Coal Combustion Residue
Status of EPA's Efforts to Regulate Disposal Gao ID: GAO-10-85R October 30, 2009On December 22, 2008, a breach in a surface impoundment (or storage pond) dike at the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Kingston Fossil Plant in Tennessee resulted in the release of 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash--also referred to as coal combustion residue (CCR)--into the nearby Emory River. The spill covered more than 300 acres and made 3 homes uninhabitable; it damaged 23 other homes, plus roads, rail lines, and utilities. TVA estimated the cleanup will cost between $933 million and $1.2 billion and take 2 to 3 years to complete. In light of the spill in Kingston, Congress asked us to identify: (1) the number of surface impoundments for storing CCR in the United States and their location; (2) problems, if any, with the storage of coal ash, and how those problems are being addressed; and (3) the type of federal oversight that exists for CCR and what, if any, issues need to be resolved. We briefed your staffs on October 1, 2009, and September 28, 2009, respectively, on the results of this work. This report summarizes and transmits that briefing. The full briefing is reprinted in the enclosure.
Our review found the following: (1) The exact number of surface impoundments at utility coal fired power plants is not known. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently undertaking an effort to identify the number and location of all surface impoundments in the United States and, as of September 14, 2009, had identified over 580 surface impoundments nationwide. (2) Problems that have been identified with the storage of coal ash include potential structural defects and other risks of collapse of the surface impoundment, such as at TVA Kingston Facility; health and environmental risks from CCR storage due to potential leaching of contaminants into surface or groundwater from unlined or failed liners at surface impoundments, landfills, or sand and gravel pits; and potential risks from the discharge of wastewater containing CCR into surface waters from surface impoundments. EPA is currently analyzing the structural hazards and environmental risks associated with surface impoundments. (3) EPA does not directly regulate CCR disposal in surface impoundments or landfills to prevent releases or a catastrophic spill, and states have a variety of regulatory controls on surface impoundments. EPA is developing proposed regulations but, as part of this effort, needs to address issues of federal and state roles for control and enforcement.
GAO-10-85R, Coal Combustion Residue: Status of EPA's Efforts to Regulate Disposal
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-85R
entitled 'Coal Combustion Residue: Status of EPA's Efforts to Regulate
Disposal' which was released on October 30, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 30, 2009:
The Honorable Barbara Boxer:
Chairman:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Edolphus Towns:
Chairman:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Coal Combustion Residue: Status of EPA's Efforts to Regulate
Disposal:
On December 22, 2008, a breach in a surface impoundment (or storage
pond) dike at the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Kingston Fossil
Plant in Tennessee resulted in the release of 5.4 million cubic yards
of coal ash--also referred to as coal combustion residue (CCR)--into
the nearby Emory River. The spill covered more than 300 acres and made
3 homes uninhabitable; it damaged 23 other homes, plus roads, rail
lines, and utilities. TVA estimated the cleanup will cost between $933
million and $1.2 billion and take 2 to 3 years to complete. In light of
the spill in Kingston, you asked us to identify: (1) the number of
surface impoundments for storing CCR in the United States and their
location; (2) problems, if any, with the storage of coal ash, and how
those problems are being addressed; and (3) the type of federal
oversight that exists for CCR and what, if any, issues need to be
resolved. We briefed your staffs on October 1, 2009, and September 28,
2009, respectively, on the results of this work. This report summarizes
and transmits that briefing. The full briefing is reprinted in the
enclosure.
To respond to your request, we obtained and reviewed Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) policy and program documents. We also
interviewed senior officials from EPA's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response and Office of Water and collected statistics
compiled by the Department of Energy's Energy Information
Administration. To obtain perspective on the oversight that exists for
CCR, we gathered and analyzed documents and opinions from industry and
state representatives and environmental groups. To understand coal
power plant activities and surface impoundments, we obtained and
analyzed documentation from TVA senior officials on TVA facilities,
visited TVA's Bull Run facility to observe a coal-fired plant in
operation, and observed the ongoing cleanup at its Kingston facility.
We conducted our work from March to October 2009 in accordance with all
sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our
objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the
engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our
stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We
believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis
conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions
in this product.
Summary:
Our review found the following:
* The exact number of surface impoundments at utility coal fired power
plants is not known. However, EPA is currently undertaking an effort to
identify the number and location of all surface impoundments in the
United States and, as of September 14, 2009, had identified over 580
surface impoundments nationwide.
