
necessary on a case-specific basis, to protect groundwater. The Illinois Environmental Protection
Act prohibits any person from releasing contaminants to groundwater such that: (1) a
groundwater-quality standard would be exceeded, (2) an existing or potential use would be
precluded, or (3) treatment or additional treatment would be needed to continue an existing
groundwater use or assure a potential future use (35 111. Adm. Code 620.301).
Indiana—Indiana regulations do not specify requirements for leachate-collection systems
in landfills for any type of restricted waste site. However, if the owner/operator of such a landfill
decides to include a leachate-collection system in the design of a Type I, II, or III restricted
waste site, the design may be used to justify decreasing the otherwise required thickness of the
soil liner (329 IAC 10-26-l(b)).
The Indiana regulations do not specify leachate-collection system requirements for
surface impoundments. However, the IDEM may specify water pollution treatment/control
permit conditions, as necessary, to assure that any pollutants released or threatened to be released
by the unit into the environment will not cause or contribute to violations of applicable water
-------
A-61
quality standards, or otherwise cause a significant adverse impact on the environment or the
public health (327 IAC 3-4-3).
Missouri—Missouri regulations require that utility waste landfills install leachate -
collection systems unless it has been demonstrated based on waste and site characteristics at a
particular landfill that leachate collection is not needed (10 CSR 80-11.010(4)(B)8). Each
leachate-collection system must be capable of maintaining less than 1 ft of leachate head on the
liner. Construction materials must be chemically compatible with the leachate and possess
sufficient strength to prevent collapse under the pressures anticipated. Leachate must flow by
gravity to collection points. Material thickness, hydraulic conductivity, and particle size are
determined on a case-specific basis
The design standards for utility waste landfills in Missouri do not apply to surface
impoundments. A surface impoundment that receives CCWs is subject to the regulations in
Missouri that establish design guides for wastewater treatment ponds (10 CSR 20-8.200).
Leachate-collection systems are not specified for such ponds.
Ohio—Ohio regulations require installation of a leachate-collection system in new
residual waste landfills (Classes I, II, III, and IV) and lateral expansion areas (OAC 3745-30-
06(C) and -07(C)(3)). The leachate collection system must be designed to limit the level of
leachate above the liner to 1 ft. Any granular material used as a drainage medium must have
permeability of no less than 1 x 10~3 cm/s (OAC 3745-30-07(C)(3)). No leachate collection
system is required in a monofill that receives only fly ash, bottom ash, or foundry sand
determined by the State to be "nontoxic" (OAC 3745-30-02(F)).
Ohio regulations do not specify leachate system requirements for surface impoundments
receiving industrial wastes, and the solid waste regulations applicable to residual waste landfills
do not apply to such impoundments (OAC 3745-27-03(A)(8)). However, the OEPA has authority
to specify liner and leachate system requirements on a case-specific basis in permits to install
issued for surface impoundments. To obtain a permit to install, the applicant must demonstrate
that the surface impoundment design will: (1) not prevent or interfere with the attainment or
maintenance of applicable water quality standards; (2) not result in a violation of any applicable
laws; and (3) employ the best available technology (OAC 3745-42-03 and -04).
Pennsylvania—Pennsylvania regulations require leachate detection zones in the disposal
areas of Class I and Class II residual waste landfills (25 Pa. Code 288.435 and 288.534) and
Class I and Class II residual waste disposal impoundments (25 Pa. Code 289.435 and 289.534).
Weekly monitoring is required in the leachate-detection zones. In addition, Class I and II residual
waste landfills and disposal impoundments must have leachate collection systems within their
final protective covers (25 Pa. Code 288.438, 288.537, 289.438, and 289.537). However, in the
case of impoundments, the PADEP may authorize a delay in activating the leachate-collection
system in the cover until the unit is closed. Class III residual waste landfills are not required to
have either leachate-detection zones or leachate-collection systems in their covers.
Texas—Texas has no specific regulations for leachate-collection systems in landfills or
surface impoundments. However, there are general prohibitions in the Texas regulations on
-------
A-62
(J) causing the discharge or imminent threat of discharge of industrial solid waste into or
adjacent to waters of the State without authorization, (2) creating and maintaining a nuisance,
and (3) endangering the public health and welfare. To foster compliance, the TCEQ has
developed guidance documents, Technical Guideline Nos. 3 and 4, which recommend
installation of leachate-collection systems at landfills and leak detection systems at surface
impoundments (TCEQ 2004a and 2004b).
According to Technical Guideline No. 3, Landfills, TCEQ recommends that leachate-
collection systems be installed over the membrane liners of landfills receiving Class 1 and
Class 2 wastes to limit leachate depth to 1 ft or less. TCEQ recommends that the leachate-
collection layer consist of at least 1 ft of sand or gravel with a hydraulic conductivity of at least
0.01 cm/s overlain by a fabric or granular filter layer, to prevent clogging.
Technical Guideline No. 4, Nonhazardous Industrial Solid Waste Surface Impoundments,
recommends that a leak detection system be installed in any surface impoundment that receives
Class II wastes and utilizes a geomembrane liner alone.
Virginia—An industrial solid waste landfill in Virginia must have a plan for leachate
collection, storage, and treatment. A leachate-collection system must be placed above the
landfill's top liner, and collected leachate must be stored such that it does not discharge to
groundwater. Tanks or impoundments used for storage of leachate must be equipped with flow
equalization and surge capacity at least equal to the maximum expected production of leachate
over a 7-day period. A liner providing protection equal to that of the landfill's liner is required in
any leachate-storage impoundments. At a minimum, such liners must have a synthetic
component. Collected leachate must be transported or discharged to a permitted wastewater
treatment facility, treated on-site, and discharged under a VPDES permit, or it must be
recirculated within the landfill, provided that the irrigated area is lined (9 VAC 20-80-290)
Wisconsin—Nonmunicipal waste landfills in Wisconsin must be designed to contain and
collect leachate to the maximum practical extent. The Wisconsin regulations establish standards
that leachate systems for nonmunicipal waste landfills must meet, unless the WDNR approves an
alternative design. The standards require that, among other things, a leachate-collection system
be designed to (1) route leachate to the perimeter of the landfill in the most direct manner
possible and (2) limit the average leachate head level on the liner to 1 ft or less. Other aspects of
the leachate system for which standards are specified include the distance that leachate may flow
across the base of the liner before encountering a perforated leachate-collection pipe, slope and
diameter of leachate-collection pipes, shape and materials for leachate-collection trenches, trench
backfill material, limitations on liner penetrations, sump design and capacity, leachate-transfer
line design, and leachate-collection tank design.
Wisconsin regulations do not specify any leachate-collection system requirements for
surface impoundments, unless the impoundment must have a solid waste operating license. In
that case, leachate collection-requirements would be the same as those for landfills.
-------
A-63
A.7 CLOSURE/POST-CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS IN THE PILOT STATES
A.7.1 Summary
Closure controls may be required to prevent post-closure migration of contaminants out
of a CCW land disposal facility via surface water pathways or leaching to groundwater. If
closure controls are required, specifications may address cover system design requirements
(i.e., caps), cover material and thickness, and maximum hydraulic conductivity of the cover.
Table A. 17 summarizes the closure/post-closure requirements for landfills and surface
impoundments in the five pilot States of Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Additional details are provided in Section A.7.3.
A.7.2 Chronological Comparison of Closure/Post-Closure Requirements
for Landfills in Pilot States
Table A. 18 compares the findings regarding closure/post-closure requirements for
landfills that receive CCWs in the five pilot States ("2005 Data") with the closure/post-closure
requirements for CCW landfills reported in EPA 1988 and EPA 1999a.
A.7.3 State-Specific Discussion of Closure and Post-Closure Care Requirements
Illinois—Within 60 days after placement of the final waste volume, a cap must be
installed over the entire surface of the landfill. The cap must consist of one of the following:
• Compacted earth at least 3 ft thick having a hydraulic conductivity of no more
than l.Ox 10~7 cm/s;
• Geomembrane capable of performance equal to that of a compacted
earthen cap, or
• Any other cap demonstrated to have performed equally as well as or better
than a compacted earthen cap.
The owner/operator must prepare and maintain a written closure plan. Final slopes and
contours must be designed to complement and blend with the surrounding topography of the
proposed final land use of the area, and the final configuration should minimize further
maintenance. Quarterly inspections of vegetated areas are required for at least 5 years after
closure. Thereafter, annual inspections are required until either 15 years have passed or settling
and erosion have stopped, whichever occurs first. Groundwater monitoring also must continue
fora minimum period of 15 years after closure (35 111. Adm. Code 811.110, 111, and 314).
-------
TABLE A.17 Summary of Closure/Post-Closure Requirements for CCW Management Units in the Pilot States
State
Closure/Post-Closure Req uirements
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Illinois • Within 60 days alter placement of the final waste volume, a cap must be installed
over the entire surface of the landfill.
• The cap must consist of one of the following:
- Compacted earth at least 3 ft thick having a hydraulic conductivity of no more
than 1 x 10~7cm/s,
- Geomembrane capable of performance equal to that of a compacted earth cap, OR
- Any other cap demonstrated to have performed as well as or better than a
compacted earthen cap.
• The owner/operator must prepare and maintain a written closure plan.
• Quarterly inspections are required for a minimum of 5 years after closure.
Indiana Type I restricted waste sites and nonmunicipal solid waste landfills:
• A closure plan is required, and closure must comply with following requirements:
- Apply and compact >2 ft of final cover:
. Within 180 days of receiving final waste volume, or
. When any area within the site is filled to its approved elevation.
- Apply 6 in. of topsoil over the final cover to establish vegetation.
• A post-closure care plan is required.
Type 11 restricted waste sites:
• A closure plan is required, and closure must comply with the following requirements:
- Apply and compact > 2 ft of final cover within 180 days after:
• Solid waste has not been disposed of for 1 year, OR
. Any area within the site is filled to its approved elevation.
• A post-closure care plan is required.
Type III restricted waste sites:
• A closure plan is required, and closure must comply with the following requirements:
- Apply and compact final cover > 2 ft within 1 year of when an area is filled to its
approved elevation.
• A post-closure care plan is required.
Type IV restricted waste sites: There are no closure or rjpsi-closure requirements.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis
in NPDES or construction/operating permits.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis
in water pollution control permits.
-------
TABLE A.17 (Cont.)
State
Closure/Post-Closure Requirements
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Pennsylvania » A cap at least 2 ft thick having a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1 x 10"7 cm/s
is required over the entire surface of a residual waste landfill within 1 year after
disposal ceases.
• The owner/operator must implement an approved closure plan and an approved post-
closure land use plan.
Virginia • A final cover system is required. It must have a
- Hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1 x 10~s cm/s and
- Layer of earth at least 6 in. thick capable of supporting vegetation.
• A post-closure care plan is required that provides for:
- Groundwater monitoring,
- Leachate-system maintenance, and
- Final cover maintenance.
Wisconsin • Closure requirements are specified that include, among other things:
- A final cover consisting of at least 2 ft of compacted earth having a hydraulic
conductivity of no more than 1 x 10~5 cm/s.
- Final grades sloped adequately to promote storm-water runoff and prevent storm-
water run-on, and
- Implementation of a long-term care schedule.
• A cap that is at least 2 ft thick having a
hydraulic conductivity of no more than
1 x 10"7cm/s is required over the entire surface
of a residual waste disposal impoundment
within 1 year after disposal ceases.
• The owner/operator must implement a closure
plan and a post-closure land use plan.
All liquids, wastes, and system components must
be removed. If removal is not done, the surface
impoundment becomes subject to the closure and
post-closure care standards for nonhazardous
industrial waste units, unless closure requirements
have already been established in a Virginia
pollution abatement permit or VPDES permit.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis
in water control permits.
^
6s
-------
A-66
TABLE A.18 Chronological Comparison of Closure/Post-Closure
Requirements for CCW Management Units in the Pilot States
Closure/Post-Closure Care Requirements for Landfills
State
Illinois
Indiana
Pennsylvania
EPA 1988 EPA 1999h
Yesa NCh
Noc Type I: Yes
Type II: Yes
Type III: Yes
Type IV: No
Yes Class I: Yes
Class II: Yes
Class III: Yes
2005 Data
Yes
Type I: Yes
Type II: Yes
Type III: Yes
Type IV: No
Nonmunicipal solid waste landfill: Yes
Class I: Yes
Class II: Yes
Class III: Yes
Virginia No Yes Yes
Wisconsin Yes Yes Yes
a Yes = The souree report indicates that State regulations impose closure/post-closure
care system requirements.
h NC = Not covered in the source report.
c No = The source report indicates that State regulations do not impose closure/post-
closure care system requirements.
A surface impoundment that receives CCWs in Illinois is regulated as a wastewater
facility and must have an NPDES permit or a construction/operating permit; however, as a
general rule, it is not required to have a solid waste permit or to abide by the design requirements
applicable to industrial waste landfills. However, if the surface impoundment decides to undergo
closure with waste in place, the standards for solid waste landfills would apply to the closure
(including, among others, requirements for capping, inspections, and groundwater monitoring)
(IEPA 2005). The need for permit provisions to address this contingency would be decided on a
case-specific basis.
Indiana—The Indiana regulations require Type I and II restricted waste sites and
nonmunicipal solid waste landfills to be closed in a manner that (1) minimizes the need for
further maintenance and controls; (2) minimizes post-closure escape of waste, waste
constituents, leachate, contaminated precipitation, and waste decomposition products to the
groundwater, surface water, or atmosphere; and (3) is in compliance with applicable closure
provisions and conditions imposed in the facility permit. Technical design requirements specify
that a final cover consisting of at least 2 ft of clay-type soils be applied and compacted over
closed areas. In addition, at least 6 in. of topsoil must be placed over the clay, and vegetation
must be established (329 IAC 10-30-1 to 10-30-7; 329 IAC 10-31-1 to 10-31-7).
-------
A-67
Type III restricted waste sites in Indiana must also meet the three-part performance
standard for closure mentioned in the paragraph above, and must apply and compact 2 ft of soil
as a final cover (329 IAC 10-32).
The Indiana regulations do not establish requirements for closure or post-closure of
Type IV restricted waste facilities.
The Indiana regulations also do not specify closure or post-closure requirements for
surface impoundments being regulated as water pollution treatment/control facilities. Units that
obtain water pollution treatment/control permits are expressly exempt from the Indiana solid
waste permitting and regulatory program. However, the IDEM may specify conditions, as
necessary, in water pollution treatment/control facility permits to assure that any pollutants
released or threatened to be released by the unit into the environment will not cause or contribute
to violations of applicable water quality standards or otherwise cause a significant adverse
impact on the environment or public health (327 IAC 3-4-3).
Pennsylvania—A cap having a hydraulic conductivity of no more than 1.0 x 10~7 cm/s is
required over the entire surface of a residual waste landfill or disposal impoundment within
1 year after disposal ceases. Vegetation must be established over at least 70% of the capped area.
The owner/operator must implement a closure plan and a post-closure land use plan approved by
PADEP. At least 180 days before implementation of a closure plan, the owner/operator must
review its approved closure plan to determine whether the plan requires modification and submit
proposed changes to PADEP for approval. If groundwater degradation exists at or after closure,
an approved abatement plan must be implemented, or an application for a closure plan
modification must be filed, and remediation standards that meet final closure certification
requirements must be selected (25 Pa. Code 288.234, 236, 291, and 292 for landfills; 25 Pa.
Code 289.242, 244, 311, and 312 for disposal impoundments).
Virginia—All industrial waste landfills must have a final cover system to accomplish the
following:
*&•
• Minimize the need for further maintenance,
• Control the escape of leachate and surface runoff,
• Limit hydraulic conductivity through the infiltration layer to whichever is
lower, 1 x 10"5 cm/s or the hydraulic conductivity of the landfill's bottom
liner, and
• Maintain a 6-in. layer of earth capable of supporting vegetation over the
infiltration layer for erosion control (9 VAC 20-80-270.E).
Verification of closure for an industrial waste landfill must be certified by a registered
professional engineer. Following closure, a sign must be posted at the facility entrance, the
location and dimensions of disposal areas must be recorded on a survey plot and submitted to the
-------
A -68
local land recording authority, and a notation must be placed on the deed to the facility property
(9 VAC 20-80-270.E).
An industrial waste landfill in Virginia is required to have a post-closure care plan and
conduct post-closure care activities for 10 years after closure or for as long as leachate is
generated. During the post-closure care period, groundwater monitoring must be conducted, the
leachate system must be maintained and operated, and the integrity of the final cover must be
maintained (9 VAC 20-80-270.F).
The owner or operator of an industrial wastewater treatment impoundment must remove
all waste residue, contaminated containment system components (liners, etc.), and contaminated
subsoils, and it must decontaminate structures and equipment contaminated with waste, and
manage them as solid waste or hazardous waste, if applicable, unless a Virginia pollution
abatement permit or VPDES permit contains conditions establishing alternative closure
requirements. If the owner or operator decides to close the impoundment with waste in place,
then the impoundment must be closed in accordance with the requirements for closure of a
landfill (including the elimination of free liquids by removing liquid waste and waste residue, the
monitoring of groundwater, the stabilization of remaining waste residues to a bearing capacity
sufficient to support the final cover, and the installation of a final cover), and post-closure care
must be provided as it is for a landfill (9 VAC 20-80-380).
Wisconsin—The owner of any industrial waste landfill is responsible for its closure, any
remedial actions required by WDNR, and its perpetual long-term care.
A plan outlining the proposed method of abandonment for lagoons that will no longer be
used must be approved by the WDNR. This plan must contain a procedure to identify the
presence and characteristics of any accumulated solid waste and provide appropriate removal,
disposal, or recycling or treatment alternatives. The plan also must address site restoration, and
groundwater monitoring may be required to assess groundwater impacts (NR 213.07).
A.8 CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS IN THE PILOT STATES
A.8.1 Summary
Corrective action may be needed to contain and clean up a CCW land disposal facility
and eliminate the future potential for migration of contaminants out of it via aboveground
pathways or leaching to groundwater. Table A. 19 summarizes the corrective action requirements
for landfills and surface impoundments in the five pilot States of Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and Wisconsin. Additional details are provided in Section A.8.3.
-------
TABLE A.19 Summary of Corrective Action Requirements for CCW Management Units in the Pilot States
State
Corrective Action Requirements
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Illinois When assessment monitoring is triggered, a remedial action plan is required. Once
implemented, the remedial action program must continue until monitoring shows that the
concentrations of all monitored constituents have returned to acceptable levels over a
period of four consecutive quarters.
Indiana Type 1 and II restrictive waste sites and nonmunicipal solid waste landfills: A corrective
action program is required whenever the groundwater-protection standard is exceeded at
statistically significant levels. A corrective action program may be required at the
discretion of the IDEM if any secondary groundwater-moniloring standard is exceeded.
Type III and IV restrictive waste sites: There are no corrective action requirements.
Pennsylvania The regulations include triggers for groundwater assessment and pollution abatement.
Virginia
Wisconsin
Corrective action must be initiated whenever a groundwater protection standard is
exceeded at statistically significant levels.
Corrective action is required if concentration levels in groundwater for constituents of
concern exceed enforcement standards outside the design management zone.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis
in NPDES or construction/operating permits.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis
in water pollution control permits.
The regulations include triggers for groundwater
assessment and pollution abatement.
None are specified in the Virginia regulations.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis
in water control permits.
-------
A-70
A.8.2 Chronological Comparison of Corrective Action Requirements
for Landfills in Pilot States
A chronological comparison was not possible for corrective action requirements for
landfills because EPA 1988 and EPA 1999b did not address this area of regulatory control.
A.8.3 State-Specific Discussion of Corrective Action Requirements
Illinois—If assessment monitoring is triggered at a landfill that receives CCWs, other
than a municipal solid waste landfill, the owner/operator must submit plans for remedial action
to the IEPA. The remedial action program must consist of one or a combination of the following
solutions:
• Retrofit additional groundwater protective measures within the unit;
• Construct an additional hydraulic barrier, such as a cutoff wall or slurry wall
system;
• Pump and treat the contaminated groundwater; or
• Use any other equivalent technique that will prevent further contamination of
groundwater (35 111. Adm. Code 811.319(d)).
The remedial action program must continue until groundwater monitoring shows that the
concentrations of all monitored constituents have returned to acceptable levels over a period of
four consecutive quarters (35 111. Adm. Code 811.319(d)).
A surface impoundment that receives CCWs in Illinois is regulated as a wastewater
facility and must have an NPDES permit or a construction/operating permit; however, as a
general rule, it is not required to have a solid waste permit or abide by the design requirements
applicable to industrial waste landfills. However, if the surface impoundment would undergo
closure with waste in place, the standards for solid waste landfills would apply to the closure
(including requirements for capping, inspections, and groundwater monitoring) (fEPA 2005).
The need for permit provisions to address this contingency would be decided on a case-specific
basis. The need for corrective action requirements in permits would also be decided on a case-
specific basis.
Indiana—A corrective action program is required for Type I and II restricted waste sites
and for nonmunicipal solid waste landfills whenever the groundwater protection standard is
exceeded. In addition, the IDEM has discretion to require corrective action if any of the
secondary standards exceed specified levels. Monitoring is required to determine the areal extent
of any plume of contamination that exceeds background levels and to demonstrate corrective
action effectiveness. Corrective actions that may be imposed include notifying people who own
or reside on land overlying a plume and replacing currently used sources of groundwater lying in
-------
A-71
the plume (329 IAC 10-29-9). The Indiana regulations establish no corrective action
requirements for Type III and IV restricted waste sites.
The Indiana regulations do not specify corrective action requirements for surface
impoundments. However, the IDEM may specify conditions in a water pollution control permit,
as necessary, to assure that any pollutants released or threatened to be released by the unit into
the environment will not cause or contribute to violations of applicable water quality standards or
otherwise cause a significant adverse impact on the environment or the public health
(327 IAC 3-4-3).
Pennsylvania—The Pennsylvania regulations include triggers for groundwater
assessment and pollution abatement at residual waste landfills and disposal impoundments.
(25 Pa. Code 288.256 and 257 for landfills; 25 Pa. Code 289.266 and 267 for disposal
impoundments).
Virginia—A corrective action program is required whenever the groundwater protection-
standard at an industrial waste landfill in Virginia is exceeded at statistically significant levels.
The owner or operator must propose a groundwater-protection standard for all detected
constituents listed in Table 5.1 of 9 VAC 20-80-300. The groundwater-protection standard for a
constituent is the MCL if one has been promulgated. In the absence of a promulgated MCL, the
groundwater-protection standard for a constituent is the background concentration, as approved
by the regulator and established on the basis of data from the upgradient wells. If the background
level for a constituent is higher than its MCL or health-based levels, the background
concentration becomes the groundwater-protection standard for the constituent, as approved by
the regulator. The regulator may establish an alternate concentration level as a groundwater
protection standard for any constituents for which MCLs have not been established or for which
site-specific background data are unavailable by granting a variance based on a petition
submitted by the owner or operator in accordance with 9 VAC 20-80-760.
The Virginia regulations specify no corrective action requirements for industrial waste
surface impoundments.
Wisconsin—If a PAL, alternative concentration limit (ACL), or enforcement standard
(ES) is attained or exceeded at a landfill in Wisconsin, the owner or operator must notify WDNR
and may be required to develop a site investigation work plan and report and a remedial action
plan and to implement remedial action.
