Technical Background Document for the Report to Congress on Remaining Wastes from Fossil Fuel Combustion Existing State Regulatory Controls


TECHNICAL BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
FOR THE REPORT TO CONGRESS

ON REMAINING WASTES
FROM FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION:

EXISTING STATE REGULATORY CONTROLS

March 15, 1999

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 METHODOLOGY 		1-1

2.0 COMANAGED WASTES AT COAL-FIRED UTILITIES 		2-1

2.1	NATIONWIDE CHARACTERIZATION OF STATE REGULATIONS		2-1

2.2	CASE STUDIES OF STATE REGULATIONS 		2-3

2.3	FINDINGS 	 2-11

3.0 NON-UTILITY COAL COMBUSTION WASTES		3-1

3.1	NATIONWIDE CHARACTERIZATION OF STATE REGULATIONS		3-1

3.2	CASE STUDIES OF STATE REGULATIONS 		3-3

3.3	FINDINGS 		3-9

4.0 FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION WASTES		4-1

4.1	NATIONWIDE CHARACTERIZATION OF STATE REGULATIONS		4-1

4.2	CASE STUDIES OF STATE REGULATIONS 		4-3

4.3	FINDINGS 		4-6

5.0 OIL COMBUSTION WASTES		5-1

5.1	NATIONWIDE CHARACTERIZATION OF STATE REGULATIONS		5-1

5.2	CASE STUDIES OF STATE REGULATIONS 		5-1

5.3	FINDINGS 		5-6

6.0 REFERENCES		6-1

March 15,1999	ii

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1.	State Regulatory Controls on CCW Landfills		2-2

Table 2-2.	Current State Regulatory Controls on CCW Surface Impoundments		2-3

Table 2-3.	Indiana Restricted Waste Disposal Facility Requirements		2-4

Table 2-4.	Pennsylvania Residual Waste Disposal Facility Requirements 		2-6

Table 3-1.	State Regulatory Controls on Non-Utility CCW Landfills 		3-2

Table 3-2.	Indiana Restricted Waste Disposal Facility Requirements		3-4

Table 3-3.	Pennsylvania Residual Waste Disposal Facility Requirements 		3-5

Table 4-1.	Current State Regulatory Controls on FBC Landfills		4-2

Table 4-2.	Pennsylvania Residual Waste Disposal Facility Requirements 		4-4

Table 5-1.	Pennsylvania Residual Waste Disposal Facility Requirements 		5-6

March 15,1999	iii

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

1.0 METHODOLOGY

This report characterizes state solid and hazardous waste regulations for industries generating remaining
fossil fuel combustion (FFC) wastes. The analysis focused on state implementation of solid waste controls
on FFC wastes under Subtitle D of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). State
solid waste management regulations were analyzed first on a nationwide scale, using survey data for all 50
states, and second on a more detailed level, using case studies of selected states.

For analysis on a nationwide scale, data on state solid waste management regulations in all 50 states were
compiled from four sources:

• Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) Non-
municipal, Subtitle D Survey (ASTSWMO, 1995): In January 1995, ASTSWMO initiated a
survey of state and territorial waste management programs regarding regulatory programs for
management of nonmunicipal (i.e., industrial) solid waste. Fifty of 56 states and territories
responded to the survey.

• EPA's State Requirements for Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (EPA,
1995): In October 1995, EPA conducted a paper review of statutes and regulations, as
published in the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) Environmental Reporter, in all 50 states
covering design and operation of waste management units. EPA then summarized the
requirements, supplementing the analysis with descriptive information from a Chemical
Manufacturers Association report and an 1987 EPA survey. The statutes and regulations
reviewed were current as of August 1994. EPA did not contact state representatives to verify
the obtained information.

• Council of Industrial Boilers (CIBO) Survey of State Waste Management Controls (CIBO,
1997): In 1997, as part of its report on FBC waste, CIBO conducted a survey of state
disposal regulations pertinent to FFC wastes, and coal combustion wastes (CCWs) in
particular. Thirty of 56 states and territories responded to the survey. These states accounted
for approximately 70 percent of total coal combustion in 1995.

• American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) State-by-State Summaries of Solid Waste
Regulations (ACAA, 1996): In 1996, ACAA reviewed and summarized state solid waste
regulations governing the use of coal combustion byproducts in all 50 states.

The ACAA summaries were used to characterize the exemption status of FFC wastes in all 50 states. The
ASTSWMO and CIBO survey results were combined to characterize the types of regulatory controls
imposed on FFC waste management units. The EPA review data were used to describe daily cover/fugitive

March 15,1999

1-1

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

dust controls (which were not surveyed by ASTSWMO), to confirm the other survey data for the states
with the largest capacity in each generating sector, and to provide additional descriptive information.

The ASTSWMO and CIBO results agreed in the majority of cases. Where the two sources disagreed, the
ASTSWMO data were used because the results were more detailed and better documented. The analysis
then used the combined data to generate summary statistics on the nature and stringency of state solid
waste management controls in all 50 states. In the case of CCWs, these data also were compared to
historical data from the 1988 Report to Congress to draw conclusions about trends in state regulation.

To further characterize state implementation, EPA examined, in detail, programs in several (two to five)
selected states for each FFC waste sector. The specific states were selected to maximize the percentage of
generating capacity covered in each sector while making efficient use of available resources. For example,
much of the regulatory controls information was collected during visits to state agencies to collect waste
management and damage case information. The analysis of each state included review of regulations,
discussions with state officials, comparison with observed management practices, and review of published
summary information, including that in the CIBO report and the survey publications cited above.

March 15,1999

1-2

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

2.0 COMANAGED WASTES AT COAL-FIRED UTILITIES

EPA regulates the management of solid and hazardous waste through Subtitles C and D of the federal
RCRA. Subtitle C establishes a "cradle-to-grave" management system for wastes that are considered
hazardous because they fail tests based on their physical and chemical characteristics (i.e., toxicity,
corrosivity, ignitability, and reactivity) or because they are listed as hazardous by EPA. Federal
regulations establish stringent environmental and administrative controls that must be applied to
management of these wastes. Comanaged utility coal-fired wastes currently are exempt from federal
regulation as hazardous waste under Subtitle C pending this Report to Congress and the subsequent
regulatory determination. Therefore, these wastes are subject to the requirements of Subtitle D of RCRA
as nonhazardous solid waste.

2.1 NATIONWIDE CHARACTERIZATION OF STATE REGULATIONS

Implementation of Subtitle D is the responsibility of individual states, but nothing prevents states from
imposing more stringent requirements (including hazardous waste requirements) on FFC wastes.

Currently, 44 states (representing 96 percent of utility coal-fired generating capacity) duplicate the federal
policy exempting CCWs from hazardous waste regulations. The other six states (Kentucky, Tennessee,
Washington, New Jersey, Maine, and California) do not exempt CCWs from hazardous waste regulation.
In these states, any CCWs that fail the hazardous waste characteristic tests would be subject to state
hazardous waste requirements and managed in units that meet permitting, design, operating, corrective
action, and closure standards. EPA believes that these standards, because they must be at least as stringent
as the federal standards under RCRA Subtitle C, are sufficient to mitigate risks from these wastes.

CCWs, however, rarely fail the hazardous waste characteristic tests. Therefore, the majority of CCWs that
do not fail the hazardous waste characteristic tests and/or are generated in the 44 states that duplicate the
federal exemption generally would be subject to less stringent state requirements under Subtitle D. The
1988 Report to Congress presented data on such state regulations from a 1983 Utility Solid Waste
Activities Group (USWAG) survey. Under 1983 regulations, most states required permits for landfills
managing CCWs, at least on a case-by-case basis. However, a smaller percentage of states had the
authority to impose physical controls or monitoring requirements on these landfills (see Table 2-1). The
1988 Report to Congress also found that state regulations only "indirectly addressed" waste management in
surface impoundments.

March 15,1999

2-1

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

Table 2-1. State Regulatory Controls on CCW Landfills



1988 Report to Congress

Current

Number of
Statesb

Percent of
States0

Percent of
Capacity11

Number of
Statesb

Percent of
States0

Percent of
Capacity11

Hazardous Waste Exemption3

43

86%

88%

44

88%

96%

Permit Onsite

41

82%

75%

41

82%

77%

Permit Offsite

49

98%

94%

48

96%

95%

Siting Controls

30

60%

54%

46

96%

92%

Liner

11

22%

24%

43

86%

87%

Leachate Collection

20

40%

31%

42

84%

79%

Ground-Water Monitoring

28

56%

60%

46

92%

89%

Closure

27

54%

59%

45

90%

91%

Cover and/or Dust Controls

Not surveyed

49

98%

96%

a Exemption from state hazardous waste regulations for CCWs

b Number of states with authority to impose the indicated requirement, either by regulation or on a case-by-case basis
c Percent of surveyed states with authority

d Percent of surveyed utility generating capacity represented by states with authority
Sources: USWAG, 1983; CIBO, 1997; ASTSWMO, 1995; EPA, 1995; ACAA, 1996

More recent data show that the majority of states now have authority to impose physical controls and
monitoring requirements on CCW landfills, at least on a case-by-case basis. Table 2-1 compares state
regulatory authority with respect to CCW landfills reported in the 1988 Report to Congress to current data.
For surface impoundments, the percentage of states with authority is similar to that for landfills. Table 2-2
shows data on current state regulatory authority with respect to surface impoundments.

