[Federal Register: May 22, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 99)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32213-32237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22my00-22]
[[Page 32213]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 261
Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels;
Final Rule
[[Page 32214]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[FRL-6588-1]
RIN 2050-AD91
Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes From the Combustion
of Fossil Fuels
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Regulatory determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document explains EPA's determination of whether
regulation of fossil fuel combustion wastes is warranted under subtitle
C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Today's action
applies to all remaining fossil fuel combustion wastes other than high
volume coal combustion wastes generated at electric utilities and
independent power producing facilities and managed separately, which
were addressed by a 1993 regulatory determination. These include:
Large-volume coal combustion wastes generated at electric utility and
independent power producing facilities that are co-managed together
with certain other coal combustion wastes; coal combustion wastes
generated by non-utilities; coal combustion wastes generated at
facilities with fluidized bed combustion technology; petroleum coke
combustion wastes; wastes from the combustion of mixtures of coal and
other fuels (i.e., co-burning); wastes from the combustion of oil; and
wastes from the combustion of natural gas.
The Agency has concluded these wastes do not warrant regulation
under subtitle C of RCRA and is retaining the hazardous waste exemption
under RCRA section 3001(b)(3)(C). However, EPA has also determined
national regulations under subtitle D of RCRA are warranted for coal
combustion wastes when they are disposed in landfills or surface
impoundments, and that regulations under subtitle D of RCRA (and/or
possibly modifications to existing regulations established under
authority of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA))
are warranted when these wastes are used to fill surface or underground
mines.
So that coal combustion wastes are consistently regulated across
all waste management scenarios, the Agency also intends to make these
national regulations for disposal in surface impoundments and landfills
and minefilling applicable to coal combustion wastes generated at
electric utility and independent power producing facilities that are
not co-managed with low volume wastes,.
The Agency has concluded that no additional regulations are
warranted for coal combustion wastes that are used beneficially (other
than for minefilling) and for oil and gas combustion wastes. We do not
wish to place any unnecessary barriers on the beneficial use of fossil
fuel combustion wastes so that they can be used in applications that
conserve natural resources and reduce disposal costs. Currently, about
one-quarter of all coal combustion wastes are diverted to beneficial
uses. We support increases in these beneficial uses, such as for
additions to cement and concrete products, waste stabilization and use
in construction products such as wallboard.
DATES: Comments in response to data and information requests in this
document are due to EPA on September 19, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Public comments and supporting materials are available for
viewing in the RCRA Information Center (RIC). In addition to the data
and information that was included in the docket to support the RTC on
FFC waste and the Technical Background Documents, the docket also
includes the following document: Responses to Public Comments on the
Report To Congress, Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels. The RIC
is located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA. The Docket Identification Number is F-2000-
FF2F-FFFFF. The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review docket materials, we
recommend that the public make an appointment by calling 703 603-9230.
The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket
at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/page. The index and some
supporting materials are available electronically. See the
Supplementary Information section for information on accessing them.
Commenters must send an original and two copies of their comments
referencing docket number F-2000-FF2F-FFFFF to: (1) If using regular US
Postal Service mail: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid
Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA,
HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460-0002; or (2) if using special delivery, such as overnight express
service: RCRA Docket Information Center (RIC), Crystal Gateway One,
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, VA 22202.
Comments may also be submitted electronically through the Internet to:
rcra-docket@epa.gov. Comments in electronic format should also be
identified by the docket number F-2000-FF2F-FFFFF and must be submitted
as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of
encryption.
Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential
business information (CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be
submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer,
Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline at 800 424-9346 or TDD 800 553-7672 (hearing impaired). In
the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call 703 412-9810 or TDD 703
412-3323.
For more detailed information on specific aspects of this
regulatory determination, contact Dennis Ruddy, Office of Solid Waste
(5306W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460-0002, telephone
(703) 308-8430, e-mail address ruddy.dennis@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The index and several of the primary
supporting materials are available on the Internet. You can find these
materials at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/fossil/index.htm.
The official record for this action will be kept in paper form.
Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically
into paper form and place them in the official record, which will also
include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record
is the paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at the
beginning of this notice.
EPA will not immediately reply to commenters electronically other
than to seek clarification of electronic comments that may be garbled
in transmission or during conversion to paper form, as discussed above.
The contents of today's notice are listed in the following outline:
1. General Information
A. What action is EPA taking today?
B. What is the statutory authority for this action?
C. What was the process EPA used in making today's decision?
D. What is the significance of ``uniquely associated wastes''
and what wastes does EPA consider to be uniquely associated wastes?
[[Page 32215]]
E. Who is affected by today's action and how are they affected?
F. What additional actions will EPA take after this regulatory
determination regarding coal, oil and natural gas combustion wastes?
2. What Is the Basis for EPA's Regulatory Determination for Coal
Combustion Wastes?
A. What is the Agency's decision regarding the regulatory status
of coal combustion wastes and why did EPA make that decision?
B. What were EPA's tentative decisions as presented in the
Report to Congress?
C. How did commenters react to EPA's tentative decisions and
what was EPA's analysis of their comments?
D. What is the basis for today's decisions?
E. What approach will EPA take in developing national
regulations?
3. What Is the Basis for EPA's Regulatory Determination for Oil
Combustion Wastes?
A. What is the Agency's decision regarding the regulatory status
of oil combustion wastes and why did EPA make that decision?
B. What were EPA's tentative decisions as presented in the
Report to Congress?
C. How did commenters react to EPA's tentative decisions and
what was EPA's analysis of their comments?
D. What is the basis for today's decisions?
4. What Is the Basis for EPA's Regulatory Determination for Natural Gas
Combustion Wastes?
A. What is the Agency's decision regarding the regulatory status
of natural gas combustion wastes and why did EPA make that decision?
B. What was EPA's tentative decision as presented in the Report
to Congress?
C. How did commenters react to EPA's tentative decisions?
D. What is the basis for today's decisions?
5. What Is the History of EPA's Regulatory Determinations for Fossil
Fuel Combustion Wastes?
A. On what basis is EPA required to make regulatory decisions
regarding the regulatory status of fossil fuel combustion wastes?
B. What was EPA's general approach in making these regulatory
determinations?
C. What happened when EPA failed to issue its determination of
the regulatory status of the large volume utility combustion wastes
in a timely manner?
D. When was the Part 1 regulatory decision made and what were
EPA's findings?
6. Executive Orders and Laws Addressed in Today's Action
A. Executive Order 12866--Determination of Significance.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (Information Collection Requests).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism.
F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995.
I. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice.
J. Congressional Review Act.
7. How To Obtain more Information
1. General Information
A. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
In today's action, we are determining that regulation of fossil
fuel combustion (FFC) wastes under subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is not warranted. This
determination covers the following wastes:
<bullet> Large-volume coal combustion wastes generated at electric
utility and independent power producing facilities that are co-managed
together with certain other coal combustion wastes;
<bullet> Coal combustion wastes generated at non-utilities;
<bullet> Coal combustion wastes generated at facilities with
fluidized bed combustion technology;
<bullet> Petroleum coke combustion wastes;
<bullet> Wastes from the combustion of mixtures of coal and other
fuels (i.e., co-burning of coal with other fuels where coal is at least
50% of the total fuel); <bullet> Wastes from the combustion of oil; and
<bullet> Wastes from the combustion of natural gas.
While these wastes remain exempt from subtitle C, we have further
decided to establish national regulations under subtitle D of RCRA
(RCRA sections 1008(a) and 4004(a)) for coal combustion wastes that are
disposed in landfills or surface impoundments or used to fill surface
or underground mines. For coal combustion wastes used as minefill, we
will consult with the Office of Surface Mining in the Department of the
Interior and thoroughly assess whether equivalent protectiveness could
be achieved by using regulatory authorities available under the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), as well as those afforded
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. We will consider
whether RCRA subtitle D or SMCRA authorities or some combination of
both are most appropriate to regulate the disposal of coal combustion
wastes when used for minefill in surface and underground mines to
ensure protection of human health and the environment. These standards
will be developed through notice and comment rulemaking and in
consultation with states and other stakeholders. These regulations
will, in EPA's view, ensure that the trend towards improved management
of coal combustion wastes over recent years will accelerate and will
ensure a consistent level of protection of human health and the
environment is put in place across the United States.
If, as a result of comments in response to this notice; the
forthcoming analyses identified in this notice; or additional
information garnered in the course of developing these national
regulations; we find that there is a need for regulation under the
authority of RCRA subtitle C, the Agency will revise this determination
accordingly.
We recognize our decision to develop regulations under RCRA
subtitle D (or, for minefilling, possibly under SMCRA) for the above-
listed coal combustion wastes was not specifically identified as an
option in our March 31, 1999 Report to Congress. Our final
determination reflects our consideration of public comments received on
the Report to Congress and other analyses that we conducted.
Today's decision was, in the Agency's view, a difficult one, given
the many competing considerations discussed throughout today's notice.
After considering all of the factors specified in RCRA section 8002(n),
we have decided as discussed further below, that the decisive factors
are the trends in present disposal and utilization practices (section
8002 (n)(2)), the current and potential utilization of the wastes
(Section 8002 (n)(8), and the admonition against duplication of efforts
by other federal and state agencies.
As described in the Report to Congress, the utility industry has
made significant improvements in its waste management practices over
recent years, and most state regulatory programs are similarly
improving. For example, in the utility industry the use of liners and
groundwater monitoring at landfills and surface impoundments has
increased substantially over the past 15 years as indicated in the
following table.
[[Page 32216]]
Percent of Utility Coal Combustion Waste Management Units With Controls in 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liners Groundwater monitoring
-------------------------------------------------------
Waste management unit Percent of Percent of Percent of Percent of
all units new units * all units new units *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Landfills............................................... 57 75 85 88
Surface Impoundments.................................... 26 60 38 65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* New units constructed between 1985-1995.
Source: USWAG, EPRI 1995.
Public comments and other analyses, however, have convinced us that
these wastes could pose risks to human health and the environment if
not properly managed, and there is sufficient evidence that adequate
controls may not be in place--for example, while most states can now
require newer units to include liners and groundwater monitoring, 62%
of existing utility surface impoundments do not have groundwater
monitoring. This, in our view, justifies the development of national
regulations. We note, however, that some waste management units may not
warrant liners and/or groundwater monitoring, depending on site-
specific characteristics.
New information we received in public comments includes additional
documented damage cases, as well as cases indicating at least a
potential for damage to human health and the environment. We did not
independently investigate these damage cases; rather, we relied on
information contained in state files. While the absolute number of
documented damage cases is not large, we have considered the evidence
of proven and potential damage in light of the proportion of facilities
that lack basic environmental controls (e.g., groundwater monitoring).
We acknowledge, moreover, that our inquiry into the existence of damage
cases was focused primarily on a subset of states--albeit states that
account for almost 20 percent of coal fired utility electricity
generation capacity. Given the volume of coal combustion wastes
generated nationwide (115 million tons) and the numbers of facilities
that currently lack some basic environmental controls, especially
groundwater monitoring, other cases of proven and potential damage are
likely to exist. Because EPA did not use a statistical sampling
methodology to evaluate the potential for damage, the Agency is unable
to determine whether the identified cases are representative of the
conditions at all facilities and, therefore, cannot quantify the extent
and magnitude of damages at the national level.
Since the Report to Congress, we have conducted additional analyses
of the potential for the constituents of coal combustion wastes to
leach in dangerous levels into ground water. Based on a comparison of
drinking water and other appropriate standards to leach test data from
coal combustion waste samples, we identified a potential for risks from
arsenic that we cannot dismiss at this time. This conclusion is based
on possible exceedences of a range of values that EPA is currently
considering for a revised arsenic MCL. Once a new arsenic MCL is
established, additional groundwater modeling may be required to
evaluate the likelihood of exceeding that MCL.