Wisconsin regulations do not specify corrective action requirements for lagoons that are
not required to have solid waste operating licenses. However, as previously reported, a plan
outlining the proposed method of abandonment for such lagoons that will no longer be used must
be approved by WDNR. The plan must address site restoration.
-------
A-72
A.9 SITING CONTROLS IN THE PILOT STATES
A.9.1 Summary
Siting controls place restrictions on the location of landfills and surface impoundments
used for waste storage and disposal. Examples of siting controls include restrictions on disposal
below the natural water table; restrictions on locating a unit within a floodplain, within a
wetland, near a fault, or in a seismic impact zone; and standards for locating a unit in unstable
areas. Table A.20 summarizes the siting controls for landfills and surface impoundments in the
five pilot States of Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Additional details
are provided in Section A.9.3.
A.9.2 Chronological Comparison of Siting Controls for Landfills in the Pilot States
Table A.21 compares the findings regarding siting controls for landfills that receive
CCWs in the five pilot States ("2005 Data") with the siting controls for CCW landfills reported
in EPA 1988 and EPA 1999b.
A.9.3 State-Specific Discussion of Siting Controls
Illinois—Landfills that accept CCWs designated as either declassified or special (non-
RCRA) wastes must not restrict the flow of a 100-year flood or violate any State or Federal
environmental law. No part of a unit may be located within a setback zone; recharge zone; or
within 1,200 ft, vertically or horizontally, of a sole-source aquifer, unless there is a stratum
between the bottom of the waste disposal unit and the top of the aquifer that meets stipulated
minimum requirements. Without prior written permission, no part of a unit may be located closer
than 500 ft from an occupied dwelling, school, or hospital that was occupied at the time the
operator applied for a permit (35 111. Adm. Code 811.102 and 811.302).
Indiana—Type I and II restricted waste sites and nonmunicipal solid waste landfills in
Indiana must not be located within wetlands; critical habitats; floodways; floodplains; karst
areas; areas that overlie mines; areas closer than 600 ft from wells, dwellings, and surface water;
and areas closer than 50 ft from the disposal facility boundary. The Indiana regulations contain
similar location limitations for Type III restricted waste sites. However, there are no limitations
on locating Type III residual waste sites in floodplains, areas near dwellings, or areas near
surface water bodies. Type IV restricted waste sites are subject to limitations on disposal within
wetlands, critical habitats, floodways, standing water that reflects the level of the water table,
karst areas, areas that overlie mines, and areas within 600 ft of wells (329 IAC 10-25-1 for
Types I and II; 329 IAC 10-33-1 for Type III; 329 IAC 10-9-4 for Type IV).
Surface impoundments that Indiana regulates as water pollution treatment/control
facilities must not be constructed within 500 ft of a dwelling, unless the owner of the dwelling
-------
TABLE A.20 Summary of Siting Controls for CCW Management Units in the Pilot States
State
Siting Controls
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Illinois • Distance restrictions are applicable with respect to sole-source aquifers, occupied
dwellings, schools, and hospitals.
• Location is prohibited where it would (1) be within the setback zone or recharge zone
of a sole source aquifer. (2) restrict the flow of a 100-year Hood, or (3) violate a State
or Federal environmental law.
Indiana Type I and 11 restricted waste sites:
• Location is prohibited within wetlands, critical habitats, floodways, floodplains, karst
areas.a and areas that overlie mines.
• Distance restrictions are applicable with respect to wells, dwellings, surface water,
and the disposal facility boundary.
Type III restricted waste areas:
• Restrictions apply to disposal within wetlands, critical habitats, floodways, karst
areas,a and areas that overlie mines.
• Distance restrictions apply with respect to wells and the disposal facility property
boundary.
Type IV restricted waste sites: Restrictions apply to disposal within wetlands, critical
habitats, floodways, standing water that reflects the level of the water table, karst areas,
and areas that overlie mines.
Distance restrictions apply with respect to wells and the disposal facility property
boundary.
Nonmunicipal solid waste landfills: Controls are the same as those for Type I and II
restricted waste sites, plus there are distance restrictions with respect to public water
supply wells.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis
in NPDES or construction/operating permits.
Established, as necessary, on a case-specific basis
in water pollution control permits.
^
VI
-------
TABLE A.20 (Cont.)
Siting Controls
State
Landfills
Surface Impoundments
Pennsylvania • All residual waste landfills are subject to distance restrictions with respect to the
100-year floodplain, wetlands, perennial streams, property boundaries, private water
sources, occupied dwellings, schools, parks, and playgrounds.
- Location over certain coal deposits and limestone or carbonate formations is
restricted.
• A coal ash monofill must be located in a previously mined but unreclaimed area,
unless the operator of the monofill provides a detailed written explanation in the
permit application of why it is not feasible to locate the facility in such an area.
Virginia Industrial landfills are subject to location restrictions on the basis of Hooding potential;
geological stability; and proximity to surface water, underground sources of drinking
water, roadways, residences, schools, parks, and facility boundaries.
Wisconsin Industrial solid waste landfills are subject to distance restrictions with respect to
navigable waters, floodplains, major highways, public parks, water supply wells, certain
faults, seismic impact zones, unstable areas, wetlands, and critical habitat areas.
• All residual waste disposal impoundments are
subject to distance restrictions with respect to
the 100-year floodplain, wetlands, perennial
streams, property boundaries, private water
sources, occupied dwellings, schools, parks,
and playgrounds.
- Location over certain coal deposits and
limestone or carbonate formations is
restricted.
No restrictions are specified in the Virginia
regulations.
Lagoons not licensed as solid waste disposal
facilities are subject to distance restrictions with
respect to public water supply wells, other potable
water supplies, inhabited dwellings, tloodways,
wetlands, and groundwater tables.
a Karst areas consist of regions underlain by limestone or other readily soluble rocks causing characteristic physiographic features such as. but not limited to,
sinkholes, sinking streams, blind valleys, caves, and large springs. Generally, karst areas are characterized by high fluid transmissivity values and
predominant fracture flow.
-------
A-75
TABLE A.21 Chronological Comparison of Siting Controls for Landfills in
Selected States
State
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Wisconsin
Siting Controls for Landfills
EPA 1988 EPA 1999h
2005 Data
Illinois
Indiana
Noa
No
NCb Yesc
Type I: Yes Type I: Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Type II: Yes Type II: Yes
Type III: Yes Type III: Yes
Type IV: Yes Type IV: Yes
Nonmunieipal solid waste landfills: Yes
NC Yes
NC Yes
NC Yes
a No - The source report indicates that State regulations do not impose siting controls.
h NC = Not covered by the source report.
c Yes = The source report indicates that State regulations impose siting controls.
agrees to a closer separation and records the agreement as an easement in the county property
records or the dwelling is an office located on the surface impoundment property and occupied
by the surface impoundment owner (327 IAC 3-2-6). This is the only siting location requirement
applicable to surface impoundments that may receive CCWs for storage or disposal in Indiana.
Pennsylvania—In Pennsylvania, a coal ash monofill must be located in an area that has
been previously mined but not reclaimed, unless the operator provides a detailed written
explanation in the permit application of why locating the facility in such an area is not feasible
(25 Pa. Code 288.20l(e)). Class I, II, and III residual waste landfills and Class I and II residual
waste disposal impoundments (25 Pa Code 288.422, 522, and 622 for landfills; 25 Pa. Code
289.422 and 522 for disposal impoundments) cannot be sited:
• Within the 100-year floodplain of any State waters;
• Within 300 ft of an exceptional value wetland;
• Within 100 ft of a wetland other than an exceptional value wetland, unless
certain conditions exist;
• Over mineable or recoverable coal, unless the owner/operator owns the
underlying coal;
-------
A-76
• In areas that would result in elimination, pollution, or destruction of a portion
of a perennial stream, unless rechanneling is approved;
• In certain areas underlain by limestone and carbonate formations;
• Within certain distances of an occupied dwelling, unless the dwelling owner
signs a written waiver and other conditions are met;
• Within 100 ft of a perennial stream, except under certain conditions;
• Within 100 ft of a property line, except under certain conditions;
• Within 0.25 mi upgradient or 300 ft downgradient of a private water source,
except under certain conditions; and
• Within 300 yards of a school, park, or playground, except under certain
conditions.
A waiver for some of the siting restrictions mentioned above may be granted to captive landfills
and disposal impoundments under certain conditions.
Virginia—Industrial landfills in Virginia (9 VAC 20-80-270A) are not to be sited:
• In areas subject to base floods;
• In geologically unstable areas;
• Within 100 ft of regularly flowing surface water;
• Within 500 ft of a underground source of drinking water;
• Within 1,000 ft of any primary highway or 500 ft of any other highway, unless
the landfill is not visible from the roadway or the area has been zoned for
industrial use;
• Within 200 ft of a residence, school, or park; and
• Within 50 ft of the facility boundary.
In addition, landfill sites must be big enough and have terrain that will allow for
management of leachate. New industrial landfills and lateral expansions of existing facilities
cannot be located in wetlands or areas where groundwater monitoring cannot be conducted.
Certain site characteristics may also prevent approval or require substantial limitations on the site
use or require incorporation of sound engineering controls.
-------
A-77
The Virginia regulations specify no siting controls for industrial waste surface
impoundments.
Wisconsin—Any person intending to establish a new landfill or expand an existing
landfill must have an initial site report from WDNR. A feasibility report discussing constraints
for development is required to determine whether a proposed property has potential for use as a
landfill and to identify any conditions that must be addressed in the operating plan. Areas to be
covered include location criteria, performance standards, and geotechnical information. Landfills
(NR 504.04) are not to be sited:
• Within 1,000 ft of a navigable lake, pond, or flowage;
• Within 300 ft of any navigable river or stream;
• Within a floodplain;
• Within 1,000 ft of a primary State or Federal highway or interstate right-of-
way, or the boundary of a public park, unless screened from view;
• Within 1,200 ft of any water supply well;
• Within 200 ft of a fault that has had displacement in Holocene time;
• Within any seismic impact zone;
• Within any unstable area; and
• Where there is a reasonable probability that it will:
- Impact critical habitat areas significantly,
- Impact wetland significantly,
— Detrimentally affect surface water, or
- Detrimentally affect groundwater quality.
WDNR may grant an exemption to these siting restrictions on the basis of a demonstration that
the circumstances warrant it (NR 504.04(1)).
Wisconsin regulations applicable to lagoons that are not licensed as solid waste disposal
facilities stipulate that such lagoons may not be located within (1) 1,000 ft of a well serving a
community public water supply system, (2) 250 ft of other potable water supplies, or (3) 500 ft
of an inhabited dwelling. Additionally, lagoons cannot be placed in a floodway or in a wetland.
A separation of 5 ft or more is required between the bottom of the lagoon and either bedrock or
the groundwater table, whichever is higher.
-------
A-78
A.10 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS IN THE PILOT STATES
A.10.1 Summary
Financial assurance may be required to protect future generations by helping ensure
adequate planning for future costs of closure, post-closure care, and corrective action.
Table A.22 summarizes the financial assurance requirements for landfills and surface
impoundments in the five pilot States of Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Additional details are provided in Section A. 10.3.
A. 10.2 Chronological Comparison of Financial Assurance Requirements
for Landfills in the Pilot States
Table A.23 compares the findings regarding financial assurance requirements for landfills
that receive CCWs in the five pilot States ("2005 Data") with the financial assurance
requirements for CCW landfills reported in EPA 1988 and EPA 1999b.
TABLE A.22 Summary of Financial Assurance Requirements for CCW Management Units
in the Pilot States
State
Illinois
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Wisconsin
Landfills
Yesa
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Financial Assurance Requirements
Surface Impoundments
No,b unless the surface impoundment will be closed with waste in place.
No
Yes
No.
No.
unless the surface impoundment is regulated as a waste nianagemenl
unless a solid waste operating permit is required or the impoundment
facility.
will he
used for ultimate disposal of solid waste.
a "Yes" means the State regulations reviewed for this study impose financial assurance requirements on CCW
disposal facilities.
h "No" means the State regulations reviewed for this study do not impose financial assurance requirements on
CCW disposal facilities.
-------
A-79
TABLE A.23 Chronological Comparison of Financial
Assurance Requirements for Landfills in the Pilot States
Financial Assurance Requirements for Landfills
State EPA 1988 EPA 1999b 2005 Data
Illinois
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Wisconsin
Yesa
No
Yes
No
Yes
NCh
NC
NC
NC
NC
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a Yes = The source report indicates that Stale regulations impose
financial assurance requirements.
h NC = Not covered by the source report.
c No = The source report indicates that State regulations do not
impose financial assurance requirements.
A.10.3 State-Specific Discussion of Financial Assurance Requirements
Illinois—Financial assurance may be provided for landfills in Illinois by a trust
agreement, a bond guaranteeing payment, a bond guaranteeing either payment or performance, a
letter of credit, insurance, or self-insurance (35 111. Adm. Code 811.700).
Illinois regulations do not specify financial assurance requirements for surface
impoundments, but if a surface impoundment will be closed with waste in place, the regulatory
agency may decide on a case-specific basis to include financial assurance requirements in the
NPDES or construction/operating permits.
Indiana—All solid waste land disposal facilities that are required to have solid waste
disposal permits in Indiana must provide financial responsibility for implementing closure and
post-closure requirements (329 I AC 10-39-1). The Indiana regulations exclude ash ponds that
receive water-transported coal ash from the requirement to have solid waste disposal permits
(329 IAC 10-3-1(8)). Accordingly, such surface impoundments are not subject to the financial
assurance requirements that apply to solid waste disposal facilities. The Indiana regulations do
not specify financial assurance requirements for surface impoundments that receive other types
of CCWs.
Pennsylvania—Regulations provide minimum requirements for demonstrating sufficient
financial responsibility for the operation of residual waste processing or disposal facilities by
providing for bond guarantees for the operation of the facilities, and by providing for minimum
standards for insurance protection for personal injury and property damage to third parties
arising from the operation of those facilities (25 Pa. Code 287.301 through 287.375).
-------
A-80
Virginia—The owner/operator of an industrial waste landfill in Virginia must have one
or a combination of the financial responsibility mechanisms described in 9 VAC 20-70. The
amount of financial assurance obtained must be equal to a cost estimate approved by the VDEQ
using specified procedures.
Virginia regulations do not specify financial assurance requirements for surface
impoundments that are not required to have a solid waste management permit.
Wisconsin—The owner of any landfill in Wisconsin is responsible for its closure, for any
remedial actions required by WDNR, and for its perpetual long-term care. Owners of landfills or
other solid waste facilities must provide proof of financial responsibility as part of their operating
license applications and once a year during the active facility life, or longer, if necessary to
ensure compliance with closure, long-term care, or remedial actions.
Wisconsin regulations do not specify financial assurance requirements for lagoons not
required to have solid waste operating licenses.
A.ll ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM PILOT STUDY
In addition to documenting the information on how the five States in the pilot study
address the nine regulatory categories, the pilot study documented, to the extent possible and in
the time available, State responses to the following questions:
• Does the State have a regulatory program dedicated solely to CCWs?
• Is the State authorized to implement an NPDES permitting program?
• What is the effective date of the regulation or regulatory program applicable
to CCW land disposal units?
• What State agency is responsible for the regulation or regulatory program
applicable to CCW land disposal units?
• Do the regulations contain grandfather provisions?
• Is public involvement required in permitting CCW land disposal units?
The responses to these questions are summarized in Table A.24 for landfills and
Table A.25 for surface impoundments. The responses to these questions were not documented
for the six additional States not covered by the pilot study.
-------
TABLE A.24 Summary of Additional Information Collected for Landfills in the Pilot States
Program Dedicated
State Solely to CCW
Illinois
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Wisconsin
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
NPDES Effective Date Grandfather
Authorization of Regulations Responsible State Agency Provisions
Yes NFa IEPA Bureau of Land. Division of Land Yes
Pollution Control
Yes NF IDEM Office of Land Quality Yes
Yes July 4. 1992 PADEP Division of Municipal and Yes
Residual Waste
Yes NF VDEQ Yes
Yes 1988 WDNR Division of Air and Waste Yes
Public
Involvement
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
a NF = Not found.
00
-------
TABLE A.25 Summary of Additional Information Collected for Surface Impoundments in the Pilot States
State
Illinois
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Wisconsin
Program Dedicated
Solely to CCW
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
NPDES
Authorization
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Effective Date of
Regulations
NFa
NF
July 4, 1992
NF
NF
Responsible State Agency
IEPA Bureau of Water
IDEM Office of Water Quality
PADEP Division of Municipal and
Residual Waste and Bureau of Water
Supply and Wastewater Management
VDEQ
WDNR Division of Water
Grandfather
Provisions
NF
NF
Yes
No
Yes
Public
Involvement
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NF = Not found.
Oo
t\J
-------
A -83
A.12 FINDINGS
Table A.26 summarizes the chronological comparisons of regulatory controls for landfills
in the States reviewed. As the table indicates, a total of 11 States—Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin—were reviewed
for regulatory designation of CCWs for disposal, permitting requirements, liner requirements,
groundwater-monitoring requirements, and leachate-collection system requirements. Five of the
11 States (i.e., the pilot study States)—Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
Wisconsin—were also reviewed for closure and post-closure requirements, corrective action
requirements, siting controls, and financial assurance.
The footnotes in Table A.26 define the terms used in the table to describe the types of
change observed during three time periods—the period between collection of data for the 1988
RTC (EPA 1988) and collection of data for the 1999 RTC (EPA 1999b), the period between
collection of data for the 1999 RTC and collection of data for this report (i.e., 2005), and the
period between collection of data for the 1988 RTC and 2005. "Neutral" means that either it
could not be ascertained from the information reviewed whether any change occurred during the
time frame indicated, or the information reviewed suggests that no change occurred. For the
periods between the 1988 RTC and the 1999 RTC and between the 1999 RTC and 2005,
Table A.27 summarizes the States having "neutral" changes in each area of regulatory control
based on Table A.26.
The data in Table A.27 suggest that the absence in the 1999 RTC and its supporting
technical documents of details about regulatory controls in most individual States made it
difficult to ascertain whether regulatory changes occurred before or after data were collected for
the 1999 RTC for most of the States reviewed. However, for the overall period between the 1988
RTC and 2005, the types of change observed for most States were either "tightened" or
"relaxed," rather than "neutral." Therefore, from the overall data it was confirmed that regulation
of landfill liners, leachate-collection systems, and groundwater monitoring tightened in most
States reviewed during the period between the collection of data for the 1988 RTC and 2005.
-------
TABLE A.26 Summary of Chronological Comparisons of Regulatory Controls for Landfills in the States Reviewed3
Description of Change
Type of Change
States with Change from
EPA 1988 to EPA 1999
No.
Name
States with Change from
EPA 1999 to 2005 Data
No.
Name
States with Change from
EPA 1988 to 2005 Data
No.
Name
REGULATORY DESIGNATION OF CCWS FOR DISPOSAL
Exempt to Gradedh
Solid waste (SW) to Graded
Uncertaind
SW to SW
Graded to Graded
SW to Excluded
Tightened0
Tightened
Total Tightened
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Total Neutral
Relaxed*
Total Relaxed
0
3
3
4
4
0
8
0
0
IN, PA, TX
IN, PA, TX
AL, IL, MO, OH
FL, GA, VA, WI
AL, FL, GA, IL,
MO, OH, VA,
WI
0
1
1
4
3
3
10
0
0
WI
WI
AL, IL, MO, OH
FL, GA, VA
IN, PA. TX
AL, FL, GA, IL,
IN, MO, OH,
PA, TX, VA
1
6
7
0
3
0
3
1
1
OH
IL, IN, MO. PA, TX, WI
IL, IN, MO, OH, PA,
TX,WI
FL, GA, VA
FL, GA, VA
AL
AL
PERMITTING
(On-site and off-site )8 to
(On-site and off-site. Graded)
Noh to (On-site and off-site)
Uncertain
Off-site to off-site
(On-site and off-site) to
(On-site and off-site)
(On-site and off-site. Graded) to
(On-site and off-site. Graded)
Tightened
Tightened
Total Tightened
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Total Neutral
3
0
3
3
2
3
0
8
IN. PA. MO
IN, PA, MO
AL, IL, OH
FL, TX
GA, VA, WI
AL, FL, GA, IL,
OH, TX, VA, WI
1
0
1
3
2
3
2
10
MO
MO
AL, IL, OH
FL, TX
GA, VA, WI
IN, PA
AL, FL, GA, IL,
IN, OH, PA, TX,
VA,WI
3
1
4
0
2
3
0
5
IN, PA, MO
OH
IN, OH, MO, PA
FL, TX
GA, VA, WI
FL, GA, TX, VA, WI
-------
TABLE A.26 (Cont.)
Description of Change
(On-site and off-site) to off-site
(On-site and off-site) to None
Type of Change
Relaxed
Relaxed
Total Relaxed
States with Change from
EPA 1988 to EPA 1999
No.
0
0
0
Name
States with Change from
EPA 1999 to 2005 Data
No.
0
0
0
Name
States with Change from
EPA 1988 to 2005 Data
No.
1
1
2
Name
IL
AL
AL,IL
LINERS
No to Yes1
May' to Yes
No to Graded
Exempt to Graded
Uncertain
Graded to Graded
Yes to Yes
May to No
Yes to May
Tightened
Tightened
Tightened
Tightened
Total Tightened
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Total Neutral
Relaxed
Relaxed
Total Relaxed
1
1
2
0
4
7
0
0
7
0
0
0
VA
WI
IN, PA
VA, WI, IN, PA
AL, FL, GA, IL,
MO, OH, TX
AL, FL, GA, IL,
MO, OH, TX
0
0
0
0
0
7
2
2
11
0
0
0
AL, FL. GA, IL,
MO, OH, TX
IN, PA
VA, WI
AL, FL, GA, IL,
IN, MO, OH,
PA, VA, WI, TX
4
1
2
1
8
0
0
0
0
2
1
3
GA, IL, MO, VA
WI
IN. PA
OH
GA, IL, IN, MO, OH,
PA, VA, WI
AL. TX
FL
AL, FL, TX
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
No to Yes
May to Yes
May to Graded
Exempt to Graded
Tightened
Tightened
Tightened
Tightened
Total Tightened
1
1
2
0
4
VA
WI
IN, PA
IN, PA, VA, WI
0
0
0
0
0
4 1
1
2
1
8
GA, IL, MO, VA
WI
IN, PA
OH
GA, IL, IN, MO, OH,
PA, VA, WI
>.
6c
-------
TABLE A.26 (Cont.)
Description of Change
Uncertain
Graded to Graded
Yes to Yes
Yes to No
May to No
Type of Change
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Total Neutral
Relaxed
Relaxed
Total Relaxed
States with Change from
EPA 1988 to EPA 1999
No.
6
0
1
7
0
0
0
Name
AL, GA, IL, MO,
OH, TX
FL
AL, FL, GA, IL,
MO, OH, TX
States with Change from
EPA 1999 to 2005 Data
No.
6
2
3
11
0
0
0
Name
AL, GA, IL, MO,
OH, TX
IN. PA
FL, VA, WI
AL, FL, GA, IL,
IN, MO, OH,
PA, VA, WI, TX
States with Change from
EPA 1988 to 2005 Data
No.
