GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

October 30, 2009 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Edolphus Towns 

Chairman 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Coal Combustion Residue: Status of EPA’s Efforts to Regulate Disposal

On December 22, 2008, a breach in a surface impoundment (or storage pond) dike at the 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Kingston Fossil Plant in Tennessee resulted in the release 

of 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash—also referred to as coal combustion residue (CCR)—

into the nearby Emory River. The spill covered more than 300 acres and made 3 homes 

uninhabitable; it damaged 23 other homes, plus roads, rail lines, and utilities. TVA estimated 

the cleanup will cost between $933 million and $1.2 billion and take 2 to 3 years to complete. 

In light of the spill in Kingston, you asked us to identify: (1) the number of surface 

impoundments for storing CCR in the United States and their location; (2) problems, if any, 

with the storage of coal ash, and how those problems are being addressed; and (3) the type of 

federal oversight that exists for CCR and what, if any, issues need to be resolved. We briefed 

your staffs on October 1, 2009, and September 28, 2009, respectively, on the results of this 

work. This report summarizes and transmits that briefing. The full briefing is reprinted in 

the enclosure. 

To respond to your request, we obtained and reviewed Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) policy and program documents. We also interviewed senior officials from EPA’s 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and Office of Water and collected statistics 

compiled by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration. To obtain 

perspective on the oversight that exists for CCR, we gathered and analyzed documents and 

opinions from industry and state representatives and environmental groups. To understand 

coal power plant activities and surface impoundments, we obtained and analyzed 

documentation from TVA senior officials on TVA facilities, visited TVA’s Bull Run facility to 

observe a coal-fired plant in operation, and observed the ongoing cleanup at its Kingston 

facility. We conducted our work from March to October 2009 in accordance with all sections 

of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The 
framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and 

appropriate evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our 

work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, 

provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in this product. 

Summary 

Our review found the following: 

• The exact number of surface impoundments at utility coal fired power plants is not 

known. However, EPA is currently undertaking an effort to identify the number and 

location of all surface impoundments in the United States and, as of September 14, 

2009, had identified over 580 surface impoundments nationwide. 

• Problems that have been identified with the storage of coal ash include potential 

structural defects and other risks of collapse of the surface impoundment, such as at 

TVA Kingston Facility; health and environmental risks from CCR storage due to 

potential leaching of contaminants into surface or groundwater from unlined or failed 

liners at surface impoundments, landfills, or sand and gravel pits; and potential risks 

from the discharge of wastewater containing CCR into surface waters from surface 

impoundments. EPA is currently analyzing the structural hazards and environmental 

risks associated with surface impoundments. 

• EPA does not directly regulate CCR disposal in surface impoundments or landfills to 

prevent releases or a catastrophic spill, and states have a variety of regulatory 

controls on surface impoundments. EPA is developing proposed regulations but, as 

part of this effort, needs to address issues of federal and state roles for control and 

enforcement. 

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report and the attached briefing to EPA for review and comment. 

EPA provided technical comments that we incorporated into the briefing slides, as 

appropriate. 

_____________________________ 

We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator of EPA and interested 

congressional committees. This report also is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

Page 2 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 

512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and 

Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Individuals making key 

contributions to this report included Ernie Hazera, Assistant Director; Greg Carroll; Julia 

Coulter; Elizabeth Beardsley; and Ben Shouse. 

Frank Rusco 

Director, Natural Resources 

 and Environment 

Enclosure 

Page 3 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
Enclosure 

Coal Combustion Residue: 

Status of EPA’s Efforts to 

Regulate Disposal

Briefing to Congressional Committees

September 28 and October 1, 2009

Page 4 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
2

Introduction

y On December 22, 2008, a breach in a dike at the Tennessee Valley 

Authority (TVA) Kingston Fossil Plant resulted in the release of 5.4 

million cubic yards of coal ash—also referred to as coal combustion 

residue (CCR)—into the nearby Emory River. The spill covered 

more than 300 acres, made 3 homes uninhabitable and damaged 

23 other homes, plus roads, rail lines, and utilities.

y TVA states it has made progress in the cleanup the last several 

months; however, it estimates the cleanup will cost between $933 million and $1.2 billion and could take 2-3 years. TVA’s cost 

estimate does not include potential costs associated with regulatory 

actions, litigation, fines or penalties, and final remediation activities.

y The TVA spill has raised concerns about potential risks associated 

with other similar facilities nationwide.

