Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCoal Ash Spill Reveals Risks, Lapses in Waste Regulation
Some coal ash is recycled into products such as cement or placed in secure landfills, but much of it ends up in gravel pits, abandoned mines and unlined landfills — or in ponds like the one that burst in Kingston, Tenn., on Dec. 22. In the Tennessee incident, 5.4 million cubic yards of sludge laced with arsenic and other toxic materials poured over 300 acres — making it one of the nation's worst environmental spills.
![[Three hundred acres were covered with toxic sludge in late December when a wall of a coal ash holding pond near Kingston in East Tennessee gave way. (Wade Payne/Associated Press)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/coalash-0107.JPG "coalash-0107.JPG")
The EPA in 2000 decided that coal ash wasn't hazardous waste and left regulation up to the states. Now, however, environmental activists say the Tennessee spill shows the need for federal standards for how coal waste is handled at the coal-fired power plants around the nation.
"It's an insanely dangerous scenario that's been allowed to develop, but it's all under the radar screen," said Jeffrey Stant of the Environmental Integrity Project, a group formed by former EPA enforcement attorneys that's compiling data on coal ash disposal sites.
Stant said most states have lax regulations and that much of the monitoring is done on a voluntary basis by the utilities that own the plants that burn the coal.
He and other activists want the EPA to start with banning the common practice of sluicing coal waste into ponds and storing it there.
"When you put it along a river in an unlined lagoon, you threaten to contaminate the shallow alluvial aquifer that's right under the river," which provides drinking water, Stant said. He said he had no faith in the scientific evidence produced by the utility companies.
The Tennessee Valley Authority says tests show Kingston's drinking water is safe.
"We're not doing anything different than other utilities that have coal plants," said TVA spokesman Gil Francis. About half of the TVA coal waste is put in wet ponds like the one at Kingston, and the rest is compacted in dry ponds. TVA inspects the ponds annually, the state checks them quarterly, and TVA employees look at them daily, he said.
TVA, a corporation owned by the federal government, operates the plant at Kingston where spill occurred. The Kingston Fossil Plant was the largest coal-burning power plant in the world when it began operating in 1955. The plant normally consumes about 14,000 tons of coal a day.
TVA is the largest U.S. public power company, providing electricity to 9 million people in Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Virginia. It produces 60 percent of that electricity from coal at 11 plants completed mostly in the 1950s. The newest came online in the mid-1960s.
The House Committee on Natural Resources this week started considering whether to propose a law that would impose federal regulations on coal ash waste stored in ponds such as the one in Tennessee, said committee chief of staff Jim Zoia.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over the TVA and EPA, has called TVA president and CEO, Tom Kilgore, to testify at a hearing about the spill on Thursday.
Steve Smith of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, who also will testify, said that states have tended to defer to utility companies to take care of the waste, and the EPA has depended on industry to fill out voluntary surveys.
"It's clearly been neglected for the past eight or nine years but it's a problem that's only going to get worse as we do a better job of controlling air pollution," he said. "As you clean coal up, you can't just make the dirty stuff disappear. It's got to go somewhere."
Smith said he wants "some federal leadership to properly characterize this problem and get aggressive in setting up regulatory standards that people have some confidence in."
EPA spokeswoman Tisha Petteway said the American Coal Ash Association, which is made up of coal-fired power utilities and others that produce coal combustion waste, is the source of information about how much coal ash is generated in the country each year. EPA also measures toxic releases from individual plants.
Petteway said the latest data, an EPA and Energy Department survey from 1993, estimated there are about 300 surface ponds at electric power plants like the one in Tennessee.
"The majority of states" require controls on the site, liners in landfills and groundwater monitoring, Petteway said. The effectiveness of the protection, however, depends on whether states use the authority they have, she said in a written response to questions.
States are regulating coal ash more as new plants are added, she said.
Jim Roewer of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, a lobby group devoted to keeping the non-hazardous status of coal combustion waste, said he expects the Tennessee spill will be used in a new discussion of what national standards might be imposed, but his group believes they're not needed because state regulation works.
"Utilities are working to manage the ash responsibly," he said.
Roewer said there are about 600 coal ash disposal sites — about 45 percent of them surface ponds, and the rest landfills.
Lisa Evans, an attorney with Earthjustice, a law firm, said it's easier to say which state does a good job of regulation — Wisconsin — than to list the many who handle it poorly.
Nationally, coal combustion waste is estimated at more than 129 million tons a year, she said. The problem, she said, is that because of a lack of federal oversight, "we don't know where it goes."