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
Name
FL
FL
AL
TX
AL,TX
LEACHATE-COLLECTION SYSTEM
No to Yes
May to Yes
No to Graded
Uncertain
Graded to Graded
Yes to Yes
No to No
Yes to May
Tightened
Tightened
Tightened
Total Tightened
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Neutral
Total Neutral
Relaxed
Total Relaxed
1
1
2
4
5
0
0
2
7
0
0
VA
WI
IN, PA
IN, PA, VA, WI
FL, GA, IL, MO,
OH
AL, TX
AL, FL, GA, IL,
MO, OH, TX
0
0
0
0
5
2
2
2
11
0
0
FL, GA, IL, MO,
OH
IN, PA
VA, WI
AL, TX
AL, FL, GA, IL,
IN, MO, OH,
PA, VA, WI, TX
4
2
2
8
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
GA, IL. OH. VA
MO, WI
IN, PA
GA, IL, IN, MO, OH,
PA, VA, WI
AL. TX
AL, TX
FL
FL
^
6c
-------
TABLE A.26 (Cont.)
Description of Change
Type of Change
States with Change from
EPA 1988 to EPA 1999
No.
Name
States with Change from
|__JEPAJ999 to 2005 Data
No.
Name
States with Change from
EPA 1988 to 2005 Data
No.
Name
CLOSURE and POST-CLOSURE CARE
No to Yes
No to Graded
Yes to Graded
Graded to Graded
Yes to Yes
Tightened
Tightened
Tightened
Total Tightened
Neutral
Neutral
Total Neutral
1
1
1
3
0
2
2
VA
IN
PA
IN, PA, VA
1L, WI
IL,WI
0
0
0
0
2
3
5
IN, PA
IL. VA. WI
IL, IN, PA, VA,
WI
1
1
1
3
0
2
2
VA
IN
PA
IN, PA, VA
IL, WI
IL,WI
SITING CONTROLS
No to Yes
Uncertain
Yes to Yes
Tightened
Total Tightened
Neutral
Neutral
Total Neutral
1
1
2
2
4
IN
IN
IL. VA
PA, WI
IL, PA, VA, WI
0
0
2
3
5
IL, VA
IN, PA, WI
IL, IN, PA, VA,
WI
3
3
0
2
2
IL, IN, VA
IL, IN, VA
PA, WI
PA,WI
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
No to Yes
Uncertain
Yes to Yes
Tightened
Total Tightened
Neutral
Neutral
Total Neutral
0
0
2
3
5
IN, VA
IL, PA, WI
IL, IN, PA, VA,
WI
0
0
2
3
5
IN, VA
IL, PA, WI
IL, IN, PA, VA,
WI
2
2
0
3
3
IN, VA
IN,VA
IL, PA, WI
IL, PA, WI
Footnotes on next page.
Oo
"
-------
TABLE A.26 (Cont.)
No chronological comparison was prepared for corrective action requirements because the historical EPA documents did not address this area of regulatory
control. The chronological comparisons are limited to landfills because the historical EPA documents did not provide sufficient data to support similar
comparisons for surface impoundments.
"Graded" means that nonhazardous industrial wastes are categorized based on the degree of hazard associated with handling and disposing of them, and
regulatory controls placed on disposal facilities vary based on the category of waste received.
"Tightened" means that during the time frame indicated in the column heading, specific requirements for controls were added to the State's regulations
where either none existed before, or prior requirements were less tailored to the characteristics of the wastes being regulated.
"Uncertain" means that for the States indicated in each column, it was not possible to ascertain from the information reviewed whether or not a change in
the named regulatory control occurred during the time frame designated in the column heading.
"Neutral" means that either it could not be ascertained from the information reviewed whether any change occurred during the time frame indicated in the
column heading, or the information reviewed suggests that no change occurred.
"Relaxed" means that the information reviewed suggests that some or all pre-existing regulatory controls in the category of interest were removed during
the time frame indicated in the column heading.
"On-site and off-site" means that the State requires a solid waste permit for a landfill that receives CCWs, whether the landfill is located on the same site as
the facility that generated the CCWs or not.
"No" means the source report indicates that State regulations do not impose the regulatory requirement.
"Yes" means the source report indicates that State regulations impose the regulatory requirement.
"May" means the source report indicates that the Slate regulations provide for a case-by-case decision on the need for the regulatory requirement.
-------
A -89
TABLE A.27 Summary of States with "Neutral" Changes
States with
Area of Regulatory Control
Regulatory designation
Permitting
Liners
Groundwater monitoring
Leachate collection
Closure and post-closure care
Siting controls
Financial assurance
Total
States
Reviewed
11
11
11
11
11
5
5
5
States with "Neutral"
Changes from
1988RTCU) 1999RTC
8
8
7
7
7
2
4
5
"Neutral"
Changes
1999RTC
10
10
11
11
11
5
5
5
from
to 2005
A.13 REFERENCES
ADEM 2005a
ADEM 2005b
Buckley 2005
EPA 1988
EPA 1999a
Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2005a, e-mail message
regarding regulation of coal combustion products in Alabama, from L. Bryant
(ADEM) to D. Littleton (DOE), Oct. 19.
Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2005b, telephone
conversation between E. Sanderson (ADEM) and N. Ranek (Argonne
National Laboratory), Nov. 10.
Buckley, T.D., and D.F. Pflughoeft-Hassett, 2005, Review of Texas
Regulations, Standards, and Practices to the Use of Coal Combustion
Products, Final Report, 2005-EERC-Ol-Ol, Energy & Environmental
Research Center at the University of North Dakota for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and Headwaters Resources, Grand Forks, ND, Jan.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, Report to Congress: Wastes
from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants, EPA/530-SW-
88-002 (based on data reported in Utility Solid Waste Activity Group, Survey
of State Laws and Regulations Governing Disposal of Utility Coal-
Combustion Byproducts, 1983), Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999, Report to Congress: Wastes
from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels, EPA 530-R-99-010, Washington, DC,
March.
EPA 1999b U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999, Technical Background
Document for the Report to Congress on Remaining Wastes from Fossil Fuel
Combustion: Existing State Regulatory Controls, Washington, DC, March 15.
-------
A -90
EPA 2000
IEPA 2005
TCEQ 2004a
TCEQ 2004b
TCEQ 2004c
USWAG 2005
VDEQ 2004
EPA 2000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, "Regulatory
Determination on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels: Final Rule,"
40 CFR Part 261, 65 Federal Register 32214, May 22.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, telephone conversation
regarding regulation and permitting of CCBs in Illinois, between C. Liebman
(IEPA) and N. Ranek (Argonne National Laboratory), Nov. 17.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2004, Landfills, Technical
Guideline No. 3, issued May 3, 1976, revised Oct. 13, 2004.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2004, Nonhazardous Industrial
Solid Waste Surface Impoundments, Technical Guideline No. 4, issued May 3,
1976, revised Nov. 2, 2004.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2004, Ground-Water
Monitoring, Technical Guideline No. 6, issued May 3, 1976, revised
November 30, 1995, and Oct. 25, 2004.
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, 2005, letter from J. Roewer USWAG
regarding regulation of coal ash in Ohio and Texas to D. Littleton (DOE) and
D. Elcock (Argonne National Laboratory), Oct. 18.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 2004, VPDES Permit Manual,
Richmond, VA, June.
-------
B-l
APPENDIX B:
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NEWLY PERMITTED, BUILT, OR LATERALLY
EXPANDED DISPOSAL/MANAGEMENT UNITS
-------
5-2
-------
B-3
APPENDIX B:
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NEWLY PERMITTED, BUILT, OR LATERALLY
EXPANDED DISPOSAL/MANAGEMENT UNITS
(Information on Units Where New Construction or Lateral Expansion Was Permitted on or after
January 1, 1994)
1.0 Identification
1.1 Disposal Unit
Name:
Street address:
City:
County:
State:
Zip code:
Phone number:
1.2 Owner
Name:
Street address (if different):
City:
County:
State:
Zip code:
Phone number:
1.3 Dates
Date construction complete:
Date opened:
Comments:
1.4 Type of Unit
Landfill
Surface impoundment
Sand and gravel pit
Other (explain):
New unit
Lateral expansion
Other (please explain):
-------
B-4
Comments:
2.0 Materials Managed/Disposed of at Unit
2.1 Please indicate the types of materials managed/disposed of at the unit and the approximate
percent of total materials.
Coal fly ash ( %)
Coal bottom ash ( %)
Boiler slag ( %)
Fluidized bed combustion ash ( %)
Petroleum coke combustion waste ( %)
Wet FGD materials ( %)
Dry FGD materials (e.g., spray dryer ash) ( %)
Oil combustion waste ( %)
Natural gas combustion waste ( %)
Ancillary small volume wastes (e.g., co-managed waste) ( %)
Coal combustion by-products (CCBs) from nonutilities ( %)
Other (specify): ( %)
Comments:
3.0 Was pre-permit site characterization conducted for the unit?
Yes
No
Comments:
4.0 Disposal/Management Unit Liner Characteristics
Please indicate liner type:
Single liner
Double liner
Clay liner
Synthetic liner
Compacted clay
-------
6-5
Compacted ash
Compacted in-situ soil
Combination (please describe):
Other (please specify):
Liner thickness:
Liner hydraulic conductivity (in-cm/sec):
Not lined.
If not lined, describe supporting rationale:
Comments:
5.0 Permit Information
5.1 Is the unit authorized by one or more permits?
No
Yes
5.2 If yes, please indicate which of the following are required by the permit(s):
Liner
Groundwater monitoring
Groundwater-protection standards
Obligations to take corrective action
Bonding/financial assurance
Closure & post-closure requirements
Inspections of the unit
Other requirements (please specify):
Comments:
-------
B-6
5.3 For each permit, please indicate the following:
Issuing Agency
Type (e.g. State waste
permit, local permit,
SMCRA, NPDES)
Date
Issued
Expiration
Date
Permit Number
Please provide a copy of the primary permit for the unit that contains requirements
identified in Section 5.2.
5.4 Were any variances granted?
No
^HL Yes
If yes, please explain:
Comments:
6.0 Regulator Inspections
Have any regulators inspected the unit?
No
Yes
Comments:
-------
fl-7
7.0 Monitoring
7.1 Is groundwater monitoring of the disposal/management unit conducted?
No
Yes
7.2 If yes, is that due to:
Permit requirements
Regulatory requirements
Agreement
Voluntary
Other (please explain):
7.3 Groundwater constituents monitored (Please list)
7.4 Groundwater-monitoring frequency
Annual
Semiannual
Quarterly
Monthly
Other (please specify)
7.5 Number of groundwater-monitoring wells
Total
Within boundaries of unit
Outside boundaries of unit
Upgradient of unit
Downgradient of unit
In disposal/management area
Comments:
-------
B-8
8.0 Other comments on the adequacy of current regulations for disposal/management unit
8.1 Please provide any other comments or data to support the concept that the disposal/
management unit has been designed and is operating in a fashion that is protective of human
health and the environment
8.2 Please provide any other comments or data regarding how current regulations will prevent
past practices that may have led to damages at other sites from occurring in the future.
Other comments:
8.3 Please provide point of contact who can respond to possible additional questions:
Name:
Title:
Email:
Address:
Telephone:
-------
C-7
APPENDIX C:
SURVEY RESPONSE RATE AND SAMPLE SIZE BASED ON COAL-FIRED
POWER PLANT GENERATING CAPACITY
-------
C-2
-------
C-3
APPENDIX C:
SURVEY RESPONSE RATE AND SAMPLE SIZE BASED ON COAL-FIRED
POWER PLANT GENERATING CAPACITY
C.I SUMMARY
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) obtained data on recent and current disposal practices from a six-page questionnaire that
the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), a utility trade association that represents
85% of total U.S. electric generating capacity, had distributed to its members in December 2004.
In addition, the EPA asked State regulators from nine selected States for information on disposal
units that might not have been covered in the USWAG survey. From both these sources, a total
of 56 units (45 surveyed and 11 not surveyed) were identified. Information on these units formed
the basis for this analysis of recent and current disposal practices.
The total number of coal combustion waste (CCW) disposal units permitted, built, or
laterally expanded between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2004, ("new units") is not
known. No industry organization or government agency tracks this information.1 However, by
using total coal-fired power plant generating capacity as a proxy for waste produced, and,
therefore, for new disposal units built or expanded, we estimate that the 56 disposal units
identified in this analysis (and on which the analysis is based) represent 63% to 71% of the total
universe of such new disposal units. This coverage estimate is conservative, and thus likely
underestimates the actual coverage for the following reasons. First, the coal-fired power plant
generating capacity that actually creates CCW that requires disposal is much less than the total
generating capacity that was used to calculate the sample coverage rate. This is because the total
U.S. coal-fired power plant generating capacity (335.2 GW in 2004) includes power plants that
are on standby and thus do not produce power or CCW. Second, a significant portion of CCW is
beneficially used and thus does not require disposal. This portion is estimated to be roughly 35%
according to data obtained from the Energy Information Administration (EIA 2004; 2006a,b),
and roughly 40% according to data provided by the American Coal Ash Association
(ACAA 2004). Finally, because the coal-fired generating capacity that was added between
January 1995 and August 2005 (a period that closely corresponds to the period covered by the
survey) was less than 3% of the total coal-fired generating capacity, it follows that new disposal
capacity would be required for only a small portion of the total generating capacity.
C.2 BACKGROUND
As stated above, the number of new disposal units is not known. However, even though
the total number of new disposal units permitted, built, or laterally expanded during the 1994 to
2004 period is not known, information from the National Energy Technology Laboratory
For a glimpse into the possible si/,e of this universe in the 1990s and the uncertainties associated with efforts to
define it, see DPRA (2004).
-------
C-4
(NETL)2 indicates that very few new coal-fired plants were built during roughly that same
period. In other words, between January 1995 and August 2005, only 8.8 GW of the total coal-
fired capacity (2.6% of the total capacity) was added.
In addition, disposal capacity for new plants is generally designed and built to last
40 years, to match the life expectancy of newly constructed power generation units, and thus
there would be no need to build or expand disposal capacity for a power plant until a time
approaching roughly 40 years since it was built or last expanded. The implication of the cited
parameters for the expected disposal unit coverage can be illustrated using information on the
commissioning dates of coal-fired power plants in Texas. Of the 22 coal-fired power plants in
Texas, only two—a 2-MW plant built in 1921 and a 363-MW plant built in 1953—are more than
40 years old and thus potentially needing additional disposal capacity. However, because these
two plants are so old, it is likely that any additional capacity would have already been built
before the 1994 to 2004 period covered by this study. Also, none of the 22 Texas plants were
built or expanded after 1992, so there would have been no new disposal units built to provide
disposal capacity for any new or expanded units in the 1994 to 2004 time period.
C.3 USWAG SURVEY
DOE and the EPA obtained data on the number of new units and the CCW management
practices carried out at those units from a six-page questionnaire that USWAG had distributed in
December 2004 to all 52 of its members that own or operate coal-fired electric utilities. USWAG
is a utility trade association whose members owned or operated coal-fired power plants that had
a capacity of 224.2 GW in 2004; this was 67% of total U.S. utility coal-fired capacity of
335.2 GW.3'4 In addition, since the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)
and American Public Power Association (APPA) are members of USWAG, these trade
associations distributed the survey to all of their member companies (representing 24 GW of
coal-fired capacity for each of the associations). The combination of NRECA, APPA, and
investor-owned utilities in the survey ensures a comprehensive coverage of different size power
plant populations in the survey.-*5 Responses from these utilities are included in the USWAG
totals in the following discussion. DOE and the EPA also obtained data from contacts made by
the EPA with regulators in selected States.
The NETL New Power Plant Database. August 2005, was derived from the EIA's Utility and Nonutility
Databases, the Utility Data Institute's North American Business Directory. The Mcllvaine Company's Electric
Utility Database, and the EPA's emissions databases. The NETL New Power Plant Database is available at
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelF/ncp.pdr.
USWAG members also include operators of non-coal-fired power plants and trade associations. The association
has about 80 members in all.
Electric Power Annual with Data for 2004, a report released in November 2005. is available at http://www.eia.
doe.gov/cneat7elcctricity/epa/epat2p2.html.
NRECA's average power plant has a generating capacity of 353 MW and a range of 15 to 1,180 MW (for
70 members). APPA's average power plant has a generating capacity of 137 MW and a range of less than 1 to
820 MW (for 177 member plants). Investor-owned USWAG member plants have an average generating
capacity of 804 MW and a range of 11 to 3.564 MW (for 279 member plants).
-------
C-5
USWAG asked for a response from each member company (in the form of a returned,
completed survey) only //'the company had any "new units." If a member company did not return
a survey, it was assumed that the member company had no new units. (The validity of this
assumption is addressed later in this appendix.) Twenty-three USWAG members responded by
returning completed questionnaires for units that they believed met the criteria for new units;6
members that had more than one new unit sent completed surveys for each of their new units.
(In addition, six USWAG, one APPA, and two NRECA member companies responded by saying
that they had no new units.)
The 23 USWAG members that responded with completed surveys for new units had coal-
fired power plants totaling 138.4 GW of capacity. In 2004, total USWAG coal-fired generating
capacity was 224.2 GW. Thus, the responses received from those that reported new units
covered roughly 62% of USWAG coal-fired capacity.
Since the total number of new units is not known, we used coal-fired generating capacity
to serve as a proxy for calculating the response rate and sample coverage. The use of this proxy
likely resulted in a significant underestimation of the sample size, but it appeared to be the best
proxy that could be developed, given the lack of available knowledge on the total number of new
disposal units. Reasons that total coal-fired capacity results in an underestimation of sample size
include the following:
• Total U.S. generating capacity includes the capacities of all coal-fired units,
most of which have a life span of more than 40 years. Many of these units are
on standby and thus do not produce power or CCW.
• Since only about 9 GW (less than 3% of total coal-fired generating capacity)
was added as new power plants during the past decade, it follows that new or
expanded disposal units would be required for only a small portion of total
capacity.
• Newly constructed plants may not dispose of CCW but instead recycle the
by-products for beneficial use. Of the total amount of CCW generated each
year in the United States, roughly 35%, based on data obtained from the
EIA (EIA 2004; 2006a,b) and roughly 40%, according to the ACAA (ACAA
2004), is used beneficially and does not need disposal.
Some members sent surveys for mine disposal units; units that were permitted, constructed, or laterally
expanded either before or after the 1994 to 2004 time frame; and units that had only been expanded vertically
(i.e.. no change of footprint) within the 1994 to 2004 time frame. These survey responses were not included in
the analysis.
-------
C-6
C.4 FOLLOW-UP TO VERIFY COMPLETENESS OF USWAG MEMBER
RESPONSE TO SURVEY
To verify the assumption that the lack of a response from a utility meant that it had no
new units that met the criteria (meaning that it could, in fact, have had new units that were not
covered in the survey), and to determine whether any USWAG members had new units that they
did not identify, USWAG conducted a follow-up in January 2006. USWAG contacted each of
the members that did not respond to the December 2004 survey request. The follow-up indicated
that of the 29 members that either did not respond or had previously responded that they had no
new units, 25 (representing 58.2 GW of capacity) did indeed have no new units that met the
criteria, but 4 (with 27.5 GW of capacity) actually did have units that met the criteria and were
missed in the original 2004 survey (Table C.I). Thus, all USWAG members with coal-fired
capacity responded either to the December 2004 survey or the January 2006 follow-up, and the
overall response rate (which includes both those that responded to the survey and those contacted
during the follow-up) was 100%.
C.5 INDEPENDENT EPA VERIFICATION
To verify independently the assumption that a lack of response meant the utility had no
new units, and to obtain information on units that might have been missed by the 2004 USWAG
survey and on units owned by non-USWAG, non-NRECA, and non-APPA members, the EPA
asked State regulators from nine selected States7 for information on new units. The USWAG
survey responses identified 45 new units (the surveyed units), and the EPA effort identified
11 new units that had not already been identified for inclusion by the USWAG survey (the
TABLE C.I Results of the January 2006 Follow-up to the USWAG Survey
Coal-Fired Capacity
Utility Companies (USWAG members)a Number in 2004 (GW)
Companies that did not respond to the survey or that responded that they had no 29 85.7
new units in the original survey
Companies that verified that they had no new units in the follow-up 25 58.2
Companies that indicated that they had new units that should have been included 4 27.5
in the 2004 survey
Companies thai did not respond to follow-up calls 0 0
a A utility company can have multiple generating plants or facilities and hence multiple disposal units.
The EPA's selected States were those that top the list of consumption of coal for electricity generation and/or
CCW generation. The selected states, however, do not include those States that have extensive coal-mining
operations where a significant portion of the CCWs are inferred to be disposed of as minefill. and those that do
not require permits for disposal of dry ash and. therefore, lack pertinent records.
-------
C-7
nonsurveyed units). The capacity represented by companies owning these nonsurveyed 11 units
was 14 GW. Information on the 56 identified units formed the basis for this analysis of recent
and current disposal practices.
C.6 SAMPLE COVERAGE
The data collection effort was intended to identify and include as many new units in the
universe as possible. As stated previously, the total number of new disposal units (the size of the
universe of CCW disposal units) is not known. However, assuming that the number of units is
proportional to utility coal-fired generating capacity, it appears that the 56 identified new units
represent roughly 45% of the universe of such units. This number is calculated by adding the
capacity of the UWSAG member utilities reporting new units (138.4 GW) to the capacity of the
additional 11 units identified by the EPA (14 GW), and dividing the total (152.4 GW) by the
total U.S. coal-fired generating capacity (335.2 GW).
To incorporate the capacity of the utilities that responded that they had no new units into
the "sample," this 45% was adjusted by adding the generating capacities of the utilities that
verified that they had no new units (58.2 GW) and the utilities that had qualifying units that did
not respond to the original 2004 survey8 (27.5 GW) to the numerator cited above (152.4 GW)
and dividing the total by the total U.S. capacity (335.2 GW). The result is 71%. This represents
the percent of total capacity covered by the utilities with new disposal units and those reporting
that they had no disposal units. If we omit the capacity of the utilities with supplemental (newly
identified) units in the 2006 follow-up (since they were not included in the analysis), the sample
coverage is 63%.
Because the sample represents 63% of the coal-fired generating capacity in the United
States (this includes both USWAG and non-USWAG companies that responded to the survey, as
well as the EPA-identified units), and because the size of the universe of new units is not known,
we believe that the information obtained and analyzed can be used to identify general trends in
CCW disposal practices between 1994 and 2004.
Because these units were identified only in the January follow-up, they are not included in this analysis.
However, to determine if the exclusion of these units from the analysis may have produced findings that were
not representative of the units that comprised the analysis, we compared the results for the key parameters of
interest (liners and groundwaler monitoring) for (he USWAG-identified units with those for the EPA-identified
units and the supplemental units; the results from all groups were found to he consistent.
-------
C-8
C.7 REFERENCES
ACAA2004 American Coal Ash Association, 2004, Coal Combustion Product (CCP)
Production and Use Survey. Available at http://www.acaa-usa.org/
PDF2004 CCP Survey(9-9-05).pdf.
DPRA 2004 DPRA Incorporated, 2004, Validation of Fossil Fuel Combustion Regulation
Proposed Rule Cost Elements, draft report prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, Nov. 30.