As discussed further below, in light of certain comments received
on the Report to Congress, we are not relying on a quantitative
groundwater risk assessment to assess potential risks to human health
or the environment. In the absence of a more complete groundwater risk
assessment, we are unable at this time to draw quantitative conclusions
regarding the risks due to arsenic or other contaminants posed by
improper waste management. Once we have completed a review of our
groundwater model and made any necessary changes, we will reevaluate
groundwater risks and take appropriate regulatory actions. We will
specifically assess new modeling results as they relate to any
promulgated changes in the arsenic MCL.
We acknowledge that, even without federal regulatory action, many
facilities in the utility industry have either voluntarily instituted
adequate environmental controls or have done so at the direction of
states that regulate these facilities. In addition, we found that for
the proven damage cases, the states (and in two cases, EPA under the
Superfund program) have taken action to mitigate risk and require
corrective action. However, in light of the evidence of actual and
potential environmental releases of metals from these wastes; the large
volume of wastes generated from coal combustion; the proportion of
existing and even newer units that do not currently have basic controls
in place; and the presence of hazardous constituents in these wastes;
we believe, on balance, that the best means of ensuring that adequate
controls are imposed where needed is to develop national subtitle D
regulations. As we develop and issue the national regulations, we will
try to minimize disruptions to operation of existing waste management
units.
In taking today's action, we carefully considered whether to
develop national regulations under RCRA subtitle D or subtitle C
authorities. One approach we considered was to promulgate regulations
pursuant to subtitle C authority, similar to recently proposed
regulations applicable to cement kiln dust. Under this approach, EPA
would have established national management standards for coal
combustion wastes managed in landfills and surface impoundments and
used for minefilling, as well as a set of tailored subtitle C
requirements, promulgated pursuant to RCRA section 3004(x). If wastes
were properly managed in accordance with subtitle D-like standards,
they would not be classified as a hazardous waste. If wastes were not
properly managed, they would become listed hazardous wastes subject to
tailored subtitle C standards. This approach would give EPA enforcement
authority in states following their adoption of the contingent
management listing.
We believe, however, for the reasons described below, the better
approach at this time to ensuring adequate management of FFC wastes is
to develop national regulations under subtitle D rather than subtitle
C. EPA has reached this conclusion in large part based on consideration
of ``present disposal and utilization practices.'' RCRA Sec. 8002(n).
As noted above, present disposal practices in landfills and surface
impoundments are significantly better than they have been in the past
in terms of imposing basic environmental controls such as liners and
groundwater monitoring. This trend is the result of increasing
regulatory oversight by states of the management of these wastes as
well as voluntary industry improvements. In the 1980's, only 11
[[Page 32217]]
states had authority to require facilities to install liners, and 28
states had the authority to require facilities to conduct groundwater
monitoring at landfills. As of 1995, these rates were significantly
higher, with 43 states having the authority to require liners and 46
states having the authority to require groundwater monitoring at
landfills. When authority under state groundwater and drinking water
regulations are considered, some commenters have suggested that nearly
all states can address the management of these wastes. Thus, with the
exception of relatively few states, the regulatory infrastructure is
generally in place at the state level to ensure adequate management of
these wastes.
While the trend both in terms of state regulatory authorities and
the imposition of controls at these facilities has been positive,
between 40 and 70 percent of sites lacked controls such as liners and/
or groundwater monitoring as of 1995. This gap is of environmental
concern given the potential for risks posed by mismanagement of coal
combustion wastes in certain circumstances. Nonetheless, given most of
the states' current regulatory capabilities and the evidence that basic
controls are increasingly being put in place by the states and
facilities (see RCRA section 8002(n), which directs EPA to consider
actions of state and other federal agencies with a view to avoiding
duplication of effort), EPA believes that subtitle D controls will
provide sufficient clarity and incentive for states to close the
remaining gaps in coverage, and for facilities to ensure that their
wastes are managed properly.
For minefilling, although we have considerable concern about
certain current practices (e.g., placement directly into groundwater)
we have not yet identified a case where placement of coal wastes can be
determined to have actually caused increased damage to ground water. In
addition, there is a federal regulatory program--SMCRA--expressly
designed to address environmental risks associated with coal mines.
Finally, given that states have been diligent in expanding and
upgrading programs, as they have done for surface impoundments and
landfills, we believe they will be similarly responsive in addressing
environmental concerns arising from this emerging practice. In short,
we arrive at the same conclusions, for substantially the same reasons,
for this practice as we did for landfills and surface impoundments:
that subtitle D controls, or upgraded SMCRA controls or a combination
of the two, should provide sufficient clarity and incentive to ensure
proper handling of this waste. Having determined that subtitle C
regulation is not warranted for all other management practices, EPA
does not see a basis in the record for carving this one practice out
for separate regulatory treatment.
Once these regulations are effective, facilities would be subject
to citizen suits for any violation of the standards. If EPA were
addressing wastes that had not been addressed by the states (or the
federal government) in the past, or an industry with wide evidence of
irresponsible solid waste management practices, EPA may well conclude
that the additional incentives for improvement and compliance provided
by the subtitle C scheme--the threat of federal enforcement and the
stigma associated with improper management of RCRA subtitle C waste--
were necessary. But the record before us indicates that the structure
and the sanctions associated with a subtitle D approach (or a SMCRA
approach if EPA determines it is equivalent) should be sufficient.
We also see a potential downside to pursuing a subtitle C approach.
Section 8002(n)(8) directs us to consider, among other factors, ``the
current and potential utilization of such materials.'' Industry
commenters have indicated that they believe subjecting any coal
combustion wastes to a subtitle C regime would place a significant
stigma on these wastes, the most important effect being that it would
adversely impact beneficial reuse. As we understand it, the concern is
that, even though beneficially reused waste would not be hazardous
under the contemplated subtitle C approach, the link to subtitle C
would nonetheless tend to discourage purchase and re-use of the waste.
We do not wish to place any unnecessary barriers on the beneficial uses
of these wastes, because they conserve natural resources, reduce
disposal costs and reduce the total amount of waste destined for
disposal. States and industry have also expressed concern that
regulation under subtitle C could cause a halt in the use of coal
combustion wastes to reclaim abandoned and active mine sites. We
recognize that when done properly, minefilling can lead to substantial
environmental benefits. EPA believes the contingent management scheme
we discussed should diminish any stigma that might be associated with
the subtitle C link. Nonetheless, we acknowledge the possibility that
the approach could have unintended consequences. We would be
particularly concerned about any adverse effect on the beneficial re-
use market for these wastes because more than 23 percent (approximately
28 million tons) of the total coal combustion waste generated each year
is beneficially reused and an additional eight percent (nine million
tons) is used for minefilling. EPA believes that such reuse when
performed properly, is by far the environmentally preferable
destination for these wastes, including when minefilled. Normally,
concerns about stigma are not a deciding factor in EPA's decisions
under RCRA, given the central concern under the statute for protection
of human health and the environment. However, given our conclusion that
the subtitle D approach here should be fully effective in protecting
human health and the environment, and given the large and salutary role
that beneficial reuse plays for this waste, concern over stigma is a
factor supporting our decision today that subtitle C regulation is
unwarranted in light of our decision to pursue a subtitle D approach.
Additionally, in a 1993 regulatory determination, EPA previously
addressed large volume coal combustion wastes generated at electric
utility and independent power producing facilities that manage the
wastes separately from certain other low volume and uniquely associated
coal combustion wastes (see 58 FR 42466; August 9, 1993). Our 1993
regulatory determination maintained the exemption of these large volume
coal combustion wastes from being regulated as hazardous wastes when
managed separately from other wastes (e.g., in monofills). We intend
that the national subtitle D regulations we develop for the coal
combustion wastes subject to today's regulatory determination will also
be applicable to the wastes covered in the 1993 regulatory
determination for the reasons listed below, so that all coal combustion
wastes are consistently regulated for placement in landfills, surface
impoundments, and minefills.
<bullet> The co-managed coal combustion wastes that we studied
extensively in making today's regulatory determination derive their
characteristics largely from these large-volume wastes and not from the
other wastes that are co-managed with them.
<bullet> We believe that the risks posed by the co-managed coal
combustion wastes result principally from the large-volume wastes.
<bullet> These large-volume coal combustion wastes, account for
over 20% of coal combustion wastes.
As we proceed with regulation development, we will also take
enforcement action under RCRA section 7003 when we identify cases of
imminent and substantial endangerment. We will also use Superfund
remedial and emergency
[[Page 32218]]
response authorities under the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liabilities Act (CERCLA), as appropriate, to address
damages that result in risk to human health and the environment.
However, as stated above, this decision was a difficult one and EPA
believes that, absent our conclusions regarding the current trends in
management of this waste, the waste might present sufficient potential
threat to human health and the environment to justify subtitle C
regulation. There are several factors that might cause us to rethink
our current determination. First, and perhaps most importantly, if
current trends toward protective management do not continue, EPA may
well determine that subtitle C regulation is warranted for this waste.
As we have stated, we do not believe the current gaps in the basic
controls are acceptable, and our determination that subtitle C
regulation is not warranted is premised to a large extent on our
conclusion that subtitle D regulation will be sufficient to close these
gaps. If this conclusion turns out not to be warranted, we would be
inclined to re-examine our current decision.
Second, EPA will continue to examine available information and, as
a result of the ongoing review, may conclude over the next several
months that this decision should be revised. Our ongoing review will
include consideration of: (1) The extent to which fossil fuel
combustion wastes have caused actual or potential damage to human
health or the environment; (2) the environmental effects of filling
underground and surface coal mines with fossil fuel combustion wastes;
and (3) the adequacy of existing state and/or federal regulation of
these wastes. Finally, the agency will consider the results of a report
of the National Academy of Sciences regarding the adverse human health
effects of mercury, one of the constituents in fossil fuel combustion
wastes. EPA believes that this report will enhance our understanding of
the risks due to exposure to mercury. All of these efforts may result
in a subsequent revision of today's regulatory determination.
Finally, relating to oil combustion wastes, we will work with
relevant stakeholders so that any necessary measures are taken to
ensure that oil combustion wastes currently managed in the two known
remaining unlined surface impoundments are managed in a manner that
protects human health and the environment.
B. What Is the Statutory Authority for This Action?
We are issuing today's notice under the authority of RCRA section
3001 (b) (3) (C), as amended. This section exempts certain wastes,
including fossil fuel combustion wastes, from hazardous waste
regulation until the Agency completes a Report to Congress mandated by
RCRA section 8002 (n) and maintains the exemption, unless the EPA
Administrator makes a determination that subtitle C (hazardous waste)
regulation is warranted. RCRA section 3004 (x) provides the Agency with
flexibility in developing subtitle C standards. If appropriate, these
formerly exempted wastes may not be subjected to full subtitle C
requirements in areas such as treatment standards, liner design
requirements and corrective action.
C. What Was the Process EPA Used in Making Today's Decision?
1. What Approach Did EPA Take to Studying Fossil Fuel Combustion
Wastes?
We conducted our study of wastes generated by the combustion of
fossil fuels in two phases. The first phase, called the Part 1
determination, covered high volume coal combustion wastes (e.g., bottom
ash and fly ash) generated at electric utility and independent power
producing facilities (non-utility electric power producers that are not
engaged in any other industrial activity) and managed separately from
other fossil fuel combustion wastes. In 1993, EPA issued a regulatory
determination that exempted Part 1 wastes from regulation as hazardous
wastes (see 58 FR 42466; August 9, 1993). Today's regulatory
determination is the second phase of our effort, or the Part 2
determination. It covers all other fossil fuel combustion wastes not
covered in Part 1. This includes high volume, utility-generated coal
combustion wastes when co-managed with certain low volume wastes that
are also generated by utility coal burners; coal combustion wastes
generated by industrial, non-utility, facilities; and wastes from the
combustion of oil and gas. Under court order, we are required to
complete the Part 2 regulatory determination by April 25, 2000. 1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The consent decree entered into by EPA (Frank Gearhart, et
al. v. Browner, et al., No. 91-2435 (D.D.C.) for completing the
studies and regulatory determination for fossil fuel combustion
wastes used the term ``remaining wastes'' to differentiate the
wastes to be covered in today's decision from the large-volume
utility coal combustion wastes that were covered in the August 1993
regulatory determination (see 58 FR 42466).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What Statutory Requirements Does EPA Have To Meet in Making Today's
Regulatory Determinations?
