SEPA
May 27, 2016
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Information Assessment of
Historical Structural Fill Applications
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
Office of Land and Emergency Management
Washington, DC 20460

-------
Information Assessment of Historical Structural Fill Applications
May 27,2016
Purpose
This document: (1) Provides the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) determination as to
whether historical structural fills warrant further EPA action at this time and (2) Summarizes the
information reviewed by EPA supporting this determination.
Background
EPA OIG Recommendation
In March 2011, the EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) published a report, EPA Promoted
the Use of Coal Ash Products with Incomplete Risk Information, Report No. 1 l-P-017. One of the
recommendations in the report was to:
"Determine if further EPA action is warranted to address historical CCR structural fill
applications based on comments on the proposed [Coal Combustion Residuals Disposal]
rule and other information available to EPA."
In response to this recommendation, the EPA conducted an assessment of comments on the
proposed Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities Rule1 ("CCR Disposal
Rule") and other available information sources to make a determination of whether historical
structural fills warrant further EPA action. In September 2012, EPA completed an initial
determination stating that:
"EPA continues to review the over 450,000 comments submitted on the proposed rule. We
will consider whether further action is warranted to address historical structural fill
applications, and expect to make a determination on that issue by December 31, 2013. "2
In December 2013, EPA committed to complete the final determination after the CCR Disposal
Rule was published.
Historical Structural Fills
In this document, historical structural fills are those that were constructed before 2010 (the year
the proposed CCR Disposal Rule was published). Structural fills are constructed by compacting
earthen material to create a strong stable base that can be used to support roadways or other
structures when completed. Coal combustion residuals, also referred to as coal ash, have been
used to substitute for soil and natural aggregates in the construction of structural fills.
1	Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities;
Proposed Rule, June 21, 2010 (75 FR 35128).
2	See memorandum from Suzanne Rudzinski to Johnsie Webster, September 28, 2012.
1

-------
Summary of Information Sources and Findings
This section of the document briefly discusses each information source and the findings from the
Agency's review. The EPA identified and reviewed the following sources for information on
historical structural fill sites:
•	Comments on the proposed CCR Disposal Rule including information on alleged CCR
damage cases.
•	EPA's compilation of damage cases supporting the CCR Disposal Rule, as revised for the
final CCR Disposal Rule.
•	Communications with EPA regional offices and states regarding nine of the largest
structural fill sites reported in the literature.
•	Literature review on CCR historical structural fill sites having environmental monitoring
information.
•	Report by Clean Wisconsin, a citizen's group, "Don't Drink the Water Groundwater
Contamination and the "Beneficial Reuse" of Coal Ash in Southeast Wisconsin, November
2014."
•	Survey on large scale fill operations by the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Organization (ASTSWMO), "Beneficial Use of Coal Combustion Residuals
Survey Report, September 2012."
•	Review of the current and proposed Superfund National Priorities List.
Comments on the Proposed CCR Disvosal Rule3 and EPA's Comyilation of CCR Damage Cases
In support of the CCR Disposal Rule, the EPA compiled data on proven and potential
environmental damage4 caused by CCR placement on the land. These damage cases were compiled
from available sources5 and comments received on the proposed CCR Disposal Rule.
3	See footnote 1.
4	As defined in the CCR Damage Case database, https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2009-0640-12123:
Proven Damage Cases are those with damage to groundwater that must satisfy at least one of the following "tests
of proof' criteria: 1) Scientific investigation -- Damages that are found to exist as part of the findings of a scientific
study and demonstrate significant impacts on human health or the environment; 2) Administrative ruling -- Damages
are found to exist through a formal administrative ruling; 3) Court decision -- Damages are found to exist through
the ruling of a court or through an out-of-court settlement; or 4) Fossil fuel combustion wastes must be clearly
implicated in the damage observed.
Potential Damage Cases are those with: (1) documented exceedances of primary maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) or other health-based standards only directly beneath or in very close proximity to the waste source; and/or
(2) documented exceedances of secondary MCLs or other health-based standards on-site or off-site.
5	Information sources used to compile the U.S. EPA CCR Damage Case Database: U.S. EPA 2007 Coal Combustion
Waste Damage Case Assessments', Out of Control: Mounting Damages from Coal Ash Waste Sites, February 2010;
In Harm's Way: Lack of Federal Coal Ash Regulations Endangers Americans and Their Environment; Risky
Business: Coal Ash Threatens America's Groundwater Resources at 19 More Sites, December 2011', EPA CCR
Assessment Program, and EPA 2009 Information request responses from electric utilities.
2