EIA 2004 Energy Information Administration, 2004, "Annual Steam-Electric Plant
Operation and Design Data, EIA-767 Data Files." Available at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia767.html.
EIA 2005 Energy Information Administration, 2005. Electric Power Annual with Data
for 2004, Nov. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/
epat2p2.html.
EIA 2006a Energy Information Administration, 2006a, e-mail message from N. Ko
(Survey Manager, EIA 767, Electric Power Division, Energy Information
Administration) regarding data clarification for Kentucky and Connecticut to
D. Littleton (U.S. Department of Energy), April 15.
EIA 2006b Energy Information Administration, 2006b, e-mail message from N. Ko
(Survey Manager, EIA 767, Electric Power Division, Energy Information
Administration) regarding data clarification for Delaware to M.A. Hunt
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III), July 20.
-------
D-l
APPENDIX D:
RECONCILIATION OF UNITS IDENTIFIED
BY THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
D-2
-------
D-3
TABLE D.I Reconciliation of Units Identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ID
302
303
314
321
331
336
337
338
and
345
343
344
351
352
353
354
Unit Name
Savannah Electric and Power
Company (SEPCO), Grumman Rd.
(LI) (Port Wentworth)
SEPCO, Plant Mclntosh, Ash
Monofill #4
Hutonsville Power Station
JH Campbell Type III Landfill
Marshall Plant, Flue Gas
Desulfuri/ation (FGD) Residue
Landfill, Catawha Co.
Basin Electric Power Coop, Leland
Olds Station
Minnkota Power Coop.
M.R. Young Station
Montana Dakota Utilities, Heskett
Station
Dakota Gasification Company
(2)SPSP-169
Otter Tail Power Company. Coyote
Station Ponds
Dayton Power & Light. Stuart Fly
Ash Impoundment #10
Tonkovich Monofill Expansion
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
(OVEC), Kyger Creek Power Plant
Impoundments
Cardinal Fly Ash Reservoir 11
Impoundment
Issue
A solid waste permit was issued in 1986. and a State
vertical expansion permit was issued in 1998. Since
1994. the only permit issued has been the permit for
vertical expansion. Vertical expansion permits are
not included.
The permit was issued in April 2005. The unit has
not been built; it is outside the 1994 to 2004 range.
This unit is already in the database; the operator
submitted a completed survey.
Unit built or expanded before the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA)-specilled cutoff
date. JH Campbell is not included in the database
because the permit was issued in 1993 (outside the
range).
Unit built or expanded before the EPA-specified
cutoff date. Leland Olds was originally identified but
not included in the Utility Solid Waste Activities
Group (USWAG) survey, because the permit was
issued in 1993.
Unit built or expanded before the EPA-specified
cutoff date. EPA information says that the unit was
opened in 1982 and upgraded with clay liners in the
1980s; disposal of FGD/fly ash was discontinued.
and the disposal unit is now empty.
Unit appears two times in the EPA list, both times
with an opening year ( 1 989) prior to the cut-off dale,
but with phased construction ongoing.
This unit is not a coal combustion disposal unit. This
is a coal gasification plant, not a coal combustion
site.
Unit built or expanded before the EPA-specified
cutoff date. EPA information indicates thai the unit
opened in 1979.
The EPA data appear to be inaccurate. The utility,
via USWAG, said that the impoundment received a
permit from the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency (OEPA) in November 1999. Construction
was initiated in 2000.
Unit built or expanded before the EPA cutoff date.
An application for an OPEA Permit to Install (PTI)
for Fly Ash Reservoir II was submitted to OEPA on
April 23, 1984. The PTI was issued by OEPA on
February 4, 1985.
Resolutiona
No
No
Yes, but
already
included
No
Yes
No
No
No
and
Yes
No
No
Yes, with
corrected
data
Yes
Yes
No
-------
TABLE D.I (Cont.)
D-4
ID
355
356
357b
358
359
360
361
362
363
Unit Name
Richmond Mill 2 Monofill
Muskingum River Power Plant
Impoundments
Coffeen Power Station Landfillh
Basin Electric Power Coop,
Antelope Valley Station (AVS),
SP-160
Great River Energy (Underwood)
SP-174
Minnkota Power Cooperative,
M.R. Young Station, Bottom Ash
IT-205
Otter Tail Power Company, Coyote
Station, Blue Pit SP- 182
Dayton Power & Light, Stuart Fly
Ash Landfill #11
Welsh Bottom Ash Pond
Issue
Unit built or expanded before the EPA-specified
cutoff date. The facility was originally permitted in
1985. Subsequent permitting involved (1) approval
to receive ash from power plants other than that for
which the facility was originally constructed and
(2) a vertical expansion on the original footprint of
the facility.
Prior to EPA cutoff date. The existing fly ash pond at
the Muskingum River Plant has been in operation
since 1 975. In March 2004, a request for a permit
modification to raise the elevation of the dam that
was originally constructed before 1 975 was
submitted to OEPA. OEPA issued a PTI for raising
the elevation in May 2004. The modification
required the installation of 15 groundwater
monitoring wells around the impoundment.
Resolution"
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
a Yes means included in database; no means not included.
h A completed survey was subsequently obtained for this unit, and to maintain consistency with the numerical
identification/tracking system (surveyed units are numbered between 200 and 299; nonsurveyed units are
numbered between 300 and 399), this unit was reclassified with the number 253.
-------
E-l
APPENDIX E:
UNIT COMPLETION DATA
-------
E-2
-------
E-3
TABLE E.I Trends in Unit Completion
ID
207
227
213
222
237
230
233
211
214
228
229
209
236
202
363
351
210
216
225
215
353
226
352
240
218
232
Year
Construction
Complete
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2002
2002
2002
2002
2001
2001
2001
2001
2000
2000
1998
1998
1997
1997
1997
1996
1996
1996
1995
1995
Year
Opened
2004
2003
2003
1996
_a
2002
2002
2002
2001
2001
2001
2001
1995
2000
-
1998
1998
1997
1997
-
1998
-
-
1995
1995
Type5
SI
LF
SI
LF
LF
LF
LF
SI
SI
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
Comments
Original unlined landfill opened in 1988. Lined expansion was built on
top of the original unlined portion. Phase I was completed in
November 2003. After State approval of Phase I, expanded landfill
opened in December 2003.
Landfill was constructed over time. Liner was completed in
September 2003. There are at least 6 more years of life in the landfill,
which is in three noncontiguous areas. While Area 2 was being built,
Area 1, which is across railroad tracks from Area 2, was being used.
Operating license was applied for on November 1 7, 2004; landfill is not
yet opened.
Construction phases were completed in 1993 (Phase I), 1994 (Phase IIA),
1995 (Phase IIB), 1997 (Phase III), 1998 (Phase IV), and 2003 (Phase V).
Facility opened in the 1950s.
The King (Moelter) Landfill has been expanded four times since 1993
(in 1994, 1997, 2000, and 2002).
The original landfill opened in the early 1980s.
Most recent liner expansion was in 2001. A Hypalon® liner was installed
in 1985. Start-up was in 1978, with a clay liner.
Landfill will have four cells, with the cells constructed in phases. The first
cell was completed in the summer of 2001. Landfill cells are constructed
in phases to limit leachate production. When one cell is full, it is capped,
and the next cell is opened.
Landfill opened within months of cell completion. The Sherco #3 Ash
Landfill has been expanded three times since 1993 (in 1994, 1999, and
2001).
The 255-acre landfill was constructed in six phases; the last phase was
completed on January 22. 2001 . The first phase of construction was
completed on November 17. 1994.
Permit was issued in 1999. Construction began in 2000.
Landfill is active.
-------
E-4
TABLE E.I (Cont.)
ID
212
221
252
358
201
217
235
362
360
361
359
345
331
245
206
244
204
246
205
200
203
220
223
247
241
253
219
224
239
248
Year
Construction
Complete
1995
1995
1995
1995
1994
1994
1994
-
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Year
Opened
1995
1994
1994
-
1994
1994
-
2003
2002
1997
1996
1989
—
2003
2000
2000
1998
1997
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
-
-
-
-
Type
SI
LF
SI
LF
LF
LF
SI
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
SI
SI
SI
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
SI
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
SI
Comments
Construction was completed in 1995.
Construction was completed in 1995.
Liner construction is complete.
The initial cell (Phase B) was completed in August 1994.
This is not in operation.
Construction is ongoing, in phases; construction started in 1989.
Landfill is not operational because scrubbers are not yet installed. Landfill
should be operating by late 2006.
Construction is ongoing.
Construction is ongoing.
New landfill permit was issued.
Expansion permit was issued.
Construction is ongoing.
Permit was issued on September 23. 1993. The landfill was built in two
stages: Stage I/II and Stage III. Stage I/II is closed. In Stage III. the
landfill began receiving waste in the 2002-2003 time frame.
Landfill is not yet constructed. The company has a permitted area on
which a landfill can be constructed, but nothing has been constructed
except groundwater-monitoring equipment for background assessment.
Construction is ongoing.
Construction has been deferred; permit was issued on May 14, 2001.
Landfill is under active operation. Permit was issued in April 2000.
Unit is still under construction.
a - = data not provided.
h LF = landfill; SI = surface impoundment.
-------
F-l
APPENDIX F:
MATERIALS DISPOSED OF AT SURVEYED UNITS
-------
F-2
-------
TABLE F.I Materials Disposed of at Surveyed Unitsa
ID
246
217
233
227
226
205
204
220
203
200
230
Unit
Type
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
Coal Fly
AshC/h
100
100
99.5
99
98
94
92
85
80
80
76
Coal
Bottom
Ash(<7<)
0
0
0
0
0
6
8
0
20
20
22
Boiler
Slag(7r)
0
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wet FGD
Waste (9h
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
10
0
0
0
Dry FGD
Waste (<7o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Co-managed
Waste (<7r)
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nonutility
CCB (7r )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.5
0
0
0
Other
Materials
(7<)
<5
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.5
0
0
2
Description
of "Other Materials"
General plant trash in an
amount of less than 5%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Filter, baghouse bags
subject to approval
NA
NA
Miscellaneous industrial
waste materials from
operating coal-fired
power plant: refractory,
sandblast grit
Comments
None
None
Small volumes of co-managed
wastes, such as coal mill rejects, are
commingled with the fly ash.
Bottom ash is sluiced to an active
ash pond. Fly ash would be sent to
the active ash pond only when a
malfunction occurred during dry
ash handling.
Numbers are based on four quarters.
ending with Quarter .3 in 2004.
None
None
None
None
None
None
-------
TABLE F.I (Cont.)
ID
218
239
219
240
236
209
Unit
Type
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
Coal Fly
Ash (%)
75
70
70
67
65
48
Coal
Bottom
Ash (<7i)
25
20
30
14
0
52
Boiler
Slag(%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wet FGD
Waste (<7<)
0
0
0
12
0
0
Dry FGD
Waste (%)
0
0
0
0
35
0
Co-managed
Waste (<7r)
0
8
0
0
0
0
Nonutility
CCB (%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
Materials
(f/O
0
2
0
7
0
<1
Description
of "Other Materials"
NA
Miscellaneous
industrial waste
materials from
operating coal -fired
power plant: asbestos,
demolition debris.
intake dredge material.
sand-blasting grit,
intake structure
cleanings
NA
Miscellaneous
industrial waste
materials from
operating coal-fired
power plant
NA
<\% asbestos and
waste water treatment
sludge
Comments
None
Co-managed: cooling tower
sediment, demineralized resin, filter
media, coal pile pond sediment
None
None
None
Asbestos waste <1$; remainder is
fly ash and bottom ash.
71
-fe,
-------
TABLE F.I (Cont.)
ID
228
201
223
229
202
221
224
Unit
Type
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
Coal Fly
Ash (%)
39
28
20
10
.05
0
0
Coal
Bottom
Ash ( % )
0
3
9
0
1.3
95
15
Boiler
Slag(r/()
0
3
0
15
0
0
0
Wet FGD
Waste (<7<)
58
66
78
0
98.4
0
0
Dry FGD
Waste ( % )
0
0
0
0
0
0
85
Co-managed
Waste (7<)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nonutility
CCB(%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
Materials
(7c )
3
0
0
75
.26
5
0
Description
of "Other Materials"
Quicklime added for
fixation/stabilization
NA
NA
5% ancillary small-
volume wastes and
70% clinker ash
0.25% stone and rock
for roads and 0.0 1 %
lime ball mill rejects
and pulverizer rejects
Boiler cleaning -
physical
NA
Comments
Coal fly ash was estimated at
35-40% and adjusted to 39% . Wet
FGD waste was estimated at
55-60% and adjusted to 58%. Other
wastes were estimated at 2-3% and
adjusted to 3%. Fly ash and FGD
solids are pug-milled together with
quicklime to produce a coal
combustion product commonly
known as fixated scrubber sludge
(FSS) and then landfilled.
None
Poz-O-Tec
None
Bottom ash used for road
construction
Facility consists of two bottom ash
ponds used for dewatering and an
inert-bottom ash landfill for
materials removed from dewatering
ponds.
None
•1
-------
TABLE F.I (Cont.)
ID
222
232
253
241
237
244
Unit
Type
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
SI
Coal Fly
Ash (%)
0
0
0
See
comments
See
comments
100
Coal
Bottom
Ash (%)
10
0
0
0
See
comments
0
Boiler
Slag(%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wet FGD
Waste (%)
89
0
0
See
comments
0
0
Dry FGD
Waste (%)
0
0
0
See
comments
See
comments
0
Co-managed
Waste ('%)
1
0
0
See
comments
0
0
Nonutility
CCB (CA )
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
Materials
(%)
0
100
0
See
comments
0
0
Description
of "Other Materials"
NA
Slag produced by the
IGCC gasifier
NA
Wastewater basin
sludge, oil-
contaminated soil
NA
NA
Comments
Co-managed wastes include inert
wastes, such as bricks generated in
outages and wastewater treatment
sludges, which, for the most part.
are either ash or lime waste, and
ancillary small-volume wastes.
A state-of-the-art gasifier (not a
boiler) is used in the IGCC system.
The slag material is a by-product of
the gasification process that uses
coal to generate electricity. The coal
is used to create a synthetic gas that
is then cleaned of sulfur-bearing
compounds. Ultimately, the process
results in a glassy inert slag
by-product that is used in cement
manufacturing.
This is a permitted but unused
landfill. The power company
currently does not plan to use it.
The landfill was permitted to
manage coal fly ash (30%) and
boiler slag (70%). Additional
wastes permitted for the site include
general trash from the plant (less
than 5% total waste accepted) and
coal and soil from ditch cleanings.
Percentages are not known. Fly ash
and FGD sludge are the primary
wastes placed in the landfill.
Coal fly ash, coal bottom ash, and
dry FGD materials are marked, but
no percentages were indicated.
None
-------
TABLE F.I (Cont.)
ID
245
247
206
248
210
214
211
207
216
215
235
213
212
Unit
Type
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
Coal Fly
Ash (7( )
100
100
95
80
80
80
80
78
50
50
50
30
30
Coal
Bottom
Ash(7r)
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
TO
50
50
25
70
70
Boiler
Slag (%)
()
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wet FGD
Waste (7<)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
25
0
0
Dry FGD
Waste (% )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Co-managed
Waste ( 7< )
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nonutility
CCB (7, )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
Materials
(<7r )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Description
of "Other Materials"
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Comments
None
None
Co-managed wastes consist of plant
drains and demineralizer
regenerant.
None
None
None
None
Coal fly ash:
Unit 1 = 757,,
Units 2 and 3 = 80%. Coal bottom
ash:
Unit 1 =257f,
Units2and3 = 207r.
None
None
None
None
None
-------
TABLE F.I (Cont.)
ID
225
252
Unit
Type
SI
SI
Coal Fly
Ash(9r)
15
0
Coal
Bottom
Ash (%)
0
95
Boiler
Slag (%)
5
0
Wet FGD
Waste (%)
80
0
Dry FGD
Waste (%)
0
0
Co-managed
Waste (9f)
0
0
Nonutility
CCB (%)
0
0
Other
Materials
(f/r)
0
5
Description
of "Other Materials"
NA
Boiler cleaning -
physical
Comments
None
Facility consists of two bottom ash
ponds used for dewatering and an
inert-bottom ash landfill for
materials removed from dewatering
ponds.
CCB = coal combustion by-products; FGD = flue gas desulfurization; IGCC = integrated gasification combined cycle; LF = landfill; NA = not applicable; SI = surface
impoundment.
J
-------
G-l
APPENDIX G:
PERMITS ISSUED FOR SURVEYED UNITS
-------
G-2
-------
TABLE G.I Permits Issued for Surveyed Units
ID
217
221
220
219
237
224
241
229
227
2°2
224
227
220
221
219
202
201
217
241
224
201
240
230
239
222
229
232
218
246
253
State
OH
ND
ND
ND
MI
MO
VA
NH
NC
IN
MO
NC
ND
ND
ND
OH
OH
OH
VA
MO
OH
PA
PA
PA
IN
NH
FL
GA
IL
1L
Unit
Typea
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
Permit Typeb
Air
Conditional use
Conditional use
Conditional use
Construction
Construction
Construction
Health department
Industrial LF
NPDES
NPDES
NPDES
NPDES
NPDES
NPDES
NPDES
NPDES
NPDES
NPDES
Operating
Operating
Residual waste
Residual waste
Residual waste
Restricted waste
State groundwater
State waste
State waste
State waste
State waste
Issuing Agencyc
OEPA
County
County
County
MDEQ
MoDNR
Halifax County
State
NC Division of Waste Management
IDEM
MoDNR
NC Division of Water Quality
NDDH
NDDH
NDDH
OEPA
OEPA
OEPA
VDEQ
MoDNR
Ohio DOH
PADEP
PADEP
PADEP
IDEM
NHDES
FDEP
GA EPD Land Protection Branch
IEPA
IEPA
Issue Date
2/1/1994
_d
-
4/1/2000
2/27/2002
5/14/2001
-
1/1/1978
11/1/1988
10/1/1997
-
2/1/2003
1/1/2002
1/1/2002
1/1/2002
6/27/2002
5/1/2000
2/1/1994
12/27/2000
-
-
3/15/1999
6/5/1997
4/11/2000
1/1/1996
-
1/1/1995
1/10/1994
9/3/1998
11/23/2004
Expiration
Date
-
-
-
3/31/2005
5/14/2006
-
11/1/2008
10/1/2002
-
3/31/2007
12/31/2006
12/31/2006
12/31/2006
7/31/2007
4/30/2005
-
12/27/2005
-
-
11/4/2008
6/5/2007
4/11/2010
1/1/2001
1/1/2006
-
-
-
9/1/2009
Was
Copy of Permit
Submitted with
Survey Response?
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
L Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-------
TABLE G.I (Cont.)
ID
228
226
223
236
233
220
219
221
229
201
202
202
200
203
241
209
205
204
209
233
217
252
214
212
211
210
206
215
213
216
State
IN
IN
IN
MN
MN
ND
ND
ND
NH
OH
OH
OH
VA
VA
VA
WI
WV
WV
WI
MN
OH
ND
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
Unit
Type3
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
Permit Typeh
State waste
State waste
State waste
State waste
State waste
State waste
State waste
State waste
State waste
State waste
State waste
State waste
State waste
State waste
State waste
State waste
State waste
State waste
Storm water
Waste
Wastewater
Conditional use
Constr/operating
Constr/operating
Conslr/operating
Constr/operating
Constr/operating
Constr/operaling
Constr/operating_
Constr/operating
Issuing Agencyc
IDEM
IDEM
IDEM
MPCA
Washington County
NDDH
NDDH
NDDH
NHDES
OEPA
Ohio DOH
OEPA
VDEQ
VDEQ
VDEQ
WDNR
WVDEP
WVDEP
WDNR
MPCA
OEPA
County
IEPA
IEPA
IEPA
IEPA
IEPA
IEPA
IEPA
IEPA
Issue Date
3/1/2001
7/1/2003
1/1/1995
12/2/2004
7/1/2004
12/19/1994
11/3/1997
12/19/1994
1/1/1985
5/21/1993
-
1/27/1994
1/6/1994
9/8/1994
9/23/1993
10/1/2004
10/4/2004
3/10/2004
8/1/2001
3/31/2003
2/1/1994
-
1/28/2002
12/12/1994
6/5/2002
8/15/1997
-
5/29/1997
5/29/2003
4/13/1998
Expiration
Date
3/1/2006
7/1/2008
1/1/2007
12/2/2009
6/30/2005
12/19/2004
1 1/3/2007
12/19/2004
—
-
-
-
-
-
—
9/30/2005
10/3/2009
6/30/2008
3/31/2006
3/31/2008
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Was
Copy of Permit
Submitted with
Survey Response?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
9
-k
-------
TABLE G.I (Cont.)
ID
248
245
247
244
225
207
212
211
210
215
214
213
216
213
212
215
211
214
210
216
248
235
252
252
225
Stale
IN
MO
MO
MO
ND
NM
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
MN
^ND
ND
ND
Unit
Typea
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
Permit Typeb
Construetion
Construetion
Construction
Construction
Construction
Dam construction
Dam safety
Dam safety
Dam safety
Dam safety
Dam safety
Dam safety
Dam safety
NPDES
NPDES
NPDES
JSIPDES
NPDES
NPDES
NPDES
NPDES
NPDES
NPDES
State waste
State waste
Issuing Agencyc
IDEM
MoDNR
MoDNR
MoDNR
ND State Water Commission
NM State Engineer's Office
IDNR
IDNR
IDNR
IDNR
IDNR
IDNR
IDNR
IEPA
IEPA
IEPA
IEPA
IEPA
IEPA
IEPA
IDEM
MPCA
NDDH
NDDH
NDDH
Issue Date
10/1/2001
7/26/2001
5/10/1993
11/14/1995
6/2/1994
2/25/2003
8/16/2004
10/25/2002
4/10/1998
8/12/1997
5/28/2002
11/10/1994
6/4/1998
5/1/2002
4/30/2002
5/1/2002
4/25/2002
3/1/2003
4/25/2002
5/1/2002
1/1/1990
4/12/2004
1/1/2002
12/19/1994
6/14/1995
Expiration
Date
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4/30/2007
4/30/2007
4/30/2007
4/30/2007
2/28/2008
4/30/2007
4/30/2007
-
3/31/2009
12/31/2006
12/19/2004
6/14/2005
Was
Copy of Permit
Submitted with
Survey Response?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Footnotes on next page.
-------
TABLE G.I (Cont.)
a LF = landfill; SI = surface impoundment.
b NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
c FDEP = Florida Deparlment of Environmental Protection; GA EPD = Georgia Environmental Protection Division; IDEM = Indiana
Department of Environmental Management; IDNR = Illinois Department of Natural Resources; IEPA = Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency: MDEQ = Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; MoDNR = Missouri Department of Natural
Resources; MPCA = Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; NDDH = North Dakota Department of Health; NHDES = New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Services; Ohio DOH = Ohio Department of Health; OEPA - Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency; PADEP = Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection: VDEQ = Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality: WDNR = Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; WVDEP = West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection.
ll — = data not provided.