Page 5 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
3

Objectives

In light of the Kingston spill, you asked us to identify:

1. the number of CCR surface impoundments and their locations;

2. problems, if any, with the storage of coal ash and how those 

problems are being addressed; and

3. the type of federal oversight that exists for CCR, and what, if 

any, issues need to be resolved. 

Page 6 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
4

Scope and Methodology 

• To conduct this review, we:

• Analyzed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy and 

program documents, reports, studies, and legal documents and 

interviewed senior officials from EPA’s Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response and Office of Water.

• Collected statistics compiled by Department of Energy’s (DOE) 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 

• Obtained and analyzed documents and opinions from industry, 

state representatives, and environmental groups.

• Obtained and analyzed documentation from TVA senior 

officials on TVA facilities, interviewed TVA officials, visited 

TVA’s Bull Run facility to observe a coal-fired plant in operation,

and observed the ongoing cleanup at its Kingston facility. 

Page 7 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
5

Scope and Methodology (cont’d)

y We conducted our work from March to October 2009 in accordance 

with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are 

relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan

and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate 

evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any 

limitations in our work. We believe that the information and data 

obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis

for any findings and conclusions in this product.

Page 8 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
6

Background

The combustion of coal leaves behind various materials—the 

noncombustible portion of the coal itself and residues collected by air 

pollution control technologies which we refer to as CCR.1 See figure 1 

for an illustration of a coal-fired power plant.

1Other terms used include: coal combustion waste, coal combustion product, coal combustion 

material, coal combustion ash, and coal combustion by-product. We chose to use “coal combustion 

residue” to avoid implying that these materials are destined for particular fates. The National 

Research Council of the National Academies used this term in its 2006 report “Managing Coal 

Combustion Residues in Mines” for the same reason. 

Page 9 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
7

Background (cont’d)

Figure 1: Typical Coal-Fired Power Plant

Page 10 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
8

Background (cont’d)

Coal-fired power plants accounted for almost half of U.S. electric power 

production in 2008 and generated an estimated 131 million tons of CCR in 

2007. See figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Net Generation by Fuel Source, 2008

Page 11 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
9

Background (cont’d) 

y The coal combustion process results in different types of CCR produced, 

including fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) 

material. 

• Fly ash—a product of burning finely ground coal in a boiler. Fly ash is 

a gray or tan powder. 

• Bottom ash—the heavier mineral residue from a pulverized coal unit, 

which falls to the bottom of the boiler as small particles.

• Boiler slag—molten ash that collects at the base of certain furnaces 

which is then quenched in water and crushed resulting in shiny black, 

opaque particles.

• FGD material—wet sludge or dry powder (such as FGD gypsum) that 

results from the chemical process used to meet sulfur dioxide emission 

requirements. 

Page 12 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
10

Background (cont’d)

yIn 2007, according to industry survey data,2 the amount of 

estimated CCR produced by type was as follows:

y Fly ash: 55%

y Bottom ash: 14%

y Boiler slag: 2%

y FGD material 25%

y Other 5%

yCCR includes toxics such as arsenic, lead, chromium, and 

selenium, which can present health and environmental risks.

2Data are based on information submitted by 161 coal-fired power plants to the American Coal Ash 

Association in 2007

Page 13 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
11

Background (cont’d)

y Several factors help determine CCR’s potential uses and the risk it poses to human health and the environment. 

y Chemical and physical characteristics of the source coal,

y Presence of co-fired materials. 

y Processes used to burn coal and handle the residue.

y Site characteristics.

• Utilities dispose of CCRs by placing them in surface impoundments, landfills, or mines or by finding alternative, or beneficial, uses for 

them. Additional details on these options:

• Surface impoundment—A depression, excavation, or diked

area primarily formed from earthen materials to store liquid, sludge, or other waste. Examples include storage ponds and sludge pits. Impoundments may be buried after final deposition.

Page 14 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
12

Background (cont’d)

• Waste is generally sluiced directly from a power plant to the 

impoundment unit, where solids settle out, leaving relatively 

clear water at the surface.