The data in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 show that states increasingly have become able to impose controls on CCW
management units. In addition to regulatory permits, the majority of states are now able to require siting
controls, liners, leachate collection systems, ground-water monitoring, closure controls, daily (or other
operational) cover, and fugitive dust controls. EPA believes that the use of such controls has the potential
to mitigate risks, particularly ground-water pathway risks, from comanaged waste disposal. The
sufficiency of this mitigation depends on the extent to which states are exercising their authority in
situations in which climate, geology, site-specific conditions, and waste characteristics justify it.

Based on data collected for the Remaining Waste Report to Congress, nearly all of the active CCW
comanagement landfills surveyed are subject to regulatory permits and ground-water monitoring
requirements. Just more than half of the surveyed landfills are lined and just less than half have leachate

March 15,1999

2-2

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

Table 2-2. Current State Regulatory Controls on CCW Surface Impoundments

Number of Statesb

Percent of States0

Percent of Capacity11

Hazardous Waste Exemption3

88%

96%

Permit Onsite

92%

87%

Permit Offsite

94%

88%

Siting Controls

87%

81%

Liner

92%

91%

Leachate Collection

73%

68%

Ground-Water Monitoring

96%

94%

Closure

91%

88%

a Exemption from state hazardous waste regulations for CCWs

b Number of states with authority to impose the indicated requirement, either by regulation or on a case-by-case basis
c Percent of surveyed states with authority

d Percent of surveyed utility generating capacity represented by states with authority
Sources: CIBO, 1997; ASTSWMO, 1995; ACM, 1996

collection systems. A lesser percentage of active CCW comanagement surface impoundments have similar
controls. These statistics suggest that states have exercised their authority to impose control at landfills,
and to a lesser extent at surface impoundments. Furthermore, the data show increasing trends in the use of
liners and ground-water monitoring at newer units, both landfills and surface impoundments. This finding
suggests that states are increasingly applying their regulatory authority as new units are introduced.

2.2 CASE STUDIES OF STATE REGULATIONS

To further examine state implementation of solid waste requirements on utility CCWs, EPA examined in
greater detail the regulations applicable in five states: Indiana, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin,
and Virginia. These five states account for almost 20 percent of coal-fired utility electrical generating
capacity.

Indiana

Indiana classifies the four large-volume CCWs (and other industrial wastes) as restricted wastes and has
developed a specific regulatory program for these wastes. In most cases, the chemical characteristics of
restricted wastes must be analyzed using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) prior to
disposal. The results of this analysis dictate the type of facility in which the waste may be disposed.

March 15,1999

2-3

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

Indiana regulations classify restricted waste landfills into four categories: Type I, Type II, Type III, or
Type IV. Type I landfills are permitted to receive restricted wastes that leach the highest levels of
constituents of concern. TCLP analysis of CCWs disposed in Type I landfills is not required. Type II and
Type III landfills receive intermediate wastes that leach lower levels. Type IV landfills receive wastes that
leach the lowest levels of constituents of concern. In addition, restricted waste disposal facilities are
subject to design, operating, and closure requirements that vary in stringency according to their type. Table
2-3 describes the acceptable waste limitations and relevant requirements for each type of facility. Leachate
collection systems are not required, but may be used in some cases to relax the liner thickness requirements.
Indiana's restricted waste requirements have been in effect since September, 1989; facilities that existed
prior to that date may continue to operate, but any expansions at these facilities must comply with the
newer regulations.

Table 2-3. Indiana Restricted Waste Disposal Facility Requirements

Facility
Type

Acceptable Waste

Design, Operating, and Closure Requirements

Landfills

Type I

Any restricted waste

Clay liner (thickness of 10 feet or more depending on permeability of the
waste), siting restrictions, fugitive dust control, daily cover, soil erosion
control, ground-water monitoring, 2-foot clay cap at closure, revegetation at
closure

Type II

TCLP results less than 25 times
the federal MCL

Clay liner (thickness of 5 to 10 feet depending on permeability of the waste),
siting restrictions, fugitive dust control, daily cover, soil erosion control,
ground-water monitoring, 2-foot clay cap at closure, revegetation at closure

Type III

TCLP results less than 10 times
the federal MCL

Clay liner (thickness of 3 feet), siting restrictions, fugitive dust control, weekly
cover, soil erosion control, 2-foot clay cap at closure, revegetation at closure

Type IV

TCLP results at the federal MCL

Siting restrictions

Indiana water regulations require permitting of surface impoundments, but do not impose any specific
design requirements. Requirements may be imposed on a case-by-case basis in individual permits.

Indiana's requirements, when applied to utility CCW comanagement landfills, impose controls tailored to
the characteristics of the individual waste streams comanaged. The available TCLP data for comanaged
wastes indicate that these wastes typically have leachate concentrations between 1 and 10 times the federal
MCLs. Samples from 9 percent of sites (1 of 11) showed selenium concentrations between 10 and 25 times
the MCL. In samples from an additional 9 percent (1 of 11), the concentration was greater than 25 times

March 15,1999

2-4

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

the MCL. Assuming comanaged wastes in Indiana display similar characteristics, these wastes would be
amenable for disposal in Type III landfills, with Type I or II disposal required in only a few cases.

The Electric Power Research Institute's (EPRI) comanagement survey includes 11 active comanagement
landfills and surface impoundments in Indiana. All of the units have state permits. Two are landfills
opened in 1978 and 1981, respectively. Both have compacted clay liners. Data on the thickness of these
liners are not available. Only the newer landfill conducts ground-water monitoring, and neither has a
leachate collection system. Thus, environmental controls at these landfills appear consistent with at least
the requirements for Type III landfills. The other nine units in Indiana are surface impoundments. Two
impoundments (the newest one and one opened in 1959) have compacted clay liners; the others are unlined.
None of them has a leachate collection system or conducts ground-water monitoring.

Pennsylvania

Under Pennsylvania regulations, the four large-volume CCWs are exempt from regulation as hazardous
waste. Pennsylvania classifies these and other industrial wastes as residual waste, and has developed a
specific regulatory program for these wastes. Generators of residual waste must submit a bi-annual report
to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) describing the quantity and disposition of waste
generated. The chemical characteristics of residual wastes must be analyzed using the TCLP prior to
disposal. The results of this analysis dictate the type of facility in which the waste may be disposed.

Pennsylvania regulations classify residual waste disposal facilities as Class I, II, or III landfills and Class I
or II surface impoundments. Class I facilities are permitted to receive residual wastes that leach the highest
levels of constituents of concern, while Class II and III facilities receive wastes that leach lower levels. All
classes must be issued a permit by the DEP. In addition, residual waste disposal facilities are subject to
design, operating, and closure requirements that vary in stringency according to their class. Table 2-4
describes the acceptable waste limitations and relevant requirements for each class. Storage impoundments
(those that store waste for less than 1 year) are subject to design, operating, and closure requirements that
are essentially the same as those for disposal impoundments.

The residual waste program described in Table 2-4 was promulgated on July 4, 1992. Units permitted
prior to that date were subject to a transition program under which they were required to modify their
operations to comply with the requirements by July 4, 1997. For these older units, DEP was allowed to

March 15,1999

2-5

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

Table 2-4. Pennsylvania Residual Waste Disposal Facility Requirements

Facility
Type

Acceptable Waste

Design, Operating, and Closure Requirements

Landfills

Class I

Any nonhazardous waste

Two liners (at least one composite), leachate detection system, leachate
collection system, fugitive dust control, daily cover, soil erosion control,
ground-water monitoring, 2-foot clay cap at closure, revegetation at closure

Class II

TCLP results less than 50 times
the federal MCL

Composite liner, leachate detection system, leachate collection system,
fugitive dust control, daily cover, soil erosion control, ground-water
monitoring, 2-foot clay cap at closure, revegetation at closure

Class III

TCLP results less than 25 times
the federal MCL

4-foot attenuating soil base or 1 foot per 4 feet of waste, fugitive dust
control, daily cover, soil erosion control, ground-water monitoring, 2-foot
clay cap at closure, revegetation at closure

Surface Impoundments

Class I

Any nonhazardous waste

Two liners (at least one composite), leachate detection system, leachate
collection system, minimum freeboard requirements, structural integrity
requirements, ground-water monitoring, 2-foot clay cap at closure,
revegetation at closure

Class II

TCLP results less than 50 times
the federal MCL

Composite liner, leachate detection system, leachate collection system,
minimum freeboard requirements, structural integrity requirements, ground-
water monitoring, 2-foot clay cap at closure, revegetation at closure

waive or modify the liner and leachate collection requirements if the operator could demonstrate that the
unit had not caused unacceptable ground-water degradation or that remediation was under way to restore
ground-water quality to acceptable levels.