O
6s
-------
H-l
APPENDIX H:
LINER DATA
-------
H-2
-------
TABLE H.I Liner Data
ID
223
361
359
358
219
200
222
345
203
209
253
201
362
221
State
IN
ND
ND
ND
ND
VA
IN
ND
VA
WI
IL
OH
OH
ND
Unit
Type
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
Is Unit New or
an Expansion?
Lateral expansion
Lateral expansion
-
-
Lateral expansion
Both new and
lateral expansion
Other
Lateral expansion
Lateral expansion
New
New
Lateral expansion
-
New
Type of Liner
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Combination
Combination
Combination
Combination
Combination
Combination
Combination
Compacted clay
Compacted clay
Description of
Combination Liner3
_b
-
-
-
-
Select fill sub-base, synthetic
liner, geocomposite leachate
collection, and select bottom
ash protective layer
Lower 3 ft of clay can be in
situ if it meets 1 x 10 6
permeability. Top 2 ft of 5-ft
liner must be recompacted.
Clay for early cells, now
composite
1 .5-ft drainage material,
synthetic liner, select fill
sub-base
GCL/HDPE liner system
36 in. of compacted clay,
with a geomembrane
Composite liner system
consisting of 18 in. of
recompacted clay and a
30-mil PVC geomembrane
-
Liner
Thickness
2.5 ft
-
-
-
3ft
30 mil
—
30 mil
60 mil
60 mil
18 in.
-
2ft
Liner Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/s)
1 x 10-6
-
-
-
1 x lO'7
See comments
—
-
1 x 10-7
<1 x 10-7
-
1 x ID'8
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Conductivities of select fill sub-base
and liner are not available.
Geocomposite conductivity is
1 1 cm/s. Conductivity for select
bottom ash layer is 5 x 10'^ cm/s.
—
HOPE liner is 60 mil.
Double, clay, synthetic, compacted
clay, leachate-collection system
Recompacted clay
-
-------
TABLE H.1 (Cont.)
ID
220
217
353
218
232
246
352
State
ND
OH
OH
GA
FL
IL
OH
Unit
Type
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
Is Unit New or
an Expansion?
New
New
-
Other
New
New
-
Type of Liner
Compacted clay
Compacted clay
Compacted clay
Compacted clay
Double
Double
FML w/leachate
collection
Description of
Combination Linera
-
-
-
-
-
Synthetic and compacted
clay
-
Liner
Thickness
2ft
3ft
-
2ft
minimum
60 mil
60 mil
-
Liner Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/s)
1 x lO'8
1 x ID'7
-
1 x 10-s
—
1 x 10-7
-
Comments
-
-
Recompacted clay
1 0 ft of vertical separation between
water table and bottom of 2-ft clay
layer. Only the minimum hydraulic
conductivity value (1 x 10"")
acceptable to the State was reported
by the Arkwright plant, but no
permeability tests were performed
on this liner. However, the liner
comprises silty to sandy clays and
clayey silts; has a Plasticity Index of
39 ('extremely plastic'), Liquid
Limit value of 61 and greater than
70% fines passing the # 200 sieve.
When compacted to 95%-99% of its
maximum dry density, this type of
clay would become impervious,
with hydraulic conductivity inferred
in the 1 x 10"7 to 1 x 10 8 range.
60-mil HOPE geomembrane
Thickness is for the synthetic liner.
-
-------
TABLE H.1 (Cont.)
ID
228
230
204
224
226
202
205
237
State
IN
PA
WV
MO
IN
OH
WV
MI
Unit
Type
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
Is Unit New or
an Expansion?
Lateral expansion
Other
Lateral expansion
New
Lateral expansion
New
New
New
Type of Liner
Multiple types
Multiple types
Multiple types
Multiple types
Multiple types
Multiple types
Multiple types
Multiple types
Deseription of
Combination Linera
One GCL, then 1 ft of
eompaeted clay, then another
GCL make up the liner
system; with seepage
collection system
Phases V through IX primary
GM. secondary GM and
GCL
-
60-mil HOPE liner over 2 ft
of prepared silty-clay
subgrade
Geomembrane and GCL
1 .5 ft of clay with 30 mil of
PVC synthetic liner on top of
the clay
-
Primary is 60 mil of HOPE,
secondary is 60 mil of HOPE
plus GCL
Liner
Thickness
-
60 mil
2ft
60 mil
-
-
2ft
-
Liner Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/s)
1 x ID'9
-
1 x lO'7
1 x 10'7
< 1 x 10-7
1 x 10-7
-
Comments
The hydraulic conductivity of the
total liner system is equivalent to
1 x 1()-9 cm/s. GCL is made with
bentonite materials. Total thickness
with seepage collection system is
about 2 ft 6 in. Clay, synthetic (two
GCLs) and combination (one GCL,
then 1 ft of compacted clay, then
another GCL make up the liner
system: with seepage collection
system)
60 mil of smooth and textured
HOPE. Single liner: Phases I
through IV. Double liner: Phases V
through IX.
Single, clay and compacted clay
Single, synthetic, combination
Double, synthetic, compacted clay.
combination of 60 mil of HOPE is
underlain by 12 in. of compacted
clay (2- to 6-in. lifts). Conductivity
is for clay.
1 .5 ft of clay and 30 mil of PVC.
Conductivity is for clay
permeability.
Single, clay and compacted clay
Double, synthetic. Leak detection
between liners. 60 mil of HOPE plus
GCL.
-------
TABLE H.I (Cont.)
ID
241
239
236
233
240
360
229
331
State
VA
PA
MN
MN
PA
ND
NH
NC
Unit
Type
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
Is Unit New or
an Expansion?
New
Lateral expansion
Lateral expansion
Lateral expansion
Lateral expansion
-
Lateral expansion
New
Type of Liner
Multiple types
Multiple types
Multiple types
Multiple types
Multiple types
Not lined —
inert waste
Single
Synthetic
Description of
Combination Linera
-
Stages III and IV, primary
GM, secondary GM and
GCL
-
-
-
-
-
-
Liner
Thickness
60 mil
-
-
-
60 mil
(PVC)
-
60 mil
-
Liner Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/s)
-
-
1 x 10-"
1 x 10-7
-
-
1 x 10-'2
-
Comments
Single and synthetic. Conductivity,
is not known; however, the standard
is specified in the Virginia solid
waste regulations.
Single, double, synthetic,
combination. Stages I and II are
60 mil. Stages III and IV are 60 mil
of textured HOPE.
2 ft of clay and 60 mil of HOPE.
Double, synthetic, compacted clay.
2 ft of clay and 60 mil of HOPE.
Double, synthetic, compacted clay.
Single and synthetic
Inert waste, bottom ash
-
Unit received a Permit to Construct
for the landfill without a liner in
2004. This guidance was based on
modeling that suggested that only a
synthetic cap and groundwater
monitoring would be needed.
However, when the company began
to model for boron, it determined
that a synthetic liner would be
needed for groundwater compliance.
Unit will also have leachate
collection. (E-mail of Oct. 28, 2005,
from Paul Pike, AmerenEnergy,
St. Louis, MO, to James Roewer,
USWAG, Washington, D.C.)
-------
TABLE H.I (Cont.)
ID
227
212
351
216
248
210
211
213
State
NC
IL
OH
IL
IN
IL
IL
IL
Unit
Type
LF
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
Is Unit New or
an Expansion?
Lateral expansion
New
New
Other
Lateral expansion
New
New
Other
Type of Liner
Synthetic
Clay
Combination
Combination
Combination
Combination
Combination
Combination
Description of
Combination Liner11
-
1 .5-ft clay liner of
1 x 10 7 conductivity that sits
on top of 3.5 it of compacted
in situ clay/soil
12 in. of clay overlain by
polypropylene
60- mil HOPE liner and 2 in.
compacted clay
Clay overlain by
polypropylene
Clay overlain by
polypropylene
12 in. of clay overlain by
polypropylene
Liner
Thickness
40 mil
4ft
12 in.
2.25 ft
Liner Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/s)
1 x 10-7
<1 x 10-7
1 x 10-7
See comments
1 x 10-8
See comments
See comments
See comments
Comments
A 40-mil textured LLDPE
geomembrane is placed over
existing ash (former dry-ash
landfill). A 1 .5-ft-thick layer of
bottom ash is placed over the
LLDPE geomembrane as the
drainage layer for the leachate-
collection system.
-
1 2 in. of clay, 45 mil of
polypropylene. Clay conductivity =
1 x 10"6. Polypropylene
conductivity = 1 x 10"1 '.
—
12 in. of clay, 45 mil of
polypropylene. Clay conductivity
= 1 x 10"6. Polypropylene
conductivity = 1 x 10~u.
12 in. of clay, 45 mil of
polypropylene. Clay conductivity
= 1 x 10"6. Polypropylene
conductivity = 1 x 10~u.
12 in. of clay, 45 mil of
polypropylene. Clay conductivity
= 1 x 10"6. Polypropylene
conductivity = 1 x 10~u.
XI
-------
TABLE H.I (Cont.)
ID
215
235
225
214
363
207
245
247
206
244
252
State
IL
MN
ND
IL
TX
NM
MO
MO
IL
MO
ND
Unit
Type
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
Is Unit New or
an Expansion?
Other
New
New
Other
New
Other
Other
New
New
Other
New
Type of Liner
Combination
Combination
Compacted clay
Compacted clay
HOPE
Multiple types
Single
Single
Single
Single
Synthetic
Description of
Combination Liner3
Double clay w/leachate
collection
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Liner
Thickness
24 in.
-
-
8ft
-
-
60 mil
60 mil
60 mil
60 mil
60 mil
Liner Hydraulic
Conductivity
(cm/s)
<1 x ID'7
5x 10'n
1 x 10-7
<1 x ID'7
-
-
\ x 10-7
1 x K)-7
1 x 10-7
1 x 10-7
1 x 10-8
Comments
Upper clay 12 in., lower clay 24 in.
System uses a GCL with a 60-mil
HOPE liner
4 to 10 ft (measured perpendicular
to slope)
—
-
Single, double, synthetic, compacted
ash. Single liner is 60 mil of
electrically conductive HOPE.
Double liner is 60 mil of HOPE.
Geogrid separation.
40-mil bottom, 60-mil side
40-mil bottom, 60-mil side
40-mil bottom, 60-mil side
40-mil bottom, 60-mil side
-
a:
00
a GCL = geosynthetic clay liner: FML = flexible membrane lining; GM = geomembrane; HOPE = high-density polyethylene; LF = landfill;
LLDPE = linear low-density polyethylene; PVC = polyvinyl chloride; SI = surface impoundment.
b - = data not available.
-------
7-7
APPENDIX I:
GROUNDWATER-MONITORING DATA FOR SURVEYED UNITS
AS REPORTED IN THE SURVEYS
-------
1-2
-------
TABLE I.I Groundwater-Monitoring Data for Surveyed Units as Reported in the Surveys3
ID
232
218
246
GWM
Conducted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unit
Type
LF
LF
LF
State
FL
GA
IL
Constituents Monitored (Comments)
In accordance with the FDEP-approved GWMP, the monitoring
wells are sampled quarterly for in-situ field measurements (static
water levels [before purging], temperature, and turbidity) and for
laboratory analyses of the following constituents: fecal coliform
bacteria, purgeable halocarbons, purgeable aromatics,
molybdenum, strontium, and vanadium (primary and secondary
groundwater standards as defined in Florida Administrative Code,
Chapter 62-520, which are largely the same as the primary and
secondary drinking water standards as defined in Florida
Administrative Code, Chapter 62-550.) Leachate monitoring from
the two lined impoundments is conducted semiannually. Leachate-
monitoring parameters include the following in-situ field
measurements: colors and sheens, dissolved oxygen. pH, and
specific conductance. Laboratory analyses include NFL;,
bicarbonate alkalinity, chlorides, nitrate, TDS, sodium, aluminum,
antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper,
iron, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, thallium, tin, vanadium, and
zinc. Comments: Facility has a sitewide GWMP developed in
accordance with FDEP regulations. The slag storage area and
leachale-collection ponds are essentially a subset of the GWMP.
There are specific well placements upgradient and downgradient of
the slag storage pad and leachate-collection ponds and other
strategically placed wells to ensure that there are no impacts to
groundwater from these double-lined systems. Some monitoring
wells must be sampled once every 5 years per the GWMP.
Chloride, cadmium, sulfate, lead, silver, selenium, arsenic, and
barium.
pH, nitrate, TDS, tin, arsenic, iron, TOC, vanadium, cadmium,
lead, mercury boron, manganese, sulfate, zinc, cyanide, phenols,
and specific conductance. Comments: Organics are sampled
annually.
Frequency
Quarterly
Semiannual
Quarterly
Wellsb
Total
4
9
7
In
-
_
—
Out
-
_
—
Up
-
5
2
Down
-
4
5
In Area
-
_
-
-------
TABLE I.I (Cont.)
ID
253
223
226
222
228
GWM
Conducted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unit
Type
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
State
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
Constituents Monitored (Comments)
24 inorganics and 105 organics would be monitored annually;
17 inorganics and 2 organics would be monitored quarterly.
Comments: Additional wells to be installed as additional cells are
added. Groundwater monitoring is not currently being performed
because the landfill is not yet built. The information provided here
is based on what is conducted at a similar landfill operated by the
same utility in the same state.
Iron, sulfate, hardness, TDS, boron, chlorides, potassium, and
molybdenum.
pH (field), conductivity (field), chloride, boron, sodium (diss.).
fluoride, sulfatc, arsenic (diss.), barium (diss.), cadmium (diss.).
chromium (diss.), lead (diss.), mercury (diss.), selenium (diss.), and
silver (diss.)
Arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, chloride, chromium, fluoride,
lead, mercury, field pH, selenium, silver, sodium, field-specific
conductance, and sullate. Comments: With the exception of the one
upgradient well, all downgradient wells must be within 50 ft of the
toe of the slope of the landfill. This means they are on the edge of
the perimeter ditch and are affected by water in the perimeter ditch.
pH, specific conductance, temperature, arsenic, barium, boron,
cadmium, chloride, chromium, fluoride, lead mercury, selenium,
silver, sodium sulfate, TDS, zinc, and copper. Comments: Each of
the well clusters has three individual monitoring wells screened at
various depths of the aquifer. Additional monitoring of leachate-
collection systems is conducted to learn more about the teachability
of the waste.
Frequency
Quarterly
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Wellsb
Total
9
11
28
6
5
In
-
9
4
5
-
Out
-
2
24
1
-
Up
1
2
4
1
1
Down
3
3
24
5
4
In Area
5
6
0
-
-
-------
TABLE I.I (Cont.)
ID
237
236
233
224
227
GWM
Conducted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unit
Type
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
State
MI
MN
MN
MO
NC
Constituents Monitored (Comments)
Boron, lithium, sulfate, chloride, phenolics, COD, nitrate/nitrite,
water level, cobalt, TOC, field conductivity, ammonia, TDS,
cyanide, antimony, field pH, potassium, magnesium, arsenic, iron,
sodium, manganese, lead, selenium, vanadium, alkalinity
(carbonate), and alkalinity (bicarbonate).
Aluminum, ammonia, nitrogen, mercury, molybdenum, nitrite (as
nitrogen), phosphorous, vanadium, alkalinity (total as CaCO3),
appearance, arsenic, cadmium, calcium, chloride, copper, TDS,
iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, nitrate (as nitrogen), pH,
specific conductance, sulfate, TSS, temperature, zinc, dissolved
oxygen, Eh (oxidation potential), static water level, barium, boron,
chromium VI, lead, potassium, selenium, and sodium.
Antimony, chromium III, mercury, molybdenum, nitrite (as
nitrogen), selenium, thallium, vanadium, alkalinity (total as,
CaCC>3), aluminum, NH/}, appearance, arsenic, cadmium, calcium,
chloride, copper. TDS, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel,
nitrate (as nitrogen), pH, potassium, sodium, specific conductance,
sulfate, TSS, temperature, zinc, barium, boron, chromium (total)
(chromium VI), silver, and tin.
Aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium,
calcium, chemical oxygen demand, chloride, chromium, cobalt,
copper, fluoride, hardness, magnesium, manganese, mercury,
nickel, pH, selenium, silver, sodium, specific conductance, sulfate,
temperature, thallium, TDS, TOC, total organic halogens, and zinc.
Comments: Quarterly groundwater quality indicator testing,
semiannual constituent testing.
Water depth, pH, specific conductance, temperature, arsenic,
barium, cadmium, chloride, chromium, copper, fluoride, iron, lead.
manganese, mercury, nitrate, selenium, silver, sulfate, zinc, total
organic halides, TDS, biochemical oxygen demand, chemical
oxygen demand, and TOC.
Frequency
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Semiannual
Wellsb
Total
8
17
13
6
6
In
-
17
13
6
6
Out
-
0
0
0
0
Up
1
2
2
2
3
Down
7
15
11
4
3
In Area
-
-
-
-
-
-------
TABLE I.I (Cont.)
ID
331
221
358
359
220
361
219
345
?29
362
201
GWM
Conducted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unit
Type
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
State
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NH
OH
OH
Constituents Monitored (Comments)
-
pH, conductivity, TDS, alkalinity, hardness, nitrate/nitrite, chlorine,
sulfate, bicarbonate and carbonate, fluoride, arsenic, boron, barium,
cadmium, calcium, chromium, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese,
mercury, molybdenum, nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, and
sodium.
-
-
pH. conductivity. TDS, alkalinity, hardness, nitrate/nitrite, chlorine,
sulfate, bicarbonate and carbonate, fluoride, arsenic, boron, barium,
cadmium, calcium, chromium, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese,
mercury, molybdenum, nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, and
sodium.
-
pH, conductivity, TDS. alkalinity, hardness, nitrate/nitrite, chlorine.
sulfate, bicarbonate and carbonate, fluoride, arsenic, boron, barium.
cadmium, calcium, chromium, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese,
mercury, molybdenum, nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, and
sodium. Comments: The locations of up to five new downgradient
wells are currently being negotiated.
-
Chromium, static water level, nickel, iron, selenium, manganese,
pH. sulfate, cadmium, and specific conductivity.
-
Temperature, conductivity, pH. alkalinity, TDS, calcium, chloride,
sulfate, magnesium, potassium, sodium, arsenic, iron, manganese,
selenium, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, silver, gross
alpha, gross beta, and boron.
Frequency
-
Quarterly
-
-
Quarterly
-
Quarterly
-
Semiannual
-
Semiannual
Wellsb
Total
-
10
-
-
8
-
9
-
5
-
28
In
-
9
-
-
6
-
9
-
0
-
25
Out
-
1
-
-
2
-
0
-
5
-
3
Up
-
1
-
-
4
-
5
-
1
-
12
Down
-
8
-
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
16
In Area
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
-------
TABLE 1.1 (Cont.)
ID
202
217
353
352
239
240
GWM
Conducted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unit
Type
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
State
OH
OH
OH
OH
PA
PA
Constituents Monitored (Cqrnments)
Static water level, temperature, turbidity, pH. conductivity, TDS,
alkalinity, chloride, sulfate. calcium, magnesium, potassium,
sodium, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury,
selenium, iron, manganese, gross alpha, and gross beta.
Aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury.
selenium, silver, copper, iron, manganese, nickel, zinc, vanadium.
calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, boron, chlorine, 804,
TDS. alkalinity. pH, and TOC.
-
-
Quarterly: NH4. bicarbonate, calcium (diss.), chemical oxygen
demand, chloride, fluoride, iron (diss.). magnesium (diss.),
manganese (diss.). nitrate-nitrogen. pH, potassium (diss.), sodium
(diss.), specific conductance, sult'ate, total alkalinity, TDS, TOC,
and turbidity. Annual: additional analyses performed on one of the
quarterly samples: arsenic (diss.), barium (diss.). cadmium (diss.),
chromium (diss.). copper (diss.). lead (diss.). mercury (diss.),
selenium (diss.), silver (diss.), and zinc (diss.).
Quarterly: NH4, bicarbonate, calcium (diss.), chemical oxygen
demand, chloride, fluoride, iron (diss.). magnesium (diss.).
manganese (diss.), nitrate-nitrogen. pH. potassium (diss.), sodium
(diss.). specific conductance, sulfate, total alkalinity, TDS, TOC,
and turbidity. Annual: additional analyses performed on one of the
quarterly samples: arsenic (diss.), barium (diss.), cadmium (diss.),
chromium (diss.), copper (diss.), lead (diss.), mercury (diss.).
selenium (diss.). silver (diss.). and zinc (diss.).
Frequency
Semiannual
Semiannual
-
-
Quarterly
Quarterly
Wellsb
Total
41
-
-
-
9
6
In
0
-
-
-
9
6
Out
41
4
-
-
0
0
Up
12
-
-
-
2
3
Down
29
-
-
-
7
3
In Area
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
TABLE I.I (Cont.)
ID
230
200
203
241
209
GWM
Conducted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unit
Type
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
State
PA
VA
VA
VA
WI
Constituents Monitored (Comments)
Quarterly: NH4, bicarbonate, calcium (diss. and total), COD,
chloride, fluoride, iron (diss. and total), magnesium (diss. and
total), manganese (diss. and total), pH, potassium (diss. and total),
sodium (diss. and total), specific conductance, sulfate, total
alkalinity, TDS. TOC, turbidity. Annual: additional analyses
performed on one of the quarterly samples: arsenic (diss. and total),
barium (diss. and total), cadmium (diss. and total), chromium (diss.
and total), copper (diss. and total), lead (diss. and total), mercury
(diss. and total), selenium (diss. and total), silver (diss. and total),
zinc (diss. and total), and an array of organics.
pH, conductivity, TOC, total organic halogens. Table 5.5 (9 VAC
20-80-300) organics, inorganics, and mercury. Comments: All
wells monitored for pH, conductivity, TOC, and total organic
halides. Currently one well monitored for Table 5.5 organics,
inorganics, and mercury.
pH, conductivity, TOC, total organic halogens, Table 5.5 organics.
inorganics, and mercury.
Stage I/II-semiannual for Appendix 5.5 inorganics of the VA solid
waste regulations, carbon disulfide. and Appendix 5.1 detects.
Stage I/II-every 2 years for all Appendix 5.1 constituents.
Stage Ill-semiannual for all Appendix 5.5 constituents. These are
available from the VA solid waste regulations. Comments: Nine
wells for Stage I/II, eight wells for Stage III.
Odor. COD, boron, color. pH. selenium, turbidity, alkalinity,
temperature, hardness, specific conductance, and sulfate. The
leachate is also monitored for the constituents as above, along with
chloride, cadmium, lead, manganese, mercury, iron, and acid/base
neutral extractable compounds. Comments: The landfill has five
side-gradient wells in addition to the three upgradient and six
downgradient wells.
Frequency
Quarterly
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Semiannual
Wellsb
Total
8
14
11
17
14
In
8
12
0
-
0
Out
0
2
11
-
14
Up
3
3
3
6
3
Down
5
11
8
11
6
In Area
-
0
-
-
-
00
-------
TABLE I.I (Cont.)
ID
204
205
216
206
210
211
212
213
215
214
235
252
GWM
Conducted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unit
Type
LF
LF
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
SI
State
WV
WV
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
MN
ND
Constituents Monitored (Comments)
Lead, barium, sodium, TSS, arsenic, chloride, calcium, manganese,
TDS, cadmium, chromium, copper, sulfate, pH, selenium,
aluminum, iron, magnesium, temperature, boron, conductivity,
nickel, vanadium, zinc, and molybdenum.
pH, barium, sodium arsenic, TSS, chloride, calcium, manganese
cadmium, TDS, chromium, copper, sulfate, selenium, aluminum,
iron, magnesium, boron, conductivity, lead, vanadium, and
molybdenum.