RCRA section 8002(n) specifies eight study factors that we must
take into account in our decision-making. These are:
1. The source and volumes of such materials generated per year.
2. Present disposal practices.
3. Potential danger, if any, to human health and the environment
from the disposal of such materials.
4. Documented cases in which danger to human health or the
environment has been proved.
5. Alternatives to current disposal methods.
6. The costs of such alternatives.
7. The impact of those alternatives on the use of natural
resources.
8. The current and potential utilization of such materials.
Additionally, in developing the Report to Congress, we are directed
to consider studies and other actions of other federal and State
agencies with a view toward avoiding duplication of effort (RCRA
section 8002(n)). In addition to considering the information contained
in the Report, EPA is required to base its regulatory determination on
information received in public hearings and comments submitted on the
Report to Congress (RCRA section 3001(b)(3)(C)).
3. What Were the Agency's Sources of Information and Data That Serve as
the Basis for This Decision?
We gathered publicly available information from a broad range of
sources, including federal and state agencies, industry trade groups,
environmental organizations, and open literature searches. We requested
information from all stakeholder groups on each of the study factors
Congress requires us to evaluate. For many of the study factors, very
limited information existed prior to this study. We worked closely with
the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Utility Solid Waste Activities
Group (USWAG), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and the
Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) as those organizations
developed new information. Because other ongoing EPA projects currently
focus on portions of the FFC waste generator universe, we also
leveraged data collection efforts conducted for air, industrial waste,
and hazardous waste programs. In addition, we obtained information from
environmental organizations regarding beneficial uses of some FFC
wastes and methods for characterizing the risks associated with FFC
wastes.
[[Page 32219]]
Specifically, we gathered and analyzed the following information
from industry, states and environmental groups:
<bullet> Published and unpublished materials obtained from state
and federal agencies, utilities and trade industry groups, and other
knowledgeable parties on the volumes and characteristics of coal, oil,
and natural gas combustion wastes and the corresponding low-volume and
uniquely associated wastes (see the following section for a description
of ``uniquely associated wastes'').
<bullet> Published and unpublished materials on waste management
practices (including co-disposal and re-use) associated with FFC wastes
and the corresponding low-volume and uniquely associated wastes.
<bullet> Published and unpublished materials on the potential
environmental impacts associated with FFC wastes.
<bullet> Published and unpublished materials on trends in utility
plant operations that may affect waste volumes and characteristics. We
gathered specific information on innovations in scrubber use and the
potential impacts of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments on waste volumes
and characteristics.
<bullet> Energy Information Agency (EIA), Department of Energy,
data on utility operations and waste generation obtained from EIA's
Form 767 database. These data are submitted to EIA annually by electric
utilities.
<bullet> Site visit reports and accompanying facility submittals
for utility and non-utility plants we visited during the study.
<bullet> Materials obtained from public files maintained by State
regulatory agencies. These materials focus on waste characterization,
waste management, and environmental monitoring data, along with
supporting background information.
We visited five states to gather specific information about state
regulatory programs, FFC waste generators, waste management practices
and candidate damage cases related to fossil fuel combustion. The five
states we examined in great detail were: Indiana, Pennsylvania, North
Carolina, Wisconsin, and Virginia. These five states account for almost
20 percent of coal-fired utility electrical generation capacity.
We also performed a variety of analyses, including human health and
ecological risk assessments, analyses of existing federal and state
regulatory programs, and economic impact analyses. We discussed and
shared these results with all of our stakeholders. We also conducted an
external peer review of our risk analysis.
4. What Process Did EPA Follow To Obtain Comments on the Report to
Congress?
RCRA requires that we publish a Report to Congress (RTC) evaluating
the above criteria. Further, within six months of submitting the
report, we must, after public hearings and opportunity for comment,
decide whether to retain the exemption from hazardous waste
requirements or whether regulation as hazardous waste is warranted. On
March 31, 1999, we issued the required RTC on those fossil fuel
combustion wastes (coal, oil and gas) not covered in the Part 1
regulatory determination, which are also known as the ``remaining
wastes'' (see footnote 1).
We asked the public to comment on the Report and the
appropriateness of regulating fossil fuel wastes under subtitle C of
RCRA. To ensure that all interested parties had an opportunity to
present their views, we held a public meeting with stakeholders on May
21, 1999. The April 28, 1999 Federal Register notice provided a 45-day
public comment period, until June 14, 1999. We received over 150
requests to extend the public comment period by up to six months.
However, we were obligated by a court-ordered deadline to issue our
official Regulatory Determination by October 1, 1999. (See 64 FR 31170;
June 10, 1999.) In response to requests for an extension, we entered
into discussions with the parties to consider an extension of the
comment period to ensure that all interested members of the public had
sufficient time to complete their review and submit comments.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs in Gearhart v. Reilly moved to modify the
consent decree to reopen the comment period and to allow EPA until
March 10, 2000 to complete the Regulatory Determination. We supported
the motion, and on September 2, 1999, the Court granted the motion. In
compliance with the court order, on September 20, 1999, we announced
that public comments would be accepted through September 24, 1999 (64
FR 50788; Sept. 20, 1999). We have since received two extensions to the
date for the final determination. Currently, EPA is directed to issue
the Part 2 regulatory determination by April 25, 2000.
We received about 220 comments on the RTC from the public hearing
and our Federal Register requests for comments. The docket for this
action (Docket No. F-99-FF2P-FFFFF) contains all individual comments
presented in the public meetings and hearing, and a transcript from the
public hearing, and all written comments. The docket is available for
public inspection. Today's decision is based on the RTC, its underlying
data and analyses, public comments, and EPA analyses of these comments.
The comments covered a wide variety of topics discussed in the
Report to Congress, such as fossil fuel combustion waste generation and
characteristics; current and alternative practices for managing FFC
waste; documented damage cases and potential danger to human health and
the environment; existing regulatory controls on FFC waste management;
cost and economic impacts of alternatives to current management
practices; FFC beneficial use practices; and our review of applicable
state and federal regulations.
D. What Is the Significance of ``Uniquely Associated Wastes'' and What
Wastes Does EPA Consider To Be ``Uniquely Associated Wastes?'
Facilities that burn fossil fuels generate combustion wastes and
also generate other wastes from processes that are related to the main
fuel combustion processes. Often, as a general practice, facilities co-
dispose these wastes with the large volume wastes that are subject to
the RCRA section 3001 (b) (3) (C) exemption. Examples of these related
wastes are:
<bullet> Precipitation runoff from the coal storage piles at the
facility.
<bullet> Waste coal or coal mill rejects that are not of sufficient
quality to burn as fuel.
<bullet> Wastes from cleaning the boilers used to generate steam.
There are numerous wastes like these, collectively known as ``low-
volume'' wastes. Further, when one of these low-volume wastes, during
the course of generation or normal handling at the facility, comes into
contact with either fossil fuel (e.g., coal, oil) or fossil fuel
combustion waste (e.g., coal ash or oil ash) and it takes on at least
some of the characteristics of the fuel or combustion waste, we call it
a ``uniquely associated'' waste. When uniquely associated wastes are
co-managed with fossil fuel combustion wastes, they fall within the
coverage of today's regulatory determination. When managed separately,
uniquely associated wastes are subject to regulation as hazardous waste
if they are listed wastes or exhibit the characteristic of a hazardous
waste (see 40 CFR 261.20 and 261.30, which specify when a solid waste
is considered to be a hazardous waste).
The Agency recognizes that determining whether a particular waste
[[Page 32220]]
is uniquely associated with fossil fuel combustion involves an
evaluation of the specific facts of each case. In the Agency's view,
the following qualitative criteria should be used to make such
determinations on a case-by-case basis:
(1) Wastes from ancillary operations are not ``uniquely
associated'' because they are not properly viewed as being ``from''
fossil fuel combustion.
(2) In evaluating a waste from non-ancillary operations, one must
consider the extent to which the waste originates or derives from the
fossil fuels, the combustion process, or combustion residuals, and the
extent to which these operations impart chemical characteristics to the
waste.
The low-volume wastes that are not uniquely associated with fossil
fuel combustion would not be subject to today's regulatory
determination. That is, they would not be accorded an exemption from
RCRA subtitle C, whether or not they were co-managed with any of the
exempted fossil fuel combustion wastes. Instead, they would be subject
to the RCRA characteristic standards and hazardous waste listings. The
exemption applies to mixtures of an exempt waste with a non-hazardous
waste, but when an exempt waste is mixed with a hazardous waste, the
mixture is not exempt.
Based on our identification and review of low volume wastes
associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, we are considering
offering the following guidance concerning which low volume wastes are
uniquely associated with and which are not uniquely associated with
fossil fuel combustion. Unless there are some unusual site-specific
circumstances, we would generally consider that the following lists of
low volume wastes are uniquely and non-uniquely associated wastes:
Uniquely Associated
<bullet> Coal Pile Runoff
<bullet> Coal Mill Rejects and Waste Coal
<bullet> Air Heater and Precipitator Washes
<bullet> Floor and Yard Drains and Sumps
<bullet> Wastewater Treatment Sludges
<bullet> Boiler Fireside Chemical Cleaning Wastes
Not Uniquely Associated
<bullet> Boiler Blowdown
<bullet> Cooling Tower Blowdown and Sludges
<bullet> Intake or Makeup Water Treatment and Regeneration Wastes
<bullet> Boiler Waterside Cleaning Wastes
<bullet> Laboratory Wastes
<bullet> General Construction and Demolition Debris
<bullet> General Maintenance Wastes
Moreover, we do not generally consider spillage or leakage of
materials used in the processes that generate these non-uniquely
associated wastes, such as boiler water treatment chemicals, to be
uniquely associated wastes, even if they occur in close proximity to
the fossil fuel wastes covered by this regulatory determination.
An understanding of whether a waste is uniquely associated can be
important in one circumstance. If a waste is not uniquely associated
and is a hazardous waste, co-managment with a Bevill waste will result
in loss of the Bevill exemption. As a general matter, the wastes
identified above as potentially not uniquely associated do not tend to
be hazardous. This issue may therefore not be critical. The Agency,
however, must still define appropriate boundaries for the Bevill
exemption, because there is no authority to grant Bevill status to
wastes that are not uniquely associated--the exemption was not intended
as an umbrella for wastes that other industries must treat as
hazardous.
EPA solicits comment on this discussion of uniquely associated
wastes in the context of fossil fuel combustion and will issue final
guidance after reviewing and evaluating information we receive as a
result of this request.
E. Who Is Affected by Today's Action and How Are They Affected?
As explained above, fossil fuel combustion wastes generated from
the combustion of coal, oil and natural gas will continue to remain
exempt from being regulated as hazardous wastes under RCRA. No party is
affected by today's determination to develop regulations applicable to
coal combustion wastes when they are land disposed or used to fill
surface or underground mines because today's action does not impose
requirements. However, if such regulations are promulgated, they would
affect coal combustion wastes subject to today's regulatory
determination as well as wastes covered by the Part 1 regulatory
determination when they are disposed in landfills and surface
impoundments, or when used to fill surface or underground mines.
While we do not intend that national subtitle D regulations would
be applicable to oil combustion wastes, we intend to work with relevant
stakeholders so that any necessary measures are taken to ensure that
oil combustion wastes currently managed in the two known remaining
unlined surface impoundments are managed in a manner that protects
human health and the environment.
F. What Additional Actions Will EPA Take After this Regulatory
Determination Regarding Coal, Oil and Natural Gas Combustion Wastes?