Pennsylvania's residual waste regulations, therefore, impose controls tailored to the characteristics of the
individual waste streams comanaged. The available TCLP data for comanaged wastes indicate that these
wastes rarely have leachate concentrations greater than 25 times the federal MCL. Samples from only 9
percent of sites (1 of 11) showed selenium concentrations between 25 and 50 times the MCL. Assuming
comanaged wastes in Pennsylvania display similar characteristics, these wastes would be amenable for
disposal in Class III landfills, with Class II disposal required in only a few cases.

EPRI's comanagement survey includes nine active comanagement units in Pennsylvania. All are landfills
opened prior to 1992 and have state permits. All nine conduct ground-water monitoring and indicated they
have a soil or sand cap. One of the units has a single composite liner and a leachate collection system,
suggesting that it is a Class II landfill. The other units have soil liners, compacted ash liners, or single
geosynthetic liners. All but one of these have leachate collection systems. These controls suggest that

March 15,1999

2-6

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

these other units are either Class III landfills or Class I or II landfills for which the liner requirements have
been modified under the transition program. Thus, the available data confirm that comanagement units in
the state have environmental controls consistent with the state's regulations.

In addition to disposal in landfills and surface impoundments, Pennsylvania's residual waste regulations
also authorize the use of CCWs in minefills. These wastes may be used at mine sites as backfill, to
improve soil productivity, to neutralize mine spoil acidity, or to create a layer of low permeability in
backfilled spoil. These uses are subject to certification by the DEP. Certification requires that CCW meet
the TCLP limits for disposal at a Class III landfill. The DEP may grant a contingent certification on a
case-by-case basis if the waste exceeds the leachate concentration for aluminum, iron, manganese, sulfate,
or zinc. Certification also requires that CCW meet pH guidelines when used as backfill or soil additive,
have a minimum calcium carbonate content when used as a soil additive, and meet hydraulic conductivity
limits when used as a low permeability material. Certification is re-evaluated every 6 months. DEP also
requires ground-water monitoring at minefills.

The regulations also authorize the use of CCWs as a soil substitute or soil additive. Such uses do not
require a permit or certification, but the user must notify the DEP. The CCWs must meet pH guidelines
and the user must employ runoff and erosion controls. There also are siting limitations on such agricultural
uses.

North Carolina

In North Carolina, the four large-volume CCWs are exempt from regulation as hazardous waste and are
regulated as industrial solid waste. Separate regulatory programs apply to landfills and surface
impoundments managing these wastes.

March 15,1999

2-7

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

began implementing these rules) are not "grandfathered." To continue operating after January 1, 1998,
these units had to submit information to demonstrate that their original designs or proposed design changes
would meet the ground-water standards. DEHNR has the authority to require design modifications if
ground-water modeling methods or results are inadequate.

Surface impoundments are excluded from the state's solid waste regulations and are governed by water
quality regulations. Under these regulations, impoundments managing CCWs or other solid wastes must
obtain a permit from DEHNR's Division of Water Quality. Other than requiring a minimum level of
freeboard, the water quality regulations do not dictate any specific design, operating, or ground-water
monitoring requirements. Requirements may be imposed on a case-by-case basis in individual permits.

EPRI's comanagement survey includes one active comanagement landfill in North Carolina. This state-
permitted landfill opened in 1989. As of the date of the survey, the landfill conducted ground-water
monitoring and had a compacted clay liner and a leachate collection system. To meet the current
requirements, this landfill would have had to demonstrate the adequacy of these designs, undertake design
modifications, or cease operating. The comanagement survey also includes 14 active comanagement
surface impoundments. All of these units are unlined and state permitted. Only four of them monitor
ground water.

DEHNR does not have specific requirements applicable to minefills. CCWs may be used for agricultural
purposes under the authority of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture.

Wisconsin

The four large-volume CCWs are exempt from regulation as hazardous wastes under Wisconsin
regulations. These wastes are regulated as industrial solid waste under the state's solid waste management
regulations. The state requires permits for all onsite and offsite solid waste management facilities. All
landfills must meet specific design and operating requirements.

March 15,1999

2-8

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

landfills are also required to apply a 40-mil geomembrane layer above the clay cap. Revegetation is
required at closure. Ground-water monitoring is required for all new and existing facilities whose plans of
operation were not approved prior to February 1, 1988. For facilities constructed prior to this date, the
state may require ground-water monitoring on a case-by-case basis. The current solid waste regulations
allow the state to modify the requirements for landfills designed to receive "high-volume" industrial waste,
specifically coal ash waste, on a case-by-case basis.

Surface impoundments must meet siting requirements and have leachate collection systems and liners,
unless an exemption is granted by the state. Ground-water monitoring of surface impoundments is
optional.

EPRI's comanagement survey includes 11 active comanagement landfills in Wisconsin. All of the units
have state permits and conduct ground-water monitoring. Based on their age and the controls employed,
some of these units appear to have "grandfathered" out of the current requirements or to have received
waivers under the high-volume waste provision. One of the landfills was opened in 1990; the rest were
opened in 1988 or earlier. Three of the landfills have compacted clay liners, one has a geosynthetic liner,
one has a composite liner, and one has a double liner. The remaining five are unlined. Four of the lined
landfills have leachate collection systems.

Virginia

Under Virginia regulations, the four large-volume CCWs are exempt from regulation as hazardous waste.
Regulations applicable to management of CCWs depend on the type of management unit. All landfills
managing nonhazardous solid waste must obtain a permit from the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ). Surface impoundments are regulated under Virginia's water control law either by the DEQ or the
State Water Control Board, depending on their discharge status.

The DEQ has separate programs for industrial landfills and sanitary landfills. While sanitary landfills
primarily manage household waste, they are allowed to receive nonhazardous industrial solid wastes, such
as CCWs. However, because comanaged utility CCWs are most frequently handled in captive, onsite
units, the discussion here focuses on the industrial landfill program. For comanaged wastes, industrial
landfills must characterize the wastes entering the unit. They must provide a management plan for
commingling the wastes in the permit application. Deviations from the practices outlined in the permit

March 15,1999

2-9

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

require a permit modification. This requirement may restrict abrupt changes in comanagement practices in
Virginia.

Industrial landfills must have leachate collection systems, run-on controls, and a liner consisting of 1 foot
of compacted clay or the equivalent. They must install a cap at closure with a hydraulic conductivity less
than or equal to that of the bottom liner. Industrial landfills must control fugitive dust. For fly ash and
bottom ash from the combustion of fossil fuels, the regulations specifically require periodic cover or dust
control measures such as surface wetting or crusting agents. Industrial landfills must conduct ground-
water monitoring. In lieu of ground-water monitoring, units may install a double liner system in which the
primary liner is synthetic. Landfills permitted prior to 1988 must submit a monitoring plan, but may
continue operating without retrofits as long as they do not expand.

Surface impoundments that discharge directly to surface water must obtain a permit under the Virginia
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) program, which implements the federal NPDES
requirements discussed above. The VPDES program is administered by the DEQ. Impoundments that do
not discharge directly, but that have the potential to discharge to waters of the state, including ground
water, must obtain a Virginia Pollution Abatement (VPA) permit. VPA permits are issued by the State
Water Control Board. Both programs require monitoring, but do not impose any specific design
requirements. Requirements may be imposed on a case-by-case basis in individual permits.

The DEQ's solid waste regulations do not apply to surface impoundments during their operating life.
Impoundments may be closed with waste in place if the closure requirements are established in the facility's
VPDES or VPA permit. Otherwise, solid waste regulations require (1) removal of all liquids, wastes, and
system components at closure, or (2) stabilization of remaining wastes, installation of a cover, and post-
closure ground-water monitoring.

EPRI's comanagement survey includes two active landfills and two active surface impoundments in
Virginia. All four units have state permits. The two landfills both opened in 1995, monitor ground water,
and have geosynthetic liners and leachate collection systems. Therefore, they appear to have controls
consistent with the industrial landfill program. One of the surface impoundments opened in 1989, has a
compacted clay liner, and monitors ground water. The other impoundment opened in 1983, is unlined, and
does not monitor ground water.

March 15,1999

2-10

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

Agricultural uses of CCW are exempt from the solid waste regulations provided they meet the requirements
of the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Virginia has promulgated a separate
regulation under which CCWs may be used in structural fills, mine reclamation, or mine refuse disposal.
These projects do not require a waste management permit, but the user must notify the DEQ and provide
design, operation, and closure plans. CCWs thus used must not exceed the toxicity characteristic levels for
metals. Projects must incorporate fugitive dust and run-on/runoff controls. The regulations require 18
inches of cover at closure.

2.3 FINDINGS

This analysis of existing regulatory controls on comanaged wastes leads to the following conclusions:

• Forty-four states, representing 96 percent of coal-fired utility generating capacity, exempt
CCWs from hazardous waste regulations. The majority of CCW, therefore, is regulated
under state-led RCRA Subtitle D waste management programs.

