# Wildlife and the Coal Waste Policy Debate: Proposed Rules for Coal Waste Disposal Ignore Lessons from 45 Years of Wildlife Poisoning A. Dennis Lemly *
USDA-Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Piedmont Aquatic Research Laboratory, Department of Biology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109, United States


## Joseph P. Skorupa

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Environmental Quality, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 820, Arlington, Virginia 22203, United States



### * S Supporting Information

ABSTRACT: This analysis examines wildlife poisoning from coal combustion waste (CCW) in the context of EPA ’ s proposed policy that would allow continued use of surface impoundments as a disposal method. Data from 21 con firmed damage sites were evaluated, ranging from locations where historic poisoning has led to corrective actions that have greatly improved environmental conditions to those where contamination has just recently been discovered and the level of ecological impacts has yet to be determined. The combined direct and indirect cost of poisoned fi sh and wildlife exceeds $2.3 billion, which is enough money to construct 155 landfills with state-of-the-art composite liners and leachate collection systems. This cost is projected to increase by an additional $3.85 billion over the next 50 years, an amount that would construct 257 landfills. Evidence revealed through this study indicates the following: (1) for the past 45 years, environmental damage has been a recurring theme with surface impoundment of CCW, (2) the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System has not been e ff ective in preventing serious environmental damage from CCW, (3) EPA’ s Regulatory Impact Analysis of the costs and bene fi ts of pollution control options fails to include bene fi ts of avoided damages to natural resources, speci fi cally, poisoned fi sh and wildlife, and (4) surface impoundments pose unacceptably high ecological risks regardless of location or design. Regulators should no longer ignore rigorous science and the lessons from multiple case examples. EPA and the United States need to show leadership on this issue by prohibiting surface impoundments, particularly since the rise in coal use in developing countries is leading to the same CCW pollution problems on a global scale.



# ■ INTRODUCTION The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing the fi rst national regulations for disposal of coal combustion waste (CCW). 1 The proposal has sparked debate among the electric utility industry, EPA, and the U.S. O ffi ce of Management and Budget (OMB) over certain provisions of the new rules, which will likely be fi nalized within the next year. 2 One key issue is whether to continue using surface impoundments as a disposal method. We conducted a comprehensive review of environmental damage cases and found that since 1967, surface-impounded CCW has caused major fi sh and wildlife losses and associated negative economic e ff ects. EPA ’ s Regulatory Impact Analysis, 3 which is a pivotal component of the joint EPA

− OMB rulemaking process, fails to include damage to fi sh and wildlife in its cost-bene fi t evaluation. This oversight could have far-reaching consequences for natural resources in the U.S. and abroad, as both industrialized and developing countries are facing the same CCW disposal issues.



# ■ A LONG HISTORY OF DAMAGE AND ECONOMIC COSTS
The first widely recognized case of wildlife damage from CCW in the U.S. occurred in 1967 when a containment dam broke, spilling coal ash slurry into the Clinch River, VA, killing 217,000 fi sh and poisoning benthic invertebrates for 124 km downstream. 4 In 1976, releases from an ash pond permitted by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

Received: April 14, 2012 Revised: July 9, 2012 Accepted: July 27, 2012 Policy Analysis
pubs.acs.org/est

This article not subject to U.S. Copyright. Published XXXX by the American Chemical Society A dx.doi.org/10.1021/es301467q | Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX

− XXXcaused a long-term, catastrophic toxic event at Belews Lake, NC, where selenium poisoning extirpated 19 species of fi sh from the 1560 ha reservoir (5, Figure 1). Belews Lake quickly became a landmark example of the ecological hazard of surface impounded CCW.

Fish and wildlife damage cases continued to emerge throughout the 1980s and 1990s, aff ecting biota ranging from amphibians and fi sh to birds and reptiles, and causing impacts ranging from physiological, developmental, and behavioral toxicity to major population and community-level changes. 6 Perhaps the most dramatic example of pollution from wet disposal is the December 2008 spill at Tennessee Valley Authority’ s (TVA) Kingston Fossil Plant, TN, which released 4.1 million cubic meters of ash into the Emory River, inundating some 115 ha of aquatic communities and releasing over 3000 t of heavy metals and other contaminants to surface
waters. 7,8 A similar but smaller disposal site collapse, this time spilling coal ash into Lake Michigan, occurred near Milwaukee at the We Energies Oak Creek Power Plant in October 2011. 9 A total of 21 surface impoundment damage cases have been documented (Supporting Information (SI), Table 1). Five of these resulted from structural failure of disposal ponds, two were caused by unpermitted discharge of ash pond e ffluent, two occurred at unregulated impoundments, and twelve, which includes the most costly cases, happened because of legally permitted releases allowed by the NPDES. The partially monetized direct cost of poisoned fi sh and wildlife coupled with the indirect human cost mediated by that poisoning was estimated to exceed $US 2.3 billion (see SI for methods used to calculate costs, Table 1).