To ensure that entities who generate and/or manage fossil fuel
combustion wastes provide long-term protection of human health and the
environment, we plan several actions:
<bullet> We will review comments submitted in response to today's
notice on uniquely associated wastes and on the adequacy of the
guidance developed by the utility industry on co-management of mill
rejects (pyrites) with large volume coal combustion wastes.
<bullet> We will work with the State of Massachusetts and the
owners and operators of the remaining two oil combustion facilities
that currently manage their wastes in unlined surface impoundments to
ensure that any necessary measures are taken so these wastes are
managed in a manner that protects human health and the environment
(described in section 3.D. of this document).
<bullet> We are evaluating the groundwater model and modeling
methods that were used in the RTC to estimate risks for these wastes.
This review may result in a re-evaluation of the potential groundwater
risks posed by the management of fossil fuel combustion wastes and
action to revise our Part 1 and Part 2 determinations if appropriate
(see section 2.C. of this document).
<bullet> There are a number of ongoing and evolving efforts
underway at EPA to improve our understanding of the human health
impacts of wastes used in agricultural settings. We expect to receive
substantial comments and new scientific information based on a risk
assessment of the use of cement kiln dust as a substitute for
agricultural lime (see 64 FR 45632; August 20, 1999) and other Agency
efforts. As a result, we may refine our methodology for assessing risks
related to the use of wastes in agricultural settings. If these efforts
lead us to a different understanding of the risks posed by fossil fuel
combustion wastes when used as a substitute for agricultural lime, we
will take appropriate action to reevaluate today's regulatory
determination (see section 2.C. of this document).
<bullet> We will review the findings and recommendations of the
National Academy of Sciences upcoming report on mercury and assess its
implications on risks due to exposure to mercury. We will ensure that
the regulations we develop as a result of today's regulatory
determination address any additional
[[Page 32221]]
risks posed by these wastes if hazardous constituent levels exceed
acceptable levels
<bullet> We will reevaluate risk posed by managing coal combustion
solid wastes if levels of mercury or other hazardous constituents
change due to any future Clean Air Act air pollution control
requirements for coal burning utilities (see section 2.C. of this
document).
<bullet> We will continue EPA's partnership with the states to
finalize voluntary industrial solid waste management guidance that
identifies baseline protective practices for industrial waste
management units, including fossil fuel combustion waste management
units. We will use relevant information and knowledge that we obtain as
a result of this effort to assist us in developing national regulations
applicable to coal combustion wastes.
2. What Is the Basis for EPA's Regulatory Determination for Coal
Combustion Wastes?
A. What Is the Agency's Decision Regarding the Regulatory Status of
Coal Combustion Wastes and Why Did EPA Make That Decision?
We have determined at this time that regulation of coal combustion
wastes under subtitle C is not warranted. However, we have also decided
that it is appropriate to establish national regulations under non-
hazardous waste authorities for coal combustion wastes that are
disposed in landfills and surface impoundments. We believe that
subtitle D regulations are the most appropriate mechanism for ensuring
that these wastes disposed in landfills and surface impoundments are
managed safely.
EPA's conclusion that some form of national regulation is warranted
to address these wastes is based on the following considerations: (a)
The composition of these wastes could present danger to human health
and the environment under certain conditions, and ``potential'' damage
cases identified by EPA and commenters, while not definitively
demonstrating damage from coal combustion wastes, may indicate that
these wastes have the potential to pose such danger; (b) we have
identified eleven documented cases of proven damages to human health
and the environment by improper management of these wastes in landfills
and surface impoundments; (c) present disposal practices are such that,
in 1995, these wastes were being managed in 40 percent to 70 percent of
landfills and surface impoundments without reasonable controls in
place, particularly in the area of groundwater monitoring; and (d)
while there have been substantive improvements in state regulatory
programs, we have also identified gaps in state oversight.
When we considered a tailored subtitle C approach, we estimated the
potential costs of regulation of coal combustion wastes (including the
utility coal combustion wastes addressed in the 1993 Part 1
determination) to be $1 billion per year. While large in absolute
terms, we estimate that these costs are less than 0.4 percent of
industry sales. To improve our estimates we solicit public comment on
the potential compliance costs to coal combustion waste generators as
well as the indirect costs to users of these combustion by-products.
We have also decided that it is appropriate to establish national
regulations under RCRA non-hazardous waste authorities (and/or possibly
modifications to exiting regulations established under authority of
SMCRA) applicable to the placement of coal combustion wastes in surface
or underground mines. We have reached this decision because (a) we find
that these wastes when minefilled could present a danger to human
health and the environment under certain circumstances, and (b) there
are few states that currently operate comprehensive programs that
specifically address the unique circumstances of minefilling, making it
more likely that damage to human health or the environment could go
unnoticed.
With the exception of minefilling as described above, we have
decided that national regulation under subtitle C or subtitle D is not
warranted for any of the other beneficial uses of coal combustion
wastes. We have reached this decision because: (a) We have not
identified any other beneficial uses that are likely to present
significant risks to human health or the environment; and (b) no
documented cases of damage to human health or the environment have been
identified. Additionally, we do not want to place any unnecessary
barriers on the beneficial uses of coal combustion wastes so they can
be used in applications that conserve natural resources and reduce
disposal costs.
B. What Were EPA's Tentative Decisions as Presented in the Report to
Congress?
On March 31, 1999, EPA indicated a preliminary decision that
disposal of coal combustion wastes should remain exempt from regulation
under RCRA subtitle C. We also presented our tentative view that most
beneficial uses of these wastes should remain exempt from regulation
under RCRA subtitle C. However, in the RTC we identified three
situations where we had particular concerns with the disposition or
uses of these wastes.
First, we indicated some concern with the co-management of mill
rejects (``pyrites'') with coal combustion wastes which, under certain
circumstances, could cause or contribute to ground water contamination
or other localized environmental damage. We indicated that the utility
industry responded to our concern by implementing a voluntary education
and technical guidance program for the proper management of these
wastes. We expressed satisfaction with the industry program and
tentatively concluded that additional regulation in this area was not
necessary. We explained that we were committed to overseeing industry's
progress on properly managing pyritic wastes, and would revisit our
regulatory determination relative to co-management of pyrites with
large volume coal combustion wastes at a later date, if industry
progress was insufficient in this area.
Second, in the RTC we identified potential human health risks from
arsenic when these wastes are used for agricultural purposes (e.g., as
a lime substitute). To address this risk, we indicated our preliminary
view that Subtitle C regulations may be appropriate for this management
practice. We explained that an example of such controls could include
regulation of the content of these materials such that, when used for
agricultural purposes, the arsenic level could be no higher than that
found in agricultural lime. As an alternative to subtitle C regulation,
we indicated that EPA could engage the industry to implement a
voluntary program to address the risk, for example, by limiting the
level of arsenic in coal combustion wastes when using them for
agricultural purposes. Moreover, we indicated that a decision to
establish hazardous waste regulations applicable to agricultural uses
of co-managed coal combustion wastes would likely affect the regulatory
status of the Part 1 wastes (i.e., electric utility high volume coal
combustion wastes managed separately from other coal combustion wastes)
when used for agricultural purposes. This is because the source of the
identified risk was the arsenic content of the high volume coal
combustion wastes and not other materials that may be co-managed with
them.
Third, we expressed concern with potential impacts from the
expanding practice of minefilling coal combustion wastes (i.e.,
backfilling the wastes into mined areas) and described the
[[Page 32222]]
difficulties we had with assessing the impacts and potential risks of
this practice. We explained that these difficulties include:
<bullet> Determining if elevated contaminants in ground water are
due to minefill practices or pre-existing conditions resulting from
mining operations,
<bullet> Trying to model situations that may be more complex than
our groundwater models can accommodate,
<bullet> The lack of long-term experience with the recent practice
of minefilling, which limits the amount of environmental data for
analysis, and
<bullet> The site-specific nature of these operations.
Accordingly, we did not present a tentative decision in the RTC for
this practice. We indicated that subtitle C regulation would remain an
option for minefilling, but that we needed additional information prior
to making a final decision. Rather, we solicited additional information
from commenters on these and other aspects of minefilling practices and
indicated we would carefully consider that information in the
formulation of today's decision.
C. How Did Commenters' React to EPA's Tentative Decisions and What Was
EPA's Analysis of Their Comments?
Commenter's provided substantial input and information on several
aspects of our overall tentative decision to retain the exemption for
these wastes from RCRA subtitle C regulation. These aspects are:
modeling and risk assessment for the groundwater pathway, documented
damage cases, the potential for coal combustion waste characteristics
to change as a result of possible future Clean Air Act regulations,
proper management of mill rejects (pyrites), agricultural use of coal
combustion wastes, the practice of minefilling coal combustion wastes,
and our assessment of existing State programs and industry waste
management practices.
1. How Did Commenters React to the Groundwater Modeling and Risk
Assessment Analyses Conducted by EPA To Support its Findings in the
Report to Congress?
Comments. Industry and public interest group commenters submitted
detailed critiques of the groundwater model, EPACMTP, that we used for
our risk analysis. Industry commenters believe that the model will
overestimate the levels of contaminants that may migrate down-gradient
from disposed wastes. Environmental groups expressed the opposite
belief; that is, that the model underestimates down-gradient chemical
concentrations and, therefore, underestimates the potential risk posed
by coal combustion wastes.
The breadth and potential implications of the numerous technical
comments on the EPACMTP model are significant. Examples of the comments
include issues relating to:
<bullet> The thermodynamic data that are the basis for certain
model calculations,
<bullet> The model's ability to account for the effects of
oxidation-reduction potential,
<bullet> The model's ability to account for competition between
multiple contaminants for adsorption sites,
<bullet> The model's algorithm for selecting adsorption isotherms,
<bullet> The impact of leachate chemistry on adsorption and aquifer
chemistry, and
<bullet> The model's inherent assumptions about the chemistry of
the underlying aquifer.
EPA's Analysis of the Comments. We have been carefully reviewing
all of the comments on the model. We determined that the process of
thoroughly investigating all of the comments will take substantially
more time to complete than is available within the court deadline for
issuing this regulatory determination. At this time, we are uncertain
of the overall outcome of our analysis of the issues raised in the
comments. Accordingly, we have decided not to use the results of our
groundwater pathway risk analysis in support of today's regulatory
determination on fossil fuel combustion wastes. As explained below, in
making today's regulatory determination, we have relied in part on
other information related to the potential danger that may result from
the management of fossil fuel combustion wastes.
Meanwhile, we will continue with our analysis of comments on the
groundwater model and risk analysis. This may involve changing or re-
structuring various aspects of the model, if appropriate. It may also
include additional analyses to determine whether any changes to the
model or modeling methodology would materially affect the groundwater
risk analysis results that were reported in the RTC. If our
investigations reveal that a re-analysis of groundwater risks is
appropriate, we will conduct the analysis and re-evaluate today's
decisions as warranted by the re-analysis.
In addition to our ongoing review of comments on the groundwater
model, one element of the model--the metals partitioning component
called ``MINTEQ''--has been proposed for additional peer review. When
additional peer review is completed, we will take the findings and
recommendations into account in any overall decision to re-evaluate
today's regulatory determination.
While not relying on the EPACMTP groundwater modeling as presented
in the RTC, we have since conducted a general comparison of the metals
levels in leachate from coal combustion wastes to their corresponding
hazardous waste toxicity characteristic levels. Fossil fuel wastes
infrequently exceed the hazardous waste characteristic. For co-managed
wastes, 2% (1 of 51 samples) exceeded the characteristic level. For
individual wastes streams, 0% of the coal bottom ash, 2% of the coal
fly ash, 3% of the coal flue gas desulfurization, and 7% of the coal
boiler slag samples that were tested exceeded the characteristic level.
Nevertheless, once we have completed a review of our groundwater model
and made any necessary changes, we will reevaluate groundwater risks
and take appropriate regulatory actions. We will specifically assess
new modeling results as they relate to any promulgated changes in the
arsenic MCL.