• During the last 10 years, state agencies increasingly have been granted the authority to impose
environmental controls on CCW waste management. Trends in management practices suggest
that states increasingly have been exercising this authority. Regulatory changes in the states
studied in detail show that requirements have become more and more stringent over time.

• States vary in their approaches to regulating CCW landfills. For example, Indiana's and
Pennsylvania's programs impose requirements tailored to the characteristics of the waste.
North Carolina may impose requirements based on site-specific modeling. Virginia's
requirements apply generically to all industrial wastes. Wisconsin may relax requirements
specifically for CCW landfills. In several of the states studied, CCWs may be disposed in
landfills that are "grandfathered" out of requirements imposing design requirements such as
liners.

• Regulations in many of the states studied do not impose specific design requirements on
surface impoundments that comanage CCWs. When these states impose requirements on
impoundments, they typically do so on a case-by-case basis through their water programs.

March 15,1999

2-11

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

3.0 NON-UTILITY COAL COMBUSTION WASTES

EPA regulates the management of solid and hazardous waste through Subtitles C and D of the federal
RCRA. Subtitle C of the RCRA establishes a "cradle-to-grave" management system for wastes that are
considered hazardous because they fail tests based on their physical and chemical characteristics (i.e.,
toxicity, corrosivity, ignitability, and reactivity) or because they are listed as hazardous by EPA. Federal
regulations establish stringent environmental and administrative controls that must be applied to
management of these wastes. Non-utility CCWs are currently exempt from federal regulation as hazardous
waste under Subtitle C pending this Report to Congress and the subsequent regulatory determination.
Therefore, these wastes are subject to the requirements of Subtitle D of RCRA as nonhazardous solid
waste.

3.1 NATIONWIDE CHARACTERIZATION OF STATE REGULATIONS

Implementation of Subtitle D is the responsibility of individual states, but nothing prevents states from
imposing more stringent requirements (including hazardous waste requirements) on FFC wastes.

Currently, 44 states (representing 87 percent of non-utility coal-fired generating capacity) duplicate the
federal policy exempting CCWs from hazardous waste regulations. The other six states (Kentucky,
Tennessee, Washington, New Jersey, Maine, and California) do not exempt CCWs from hazardous waste
regulation. In these states, non-utility CCWs that fail the hazardous waste characteristic tests are subject
to hazardous waste requirements. These wastes, therefore, must be managed in units that meet permitting,
design, operating, corrective action, and closure standards. EPA believes that these standards, because
they must be at least as stringent as the federal standards under RCRA Subtitle C, are sufficient to mitigate
risks from these wastes.

Based on available characterization data, however, non-utility CCWs rarely are expected to fail the
hazardous waste characteristic tests. Non-utility CCWs that do not fail the hazardous waste tests and/or
are generated in the 44 states that duplicate the federal exemption generally would be subject to less
stringent state requirements under Subtitle D. States generally regulate onsite waste management units that
handle only non-utility CCWs using the same regulatory approaches used for utility CCW management
units. They often regulate units, both onsite and offsite, that manage non-utility CCWs along with other
nonhazardous industrial wastes using their standard industrial Subtitle D programs. These programs are
expected to be essentially the same as those applicable to CCW-only management units. Detailed review of

March 15,1999

3-1

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

regulations in several states further confirms that states regulate non-utility CCWs under the same
programs as utility CCWs.

Table 3-1 shows data on state regulatory authority with respect to non-utility CCW landfills. These data
show that the majority of states have the authority to require permits and to impose physical controls and
monitoring requirements on non-utility landfills, at least on a case-by-case basis. The types of regulatory
controls include siting controls, liners, leachate collection systems, ground-water monitoring, closure
controls, daily (or other operational) cover, and fugitive dust controls. EPA believes that the use of such
controls has the potential to mitigate risks, particularly ground-water pathway risks, from comanaged
waste disposal. The sufficiency of this mitigation depends on the extent to which states are exercising their
authority in situations in which climate, geology, site-specific conditions, and waste characteristics justify
it.

Table 3-1. State Regulatory Controls on Non-Utility CCW Landfills



Number of Statesb

Percent of States0

Percent of Capacity11

Hazardous Waste Exemption3

43

86%

80%

Permit Onsite

41

82%

82%

Permit Offsite

48

96%

96%

Siting Controls

46

96%

89%

Liner

43

86%

88%

Leachate Collection

42

84%

81%

Ground-Water Monitoring

46

92%

90%

Closure

45

90%

94%

Cover and/or Dust Controls

49

98%

96%

a Exemption from state hazardous waste regulations for CCWs

b Number of states with authority to impose the indicated requirement, either by regulation or on a case-by-case basis
c Percent of surveyed states with authority

d Percent of surveyed generating capacity represented by states with authority
Sources: CI BO, 1997; ASTSWMO, 1995; EPA, 1995; ACAA, 1996

Data on the use of regulatory permits and environmental controls at non-utility waste management units
have been collected for the Remaining Waste Report to Congress. The available data suggest that states
have exercised their authority to impose controls, although perhaps to a lesser extent at non-utilities than at
utilities.

March 15,1999

3-2

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

3.2 CASE STUDIES OF STATE REGULATIONS

To further examine state implementation of solid waste requirements on non-utility CCWs, EPA examined
in greater detail the regulations applicable in five states: Indiana, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North
Carolina, and Virginia. These five states account for more than 20 percent of coal-fired non-utility
generating capacity.

Indiana

Indiana regulates non-utility CCWs the same as utility CCWs. The state classifies these and other
industrial wastes as restricted and has developed a specific regulatory program for these wastes. In most
cases, the chemical characteristics of restricted wastes must be analyzed using the TCLP prior to disposal.
The results of this analysis dictate the type of facility in which the waste may be disposed.

Indiana regulations classify restricted waste landfills into four categories: Type I, Type II, Type III, or
Type IV. Type I landfills are permitted to receive restricted wastes that leach the highest levels of
constituents of concern. TCLP analysis of CCWs disposed in Type I landfills is not required. Type II and
Type III landfills receive intermediate wastes that leach lower levels. Type IV landfills receive wastes that
leach the lowest levels of constituents of concern. In addition, restricted waste disposal facilities are
subject to design, operating, and closure requirements that vary in stringency according to their type. Table
3-2 describes the acceptable waste limitations and relevant requirements for each type of facility. Leachate
collection systems are not required but may be used in some cases to relax the liner thickness requirements.
Indiana's restricted waste requirements have been in effect since September, 1989; facilities that existed
prior to that date may continue to operate, but any expansions at these facilities must comply with the
newer regulations. Indiana regulates surface impoundments under a different set of requirements than
landfills, but impoundments are expected to be rare for non-utilities.

Indiana's requirements, when applied to landfills managing non-utility CCWs, impose controls tailored to
the characteristics of the individual waste streams managed. Based on available characterization data,
EPA expects non-utility CCWs would be amenable for disposal in Type III landfills, with Type I or II
disposal required in only a few cases. No data to examine the environmental controls employed are
available for specific non-utility management units in Indiana.

March 15,1999

3-3

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

Table 3-2. Indiana Restricted Waste Disposal Facility Requirements

Facility
Type

Acceptable Waste

Design, Operating, and Closure Requirements

Landfills

Type I

Any restricted waste

Clay liner (thickness of 10 feet or more depending on permeability of the
waste), siting restrictions, fugitive dust control, daily cover, soil erosion
control, ground-water monitoring, 2-foot clay cap at closure, revegetation at
closure

Type II

TCLP results less than 25 times
the federal MCL

Clay liner (thickness of 5 to 10 feet depending on permeability of the waste),
siting restrictions, fugitive dust control, daily cover, soil erosion control,
ground-water monitoring, 2-foot clay cap at closure, revegetation at closure

Type III

TCLP results less than 10 times
the federal MCL

Clay liner (thickness of 3 feet), siting restrictions, fugitive dust control, weekly
cover, soil erosion control, 2-foot clay cap at closure, revegetation at closure

Type IV

TCLP results at the federal MCL

Siting restrictions

Pennsylvania

Under Pennsylvania regulations, non-utility CCWs are exempt from regulation as hazardous waste.
Pennsylvania classifies these and other industrial wastes as residual, and has developed a specific
regulatory program for these wastes. Generators of residual waste must submit a bi-annual report to the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) describing the quantity and disposition of waste generated.
The chemical characteristics of residual wastes must be analyzed using the TCLP prior to disposal. The
results of this analysis dictate the type of facility in which the waste may be disposed.

Pennsylvania regulations classify residual waste landfills as Class I, II, or III. Class I facilities are
permitted to receive residual wastes that leach the highest levels of constituents of concern, while Class II
and III facilities receive wastes that leach lower levels. All classes of facility must be issued a permit by
the DEP. In addition, residual waste disposal facilities are subject to design, operating, and closure
requirements that vary in stringency according to their class. Table 3-3 describes the acceptable waste
limitations and relevant requirements for each class of facility. Pennsylvania regulates surface
impoundments similarly to landfills, but impoundments are expected to be rare for non-utilities.