Boron, manganese, pH, sulfate, and TDS.
pH, TDS, boron, calcium, hardness, manganese, sulfate, and
alkalinity.
Boron, sulfales, manganese, magnesium, TDS, and pH.
Boron, sulfates, manganese, magnesium, TDS, and pH.
Boron and pH.
Boron and pH.
Boron, manganese, pH, sulfate, and TDS.
Boron, manganese, sulfate, TDS, and pH.
Alkalinity (total), arsenic (diss.), boron (diss.), cadmium (diss.),
calcium (diss.), chloride (total), chromium (total), iron, magnesium,
manganese, nickel, nitrate (as nitrogen), pH, specific conductance,
temperature, zinc, diss. oxygen, Eh (oxidation potential), static
water level, arsenic, barium, boron, cadmium, chromium VI,
copper, iron (diss.), manganese (diss.), potassium (diss.), selenium
(diss.), sodium (diss.), sulfate (total), TDS, and TSS. Comments:
Additional well was to be added in 2005 to expand coverage area.
pH, conductivity, TDS, alkalinity, hardness, nitrate/nitrite, chlorine,
sulfate, bicarbonate and carbonate, fluoride, arsenic, boron, barium,
cadmium, calcium, chromium, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese,
mercury, molybdenum, nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, and
sodium.
Frequency
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Monthly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Wellsb
Total
11
8
11
13+
9
9
14
14
11
5
17
10
In
0
0
0
-
2
2
6
6
0
0
17
9
Out
11
8
11
-
7
7
8
8
11
5
0
1
Up
3
3
2
7
3
3
4
4
2
1
o
*~
1
Down
8
5
9
6+
4
4
4
4
9
4
15
8
In Area
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-------
TABLE LI (Cont.)
ID
225
207
351
363
360
248
244
247
245
GWM
Conducted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Unit
Type
SI
SI
SI
SI
LF
SI
SI
SI
SI
State
ND
NM
OH
TX
ND
IN
MO
MO
MO
Constituents Monitored (Comrnents)
pH, specific conductance, TSS, alkalinity, bicarbonate, carbonate.
hydroxide. TDS, hardness, fluoride, sulfate, chloride, nitrate,
ammonia, phosphorus, mercury, calcium, magnesium, sodium,
potassium, iron, manganese, molybdenum, boron, arsenic,
cadmium, lead, selenium, silver, sodium adsorption ratio, and
percent error.
pH. fluorine, calcium, barium, lead, silver, conductivity, SO2,
manganese, cadmium, magnesium, vanadium, TDS, boron, sodium,
chromium, mercury, zinc, alkalinity phenolphthatein and total.
chlorine, potassium, copper, molybdenum, nitrate-nitrogen, sulfate.
arsenic, iron, selenium. Selected wells analyzed for the following
parameters: calcium, barium, lead, silver, manganese, cadmium,
magnesium, vanadium, sodium, chromium, mercury, zinc,
potassium, copper, molybdenum, arsenic, iron, and selenium.
-
-
Comments: Inert waste-bottom ash.
-
-
-
-
Frequency
Semiannual
Semiannual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wellsh
Total
10
22
7
-
-
-
-
-
-
In
10
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Out
0
22
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Up
2
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Down
8
20
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
In Area
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
a - = data not provided; CaCO} = calcium carbonate; COD = chemical oxygen demand; diss. = dissolved: FAC = Florida Administrative Code;
FDEP = Florida Department of Environmental Protection; GWM = groundwater monitoring; GWMP = groundwater monitoring plan; LF = landfill;
NH4 = ammonia nitrogen; SI = surface impoundment; SOi = sulfur dioxide; TDS = total dissolved solids; TOC = total organic carbon;
TSS = total suspended solids.
b In = wells within unit boundary; out = wells outside unit boundary; up = wells upgradient of unit; down = wells downgradient of unit; in area = wells in
disposal management area.
-------
J-I
APPENDIX J:
VARIANCE REQUESTS BY STATE AND CATEGORY OF REQUIREMENT
-------
J-2
-------
TABLE J.I Variance Requests by State and Category of Requirement11
Variance Category
Stales
with
Surveyed
Units
FL
GA
IL
IN
MN
OH
VA
Wl
wv
Total
Total
No. of
Variance
Requests
T
6
4
8
4
5i
8
4
11
52
Liners
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
1
T
7
Groundwater
Monitoring
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
Closure/
Post-
Closure
0
1
0
->
0
0
0
0
0
3
Cover/
Dust
Controls
0
1
3
5
0
")
0
0
4
15
Groundwater-
Protection
Standards
->
0
0
0
1
0
3
•)
0
8
Landfill
Gas
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
">
5
Leachate
Collection
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
->
Location
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
Cell
Height
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Other
Fire
Protection
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Pre-
siting
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Signs
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Solid Waste
Management
Plan
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
Other
(Standards
for Sewage
Works)
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
No variance requests were identified in the following states: Michigan. Missouri. North Carolina. North Dakota. New Hampshire. New Mexico, and Pennsylvania.
-------
J-4
-------
K-l
APPENDIX K:
VARIANCE REQUEST DESCRIPTIONS AND REGULATORY SUMMARIES
-------
K-2
-------
TABLE K.I Variance Request Descriptions and Regulatory Summaries
ID
232
232
218
218
218
Slate
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
Granted
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Varianee
Category
Groundwaler-
proteclion
standards
Groundwater-
protection
standards
Closure/
post-closure
requirements
Daily cover/
dusl controls
Fire
protection
Variance
Description
Variance to allow ambient values for iron
and color in groundwater to exceed the
secondary drinking water quality standards,
rather than comply with the secondary
drinking water standards, as the regulations
specify.
Variance to allow concentration of
antimony in groundwater to exceed the
drinking water quality standard, rather than
comply with the drinking water standard, as
the regulations specify.
Variance waiving the leachate-collection
and treatment system otherwise required
during the post-closure care period.
Variance waiving the daily cover otherwise
required by the regulations.
Variance waiving the fire protection
measures otherwise required by the
regulations.
Regulation
Summary
Class G-l groundwater (potable; total
dissolved solids [IDS] <3,000 mg/L) and
Class G-II groundwater (potable; TDS
<1 0,000 mg/L) must meet primary and
secondary drinking water quality standards,
unless the natural background
concentration exceeds the applicable
standard.
Class G-I groundwater (potable; TDS
<3,000 mg/L) and Class G-II groundwater
(potable; TDS < 10,000 mg/L) must meet
primary and secondary drinking water
quality standards, unless the natural
background concentration exceeds the
applicable standard.
The leachate-collection system must be
maintained and operated during the
post-closure care period, unless the
owner/operator demonstrates that leachate
no longer poses a threat to human health
and the environment.
Solid waste disposal units must apply daily
cover, unless they obtain a variance by
demonstrating that they are industrial waste
monofills and the waste being disposed of
would not cause odors or be attractive to
disease vectors or birds.
Suitable measures to control fires that may
start shall be provided.
Regulation
Citation
FAC Rule 62-520.420( 1 ) & (2)
FAC Rule 62-520.420(1) & (2)
GDNR Rule 391 -3-4-. 12(1) and
40CFR258.61(a)(2)
GDNR Rules 391-3-4-.07(3)(e)l
and391-3-4-.07(4)(a)
GDNR Rule 391-3-4-.07(3)(q)
-------
TABLE K.I (Cont.)
ID
218
218
218
246
253
246
State
GA
GA
GA
IL
IL
IL
Granted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Variance
Category
Leachale-
collection
system
Methane gas
control
Signs
Daily cover/
dust controls
Daily cover/
dust controls
Intermediate
cover
Variance
Description
Variance waiving the leachate-collection
and treatment system otherwise required by
the regulations.
Variance waiving the methane gas
monitoring otherwise required by the
regulations.
Variance waiving the directional and
informational signs otherwise required by
the regulations.
Variance to allow use of conditioned fly
ash as an alternative daily cover, rather
than at least 6 in. of clean soil, as the
regulations specify.
Variance to allow use of conditioned fly
ash as an alternative daily cover, rather
than at least 6 in. of clean soil, as the
regulations specify.
Variance to allow use of conditioned lly
ash as an intermediate cover, rather than
1 ft of compacted clean soil material, as
required by the regulations.
Regulation
Summary
Solid waste disposal units must be
constructed with leachate-collection
systems, unless they obtain a variance by
demonstrating that the waste to be disposed
of would not cause groundwater or surface
water contamination.
Solid waste disposal units must implement
a routine methane monitoring program.
unless they obtain a variance by
demonstrating that they are industrial waste
monofills that would not generate methane
gas.
Signs shall be posted at the entrance to
landfills indicating the days and hours of
operation.
Six inches of clean soil shall be placed on
all exposed waste at the end of each day of
operations, or alternative materials or
procedures may be used, if they achieve
equivalent or superior performance.
Six inches of clean soil shall be placed on
all exposed waste at the end of each day of
operations, or alternative materials or
procedures may be used, if they achieve
equivalent or superior performance.
Intermediate cover shall be equivalent to
that provided by 1 ft of compacted clean
soil material.
Regulation
Citation
GDNR Rules 391-3-4-.07(l)(d)
and391-3-4-.07(4)
GDNR Rules 391-3-4-.07(3)(h)2
and391-3-4-.07(4)(a)
GDNR Rule 391-3-4-.07(3)(s)
35111. Adm. Code 8 11. 106
35111. Adm. Code 8 11. 106
35111. Adm. Code 8 11.3 13
-------
TABLE K.I (Cont.)
ID
206
226
222
223
226
State
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
Granted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Variance
Category
Other
(standards tor
sewage
works)
Closure/
post-closure
requirements
Cover/dust
controls
Closure/
post-closure
requirements
Cover/dust
controls
Variance
Description
Variance to allow piping that does not
comply with the sewage works standards to
be installed.
Variance to allow use of ash, ash/soil
mixture, and40-mil linear low-density
polyethylene (LLDPE) as final cover,
rather than compacted soil, as the
regulations specify.
Variance waiving intermediate cover
otherwise required by the regulations.
Variance allowing use of 2.5 ft of fine
sandy loam soils for the final cover, rather
than 2 ft of soil of Unified Soil
Classification ML, CL, MH, CH, or OH
and 6 in. of vegetative topsoil, as specified
in the regulations.
Variance to allow use of Soil-Sement®, a
polymer-based material, as an intermediate
cover, rather than 1 ft of clay-type soil, as
the regulations specify.
Regulation
Summary
The regulation establishes limiting-value
criteria for the design and preparation of
plans and specifications for wastewater
collection and treatment systems, to
promote uniformity of practice throughout
the State.
Final compacted cover must have 6 in. of
topsoil plus 2 ft of compacted clay for
slopes less than 15% or 3 ft of compacted
clay for slopes greater than 15%.
Must apply and compact no less than 6 in.
of cover over all exposed solid waste
monthly regardless of weather conditions,
or annually, if the solid waste can be
demonstrated to have an in-place
permeability of less than 1 x 10~6 cm/s.
329 IAC 10-37-2 requires 2 ft of soil as
described in 329 IAC 10-36-1 1, and 6 in. of
vegetative topsoil as required by 329 IAC
10-37-4.
Intermediate cover of not less than 1 ft of
compacted clay-type soil must be applied
to any area within a Type I restricted waste
landfill that has not received waste for
90 days or more.
Regulation
Citation
35 111. Adm. Code, Subtitle C,
Chapter 11, Part 370
329 IAC 10-30-2
329 IAC 10-28-12(b) (Type II);
329 IAC 10-36-12 (Type III)
329 IAC 10-37-2;
329 IAC 10-36-11;
329 IAC 10-37-4(b)(4)
329 IAC 10-28- 12(a)(3)
-------
TABLE K.I (Cont.)
ID
228
226
223
27^
233
236
State
IN
IN
IN
IN
MN
MN
Granted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Variance
Category
Cover/dust
controls
Cover/dust
controls
Intermediate
cover
Liner
requirements
Gas
monitoring
Gas
monitoring
Variance
Description
Variance waiving the intermediate cover
otherwise required by the regulations.
Variance waiving the monthly cover and
semiannual permeability testing otherwise
required by the regulations.
Variance allowing the use of sandy loam
soil, rather than soil of Unified Soil
Classification ML. CL. MH, CH, or OH for
intermediate cover, as specified in the
regulations.
Variance allowing the use of 1 ft of soil and
2 ft of compacted Poz-O-Tec for a liner,
rather than 3 ft of soil, as specified in the
regulations.
Variance waiving the methane gas
monitoring, collection, and treatment
system otherwise required by the
regulations.
Variance to exempt the facility from the
otherwise applicable requirement to
monitor for decomposition gas production
in and around the facility.
Regulation
Summary
Must apply and compact no less than 6 in.
of cover over all exposed solid waste
monthly regardless of weather conditions,
or annually, if the solid waste can be
demonstrated to have an in-place
permeability of less than 1 x 10"6 cm/s.
The regulations waived were not cited in
the permit. The regulations at 329 IAC
10-28-12 do require monthly cover for
Type II landfills, but the permit is for a
Type I landfill.
Cover for a Type III restricted waste site
must be of a specified United Soil
Classification or other suitable material.
Earners for Type III restricted waste sites
consist of soil and have a minimum
thickness of 3 ft between the solid waste
and a locally useful aquifer.
Decomposition gases must not be allowed
to migrate laterally from the facility, but
must be vented to prevent explosive
concentrations.
Decomposition gases must not be allowed
to migrate laterally from the facility, but
must be vented to prevent explosive
concentrations.
Regulation
Citation
329 IAC 10-28-12(b)
See Regulation Summary.
329 IAC 10-36-11
329 IAC 10-34-1
Minn. Rule 7035.1700. Item U
Minn. Rule 7035.1700, Item U
\
-------
TABLE K.I (Cont.)
ID
State
Granted
Variance
Category
Variance
Description
Regulation
Summary
Regulation
Citation
233
MN
Yes
Groundwater-
protection
standards
Variance establishing analytical limits set
forth in the Limits Table in the permit as
groundwater-protection standards, rather
than the otherwise applicable groundwater-
protection standards listed in Minn. Rule
7035.2815. Subparl 4, Item F.
Pollutant concentrations in groundwater
must not exceed the standards listed for 73
pollutants at or beyond the compliance
boundary and at or below the lower
compliance boundary.
Minn. Rule 7035.2815,
Subpart 4, Item F
233
MN
Yes
Solid waste
management
plan
Variance waiving submission of the solid
waste management plan otherwise required
by the regulations.
A solid waste management facility must
manage incoming industrial solid waste
according to a plan that specifies
procedures for certain specific waste types
and specifies waste types that are banned.
Minn. Rule 7035.2535,
Subpart 5
202
OH
Yes
Daily cover/
dust controls
Variance allowing the cementitious surface
that forms when Hue gas desulfurization
(FGD) waste is placed in the Phase A area
of the landfill to be a substitute for the
required intermediate cover consisting of a
12-in.-thick layer of soil.
An intermediate cover consisting of a
12-in.-thick layer of well-compacted soil
must be applied to all filled areas of a
residual solid waste landfill (SWLF)
facility where additional residual solid
waste is not to be deposited for at least
180 days.
OAC 3745-30- 14(G)(1) and (2).
The Director's Final Findings and
Orders cited the regulatory
requirement as OAC Rule
3745-30-14(V)(2). However, no such
section appears in the current OAC.
OAC Rule 3745-30- 14(G)(1) and (2)
are cited herein because they
describe a requirement for interim
cover that is consistent with the
requirement that the Director's Final
Findings and Orders attribute to
OAC Rule 3745-30-14(V)(2).
-------
TABLE K.I (Cont.)
ID
202
201
202
202
State
OH
OH
OH
OH
Granted
Yes
Yes
No
No
Variance
Category
Daily cover/
dust controls
Liner
requirements
Liner
requirements
Liner
requirements
Variance
Description
Variance allowing the cementitious surface
that forms when FGD waste is placed in the
Phase B area of the landfill to be a
substitute for the required intermediate
cover consisting of a 12-in. -thick layer of
soil.
Variance allowing the liner to be
constructed using "deep dynamic
compaction" of mine spoil without
removal.
Variance to allow use of coarser material to
construct the liner rather than 25% retained
material particles on a No. 4 sieve, as
required by the regulations.
Variance allowing the liner to be
constructed using "deep dynamic
compaction ' of mine spoil without
removal.
Regulation
Summary
Intermediate cover consisting of a
1 2-in. -thick layer of well-compacted soil
must be applied to all filled areas of a
residual SWLF where additional residual
solid waste is not to be deposited for at
least 180 days.
If a recompacted soil liner is installed, it
must be constructed on a prepared surface
that is free of deleterious material, will not
settle, and has no abrupt changes in grade
that could damage the liner.
Not available.
If a recompacted soil liner is installed, it
must be constructed on a prepared surface
that is free of deleterious material, will not
settle, and has no abrupt changes in grade
that could damage the liner.
Regulation
Citation
OAC 3745-30-14(G)(l) and (2).
The Director's Final Findings and
Orders cited the regulatory
requirement as OAC Rule
3745-30-14(V)(2). However, no such
section appears in the current OAC.
OAC Rule 3745-30- 14(G)( 1 ) and (2)
are cited herein because they
describe a requirement for interim
cover that is consistent with the
requirement that the Director's Final
Findings and Orders attribute to
OAC Rule 3745-30- 1 4(V)(2).
OAC 3745-30-07
GD0202.104. "Aquifer System,
Minimum Isolation Distance of
the Liner from: Solid Industrial
& Residual Waste Siting
Criteria" (OAC 3745-30-
06(H)(2)(e))
OAC3745-30-07(C)(l)(i.)
-------
TABLE K.1 (Cont.)
ID
241
241
203
200
200
State
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
Granted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Variance
Category
Groundwatcr
monitoring
Groundwater
monitoring
Groundwater
monitoring
Groundwater
monitoring
Groundwater-
protection
standards
Variance
Description
Variance to exempt the Landfill Stage III
from the requirement to monitor
groundwater wells for the organic
constituents listed in 9 VAC 20-80,
Appendix 5.5 (now 9 VAC 20-80-300,
Table 5.5), except carbon disulfide, during
Phase II monitoring.
Variance to exempt Landfill Stages I and II
from the requirement to monitor
groundwater wells for organic constituents
listed in 9 VAC 20-80, Appendix 5.5 (now
9 VAC 20-80-300, Table 5.5), except
carbon disulfide, during Phase 11
monitoring.
Variance to exempt groundwater wells in
Phase II monitoring from being sampled
for the organic constituents listed in
9 VAC 20-80, Appendix 5.5
(now 9 VAC 20-80-300, Table 5.5), as the
regulations would otherwise require.
Variance to allow monitoring of a subset of
wells for Phase I indicator parameters,
rather than for constituents listed in
9 VAC 20-80, Appendix 5.5
(now 9 VAC 20-80-300, Table 5.5), even
though the facility has entered Phase II
monitoring.
Variance to allow alternative concentration
limits (ACLs) as groundwater-protection
standards for copper, silver, and zinc.
Regulation
Summary
A Phase 11 monitoring program shall
include the semiannual analysis for the
monitoring parameters shown in Table 5.5
and, if required under the provisions of
subdivision 4.e(2) of this subsection, any
detected Table 5.1 constituents.
A Phase II monitoring program shall
include the semiannual analysis for the
monitoring parameters shown in Table 5.5
and, if required under the provisions of
subdivision 4.e(2) of this subsection, any
detected Table 5.1 constituents.
A Phase II monitoring program shall
include the semiannual analysis for the
monitoring parameters shown in Table 5.5
and, if required under the provisions of
subdivision 4.e(2) of this subsection, any
detected Table 5.1 constituents.
If a statistically significant increase in any
Table 5.5 constituent is noted in the First
Determination report, the owner or operator
shall continue Phase II monitoring.
Groundwater-protection standards will be
either the maximum contaminant limit
(MCL), background concentrations, or
ACLs.
Regulation
Citation
9 VAC 20-80-300 C.4.a
9 VAC 20-80-300 C.4.a
9 VAC 20-80-300 C.4.a
9 VAC 20-80-300 C.4.b(3)(b)
9 VAC 20-80-300 C.4.d
-------
TABLE K.I (Cont.)
ID
241
241
241
209
209
209
State
VA
VA
VA
WI
WI
WI
Granted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Variance
Category
Groundwaler-
protection
standards
Groundwater-
protection
standards
Location
requirements
Groundwater-
protection
standards
Groundwater-
protection
standards
Leachate-
collection
requirements
Variance
Description
Variance to allow Landfill Stage III to use
ACLs as groundwater-protection standards
(GPSs) For specified constituents that lack
background data or an EPA MCL.
Variance to allow Landfill Stages I and II
to use ACLs as groundwater-protection
standards for specified constituents that
lack background data or an MCL.
Variance allowing the facility to be located
within 100 ft of a regularly flowing surface
water body or river, which the regulations
would otherwise prohibit.
Variance allowing the development of a
landfill in an area where the preventive
action limit (PAL) for selenium in
groundwater has been attained or exceeded.
Variance allowing the development of a
landfill in an area where the PAL for lead
in groundwater has been attained or
exceeded, rather than prohibiting such
development, as the regulations specify.
Variance allowing leachate to flow more
than 130 ft across the base of the liner
before encountering a perforated leachate-
collection pipe.
Regulation
Summary
The owner or operator may request and the
director may establish ACLs as
groundwater-protection standards for any
constituent for which MCLs have not been
established or for which site-specific
background data are unavailable.
The owner or operator may request and the
director may establish ACLs as
groundwater-protection standards for any
constituent for which MCLs have not been
established or for which site-specific
background data are unavailable.
No new industrial waste landfill disposal or
leachate storage unit or expansion of
existing units shall be within 100 ft of any
regularly flowing surface water body or
river.
A proposed facility cannot be approved at a
location where a PAL or enforcement
standard has been attained or exceeded,
unless an exemption has been granted.
A proposed facility cannot be approved at a
location where a PAL or enforcement
standard has been attained or exceeded,
unless an exemption has been granted.
A system is required that routes leachate to
the perimeter of the landfill in a manner
such that leachate flows no more than
130 ft across the base of the liner before
encountering a perforated leachate-
collection pipe.
Regulation
Citation
9 VAC 20-80-300 C.4.d( 1 )(d)
9 VAC 20-80-300 C.4.d( 1 )(d)
9 VAC 20-80-270 A.4.a
Wis. Adm. Code NR 140.28
Wis. Adm. Code NR 140.28
Wis. Adm. Code NR 504.06(5).
See variance comments.
-------
TABLE K.I (Cont.)
ID
209
205
204
205
205
204
State
WI
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
Granted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Variance
Category
Liner
requirements
Cover/dust
controls
Cover/dust
controls
Daily cell
height
Daily cover/
dust controls
Daily cover/
dust controls
Variance
Description
Variance allowing a penetration through
the sideslope of the liner to accommodate
gravity drain to the leachate-collection
tank.