# ■ WILDLIFE DAMAGE NOT CONSIDERED IN IMPACT ANALYSIS OMB has statutory authority to examine a proposed EPA regulation, review economic information, and make a controlling decision on the fi nal rule. 10 As part of this process EPA conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for use in Figure 1. Toxic e ff ects of coal combustion waste. Metals and trace elements leached from surface-impounded CCW have caused dramatic and costly impacts to aquatic life for decades. E ff ects range from acute mortality to chronic, debilitating toxicity as shown here in this 1980 photograph of fi sh from Belews Lake, NC, affl icted by selenium poisoning (v-shaped spines). Selenium bioaccumulates in food chains and passes from parents to o ff spring in eggs, where it causes a variety of skeletal deformities and other abnormalities in the developing embryos. This can lead to massive reproductive failure and local extinction of species (photo by A.D. Lemly). Table 1. Summary of Fish and Wildlife Damage Cases from Disposal of Coal Combustion Waste

case location CCW disposal method cause of water pollution damage value ($US)1 Belews Lake, NC impoundment NPDES permitted releases 531,153,873

2 Hyco Reservoir, NC impoundment NPDES permitted releases 864,742,344

3 Mayo Reservoir, NC impoundment NPDES permitted releases 80,825,500

4 Gavin, OH/ Amos, WV impoundment NPDES permitted releases 1,611,600

5 Martin Lake, TX impoundment unpermitted discharge 229,458,757

6 Welsh Reservoir, TX impoundment NPDES permitted releases 163,424,962

7 Brady Branch, TX impoundment NPDES permitted releases 108,674,277

8 Beaver Dam Creek, SC Impoundment NPDES permitted releases 17,979,360

9 Gibson Lake, IN impoundment unregulated discharge 166,425,914

10 McCoy Branch, TN impoundment unpermitted discharge 1,653,682

11 Clinch River, VA impoundment structural failure 11,377,700
12 Melton Hill Reservoir, TN impoundment NPDES permitted releases 40,598,560

13 Lake Erie, MI impoundment NPDES permitted releases 1,500,000

14 Connor Run, WV impoundment NPDES permitted releases 18,666

15 Euharlee Creek, GA impoundment structural failure 6,116,650

16 Bridger Plant, WY impoundment unregulated discharge 14,291,000

17 Delaware River, PA impoundment structural failure 31,445,100

18 Adair Run, VA impoundment NPDES permitted releases 160,000

19 Rocky Run Creek, WI impoundment NPDES permitted releases 240,000

20 Widows Creek, AL impoundment structural failure 3,862,300

21 Hat fi eld ’ s Ferry, PA land fill NPDES limits exceeded 5,987,100

22 Kingston, TN impoundment structural failure 29,463,128 total 2,311,010,473 Environmental Science & Technology Policy Analysis

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es301467q | Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX

− XXX Bcomparing bene fits and costs of the three options in its proposed rule (RCRA Subtitle C, regulation of CCW as hazardous waste with mandatory land fill disposal, no use of surface impoundments; Subtitle D, regulation as nonhazardous waste with use of lined surface impoundments; Subtitle D

“ Prime ” , continued use of existing unlined surface impoundments, liners required for those constructed in the future). 3,11 That analysis shows the annualized bene fi ts of pollution control to be much greater for Subtitle C regulation than either Subtitle D option (Summary Exhibits 5

− 7 in ref 3). However, RIA only estimated bene fi ts of avoiding human cancer deaths, groundwater pollution, and cleanup costs of impoundment dam failure.... “ RIA did not quantify or monetize several other additional bene fi ts consisting of future avoided social costs associated with ecological and socio-economic damages. These included avoided damages to natural resources ”