27 Comments so far
Show AllBe a visionary. Invest now in companies producing bottled oxygen.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
Don't worry, Barack Obama is going to fix this. He is an advocate of "clean coal" and as soon as the fairies and sprites he apparently believes in invent "clean coal" technology, this problem will be a thing of the past.
Just one more way that Barack Obama is going to save us, because we're not smart enough to do it ourselves.
Your sarcasm isn't helpful.
.Neither is the crap you shovel....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
This is just another incident proving that we are overpopulated and using to many resources. We wouldn't have to even think about this if there were half the population. But no we keep replicating like plastic bags.
Constellation Energy (CEG), parent of Baltimore Gas & Electric, the deregulated utility in Maryland, recently settled a suit with residents of the town of Gambrills for $54 million over fly ash. CEG has to create a fund for the residents whose wells were contaminated as well as spend another $10 million to clean up the former quarry where they dumped the ash. CEG will also connect the affected homes to the publoic water supply and pay their water bills for 10 years. They also agreed to never dump fly ash there again.
I work on advocating and agitating for reregulation of this mismanaged gambling casino masquerading as a utility provder. If fly ash weren't harmful, CEG would never - and I mean never - have settled this case. I believe there are other sites where CEG has dumped fly ash and I hope there are more suits over this issue - which until the TN debacle, has been under the radar of the MSM.
By the way, Maryland pays higher utility rates than California and most of the nation - what has been done to us under deregulation is criminal. But that's another story.
Have no fear, the Edison Institure will save us. But then again, maybe the
utilities will call in the Nuclear Institute.
theinitiate
Nuclear is negative from mining to disposal. You're still ripping up the land to get at it, the poorest people in the world are USED to mine it and get sick from doing so... Southwest native americans used in the 50's, people in the Congo,now. What does it take for humans to see (oh,maybe a coal sludge spill)that we should not be using fossil fuels anymore. We should use what is ALREADY AVAILABLE and is ALREADY CLEAN. We do not have time to clean up any fossil fuels.
Green Jobs February action in Washington - pass the word...
http://www.powershift09.org/about
Can't you just hear the words of nutty fruitcakes before they're even uttered?
"Them environmentalists will use this incident to indict the whole clean
coal movement." Right. Indict, indict. No coal, fruitcakes! Better to
reap infrared energy after sunset. What's your answer to that-- huh, huh?
Oh, I didn't think of that. Then solar. How bout if beamed back from L4 and L5?
Not gonna work? Wind power like that making all those cynical, hold-out islanders rich in Denmark? Tidal turbines of monopile construction in Eastport, Maine? Still not gonna work? How about gas emitted from fruity nutcakes?
I'm afraid that you're the only nutty fruitcake here.
What you miserably fail to grasp is the fact that Chairman Crunk and his dirty energy industry cronies have a vested interest in hindering and attacking the development of clean energy. Why? Because most clean energy solutions actually work best in your own backyard, on your roof, on YOUR PROPERTY.
Solar is best suited for being built directly into your roof. Geothermal energy is best suited for a well dug in your backyard. Wind power also work's well in your backyard or at the local level.
Now, Chairman Crunk doesn't like the idea of you owning your own micro power plant on your own land- that endlessly supplies all your energy needs. How's he going to gouge you and pick your pockets monthly.. when YOU OWN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION? That's bad for his business. Even if we implement clean energy at the city level, Chairman Crunk doesn't want to spend the money to update and replace his archaic big oil machinery that his daddy bequeathed to him in Papa Crunk's dying will and testament.
The only thing that's good for his business is propagandizing, preaching false negatives, and sowing doubt in the enormity of the global warming epidemic... in the hopes that a few narrow minded simpletons such as yourself will freely, and unwaveringly, willingly and without pay KEEP REPEATING HIS LAST CENTURY ENERGY INDUSTRY PRESERVATIONIST MESSAGES.
You've been RICKROLLED. You've been DUPED. I hope Chairman Crunk is at least paying you to SPREAD HIS GOSPEL. Get with the 21st century man and THINK FOR YOURSELF. Organize with you community, solve your own energy crisis and get off the Big Energy BRAINWASH BANDWAGON.
The composition of coal ash is mostly non-toxic silica, alumina and iron (not much different than clay)with small amounts of sulfur and trace elements, including some that are radioactive. Some of the silica is cryastalline which makes it carcinogenic like asbestos. Coal as is not espsecially soluble in water so water percolating through ponds and landfills won't pick up much of anything. Its really just "dirt". Fly ash, sufur oxides and mercury can be captured, making coal "clean".