-------
The EPA analyzed comments received addressing alleged damage cases and beneficial use of CCR
in structural fill operations. The commenters provided limited data regarding environment damage
caused by historical structural fill operations. The EPA analyzed data that was provided and where
warranted added the sites to the compilation of proven damage cases.6 At these damage case sites,
states or the EPA followed up with actions.
Of the 158 proven and potential damage cases identified, five were associated with structural fill
operations. Two of these sites were proven damage cases7 - Reuse Technology's Swift Creek
Structural Fill Site (Rocky Mount, North Carolina) and Wisconsin Energy/Wisconsin Electric
Power Company's Oak Creek Power Plant (Oak Creek, Wisconsin), and three were potential
damage cases8 - Dominion Power's Battlefield Golf Course (Chesapeake, Virginia); NiSource Site
(Michigan City, Indiana); and PG&E's K.R. Rezendes Landfill (Freetown, Massachusetts).
For some of these five sites it could be determined that the environmental damage was from
historical structural fills; however for others it was not possible to determine if the damage was
caused by a structural fill operation or by the disposal in a landfill or surface impoundment. For
example, at the NiSource Site in Michigan City, Indiana it was not possible to determine whether
the damage was caused by CCR placement as fill, or from disposal activities that also occurred
on-site. The site has areas of historic fill uses which received slurried CCR; and prior to the 1973
construction of their surface impoundments, CCR (i.e., fly ash) was used as structural fill to
enhance the shoreline of Lake Michigan. EPA further analyzed information available on these
five sites and actions taken by the respective states.
In addition, the EPA identified five proven or potential damage cases associated with the
placement of CCR in sand and/or gravel pits,9 especially where the CCR was placed in or close to
the groundwater table. These included three proven10 damage cases:
•	Constellation Energy's BBSS S&G Quarries (Gambrills, Maryland);
•	VEPCO's Chisman Creek (Yorktown, Virginia) (NPL); and
•	Trans Ash Inc.'s CCW Landfill (Camden, Tennessee)
and two potential11 damage cases:
•	Illinois Power Company's (Dynegy's) Hennepin Power Station (Hennepin, Illinois); and
•	Lemberger Landfill (Whitelaw, Franklin Township, Wisconsin) (NPL)
6	The EPA compiled data on 158 proven and potential environmental damage cases caused by CCR placement on
the land.
7	U.S. EPA Damage Case Compendium Technical Support Volume I: Proven Damage Cases,
https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HO-RCRA-2009-0640-12118.
8	U.S. EPA Damage Case Compendium Volume Ila Potential Damage Cases Reassessment,
https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HO-RCRA-2009-0640-12119.
9	EPA previously shared with the OIG (see Appendix A of the OIG report) that the placement of CCR in sand and
gravel pits constitutes disposal and not beneficial use and that this was the position the Agency took in the final
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities;
Rule (80 FR 21302, April 17, 2015).
10	See footnote 7.
11	See footnote 8.
3