• Solids may accumulate in the impoundment, or they may be 

dredged periodically and taken to another disposal unit, 

such as a landfill.

• Landfilling—involves the long-term disposal of generally dry 

waste that is placed on land or in an excavation.

y Minefill—CCR can be used as minefill in mine reclamation. For 

example, CCR is alkaline, so it can abate acid mine drainage 

and improve already disturbed mine lands. Minefill can also be 

used to avoid construction of landfills and storage ponds.

Page 15 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
13

Background (cont’d)

y Beneficial use—CCR can be used as a component in products, 

such as cement and gypsum wallboard, or as structural or 

embankment fill for roads.

y According to EPA, the estimated 131 million tons of CCR generated 

by utilities in 2007 were disposed of in the following manner:

• Surface impoundments/ponds; 21%

• Landfills; 36%

y Mines; 5% (Minefill is considered by some as a beneficial use or product.) 

• Beneficial uses; 38%

y Between 2000 and 2006, the power industry reported depositing 

into surface impoundments and landfills CCR containing more than 

124 million pounds of six toxic pollutants (arsenic, chromium, lead, 

nickel, selenium, and thallium).

Page 16 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
14

Objective 1: Information on CCR Surface

Impoundments

The exact number of CCR surface impoundments at utility coal 

fired power plants is not known:

y No industry organization or government agency tracks this 

information.

y However, industry groups and federal agencies have obtained 

estimates through surveying coal-fired power plants as part of 

efforts to collect and analyze data on CCR disposal practices and 

state regulatory requirements. 

Page 17 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
15

Objective 1: Information on CCR Surface

Impoundments (cont’d)

• In March 2009, in response to the Kingston incident, EPA sent out

information request letters to 162 facilities and 61 corporate offices.

These companies identified 48 additional plants that operated CCR 

impoundments, and EPA sent a second round of letters to these 

facilities. EPA has received responses from all companies and 

power plants that were sent letters.

• EPA’s purpose was to determine the number of CCR surface impoundments and similar units and specific information about them.3

• Ultimately, EPA aims to assess the structural stability of these impoundments and determine if and where corrective measures 

are needed. 

3EPA included in this request similar diked or bermed units or management units designated as 

landfills that receive liquid-borne material for storage or disposal of CCR because of the different 

definitions of impoundments used by facilities. EPA did not request information on or access to 

minefilling or dry landfills.

Page 18 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
16

Objective 1: Information on CCR Surface

Impoundments (cont’d)

y As of July 2009, EPA had collected data from all the power plants 

to which it originally sent out information request letters. It has 

created a database that contains information on 584 surface 

impoundments or similar units in 35 states that were identified by 

utilities. According to EPA, some of these units may contain 

negligible amounts of CCRs. 

y According to EPA officials, this total is subject to change as EPA 

obtains more information through actual site visits. 

Page 19 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
17

Objective 1: Information on CCR Surface

Impoundments (cont’d)

y Total number of surface impoundments (or similar units) and power 

plants by state as of September 14, 20094

Source: EPA. 

4Data are based on responses to EPA’s data request, and are subject to change.

Alabama 14 8

Arizona 15 3

Pennsylvania 16 6

Wyoming 17 5

Wisconsin 18 5

Minnesota 18 7

Tennessee 18 8

Illinois 21 12

South Carolina 22 9

Texas 26 7

North Carolina 26 14

Ohio 28 11

Missouri 32 14

Colorado 40 10

Iowa 43 13

Kentucky 44 17

Indiana 53 16

Power plants

Surface 

State impoundments

Mississippi 1 1

Arkansas 1 1

power plants

Surface 

State impoundments

Total 584 219

Maryland 2 1

Delaware 3 2

Oklahoma 5 2

Utah 6 1

New York 6 2

Massachusetts 7 2

North Dakota 8 3

Montana 9 1

New Mexico 9 2

Florida 9 2

Georgia 10 6

West Virginia 10 7

Louisiana 11 3

Michigan 11 5

Virginia 12 7

Kansas 13 6

Page 20 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
18

Objective 2: Problems with CCR Storage and 

How EPA Is Addressing Them

Problems identified with CCR storage:

y Potential structural defects and other risks of collapse of the surface 

impoundment, such as at TVA Kingston facility.

y Health and environmental risks from CCR storage due to potential 

leaching of contaminants into surface or groundwater from unlined 

or failed liners at surface impoundments, landfills, or sand and

gravel pits.

y Potential risks from the discharge of wastewater containing CCR 

into surface waters from surface impoundments.