* Problems that have been identified with the storage of coal ash
include potential structural defects and other risks of collapse of the
surface impoundment, such as at TVA Kingston Facility; health and
environmental risks from CCR storage due to potential leaching of
contaminants into surface or groundwater from unlined or failed liners
at surface impoundments, landfills, or sand and gravel pits; and
potential risks from the discharge of wastewater containing CCR into
surface waters from surface impoundments. EPA is currently analyzing
the structural hazards and environmental risks associated with surface
impoundments.
* EPA does not directly regulate CCR disposal in surface impoundments
or landfills to prevent releases or a catastrophic spill, and states
have a variety of regulatory controls on surface impoundments. EPA is
developing proposed regulations but, as part of this effort, needs to
address issues of federal and state roles for control and enforcement.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report and the attached briefing to EPA for
review and comment. EPA provided technical comments that we
incorporated into the briefing slides, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator of EPA and
interested congressional committees. This report also is available at
no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Individuals making key contributions to
this report included Ernie Hazera, Assistant Director; Greg Carroll;
Julia Coulter; Elizabeth Beardsley; and Ben Shouse.
Signed by:
Frank Rusco:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Enclosure:
Coal Combustion Residue: Status of EPA‘s Efforts to Regulate Disposal:
Briefing to Congressional Committees:
September 28 and October 1, 2009:
Introduction:
On December 22, 2008, a breach in a dike at the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) Kingston Fossil Plant resulted in the release of 5.4
million cubic yards of coal ash”also referred to as coal combustion
residue (CCR)”into the nearby Emory River. The spill covered more than
300 acres, made 3 homes uninhabitable and damaged 23 other homes, plus
roads, rail lines, and utilities.
TVA states it has made progress in the cleanup the last several months;
however, it estimates the cleanup will cost between $933million and
$1.2 billion and could take 2-3 years. TVA‘s cost estimate does not
include potential costs associated with regulatory actions, litigation,
fines or penalties, and final remediation activities.
The TVA spill has raised concerns about potential risks associated with
other similar facilities nationwide.
Objectives:
In light of the Kingston spill, you asked us to identify:
1. the number of CCR surface impoundments and their locations;
2. problems, if any, with the storage of coal ash and how those
problems are being addressed; and;
3. the type of federal oversight that exists for CCR, and what, if any,
issues need to be resolved.
Scope and Methodology:
To conduct this review,we:
* Analyzed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy and program
documents, reports, studies, and legal documents and interviewed senior
officials from EPA‘s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and
Office of Water.
* Collected statistics compiled by Department of Energy‘s (DOE) Energy
Information Administration (EIA).
* Obtained and analyzed documents and opinions from industry, state
representatives, and environmental groups.
* Obtained and analyzed documentation from TVA senior officials on TVA
facilities, interviewed TVA officials,visited TVA‘s Bull Run facility
to observe a coal-fired plant in operation,and observed the ongoing
cleanup at its Kingston facility.
We conducted our work from March to October 2009 in accordance with all
sections of GAO‘s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our
objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the
engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our
stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We
believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis
conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions
in this product.
Background:
The combustion of coal leaves behind various materials”the
noncombustible portion of the coal itself and residues collected by air
pollution control technologies which we refer to as CCR.[Footnote 1]
See figure 1 for an illustration of a coal-fired power plant.
Figure 1: Typical Coal-Fired Power Plant:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
The following are depicted in the illustration:
River;
Coal;
Boiler (furnace);
Water;
Steam;
Turbine;
Condenser cooling water;
Generator;
Transformer;
Transmission lines.
Source: TVA.
[End of figure]
Coal-fired power plants accounted for almost half of U.S. electric
power production in 2008 and generated an estimated 131 million tons of
CCR in 2007. See figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Net Generation by Fuel Source, 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Coal: 48%;
Natural gas and other gases: 22%;
Nuclear: 20%;
Hydroelectric: 6%;
Other renewables and miscellaneous technologies: 3%;
Petroleum liquids and petroleum coke: 1%.
Source: Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
[End of figure]
The coal combustion process results in different types of CCR produced,
including fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas
desulfurization(FGD) material.
* Fly ash”a product of burning finely ground coal in a boiler. Fly ash
is a gray or tan powder.
* Bottom ash”the heavier mineral residue from a pulverized coal unit,
which falls to the bottom of the boiler as small particles.
* Boiler slag”molten ash that collects at the base of certain furnaces
which is then quenched in water and crushed resulting in shiny black,
opaque particles.
