Coal Combustion Waste Management at - DOE - Fossil Energy ...
Coal Combustion Waste Management at - DOE - Fossil Energy ...
Coal Combustion Waste Management at - DOE - Fossil Energy ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
S-10<br />
− In the area of groundw<strong>at</strong>er-monitoring requirements, eight St<strong>at</strong>es<br />
(Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia,<br />
and Wisconsin) experienced tightened controls, and two St<strong>at</strong>es<br />
(Alabama and Texas) experienced relaxed controls, with a r<strong>at</strong>io of net<br />
disposable CCWs (relaxed:tightened) of 0.50:1.0.<br />
− In the area of leach<strong>at</strong>e-collection requirements, eight St<strong>at</strong>es (Georgia,<br />
Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and<br />
Wisconsin) experienced tightened controls, and one St<strong>at</strong>e (Florida)<br />
experienced relaxed controls, with a r<strong>at</strong>io of net disposable CCWs<br />
(relaxed:tightened) of 0.086:1.0.<br />
− In the area of closure and post-closure requirements, three St<strong>at</strong>es<br />
(Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) experienced tightened controls,<br />
and no St<strong>at</strong>es experienced relaxed controls, with a r<strong>at</strong>io of net<br />
disposable CCWs (relaxed:tightened) of 0.0:1.0.<br />
− In the area of siting requirements, three St<strong>at</strong>es (Illinois, Indiana, and<br />
Virginia) experienced tightened controls, and no St<strong>at</strong>es experienced<br />
relaxed controls, with a r<strong>at</strong>io of net disposable CCWs (relaxed:<br />
tightened) of 0.0:1.0.<br />
− In the area of financial assurance requirements, two St<strong>at</strong>es (Indiana<br />
and Virginia) experienced tightened controls, and no St<strong>at</strong>es<br />
experienced relaxed controls, with a r<strong>at</strong>io of net disposable CCWs<br />
(relaxed:tightened) of 0.0:1.0.<br />
3. In the 16 St<strong>at</strong>es hosting surveyed units, we found th<strong>at</strong> St<strong>at</strong>e regul<strong>at</strong>ors did not<br />
issue variances unless there were sound scientific bases to support the<br />
variance requests.<br />
A comprehensive review of 65 permits, covering 39 newly constructed or<br />
expanded units in the time frame of 1994 to 2004, found th<strong>at</strong><br />
approxim<strong>at</strong>ely half of the units had requested one or more variances. 8 In<br />
this review, we erred on the side of overestim<strong>at</strong>ing the number of variance<br />
requests; anything in a permit th<strong>at</strong> looked like it might be a variance was<br />
included, even if the permit itself identified no variances. A total of<br />
52 variance requests in 9 of the 16 St<strong>at</strong>es containing surveyed units were<br />
identified. Eighteen of the units requesting variances were landfills; one<br />
was a surface impoundment.<br />
Of the 52 variance requests identified, 5 were rejected and 47 were<br />
granted. Of the 47 granted, 16 were granted with provisions th<strong>at</strong> would<br />
8 Copies of the 65 permits (of a total of 85 permits reported for the surveyed units) were received from 39 of the<br />
45 surveyed units. Some of these units have multiple permits (e.g., solid waste, construction, and dam safety).