We also compared leach concentrations from fossil fuel wastes to
the drinking water MCLs. In the case of arsenic, we examined a range of
values because EPA expects to promulgate a new arsenic drinking water
regulation by January 1, 2001. This range includes the existing arsenic
MCL (50 ug/l), a lower health based number presented in the FFC Report
to Congress (RTC) (0.29 ug/l), and two assumed values in between (10
and 5 ug/l). We examined this range of values because of our desire to
bracket the likely range of values that EPA will be considering in its
effort to revise the current MCL for arsenic. The National Research
Council's 1999 report on Arsenic in Drinking Water indicated that the
current MCL is not sufficiently protective and should be revised
downward as soon as possible. For this reason, we selected the current
MCL of 50 ug/L for the high end of the range because EPA is now
considering lowering the current MCL and does not anticipate that the
current MCL would be revised to any higher value. We selected the
health-based number presented in the Report to Congress for the low end
of the range because we believe this represents the lowest
concentration that would be considered in revising the current MCL.
Because at this time we cannot project a particular value as the
eventual MCL, we also examined values in between these low-end and
high-end values, a value of 5
[[Page 32223]]
ug/L and a value of 10 ug/L, for our analyses supporting today's
regulatory determination. The choice of these mid-range values for
analyses does not predetermine the final MCL for arsenic.
Those circumstances where the leach concentrations from the wastes
exceed the drinking water criteria have the greatest potential to cause
significant risks. This ``potential'' risk, however, may not occur at
actual facilities. Pollutants in the leachate of the wastes undergo
dilution and attenuation as they migrate through the ground. The
primary purpose of models such as EPACMTP is to account for the degree
of dilution and attenuation that is likely to occur, and to obtain a
realistic estimate of the concentration of contaminants at a
groundwater receptor. To provide a view of potential groundwater risk,
we tabulated the number of occurrences where the waste leachate
hazardous metals concentrations were: (a) Less than the criteria, (b)
between 1 and 10 times the criteria, (c) between 10 and 100 times the
criteria, and (d) greater than 100 times the criteria. Groundwater
models that we currently use, when applied to large volume monofill
sources of metals, frequently predict that dilution and attenuation
will reduce leachate levels on the order of a factor of 10 under
reasonable high end conditions. This multiple is commonly called a
dilution and attenuation factor (DAF). For this reason and because
lower dilution and attenuation factors (e.g., 10) are often associated
with larger disposal units such as those typical at facilities where
coal is burned, we assessed the frequency of occurrence of leach
concentrations for various hazardous metals which were greater than 10
times the drinking water criteria. Based on current MCLs, there was
only one exceedence (for cadmium). However, when we considered the
arsenic health based criterion from the RTC, we found that a
significant percentage (86%) of available waste samples had leach
concentrations for arsenic that were greater than ten times the health-
based criterion. Even considering intermediate values closer to the
current MCL, a significant percentage of available waste samples had
leach concentrations for arsenic that were greater than ten times the
criteria (30% when the criterion was assumed to be 5 ug/l, and 14% when
the criterion was assumed to be 10 ug/l). Similar concerns also
occurred when comparing actual groundwater samples associated with FFC
waste units and this range of criteria for arsenic. We believe this is
an indication of potential risks from arsenic.
For the above analysis, we used a value equal to half the detection
level to deal with those situations where analyses resulted in ``less
than detection'' values that exceeded the MCL criteria. The actual
concentration may be as low as zero or up to the detection level. To
illustrate the impact of this assumption, an analysis was performed
setting the ``less than detection'' values to zero, and an arsenic
criteria at 50 ug/l. While 30% of the values exceeded 10 times the
criteria when using half the detection level, exceedences dropped to
13% when ``less than detection'' values were set to zero.
The comparison of the leachate levels to 10 times MCL criteria is a
screening level analysis that supports our concerns, which are
primarily based on damage cases and the lack of installed controls
(liners and groundwater monitoring). We recognize, however, that prior
to issuing a regulation the Agency expects to address the issues raised
on the groundwater model and complete a comprehensive groundwater
modeling effort. Furthermore, we anticipate that uncertainty regarding
whether the arsenic MCL will be amended and to what level, will be more
settled prior to regulation of these wastes. These factors could
heighten or reduce concerns with regard to the need for Federal
regulation of fossil fuel combustion wastes.
2. How Did Commenters React to EPA's Assessment of Documented Damage
Cases Presented in the Report to Congress?
Prior to issuing the RTC, we sought and reviewed potential damage
cases related to these particular wastes. The activities included:
<bullet> A re-analysis of the potential damage cases identified
during the Part 1 determination,
<bullet> A search of the CERCLA Information System for instances of
these wastes being cited as causes or contributors to damages,
<bullet> Contacts and visits to regulatory agencies in five states
with high rates of coal consumption to review file materials and
discuss with state officials the existence of damage cases,
<bullet> A review of information provided by the Utility Solid
Waste Act Group and the Electric Power Research Institute on 14 co-
management sites, and
<bullet> A review of information provided by the Council of
Industrial Boiler Owners on eight fluidized bed combustion (FBC)
facilities.
These activities yielded three damage case sites in addition to the
four cases initially identified in the Part 1 determination.2 Five of
the damage cases involved surface impoundments and the two other cases
involved landfills. The waste management units in these cases were all
older, unlined units. The releases in these cases were confined to the
vicinity of the facilities and did not affect human receptors. None of
the damages impacted human health. We did not identify any damage cases
that were associated with beneficial use practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 The Part 1 determination identified six cases of documented
damages. Upon further reveiw, we determined that two of these cases
involve utility coal ash monofills which are covered by the Part 1
determination. However, the other four cases involved remaining
wastes that are covered by today's determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments. Public interest group commenters criticized our approach
to identifying damage cases associated with the management of fossil
fuel combustion (FFC) wastes, stating that EPA did not use the same
procedure used to identify damage cases for the cement kiln dust (CKD)
Report to Congress. These commenters believed that we were too
conservative in our interpretation and determination of FFC damage
cases and dismissed cases that commenters believe are relevant
instances of damage. For example, these commenters indicated that EPA,
in the RTC, did not consider cases where the only exceedences of ground
water standards were for secondary MCLs (Maximum Contaminant Levels as
established by EPA for drinking water standards). They further
indicated that the states often require ground water monitoring only
for secondary MCL constituents and that elevated levels of the
secondary MCL constituents are an indication of future potential for
more serious, health-based standards to be exceeded for other
constituents in the wastes, such as toxic metals. Additionally, these
commenters stated that the Agency's analysis for damage cases was
incomplete and they provided information on 59 possible damage cases
involving these wastes, mostly at utilities. Additionally, commenters
submitted seven cases of ecological damage that allege damage to
mammals, amphibians, fish, benthic layer organisms and plants from co-
management of coal combustion wastes in surface impoundments.
Industry commenters cited EPA's finding of so few damage cases as
important support for our tentative conclusion to exempt these wastes
from hazardous waste regulation. Further, some of the industry
commenters indicated that the few damage cases that EPA identified do
not represent current
[[Page 32224]]
utility industry management practices, but rather reflect less
environmentally protective management practices at older facilities
that pre-date the numerous state and federal requirements that are now
in effect for managing these wastes.
EPA's Analysis of the Comments. Regarding ecological damage, while
we did not identify any ecological damage cases in the RTC associated
with management of coal combustion wastes, we reviewed the information
on ecological damage submitted by commenters and agree that four of the
seven submitted are documented damage cases that involve FFC wastes.
All of these involve some form of discharge from waste management units
to nearby lakes or creeks. These confirm our risk modeling conclusions
as presented in the RTC that there could be adverse impacts on
amphibians, birds, or mammals if they were subject to the elevated
concentrations of selected chemicals that had been measured in some
impoundments. However, no information was submitted in comments that
would lead us to alter our conclusion that these threats are not
substantial enough to cause large scale, system level ecological
disruptions. These damage cases, attributable to runoff or overflow
that is already subject to Clean Water Act discharge or stormwater
regulations, are more appropriately addressed under the existing Clean
Water Act requirements.
Regarding our assessment of damage to ground water, we believe our
approach to FFC damage cases in the RTC was consistent with the
approach we used for identifying CKD damage cases. For CKD, we
established two categories of damage cases--``proven'' damage cases and
``potential'' damage cases. Proven damage cases were those with
documented MCL exceedences that were measured in ground water at a
sufficient distance from the waste management unit to indicate that
hazardous constituents had migrated to the extent that they could cause
human health concerns. Potential damage cases were those with
documented MCL exceedences that were measured in ground water beneath
or close to the waste source. In these cases, the documented
exceedences had not been demonstrated at a sufficient distance from the
waste management unit to indicate that waste constituents had migrated
to the extent that they could cause human health concerns. We do not
believe that it would be appropriate to consider an exceedence directly
beneath a waste management unit or very close to the waste boundary to
be a documented, proven damage case. State regulations typically use a
compliance procedure that relies on measurement at a receptor site or
in ground water at a point beyond the waste boundary (e.g., 150
meters). While our CKD analysis did not distinguish between primary and
secondary MCL exceedences, most CKD damage cases involved a primary MCL
constituent. Our principal basis for determining that CKD when managed
in land-based units would no longer remain exempt from being regulated
as a hazardous waste was our concern about generally poor management
practices characteristic of that industry. Our conclusion was further
supported by the extremely high percentage of proven damage cases
occurring at active CKD sites for which groundwater monitoring data
were available.
For FFC, we used the same test of proof to identify possible damage
cases. Our FFC analysis drew a distinction between primary and
secondary MCL exceedences because we believe this factor is appropriate
in weighing the seriousness of FFC damage in terms of indicating risk
to human health and the environment. For FFC, in the RTC, we reported
only the ``proven'' damage (i.e., exceedence of a health-based standard
such as a primary MCL and measurement in ground water or surface
water). As was done in the CKD analysis, we also identified a number of
potential FFC damage cases (eleven) which were included in the
background documents that support the RTC.
Unlike the primary MCLs, secondary MCLs are not based on human
health considerations. (Examples are dissolved solids, sulfate, iron,
and chloride for which groundwater standards have been established
because of their effect on taste, odor, and color.) While some
commenters believe that elevated levels of some secondary MCL
parameters such as soluble salts are likely precursors or indicators of
future hazardous constituent exceedences that could occur at coal
combustion facilities, we are not yet able and will not be able to test
their hypothesis until we complete our analysis of all comments
received on our groundwater model and risk analysis, which will not be
concluded until next year.
Of the 59 damage cases reported by commenters, 11 cases appear to
involve exceedences of primary MCLs or other health-based standards as
measured either in off-site ground water or in nearby surface waters,
the criteria we used in the RTC to identify proven damage cases. Of
these eleven cases, two are coal ash monofills which were included in
the set of damage cases described by EPA in its record supporting the
Part 1 regulatory determination. The remaining nine cases involve the
co-management of large volume coal combustion wastes with other low
volume and uniquely associated coal combustion wastes. We had already
identified five of these nine cases in the RTC. Thus, only four of
these eleven damage cases are newly identified to us. Briefly, the four
new cases involve:
<bullet> Exceedence of a state standard for lead in downgradient
ground water at a coal fly ash landfill in New York. There were also
secondary MCL exceedences for sulfate, dissolved solids, and iron.
<bullet> Primary MCL exceedences for arsenic and selenium in
downgradient monitoring wells for a coal ash impoundment at a power
plant in North Dakota. There were also secondary MCL exceedences for
sulfate and chloride.
<bullet> Primary MCL exceedences for fluoride and exceedence of a
state standard for boron in downgradient monitoring wells at a utility
coal combustion waste impoundment in Wisconsin. There was also a
secondary MCL exceedence for sulfate.
<bullet> Exceedence of a state standard for boron and the secondary
MCL for sulfate and manganese in downgradient monitoring wells at a
utility coal combustion landfill in Wisconsin.