* FGD material”wet sludge or dry powder (such as FGD gypsum) that
results from the chemical process used to meet sulfur dioxide emission
requirements.
In 2007, according to industry survey data,[Footnote 2] the amount of
estimated CCR produced by type was as follows:
* Fly ash: 55%;
* Bottom ash: 14%;
* Boiler slag: 2%;
* FGD material: 25%;
* Other: 5%.
CCR includes toxics such as arsenic, lead, chromium, and selenium,which
can present health and environmental risks.
Several factors help determine CCR‘s potential uses and the risk it
poses to human health and the environment.
* Chemical and physical characteristics of the source coal.
* Presence of co-fired materials.
* Processes used to burn coal and handle the residue.
* Site characteristics.
Utilities dispose of CCRs by placing them in surface impoundments,
landfills, or mines or by finding alternative, or beneficial, uses for
them. Additional details on these options:
* Surface impoundment”A depression, excavation, or diked area primarily
formed from earthen materials to store liquid, sludge, or other waste.
Examples include storage ponds and sludge pits. Impoundments may be
buried after final deposition.
- Waste is generally sluiced directly from a power plant to the
impoundment unit, where solids settle out, leaving relatively clear
water at the surface.
- Solids may accumulate in the impoundment, or they may be dredged
periodically and taken to another disposal unit, such as a landfill.
* Landfilling”involves the long-term disposal of generally dry waste
that is placed on land or in an excavation.
* Minefill”CCR can be used as minefill in mine reclamation. For
example, CCR is alkaline, so it can abate acid mine drainage and
improve already disturbed mine lands. Minefill can also be used to
avoid construction of landfills and storage ponds.
* Beneficial use”CCR can be used as a component in products, such as
cement and gypsum wallboard, or as structural or embankment fill for
roads.
According to EPA, the estimated 131 million tons of CCR generated by
utilities in 2007 were disposed of in the following manner:
* Surface impoundments/ponds; 21%;
* Landfills; 36%;
* Mines; 5% (Minefill is considered by some as a beneficial use or
product);
* Beneficial uses; 38%.
Between 2000 and 2006, the power industry reported depositing into
surface impoundments and landfills CCR containing more than 124 million
pounds of six toxic pollutants (arsenic, chromium, lead, nickel,
selenium, and thallium).
[End of section]
Objective 1: Information on CCR Surface Impoundments:
The exact number of CCR surface impoundments at utility coal fired
power plants is not known:
* No industry organization or government agency tracks this
information.
* However, industry groups and federal agencies have obtained estimates
through surveying coal-fired power plants as part of efforts to collect
and analyze data on CCR disposal practices and state regulatory
requirements.
In March 2009, in response to the Kingston incident, EPA sent out
information request letters to 162 facilities and 61 corporate offices.
These companies identified 48 additional plants that operated CCR
impoundments, and EPA sent a second round of letters to these
facilities. EPA has received responses from all companies and power
plants that were sent letters.
* EPA‘s purpose was to determine the number of CCR surface impoundments
and similar units and specific information about them.[Footnote 3]
* Ultimately, EPA aims to assess the structural stability of these
impoundments and determine if and where corrective measures are needed.
As of July 2009, EPA had collected data from all the power plants to
which it originally sent out information request letters. It has
created a database that contains information on 584 surface
impoundments or similar units in 35 states that were identified by
utilities. According to EPA, some of these units may contain negligible
amounts of CCRs.
According to EPA officials, this total is subject to change as EPA
obtains more information through actual site visits.
Table: Total number of surface impoundments (or similar units) and
power plants by state as of September 14, 2009[Footnote 4]:
State: Indiana;
Surface impoundments: 53;
Power plants: 16.
State: Kentucky;
Surface impoundments: 44;
Power plants: 17.
State: Iowa;
Surface impoundments: 43;
Power plants: 13.
State: Colorado;
Surface impoundments: 40;
Power plants: 10.
State: Missouri;
Surface impoundments: 32;
Power plants: 14.
State: Ohio;
Surface impoundments: 28;
Power plants: 11.
State: North Carolina;
Surface impoundments: 26;
Power plants: 14.
State: Texas;
Surface impoundments: 26;
Power plants: 7.
State: South Carolina;
Surface impoundments: 22;
Power plants: 9.
State: Illinois;
Surface impoundments: 21;
Power plants: 12.
State: Tennessee;
Surface impoundments: 18;
Power plants: 8.
State: Minnesota;
Surface impoundments: 18;
Power plants: 7.
State: Wisconsin;
Surface impoundments: 18;
Power plants: 5.
State: Wyoming;
Surface impoundments: 17;
Power plants: 5.
State: Pennsylvania;
Surface impoundments: 16;
Power plants: 6.
State: Arizona;
Surface impoundments: 15;
Power plants: 3.
State: Alabama;
Surface impoundments: 14;
Power plants: 8.
State: Kansas;
Surface impoundments: 13;
Power plants: 6.
State: Virginia;
Surface impoundments: 12;
Power plants: 7.
State: Michigan;
Surface impoundments: 11;
Power plants: 5.
State: Louisiana;
Surface impoundments: 11;
Power plants: 3.
State: West Virginia;
Surface impoundments: 10;
Power plants: 7.
State: Georgia;
Surface impoundments: 10;
Power plants: 6.
State: Florida;
Surface impoundments: 9;
Power plants: 2.
State: New Mexico;
Surface impoundments: 9;
Power plants: 2.
State: Montana;
Surface impoundments: 9;
Power plants: 1.
State: North Dakota;
Surface impoundments: 8;
Power plants: 3.
State: Massachusetts;
Surface impoundments: 7;
Power plants: 2.
State: New York;
Surface impoundments: 6;
Power plants: 2.
State: Utah;
Surface impoundments: 6;
Power plants: 1.
State: Oklahoma;
Surface impoundments: 5;
Power plants: 2.
State: Delaware;
Surface impoundments: 3;
Power plants: 2.
State: Maryland;
Surface impoundments: 2;
Power plants: 1.
State: Arkansas;
Surface impoundments: 1;
Power plants: 1.
State: Mississippi;
Surface impoundments: 1;
Power plants: 1.
State: Total;
Surface impoundments: 584;
Power plants: 219.
Source: EPA.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Objective 2: Problems with CCR Storage and How EPA Is Addressing Them:
Problems identified with CCR storage:
* Potential structural defects and other risks of collapse of the
surface impoundment, such as at TVA Kingston facility.
* Health and environmental risks from CCR storage due to potential
leaching of contaminants into surface or groundwater from unlined or
failed liners at surface impoundments, landfills, or sand and gravel
pits.
* Potential risks from the discharge of wastewater containing CCR into
surface waters from surface impoundments.
EPA is analyzing the structural hazards associated with surface
impoundments:
* Twenty-six reporting facilities cited spills or unpermitted releases
from a total of 35 surface impoundments within the last 10 years.
* EPA has identified 49 units with a high hazard potential rating based
on criteria developed by the National Dam Safety Program (NDSP) for the
National Inventory of Dams (NID).[Footnote 5]
- A high rating indicates that a failure would probably cause loss of
human life, not that structural integrity is compromised.
- EPA has committed to assess all of these 49 units.
As of October 1, 2009, EPA had visited 38 facilities to conduct
structural assessments of their surface impoundments. EPA has made the
reports on the first 22 facilities available to the public.
In a separate effort initiated in 2009, EPA is looking at whether to
regulate the structural integrity of CCR surface impoundments through
wastewater discharge permits. In addition, because an evaluation found
that state wastewater permits vary widely in their structural
requirements for impoundments, EPA plans to draft best management
practices for state wastewater permits.
EPA is also analyzing the environmental risk of CCR storage:
* Over the last several years, EPA has analyzed the environmental risk
of CCR storage by reviewing cases suggested by environmental groups and
others.
* 2007 Damage Case Assessment Report: From 1999 to 2005, EPA gathered
or received information on 135 sites where alleged danger to human
health and the environment had been caused by CCR deposits. According
to EPA, approximately 65 cases were not evaluated because they lacked
adequate supporting information. Of the remaining cases, EPA found that
24 cases in 13 states were proven cases of damage to groundwater and
surface water, and an additional 39 were potential damage cases.
[Footnote 6] EPA followed up on 16 cases of proven damage to
groundwater and, as of July 2009, corrective actions have been
completed at seven sites and are ongoing at nine sites.
As part of another study, begun in 2005, EPA examined the toxins
present in CCR wastewater discharges to surface water from coal ash
ponds. In September 2009, EPA completed its study. EPA told us it found
that current effluent guidelines should be revised because of the high
level of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges from coal-fired power
plants and the expectation that these discharges will increase
significantly in the next few years as new air pollution controls are
installed (e.g., scrubbers used to meet air quality regulations).
[End of section]
Objective 3: Federal Oversight Role and Issues to Be Resolved:
EPA does not directly regulate CCR disposal in surface impoundments or
landfills to prevent releases or a catastrophic spill but is developing
proposed regulations:
* The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as
amended, is the key federal law generally regulating solid and
hazardous wastes.
* RCRA established a framework for regulation of wastes, including:
- Subtitle C: Federal ’cradle-to-grave“ regulation of hazardous wastes,
including a tracking system and federally enforceable permits.
- Subtitle D: Inducements for state solid waste programs and
implementation of federal minimum regulations for landfills.
The 1980 Bevill Amendment to RCRA:
* Exempted ’special study“ wastes, including CCR, from RCRA Subtitle C
until EPA conducted study and, if EPA determined them warranted,
promulgated regulations.
* Required EPA to submit a report to Congress by October 1982
evaluating the adverse effects on human health and the environment, if
any, from the storage and utilization of these special wastes.
* Required EPA to make a regulatory determination (within 6 months of
the report to Congress) as to whether these wastes warrant regulation
under RCRA Subtitle C.
EPA did not meet some requirements of the Bevill Amendment until years
later but has recently taken steps toward regulatory oversight of CCR:
* June 1992”EPA entered a consent decree to settle a citizen suit to
enforce Bevill Amendment requirements. Pursuant to this, EPA divided
CCR into two categories:(1) certain large-volume CCR from electric
utilities and independent power producers that is not co-managed and
(2) the ’remaining wastes“ originally identified by Congress.
* August 1993”EPA found that wastes from the first category do not
warrant regulation as hazardous waste under Subtitle C, and retained
their exclusion from the regulatory definition of hazardous waste.
* May 2000”EPA issued a Regulatory Determination concluding that the
remaining CCR wastes do not warrant regulation as hazardous waste and
retaining the exclusion from the regulatory definition of hazardous
waste. However:
- For CCR wastes disposed of in landfills or impoundments, EPA
determined that federal regulations under Subtitle D are warranted to
provide incentive for states to provide minimum regulatory coverage and
that improvement is likely to be slower without them. EPA intended that
the regulations would apply to all CCR (e.g., including category 1).
- EPA left open the possibility that it could revise the determination
and decide to regulate under Subtitle C based on additional information
in the future.
* In the 2000 Regulatory Determination, EPA also determined for
beneficial uses of CCR wastes:
- For minefilling, federal regulations under Subtitle D (or possibly
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act) are warranted to reduce
potential risks.
- Other beneficial uses (e.g., use in cement, concrete, and wallboard
products, and roadbeds and structural fill) were not considered a
concern at that time. EPA now notes that indiscriminate use of
unencapsulated CCRs in large fill operations has been shown to be
problematic in several instances.
After 2000, EPA conducted studies to obtain more information on CCR
disposal, including:
* EPA Damage Case Assessment (report published in 2007) (discussed
earlier”see slide 21);
* Draft EPA Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion
Wastes(2007) identified potential risk associated with CCR practices.
Results suggested that landfills and surface impoundments may present
risks to human health and the environment.
* EPA/DOE joint report Coal Combustion Waste Management at Landfills
and Surface Impoundments 1994-2004(published in 2006) identified recent
and current CCR disposal practices (excluding minefill), state
regulatory requirements, and the extent to which states waive or vary
regulatory requirements. The study found that most new units have
liners and groundwater monitoring. New units, however, are a small
subset of the total number of existing units.
* February 2003”While not specific to coal ash facilities, EPA worked
with state solid waste programs, industries, and citizens groups to
issue a set of voluntary guidelines in the ’Guide of Industrial Waste
Management.“
* August 2007”EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability (NODA),
informing the public of the additional information about CCR available
since the 2000 Regulatory Determination (the three studies above) and
requested comments. The NODA did not affirm EPA commitment to issuing
Subtitle D regulations for CCR.
* March 2009”EPA announced plans to issue proposed regulations for CCR
by the end of the year. EPA will consider results of the above studies
and comments received as well as results of its assessment of the
structural stability of surface impoundments in developing its
regulations.
Current Issues To Be Resolved:
* Despite the 1993 and 2000 Regulatory Determinations, which concluded
that EPA would regulate CCR using Subtitle D, EPA has stated it is
reconsidering options for regulation including:
- RCRA Subtitle C;
- RCRA Subtitle D;
- a hybrid approach, by which CCR would be considered a solid waste if
certain conditions are met, but a hazardous waste if they are not; and;
- EPA has more recently stated it is also considering another hybrid
approach whereby wet CCRs (in surface impoundments) would be regulated
as hazardous wastes and dry CCRs(in landfills) would be regulated as
non-hazardous wastes.
* Current debate by interested groups focuses on these options, which
implicate issues of federal versus state control and enforcement.
Table: Stakeholders have taken positions on RCRA C and RCRA D options
being considered by EPA in upcoming regulation:
Option: Regulation under Subtitle C;
Industry and state agency associations: Oppose:
* Cost and complexity (e.g., lack of hazardous waste storage).
* Beneficial use could be hindered by hazardous waste stigma.
* Beneficial use would be automatically prohibited by some states‘
regulations.
Environmental groups: Support:
* Would provide minimum safeguards in every state and be enforceable by
EPA.
* Would not hinder beneficial use because EPA could regulate CCR
differently when disposed of in a landfill versus safely recycled.
Option: Regulation under Subtitle D;
Industry and state agency associations: Support:
* Allows for variability and flexibility of rules in states with
different geography or topography.
* Could require regulation similar to solid waste (e.g., bottom liners,
groundwater monitoring, post-closure monitoring).
* Would not inhibit beneficial use.
Environmental groups: Oppose:
* EPA could not routinely inspect CCR disposal sites or require permits
for CCR disposal; opportunity for public involvement in permits may be
limited.
* States may not be able to regulate as well as EPA (e.g., lack of
resources).
[End of table]
Most states have RCRA Subtitle D solid waste programs; however,
regulatory controls for CCR vary among states:
* According to a 2009 Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials survey, to which 44 states responded, 42 had CCR
landfills, and 36 had CCR surface impoundments:
- Of the 42 states with landfills, 36 had a permit program for
landfills, 3 did not, and 3 did not respond. Of the 36 states with
surface impoundments, 25 had permit programs for surface impoundments,
3 did not, and 8 did not respond. 27 of 42 states required liners for
landfills, while 12 of 36 states required liners for surface
impoundments.[Footnote 7]
- 29 of 42 states had minimum regulatory requirements for structural
stability of CCR landfills, while 13 of 36 had such requirements for
surface impoundments.
[End of section]
Outlook for CCR Regulation:
EPA projections of near term actions:
* September 2009”EPA began releasing the reports of the assessment of
the high hazard coal ash impoundments.
* October 2009”EPA plans to forward draft proposed CCR disposal rule to
the Office of Management and Budget.
* December 2009”EPA plans to issue proposed rule. The proposal will be
out for public notice and comment. EPA could choose to hold public
hearings as well.
In September 2009, EPA announced its decision to initiate a rulemaking
effort to revise the effluent guidelines, including those related to
CCR wastewater discharges. Proposed regulations are expected in 2012.
EPA has not set target dates for wastewater related efforts such as
issuance of best management practices for state wastewater permits and
structural requirements to be included in permits.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Other terms used include: coal combustion waste, coal combustion
product, coal combustion material, coal combustion ash, and coal
combustion by-product. We chose to use ’coal combustion residue“ to
avoid implying that these materials are destined for particular fates.
The National Research Council of the National Academies used this term
in its 2006 report ’Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines“ for the
same reason.
[2] Data are based on information submitted by 161 coal-fired power
plants to the American Coal Ash Association in 2007.
[3] EPA included in this request similar diked or bermed units or
management units designated as landfills that receive liquid-borne
material for storage or disposal of CCR because of the different
definitions of impoundments used by facilities. EPA did not request
information on or access to minefilling or dry landfills.
[4] Data are based on responses to EPA‘s data request, and are subject
to change.
[5] The NDSP, led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is a
partnership of the states, federal agencies, and other stakeholders to
encourage individual and community responsibility for dam safety. It
provides grant assistance to state dam programs, and funding for dam
safety research and training. Hazard potential ratings are generally
assigned by state dam safety officials. NID is maintained and published
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and contains information on dams
throughout the United States that are more than 25 feet high, hold more
than 50 acre-feet of water, or are considered a significant hazard if
they fail.
[6] Since the report was issued, EPA has identified 3 additional cases
of proven damage and one additional case of potential damage.
[7] EPA has emphasized that states that do not have a liner requirement
may still require liners under some general performance based standard,
while states with a liner requirement may have other provisions which
allow for variances.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