Page 21 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
19

Objective 2: Problems with CCR Storage and 

How EPA Is Addressing Them (cont’d)

EPA is analyzing the structural hazards associated with surface 

impoundments:

y Twenty-six reporting facilities cited spills or unpermitted releases from a 

total of 35 surface impoundments within the last 10 years.

y EPA has identified 49 units with a high hazard potential rating based on 

criteria developed by the National Dam Safety Program (NDSP) for the 

National Inventory of Dams (NID).5

y A high rating indicates that a failure would probably cause loss of 

human life, not that structural integrity is compromised.

y EPA has committed to assess all of these 49 units.

5The NDSP, led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is a partnership of the states, 

federal agencies, and other stakeholders to encourage individual and community responsibility 

for dam safety. It provides grant assistance to state dam programs, and funding for dam safety 

research and training. Hazard potential ratings are generally assigned by state dam safety 

officials. NID is maintained and published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and contains 

information on dams throughout the United States that are more than 25 feet high, hold more 

than 50 acre-feet of water, or are considered a significant hazard if they fail. 

Page 22 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
20

Objective 2: Problems with CCR Storage and 

How EPA Is Addressing Them (cont’d)

y As of October 1, 2009, EPA had visited 38 facilities to conduct 

structural assessments of their surface impoundments. EPA has 

made the reports on the first 22 facilities available to the public.

y In a separate effort initiated in 2009, EPA is looking at whether to 

regulate the structural integrity of CCR surface impoundments 

through wastewater discharge permits. In addition, because an 

evaluation found that state wastewater permits vary widely in their 

structural requirements for impoundments, EPA plans to draft best 

management practices for state wastewater permits. 

Page 23 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
21

Objective 2: Problems with CCR Storage and 

How EPA Is Addressing Them (cont’d)

EPA is also analyzing the environmental risk of CCR storage:

• Over the last several years, EPA has analyzed the environmental risk of 

CCR storage by reviewing cases suggested by environmental groups and 

others. 

• 2007 Damage Case Assessment Report: From 1999 to 2005, EPA 

gathered or received information on 135 sites where alleged danger to 

human health and the environment had been caused by CCR deposits. 

According to EPA, approximately 65 cases were not evaluated because 

they lacked adequate supporting information. Of the remaining cases, EPA 

found that 24 cases in 13 states were proven cases of damage to 

groundwater and surface water, and an additional 39 were potential 

damage cases.6 EPA followed up on 16 cases of proven damage to 

groundwater and, as of July 2009, corrective actions have been completed 

at seven sites and are ongoing at nine sites. 

6Since the report was issued, EPA has identified 3 additional cases of proven damage and one 

additional case of potential damage.

Page 24 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
22

Objective 2: Problems with CCR Storage and 

How EPA Is Addressing Them (cont’d)

• As part of another study, begun in 2005, EPA examined the toxins

present in CCR wastewater discharges to surface water from coal 

ash ponds. In September 2009, EPA completed its study. EPA told

us it found that current effluent guidelines should be revised 

because of the high level of toxic-weighted pollutant discharges 

from coal-fired power plants and the expectation that these 

discharges will increase significantly in the next few years as new 

air pollution controls are installed (e.g., scrubbers used to meet air 

quality regulations). 

Page 25 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
23

Objective 3: Federal Oversight Role and 

Issues to Be Resolved

EPA does not directly regulate CCR disposal in surface 

impoundments or landfills to prevent releases or a catastrophic 

spill but is developing proposed regulations:

• The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended, is the key federal law generally regulating solid and hazardous wastes. 

• RCRA established a framework for regulation of wastes, including

• Subtitle C: Federal “cradle-to-grave” regulation of hazardous wastes, including a tracking system and federally enforceable permits. 

• Subtitle D: Inducements for state solid waste programs and implementation of federal minimum regulations for landfills. 