-------
Response actions were imposed at these damage cases by either states or the EPA CERCLA
program.12
Findings: From data compiled in support of the CCR Disposal Rule and public comments
received on the proposed CCR Disposal Rule, EPA identified five damage cases where
groundwater contamination was attributed to historical structural fill applications. The
contamination at these historical structural fill sites occurred where the CCR was placed into or
closely above the groundwater or into highly permeable rocks. This represents a small fraction
(three percent) of the 158 CCR-related damage cases EPA identified. At these sites, the respective
states have taken follow-up actions to address the environmental damage. In addition, the
information submitted by commenters on the proposed CCR Disposal rule did not identity new or
additional problems at these five sites that had not already been addressed by state or EPA actions.
EPA Regional Investigation of Larse Volume Structural Fill Sites
One published study, the Electric Power Research Institute's (EPRI) High-Volume Ash Utilization
Projects in the United States and Canada, identified sites where high volumes of CCR were used
for historical structural fill applications. In September 2011, EPA Region 3 and EPA Region 5
followed up with the respective states where the fill operations occurred to gather available
information about the sites.
Region 3 found information on four of the five structural fill sites reported in their region. Two of
the sites used CCR as structural fill to build a dam or raise the level of a CCR surface impoundment
(Allegheny Power Pleasant Station's McElroy's Run Dam, Willow Island, WV; and Pennsylvania
Power and Light Sunbury Generation Station's Shamokin Dam, Shamokin, PA). Region 3 also
provided information on an additional Delaware structural fill site. Several of the Region 3 sites
had elevated levels of metals in bulk soil and groundwater samples; however the contaminant
levels were not above levels the states considered to be of concern.
Region 5 was not able to find any monitoring information on the three sites reported in their region.
One site in Michigan was identified by the owner utility as a fly ash pond and not a structural fill.
In Michigan, coal ash fills are exempt from reporting by statute. Minnesota was not aware of the
Minnesota site listed in the EPRI report.
Findings: Based on available information identifying large volume fills, it was difficult for the
EPA to obtain further useful information about the sites investigated. Region 3 was able to find
environmental monitoring data for the EPRI listed sites in their region, however Region 5 was
unable to obtain any monitoring information on their EPRI listed sites, suggesting that limited
information is available even for large volume fills that have been identified. Furthermore, the
limited information that was found for these particular sites did not suggest on-going or widespread
environmental damage from these historical fill operations.
12 EPA took action under CERCLA at VEPCO's Chisman Creek Site (Yorktown, Virginia) and Lemberger Landfill
(Whitelaw, Franklin Township, Wisconsin).
4

-------
Literature Review
The EPA conducted an internet search for relevant publications and/or research on CCR structural
fill operations that had environmental monitoring data. From this search, EPA was only able to
identify three structural fill publications. Two publications were conducted and published by EPRI
and the other publication was a study conducted by ISG Resources, Inc., contracted by the
Tennessee Valley Authority's Bull Run Fossil Plant.
•	Summary of Demonstration Projects Using Coal Combustion Residuals as Engineered
Structural Fill (2010, EPRI 1022297).
•	Environmental Performance of Coal Ash Use Sites - Waukegan Ash Embankment (1990,
EPRI 6533).
•	Radon Emissions From a High Volume Coal Fly Ash Structural Fill Site (2001,
International Ash Utilization Symposium).
The two EPRI studies concluded that the monitoring data from the six structural fill sites examined
indicated that there were little or no significant environmental effects.13 The ISG Resources, Inc.
study concluded that their large scale CCR structural fill site has not adversely impacted the
groundwater.
Findings: The limited information available from the three publications suggest that CCR
structural fill operations can be constructed so as to not cause environmental damage.
Clean Wisconsin November 2014 Report, "Don't Drink the Water14"
This report describes Clean Wisconsin's research on groundwater contamination in the southeast
Wisconsin counties of Waukesha, Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha, and the beneficial use and/or
disposal of CCR in these areas. The report suggests a correlation between the elevated levels of
molybdenum in groundwater in southeast Wisconsin and the beneficial use of coal ash from coal
fired plants.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WIDNR) reviewed this report. A statement from
the WIDNR said, "The department does not concur that there is a clear correlation between the
elevated molybdenum in groundwater in southeast Wisconsin and the beneficial use of ash from
13	At the Waukegan, Illinois Highway Embankment Site, the toxic metals selenium, arsenic, chromium, cadmium,
and vanadium were not found in the groundwater. There were elevated levels of sulfate found in the groundwater
100 meters downgradient of the site; however EPA's Region 5 had no knowledge of any environmental damage at
this site.
14	Don't Drink the Water Groundwater Contamination and the "Beneficial Reuse" of Coal Ash in Southeast
Wisconsin, Clean Wisconsin, November 2014, http://www.cleanwisconsin.org/coal-ash-report/
5