The residual waste program described in Table 3-3 was promulgated on July 4, 1992. Units permitted
prior to that date were subject to a transition program under which they were required to modify their
operations to comply with the requirements by July 4, 1997. For these older units, DEP was allowed to
waive or modify the liner and leachate collection requirements if the operator could demonstrate that the

March 15,1999

3-4

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

unit had not caused unacceptable ground-water degradation or that remediation was under way to restore
ground-water quality to acceptable levels.

Table 3-3. Pennsylvania Residual Waste Disposal Facility Requirements

Facility
Type

Acceptable Waste

Design, Operating, and Closure Requirements

Landfills

Class I

Any nonhazardous waste

Two liners (at least one composite), leachate detection system, leachate
collection system, fugitive dust control, daily cover, soil erosion control,
ground-water monitoring, 2-foot clay cap at closure, revegetation at closure

Class II

TCLP results less than 50 times
the federal MCL

Composite liner, leachate detection system, leachate collection system,
fugitive dust control, daily cover, soil erosion control, ground-water
monitoring, 2-foot clay cap at closure, revegetation at closure

Class III

TCLP results less than 25 times
the federal MCL

4-foot attenuating soil base or 1 foot per 4 feet of waste, fugitive dust control,
daily cover, soil erosion control, ground-water monitoring, 2-foot clay cap at
closure, revegetation at closure

Pennsylvania's residual waste regulations, therefore, impose controls tailored to the characteristics of the
individual waste streams managed. Based on available characterization data, EPA expects non-utility
CCWs would be amenable for disposal in Class III landfills, with Class II disposal required in only a few
cases. No data are available for specific non-utility waste management units in Pennsylvania; however,
information in the state's Residual Waste Database, which summarizes generators' bi-annual reports,
suggests that the majority of non-utility CCWs in Pennsylvania are managed in offsite units. EPA expects
most of these units would be Class III landfills.

In addition to disposal in landfills and surface impoundments, Pennsylvania's residual waste regulations
also authorize the use of CCWs in minefills. These wastes may be used at mine sites as backfill, to
improve soil productivity, to neutralize mine spoil acidity, or to create a layer of low permeability in
backfilled spoil. These uses are subject to certification by the DEP. Certification requires that CCW meet
the TCLP limits for disposal at a Class III landfill. The DEP may grant a contingent certification on a
case-by-case basis if the waste exceeds the leachate concentration for aluminum, iron, manganese, sulfate,
or zinc. Certification also requires that CCW meet pH guidelines when used as backfill or soil additive,
have a minimum calcium carbonate content when used as a soil additive, and meet hydraulic conductivity
limits when used as a low permeability material. Certification is reevaluated every 6 months. DEP also
requires ground-water monitoring at minefills.

March 15,1999

3-5

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

Wisconsin

Wisconsin regulates non-utility CCWs the same as utility CCWs. Both are exempt from regulation as
hazardous wastes and are regulated as industrial solid waste under the state's solid waste management
program. The state requires permits for all onsite and offsite solid waste management facilities. All
landfills must meet specific design and operating requirements. Wisconsin regulates surface impoundments
under a different set of requirements than landfills, but impoundments are expected to be rare for non-
utilities.

New and expanded landfills for which the plan of operation was approved after July 1, 1996, must have
clay or composite liners and leachate collection systems. Clay liners are required to be at least 5-feet thick.
Composite liners must incorporate at least 4 feet of clay and a 60-mil geomembrane layer. All landfills are
required to control fugitive dust. Landfill closure must include the application of a 2-foot clay cap. Some
landfills are also required to apply a 40-mil geomembrane layer above the clay cap. Revegetation is
required at closure. Ground-water monitoring is required for all new and existing facilities whose plans of
operation were not approved prior to February 1, 1988. For facilities constructed prior to this date, the
state may require ground-water monitoring on a case-by-case basis. The current solid waste regulations
allow the state to modify the requirements for landfills designed to receive "high-volume" industrial waste,
specifically coal ash waste, on a case-by-case basis.

EPA has data on 18 non-utility CCW landfills in Wisconsin. All are state-permitted and conduct ground-
water monitoring. Eleven of the landfills are lined: seven with clay, one with high-density polyethelene
(HDPE) and clay, one with in-situ natural materials, one with silt, and one with unspecified material.
Eleven of the landfills have leachate collection systems. Fifteen of the 18 have either leachate collection, or
a liner, or both. Data are not available on the age of the units. The unlined landfills are expected to be
either older "grandfathered" units or units for which controls have been relaxed under Wisconsin's high-
volume industrial waste provisions.

March 15,1999

3-6

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

North Carolina

In North Carolina, non-utility CCWs, like utility CCWs, are exempt from regulation as hazardous waste
and are regulated as industrial solid waste. Separate regulatory programs apply to landfills and surface
impoundments managing these wastes. Because surface impoundments are expected to be rare for non-
utility CCWs, this discussion focuses on landfills.

Industrial solid waste landfills in North Carolina must obtain a permit from the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR). As part of the permit process, all industrial waste
landfills must demonstrate to DEHNR that their design will ensure that the state ground-water standards
are not exceeded at the compliance boundary. The design criteria for demonstrating this include a
composite liner, leachate collection system, and cap at closure. Alternatively, the operator may submit
ground-water modeling results that demonstrate, based on hydrologic and climatic conditions and waste
characteristics, that the standards will be met. Landfills operating prior to October 1, 1995 (when the state
began implementing these rules), are not "grandfathered." To continue operating after January 1, 1998,
these units had to submit information to demonstrate that their original designs or proposed design changes
would meet the ground-water standards. DEHNR has the authority to required design modifications if
ground-water modeling methods or results are inadequate.

EPA has data on 10 non-utility CCW landfills in North Carolina. All of these are state-permitted and
monitor ground water. One of the landfills is partially lined (expansion cells were lined whereas earlier
cells were not). The rest are unlined. Four have leachate collection systems and two do not. It was not
possible to determine whether leachate collection systems existed for the remaining four facilities. This
design information was current as of late 1996. To meet the current requirements, these landfills would
have had to demonstrate the adequacy of these designs, undertake design modifications, or cease operating.

DEHNR does not have specific requirements applicable to minefills. CCWs may be used for agricultural
purposes under the authority of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture.

Virginia

Under Virginia regulations, non-utility CCWs, like utility CCWs, are exempt from regulation as hazardous
waste. Regulations applicable to management of CCWs depend on the type of management unit. All
landfills managing nonhazardous solid waste must obtain a permit from the Department of Environmental

March 15,1999

3-7

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

Quality (DEQ). Surface impoundments are regulated under Virginia's water control law either by the DEQ
or the State Water Control Board, depending on their discharge status. However, because surface
impoundments are expected to be rare for non-utilities, the discussion here focuses on landfills.

The DEQ has separate programs for industrial landfills and sanitary landfills. While sanitary landfills
primarily manage household waste, they are allowed to receive nonhazardous industrial solid wastes, such
as CCWs. Non-utility CCWs frequently are sent offsite for disposal. In Virginia, the offsite units could be
either industrial or sanitary landfills. Onsite units would be expected to be industrial landfills.

Sanitary landfills must conduct ground-water monitoring and have leachate collection systems, run-on and
runoff controls, and a composite liner. They must install a cap at closure with a hydraulic conductivity less
than or equal to that of the bottom liner and conduct revegetation. Sanitary landfills must apply daily cover
and control fugitive dust. The regulations specify that air pollution control residues (such as fly ash)
should be incorporated into the working face of the landfill and periodically covered to prevent them from
becoming airborne.

Data are available for eight state permitted landfills receiving non-utility CCW in Virginia. These eight are
either onsite landfills or offsite captive landfills. Four of the eight landfills conduct ground-water
monitoring. As state permitted facilities, monitoring would be expected at the remaining four as well.

Three of the eight landfills are lined and have leachate collections systems. At least one of the other five
has a leachate collection system. Information was not available on environmental controls at the other
units. Specific controls expected at these units would depend on their age. At least three of the landfills
were permitted prior to 1988.

March 15,1999

3-8

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

3.3 FINDINGS

This analysis of existing regulatory controls on non-utility CCWs leads to the following conclusions:

• Most states regulate non-utility CCWs the same as utility CCWs. Forty-four states,
representing 87 percent of non-utility coal-fired generating capacity, exempt CCWs from
hazardous waste regulations. The majority of CCW, therefore, is regulated under state-led
RCRA Subtitle D waste management programs.

• The majority of states have the authority to require permits and to impose physical controls
and monitoring requirements on non-utility landfills, at least on a case-by-case basis.
Nationwide, current management practices suggest that states have exercised this authority,
although perhaps to a lesser degree for non-utilities than for utilities. However, regulatory
changes in the states studied in detail show that requirements have become increasingly
stringent over time.