We found that in nine of the 11 proven damage cases (including one
Superfund site), states took appropriate action to require or conduct
remedial activities to reduce or eliminate the cause of contamination.
EPA took action in the remaining two cases under the Superfund program
Nineteen of the candidate damage cases submitted by commenters
involve either on-site or off-site exceedences of secondary MCLs, but
not primary MCLs or other health-based standards. Consistent with our
CKD analysis, we consider these cases to be indicative of a potential
for damage to occur at these sites because they demonstrate that there
has been a release to ground water from the waste management unit.
Regarding the remaining 29 cases submitted by commenters:
<bullet> Six involve primary MCL exceedences, but measurements were
in ground water either directly beneath the waste or very close to the
waste boundary, i.e., no off-site ground water or receptor measurements
indicated that ground water standards had been exceeded. Consistent
with our analysis of damage cases for cement kiln dust, we consider
these six cases to be indicative of a potential for damage to occur at
these sites because they demonstrate that there has been a
[[Page 32225]]
release to ground water from the waste management unit..
<bullet> Eighteen case summary submissions contained insufficient
documentation and data for us to verify and draw a conclusion about
whether we should consider these to be potential or proven damage
cases. Of these 18 cases, commenters claimed that 11 cases involve
primary MCL exceedences, and another two involve secondary MCLs, but
not primary MCLs. The other five cases lacked sufficient information
and documentation to determine whether primary or secondary MCLs are
involved. Examples of information critical to assessing and verifying
candidate damage cases that was not available for these particular
cases include: Identification of the pollutants causing the
contamination; identification of where or how the damage case
information was obtained (e.g., facility monitoring data, state
monitoring or investigation, third party study or analysis); monitoring
data used to identify levels of contaminants; and/or sufficient
information to determine whether the damages were actually attributable
to fossil fuel combustion wastes; and/or location of the identified
contamination (i.e., directly beneath the unit or very close to the
waste boundary or at a point some distant (e.g., 150 meters) from the
unit boundary).
<bullet> Three case submissions are cases we identified in the Part
1 determination and involve monofilled utility coal ash wastes.
However, as explained in the Report to Congress for the Part 1
determination, EPA determined that there was insufficient evidence to
consider them to be documented damage cases.
<bullet> One case did not involve fossil fuel combustion wastes.
<bullet> One case involved coal combustion wastes and other
unrelated wastes in an illegal, unpermitted dump site. This site was
handled by the state as a hazardous waste cleanup site.
Our detailed analysis of the damage cases submitted by commenters
is available in the public docket for this regulatory determination.
In summary, based on damage case information presented in the RTC
and our review of comments, we conclude that there are 11 proven damage
cases associated with wastes covered by today's regulatory
determination. We identified seven of these damage cases in the RTC, so
there are four new proven damage cases that were identified by
commenters. All of the sites were at older, unlined units, with
disposal occurring prior to 1993. For all 11 of the proven damage
cases, either the state or EPA provided adequate follow-up to require
or else undertake corrective action. Although these damage cases
indicate that coal combustion wastes can present risks to human health
and the environment, they also show the effectiveness of states'
responses when damages were identified. None of these cases involved
actual human exposure.
Additionally, we determined that another 25 of the commenter
submitted cases are potential damage cases for the reasons described
above. Thus, including the 11 potential damage cases that we identified
in the background documents that support the RTC, we are aware of 36
potential damage cases. While we do not believe the latter 36 cases
satisfy the statutory criteria of documented, proven damage cases
because damage to human health or the environment has not been proven,
we believe that these cases may indicate that these wastes pose a
``potential'' danger to human health and the environment in some
circumstances.
In conclusion, while the absolute number of documented, proven
damage cases is not large, we believe that the evidence of proven and
potential damage should be considered in light of the proportion of new
and existing facilities, particularly surface impoundments, that today
lack basic environmental controls such as liners and groundwater
monitoring. Approximately one-third of coal combustion wastes are
managed in surface impoundments. We note that controls such as liners
may not be warranted at some facilities, due to site-specific
conditions. We acknowledge, however, that our inquiry into the
existence of damage cases was focused primarily on a subset of states.
Given the volume of coal combustion wastes generated nationwide and the
number of facilities that lacked groundwater monitoring as of 1995,
there is at least a substantial likelihood other cases of actual and
potential damage likely exist. Because we did not use a statistical
sampling methodology to evaluate the potential for damage, we are
unable to determine whether the identified cases are representative of
the conditions at all facilities and, therefore, cannot quantify the
extent and magnitude of damages at the national level.
3. What Concerns Did Commenters Express About the Impact of Potential
Future Regulation of Hazardous Air Pollutants Under the Clean Air Act
on Today's Regulatory Determination?
Comments. In both public hearing testimony and written comments,
public interest groups expressed concern about potential changes in the
characteristics of these wastes when new air pollution controls are
established under the Clean Air Act. The commenters referred to the
possible future requirement for hazardous air pollutant controls at
coal burning electric utility power plants, which could result in an
increased level of metals and possibly other hazardous constituents in
coal combustion wastes. The commenters indicated that these increased
levels, in turn, could have serious implications for cross-media
environmental impacts such as leaching to groundwater and
volatilization to the air. The commenters argued that the Agency should
include these factors in its current decision making on the regulatory
status of coal combustion under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act.
EPA's Analysis of the Comments. We have carefully considered the
issue of cross-media impacts and the commenters' specific concerns that
future air regulations could have an adverse impact on the
characteristics of coal combustion wastes. We have concluded that it is
premature to consider the possible future impact of such new air
pollution controls on the wastes that are subject to today's regulatory
determination. The Agency plans to issue a regulatory determination in
the latter part of 2000 regarding hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
controls at coal-burning, power generating facilities. If EPA decides
to initiate a rulemaking process, final rulemaking under the Clean Air
Act is projected to occur in 2004. Thus, no final decision has been
made on what, if any, constituents will be regulated by future air
pollution control requirements. Additionally, the regulatory levels of
the those specific pollutants that might be controlled and the control
technologies needed to attain any regulatory requirements have not yet
been identified. Therefore, we believe there is insufficient
information at this time for evaluating the characteristics and
potential environmental impacts of solid wastes that would be generated
as a result of new Clean Air Act requirements.
When any rulemaking under the Clean Air Act proceeds to a point
where we can complete an assessment of the likely changes to the
character of coal combustion wastes, we will evaluate the implications
of these changes relative to today's regulatory determination and take
appropriate action.
4. How Did Commenters React to the Findings Presented in the Report to
Congress Related to Proper Management of Mill Rejects (Pyrites)?
The RTC explained that we identified situations where pyrite-
bearing
[[Page 32226]]
materials such as mill rejects (a low volume and uniquely associated
waste) that are co-managed with coal combustion wastes may cause or
contribute to risks or environmental damage if not managed properly.
These materials when managed improperly with exposure to air and water
can generate acid. The acid, in turn, can mobilize metals contained in
the co-managed combustion wastes. The RTC also explained that the
Agency engaged the utility industry in a voluntary program to ensure
appropriate management of these wastes. The industry responded by
developing technical guidance and a voluntary industry education
program on proper management of these wastes.
Comments. Utility industry commenters supported our tentative
decision to continue the exemption for coal combustion wastes co-
managed with mill rejects from regulation as a hazardous waste. Their
position is based primarily on the industry's voluntary implementation
of an education program and technical guidance on the proper management
of these wastes, as described in the RTC.
Public interest groups and other commenters disagreed with our
tentative decision, explaining their belief that such voluntary
controls or programs are inadequate. They indicated that coal
combustion wastes should be subject to hazardous waste regulations.
EPA's Analysis of the Comments. We remain encouraged by the utility
industry program to educate and inform its members by implementing
guidance on the proper management of coal mill rejects. However, as
pointed out by commenters, there is no assurance that facilities where
coal combustion wastes co-managed with pyritic wastes will follow the
guidance developed by industry. In light of the number of demonstrated
and potential damage cases identified to date, we are concerned that
simply relying on voluntary institution of necessary controls would not
adequately ensure the protection of human health and the environment.
At this time, to ensure that we are aware of all stakeholders views on
the adequacy of the control approaches described in the guidance to
protect human health and the environment, we are soliciting public
comment on the final version of the industry coal mill rejects
guidance. This guidance is available in the docket supporting today's
decisions.
5. How Did Commenters React to the Findings Presented in the Report to
Congress Related to Agricultural Use of Coal Combustion Wastes?
In the RTC, we presented findings on the human health risks
associated with agricultural use of coal wastes as an agricultural lime
substitute. The pathway examined embodies risks from ingestion of soil
and inhalation, and from ingestion of contaminated dairy, beef, fruit
and vegetable products. The resultant ``high end'' cancer risk reported
in the RTC was 1 x 10<SUP>-5</SUP> (one in one hundred thousand
exposed population), for the child of a farmer. The variables held at
high end for this calculation were contaminant concentration and
children's soil ingestion. With all variables set to central tendency
values, the risk was calculated to be 1 x 10<SUP>-7</SUP> (one in ten
million exposed population). We did not identify the presence of any
non-cancer hazard of concern. Based on the high end risk, the Agency
raised the possibility in the RTC of developing Subtitle C controls or
seeking commitments from industry to a voluntary program.
Comments. A number of industry, academic, and federal agency
commenters disagreed with our tentative conclusion that some level of
regulation may be appropriate for coal combustion wastes when used as
an agricultural soil supplement. They indicated that EPA used
unrealistically conservative levels for four key inputs used in our
risk analysis and that use of a realistic level for any one of these
inputs would result in a risk level less than 1 x 10<SUP>-6</SUP>.
The four inputs identified by the commenters are: application rate of
the wastes to the land, the rate of soil ingestion by children, the
bioavailability of arsenic and the phytoavailability of arsenic.
These commenters further recommended that EPA not regulate, but
rather encourage voluntary restrictions because:
<bullet> Agricultural use of coal combustion wastes creates no
adverse environmental impacts and EPA identified no damage cases
associated with this practice;
<bullet> Agricultural use of these wastes has significant technical
and economic benefits;
<bullet> Federal controls would be unnecessarily costly and would
create a barrier for research and development on the practice;
<bullet> Existing regulatory programs are sufficient to control any
risks from this practice; and
<bullet> The limits suggested in the RTC for arsenic levels in coal
combustion wastes are inconsistent with limits applied to other
materials used in agriculture.
Public interest groups stated their belief that a voluntary
approach would not be sufficiently protective of human health and the
environment. They believe the Agency should apply restrictions on the
use of these wastes in agriculture because the Agency's analyses of the
risks and benefits of this practice were inadequate. They further
recommended that EPA should prohibit the land application of coal
combustion wastes generated by conventional boilers, and make the
arsenic limitation of EPA's sewage sludge land application regulations
applicable to the land application of coal combustion wastes generated
by fluidized bed combustors, which add lime as part of the combustion
process.
EPA's Analysis of Comments. After reviewing these comments and
supporting information provided by the commenters, we concluded that a
revised input into the model for children's soil ingestion rate is
appropriate. Based on further review of the Agency's Exposure Factors
Handbook (EFH), we decided to model a children's soil ingestion rate of
0.4 grams per day instead of the 1.4 grams per day that underlay the
results given in the RTC.
Many studies have been conducted to estimate soil ingestion by
children. Early studies focused on dirt present on children's hands.
More recently, studies have focused on measuring trace elements in soil
and then in feces as a function of internal absorption. These
measurements are used to estimate amounts of soil ingested over a
specified time period. The EFH findings for children's soil ingestion
are based on seven key studies and nine other relevant studies that the
Agency reviewed on this subject. These studies showed that mean values
for soil ingestion ranged from 39 mg/day to 271 mg/day with an average
of 146 mg/day. These results are characterized for studies that were
for short periods with little information reported for pica behavior.