Variance to waive the requirement in the
regulations for 12 in. of compacted
intermediate cover material on landfill
areas exposed to weather for periods in
excess of 30 days.
Variance to waive the requirement in the
regulations for 12 in. of compacted
intermediate cover material on landfill
areas exposed to weather for periods in
excess of 30 days.
Variance to waive the requirement that
daily cell height must not exceed 8 ft in the
vertical dimension, other than in the
middle, where the vertical dimension can
be as high as 1 1 ft to divert storm water.
Variance to waive the requirement for
cover with greater than 6 in. of compacted
cover material at the end of each operating
day.
Variance to waive the requirement for
cover with greater than 6 in. ot compacted
cover material at the end of each operating
day.
Regulation
Summary
All composite lined landfills shall be
designed and constructed with sumps and
sideslope risers as part of their leachate
removal system, rather than utilizing
systems that penetrate the composite liner
sidewall.
Solid waste fill surfaces exposed to weather
for periods in excess of 30 days must have
a minimum of 12 in. of compacted cover
material applied within 30 days of
completion of the fill surface.
Solid waste fill surfaces that remain
exposed to weather for periods in excess of
30 days must have a minimum of 12 in. of
compacted cover material applied within
30 days of completion of the fill surface.
Daily cell height must not exceed 8 ft in the
vertical dimension, other than in the
middle, to divert storm water; that vertical
dimension must not exceed 1 1 ft.
Exposed solid waste disposal area must be
covered with a minimum of 6 in. of
compacted cover material at the end of
each operating day, or more frequently as
needed.
All SWLFs must cover the entire exposed
solid waste disposal area with a minimum
thickness of 6 in. of compacted cover
material at the end of each operating day.
Regulation
Citation
Wis. Adm. Code NR 504.06(5)(j)
33 CSR 4.6.b.2.B and
33CSR4.6.b.2.D.2
33 CSR 4.6.b.2.B
33CSR4.6.b.l.B
33CSR4.6.b.2.Aand
33CSR4.6.b.2.D.l
33 CSR 33 4.6.b.2.A
-------
TABLE K.I (Cont.)
ID
205
204
204
205
204
State
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
Granted
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Variance
Category
Landfill gas
management
requirements
Landfill gas
management
requirements
Liner
requirements
Liner
requirements
Location
requirements
Variance
Description
Variance to waive the requirement for
management of decomposition gases
generated within a landfill.
Variance to waive the requirement for
management of decomposition gases
generated within a landfill.
Variance to waive the requirement for
surface impoundments to have double
liners and leachate-collection systems.
Variance to waive the requirement for
surface impoundments to have double
liners and leachate-collection systems.
Variance to waive the prohibition on
locating a new SWLF above an
underground mine.
Regulation
Summary
Concentrations of methane or other
explosive gases must not exceed 25% of
the lower explosive limit for the gas. Gas
monitoring programs are required, and the
proposed gas monitoring plan must be
included in the landfill application.
Decomposition gases generated within a
landfill must be controlled to avoid hazards
to health, safety, or property by meeting
certain requirements regarding control,
monitoring, and reporting the detection of
explosive gases such as methane.
Double liners required. Top = synthetic
> 60 mil; bottom = compacted clay > 2 ft
with permeability < 1 x 10~7 overlain by
synthetic > 60 mil. Leak detection system
required between liners. Existing surface
impoundments must be already compliant,
retrofitted, or closed.
Surface impoundments must have two
liners and a leak detection system.
Impoundments in use without liners and
leak detection systems must close or be
retrofitted.
New SWLFs and lateral expansions cannot
be located above underground mine
workings or within the critical angle of
draw of such workings, unless otherwise
approved by the Secretary in writing.
Regulation
Citation
33 CSR 4.10; 33 CSR 3.10.a.2;
33 CSR 3.10.a.4
33 CSR 4. 10
33 CSR 4.8.C.3.B
33 CSR 4.8.C.30B
33 CSR 3.2.k
-------
TABLE K.I (Cont.)
ID
205
State
WV
Granted
Yes
Variance
Category
Pre-siting
requirements
Variance
Description
Variance to waive the requirement to serve
public notice of the intention to consider
siting a commercial solid waste facility
where none exists and hold a public hearing
on the pre-siting notice.
Regulation
Summary
Anyone investigating an area for the
purpose of siting a commercial solid waste
facility where none exists must make
public notification of the proposed site and
its size; the State conducts a public meeting
on the proposed siting.
Regulation
Citation
33 CSR 3.4
-------
K-14
-------
L-7
APPENDIX L:
VARIANCE GRANTING RATIONALE, REVOCATION PROVISIONS,
AND COMMENTS
-------
L-2
-------
TABLE L.I Variance Granting Rationale, Revocation Provisions, and Comments
ID
218
218
218
218
218
218
State
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
Variance Category
Closure/post-closure
requirements
Daily cover/dust
controls
Fire protection
Leachate-collection
system
Methane gas control
Signs
Granting Rationale
Leachate collection and treatment arc not deemed necessary
during post-closure care due to the nontoxic, nonhazardous
nature of the ash to he disposed of in the monofill.
Coal combustion by-products will be loaded, transported,
unloaded and placed in a condition at, or near, optimum
moisture content. When compacted at, or near, optimum
moisture, the by-products will form a surface crust that will
prevent blowing dust, thereby eliminating the need for
operational cover. Since no blowing trash or disease vectors
will be present, a daily cover is not required.
Fire protection measures are not required for a coal combustion
by-products monofill.
Leachate collection and treatment are not deemed necessary
due to the nontoxic. nonhazardous nature of the ash to be
disposed of in the monofill.
Because fly ash does not produce methane gas. no gas
monitoring is required.
Because only Georgia Power Company personnel are to utilize
this site and it will not be open or accessible to the general
public for disposal, no directional or informational signs are
required.
Revocation Provisions
None specified
None specified
None specified
None specified
None specified
None specified
Variance Comments
The permit does not characterize waiver of the
regulatory requirement for post-closure leachate
system maintenance and operation as a variance.
It is included in this database because the
Georgia regulations (40 CFR 258.61 ) indicate
that approval is needed for such a waiver.
The permit does not characterize waiver of the
regulatory requirement for daily cover as a
variance. It is included in this database because
the Georgia regulations indicate that a variance
is needed, and other States consider waivers of
this type to be variances.
The permit does not characterize waiver of the
regulatory requirement for signs as a variance. It
is included in this database because some other
States consider waivers of nonapplicable
regulatory requirements to be variances.
The permit does not characterize waiver of the
regulatory requirement for a leachate-collection
system as a variance. It is included in this
database because the Georgia regulations
indicate that a variance is needed, and other
States consider waivers of this type to be
variances.
The permit does not characterize waiver of the
regulatory requirement for methane gas
monitoring as a variance. It is included in this
database because the Georgia regulations
indicate that a variance is needed, and other
States consider waivers of this type to be
variances.
The permit does not characterize waiver of the
regulatory requirement for signs as a variance. It
is included in this database because some other
States consider waivers of nonapplicable
regulatory requirements to be variances.
-------
TABLE L.I (Cont.)
ID
State
Variance Category
Granting Rationale
Revocation Provisions
Variance Comments
246
IL
Daily cover/dust
controls
None specified in the permit. A company representative
explained that the daily cover regulations allow alternative
materials or procedures as long as they meet the same
standards of performance as 6 in. of soil. Data included in the
permit application included an analysis of the conditioned fly
ash and a description of its properties to demonstrate that, when
hardened, it is an even better filter than the standard 6 in. of
soil. The permit specifies that the conditioned fly ash must he
used as described in the permit application. Note: State
regulations allow flexibility in cover design, as long as the
alternative can meet the same performance standard as the
design specified in the regulations.
None specified
None
253
IL
Daily cover/dust
controls
State regulations allow flexibility in cover design, as long as
the alternative can meet the same performance standard as the
design specified in the regulations.
None specified
None
246
IL
Intermediate cover
None specified in the permit. A company representative
explained that data included in the permit application included
an analysis of the conditioned fly ash and a description of its
properties to demonstrate that, when hardened, it is an even
better filter than the standard 12 in. of soil. There have been no
modifications to the variance since it was issued. Note: State
regulations allow flexibility in cover design, as long as the
alternative can meet the same performance standard as the
design specified in the regulations.
None specified
None
206
IL
Other (standards for
sewage works)
None specified in the permit. A company representative
explained that the company's preferred design did not include a
separate tank and a valve system that the State indicated were
necessary to meet the State sewage works standards. The State
agreed to the design based on the company's reasoning that the
piping system was not expected to be an integral part of a
sewage works system so sewage works standards were not
appropriate. The State indicated that if the company proceeded
with the preferred design, it could not use problems with the
design as a justification for an exceedance of standards. The
company installed the design as proposed and has not
experienced any problems with it.
None specified
35 111. Adm. Code Subtitle C, Chapter II,
Part 370 is lengthy. It incorporates standards by
reference (American Society for Testing and
Materials [ASTMJ and other standards) and
establishes extensive criteria for topics such as
specific design flow, size, depth, cover, bedding,
trenching, installation, and slope for wastewater
collection and treatment systems. The permit
does not specify the elements of the applicant's
design that deviated from the regulation.
-------
TABLE L.I (Cont.)
ID
State
Variance Category
Granting Rationale
Revocation Provisions
Variance Comments
226
IN
Closure/post-closure
requirements
None specified in the permit. The permit merely indicates that
329 IAC 10-28-11 (a) grants the commissioner the authority to
approve an alternative cover if it can be demonstrated that the
alternative will provide an adequate level of environmental
protection. A company representative explained that the
variance was granted because the 40-mil linear low-density
polyethylene (LLDPE) geomembrane provides a more
protective final cover than would be provided by 2 ft of soil.
Fly ash and an ash/soil mixture are used to prepare the
subgrade for the 40-mil LLDPE geomembrane. The sideslopes
are constructed of 30 in. of compacted clay to eliminate the
possibility of a slope failure due to low adhesion between the
geomembrane and the vegetative soil cover. This was a change
from the original variance request, which specified
geomembrane on both the top and the sideslopes. The design
also includes engineered storm-water controls, which eliminate
both ponding of storm water on the landfill surface and side-
slope erosion. The engineering drawings served as the
company's justification for the variance request, and the
request was granted in a letter from the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM).
Permittee chooses not
to use mixtures
described or the
mixture cannot be
proven to have a
permeability of
1 x l()-5cm/s.
The variances from 329 IAC 10-30-2 are
described as "minor modifications" in the
permit and were approved on June 14, 2001, and
May 26, 1998. Permit FP 37-01 was granted on
January 6, 1984, and has been subsequently
renewed and modified.
-------
TABLE L.I (Cont.)
ID
State
Variance Category
Granting Rationale
Revocation Provisions
Variance Comments
IN
Cover/dust controls
None specified in the permit. A company representative
explained that the company's landfill operating plan, which
was the basis for the variance request and has been approved
by the regulatory agency, contains the following description of
how the landfill surface is managed: "Stabilized sludge is
placed in a moist condition with an approximate 25* moisture
content. Once placed the sludge is compacted and then the
curing process minimizes wind as well as water erosion. The
landfill will be developed in a manner that will minimize
exposure to stabilized sludge surfaces, thereby minimizing the
possibility of fugitive dust generation. Subsequent layers of
waste are expected to be placed every two weeks, thereby
reducing the chance of fugitive dust emission further. In areas
where transport vehicles tread on the surface of the fill and on
other on-site haul roads where dust may be expected, plant
water trucks will be used to moisten the surfaces on a regular
basis. Regular haul roads in fill areas will have an eight inch
layer of bottom ash or gravel placed to reduce dust and surface
wear of stabilized sludge."
1. Documentation of
violation of
requirement to
maintain sediment
control structures and
drainage ditches.
2. Documentation that
fugitive dust is creating
a nuisance.
The landfill to which permit No. 77-3 applies is
allowed to receive coal combustion by-products
that are classified for disposal in Type II or
Type III restricted waste areas.
223
IN
Closure/post-closure
requirements
None specified in the permit. The company representative
explained that the material being placed into the landfill is
Poz-O-Tec, which is produced by a stabilization process. Flue
gas desulfurization (FGD) sludges and ash produced by coal
combustion power generation facilities are raw materials for
this process. Poz-O-Tec is a relatively impermeable material
that is not infiltrated significantly by rainwater. Hence, it is
important to provide lateral drainage at the interface between
the final cover on the landfill and the Poz-O-Tec. The
composition of the final cover specified in the variance
accomplishes this better than the composition specified in the
regulations. In addition. Poz-O-Tec in this coal combustion
by-product monofill leaches significantly fewer toxic
constituents than materials in a municipal landfill, which is the
landfill type to which the regulations were intended to apply.
If vegetation is not
established to the
satisfaction of the
State, soils specified in
the regulation will be
required.
329 IAC 10-36-11 allows the use of alternative
cover material if it can be demonstrated that an
alternate cover or site design will provide an
adequate level of environmental protection. This
variance has been in place since 1992.
-------
TABLE L.I (Cont.)
ID
State
Variance Category
Granting Rationale
Revocation Provisions
Variance Comments
226
IN
Cover/dust controls
None specified in the permit. The permit merely indicates that
329 IAC 10-28-11 (a) grants the commissioner the authority to
approve an alternative cover if it can he demonstrated that the
alternative will provide an adequate level of environmental
protection. A company representative explained that
intermediate cover has two purposes: (1) dust control in unused
or seldom-used fill areas and (2) rainfall infiltration control to
minimi/e leachate formation. The Soil-Sement® polymer can
he shown to fill both of these needs. If properly applied
(i.e.. multiple coats at effective dilutions), Soil-Sement is more
effective at shedding storm water than is the soil cover
specified in the regulations. The company representative
reported that the manufacturer's specifications for Soil-Sement
were provided to regulatory agency personnel, who also
observed an area of the landfill treated with this product. Some
agency personnel were familiar with use of Soil-Sement at
other coal combustion facilities in the State. According to the
company representative, all agency personnel have been
satisfied that Soil-Sement is an effective alternative to soil
cover for this type of facility.
"In the event that the
alternative cover
material does not
perform as intended, or
does not appear to be
equivalent to one foot
of intermediate cover
soil, one foot of
intermediate cover of
clay type soil may be
required by 329 IAC
IO-28-12(a)(3)."
Information on the variance request to use Soil-
Sement was contained in a March 18, 1994,
letter.
228
IN
Cover/dust controls
None specified in the permit. A company representative
explained that the purposes of requiring intermediate cover at
municipal landfills, which is the facility type for which the
regulations were originally developed, are to deter vectors and
to control fugitive dust. Because coal combustion products are
composed of inorganic constituents, vector control is not
needed. Also, dusting from coal combustion products can he
controlled using compaction techniques and water. Therefore,
to require intermediate or daily cover would only add
operational expense and take up valuable landfill space with no
added environmental benefit. The facility has developed and
implemented a fugitive dust control plan, and the company
representative indicated that dusting has not been a problem.
Documented violation
of requirement to
maintain sediment
control structures and
drainage ditches.
The landfill to which permit No. FP 26-2 applies
is allowed to receive coal combustion
by-products that are classified for disposal in
Type II restricted waste areas.
-------
TABLE L.I (Cont.)
ID
State
Variance Category
Granting Rationale
Revocation Provisions
Variance Comments
226
IN
Cover/dust controls
None specified in the permit. A company representative
explained that this variance applies only to Phase III of the
landfill because the Phase III design includes a composite liner
constructed with 12 in. of clay having a permeability of
1 x 10'7, a 60-mil high-density polyethylene (HOPE)
geomembrane. and a leachate-collection system. The company
representative indicated that the regulatory agency has
expressed fewer concerns about leachate formation in the lined
Phase III cell than in cells constructed earlier. Accordingly, the
State agreed to eliminate the semiannual permeability testing
requirement for the lined cell and to lengthen the time period
between required application of intermediate cover (from
monthly to 90 days in unused areas), provided that adequate
dust control measures remain in place.
Dust emissions are not
satisfactorily
controlled.
The regulations waived were not cited in the
permit. The regulations at 329 IAC 10-28-12 do
require monthly cover for Type II landfills, but
the permit is for a Type I landfill.
223
IN
Intermediate cover
None specified in the permit. A company representative
explained that the material being placed into the landfill is
Poz-O-Tcc. which is produced by a stabilization process. FGD
sludges and ash produced by coal combustion power
generation facilities are raw materials for this process.
Poz-O-Tec is a relatively impermeable material that is not
infiltrated significantly by rainwater. Hence, it is important to
provide lateral drainage at the interface between the
intermediate cover on the landfill and the Poz-O-Tec. The
composition of the intermediate cover specified in the variance
accomplishes this better than the composition specified in the
regulations. In addition, Poz-O-Tec in this coal combustion
by-product monofill leaches significantly fewer toxic
constituents than materials in a municipal landfill, which is the
landfill type to which the regulations were intended to apply.
If vegetation is not
established to the
satisfaction of the
State, soils specified in
the regulation will be
required.
329 IAC 10-36-11 allows use of covers other
than the designated soil types if it can be
demonstrated that an alternate cover or site
design will provide an adequate level of
environmental protection.
00
223
IN
Liner requirements
None specified in the permit. In support of the variance
request, the company submitted permeability data for
compacted Poz-O-Tec demonstrating that the permeability of
the soil/Poz-O-Tec combination liner would be no greater than
the permeability allowed for the 3-ft compacted clay liner
specified in the regulations. According to a company
representative, this variance applies to an expansion area in the
landfill that has not yet been constructed.
None specified
None
-------
TABLE L.I (Cont.)
ID
State
Variance Category
Granting Rationale
Revocation Provisions
Variance Comments
233
MN
Gas monitoring
Since the waste being disposed of is not putrescihle or
biodegradable, there is no need for a methane gas management
system.
None specified
None
236
MN
Gas monitoring
None specified in the permit. A company representative
clarified that methane production and monitoring are moot
issues because coal ash loss of ignition is often < I %, indicating
there is little organic matter to break down.
If operational records
or other reports indicate
possible decomposition
gas production in or
around the facility, the
Commissioner reserves
the right to require
monitoring under
Minn. R. 7035.1700,
Item U.
None
233
MN
Groundwater-
protection standards
The alternative groundwater-performance standards are based
on the Minnesota Department of Health's Health Risk Limits.
The substitution is made as provided for in Minn.
R. 7035.2815, Subp. 4, Item H. which contains descriptions of
six circumstances that would justify establishing alternative
groundwater-performance standards and intervention limits in
the facility permit.
A company representative clarified that the analytical limits set
forth in the permit do not constitute a variance and provided the
following explanation: The Intervention Limits set forth in
7035.2815. Subp. 4, Item F are based upon Vi of the Minnesota
Health Risk Levels (HRLs). Pursuant to 7035.2815, Subp. 4,
Item H(5) the HRLs periodically change whenever the
Department of Health obtains new information suggesting that
the standard is not protective enough. The Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency reflects these HRL changes in individual solid
waste permits by referencing Item H(5) as the authority for the
new, updated standards. Item H(5) is one of the six
circumstances under which standards or intervention limits can
be changed. Note: The Slate uses variance provisions in the
regulations as the basis for incorporating updated health-based
standards into permits in place of the standards specified in the
regulations. Apparently this is more efficient that changing the
regulations every time health-based standards are updated.
None specified
The permit cites Minn. R. 7035.2815, Subp. 4,
Item H, as the authority for the new standards in
the regulations that are incorporated into the
permit.
-------
TABLE L.I (Cont.)
ID
State
Variance Category
Granting Rationale
Revocation Provisions
Variance Comments
MN
Solid waste
management plan
A waste management plan is not necessary because waste
disposal operations arc restricted to specified waste types.
None specified
None
202
OH
Daily cover/dust
controls
This variance would not result in a nuisance or a health hazard
and was unlikely to result in a violation of any regulation. A
company representative explained that a demonstration was
submitted showing that the permeability of the land-filled FGD
material would be less than the permeability of the required 1 ft
of "low permeability soil." This demonstration supported a
conclusion that a 1-ft, compacted layer of FGD material would
provide a barrier to rainfall infiltration that is as good as the
barrier that the required soil layer would provide. The
demonstration also showed that erosion would not be a
problem, fugitive dust would be controlled, and the
leachate/rainfall runoff collection and treatment ponds would
still provide the required level of treatment. To control fugitive
dust, vehicles are not allowed to traverse landfill areas subject
to the variance. Infrequent erosion areas are repaired as they
occur.
None specified
The Director's Final Findings and Orders cited
the regulatory requirement as OAC
Rule 3745-30-14(V)(2). However, no such
section appears in the current OAC. OAC
Rule 3745-30- 14(G)( 1) and (2) are cited herein
because they describe a requirement for interim
cover that is consistent with the requirement that
the Director's Final Findings and Orders
attribute to OAC Rule 3745-30-14(V)(2).
r-
•—.
o
-------
TABLE L.I (Cont.)
ID
202
State
OH
Variance Category
Daily cover/dust
controls
Granting Rationale
The company demonstrated that the FGD waste being disposed
of in the landfill can achieve a sufficiently low permeability, is
resistant to erosion, and should not create fugitive dust
problems. Because the facility has adequate water pollution
control mechanisms in place and a composite liner and
leachate-collection system, the granting of the variance from
the requirement to apply intermediate soil cover on top of
Phase B at the landfill will not create a nuisance or a health
hazard and is unlikely to result in violation of any regulations.
Revocation Provisions
If the lack of
intermediate soil cover
proves to be ineffective
in minimizing
infiltration or otherwise
unsatisfactory to the
OEPA, or is likely to
result in a nuisance or
health hazard or
violation of any
regulations, the
variance may be
revoked upon written
notification of the
Director. Upon
revocation, the utility
must immediately
begin placement of
intermediate cover in
accordance with the
requirements of the
otherwise applicable
OAC rule.
Variance Comments
The Director's Final Findings and Orders cited
the regulatory requirement as OAC
Rule 3745-30- 14(V)(2). However, no such
section appears in the current OAC. OAC
Rule 3745-30- 14(G)( 1 ) and (2) are cited herein
because they describe a requirement for interim
cover that is consistent with the requirement that
the Director's Final Findings and Orders
attribute to OAC Rule 3745-30- 14(V)(2).
-------
TABLE L.I (Cont.)
ID
State
Variance Category
Granting Rationale
Revocation Provisions
Variance Comments
The permit allows sieving and recompacting
mine spoil according to the permit application or
the use of dynamic compaction as a
demonstration project alternative. Technically,
this might not qualify as a variance.