Page 26 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
24

Objective 3: Federal Oversight Role and 

Issues to Be Resolved (cont’d)

The 1980 Bevill Amendment to RCRA

• Exempted “special study” wastes, including CCR, from RCRA 

Subtitle C until EPA conducted study and, if EPA determined 

them warranted, promulgated regulations. 

• Required EPA to submit a report to Congress by October 1982 

evaluating the adverse effects on human health and the 

environment, if any, from the storage and utilization of these 

special wastes. 

• Required EPA to make a regulatory determination (within 6 

months of the report to Congress) as to whether these wastes 

warrant regulation under RCRA Subtitle C. 

Page 27 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
25

Objective 3: Federal Oversight Role and 

Issues to Be Resolved (cont’d)

EPA did not meet some requirements of the Bevill Amendment 

until years later but has recently taken steps toward regulatory 

oversight of CCR:

• June 1992—EPA entered a consent decree to settle a citizen 

suit to enforce Bevill Amendment requirements. 

Pursuant to this, EPA divided CCR into two categories: (1) 

certain large-volume CCR from electric utilities and 

independent power producers that is not co-managed and (2) 

the “remaining wastes” originally identified by Congress. 

• Aug. 1993—EPA found that wastes from the first category do 

not warrant regulation as hazardous waste under Subtitle C, 

and retained their exclusion from the regulatory definition of 

hazardous waste. 

Page 28 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
26

Objective 3: Federal Oversight Role and 

Issues to Be Resolved (cont’d) 

• May 2000—EPA issued a Regulatory Determination concluding that the remaining CCR wastes do not warrant regulation as hazardous waste and retaining the exclusion from the regulatory definition of hazardous waste. However: 

• For CCR wastes disposed of in landfills or impoundments, EPA determined that federal regulations under Subtitle D 

are warranted to provide incentive for states to provide 

minimum regulatory coverage and that improvement is likely to be slower without them. EPA intended that the 

regulations would apply to all CCR (e.g., including category 1).

• EPA left open the possibility that it could revise the determination and decide to regulate under Subtitle C based on additional information in the future.

Page 29 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
27

Objective 3: Federal Oversight Role and 

Issues to Be Resolved (cont’d) 

• In the 2000 Regulatory Determination, EPA also determined 

for beneficial uses of CCR wastes:

• For minefilling, federal regulations under Subtitle D (or 

possibly the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 

Act) are warranted to reduce potential risks. 

• Other beneficial uses (e.g., use in cement, concrete, and 

wallboard products, and roadbeds and structural fill) were 

not considered a concern at that time. EPA now notes 

that indiscriminate use of unencapsulated CCRs in large 

fill operations has been shown to be problematic in 

several instances. 

Page 30 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
28

Objective 3: Federal Oversight Role and 

Issues to Be Resolved (cont’d)

• After 2000, EPA conducted studies to obtain more information on CCR 

disposal, including:

• EPA Damage Case Assessment (report published in 2007) (discussed earlier—see slide 21)

• Draft EPA Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes (2007) identified potential risk associated with CCR practices. Results suggested that landfills and surface 

impoundments may present risks to human health and the 

environment.

• EPA/DOE joint report Coal Combustion Waste Management at Landfills and Surface Impoundments 1994-2004 (published in 2006) identified recent and current CCR disposal practices (excluding minefill), state regulatory requirements, and the extent to 

which states waive or vary regulatory requirements. The study 

found that most new units have liners and groundwater monitoring. 

New units, however, are a small subset of the total number of 

existing units.

Page 31 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
29

Objective 3: Federal Oversight Role and 

Issues to Be Resolved (cont’d)

• February 2003—While not specific to coal ash facilities, EPA 

worked with state solid waste programs, industries, and citizens

groups to issue a set of voluntary guidelines in the “Guide of Industrial Waste Management.”

• August 2007—EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability (NODA), informing the public of the additional information about

CCR available since the 2000 Regulatory Determination (the three studies above) and requested comments. The NODA did 

not affirm EPA commitment to issuing Subtitle D regulations for CCR.

• March 2009—EPA announced plans to issue proposed regulations for CCR by the end of the year. EPA will consider 

results of the above studies and comments received as well as 

results of its assessment of the structural stability of surface impoundments in developing its regulations.