To account for longer periods of time, the EFH reviewed the upper
percentile ranges of the data studied and found ingestion rates that
ranged from 106 mg/day to 1,432 mg/day with an average of 383 mg/day
for soil ingestion. Rounding to one significant figure, the EFH
recommended an upper percentile children's soil ingestion rate of 400
mg/day. The Agency believes that this recommendation is the best
available information to address children's exposure through the soil
ingestion route. Reducing the ingestion rate to the EFH handbook
recommended level of
[[Page 32227]]
400 mg/day reduced the calculated risk to 3.4 x 10-6 for this one
child risk situation and suggests that agricultural use of FFC wastes
does not cause a risk of concern.
EPA believes its inputs for phytoavailability are accurate,
although there are studies that suggest phytoavailability will decrease
over time. Arsenic bioavailability is a function of all sources of
arsenic and EPA believes it has characterized this accurately. However,
as noted elsewhere, arsenic toxicity is now being studied by the Agency
in conjunction with a proposed new arsenic MCL and may necessitate re-
visiting today's judgement on agricultural use.
Our technical analysis that resulted in revised risk is explained
in a document titled Reevaluation of Non-groundwater Pathway Risks from
Agricultural Use of Coal Combustion Wastes, which is available in the
docket for this action.
The comment on inappropriateness of application frequency was
caused by a misunderstanding of the language in the RTC. The rate used
was actually every two or three years, not two or three times per year.
Two ongoing studies of wastes of potential use as agricultural soil
supplements relate to the use of FFC wastes for this purpose. Although
these did not play a direct role in EPA's decision regarding FFC
wastes, they are summarized below and may play a role in any future
review of today's decision.
(1) On August 20, 1999, the agency proposed risk-based standards
for cement kiln dust when used as a liming agent (see 64 FR 45632;
August 20, 1999). This analysis was completed in 1998 just prior to our
completion of the analysis of FFC wastes when used as agricultural
supplements. The CKD analysis underwent a special peer review by a
standing committee that is used by the Department of Agriculture. We
were not able to respond to the peer review comments in either the CKD
proposal or in our assessment for fossil fuel combustion wastes prior
to publication of today's regulatory determination. The comment period
for the CKD proposal closed on February 17, 2000, and we will soon
begin our review and analyses of the public and peer review comments.
(2) In December 1999, EPA proposed new risk based standards for the
use of municipal sewage sludge under section 503 of the Clean Water Act
(the ``503 standards''). It is important to note that municipal sludge
has unique properties, application rates, and uses. This makes it
inappropriate to transfer the 503 standards directly. Even though the
standards cannot be used directly, there may be interest in the risk
assessment methodologies used to support the development of these
standards. We disagree that it is appropriate to establish an arsenic
limitation for coal combustion ash when used for agricultural purposes
equivalent to that contained in the EPA sewage sludge land application
regulations. The organic nature of sewage sludge makes it behave very
differently from inorganic wastes such as coal combustion wastes.
We conclude at this time that arsenic levels in coal combustion
wastes do not pose a significant risk to human health when used for
agricultural purposes. We expect to continue to review and refine the
related risk assessments noted above, and will consider comments on the
Agency's CKD and municipal sludge proposals, as well as new scientific
developments related to this issue such as additional peer review of
the EPA MINTEQ model that was used as a component of our risk analysis.
If these efforts lead us to a different understanding of the risks
posed by coal combustion wastes when used as a substitute for
agricultural lime, we will take appropriate action to reevaluate
today's regulatory determination.
6. How Did Commenters React to the Findings Presented in the Report to
Congress Related to Minefilling of Coal Combustion Wastes?
In the RTC, we explained that we had insufficient information to
adequately assess the risks associated with the use of coal combustion
wastes to fill surface and underground mines, whether the mines are
active or abandoned. Accordingly, we did not present a tentative
conclusion in the RTC with respect to the use of coal combustion wastes
for disposal in active mines or for reclamation of mines. However, we
did indicate that regulation of minefilling under hazardous waste
rulemaking authority would remain an option for minefilling, but that
we needed additional information prior to making a final decision.
Thus, we solicited additional information on specific minefilling
techniques, problems that may be inherent in this management practice,
risks posed by this practice, existing state regulatory requirements,
and environmental monitoring data. We indicated that we would consider
any comments and new information on minefilling received in comments
and would address this management practice in today's regulatory
determination.
Comments. A number of commenters responded to our request by
providing reports on individual case studies, including minefilling in
underground as well as in surface mines, descriptions of current state
regulatory requirements that address this practice, monitoring data,
and information about risk analysis techniques.
Industry commenters and one federal agency supported our decision
to study the issue further and not attempt to estimate the risks posed
by this practice using existing methods. Further, numerous industry,
academic, state agency, and federal agency commenters encouraged EPA
not to adopt national regulations or voluntary restrictions on
minefilling because: (a) Nationwide standards would not be conducive to
the site-specific evaluations needed to appropriately control these
operations; (b) minefilling creates no adverse environmental impacts
and EPA identified no damage cases associated with this practice; (c)
existing state and federal regulatory programs and industry practices
are sufficient to control any risks from this practice, and (d) federal
standards would be an unreasonable interference with states'
authorities.
Additionally, several industry representatives, legislators, and
state mining and environmental agencies mentioned that this practice,
when used to remediate abandoned mine lands, will produce considerably
greater environmental benefits than risks. Further, they maintained
that minefilling is a relatively inexpensive means to stop or even
reverse the environmental damage caused by old mining practices. They
indicated that through remediation by minefilling, these lands
frequently can be returned to productive use. These commenters
recommended no additional regulation of this practice.
Public interest groups and others believe we should regulate
minefilling under RCRA subtitle C or prohibit it for several reasons
including weaknesses in existing state and federal regulatory programs,
the poor practices and performance at existing minefilling operations,
and potential impacts on potable water sources. Commenters stated that
state programs effectively allow open dumps without any design or
construction standards. For minefilling, one commenter urged EPA to
defer to state regulations only if the Agency specifically found
existing state regulations to be adequate.
EPA's Analysis of Comments. We agree with commenters that it is
inappropriate to estimate the risks posed by minefilling using the
existing methods that we employed to conduct risk analyses for disposal
of coal combustion wastes in landfills and impoundments. We found that
the
[[Page 32228]]
groundwater models available to us are unsuitable for estimating risks
from minefills because, for example, they are not able to account for
conditions such as fractured flow that are typical of the hydrogeology
associated with mining operations. In addition, as explained above,
EPA's primary groundwater model, EPACMTP, is now undergoing careful
review on the basis of comments received on the Report to Congress.
We are aware that the use of coal combustion wastes to conduct
remediation of mine lands can improve conditions caused by mining
activities. We also recognize that this often is the lowest cost option
for conducting these remediation activities. We generally encourage the
practice of remediating mine lands with coal combustion wastes when
minefilling is conducted properly and when there is adequate oversight
of the remediation activities. We are also aware that relatively few
states currently operate regulatory or other programs that specifically
address minefilling, and that many states where this practice is
occurring do not have programs in place. Based on our review of
information on existing state minefill programs, we find serious gaps
such as a lack of adequate controls and restrictions on unsound
practices, e.g., no requirement for groundwater monitoring and no
control or prohibitions on waste placement in the aquifer.
At this time, we cannot reach definitive conclusions about the
adequacy of minefilling practices employed currently in the United
States and the ability of government oversight agencies to ensure that
human health and the environment are being adequately protected. For
example, it is often impossible to determine if existing groundwater
quality has been impacted by previous mining operations or as a result
of releases of hazardous constituents from the coal combustion wastes
used in the minefilling applications. Additionally, data and
information submitted during the public comment period indicate that if
the chemistry of the mine relative to the chemistry of the coal
combustion wastes is not properly taken into account, the addition of
coal combustion wastes to certain environmental settings can lead to an
increase in hazardous metals released into the environment. This
phenomena has been substantiated by data available to the Agency that
show when pyrites, which can cause acid generation, have been
improperly co-managed with coal combustion wastes, high levels of
metals, especially arsenic, have leached from the wastes.
Finally, we concluded in our recent study of disposal of cement
kiln dust that placement of cement kiln dust directly in contact with
ground water led to a substantially greater release of hazardous metal
constituents than we predicted would occur when such placement in
ground water did not occur. We are aware of situations where coal
combustion wastes are being placed in direct contact with ground water
in both underground and surface mines. This could lead to increased
releases of hazardous metal constituents as a result of minefilling.
Thus, if the complexities related to site-specific geology, hydrology,
and waste chemistry are not properly taken into account when
minefilling coal combustion wastes, we believe that certain minefilling
practices have the potential to degrade, rather than improve, existing
groundwater quality and can pose a potential danger to human health and
the environment. Subsequent impacts on human health would depend in
part on the proximity of drinking water wells, if any, to elevated
levels of metals in the water. To date we are unaware of any proven
damage cases resulting from minefilling operations.
7. How Did Commenters React to EPA's Tentative Reliance on State
Programs and Voluntary Industry Implementation of Improved Management
Practices To Mitigate Potential Risks From Coal Combustion Waste
Management?
In the RTC, EPA considered retaining the exemption for coal
combustion wastes disposed in surface impoundments and landfills and
for mill rejects (pyrites) that are managed with those wastes. The
Agency cited a reliance on state programs that have improved
substantially over the past 10 to 15 years and continue to improve,
combined with voluntary industry implementation of guidance for
improved management practices to mitigate risk. In addition, we stated
that we would continue to work with industries and states to promote
and monitor improvements.
To assess the adequacy of state programs and the potential for
voluntary implementation of improved practices, we looked at the
current number of facilities with liners and groundwater monitoring
(which may reflect voluntary industry upgrading as well as state
requirements), and the number of state programs that currently have
authority to require a broad range of environmental controls. For units
operating as of 1995, we found that among utilities, slightly more than
half of the disposal units were surface impoundments. Of these
impoundments, 38 percent had groundwater monitoring and 26 percent had
liners. Eighty-five percent of the utility landfills had groundwater
monitoring and 57 percent had liners. For non-utility landfills, 94
percent had groundwater monitoring, and between 16 percent and 52
percent had liners. Between 1985 and 1995, 75 percent of new landfills
and 60 percent of new surface impoundments within the utility sector
had been lined. We have no information regarding the percentage of
units built since 1995 (the date when the study we have relied on
ended) that have liners or groundwater monitoring programs.
In looking at state programs, we found that for landfills, more
than 40 states have the authority to require permits, siting
restrictions, liners, leachate collection, groundwater monitoring,
closure controls, and cover/dust controls. Forty-three states can
require liners and 46 can require groundwater monitoring compared to 11
and 28 states, respectively, in the 1980's. For surface impoundments,
more than 40 states have authority to require permits, siting
restrictions, liners, groundwater monitoring, and closure control; 33
can require leachate collection (there is no earlier comparison data
for surface impoundments). Forty-five states can require liners and 44
can require groundwater monitoring for impoundments.
Comments. Industry and state agency commenters generally stated
that the Agency presented an accurate and comprehensive analysis of
state programs and that existing state regulations are adequate. Public
interest commenters raised many concerns about the adequacy of state
programs: Either they do not have provisions to cover all elements of a
protective program; they do not consistently impose the requirements
for which they have authority; and/or enforcement is lax. Evidence
commenters cited for the inadequacy of state programs included
grandfathering for older management units and an apparent lack of
controls for surface impoundments. For these reasons, some found EPA's
review of state programs inaccurate or incomplete.
Public interest commenters were also skeptical of programs or
efforts that rely on voluntary industry implementation because
adherence to guidance is not guaranteed. Several commenters, primarily
from industry, urged the Agency not to regulate pyrite co-management
because of the voluntary, industry-developed guidance.