• States vary in their approaches to regulating non-utility landfills. For example, Indiana's and
Pennsylvania's programs impose requirements tailored to the characteristics of the waste.
North Carolina may impose requirements based on site-specific modeling. Virginia's
requirements apply generically to all industrial wastes. Wisconsin may relax requirements
specifically for CCW landfills. In several of the states studied, CCWs may be disposed of in
landfills that are "grandfathered" out of requirements imposing design requirements such as
liners.

March 15,1999

3-9

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

4.0 FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION WASTES

Subtitle C of RCRA establishes a "cradle-to-grave" management system for wastes that are considered
hazardous because they fail tests based on their physical and chemical characteristics (i.e., toxicity,
corrosivity, ignitability, and reactivity) or because they are listed as hazardous by EPA. Federal
regulations establish stringent environmental and administrative controls that must be applied to
management of these wastes. Fluidized bed combustion (FBC) wastes are currently exempt from federal
regulation as hazardous waste under Subtitle C pending this Report to Congress and the subsequent
regulatory determination. Therefore, these wastes are subject to the requirements of Subtitle D of RCRA
as nonhazardous solid waste.

4.1 NATIONWIDE CHARACTERIZATION OF STATE REGULATIONS

Implementation of Subtitle D is the responsibility of individual states, but nothing prevents states from
imposing more stringent requirements (including hazardous waste requirements) on FBC wastes. FBC
units are located in 30 of the 50 states. EPA characterized the waste management requirements in 27 of
these 30 states using survey and other data sources1. All of these states regulate FBC wastes under the
same programs as CCWs from conventional combustion processes.

Currently, 24 of the 27 states for which data are available (representing 86 percent of the surveyed FBC
generating capacity and 78 percent of FBC capacity overall) duplicate the federal policy exempting CCWs
(including those from coal-fired FBC) from hazardous waste regulations. The other three states
(Washington, Maine, and California) do not exempt FBC wastes from hazardous waste regulation. In
these states, any FBC wastes that fail the hazardous waste characteristic tests would be subject to state
hazardous waste requirements and managed in units that meet permitting, design, operating, corrective
action, and closure standards. EPA believes that these standards, because they must be at least as stringent
as the Federal standards under RCRA Subtitle C, are sufficient to mitigate risks from these wastes.

1 Four states (Colorado, Florida, Georgia, and Pennsylvania) indicated in the CIBO survey that they
impose different requirements based on the combustion technology used. EPA supplemented the survey data with
specific information from its review of regulations in Pennsylvania. EPA did not collect specific data on FBC
waste requirements in the other three states. These three states account for less than 10 percent of FBC electrical
generating capacity.

March 15,1999

4-1

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

FBC wastes, however, rarely fail the hazardous waste characteristic tests. Therefore, the majority of FBC
wastes that do not fail the hazardous waste characteristic tests and/or are generated in the states that
duplicate the federal exemption generally would be subject to less stringent state requirements under
Subtitle D. Table 4-1 describes state regulatory authority with respect to FBC landfills in the 27 states for
which data are available. These data show that the majority of states have the authority to require permits
and to impose physical controls and monitoring requirements on FBC landfills, at least on a case-by-case
basis. The types of regulatory controls include siting controls, liners, leachate collection systems, ground-
water monitoring, closure controls, daily (or other operational) cover, and fugitive dust controls. EPA
believes that the use of such controls has the potential to mitigate risks, particularly ground-water pathway
risks, from FBC waste disposal. The sufficiency of this mitigation depends on the extent to which states
are exercising their authority in situations in which climate, geology, site-specific conditions, and waste
characteristics justify it.

Table 4-1. Current State Regulatory Controls on FBC Landfills



Number of States3

Percent of Statesb

Percent of Capacity0

Permit Onsite

23

85%

94%

Permit Offsite

27

100%

100%

Siting Controls

25

93%

96%

Liner

23

85%

91%

Leachate Collection

23

85%

95%

Ground-Water Monitoring

25

93%

97%

Closure

25

93%

94%

Cover and/or Dust Controls

27

100%

100%

Corrective Action

22

81%

96%

a Number of states with authority to impose the indicated requirement, either by regulation or on a case-by-case basis
b Percent of the 27 surveyed states with authority; for testing requirements, percent of 17 states providing information on these
requirements

c Percent of FBC generating capacity in the 27 surveyed states represented by states with authority
Sources: CIBO, 1997; ASTSWMO, 1995; ACAA, 1996

Data collected for the Remaining Waste Report to Congress show that most of the FBC waste landfills
surveyed are subject to regulatory permits and ground-water monitoring requirements and nearly all
incorporate dust suppression and run-on or runoff controls. Just more than half of those surveyed have
covers and leachate collection systems and just less than half are lined. These statistics suggest that states
have exercised their authority to impose control at FBC waste management units.

March 15,1999

4-2

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

4.2 CASE STUDIES OF STATE REGULATIONS

To further examine state implementation of solid waste requirements on FBC wastes, EPA examined in
greater detail the regulations applicable in two states: Pennsylvania and California. These two states are
ranked first and second in FBC generating capacity. Together, they account for more than 30 percent of
total U.S. FBC electrical generating capacity.

Pennsylvania

Under Pennsylvania regulations, FBC wastes are exempt from regulation as hazardous waste.
Pennsylvania classifies these and other industrial wastes as residual waste, and has developed a specific
regulatory program for these wastes. Generators of residual waste must submit a bi-annual report to the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) describing the quantity and disposition of waste generated.
The chemical characteristics of residual wastes must be analyzed using the TCLP prior to disposal. The
results of this analysis dictate the type of facility in which the waste may be disposed.

Pennsylvania regulations classify residual waste landfills as Class I, II, or III. Class I facilities are
permitted to receive residual wastes that leach the highest levels of constituents of concern, while Class II
and III facilities receive wastes that leach lower levels. All classes of facility must be issued a permit by
the DEP. In addition, residual waste disposal facilities are subject to design, operating, and closure
requirements that vary in stringency according to their class. Table 4-2 describes the acceptable waste
limitations and relevant requirements for each class of facility. Pennsylvania regulates surface
impoundments similarly to landfills, but impoundments are expected to be rare for FBC facilities.

The residual waste program described in Table 4-2 was promulgated on July 4, 1992. Units permitted
prior to that date were subject to a transition program under which they were required to modify their
operations to comply with the requirements by July 4, 1997. For these older units, DEP was allowed to
waive or modify the liner and leachate collection requirements if the operator could demonstrate that the
unit had not caused unacceptable ground-water degradation or that remediation was under way to restore
ground-water quality to acceptable levels.

Pennsylvania's residual waste regulations, therefore, impose controls tailored to the characteristics of the
individual waste streams managed. The available leachate data for FBC wastes indicate that these wastes

March 15,1999

4-3

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

Table 4-2. Pennsylvania Residual Waste Disposal Facility Requirements

Facility
Type

Acceptable Waste

Design, Operating, and Closure Requirements

Landfills

Class I

Any nonhazardous waste

Two liners (at least one composite), leachate detection system, leachate
collection system, fugitive dust control, daily cover, soil erosion control,
ground-water monitoring, 2-foot clay cap at closure, revegetation at closure

Class II

TCLP results less than 50 times
the federal MCL

Composite liner, leachate detection system, leachate collection system,
fugitive dust control, daily cover, soil erosion control, ground-water
monitoring, 2-foot clay cap at closure, revegetation at closure

Class III

TCLP results less than 25 times
the federal MCL

4-foot attenuating soil base or 1 foot per 4 feet of waste, fugitive dust control,
daily cover, soil erosion control, ground-water monitoring, 2-foot clay cap at
closure, revegetation at closure

rarely have leachate concentrations greater than 25 times the federal MCL. Samples from 4 percent of
sites (1 of 24) showed selenium concentrations between 25 and 50 times the MCL. Samples from an
additional 4 percent of sites (1 of 24) showed mercury concentrations greater than 50 times the MCL.
Assuming FBC wastes in Pennsylvania display similar characteristics, these wastes would be amenable for
disposal in Class III landfills, with Class I or Class II disposal required in only a few cases.

The CIBO survey includes one landfill in Pennsylvania. This unit opened in 1987 and has a state permit.
It conducts ground-water monitoring, dust suppression, compaction, and covering. The landfill has run-on/
runoff controls, a leachate collection system, and an in-situ clay liner. These controls suggest that the
landfill is either a Class III landfill or a Class I or II landfill for which the liner requirements have been
modified under the transition program. Thus, the one unit for which data are available appears to have
environmental controls consistent with the state's regulations.