Page 32 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
30

Objective 3: Federal Oversight Role and 

Issues to Be Resolved (cont’d)

Current Issues To Be Resolved:

• Despite the 1993 and 2000 Regulatory Determinations, which 

concluded that EPA would regulate CCR using Subtitle D, EPA has 

stated it is reconsidering options for regulation including:

• RCRA Subtitle C;

• RCRA Subtitle D;

• a hybrid approach, by which CCR would be considered a solid 

waste if certain conditions are met, but a hazardous waste if they 

are not; and

• EPA has more recently stated it is also considering another hybrid 

approach whereby wet CCRs (in surface impoundments) would be 

regulated as hazardous wastes and dry CCRs (in landfills) would 

be regulated as non-hazardous wastes.

• Current debate by interested groups focuses on these options, which 

implicate issues of federal versus state control and enforcement. 

Page 33 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
31

Objective 3: Federal Oversight Role and 

Issues to Be Resolved (cont’d)

Stakeholders have taken positions on RCRA C and RCRA D 

options being considered by EPA in upcoming regulation.

Oppose

• EPA could not routinely inspect CCR 

disposal sites or require permits for 

CCR disposal; opportunity for public 

involvement in permits may be limited.

• States may not be able to regulate as 

well as EPA (e.g., lack of resources). 

Support

• Allows for variability and flexibility of 

rules in states with different geography 

or topography.

• Could require regulation similar to solid 

waste (e.g., bottom liners, groundwater 

monitoring, post-closure monitoring). 

• Would not inhibit beneficial use. 

Regulation 

under 

Subtitle D

Support

• Would provide minimum safeguards in 

every state and be enforceable by EPA.

• Would not hinder beneficial use 

because EPA could regulate CCR 

differently when disposed of in a landfill 

versus safely recycled.

Oppose

• Cost and complexity (e.g., lack of 

hazardous waste storage). 

• Beneficial use could be hindered by 

hazardous waste stigma. 

• Beneficial use would be automatically 

prohibited by some states’ regulations.

Regulation 

under 

Subtitle C

Option Industry and state agency associations Environmental groups

Page 34 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
32

Objective 3: Federal Oversight Role and 

Issues to Be Resolved (cont’d)

Most states have RCRA Subtitle D solid waste programs; however, 

regulatory controls for CCR vary among states:

• According to a 2009 Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste 

Management Officials survey, to which 44 states responded, 42 had 

CCR landfills, and 36 had CCR surface impoundments:

y Of the 42 states with landfills, 36 had a permit program for landfills, 

3 did not, and 3 did not respond. Of the 36 states with surface

impoundments, 25 had permit programs for surface impoundments, 

3 did not, and 8 did not respond. 27 of 42 states required liners for 

landfills, while 12 of 36 states required liners for surface 

impoundments.7 

• 29 of 42 states had minimum regulatory requirements for structural 

stability of CCR landfills, while 13 of 36 had such requirements for 

surface impoundments.

7EPA has emphasized that states that do not have a liner requirement may still require 

liners under some general performance based standard, while states with a liner 

requirement may have other provisions which allow for variances.

Page 35 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
33

Outlook for CCR Regulation

• EPA projections of near term actions:

• September 2009—EPA began releasing the reports of the assessment 

of the high hazard coal ash impoundments. 

• October 2009—EPA plans to forward draft proposed CCR disposal 

rule to the Office of Management and Budget.

• December 2009—EPA plans to issue proposed rule. The proposal will 

be out for public notice and comment. EPA could choose to hold public 

hearings as well. 

• In September 2009, EPA announced its decision to initiate a rulemaking 

effort to revise the effluent guidelines, including those related to CCR 

wastewater discharges. Proposed regulations are expected in 2012. EPA 

has not set target dates for wastewater related efforts such as issuance of 

best management practices for state wastewater permits and structural 

requirements to be included in permits.

(361066) 

Page 36 GAO-10-85R Coal Combustion Residue Regulation
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and GAO’s Mission investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost Obtaining Copies of is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

GAO Reports and posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, Testimony go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone 	 The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Relations Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 Public Affairs U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548