. 3 In order for RIA to be thorough and complete, EPA needs to add the substantial economic bene fit of avoiding damages to natural resources, speci fi cally, poisoning of fi sh and wildlife. Based on the losses documented by scientifi c investigation since 1967 (SI, Table 1), protection of fi sh and wildlife through elimination of surface impoundments will add at least $76 million per year ($3.85 billion total cost savings spread across 50 year future period-of-analysis; Table 2) to the total annualized bene fit value of regulation under RCRA Subtitle C. We used the 75th percentile annualized cost to project bene fi t values rather than the median because we know that our calculations are underestimates due to the fact that in most cases ecological impacts began well before scientifi c investigation and also extended longer than the actual period of investigation, sometimes for many years. Moreover, in most cases the investigations focused exclusively on fi sh, which means that the value of damage to other aquatic life and birds could not be included in cost estimates. Therefore, we believe that the 75th percentile is a reasonable and conservative number for use in projecting future cost savings. Placing the magnitude and importance of these cost savings in perspective, the total fi sh and wildlife protection value of $3.85 billion is greater than EPA’ s monetized value for human cancer risks avoided plus the groundwater protection value gained under Subtitle C, estimated for both a 3% and 7% discount rate ($970 million for 7% discount rate, $3.32 billion for 3% discount rate; Exhibit 5A-18, page 130 in ref 3). The bene fi t value for combined human and ecological protection under Subtitle C would therefore range from $4.82

− 7.17 billion, independent of the additional bene fit value of preventing future impoundment dam structural failures (avoided cleanup costs) which adds another $1.76

− 7.40 billion (Exhibit 5B-6, page 141 in ref 3).



# ■ REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS Surface impoundment of CCW is widely practiced, accounting for about 21% of current disposal facilities, or some 629 impoundments. 12 However, less than 5% of these have undergone detailed biological evaluation to determine impacts
to fi sh and wildlife, usually following catastrophic failure of containment dams or because there was outwardly visible poisoning that triggered public demands for investigation. Therefore, our analysis (SI, Table 1) likely covers only a small portion of the total damage and economic costs resulting from this waste management technique. Yet, the value of that fraction of losses is conservatively estimated at over $US 2.3 billion, which is enough money to construct 155 landfills with state-of-the-art composite liners and leachate collection systems ($15 million each 13 ). Our projected 50-year future damage cost of $3.85 billion would construct 257 such landfills. The Electric Power Research Institute, the scienti fi c arm of the coal power industry, has known the inherent environmental hazards from Table 2. Annualized Costs for 21 Environmental Damage Cases Resulting from Surface Impoundment of Coal Combustion Waste
year total number of cases total damage value ($US)
1967 2 5,252,260 1968 2 1,881,260 1969 2 1,806,260 1970 2 176,294 1971 2 176,294 1972 2 176,294 1973 4 802,232 1974 6 1,960,690 1975 6 1,960,690 1976 7 34,040,543 1977 7 34,040,543 1978 11 83,739,205 1979 11 83,739,205 1980 11 83,739,205 1981 11 88,580,947 1982 10 88,540,947 1983 10 88,540,947 1984 10 88,540,947 1985 10 88,540,947 1986 10 88,540,947 1987 11 76,610,198 1988 11 76,897,427 1989 11 76,971,752 1990 11 76,975,052 1991 10 76,861,977 1992 11 78,542,966 1993 11 72,520,501 1994 11 72,517,201 1995 11 72,467,201 1996 11 72,467,201 1997 12 76,011,984 1998 12 50,260,961 1999 12 50,360,961 2000 12 53,373,236 2001 13 49,337,586 2002 14 50,240,233 2003 12 47,131,908 2004 11 49,316,693 2005 13 65,468,599 2006 12 61,096,772 2007 9 53,267,156 2008 8 33,411,392 2009 8 28,394,018 2010 7 25,730,818 totals by decade 1970s 11 240,811,933 1980s 11 845,504,270 1990s 12 698,986,009 2000s 14 491,037,599 median annualized cost 57,235,005 75th percentile annualized cost 76,974,227 90th percentile annualized cost 88,540,948 projected 50 year damage value using 75th percentile cost 3,848,711,350 Environmental Science & Technology Policy Analysis

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es301467q | Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX

− XXX Csurface disposal of CCW for decades and has held workshops to inform the electric utility industry about those toxic threats. 14 Electric utilities themselves acknowledge the need to switch from wet to dry storage in order to protect shareholders from signifi cant fi nancial risks. 15 Yet, since 1967, little has changed from either an operational or regulatory perspective. Continued use of surface impoundments would be allowed by EPA under RCRA Subtitles D and D “ Prime ” of its proposed regulations for CCW disposal. 10 Evidence suggests this would be a grave mistake for seven reasons. First, the Subtitle D “ Prime ” option allows continued operation of existing unlined impoundments, which leads to substantial pollution of groundwater, some of which can be expected to reach the surface and expose fi sh and wildlife to toxicants. 16,17 Second, although provisions of Subtitle D do require the installation of composite liners, it should be noted that liners are designed to protect groundwater and would have little e ff ect on the direct surface water exposure pathway. 11 That is, liners do not reduce above-ground leachate, precipitation runo ff , and slurry discharges that pollute surface water and poison fi sh and wildlife. Third, there are serious liner performance issues (holes/tears created in geosynthetic membranes during installation, engineering/construction design standards that consider major leakage to be acceptable, physical/chemical breakdown of clay components over time) which indicate that groundwater protection is not assured. 18

− 20 Therefore, exposure of fi sh and wildlife to contaminated groundwater that reaches the surface is a distinct possibility even at lined sites. Fourth, surface impoundments are a particularly insidious threat to wildlife because of their ability to serve as attractive nuisances. Many animals, especially birds and amphibians, are drawn to these sites to feed and reproduce and as a result su ff er exposure to trace elements and experience adverse health

e ff

ects. 21 Fifth, the possibility of structural failure has not been given adequate consideration as a serious drawback of surface impoundments. For example, in the supporting material for its proposed rule, EPA states that “ The more recently documented damage cases provide evidence that current management practices can pose additional risks that EPA had not previously studied, that is, from catastrophic releases due to the structural failure of CCR surface impoundments ”

. 11 Sixth, a major fl aw in the RCRA Subtitle D and D “ Prime ” options is that enforcement actions for violations would be possible only through citizen lawsuits; neither state nor federal government would be authorized to take direct regulatory action. RCRA Subtitle C regulation, however, would eliminate surface impoundments and authorize federal oversight to ensure that stringent national guidelines for land fill disposal of CCW were followed uniformly at the state level. 1,11 Seventh, and perhapsmost importantly, current state-administered regulatory controls are ine ff ective in preventing discharge of toxic CCW

e ffluent to surface waters. For example, NPDES, a federal-state regulatory mechanism for controlling point-source pollution, has been in place since the enactment of the federal Clean Water Act in 1972. 22 NPDES is the principal tool that states use to limit toxic industrial discharges. 23 However, it did not identify or correct any of the twelve surface impoundment regulated-release CCW damage cases reviewed in this report. This is because of lack of federal oversight combined with inadequate monitoring, risk assessment, and enforcement at the state level. EPA recognized these de fi ciencies in a recent study of steam-electric plant discharges 24 which concluded that: “Despite current regulatory controls and wastewater treatment methods, pollutants from power plant wastewater still make their way into the environment. Many of these pollutants, such as selenium, arsenic, mercury, total dissolved solids, and nutrients, have an impact on wildlife. The primary routes by which coal combustion wastewater impacts the environment are through discharges to surfacewaters, leaching to ground water, and by surface impoundments and constructed wetlands acting as attractive nuisances that increase wildlife exposure to the pollutants contained in the systems. EPA found the interaction of coal combustion wastewaters with the environment has caused a wide range of environmental e ff

ects to aquatic life. ” The fl awed NPDES regulatory system would not change if RCRA Subtitle D or D “ Prime ” were put in place. 1,11 The ecological need for this change has been expressed over and over in the form of toxicity to wildlife for the past 45 years, yet the system remains ine ff ective. For example, as of October 11, 2010, the new NPDES permit for the Kingston Fossil Plant (see SI, Case 22) did not contain e ffluent limits for 16 primary toxic elements, including arsenic, mercury, and selenium, 25 despite prior, persistent toxicity of discharges to fi sh and invertebrates in addition to the catastrophic ash spill that occurred in 2008. The NPDES permit for the period 2004

− 2008 26 stated that

“ The discharge from Outfall 002 may contain several di

ff

erent pollutants, the combined e ff

ect of which has a reasonable potential to be detrimental to fi sh and aquatic life ”

... “ As presented with the TVA ’ s permit application, fi sh survival [1999

− 2003] has been problematic in Outfall 002 and the Emory and/or Clinch River ”

. The permit was renewed in 2009, following the ash spill, without modi fi cation or establishment of discharge limits for the 16 primary toxic elements.