In addition to disposal in landfills and surface impoundments, Pennsylvania's residual waste regulations
also authorize the use of FBC wastes in minefills. These wastes may be used at mine sites as backfill, to
improve soil productivity, to neutralize mine spoil acidity, or to create a layer of low permeability in
backfilled spoil. These uses are subject to certification by the DEP. Certification requires that the waste
meet the TCLP limits for disposal at a Class III landfill. The DEP may grant a contingent certification on
a case-by-case basis if the waste exceeds the leachate concentration for aluminum, iron, manganese,
sulfate, or zinc. Certification also requires that FBC waste meet pH guidelines when used as backfill or
soil additive, have a minimum calcium carbonate content when used as a soil additive, and meet hydraulic
conductivity limits when used as a low permeability material. Certification is re-evaluated every 6 months.

March 15,1999

4-4

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

DEP also requires ground-water monitoring at minefills. The CIBO survey identified four FBC minefills in
Pennsylvania. All four monitor ground water.

The regulations also authorize the use of FBC wastes as a soil substitute or soil additive. Such uses do not
require a permit or certification, but the user must notify the DEP. The wastes must meet pH guidelines
and the user must employ runoff and erosion controls. There also are siting limitations on such agricultural
uses.

California

California regulates FBC wastes the same as FFC wastes from conventional combustion processes. None
of these wastes are exempt from state hazardous waste requirements. Any FBC wastes that fail the
hazardous waste characteristic tests would be subject to state hazardous waste requirements and managed
in units that meet permitting, design, operating, corrective action, and closure standards. As discussed
above, however, FBC wastes rarely fail the hazardous waste characteristic tests. Therefore, this discussion
focuses on California's nonhazardous solid waste program.

The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) has implemented a tiered regulatory
structure for solid waste facilities. CIWMB's regulations establish the following five tiers, from the
highest level of regulation to the lowest: full, standardized, registration, enforcement agency notification,
and excluded. FBC wastes that are not hazardous may be disposed in "nonhazardous ash disposal/monofill
facilities," which CIWMB has placed in the standardized tier. Facilities in the standardized tier are
required to obtain a standardized permit and are subject to minimum operating standards. The
standardized permit requirements and operating standards for nonhazardous ash disposal/monofill facilities
include siting restrictions, control of windblown material, and drainage control. FBC wastes in California
also may be disposed in solid waste landfills in the full permit tier. California classifies these landfills as
Class I, Class II, or Class III. Information is not available on the differences in controls imposed on each
class.

The CIBO survey includes five FBC landfills in California. One of these did not provide any information
on environmental controls. Of the other four, one has both compacted clay and synthetic liners, one has a
bedrock liner, one has an in-situ clay liner, and one is unlined. Two of them, including the unlined landfill,
have leachate collection systems and run-on/runoff controls. The same two conduct dust suppression and

March 15,1999

4-5

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

monitor ground water. All five landfills have permits, but do not specify whether these are standardized or
full permits. The range of permit options available could explain the variation in environmental controls
employed.

Use of FBC waste in agricultural applications or mine reclamation projects is not subject to the regulatory
tiers established by CIWMB. Agricultural applications are subject to California Department of Food and
Agriculture requirements. Mine reclamation projects are subject to the requirements of the Office of Mine
Reclamation of the California Department of Conservation.

4.3 FINDINGS

This analysis of existing regulatory controls on FBC wastes leads to the following conclusions:

• Most states regulate FBC wastes the same as CCWs from conventional combustion
processes. At least 24 states, representing 78 percent of FBC generating capacity, exempt
FBC wastes from hazardous waste regulations. The majority of FBC waste, therefore, is
regulated under state-led RCRA Subtitle D waste management programs.

• The majority of states have the authority to require permits and to impose physical controls
and monitoring requirements on FBC waste landfills, at least on a case-by-case basis.
Nationwide, current management practices suggest that states have exercised this authority.

• The two states with the greatest FBC generating capacity both have industrial waste
regulations that impose requirements tailored to the characteristics of the waste. California,
however, allows generators of FBC wastes that do not test hazardous to utilize facilities in the
standardized regulatory tier. Nonhazardous FBC wastes disposed in these facilities are
subject to less stringent requirements, regardless of their characteristics.

March 15,1999

4-6

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

5.0 OIL COMBUSTION WASTES

EPA regulates the management of solid and hazardous waste through Subtitles C and D of the federal
RCRA. Subtitle C of the RCRA establishes a "cradle-to-grave" management system for wastes that are
considered hazardous because they fail tests based on their physical and chemical characteristics (i.e.,
toxicity, corrosivity, ignitability, and reactivity) or because they are listed as hazardous by EPA. Federal
regulations establish stringent environmental and administrative controls that must be applied to
management of these wastes. Oil Combustion Wastes (OCWs), whether generated at a utility or non-
utility, are currently exempt from federal regulation as hazardous waste under Subtitle C pending this
Report to Congress and the subsequent regulatory determination. Therefore, these wastes are currently
subject to the requirements of Subtitle D of RCRA as nonhazardous solid waste.

5.1 NATIONWIDE CHARACTERIZATION OF STATE REGULATIONS

Implementation of Subtitle D is the responsibility of individual states, but nothing prevents states from
imposing more stringent requirements (including hazardous waste requirements) on FFC wastes. Although
federal policy currently exempts OCW, like CCW, from Subtitle C regulation, state adoption of this
exemption is not as extensive for OCW as for CCW. Only 26 states extend the federal exemption to
OCW. These 26 states, however, represent more than 80 percent of oil-fired utility capacity. In the other
states, any OCWs that fail the hazardous waste characteristic tests would be subject to state hazardous
waste requirements and managed in units that meet permitting, design, operating, corrective action, and
closure standards. EPA believes that these standards, because they must be at least as stringent as the
federal standards under RCRA Subtitle C, are sufficient to mitigate risks from these wastes.

OCWs fail the hazardous waste characteristic tests only infrequently. Therefore, the majority of OCWs
that do not fail the hazardous waste characteristic tests and/or are generated in the states that duplicate the
federal exemption generally would be subject to less stringent state requirements under Subtitle D.

5.2 CASE STUDIES OF STATE REGULATIONS

In the CIBO survey, 20 states (accounting for 60 percent of oil-fired utility capacity) indicated that their
waste management requirements for OCWs differed from those for CCWs. To characterize these differing
requirements, EPA examined solid waste regulations pertaining to OCWs in four states: Florida, New

March 15,1999

5-1

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. These states account for more than half of the oil-fired utility
electric generating capacity.

Florida

Under Florida regulations, OCWs are exempt from regulation as hazardous waste and must be managed as
nonhazardous solid waste. Nonhazardous solid waste landfills in Florida must be permitted by the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Landfills must not cause ground-water or surface water
quality to exceed minimum standards outside a specified zone of discharge. To assure this, these units are
subject to specific design, operating, and closure requirements. These include composite or double liners,
leachate collection systems, run-on/runoff controls, ground-water monitoring, a cap including a
geomembrane layer at closure, and revegetation at closure. The DEP may impose more stringent
requirements as necessary due to site-specific conditions and types of waste disposed. Landfills
constructed before July 6, 1993, however, are exempt from the liner, leachate collection, and run-on/runoff
control requirements.

Florida's nonhazardous solid waste regulations do not impose any specific design requirements on surface
impoundments managing OCW or other solid wastes. All surface impoundments require an industrial
wastewater permit. Under these regulations, surface impoundments may be permitted to discharge to
ground water, as long as they do not cause ground-water quality to exceed minimum standards outside a
specified zone of discharge.

In addition to solid waste regulations, utilities (including oil-fired utilities) in Florida with generating
capacity of 75 megawatts or greater are subject to the Power Plant Siting Act. Under the Act and its
implementing regulations, electric power generating facilities must receive a certification to construct and
operate from the Siting Board, which is composed of the Governor and Cabinet of Florida. The DEP is the
lead agency for reviewing and evaluating Site Certification Applications. Several other state agencies
participate in the review process, including the Department of Community Affairs, Public Service
Commission, Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, regional Water Management District, Regional
Planning Councils, and local governments. The review process effectively creates a one-stop process in
which all required permits are processed concurrently to the greatest extent possible.

March 15,1999

5-2

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

The Power Plant Siting Act review process explicitly includes consideration of ash generation and the
impacts of onsite solid waste management. This includes consideration of natural or manmade liners and
leachate and runoff controls. The granting of certification can be subject to restrictions and requirements
on any aspect of operation, including solid waste management.

Discussions with Florida DEP staff indicate that, in practice, the combination of solid waste and power
plant siting regulations has not resulted in any permit requirements specifically tailored to the onsite
management of oil ash. This is because the waste is produced in such "minimal quantities" that it is not
specifically addressed in the permits. Of the oil-fired utilities in Florida for which specific waste
management data are available, eight manage fly ash in onsite settling basins. At three facilities, these
basins are HDPE lined and at one facility they are concrete lined. At the other four facilities, the settling
basins are unlined and have state permits that allow discharge to ground water provided the minimum
standards are met (i.e., these facilities operate percolation basins). One facility disposes of both fly ash and
bottom ash in a dry, unlined ash basin. One facility sometimes stabilizes solids removed from the settling
basins with cement and places them on an ash pad with an asphalt cover and vegetated sides. Thus, onsite
management units in Florida incorporate varying degrees of physical controls.