Coal ash has a lot of uses, but obviously there is much more produced than we can use. Ash to be used in building materials should have very low radioactivity as we don't need anymore Radon in our houses than we have already, and what will eventually happen to the crystalline silica content needs to be considered.
Bottom line: The real problem is CO2 warming the climate and acidifying the oceans.
BTW: Mountain top removal is an awful thing.
""In 1999 one large coal combustion plant producd over 1,000 tons of uranium and over 2,500 of thorium, enough fissionable material to exceed the amount consumed by all the nuclear reactors in the U.S. in a year" (page 197)"
I can't dispute this, because I've never seen such figures before. I know that coal plants produce mercury and arsenic and other heavy metals but I didn't know that coal contained that much uranium and thorium. 1000 tons from one large plant? 2 million pounds? Is that a compound of uranium or pure uranium. If its a compound, what percentage by weight of the 2 million pounds is uranium. It seems that we would have all been radiated to death decades ago if coal plants produce this much uranium. Something doesn't add up.
Having said all of that, I am against more coal burning.
Algae can produce more than 1,000 gallons per acre of lipids that can be converted to biofuels. Burning biofuels still produces CO2 but it doesn't produce heavy metals, including uranium and thorium. The algae to oil process uses a lot of water but it is 90% recycled back into the production process. This would be a better stopgap measure until we can get to totally clean energy production, a much better measure than "clean" coal.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
.EKATON,
Here you go:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
Over the past few decades, the American public has become increasingly wary of nuclear power because of concern about radiation releases from normal plant operations, plant accidents, and nuclear waste. Except for Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents, releases have been found to be almost undetectable in comparison with natural background radiation. Another concern has been the cost of producing electricity at nuclear plants. It has increased largely for two reasons: compliance with stringent government regulations that restrict releases of radioactive substances from nuclear facilities into the environment and construction delays as a result of public opposition.
Partly because of these concerns about radioactivity and the cost of containing it, the American public and electric utilities have preferred coal combustion as a power source. Today 52% of the capacity for generating electricity in the United States is fueled by coal, compared with 14.8% for nuclear energy. Although there are economic justifications for this preference, it is surprising for two reasons. First, coal combustion produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are suspected to cause climatic warming, and it is a source of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, which are harmful to human health and may be largely responsible for acid rain. Second, although not as well known, releases from coal combustion contain naturally occurring radioactive materials--mainly, uranium and thorium.
Former ORNL researchers J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco made this point in their article "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants" in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine. They concluded that Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations. This ironic situation remains true today and is addressed in this article.
I can find nothing, however, to verify the amount of such uranium and thorium as claimed above.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Thanks, ardee. I went to the link and printed the article to read later this evening.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
"The Tennessee Valley Authority says tests show Kingston's drinking water is safe."
This is just so good to know, because the government never lies to us.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
In her book "Power To Save The World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy"(2007) Gwyneth Cravens makes the following point:
"In 1999 one large coal combustion plant producd over 1,000 tons of uranium and over 2,500 of thorium, enough fissionable material to exceed the amount consumed by all the nuclear reactors in the U.S. in a year" (page 197)
In his book "The Revenge of Gaia; Earth's Climate Crisis & The Fate of Humanity" (2006) James Lovelock made this statement:
"I have offered in public to accept all the high-level waste produced in a year from a nuclear power station for deposit on my small plot of land; it would occupy a space about a cubic metre in size and fit safely in a concrete pit, and I would use the heat from its decaying radioactive elemnts to heat my home. It would be a waste not to use it. More important, it would be no danger to me, my family or the wildlife. (page 92)
Gwyneth Cravens is a highly respected journalist whose book is the result of an exhaustive study of the issue. James Lovelock is a member of the Royal Society.
Who do yo take your cues from and when is scientific evidence going to begin to animate the debate about energy and the environment in this country?
Clean coal! (expectorate).
Hey, you forgot about safe nuclear. You could spit on that too, if it actually existed.
