b) Before selecting a closure method, the owner or operator of each CCR surface impoundment must complete a closure alternatives analysis. The closure alternatives analysis must examine the following for each closure alternative:

1. 1) The long- and short-term effectiveness and protectiveness of the closure method, including identification and analyses of the following factors:

   1. A) The magnitude of reduction of existing risks;
   2. B) The magnitude of residual risks in terms of likelihood of future releases of CCR;
   3. C) The type and degree of long-term management required, including monitoring, operation, and maintenance;
   4. D) The short-term risks that might be posed to the community or the environment during implementation of a closure, including potential threats to human health and the environment associated with excavation, transportation, and re-disposal of contaminants;
   5. E) The time until closure and post-closure care or the completion of groundwater monitoring under Section 845.740(b) is completed;
   6. F) The potential for exposure of humans and environmental receptors to remaining wastes, considering the potential threat to human health and the environment associated with excavation, transportation, re-disposal, containment or changes in groundwater flow;
   7. G) The long-term reliability of the engineering and institutional controls, including an analysis of any off-site, nearby destabilizing activities; and
   8. H) Potential need for future corrective action of the closure alternative.

2. 2) The effectiveness of the closure method in controlling future releases based on analyses of the following factors:

   1. A) The extent to which containment practices will reduce further releases; and

B) The extent to which treatment technologies may be used.

1. 3) The ease or difficulty of implementing a potential closure method based on analyses of the following types of factors:

B) Expected operational reliability of the technologies;

1. C) Need to coordinate with and obtain necessary approvals and permits from other agencies;

D) Availability of necessary equipment and specialists; and

1. E) Available capacity and location of needed treatment, storage, and disposal services.
2. 4) The degree to which the concerns of the residents living within communities where the CCR will be handled, transported and disposed of are addressed by the closure method.

c) In the closure alternatives analysis, the owner or operator of the CCR surface impoundment must:

1. 1) Analyze complete removal of the CCR as one closure alternative, along with the modes for transporting the removed CCR, including by rail, barge, low-polluting trucks, or a combination of these transportation modes;
2. 2) Identify whether the facility has an onsite landfill with remaining capacity that can legally accept CCR, and, if not, whether constructing an onsite landfill is possible; and
3. 3) Include any other closure method in the alternatives analysis if requested by the Agency.

d) The analysis for each alternative completed under this Section must:

1. 1) Meet or exceed a class 4 estimate under the AACE Classification Standard, incorporated by reference in Section 845.150, or a comparable classification practice as provided in the AACE Classification Standard;
2. 2) Contain the results of groundwater contaminant transport modeling and calculations showing how the closure alternative will achieve compliance with the applicable groundwater protection standards;
3. 3) Include a description of the fate and transport of contaminants with the closure alternative over time, including consideration of seasonal variations; and
4. 4) Assess impacts to waters in the State.