201
OH
Liner requirements
According to the permit, "deep dynamic compaction" (DDC) is
an option as a demonstration project. A company representative
explained that the regulatory agency approved use of DDC as
an alternative means for densifying the subgrade foundation
soils below the liner system prior to construction of the liner
system. In this case, the landfill was sited in an unreclaimed
mine area. Hence, the subgrade foundation soils consisted of
mine spoil material. According to the company, approval of
this alternative densification method for subgrade foundation
soils was not a variance from any regulatory requirement,
including those regarding liner construction. It was simply
regulator consent to use an alternative (i.e., unconventional)
method for consolidating the subgrade foundation soils. DDC
was accomplished by dropping a 20-ton weight from a crane
(up to 75 ft in height) approximately 50,000 times over a
25-acre area. This process densified the semiconsolidated mine
spoil soils that composed the landfill subgrade, reducing the
potential for either total or differential settlement. The DDC
method was more cost-effective and time efficient than other
subgrade consolidation methods, such as preloading or
excavating and recompacting the subgrade soils in controlled
lifts. The company reports that the demonstration was
completed, and the regulatory agency ultimately certified its
acceptance of the prepared subgrade. DDC was found to
produce significant densification of the subgrade foundation
soils, which assures the integrity of the overlying recompacted
soil liner and geomembrane liner. However, the company
stated that the regulatory agency expressed concerns related to
the lack of documentation on achievement of pre-established
performance criteria for certain relatively small areas within the
overall project area.
None specified
-------
TABLE L.I (Cont.)
ID
State
Variance Category
Granting Rationale
Revocation Provisions
Variance Comments
241
VA
Groundwater
monitorins
None specified in the permit. A company representative
explained that the Stage III Landfill did not begin receiving ash
until 2002 and that not enough Phase I monitoring data have
yet been collected to progress to Phase II monitoring. Even so,
the permit Module X, Attachment X-2, Section IV.2(a) states
that the variance has been granted for monitoring during
Phase II. The company believes the State regulatory agency
included the variance language in the permit at the time of the
last permit modification for reasons of administrative
efficiency, considering that the Phase I monitoring data for the
Stage III Landfill so far suggest that support for granting this
variance will be available before the permit is due for renewal.
After sufficient Phase 1 monitoring data are available, the
company plans to implement the variance during Phase II
monitoring based on the current permit language.
None specified.
However, for Stages I
and II, a parallel
variance provides that,
if any of the conditions
outlined in the variance
are violated in any
form or manner, the
variance will be
withdrawn.
Module X, Attachment X-2, Section IV.2(a) of
the permit indicates that the facility has been
granted this variance for the Stage III landfill.
However, Module XI, Section XI.D.3, of the
permit suggests that the variance may only
apply to Stages I and II.
241
VA
Groundwater
monitoring
None specified in the permit. A company representative
explained that coal ash has long been generally recognized by
industry personnel and State regulators as not presenting an
organic pollutant risk. Hence, when the State adopted solid
waste landfill regulations in 1988, many coal combustion
by-product landfills in the State, including three at power
plants owned by the company, requested variances from the
section(s) in the regulations requiring testing for organic
constituents during Phase II monitoring. Also, groundwater-
monitoring data collected after 1988 but before the vanance
was granted demonstrated that no semivolatile organic
compounds, pesticides, polyehlorinated biphenyls, or volatile
organic compounds other than carbon disulfide, which can
occur naturally, were detectable at the landfill site.
If any of the conditions
outlined in the variance
are violated in any
form or manner, the
variance will be
withdrawn.
None
203
VA
Groundwater
monitoring
A company representative provided the following quote from
the letter approving the variance: "variance is justified because
the facility is a coal ash landfill and not likely to contain and
release organic constituents, and because organic constituents
have been tested for, but not detected."
Unknown (the letter
granting the variance
was not available for
review)
None
-------
TABLE L.I (Cont.)
ID
State
Variance Category
Granting Rationale
Revocation Provisions
Variance Comments
200
VA
Groundwater
monitoring
The facility is now in Phase II monitoring, but only one well
has shown a statistically significant increase in concentrations
during the past few years. That well is excluded from the
subset of wells covered by the variance. A company
representative explained that Phase 1 monitoring involves
establishing background concentrations for each required
indicator constituent (pH, conductivity, total organic carbon
[TOC|, and total organic halogen [TOXJ), and then semiannual
monitoring of the four parameters for statistical analysis.
Phase II involves a larger parameter list, including metals and
organics. The basis for the variance request was that organics
should not be found in the coal combustion ash. thus
semiannual sampling for a large list of organics was not
reasonable. TOC is used as an indicator parameter of organics
that might leach into the groundwater. The variance allows the
company to sample metals from the list of Phase II parameters
for wells that have had some historical statistical exceedences
of the Phase I parameters.
If any of the Phase I
indicator parameters
exceed statistical
background limits,
impacted wells must
implement sampling
for Table 5.5
(9 VAC 20-80-300)
constituents. If future
groundwater-
monitoring values
exceed groundwater-
protection standards,
the facility will be
required to monitor
groundwater per the
requirements applicable
to Phase II monitoring.
None
200
VA
Groundwater
protection standards
None specified. A company representative explained that the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) did
not favor using EPA Region III risk-based concentrations for
tap water because the concentrations did not consider a child
receptor. The company accepted VDEQ's alternate
concentration limits (ACLs) in December 2001/January 2002
correspondence. The company had proposed the EPA risk-
based concentrations because VDEQ did not accept secondary
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) as groundwater-
protection standards (GPSs) because they are not risk-based.
The VDEQ rationale for granting the variances was based on
using groundwater us a future potential source of drinking
water. It used conservative calculations for the most receptive
sensor, a child.
If an MCLis
promulgated under
Section 1412 of the
Safe Drinking Water
Act for any of the
constituents covered by
the variance, the new
MCL will be used as
the groundwater-
protection standard for
that respective
constituent.
9 VAC 20-80-60A Variance to groundwater-
protection standards.
"A. Application and conditions. The director
may grant a variance to ground water protection
standards contained in Part V (9 VAC 20-80-
240 et seq.) of this chapter to an owner or
operator of a solid waste disposal facility by
establishing an alternate concentration limit for
a solid waste constituent if the owner or
operator shows to the satisfaction of the director
that the constituent will not pose a substantial
present or potential hazard to human health or
the environment as long as the alternate
concentration limit is not exceeded."
-------
TABLE L.I (Cont.)
ID
State
Variance Category
Granting Rationale
Revocation Provisions
Variance Comments
241
VA
Groundwater -
protection standards
None specified in the Solid Waste Facility permit. A company
representative explained that the Stage III Landfill began
receiving ash in 2002, and enough data have not yet been
collected to support this variance for Stage III. The permit
Module X, Attachment X-2, Section IV.2(d) states that within
60 days of the establishment of Appendix 5.1
(9 VAC 20-80-300) background, the company must propose a
groundwater-protection standard for each Appendix 5.1
constituent detected in the groundwater. The company has not
yet submitted proposed groundwater-protection standards and
does not yet consider itself to have been granted this variance
for ACLs and GPSs.
None specified.
However, in a parallel
variance for Stages I
and II landfills, the
variance provides that
if any of the conditions
in the variance are
violated in any form or
manner, the variance
will be immediately
withdrawn.
Module I. section I.F.7 states, that Permit
Amendment #5 grants a variance for Stage III of
the landfill to use alternate concentration limits
for groundwater-protection standards. However,
unlike a parallel variance for Stages I and II
landfills, the permit does not contain an
attachment specifying the constituents affected
and detailing the nature and conditions of the
variance applicable to Stage III.
VA
Groundwater-
protection standards
None specified in the permit or in the letter dated January 29,
2004, which granted the variance [see Permit Module XI,
Attachment XI-2]. In its petition dated April 16, 2002, to obtain
the variance, the company requested that ACLs for constituents
that do not have MCLs be established at health-based levels
derived from the VDEQs "Guidance to Calculate Health-Based
Alternate Concentration Limits using REAMS for a Solid
Waste Facility," in lieu of using facility background levels. The
petition identified 149 of these constituents. The petition
indicated that the purpose of the requested variance was to
provide for groundwater-monitoring controls that are protective
of public health and the environment.
If any of the conditions
in the variance are
violated in any form or
manner, the variance
will be immediately
withdrawn.
None
-------
TABLE L.I (Cont.)
ID
State
Variance Category
Gruntine Rationale
Revocation Provisions
Variance Comments
241
VA
Location
requirements
The permit requires the company to mitigate 2.8 acres of
affected wetlands by adding emergent wetlands in a 2:1 ratio.
The permit also specifies that additional conditions imposed by
the Water Division ol" VDEQ's Piedmont Regional Office must
be addressed in the Part B application. A company
representative explained that the VDEQ was provided with a
copy of the joint permit application for approval of work in
waters of the United States, including wetlands, within
Virginia. A joint permit application is used to apply for permits
from the Norfolk District Army Corps of Engineers, the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the VDEQ, and local
wetlands boards. The application contained information and
engineering drawings explaining the need to expand an existing
leachate treatment pond to accommodate overflows being
rerouted into it from another pond. The information in the
drawings made it clear that the only available space into which
the leachate treatment pond could be expanded was located
within 100 ft of a water body and that a portion of the
expanded treatment pond would be in a wetland area. Since no
other siting options were available for the treatment pond
expansion, the variance allowing the facility to be located
within 100 ft of the water body was requested and granted, and
mitigation of the impacted wetland area was required.
None specified
This variance is granted in the approval of the
Part A Application for the Clover Power Station
Stage III permit amendment. [Letter from
VDEQ (D. Treacy) to Virginia Power (now
Dominion Power) (W. Treacy); November 19,
1999); Permit Attachment V-5].
209
WI
Groundwater-
protection standards
Groundwater concentrations for selenium that exceed
groundwater standards are attributable to baseline groundwater
quality associated with natural hydrogeologic conditions or
substances released by other human activity. The proposed
facility will not cause the concentration of selenium to exceed
the enforcement standard for selenium at the point of standards
application because of the landfill's liner and leachate-
collection system design. The proposed facility is designed to
achieve the lowest possible concentrations for selenium that are
technically and economically feasible. Granting the exemption
will not inhibit compliance with the Wisconsin solid waste
management standards. The company's monitoring well data
show only one exceedance of the selenium preventive action
permit (PAL) (10 |^g/L) since monitoring began in June 2001.
The Department
reserves the right to
require the submittal of
additional information
and to modify this
approval at any time, if
in the Department's
opinion, modifications
are necessary.
The permittee demonstrated that an exemption
to the groundwater standards for selenium and
sulfate at an eleventh well (Well Station 6) was
warranted. However, the permittee removed
Well Station 6 from the groundwater-monitoring
plan for the facility. Therefore, an exemption to
the groundwater standards for sulfate and
selenium at Well Station 6 was not necessary.
and an exemption granted on September 10.
2000, for Well Station 6 was rescinded.
-------
TABLE L.I (Cont.)
ID
State
Variance Category
Granting Rationale
Revocation Provisions
Variance Comments
209
WI
Leachate-collection
requirements
Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) has demonstrated
circumstances that warrant an exemption from the Wisconsin
Administrative Code (WAC) requirement whereby leachate
flowing across the base of a liner is required to flow into a
perforated leachate collection line within 130 ft. A company
representative explained that the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) reviewed the engineering design
of the landfill and was satisfied that it would provide adequate
drainage, thus protecting human health and the environment.
Even though the landfill is located within a natural valley, it is
an engineered structure and the drawings reflect that the slopes
are adequate to provide the necessary drainage toward the
collection pipe. The landfill has base slopes of between 6%
and 10%.
The Department
reserves the right to
require the submittal of
additional information
and to modify this
approval at any time, if
in the Department's
opinion, modifications
are necessary.
Although the permit cites NR 504.05(5) as the
section from which a variance is granted, no
such section appears in the current regulations.
NR 504.06(5) is cited herein because it
describes a requirement for the leachate-
collection system that is consistent with the
requirement that the permit attributes to
NR 504.05(5).
209
WI
Liner requirements
DPC has demonstrated circumstances that warrant an
exemption from the Wisconsin Administrative Code (WAC)
requirement whereby sumps and side-slope risers must be
installed as part of the leachate removal system rather than
allowing penetration of the composite liner sidewall. A
company representative explained that the landfill is located at
the head end of a small valley. The leachate tank is located
several hundred feet downgradient of the landfill. Hence,
natural gravity drainage made sense because the elevation
difference between the landfill and the leachate tank would
accommodate it. According to the company representative, the
area where the liner penetration occurred was inspected and
leak tested at the time it was penetrated to verify that no leaks
were present. The inspection and leak test data were
documented and submitted to the WDNR in the construction
report. Since landfill operations began, no means have existed
to monitor the penetration area, just as no means exists (other
than groundwater monitoring) by which to monitor the landfill
liner system. A company representative indicated that data
collected from leachate head wells located within the landfill
verify that the leachate head on the liner has not exceeded the
regulatory limit of 12 in.
The Department
reserves the right to
require the submittal of
additional information
and to modify this
approval at any time, if
in the Department's
opinion, modifications
are necessary.
None
-------
TABLE L.I (Cont.)
ID
State
Variance Category
Granting Rationale
Revocation Provisions
Variance Comments
205
WV
Cover/dust controls
None specified in the permit. The rationale for granting the
variance was contained in a fact sheet that accompanied the
draft permit. As part of the draft permit, the fact sheet was
available to the public for comment. It explained the variance
rationale as follows: "Requirements for intermediate cover are
not necessary for the same reasons as stated for daily cover:"
[ Note: the reasons stated for daily cover are as follows:
"Requirements for cell height and daily cover are not necessary
for this facility due to the fact that coal ash should not cause
vector problems, windblown litter or other problems associated
with municipal waste. In addition, this facility is to be
constructed as a structural landfill and does not utilize cells or
daily cover."]
None specified
The permit did not specify the terms of the
variance.
204
WV
Cover/dust controls
None specified in the permit. The rationale for granting the
variance was contained in a fact sheet that accompanied the
draft permit. As part of the draft permit, the fact sheet was
available to the public for comment. It explained the variance
rationale as follows: "Requirements for intermediate cover are
not necessary for the same reasons as stated for daily cover:"
[Note: the reasons stated for daily cover are as follows:
"Requirements for cell height and daily cover are not necessary
for this facility due to the fact that coal ash should not cause
vector problems, windblown litter or other problems associated
with municipal waste. Also, this facility is to be constructed as
a structural landfill and does not utilize cells or daily cover."]
None specified
The permit provided no text regarding the
variances; it merely stated that "Waiver requests
for the following sections of the Solid Waste
Management Regulations are granted:
Section 3.2k, 3.4, 4.6.b.2,A, 4.6.b.2.D.( 1),
4.6.b.2.D.(2), 4.8.c.3.B, 4.10, and gas control
and gas monitoring requirements of
sections 3.10.a.2. 3.10.a.4. and 3. lO.b.3."
r-
>—,
Oc
205
Daily cell height
None specified in the permit. The rationale for granting the
variance was contained in a fact sheet that accompanied the
draft permit. As part of the draft permit, the fact sheet was
available to the public for comment. It explained the variance
rationale as follows: "Requirements for cell height and daily
cover are not necessary for this facility due to the fact that coal
ash should not cause vector problems, windblown litter or other
problems associated with municipal waste. In addition, this
facility is to be constructed as a structural landfill and does not
utilize cells or daily cover."
None specified
Permit did not specify terms of the variance.
-------
TABLE L.I (Cont.)
ID
State
Variance Category
Granting Rationale
Revocation Provisions
Variance Comments
205
WV
Daily cover/dust
controls
None specified in the permit. The rationale tor granting the
variance was contained in a fact sheet that accompanied the
draft permit. As part of the draft permit, the fact sheet was
available to the public for comment. It explained the variance
rationale as follows: "Requirements for cell height and daily
cover are not necessary for this facility due to the fact that coal
ash should not cause vector problems, windblown litter or other
problems associated with municipal waste. In addition, this
facility is to be constructed as a structural landfill and does not
utilize cells or daily cover."
None specified
The permit did not specify the cover/dust
control that would apply to the site.
204
WV
Daily cover/dust
controls
None specified in the permit. The rationale for granting the
variance was contained in a fact sheet that accompanied the
draft permit. As part of the draft permit, the fact sheet was
available to the public for comment. It explained the variance
rationale as follows: "Requirements for cell height and daily
cover are not necessary for this facility due to the fact that coal
ash should not cause vector problems, windblown litter or other
problems associated with municipal waste. Also, this facility is
to be constructed as a structural landfill and does not utilize
cells or daily cover."
None specified
The permit provided no text regarding the
variances; it merely stated that "Waiver requests
for the following sections of the Solid Waste
Management Regulations are granted:
Section 3.2k, 3.4, 4.6.b,2,A, 4.6.b.2.D.( 1),
4.6.b.2.D.(2), 4.8.C.3.B, 4.10, and gas control
and gas monitoring requirements of
sections 3.10.a.2, 3.10.a.4, and 3.1().b.3."
205
WV
Landfill gas
management
requirements
None specified in the permit. The rationale for granting the
variance was contained in a fact sheet that accompanied the
draft permit. As part of the draft permit, the fact sheet was
available to the public for comment. It explained the variance
rationale as follows: "Landfill gas management - The waste
disposed at this facility does not produce waste gases."
None specified
The permit did not specify the terms of the
variance.
204
WV
Landfill gas
management
requirements
None specified in the permit. The rationale for granting the
variance was contained in a fact sheet that accompanied the
draft permit. As part of the draft permit, the fact sheet was
av ailable to the public for comment. It explained the variance
rationale as follows: "Landfill gas management - The waste
disposed at this facility does not produce waste gases."
None specified
The permit provided no text regarding the
variances; it merely stated that "Waiver requests
for the following sections of the Solid Waste
Management Regulations are granted:
Section 3.2k, 3.4, 4.6.b,2,A, 4.6.b.2.D.( 1),
4.6.b.2.D.(2). 4.8.C.3.B, 4.10, and gas control
and gas monitoring requirements of
sections 3.10.a.2, 3.10.a.4, and 3.10.b.3."
-------
TABLE L.I (Cont.)
ID
State
Variance Category
Granting Rationale
Revocation Provisions
Variance Comments
204
WV
Liner requirements
None specified in the permit. The rationale for granting the
variance was contained in a fact sheet that accompanied the
draft permit. As part of the draft permit, the fact sheet was
available to the public for comment. It explained the variance
rationale as follows: "Leachate pond liner - waiver is proposed
to be granted because this is a Coal Combustion By-product
facility and is consistent with the liner required for the
landfill."
In a telephone conversation, during May 2005. a company
representative clarified that Section 5.5.b.l.G of the West
Virginia Solid Waste Management Rule allows options for
liner systems for surface impoundments receiving leachate.
The regulation is as follows:
"For surface impoundments receiving leachate, a permittee
may elect use of a liner system consisting of either eighteen
(18) inches of clay having a permeability no greater than
1 x 10'7 centimeters per second and compacted to a Standard
Proctor density of at least ninety-five percent (95%) as
determined by ASTM D-698, with a sixty (60) mil synthetic
liner installed on top of the clay; two (2) feet of clay with the
aforementioned permeability rate and compaction density; or
any other alternative liner system approved by the Secretary on
a ease-by-case basis. Taking into account site-specific
conditions, an appropriate groundwater interceptor drainage
system, which must also serve as a leachate-detection system.
must be installed under all liner systems in such a manner as to
avoid groundwater penetration of the liner system and to
facilitate detection of leachate penetrating the liner."
The company representative stated that a groundwater
interceptor drainage system was required but no additional
monitoring was required.
None specified
The permit provided no text regarding the
variances; it merely stated that "Waiver requests
for the following sections of the Solid Waste
Management Regulations are granted:
Section 3.2k. 3.4. 4.6.b,2.A, 4.6.b.2.D.( 1).
4.6.b.2.D.(2), 4.8.C.3.B, 4.10. and gas control
and gas monitoring requirements of
sections 3.10.U.2, 3.10.a.4, and 3.10.b.3."
-------
TABLE L.I (Cont.)
ID
State
Variance Category
Granting Rationale
Revocation Provisions
Variance Comments
WV
Liner requirements
None specified in the permit. The rationale for granting the
variance was contained in a fact sheet that accompanied the
draft permit. As part of the draft permit, the fact sheet was
available to the public for comment. It explained the variance
rationale as follows: "Leachate pond liner - waiver is proposed
to be granted because this is a Coal Combustion By-product
facility and is consistent with the liner required for the
landfill."
In a telephone conversation, a company representative clarified
that Section 5.5.b.l.G of the West Virginia Solid Waste
Management Rule allows options for liner systems for surface
impoundments receiving leachate. The regulation is as follows:
"For surface impoundments receiving leachate, a permittee
may elect use of a liner system consisting of either eighteen
(18) inches of clay having a permeability no greater than
1 x 10"7 centimeters per second and compacted to a Standard
Proctor density of at least ninety-five percent (95%) as
determined by ASTM D-698, with a sixty (60) mil synthetic
liner installed on top of the clay; two (2) feet of clay with the
aforementioned permeability rate and compaction density; or
any other alternative liner system approved by the Secretary on
a case-by-case basis. Taking into account site-specific
conditions, an appropriate groundwater interceptor drainage
system, which must also serve as a leachate detection system,
must be installed under all liner systems in such a manner as to
avoid groundwater penetration of the liner system and to
facilitate detection of leachate penetrating the liner."
The company representative stated that a groundwater
interceptor drainage system was required but no additional
monitoring was required.
None specified
Survey respondent indicated that the landfill has
a 2-ft compacted clay liner.
KJ
-------
TABLE L.I (Cont.)
ID
Stale
Variance Category
Granting Rationale
Revocation Provisions
Variance Comments
204
WV
Location
requirements
None specified in the permit. The rationale for granting the
variance was contained in a fact sheet that accompanied the
draft permit. As part of the draft permit, the fact sheet was
available to the public for comment. It explained the variance
rationale as follows: "Location standard for facility located
over a deep mine - The writer proposes that this waiver be
granted based on the Gales Engineering report. Little Broad
Run Landfill Mining Subsidence Evaluation, dated
November 6, 1992. AEP retained Gales Engineering Company
to investigate the structural integrity of the Philip Sporn
Number 1 Mine that underlies portions of the landfill. The
report indicates that the most significant problem which could
occur due to the mine's presence would be failure of the clay
liner due to mine subsidence. The mine was constructed
utilizing pillars, which according to the report, were never
removed. Based on this information, subsidence should be the
result of pillar failure. The report utilizes accepted methods for
determining pillar failure. The safety factor is 2.3.
The report was also reviewed by an engineer of the DEP
[Division of Environmental Protection], Office of Mining and
Reclamation. He stated that the report utilized appropriate
methods and found that based on information in the report, [the
site | has an acceptable factor of safety.
This waiver was previously granted by DEP's Director via
letter dated December 15, 1992 when this permit was originally
issued."
None specified
The permit provided no text regarding the
variances; it merely stated that "Waiver requests
for the following sections of the Solid Waste
Management Regulations are granted:
Section 3.2k, 3.4, 4.6.b,2,A, 4.6.b.2.D.( 1),
4.6.b.2.D.(2), 4.8.C.3.B, 4.10, and gas control
and gas monitoring requirements of
sections 3.10.3.2. 3.10.a.4, and 3.10.b.3."
f-
KJ
205
WV
Pre-siting
requirements
None specified in the permit. The rationale for granting the
variance was contained in a fact sheet that accompanied the
draft permit. As part of the draft permit, the fact sheet was
available to the public for comment. It explained the variance
rationale as follows: "Pre-siting requirements for commercial
solid waste facilities — This facility is not classified as a
commercial solid waste facility since it is a solid waste facility
owned and operated by a person for the sole purpose of
disposing of solid waste created by a person or such persons on
a cost-sharing basis (SWMR Section 2.16)."
None specified
None
-------
-------
------- |