Coal Combustion Waste Management at - DOE - Fossil Energy ...

52
the surveyed units was conducted to identify the nature and extent of any variances to the
regulatory requirements. This section describes the findings associated with the review of
information in the CCW permits and follow-up interviews with utilities and States, where
necessary, to ascertain the degree to which regulators are implementing State requirements as
intended.
3.3.1 Overview of Variance Requests
The permit review found that from 1994 to 2004, 52 variances were requested by
operators of new or recently expanded disposal units in 9 of the 16 States containing surveyed
units: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia and
Wisconsin. No variance requests were identified in the remaining seven States: Michigan,
Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania. The
review also found that few of these requests were related to liners or groundwater monitoring.
For example, only four variances to groundwater-monitoring requirements were requested.
While all four were granted, they applied only to organic constituents not found in CCWs.
Similarly, only seven variances to liner requirements were requested. These were not to exempt
the units from using liners, but rather to allow the use of alternative construction methods or liner
materials. Of the seven liner variance requests, two were rejected, three were granted with
stipulations, and two were granted only after the protectiveness of the proposed alternatives was
demonstrated to the regulators. For one of the two liner requests granted, approval of a request to
use an alternative (unconventional) method to consolidate subgrade foundation soils was granted
after the success of the alternative approach was demonstrated at the specific site for which it
was requested. In the second case, permeability data for an alternative liner material (soil
combined with compacted Poz-O-Tec) submitted by the company demonstrated that the
permeability of the combination liner would be no greater than that allowed for the 3-ft
compacted soil liner specified in the regulations.
The following paragraphs describe the overall review of the variances requested and the
State agency responses; Section 3.3.2 describes specific variance requests. Appendix J
summarizes variance requests by State and category of requirement (e.g., liner, groundwater
protection standards); Appendix K provides, for each of the 52 variance requests, the variance
category, a description of the specific request, whether it was granted or not, a summary of the
regulation to which the variance applies, the citation of the regulation, and the host State of the
unit for which the variance was requested; and Appendix L provides, for each variance request,
the granting rationale (if granted), the revocation provisions (if any), and any comments that
further explain the variance.
In their survey responses, operators of surveyed units reported that 11 units in 6 States
had one or more variances in their permits. All were for landfills. Because the information in the
survey responses lacked the detail needed to investigate the variance issue thoroughly, we
examined all 65 permits received from unit operators (whether or not the associated survey
reported a variance) to determine whether variances had been requested and granted and, if so,
the rationale behind the decision.