Thank GOD the new coal fired power plant being built in Virginia City, Virginia is touted as going to be a clean hybrid coal fired power plant. This is toxic terrorism by Bush and his buddies. http://www.wisecountyissues.com Appalachia has been blown, blasted, bombed and bulldozed right into Third World America. I can't believe they are wasting Billions of dollars building another proven polluting plant and decapitating the mountains to get the coal. Why does America have to catch up with Spain, India, Germany, Denmark on new renewable technology instead of investing Billions to capture CO2 which is proven will not be ready for three to five years. It's a sin what GREED is doing to America ! Hannity's America sure ain't My America...
tmullins:"touted" is the operative word. Check DemocracyNow for "there is no clean coal fired power plant". I think you mean that, but I'm not sure. www.democracynow.org
NYCartist ,
No offense, but I think you are behind the times. Clean coal does exist.
http://www.coalcandothat.com/
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
.I guess that, as a christian, you are used to believing any fabrication you are handed....Did it not intrude on your mindset , at least for one single instant, that this web site is a coal industry one, thus the claims might be just a bit self-serving?
One moment with a search engine will bring you thousands of contradictory links, all from responsible scientific authorities. Clean coal is as much a fabrication as are the vast majority of your posts,Joe.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
That's what Dominion has added to the name of their new plant being built in Virginia City, Virginia. Smoke and mirrors my friends. Just because they said so, means it's the truth in Wise County. http://www.wisecountyissues.com
I'd like to see a list of where the coal plants' pits are in the US, or,even better a map. I do remember someone from a public interest group, on the subject of air pollution, stating that air moves, pollution moves, often in a circular pattern. I also remember that NYS has acid rain from midwest coal burning plants. Remember when a far away fire's smoke reached near you? NYC got smoke from the big TX fires several years ago.
NYCartist,
Interesting point about the movement of pollution. I think there is already a strong effort to reduce acid rain. Are you familiar with the EPA's ARP (Acid Rain Program)?
Since its inception, the Acid Rain Program has:
* The ARP has reduced SO2 emissions by more than 6.3 million tons from 1990 levels, or about 40 percent of total power sector emissions. In 2006, annual SO2 emissions from ARP units fell sharply, with reductions of 830,000 tons from 2005 levels. Reduced demand, decreases in oil use because of fuel prices, and early Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) compliance all appear to be factors in this decline.
* Total SO2 emissions fell below 10 million tons for the first time under the ARP. Sources emitted approximately 9.4 million tons of SO2 in 2006, below the emission cap of 9.5 million tons.
* With nearly 6.1 million unused (banked) allowances from prior years, SO2 emissions were 40 percent below the total 2006 allowable SO2 emissions of 15.7 million tons.
* Cut NOx emissions by 3.3 million tons from 1990 levels, so that emissions in 2006 were less than half the level anticipated without the program. Other efforts, such as the NOx Budget Trading Program (NBP) in the eastern United States, also contributed to this reduction.
* The ARP has contributed to significant decreases in acid deposition. For example, between the 1989-1991 and 2004-2006 observation periods, wet sulfate deposition decreased 35 percent in the Northeast and 33 percent in the Midwest. These reductions have resulted in positive changes in environmental indicators, including improved water quality in lakes and streams.
* Provided the most complete and accurate emission data ever developed under a federal air pollution control program and made that data available and accessible by using comprehensive electronic data reporting and Web-based tools for agencies, researchers, affected sources, and the public.
* Served as a leader in delivering e-government, automating administrative processes, reducing paper use, and providing online systems for doing business with EPA.
* Resulted in nearly 100 percent compliance through rigorous emissions monitoring, allowance tracking, and an automatic, easily understood penalty system for noncompliance. Flexibility in compliance strategies reduced implementation costs.
Of course, more needs to be done. I think issues like this really drive home why it's important to invest in alternatives energy. Events like the coal ash spill remind us of why investment in clean and safe coal power is our only option. Coal power is here to stay. We can't change that. But we can change how we use coal. We can modernize. If we don't there will be dire consequences for future generations. The American coal industry is is sorry shape. It's ancient. It's crude and dilapidated. Most of all, it's toxic and dangerous.
Since we're going to keep using coal into the far into the foreseeable future, why not clean it up? I have faith in American ingenuity. Americans make great inventors. We can do this if we work together! For those, who say that clean coal doesn't exist, or could never exist, please check this out:
http://www.coalcandothat.com/
.As one who has been more than critical of your efforts here in the past I would note that this post is a great improvement over those previous efforts. I would note, however, that such data as you graciously provide regarding acid rain is suspect without a corresponding link for the purpose of verification.
I especially liked your more realistic description of the dangers of coal burning power plants and the need for a vast improvement in the technology to make such safer. There is, currently, no such thing as "clean coal", and this posts seems a 180 degree turn about from your last defense of that industry. I would only note that a link to a coal industry source is far from an unbiased one, and, considering the myriad of voices, both scientific and otherwise, in opposition to the claims of that source, skepticism is certainly well founded.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin