Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
Congressional research reportJan 12, 2010
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW):
Issues with Disposal and Use
(name redacted)
Analyst in Environmental Policy
January 12, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R40544
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
Summary
In 2008, coal-fired power plants accounted for almost half of the United States’ electric power,
resulting in as much as 136 millions tons of coal combustion waste (CCW). On December 22,
2008, national attention was turned to issues regarding the waste when a breach in an
impoundment pond at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA’s) Kingston, TN, plant released 1.1
billion gallons of coal ash slurry. The estimated cleanup cost will likely reach $1.2 billion.
The characteristics of CCW vary, but it generally contains a range of heavy metals such as
arsenic, beryllium, chromium, lead, and mercury. While the incident at Kingston drew national
attention to the potential for a sudden catastrophic release of waste, the primary concern
regarding the management of CCW usually relates to the potential for hazardous constituents to
leach into surface or groundwater, and hence contaminate drinking water, surface water, or living
organisms. The presence of hazardous constituents in the waste does not, by itself, mean that they
will contaminate the surrounding air, ground, groundwater, or surface water. There are many
complex physical and biogeochemical factors that influence the degree to which heavy metals can
dissolve and migrate offsite—such as the mass of toxins in the waste and the degree to which
water is able to flow through it. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that
arsenic and lead and other carcinogens have leached into groundwater and exceeded safe limits
when CCW is disposed of in unlined disposal units.
In addition to discussions regarding the potential harm to human health and the environment, the
Kingston release brought attention to the fact that the management of CCW is essentially exempt
from federal regulation. Instead, it is regulated in accordance with requirements established by
individual states. State requirements generally apply to two broad categories of actions—the
disposal of CCW (in landfills, surface impoundment, or mines) and its beneficial use (e.g., as a
component in concrete, cement, or gypsum wallboard, or as structural or embankment fill).
In May 2000, partly as a result of inconsistencies in state requirements, EPA determined that
national regulations regarding CCW disposal were needed. To date, regulations have not been
proposed. However, on March 9, 2009, EPA stated that regulations to address CCW disposal in
landfills and surface impoundments would be proposed by the end of 2009. Also, in March 2007,
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the disposal of CCW in mines was released
by the Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining (OSM). Draft rules have not yet
been proposed. With regard to potential uses of CCW, EPA has stated that there have been few
studies that would definitively prove that certain uses of CCW are safe, but that its use should
include certain precautions to ensure adequate groundwater protection. It is unknown whether
regulations regarding beneficial uses of CCW will be included in the upcoming rulemaking.
Some Members of Congress and other stakeholders have expressed concern regarding how CCW
will ultimately be regulated. Among other issues, there is concern that the upcoming regulations
will be either too far-reaching, and hence costly, or not far-reaching enough—meaning that they
will not establish consistent, enforceable, minimal federal requirements applicable to CCW
disposal units. On December 17, 2009, EPA issued a statement that its pending decision on
regulating CCW would be delayed for a “short period due to the complexity of the analysis the
agency is currently finishing.”
Congressional Research Service
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
Contents
Overview of Disposal and Use Issues.............................................................................................. 1
The Nature of Coal Combustion Waste ........................................................................................... 4
Types of Coal Combustion Waste.............................................................................................. 4
Waste Characteristics................................................................................................................. 5
Potential Risks Associated with CCW Management ....................................................................... 6
Surface or Groundwater Contamination.................................................................................... 7
A Sudden of Release of Liquid Waste ....................................................................................... 7
Regulatory History and Current Rulemaking .................................................................................. 8
Waste Management Requirements Potentially Related to CCW............................................... 9
Identifying Solid and Hazardous Waste .............................................................................. 9
Solid Waste Management Requirements........................................................................... 10
Hazardous Waste Management Standards......................................................................... 10
Authority to Address an Imminent and Substantial Endangerment .................................. 11
CCW’s Regulatory Exemption Under “the Bevill Amendment” ............................................ 11
EPA Actions from the Bevill Amendment to Kingston ........................................................... 12
The Current Rulemaking ......................................................................................................... 15
Requirements Applicable to CCW Management ........................................................................... 18
Landfill and Surface Impoundment Disposal.......................................................................... 18
Solid Waste Permits........................................................................................................... 20
Dam Safety Requirements................................................................................................. 20
Wastewater Discharge Permits .......................................................................................... 21
Mine Disposal.......................................................................................................................... 21
“Beneficial Use”...................................................................................................................... 23
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 26
Tables
Table 1. Types of Coal Combustion Waste ...................................................................................... 5
Table 2. EPA and OSM Actions in Response to Bevill Amendment Requirements ...................... 13
Table 3. Summary of Potential Regulatory Authorities to Address CCW Management ............... 17
Table 4. Primary Beneficial Uses of Coal Combustion Wastes ..................................................... 24
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 27
Congressional Research Service
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
Overview of Disposal and Use Issues
Coal fired power plants account for almost 45% of electric power generated in the United States.
The coal combustion process at those facilities generates a tremendous amount of waste. In 2008,
industry estimates indicate that 136 million tons of coal combustion waste (CCW) was
generated.1 That would make CCW the second largest waste stream in the United States, second
to municipal solid waste, or common household garbage. How CCW is managed and how those
management methods are regulated have come under increased scrutiny in the last year.
Coal combustion waste is managed in two ways: It may be disposed of in landfills or surface
impoundment ponds, or in mines as minefill, or it may be used in some capacity (commonly
referred to as “beneficial use”)—for example, as a component in concrete, cement, or gypsum
wallboard, or as structural or embankment fill. These management methods are largely
unregulated at the federal level. Instead, they are regulated according to state requirements that
vary from state to state.
On December 22, 2008, national attention was turned to potential risks associated with CCW
management when a breach in an impoundment pond at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA’s)
Kingston, TN, plant released 1.1 billion gallons of coal fly ash slurry. The release covered more
than 300 acres and damaged or destroyed homes and property. The sludge discharged into the
nearby Emory and Clinch rivers, filling large areas of the rivers and resulting in fish kills.
Sampling at the site in January 2009 found arsenic levels that exceeded the Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Removal Action Level (contaminant levels at which time-critical
response actions may be required).2
According to TVA, the estimated cleanup cost will likely reach $1.2 billion.3 TVA recognized that
this estimate could change significantly depending on the method of containment or the amount
of ash ultimately disposed of as well as the impact of new coal ash laws and regulations that may
be implemented at the state or federal level. Further, TVA’s estimate does not include the potential
costs associated with future regulatory actions, litigation, fines or penalties that may be assessed,
final remediation activities, or other settlements. EPA and TVA have estimated that the cleanup
may take two to three years.
In addition to the Kingston release, other events related to CCW management have attracted
national media attention, as well as the attention of various stakeholders and some Members of
Congress. For example, on December 30, 2008, a $54 million class action settlement was
approved between Constellation Energy and Maryland residents after CCW that had been
disposed of in a Gambrills, MD, quarry contaminated the owners’ drinking water. Wells were
determined to be contaminated with arsenic, lead, cadmium, and sulphates at levels above EPA
drinking water standards.
1
In this report, waste management generally refers to any method of handling waste after it has been generated. With
regard to CCW, it refers to the disposal (in landfills, surface impoundment, or mines) or use of the waste (e.g., as a
component in cement or concrete).
2
See “EPA’s Response to the TVA Kingston Fossil Plant Fly Ash Release,” regarding January 6, 2009, sampling
activity at http://www.epa.gov/region4/kingston/index.html.
3
TVA “Form 10-Q” financial report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 31, 2009, p. 45, available at http://investor.shareholder.com/tva/sec.cfm.
Congressional Research Service
1
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
Concern for a potential accidental release or contamination associated with CCW management is
not new. However, the recent high-profile incidents have brought increased attention to the issue.
Concerns about CCW management generally center around the following issues:
•
The waste is generated in tremendous volumes and has been accumulating at
some sites for decades. Individual power plants may generate thousands to
hundreds of thousands of tons of the waste each year—the majority of which is
disposed of onsite. Some plants have been in operation for decades (the site of
the Kingston release has accumulated ash sludge since 1954), resulting in the
disposal of millions of tons of CCW at individual plants across the United States.
•
The waste likely contains certain hazardous constituents that EPA has determined
pose a risk to human health and the environment. Those constituents include
heavy metals such as arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, lead, and
mercury, and certain toxic organic materials such as dioxins and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds.
•
Under certain conditions, hazardous constituents in CCW migrate and can
contaminate groundwater or surface water, and hence living organisms. For
example, EPA determined that the potential risk of human exposure to arsenic
and other metals in CCW (via the groundwater-to-drinking-water pathway)
increased significantly when CCW was disposed of in unlined landfills. That risk
criterion was slightly higher for unlined surface impoundments.4
•
According to EPA, the majority of new landfills and surface impoundments are
constructed with liners and have groundwater monitoring systems. However, it is
difficult to determine how many older units that may be operational do not have
liners or groundwater monitoring.
•
Although CCW contains hazardous constituents, it has been specifically exempt
from federal hazardous waste management regulations. Instead, it is regulated in
accordance with requirements established by the states. In 1999, EPA determined
that national regulations regarding CCW disposal were needed, in part due to
inconsistencies in state requirements. Since then, various surveys have been
conducted and data gathered, but EPA has not proposed regulations.
Members of the public, particularly those near utility plants, have expressed concern that their
health or property values may be affected by either a sudden release of waste, as in Kingston, or
the gradual release of contaminants. Industry organizations insist that the waste is generally safe
and does not pose a significant risk that would warrant the increased cost of more stringent
management—costs that would be ultimately borne by rate payers. They also argue that being
required to manage the waste according to hazardous waste regulations would limit its potential
for use—thereby increasing the amount that must be disposed of. Environmental organizations
argue that the Kingston spill was a warning sign of spills to come and that there is currently
inadequate oversight and monitoring of either existing or closed disposal sites.
4
EPA’s Office of Solid Waste, “Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes,” August 6,
2007.
Congressional Research Service
2
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
Some Members of Congress have also expressed concern over these issues, both before and after
the Kingston release. Like other stakeholders, their concerns have stretched across various areas
including the role that coal mining plays in our economy, the role that coal-fired utilities play as a
major source of domestic energy, the federal role in the regulation of CCW, as well as the
potential risks posed to their constituents if CCW is managed improperly.5
EPA has been studying how best to regulate CCW since at least 1980. Waste management is
regulated under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
§6901 et seq.). In May 2000, EPA determined that CCW did not warrant regulation under subtitle
C of RCRA (the federal hazardous waste requirements). EPA did, however, determine that
national regulations under subtitle D of RCRA (the solid waste management requirements) were
warranted for CCW when it is disposed in landfills or surface impoundments. EPA also found that
CCW used to fill surface or underground mines warranted regulation under RCRA’s solid waste
requirements or possibly under modifications to existing regulations established under authority
of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA).6 Since then, various surveys have
been conducted, reports issued, and data gathered, but no federal regulations have been proposed.
On March 9, 2009, in the wake of the Kingston release, EPA declared its intent to move forward
with CCW regulations to address the management of coal combustion residuals. EPA stated that
regulations would be proposed for public comment by the end of 2009.
Since EPA’s statement, industry and environmental groups, state government representatives, and
some Members of Congress have expressed concerns regarding how the waste will ultimately be
regulated. Generally those concerns center around whether CCW will be regulated as a solid or
hazardous waste. Subsequently, representatives with EPA have declared that, although they felt
that regulating CCW under RCRA’s solid waste management requirements (e.g., subtitle D’s
landfill criteria and permitting requirements) would provide sufficient protection, the agency had
no authority to do so. Instead, their only existing authority was to regulate the waste under
RCRA’s hazardous waste management requirements (for more information, see “The Current
Rulemaking”). On December 17, 2009, EPA issued a statement that its pending decision on
regulating CCW would be delayed for a “short period due to the complexity of the analysis the
agency is currently finishing.”7
Regardless of the ultimate choice of waste management, the amounts of CCW generated each
year are tremendous. As power plant emission standards become more stringent and air emission
control devices capture more contaminants, both the total waste generated and the amount of
toxins in the waste can be expected to increase.
5
See the House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources hearing, “How
Should The Federal Government Address The Health And Environmental Risks Of Coal Combustion Waste?,” June
10, 2008. Also, on February 12, 2009, the subcommittee held a legislative hearing regarding H.R. 493, the “Coal Ash
Reclamation, Environment, and Safety Act of 2009.” On March 31, 2009, the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, held a hearing, “The Tennessee Valley
Authority’s Kingston Ash Slide: Potential Water Quality Impacts of Coal Combustion Waste Storage.”
6
Environmental Protection Agency, “Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels; Final
Rule,” 65 Federal Register 32214-32237.
7
See EPA’s “Statement From EPA On Coal Ash,” issued December 17, 2009. EPA’s press releases are available, by
date, at http://www.epa.gov/newsroom/.
Congressional Research Service
3
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
To provide information and context on this issue, this report discusses the nature of the waste
itself; potential risks associated with its management; the regulatory history of CCW management
requirements, including why CCW is exempt from federal regulations and issues associated with
the current rulemaking; and CCW management options (e.g., landfill and surface impoundment
disposal) and the likely state and federal requirements associated with those management
methods.
This report does not provide risk analysis regarding the disposal or use of CCW, or information
regarding the potential fate and transport of hazardous constituents. It also does not discuss
details regarding the Kingston release, such as determinations regarding the cause of the release
or details of the cleanup. Numerous studies on those topics have been conducted, findings from
which are cited or summarized where appropriate. This report focuses primarily on the issues
associated with CCW disposal in landfills and surface impoundments, but also provides summary
information on issues associated with its disposal in mines and its “beneficial use.”8
The Nature of Coal Combustion Waste
Each step of the coal combustion process results in different types of waste. The characteristics
and potential risks associated with that waste vary according to many factors. To minimize the
potential negative impacts associated with CCW management, it is necessary to understand the
characteristics of the specific type of CCW being handled as well as the physical environment in
which it is placed.
Types of Coal Combustion Waste
Coal combustion waste consists of inorganic residues that remain after pulverized coal is burned.
At various stages of the coal combustion process, different types are generated. These residues
include both coarse particles that settle to the bottom of the combustion chamber and fine
particles that are removed from the flue gas by electrostatic precipitators, scrubbers, or fabric
filters. Factors such as the source of the coal burned at a plant and the technology used (both to
burn the coal and to filter the ash) have bearing on CCW’s characteristics and potential toxicity.
Table 1 describes the different types of CCW generated.
8
The term “beneficial use” is not specifically defined by EPA (although it may be defined in individual state
regulations). It is generally meant to include uses of CCW that would provide some environmental, economic, or
performance benefit, when compared to direct disposal of the waste.
Congressional Research Service
4
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
Table 1. Types of Coal Combustion Waste
Waste Type
Description
Percentage of
Total Generated
Fly Ash
A product of burning finely ground coal in a boiler to produce
electricity. It is generally captured in the plant’s chimney or stack
through a particulate control device (e.g., electrostatic precipitators
or fabric filters). It consists mostly of silt-sized and clay-sized glassy
spheres, giving it a consistency somewhat like talcum powder.
57%
Flue Gas
Desulfurization
(FGD) Material
Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) is a chemical process implemented in
order to meet emission requirements in the Clean Air Act applicable
to sulfur dioxide (an emission associated with acid rain). The goal of
the process is to chemically combine the sulfur gases released in coal
combustion by reacting them with a sorbent, such as limestone
(calcium carbonate), lime (calcium oxide), or ammonia. Depending on
the FGD process used at the plant, the material may be a wet sludge
or a dry powder. The wet sludge is likely predominantly calcium
sulfite or calcium sulfate. The dry material generally consists of a
mixture of sulfites and sulfates.
24%
Bottom Ash
A coarse, gritty material, these agglomerated ash particles are those
that are too large to be carried in flue gases. They impinge on the
furnace walls or fall through open grates to an ash hopper at the
bottom of the furnace. The material is taken from the bottom of the
boiler furnace either in its dry form or as a slurry (via the addition of
water). It has a porous surface structure and is coarse, with grain
sizes spanning from fine sand to fine gravel.
17%
Boiler Slag
This type of ash collects at the base of certain furnaces that are
quenched with water. When molten slag comes in contact with
quenching water, it fractures, crystallizes, and forms pellets. This
boiler slag material is made up of hard, black, angular particles that
have a smooth, glassy appearance. The particles are uniform in size,
hard, and durable, with a resistance to surface wear.
<2%
Source: Table generated by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using information from the
Environmental Protection Agency’s “Wastes - Resource Conservation - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle - Industrial
Materials Recycling” Web page regarding Coal Combustion Products, at http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/rrr/
imr/ccps/index.htm and the U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet 076-01, “Coal Combustion Products,” available
at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs076-01/fs076-01.html.
Notes: The approximate percentage of total CCW generated was determined using data from American Coal
Ash Association (ACAA), “2007 Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production & Use Survey Results (Revised),”
available at http://www.acaa-usa.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=3.
Waste Characteristics
The physical and chemical characteristics of each type of CCW have bearing on both its potential
for use (e.g., as a component in concrete or gypsum wallboard) and its potential to present some
level of risk to human health or the environment. In 2006, a study by the National Research
Council (NRC) identified several factors that influence the physical and chemical characteristics
of CCW.9 Included among the factors are:
9
The National Research Council (NRC), Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines, March 2006, pp. 27-57.
Congressional Research Service
5
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
•
The chemical characteristics of the source coal. The waste itself represents
noncombustible constituents in coal. Therefore, its characteristics are strongly
influenced by the source coal itself (e.g. lignite, bituminous).
•
The chemical characteristics of any co-fired materials. Some coal-fired
boilers, especially at non-utilities (e.g., boilers at industrial, commercial, or
chemical facilities), may be co-fired with materials such as wood, biomass,
plastics, petroleum coke, tire-derived fuel, refuse-derived fuel, or manufactured
gas plant wastes.
•
The processes or technology used at individual utility plants. Waste
characteristics are affected by the particular combustion technology, air emission
control devices used to capture regulated contaminants (e.g., sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxide, mercury), and residue-handling technology (collection systems
result in either dry or wet residues) used at the plant.
While the components of each type of ash vary, depending on these factors, all CCW will likely
include certain amounts of toxic constituents, primarily heavy metals such as arsenic, beryllium,
boron, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium,
strontium, thallium, and vanadium. The waste will also likely include a certain level of toxic
organic materials such as dioxins and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds.
With regard to the source coal, the U.S Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a database of coal
quality characteristics of coal basins in the United States.10 The three types of coal most often
used in utility boilers, bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite, vary in terms of their chemical
composition, ash content, and geological origin. Some of the principal components in the fly ash
from these types of coal are silica, alumina, iron oxide, potassium, calcium, and magnesium.
These same components can make CCW usable as an ingredient in Portland cement or as a soil
amendment.
Knowledge of coal chemistry—as well as the technology used to fire, filter, and collect it—is
important to determine which mitigation procedure will be most efficient in reducing the amount
of hazardous material potentially generated as waste.
Potential Risks Associated with CCW Management
Generally, there are two potential risks associated with the disposal or use of CCW. Disposal or
use that involves direct applications of the waste to the ground may allow hazardous constituents
in the waste to leach from the material, migrate, and contaminate groundwater or surface water
and, ultimately, living organisms. Also, the land disposal of high volumes of liquid waste could
result in a sudden release, as occurred at Kingston.
10
See U.S. Geological Survey, Energy Resources Program, available at http://energy.er.usgs.gov/coal_quality/
coal_databases.html.
Congressional Research Service
6
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
Surface or Groundwater Contamination
Although the possibility exists that hazardous constituents in CCW could become airborne, the
primary concern regarding the management of the waste usually relates to the potential for
hazardous constituents to leach into surface or groundwater, and hence contaminate drinking
water, surface water, or biota. The presence of hazardous constituents in the waste does not, by
itself, mean that they will contaminate the surrounding air, ground, groundwater, or surface water.
The 2006 NRC report stated that there are many complex physical and biogeochemical factors
that influence the degree to which heavy metals can essentially dissolve and migrate offsite.
Those factors include:11
•
The volume and degree to which water is able to flow through the waste.
Water, such as precipitation or groundwater flow, is the primary mechanism for
the transport of hazardous constituents through the waste. EPA has found that
contaminants have a significantly higher likelihood of migrating away from the
disposal site (i.e., landfill or surface impoundment) if they are disposed of in an
unlined disposal unit (i.e., a scenario in which water is able to flow through the
waste).
•
The chemistry, particularly the pH, of the water that flows through or
contacts the waste. Different metals commonly found in CCW are soluble in
acidic (high pH), alkaline (low pH), or neutral environments. Many types of
CCW are themselves alkaline and capable of neutralizing acidity. This is one
reason why certain types of CCW are placed in mines to treat acid mine drainage.
•
The leachable mass of toxic constituents present in the waste.
While general factors that contribute to contamination migration are known, it is difficult to
determine the degree to which actual or potential contamination is being monitored at CCW
disposal sites or sites where it has been placed directly on soil (e.g., as structural or embankment
fill). EPA has documented selected cases of damages associated with disposal in landfills and
surface impoundments.12 However, there is little data regarding contamination associated with its
disposal in mines or the “beneficial use” of CCW when it is place directly on land—such as when
used as embankment or structural fill. That does not mean that contamination has occurred in
those uses—only that it is known that CCW has been managed in a way that contamination could
be anticipated. The degree to which such data may be tracked in individual states is difficult to
determine.
A Sudden of Release of Liquid Waste
Surface impoundment ponds hold liquid waste that has been sluiced from the power plant to the
disposal area. It is generally held within the pond by depositing it in a natural depression in the
ground or through the use of a dike of some sort (see discussion regarding the use and regulation
of surface impoundments in “Landfill and Surface Impoundment Disposal”). The Kingston
release resulted from a rupture in an impoundment dike.
11
12
For more information, see the NRC report, Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines, pp. 59-76.
EPA, Office of Solid Waste, “Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessment,” July 9, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
7
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
On March 9, 2009, in an attempt to avoid catastrophic releases such as that in Kingston, EPA sent
a request for information to the owners and operators of CCW impoundment units.13 The
information-gathering was intended to assist in prioritizing surface impoundment ponds for
inspection, and, ultimately, to assess the structural integrity of the units. EPA regional offices
were asked to assist in identifying facilities that they considered priorities.
EPA sent the assessment survey to 61 utility headquarters and 162 individual facilities, requesting
information regarding, among other factors, the stability of liquid-holding surface impoundment
units. Responses to EPA’s survey request identified 584 impoundment units (almost 300 more
than EPA originally thought were operating). Survey responses also indicated that 49 units at 30
different locations were deemed “high hazard units.” Such a rating is not an indication of the
structural integrity of a unit or an assessment of its potential for failure. Rather, the rating allows
dam safety and other officials to determine where significant damage or loss of life may occur if
there is a structural failure of the unit.14 EPA’s intent in determining the dam safety rating was to
assist in prioritizing inspections at individual facilities.
Regulatory History and Current Rulemaking
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq.)15 provides the
general guidelines under which all waste is managed. It also includes a congressional mandate to
EPA to develop a comprehensive set of regulations to implement the law (also commonly referred
to as RCRA). Enacted in 1976, RCRA was intended, in part, to protect human health and the
environment from the potential hazards of waste disposal and to ensure that wastes are managed
in an environmentally sound manner.
The evolution of CCW regulation involves a long and somewhat complicated history. To
understand issues associated with CCW disposal regulations and the current rulemaking process,
it is useful to understand EPA’s current authority under RCRA to regulate solid and hazardous
waste; the terms of the “Bevill amendment,” which excluded CCW from regulation under
RCRA’s hazardous waste requirements; EPA’s actions in response to Bevill amendment
directives; and issues associated with the current rulemaking process—particularly questions
regarding EPA’s potential to regulate CCW as solid or hazardous waste.
13
EPA requested this information pursuant to its authority under § 104(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9604(e)), which provides that when the agency has
reason to believe that there may be a release or threat of a release of a pollutant or contaminant, it may require any
person who has or may have information about the release to furnish information relating to the matter to EPA. For
more information about EPA’s request for information, and the response from utilities, see EPA’s “March 9, 2009 Coal
Ash Information Request Letter,” at http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/coalashletter.htm.
14
For more information, see EPA’s “Fact Sheet: Coal Combustion Residues (CCR) - Surface Impoundments with High
Hazard Potential Ratings,” document EPA530-F-09-006, available at http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/
special/fossil/ccrs-fs/index.htm.
15
RCRA actually amends earlier legislation, the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, but the amendments were so
comprehensive that the act is commonly referred to as RCRA rather than by its official title.
Congressional Research Service
8
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
Waste Management Requirements Potentially Related to CCW
Broadly, industrial waste is regulated pursuant to standards applicable to “solid waste” and
“hazardous waste.” The current debate regarding CCW management centers around determining
under which of those categories CCW belongs. To understand some of the challenges associated
with the current rulemaking, it is useful to understand how a waste is identified as a solid waste or
a hazardous waste (under the regulatory definition), and EPA’s current authority to regulate each
category of waste.
Identifying Solid and Hazardous Waste
RCRA regulations define solid waste broadly as any discarded material.16 The regulations specify
that a solid waste becomes a hazardous waste17 by exhibiting one or more of the following
characteristics—toxicity, reactivity, ignitability, or corrosivity. If CCW were to be characterized
as hazardous, it would likely be because hazardous constituents in the waste exceed regulatory
toxicity levels. EPA requires that toxicity characteristics be determined using the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP).18 The TCLP test is intended to simulate conditions
that would likely occur in a landfill, and measures the potential for toxic constituents to seep or
“leach” into groundwater.
Generally, CCW does not “fail” TCLP (that is, a given sample of waste generally does not exceed
toxicity levels for certain contaminants like lead, arsenic, selenium, or other heavy metals).
However, the nature of CCW is unique, relative to other hazardous waste. That is, it is generated
in huge volumes, with large amounts of inert, benign materials that effectively dilute what may be
an overall significant amount of hazardous constituents in an entire CCW landfill or surface
impoundment.
Another means by which a waste may be identified as hazardous is by EPA specifically listing it
as such (hence commonly referred to as “listed wastes”).19 One category of listed waste is “source
specific waste.” This list of waste includes wastes from specific industries, such as petroleum
refining or pesticide manufacturing. If CCW were determined to be a hazardous waste it would
likely be a specifically listed waste.
In addition to specifically listing wastes as hazardous, certain wastes may be specifically excluded
from the definition of hazardous waste or solid waste. Materials may be excluded for various
reasons, including public policy, economic impacts, prior regulation, lack of data, or the waste’s
high volume and low toxicity. The decision to exclude these materials from the solid waste
definition is a result of either congressional action (embodied in the statute) or EPA policy
making (embodied in the regulations). For example, Congress excluded CCW from the definition
16
Solid waste is defined in more detail at 40 C.F.R. 261.2.
Hazardous waste is a subset of solid waste. A waste must first be determined to be a solid waste before it can meet
the definition of hazardous waste.
18
Other test methods may also be acceptable. For more information, see EPA’s website regarding various test methods
for evaluating solid waste, at http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/testmethods/index.htm.
19
See 40 C.F.R. §§ 261.31, 261.32, and 261.33.
17
Congressional Research Service
9
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
of hazardous waste pending additional study from EPA (see discussion below regarding “CCW’s
Regulatory Exemption Under “the Bevill Amendment””).20
Solid Waste Management Requirements
Subtitle D of RCRA establishes state and local governments as the primary planning, regulating,
and implementing entities for the management of non-hazardous solid waste, such as household
garbage and non-hazardous industrial solid waste. RCRA specifically requires EPA to regulate
solid waste management facilities that accept household hazardous waste or hazardous waste
from “small quantity generators.” Such a specific directive indicates that EPA does not have the
authority to regulate other types of disposal facilities, such as those that receive CCW.
Hazardous Waste Management Standards
Subtitle C of RCRA created a hazardous waste management program that, among other elements,
directed EPA to develop certain waste management criteria. Under subtitle C, EPA is authorized
to establish a system for controlling hazardous waste from the time it is generated until its
ultimate disposal (i.e., from “cradle to grave”).
Under subtitle C, hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) are required
to have permits, to comply with operating standards specified in the permit, to meet financial
requirements in case of accidents, and to close their facilities in accordance with EPA regulations.
The 1984 amendments imposed a number of new requirements on TSDFs with the intent of
minimizing land disposal. Bulk hazardous liquid wastes are prohibited from disposal in any
landfill, and severe restrictions are placed on the disposal of containerized hazardous liquids, as
well as on the disposal of nonhazardous liquids in hazardous waste landfills. EPA was directed to
review all wastes that it defined as hazardous and to make a determination as to the
appropriateness of land disposal for them. Minimum technological standards were set for new
landfills and surface impoundments, requiring, in general, double liners, a leachate collection
system, and groundwater monitoring.
As required under subtitle C, EPA proposed hazardous waste management regulations in 1978.21
In these proposed regulations, EPA identified six categories of wastes it deemed “special wastes”
(including fossil fuel combustion wastes) which would be deferred from hazardous waste
management requirements until the completion of further study and assessment to determine their
risk to human health and the environment. These special wastes were identified because they
typically were generated in large volumes and, at the time, were believed to pose less of a risk to
human health and the environment than wastes identified for regulation as hazardous waste.
In 1980, the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980 amended RCRA in several ways,
including exempting “special wastes” from regulation under subtitle C until further study and
assessment of risk could be performed. This section of the law is frequently referred to as the
“Bevill Amendments.”
20
For more information about the identification of solid and hazardous waste and hazardous waste exclusions, see the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division,
“Hazardous Waste Exclusions Guidance,” Second Edition, April 2009, available at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/HM/
hwexcl.pdf.
21
42 Federal Register 58946, December 18, 1978.
Congressional Research Service
10
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
Authority to Address an Imminent and Substantial Endangerment
Section 7003 of RCRA (42 U.S.C. § 6973) provides EPA with broad enforcement tools that can
be used to abate conditions that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health
or the environment. Section 7003 allows EPA to address situations where the handling, storage,
treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste may present such an
endangerment. In these situations, EPA can initiate judicial action or issue an administrative order
to any person who has contributed or is contributing to such handling, storage, treatment,
transportation, or disposal to require the person to refrain from those activities or to take any
necessary action.
Section 7003 is available for use in several situations where other enforcement tools may not be
available. For example, Section 7003 can be used at sites and facilities that are not subject to
subtitle C of RCRA or any other environmental regulation (as may be the case at CCW disposal
or use sites).
Action under Section 7003 may be initiated if the following three conditions are met:
1. Conditions may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or
the environment—such conditions generally require careful documentation and
scientific evidence. However, the endangerment standard under RCRA has
generally been broadly interpreted.
2. The potential endangerment stems from the past or present handling, storage,
treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste.
3. The person has contributed or is contributing to such handling, storage,
treatment, transportation, or disposal.22
Under Section 7003, EPA may take action as deemed necessary, determined on a case-by-case
basis. Further, it gives EPA authority to obtain relevant information regarding potential
endangerments.
Section 7003 authority has been cited by some industry representatives as one alternative to EPA
to regulate CCW management. Proponents argue that such an approach would allow EPA to
enforce disposal practices or uses that pose a potential threat. Opponents of this approach argue
that it is a resource-intensive method of enforcement—one that would require EPA to gather
substantial amounts of information on individual disposal sites, as opposed to implementing a
consistent national approach to regulation.
CCW’s Regulatory Exemption Under “the Bevill Amendment”
In the months before hazardous waste regulations were finalized in 1980, Congress debated
RCRA reauthorization. In February 1980, Representative Tom Bevill introduced an amendment to
the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments that would require EPA to defer the imposition of
hazardous waste regulatory requirements for fossil fuel combustion waste and discarded mining
22
For details on EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, see “Guidance on the Use of Section 7003
of RCRA,” October 1997, available at http://www.p2pays.org/ref/03/02645.pdf. For information on legal requirements
for initiating action under Section 7003, in particular, see pp. 9-19.
Congressional Research Service
11
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
waste until data regarding the materials’ potential hazard to human health or the environment
could be analyzed. Congressman Bevill stated that EPA’s intent to regulate such waste as
hazardous would discourage the use of coal and constitute an unnecessary burden on the utility
industry.23 In anticipation of the enactment of this legislation, according to EPA, the agency
excluded the regulation of fossil fuel combustion waste from its final hazardous waste
regulations.24
P.L. 96-482, the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980, was enacted on October 12 of
that year. The law was intended, in part, to provide EPA with stronger enforcement authority to
address illegal dumping of hazardous waste. The final version included Representative Bevill’s
amendment, which excluded the following large-volume wastes from the definition of hazardous
waste under Subtitle C of RCRA:
•
Waste generated primarily from the combustion of coal (e.g., fly ash waste,
bottom ash waste, slag waste, and flue gas emission control waste) or other fossil
fuels.
•
Solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and
minerals, including phosphate rock and overburden from the mining of uranium
ore.
•
Cement kiln dust waste.
The Bevill amendment specified that the hazardous waste exclusion would be held pending
completion of a study and report to Congress by EPA for each waste category. Factors to be
addressed in each study were specified under Section 8002 of RCRA. For example, EPA was
required to determine the potential danger, if any, posed by each form of waste to human health or
the environment; identify documented cases in which danger to human health or the environment
had been proved; identify then-current disposal practices, alternatives to those disposal methods,
and the costs of such alternatives; and identify then-current uses and potential future uses of coal
combustion products.25 Within six months of each report to Congress, EPA was directed to make
a regulatory determination regarding whether the waste in question warranted regulation as a
hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA.
EPA Actions from the Bevill Amendment to Kingston
Since 1980, EPA has conducted various studies, submitted reports to Congress, and made
regulatory determinations in response to the directives in the Bevill amendment. Those actions
primarily address issues associated with landfill and surface impoundment disposal. EPA has also
conducted studies into the beneficial use of CCW. In addition, both EPA and the Department of
the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining (OSM) have conducted various activities related to mine
placement of CCW. Selected actions undertaken by both EPA and OSM are summarized in Table
2.
23
Congressional Record, February 20, 1980, p. 1087.
45 Federal Register 33084, May 19, 1980.
25
Section 8002(f), (n) and (p) of RCRA.
24
Congressional Research Service
12
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
Table 2. EPA and OSM Actions in Response to Bevill Amendment Requirements
Selected Actions and Findings Applicable to Coal Combustion Waste
Date
Document
Type
Summary of Findings
Oct. 31,
1982
Deadline
EPA missed its statutory deadline for submitting its fossil fuel combustion waste report to Congress.
Feb. 1988
Report to
Congress
(RTC)
EPA published its “Report to Congress on Wastes from Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility
Power Plants.” The RTC found that the four large volume waste streams studied (fly ash, bottom ash,
boiler slag, and flue gas emission control waste) were not a major concern. Trace constituents in the
wastes, including arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, and selenium, may present
risks to human health and the environment. However, the data also indicated that these wastes
generally do not exhibit RCRA hazardous waste characteristics. Further, the RTC concluded that
current waste management practices appear to be adequate. The RTC also indicated that as of 1988,
coal-fired electric utilities spent about $800 million per year for CCW disposal, and that costs would
increase to $3.7 billion per year if CCW was regulated as hazardous waste under RCRA’s Subtitle C.
This report addressed wastes generated from the combustion of coal by electric utility power plants,
but did not address co-managed wastes (independent power producing facilities that are co-managed
with certain other CCW), other fossil fuel combustion wastes, and wastes from non-utility boilers.
Those “remaining wastes” were addressed in a subsequent RTC in 1999.
Aug. 31,
1988
Deadline
EPA missed its statutory deadline for making a regulatory determination regarding wastes studied in
its February 1988 RTC.
Aug. 9, 1993
Regulatory
determination
(58 FR
42466)
EPA concluded that the four waste streams studied in the 1988 RTC did not warrant regulation as
hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA. EPA determined that it required more time to research
the “remaining wastes” to make an appropriate determination.
March 31,
1999
Report to
Congress
EPA published its “Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels.” This report
addresses “remaining wastes” identified in the 1988 RTC and 1993 regulatory determination.
May 22,
2000
Regulatory
determination
(65 FR
32214)
This determination applied to large-volume CCW generated at electric utility and independent
power producing facilities, and non-utilities. EPA concluded that these wastes did not warrant
regulation under subtitle C of RCRA, but that national regulations under RCRA’s subtitle D (solid
waste requirements) were warranted for CCW when it is disposed of in landfills or surface
impoundments. Further, to consistently regulate such waste across all waste management scenarios,
the agency stated its intent to promulgate such national requirements. The agency also concluded
that no additional regulations were warranted for CCW used beneficially. EPA stated that the agency
did 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.
May 2001–
May 2004
Public
Meetings
EPA held several meetings with stakeholders regarding the use and disposal of coal combustion
byproducts. In the public notice for its March 2004 meetings, EPA stated that the “Agency remains
concerned about coal combustion byproducts because of the potential for environmental damage;
the lack of ground-water protection via monitoring and/or liners; and widely varying state regulatory
programs.”
Dec. 2002
Reports
EPA issued two draft reports “Regulation and Policy Concerning Mine Placement of Coal
Combustion Waste in Selected States” and “Mine Placement of CCW: State Program Elements
Analysis” (final versions do not appear to have been released). The reports review and summarize
current state regulations and policies concerning the placement of CCW in surface and underground
mines.
March 1,
2006
Report
The National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council (NRC) issued a report, Managing Coal
Combustion Residues in Mines. Among other recommendations, NAS recommends that the
Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining (OSM) take the lead in CCW disposal
standards under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA, the primary
federal law that regulates the environmental effects of coal mining). EPA is working with OSM as they
amend the SMCRA regulations to better address minefilling in active coal mines as well as federally
funded abandoned mines.
Congressional Research Service
13
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
Date
Document
Type
Summary of Findings
Aug. 2006
Report
EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy issued a joint report Coal Combustion Waste Management at
Landfills and Surface Impoundments, 1994-2004. The report evaluated CCW disposal practices and
state regulatory requirements at landfills and surface impoundments that were permitted, built, or
laterally expanded between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2004. In part, the report concluded
that, since the 1988 RTC, a majority of the states reviewed for the study tightened regulation of
landfill liners, leachate-collection systems, and groundwater monitoring for new disposal units.
March 6,
2007
Advanced
Notice of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(72 FR
12025)
In response to the March 2006 NRC report on managing CCW in coal mines, OSM released an
ANPR regarding “Placement of Coal Combustion Byproducts in Active and Abandoned Coal Mines.”
The ANPR cites various findings and recommendations in the NRC report as the basis for the
initiation of the rulemaking process.
July 9, 2007
Report
EPA’s Office of Solid Waste issued “Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessment.” In that
report, EPA determined that there have been 24 cases of proven damage and 43 cases of potential
damage associated with CCW landfills and surface impoundments. (Cases of alleged damage were
submitted for review to EPA by environmental organizations. EPA also collected information from its
own experience and from state agencies.) In each case there has been either proven damage to
surface water or to groundwater. In some cases, elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
chromium, arsenic, cadmium, nickel, beryllium, selenium, iron, and other metals were found.
Potential impacts to human health and the environment that were observed included contaminated
well water and fish-kills.
Aug. 6, 2007
Report
EPA’s Office of Solid Waste issued “Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion
Wastes.” The draft risk assessment conducted by EPA sought to quantify human health and
ecological risks associated with current disposal practices for high-volume CCW in landfills and
surface impoundments. In part, the risk assessment stated that risks from clay-lined liners are lower
than unlined units, but that risks were still well above risk criteria for arsenic and thallium for landfills
and arsenic, boron, and molybdenum for surface impoundments. Composite liners effectively reduce
the risks from all constituents below the risk criteria for both landfills and surface impoundments.
Further, although it is likely that new landfills will have some type of liner, it is not known how many
unlined units continue to operate in the United States.
Aug. 29,
2007
Notice of
Data
Availability
(NODA)
EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability on “Disposal of Coal Combustion Wastes in Landfills and
Surface Impoundments.” Documents made available under the NODA were the August 2006 joint
EPA/DOE report on report on CCW Management at Landfills and Surface Impoundments; EPA’s
Aug. 2007 risk assessment; and EPA’s July 2007 damage case assessments. EPA made these
documents available and sought public comments on how, if at all, the information should affect EPA’s
decisions as it continued to follow up on its Regulatory Determination for CCW disposed of in
landfills and surface impoundments.
EPA stated that it would “consider all the information provided through the NODA, the comments
and new information submitted on the NODA, as well as the results of a subsequent peer review of
the risk assessment, as it continued to follow up on its Regulatory Determination for CCW disposed
of in landfills and surface impoundments.”
Feb. 5, 2008
NODA
The comment period related to the August 2007 NODA was extended until February 11, 2008.
Feb. 12,
2008
Report
EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division
issued “Waste and Materials-Flow Benchmark Sector Report: Beneficial Use of Secondary MaterialsCoal Combustion Products.” Among other information, the report provides an overview of key
beneficial uses of CCW and an analysis of its benefits and potential impacts.
Source: This table was prepared by CRS based on a review of the public record. In particular, EPA’s “Fossil Fuel
Combustion (FFC) Waste Legislative and Regulatory Time Line,” available at http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/
industrial/special/fossil/regs.htm.
Congressional Research Service
14
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
As discussed above, EPA first stated its intent to develop regulations applicable to CCW
management in May 2000. In its regulatory determination, EPA concluded that CCW did not
warrant regulation as hazardous waste pursuant to provisions of subtitle C. However, EPA stated
that it was convinced that CCW 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.
The agency cited, for example, that most states can require newer units to include liners and
groundwater monitoring, but that 62% of existing utility surface impoundments do not have
groundwater monitoring. Further, EPA stated:
... [I]n 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.26
EPA stated its decision to establish national regulations under RCRA subtitle D for CCW that is
disposed of in landfills or surface impoundments or used to fill surface or underground mines.
Since that decision, EPA gathered data, issued various reports, and held public hearings, but did
not propose regulations.
The Current Rulemaking
In the wake of the Kingston release, EPA again stated its intent to develop regulations applicable
to CCW disposal. On March 9, 2009, EPA announced that it was moving forward on developing
regulations to address the management of CCW. The agency stated that it planned to propose
regulations by the end of 2009.
In its May 2000 regulatory determination, EPA stated that it would establish national regulations
under subtitle D of RCRA, and specifically sited sections 1008(a) and 4004(a)27 of the law as the
basis of its authority to regulate for CCW disposed in landfills or surface impoundments or used
to fill surface or underground mines. However, in 2009, statements attributed to an EPA
representative indicated that the authority previously cited was not sufficient to regulate CCW
under subtitle D.28 Instead, subtitle D gave EPA only the authority to regulate sanitary landfills
(discussed above). Specifically, under subtitle D, Congress requires the “upgrading of open
dumps” (42 U.S.C. § 6945) and directs EPA to determine the adequacy of certain guidelines and
criteria (42 U.S.C. § 6949a) applicable to certain solid waste management and disposal facilities.
Those sections of RCRA apply specifically to facilities that may receive hazardous household
wastes or hazardous wastes from small-quantity generators.
26
Ibid.
42 U.S.C.§ 6907(a), “Solid Waste Management Information and Guidelines” and §6944(a), “Upgrading of Open
Dumps.”
28
InsideEPA, “Environmental Policy Alert: EPA Lawyers Stymie State, Industry Bid For ‘Solid’ Waste Coal Ash
Rules,” October 17, 2009.
27
Congressional Research Service
15
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
Solid waste facilities that receive CCW are not specifically identified in the law. Therefore,
according to EPA, the agency is not authorized to promulgate enforceable regulations under
subtitle D (e.g., to establish landfill criteria or require states to include CCW disposal units in
their solid waste permitting programs.
Considering the recent interpretation of its authority under subtitle D and the current existing
authority (described above), it appears that EPA generally has three options for regulating CCW.
Those options, as well as selected and pros and cons outlined by various stakeholders, are
summarized in Table 3.
Congressional Research Service
16
Table 3. Summary of Potential Regulatory Authorities to Address CCW Management
Selected Stakeholder Arguments “For” and “Against” Potential Regulatory Approaches
Statutory Authority
Description
Proponent Arguments “For”
Opponent Arguments “Against”
RCRA Subtitle CHazardous Waste
Management Requirements
CCW would be regulated as a hazardous waste.
Land disposal of the waste would be prohibited
unless certain criteria were met, such as landfills
and surface impoundments would be required to
have synthetic liners and groundwater
monitoring. Further, states would be obliged to
apply for federally enforceable permits from EPA.
Under this approach, EPA has the option to
exclude CCW from the definition of hazardous
waste under certain conditions, such as when
recycled under specific conditions.
Environmental groups favor this approach
because they argue that it is the only option
that would ensure that consistent, enforceable,
minimum federal standards would be applied to
CCW disposal units and its uses. It would also
provide EPA with enforcement and inspection
authority that is currently lacking.
Industry groups and state agencies argue that
this approach is too strict, would result in
significant logistical challenges, and would
cost billions of dollars. Some industry groups
also believe that a “hazardous waste”
designation will stigmatize the use of coal ash
in construction materials such as cement mix
and wallboard, ultimately reducing its
beneficial use and increasing the amount that
must be disposed of.
RCRA Subtitle D-Solid
Waste Management
Requirements
CCW would be regulated as solid waste.
Essentially, the waste would continue to be
regulated pursuant to current requirements. That
is, its disposal and use would be regulated in
accordance with terms dictated by individual
states. EPA could chose to develop landfill
criteria or permitting requirements under
subtitle D, but those requirements would not be
enforceable.
Many states and industry organizations favor
this approach. States prefer to regulate the
waste as they see fit. Industry groups argue that
current solid waste requirements are sufficient.
Environmental groups argue that sufficient
protections to human health and the
environment must involve restrictions on
land disposal and include enforceable
requirements. This approach would leave
inspection and permitting to states, which
could result in inconsistent approaches and
make it difficult for EPA to enforce the rules
(if EPA chooses to develop disposal criteria).
RCRA Section 7003Imminent hazard
protection
EPA would use its current authority to address
potential hazards at individual disposal sites.
Industry groups argue that this approach would
allow EPA to address disposal units at power
plants as well as uses that were not truly
“beneficial” ( e.g., land application as fill material
as opposed to its use as a component in
concrete)
Environmental groups argue that this is a
resource intensive approach to addressing
the issue. It is not a regulatory approach
intended to regulate disposal facilities nation
wide, but instead a provision that allows EPA
to act in the case of an emergency. CCW
should be regulated in a way that prevents an
emergency from happening.
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on provisions of RCRA and public statements from various interest groups regarding potential CCW regulation.
Note: There has also been discussion of a potential “hybrid approach” that would involve regulating the waste as a solid waste if it were disposed of under certain
conditions (e.g., in a lined landfill), but as a hazardous waste if those conditions were not met. It is unclear if such an approach would be enforceable considering EPA’s
current authority under RCRA.
CRS-17
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
On December 17, 2009, EPA issued a statement indicating that the regulatory proposal is on hold.
Requirements Applicable to CCW Management
As discussed previously, CCW is managed in one of two ways—it is either disposed of in
landfills, surface impoundments, or mines, or it is put to some beneficial use. In 2008, 136
million tons of CCW were generated. Industry estimates indicate that 8% was disposed of in
mines as minefill and 37% was used in some capacity (e.g., as a component in concrete, cement,
or gypsum wallboard, or as structural or embankment fill).29 The remainder was disposed of in
landfills or surface impoundments. Requirements applicable to each of these management
methods are determined by individual states. Generally, the only federal role in their management
may be that certain state permit programs (e.g., those related to wastewater discharges to surface
water) are implemented under the authority of federal law. Other than that, there is little federal
role in CCW management.
It is difficult to make any broad statements about regulations applicable to CCW management
methods. Regulations do not just vary from state to state, but from unit to unit. For example, a
given state likely regulates surface impoundments and landfills under different requirements
associated with regulations applicable to solid waste and wastewater management, while mine
disposal and beneficial uses may be largely unregulated.
Regulatory requirements within a given state may also vary depending on when a disposal unit
went into operation. For example, requirements applicable to older landfills may be grandfathered
in, under less stringent requirements than newer units, as new laws are enacted. Also, no industry
or federal agency tracks the total number of disposal units or waste usage sites (e.g., locations
where waste may have been used as structural fill). That is not to say that the waste is necessarily
unregulated or disposed of improperly—only that there are many unknown elements of both
current disposal and use practices, and probably even less that is known about sites that have been
closed.
Landfill and Surface Impoundment Disposal
Landfilling CCW involves the long-term disposal of generally dry waste that is placed on an area
of land or an excavation for permanent disposal. Surface impoundment units hold liquid waste
that is generally sluiced directly from a power plant to the impoundment unit, where solids settle
out, leaving relatively clear water at the surface (which may be recirculated into the plant or
discharged to surface water). The impoundment itself may be a natural or man-made depression
or diked area formed of earthen materials used for temporary or permanent storage or treatment
of liquid waste. Solids may accumulate until the impoundment unit is full, or they may be
dredged periodically and taken to another disposal unit such as a landfill.
29
See the American Coal Ash Association (ACAA), “2008 Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production & Use Survey
Results (Revised),” available at http://www.acaa-usa.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=3. The ACAA
considers “mining applications” a “use” of CCW. The extent to which such applications are actually minefill is not
defined. In this report, the use of CCW as minefill is considered another method of disposal and therefore is not
included in statistics regarding “beneficial use.”
Congressional Research Service
18
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
In 2006, in a joint-agency effort, EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducted a
study to determine state regulatory requirements applicable to CCW landfills and surface
impoundments built between 1994 and 2004.30 At the time, it was estimated that roughly twothirds of the waste was disposed of in landfills and the remainder in surface impoundments.
However, it is unknown how accurate that estimate is. In March 2009, when EPA surveyed power
plants to determine the integrity of existing surface impoundments, the agency estimated that
there were approximately 300 ponds nationwide. Instead, survey results found that there are 584.
There is no comparable data on the number of landfills.
The EPA/DOE study also found that regulations varied for each type of surface disposal unit, and
varied significantly from state to state. A common regulatory element was that all disposal units
were required to have some type of permit to operate—generally more than one. The most
commonly issued state permits were issued in accordance with a state’s solid waste requirements,
wastewater or water pollution control requirements, or dam safety requirements.
As noted in the EPA/DOE study, these requirements applied to “new” landfills and surface
impoundments. It is unknown how many landfills and surface impoundments built before 1994
exist, are still in operation, or may not have been properly closed. Older units may be required to
have permits to continue operation, but would not likely have been required to install liners,
leachate collection systems, or groundwater monitoring devices.
With regard to surface impoundments, states commonly regulate two elements of a unit—the
structure itself (commonly pursuant to the state’s dam safety requirements) and any discharges
from the unit to surface or groundwater (commonly pursuant to the state wastewater or water
pollution control requirements).
Another complicating factor in determining state CCW disposal requirements is states’ tendency
to allow a certain number of “exceptions” to state regulatory requirements. For example, a state
may have specific requirements for landfill and surface impoundment liners or groundwater
monitoring systems, but allow an individual plant to implement an alternative means of
compliance on a case-by-case basis.
With regard to both surface impoundments and landfills, many states are likely to require
groundwater monitoring to detect contamination from a disposal unit, but fewer states are likely
to have regulatory requirements intended to prevent groundwater contamination from occurring
(e.g., they would not likely require a plant to install a liner in an older, unlined landfill). These
potential variations within a state’s own program make comparison from state to state even more
difficult. This variation, in part, was the basis for EPA’s 2000 determination that consistent,
national regulation regarding CCW disposal under RCRA Subtitle D was needed.
Although details of each state’s regulatory requirements vary, there are certain broad
requirements that may be similar. For example, a state is likely to regulate new landfills under
provisions of the state’s solid waste management program. New surface impoundments are likely
regulated under provisions of the state’s dam safety program and under the terms of a wastewater
discharge permit program.
30
EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy report, Coal Combustion Waste Management at Landfills and Surface
Impoundments, 1994-2004, August 2006.
Congressional Research Service
19
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
Solid Waste Permits
States may regulate CCW landfills in accordance with state solid waste management program
requirements. Most state waste management programs specifically exclude CCW from the
definition of hazardous waste and instead regulate it as solid waste. States generally regulate solid
waste disposal in accordance with a permit program. That is, landfills generally are required to
operate in accordance with criteria specified in a permit. If a state regulates CCW landfills under
its solid waste permit program, new CCW landfills likely are required to have a liner and
groundwater monitoring system. Permits may also require leachate collection systems, closure
and post-closure requirements, siting controls, or a financial assurance requirement.
Not all states regulate CCW landfills through a permit program. For example, in the EPA/DOE
study, of the 11 state programs analyzed, five adopted laws and regulations that resulted in
exemptions from solid waste permitting requirements for certain CCW landfills. That does not
necessarily mean that those states exempt CCW landfills from regulation, just that operational
requirements established by the state are not met by complying with the terms of a permit.
Dam Safety Requirements
Many states use their dam safety requirements to regulate the construction, operation, and
maintenance of surface impoundments. Such requirements would be intended to prevent a breach
of a unit (such as the breach that occurred at Kingston). State dam requirements applicable to
CCW surface impoundments may be similar to those for mining waste surface impoundment
requirements found in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)—specifically
requirements applicable to the unit design, construction, inspections, and emergency reporting.
For example, West Virginia, a state that generates a significant amount of CCW, has dam safety
requirements applicable to CCW surface impoundments. Selected elements of those requirements
are:
31
•
Units must have an application on file and a certificate of approval from the state
to place, construct, or perform major repairs of a waste disposal dam.
•
Plans and specifications of the design and construction must include, among
other information, data regarding existing site conditions, subsidence potential,
routine inspection and maintenance procedures and schedules, sediment control
measures, the placement of spillways, seeding and mulching of the project area,
surface drainage structures, installation of reading and monitoring devices, and
an inventory of protected sites.31
•
Units must meet specific design requirements, such as conformance to general
hydrological requirements and, like SMCRA, address criteria applicable to
foundation stability, structural consideration, and spillways.
•
Units must meet construction requirements regarding inspections, operations and
safety (including emergency procedures), and maintenance.
A complete list of plan requirements is specified under the West Virginia state regulations at 47 C.S.R., 34 §6.
Congressional Research Service
20
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
The presence of strong dam safety requirements is not a guarantee that regulated units will
actually be operated and maintained according to those requirements. The requirements may be
only as strong as a state’s ability to enforce them. A state may have hundreds of structures
required to meet its dam safety requirements and only a limited number of inspectors to insure
that they are operated or maintained in an appropriate manner. In addition, a state may have strict
requirements applicable to dam construction and operation, but limited ability to inspect those
dams as often as necessary to ensure compliance. This makes it almost impossible to gauge the
degree to which states are able to enforce their requirements.
Wastewater Discharge Permits
Disposal units, particularly surface impoundments, may be regulated as water pollution control
facilities (as opposed to solid waste management units, such as landfills). In general, water
pollution control facilities treat or store wastewater, including industrial wastewater, and
discharge it directly or indirectly into the waters of a state, which may encompass both surface
water and groundwater located wholly or partly within the state.
A disposal unit that has an outfall that discharges to surface water would be required to meet
effluent guidelines specified under requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and to operate in
accordance with parameters specified in a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. As a federal requirement, all states that have been authorized by EPA to
administer the NPDES program are required to regulate discharges to surface waters in
accordance with certain minimum requirements (e.g., in accordance with federally mandated
effluent standards). Specifics regarding how a permit program is implemented may vary (as long
as minimum federal requirements are adhered to). For example, state water quality agencies may
evaluate facilities on a case-by-case basis to determine the need for groundwater-protection
measures such as impoundment liners and groundwater monitoring.
Even facilities that do not discharge wastewater to surface or groundwater may still be regulated
in accordance with alternative water pollution control permits. Such facilities may be evaluated
on a case-specific basis to determine the need for groundwater protection measures such as liners
and groundwater monitoring.
Mine Disposal
The Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining (OSM) administers provisions of the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Among other provisions, SMCRA
specifies requirements applicable to mine reclamation. CCW can be used in the reclamation
process when it is used as minefill. Potential benefits associated with the use of CCW include its
potential to abate acid mine drainage (due to the alkalinity of much of the waste), to improve
already-disturbed mine lands, and to avoid increased generation of aboveground landfills and
surface impoundments.32
32
Truett Degeare, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, presentation, “Overview of U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Coal Combustion Waste (CCW) Mine Fill Issues,” available at
http://aciddrainage.com/ps/ccb2/5-1.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
21
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
As with the disposal of CCW in landfills and surface impoundments, there are no explicit federal
requirements specific to the use of CCW as part of the mine reclamation process. However,
unlike landfill and surface impoundment disposal, some states define minefill disposal as a
beneficial use that is exempt from any regulation or restriction.
In its May 2000 regulatory determination, EPA stated that regulations under Subtitle D of RCRA
(and/or possibly modifications to existing regulations established under the authority of the
SMCRA) were warranted when these wastes are used to fill surface or underground mines.33 In
2000, minefill disposal was a relatively new practice that lacked long-term monitoring data
regarding its potential risks. In 2003, Congress requested that EPA commission an independent
study of the health, safety, and environmental risks associated with the placement of CCW in
active and abandoned coal mines in all major U.S. coal basins. As a result, the National Research
Council (NRC) established the Committee on Mine Placement of Coal Combustion Wastes in
September 2004.
In March 2006, the NRC committee published its study Managing Coal Combustion Residues in
Mines. In part, it found that placing CCW in coal mines as part of the reclamation process is a
viable management option as long as the waste placement is properly planned and carried out in a
manner that avoids significant adverse environmental and health impacts, and that the regulatory
process for issuing permits includes clear provisions for public involvement.34
The NRC committee cautioned that an integrated process of waste characterization, site
characterization, management and engineering design of placement activities, and design and
implementation of monitoring is required to reduce the risk of contamination moving from a mine
site to the ambient environment. It stated further that comparatively little is known about the
potential for minefilling to degrade the quality of groundwater and/or surface waters, particularly
over longer time periods.
The committee recommended the establishment of enforceable federal standards to govern the
placement of CCW in mines. The committee’s reasoning for its recommendation, after reviewing
the laws and other relevant literature, was that, although SMCRA does not specifically regulate
CCW placement at mine sites, its scope is broad enough to encompass such regulation during
reclamation activities. Further, while SMCRA and its implementing regulations indirectly
establish performance standards that could be used to regulate the manner in which CCW may be
placed in coal mines, neither the statute nor those rules explicitly addresses regulation of the use
or placement of CCW, and some states have expressed concern that they do not have the authority
to impose performance standards specific to CCW. Therefore, the committee recommended that
enforceable federal standards be established for disposal of CCW in mines. It proposed that OSM
regulations be changed to address CCW specifically, or that joint rules be developed by OSM and
EPA under the authority of both SMCRA and RCRA.
33
EPA’s data collection and analysis efforts associated with developing regulations applicable to CCW mine disposal
have proceeded on a track separate from the efforts to develop regulations associated with CCW disposal in landfills
and surface impoundments.
34
Sections of the NRC report referenced here are taken largely from the Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement’s March 14, 2007, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, “Placement of
Coal Combustion Byproducts in Active and Abandoned Coal Mines,” 72 Federal Register 12025-12030.
Congressional Research Service
22
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
“Beneficial Use”
In 2008, according to industry, approximately 37% of CCW was used in some capacity—most
commonly as a component in concrete products, blended cement, gypsum panel products, and
structural fill.35 Some types of CCW are also used for road-base materials, roofing tiles and
shingles, snow and ice control, and soil modification.
In its 1993 and 2000 regulatory determinations, among other factors, EPA looked at:
•
Alternatives to current disposal methods.
•
The costs of such alternatives.
•
The impact of those alternatives on the use of natural resources.
•
The current and potential utilization of coal combustion products.
After its analyses, EPA did not identify any environmental harm associated with the beneficial use
of coal combustion products, and concluded in each regulatory determination that these materials
did not warrant regulation as hazardous waste.
The beneficial use of coal combustion products can include both encapsulated and
unencapsulated applications. The potential for contaminants to leach from CCW products largely
depends on whether the waste is bound or encapsulated—as it would be in construction materials.