# ■ CONCLUSIONS A large body of scientifi c evidence from con fi rmed damagecases indicates that wet disposal of CCW is not environmentally or economically prudent. EPA’ s regulatory proposal for CCW under RCRA Subtitles D and D “ Prime ” , which would allow continued use of surface impoundments, is inappropriate with respect to fi sh and wildlife health. Moreover, going all the way back to the Belews Lake era of the 1970s, the corrective action at problematic surface sites has been to switch to land fill disposal. 27 In the wake of the catastrophic dam failure at Kingston, TN, the TVA has now decided to phase out all wet basins and use land fills as well. 28 This is an excellent example of the proactive measures that are needed in the post-Kingston era. Surface impoundment of CCW unnecessarily jeopardizes fi sh and wildlife populations, causes signifi cant long-term environmental damage, and results in high economic costs that could be avoided or minimized if other disposal practices were used. The electric utility industry vigorously opposes RCRA Subtitle C regulation and it has enjoyed an open voice at the negotiating table, meeting with OMB some 20 times even before EPA issued its proposed rule. 2 Utility’ s opposition is founded in the contention that it would be unduly burdensome (costly) to the industry. Our commentary is a voice for fi sh and wildlife in the debate. We maintain that ignoring the past 45 years of wildlife poisoning and allowing it to continue is even

more “ unduly burdensome ” to the environment and also unethical. The bene fit value of avoided ecological damage is a signifi cant cost savings that has not been included in the Environmental Science & Technology Policy Analysis

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es301467q | Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX

− XXX Ddiscussion, but should be. Much of industry’ s regulatory

“ burden ” cost claims are more than o ff set by prevented ecological damage and associated monetary losses. Regulators should no longer ignore rigorous science and the lessons from multiple case examples. EPA, OMB, and the United States need to show leadership on this issue by prohibiting surface impoundments, particularly since the rise in coal use in developing countries is leading to the same CCW pollution problems on a global scale. 29

− 31



# ■ ASSOCIATED CONTENT 

### * S Supporting Information Our comprehensive cost analysis of all 22 environmental damage cases, which formed the underlying technical basis for this report. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.



# ■ AUTHOR INFORMATION Corresponding Author

* E-mail: dlemly@fs.fed.us; phone: 336-758-4532.
Notes The authors declare no competing fi nancial interest.



# ■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The conclusions and recommendations in this report are those of the authors and do not constitute or imply an o ffi cial policy position by the United States Forest Service or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.



# ■ REFERENCES (1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Coal Combustion Residuals

− Proposed Rule ; 2010. http://www.epa.gov/wastes/ nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/index.htm.

(2) King, N., Jr.; Smith, R. White House, EPA at Odds Over CoalWaste Rules; 2010. http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB126300256672322625.html

(3) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis for EPA ’ s Proposed Regulation of Coal Combustion Residues Generated by the Electric Utility Industry ; 2010.http://www.regulations. gov/ # !documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-0003;oldLink= false.

(4) Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. Fish Kill on Clinch River Below Steam-Electric Power Plant of Appalachian Power Company, Carbo, VA, June 10

− 14, 1967; FWPCA, Mid Atlantic Region, U.S. Department of the Interior: Charlottesville, VA, 1967.

(5) Lemly, A. D. Symptoms and implications of selenium toxicity in fish: The Belews Lake case example. Aquat. Toxicol. 2002, 57 , 39

− 49. (6) Rowe, C. L.; Hopkins, W. A.; Congdon, J. D. Ecotoxicological implications of aquatic disposal of coal combustion residues in the United States: a review. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2002, 80 , 207

− 276. (7) Shaw Environmental, Inc. Phase I Emory River Dredging Plan: Kingston Fossil Plant Ash Recovery Project ; 2009. http://www.tva.gov/ kingston/dredge/revised_dredge_plan.pdf.

(8) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Envirofacts Report: US TVA Kingston Fossil Plant ; 2010. http:// oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/tris_c ontrol.tris_pr int?tris_id= 37763STVKNSWANP.

(9) Jones, M.; Behm, D. Blu ff collapse at power plant sends dirt, coal ash into lake. Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel , October 31, 2011. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milw aukee/authorities-investigatebluff -collapse-at-we-energies-plant-132929538.html. (10) U.S. General Accounting O ffi ce. Rulemaking: OMB ’ s Role in Review of Agencies ’ Draft Rules and the Transparency of Those Reviews ; 2003. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03929.pdf. (11) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identi fi cation and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities ; 2010. http://www.epa.gov/was tes/nonhaz/industria l/special/fossil/ccrrule/ccr-rule-prop.pdf.

(12) Luther, L. Regulating Coal Combustion Waste Disposal: Issues for Congress ; 2010. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41341.pdf.

(13) Dudley, R. Plan for Ash Landfill Stirs Up Opposition. 2010. http://www.postandcourier.com/ne ws/2010/oct/11/plan-for-ashland fill-stirs-up-opposition/.

(14) Electric Power Research Institute. Workshop Proceedings: The E ff

ects of Trace Elements on Aquatic Ecosystems ; EPRI EA-3329, Project 1631; Electric Power Research Institute: Palo Alto, CA, 1984. (15) CMS Energy Corporation. Shareholder Proposal: Report on Risks Associated With Coal Combustion Waste ; 2010. http://www.incr.com/ Document.Doc?id=594.

(16) Zillmer, M.; Fauble, P. Groundwater Impacts From Coal Combustion Ash Disposal Sites in Wisconsin ; 2004. http://www.dnr.wi. gov/org/aw/wm/publications/anewpub/WA1174.pdf.

(17) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes ; 2010. http://www. regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html # documentDetail?R= 0900006480ae585b.

(18) Benson, C. Liners and covers for waste containment. Proceedings of the Fourth Kansas International Geotechnical Forum, Creation of a New Geo-Environmental ; Japanese Geotechnical Society: Kyoto, Japan, May 24

− 26, 2000; pp 1

− 40.

(19) Bonaparte, R.; Daniel, D. E.; Koerner, R. M. Assessment and Recommendations for Improving the Performance of Waste Containment Systems ; EPA/600/R-02/099; 2002. http://www.epa.gov/ORD/ NRMRL/pubs/600r02099/600R02099.pdf.

(20) Lake, C. B.; Rowe, R. K. The 14-year performance of a compacted clay liner used as part of a composite liner system for a leachate lagoon. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2005 , 23 , 657

− 67.

(21) Hopkins, W. L. Peer review comments on EPA ’ s 2007 “ Draft Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes ”; EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0796-0467; September 25, 2008. http://www. regulations.gov/ # !docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po= 0;D=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0796.

(22) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ; 2009. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cwa. cfm?program_id=45.

(23) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

− State Program Status ; 2009. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm.

(24) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: Final Detailed Study Report' 2009. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/steam/ fi nalreport.pdf.

(25) Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. NPDES Permit No. TN0005452, TVA-Kingston Fossil Plant ; 2010. http://www.tennessee.gov/envi ronment/wpc/ppo/tn0005452draft. pdf.

(26) Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. NPDES Permit No. TN0005452, TVA-Kingston Fossil Plant ; 2003. http://www.tva.gov/kingston/tdec/pdf/TVA-00026145.pdf.

(27) Lemly, A. D. Ecosystem recovery following selenium contamination in a freshwater reservoir. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 1997, 36 , 275

− 281. (28) Flessner, D. TVA going dry for disposal of coal fl y ash. Times Free Press, August 10, 2009. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/ 2009/aug/10/tva-going-dry-disposal-coal- fl y-ash/?local. (29) Humphries, M. Global Climate Change: Coal Use in China and Other Asian Developing Countries ; 1999. http://ncseonline.org/nle/ crsreports/climate/clim-20.cfm?&CFID=6578797&CFTOKEN= 67385850.

(30) Greenpeace. Coal Ash is a Global Problem ; 2010. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/coal-ash-is-aglobal-problem/blog/26408. Environmental Science & Technology Policy Analysis

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es301467q | Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX

− XXX E(31) Ailun, Y.; Kang, R.; Xingmin, Z.; H, Xu; Hanhua, Z.; Miaohan, S.; Hongyuan, T.; , Fei, L. The True Cost of Coal

− An Investigation Into Coal Ash in China ; 2010. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/ usa/planet3/publications/gwe/2010/coal-ash2010-ENG-RPT.pdf.



# ■ EDITOR'S NOTE Hard copies of documents from outdated Weblinks in the reference list are available from the corresponding author upon request. Environmental Science & Technology Policy Analysis

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es301467q | Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXX

− XXX F