-------
coal fired power plants. As Clean Wisconsin acknowledged in their report, it is challenging to
determine the sources or causes of elevated molybdenum in groundwater in southeast Wisconsin."
Findings: The Clean Wisconsin report is based on limited information and did not examine site-
specific technical information related to geology and hydrogeology when examining the potential
for coal ash to impact groundwater. It also does not make a clear distinction between sites where
the CCR was illegally disposed and sites where it was beneficially used, and does not discuss the
specific type of CCR used at the sites. Because there is limited information in the report, EPA
agrees with WIDNR's review of this report and is unable to conclude that the groundwater
contamination was caused from the beneficial use of CCR.
ASTSWMO Survey
In September of 2012, the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
(ASTSWMO) published the results of their survey on current state regulations regarding the
beneficial use of CCR. The ASTSWMO survey included questions on definitions and
classifications of wastes to address how states define non-hazardous industrial waste, general
information on regulating CCR, large scale beneficial uses, and end-of-life management. The
results from the survey indicated that 39 out of 46 states responded when asked about complaints
received from beneficial use of large scale fills. The majority of the states (24) had not received
complaints concerning beneficial use of CCR as large scale fill material. The complaints received
by the other 15 states mainly addressed fugitive dusts and concerns that users were not complying
with required conditions. Generally, fugitive dust issues occur during transportation or placement
of CCR, and required conditions apply to placement.
Findings: The ASTSWMO survey results indicate that less than half of responding states received
complaints concerning the beneficial use of CCR as large scale fill material. The dominant problem
reported was fugitive dust, followed by users failing to comply with required conditions. Both of
these concerns are related to the construction phase of a structural fill and thus are not expected at
historical CCR structural fill sites.
Suverfund: National Priorities List
The National Priorities List (NPL) is the list of priority sites that have known releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States and its
territories (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/). The NPL helps guide the EPA in
determining which sites warrant further investigation and remediation. As of May 2016, there are
1,328 sites on the NPL and 55 proposed additions. The EPA examined whether sites listed on the
current, proposed, and deleted Superfund NPL included CCR structural fills. There are no CCR
structural fill sites on the current, proposed, or deleted NPL.15
15 As previously mentioned in footnote 12, there were two sites where CCR disposal took place in a sand and gravel
pit or on a permeable sandy substrate that were either remediated or undergoing remediation by EPA's CERCLA
program.
6

-------
Findings: The NPL list does not include any CCR structural fill sites and thus does not provide
evidence of on-going or widespread environmental damage from historic fill operations.
Determination
As documented above, the EPA reviewed information sources on historical CCR structural fills
including comments on the proposed Coal Combustion Residuals Disposal Rule and other
information available to the Agency. The Agency found a limited number of information sources
and very few that included environmental monitoring data. Recognizing that the available
information is quite limited, it does not suggest widespread problems from historical CCR
structural fill operations. In addition, as is also documented in the sources reviewed, there are
existing authorities under RCRA and CERCLA that can be used to address environmental concerns
that might arise at a particular historical CCR structural fill site. Thus, based on the available
information reviewed and the availability of response authorities, EPA has determined that no
further action to address historical CCR structural fill applications as a general issue is warranted
at this time.
The Agency notes that this determination is consistent with the Agency's conclusions in the CCR
Disposal Rule, "...certain beneficial uses, should be conducted with care, according to appropriate
management practices, and with appropriate characterization of the material and the site where the materials
will be placed. EPA has concluded that the potential risks of these uses do not warrant federal regulation,
but can be addressed, if necessary in other ways." (80 FR at 21351, April 17, 2015)
The Agency also notes that this determination does not preclude the EPA from taking any action
in the future on the general issue of historical CCR fill applications or on any specific historical
CCR fill application based on new or additional information, facts, or analysis.
7

-------
Resources
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO). September
2012. Beneficial Use of Coal Combustion Residuals Survey Report.
Clean Wisconsin. November 2014. Don't Drink the Water Groundwater Contamination and the
"Beneficial Reuse" of Coal Ash in Southeast Wisconsin.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). March 1988. High-Volume Ash Utilization Projects in
the United States and Canada, CS-4446.
EPRI. 1990. Environmental Performance of Coal Ash Use Sites - Waukegan Ash Embankment,
6533.
EPRI. 2010. Summary of Demonstration Projects Using Coal Combustion Residuals as
Engineered Structural Fill, 1022297.
Sutton, Michael E., et al. 2001. Radon Emissions From a High Volume Coal Fly Ash Structural
Fill Site, International Ash Symposium, Center for Applied Energy Research, University of
Kentucky, Paper #91. Available online at: http://www.flvash.info/200l/envben2/91 sutton.pdf.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). CCR Damage Case Database. Available
online at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-
12123.
EPA Office of Inspector General Report (OIG). March 2011. EPA Promoted the Use of Coal Ash
Products with Incomplete Risk Information, Report No. ll-P-017.
EPA. June 2010. Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion
Residuals From Electric Utilities; Proposed Rule, (75 FR 35128).
EPA. September 2012. Memorandum from Suzanne Rudzinski, EPA, to Johnsie Webster, EPA.
8

-------