Eight of the utilities send bottom ash and solids removed from the settling basins to offsite landfills when
vanadium recovery is not economically feasible. All of these landfills are state-permitted solid waste
facilities. As state-permitted facilities, the environmental controls required in these landfills would vary
depending on their age. At a minimum, they would include ground-water monitoring and closure
requirements.

New York

Under New York regulations, OCWs are exempt from regulation as hazardous waste. New York's
nonhazardous solid waste regulatory program requires that all solid waste management facilities obtain a
permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The DEC has separate programs for
landfills that accept mixed solid waste (including municipal solid waste landfills) and industrial or
commercial waste monofills.

Mixed solid waste landfills must have two composite liners and leachate collection systems. Units
permitted prior to October 9, 1993, however, are not required to retrofit liners or leachate collection

March 15,1999

5-3

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

systems, except when the facilities are expanded. All units are subject to ground-water monitoring and
daily cover requirements. Lined landfills must install a composite cover at closure and conduct
revegetation. Unlined landfills may have a low permeability soil or single geomembrane cover. There are
no restrictions on disposing of OCWs in mixed solid waste landfills. Industrial and commercial waste
monofills are subject to similar requirements as those for mixed solid waste landfills; however, the DEC
may impose additional or less stringent requirements based on the volume and characteristics of the waste.
In practice, single composite liners have typically been required for these monofills. New York's
nonhazardous solid waste regulations do not impose any specific design requirements on surface
impoundments managing OCW.

One of the oil-fired utilities in New York for which specific waste management data are available sluices
fly ash and bottom ash to a concrete-lined bunker that was formerly used to hold gas. No solids are
removed from this unit. The other two facilities manage fly ash in HDPE-lined settling basins. Solids from
the basins and bottom ash are sent to offsite state-permitted landfills. As state-permitted facilities, the
environmental controls required in these landfills would vary depending on their age.

Massachusetts

OCWs are categorically exempt from Massachusetts hazardous waste regulations; however, specifically
because of concerns about vanadium in oil ash, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) has developed an interim policy placing conditions on the disposal of OCWs. The policy has been
in place since 1983 and applies specifically to oil ash from utilities. Coal and oil ash mixtures from
utilities and OCWs from non-utilities are subject to the policy on a case-by-case basis.

Under the interim policy, disposal of oil ash is subject to written approval from the DEP. The waste may
be disposed only at landfills with lined active disposal areas and leachate collection systems. It must be
delivered damp to control fugitive dust and must be covered daily to prevent fugitive vanadium emissions.
When landfilled according to the policy, OCWs may be handled similarly to residential refuse. They are
not considered "special wastes," which, under Massachusetts regulations, are nonhazardous wastes that
require particular management controls to prevent adverse impact. Massachusetts does not impose any
specific design requirements on surface impoundments that manage OCWs.

March 15,1999

5-4

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

Specific waste disposal data are available for two oil-fired utilities in Massachusetts. (A third facility
sends its waste offsite for vanadium recovery and is, therefore, not subject to the interim policy.) Oil
bottom ash at one of the facilities is managed in a pond with ash from coal-fired units at the plant. Fly ash
is sent to a different series of settling basins for fly ash, with the first basin being concrete-lined and the
others HDPE-lined. The facility has a state permit for discharge to ground water from the basins. Solids
from the fly ash basins are placed in an onsite landfill. The landfill is state-permitted and its active cells
have double HDPE liners, leak detection, and leachate collection systems. At least 1 foot of standing water
is maintained in the active cells to control fugitive dust. Thus, the landfill has controls consistent with the
interim policy. The second facility manages fly ash in unlined settling basins. Solids from the basins and
bottom ash are sent to an offsite state-permitted landfill. As a state-permitted facility, EPA expects this
landfill would be required to meet the requirements of the interim policy.

Pennsylvania

Under Pennsylvania regulations, OCWs are exempt from regulation as hazardous waste. Pennsylvania
classifies these and other industrial wastes as residual waste, and has developed a specific regulatory
program for these wastes. Generators of residual waste must submit a bi-annual report to the Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP) describing the quantity and disposition of waste generated. The
chemical characteristics of residual wastes must be analyzed using the TCLP prior to disposal. The results
of this analysis dictate the type of facility in which the waste may be disposed.

Table 5-1 describes the acceptable waste limitations and relevant requirements for each class of facility.
Storage impoundments (those that store waste for less than 1 year), which are expected to be common at
oil-fired utilities, are subject to design, operating, and closure requirements that are essentially the same as
those for disposal impoundments.

The residual waste program described in Table 5-1 was promulgated on July 4, 1992. Units permitted
prior to that date were subject to a transition program under which they were required to modify their

March 15,1999

5-5

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

operations to comply with the requirements by July 4, 1997. For these older units, DEP was allowed to
waive or modify the liner and leachate collection requirements if the operator could demonstrate that the
unit had not caused unacceptable ground-water degradation or that remediation was under way to restore
ground-water quality to acceptable levels.

Table 5-1. Pennsylvania Residual Waste Disposal Facility Requirements

Facility
Type

Acceptable Waste

Design, Operating, and Closure Requirements

Landfills

Class I

Any nonhazardous waste

Two liners (at least one composite), leachate detection system, leachate
collection system, fugitive dust control, daily cover, soil erosion control,
ground-water monitoring, 2-foot clay cap at closure, revegetation at closure

Class II

TCLP results less than 50 times
the federal MCL

Composite liner, leachate detection system, leachate collection system,
fugitive dust control, daily cover, soil erosion control, ground-water
monitoring, 2-foot clay cap at closure, revegetation at closure

Class III

TCLP results less than 25 times
the federal MCL

4-foot attenuating soil base or 1 foot per 4 feet of waste, fugitive dust
control, daily cover, soil erosion control, ground-water monitoring, 2-foot
clay cap at closure, revegetation at closure

Surface Impoundments

Class I

Any nonhazardous waste

Two liners (at least one composite), leachate detection system, leachate
collection system, minimum freeboard requirements, structural integrity
requirements, ground-water monitoring, 2-foot clay cap at closure,
revegetation at closure

Class II

TCLP results less than 50 times
the federal MCL

Composite liner, leachate detection system, leachate collection system,
minimum freeboard requirements, structural integrity requirements, ground-
water monitoring, 2-foot clay cap at closure, revegetation at closure

Pennsylvania's residual waste regulations, therefore, impose controls tailored to the characteristics of the
individual waste streams managed. The available leachate data for OCWs indicate that these wastes
sometimes have leachate concentrations greater than 25 times the federal MCL. Samples from 17 percent
of sites (7 of 40) showed concentrations of at least one constituent between 25 and 50 times the MCL.
Samples from an additional 22 percent of sites (9 more of the 40) showed concentrations of at least one
constituent greater than 50 times the MCL. Assuming OCWs in Pennsylvania display similar
characteristics, these wastes would sometimes require management in Class I or Class II units, with Class
III management allowed for waste from about 60 percent of sites. No data to examine the environmental
controls employed are available for specific OCW management units in Pennsylvania.

March 15,1999

5-6

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

5.3 FINDINGS

This analysis of existing regulatory controls on OCWs leads to the following conclusions:

•	Twenty-six states, representing approximately 80 percent of oil-fired utility generating
capacity, exempt OCW from hazardous waste regulations. The majority of OCW, therefore,
is regulated under state-led RCRA Subtitle D waste management programs.

•	States have varied in their application of solid waste management requirements to OCW
landfills. For example, Pennsylvania's program imposes requirements tailored to the
characteristics of the waste. Massachusetts' interim policy specifically addresses concerns
over vanadium in OCWs. Other states' programs (e.g., Florida and New York) apply
generically to industrial wastes. In these states, OCWs may be disposed in landfills that are
"grandfathered" out of requirements imposing design requirements such as liners.

•	Regulations in three of the four states studied do not impose specific design requirements on
surface impoundments that are commonly used to store OCWs. Two of these states permit
discharges to ground water from these units.

March 15,1999

5-7

-------
Existing State Regulatory Controls

6.0 REFERENCES

ACAA (American Coal Ash Association). 1996. State-by-State Summaries of Solid Waste Regulations.

ASTSWMO (Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials). 1995.

Non-municipal, Subtitle D Survey.

CIBO (Council of Industrial Boiler Owners). 1997. CIBO Survey of State Waste Management Controls.

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 1997. The Effects of Title IV of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of1990 on Electric Utilities: An Update.

EIA. 1998. Annual Energy Outlook 1999.

EPA (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.

EPA. 1995. State Requirements for Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste Management Facilities.

EPA. 1996. Preliminary Data Summary for the Steam Electric Point Source Category.

EPA-821 -R-96-010.

EPA. 1998. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Particulate Matter and Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Proposed Regional Haze Rule.

USWAG (Utility Solid Waste Activities Group). 1983. Survey of State Laws and Regulations Governing
Disposal of Utility Coal-Combustion Byproducts.

March 15,1999

6-1

-------