EPA's Analysis of Comments. We believe that state programs have, in
fact, substantially improved over the last 15
[[Page 32229]]
years or so. A high percentage of states have authority to impose
protective management standards on surface impoundments and landfills,
especially for groundwater monitoring, liners, and leachate collection,
which mitigate potential risks posed by these units. Over 40 states
today have these authorities (33 states have authority to require
leachate collection in surface impoundments). When authority under
state groundwater and drinking water regulations are considered, some
commenters have suggested that nearly all states can address the
management of these wastes. In addition, we believe that the trend to
line and install groundwater monitoring for new surface impoundments
and landfills is positive. However, as some commenters noted, we
acknowledge that our state program review looked at the authorities
available to states and their overall regulatory requirements, not the
specific requirements applied to given facilities, which could be more
or less stringent. In addition, we recognize that individual state
programs may have some gaps in coverage, as indicated below, so that
some controls may not now be required at coal combustion waste
impoundments and landfills. We would expect to see some differences in
the application of requirements, depending on site-specific conditions.
One consistent trend that raises concern for the Agency is that
controls are much less common at surface impoundment than at landfills.
Even for newer units at utilities (constructed between 1985 and 1995),
liners are used at 75 percent of landfills and only 60 percent of
surface impoundments. Also at newer units, groundwater monitoring is
implemented at 88 percent of landfills and at only 65 percent of
surface impoundments. Approximately one-third of coal combustion wastes
were managed in surface impoundments in 1995. Hydraulic pressure in a
surface impoundment increases the likelihood of releases. We believe
that groundwater monitoring, at a minimum, in existing as well as new
impoundments, is a reasonable approach to monitor performance of the
unit and a critical first step to addressing groundwater damage that
may be caused by the unit. As of 1995, 38 percent of currently
operating utility surface impoundments had groundwater monitoring and
only 26 percent had liners.
While liners and groundwater monitoring are applied more frequently
at landfills, there are still many utility and non-utility landfills
that do not have liners. In addition, 15 percent of utility landfills
do not have groundwater monitoring, and some six percent of non-utility
landfills do not have groundwater monitoring, based on a limited
survey.
The utility industry through its trade associations has
demonstrated a willingness to work with EPA to develop protective
management practices, and individual companies have committed to
upgrading their own practices. However, the Agency recognizes that
participation in voluntary programs is not assured. Also, individual
facilities and companies may not implement protective management
practices and controls, for a variety of reasons, in spite of their
endorsement by industry-wide groups.
We see a trend toward significantly improving state programs and
voluntary industry investment in liners and groundwater monitoring that
we believe can mitigate potential risks over time. However, we
identified significant gaps in controls already in place and, in
particular, requirements that may be lacking in some states, either in
authority to impose the requirements or potentially in exercising that
authority. In response to comments, we further analyzed risks posed by
coal combustion wastes taking into account waste characteristics and
potential and actual damage cases. Based on these analyses, we
concluded that coal combustion wastes, in certain circumstances, could
unnecessarily increase risks to human health and the environment, and
that a number of proven damages have been documented, and that more are
likely if we had been able to conduct a more thorough search of
available state records and if groundwater monitoring data were
available for all units. We recognize there will probably continue to
be some gaps in practices and controls and are concerned at the
possibility that these will go unaddressed. We also believe the time
frame for improvement of current practices is likely to be longer in
the absence of federal regulations.
D. What Is the Basis for Today's Decisions?
Based on our collection and analysis of information reflecting the
criteria in section 8002(n) of RCRA that EPA must consider in making
today's regulatory determination, materials developed in preparing the
RTC and supportive background materials, existing state and federal
regulations and programs that affect the management of coal combustion
wastes, and comments received from the public on the findings we
presented in the RTC, we have concluded the following:
1. Beneficial Uses
To the extent coal combustion wastes are used for beneficial
purposes, we believe they should continue to remain exempt from being
regulated as hazardous wastes under RCRA. Beneficial purposes include
waste stabilization, beneficial construction applications (e.g.,
cement, concrete, brick and concrete products, road bed, structural
fill, blasting grit, wall board, insulation, roofing materials),
agricultural applications (e.g., as a substitute for lime) and other
applications (absorbents, filter media, paints, plastics and metals
manufacture, snow and ice control, waste stabilization). For the
reasons presented in section 3 below, we are separately addressing the
use of coal combustion wastes to fill surface or underground mines.
For beneficial uses other than minefilling, we have reached this
decision because: (a) We have not identified any beneficial uses that
are likely to present significant risks to human health or the
environment; and (b) no documented cases of damage to human health or
the environment have been identified. Additionally, we do not want to
place any unnecessary barriers on the beneficial use of coal combustion
wastes so that they can be used in applications that conserve natural
resources and reduce disposal costs.
Disposal can be burdensome and fails to take advantage of
beneficial characteristics of fossil fuel combustion wastes. About one-
quarter of the coal combustion wastes now generated are diverted to
beneficial uses. Currently, the major beneficial uses of coal
combustion wastes include: Construction (including building products,
road base and sub-base, blasting grit and roofing materials) accounting
for approximately 21%; sludge and waste stabilization and acid
neutralization accounting for approximately 3%; and agricultural use
accounting for 0.1%. Based on our conclusion that these beneficial uses
of coal combustion wastes are not likely to pose significant risks to
human health and the environment, we support increases in these
beneficial uses of coal combustion wastes.
Off-site uses in construction, including wallboard, present low
risk due to the coal combustion wastes being bound or encapsulated in
the construction materials or because there is low potential for
exposure. Use in waste and sludge stabilization and in acid
neutralization are either regulated (under RCRA for hazardous waste
stabilization or when placed in
[[Page 32230]]
municipal solid waste landfills, or under the Clean Water Act in the
case of municipal sewage sludge or wastewater neutralization), or
appear to present low risk due to low exposure potential. While in the
RTC, we expressed concern over risks presented by agricultural use, we
now believe our previous analysis assumed unrealistically high-end
conditions, and that the risk, which we now believe to be on the order
of 10<SUP>-6</SUP>, does not warrant national regulation of coal
combustion wastes that are used in agricultural applications.
In the RTC, we were not able to identify damage cases associated
with these types of beneficial uses, nor do we now believe that these
uses of coal combustion wastes present a significant risk to human
health or the environment. While some commenters disagreed with our
findings, no data or other support for the commenters' position was
provided, nor was any information provided to show risk or damage
associated with agricultural use. Therefore, we conclude that none of
the beneficial uses of coal combustion wastes listed above pose risks
of concern.
2. Disposal in Landfills and Surface Impoundments
In this section, we discuss available information regarding the
potential risks to human health and the environment from the disposal
of coal combustion wastes into landfills and impoundments. In sum, our
conclusion is these wastes can pose significant risks when mismanaged
and, while significant improvements are being made in waste management
practices due to increasing state oversight, gaps in the current
regulatory regime remain.
We have determined that the establishment of national regulations
is warranted for coal combustion wastes when they are disposed in
landfills and surface impoundments, because: (a) The composition of
these wastes has the potential to present danger to human health and
the environment under some circumstances and ``potential'' damage cases
identified by EPA and commenters, while not definitively demonstrating
damage from coal combustion wastes, lend support to our conclusion that
these wastes have the potential to pose such danger; (b) we have
identified eleven cases of proven damage to human health and the
environment by improper management of these wastes when land disposed;
(c) while industry management practices have improved measurably in
recent years, there is sufficient evidence these wastes are currently
being managed in a significant number of landfills and surface
impoundments without proper controls in place, particularly in the area
of groundwater monitoring; and (d) while there have been substantive
improvements in state regulatory programs, we have also identified
significant gaps either in states' regulatory authorities or in their
exercise of existing authorities. Moreover, we believe that the costs
of complying with regulations that specifically address these problems,
while large in absolute terms, are only a small percentage of industry
revenues.
When we considered a tailored subtitle C regulatory approach, we
estimated the potential costs of regulation of coal combustion wastes
(including the utility coal combustion wastes addressed in the 1993
Part 1 determination) to be $1 billion per year. While large in
absolute terms, we estimate that these costs are less than 0.4 percent
of industry sales. Our preliminary estimate of impact on profitability
is a function of facility size, among other factors. For the larger
facilities, we estimate that reported pre-tax profit margins of about
13 percent may be reduced to about 11 percent. For smaller facilities,
margins may be reduced from about nine percent to about seven percent.
We identified that the constituents of concern in these wastes are
metals, particularly hazardous metals. We further identified that
leachate from various large volume wastes generated at coal combustion
facilities infrequently exceed the hazardous waste toxicity
characteristic, for one or more of the following metals: arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury. Additionally, when we compared
waste leachate concentrations for hazardous metals to their
corresponding MCLs (or potential MCLs in the case of arsenic), we found
that there was a potential for risk as a result of arsenic leaching
from these wastes. The criteria we examined included the existing
arsenic MCL, a lower health based number presented in the RTC, and two
assumed values in between. We examined this range of values because, as
explained earlier in this notice, EPA is in the process of revising the
current MCL for arsenic to a lower value as a result of a detailed
study of arsenic in drinking water and we wanted to assess the likely
range of values that would be under consideration by EPA. Once we have
completed a review of our groundwater model and made necessary changes,
we will reevaluate the potential risks from metals in coal combustion
wastes and compare any projected groundwater contamination to the MCLs
that exist at that time.
We also identified situations where the improper management of mill
rejects, a low volume and uniquely associated waste, with high volume
coal combustion wastes has the potential to cause releases of higher
quantities of hazardous metals. When these wastes are improperly
managed, the mill rejects can create an acidic environment which
enhances leachability and can lead to the release of hazardous metals
in high concentrations from the co-managed wastes to ground water or
surface waters. Thus, our analysis of the characteristics of coal
combustion wastes leads us to conclude that these wastes have the
potential to pose risk to human health and the environment. We also
plan to address such waste management practices in our subsequent
rulemaking.
Additionally, we identified 11 proven damage cases that documented
disposal of coal combustion wastes in unlined landfills or surface
impoundments that involved exceedences of primary MCLs or other health-
based standards in ground water or drinking water wells. Three of the
proven damage cases were on the EPA Superfund National Priorities List.
Although these damage cases indicate that coal combustion wastes can
present risks to human health and the environment, they also show the
effectiveness of states' responses when damages were identified. All of
the sites were at older, unlined units, with disposal occurring prior
to 1993. None of these cases involved actual human exposure. Given the
large number of facilities that do not now conduct groundwater
monitoring, we have a concern that additional cases of damage may be
undetected.
As detailed in the RTC and explained earlier in this notice, we
identified that the states and affected industry have made considerable
progress in recent years toward more effective management of coal
combustion wastes. We also identified that the ability for most states
to impose specific regulatory controls for coal combustion wastes has
increased almost three-fold over the past 15 years. Forty-three states
can now impose a liner requirements at landfills whereas 15 years ago,
11 had the same authority. In addition to regulatory permits, the
majority of states now have authority to require siting controls,
liners, leachate collection, groundwater monitoring, closure controls,
and other controls and requirements for surface impoundments and
landfills.
Nonetheless, we have concluded that there are still gaps in the
actual application of these controls and
[[Page 32231]]
requirements, particularly for surface impoundments. While most states
now have the appropriate authorities and regulations to require liners
and groundwater monitoring that would reduce or minimize the risks that
we have identified, we have also identified numerous situations where
these controls are not being applied. For example, only 26 percent of
utility surface impoundments and 57 percent of utility landfills have
liner systems in place. We have insufficient information to determine
whether the use of these controls is significantly different for non-
utility disposal units, due to a small sample size.
While many of these unlined units may be subject to grandfathering
provisions that allow them to continue to operate without being lined,
or may not need to be lined due to site-specific conditions, we are
especially concerned that a substantial number of units do not employ
groundwater monitoring to ensure that if significant releases occur
from these unlined units, they will be detected and controlled. In
1995, groundwater was monitored at only 38 percent of utility surface
impoundments. While monitoring is more frequent at landfills, there are
still many units at which releases of hazardous metals could go
undetected. For example, of the approximately 300 utility landfills, 45
newer landfills (15%) do not monito