According to EPA, unencapsulated uses of CCW require proper hydrogeologic evaluation to
ensure adequate groundwater protection.36 Table 4 describes the primary encapsulated and
unencapsulated uses of CCW.
35
The ACAA, “2007 Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production & Use Survey Results.” In determining reuse totals,
ACAA considers “mining applications” a reuse of CCW. The extent to which such applications are actually minefill is
not defined. In this CRS report, the use of CCW as minefill is considered another method of disposal and therefore not
included in statistics regarding reuse.
36
See EPA’s Coal Combustion Products - Regulatory Resources web page: http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/rrr/
imr/ccps/resources.htm.
Congressional Research Service
23
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
Table 4. Primary Beneficial Uses of Coal Combustion Wastes
Encapsulated and Unencapsulated Uses
CCW Product Description
Type of CCW Used
Concrete
Concrete consists of a mixture of approximately
25% fine aggregate (sand), 45% gravel, 15%
Portland cement, and 15% water.
Certain types of fly ash can replace
a percentage of the Portland
cement component of concrete,
and are typically less expensive
than Portland cement.
Cement additive
Cement clinker is an intermediary product of the
Portland cement manufacturing process. Clinker is
formed when a raw mix consisting of limestone,
clay, bauxite, iron ore and quartz are heated in a
kiln at higher temperatures.
Fly ash can be blended with
limestone or shale and fed into the
cement kiln to make clinker, which
is then ground into Portland
cement. FGD gypsum can be used
to offset virgin gypsum in cement
manufacture.
Gypsum wallboard
Gypsum wallboard (or drywall) is used as an
interior finish in the construction of homes and
building. Wallboard is composed of a layer of
gypsum stucco sandwiched between two sheets of
heavy paper.
FGD gypsum can replace 100% of
virgin gypsum in wallboard after
the excess moisture has been
removed.
Road base
A road base is a foundation layer underlying a
pavement and overlaying a subgrade of natural soil
or embankment fill material. It protects the
underlying soil from the detrimental effects of
weather conditions and from the stresses and
strains induced by traffic loads.
Bottom ash can be used to offset
virgin sand or gravel in road base.
Structural fill/
embankments
Structural fill is an engineered material used to
raise or change the surface contour of an area and
to provide ground support beneath building
foundations. It can also be used to form
embankments.
Depending on the soil type, fly ash
can replace a percentage (generally
50%) of virgin rock, dirt, sand, or
gravel in structural fill. Bottom ash
can be used to offset virgin sand
and gravel in structural fill.
Waste stabilization
CCW can be used in place of Portland cement,
cement kiln dust, or lime to solidify and harden
wet or liquid waste before it is landfilled.
Certain types of fly ash harden by
themselves in contact with
moisture; others can be mixed
with another hardening agent, such
as Portland cement, in order to be
used in waste stabilization.
Soil modification/
stabilization/agricultural
uses
Gypsum (calcium sulfate dihydrate) can be used as
a nutrient source for crops; as a conditioner to
improve soil’s physical properties and water
infiltration and storage; to remediate sodic (highsodium) soils; and to reduce nutrient and sediment
movement to surface waters.
Fly ash and flue gas desulfurization
gypsum (a synthetic material of
identical chemical structure as
natural, mined gypsum) can be
used as a soil amendment to
neutralize acidic soils.
Encapsulated Uses
Unencapsulated Uses
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on data from EPA’s Office of Solid Waste report, “Waste and MaterialsFlow Benchmark Sector Report: Beneficial Use of Secondary Materials-Coal Combustion Products,” February 12,
2008, pp. 2-5 through 2-6; EPA brochure, “Agricultural Uses for Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Gypsum,”
EPA530-F-08-009; and ACAA, “2007 Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production & Use Survey Results.”
Congressional Research Service
24
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
Under EPA’s Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC), CCW is an industrial material targeted for
increased use as a building and manufacturing material. As part of that effort, EPA formed the
Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2) program with the American Coal Ash Association,
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, DOE, U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural
Research Service, Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration, and Electric
Power Research Institute to help promote the beneficial use of CCW and “the environmental
benefits that result from their use.”37
EPA has been criticized for promoting certain “beneficial uses” of CCW without first determining
if such uses are safe. In particular, the safety of agricultural uses or its use as structural or
embankment fill has been questioned. National attention38 was brought to its use as a fill material
after developers used at 1.5 million tons of dry fly ash to build a golf course over a shallow
aquifer at the Battlefield Golf Course, in Chesapeake, Virginia.
An assessment of groundwater wells and private drinking water wells in close proximity to the
golf course found elevated levels of arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, and
zinc.39 However, from the available data, it has not been determined conclusively that the fly ash
placed on the site has impacted nearby residential wells. Monitoring of the site is ongoing.
Issues associated with the Battlefield Gold Course site brought attention to what little is known
about certain “beneficial” uses of CCW. In November 2009, the EPA Office of Inspector General
issued its findings in an investigation into allegations of a cover-up in the risk assessment for the
coal ash rulemaking. The Inspector General found no evidence of wrongdoing, but in that report
stated that it has opened an investigation into the EPA’s “partnership” with the coal industry to
market coal ash and other combustion wastes in consumer, agricultural, and industrial products.40
The report recommended a new probe of why EPA was promoting coal ash prior to determining
whether these commercial applications were prudent or safe. In part, the report stated: “We
identified a potential issue related to EPA’s promotion of beneficial use through its Coal
Combustion Product Partnership and have referred the question how EPA established a
reasonable determination for these endorsements to the appropriate OIG office for evaluation.”
37
For more information, see the C2P2 website at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/c2p2/index.htm.
See CBS News, 60 Minutes, “Coal Ash: 130 Million Tons of Waste,” originally aired October 4, 2009, available at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/01/60minutes/main5356202.shtml.
39
See “Draft Site Inspection for Battlefield Golf Club Site, Chesapeake, Virginia,” prepared for EPA Region 3 by Tetra
Tech EM, Inc., March 30, 2009, p. 10, available at http://www.chesapeake.va.us/SERVICES/citizen_info/
battlefieldgolfclub/pdf/Draft-Battlefield-Golf-Club-SI.pdf.
40
EPA Office of the Inspector General, “Response to EPA Administrator’s Request for Investigation into Allegations
of a Cover-up in the Risk Assessment for the Coal Ash Rulemaking,” Report No. 10-N-0019, November 2, 2009,
available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2010/20091102-10-N-0019.pdf.
38
Congressional Research Service
25
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
Conclusion
Since the regulation of CCW disposal and use is controlled by individual states, it is difficult to
determine certain information about the waste. For example, it is difficult to determine the entire
amount of CCW that has been disposed of in the United States. It can be estimated (although not
known definitively) how many currently operational disposal units exist today, but is not likely
possible to determine the total number that have ever been in operation—that is, unlined units that
may have been closed without a cap or groundwater monitoring system. Also, it is difficult to
determine the number of sites that have used unencapsulated CCW that have properly evaluated
the site, as recommended by EPA, to ensure adequate groundwater protection.
As power plant emission standards become more stringent, and air emission control devices
capture more contaminants, both the total waste generated and the total amount of toxins in them
can be expected to increase. As regulations are formulated to address new or expanded landfills,
there are still many questions unanswered regarding the controls in place to minimize the
potential risks posed by existing facilities—both with regard to a sudden, catastrophic release (as
that in Kingston) or a gradual release and migration of contaminants.
Congressional interest in the issue existed before the Kingston release, but increased significantly
afterward. On January 14, 2009, the Coal Ash Reclamation, Environment, and Safety Act of 2009
(H.R. 493) was introduced. The bill was intended to establish new standards applicable to surface
impoundments. On February 12, 2009, the House Committee on Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, held a legislative hearing on the bill. A
scheduled markup was canceled when EPA announced that it would soon propose new
regulations applicable to landfills and surface impoundments. The House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, held several
hearings that looked at different aspects of the Kingston release, such as potential water quality
impacts, causes of the release, and cleanup progress.41 Also, on December 10, 2009, the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, held a
hearing entitled “Drinking Water and Public Health Impacts of Coal Combustion Waste
Disposal.” Given its interest in this issue, it is unclear how Congress may respond given the
current debate regarding EPA’s existing authority to regulate CCW and its potential to regulate it
as hazardous waste.
41
“The Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston Ash Slide: Potential Water Quality Impacts of Coal Combustion Waste
Storage,” on March 31, 2009, “Coal Combustion Waste Storage and Water Quality,” on April 30, 2009, “The
Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston Ash Slide: Evaluation of Potential Causes and Updates on Cleanup Efforts,” on
July 28, 2009, and “The One Year Anniversary of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston Ash Slide: Evaluating
Current Cleanup Progress and Assessing Future Environmental Goals,” on December 9, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
26
Managing Coal Combustion Waste (CCW): Issues with Disposal and Use
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Analyst in Environmental Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
27
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.